Ayurvedic nutrition for weight loss (and general sanity)
Options
Replies
-
Yes it isthankyou4thevenom wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »margaretlb4 wrote: »I'm talking about tone. It's not how I like to treat people, even when i don't agree with them. There's a nicer way to say things.
I also think that all calories are not created equal. 500 calories of kool aid do not make your stomach feel the same as 500 calories of healthier things.
Agreed and agreed. But there are quite a few people here who think all calories are created equal, so expect a lot of push back.
A calorie is a unit of energy. Of course all calories are created equal. Nutrition and satiation differ. People seem to confuse them with what a calorie is.
Thing is no they're not. A calorie is how much energy is it takes it raise the temperature of 1 kg of water by 1 degrees. It's seriously obvious to me that that's not how the human works. So while it's a great guide it's not the be all and end all of weight loss/gain.
What it isn't is not the be all and end all of good nutrition and optimal health / performance
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »forwardmoving wrote: »ogmomma2012 wrote: »ogmomma2012 wrote: »margaretlb4 wrote: »Actually here's one that came up on a google search. Check out the source:
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/emptycalorie-foods-vs-nutrientdense-foods-1350.html
that's great about your weight loss. Believe me I eat my fair share of ice cream. I just don't feel as good when I eat alot of it.
That article just said -exactly- what I said to you. Fruits and veggies help us feel full, eating only candy bars is a bad idea because of how it makes you feel. But it does not change the FACT that a measure of energy does NOT change.
The bold sentence above is a generalization and in no way applies to every person. A candy bar can make someone feels as full or more full than an apple or a bowl of spinach. Really, it depends on the person.
But, you are right, a unit of energy is just that and does not distinguish between food type.
I would pay to meet someone who could sustain themselves on candy bars and multivitamins without feeling like crap. Agreed about the generalization.
I once knew someone who would go on a short term diet (just to lose a couple of pounds) eating 4 chocolate bars a day. She seemed to do fine.
I think a person would live longer on a diet of chocolate bars than just kale if we are talking about extremes though.
Were they really young? I can't imagine being able to do that any other time in life!
She was in her mid twenties.
0 -
Yes it isthankyou4thevenom wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »margaretlb4 wrote: »I'm talking about tone. It's not how I like to treat people, even when i don't agree with them. There's a nicer way to say things.
I also think that all calories are not created equal. 500 calories of kool aid do not make your stomach feel the same as 500 calories of healthier things.
Agreed and agreed. But there are quite a few people here who think all calories are created equal, so expect a lot of push back.
A calorie is a unit of energy. Of course all calories are created equal. Nutrition and satiation differ. People seem to confuse them with what a calorie is.
Thing is no they're not. A calorie is how much energy is it takes it raise the temperature of 1 kg of water by 1 degrees. It's seriously obvious to me that that's not how the human works. So while it's a great guide it's not the be all and end all of weight loss/gain.
What it isn't is not the be all and end all of good nutrition and optimal health / performance
Okay the human body is just a jug of water. No other chemical processes going on there. Good to know.0 -
thankyou4thevenom wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »margaretlb4 wrote: »I'm talking about tone. It's not how I like to treat people, even when i don't agree with them. There's a nicer way to say things.
I also think that all calories are not created equal. 500 calories of kool aid do not make your stomach feel the same as 500 calories of healthier things.
Agreed and agreed. But there are quite a few people here who think all calories are created equal, so expect a lot of push back.
A calorie is a unit of energy. Of course all calories are created equal. Nutrition and satiation differ. People seem to confuse them with what a calorie is.
Thing is no they're not. A calorie is how much energy is it takes it raise the temperature of 1 kg of water by 1 degrees. It's seriously obvious to me that that's not how the human works. So while it's a great guide it's not the be all and end all of weight loss/gain.
You're right. The amount of calories absorbed by the body can differ depending on the food.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/on-food-labels-calorie-miscounts/?ref=health&_r=1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/227605580 -
thankyou4thevenom wrote: »
Yes it isthankyou4thevenom wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »margaretlb4 wrote: »I'm talking about tone. It's not how I like to treat people, even when i don't agree with them. There's a nicer way to say things.
I also think that all calories are not created equal. 500 calories of kool aid do not make your stomach feel the same as 500 calories of healthier things.
Agreed and agreed. But there are quite a few people here who think all calories are created equal, so expect a lot of push back.
A calorie is a unit of energy. Of course all calories are created equal. Nutrition and satiation differ. People seem to confuse them with what a calorie is.
Thing is no they're not. A calorie is how much energy is it takes it raise the temperature of 1 kg of water by 1 degrees. It's seriously obvious to me that that's not how the human works. So while it's a great guide it's not the be all and end all of weight loss/gain.
What it isn't is not the be all and end all of good nutrition and optimal health / performance
Okay the human body is just a jug of water. No other chemical processes going on there. Good to know.
The differences are marginal and not worth noting when the objective is scale weight movement0 -
thankyou4thevenom wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »margaretlb4 wrote: »I'm talking about tone. It's not how I like to treat people, even when i don't agree with them. There's a nicer way to say things.
I also think that all calories are not created equal. 500 calories of kool aid do not make your stomach feel the same as 500 calories of healthier things.
Agreed and agreed. But there are quite a few people here who think all calories are created equal, so expect a lot of push back.
A calorie is a unit of energy. Of course all calories are created equal. Nutrition and satiation differ. People seem to confuse them with what a calorie is.
Thing is no they're not. A calorie is how much energy is it takes it raise the temperature of 1 kg of water by 1 degrees. It's seriously obvious to me that that's not how the human works. So while it's a great guide it's not the be all and end all of weight loss/gain.
You're right. The amount of calories absorbed by the body can differ depending on the food.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/on-food-labels-calorie-miscounts/?ref=health&_r=1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22760558
The fact that our current method of assessing the caloric content of food needs an update (maybe... findings are preliminary at this point) does not mitigate the fact that the calories are still there. Whether a certain amount of almonds has 100 calories vs. 65 calories, if you compare them to something with a similar NET caloric value, the energy the human body gets from the food is the same.
She's not right.
0 -
margaretlb4 wrote: »Has anyone else worked with ayurvedic principles for weightloss? I am beginning to work with an ayurvedic nutritionist through an app called "Vida" - so far I'm really enjoying it. The main simple instruction she has given me is to think about ways to slow down in my life and also to sip lemon water throughout the day. She also has given me a digestive lassi recipe that i'm keen to try. And - and this is startling - she has looked at my diary for my last 8 or so pounds of weight loss and said that I might not be one of these people who DOESN'T need high protein for weight loss.
It also may depend on the week of my period. So this is interesting and without going nuts about it, I'm going to try and see what I should eat for the 1st through 4th weeks of my period (more or less protein that my body may crave...etc) and see what happens. Very curious to see if this helps. It sure makes sense when she talks about it, just paying attention intuitively to what your body wants....we'll see if it wants french fries.
I haven't seen an aryuvedic practitioner, but one of my professors was an aryuvedic doctor, so I've had some formal education in it. It is a 5000 year old system that is still widely used today. It is a simple, elegant, and logical system for looking at the body and getting it into homeostasis. Your practitioner most likely assessed your dosha, Kapha, Pitta, or Vata (we can be a combination of the three) and she is giving you nutrition and maybe also herbs based on your constitutional imbalances. It's a holistic approach and part of getting into balance is shedding unnecessary weight.
My dosha is predominantly Kapha. Kapha tends to be slow, calm, heavy, runs cold, tongue is pale and damp (did your practitioner look at your tongue?). Warming and moving herbs and foods help Kapha get into balance, such as cinnamon and ginger.0 -
What we are interested in is scientific support for what has been acknowledged widely as pseudo-science ...got any actual scientifically sound studies on any of the nutritional precepts and herbs and their efficacy
0 -
I'd also like scientific support for the body types... and what I see as an assertion that the body was out of homeostasis in the first place since it seems to be claiming to put it back into it.0
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »thankyou4thevenom wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »margaretlb4 wrote: »I'm talking about tone. It's not how I like to treat people, even when i don't agree with them. There's a nicer way to say things.
I also think that all calories are not created equal. 500 calories of kool aid do not make your stomach feel the same as 500 calories of healthier things.
Agreed and agreed. But there are quite a few people here who think all calories are created equal, so expect a lot of push back.
A calorie is a unit of energy. Of course all calories are created equal. Nutrition and satiation differ. People seem to confuse them with what a calorie is.
Thing is no they're not. A calorie is how much energy is it takes it raise the temperature of 1 kg of water by 1 degrees. It's seriously obvious to me that that's not how the human works. So while it's a great guide it's not the be all and end all of weight loss/gain.
You're right. The amount of calories absorbed by the body can differ depending on the food.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/on-food-labels-calorie-miscounts/?ref=health&_r=1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22760558
The fact that our current method of assessing the caloric content of food needs an update (maybe... findings are preliminary at this point) does not mitigate the fact that the calories are still there. Whether a certain amount of almonds has 100 calories vs. 65 calories, if you compare them to something with a similar NET caloric value, the energy the human body gets from the food is the same.
She's not right.
We don't currently have a definite way of determining the net caloric value, we simply count them using the Atwater system (1 unit of energy=1 calorie). Basically, "a calorie is a calorie" is how they're determined now. And while a calorie is of course a calorie, how much is absorbed is what really counts.
Look, I'm counting calories right now, I eat varied things, it's working fine. But I absolutely I agree with her that it's not that simple (in response to a simplistic and incorrect assertion that basically a calorie is a calorie, they're all equal (for weight loss, period). It's just not true. How much it matters is a separate discussion.
0 -
thankyou4thevenom wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »margaretlb4 wrote: »I'm talking about tone. It's not how I like to treat people, even when i don't agree with them. There's a nicer way to say things.
I also think that all calories are not created equal. 500 calories of kool aid do not make your stomach feel the same as 500 calories of healthier things.
Agreed and agreed. But there are quite a few people here who think all calories are created equal, so expect a lot of push back.
A calorie is a unit of energy. Of course all calories are created equal. Nutrition and satiation differ. People seem to confuse them with what a calorie is.
Thing is no they're not. A calorie is how much energy is it takes it raise the temperature of 1 kg of water by 1 degrees. It's seriously obvious to me that that's not how the human works. So while it's a great guide it's not the be all and end all of weight loss/gain.
@thankyou4thevenom Actually a calories is how much energy it takes to raise the temperature of 1 g (not 1kg) of water by 1 degree C. Other than that you're agreeing with what you've quoted
That's what I love about MFP when people vehemently disagree with a post by agreeing with it
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »thankyou4thevenom wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »margaretlb4 wrote: »I'm talking about tone. It's not how I like to treat people, even when i don't agree with them. There's a nicer way to say things.
I also think that all calories are not created equal. 500 calories of kool aid do not make your stomach feel the same as 500 calories of healthier things.
Agreed and agreed. But there are quite a few people here who think all calories are created equal, so expect a lot of push back.
A calorie is a unit of energy. Of course all calories are created equal. Nutrition and satiation differ. People seem to confuse them with what a calorie is.
Thing is no they're not. A calorie is how much energy is it takes it raise the temperature of 1 kg of water by 1 degrees. It's seriously obvious to me that that's not how the human works. So while it's a great guide it's not the be all and end all of weight loss/gain.
You're right. The amount of calories absorbed by the body can differ depending on the food.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/on-food-labels-calorie-miscounts/?ref=health&_r=1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22760558
The fact that our current method of assessing the caloric content of food needs an update (maybe... findings are preliminary at this point) does not mitigate the fact that the calories are still there. Whether a certain amount of almonds has 100 calories vs. 65 calories, if you compare them to something with a similar NET caloric value, the energy the human body gets from the food is the same.
She's not right.
We don't currently have a definite way of determining the net caloric value, we simply count them using the Atwater system (1 unit of energy=1 calorie). Basically, "a calorie is a calorie" is how they're determined now. And while a calorie is of course a calorie, how much is absorbed is what really counts.
Look, I'm counting calories right now, I eat varied things, it's working fine. But I absolutely I agree with her that it's not that simple (in response to a simplistic and incorrect assertion that basically a calorie is a calorie, they're all equal (for weight loss, period). It's just not true. How much it matters is a separate discussion.
This is a matter of perspective, and I'm sorry, it's still wrong to say that "a calorie is not a calorie".
If you want to say that we absorb less calories than currently counted from some foods than others due to flaws in the Atwater system, then say so.
0 -
I didn't read the thread, but here's my 2 cents to the OP: real Ayurveda is completely different from its bastardised versions that have sprung up all over the world. Practitioners who deal with actual Ayurveda are scarce and not exactly well known. OP, please don't buy into these schemes. They are just using the newly hip name of Ayurveda so they can make money. These things have absolutely nothing to do with Ayurveda.0
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »thankyou4thevenom wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »margaretlb4 wrote: »I'm talking about tone. It's not how I like to treat people, even when i don't agree with them. There's a nicer way to say things.
I also think that all calories are not created equal. 500 calories of kool aid do not make your stomach feel the same as 500 calories of healthier things.
Agreed and agreed. But there are quite a few people here who think all calories are created equal, so expect a lot of push back.
A calorie is a unit of energy. Of course all calories are created equal. Nutrition and satiation differ. People seem to confuse them with what a calorie is.
Thing is no they're not. A calorie is how much energy is it takes it raise the temperature of 1 kg of water by 1 degrees. It's seriously obvious to me that that's not how the human works. So while it's a great guide it's not the be all and end all of weight loss/gain.
You're right. The amount of calories absorbed by the body can differ depending on the food.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/on-food-labels-calorie-miscounts/?ref=health&_r=1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22760558
The fact that our current method of assessing the caloric content of food needs an update (maybe... findings are preliminary at this point) does not mitigate the fact that the calories are still there. Whether a certain amount of almonds has 100 calories vs. 65 calories, if you compare them to something with a similar NET caloric value, the energy the human body gets from the food is the same.
She's not right.
We don't currently have a definite way of determining the net caloric value, we simply count them using the Atwater system (1 unit of energy=1 calorie). Basically, "a calorie is a calorie" is how they're determined now. And while a calorie is of course a calorie, how much is absorbed is what really counts.
Look, I'm counting calories right now, I eat varied things, it's working fine. But I absolutely I agree with her that it's not that simple (in response to a simplistic and incorrect assertion that basically a calorie is a calorie, they're all equal (for weight loss, period). It's just not true. How much it matters is a separate discussion.
This is a matter of perspective, and I'm sorry, it's still wrong to say that "a calorie is not a calorie".
If you want to say that we absorb less calories than currently counted from some foods than others due to flaws in the Atwater system, then say so.
Ok.0 -
Majoring in the minors0
-
I don't know why my whole response didn't show up, but it was basically -
I agree that a calorie is, of course, a calorie. I think the area of dispute was whether that's the whole story, or if it's a bit more complex once they hit our bodies.
I'm off to go blow past my calorie goal, happy Memorial Day!
P.s. Not saying it's neccesarily a major deal, just the way it is.0 -
I don't know why my whole response didn't show up, but it was basically -
I agree that a calorie is, of course, a calorie. I think the area of dispute was whether that's the whole story, or if it's a bit more complex once they hit our bodies.
I'm off to go blow past my calorie goal, happy Memorial Day!
P.s. Not saying it's neccesarily a major deal, just the way it is.
We do agree. I'm just a bit... um... I'll go with uptight... about word use on some of these points, especially in a case like this where I don't think it's helpful to be imprecise.
Real knowledge is power when it comes to weight loss. Buzz phrases that come from attention-grabbing news article headlines aren't helpful.
I think it's pretty important in these forums to spell out exactly what we're talking about.
0 -
What we are interested in is scientific support for what has been acknowledged widely as pseudo-science ...got any actual scientifically sound studies on any of the nutritional precepts and herbs and their efficacymamapeach910 wrote: »I'd also like scientific support for the body types... and what I see as an assertion that the body was out of homeostasis in the first place since it seems to be claiming to put it back into it.
I would love studies as well.margaretlb4 wrote: »Has anyone else worked with ayurvedic principles for weightloss? I am beginning to work with an ayurvedic nutritionist through an app called "Vida" - so far I'm really enjoying it. The main simple instruction she has given me is to think about ways to slow down in my life and also to sip lemon water throughout the day. She also has given me a digestive lassi recipe that i'm keen to try. And - and this is startling - she has looked at my diary for my last 8 or so pounds of weight loss and said that I might not be one of these people who DOESN'T need high protein for weight loss.
It also may depend on the week of my period. So this is interesting and without going nuts about it, I'm going to try and see what I should eat for the 1st through 4th weeks of my period (more or less protein that my body may crave...etc) and see what happens. Very curious to see if this helps. It sure makes sense when she talks about it, just paying attention intuitively to what your body wants....we'll see if it wants french fries.
I haven't seen an aryuvedic practitioner, but one of my professors was an aryuvedic doctor, so I've had some formal education in it. It is a 5000 year old system that is still widely used today. It is a simple, elegant, and logical system for looking at the body and getting it into homeostasis. Your practitioner most likely assessed your dosha, Kapha, Pitta, or Vata (we can be a combination of the three) and she is giving you nutrition and maybe also herbs based on your constitutional imbalances. It's a holistic approach and part of getting into balance is shedding unnecessary weight.
My dosha is predominantly Kapha. Kapha tends to be slow, calm, heavy, runs cold, tongue is pale and damp (did your practitioner look at your tongue?). Warming and moving herbs and foods help Kapha get into balance, such as cinnamon and ginger.
Holistic is fine and dandy, but you won't shed unnecessary weight unless you eat less calories than you burn. I'm sure people have gotten fat on this diet as well because it's science that you gain weight when you eat too much. Food type may make us feel better about ourselves, and we may have better nutrition, but these things are clearly secondary to weight loss.
0 -
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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 397 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 975 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions