Think fewer calories = weight loss? Not always. Cutting the wrong ones can throw your metabolism off balance.
Type V (Catabolic Body) – Needs Carbs for Muscle & Lipid Balance
Too few carbs? Your body burns fat aggressively, leading to lipid imbalances and muscle loss. Studies show excessive carb restriction reduces muscle mass.
Type P (Metabolic Body) – Needs Carbs for Cooling & Energy
Skipping carbs? You may overheat, feel irritable, or experience inflammation. Research shows carbs regulate metabolism, and cutting them raises cortisol, causing stress.
Type K (Anabolic Body) – Needs to Cut Carbs & Fats for Weight Loss
High carbs & fats? Your body stores fat easily, slowing weight loss. Lowering intake improves insulin sensitivity and prevents excess fat storage.
Don’t just cut calories—cut the right ones for your body.
Which body type do you think you are?
Every body goes through Catabolism and Anabolism. Both are part of Metabolic process. The image below explains in simpler terms.
If one of the functions is happening in excess or in dearth, it just signals some damage in the body which needs to be fixed. Mostly with lifestyle intervention and brought back to normal optimal functioning capabilities. It doesn’t decide a body type.
Categorising bodies instead leads to ignorance and misinformation.
Yes, every body cell undergoes all three processes, but one process tends to be more dominant. That’s why you’ll notice one friend who eats lots of fats but stays lean, while another gains weight even with small portions.
Metabolic profiles help personalize lifestyle interventions because generic solutions don’t work for everyone. Understanding whether your body leans towards catabolism, anabolism, or a balanced metabolic state can make interventions more precise and effective.
Ayurveda offers a simple yet effective way to determine whether your body leans towards catabolism, anabolism, or a balanced metabolic state by assessing your physical, psychological, and physiological traits
Now, which study shows that it happens only in a “Catabolic Body”? (I’m guessing it’s another Ayurvedic article?)
Let me clarify.
Irrespective of the Ayurvedic categories cited above,
. Excessive carb restriction causes lipid imbalance in everyone.
. Skipping carbs is the extreme of the same and it effects everyone irrespective of the so called body type.
. High carbs and fats is also detrimental for everyone.
All human bodies are built the same way. And all need resistance training and high protein for muscle building and controlled intake of carbs and fats.
Categorising with fancy terms does not help them understand the basics. It confuses people and leads them to stick to placebos, rather than putting in the effort in finding and treating the root cause.
If all human bodies were the same, how do we explain why, in the same family, eating the same food, one person gains weight while another remains thin? Or why one develops diabetes while the other doesn’t?
A few years ago, fat was labeled as bad. Then carbs became the enemy. Now, protein is being pushed as the ultimate solution. Ayurveda, on the other hand, has always maintained that all three—proteins, fats, and carbs—are essential, but in a ratio that matches each individual’s unique profile.
Standardizing nutrition for everyone won’t work because we don’t live in controlled lab environments. We live in a dynamic world, and our bodies need dynamic solutions.
Exactly! How is generalising them into 3 pseudo-scientific groups helping?
Again, individual diagnosis and treating the root cause is the solution.
Why is there an inertia in accepting that modern science is an extension of age-old sciences which studies the mechanisms deeper to correct the past errors? Are we sticking to convenience or vested interest?
Modern science has its own place and undeniable benefits. However, the key question is—are we addressing the root cause or merely treating symptoms? Understanding this distinction is essential for true progress.
Just like blood groups,human bodies can also be categorized using various physiological and metabolic markers. This is not pseudo-science but an evolving framework for better understanding health.
Science is about universal laws, not shifting opinions. If something was “bad” five years ago but is considered “good” today, that’s not science—that’s an incomplete understanding being updated. Take cholesterol studies, for example: once demonized as harmful, now we recognize the nuances of “good” and “bad” cholesterol. True science seeks consistency, not contradictions.
Relying solely on a scientific paper may not always be the best approach, as tools and methodologies evolve, and with them, narratives change. What we consider definitive today might be reinterpreted tomorrow with better insights.
That’s why it’s essential to look at science holistically, focusing not just on individual studies but on fundamental principles that stand the test of time.
Ayurveda has an edge here, as its foundational principles have remained relevant despite evolving scientific tools.
