Ayurvedic nutrition for weight loss (and general sanity)
Options
Replies
-
0 -
margaretlb4 wrote: »
after reading this a few times I'm not sure what you mean? Aren't you saying the same thing I am?margaretlb4 wrote: »Also, at this point, in response to many of these threads, I'm not just talking about ayurveda. I'm talking about complementary integrative health. In my original post, I was asking a question about ayurveda and digestion. And it has spiraled into this sometimes ridiculous argument about if integrative and ayurvedic health is good.margaretlb4 wrote: »I am not an ayurvedic practitioner, but I do have my wits about me and if someone prescribed me vomiting as therapy, I probably wouldn't do it. Just like if my normal doc prescribed me a bunch of antibiotics, I would not necessarily take them, as some not so great western doctors have done that in my past, and I got pseudomembraneous intercolitis from over prescription of antibiotics. After much suffering over many months, it took a gastroenterologist in my family to figure out what was going on, and that I was getting sick from the antibiotics. If I had gone to my integral doctor, he would have looked closer and most likely not prescribed antibiotics as the first thing. I say "most likely" because my integral doctor is trained in both western and alternative/eastern modalities and it has been my experience that they try to prescribe herbs and less invasive things first. But then again, maybe he would have. I dunno, not a doctor. But at least he has both to call on. THIS IS ALL I'M SAYING HERE. How can that be bad?
Your anecdote is post hoc justification. I can just as easily make up a story that if you had gone to your integrative doctor, he'd have prescribed you herbs that made you sicker than any antibiotic. There is nothing about herbs that make them any safer than synthetically made treatments. In fact, I'm inclined to say the opposite, most of nature is actually pretty happy or at best indifferent to seeing human being dead.margaretlb4 wrote: »ps. I am currently speaking to an nutritionist about issues with my digestion, and she has given me some ayurvedic recipes, as I have had digestive issues since the pseudomembraneous intercolitis over 10 years ago now. They are working out GREAT, not as much pain and gas. Hm, dont think that's a placebo. Again, I'm thin and fit, losing weight is not my primary goal of being on here, improving my health and getting stronger is. I am trying to lose about 8 pounds as a secondary measure but mostly i'm working on digestion. These ayurvedic recipes have pretty much rocked my world. So I'm gonna stick with it. And I'm sure someone on here is gonna tell me that Im just dreaming this up, I'm here to tell you I love these dreams if they can prevent stomach upset, heartburn and pain. That's some pretty strong sugar water.0 -
margaretlb4 wrote: »
after reading this a few times I'm not sure what you mean? Aren't you saying the same thing I am?margaretlb4 wrote: »Also, at this point, in response to many of these threads, I'm not just talking about ayurveda. I'm talking about complementary integrative health. In my original post, I was asking a question about ayurveda and digestion. And it has spiraled into this sometimes ridiculous argument about if integrative and ayurvedic health is good.margaretlb4 wrote: »I am not an ayurvedic practitioner, but I do have my wits about me and if someone prescribed me vomiting as therapy, I probably wouldn't do it. Just like if my normal doc prescribed me a bunch of antibiotics, I would not necessarily take them, as some not so great western doctors have done that in my past, and I got pseudomembraneous intercolitis from over prescription of antibiotics. After much suffering over many months, it took a gastroenterologist in my family to figure out what was going on, and that I was getting sick from the antibiotics. If I had gone to my integral doctor, he would have looked closer and most likely not prescribed antibiotics as the first thing. I say "most likely" because my integral doctor is trained in both western and alternative/eastern modalities and it has been my experience that they try to prescribe herbs and less invasive things first. But then again, maybe he would have. I dunno, not a doctor. But at least he has both to call on. THIS IS ALL I'M SAYING HERE. How can that be bad?
Your anecdote is post hoc justification. I can just as easily make up a story that if you had gone to your integrative doctor, he'd have prescribed you herbs that made you sicker than any antibiotic. There is nothing about herbs that make them any safer than synthetically made treatments. In fact, I'm inclined to say the opposite, most of nature is actually pretty happy or at best indifferent to seeing human being dead.margaretlb4 wrote: »ps. I am currently speaking to an nutritionist about issues with my digestion, and she has given me some ayurvedic recipes, as I have had digestive issues since the pseudomembraneous intercolitis over 10 years ago now. They are working out GREAT, not as much pain and gas. Hm, dont think that's a placebo. Again, I'm thin and fit, losing weight is not my primary goal of being on here, improving my health and getting stronger is. I am trying to lose about 8 pounds as a secondary measure but mostly i'm working on digestion. These ayurvedic recipes have pretty much rocked my world. So I'm gonna stick with it. And I'm sure someone on here is gonna tell me that Im just dreaming this up, I'm here to tell you I love these dreams if they can prevent stomach upset, heartburn and pain. That's some pretty strong sugar water.
Really?! It couldn't possibly be that the phytochemistry within herbs works with the dog's physiology.0 -
margaretlb4 wrote: »
after reading this a few times I'm not sure what you mean? Aren't you saying the same thing I am?margaretlb4 wrote: »Also, at this point, in response to many of these threads, I'm not just talking about ayurveda. I'm talking about complementary integrative health. In my original post, I was asking a question about ayurveda and digestion. And it has spiraled into this sometimes ridiculous argument about if integrative and ayurvedic health is good.margaretlb4 wrote: »I am not an ayurvedic practitioner, but I do have my wits about me and if someone prescribed me vomiting as therapy, I probably wouldn't do it. Just like if my normal doc prescribed me a bunch of antibiotics, I would not necessarily take them, as some not so great western doctors have done that in my past, and I got pseudomembraneous intercolitis from over prescription of antibiotics. After much suffering over many months, it took a gastroenterologist in my family to figure out what was going on, and that I was getting sick from the antibiotics. If I had gone to my integral doctor, he would have looked closer and most likely not prescribed antibiotics as the first thing. I say "most likely" because my integral doctor is trained in both western and alternative/eastern modalities and it has been my experience that they try to prescribe herbs and less invasive things first. But then again, maybe he would have. I dunno, not a doctor. But at least he has both to call on. THIS IS ALL I'M SAYING HERE. How can that be bad?
Your anecdote is post hoc justification. I can just as easily make up a story that if you had gone to your integrative doctor, he'd have prescribed you herbs that made you sicker than any antibiotic. There is nothing about herbs that make them any safer than synthetically made treatments. In fact, I'm inclined to say the opposite, most of nature is actually pretty happy or at best indifferent to seeing human being dead.margaretlb4 wrote: »ps. I am currently speaking to an nutritionist about issues with my digestion, and she has given me some ayurvedic recipes, as I have had digestive issues since the pseudomembraneous intercolitis over 10 years ago now. They are working out GREAT, not as much pain and gas. Hm, dont think that's a placebo. Again, I'm thin and fit, losing weight is not my primary goal of being on here, improving my health and getting stronger is. I am trying to lose about 8 pounds as a secondary measure but mostly i'm working on digestion. These ayurvedic recipes have pretty much rocked my world. So I'm gonna stick with it. And I'm sure someone on here is gonna tell me that Im just dreaming this up, I'm here to tell you I love these dreams if they can prevent stomach upset, heartburn and pain. That's some pretty strong sugar water.
You're only answering parts of my questions, and the ones that suit you so I don't really know how to respond to you, and don't think it's worthwhile to continue. Good luck with your weight loss and journey on here!
0 -
Really?! It couldn't possibly be that the phytochemistry within herbs works with the dog's physiology.
Do you realize how desperate to cling to your beliefs that remark sounds?
Some examples:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19912522
http://www.appliedanimalbehaviour.com/article/S0168-1591(14)00188-9/abstract
-1 -
No, you didn't mention a study before or link to any, so I inquired for more information to back up your claim. I had been wondering about the placebo effect in dogs, newborns, horses, etc... So thanks, I'm always learning.
Also, no. It still seems like you believe that herbs only work by placebo effect. Or else, I don't know what your point in even bringing it up was. Your argument this entire thread has been based on unwarranted assumptions. You don't even understand Aryuveda well enough to use the proper vocabulary to describe its methodology.0 -
The scientific method is a methodology that is intended to extract truth from speculation. Religious rituals and methodologies are intended to elicit a particular state of being or mind and there is no scientific rigor demanded or expected.
The problem arises when religious or traditional practices tread in to scientific territory, claiming the same validity without the same scientific rigor. One cannot demand the skeptical inquirer to understand or follow all the rituals of a particular religious or traditional belief to declare it invalid.
Now, there are scientists who have shown interest in religious/traditional practices and beliefs, and have applied hypotheses and experiments exploring the significance of these beliefs. Not about food, but beliefs and morality, have been admired and studied by Haidt.0 -
margaretlb4 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
Mama, you have the patience of a saint to still be involved in this thread. The woo, it burns...
Hey, I'd love it if you could respond to what is being discussed here (maybe my post directly above yours) instead of insulting us on this thread? This is the tone I'm talking about - condescension.
If a system of treatment based on astronomy works at all, it is purely by accident.
Determining the value or truth of a practice based on its age is horrifying. Infanticide is a very ancient practice, does that mean it's a better practice than more modern ones such as taking prenatal vitamins or, you know, just not leaving babies in the wilderness to die? Poor logic is illogical.0 -
No, you didn't mention a study before or link to any, so I inquired for more information to back up your claim. I had been wondering about the placebo effect in dogs, newborns, horses, etc... So thanks, I'm always learning.
Also, no. It still seems like you believe that herbs only work by placebo effect. Or else, I don't know what your point in even bringing it up was. Your argument this entire thread has been based on unwarranted assumptions. You don't even understand Aryuveda well enough to use the proper vocabulary to describe its methodology.
I don't know if the herb works beyond placebo effect or not. Neither does the person taking it. No one can know unless the particular herb is clinically studied versus the effect of a placebo. What I do, most definitively know, is that the reasoning used to prescribe it is invariably wrong. The central dogma of Ayurvedia is wrong, we don't operate on 5 elements that cause only 7 types of tissues in the human body to mix in certain quantities.
As far as if I understand Aryuvedic medicine and its vocabulary: by that standard, you don't know me well enough to level any criticism at anything I say, so you're wrong! See how that works? I know the basis of it is false. That's enough. Even if it accidentally produced results for someone, it is still unethical to provide someone with a medical treatment that works correctly but does so for the wrong reasons.0 -
The scientific method is a methodology that is intended to extract truth from speculation. Religious rituals and methodologies are intended to elicit a particular state of being or mind and there is no scientific rigor demanded or expected.
The problem arises when religious or traditional practices tread in to scientific territory, claiming the same validity without the same scientific rigor. One cannot demand the skeptical inquirer to understand or follow all the rituals of a particular religious or traditional belief to declare it invalid.
Now, there are scientists who have shown interest in religious/traditional practices and beliefs, and have applied hypotheses and experiments exploring the significance of these beliefs. Not about food, but beliefs and morality, have been admired and studied by Haidt.
Please, noone on this thread is demanding anyone follow any rituals; only asking for some tolerance. I've tried to educate on how the Aryuvedic model works, but my words always get spun.0 -
margaretlb4 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
Mama, you have the patience of a saint to still be involved in this thread. The woo, it burns...
Hey, I'd love it if you could respond to what is being discussed here (maybe my post directly above yours) instead of insulting us on this thread? This is the tone I'm talking about - condescension.
If a system of treatment based on astronomy works at all, it is purely by accident.
Determining the value or truth of a practice based on its age is horrifying. Infanticide is a very ancient practice, does that mean it's a better practice than more modern ones such as taking prenatal vitamins or, you know, just not leaving babies in the wilderness to die? Poor logic is illogical.
Poor logic? Funny, your post has too many logical fallacies to list. Let's see: Red Herring, false analogy, appeal to fear, appeal to ridicule, appeal to motive, chronological snobbery, and straw man.0 -
No, you didn't mention a study before or link to any, so I inquired for more information to back up your claim. I had been wondering about the placebo effect in dogs, newborns, horses, etc... So thanks, I'm always learning.
Also, no. It still seems like you believe that herbs only work by placebo effect. Or else, I don't know what your point in even bringing it up was. Your argument this entire thread has been based on unwarranted assumptions. You don't even understand Aryuveda well enough to use the proper vocabulary to describe its methodology.
I don't know if the herb works beyond placebo effect or not. Neither does the person taking it. No one can know unless the particular herb is clinically studied versus the effect of a placebo. What I do, most definitively know, is that the reasoning used to prescribe it is invariably wrong. The central dogma of Ayurvedia is wrong, we don't operate on 5 elements that cause only 7 types of tissues in the human body to mix in certain quantities.
As far as if I understand Aryuvedic medicine and its vocabulary: by that standard, you don't know me well enough to level any criticism at anything I say, so you're wrong! See how that works? I know the basis of it is false. That's enough. Even if it accidentally produced results for someone, it is still unethical to provide someone with a medical treatment that works correctly but does so for the wrong reasons.
Wow, which skeptic forum is the portal to omniscience? You are certain without a shadow of a doubt. That's just...wow.
Okay, let's say I told you that somewhere in orbit between Earth and the moon there is a rock 16" in diameter with two dents in it. It is too small to see with a telescope. Does the rock exist?
0 -
I won't tolerate the suggestion that an Aryuvedic ritual is on par with treatments that have undergone scientific rigor, no matter how long they have been practiced.
If it does no harm, meh. Just don't make any special claims.0 -
@jgnatca from page 7:Just wondering, if all this 5000 year old "ancient wisdom" was effective and worked, why did we need to advance to western science based medicine? I mean why bother if we already had something that worked? And why is it that life spans didn't increase until science based medicine? Why not just stick with acupuncture, ayurvedic, blood letting and leaches? Honestly curious.
This is a good question. Let's start by saying: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. When looking at average lifespans, you need to take into consideration that infant mortality is factored in there, so people did not just drop dead at 35. Infant mortality rates dropped because Western Allopathic medicine is wonderful. Antibiotics have saved many lives, as have vaccinations. Allopathic medicine is second to none when it comes to acute situations. With that said, it is not perfect. Pharmaceuticals come with many side effects, many of which are worse than the problem they are trying to treat. For many chronic conditions, there is no cure in allopathy. Patients are often given a vague diagnosis like IBS when the problem is something more serious or sometimes told their symptoms are all in their head. Alternative therapies offer a different perspective on the human body and are grounded in science and steeped in tradition. The herbs used are especially powerful for prevention. A skilled practitioner can identify a problem before it becomes a pathology and counsel the client on nutrition, lifestyle, and herbs. It's not a path for those who just want a quick fix or magic bullet. There is no such thing and they may need to wait a long time for allopathic medicine to cure their chronic condition or find a vaccine. Healing takes work. You don't see an aryuvedic doctor for a broken leg. You see them if you've been having symptoms that haven't been resolved by allopathic medicine or if you don't want to take pharmaceuticals for whatever reason, or you just want preventative care. It is an ancient healing modality, but is by no means static. It evolves and advances just as allopathy does; practitioners keep up to date on scientific studies.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
Mama, you have the patience of a saint to still be involved in this thread. The woo, it burns...
Nah, I'm out. A certain poster won't answer a basic question, appeals to logic when it suits her but doesn't use it in the flow of the conversation, moves goal posts, drops non sequiturs to deflect, and to be honest? The OP isn't using all out woo-woo, she's just eating some recipes with some herbs and spices in them. Meh.
I drink an herbal tea when my throat's sore (great stuff, it's called Throat Coat).
This post isn't a debate, it's a train wreck. Debates follow point and counter point. When your opponent drops repeated non sequiturs rather than countering your points? You're just spinning your wheels. I've got better things to do with my time.
0 -
For many chronic conditions, there is no cure in allopathy.0
-
Hubby suffers from two others; glaucoma and low thyroid. I used to moan that at least we could have coordinated our chronic health conditions so we could share medications, but noooo.
I would not trust anything other than synthroid to treat low thyroid.
I would not dare try a traditional treatment for glaucoma. The consequences of poor judgement is blindness!0 -
Oh, in for this, for reasons...For many chronic conditions, there is no cure in allopathy
Yes, that's true. I suffer from 4 of them. I'm on treatments to alleviate their symptoms, but I'll never be rid of them. That's what chronic means.
Do tell which chronic condition current medicine can't cure that ayurveda can.
I await your typical non-response.0 -
Hubby suffers from two others; glaucoma and low thyroid. I used to moan that at least we could have coordinated our chronic health conditions so we could share medications, but noooo.
I would not trust anything other than synthroid to treat low thyroid.
I would not dare try a traditional treatment for glaucoma. The consequences of poor judgement is blindness!
I see from time to time people who want to try to treat their low thyroid through diet. The amount of veggies, some of which are my favorite like broccoli, that I would have to give up would be staggering on top of everything else. I don't consider the fact that I'll be on a med for the rest of my life because of hypothyroidism a personal failing, though, so I think that helps.
0 -
No, you didn't mention a study before or link to any, so I inquired for more information to back up your claim. I had been wondering about the placebo effect in dogs, newborns, horses, etc... So thanks, I'm always learning.
Also, no. It still seems like you believe that herbs only work by placebo effect. Or else, I don't know what your point in even bringing it up was. Your argument this entire thread has been based on unwarranted assumptions. You don't even understand Aryuveda well enough to use the proper vocabulary to describe its methodology.
I don't know if the herb works beyond placebo effect or not. Neither does the person taking it. No one can know unless the particular herb is clinically studied versus the effect of a placebo. What I do, most definitively know, is that the reasoning used to prescribe it is invariably wrong. The central dogma of Ayurvedia is wrong, we don't operate on 5 elements that cause only 7 types of tissues in the human body to mix in certain quantities.
As far as if I understand Aryuvedic medicine and its vocabulary: by that standard, you don't know me well enough to level any criticism at anything I say, so you're wrong! See how that works? I know the basis of it is false. That's enough. Even if it accidentally produced results for someone, it is still unethical to provide someone with a medical treatment that works correctly but does so for the wrong reasons.
Wow, which skeptic forum is the portal to omniscience? You are certain without a shadow of a doubt. That's just...wow.
Okay, let's say I told you that somewhere in orbit between Earth and the moon there is a rock 16" in diameter with two dents in it. It is too small to see with a telescope. Does the rock exist?
I don't need omnscience to prove something false, only to completely prove something real. That's a limit of rational empiricism. I can definitively say, my body is not filled with fire elements and earth elements. Trying to inverse me with Russel's teapot don't float.
Tell me what predictions the rock's existence make, and I'll tell you how to test if it exists or not. Ayurvedic's central theory fails to have predictive and explanatory power, therefore, it is false.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 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
- 939 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions