how to use medicalized yoga.

Jon Stewart and Rob Corddry's Yoga Rage:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-30-2003/ohm-my-god

"Yoga, an ancient but perfect science, deals with the evolution of humanity. This evolution includes all aspects of one's being, from bodily health to self-realization. Yoga means union - the union of body with consciousness and consciousness with the soul. Yoga cultivates the ways of maintaining a balanced attitude in day-to-day life and endows skill in the performance of one's actions." -B.K.S. Iyengar, Astadala Yogamala

What is it about yoga that has Western culture entranced by its practice? Is it the fact that it promotes a healthy body, incorporates mental and physical strength, and brings a person to peace with themselves? Or is it just a trend that people follow? Fortunately, it is all the above and also beyond. Yoga, as Joseph Alter states in his article, "Modern Medical Yoga: Struggling with a History of Magic, Alchemy, and Sex", "...can, and is, used effectively in the treatment of diabetes, asthma, depression, hypertension, and drug de-addiction, among a host of other medical problems." (Alter, pg. 134) In the article, Alter also expresses some doubt in the efficacy of yoga therapy. What bothers me about this is that yoga therapy has been proven to provide beneficial aspects to those who are health-compromised. For instance, an article titled, "Clinical Study of Yoga Techniques in University Students with Asthma: A Controlled Study", 17 college students with asthma were separated into a "yoga group" and a "non-yoga" group. The "yoga group" practiced relaxation techniques, yoga poses, and breathing techniques, all leading to, "...significant degree of relaxation, positive attitude, and better yoga exercise tolerance. There was also a tendency toward lesser usage of beta adrenergic inhalers." (Vendathan, Kesavalu, Murthy, Hall, Baker, Nagarathna)

However, Alter mentions as a footnote that although there really is no scientific proof for the efficacy of yoga therapy (which is not necessarily his argument in the paper), people who practice yoga do not know the historical context of it or what yoga truly is. The historical context of yoga is based highly on spiritualism, which makes sense considering it was brought about during the Vedic period (also known as the basis of modern-day Hinduism). At that point in time, it was easiest to explain processes as an act of magic as opposed to science. Cultural perceptions played a significant role in "assigning yogis with supernatural powers" (Alter, pg. 122) and that was how they were essentially enlightened. In the "Rethinking the Role of Diagnosis in Navajo Religious Healing" by Derek Milne, Milne states the significance of ethnomedicine in correlation to diagnoses amongst three religious groups of the Navajo. Spiritual techniques are used to diagnose the patient and ceremony rituals are used to heal the patient of their symptoms. (Milne, pg. 545) Both, the historical context of yoga and the Navajo religious healing system have in common the idea that spirituality can heal the body of its ailments. To me, this is just another form of the Placebo Effect.

As we've come to learn in class and our previous readings, the mind can be manipulated which in turn can manipulate the body. An example of this is in Milne's article in regards to the case-study patient. "... narration of illness experience is the process by which thought and speech are used to bring the body back to a state of health." (Milne, pg. 565) With this in mind, the patient Lori did not have physical symptoms of illness until she began to think about it. Consequently, these thoughts came about in the form of sores. Lori goes on to emphasize that the, "... ceremony changed her thinking and the effects she felt, both mental and physical" and that the "... act of telling her story literally expulsed the causes of her illness that were 'lodged in her body'." (Milne, pg. 565) As with yoga, especially modern medical yoga, the idea is to be able to reach a degree of relaxation and clear the mind of negative thoughts. Modern medical yoga also emphasizes breathing exercises known as Pranayama in which there is, "decreased oxygen consumption, decreased heart rate, and decreased blood pressure, as well as experience of alertness and reinvigoration." (R. Jerath, Edry, Barnes, V. Jerath)

Pranayama is a technique that I have been practicing myself for about two years. Before I started, I struggled with allergy-induced and exercise-induced asthma, which eventually became moderate persistent asthma. Once I was diagnosed, I was prescribed a beta adrenergic inhaler which I took twice daily. Needless to say, it was hard for me to take an inhaler every day especially when I was always in a rush to go to class or just plain forgetful. A close family friend of ours had recently been in India and was taught by a yogi master about yoga and pranayama and introduced my family to it. Pranayama at first was very difficult for me to do considering I would start wheezing with every deep breath. Five minutes per day of deep breathing was all that was needed and every morning I would wake up and dedicate five minutes to just focusing on my deep breathing. Within two weeks of doing it, I'd noticed that my breathing was much better and I could breathe much more deeply. The best part about it was that I didn't even need my inhaler any more.

Truth be told, I never knew the history of yoga in the context of "magic, alchemy, and sex" and so this article opened my eyes. But at the same time, when one looks up a brief history of yoga, it is rare to find information about magic and alchemy. More so, the significant history of yoga lies in the idea of what B.K.S. Iyengar mentions: yoga as a tool to maintaining bodily health, self-realization, and balanced attitude. Although the in depth history of yoga should not be forgotten, people must realize that yoga does have beneficial aspects to it if a person truly looks into the concept of yoga. The contextual history of yoga may unfortunately be ignored, but if people understand that yoga is more than a trend and can be used to ease the body, mind, and soul, then what's the harm in using it as another mode of therapy? Same goes for the ritualistic healings that the Navajo practice. Their emphasis lies in the idea of narration of the illness experience where, "... the process of narration is the primary way an individual can exert control over his or her health and facilitate a return to balance." (Milne, pg. 565)

Sources:

Clinical Study of Yoga Techniques in University Students with Asthma: A Controlled Study
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ocean/aap/1998/00000019/00000001/art00002?token=00561aaa03cf0439e1573d2570257070234a2f7a4044593547677c4e75477e4324576b64273805899a8a5d

Physiology of Long Pranayamic Breathing
http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877%2806%2900166-6/abstract

A fun little article as to why Christianity views yoga as a spiritual sin:
http://www.allaboutspirituality.org/history-of-yoga.htm

how to be a "quack".

Image Source: www.ayurvedabooks.net

According to Wordnet Search provided by Princeton University, a "quack" is defined as "an untrained person who pretends to be a physician and who dispenses medical advice." This idea of quackery is very apparent in the complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) field, especially to those who don't understand the logic behind it. Truth be told, when I hear the word quack the first image that pops in my head is a cocaine-addict spreading the word of God after chugging a fifth of vodka. Essentially, I think of a person who is out of their mind. Needless to say, I get a little bothered when people try to define CAM as quackery due to my own preconceived notions of the word "quack". But what is it about CAM and its disciples that make it viewed as false and medically unqualified?

In Jean Langford's article, "Medical Mimesis: Healing Signs of a Cosmopolitan 'Quack'", Dr. Mistry is introduced as a man with great medical integrity and possesses a knowledge in which he can diagnose a patient simply by reading their pulse. This idea that a diagnosis can be made only from the reading the pulse is beyond anything any medical practitioner has ever heard of because the body is such an intricate network. Because our body is so complex, it can be affected by various factors in various areas and can therefore be difficult to understand what is really going on. However, according to Dr. Mistry, he has been able to cure 50% or more of the patients' symptoms. Dr. Mistry also brings up an interesting point, which correlates with how society handles medical problems nowadays. He states to Langford, "I don't listen to people... what is important is what his pulse is telling me..." and he believes that, "patients are prejudiced by allopathic, that is biomedical, notions." He also goes on to say that, "symptoms fluctuate according to the individual and the individual's psychological state." (Langford, pg. 28) The flaw of biomedicine is that it disregards a patient's psychological state which can either stress or de-stress symptoms. It is strictly based on the mechanics of the body. Especially now with the availability of medical resources such as WebMD, some people often find themselves looking up the symptoms of certain diseases and even developing them. This is why I agree with Dr. Mistry in his statement about patients' symptoms and their psychological states. With this statement, he proves that the mind is a powerful thing.

After reading the article, the reader comes to realize that Dr. Mistry does not encompass medical authenticity. His actual method of healing stems from the "faith that [he] inspires in patients... that contributes to their cures." (Langford, pg. 36) What we are looking at then is not traditional folk medicine, but a placebo effect instead. Wordnet by Princeton defines "placebo effect" as, "any effect that seems to be a consequence of administering a placebo; the change is usually beneficial and is assumed result from the person's faith in the treatment or preconceptions about what the experimental drug was supposed to do." It is unclear whether Dr. Mistry really is medically trained and if so, does that mean we can qualify him as a quack? He takes the mind's powerful effects on the body into consideration and tweaks the patients' thoughts so that their goal is to overcome their symptoms through "medication". Ultimately, it seems that many patients seen by Dr. Mistry have been healed and so what he does must count as a form of therapy.

Though Dr. Mistry may epitomize "medical gimmickery" with his photo albums and certificates adorning his office, I believe that he does his work in good intention. However, this is not what Ayurveda embodies. There are no medical gimmicks, no mimicry, no sense of falseness or quackery. Ayurveda should be viewed as complementary to biomedicine in the sense that its medical techniques promote good health and should be used to keep up good health and prolong life. To my family and I, Ayurveda is not used as a curative form of action, but a preventative form of action instead. My mother found an article not too long ago that implores Ayurvedic medical techniques pertaining to pain management. The article lists six herbs that contain inflammation-fighting compounds that aid in easing pain, especially those who suffer from inflammation-related conditions such as arthritis, back and neck pain, and tendonitis. The author of the article, Cathy Wong, goes on to explain that, "Although not as fast-acting as standard pain medication, such herbs may significantly diminish your pain when used regularly." (Wong, 2009) This further implies how Ayurvedic medicine and CAM in general complement biomedicine.

Many people dislike the idea of Ayurveda simply because it was founded as a branch of Hinduism, thus supposedly mixing science with religion (although, Hinduism is technically not a religion, but I digress). Vincanne Adams addresses the issue of science and religion in her article, "The Sacred in the Scientific: Ambiguous Practices of Science in Tibetan Medicine". She claims that one of the key issues of "scientific validity" is based on separating traditional practices and knowledge with, "categories of 'belief' and 'superstition' -- a process that requires constant deliberation over what is deemed 'knowledge' versus 'belief' and what is deemed 'theory' versus 'religion'." (Adams, pg. 564) The concept of visibility is important in regards to science, where the scientific approach leads to the truth is "self-evident" and the effects can be seen. Since Ayurveda is based under Hindu principles, a few medical techniques also involve the use of "chakras" or wheels of spiritual energy throughout the body (especially used in yoga). However, because the chakras are not seen to the human eye, they are deemed superstitious and opposite of knowledge. But if doctors and scientists continue to establish a fine line between what can constitute as religion and science, they are closing doors to opportunities of truly studying the body and mind of human beings. As already mentioned, the mind is very powerful and can have equally powerful effects on the body and the process of healing. Just because we cannot see negative energy does not mean that it does not take a toll on our body and mind.

In conclusion, I do not view Dr. Mistry as an alcoholic religious fanatic with a coke problem and thereby cannot consider him to be a quack. Granted, that is just my definition. However, I believe that Dr. Mistry has an understanding of what he is doing, especially psychologically, and therefore believe that he does administer medical help to his patients with knowledge of what is he doing. At the same time, I do not believe that Dr. Mistry is culturally aware of Ayurveda and its principles because Ayurveda is used for more so for preventative measures as opposed to curative and can be complementary to biomedicine. To me, everything isn't set in a black-and-white setting. I believe combining religious concepts of the body (i.e. chakras) and science can really open windows of opportunities in the aspect of good medicine.

Sources:
WordNet Search
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/

Herbs for Pain Management
http://altmedicine.about.com/od/healthconditionsdisease/a/pain_herbs.htm

how to be a "skinny bitch".

