Essential oils for weight loss
Replies
-
HeySwoleSister wrote: »For anyone who likes purty smellies and has loads of cash on hand, enjoy: http://www.blackphoenixalchemylab.com
I always love their graphics but the site is so hard to navigate. I prefer Ava Luxe for my wonderful scent needs.
True about the site...back when I used to be a regular shopper I just made a forum account (bpal.org) and 'shopped' via the Reviews section. It's hard to tell what a bottle will really smell like just from the description.
0 -
For me, whichever ones help me feel less stressed, indirectly help me lose weight.
While they don't take off pounds, they make my experience better by reducing the stress-eating cravings so I don't have to actively expend as much willpower to keep under my calorie goals.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »In the interest of context, here's the intro posted on that web page that had all of those studies listed. It puts them in a rather different light.What are some issues in conducting research on essential oils?
There are some unique issues in conducting research on essential oils.
Essential Oils Are Not Standardized: The chemistry of essential oils is influenced by the local geography and weather conditions, as well as the season and time of day when the plants are harvested, how they are processed, and how they are packaged and stored. Each plant is unique in its chemistry so essential oils are never exactly the same-this is different from pharmaceutical drugs that are synthetically reproduced to be identical every time.
Essential oils can be altered to achieve standardization (for example, a certain chemical that was found to be at a lower concentration in the whole oil in a particular year can be added to make it the same percentage as last year's batch). The problem with standardized essential oils is that they are no longer natural, genuine, and authentic. This variability in essential oils by time, place and conditions is a big challenge to conducting valid research. Currently the International Standards Organization sets standards for each essential oil that include a range of acceptable concentrations for its major chemical constituents.
It Is Difficult to Conduct Blinded Studies with Aromatic Substances: Typical research studies involve testing two groups-one group gets an experimental substance and another group gets a placebo substance (this group is referred to as the "control" group). When using aromatic substances, it is very difficult to conduct a blinded study. Some researchers have used masks or other barriers to blind participants. Other researchers have used alternate scents assumed to have no therapeutic properties as controls. These approaches are problematic, however, because people associate smells with past experiences. Thus, it is difficult to account for individual variation in how essential oils affect people.
It Is Difficult to Get Approval and Funding for Research on Essential Oils: Essential oils have been used on humans for thousands of years. As a result, they don't fit into the conventional clinical science approach of testing a substance in the lab first, then on animals, and then on humans. As a result, if a researcher proposes to test an essential oil with humans first, they may be turned down. This is because research review boards tend to approve research studies that follow the more usual scientific research path.
Many conventional drug studies are funded by the pharmaceutical industry. There is little motivation for these companies to fund research on natural plant substances because they cannot easily be patented, limiting the potential for profit. Thus, finding funding for essential oils studies can be challenging.
It Is Difficult to Tell What Caused the Outcome: In conventional research studies, it is important to be able to determine exactly what caused the outcome. In essential oil therapy, the oils are sometimes applied with massage, which makes it difficult to tell whether or not the outcome was due to the essential oil alone, or the massage, or the combination. Also, essential oils are composed of hundreds of chemical constituents, and it is hard to determine which ones may have produced the desired effect.
It doesn't put them in any different light to what I already said, which was "I just read a report that makes quite a few very good points about why aromatherapy "cures" are not generally validated by research studies..." All you've done is list all of the points in full.
In case you don't understand it, these aren't being presented as points "against" aromatherapy. Or perhaps you do understand it but are trying to imply that it means something entirely different. (Oh, but I forgot, it's me who cherry picks and misrepresents things. Riiight....) (:-)
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »In the interest of context, here's the intro posted on that web page that had all of those studies listed. It puts them in a rather different light.What are some issues in conducting research on essential oils?
There are some unique issues in conducting research on essential oils.
Essential Oils Are Not Standardized: The chemistry of essential oils is influenced by the local geography and weather conditions, as well as the season and time of day when the plants are harvested, how they are processed, and how they are packaged and stored. Each plant is unique in its chemistry so essential oils are never exactly the same-this is different from pharmaceutical drugs that are synthetically reproduced to be identical every time.
Essential oils can be altered to achieve standardization (for example, a certain chemical that was found to be at a lower concentration in the whole oil in a particular year can be added to make it the same percentage as last year's batch). The problem with standardized essential oils is that they are no longer natural, genuine, and authentic. This variability in essential oils by time, place and conditions is a big challenge to conducting valid research. Currently the International Standards Organization sets standards for each essential oil that include a range of acceptable concentrations for its major chemical constituents.
It Is Difficult to Conduct Blinded Studies with Aromatic Substances: Typical research studies involve testing two groups-one group gets an experimental substance and another group gets a placebo substance (this group is referred to as the "control" group). When using aromatic substances, it is very difficult to conduct a blinded study. Some researchers have used masks or other barriers to blind participants. Other researchers have used alternate scents assumed to have no therapeutic properties as controls. These approaches are problematic, however, because people associate smells with past experiences. Thus, it is difficult to account for individual variation in how essential oils affect people.
It Is Difficult to Get Approval and Funding for Research on Essential Oils: Essential oils have been used on humans for thousands of years. As a result, they don't fit into the conventional clinical science approach of testing a substance in the lab first, then on animals, and then on humans. As a result, if a researcher proposes to test an essential oil with humans first, they may be turned down. This is because research review boards tend to approve research studies that follow the more usual scientific research path.
Many conventional drug studies are funded by the pharmaceutical industry. There is little motivation for these companies to fund research on natural plant substances because they cannot easily be patented, limiting the potential for profit. Thus, finding funding for essential oils studies can be challenging.
It Is Difficult to Tell What Caused the Outcome: In conventional research studies, it is important to be able to determine exactly what caused the outcome. In essential oil therapy, the oils are sometimes applied with massage, which makes it difficult to tell whether or not the outcome was due to the essential oil alone, or the massage, or the combination. Also, essential oils are composed of hundreds of chemical constituents, and it is hard to determine which ones may have produced the desired effect.
It doesn't put them in any different light to what I already said, which was "I just read a report that makes quite a few very good points about why aromatherapy "cures" are not generally validated by research studies..." All you've done is list all of the points in full.
In case you don't understand it, these aren't being presented as points "against" aromatherapy. Or perhaps you do understand it but are trying to imply that it means something entirely different. (Oh, but I forgot, it's me who cherry picks and misrepresents things. Riiight....) (:-)
Please. You posted one point, the one about how big pharma has little to gain from the studies. You just so happened to leave out all the others that had nothing to do with conspiracy theories?
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »In the interest of context, here's the intro posted on that web page that had all of those studies listed. It puts them in a rather different light.What are some issues in conducting research on essential oils?
There are some unique issues in conducting research on essential oils.
Essential Oils Are Not Standardized: The chemistry of essential oils is influenced by the local geography and weather conditions, as well as the season and time of day when the plants are harvested, how they are processed, and how they are packaged and stored. Each plant is unique in its chemistry so essential oils are never exactly the same-this is different from pharmaceutical drugs that are synthetically reproduced to be identical every time.
Essential oils can be altered to achieve standardization (for example, a certain chemical that was found to be at a lower concentration in the whole oil in a particular year can be added to make it the same percentage as last year's batch). The problem with standardized essential oils is that they are no longer natural, genuine, and authentic. This variability in essential oils by time, place and conditions is a big challenge to conducting valid research. Currently the International Standards Organization sets standards for each essential oil that include a range of acceptable concentrations for its major chemical constituents.
It Is Difficult to Conduct Blinded Studies with Aromatic Substances: Typical research studies involve testing two groups-one group gets an experimental substance and another group gets a placebo substance (this group is referred to as the "control" group). When using aromatic substances, it is very difficult to conduct a blinded study. Some researchers have used masks or other barriers to blind participants. Other researchers have used alternate scents assumed to have no therapeutic properties as controls. These approaches are problematic, however, because people associate smells with past experiences. Thus, it is difficult to account for individual variation in how essential oils affect people.
It Is Difficult to Get Approval and Funding for Research on Essential Oils: Essential oils have been used on humans for thousands of years. As a result, they don't fit into the conventional clinical science approach of testing a substance in the lab first, then on animals, and then on humans. As a result, if a researcher proposes to test an essential oil with humans first, they may be turned down. This is because research review boards tend to approve research studies that follow the more usual scientific research path.
Many conventional drug studies are funded by the pharmaceutical industry. There is little motivation for these companies to fund research on natural plant substances because they cannot easily be patented, limiting the potential for profit. Thus, finding funding for essential oils studies can be challenging.
It Is Difficult to Tell What Caused the Outcome: In conventional research studies, it is important to be able to determine exactly what caused the outcome. In essential oil therapy, the oils are sometimes applied with massage, which makes it difficult to tell whether or not the outcome was due to the essential oil alone, or the massage, or the combination. Also, essential oils are composed of hundreds of chemical constituents, and it is hard to determine which ones may have produced the desired effect.
It doesn't put them in any different light to what I already said, which was "I just read a report that makes quite a few very good points about why aromatherapy "cures" are not generally validated by research studies..." All you've done is list all of the points in full.
In case you don't understand it, these aren't being presented as points "against" aromatherapy. Or perhaps you do understand it but are trying to imply that it means something entirely different. (Oh, but I forgot, it's me who cherry picks and misrepresents things. Riiight....) (:-)
How is posting an article in it's entirety cherry picking??0 -
motherofalltrades wrote: »Hello friends!!!
Does anyone use essential oils for weight loss? Which ones work the best and how do you use them?
I know lemon, grapefruit, and peppermint are the ones people use the most, however any information anyone has will be helpful. Thanks for your time!
The only essential anything for weight loss is to eat less calories than you burn. Anything else, such as essential oils, teas, drinks, etc., are scams and meant to make your wallet lighter and their wallets fatter.
I suggest setting your goals up in MFP and sticking to your calorie goals. I able to do this by weighing food, logging everything I eat, using a HRM for exercise burns, and eating my exercise calories back. However, you need to do what works best for you.
0 -
For anyone who likes purty smellies and has loads of cash on hand, enjoy: http://www.blackphoenixalchemylab.com
Their stuff loses its scent way too quickly for me.
0 -
-
And you do your squats and kill two birds with one stone.ceoverturf wrote: »
**Taking Notes **
For guaranteed weight Loss = clean litter box @ night.
Step 1: Obtain cat
Dammit, I've already failed.
Don't worry - I've failed as well. I realized I don't have one either.
I'm allergic to cats...should I use essential oils or apple cider vinegar?
Wait, wait... I just realized Step 1 is "Acquire litter box." Cat not necessary.
I consider this on par with the three sea shells. Some explanation is required...
The goal is, as posted above, "For guaranteed weight Loss = clean litter box @ night."
No one said a cat has to fill up said litter box.
0 -
I totally agree that ingesting oils is generally a very bad idea, and that no oils are going to magically increase your weight loss or affect the CICO equation directly. And I'm not sold on anything suppressing your appetite, either.
That said, if you're a stress eater or emotional eater, oils used as aromatherapy to reduce stress or induce a calming feeling might be worth a try. No, there's not a LOT of science behind it, but aromatherapy to reduce stress has been used for centuries. Science probably isn't going to back a lot of it up, but it's a psychosomatic effect anyway - if you feel calmer and less stressed, then it's working, it doesn't matter WHY it's working or if it's actually impacting anything physically in your body. If it works for you, great. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. Worst case is that you're out the $25 or whatever you spent on the oil.
That's what I was thinking. I bet there are more emotional eaters on here than there are people who don't understand how CICO works, but most of the post responses seem to be directed at the latter.
It's one of those "easier said than done" situations and if something can help, I'll try it (provided it's safe, obviously. I imagine heroin would make me feel great and lose weight, but I'll pass)0 -
Most essential oils are not meant for internal use and can be harmful, if not fatal if ingested.
This is just not true, you have to purchase Food Grade oils if you want to injest them. They have their uses, but not sure about aiding in weight loss. I currently use ginger for heartburn and my daughter uses Cloves to keep her blood pressure down, better all natural than taking all those meds. I used to take prilosec once a day for seven years.0 -
hmmm, FDA is soooo good at keeping harmful medications and such off the shelves too, don't ya think?
0 -
LovelyIvy466 wrote: »I have had great success staying well since I began using essential oils about 2 years ago. Since that time I have had 3 hospital stays, one of which was 17 days following a full spinal fusion (T5 all the way down). I took my oils with me each time and did not contract any infections or other bad bugs from the hospital. I had an abdominal incision, an incision on my left side in addition to the large one on my back. Oils mixed with carrier oils have been instrumental in my body's recovery.
This is just my story and I'm not trying to sell anything to anyone or tout oils as a cure for ebola. I just trust natural things rather than pharmaceuticals because there are far fewer side effects for me.
I'm just going to leave this here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/22/wellness-gurus-belle-gibson-pseudoscience
What's your point?
My point is that "natural" cures are mostly woo perpetuated by so-called "wellness gurus" who don't actually know anything.
I don't know anything about essential oils but will say that some natural, Dr. Oz type stuff has worked for me. I used to suffer with about 5-10 migraines a month. I didn't have enough to get prescription medication. I was taking Excedrin migraines like they were tic tacs. I watched Dr. Oz one day and he recommended ginger tea. I also found some breathing exercises. Since, then I have bought maybe 3 bottles of Excedrin Migraine tops. That was in 2009 or 2010. And I really only buy it for when I am on the go or I can't make my tea right away.
If you can find something that is natural to help you, then fine. But I don't think an oil will make anyone lose weight. I just don't want all natural remedies to be dismissed. Many natural cures have been around for thousands of years and have helped people. When modern medicine is necessary or in this case, eating at a deficit and maybe some exercise, you should use it. I think it all boils down to common sense.
This was my point about the frankincense and myrrh before everyone started with the rude comments. BTW, some peppermint essential oil on your temples and back of the neck have relieved my migraines.
I do not understand how it's rude of me to ask what the connection between wise men and the usefulness of essential oils is. I'm not Christian, and this isn't a board about religion so I was not getting your point.
Just that they have been around for thousands of years.
So has smallpox. Guess what eradicated that? HINT: Not essential oils.0 -
g'wan then .. show us the science [/quote]
Sometimes science takes a little (or a long) time to catch up. Honey was used for years to help with wound healing, then science developed antibiotics, only five years ago science told us honey was great and we should use that instead. Same thing for maggots, leeches and spider webs. We used to use drugs to make labor easier, now birthing suites use lavendar oil because the research has been done and found that the very old idea of hanging lavender next to a woman's bed is valid. It has also been scientifically proven that Orange oil makes people think you are five years younger than you are. So maybe there is some merit to this. I am always wary of anyone that treats science as a religion in the same way as I am about someone that discounts it out of hand. For something to be scientifically proven there has to be the money, resources and willingness to do the research.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »In the interest of context, here's the intro posted on that web page that had all of those studies listed. It puts them in a rather different light.What are some issues in conducting research on essential oils?
There are some unique issues in conducting research on essential oils.
Essential Oils Are Not Standardized: The chemistry of essential oils is influenced by the local geography and weather conditions, as well as the season and time of day when the plants are harvested, how they are processed, and how they are packaged and stored. Each plant is unique in its chemistry so essential oils are never exactly the same-this is different from pharmaceutical drugs that are synthetically reproduced to be identical every time.
Essential oils can be altered to achieve standardization (for example, a certain chemical that was found to be at a lower concentration in the whole oil in a particular year can be added to make it the same percentage as last year's batch). The problem with standardized essential oils is that they are no longer natural, genuine, and authentic. This variability in essential oils by time, place and conditions is a big challenge to conducting valid research. Currently the International Standards Organization sets standards for each essential oil that include a range of acceptable concentrations for its major chemical constituents.
It Is Difficult to Conduct Blinded Studies with Aromatic Substances: Typical research studies involve testing two groups-one group gets an experimental substance and another group gets a placebo substance (this group is referred to as the "control" group). When using aromatic substances, it is very difficult to conduct a blinded study. Some researchers have used masks or other barriers to blind participants. Other researchers have used alternate scents assumed to have no therapeutic properties as controls. These approaches are problematic, however, because people associate smells with past experiences. Thus, it is difficult to account for individual variation in how essential oils affect people.
It Is Difficult to Get Approval and Funding for Research on Essential Oils: Essential oils have been used on humans for thousands of years. As a result, they don't fit into the conventional clinical science approach of testing a substance in the lab first, then on animals, and then on humans. As a result, if a researcher proposes to test an essential oil with humans first, they may be turned down. This is because research review boards tend to approve research studies that follow the more usual scientific research path.
