Ayurvedic nutrition for weight loss (and general sanity)
Replies
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »Just wondering, if all this 5000 year old "ancient wisdom" was effective and worked, why did we need to advance to western science based medicine? I mean why bother if we already had something that worked? And why is it that life spans didn't increase until science based medicine? Why not just stick with acupuncture, ayurvedic, blood letting and leaches? Honestly curious.
This is a good question. Let's start by saying: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. When looking at average lifespans, you need to take into consideration that infant mortality is factored in there, so people did not just drop dead at 35. Infant mortality rates dropped because Western Allopathic medicine is wonderful. Antibiotics have saved many lives, as have vaccinations. Allopathic medicine is second to none when it comes to acute situations. With that said, it is not perfect. Pharmaceuticals come with many side effects, many of which are worse than the problem they are trying to treat. For many chronic conditions, there is no cure in allopathy. Patients are often given a vague diagnosis like IBS when the problem is something more serious or sometimes told their symptoms are all in their head. Alternative therapies offer a different perspective on the human body and are grounded in science and steeped in tradition. The herbs used are especially powerful for prevention. A skilled practitioner can identify a problem before it becomes a pathology and counsel the client on nutrition, lifestyle, and herbs. It's not a path for those who just want a quick fix or magic bullet. There is no such thing and they may need to wait a long time for allopathic medicine to cure their chronic condition or find a vaccine. Healing takes work. You don't see an aryuvedic doctor for a broken leg. You see them if you've been having symptoms that haven't been resolved by allopathic medicine or if you don't want to take pharmaceuticals for whatever reason, or you just want preventative care. It is an ancient healing modality, but is by no means static. It evolves and advances just as allopathy does; practitioners keep up to date on scientific studies.
So it only works on vague illnesses, in vague ways, and not on anything serious? After 5000 years shouldn't it be more well defined and more effective? Western science based medicine has only been around a hundred years and it's already conquered/eradicated/cured many terminal illnesses. After 5000 years shouldn't alternative medicine have something to show for itself rather than studies showing it's no different than placebo???
But you also have to be able to throw in other buzzwords when describing what it does, like synergy, which, to be fair, is a very fun word.
The appeal to nature happening in this thread is amazing. It's woo, pure and simple. All of the things it does are only discussed in the most vague of terms because it doesn't actually do anything.
That being said, if it isn't harming you, then fine; do whatever. The problem is, and always has been, acting like it is the One True Way (TM).
Yup, though to be fair, I don't think anyone is acting as if it's the one true way.
The paying money for the phone consultation service is dubious, though. If it's something that the OP personally feels she gets her money's worth from? Well, that's up to her to decide.
Excellent point. I was thinking more generally, but definitely did not specify that as opposed to this thread.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
It's funny. We have a tendency, as people, to live under this compulsive belief that our bodies are given to us like old, clapped out, second hand cars. Sure, we can get from a to b fine, we're comfortable enough but we're just not as good as we could be. But with tweaking here, a few replacements, maybe a cosmetic upgrade, we'll be better than ever.
This kind of thinking is even more apparent when it comes to weightloss. Suddenly you find that your body needs to be kickstarted, your digestive system boosted, your fat flushed and all those nasty toxin cleansed. By the end of it, you're wondering how you even managed to function before, with all the outside, often expensive and elaborate treatments needed to just keep your heart beating.
The thing is, your body (minus unavoidable illness) is a friggin Rolls Royce of cars. Your body is strong, efficient, adaptable and unbelievably resilient. Your digestive system is a wonder. We can eat near enough anything, survive in any terrain and weather and endure unbelievable hardships. Your body is adaptable enough to work with whatever you give it. A diet solely of meat, fish and blubber? Works great. A diet entirely of cabbage soup? Gassy, but still working.
I'm not saying "don't try to eat healthy and exercise". A varied diet and lots of movement has great physical and psychological benefits. What I am saying is that we shouldn't fall prey to the notion that, by eating a handful of berries or drinking lemon every morning, that we have discovered a convenient miracle "cure" to what our rusty old bodies, with all those thousands of years uselessly evolving and adapting to keep us alive, has completely f*cked up.
It's more sustainable, easier and cheaper in the long run to keep to the very basic and simple rules of eating in moderation and exercising frequently that is the general backbone to losing weight and maintaining it afterwards. Boring, I know, but sometimes the best answers are the simplest.0 -
ShareenaFulton wrote: »It's funny. We have a tendency, as people, to live under this compulsive belief that our bodies are given to us like old, clapped out, second hand cars. Sure, we can get from a to b fine, we're comfortable enough but we're just not as good as we could be. But with tweaking here, a few replacements, maybe a cosmetic upgrade, we'll be better than ever.
This kind of thinking is even more apparent when it comes to weightloss. Suddenly you find that your body needs to be kickstarted, your digestive system boosted, your fat flushed and all those nasty toxin cleansed. By the end of it, you're wondering how you even managed to function before, with all the outside, often expensive and elaborate treatments needed to just keep your heart beating.
The thing is, your body (minus unavoidable illness) is a friggin Rolls Royce of cars. Your body is strong, efficient, adaptable and unbelievably resilient. Your digestive system is a wonder. We can eat near enough anything, survive in any terrain and weather and endure unbelievable hardships. Your body is adaptable enough to work with whatever you give it. A diet solely of meat, fish and blubber? Works great. A diet entirely of cabbage soup? Gassy, but still working.
I'm not saying "don't try to eat healthy and exercise". A varied diet and lots of movement has great physical and psychological benefits. What I am saying is that we shouldn't fall prey to the notion that, by eating a handful of berries or drinking lemon every morning, that we have discovered a convenient miracle "cure" to what our rusty old bodies, with all those thousands of years uselessly evolving and adapting to keep us alive, has completely f*cked up.
It's more sustainable, easier and cheaper in the long run to keep to the very basic and simple rules of eating in moderation and exercising frequently that is the general backbone to losing weight and maintaining it afterwards. Boring, I know, but sometimes the best answers are the simplest.
Although maybe a Land Rover or tank!0 -
Just wondering, if all this 5000 year old "ancient wisdom" was effective and worked, why did we need to advance to western science based medicine? I mean why bother if we already had something that worked? And why is it that life spans didn't increase until science based medicine? Why not just stick with acupuncture, ayurvedic, blood letting and leaches? Honestly curious.
This is a good question. Let's start by saying: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. When looking at average lifespans, you need to take into consideration that infant mortality is factored in there, so people did not just drop dead at 35. Infant mortality rates dropped because Western Allopathic medicine is wonderful. Antibiotics have saved many lives, as have vaccinations. Allopathic medicine is second to none when it comes to acute situations. With that said, it is not perfect. Pharmaceuticals come with many side effects, many of which are worse than the problem they are trying to treat. For many chronic conditions, there is no cure in allopathy. Patients are often given a vague diagnosis like IBS when the problem is something more serious or sometimes told their symptoms are all in their head. Alternative therapies offer a different perspective on the human body and are grounded in science and steeped in tradition. The herbs used are especially powerful for prevention. A skilled practitioner can identify a problem before it becomes a pathology and counsel the client on nutrition, lifestyle, and herbs. It's not a path for those who just want a quick fix or magic bullet. There is no such thing and they may need to wait a long time for allopathic medicine to cure their chronic condition or find a vaccine. Healing takes work. You don't see an aryuvedic doctor for a broken leg. You see them if you've been having symptoms that haven't been resolved by allopathic medicine or if you don't want to take pharmaceuticals for whatever reason, or you just want preventative care. It is an ancient healing modality, but is by no means static. It evolves and advances just as allopathy does; practitioners keep up to date on scientific studies.
So it only works on vague illnesses, in vague ways, and not on anything serious? After 5000 years shouldn't it be more well defined and more effective? Western science based medicine has only been around a hundred years and it's already conquered/eradicated/cured many terminal illnesses. After 5000 years shouldn't alternative medicine have something to show for itself rather than studies showing it's no different than placebo???
I believe you stated earlier that life spans have increased due to Western medicine? That's only one factor among many. And the PP stated that Western medicine is great for acute situations. It absolutely is. However, Western medicine as it is currently practiced leans overwhelmingly towards treating the symptoms, rather than the underlying cause. It generally is not considered to have a preventative focus (not that it can't, it just doesn't).
Where I live, a good portion of the population is focused on a more holistic view of health. They don't shun Western medicine, but recognize it as just one part of the whole. People tend to look for ways in which they can keep themselves healthy, or become healthy and remain so, without waiting until they need the interventions that Western medicine can provide. Subscribing to one does not mean you have to completely denounce the other.0 -
hollyrayburn wrote: »[Overweight is often secondary to a more serious pathology, usually a chronic issue.If you can address and remedy the primary cause, the overweight will invariably be resolved. That is the beauty of a holistic approach like aryuveda; it gets to the root of the problem, rather than chasing around symptoms.
I also want to add to my initial statement. It is possible to be in optimum health and overweight. It is just often a visual indicator of an underlying problem.
Chronically eating too many calories.
Absolutely.0 -
I cannot believe all of the negative comments. Also I watched a documentary called "Fed Up" and learned that a calorie is not just a calorie, it's all in how your body digests them. Anyway, if you feel this is helping (paying attention to your body is always a good thing if you ask me) then good for you. Hope it works for you, can't hurt anyway. Learning is never a waste.
