Ayurvedic nutrition for weight loss (and general sanity)
Replies
-
Found the source of this graphic: http://savvyskeptic.com It is a personal blog with a bizarre political agenda. Its title claims to be about science, but there is no science in it, at all, zilch.nakedraygun wrote: »
Just going to leave this here because woo is what woo promises it can't deliver.
I think you missed the point. Chopra's claim about "metabolizing time" seems to have not halted the progression of his aging.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Just wondering, if all this 5000 year old "ancient wisdom" was effective and worked, why did we need to advance to western science based medicine? I mean why bother if we already had something that worked? And why is it that life spans didn't increase until science based medicine? Why not just stick with acupuncture, ayurvedic, blood letting and leaches? Honestly curious.
This is a good question. Let's start by saying: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. When looking at average lifespans, you need to take into consideration that infant mortality is factored in there, so people did not just drop dead at 35. Infant mortality rates dropped because Western Allopathic medicine is wonderful. Antibiotics have saved many lives, as have vaccinations. Allopathic medicine is second to none when it comes to acute situations. With that said, it is not perfect. Pharmaceuticals come with many side effects, many of which are worse than the problem they are trying to treat. For many chronic conditions, there is no cure in allopathy. Patients are often given a vague diagnosis like IBS when the problem is something more serious or sometimes told their symptoms are all in their head. Alternative therapies offer a different perspective on the human body and are grounded in science and steeped in tradition. The herbs used are especially powerful for prevention. A skilled practitioner can identify a problem before it becomes a pathology and counsel the client on nutrition, lifestyle, and herbs. It's not a path for those who just want a quick fix or magic bullet. There is no such thing and they may need to wait a long time for allopathic medicine to cure their chronic condition or find a vaccine. Healing takes work. You don't see an aryuvedic doctor for a broken leg. You see them if you've been having symptoms that haven't been resolved by allopathic medicine or if you don't want to take pharmaceuticals for whatever reason, or you just want preventative care. It is an ancient healing modality, but is by no means static. It evolves and advances just as allopathy does; practitioners keep up to date on scientific studies.
So it only works on vague illnesses, in vague ways, and not on anything serious? After 5000 years shouldn't it be more well defined and more effective? Western science based medicine has only been around a hundred years and it's already conquered/eradicated/cured many terminal illnesses. After 5000 years shouldn't alternative medicine have something to show for itself rather than studies showing it's no different than placebo???
I believe you stated earlier that life spans have increased due to Western medicine? That's only one factor among many. And the PP stated that Western medicine is great for acute situations. It absolutely is. However, Western medicine as it is currently practiced leans overwhelmingly towards treating the symptoms, rather than the underlying cause. It generally is not considered to have a preventative focus (not that it can't, it just doesn't).
Where I live, a good portion of the population is focused on a more holistic view of health. They don't shun Western medicine, but recognize it as just one part of the whole. People tend to look for ways in which they can keep themselves healthy, or become healthy and remain so, without waiting until they need the interventions that Western medicine can provide. Subscribing to one does not mean you have to completely denounce the other.
I'd say vaccines are pretty preventative. The ability to prevent smallpox/polio, etc. Increasing the survivability of many types of cancer, etc. Western medicine is incredibly impressive. I'm not up to date on anything cured or prevented by alternative medicine, is there anything? After 5000 years it should be easy to point out multiple historical examples of diseases cured, plagues averted, by alternative medicine, IF it worked like proponents claim. Yet the best we get is it helps with "imbalances"?
*edited for clarity
Are you just being deliberately obtuse?
Obtuse to what?
All you've provided are vague claims. I'm asking for examples of alternative medicine efficacy.
I haven't actually made any vague claims. You seem intent on positioning yourself in a "vs" type of stance.
As the PP originally stated, Western medicine is great for acute care. To some extent, I would include vaccines in that. But, vaccination is a tiny part of our lives, we don't get vaccinations every time we go to see a doctor. I'm not the one stating extremes, and neither was PP, you are. I don't care one way or another what you believe. And I've never followed any ayurvedic anything, but was simply providing another viewpoint that is not black and white. Western medicine does tend to focus on symptomatic treatment, I don't think that's even generally disputed. Again, more holistic approaches look at health differently. It's about caring for your whole self, and trying to maintain health through treating your physical, mental, and emotional health. That's going to be different for each person.
Just as an example, I suffer from migraines. The triggers for migraines are vast and can vary greatly from person to person, as can some of the symptoms. I have Western medication for those times when I cannot prevent one, and even that medication is not always effective. However, I, as many others who get migraines, have been trying to not only identify my triggers, but to find if there are things I can do to diminish their frequency in some other way - such as regular exercise, certain types of exercise, foods I eat, etc. That's holistic. Not just treating the symptoms of my migraine when I get one, but trying to find ways to prevent it in the first place. Really crazy, I know.
Holistic approaches to health care are not in opposition to Western medicine, and are most assuredly a part of its practice.
I have migraines too, quite severe, actually. There are two top treatment centers in the country. I go to one of them. The main focus of my care is on prevention. I do have rescue medicine, of course, and I do take medications to prevent them, but I'm also on a protocol of beneficial supplements and do things like practice good sleep hygiene and exercise -- on my doctor's recommendations.
I also have psoriatic arthritis. I take medication for that, but my rheumatologigst also discussed other strategies like regular exercise and weight reduction for dealing with the pain and fatigue.
Diabetics are routinely given dietary advice.
I could keep giving examples.
It seems to be those trying to decry the benefits of a holistic approach who are going to extremes. I specifically noted that Western medicine "leans overwhelmingly towards treating the symptoms, rather than the underlying cause. It generally is not considered to have a preventative focus." I didn't say that it never takes a preventative approach. Few things in life are either/or. And, specialists are probably more likely to take such an approach.
And you're providing your own experience. I can provide mine as well. I have not seen a specialist for my migraines. I could never afford one. In all the years I have brought it to the attention of my various doctors, the only professional who ever spoke with me about preventative measures was a nurse practitioner. Everyone else just said "here, try this medication." There are probably many reasons our medicine focuses more on symptomatic treatment, some of those being time, money, and the patients themselves wanting a quick-fix. But again, it's "focuses more," not only ever does so.
I don't think I have seen anyone here who is advocating for a holistic approach state that they don't "believe in" or subscribe to Western medicine. It seems like they're [and I'm] advocating for a combined approach. Whereas a lot of other people are advocating only for Western medicine. And then there are the few who have recognized this post is no longer about weight loss, but health, and are at least saying they understand what some of us have said about a holistic approach.
No one is against a holistic approach to health. We're on a site where we regularly discuss matters of fitness and nutrition, after all.
HOWEVER...
The efficacy of ayurveda has yet to be proven by any of you defending it.
And that would be fine, people are entitled to belief, but money changing hands muddied the waters a bit here.
So practitioners who train for years should not charge for their skills and wealth of knowledge? I provided studies exhibiting the efficacy of some popular aryuvedic herbal remedies, which you quickly dismissed. Besides the herbs, the other components of the practice are self care, exercise, and nutrition.
No one here has been able disprove the efficacy of the herbs used in Aryuveda or the modality as a whole. If that is not enough, then I guess the next step is to try some of the remedies yourself.
1. The studies you posted most assuredly did NOT prove the efficacy of anything. One was a preliminary finding. It was 15 years old. Where's the current research that normally follows up promising preliminary findings? There is none. The other two? Rodent studies. No proof of any efficacy for use in humans whatsoever.
2. The burden of proof is on the one who is making claims. It's not up to any of us to prove something doesn't work.
Lots of people charge money for their "skills". Palm readers, card readers, psychics, people who will change the color of your aura, people who will talk to your dead relatives hanging out over your shoulder.
What you get from them is probably about what any of you have been able to show you get from ayurveda. Less money in your wallet.
Regarding what you said about the tv show, you can dismiss the show all you want, but the oncologists findings? What of those?
There IS current research following this Israeli Study: http://imr.sagepub.com/content/32/2/132.long
Some lighter reading in the Wall Street Journal: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304428004579355381156650444
Now, here are more recent studies:
http://asn.sagepub.com/content/6/6/1759091414554946.abstract
http://oto.sagepub.com/content/135/2_suppl/P123.2.full
http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/11/24/1559827614557773.abstract
So there are studies published in peer reviewed journals, showing that sambucus nigra has real benefits, not placebo. Then there is also the fact that it has been used successfully for thousands of years and is still widely used today. Modern science is just catching up to what people have known for a long time. I grow elderberries and make my own extract- very economical. I give it away to my friends and family who ask for it year after year.
Are you seriously defending the TV show?? I don't just blindly believe what that poster was saying and TV shows most certainly do NOT hold up to scientific rigor. They just care about ratings. TV is trash; worse than the internet!0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
Found the source of this graphic: http://savvyskeptic.com It is a personal blog with a bizarre political agenda. Its title claims to be about science, but there is no science in it, at all, zilch.nakedraygun wrote: »
Just going to leave this here because woo is what woo promises it can't deliver.
I think you missed the point. Chopra's claim about "metabolizing time" seems to have not halted the progression of his aging.
No, besides the grey hair his complexion actually looks much better in the last photo compared to the first and he looks a few pounds lighter. I don't believe he claims you can stop aging all together, just slow it down.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Just wondering, if all this 5000 year old "ancient wisdom" was effective and worked, why did we need to advance to western science based medicine? I mean why bother if we already had something that worked? And why is it that life spans didn't increase until science based medicine? Why not just stick with acupuncture, ayurvedic, blood letting and leaches? Honestly curious.
This is a good question. Let's start by saying: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. When looking at average lifespans, you need to take into consideration that infant mortality is factored in there, so people did not just drop dead at 35. Infant mortality rates dropped because Western Allopathic medicine is wonderful. Antibiotics have saved many lives, as have vaccinations. Allopathic medicine is second to none when it comes to acute situations. With that said, it is not perfect. Pharmaceuticals come with many side effects, many of which are worse than the problem they are trying to treat. For many chronic conditions, there is no cure in allopathy. Patients are often given a vague diagnosis like IBS when the problem is something more serious or sometimes told their symptoms are all in their head. Alternative therapies offer a different perspective on the human body and are grounded in science and steeped in tradition. The herbs used are especially powerful for prevention. A skilled practitioner can identify a problem before it becomes a pathology and counsel the client on nutrition, lifestyle, and herbs. It's not a path for those who just want a quick fix or magic bullet. There is no such thing and they may need to wait a long time for allopathic medicine to cure their chronic condition or find a vaccine. Healing takes work. You don't see an aryuvedic doctor for a broken leg. You see them if you've been having symptoms that haven't been resolved by allopathic medicine or if you don't want to take pharmaceuticals for whatever reason, or you just want preventative care. It is an ancient healing modality, but is by no means static. It evolves and advances just as allopathy does; practitioners keep up to date on scientific studies.
So it only works on vague illnesses, in vague ways, and not on anything serious? After 5000 years shouldn't it be more well defined and more effective? Western science based medicine has only been around a hundred years and it's already conquered/eradicated/cured many terminal illnesses. After 5000 years shouldn't alternative medicine have something to show for itself rather than studies showing it's no different than placebo???
I believe you stated earlier that life spans have increased due to Western medicine? That's only one factor among many. And the PP stated that Western medicine is great for acute situations. It absolutely is. However, Western medicine as it is currently practiced leans overwhelmingly towards treating the symptoms, rather than the underlying cause. It generally is not considered to have a preventative focus (not that it can't, it just doesn't).
Where I live, a good portion of the population is focused on a more holistic view of health. They don't shun Western medicine, but recognize it as just one part of the whole. People tend to look for ways in which they can keep themselves healthy, or become healthy and remain so, without waiting until they need the interventions that Western medicine can provide. Subscribing to one does not mean you have to completely denounce the other.
I'd say vaccines are pretty preventative. The ability to prevent smallpox/polio, etc. Increasing the survivability of many types of cancer, etc. Western medicine is incredibly impressive. I'm not up to date on anything cured or prevented by alternative medicine, is there anything? After 5000 years it should be easy to point out multiple historical examples of diseases cured, plagues averted, by alternative medicine, IF it worked like proponents claim. Yet the best we get is it helps with "imbalances"?
*edited for clarity
Are you just being deliberately obtuse?
Obtuse to what?
All you've provided are vague claims. I'm asking for examples of alternative medicine efficacy.
I haven't actually made any vague claims. You seem intent on positioning yourself in a "vs" type of stance.
As the PP originally stated, Western medicine is great for acute care. To some extent, I would include vaccines in that. But, vaccination is a tiny part of our lives, we don't get vaccinations every time we go to see a doctor. I'm not the one stating extremes, and neither was PP, you are. I don't care one way or another what you believe. And I've never followed any ayurvedic anything, but was simply providing another viewpoint that is not black and white. Western medicine does tend to focus on symptomatic treatment, I don't think that's even generally disputed. Again, more holistic approaches look at health differently. It's about caring for your whole self, and trying to maintain health through treating your physical, mental, and emotional health. That's going to be different for each person.
Just as an example, I suffer from migraines. The triggers for migraines are vast and can vary greatly from person to person, as can some of the symptoms. I have Western medication for those times when I cannot prevent one, and even that medication is not always effective. However, I, as many others who get migraines, have been trying to not only identify my triggers, but to find if there are things I can do to diminish their frequency in some other way - such as regular exercise, certain types of exercise, foods I eat, etc. That's holistic. Not just treating the symptoms of my migraine when I get one, but trying to find ways to prevent it in the first place. Really crazy, I know.
Holistic approaches to health care are not in opposition to Western medicine, and are most assuredly a part of its practice.
I have migraines too, quite severe, actually. There are two top treatment centers in the country. I go to one of them. The main focus of my care is on prevention. I do have rescue medicine, of course, and I do take medications to prevent them, but I'm also on a protocol of beneficial supplements and do things like practice good sleep hygiene and exercise -- on my doctor's recommendations.
I also have psoriatic arthritis. I take medication for that, but my rheumatologigst also discussed other strategies like regular exercise and weight reduction for dealing with the pain and fatigue.
Diabetics are routinely given dietary advice.
I could keep giving examples.
It seems to be those trying to decry the benefits of a holistic approach who are going to extremes. I specifically noted that Western medicine "leans overwhelmingly towards treating the symptoms, rather than the underlying cause. It generally is not considered to have a preventative focus." I didn't say that it never takes a preventative approach. Few things in life are either/or. And, specialists are probably more likely to take such an approach.
And you're providing your own experience. I can provide mine as well. I have not seen a specialist for my migraines. I could never afford one. In all the years I have brought it to the attention of my various doctors, the only professional who ever spoke with me about preventative measures was a nurse practitioner. Everyone else just said "here, try this medication." There are probably many reasons our medicine focuses more on symptomatic treatment, some of those being time, money, and the patients themselves wanting a quick-fix. But again, it's "focuses more," not only ever does so.
I don't think I have seen anyone here who is advocating for a holistic approach state that they don't "believe in" or subscribe to Western medicine. It seems like they're [and I'm] advocating for a combined approach. Whereas a lot of other people are advocating only for Western medicine. And then there are the few who have recognized this post is no longer about weight loss, but health, and are at least saying they understand what some of us have said about a holistic approach.
No one is against a holistic approach to health. We're on a site where we regularly discuss matters of fitness and nutrition, after all.
HOWEVER...
The efficacy of ayurveda has yet to be proven by any of you defending it.
And that would be fine, people are entitled to belief, but money changing hands muddied the waters a bit here.
And once again, it seems like it's being presented as either/or, which is just a waste of everyone's time.
I never "defended" ayurveda. I stated that my doctor, Western ivy-league-educated MD if that matters, also offers ayurvedic services, and that I thought that was interesting. I said that I see no problem with OP trying something so long as it doesn't present an unreasonable risk. I also stated I have eaten ayurvedic food at a restaurant, and the rest of what I said is pretty much that I think a holistic approach to health makes sense and is what I try to do and that Western medicine has its place. Nowhere did I defend ayurvedic anything other than to support OP in trying it if she wants to and it's generally safe, mostly because I don't really know much about it so how can I defend it or bash it? I can't really have a valid opinion about ayurvedism either way and have no desire to present evidence for either side; it's not my argument. The thread transitioned into more than just ayurvedic practices.
0 -
I don't know a lot about ayurveda but triphala ( a combination of dried fruits) has proven benefits which I have used in the past. They also make a golden milk from turmeric which has proven anti-cancer benefits and several others.0
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »Also, please read theses link. People who sought out ayurvedic treatment that did not end well.
http://whatstheharm.net/ayurvedicmedicine.html
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5326a3.htm
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/chopra.html
You are judging all of ayurveda on a few cases of ayurvedic quacks that prescribe lead. That's like judging all of conventional medicine on a few quacks that have malpractice suits for the crazy stuff they do.
Quack watch is a pretty horrible skeptic site.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Just wondering, if all this 5000 year old "ancient wisdom" was effective and worked, why did we need to advance to western science based medicine? I mean why bother if we already had something that worked? And why is it that life spans didn't increase until science based medicine? Why not just stick with acupuncture, ayurvedic, blood letting and leaches? Honestly curious.
This is a good question. Let's start by saying: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. When looking at average lifespans, you need to take into consideration that infant mortality is factored in there, so people did not just drop dead at 35. Infant mortality rates dropped because Western Allopathic medicine is wonderful. Antibiotics have saved many lives, as have vaccinations. Allopathic medicine is second to none when it comes to acute situations. With that said, it is not perfect. Pharmaceuticals come with many side effects, many of which are worse than the problem they are trying to treat. For many chronic conditions, there is no cure in allopathy. Patients are often given a vague diagnosis like IBS when the problem is something more serious or sometimes told their symptoms are all in their head. Alternative therapies offer a different perspective on the human body and are grounded in science and steeped in tradition. The herbs used are especially powerful for prevention. A skilled practitioner can identify a problem before it becomes a pathology and counsel the client on nutrition, lifestyle, and herbs. It's not a path for those who just want a quick fix or magic bullet. There is no such thing and they may need to wait a long time for allopathic medicine to cure their chronic condition or find a vaccine. Healing takes work. You don't see an aryuvedic doctor for a broken leg. You see them if you've been having symptoms that haven't been resolved by allopathic medicine or if you don't want to take pharmaceuticals for whatever reason, or you just want preventative care. It is an ancient healing modality, but is by no means static. It evolves and advances just as allopathy does; practitioners keep up to date on scientific studies.
So it only works on vague illnesses, in vague ways, and not on anything serious? After 5000 years shouldn't it be more well defined and more effective? Western science based medicine has only been around a hundred years and it's already conquered/eradicated/cured many terminal illnesses. After 5000 years shouldn't alternative medicine have something to show for itself rather than studies showing it's no different than placebo???
I believe you stated earlier that life spans have increased due to Western medicine? That's only one factor among many. And the PP stated that Western medicine is great for acute situations. It absolutely is. However, Western medicine as it is currently practiced leans overwhelmingly towards treating the symptoms, rather than the underlying cause. It generally is not considered to have a preventative focus (not that it can't, it just doesn't).
Where I live, a good portion of the population is focused on a more holistic view of health. They don't shun Western medicine, but recognize it as just one part of the whole. People tend to look for ways in which they can keep themselves healthy, or become healthy and remain so, without waiting until they need the interventions that Western medicine can provide. Subscribing to one does not mean you have to completely denounce the other.
I'd say vaccines are pretty preventative. The ability to prevent smallpox/polio, etc. Increasing the survivability of many types of cancer, etc. Western medicine is incredibly impressive. I'm not up to date on anything cured or prevented by alternative medicine, is there anything? After 5000 years it should be easy to point out multiple historical examples of diseases cured, plagues averted, by alternative medicine, IF it worked like proponents claim. Yet the best we get is it helps with "imbalances"?
*edited for clarity
Are you just being deliberately obtuse?
Obtuse to what?
All you've provided are vague claims. I'm asking for examples of alternative medicine efficacy.
I haven't actually made any vague claims. You seem intent on positioning yourself in a "vs" type of stance.
As the PP originally stated, Western medicine is great for acute care. To some extent, I would include vaccines in that. But, vaccination is a tiny part of our lives, we don't get vaccinations every time we go to see a doctor. I'm not the one stating extremes, and neither was PP, you are. I don't care one way or another what you believe. And I've never followed any ayurvedic anything, but was simply providing another viewpoint that is not black and white. Western medicine does tend to focus on symptomatic treatment, I don't think that's even generally disputed. Again, more holistic approaches look at health differently. It's about caring for your whole self, and trying to maintain health through treating your physical, mental, and emotional health. That's going to be different for each person.
Just as an example, I suffer from migraines. The triggers for migraines are vast and can vary greatly from person to person, as can some of the symptoms. I have Western medication for those times when I cannot prevent one, and even that medication is not always effective. However, I, as many others who get migraines, have been trying to not only identify my triggers, but to find if there are things I can do to diminish their frequency in some other way - such as regular exercise, certain types of exercise, foods I eat, etc. That's holistic. Not just treating the symptoms of my migraine when I get one, but trying to find ways to prevent it in the first place. Really crazy, I know.
Holistic approaches to health care are not in opposition to Western medicine, and are most assuredly a part of its practice.
I have migraines too, quite severe, actually. There are two top treatment centers in the country. I go to one of them. The main focus of my care is on prevention. I do have rescue medicine, of course, and I do take medications to prevent them, but I'm also on a protocol of beneficial supplements and do things like practice good sleep hygiene and exercise -- on my doctor's recommendations.
I also have psoriatic arthritis. I take medication for that, but my rheumatologigst also discussed other strategies like regular exercise and weight reduction for dealing with the pain and fatigue.
Diabetics are routinely given dietary advice.
I could keep giving examples.
It seems to be those trying to decry the benefits of a holistic approach who are going to extremes. I specifically noted that Western medicine "leans overwhelmingly towards treating the symptoms, rather than the underlying cause. It generally is not considered to have a preventative focus." I didn't say that it never takes a preventative approach. Few things in life are either/or. And, specialists are probably more likely to take such an approach.
And you're providing your own experience. I can provide mine as well. I have not seen a specialist for my migraines. I could never afford one. In all the years I have brought it to the attention of my various doctors, the only professional who ever spoke with me about preventative measures was a nurse practitioner. Everyone else just said "here, try this medication." There are probably many reasons our medicine focuses more on symptomatic treatment, some of those being time, money, and the patients themselves wanting a quick-fix. But again, it's "focuses more," not only ever does so.
I don't think I have seen anyone here who is advocating for a holistic approach state that they don't "believe in" or subscribe to Western medicine. It seems like they're [and I'm] advocating for a combined approach. Whereas a lot of other people are advocating only for Western medicine. And then there are the few who have recognized this post is no longer about weight loss, but health, and are at least saying they understand what some of us have said about a holistic approach.
No one is against a holistic approach to health. We're on a site where we regularly discuss matters of fitness and nutrition, after all.
HOWEVER...
The efficacy of ayurveda has yet to be proven by any of you defending it.
And that would be fine, people are entitled to belief, but money changing hands muddied the waters a bit here.
So practitioners who train for years should not charge for their skills and wealth of knowledge? I provided studies exhibiting the efficacy of some popular aryuvedic herbal remedies, which you quickly dismissed. Besides the herbs, the other components of the practice are self care, exercise, and nutrition.
No one here has been able disprove the efficacy of the herbs used in Aryuveda or the modality as a whole. If that is not enough, then I guess the next step is to try some of the remedies yourself.
1. The studies you posted most assuredly did NOT prove the efficacy of anything. One was a preliminary finding. It was 15 years old. Where's the current research that normally follows up promising preliminary findings? There is none. The other two? Rodent studies. No proof of any efficacy for use in humans whatsoever.
2. The burden of proof is on the one who is making claims. It's not up to any of us to prove something doesn't work.
Lots of people charge money for their "skills". Palm readers, card readers, psychics, people who will change the color of your aura, people who will talk to your dead relatives hanging out over your shoulder.
What you get from them is probably about what any of you have been able to show you get from ayurveda. Less money in your wallet.
Regarding what you said about the tv show, you can dismiss the show all you want, but the oncologists findings? What of those?
There IS current research following this Israeli Study: http://imr.sagepub.com/content/32/2/132.long
Some lighter reading in the Wall Street Journal: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304428004579355381156650444
Now, here are more recent studies:
http://asn.sagepub.com/content/6/6/1759091414554946.abstract
http://oto.sagepub.com/content/135/2_suppl/P123.2.full
http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/11/24/1559827614557773.abstract
So there are studies published in peer reviewed journals, showing that sambucus nigra has real benefits, not placebo. Then there is also the fact that it has been used successfully for thousands of years and is still widely used today. Modern science is just catching up to what people have known for a long time. I grow elderberries and make my own extract- very economical. I give it away to my friends and family who ask for it year after year.
Are you seriously defending the TV show?? I don't just blindly believe what that poster was saying and TV shows most certainly do NOT hold up to scientific rigor. They just care about ratings. TV is trash; worse than the internet!
Already touched on the Israeli study.
Wsj- An article based on a huge meta-analysis from journals. Oh wait from just a single journal... The Journal of Dietary Supplements. I wonder why they found results....
First article- Speaks to the effects of elderberry on rats after brain damage. Normally this procedure is done to mimic Alzheimer's or cognitive impairment. Since this is not my field I am not qualified to comment on it beyond the normal issue; only done on rats and not people. (See question below)
Second behind a pay wall
Third is from a journal that has no impact factor at all. Pubmed does not even index this journal.
You need to look more into the sources you cite. Moreover, do you not find it odd that you must reach to such poor and obscure journals for support?
However this is moot. I will grant you that these berries could reduce the effect of both A and B of influenza (either through length or mitigating symptoms). This gets you no closer to showing that aryuvedic medicine (or theory) is correct.
On a side-note, just because a journal is peer reviewed does not make it science. A lot of the CAM journals you linked to earlier were also peer-reviewed.
I would like an answer to a simple question. How difficult would it be for a researcher to do a double blind survey using the berry extract? If it is so easy why hasn't it been done before now?
*edited for grammar issues*0 -
TheDevastator wrote: »I don't know a lot about ayurveda but triphala ( a combination of dried fruits) has proven benefits which I have used in the past. They also make a golden milk from turmeric which has proven anti-cancer benefits and several others.
Studies please.0 -
Interesting link regarding the publisher of the studies noted above:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60/suppl/DC10 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Just wondering, if all this 5000 year old "ancient wisdom" was effective and worked, why did we need to advance to western science based medicine? I mean why bother if we already had something that worked? And why is it that life spans didn't increase until science based medicine? Why not just stick with acupuncture, ayurvedic, blood letting and leaches? Honestly curious.
This is a good question. Let's start by saying: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. When looking at average lifespans, you need to take into consideration that infant mortality is factored in there, so people did not just drop dead at 35. Infant mortality rates dropped because Western Allopathic medicine is wonderful. Antibiotics have saved many lives, as have vaccinations. Allopathic medicine is second to none when it comes to acute situations. With that said, it is not perfect. Pharmaceuticals come with many side effects, many of which are worse than the problem they are trying to treat. For many chronic conditions, there is no cure in allopathy. Patients are often given a vague diagnosis like IBS when the problem is something more serious or sometimes told their symptoms are all in their head. Alternative therapies offer a different perspective on the human body and are grounded in science and steeped in tradition. The herbs used are especially powerful for prevention. A skilled practitioner can identify a problem before it becomes a pathology and counsel the client on nutrition, lifestyle, and herbs. It's not a path for those who just want a quick fix or magic bullet. There is no such thing and they may need to wait a long time for allopathic medicine to cure their chronic condition or find a vaccine. Healing takes work. You don't see an aryuvedic doctor for a broken leg. You see them if you've been having symptoms that haven't been resolved by allopathic medicine or if you don't want to take pharmaceuticals for whatever reason, or you just want preventative care. It is an ancient healing modality, but is by no means static. It evolves and advances just as allopathy does; practitioners keep up to date on scientific studies.
So it only works on vague illnesses, in vague ways, and not on anything serious? After 5000 years shouldn't it be more well defined and more effective? Western science based medicine has only been around a hundred years and it's already conquered/eradicated/cured many terminal illnesses. After 5000 years shouldn't alternative medicine have something to show for itself rather than studies showing it's no different than placebo???
I believe you stated earlier that life spans have increased due to Western medicine? That's only one factor among many. And the PP stated that Western medicine is great for acute situations. It absolutely is. However, Western medicine as it is currently practiced leans overwhelmingly towards treating the symptoms, rather than the underlying cause. It generally is not considered to have a preventative focus (not that it can't, it just doesn't).
Where I live, a good portion of the population is focused on a more holistic view of health. They don't shun Western medicine, but recognize it as just one part of the whole. People tend to look for ways in which they can keep themselves healthy, or become healthy and remain so, without waiting until they need the interventions that Western medicine can provide. Subscribing to one does not mean you have to completely denounce the other.
I'd say vaccines are pretty preventative. The ability to prevent smallpox/polio, etc. Increasing the survivability of many types of cancer, etc. Western medicine is incredibly impressive. I'm not up to date on anything cured or prevented by alternative medicine, is there anything? After 5000 years it should be easy to point out multiple historical examples of diseases cured, plagues averted, by alternative medicine, IF it worked like proponents claim. Yet the best we get is it helps with "imbalances"?
*edited for clarity
Are you just being deliberately obtuse?
Obtuse to what?
All you've provided are vague claims. I'm asking for examples of alternative medicine efficacy.
I haven't actually made any vague claims. You seem intent on positioning yourself in a "vs" type of stance.
As the PP originally stated, Western medicine is great for acute care. To some extent, I would include vaccines in that. But, vaccination is a tiny part of our lives, we don't get vaccinations every time we go to see a doctor. I'm not the one stating extremes, and neither was PP, you are. I don't care one way or another what you believe. And I've never followed any ayurvedic anything, but was simply providing another viewpoint that is not black and white. Western medicine does tend to focus on symptomatic treatment, I don't think that's even generally disputed. Again, more holistic approaches look at health differently. It's about caring for your whole self, and trying to maintain health through treating your physical, mental, and emotional health. That's going to be different for each person.
Just as an example, I suffer from migraines. The triggers for migraines are vast and can vary greatly from person to person, as can some of the symptoms. I have Western medication for those times when I cannot prevent one, and even that medication is not always effective. However, I, as many others who get migraines, have been trying to not only identify my triggers, but to find if there are things I can do to diminish their frequency in some other way - such as regular exercise, certain types of exercise, foods I eat, etc. That's holistic. Not just treating the symptoms of my migraine when I get one, but trying to find ways to prevent it in the first place. Really crazy, I know.
Holistic approaches to health care are not in opposition to Western medicine, and are most assuredly a part of its practice.
I have migraines too, quite severe, actually. There are two top treatment centers in the country. I go to one of them. The main focus of my care is on prevention. I do have rescue medicine, of course, and I do take medications to prevent them, but I'm also on a protocol of beneficial supplements and do things like practice good sleep hygiene and exercise -- on my doctor's recommendations.
I also have psoriatic arthritis. I take medication for that, but my rheumatologigst also discussed other strategies like regular exercise and weight reduction for dealing with the pain and fatigue.
Diabetics are routinely given dietary advice.
I could keep giving examples.
It seems to be those trying to decry the benefits of a holistic approach who are going to extremes. I specifically noted that Western medicine "leans overwhelmingly towards treating the symptoms, rather than the underlying cause. It generally is not considered to have a preventative focus." I didn't say that it never takes a preventative approach. Few things in life are either/or. And, specialists are probably more likely to take such an approach.
And you're providing your own experience. I can provide mine as well. I have not seen a specialist for my migraines. I could never afford one. In all the years I have brought it to the attention of my various doctors, the only professional who ever spoke with me about preventative measures was a nurse practitioner. Everyone else just said "here, try this medication." There are probably many reasons our medicine focuses more on symptomatic treatment, some of those being time, money, and the patients themselves wanting a quick-fix. But again, it's "focuses more," not only ever does so.
I don't think I have seen anyone here who is advocating for a holistic approach state that they don't "believe in" or subscribe to Western medicine. It seems like they're [and I'm] advocating for a combined approach. Whereas a lot of other people are advocating only for Western medicine. And then there are the few who have recognized this post is no longer about weight loss, but health, and are at least saying they understand what some of us have said about a holistic approach.
No one is against a holistic approach to health. We're on a site where we regularly discuss matters of fitness and nutrition, after all.
HOWEVER...
The efficacy of ayurveda has yet to be proven by any of you defending it.
And that would be fine, people are entitled to belief, but money changing hands muddied the waters a bit here.
So practitioners who train for years should not charge for their skills and wealth of knowledge? I provided studies exhibiting the efficacy of some popular aryuvedic herbal remedies, which you quickly dismissed. Besides the herbs, the other components of the practice are self care, exercise, and nutrition.
No one here has been able disprove the efficacy of the herbs used in Aryuveda or the modality as a whole. If that is not enough, then I guess the next step is to try some of the remedies yourself.
1. The studies you posted most assuredly did NOT prove the efficacy of anything. One was a preliminary finding. It was 15 years old. Where's the current research that normally follows up promising preliminary findings? There is none. The other two? Rodent studies. No proof of any efficacy for use in humans whatsoever.
2. The burden of proof is on the one who is making claims. It's not up to any of us to prove something doesn't work.
Lots of people charge money for their "skills". Palm readers, card readers, psychics, people who will change the color of your aura, people who will talk to your dead relatives hanging out over your shoulder.
What you get from them is probably about what any of you have been able to show you get from ayurveda. Less money in your wallet.
Regarding what you said about the tv show, you can dismiss the show all you want, but the oncologists findings? What of those?
There IS current research following this Israeli Study: http://imr.sagepub.com/content/32/2/132.long
Some lighter reading in the Wall Street Journal: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304428004579355381156650444
Now, here are more recent studies:
http://asn.sagepub.com/content/6/6/1759091414554946.abstract
http://oto.sagepub.com/content/135/2_suppl/P123.2.full
http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/11/24/1559827614557773.abstract
So there are studies published in peer reviewed journals, showing that sambucus nigra has real benefits, not placebo. Then there is also the fact that it has been used successfully for thousands of years and is still widely used today. Modern science is just catching up to what people have known for a long time. I grow elderberries and make my own extract- very economical. I give it away to my friends and family who ask for it year after year.
Are you seriously defending the TV show?? I don't just blindly believe what that poster was saying and TV shows most certainly do NOT hold up to scientific rigor. They just care about ratings. TV is trash; worse than the internet!
Already touched on the Israeli study.
Wsj- An article based on a huge meta-analysis from journals. Oh wait from just a single journal... The Journal of Dietary Supplements. I wonder why they found results....
First article- Speaks to the effects of elderberry on rats after brain damage. Normally this procedure is done to mimic Alzheimer's or cognitive impairment. Since this is not my field I am not qualified to comment on it beyond the normal issue; only done on rats and not people. (See question below)
Second behind a pay wall
Third is from a journal that has no impact factor at all. Pubmed does not even index this journal.
You need to look more into the sources you cite. Moreover, do you not find it odd that you must reach to such poor and obscure journals for support?
However this is moot. I will grant you that these berries could reduce the effect of both A and B of influenza (either through length or mitigating symptoms). This gets you no closer to showing that aryuvedic medicine (or theory) is correct.
On a side-note, just because a journal is peer reviewed does not make it science. A lot of the CAM journals you linked to earlier were also peer-reviewed.
I would like an answer to a simple question. How difficult would it be for a researcher to do a double blind survey using the berry extract? If it is so easy why hasn't it been done before now?
*edited for grammar issues*
Ayurvedic "medicine" employs several different herbal remedies. A very small percentage of them have shown some preliminary evidence of minor efficacy. Therefore Ayurveda works.
Right.0 -
TheDevastator wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Also, please read theses link. People who sought out ayurvedic treatment that did not end well.
http://whatstheharm.net/ayurvedicmedicine.html
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5326a3.htm
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/chopra.html
You are judging all of ayurveda on a few cases of ayurvedic quacks that prescribe lead. That's like judging all of conventional medicine on a few quacks that have malpractice suits for the crazy stuff they do.
Quack watch is a pretty horrible skeptic site.
How dare Quackwatch use peer-reviewed research to throw shade on alternative-to-medicine practitioners and therapies!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »Interesting link regarding the publisher of the studies noted above:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60/suppl/DC1
along the same line
http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800
Did a "fake" study got published and hit all the headlines.0 -
I fooled my hubby in to a home "cure" for cold sores that went like this. He could not find any holes in my argument and he remains cured to this day. I shared my "cure" with my (MD) sister and she cried, "unethical!" If I were a doctor maybe, but I made no special claims. Here's my "cure".
Cold sores can be caused by stress. B vitamins are good for stress. I found a B vitamin formulation that had a large label "STRESS" on it. I told hubby how it worked and I stressed it was to reduce his stress. His chronic cold sores cleared up and he continues to take his "STRESS" pill daily.
Can you guess how this worked? What are the flaws in my strategy?0 -
I remember that eat-chocolate-to-lose-weight thing. Right off the bat I had a feeling it was too good to be true.
0 -
I fooled my hubby in to a home "cure" for cold sores that went like this. He could not find any holes in my argument and he remains cured to this day. I shared my "cure" with my (MD) sister and she cried, "unethical!" If I were a doctor maybe, but I made no special claims. Here's my "cure".
Cold sores can be caused by stress. B vitamins are good for stress. I found a B vitamin formulation that had a large label "STRESS" on it. I told hubby how it worked and I stressed it was to reduce his stress. His chronic cold sores cleared up and he continues to take his "STRESS" pill daily.
Can you guess how this worked? What are the flaws in my strategy?
It works the same way a lot of ayurveda works.
0 -
I fooled my hubby in to a home "cure" for cold sores that went like this. He could not find any holes in my argument and he remains cured to this day. I shared my "cure" with my (MD) sister and she cried, "unethical!" If I were a doctor maybe, but I made no special claims. Here's my "cure".
Cold sores can be caused by stress. B vitamins are good for stress. I found a B vitamin formulation that had a large label "STRESS" on it. I told hubby how it worked and I stressed it was to reduce his stress. His chronic cold sores cleared up and he continues to take his "STRESS" pill daily.
Can you guess how this worked? What are the flaws in my strategy?
Oh, you vixen, you!
That's pretty darned good.
Think anything works and...well....it will for the person thinking it works.,.
0 -
And honestly, if you've been duped by some of these things, I don't think you should feel bad. Just pick yourself up, admit that it's woo and move on before actual damage is done. Smart, desperate people also get fooled. Look at Steve Jobs.0
-
P.S. I've had no success with other B vitamin products. If it doesn't say STRESS on the label he doesn't think it works. Fifteen years cured by the way.0
-
This thread makes me so sad.
Working in the health field, I see the devastating effects medical conditions have on patients and their families. It is even worse when one delays what could be life saving treatment because they get sucked into the alternative medicine schpiel. There is a reason there are standards in medicine for treating specific diseases.
Tell me- how do you think you will feel having to tell a loved one that you are no longer able to be treated and your condition is terminal because you you chose an alternative method and your disease progressed even though the "placebo effect" had you feeling better?0 -
You know what they call alternative medicine that works? They just call it medicine, no need for adjectives.Aryuveda, TCM (traditional Chinese medicine), Western herbalism, etc... You may think of these things as "alternative" medicine, but they are long held traditions, which have their own healing model, which differs from allopathic medicine (the modality encompassing the western diagnoses you are accustomed to hearing about: cancer, bronchitis, congestive heart failure, etc...).
You're assuming that because a fact exists in both systems (this herb helps with problem X), that it somehow implies the underlying theory (note this is the proper, scientific use of theory, as a in guiding, predication making principle) is sound. No. For Aryuveda itself to have evidence that it works, it needs to make predictions that are tested and shown valid. The idea that Aryuveda uses herbs that can show promise under actual scientific testing is a merit for the scientific method, but says nothing about Aryuveda being sound.
The whole thing gets compounded by bits of fetishizing other cultures. If I tried to stand here and use the classic 5 elements from Western traditions that have existed for 5000 years, people would tell me I'm an idiot to say your body lacks fire element, or to talk about having too many ill humors.0 -
You know what they call alternative medicine that works? They just call it medicine, no need for adjectives.Aryuveda, TCM (traditional Chinese medicine), Western herbalism, etc... You may think of these things as "alternative" medicine, but they are long held traditions, which have their own healing model, which differs from allopathic medicine (the modality encompassing the western diagnoses you are accustomed to hearing about: cancer, bronchitis, congestive heart failure, etc...).
You're assuming that because a fact exists in both systems (this herb helps with problem X), that it somehow implies the underlying theory (note this is the proper, scientific use of theory, as a in guiding, predication making principle) is sound. No. For Aryuveda itself to have evidence that it works, it needs to make predictions that are tested and shown valid. The idea that Aryuveda uses herbs that can show promise under actual scientific testing is a merit for the scientific method, but says nothing about Aryuveda being sound.
The whole thing gets compounded by bits of fetishizing other cultures. If I tried to stand here and use the classic 5 elements from Western traditions that have existed for 5000 years, people would tell me I'm an idiot to say your body lacks fire element, or to talk about having too many ill humors.
False!!!
I have issues with inaccurate terms like Alternative Medicine. It is the jargon we are accustomed to, but the word implies that it should be used in place of allopathic medicine, which is not the case. The intention of different healing modalities is to to support the patient's wellness and fill in the gaps that allopathy could not fill. Sometimes what is needed to do that is a different perspective (i.e. model for assessing the patient) or different therapies that do not exist in the allopathic model. A good allopathic doctor knows their limitations and when to refer out, as does a competent aryuvedic doctor know when to refer someone back to their biomedical doc. Unfortunately we've grown accustomed to the term "Alternative" medicine being thrown around. Complimentary Medicine is a much more accurate term. A great doctor continues their education and learns about Complimentary healing modalities. Different therepeutic modalities compliment one another, creating a complex of relationships in which the whole is much more than the sum of its parts. In light of the unique strengths and weaknesses offered by different traditions, including allopathic and biomedical, all medical modalities are complimentary.
Another term that irks me because it is so inaccurate is "Modern Medicine" or "Modern Western Medicine" because the precise term is Allopathic Medicine or BioMedical Medicine, which are the healing traditions we are accustomed to today and are about 100 years old. Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tibetan Medicine, Accupuncture, and Aryuveda are also "Modern Medicine" because although their inception was 1000's of years ago, they are not static and the methods have evolved and are still evolving as practitioners hone in their skills in the modern day. "Modern Western Medicine" includes the allopathic and biomedical traditions, but other medical traditions have also originated in the West including: osteopathy, western herbalism, psychotherapy and chiropractic. They may not be the status quo, but accusations against their validity is based on conjecture.
The burden of proof IS also on those who adamantly claim that any alternative to allopathy does not work. So far people on this thread have attempted to disprove aryuvedic therapies by citing a TV segment, biased personal websites, and graphic design fails. I'm curious why the person (@cwilso37) who is able to pick apart any study posted is okay with a TV show being a reference to a claim?0 -
I did post one case of negative proof. Which it's not my burden to do. You didn't read the link, apparently. The case of David Flint, pronounced cured by his ayurvedic healers. He died of his leukemia. He was even seen by Deepak Chopra.
You clearly don't know how debating works if you insist that someone asserting a negative claim is the one who needs to provide evidence.
It's amazing. 5000 years. You have not been able to find one single case to show a legitimate finding of any sort.
You keep throwing words around, but they're just saying the same thing. The practice is about tradition, and people believe in it. That's all you've got.0 -
Yes, maybe we are posting anecdotes, but you have yet to provide one ayurvadic "cure" or any peer-reviewed research saying that ayurvedic medicine is anything buy placebo effect. We're saying relying on "tradition" (one of the most common used logical fallacies) can hurt or even kill patients. Look at Steve Jobs--diagnosed with early pancreatic cancer, and even the slower-growing type. If he'd had the surgery, he'd be alive today. Instead, he went with alternative and diet therapies, and look where it got him--dead at 56. Here's another anecdote--one of my patients was a woman diagnosed with breast cancer. Surgery was recommended, but she refused, preferring to go to an alternative practitioner. When we saw her again, about a year later, her tumor had grown and erupted through the skin of her breast. She had mets everywhere. There was nothing that could be done for her at this stage. Many of us posting have seen first hand what alternative "medicine" does, and it's NOT curing people. Again, it might make you feel better, but it isn't fixing the underlying problem.0
-
Why has nobody mentioned the healing properties of animal penii? XD Chinese medicine is a crock.0
-
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/steve-jobs-medical-reality-distortion-field/
...So, until I can get my hands on the book (and actually have time to read it, or at least the chapters on Jobs’ illness), what can I reasonably conclude based on what is known now? First, my original assessment has changed only slightly. Based on this new information, it appears likely to me that Jobs probably did decrease his chances of survival through his nine month sojourn into woo. On the other hand, it still remains very unclear by just how much he decreased his chances of survival. My best guesstimate is that, thanks to the indolent nature of functional insulinomas and lead time bias, it was probably only by a relatively small percentage.
I also feel compelled to point out that accepting that Jobs’ choice to try “alternative medicine” first probably decreased somewhat his chances of surviving his cancer is a very different thing than concluding that “alternative medicine killed Steve Jobs,” which is in essence what Ramzi Amri and Brian Dunning both did. The first statement is a nuanced assessment of probabilities based on science and taking into account uncertainty; the latter statement is black-and-white thinking, in essence the mirror image of Nicholas Gonzalez’s claim that if only Jobs had come to see him he could have been saved.0 -
0
-
Look at Steve Jobs--diagnosed with early pancreatic cancer, and even the slower-growing type. If he'd had the surgery, he'd be alive today. Instead, he went with alternative and diet therapies, and look where it got him--dead at 56. Here's another anecdote--one of my patients was a woman diagnosed with breast cancer. Surgery was recommended, but she refused, preferring to go to an alternative practitioner. When we saw her again, about a year later, her tumor had grown and erupted through the skin of her breast. She had mets everywhere. There was nothing that could be done for her at this stage. Many of us posting have seen first hand what alternative "medicine" does, and it's NOT curing people. Again, it might make you feel better, but it isn't fixing the underlying problem.
Medical professionals don't all share your optimism about what Steve Jobs' prognosis would have been if he had gone purely with western medicine.
And as to your anecdote, I imagine every single person on this thread could contribute a personal anecdote about someone they know whose cancer was not cured by conventional medicine.
In fact you could make a very good case that with some cancers the best approach we currently have would be to try to increase the quality of life for the patient for the remaining time they have left, which is not something that is often facilitated by conventional treatments, particularly chemotherapy.
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 96.4K 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