Many conventional drug studies are funded by the pharmaceutical industry. There is little motivation for these companies to fund research on natural plant substances because they cannot easily be patented, limiting the potential for profit. Thus, finding funding for essential oils studies can be challenging.
It Is Difficult to Tell What Caused the Outcome: In conventional research studies, it is important to be able to determine exactly what caused the outcome. In essential oil therapy, the oils are sometimes applied with massage, which makes it difficult to tell whether or not the outcome was due to the essential oil alone, or the massage, or the combination. Also, essential oils are composed of hundreds of chemical constituents, and it is hard to determine which ones may have produced the desired effect.
It doesn't put them in any different light to what I already said, which was "I just read a report that makes quite a few very good points about why aromatherapy "cures" are not generally validated by research studies..." All you've done is list all of the points in full.
In case you don't understand it, these aren't being presented as points "against" aromatherapy. Or perhaps you do understand it but are trying to imply that it means something entirely different. (Oh, but I forgot, it's me who cherry picks and misrepresents things. Riiight....) (:-)
How is posting the article in its entirety cherrypicking?
You're the one who only pulled out the paragraph on big pharma, and really, that was the cherry picking. The entire intro listed the shortcomings of the research process for essential oils, and you conveniently only listed the one tinfoil hat reason listed.
In case you don't understand what you posted.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
How is posting the article in its entirety cherrypicking?
You're the one who only pulled out the paragraph on big pharma, and really, that was the cherry picking. The entire intro listed the shortcomings of the research process for essential oils, and you conveniently only listed the one tinfoil hat reason listed.
In case you don't understand what you posted.
You didn't post the article in its entirety either.
I pulled out the section that was relevant to the point I was making. The remainder of the article didn't refute anything I said so it wasn't misrepresented in any way. In case you aren't familiar with how to use references, that's what you do (i.e., you don't copy the entire volume every time you want to quote from a previously published work).0 -
Still waiting for actual proof and not anecdotal information.
Sometimes science takes a little (or a long) time to catch up. Honey was used for years to help with wound healing, then science developed antibiotics, only five years ago science told us honey was great and we should use that instead. Same thing for maggots, leeches and spider webs. We used to use drugs to make labor easier, now birthing suites use lavendar oil because the research has been done and found that the very old idea of hanging lavender next to a woman's bed is valid. It has also been scientifically proven that Orange oil makes people think you are five years younger than you are. So maybe there is some merit to this. I am always wary of anyone that treats science as a religion in the same way as I am about someone that discounts it out of hand. For something to be scientifically proven there has to be the money, resources and willingness to do the research.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
How is posting the article in its entirety cherrypicking?
You're the one who only pulled out the paragraph on big pharma, and really, that was the cherry picking. The entire intro listed the shortcomings of the research process for essential oils, and you conveniently only listed the one tinfoil hat reason listed.
In case you don't understand what you posted.
You didn't post the article in its entirety either.
I pulled out the section that was relevant to the point I was making. The remainder of the article didn't refute anything I said so it wasn't misrepresented in any way. In case you aren't familiar with how to use references, that's what you do (i.e., you don't copy the entire volume every time you want to quote from a previously published work).
Ah, here's the part I didn't quote. I did, unlike you, copy the part pertaining to the difficulties in researching oils in full.
It's oddly humorous, given that you listed all the cites, for you to go on about not quoting the whole reference after being caught out cherry picking.
This bit in no way changes or adds context nor does it shed any light on the drawbacks of performing research with essential oils. It's just an intro.What Does the Research Say About Essential Oils?
Although essential oils have been used therapeutically for centuries, there is little published research on many of them. However, this is beginning to change as more scientific studies on essential oils are conducted around the world.
Clinical studies are currently underway in Europe, Australia, Japan, India, the United States, and Canada. Many of these studies describe the remarkable healing properties of various oils.
Who is doing the research?
A significant body of research on essential oils has been conducted by the food, flavoring, cosmetics, and tobacco industries. They are most interested in the flavor, mood alteration, and preservative qualities of essential oils. Some of these companies have also conducted extensive research on the toxicity and safety of essential oils. Although much of this research is proprietary and not generally available to consumers, some of it has made its way into cosmetic and plant product journals. These journals are important sources of information as we accumulate a growing body of knowledge on essential oils.
Most of the studies that have been published in the English language scientific literature have been conducted in laboratories and they have not been tested on humans, but this is changing.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
How is posting the article in its entirety cherrypicking?
You're the one who only pulled out the paragraph on big pharma, and really, that was the cherry picking. The entire intro listed the shortcomings of the research process for essential oils, and you conveniently only listed the one tinfoil hat reason listed.
In case you don't understand what you posted.
You didn't post the article in its entirety either.
I pulled out the section that was relevant to the point I was making. The remainder of the article didn't refute anything I said so it wasn't misrepresented in any way. In case you aren't familiar with how to use references, that's what you do (i.e., you don't copy the entire volume every time you want to quote from a previously published work).
I see you're still not familiar with the term "lying by omission".0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
I see you're still not familiar with the term "lying by omission".
And I see you're still having trouble with reading comprehension?0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
I see you're still not familiar with the term "lying by omission".
And I see you're still having trouble with reading comprehension?
I can read fine thank you very much. What you did was choose 1 point out of a bunch of them (one of them being basically "It's impossible to properly test them because their chemical makeup is all over the place") to paint a different picture than what the actual thing did. You made it sound like essential oils are being "held down by the man" instead.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
I see you're still not familiar with the term "lying by omission".
And I see you're still having trouble with reading comprehension?
I can read fine thank you very much. What you did was choose 1 point out of a bunch of them (one of them being basically "It's impossible to properly test them because their chemical makeup is all over the place") to paint a different picture than what the actual thing did. You made it sound like essential oils are being "held down by the man" instead.
I believe I made it clear that "the man" was one of a number of reasons given for why research is lacking in this area. The actual point I was making, though (in response to all the people shouting "voodoo!" and other silly comments) was that in spite of all the research-related issues, there are studies available.
Hope that clears things up for you, but in case it doesn't here was my original comment (with relevant section cherry-picked):
"I just read a report that makes quite a few very good points about why aromatherapy "cures" are not generally validated by research studies, one of which is that the pharmaceutical industry is not going to pay for research on natural plant substances that can't be patented..."0 -
Yes, that's called picking out one tidbit that slants the whole of what you say.
It leaves out the shortcomings of the oils themselves with the testing process.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
I see you're still not familiar with the term "lying by omission".
And I see you're still having trouble with reading comprehension?
I can read fine thank you very much. What you did was choose 1 point out of a bunch of them (one of them being basically "It's impossible to properly test them because their chemical makeup is all over the place") to paint a different picture than what the actual thing did. You made it sound like essential oils are being "held down by the man" instead.
I believe I made it clear that "the man" was one of a number of reasons given for why research is lacking in this area. The actual point I was making, though (in response to all the people shouting "voodoo!" and other silly comments) was that in spite of all the research-related issues, there are studies available.
Hope that clears things up for you, but in case it doesn't here was my original comment (with relevant section cherry-picked):
"I just read a report that makes quite a few very good points about why aromatherapy "cures" are not generally validated by research studies, one of which is that the pharmaceutical industry is not going to pay for research on natural plant substances that can't be patented..."
Now replace the one you chose for your "one of which" with the one I named instead and your whole post reads a lot different.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
-
stevencloser wrote: »
Now replace the one you chose for your "one of which" with the one I named instead and your whole post reads a lot different.
Okay, just for you @stevencloser here's the whole thing again with the requested amendment. I used the wording from the website rather than yours; I hope that's permitted. And hey presto!, my point is exactly the same as it was the first time I posted it!Chrysalid2014 wrote: »My point is that "natural" cures are mostly woo perpetuated by so-called "wellness gurus" who don't actually know anything.
I just read a report that makes quite a few very good points about why aromatherapy "cures" are not generally validated by research studies, one of which is that each plant is unique in its chemistry so essential oils are never exactly the same.
The report does also say that the studies that are available on essential oils show positive effects for a variety of health concerns including infections, pain, anxiety, depression, tumors, premenstrual syndrome, nausea, and many others. For anyone who wants to look into this further, the list of studies they reference is quite extensive:...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions