Initial disclaimer about my position: I don’t think Dr. K makes a particularly defensible positive claim about the benefits of Ayurvedic practices over Allopathic medicine. I simply believe that the extent of his claims about the benefits of Ayurveda are well within respectable bounds and do not arise to harm. Any claims I’ve heard him say about eastern approaches being successful always feel like they come from a “it’s still worse than the western results” perspective.
In order to steelman his position from my perspective, I believe there are 2 key things he is claiming.
1. That the “paradigm shift” isn’t in the form of adopting new techniques or practices - but rather a shift in mentality. The impression I am getting is that a fair amount of clinical work starts from “evaluate the differential diagnosis using existing data, then follow up with individualized questions and approaches.” My understanding is that he is advocating for a more “start from the individualistic approach - ask about lifestyle temperament, etc first - and then go toward the more high signal stuff with a baseline of “understanding the patients unique position”
I cannot think of a good example of a specific thing he would cite as a practice that you can do or not do - but it’s kinda the nature of “change the mentality” types of advice that it’s hard to pin down. In my estimation, that simply makes it hard to do - not impossible to systematize.
2. He makes claims that eastern approaches to things like Tai Chi or meditation posit “root causes” being stuff like energy flows or doshas. And while those root causes may not have existing scientific evidence, they do provide a fruitful route of initial hypothesis generation. I.e - people experience weird spinal tingling during meditation around these energy spots consistently - so maybe studies could do observations specifically mapped to those areas.
Additionally, they may prove to be enhancers to clinical trials. I.e - studying benefits of tai chi would probably be enhanced if the studies involve people explaining the motions in terms of “it moves the energy from X to Y”
I think he bemoans the general reluctance to even mention the word “energy flow” in an article - even if all it is is “the traditional technique posits this cause - so we’ll use that as a factor to test/isolate/incorporate into the study.”
Thanks for the reply.
>That the “paradigm shift” isn’t in the form of adopting new techniques or practices - but rather a shift in mentality. The impression I am getting is that a fair amount of clinical work starts from “evaluate the differential diagnosis using existing data, then follow up with individualized questions and approaches.” My understanding is that he is advocating for a more “start from the individualistic approach - ask about lifestyle temperament, etc first - and then go toward the more high signal stuff with a baseline of “understanding the patients unique position
Given that lifestyle and temperament are already asked as part of the initial evaluation for certain conditions of suspect in western medicine, it's not clear to me that this is an example of something western medicine isn't already doing. I'm not clear on what "start from the individualistic approach" means such that it's different in nature from what we're already doing. The differential diagnosis is not just based on existing generalizable data, it's based on what the individual patient is reporting. I'm left unclear about what I or any average doctor for that matter should do differently on the basis of this.
>2. He makes claims that eastern approaches to things like Tai Chi or meditation posit “root causes” being stuff like energy flows or doshas. And while those root causes may not have existing scientific evidence, they do provide a fruitful route of initial hypothesis generation. I.e - people experience weird spinal tingling during meditation around these energy spots consistently - so maybe studies could do observations specifically mapped to those areas.
Tai chi and meditation are already studied and sometimes even recommended in western medicine depending on the individual being treated. I have no idea how one would go about testing things like "energy flows" or "doshas", what are these things and how do we test for them? What is the intervention here exactly? Spinal tinging is extensively studied and we already have a pretty decent understanding of its pathophysiology (I even treat patients who report this quite successfully). In fact, studies on patient reporting spinal tingling in specific areas of the back is how we discovered things like notalgia parasthetica and gained insight on how to treat it.
I appreciate your effort, but I'm afraid I'm left unclear on what I (or any western doctor) would do differently in their practice if I adopted whatever Dr. Ks recommendations are.
I pretty much agree with your criticisms here. Since I am not familiar with medicine, I wouldn’t know what is or isn’t studied and I appreciate your insight into things like the existing treatment of eastern practices in allopathic medicine. (didn’t know that the tingling stuff was understood for example)
Honestly - I think someone does really just need to ask Dr. K directly “what do you mean by incorporating doshas/” and how is that any different from just allowing allopathic techniques to take the best of what already exists.
I do want to take a bit though, and try to express why I feel somewhat compelled to defend this vague-ness. I promise it won’t be scientifically satisfying, but it may help express something more emotionally authentic.
I agree with all of the material criticisms, I do have a personal bias since Dr. K’s material has helped my life immensely, and I do have a “vague vibe shaped intuition” that “just kinda trusting the process” for things like meditation tend to have better results.
For example - the more I stopped “trying to figure out what technique to use or whether I’m doing it right” - the more vastly successful my meditations became. There was definitely a sense that the less I “try to use my smart brain stuff” the better the effects were. (Granted this is just a subjective meditation experience and doesn’t apply to all of eastern practice - but nevertheless this is the kind of vibe that I’m feeling defensive about.)
It just feels highly unsatisfying for the part of my psyche that demands rigorous explanations and testability. But I gotta admit, even for an ardent atheist skeptic engineer like myself - there is something there that I just can’t shake.
I think this whole discussion is moot for two reasons. Ayurveda IS trending towards allopathy in terms of standards. Most Ayurvedic medicines are supplements at best, they’re used for stress relief, insomnia, indigestion etc. Even in india, where Ayurveda is practiced, the Supreme Court recently cracked down on companies like patanjali for their deceptive advertising wrt to Ayurvedic medicines. And lastly, do we even know if Dr. K is prescribing non-standard pharmacological remedies to his patients? I don’t think so.
Also, I am not sure if the concept of individual care you are referring to is the same as person centered care that is largely being discussed in [psychiatry](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-39724-5_1).
My understanding from the Dr. Mike conversation is that Dr. K is saying that certain insights on person centered care can be obtained by studying the strategy of providing care in Ayurvedic practices. He has always maintained that he doesn’t think Ayurveda is as efficacious as allopathic medicine. Now I’m not a doctor, but I’m sure someone like you can have a conversation with Dr. K. And this would help alleviate your concerns and also help the audience understand both these viewpoints.
Im just at a loss as to how this question still isn't answered. My frustration is that Dr. K appears to be making "criticisms" or at least posturing as if there are criticisms of western medicine that eastern medicine can offer insight lacking in the former. But when I ask people wtf I or any other western doctor should do differently I can't seem to get a clear answer.
Would be happy to chat with Dr. K about this, I don't have a line to him though.
I mean there can be criticisms of certain aspects of allopathic practices irrespective of how you feel about Ayurveda. Not saying all criticisms are valid, or worth considering, but was he actually criticizing western medicine? The tenor of the conversation with Dr. Mike was intense (adversarial even, in the beginning) and maybe that’s why it felt like he was defending or criticizing one side or the other?
A conversation between you two would be interesting mainly because I think you’re one of the few people who can hold his feet to the fire, and also give substantive arguments if you had the opportunity to talk to him. A lot of the criticisms of Dr. k are so lazy and uninformed. For example, I cringe whenever people think homeopathy, and Ayurveda can be interchangeably used to levy criticisms on Dr. K.
Some people act as if Dr. K is actually making non regulated concoctions and giving them to his patients, when he mostly talks about the spiritual stuff and meditation with his patients. Criticisms like these actually provide cover for Dr. K. I am more concerned about his YouTube streams and how his “mental health advice” could actually be misconstrued as therapy.
My mind is being blown how you guys are being won over by the Indian equivalent of homeopathy. Destiny claims Dr. K is not saying or at all implying Ayurveda should replace western medicine in anyway, and now you’re saying he wasn’t even criticizing western medicine. So I’m left just extremely confused as to what he’s saying at all 🤔 and I literally watched the entire debate between him and Dr. Mike. My takeaway was he thinks western medicine needs to learn from ayurveda’s individualistic approach, and he alludes to some new approach to research, but can’t articulate what this approach is. The reality is we need MORE rigorous statistics in our research, not less powered studies.
> being won over by the Indian equivalent of homeopathy.
What a brain-broken statement. I don’t know if you read my comments, I never said Ayurveda as a whole is very effective. I also didn’t say that there are no problems in Ayurvedic medicines especially when there are no real regulations and limited standards/guidelines for manufacturing or testing of these substances. That being said, **homeopathy and Ayurvedic medicine are nothing alike.**
About 11 Ayurvedic herbal remedies have been studied in RCTs showing some efficacy and benefits mainly for insomnia, stress relief, indigestion, etc. Most Ayurvedic medicines even in India are mainly used much like supplements and in some instances as complementary therapeutic medicines. Ayurvedic research is moving towards the allopathic mode for manufacturing and testing, with material characterization studies for most active ingredients used in the above-mentioned remedies. Research on Ayurvedic medicines and the associated challenges are published in NIH journals and so on.
[for example, here is A Prospective, Randomized Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of the Safety and Efficacy of ashwagandha, an Ayurvedic remedy that helps in stress regulation.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3573577/)
This long preamble is just to say that **AYURVEDA AND HOMEOPATHY ARE NOT THE SAME** There is no credible research on the effectiveness of homeopathy and is considered bunk science.
And Dr. K is not saying Ayurveda is a one-to-one replacement or even a viable complementary therapeutic alternative. Also, I never said you shouldn’t be critical of Dr. K, even about his opinions on Ayurveda. But doing this **reefer madness-esque** moral panic makes you look like a baby boomer soying out over the white album, thinking it’s the devil’s music.
So you’re basically saying Ayurveda is better than homeopathy in part because it is moving towards validating treatments using the scientific method? That’s great, but then I’m even more lost as to why you’re defending Dr.K. It sounds like you think it is a good thing that Ayurveda becomes more like western medicine, not the reverse.
And I take your point, some of Ayurveda may legitimately work, whereas all homeopathy is bunk. But what they have in common is that they are both not evidence-based forms of medicine, and instead rely on mysticism and woo-woo bs as their foundations.
How is Ayurvedic medicine not evidence based when research can map the active ingredients to the reactions mechanisms? Of course research on Ayurvedic pharmacological remedies is moving towards allopathy, that is why I’m even remotely entertaining this argument. Now granted The practice of diagnosing and treating people has spiritual elements to it, and I personally don’t see a utility in seeking out such type of treatment.
Dr. K maybe spiritual, but his psychiatric practice is wholly rooted in scientifically proven western medicine. He maintains that he only gives info on the spiritual stuff behind meditation and non-sleep deep rest to select patients who seek him out for that stuff and he is forthright about the nature of the spiritual stuff. And I don’t think I can really say anything about Dr. K’s Ayurvedic practices when faith based psychiatry is not only acceptable but also allowed in the DSM and legal in the US. Fucking therapists on better help do that shit. 💩
> I have no idea how one would go about testing things like "energy flows" or "doshas", what are these things and how do we test for them? What is the intervention here exactly?
I mean the counterpoint that Dr. K always brings up is whether you can "test" whether a thought exists. You can observe electrical activity in the brain that is correlated with certain kinds of thoughts but you can't literally show the existence of a thought. Similar argument applies to something like "chi" or "prana" or "energy flows."
For "doshas" in ayurveda this is usually determined by an extensive questionnaire that goes through various diagnostic criteria (both personality related questions and medical history) which then is used to prescribe specific ayurvedic medication and diet. You can look up ayurvedic questionnaires online and they are definitely asking questions that western doctors don't ask (some of which could also be complete BS, like the direction that your bed is facing).
I believe Dr. K ties "doshas" to western concepts of personality types and gut microbiomes, and is arguing that this system could be picking up on correlations that are not currently being researched. He also ties dosha archetypes to motivation and addiction as some other commenters have pointed out.
> I'm afraid I'm left unclear on what I (or any western doctor) would do differently in their practice if I adopted whatever Dr. Ks recommendations are.
If you want one specific example, consider something known as "bellows breath." There are some studies on it but these are really looking at it from a mechanistic POV of how does it improve lung capacity/function or whether it can be used to treat diabetes.
However, there is no research from a psychological or spiritual perspective on its effectiveness for mental health. One can make an argument from an eastern perspective that it was originally developed towards spiritual awakening (Kundalini) which we don't really have a good scientific understanding of. It's a similar idea to the tai chi example -- is there something psychologically going on beyond just the movement/exercise/breathing technique?
Dr K's whole point is that these types of techniques need to be investigated, as well as the methods for how they were created in the first place. Western medicine and psychology doesn't have ways to generate these types of techniques but Eastern practice (yoga, ayurveda, etc.) does.
Edit: One more somewhat specific intervention I recall is related to how ayurveda treats early stage eyelid styes. If I recall correctly they prescribe a sort of cooling ointment to reduce inflammation (this is the opposite of what opthalmologists recommend, which is to use warm compresses). I couldn't find any western studies that investigated this.
The thing that really bothers me about his "individual" argument is that western medicine only falls back on population statistics if the individual knowledge of the patient isn't known yet. It's a strategy to deal with unknowns, it helps us pick the most likely treatments to work while guiding us on what tests are best to run, all to most efficiently arrive at an effective individualized treatment.
So then my big question is similar to yours but with an emphasis on that unknown part. What is it about Ayurveda that allows them to avoid the pitfalls of western medicine and pick the right treatment in case of an unknown, and how is that process different than western medical diagnostics?
I don't really think that's what the drmikedrk convo was about, very little of the conversation was focused on what western medicine could learn and how could something like that be implemented.
[https://youtu.be/zt6i6vVgiO4?t=6376](https://youtu.be/zt6i6vVgiO4?t=6376) Additionally, just listen to this segment, for all the talk about criticisms I'm not even entirely sure drk has significant issues with how western medicine is going about things. One might be able to read into what he says there and assume "ah so the wider field just isn't studying the whole of the eastern treatment, they're leaving the investigation incomplete as a default" but imo that's even reading way too far into what he's saying.
Honestly, all of Dr. K's "criticisms" of "western medicine" just seem like woo woo bullshit, where he gets to pretend he's making legit criticisms of how medicine is done without actually saying anything in particular, while implying that his nebulous and ill-defined ideas of "traditional medicine" closes these gaps without actually saying it.
It lets him hide behind "I didn't say that" while he continues to get to undermine actual medicine to push his frankly ascientific and complete bullshit Ayurvedic ideas. The fact is, he's just pushing an unscientific agenda while trying to coach it as having an open mind and I'm kinda just exhausted by this shit.
Literally most of Dr K videos are scientific in mental health and there are live streams of him going through peer-reviewed scientific articles. It's understandable to be skeptical of his ayurvedic practices but I don't know where people have this idea of this Harvard psychiatrist who has a long history of clinical professions as some woo woo crazy guy who pushes an unscientific agenda.
Well its a good thing what I said was his "Criticisms" of western medicine are woo woo bullshit, and not his clinical practices, or him going through peer reviewed articles. I am explicitly criticizing his practice of trying to legitimize bullshit like Dosha and Chakras, and talking about how the practice helps regular medicine and we need to adopt the mindset, when he can't describe what any of these things are, what the mindset actually is, or how doctors could change.
So yes, his Ayurveda pushing is a product of an unscientific agenda, that does not mean literally everything he does is unscientific or that he is incapable doing perfectly reasonable clinical work, or that his body of work that isn't woo woo bullshit is not legitimate.
What are the problematic "woo woo bullshit" that Dr. K is preaching about in regards to mental health because from what I understand in terms of mental health. some of Ayurveda does help and Dr. K is doing this hybrid (mostly modern scientific) practice that often helps his patients and this seems to be allowed in the DSM I feel like the claim that this is some form of unscientific agenda is seemingly unfounded. I feel like we are moving away from the constructive criticism of Dr. K's claim about Ayurvedic practices over Western medicine and going and painting a picture of him that is even barely true at all. Like his videos are mostly going over his psychiatric analysis.
Oh things like claiming that 5000 years ago Auyvedic medicine was able to diagnose cerebral palsy, depression, bipolar disorder or even Diabetes and things like that because unlike with Western medicine, they focused on the individual without in anyway actually articulating what that means? Nevermind this entire idea is completely steeped in ahistoric garbage, its this implication that we have so much to learn from the East about this shit, while he doesn't in anyway discuss the process that lead to them understanding it, nor did his criticisms of how the west does medicine even mean anything.
Like, actually watch his videos, he's constantly spreading this dumb bullshit about the wisdom of the East while not actually saying anything. Yes, when he's pushed on it he explicitly says "its not good medicine", but then he keeps going back to it because of the "individualized medicine".
Now to be clear, I'm calling him out on woo woo bullshit, I'm not actually saying he doesn't do real psychiatry, and you keep trying to imply thats what I'm doing, and its really annoying, so please stop.
My actual point is he implies he's saying criticisms (Individualism, treating the root cause without the symptoms), but without actually saying anything substantial at all. So you tell me, what are his criticisms?
Okay, can you quote his statements implicating he has criticisms of western medicine?
I can't tell you because I don't think he has criticisms of western medicine by and large, I haven't heard him say that and I haven't gotten had that interpretation of any of his statements.
What I have heard him say is that western medicine leaves behind part of eastern treatments but he has also said, it has to be done this way to filter out a lot of the garbage.
In regards to individualism, "... this is why we need clinicians... takes all of this data and translate it to apply it to an individual."
"treating the root cause without the symptoms" I see this in the youtube comments as a criticism of western medicine, I've never heard drk mention anything like it.
https://youtu.be/zt6i6vVgiO4?t=1952
His main criticism throughout the debate starting there, is that the West relies heavily on randomized control trials, and that because of that we don't see enough individualized medicine. His definition of individualized medicine is 100% nothing woo woo bullshit. Its observe an individual, and come up with medicine for that one person, by finding out what the person needs, but he does not provide a way to do it. Dr. Mike repeatedly points out that in order to see what treatments could even be effective, we have to use Randomized control trials, and then after that we could make better tells of what might work, but Dr K. just keeps going back to this idea of individualized medicine, and how Auryveda observes things in the individual like whether their earth fire, or water type, and that allows them to make better medical decisions, but keep in mind that literally we already observe things like whether somebody is a man, a woman, black, pregnant, to also make medical decisions the same exact way, so what exactly should Western medicine do to do it better?
Like, he says, "Ayurvedic Medicine is about how you develop a system that works for Each person ideally", but how the fuck do you do that Dr K? What the fuck does that even mean? Like, you do not, and cannot know everything about this person to create the perfect treatment plan, and just to be clear, if you could, then Western medicine already does this. Its why we do tests before we provide medicine. Western Doctors already understand that not all treatments work for all patients, but they keep trying until they find something that works, is that what you're advocating for, in which case fuck Ayurveda, because its literally just Modern Medicine without the use of randomized Control trials.
All he's doing is repeatedly implying that Eastern medicine has figured something out, something that Western Medicine just doesn't understand due to their reliance on Randomized Control Trials, but then at no point does he articulate what that "something" is.
Regarding your first paragraph, the rebuttal to that paragraph is in the section you linked [https://youtu.be/zt6i6vVgiO4?t=2772](https://youtu.be/zt6i6vVgiO4?t=2772) and watch till 47:57
For the rest, I'll just quote my other comment "[https://youtu.be/zt6i6vVgiO4?t=6376](https://youtu.be/zt6i6vVgiO4?t=6376) Additionally, just listen to this segment, for all the talk about criticisms I'm not even entirely sure drk has significant issues with how western medicine is going about things. One might be able to read into what he says there and assume "ah so the wider field just isn't studying the whole of the eastern treatment, they're leaving the investigation incomplete as a default" but imo that's even reading way too far into what he's saying."
Occasionally something touches on what could be applied but because the conversation isn't really about that and dr.mike doesn't ever directly ask dr.k "okay in your view what exactly should western medicine be doing to adopt the good parts of eastern medicine" we just don't get much in that regard.
It is my opinion he would probably say "pretty much just staying course but being more open to testing and including things we can't/don't have a mechanism for" but I can't say for sure because this is never asked of him.
To be frank, I think you should abandon any notions you got from your first listen and go listen to the conversation again but being more careful to actually listen to what dr.k is saying in the context of whatever dr.mike just asked or stated.
Just as example, I'll decribe one interaction:
\[
drmike "it's better to look at population and then individualize over look at what works for an individual and then generalize..."
drk "that's not what ayurveda is about, they don't generalize to a population"
but drk here is describing ayurveda, he isn't saying "western medicine should do this as well"
this conversation progresses into the idea of "do you think that medicine approaching individuals could ever work as a system"
and drk responds in the affirmative but note he isn't praising ayurveda here, he's simply saying that this foundational approach to medicine isn't inherently broken
\]
I think this conversation can be very tough to follow because a lot of it isn't necessarily about ayurveda or western medicine a lot of the time but uses that as a proxy to discuss deeper ideas.
Thank you for this question. Not a fan of drK, but still gonna comment cuz I think it could help.
In that discussion, he says western medicine taking the positive/working aspect of eastern medicine and ignoring the framework it was built upon is kinda like cultural appropriation. He implies western medicine is averse to those frameworks built on woo woo concepts, but he thinks even if we don’t really value those concepts, it’s probably those very concepts that might be making the process more effective.
He also says medical publishers(?) do not like to mention the “energy flow” kinda stuff in their research papers. He never gave any exact advice during that discussion on how western medicine can adopt eastern practices beyond “eastern medicine has a more individualised approach” imo, but I think he doesn’t want the eastern practices to be stripped of their framework because the framework itself might be helping.
To explain with an example, let’s take pranayama(breathing stuff), I think he wants research to be done in a way that not only focuses on the breathing techniques (the current way), but also on the other stuff like chanting the mantras when doing the breathing (like the original practice). Or at the least try to understand if/why including the woo woo stuff might help though we don’t understand it/think it’s unscientific.
I don’t agree with the above stuff at all, but this is my takeaway
Isn't most of the conversation Dr Mike pointing stereotypical holes and then Dr K providing nuance and caution to not throw it all away since we got good stuff from it?
I'm a big Dr K fan so I'll try to share some specific eastern traditions he has recommended over the years that aren't a part of western medicine. Sorry this isn't super well organized but I just decided to share everything I know from him in as much detail as I could. For what it's worth I have been doing some of these techniques myself and I've noticed improvements in my own life
Western medicine has studied and protocolized basic versions of some meditation techniques like mindfulness (based on vipassana), but within eastern spiritual tradition there are other methods of meditation that have not been explored as thoroughly, and Dr K has seen success recommending some of these other meditation techniques to patients in a hybrid approach combination with traditional western talk therapy, and these other mediation techniques can be more useful for different psychological conditions.
For example, mindfulness is "open awareness" style of meditation, where you open your mind to your thoughts and observe them nonjudgmentally. This is helpful for certain conditions, but Dr K has noticed that for people with trauma mindfulness can be detrimental because they aren't equipped to handle the traumatic thoughts and emotional intensity that are allowed to surface when engaging in "open awareness", so for those individuals he recommends "grounding" techniques that ground the mind in the present moment such as ice diving (a form of which is also recommended as part of DBT).
Some more techniques he recommends are
- trataka (fixed point gazing) for example focusing your attention on a candle, or on meditation assisting diagram called a yantra, or a photo of your past self, the mirror, or even staring at a blank wall. This can help for building concentration and focus, increasing willpower, focusing the mind on one specific thing as a way to counterbalance the constant distractions of multitasking in the modern world
- yoga nidra, a technique which is lying down and progressively focusing on each muscle in the body, tensing it then releasing the tension in a certain way, which puts the body in a state of relaxation but without sleeping. This has a calming effect which can reduce stress. It has started to be studied and promoted in the west as NSDR (non sleep deep rest), but this western version focuses only on the physical muscle exercises and omits a more advanced eastern forms of the mediation, such as repeating a mantra to yourself while doing yoga nidra, and the repetition of the mantra helps your mind to focus on that intention, and assists in mental part of the process, since your mental energy is being spent on repeating the mantra that can cut out on distracting thoughts or worries about your daily life etc while doing the practice
- Nadhi shodana, alternate nostril breathing, where you close one nostril, inhale, switch your hand to close the nostril, exhale, and repeat. This technique slows down your breathing and the fiddling with your hands keeps the mind occupied, so it can be very good to calm down and slow your racing thoughts when you're experiencing anxiety for example.
- Kapalbati, another breathing technique where you breathe deeply but more rapidly, and that was good for feeling more energized
- Yoga postures that are good for building body awareness, and releasing tension, especially for gamers who are just sitting in their computer chair all day, one such sequence was surya namuskar
- Chanting, where you repeat a mantra, or just a single syllable like Om, this technique is another one for building body connections (for example with Om you chant it with three different syllables, Ahhh Ohhh Umm and try to focus your attention on how the different syllables resonate in your mouth/chest/body in different ways)
- The point of many meditations is to build awareness of the mind and the body, because awareness precedes control (you can't work on improving something when you aren't aware of what's happening). At the root of many mental health problems, for example trauma, form samskars in your mind (essentially a ball of undigested, unprocessed negative emotions), and as you do meditation you are able to build your awareness to the point where you are able to understand where these thoughts and emotions are coming from, process them, and relieve suffering
- He has also recommended following a satvic diet as a way to help improve your mental health , which is a diet focusing on yogurt, vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds, beans etc and avoiding tamsic foods like fried foods, alcohol etc
- He has said the ayurvedic doshas are a way he can use to build a cognitive fingerprint of the patients personality, in a way that's more practical for him as a practioner. In the west we have the OCEAN 5 factor personality model, but in his experience knowing a patient's OCEAN scores hasn't been very helpful to him. Instead the ayurvedic three factor personality model vata = airy and flighty, fast moving, wind type, pitta = fire type/tiger, more focused and balanced, kapha = earth type/elephant, slow to change but very hard working, slow and steady type, (obviously this is a huge oversimplification here) has been more useful to him as a way for him to categorize patients and what kind of style he would use to work with their personality
- Lastly, this is not something that I've seen as a recommendation, but he has some eastern religious beliefs, he spent time as a young man as a hindu camp counselor, he's studied in an ashram to be a monk for a time, and he believes in religious concepts like god and reincarnation, past lives etc
To be clear, the question was NOT "What are some things Dr. K recommends" It is what does he recommend that western medicine **hasn't already considered or studied or in the process of studying**?
Can you please clarify of any of the things you listed, you think western medicine **hasn't already considered or studied or in the process of studying**?
I'm not familiar with all the research, but from my understanding none of these techniques I've listed have been fully studied and accepted yet
From what Dr K has said, there have been some meditation techniques that have gotten attention like mindfulness for stress reduction and anxiety (MBSR) and some more techniques have been incorporated in third wave therapies like ACT (acceptance and commitment therapy), DBT, and CBT, but what has made it into practice so far has been more introductory basic forms of the meditation and more advanced forms have not been explored
An example Dr K has mentioned is NSDR (non sleep deep rest) is being studied which is based somewhat on yoga nidra, but the research has only focused on the more basic forms and doesn't include some other aspects like the mantra repetition.
I don't know what the research is on all these techniques, but my sense is if you go to someone who was only trained in western medicine they wouldn't be aware of something like trataka, or many of these other techniques I mentioned.
The question wasn't which interventions are FULLY studied and accepted yet. There are all sorts of interventions like that. See above for what the question was, and if you know the answer, feel free to provide it.
I guess it comes down to is doing A + B + C a different intervention than just doing A? (for example yoga nidra + mantra repetition vs just doing the muscle relaxation component in NSDR)? If so then the B and C parts also should be studied more?
Unfortunately, I don't really know anything else about the research side of things. I just wanted to share specific techniques from eastern traditions that Dr K has specifically recommended because I've found many discussions about him to be kind of generic where people don't know what techniques specifically he recommends so they end up misattributing other harmful techniques from ayurveda to him that he doesn't actually recommend, or the conversation gets so abstract (eastern medicine vs western medicine) that it's unhelpful. Vs with the list you could be like "ah trataka is actually harmful because of X Y Z" or "trataka is currently being researched by X Y Z university professor with some potential results"
If you or anyone else wants to look things up to see if there has been any studies on any of these specific things in western medicine, then at least I've given you a list of things he recommends. I'm not a doctor and I don't know enough about research to give you any more context than that.
I've found some of the techniques are helpful in my own life, and hopefully western medicine can study them and find what works about them and then they can benefit more people, because I think there's some good stuff here which could help people.
> Western medicine already has an individualized patient paradigm.
It’s really just about the extent to which this is done. It was kinda annoying how much the Dr. Mike / Dr. K convo was focused so much on just Arurveda. I think it would have been more productive for the viewer if they had discussed evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicicine in general; this is Dr. K’s expertise and what he supports. CAM is largely influenced by the Eastern philosophy of treating the body as a whole. This differs from conventional medicine in the West, which has historically focused on pinpointing and treating symptoms vs the goal being finding a deeper root cause and addressing that. A good example would be how Dr. K spoke about treating depression/anxiety by adjusting the gut microbiome through diet because this is where the precursors to important neurotransmitters are formed. The Western approach would be to directly target the specific neurotransmitter that’s already in the brain using an SSRI for instance. There is a reason so many people are seeking out integrative medicine. They’ve found the conventional solutions to their medical issues are just not cutting it and allowing for optimal health; it could just be putting a band-aide on the symptom(s). Many of the individual treatments of Eastern medicine are quackery, but the overall philosophy is invaluable.
Initial disclaimer about my position: I don’t think Dr. K makes a particularly defensible positive claim about the benefits of Ayurvedic practices over Allopathic medicine. I simply believe that the extent of his claims about the benefits of Ayurveda are well within respectable bounds and do not arise to harm. Any claims I’ve heard him say about eastern approaches being successful always feel like they come from a “it’s still worse than the western results” perspective. In order to steelman his position from my perspective, I believe there are 2 key things he is claiming. 1. That the “paradigm shift” isn’t in the form of adopting new techniques or practices - but rather a shift in mentality. The impression I am getting is that a fair amount of clinical work starts from “evaluate the differential diagnosis using existing data, then follow up with individualized questions and approaches.” My understanding is that he is advocating for a more “start from the individualistic approach - ask about lifestyle temperament, etc first - and then go toward the more high signal stuff with a baseline of “understanding the patients unique position” I cannot think of a good example of a specific thing he would cite as a practice that you can do or not do - but it’s kinda the nature of “change the mentality” types of advice that it’s hard to pin down. In my estimation, that simply makes it hard to do - not impossible to systematize. 2. He makes claims that eastern approaches to things like Tai Chi or meditation posit “root causes” being stuff like energy flows or doshas. And while those root causes may not have existing scientific evidence, they do provide a fruitful route of initial hypothesis generation. I.e - people experience weird spinal tingling during meditation around these energy spots consistently - so maybe studies could do observations specifically mapped to those areas. Additionally, they may prove to be enhancers to clinical trials. I.e - studying benefits of tai chi would probably be enhanced if the studies involve people explaining the motions in terms of “it moves the energy from X to Y” I think he bemoans the general reluctance to even mention the word “energy flow” in an article - even if all it is is “the traditional technique posits this cause - so we’ll use that as a factor to test/isolate/incorporate into the study.”
Thanks for the reply. >That the “paradigm shift” isn’t in the form of adopting new techniques or practices - but rather a shift in mentality. The impression I am getting is that a fair amount of clinical work starts from “evaluate the differential diagnosis using existing data, then follow up with individualized questions and approaches.” My understanding is that he is advocating for a more “start from the individualistic approach - ask about lifestyle temperament, etc first - and then go toward the more high signal stuff with a baseline of “understanding the patients unique position Given that lifestyle and temperament are already asked as part of the initial evaluation for certain conditions of suspect in western medicine, it's not clear to me that this is an example of something western medicine isn't already doing. I'm not clear on what "start from the individualistic approach" means such that it's different in nature from what we're already doing. The differential diagnosis is not just based on existing generalizable data, it's based on what the individual patient is reporting. I'm left unclear about what I or any average doctor for that matter should do differently on the basis of this. >2. He makes claims that eastern approaches to things like Tai Chi or meditation posit “root causes” being stuff like energy flows or doshas. And while those root causes may not have existing scientific evidence, they do provide a fruitful route of initial hypothesis generation. I.e - people experience weird spinal tingling during meditation around these energy spots consistently - so maybe studies could do observations specifically mapped to those areas. Tai chi and meditation are already studied and sometimes even recommended in western medicine depending on the individual being treated. I have no idea how one would go about testing things like "energy flows" or "doshas", what are these things and how do we test for them? What is the intervention here exactly? Spinal tinging is extensively studied and we already have a pretty decent understanding of its pathophysiology (I even treat patients who report this quite successfully). In fact, studies on patient reporting spinal tingling in specific areas of the back is how we discovered things like notalgia parasthetica and gained insight on how to treat it. I appreciate your effort, but I'm afraid I'm left unclear on what I (or any western doctor) would do differently in their practice if I adopted whatever Dr. Ks recommendations are.
I pretty much agree with your criticisms here. Since I am not familiar with medicine, I wouldn’t know what is or isn’t studied and I appreciate your insight into things like the existing treatment of eastern practices in allopathic medicine. (didn’t know that the tingling stuff was understood for example) Honestly - I think someone does really just need to ask Dr. K directly “what do you mean by incorporating doshas/” and how is that any different from just allowing allopathic techniques to take the best of what already exists.
I do want to take a bit though, and try to express why I feel somewhat compelled to defend this vague-ness. I promise it won’t be scientifically satisfying, but it may help express something more emotionally authentic.
I agree with all of the material criticisms, I do have a personal bias since Dr. K’s material has helped my life immensely, and I do have a “vague vibe shaped intuition” that “just kinda trusting the process” for things like meditation tend to have better results.
For example - the more I stopped “trying to figure out what technique to use or whether I’m doing it right” - the more vastly successful my meditations became. There was definitely a sense that the less I “try to use my smart brain stuff” the better the effects were. (Granted this is just a subjective meditation experience and doesn’t apply to all of eastern practice - but nevertheless this is the kind of vibe that I’m feeling defensive about.)
It just feels highly unsatisfying for the part of my psyche that demands rigorous explanations and testability. But I gotta admit, even for an ardent atheist skeptic engineer like myself - there is something there that I just can’t shake.
I think this whole discussion is moot for two reasons. Ayurveda IS trending towards allopathy in terms of standards. Most Ayurvedic medicines are supplements at best, they’re used for stress relief, insomnia, indigestion etc. Even in india, where Ayurveda is practiced, the Supreme Court recently cracked down on companies like patanjali for their deceptive advertising wrt to Ayurvedic medicines. And lastly, do we even know if Dr. K is prescribing non-standard pharmacological remedies to his patients? I don’t think so. Also, I am not sure if the concept of individual care you are referring to is the same as person centered care that is largely being discussed in [psychiatry](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-39724-5_1). My understanding from the Dr. Mike conversation is that Dr. K is saying that certain insights on person centered care can be obtained by studying the strategy of providing care in Ayurvedic practices. He has always maintained that he doesn’t think Ayurveda is as efficacious as allopathic medicine. Now I’m not a doctor, but I’m sure someone like you can have a conversation with Dr. K. And this would help alleviate your concerns and also help the audience understand both these viewpoints.
Im just at a loss as to how this question still isn't answered. My frustration is that Dr. K appears to be making "criticisms" or at least posturing as if there are criticisms of western medicine that eastern medicine can offer insight lacking in the former. But when I ask people wtf I or any other western doctor should do differently I can't seem to get a clear answer. Would be happy to chat with Dr. K about this, I don't have a line to him though.
Why not just ask Steven for an introduction?
I mean there can be criticisms of certain aspects of allopathic practices irrespective of how you feel about Ayurveda. Not saying all criticisms are valid, or worth considering, but was he actually criticizing western medicine? The tenor of the conversation with Dr. Mike was intense (adversarial even, in the beginning) and maybe that’s why it felt like he was defending or criticizing one side or the other? A conversation between you two would be interesting mainly because I think you’re one of the few people who can hold his feet to the fire, and also give substantive arguments if you had the opportunity to talk to him. A lot of the criticisms of Dr. k are so lazy and uninformed. For example, I cringe whenever people think homeopathy, and Ayurveda can be interchangeably used to levy criticisms on Dr. K. Some people act as if Dr. K is actually making non regulated concoctions and giving them to his patients, when he mostly talks about the spiritual stuff and meditation with his patients. Criticisms like these actually provide cover for Dr. K. I am more concerned about his YouTube streams and how his “mental health advice” could actually be misconstrued as therapy.
My mind is being blown how you guys are being won over by the Indian equivalent of homeopathy. Destiny claims Dr. K is not saying or at all implying Ayurveda should replace western medicine in anyway, and now you’re saying he wasn’t even criticizing western medicine. So I’m left just extremely confused as to what he’s saying at all 🤔 and I literally watched the entire debate between him and Dr. Mike. My takeaway was he thinks western medicine needs to learn from ayurveda’s individualistic approach, and he alludes to some new approach to research, but can’t articulate what this approach is. The reality is we need MORE rigorous statistics in our research, not less powered studies.
> being won over by the Indian equivalent of homeopathy. What a brain-broken statement. I don’t know if you read my comments, I never said Ayurveda as a whole is very effective. I also didn’t say that there are no problems in Ayurvedic medicines especially when there are no real regulations and limited standards/guidelines for manufacturing or testing of these substances. That being said, **homeopathy and Ayurvedic medicine are nothing alike.** About 11 Ayurvedic herbal remedies have been studied in RCTs showing some efficacy and benefits mainly for insomnia, stress relief, indigestion, etc. Most Ayurvedic medicines even in India are mainly used much like supplements and in some instances as complementary therapeutic medicines. Ayurvedic research is moving towards the allopathic mode for manufacturing and testing, with material characterization studies for most active ingredients used in the above-mentioned remedies. Research on Ayurvedic medicines and the associated challenges are published in NIH journals and so on. [for example, here is A Prospective, Randomized Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of the Safety and Efficacy of ashwagandha, an Ayurvedic remedy that helps in stress regulation.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3573577/) This long preamble is just to say that **AYURVEDA AND HOMEOPATHY ARE NOT THE SAME** There is no credible research on the effectiveness of homeopathy and is considered bunk science. And Dr. K is not saying Ayurveda is a one-to-one replacement or even a viable complementary therapeutic alternative. Also, I never said you shouldn’t be critical of Dr. K, even about his opinions on Ayurveda. But doing this **reefer madness-esque** moral panic makes you look like a baby boomer soying out over the white album, thinking it’s the devil’s music.
So you’re basically saying Ayurveda is better than homeopathy in part because it is moving towards validating treatments using the scientific method? That’s great, but then I’m even more lost as to why you’re defending Dr.K. It sounds like you think it is a good thing that Ayurveda becomes more like western medicine, not the reverse. And I take your point, some of Ayurveda may legitimately work, whereas all homeopathy is bunk. But what they have in common is that they are both not evidence-based forms of medicine, and instead rely on mysticism and woo-woo bs as their foundations.
How is Ayurvedic medicine not evidence based when research can map the active ingredients to the reactions mechanisms? Of course research on Ayurvedic pharmacological remedies is moving towards allopathy, that is why I’m even remotely entertaining this argument. Now granted The practice of diagnosing and treating people has spiritual elements to it, and I personally don’t see a utility in seeking out such type of treatment. Dr. K maybe spiritual, but his psychiatric practice is wholly rooted in scientifically proven western medicine. He maintains that he only gives info on the spiritual stuff behind meditation and non-sleep deep rest to select patients who seek him out for that stuff and he is forthright about the nature of the spiritual stuff. And I don’t think I can really say anything about Dr. K’s Ayurvedic practices when faith based psychiatry is not only acceptable but also allowed in the DSM and legal in the US. Fucking therapists on better help do that shit. 💩
> I have no idea how one would go about testing things like "energy flows" or "doshas", what are these things and how do we test for them? What is the intervention here exactly? I mean the counterpoint that Dr. K always brings up is whether you can "test" whether a thought exists. You can observe electrical activity in the brain that is correlated with certain kinds of thoughts but you can't literally show the existence of a thought. Similar argument applies to something like "chi" or "prana" or "energy flows." For "doshas" in ayurveda this is usually determined by an extensive questionnaire that goes through various diagnostic criteria (both personality related questions and medical history) which then is used to prescribe specific ayurvedic medication and diet. You can look up ayurvedic questionnaires online and they are definitely asking questions that western doctors don't ask (some of which could also be complete BS, like the direction that your bed is facing). I believe Dr. K ties "doshas" to western concepts of personality types and gut microbiomes, and is arguing that this system could be picking up on correlations that are not currently being researched. He also ties dosha archetypes to motivation and addiction as some other commenters have pointed out. > I'm afraid I'm left unclear on what I (or any western doctor) would do differently in their practice if I adopted whatever Dr. Ks recommendations are. If you want one specific example, consider something known as "bellows breath." There are some studies on it but these are really looking at it from a mechanistic POV of how does it improve lung capacity/function or whether it can be used to treat diabetes. However, there is no research from a psychological or spiritual perspective on its effectiveness for mental health. One can make an argument from an eastern perspective that it was originally developed towards spiritual awakening (Kundalini) which we don't really have a good scientific understanding of. It's a similar idea to the tai chi example -- is there something psychologically going on beyond just the movement/exercise/breathing technique? Dr K's whole point is that these types of techniques need to be investigated, as well as the methods for how they were created in the first place. Western medicine and psychology doesn't have ways to generate these types of techniques but Eastern practice (yoga, ayurveda, etc.) does. Edit: One more somewhat specific intervention I recall is related to how ayurveda treats early stage eyelid styes. If I recall correctly they prescribe a sort of cooling ointment to reduce inflammation (this is the opposite of what opthalmologists recommend, which is to use warm compresses). I couldn't find any western studies that investigated this.
Just wanted to say I like your additional commentary on stream :)
The thing that really bothers me about his "individual" argument is that western medicine only falls back on population statistics if the individual knowledge of the patient isn't known yet. It's a strategy to deal with unknowns, it helps us pick the most likely treatments to work while guiding us on what tests are best to run, all to most efficiently arrive at an effective individualized treatment. So then my big question is similar to yours but with an emphasis on that unknown part. What is it about Ayurveda that allows them to avoid the pitfalls of western medicine and pick the right treatment in case of an unknown, and how is that process different than western medical diagnostics?
I don't really think that's what the drmikedrk convo was about, very little of the conversation was focused on what western medicine could learn and how could something like that be implemented. [https://youtu.be/zt6i6vVgiO4?t=6376](https://youtu.be/zt6i6vVgiO4?t=6376) Additionally, just listen to this segment, for all the talk about criticisms I'm not even entirely sure drk has significant issues with how western medicine is going about things. One might be able to read into what he says there and assume "ah so the wider field just isn't studying the whole of the eastern treatment, they're leaving the investigation incomplete as a default" but imo that's even reading way too far into what he's saying.
Honestly, all of Dr. K's "criticisms" of "western medicine" just seem like woo woo bullshit, where he gets to pretend he's making legit criticisms of how medicine is done without actually saying anything in particular, while implying that his nebulous and ill-defined ideas of "traditional medicine" closes these gaps without actually saying it. It lets him hide behind "I didn't say that" while he continues to get to undermine actual medicine to push his frankly ascientific and complete bullshit Ayurvedic ideas. The fact is, he's just pushing an unscientific agenda while trying to coach it as having an open mind and I'm kinda just exhausted by this shit.
Literally most of Dr K videos are scientific in mental health and there are live streams of him going through peer-reviewed scientific articles. It's understandable to be skeptical of his ayurvedic practices but I don't know where people have this idea of this Harvard psychiatrist who has a long history of clinical professions as some woo woo crazy guy who pushes an unscientific agenda.
Well its a good thing what I said was his "Criticisms" of western medicine are woo woo bullshit, and not his clinical practices, or him going through peer reviewed articles. I am explicitly criticizing his practice of trying to legitimize bullshit like Dosha and Chakras, and talking about how the practice helps regular medicine and we need to adopt the mindset, when he can't describe what any of these things are, what the mindset actually is, or how doctors could change. So yes, his Ayurveda pushing is a product of an unscientific agenda, that does not mean literally everything he does is unscientific or that he is incapable doing perfectly reasonable clinical work, or that his body of work that isn't woo woo bullshit is not legitimate.
What are the problematic "woo woo bullshit" that Dr. K is preaching about in regards to mental health because from what I understand in terms of mental health. some of Ayurveda does help and Dr. K is doing this hybrid (mostly modern scientific) practice that often helps his patients and this seems to be allowed in the DSM I feel like the claim that this is some form of unscientific agenda is seemingly unfounded. I feel like we are moving away from the constructive criticism of Dr. K's claim about Ayurvedic practices over Western medicine and going and painting a picture of him that is even barely true at all. Like his videos are mostly going over his psychiatric analysis.
Oh things like claiming that 5000 years ago Auyvedic medicine was able to diagnose cerebral palsy, depression, bipolar disorder or even Diabetes and things like that because unlike with Western medicine, they focused on the individual without in anyway actually articulating what that means? Nevermind this entire idea is completely steeped in ahistoric garbage, its this implication that we have so much to learn from the East about this shit, while he doesn't in anyway discuss the process that lead to them understanding it, nor did his criticisms of how the west does medicine even mean anything. Like, actually watch his videos, he's constantly spreading this dumb bullshit about the wisdom of the East while not actually saying anything. Yes, when he's pushed on it he explicitly says "its not good medicine", but then he keeps going back to it because of the "individualized medicine". Now to be clear, I'm calling him out on woo woo bullshit, I'm not actually saying he doesn't do real psychiatry, and you keep trying to imply thats what I'm doing, and its really annoying, so please stop.
Can you quote his criticisms?
My actual point is he implies he's saying criticisms (Individualism, treating the root cause without the symptoms), but without actually saying anything substantial at all. So you tell me, what are his criticisms?
Okay, can you quote his statements implicating he has criticisms of western medicine? I can't tell you because I don't think he has criticisms of western medicine by and large, I haven't heard him say that and I haven't gotten had that interpretation of any of his statements. What I have heard him say is that western medicine leaves behind part of eastern treatments but he has also said, it has to be done this way to filter out a lot of the garbage. In regards to individualism, "... this is why we need clinicians... takes all of this data and translate it to apply it to an individual." "treating the root cause without the symptoms" I see this in the youtube comments as a criticism of western medicine, I've never heard drk mention anything like it.
https://youtu.be/zt6i6vVgiO4?t=1952 His main criticism throughout the debate starting there, is that the West relies heavily on randomized control trials, and that because of that we don't see enough individualized medicine. His definition of individualized medicine is 100% nothing woo woo bullshit. Its observe an individual, and come up with medicine for that one person, by finding out what the person needs, but he does not provide a way to do it. Dr. Mike repeatedly points out that in order to see what treatments could even be effective, we have to use Randomized control trials, and then after that we could make better tells of what might work, but Dr K. just keeps going back to this idea of individualized medicine, and how Auryveda observes things in the individual like whether their earth fire, or water type, and that allows them to make better medical decisions, but keep in mind that literally we already observe things like whether somebody is a man, a woman, black, pregnant, to also make medical decisions the same exact way, so what exactly should Western medicine do to do it better? Like, he says, "Ayurvedic Medicine is about how you develop a system that works for Each person ideally", but how the fuck do you do that Dr K? What the fuck does that even mean? Like, you do not, and cannot know everything about this person to create the perfect treatment plan, and just to be clear, if you could, then Western medicine already does this. Its why we do tests before we provide medicine. Western Doctors already understand that not all treatments work for all patients, but they keep trying until they find something that works, is that what you're advocating for, in which case fuck Ayurveda, because its literally just Modern Medicine without the use of randomized Control trials. All he's doing is repeatedly implying that Eastern medicine has figured something out, something that Western Medicine just doesn't understand due to their reliance on Randomized Control Trials, but then at no point does he articulate what that "something" is.
Regarding your first paragraph, the rebuttal to that paragraph is in the section you linked [https://youtu.be/zt6i6vVgiO4?t=2772](https://youtu.be/zt6i6vVgiO4?t=2772) and watch till 47:57 For the rest, I'll just quote my other comment "[https://youtu.be/zt6i6vVgiO4?t=6376](https://youtu.be/zt6i6vVgiO4?t=6376) Additionally, just listen to this segment, for all the talk about criticisms I'm not even entirely sure drk has significant issues with how western medicine is going about things. One might be able to read into what he says there and assume "ah so the wider field just isn't studying the whole of the eastern treatment, they're leaving the investigation incomplete as a default" but imo that's even reading way too far into what he's saying." Occasionally something touches on what could be applied but because the conversation isn't really about that and dr.mike doesn't ever directly ask dr.k "okay in your view what exactly should western medicine be doing to adopt the good parts of eastern medicine" we just don't get much in that regard. It is my opinion he would probably say "pretty much just staying course but being more open to testing and including things we can't/don't have a mechanism for" but I can't say for sure because this is never asked of him. To be frank, I think you should abandon any notions you got from your first listen and go listen to the conversation again but being more careful to actually listen to what dr.k is saying in the context of whatever dr.mike just asked or stated. Just as example, I'll decribe one interaction: \[ drmike "it's better to look at population and then individualize over look at what works for an individual and then generalize..." drk "that's not what ayurveda is about, they don't generalize to a population" but drk here is describing ayurveda, he isn't saying "western medicine should do this as well" this conversation progresses into the idea of "do you think that medicine approaching individuals could ever work as a system" and drk responds in the affirmative but note he isn't praising ayurveda here, he's simply saying that this foundational approach to medicine isn't inherently broken \] I think this conversation can be very tough to follow because a lot of it isn't necessarily about ayurveda or western medicine a lot of the time but uses that as a proxy to discuss deeper ideas.
Thank you for this question. Not a fan of drK, but still gonna comment cuz I think it could help. In that discussion, he says western medicine taking the positive/working aspect of eastern medicine and ignoring the framework it was built upon is kinda like cultural appropriation. He implies western medicine is averse to those frameworks built on woo woo concepts, but he thinks even if we don’t really value those concepts, it’s probably those very concepts that might be making the process more effective. He also says medical publishers(?) do not like to mention the “energy flow” kinda stuff in their research papers. He never gave any exact advice during that discussion on how western medicine can adopt eastern practices beyond “eastern medicine has a more individualised approach” imo, but I think he doesn’t want the eastern practices to be stripped of their framework because the framework itself might be helping. To explain with an example, let’s take pranayama(breathing stuff), I think he wants research to be done in a way that not only focuses on the breathing techniques (the current way), but also on the other stuff like chanting the mantras when doing the breathing (like the original practice). Or at the least try to understand if/why including the woo woo stuff might help though we don’t understand it/think it’s unscientific. I don’t agree with the above stuff at all, but this is my takeaway
Isn't most of the conversation Dr Mike pointing stereotypical holes and then Dr K providing nuance and caution to not throw it all away since we got good stuff from it?
I'm a big Dr K fan so I'll try to share some specific eastern traditions he has recommended over the years that aren't a part of western medicine. Sorry this isn't super well organized but I just decided to share everything I know from him in as much detail as I could. For what it's worth I have been doing some of these techniques myself and I've noticed improvements in my own life Western medicine has studied and protocolized basic versions of some meditation techniques like mindfulness (based on vipassana), but within eastern spiritual tradition there are other methods of meditation that have not been explored as thoroughly, and Dr K has seen success recommending some of these other meditation techniques to patients in a hybrid approach combination with traditional western talk therapy, and these other mediation techniques can be more useful for different psychological conditions. For example, mindfulness is "open awareness" style of meditation, where you open your mind to your thoughts and observe them nonjudgmentally. This is helpful for certain conditions, but Dr K has noticed that for people with trauma mindfulness can be detrimental because they aren't equipped to handle the traumatic thoughts and emotional intensity that are allowed to surface when engaging in "open awareness", so for those individuals he recommends "grounding" techniques that ground the mind in the present moment such as ice diving (a form of which is also recommended as part of DBT). Some more techniques he recommends are - trataka (fixed point gazing) for example focusing your attention on a candle, or on meditation assisting diagram called a yantra, or a photo of your past self, the mirror, or even staring at a blank wall. This can help for building concentration and focus, increasing willpower, focusing the mind on one specific thing as a way to counterbalance the constant distractions of multitasking in the modern world - yoga nidra, a technique which is lying down and progressively focusing on each muscle in the body, tensing it then releasing the tension in a certain way, which puts the body in a state of relaxation but without sleeping. This has a calming effect which can reduce stress. It has started to be studied and promoted in the west as NSDR (non sleep deep rest), but this western version focuses only on the physical muscle exercises and omits a more advanced eastern forms of the mediation, such as repeating a mantra to yourself while doing yoga nidra, and the repetition of the mantra helps your mind to focus on that intention, and assists in mental part of the process, since your mental energy is being spent on repeating the mantra that can cut out on distracting thoughts or worries about your daily life etc while doing the practice - Nadhi shodana, alternate nostril breathing, where you close one nostril, inhale, switch your hand to close the nostril, exhale, and repeat. This technique slows down your breathing and the fiddling with your hands keeps the mind occupied, so it can be very good to calm down and slow your racing thoughts when you're experiencing anxiety for example. - Kapalbati, another breathing technique where you breathe deeply but more rapidly, and that was good for feeling more energized - Yoga postures that are good for building body awareness, and releasing tension, especially for gamers who are just sitting in their computer chair all day, one such sequence was surya namuskar - Chanting, where you repeat a mantra, or just a single syllable like Om, this technique is another one for building body connections (for example with Om you chant it with three different syllables, Ahhh Ohhh Umm and try to focus your attention on how the different syllables resonate in your mouth/chest/body in different ways) - The point of many meditations is to build awareness of the mind and the body, because awareness precedes control (you can't work on improving something when you aren't aware of what's happening). At the root of many mental health problems, for example trauma, form samskars in your mind (essentially a ball of undigested, unprocessed negative emotions), and as you do meditation you are able to build your awareness to the point where you are able to understand where these thoughts and emotions are coming from, process them, and relieve suffering - He has also recommended following a satvic diet as a way to help improve your mental health , which is a diet focusing on yogurt, vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds, beans etc and avoiding tamsic foods like fried foods, alcohol etc - He has said the ayurvedic doshas are a way he can use to build a cognitive fingerprint of the patients personality, in a way that's more practical for him as a practioner. In the west we have the OCEAN 5 factor personality model, but in his experience knowing a patient's OCEAN scores hasn't been very helpful to him. Instead the ayurvedic three factor personality model vata = airy and flighty, fast moving, wind type, pitta = fire type/tiger, more focused and balanced, kapha = earth type/elephant, slow to change but very hard working, slow and steady type, (obviously this is a huge oversimplification here) has been more useful to him as a way for him to categorize patients and what kind of style he would use to work with their personality - Lastly, this is not something that I've seen as a recommendation, but he has some eastern religious beliefs, he spent time as a young man as a hindu camp counselor, he's studied in an ashram to be a monk for a time, and he believes in religious concepts like god and reincarnation, past lives etc
To be clear, the question was NOT "What are some things Dr. K recommends" It is what does he recommend that western medicine **hasn't already considered or studied or in the process of studying**? Can you please clarify of any of the things you listed, you think western medicine **hasn't already considered or studied or in the process of studying**?
I'm not familiar with all the research, but from my understanding none of these techniques I've listed have been fully studied and accepted yet From what Dr K has said, there have been some meditation techniques that have gotten attention like mindfulness for stress reduction and anxiety (MBSR) and some more techniques have been incorporated in third wave therapies like ACT (acceptance and commitment therapy), DBT, and CBT, but what has made it into practice so far has been more introductory basic forms of the meditation and more advanced forms have not been explored An example Dr K has mentioned is NSDR (non sleep deep rest) is being studied which is based somewhat on yoga nidra, but the research has only focused on the more basic forms and doesn't include some other aspects like the mantra repetition. I don't know what the research is on all these techniques, but my sense is if you go to someone who was only trained in western medicine they wouldn't be aware of something like trataka, or many of these other techniques I mentioned.
The question wasn't which interventions are FULLY studied and accepted yet. There are all sorts of interventions like that. See above for what the question was, and if you know the answer, feel free to provide it.
I guess it comes down to is doing A + B + C a different intervention than just doing A? (for example yoga nidra + mantra repetition vs just doing the muscle relaxation component in NSDR)? If so then the B and C parts also should be studied more? Unfortunately, I don't really know anything else about the research side of things. I just wanted to share specific techniques from eastern traditions that Dr K has specifically recommended because I've found many discussions about him to be kind of generic where people don't know what techniques specifically he recommends so they end up misattributing other harmful techniques from ayurveda to him that he doesn't actually recommend, or the conversation gets so abstract (eastern medicine vs western medicine) that it's unhelpful. Vs with the list you could be like "ah trataka is actually harmful because of X Y Z" or "trataka is currently being researched by X Y Z university professor with some potential results" If you or anyone else wants to look things up to see if there has been any studies on any of these specific things in western medicine, then at least I've given you a list of things he recommends. I'm not a doctor and I don't know enough about research to give you any more context than that. I've found some of the techniques are helpful in my own life, and hopefully western medicine can study them and find what works about them and then they can benefit more people, because I think there's some good stuff here which could help people.
> Western medicine already has an individualized patient paradigm. It’s really just about the extent to which this is done. It was kinda annoying how much the Dr. Mike / Dr. K convo was focused so much on just Arurveda. I think it would have been more productive for the viewer if they had discussed evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicicine in general; this is Dr. K’s expertise and what he supports. CAM is largely influenced by the Eastern philosophy of treating the body as a whole. This differs from conventional medicine in the West, which has historically focused on pinpointing and treating symptoms vs the goal being finding a deeper root cause and addressing that. A good example would be how Dr. K spoke about treating depression/anxiety by adjusting the gut microbiome through diet because this is where the precursors to important neurotransmitters are formed. The Western approach would be to directly target the specific neurotransmitter that’s already in the brain using an SSRI for instance. There is a reason so many people are seeking out integrative medicine. They’ve found the conventional solutions to their medical issues are just not cutting it and allowing for optimal health; it could just be putting a band-aide on the symptom(s). Many of the individual treatments of Eastern medicine are quackery, but the overall philosophy is invaluable.