Not your typical boring diet book, this is a tart-tongued, no-holds-barred wakeup call to all women who want to be thin. With such blunt advice as, "Soda is liquid Satan" and "You are a total moron if you think the Atkins Diet will make you thin," it's a rallying cry for all savvy women to start eating healthy and looking radiant. Unlike standard diet books, it actually makes the reader laugh out loud with its truthful, smart-mouthed revelations. Behind all the attitude, however, there's solid guidance. Skinny Bitch espouses a healthful lifestyle that promotes whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, and encourages women to get excited about feeling "clean and pure and energized."

Image and Synopsis Source:
http://www.amazon.com/Skinny-Bitch-Rory-Freedman/dp/0762424931/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295643039&sr=8-1

Skinny Bitch is every woman's worst enemy. If you want a dieting book that rips your self-esteem and dignity, look no further because this book has it all. Written by a former modeling agent Rory Freedman and former model Kim Barnouin, these so-called experts have developed a dieting book in which being thin is being beautiful and healthy. By taking on this role of "expertise", Freedman and Barnouin take their skewed vision of health and bestow it on the "lucky ones" that purchase their book. As if buying the book isn't enough, both authors demean their audience nonstop by blaming them for becoming the way that they are: fat, stupid, and undesirable. Here is an excerpt from the book:

"Okay. Use your head. You need to get healthy if you want to get skinny. Health = skinny. Unhealthy = fat. The first thing you need to do is give up your gross vices. Don't act surprised! You cannot keep eating the same shit and expect to get skinny. Or smoke." Oddly enough, Freedman and Barnouin --renowned "experts"-- epitomize what public health is now shifting towards, "an increasing attention to body shape, diet, and exercise... the 'lifestyle' focus" (Peterson, Lupton, pg. 1).

Public health expertise in the recent years has become a study on the social condition of life where "expert knowledge" is used to convey messages of what is healthy and what is not. These ideals began back in the mid-1970's where academic papers were published in regards to the correlation between lifestyle choices and health. Most of the data concluded that "...it is 'lifestyles'-- lack of exercise, poor diet, overconsumption of certain products, exposure to hazardous chemicals, and so on-- that make people ill." (Peterson, Lupton, pg. 15) Not only do Freedman and Barnouin's book put focus on the importance of eating healthy, they also use this opportunity to promote veganism and to state all of the terrible chemical additives in our foods such as sulfites in wine, aspartame, and refined sugars all of which are carcinogenic. The authors also exemplify what Metcalfe (1993, pg. 41) mentions as "health promoters who wish to turn people into calorific and cholesterol counting machines." (Peterson, Lupton, pg. 15)

Skinny Bitch not only emphasizes the importance of eating right, it also projects the idea that eating meat is the most unhealthy thing you can do to your body (here is where the experts demonstrate that they're truly not experts at all...). Freedman and Barnouin relay that "... the meat on your plate is rotting, filled with pus, and decomposing..." and that when you eat fresh vegetables and fruits, they are alive and excellent for your body. (Um, excuse me?) The epidemiology article correlates with this idea of how public health has changed our views about certain foods, as Freedman and Barnouin point out: ".. the 'fact' that dietary fat leads to obesity and heart disease, for example, has meant that many people have almost a horror of fat, to the extent that the very sight or smell of it causes disgust." (Peterson, Lupton, pg. 50) This book as well as other dieting books has placed so much focus on what it means to be healthy but now I'm starting to question if Western society truly knows what it means to be healthy anymore? Do we all think like Freedman and Barnouin in the sense that being thin means being healthy? If so, then I have very little faith in humanity. An important quote from the epidemiology article sums up the issues with public health: "Epidemiology is thus one of the central strategies in the new public health used to construct notions of 'health' and, through this construction, to invoke and reproduce moral judgments about the worth of individuals and social groups." (Peterson, Lupton, pg. 60)

Skinny Bitch is not about dieting or veganism. I believe it is about control, indulging in eating disorders, and criticizing a group of people for what they look like. Similarly, if the focus continues to be on the presentations of our individual bodies, are we pushing away the actual concept of public health? Are we so concerned as to what the human body should look like as opposed to warding off diseases that we go to desperate measures to assume the role of experts and dictate how people should live their lives? Freedman and Barnouin, both of who were in the modeling business and have no prior knowledge of health, patronize those who don't fall into the dominant health norms of "healthism". Using Skinny Bitch as an example, Metcalfe (1993, pg. 35) goes to mention that, "Healthism... can lead to a general intolerance of those who subscribe to the dominant health norms against those who do not or cannot." (Peterson, Lupton, pg. 26) Unfortunately, this looks like the path that public health has chosen.

how to woo a lady.

Source: http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/s/sperm.asp

Imagine yourself as an attractive young woman who walks into a bar full of men. As soon as your heels click onto the tiled floors, 30+ pairs of male eyes are drawn to you and the only thought running through their minds is how they can win your affection tonight. At once, six men come at you ready to bombard you with pathetic pick-up lines while two more men lag behind, plotting out their form of attack. As you reject each of the eight men, one more comes up to you. You mentally take out that list of characteristics you want in a man and you see that this man matches up right to the detail. To top it off, he hands you a drink and this little act of kindness seals the deal. You have a date tonight.

Now turn your attention to the image above. This comic portrays the pre-fertilization process in which the newly-released population of sperm race to their final destination, the egg. In this image, the viewer gets a glance at how competitive the process truly is by displaying sperm all around this central sperm, who is equipped with flowers and bottle of wine. His buddy even makes the comment, "Hmm... clever" and clearly knows that this sperm knows how to woo a potential partner.

Unfortunately, the mechanism of fertilization is not so romantic. The inside of the vagina is not equipped with shops of wine and flowers where sperm can stop by and pick up a few things to win the affection of the egg. It's a very scientific process in which 300 million sperm try all at once to penetrate the egg and produce a zygote.

Emily Martin's article, "The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles" addresses this idea of romanticizing the scientific process of fertilization. She first opens this statement by saying, "It is remarkable how 'femininely' the egg behaves and how 'masculinely' the sperm behaves" (Martin, pg. 489)and continues to describe the egg as being passive while the sperm is pro-active. This relates back to the story above where the female is essentially passive and is hounded by men who all want her affection. The man that wins the female's affection is considered to be the hero and the winner of the game while the female is just a prize to be won. Even on the biological level, the same case goes: the sperm that is able to penetrate the egg and induce fertilization holds a great deal of significance.

Taking on these gender roles and romanticizing the science of fertilization leads to what Gerald and Helen Schatten mention in Martin's article as, "the egg's role to that of Sleeping Beauty..." (Martin, pg. 490) where the egg plays the role of the sleeping princess who can only be awoken by her true love's kiss. However, Martin's purpose of this article is to debunk the significance of the sperm as being the sole inducer of fertilization. This lies mostly in the common perception that it is the sperm that has to trek through "the caves" on a dangerous journey and it is the sperm that needs to rescue the egg before it dies within hours. Once again, the notion of the egg as the "damsel in distress" is used to place greater significance on the "heroic" sperm, indicating that the egg is helpless and dependent on the sperm.

Perhaps it is just in our nature to idealize this process of procreation and to make it more than just a biological occurrence. What more could be more romantic than to say that this specific sperm "wooed" the egg and together they formed the first cell made in creating a living organism? As Martin continues with the article, she explains that while not all of biology may be used in regards to culture, this particular segment of fertilization is. Assigning these two distinct gametes with genders is almost universal solely because it is based on biology; sperm comes from males and eggs come from females so it is natural to assign them the respective gender roles. However, in Western culture, it has become popular to glamorize the mechanism of fertilization to be one that correlates to humans on a macro-scale.

Like the aforementioned example story of the men competing for the woman at the bar or the comic image of the competing sperm, it all dwindles down to our cultural portrayals of the male-female gender roles in biology. Whether it is on a micro-scale or on a macro-scale, as humans, it is sometimes difficult for some to understand processes without giving it a reason as to why it's happening. Therefore, giving the story of the "damsel in distress" and the "heroic sperm" can just be viewed as a reason as to why this all happens in the first place.