Research
The claims in our briefing are numbered. The research behind the briefing is the list of studies that back each claim up.
McEwen, B. S. (1998). Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. New England Journal of Medicine, 338(3), 171-179.
Read the study at New England Journal of Medicine ↗
McEwen describes how the body keeps its internal systems stable through stress hormones and the nervous system, a process he calls allostasis. Short bursts protect the body. When those systems stay switched on for too long, the same mediators begin to cause wear, which he calls allostatic load.
What it doesn't show: this is a review of physical regulation in the body. Applying it to income is part of our method, not part of his research.
Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(8), 917-927.
Read the study at Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ↗
Lottery winners were no happier than a comparison group, and took less pleasure in everyday activities. People who had been paralyzed in accidents were less unhappy than expected. The authors concluded that people adapt to big changes and return toward where they started.
What it doesn't show: the samples were small, and the study measured happiness, not income goals or exit dates.
Lykken, D., & Tellegen, A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon. Psychological Science, 7(3), 186-189.
Read the study at Psychological Science ↗
Using data from adult twins, the authors found that well-being is largely stable over time and strongly linked to genetics. Income, education, and marital status explained very little of the difference in well-being between people.
What it doesn't show: the study measured well-being. It shows people tend to return to a set point. It doesn't measure goals moving as you approach them.
Porges, S. W. (2004). Neuroception: A subconscious system for detecting threats and safety. Zero to Three, 24(5), 19-24.
Read the study at the Qigong Institute (abstract) ↗
Porges introduced the term neuroception for the way the nervous system evaluates safety and danger below conscious awareness. That evaluation shifts the body into a calm, defensive, or shutdown state before a person has thought about it.
What it doesn't show: this is a theory article, not an experiment. Parts of the wider theory it belongs to are still debated by researchers.
Ousdal, O. T., Andreassen, O. A., Server, A., & Jensen, J. (2014). Increased amygdala and visual cortex activity and functional connectivity towards stimulus novelty is associated with state anxiety. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e96146.
Healthy adults viewed new and familiar images during brain scans. The amygdala, a brain area involved in detecting threat, responded more to new images, and the response was stronger in people who were more anxious at the time.
What it doesn't show: this is a lab study using images. It shows new things activate threat-detection areas of the brain. It doesn't test new decisions or new levels of income.
Epel, E. S., McEwen, B., Seeman, T., Matthews, K., Castellazzo, G., Brownell, K. D., Bell, J., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Stress and body shape: Stress-induced cortisol secretion is consistently greater among women with central fat. Psychosomatic Medicine, 62(5), 623-632.
Read the study at Psychosomatic Medicine ↗
Women with more fat around the middle released more cortisol, a stress hormone, in response to repeated lab stress tasks than women with less.
What it doesn't show: this study links stress to weight carried around the middle. It shows an association, not cause, and it doesn't cover anxiety, depression, or chronic pain.
Riemann, D., Spiegelhalder, K., Feige, B., Voderholzer, U., Berger, M., Perlis, M., & Nissen, C. (2010). The hyperarousal model of insomnia: A review of the concept and its evidence. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 14(1), 19-31.
Read the study at Sleep Medicine Reviews ↗
The authors reviewed the evidence that insomnia is linked to a body and brain that stay on high alert, with raised stress hormones, heart rate, and brain activity, during the day and at night.
What it doesn't show: this is a review of existing studies. It supports arousal as one factor in insomnia, not the only one.
Jaswal, V. K., Croft, A. C., Setia, A. R., & Cole, C. A. (2010). Young children have a specific, highly robust bias to trust testimony. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1541-1547.
Read the study at Psychological Science ↗
Three-year-olds were told where a sticker was hidden, and the statement was false every time. Most kept searching where they were told, trial after trial, even though it never worked. They were much less likely to follow the same false information when it was shown to them instead of said.
What it doesn't show: this is a lab task with young children. It shows a strong bias to trust what adults say. It doesn't test beliefs about money or success.
Mascaro, O., & Sperber, D. (2009). The moral, epistemic, and mindreading components of children's vigilance towards deception. Cognition, 112(3), 367-380.
In a series of experiments with children aged 3 to 6, the youngest children tended to believe what they were told. The ability to recognize that someone might be lying, and to discount what they say, developed gradually over these years.
What it doesn't show: this study shows the ability to judge what's true develops with age. It doesn't show children never evaluate what they hear.
Hebb, D. O. (1949). The Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological Theory. New York: Wiley.
Hebb proposed that when brain cells repeatedly fire together, the connection between them gets stronger, forming networks he called cell assemblies. This idea is the basis of how scientists understand learning in the brain.
What it doesn't show: this is a theory, later supported by experimental research. It doesn't address beliefs or facts specifically.
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54(7), 462-479.
Read the study at American Psychologist ↗
The authors reviewed research showing that much of everyday judgment, behavior, and goal pursuit happens automatically, set off by what's around us rather than by conscious choice.
What it doesn't show: some of the studies this review draws on have not held up when repeated. It doesn't measure success or income.
Thayer, J. F., & Lane, R. D. (2000). A model of neurovisceral integration in emotion regulation and dysregulation. Journal of Affective Disorders, 61(3), 201-216.
Read the study at Journal of Affective Disorders ↗
The authors set out a model linking the brain, heart rate variability, and the ability to regulate emotion. In their model, these systems work as one network, and greater heart rate variability goes with better emotional regulation.
What it doesn't show: this is a theoretical model. The authors don't use the word coherence. It supports the idea that internal systems work together.
McCraty, R., & Zayas, M. A. (2014). Cardiac coherence, self-regulation, autonomic stability, and psychosocial well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1090.
Read the study at Frontiers in Psychology ↗
The authors reviewed research on heart rhythm coherence, a smooth, ordered heart rhythm pattern, and its links to self-regulation, emotional stability, and well-being.
What it doesn't show: the review supports our definition of coherence only.
Disclosure: McCraty is a HeartMath Institute researcher, and a HeartMath researcher consults on our current study.
Transformation Central LLC is running a two-year study of 28 people using the method in a group setting. Jackie Waterman, MT, a HeartMath researcher, is consulting on protocol setup, data collection, and preparing the recordings for analysis.
The study asks two questions. First, can a group using the method increase its combined income tenfold in two years? The group’s goal is $1 billion. Second, can every participant increase their income, their enterprise value, or both over those two years? In 1:1 work, every client has reported an increase in their income. This study tests whether that result holds in a group, with the results tracked independently.
The 28 participants include entrepreneurs, founders, W2 employees, and people who started with no income. All 28 started with an income under $500K. They were recruited from our email list and social media. Some had worked with us before, and some were new.
Revenue results are tracked by a third-party bookkeeper, Jay Woolvine of Quick Figures Bookkeeping. Enterprise value growth is based on two private valuations completed before fundraising. Participants who started with no income are measured the same way as everyone else, starting from zero.
Using HeartMath technology systems, stationary HRV and coherence levels are being tracked, and pre-post changes will be calculated. How often participants practice with the HeartMath app during the two-year target period is also being observed. EEG brainwave measurement is being added. Participants also self-report changes in mood, emotional reactivity, anxiety and depression levels, relationships, and sleep.
Through week 17 of the study (October 2026), the group has added $39,006,489. This includes $34,500,000 in enterprise appreciation (valuation) and $4,506,489 in revenue increases (cash). Final results will be published at the end of the two years. Clinical trials are planned to begin by March 2027.
Between 2019 and 2024, clients in our group programs and 1:1 work reported over $2 billion in combined increases in personal income and business revenue. Clients reported these figures as results came in, and they were added up at the time. They have not been independently verified.
Typical results in this period were 2 to 4 times starting income, and the lowest increases were around double.
The table below shows our 22 strongest results from the same period, with names removed. About 11 of these clients had results far above typical. All figures were reported by the clients.
| # | Starting income | Ending income | After finishing | Multiplier |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | $0 (laid off, 5 months prior) | $60K cash plus $1.4M over 3 years | - | 1.46M × |
| 02 | $0 (3 months prior) | Co-owner of two $20M businesses | - | 40M × |
| 03 | $0 (stay-at-home parent) | $200K+ | $500K a year | 500K × |
| 04 | $0 (6 months prior) | $100K a month | - | 1.2M × |
| 05 | $84K a year | $1.2M a year | $1.5M a year | 17.8 × |
| 06 | $12K a year | $80K a year | $200K a year | 16.6 × |
| 07 | $120K a year | $800K a year | $360K a year, part time | 6.6 × |
| 08 | $56K a year (employed) | $150K a year | $150K a year | 2.6 × |
| 09 | $250K a year | $47M | - | 188 × |
| 10 | $0 (fundraising) | $350K, Series A | - | 350 × |
| 11 | $48K a year | $1.2M a year | $1.2M a year | 20 × |
| 12 | $0 (6 months prior) | $1.2M a year | $1.3M | 1.3M × |
| 13 | $50K a year | $1.2M a year | $1.5M a year | 30 × |
| 14 | $250K a year take-home ($6M company) | $3M plus two $20M contracts | $1.5M a year | 12 × |
| 15 | $0 (fundraising) | $225K, Series A | - | 225 × |
| 16 | $240K a year | $1.2M a year | $15M | 62.5 × |
| 17 | $120K a year (employed) | $260K a year | $360K a year | 3 × |
| 18 | $12K a year | $1.5M a year, passive | - | 125 × |
| 19 | $0 (18 months prior) | $37M deal | - | 37M × |
| 20 | $2K a month | $204K a year | $325K a year | 162.5 × |
| 21 | $240K a year | $2M a year, $1M saved | $10M a year | 41.6 × |
| 22 | $800K a year | $5M a year | - | 6.25 × |
22 clients. Every one increased their income. Where the starting income was zero, the multiplier is shown against the ending figure. “-” means we have no later figure.
What those results look like from a $40K month
The share of our 22 top-performing clients in each range, and what that range means if you start at $40,000 a month.
An increase of 160% on $40K is $40K plus 1.6 × $40K, or $104K. Each figure is calculated the same way. These are our top 22 results, not typical results. Typical results are 2 to 4 times starting income.