Nope. If a person eats too many calories they will gain weight, if they eat too few calories they will lose weight, and if they eat the same amount of calories as they burn, they will maintain weight.
As far as weight management goes, a calorie is a calorie.
As far as nutrition goes, foods have different nutrients and therefore fortify your body in different ways. But, this has nothing to do with weight loss.
0 -
No, this is inaccurate information.angelexperiment wrote: »
It is not for hunger. Lemon helps start or waken the body in the morning so it it is suggested to jumpstart your day or digestion. Also lemon water is said to be a fat flusher as well as doing other things.myfelinepal wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »History and Development of the Citrus Industry
...First Citrus Fruit to Reach Europe.—The citron (Citrus medica L.) was the first citrus fruit to come to the notice of Europeans and was for many years the only one known. It first attracted attention in Media, where it was then supposed to be indigenous. Apparently it soon spread into Persia, where it came to the attention of the Hebrews and the Greeks. Although it is not now considered to be indigenous to Media, the steps by which it was first brought there from its native habitat in India or Indo-China are not known.
...Orange Introduced into Australia in 1788.—Citrus was first planted in New South Wales by the colonists of the First Fleet under Captain Arthur Phillip, who sailed for Australia in 1787 with instructions to introduce plants and seeds at his discretion (Bowman, 1955). At Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where the expedition stopped for one month, the colonists purchased orange, lime, and lemon trees. On arrival at Port Jackson on January 26, 1788, the first work performed was the planting of the seeds and plants obtained in the voyage from England. According to Bowman (1955), oranges, limes and lemons were flourishing at the end of the first year of settlement.
Okay, you got me. I did too little research at 4am. But, the latest research suggests Australia as the origin if you search 'History, Global Distribution, and Nutritional Importance of Citrus Fruits'
However, I've never seen proof of lemons doing anything for hunger.
Lemon is delicious--I love lemon meringue pie, lemon frosting on cupcakes, lemon in my water, lemon in my tea, and lemon scones--but it does burn fat at all. As to whether it wakes a person up and "jump starts" their day, that would be an individual experience.
0 -
Just wondering, if all this 5000 year old "ancient wisdom" was effective and worked, why did we need to advance to western science based medicine? I mean why bother if we already had something that worked? And why is it that life spans didn't increase until science based medicine? Why not just stick with acupuncture, ayurvedic, blood letting and leaches? Honestly curious.
This is a good question. Let's start by saying: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. When looking at average lifespans, you need to take into consideration that infant mortality is factored in there, so people did not just drop dead at 35. Infant mortality rates dropped because Western Allopathic medicine is wonderful. Antibiotics have saved many lives, as have vaccinations. Allopathic medicine is second to none when it comes to acute situations. With that said, it is not perfect. Pharmaceuticals come with many side effects, many of which are worse than the problem they are trying to treat. For many chronic conditions, there is no cure in allopathy. Patients are often given a vague diagnosis like IBS when the problem is something more serious or sometimes told their symptoms are all in their head. Alternative therapies offer a different perspective on the human body and are grounded in science and steeped in tradition. The herbs used are especially powerful for prevention. A skilled practitioner can identify a problem before it becomes a pathology and counsel the client on nutrition, lifestyle, and herbs. It's not a path for those who just want a quick fix or magic bullet. There is no such thing and they may need to wait a long time for allopathic medicine to cure their chronic condition or find a vaccine. Healing takes work. You don't see an aryuvedic doctor for a broken leg. You see them if you've been having symptoms that haven't been resolved by allopathic medicine or if you don't want to take pharmaceuticals for whatever reason, or you just want preventative care. It is an ancient healing modality, but is by no means static. It evolves and advances just as allopathy does; practitioners keep up to date on scientific studies.
So it only works on vague illnesses, in vague ways, and not on anything serious? After 5000 years shouldn't it be more well defined and more effective? Western science based medicine has only been around a hundred years and it's already conquered/eradicated/cured many terminal illnesses. After 5000 years shouldn't alternative medicine have something to show for itself rather than studies showing it's no different than placebo???
I believe you stated earlier that life spans have increased due to Western medicine? That's only one factor among many. And the PP stated that Western medicine is great for acute situations. It absolutely is. However, Western medicine as it is currently practiced leans overwhelmingly towards treating the symptoms, rather than the underlying cause. It generally is not considered to have a preventative focus (not that it can't, it just doesn't).
Where I live, a good portion of the population is focused on a more holistic view of health. They don't shun Western medicine, but recognize it as just one part of the whole. People tend to look for ways in which they can keep themselves healthy, or become healthy and remain so, without waiting until they need the interventions that Western medicine can provide. Subscribing to one does not mean you have to completely denounce the other.
I'd say vaccines are pretty preventative. The ability to prevent smallpox/polio, etc. Increasing the survivability of many types of cancer, etc. Western medicine is incredibly impressive. I'm not up to date on anything cured or prevented by alternative medicine, is there anything? After 5000 years it should be easy to point out multiple historical examples of diseases cured, plagues averted, by alternative medicine, IF it worked like proponents claim. Yet the best we get is it helps with "imbalances"?
*edited for clarity
0 -
Just wondering, if all this 5000 year old "ancient wisdom" was effective and worked, why did we need to advance to western science based medicine? I mean why bother if we already had something that worked? And why is it that life spans didn't increase until science based medicine? Why not just stick with acupuncture, ayurvedic, blood letting and leaches? Honestly curious.
This is a good question. Let's start by saying: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. When looking at average lifespans, you need to take into consideration that infant mortality is factored in there, so people did not just drop dead at 35. Infant mortality rates dropped because Western Allopathic medicine is wonderful. Antibiotics have saved many lives, as have vaccinations. Allopathic medicine is second to none when it comes to acute situations. With that said, it is not perfect. Pharmaceuticals come with many side effects, many of which are worse than the problem they are trying to treat. For many chronic conditions, there is no cure in allopathy. Patients are often given a vague diagnosis like IBS when the problem is something more serious or sometimes told their symptoms are all in their head. Alternative therapies offer a different perspective on the human body and are grounded in science and steeped in tradition. The herbs used are especially powerful for prevention. A skilled practitioner can identify a problem before it becomes a pathology and counsel the client on nutrition, lifestyle, and herbs. It's not a path for those who just want a quick fix or magic bullet. There is no such thing and they may need to wait a long time for allopathic medicine to cure their chronic condition or find a vaccine. Healing takes work. You don't see an aryuvedic doctor for a broken leg. You see them if you've been having symptoms that haven't been resolved by allopathic medicine or if you don't want to take pharmaceuticals for whatever reason, or you just want preventative care. It is an ancient healing modality, but is by no means static. It evolves and advances just as allopathy does; practitioners keep up to date on scientific studies.
So it only works on vague illnesses, in vague ways, and not on anything serious? After 5000 years shouldn't it be more well defined and more effective? Western science based medicine has only been around a hundred years and it's already conquered/eradicated/cured many terminal illnesses. After 5000 years shouldn't alternative medicine have something to show for itself rather than studies showing it's no different than placebo???
I believe you stated earlier that life spans have increased due to Western medicine? That's only one factor among many. And the PP stated that Western medicine is great for acute situations. It absolutely is. However, Western medicine as it is currently practiced leans overwhelmingly towards treating the symptoms, rather than the underlying cause. It generally is not considered to have a preventative focus (not that it can't, it just doesn't).
Where I live, a good portion of the population is focused on a more holistic view of health. They don't shun Western medicine, but recognize it as just one part of the whole. People tend to look for ways in which they can keep themselves healthy, or become healthy and remain so, without waiting until they need the interventions that Western medicine can provide. Subscribing to one does not mean you have to completely denounce the other.
I'd say vaccines are pretty preventative. The ability to prevent smallpox/polio, etc. Increasing the survivability of many types of cancer, etc. Western medicine is incredibly impressive. I'm not up to date on anything cured or prevented by alternative medicine, is there anything? After 5000 years it should be easy to point out multiple historical examples of diseases cured, plagues averted, by alternative medicine, IF it worked like proponents claim. Yet the best we get is it helps with "imbalances"?
*edited for clarity
Are you just being deliberately obtuse?
0 -
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.0 -
I understand what people here are saying. That calories that contain certain nutrients are more beneficial to your overall health. Example: I could do a "twinkie" diet, stay under calories, and lose, sure. I'd feel tired, because I am not getting the proper nutrients that my body needs.
My potassium tends to drop, so I tend to try to fuel my body with potassium rich foods such as kiwis, bananas, potatoes, etc.
Nutrition should be general knowledge, but sadly, it's not. I remember learning about the "pyramid" in school. Have I adhered to it? Nope! Also, we have become a food society. We eat for celebration, boredom, greif, anger, fun. Not to live.
But, to imply you can't eat ANYTHING you want at a deficit and have a loss is incorrect.
I'm going to feel good today fueling my body with foods that a decent mixture of p/f/c, potassium, fiber, and sugars. It even includes some frozen pizza for dinner, which I am sure this ancient belief would forbid. There's even room for gelato durng playstation time, if I wish. I won't ever condem any food as bad and "ban" it from my diet if I enjoy it. I don't buy into that "5 foods you should never eat if you don't wanna gain" video, and I don't buy into this other thing.
If someone enjoys that type of plan, more power to them.0 -
I was thinking of this thread last night when...well, I'll just call her my yoga therapist, but she does:
Yoga as Therapy
Transformational Bodyworker
Registered Yoga Teacher
Thai Massage
Reiki Practitioner
Orthopedic Yoga Therapy
Divine Sleep Yoga Nidra and Meditation
So anyway, I have two medical conditions monitored by regular doctors. But I actually find it more helpful to look at them holistically and energetically with my yoga therapist. Last night, we had a nice discussion about how Condition 1 relates to the chakra system.
Allopathic medicine has not been particularly useful for these conditions and a holistic approach has.
What I wanted to express here is that I can utilize more than one healing modality at the same time - I don't believe one has to treat things all allopathically or all holistically or all whatever, and in fact, I prefer to consider more than one aspect and would find otherwise limiting.
As I am relating this anecdotally and have no intention of defending my experience and beliefs as if they were a thesis, I will not be giving specifics on this thread.0 -
As seen on Dr. Oz: http://www.doctoroz.com/article/ayurvedic-diet-how-eat-your-body-type
Most certainly, diet woo.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »...Last night, we had a nice discussion about how Condition 1 relates to the chakra system....
lol
Chakra woo now?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chakra
What if I told you, that Chakras started out as "attack points" on the human body, in Indian martial arts?0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »I was thinking of this thread last night when...well, I'll just call her my yoga therapist, but she does:
Yoga as Therapy
Transformational Bodyworker
Registered Yoga Teacher
Thai Massage
Reiki Practitioner
Orthopedic Yoga Therapy
Divine Sleep Yoga Nidra and Meditation
So anyway, I have two medical conditions monitored by regular doctors. But I actually find it more helpful to look at them holistically and energetically with my yoga therapist. Last night, we had a nice discussion about how Condition 1 relates to the chakra system.
Allopathic medicine has not been particularly useful for these conditions and a holistic approach has.
What I wanted to express here is that I can utilize more than one healing modality at the same time - I don't believe one has to treat things all allopathically or all holistically or all whatever, and in fact, I prefer to consider more than one aspect and would find otherwise limiting.
As I am relating this anecdotally and have no intention of defending my experience and beliefs as if they were a thesis, I will not be giving specifics on this thread.
Of course not, because the woo nonsense you subscribe to doesn't work on specifics, only vague placebo effects.
0 -
Just wondering, if all this 5000 year old "ancient wisdom" was effective and worked, why did we need to advance to western science based medicine? I mean why bother if we already had something that worked? And why is it that life spans didn't increase until science based medicine? Why not just stick with acupuncture, ayurvedic, blood letting and leaches? Honestly curious.
This is a good question. Let's start by saying: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. When looking at average lifespans, you need to take into consideration that infant mortality is factored in there, so people did not just drop dead at 35. Infant mortality rates dropped because Western Allopathic medicine is wonderful. Antibiotics have saved many lives, as have vaccinations. Allopathic medicine is second to none when it comes to acute situations. With that said, it is not perfect. Pharmaceuticals come with many side effects, many of which are worse than the problem they are trying to treat. For many chronic conditions, there is no cure in allopathy. Patients are often given a vague diagnosis like IBS when the problem is something more serious or sometimes told their symptoms are all in their head. Alternative therapies offer a different perspective on the human body and are grounded in science and steeped in tradition. The herbs used are especially powerful for prevention. A skilled practitioner can identify a problem before it becomes a pathology and counsel the client on nutrition, lifestyle, and herbs. It's not a path for those who just want a quick fix or magic bullet. There is no such thing and they may need to wait a long time for allopathic medicine to cure their chronic condition or find a vaccine. Healing takes work. You don't see an aryuvedic doctor for a broken leg. You see them if you've been having symptoms that haven't been resolved by allopathic medicine or if you don't want to take pharmaceuticals for whatever reason, or you just want preventative care. It is an ancient healing modality, but is by no means static. It evolves and advances just as allopathy does; practitioners keep up to date on scientific studies.
So it only works on vague illnesses, in vague ways, and not on anything serious? After 5000 years shouldn't it be more well defined and more effective? Western science based medicine has only been around a hundred years and it's already conquered/eradicated/cured many terminal illnesses. After 5000 years shouldn't alternative medicine have something to show for itself rather than studies showing it's no different than placebo???
I believe you stated earlier that life spans have increased due to Western medicine? That's only one factor among many. And the PP stated that Western medicine is great for acute situations. It absolutely is. However, Western medicine as it is currently practiced leans overwhelmingly towards treating the symptoms, rather than the underlying cause. It generally is not considered to have a preventative focus (not that it can't, it just doesn't).
Where I live, a good portion of the population is focused on a more holistic view of health. They don't shun Western medicine, but recognize it as just one part of the whole. People tend to look for ways in which they can keep themselves healthy, or become healthy and remain so, without waiting until they need the interventions that Western medicine can provide. Subscribing to one does not mean you have to completely denounce the other.
I'd say vaccines are pretty preventative. The ability to prevent smallpox/polio, etc. Increasing the survivability of many types of cancer, etc. Western medicine is incredibly impressive. I'm not up to date on anything cured or prevented by alternative medicine, is there anything? After 5000 years it should be easy to point out multiple historical examples of diseases cured, plagues averted, by alternative medicine, IF it worked like proponents claim. Yet the best we get is it helps with "imbalances"?
*edited for clarity
Are you just being deliberately obtuse?
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.0 -
Just wondering, if all this 5000 year old "ancient wisdom" was effective and worked, why did we need to advance to western science based medicine? I mean why bother if we already had something that worked? And why is it that life spans didn't increase until science based medicine? Why not just stick with acupuncture, ayurvedic, blood letting and leaches? Honestly curious.
This is a good question. Let's start by saying: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. When looking at average lifespans, you need to take into consideration that infant mortality is factored in there, so people did not just drop dead at 35. Infant mortality rates dropped because Western Allopathic medicine is wonderful. Antibiotics have saved many lives, as have vaccinations. Allopathic medicine is second to none when it comes to acute situations. With that said, it is not perfect. Pharmaceuticals come with many side effects, many of which are worse than the problem they are trying to treat. For many chronic conditions, there is no cure in allopathy. Patients are often given a vague diagnosis like IBS when the problem is something more serious or sometimes told their symptoms are all in their head. Alternative therapies offer a different perspective on the human body and are grounded in science and steeped in tradition. The herbs used are especially powerful for prevention. A skilled practitioner can identify a problem before it becomes a pathology and counsel the client on nutrition, lifestyle, and herbs. It's not a path for those who just want a quick fix or magic bullet. There is no such thing and they may need to wait a long time for allopathic medicine to cure their chronic condition or find a vaccine. Healing takes work. You don't see an aryuvedic doctor for a broken leg. You see them if you've been having symptoms that haven't been resolved by allopathic medicine or if you don't want to take pharmaceuticals for whatever reason, or you just want preventative care. It is an ancient healing modality, but is by no means static. It evolves and advances just as allopathy does; practitioners keep up to date on scientific studies.
So it only works on vague illnesses, in vague ways, and not on anything serious? After 5000 years shouldn't it be more well defined and more effective? Western science based medicine has only been around a hundred years and it's already conquered/eradicated/cured many terminal illnesses. After 5000 years shouldn't alternative medicine have something to show for itself rather than studies showing it's no different than placebo???
I believe you stated earlier that life spans have increased due to Western medicine? That's only one factor among many. And the PP stated that Western medicine is great for acute situations. It absolutely is. However, Western medicine as it is currently practiced leans overwhelmingly towards treating the symptoms, rather than the underlying cause. It generally is not considered to have a preventative focus (not that it can't, it just doesn't).
Where I live, a good portion of the population is focused on a more holistic view of health. They don't shun Western medicine, but recognize it as just one part of the whole. People tend to look for ways in which they can keep themselves healthy, or become healthy and remain so, without waiting until they need the interventions that Western medicine can provide. Subscribing to one does not mean you have to completely denounce the other.
I'd say vaccines are pretty preventative. The ability to prevent smallpox/polio, etc. Increasing the survivability of many types of cancer, etc. Western medicine is incredibly impressive. I'm not up to date on anything cured or prevented by alternative medicine, is there anything? After 5000 years it should be easy to point out multiple historical examples of diseases cured, plagues averted, by alternative medicine, IF it worked like proponents claim. Yet the best we get is it helps with "imbalances"?
*edited for clarity
Are you just being deliberately obtuse?
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.
So common sense preventative measures are "holistic" now??? Actually you said that holistic alt medicine worked to prevent illness. I asked what it prevented and you've yet to name 1 thing!
Western medicine focuses on prevention, treating symptoms, AND actually curing things! And has thousands of examples to prove its effectiveness.
I don't see us getting anywhere, so probably best to agree to disagree.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »I was thinking of this thread last night when...well, I'll just call her my yoga therapist, but she does:
Yoga as Therapy
Transformational Bodyworker
Registered Yoga Teacher
Thai Massage
Reiki Practitioner
Orthopedic Yoga Therapy
Divine Sleep Yoga Nidra and Meditation
So anyway, I have two medical conditions monitored by regular doctors. But I actually find it more helpful to look at them holistically and energetically with my yoga therapist. Last night, we had a nice discussion about how Condition 1 relates to the chakra system.
Allopathic medicine has not been particularly useful for these conditions and a holistic approach has.
You do realize that the whole qi/energy flow stuff was debunked by a 9 year old as a science fair project? Reiki can supposedly be done over the phone! That should certainly set off your bullsh!t meter. All this stuff does is provide a placebo effect for the suggestible.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »I was thinking of this thread last night when...well, I'll just call her my yoga therapist, but she does:
Yoga as Therapy
Transformational Bodyworker
Registered Yoga Teacher
Thai Massage
Reiki Practitioner
Orthopedic Yoga Therapy
Divine Sleep Yoga Nidra and Meditation
So anyway, I have two medical conditions monitored by regular doctors. But I actually find it more helpful to look at them holistically and energetically with my yoga therapist. Last night, we had a nice discussion about how Condition 1 relates to the chakra system.
Allopathic medicine has not been particularly useful for these conditions and a holistic approach has.
You do realize that the whole qi/energy flow stuff was debunked by a 9 year old as a science fair project? Reiki can supposedly be done over the phone! That should certainly set off your bullsh!t meter. All this stuff does is provide a placebo effect for the suggestible.0 -
hollyrayburn wrote: »I understand what people here are saying. That calories that contain certain nutrients are more beneficial to your overall health. Example: I could do a "twinkie" diet, stay under calories, and lose, sure. I'd feel tired, because I am not getting the proper nutrients that my body needs.
My potassium tends to drop, so I tend to try to fuel my body with potassium rich foods such as kiwis, bananas, potatoes, etc.
Nutrition should be general knowledge, but sadly, it's not. I remember learning about the "pyramid" in school. Have I adhered to it? Nope! Also, we have become a food society. We eat for celebration, boredom, greif, anger, fun. Not to live.
But, to imply you can't eat ANYTHING you want at a deficit and have a loss is incorrect.
I'm going to feel good today fueling my body with foods that a decent mixture of p/f/c, potassium, fiber, and sugars. It even includes some frozen pizza for dinner, which I am sure this ancient belief would forbid. There's even room for gelato durng playstation time, if I wish. I won't ever condem any food as bad and "ban" it from my diet if I enjoy it. I don't buy into that "5 foods you should never eat if you don't wanna gain" video, and I don't buy into this other thing.
If someone enjoys that type of plan, more power to them.
Well said. Nutrition and weigh loss are two different things, but I know I feel better all over when I pay attention to both.
0 -
Just wondering, if all this 5000 year old "ancient wisdom" was effective and worked, why did we need to advance to western science based medicine? I mean why bother if we already had something that worked? And why is it that life spans didn't increase until science based medicine? Why not just stick with acupuncture, ayurvedic, blood letting and leaches? Honestly curious.
This is a good question. Let's start by saying: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. When looking at average lifespans, you need to take into consideration that infant mortality is factored in there, so people did not just drop dead at 35. Infant mortality rates dropped because Western Allopathic medicine is wonderful. Antibiotics have saved many lives, as have vaccinations. Allopathic medicine is second to none when it comes to acute situations. With that said, it is not perfect. Pharmaceuticals come with many side effects, many of which are worse than the problem they are trying to treat. For many chronic conditions, there is no cure in allopathy. Patients are often given a vague diagnosis like IBS when the problem is something more serious or sometimes told their symptoms are all in their head. Alternative therapies offer a different perspective on the human body and are grounded in science and steeped in tradition. The herbs used are especially powerful for prevention. A skilled practitioner can identify a problem before it becomes a pathology and counsel the client on nutrition, lifestyle, and herbs. It's not a path for those who just want a quick fix or magic bullet. There is no such thing and they may need to wait a long time for allopathic medicine to cure their chronic condition or find a vaccine. Healing takes work. You don't see an aryuvedic doctor for a broken leg. You see them if you've been having symptoms that haven't been resolved by allopathic medicine or if you don't want to take pharmaceuticals for whatever reason, or you just want preventative care. It is an ancient healing modality, but is by no means static. It evolves and advances just as allopathy does; practitioners keep up to date on scientific studies.
So it only works on vague illnesses, in vague ways, and not on anything serious? After 5000 years shouldn't it be more well defined and more effective? Western science based medicine has only been around a hundred years and it's already conquered/eradicated/cured many terminal illnesses. After 5000 years shouldn't alternative medicine have something to show for itself rather than studies showing it's no different than placebo???
I believe you stated earlier that life spans have increased due to Western medicine? That's only one factor among many. And the PP stated that Western medicine is great for acute situations. It absolutely is. However, Western medicine as it is currently practiced leans overwhelmingly towards treating the symptoms, rather than the underlying cause. It generally is not considered to have a preventative focus (not that it can't, it just doesn't).
Where I live, a good portion of the population is focused on a more holistic view of health. They don't shun Western medicine, but recognize it as just one part of the whole. People tend to look for ways in which they can keep themselves healthy, or become healthy and remain so, without waiting until they need the interventions that Western medicine can provide. Subscribing to one does not mean you have to completely denounce the other.
I'd say vaccines are pretty preventative. The ability to prevent smallpox/polio, etc. Increasing the survivability of many types of cancer, etc. Western medicine is incredibly impressive. I'm not up to date on anything cured or prevented by alternative medicine, is there anything? After 5000 years it should be easy to point out multiple historical examples of diseases cured, plagues averted, by alternative medicine, IF it worked like proponents claim. Yet the best we get is it helps with "imbalances"?
*edited for clarity
Are you just being deliberately obtuse?
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.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »I was thinking of this thread last night when...well, I'll just call her my yoga therapist, but she does:
Yoga as Therapy
Transformational Bodyworker
Registered Yoga Teacher
Thai Massage
Reiki Practitioner
Orthopedic Yoga Therapy
Divine Sleep Yoga Nidra and Meditation
So anyway, I have two medical conditions monitored by regular doctors. But I actually find it more helpful to look at them holistically and energetically with my yoga therapist. Last night, we had a nice discussion about how Condition 1 relates to the chakra system.
Allopathic medicine has not been particularly useful for these conditions and a holistic approach has.
What I wanted to express here is that I can utilize more than one healing modality at the same time - I don't believe one has to treat things all allopathically or all holistically or all whatever, and in fact, I prefer to consider more than one aspect and would find otherwise limiting.
As I am relating this anecdotally and have no intention of defending my experience and beliefs as if they were a thesis, I will not be giving specifics on this thread.
Why not?
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »I was thinking of this thread last night when...well, I'll just call her my yoga therapist, but she does:
Yoga as Therapy
Transformational Bodyworker
Registered Yoga Teacher
Thai Massage
Reiki Practitioner
Orthopedic Yoga Therapy
Divine Sleep Yoga Nidra and Meditation
So anyway, I have two medical conditions monitored by regular doctors. But I actually find it more helpful to look at them holistically and energetically with my yoga therapist. Last night, we had a nice discussion about how Condition 1 relates to the chakra system.
Allopathic medicine has not been particularly useful for these conditions and a holistic approach has.
You do realize that the whole qi/energy flow stuff was debunked by a 9 year old as a science fair project? Reiki can supposedly be done over the phone! That should certainly set off your bullsh!t meter. All this stuff does is provide a placebo effect for the suggestible.
Not the word I would have used...;)
0 -
hollyrayburn wrote: »I understand what people here are saying. That calories that contain certain nutrients are more beneficial to your overall health. Example: I could do a "twinkie" diet, stay under calories, and lose, sure. I'd feel tired, because I am not getting the proper nutrients that my body needs.
My potassium tends to drop, so I tend to try to fuel my body with potassium rich foods such as kiwis, bananas, potatoes, etc.
Nutrition should be general knowledge, but sadly, it's not. I remember learning about the "pyramid" in school. Have I adhered to it? Nope! Also, we have become a food society. We eat for celebration, boredom, greif, anger, fun. Not to live.
But, to imply you can't eat ANYTHING you want at a deficit and have a loss is incorrect.
I'm going to feel good today fueling my body with foods that a decent mixture of p/f/c, potassium, fiber, and sugars. It even includes some frozen pizza for dinner, which I am sure this ancient belief would forbid. There's even room for gelato durng playstation time, if I wish. I won't ever condem any food as bad and "ban" it from my diet if I enjoy it. I don't buy into that "5 foods you should never eat if you don't wanna gain" video, and I don't buy into this other thing.
If someone enjoys that type of plan, more power to them.
Well said. Nutrition and weigh loss are two different things, but I know I feel better all over when I pay attention to both.
No kidding! Yesterday's breakfast for me was a chick fila biscuit. Felt sluggish all day. Today was greek yogurt with honey and apples, followed by a snack of beef jerky and string cheese. I feel awesome and wish work would hurry up and end so I can hit the gym! Haha.0 -
Researchers are not so quick to scoff at the value of the placebo effect as some posters here.
Here's an interesting article: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/04/is-the-placebo-effect-in-your-dna/390360/
Interestingly, angry/hostile people are less likely to benefit from the placebo effect. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/231877260 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Researchers are not so quick to scoff at the value of the placebo effect as some posters here.
Here's an interesting article: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/04/is-the-placebo-effect-in-your-dna/390360/
Interestingly, angry/hostile people are less likely to benefit from the placebo effect. http-://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23187726
We aren't scoffing at the placebo effect--we're scoffing at people being charged money for things with no demonstrable medical value. Would you think it was okay for your physician to charge you big bucks for something with no benefit other than placebo?0 -
You're incorrect in thinking that a placebo effect has no medical value.0
-
PLACEBO (noun)
a harmless pill, medicine, or procedure prescribed more for the psychological benefit to the patient than for any physiological effect.
a substance that has no therapeutic effect, used as a control in testing new drugs.
a measure designed merely to calm or please someone.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions