Ayurvedic nutrition for weight loss (and general sanity)
Options
Replies
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Overweight is often secondary to a more serious pathology, usually a chronic issue. If you can address and remedy the primary cause, the overweight will invariably be resolved. That is the beauty of a holistic approach like aryuveda; it gets to the root of the problem, rather than chasing around symptoms.
I also want to add to my initial statement. It is possible to be in optimum health and overweight. It is just often a visual indicator of an underlying problem.
You can't be overweight without eating too much.
Even if you have underlying issues, you still have to correct the fact that you simply shovel too much food into your face.
Please tell me how herbs correct the underlying issues.
Herbs help resolve imbalances in the body just as proper nutrition does, and even some pharmaceuticals.mamapeach910 wrote: »
Often is the key word here, not always, certainly not. Many obese people experience true hunger and malnutrition. The set point theory and the discovery of leptin sheds a lot of light on this fact.
What are these "imbalances" of which you speak? And how are they identified and monitored
If they are an actual illness and herbs help to resolve them there would be documentable proof, safety studies and double blind testing and the herbs would become medicine
There is. They are.
Please post them. Burden of proof and all that.
Well, since this is an aryuvedic thread, let's look up elderberry, trifala, and ashwaganda.
Studies exist and they look promising, plus these herbs have been used for 1000s of years and are still widely used today. As I said earlier, science is catching up.
Elderberry Extract Study:
http://imr.sagepub.com/content/32/2/132.long
Triphala Study:
So many studies done on this ancient aryuvedic herbal formula:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=triphala
Triphala Exhibits Anti-Arthritic Effect by Ameliorating Bone and Cartilage Degradation in Adjuvant-Induced Arthritic Rats
Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08820139.2015.1017047
Ashwaganda:
So many studies have been done on this herb:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=ashwaganda
Ashwaganda (withania somnifera)- a promising herb for neuroregenerative therapy for stroke
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4392656/
Okay, first, the fact that something is researched (you pointed out ALL the research on two of the herbs) is meaningless as far as proving it has any merit:
http://www.unm.edu/~gfmiller/cycle_effects_on_tips.pdf
We WERE discussing ayurvedic medicine and the way it "works". Not one of the studies you posted has anything to do with real life clinical trials in humans. The flu duration being shortened is not an "imbalance" in the body.
I do not dispute the fact that there are some herbs that work for as aids treating illness. Slippery elm bark is great for a sore throat, there's a nice tea I buy which has it in there and it's my favorite treatment for one.
But, that's not what we were talking about. This whole idea of the body being imbalanced is one that you'd need to show me... what's an imbalance? And how do the herbs balance it? Studies in humans to that effect, please.
Elderberry shortens the duration of the flu; flu and its accompanying symptoms throw the body out of balance. Ameliorating the symptoms by getting to the underlying cause brings the body closer to homeostasis. In aryuveda, you would not call it the flu, you'd call it Kapha Pitta because of all the phlem (Kapha) and the inflammation/fever (Pitta).
No, the study did not say that it got to the underlying cause. The study was equivocal when it came to defining just how it worked. It offered up a few suggestions and the in vitro evidence, that's it.
Please explain what "imbalance" means. You keep saying it, but you've yet to explain it.
What exactly is throwing the body out of homeostasis?
0 -
Ok, your link says the studies on elderberry are promising and the flu shot does not convey 100% immunity. Woohoo.
You're sciencing wrong.
Preliminary findings don't prove your point. They merely show that maybe more research might be warranted. That's it.Elderberry: There’s some promising data with elderberry suggesting it can reduce flu-like symptoms, but these findings it needs to be confirmed in larger trials. We’ve seen this pattern with just about every herbal remedy: Promising preliminary data, followed by less impressive data when better trials are done. It would be nice to see further studies to evaluate its effectiveness.
Of course the flu vaccine isn't 100% effective, because they can only predict which strains might be prevalent, but prediction isn't always accurate.
0 -
[/quote]
Well, since this is an aryuvedic thread, let's look up elderberry, trifala, and ashwaganda.
Studies exist and they look promising, plus these herbs have been used for 1000s of years and are still widely used today. As I said earlier, science is catching up.
Elderberry Extract Study:
http://imr.sagepub.com/content/32/2/132.long
Triphala Study:
So many studies done on this ancient aryuvedic herbal formula:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=triphala
Triphala Exhibits Anti-Arthritic Effect by Ameliorating Bone and Cartilage Degradation in Adjuvant-Induced Arthritic Rats
Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08820139.2015.1017047
Ashwaganda:
So many studies have been done on this herb:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=ashwaganda
Ashwaganda (withania somnifera)- a promising herb for neuroregenerative therapy for stroke
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4392656/
[/quote]
With all due respect, did you actually look at the results?
As to the first study, the authors conclude that there needs to be more research done. This was 12 years ago. If there was an actual effect, then far better research would have been completed by now. If you look at figure one, it shows a clear effect on the second day. Either this is a miracle drug or there seems to be something wrong with the study. (Also the journal it is published in is 203 out of 256 with an impact factor of 1.095).
The links for the second and third show lists of research. With the majority of articles in journals with the words alternative and complementary in the titles, it is hard to take this seriously.0 -
Double post due to MFP error0
-
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.0 -
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.
Please, some evidence, with sources, for chronic conditions ayurveda has cured.
0 -
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???0 -
It is not for hunger. Lemon helps start or waken the body in the morning so it it is suggested to jumpstart your day or digestion. Also lemon water is said to be a fat flusher as well as doing other things.myfelinepal wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »History and Development of the Citrus Industry
...First Citrus Fruit to Reach Europe.—The citron (Citrus medica L.) was the first citrus fruit to come to the notice of Europeans and was for many years the only one known. It first attracted attention in Media, where it was then supposed to be indigenous. Apparently it soon spread into Persia, where it came to the attention of the Hebrews and the Greeks. Although it is not now considered to be indigenous to Media, the steps by which it was first brought there from its native habitat in India or Indo-China are not known.
...Orange Introduced into Australia in 1788.—Citrus was first planted in New South Wales by the colonists of the First Fleet under Captain Arthur Phillip, who sailed for Australia in 1787 with instructions to introduce plants and seeds at his discretion (Bowman, 1955). At Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where the expedition stopped for one month, the colonists purchased orange, lime, and lemon trees. On arrival at Port Jackson on January 26, 1788, the first work performed was the planting of the seeds and plants obtained in the voyage from England. According to Bowman (1955), oranges, limes and lemons were flourishing at the end of the first year of settlement.
Okay, you got me. I did too little research at 4am. But, the latest research suggests Australia as the origin if you search 'History, Global Distribution, and Nutritional Importance of Citrus Fruits'
However, I've never seen proof of lemons doing anything for hunger.
0 -
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???
But you also have to be able to throw in other buzzwords when describing what it does, like synergy, which, to be fair, is a very fun word.
The appeal to nature happening in this thread is amazing. It's woo, pure and simple. All of the things it does are only discussed in the most vague of terms because it doesn't actually do anything.
That being said, if it isn't harming you, then fine; do whatever. The problem is, and always has been, acting like it is the One True Way (TM).
0 -
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???
But you also have to be able to throw in other buzzwords when describing what it does, like synergy, which, to be fair, is a very fun word.
The appeal to nature happening in this thread is amazing. It's woo, pure and simple. All of the things it does are only discussed in the most vague of terms because it doesn't actually do anything.
That being said, if it isn't harming you, then fine; do whatever. The problem is, and always has been, acting like it is the One True Way (TM).
Yup, though to be fair, I don't think anyone is acting as if it's the one true way.
The paying money for the phone consultation service is dubious, though. If it's something that the OP personally feels she gets her money's worth from? Well, that's up to her to decide.
0 -
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???
But you also have to be able to throw in other buzzwords when describing what it does, like synergy, which, to be fair, is a very fun word.
The appeal to nature happening in this thread is amazing. It's woo, pure and simple. All of the things it does are only discussed in the most vague of terms because it doesn't actually do anything.
That being said, if it isn't harming you, then fine; do whatever. The problem is, and always has been, acting like it is the One True Way (TM).
Yup, though to be fair, I don't think anyone is acting as if it's the one true way.
The paying money for the phone consultation service is dubious, though. If it's something that the OP personally feels she gets her money's worth from? Well, that's up to her to decide.
Excellent point. I was thinking more generally, but definitely did not specify that as opposed to this thread.
0 -
It's funny. We have a tendency, as people, to live under this compulsive belief that our bodies are given to us like old, clapped out, second hand cars. Sure, we can get from a to b fine, we're comfortable enough but we're just not as good as we could be. But with tweaking here, a few replacements, maybe a cosmetic upgrade, we'll be better than ever.
This kind of thinking is even more apparent when it comes to weightloss. Suddenly you find that your body needs to be kickstarted, your digestive system boosted, your fat flushed and all those nasty toxin cleansed. By the end of it, you're wondering how you even managed to function before, with all the outside, often expensive and elaborate treatments needed to just keep your heart beating.
The thing is, your body (minus unavoidable illness) is a friggin Rolls Royce of cars. Your body is strong, efficient, adaptable and unbelievably resilient. Your digestive system is a wonder. We can eat near enough anything, survive in any terrain and weather and endure unbelievable hardships. Your body is adaptable enough to work with whatever you give it. A diet solely of meat, fish and blubber? Works great. A diet entirely of cabbage soup? Gassy, but still working.
I'm not saying "don't try to eat healthy and exercise". A varied diet and lots of movement has great physical and psychological benefits. What I am saying is that we shouldn't fall prey to the notion that, by eating a handful of berries or drinking lemon every morning, that we have discovered a convenient miracle "cure" to what our rusty old bodies, with all those thousands of years uselessly evolving and adapting to keep us alive, has completely f*cked up.
It's more sustainable, easier and cheaper in the long run to keep to the very basic and simple rules of eating in moderation and exercising frequently that is the general backbone to losing weight and maintaining it afterwards. Boring, I know, but sometimes the best answers are the simplest.0 -
ShareenaFulton wrote: »It's funny. We have a tendency, as people, to live under this compulsive belief that our bodies are given to us like old, clapped out, second hand cars. Sure, we can get from a to b fine, we're comfortable enough but we're just not as good as we could be. But with tweaking here, a few replacements, maybe a cosmetic upgrade, we'll be better than ever.
This kind of thinking is even more apparent when it comes to weightloss. Suddenly you find that your body needs to be kickstarted, your digestive system boosted, your fat flushed and all those nasty toxin cleansed. By the end of it, you're wondering how you even managed to function before, with all the outside, often expensive and elaborate treatments needed to just keep your heart beating.
The thing is, your body (minus unavoidable illness) is a friggin Rolls Royce of cars. Your body is strong, efficient, adaptable and unbelievably resilient. Your digestive system is a wonder. We can eat near enough anything, survive in any terrain and weather and endure unbelievable hardships. Your body is adaptable enough to work with whatever you give it. A diet solely of meat, fish and blubber? Works great. A diet entirely of cabbage soup? Gassy, but still working.
I'm not saying "don't try to eat healthy and exercise". A varied diet and lots of movement has great physical and psychological benefits. What I am saying is that we shouldn't fall prey to the notion that, by eating a handful of berries or drinking lemon every morning, that we have discovered a convenient miracle "cure" to what our rusty old bodies, with all those thousands of years uselessly evolving and adapting to keep us alive, has completely f*cked up.
It's more sustainable, easier and cheaper in the long run to keep to the very basic and simple rules of eating in moderation and exercising frequently that is the general backbone to losing weight and maintaining it afterwards. Boring, I know, but sometimes the best answers are the simplest.
Although maybe a Land Rover or tank!0 -
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.0 -
hollyrayburn wrote: »[Overweight is often secondary to a more serious pathology, usually a chronic issue.If you can address and remedy the primary cause, the overweight will invariably be resolved. That is the beauty of a holistic approach like aryuveda; it gets to the root of the problem, rather than chasing around symptoms.
I also want to add to my initial statement. It is possible to be in optimum health and overweight. It is just often a visual indicator of an underlying problem.
Chronically eating too many calories.
Absolutely.0 -
I cannot believe all of the negative comments. Also I watched a documentary called "Fed Up" and learned that a calorie is not just a calorie, it's all in how your body digests them. Anyway, if you feel this is helping (paying attention to your body is always a good thing if you ask me) then good for you. Hope it works for you, can't hurt anyway. Learning is never a waste.
Nope. If a person eats too many calories they will gain weight, if they eat too few calories they will lose weight, and if they eat the same amount of calories as they burn, they will maintain weight.
As far as weight management goes, a calorie is a calorie.
As far as nutrition goes, foods have different nutrients and therefore fortify your body in different ways. But, this has nothing to do with weight loss.
0 -
No, this is inaccurate information.angelexperiment wrote: »
It is not for hunger. Lemon helps start or waken the body in the morning so it it is suggested to jumpstart your day or digestion. Also lemon water is said to be a fat flusher as well as doing other things.myfelinepal wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »History and Development of the Citrus Industry
...First Citrus Fruit to Reach Europe.—The citron (Citrus medica L.) was the first citrus fruit to come to the notice of Europeans and was for many years the only one known. It first attracted attention in Media, where it was then supposed to be indigenous. Apparently it soon spread into Persia, where it came to the attention of the Hebrews and the Greeks. Although it is not now considered to be indigenous to Media, the steps by which it was first brought there from its native habitat in India or Indo-China are not known.
...Orange Introduced into Australia in 1788.—Citrus was first planted in New South Wales by the colonists of the First Fleet under Captain Arthur Phillip, who sailed for Australia in 1787 with instructions to introduce plants and seeds at his discretion (Bowman, 1955). At Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where the expedition stopped for one month, the colonists purchased orange, lime, and lemon trees. On arrival at Port Jackson on January 26, 1788, the first work performed was the planting of the seeds and plants obtained in the voyage from England. According to Bowman (1955), oranges, limes and lemons were flourishing at the end of the first year of settlement.
Okay, you got me. I did too little research at 4am. But, the latest research suggests Australia as the origin if you search 'History, Global Distribution, and Nutritional Importance of Citrus Fruits'
However, I've never seen proof of lemons doing anything for hunger.
Lemon is delicious--I love lemon meringue pie, lemon frosting on cupcakes, lemon in my water, lemon in my tea, and lemon scones--but it does burn fat at all. As to whether it wakes a person up and "jump starts" their day, that would be an individual experience.
0 -
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
0 -
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?
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions