Meditation Or Medication: Comparing Meditation To Phosphatidylserine In Changes To Cortisol And Heart Rate Variability

PURPOSE: Cortisol increases in the body in response to the reception of stress input, such as exercise, which signals the start of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. Many studies show phosphatidylserine (PS) and meditation (MED) reduce cortisol levels in the body. But no research has compared MED to PS. This study compared PS and MED in reducing cortisol and, also, increasing Heart Rate Variability (HRV). METHOD: This study obtained IRB approval and enrolled voluntary tennis players at a Division 3 school and used the athletes as their own controls. In part one, athletes’ salivary cortisol, and HRV were measured before and after aerobic exercise to establish the control. In part two athletes were divided into two groups. Group one meditated after exercise for three weeks. Group two took PS, after exercising, for three weeks. In part three athletes’ salivary cortisol and HRV were measured before aerobic exercise and after aerobic exercise - plus dosing with PS or MED. RESULTS: The two doses were found to be equal in reducing cortisol and both increased HRV before exercise only. For cortisol, follow-up pairwise comparisons had significant results between the beginning and end of the study, p = 0.013, the space between the two days of measures, p = 0.018, and before and after exercise on Day 22 the last day after dosing, p < 0.001. The dotted lines for cortisol levels in Figure 1 showed parallel lines on Day 22 with a difference of 0.02 as seen on Table 1 was not a significant difference. HRV did increase its baseline at the beginning of Day 22, indicating a possible overall effect. Pre Day 1 and Pre Day 22 HRV SDNN readings increased 23 points for Med, and 31.2 for PS (Figure 2). There was an effect for time p = 0.006. CONCLUSION: This study discovered that MED can be as effective as a supplement, such as PS, in reducing cortisol and increasing HRV. This provides a choice for athletes which weighs all the pros and cons for their unique situations and results in a selection that is effective. Supported by: self- funded by PI