Ayurvedic nutrition for weight loss (and general sanity)
Options
Replies
-
kshama2001 wrote: »The placebo effect screws up research because the putative placebo has an effect when it is supposed to have no effect.
Also, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2582668/
On February 26, 2008, PLoS Medicine published a meta-analysis that my colleagues and I had conducted on antidepressant medication (1). Most meta-analyses suffer from publication bias, which can happen when pharmaceutical companies withhold unsuccessful trials from publication (2, 3). To circumvent this, we used the Freedom of Information act in the U.S. to obtain the data on all clinical trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the licensing of the four new-generation antidepressants.
The results of our meta-analysis showed that people got better on medication, but they also got better on placebo, and the difference between the two was small. In fact, it was below the criterion for clinical significance established by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), which sets treatment guidelines for the National Health Service in the UK. Clinical significance was found only in a few relatively small studies conducted on patients with extremely severe levels of depression.
You're again missing what this is trying to say. It isn't saying that placebos work as well as actual antidepressants, it's saying that antidepressants are working as badly as a placebo.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???
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.0 -
The following seems to sum up the dichotomy of opinions in this thread so well:
Shared medical endeavors are often frustrated by communication block, some of which stem from differences in language used by practitioners of various modalities. Apparent disparities in vocabulary and jargon may mask fundamental agreement in ideas and approach. On the other hand, lack of clarity can obscure important differences in both guiding principles and techniques. All too often, dogmatic attachments to words and specific formulations of belief, opinion, and theory exist. If the "correct" words or phrases are not used, then the speaker must be wrong!
Entrenched disagreement between dedicated orthodox and holistic practitioners becomes irrelevant when seen in the context of therapeutic ecology. Characteristics of open-mindless and tolerance should be common to all involved in health care, whether practitioners, researchers, or patients. Medical modalities with foundations outside the biomedical model should not be ignored or discounted simply because they exemplify a different belief system. They should be respected because they represent an enrichment of possibilities, not scorned as a challenge to the status quo.
Such mutually supportive endeavors in health care bear many kinds of fruit, and everyone involved will benefit. Health service administrators will appreciate the economic savings gleaned from a reduced dependence upon costly medical technology. A proportion of procedures and treatments that currently utilize expensive drugs or surgery may be replaced by more appropriate techniques from other healing modalities. For example, run-of-the-mill gallbladder removal might be avoided through the skilled use of appropriate herbs.
Excerpt from 'Medical Herbalism: the science and practice of herbal medicine', David Hoffmann, 2003.
No, it doesn't sum up the dichotomy of opinions in this thread at all.
It sums up your position.
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???
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.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »hollyrayburn wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »She defined "placebo." I referred to "placebo effect."
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/placebo+effect
Placebo effect
A beneficial effect in a patient following a particular treatment that arises from the patient's expectations concerning the treatment rather than from the treatment itself.
~ The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary
Placebo effect
Placebo effect occurs when a treatment or medication with no known therapeutic value (a placebo) is administered to a patient, and the patient's symptoms improve. The patient believes and expects that the treatment is going to work, so it does. The placebo effect is also a factor to some degree in clinically-effective therapies, and explains why patients respond better than others to treatment despite similar symptoms and illnesses.
~ Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine
Placebo effect
a physical or emotional change occurring after a substance is taken or administered that is not the result of any special property of the substance. The change may be beneficial, reflecting the expectations of the patient and often those of the person giving the substance.
~ Mosby's Medical Dictionary
So, by comparison, if I had a patient complaining of back pain, and I gave them an injection of "NorSaline" (Normal saline)..not telling them that the injection holds no medical value, and they suddenly feel better, it actually worked? No, because an injection of water did not physically help back pain.
Since the patient felt better, the TREATMENT worked, yes. Not the saline by itself, but some combination of your injecting it and the patient's belief that it would work.
The placebo effect has no medical effect. It makes you feel better, whatever caused the problem is still there, you just think you're better.
Many years ago, on 60 Minutes, they did a spot on some eastern healer who claimed cancer was caused by this "imbalance in the body" and he could help their bodies fight cancer by "getting it back in balance." They profiled several cancer patients who had decided to go to this guy. When interviewed, they all talked about how wonderful they felt, they had so much more energy, they could feel their tumors shrinking. Then they went to their oncologists. Every single one of them had larger tumors, and some had metastasized. THey all lost valuable months or years with their loved ones by going to this "eastern healer." They all experienced the placebo effect--they felt better--but as pp said, whatever is causing your problem is still there, and it's not getting better.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »The placebo effect screws up research because the putative placebo has an effect when it is supposed to have no effect.
Also, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2582668/
On February 26, 2008, PLoS Medicine published a meta-analysis that my colleagues and I had conducted on antidepressant medication (1). Most meta-analyses suffer from publication bias, which can happen when pharmaceutical companies withhold unsuccessful trials from publication (2, 3). To circumvent this, we used the Freedom of Information act in the U.S. to obtain the data on all clinical trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the licensing of the four new-generation antidepressants.
The results of our meta-analysis showed that people got better on medication, but they also got better on placebo, and the difference between the two was small. In fact, it was below the criterion for clinical significance established by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), which sets treatment guidelines for the National Health Service in the UK. Clinical significance was found only in a few relatively small studies conducted on patients with extremely severe levels of depression.
Less talked about is the "nocebo" effect, where a patient getting the placebo experiences side effects despite not getting the medication.0 -
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.stevencloser wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »hollyrayburn wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »She defined "placebo." I referred to "placebo effect."
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/placebo+effect
Placebo effect
A beneficial effect in a patient following a particular treatment that arises from the patient's expectations concerning the treatment rather than from the treatment itself.
~ The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary
Placebo effect
Placebo effect occurs when a treatment or medication with no known therapeutic value (a placebo) is administered to a patient, and the patient's symptoms improve. The patient believes and expects that the treatment is going to work, so it does. The placebo effect is also a factor to some degree in clinically-effective therapies, and explains why patients respond better than others to treatment despite similar symptoms and illnesses.
~ Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine
Placebo effect
a physical or emotional change occurring after a substance is taken or administered that is not the result of any special property of the substance. The change may be beneficial, reflecting the expectations of the patient and often those of the person giving the substance.
~ Mosby's Medical Dictionary
So, by comparison, if I had a patient complaining of back pain, and I gave them an injection of "NorSaline" (Normal saline)..not telling them that the injection holds no medical value, and they suddenly feel better, it actually worked? No, because an injection of water did not physically help back pain.
Since the patient felt better, the TREATMENT worked, yes. Not the saline by itself, but some combination of your injecting it and the patient's belief that it would work.
The placebo effect has no medical effect. It makes you feel better, whatever caused the problem is still there, you just think you're better.
Many years ago, on 60 Minutes, they did a spot on some eastern healer who claimed cancer was caused by this "imbalance in the body" and he could help their bodies fight cancer by "getting it back in balance." They profiled several cancer patients who had decided to go to this guy. When interviewed, they all talked about how wonderful they felt, they had so much more energy, they could feel their tumors shrinking. Then they went to their oncologists. Every single one of them had larger tumors, and some had metastasized. THey all lost valuable months or years with their loved ones by going to this "eastern healer." They all experienced the placebo effect--they felt better--but as pp said, whatever is causing your problem is still there, and it's not getting better.
A fear-mongering, sensationalistic TV show is hardly a reliable source. It proves nothing.0 -
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.0 -
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?
0 -
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.html0 -
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 -
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 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions