Edit: I'm a bit long-worded and too heavy with using fancy words. I typed fast and didn't edit at all. Writing succinctly and in easy to understand English is m

Edit: I'm a bit long-worded and too heavy with using fancy words. I typed fast and didn't edit at all. Writing succinctly and in easy to understand English is more difficult, for me. --- I could predict that yoga has a good effect on brain health since I have the following hypothesis: whatever you do with a serious attentive concentration will be good for your brain in that specific area. One question I have left is: to what extent will one be able to go beyond that area and use their cognitive benefits for similar but different pursuits? I also have a hypothesis for that (I just don't know to what extent it's true, I read some research on it but it's all quite tentative). It is: if one specifically focuses on an area, then the benefit will be specific. However, if one chooses a meta-topic (e.g. learning as fast as possible, increasing memory or increasing attention span), then that meta-topic will be trained and that person will be good in the meta-topic across all cognition. This presumes they are immersed in training this meta-topic though (i.e. it's everywhere in their life). Examples: 1 (normal topic). One chooses to be amazing at chess, and just at chess. Then, the brain benefits will only be helpful for chess. 2 (meta-topic). One chooses to learn as fast as possible, and chooses chess as the medium to measure progress. That person will be able to learn as fast as possible on many more domains. In part, also I presume that such a person is actively trying to use the meta principles from learning chess as fast as possible to solve other problems in their life. So they're not doing the same things. One is learning chess, and the other one is learning to play chess as fast as possible with the broader scope to learn anything as fast as possible. One complicating factor is that the normal chess player can try to organize the meta-topics they have learned while playing chess. While this helps, I'd argue it's simply less effective than what the second person would be doing. It's similar to architecting a software product to do certain things from the get go (person 2) or patching your software product afterwards to do that same thing (person 1).