Logo

Cart

Tag: Ancient Wisdom

Why “More Nutrition” Isn’t Always Better

Overnutrition has become a distinctly modern problem due to the abundance and easy availability of convenient foods. The belief that “more nutrition is always good” has also become increasingly widespread.   Now, let us talk about this according to Ayurveda.   More than 2,000 years ago, one of Ayurveda’s fundamental texts, the Charaka Samhita, dedicated an entire chapter to diseases caused by overeating and overnourishment. It is called the Santarpaniya Adhyaya (Sutrasthana 23).   The Charaka Samhita did not describe the foods that we eat today. Instead, it described an entire pattern of eating. It observed the pattern and the diseases that arose because of it.   In the text, Charaka states that not everyone needs more nourishment. He describes two broad causes of disease.   One is Santarpana, where disease is caused by overnourishment.   The other is Atarpana, where disease is caused due to undernourishment.   When we look at today’s medical advice, the focus is mostly on deficiency. If someone is not getting enough protein, they are advised to increase protein intake. If they are low in iron, they are told to take more iron. If they have low energy, they are encouraged to build it up through supplements.   Ayurveda always had a broader view.   It recognized that too much can be just as harmful as too little. The goal has always been to maintain balance.   When we look at what causes overnourishment, Charaka lists several foods, patterns, and habits that contribute to disease when taken in excess.   These include foods that are Madhura (sweet), Snigdha (oily), Guru (heavy in constitution), and Picchila (slimy), along with new grains, milk and milk-based foods such as Payasam, and various meats, particularly from aquatic animals.   All of these, when consumed in excess (Atimatrasaha) and combined with a sedentary lifestyle and excessive daytime sleeping, may contribute to disease.   When you read that paragraph again, many modern foods might come to mind. But Charaka was not describing any of them. He was describing a pattern of eating that looks remarkably similar.   According to Ayurveda, repeatedly eating this way and living such a lifestyle can disturb Kapha and Meda Dhatu (the fat tissue), eventually leading to Srotorodha, or blockage of the body’s channels.   Ayurveda does not simply advocate eating less. It has always been about choosing the right approach.   The chapter immediately before this one, Sutrasthana 22, explains how to manage nutrition properly. It is the Langhana Brimhana Adhyaya, which describes two complementary therapeutic approaches.   One is Langhana, which means lightening the body through fasting or reducing food.   The other is Brimhana, which nourishes and rebuilds the body.   The right approach depends on the individual and their internal constitution. Someone recovering from an illness may need nourishment, while someone who is overloaded or overnourished may benefit from reduction.   These approaches should always be assessed by a qualified Ayurvedic doctor.   The answer does not always have to be another medicine, another supplement, or eating more. Sometimes, doing less is exactly what the body needs.   Interestingly, a research study published in Nature Metabolism in 2024 found that consuming more than about 25 grams of protein in a single meal may reduce a process called autophagy, the body’s natural way of clearing damaged cells.   The idea that the quantity consumed in a single meal matters sounds remarkably similar to Charaka’s emphasis on Matra, or eating the right quantity of food.   Nutrition was never simply about eating more. It was always about eating the right amount, for the right person, at the right time.   Over the years, if you look at the conversations around food, they have almost always been about one nutrient at a time. First it was carbs, then it was sugar, and now it’s protein.   Each time, the same pattern repeats: one nutrient is singled out while everything else in the meal is ignored.   You cannot isolate a single nutrient and consume it in excessive amounts.   Santarpana was never about one nutrient going wrong. It was always about your entire way of living and eating going out of balance.   That is probably the most significant shift for us to make today.   Instead of asking whether I am eating a certain amount of protein or a certain amount of carbs, or simply trying to make it a balanced diet, we need to ask whether this food is suited for me in this season, at this stage of my life, and in the living conditions I am going through.   Because what nourishes your body depends as much on you as it does on the food itself. Only when both are in sync can your body stay healthy.   When we look at Santarpana and Atarpana, they are simply two ends of the same imbalance.   Too much and too little may sound like one is good and the other is bad, but they are just two different problems arising from the same root.   That is where the idea of Agni, the digestive fire, becomes important again. A person with weak Agni can develop Santarpana-type diseases even while eating a completely normal diet.   Because it has never been solely about the quantity of food; it has always been about how much the body can process. Two people can eat the exact same meal and have completely different outcomes because their Agni is different.   So, it is never about following the same routine for everyone. You should understand your relationship with food.   If you would like to understand more about Ayurvedic concepts that are relevant to today’s modern health problems, you can explore our 3-Month Agni Awakening Program, where we help you understand your relationship with food, digestion, and your own body more deeply.

Why Ayurveda Needs Evidence, Not Excuses!

Some people believe asking Ayurveda for evidence is disrespectful.   I disagree.   Evidence does not weaken Ayurveda. It protects Ayurveda.   It separates real practice from misinformation. It helps the world understand what our teachers preserved for centuries.   The Question of Evidence   Like any other traditional system of medicine, Ayurveda has also faced this criticism and scrutiny over the question of evidence.   As modern healthcare has become increasingly evidence driven, Ayurveda has often been judged against standards developed for the biomedical framework.   This has led many people to dismiss it as unscientific, not because of a lack of knowledge, but because the knowledge has been traditionally generated, preserved, and communicated in a different way from the standards of modern medicine.   To understand this, we need to look at how Ayurvedic knowledge has evolved.   For centuries, Ayurveda was taught through the gurukula system, where learning was transferred from the guru to the disciple.   Students did not simply memorize texts. They observed patients alongside their teachers. Most of the knowledge was practical rather than purely theoretical, and knowledge was often refined through observation and experience.   Ayurveda therefore had its own framework for validating knowledge. It relied on its own set of parameters. What it did not develop was the kind of biomedical research framework that has formed the foundation of modern healthcare today, and this is important.   Ayurveda is one of the world’s most extensively documented traditional medical systems. Classical texts like the Charaka Samhita, Sushruta Samhita, and Ashtanga Hridayam have preserved its principles for centuries.   However, while the core philosophy and knowledge have been documented, clinical practice was never recorded in the systematic manner expected today. Individual case studies, long-term treatment outcomes, and standardized datasets are all part of modern clinical culture.   Where the Gap Actually Comes From   As a result, this historical gap explains why Ayurveda has entered the modern scientific era with a wealth of classical wisdom but comparatively limited research documentation. In recent decades, significant efforts have been made to bridge this gap. Institutions working under the AYUSH framework have invested in research on Ayurvedic formulations, therapies, and clinical practices.   This brings us to another challenge.   Much of this research has been expected to conform to the language and methodology of biomedical science, including its full set of protocols. These are valuable tools, but they were never part of the traditional system of Ayurveda.   Presenting Ayurveda through this different scientific language is not just a challenge; it can lead to gaps in both evidence and translation.   Hence, to address this gap, significant efforts are being made.   Addressing The Gap   In May 2025, the World Health Assembly adopted the WHO Global Traditional Medicine Strategy 2025 to 2034, a ten-year roadmap built specifically to strengthen the evidence base for traditional medicine systems including Ayurveda.   India’s Ministry of Ayush has signed a three-million-dollar agreement with WHO to bring Ayurveda into the International Classification of Health Interventions, the same global data framework biomedicine uses to track treatment outcomes worldwide.   WHO is also building a Traditional Medicine Global Library, already holding over 1.5 million records of evidence maps, clinical journals, and policy documents.   None of this happens for a system that has nothing to prove. It happens because global health authorities have recognized that Ayurveda’s outcomes are real and worth documenting properly.   The medicine was never the problem. The documentation was.   And documentation is not a threat to Ayurveda. It is its greatest opportunity.   Evidence does not exist to replace classical knowledge. It exists to preserve it, strengthen it, and make it accessible to a healthcare system that increasingly relies on measurable outcomes. If Ayurveda is to serve future generations across the world, its principles must be communicated in a language that researchers, physicians, policymakers, and patients can understand.   Authentic knowledge should never be afraid of scrutiny. If a treatment consistently produces positive outcomes, documenting those outcomes only strengthens confidence in that practice.   At the same time, we must also recognise that not every aspect of Ayurveda fits neatly into conventional biomedical research models.   Ayurveda is fundamentally personalised. Two patients with the same diagnosis may receive different treatment plans because their constitution, digestive capacity, lifestyle, stage of disease, and overall health are different. Standardised clinical trial designs often attempt to minimise variation between patients, whereas Ayurveda intentionally incorporates individual variation into treatment decisions.   This means Ayurveda deserves research methods that respect the complexity of whole-system, personalised care rather than forcing every principle into a framework originally designed for modern healthcare standards.   The goal should never be to make Ayurveda imitate modern medicine.   The goal should be to develop rigorous methods that can evaluate Ayurveda on its own principles while maintaining the scientific standards expected in global healthcare.   This is where the future lies.   After treating thousands of patients across the world, one thing has become clear to me. I do not see evidence and tradition as competitors. I see them as two generations of the same commitment: the commitment to helping the person in front of you and being honest about what works.   Our teachers built Ayurveda on direct observation of patients over centuries. Evidence based research is simply the modern language for continuing that same observation, at a scale and rigor our teachers never had access to.   The future of Ayurveda needs both. The wisdom of our ancient texts. And the language of modern validation. One without the other is incomplete.