Talk:Autogenic training

message: I plan to improve this article first by making structural changes to the article. As it is written at the moment, the “Practices and Effects” sections are merged together, but I believe it makes more sense to separate them into two distinct sections as there are a lot of information about both. Furthermore, the “Neurophysiological aspects” provide good information, but there are also other perspectives to consider autogenic training from, such as cardiovascular. Therefore, I plan to make a separate section that explains the many different mechanisms through which autogenic training benefits the body. Furthermore, the article is unnecessarily bulky and difficult to understand at certain points. I plan to address this issue by rewording sentences, and perhaps even restructuring entire paragraphs. Furthermore, I hope to bolster the section that discusses the benefits of autogenic training across many areas, because currently, the article only addresses a small portion of the benefits that autogenic training provides. I will achieve this by using many strong peer-reviewed research studies that examined the benefits in clinical settings. Finally, in the new “Methods” section that I will add in place of the “Practices and Effects,” section, I will lay out clearly how to practice autogenic training, and explain the discrepancies in the different methods. Please see my annotated bibliography in my bibliography sandbox to further examine the resources that I will be using to improve this article. Tkong22 (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits that I plan to implement: 

message: How is it possible to change the categorization of this article? This is a standard relaxation method, extensively researched for 100 years now (!!!), and educated all around the world in universities, in psychology faculties. It is a technic, with a basic and understandable routine, based on biofeedback mechanism. Plenty of scientific research (https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search?q=Autogenic+training) shows that it helps to lower stress symptoms, and physical pain as well. The category of pseudoscience devaluate this technic, putting it into a context it does not deserve. Autogenic training and conspiracy theories in the same page? This must be fixed. How is it possible to fix it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmir~huwiki (talk • contribs) 00:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience? What? 

message: Can someone please improve the sample session? Outline the steps more clearly, give an example of "canceling," maybe include more description?FemFoison 19:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sample session 

message: This looks like a good page except for that it is not clear as to how this practice is done. The page says that it is a visualization in the lede, but then later on says that the practice involved a sort of body scan and internal use of a phrase. What is cancelling? Please help if you can. makeswell (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to do this practice... ? 

message: Studies about autogenic training are quite rare. So maybe the article should include discussions from other countries:
There is a 900-pages german book which was very influential in Germany from the midninties, Klaus Grawe - Psychotherapie im Wandel. It is a meta-analysis of 3500 respectively 900 publications till 1985 on the outcome of psychotherapy and includes about 100 studies about relaxation techniques as sole treatment (page 579). For more information on Grawe see: http://www.psychotherapyresearch.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=50
Grawe analyzed only 14 studies (there are many more but they were discarded due to methodological deficits): Only some studies showed noteworthy improvements. As there were many more studies on Progressive_muscle_relaxation which on average showed greater improvements Grawe was very skeptic about AT (pages 613-617).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.186.96 (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like constructive discussion - could you add it to the main article perhaps? Destynova (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  clinical evidence - extend with new source Klaus Grawe et al 1994 

message: As a person who has experienced the benefits of Autogenic Training, it is tragic that this entry has a box next to it which totally besmirchs the technique.  There is much scientific evidence to support AT's benefits.  It has been endorsed by Melbourne (Australia) University's Student Wellbeing site, for example.  It is not alternative quackery. 
Plus, there is not enough emphasis on detailing how to carry out the techniques related to AT  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leigh Plews (talk • contribs) 17:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  AT is besmirched by box related to quackery 

message: — Assignment last updated by Tkong22 (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: WRIT 015-13, Writing for Others