Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why are most mfp users against holistic nutrition?
Replies
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Cancer is a tough one. It is called a disease but to most of the public I think things that are diseases are caused by specific things and one could potentially find a cure. That isn't cancer. There will be improved treatments, there will be certain types of cancer where a cure might exist (think those types of cancer caused by pathogens like HPV), but for cancer in general there isn't going to be a cure. Cancer is the biproduct of the way our bodies work, I don't think we will ever be rid of it anymore than we will ever be rid of death. For most people who end up being victims of cancer it wasn't because of anything they did, or any choices they made...it was random. Pains me to see people given the impression that the cancer was "caused" by something and that they just need to do this or that to "cure" it. It is blame mixed with false hope which is just insidious and nasty.
I'm not saying one can't be cured of cancer, but the current cure (Chemo) is basically to beat your body with a blunt hammer until hopefully the cancer dies before you do. That isn't to put down the treatment, that is the best we have for saving a cancer victims life.
Yes, sigh, I agree with you.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Cancer is a tough one. It is called a disease but to most of the public I think things that are diseases are caused by specific things and one could potentially find a cure. That isn't cancer. There will be improved treatments, there will be certain types of cancer where a cure might exist (think those types of cancer caused by pathogens like HPV), but for cancer in general there isn't going to be a cure. Cancer is the biproduct of the way our bodies work, I don't think we will ever be rid of it anymore than we will ever be rid of death. For most people who end up being victims of cancer it wasn't because of anything they did, or any choices they made...it was random. Pains me to see people given the impression that the cancer was "caused" by something and that they just need to do this or that to "cure" it. It is blame mixed with false hope which is just insidious and nasty.
I'm not saying one can't be cured of cancer, but the current cure (Chemo) is basically to beat your body with a blunt hammer until hopefully the cancer dies before you do. That isn't to put down the treatment, that is the best we have for saving a cancer victims life.
I don't disagree about chemo, at a very high level of generalization.
But, especially for more common forms of cancer (like breast), research is making progress in learning what makes our rogue cells (cancer, tumors) different from our normal cells biologically, and targeting treatments at those differences. That tends to reduce side effects, compared to older strategies that may just target fast-growing cells in general, rogue or normal.
(As an aside, IMU, that's why hair loss and digestive disruptions are common chemo side effects: Those processes depend on fast-growing normal cells.)
At the same time, researchers are learning more about why certain chemotherapy drugs work in one case and not another, developing tests for distinguishing between those patients, and more narrowly targeting the high-risk drugs to those most likely to benefit. This means fewer people get those drugs' side effects with no benefit.
This is a slow process, but the "blunt hammer" is gradually getting less blunt, even though we still call those improved strategies "chemo".
There's been substantial progress even since I was treated 17 years ago: More accurately-targeted treatments, more effective, with fewer and better-managed side effects. I see it playing out among the newly diagnosed in my support group, and in the lectures doctors give to keep us up to date on the science.
Big Pharma at work!
Are the holistic medicine practitioners making similar progress? What mechanisms do they use to go about it? (It's a sincere question: I kind of track with mainstream medicine's practices, but don't really understand how holistic health works, as a field of endeavor.)
5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Cancer is a tough one. It is called a disease but to most of the public I think things that are diseases are caused by specific things and one could potentially find a cure. That isn't cancer. There will be improved treatments, there will be certain types of cancer where a cure might exist (think those types of cancer caused by pathogens like HPV), but for cancer in general there isn't going to be a cure. Cancer is the biproduct of the way our bodies work, I don't think we will ever be rid of it anymore than we will ever be rid of death. For most people who end up being victims of cancer it wasn't because of anything they did, or any choices they made...it was random. Pains me to see people given the impression that the cancer was "caused" by something and that they just need to do this or that to "cure" it. It is blame mixed with false hope which is just insidious and nasty.
I'm not saying one can't be cured of cancer, but the current cure (Chemo) is basically to beat your body with a blunt hammer until hopefully the cancer dies before you do. That isn't to put down the treatment, that is the best we have for saving a cancer victims life.
I don't disagree about chemo, at a very high level of generalization.
But, especially for more common forms of cancer (like breast), research is making progress in learning what makes our rogue cells (cancer, tumors) different from our normal cells biologically, and targeting treatments at those differences. That tends to reduce side effects, compared to older strategies that may just target fast-growing cells in general, rogue or normal.
(As an aside, IMU, that's why hair loss and digestive disruptions are common chemo side effects: Those processes depend on fast-growing normal cells.)
At the same time, researchers are learning more about why certain chemotherapy drugs work in one case and not another, developing tests for distinguishing between those patients, and more narrowly targeting the high-risk drugs to those most likely to benefit. This means fewer people get those drugs' side effects with no benefit.
This is a slow process, but the "blunt hammer" is gradually getting less blunt, even though we still call those improved strategies "chemo".
There's been substantial progress even since I was treated 17 years ago: More accurately-targeted treatments, more effective, with fewer and better-managed side effects. I see it playing out among the newly diagnosed in my support group, and in the lectures doctors give to keep us up to date on the science.
Big Pharma at work!
Are the holistic medicine practitioners making similar progress? What mechanisms do they use to go about it? (It's a sincere question: I kind of track with mainstream medicine's practices, but don't really understand how holistic health works, as a field of endeavor.)
Yes sure, I tried to convey that by saying we will continue to develop therapies for specific types of cancer but overall "Cancer" with a big C is something that is likely going to stick with us as a species just because of what it is. We certainly can find ways through investigation to treat specific types of cancer via methods such as immunotherapy and other targeted treatments that have the possibility of treating and curing that specific cancer in that specific person but I hesitate to predict there will ever be a cure for Cancer. Not to say we shouldn't try, not to say it isn't worth fighting.
I'd disagree that we call the targeted treatments "chemo". To me Chemo refers to a specific type of treatment whereby replicating cells are targeted. The idea being cancer cells replicate, most vital cells in our body are not actively replicating so give the person a treatment that kills replicating cells and keep them on it until all the cancer cells die. Problem being of course that there are cells in your body that are constantly or frequently replicating, like your gut lining, hair follicles etc so the treatment leads to nausea, loss of hair, general killing of any replicating tissue. As a result the treatment has to be spaced out and it can't last too long because it is harmful to your body. But any good doctor will of course convey that info to the patient, I don't think anyone pretends chemo is "good" for your body. It is just a potential means to eliminate the cancer before you die from it.
If a targeted therapy is developed by like targeting antigens that only present on the surface of the cancer cell in that persons particular form of cancer or something like that those are called immunotherapies or targeted therapies, not chemotherapies. Chemo's are the blunt hammers of killing replicating cells, there are just lots of different ways of doing that.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Cancer is a tough one. It is called a disease but to most of the public I think things that are diseases are caused by specific things and one could potentially find a cure. That isn't cancer. There will be improved treatments, there will be certain types of cancer where a cure might exist (think those types of cancer caused by pathogens like HPV), but for cancer in general there isn't going to be a cure. Cancer is the biproduct of the way our bodies work, I don't think we will ever be rid of it anymore than we will ever be rid of death. For most people who end up being victims of cancer it wasn't because of anything they did, or any choices they made...it was random. Pains me to see people given the impression that the cancer was "caused" by something and that they just need to do this or that to "cure" it. It is blame mixed with false hope which is just insidious and nasty.
I'm not saying one can't be cured of cancer, but the current cure (Chemo) is basically to beat your body with a blunt hammer until hopefully the cancer dies before you do. That isn't to put down the treatment, that is the best we have for saving a cancer victims life.
I don't disagree about chemo, at a very high level of generalization.
But, especially for more common forms of cancer (like breast), research is making progress in learning what makes our rogue cells (cancer, tumors) different from our normal cells biologically, and targeting treatments at those differences. That tends to reduce side effects, compared to older strategies that may just target fast-growing cells in general, rogue or normal.
(As an aside, IMU, that's why hair loss and digestive disruptions are common chemo side effects: Those processes depend on fast-growing normal cells.)
At the same time, researchers are learning more about why certain chemotherapy drugs work in one case and not another, developing tests for distinguishing between those patients, and more narrowly targeting the high-risk drugs to those most likely to benefit. This means fewer people get those drugs' side effects with no benefit.
This is a slow process, but the "blunt hammer" is gradually getting less blunt, even though we still call those improved strategies "chemo".
There's been substantial progress even since I was treated 17 years ago: More accurately-targeted treatments, more effective, with fewer and better-managed side effects. I see it playing out among the newly diagnosed in my support group, and in the lectures doctors give to keep us up to date on the science.
Big Pharma at work!
Are the holistic medicine practitioners making similar progress? What mechanisms do they use to go about it? (It's a sincere question: I kind of track with mainstream medicine's practices, but don't really understand how holistic health works, as a field of endeavor.)
Yes sure, I tried to convey that by saying we will continue to develop therapies for specific types of cancer but overall "Cancer" with a big C is something that is likely going to stick with us as a species just because of what it is. We certainly can find ways through investigation to treat specific types of cancer via methods such as immunotherapy and other targeted treatments that have the possibility of treating and curing that specific cancer in that specific person but I hesitate to predict there will ever be a cure for Cancer. Not to say we shouldn't try, not to say it isn't worth fighting.
I'd disagree that we call the targeted treatments "chemo". To me Chemo refers to a specific type of treatment whereby replicating cells are targeted. The idea being cancer cells replicate, most vital cells in our body are not actively replicating so give the person a treatment that kills replicating cells and keep them on it until all the cancer cells die. Problem being of course that there are cells in your body that are constantly or frequently replicating, like your gut lining, hair follicles etc so the treatment leads to nausea, loss of hair, general killing of any replicating tissue. As a result the treatment has to be spaced out and it can't last too long because it is harmful to your body. But any good doctor will of course convey that info to the patient, I don't think anyone pretends chemo is "good" for your body. It is just a potential means to eliminate the cancer before you die from it.
If a targeted therapy is developed by like targeting antigens that only present on the surface of the cancer cell in that persons particular form of cancer or something like that those are called immunotherapies or targeted therapies, not chemotherapies. Chemo's are the blunt hammers of killing replicating cells, there are just lots of different ways of doing that.
You are technically absolutely correct.
But IME, everyday people do call immunotherapies or targeted therapies "chemo" as a practical matter, in many cases (Herceptin, say), because that's what medical oncologists . . . oops, "chemo doctors" do: They give you "chemo".
That's what I meant by 'we call it "chemo"'. You're a scientist (whose contributions here I read closely, respect, and appreciate, BTW). I'm just a regular ol' patient and member of the general public.
Casual terminology muddies the waters, to some extent obscuring the substantial progress in treatment.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Cancer is a tough one. It is called a disease but to most of the public I think things that are diseases are caused by specific things and one could potentially find a cure. That isn't cancer. There will be improved treatments, there will be certain types of cancer where a cure might exist (think those types of cancer caused by pathogens like HPV), but for cancer in general there isn't going to be a cure. Cancer is the biproduct of the way our bodies work, I don't think we will ever be rid of it anymore than we will ever be rid of death. For most people who end up being victims of cancer it wasn't because of anything they did, or any choices they made...it was random. Pains me to see people given the impression that the cancer was "caused" by something and that they just need to do this or that to "cure" it. It is blame mixed with false hope which is just insidious and nasty.
I'm not saying one can't be cured of cancer, but the current cure (Chemo) is basically to beat your body with a blunt hammer until hopefully the cancer dies before you do. That isn't to put down the treatment, that is the best we have for saving a cancer victims life.
I don't disagree about chemo, at a very high level of generalization.
But, especially for more common forms of cancer (like breast), research is making progress in learning what makes our rogue cells (cancer, tumors) different from our normal cells biologically, and targeting treatments at those differences. That tends to reduce side effects, compared to older strategies that may just target fast-growing cells in general, rogue or normal.
(As an aside, IMU, that's why hair loss and digestive disruptions are common chemo side effects: Those processes depend on fast-growing normal cells.)
At the same time, researchers are learning more about why certain chemotherapy drugs work in one case and not another, developing tests for distinguishing between those patients, and more narrowly targeting the high-risk drugs to those most likely to benefit. This means fewer people get those drugs' side effects with no benefit.
This is a slow process, but the "blunt hammer" is gradually getting less blunt, even though we still call those improved strategies "chemo".
There's been substantial progress even since I was treated 17 years ago: More accurately-targeted treatments, more effective, with fewer and better-managed side effects. I see it playing out among the newly diagnosed in my support group, and in the lectures doctors give to keep us up to date on the science.
Big Pharma at work!
Are the holistic medicine practitioners making similar progress? What mechanisms do they use to go about it? (It's a sincere question: I kind of track with mainstream medicine's practices, but don't really understand how holistic health works, as a field of endeavor.)
Yes sure, I tried to convey that by saying we will continue to develop therapies for specific types of cancer but overall "Cancer" with a big C is something that is likely going to stick with us as a species just because of what it is. We certainly can find ways through investigation to treat specific types of cancer via methods such as immunotherapy and other targeted treatments that have the possibility of treating and curing that specific cancer in that specific person but I hesitate to predict there will ever be a cure for Cancer. Not to say we shouldn't try, not to say it isn't worth fighting.
I'd disagree that we call the targeted treatments "chemo". To me Chemo refers to a specific type of treatment whereby replicating cells are targeted. The idea being cancer cells replicate, most vital cells in our body are not actively replicating so give the person a treatment that kills replicating cells and keep them on it until all the cancer cells die. Problem being of course that there are cells in your body that are constantly or frequently replicating, like your gut lining, hair follicles etc so the treatment leads to nausea, loss of hair, general killing of any replicating tissue. As a result the treatment has to be spaced out and it can't last too long because it is harmful to your body. But any good doctor will of course convey that info to the patient, I don't think anyone pretends chemo is "good" for your body. It is just a potential means to eliminate the cancer before you die from it.
If a targeted therapy is developed by like targeting antigens that only present on the surface of the cancer cell in that persons particular form of cancer or something like that those are called immunotherapies or targeted therapies, not chemotherapies. Chemo's are the blunt hammers of killing replicating cells, there are just lots of different ways of doing that.
You are technically absolutely correct.
But IME, everyday people do call immunotherapies or targeted therapies "chemo" as a practical matter, in many cases (Herceptin, say), because that's what medical oncologists . . . oops, "chemo doctors" do: They give you "chemo".
That's what I meant by 'we call it "chemo"'. You're a scientist (whose contributions here I read closely, respect, and appreciate, BTW). I'm just a regular ol' patient and member of the general public.
Casual terminology muddies the waters, to some extent obscuring the substantial progress in treatment.
Hrm yeah that makes sense, terminology does tend to get muddled when transitioned to the public. Well that is unfortunate if public associates targeted therapies with chemo and chemo with "bad".
My graduate work was actually to develop techniques and provide proof of principle for thermostabilizing an enzyme. Work was successful and I published on it. Enzyme we thermostabilized had some potential for gene therapy so we demonstrated some basic efficacy in mice but that was it, I graduated and moved on...never patented it. Later on found out a company in San Diego called Tocagen picked it up and developed it into a treatment for glioblastoma. I believe it has just completed phase II trials and has helped save lives of trial participants that otherwise had no hope of cure. Wasn't the goal of my project and had we patented ut I'm not sure a company would have picked it up for development in the first place. Funny how these things work.6 -
Speaking of cancer treatment, going back to my dad's experience, it's interesting the treatments they are exploring. Again - he has pancreatic cancer, and the pool of people with it who can be used in clinical trials is likely small. During his first treatment and after he has been part of a trial for a pancreatic cancer vaccine; not sure if he will stay in the trial with his recurrence. For this new treatment plan they are talking about doing personalized treatment, which is still in early phases, and I think is based on DNA? Anyway, all to say is I really hope that even if it doesn't help my dad that in the long run his participation helps others.3
-
I can't be bothered going back and quoting but regarding giving treatment to the very elderly - My grandfather was damn near in a vegetative state, with late stage Parkinson's Disease and had been in a nursing home for years, and the doctor would still burn the skin cancers off his hands and arms.
Not melanomas, basal cell carcinomas. Because of his ill health, the wounds would take forever to heal.
There was no way those cancers were going to kill him before the Parkinson's did, and even if they did, it would have been a mercy, and the resulting wounds were presumably painful, but the doctor insisted it had to be done.3 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »I can't be bothered going back and quoting but regarding giving treatment to the very elderly - My grandfather was damn near in a vegetative state, with late stage Parkinson's Disease and had been in a nursing home for years, and the doctor would still burn the skin cancers off his hands and arms.
Not melanomas, basal cell carcinomas. Because of his ill health, the wounds would take forever to heal.
There was no way those cancers were going to kill him before the Parkinson's did, and even if they did, it would have been a mercy, and the resulting wounds were presumably painful, but the doctor insisted it had to be done.
Sounds about as bright as my dad's doctor.
0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »I can't be bothered going back and quoting but regarding giving treatment to the very elderly - My grandfather was damn near in a vegetative state, with late stage Parkinson's Disease and had been in a nursing home for years, and the doctor would still burn the skin cancers off his hands and arms.
Not melanomas, basal cell carcinomas. Because of his ill health, the wounds would take forever to heal.
There was no way those cancers were going to kill him before the Parkinson's did, and even if they did, it would have been a mercy, and the resulting wounds were presumably painful, but the doctor insisted it had to be done.
Not all doctors feel this way. My dad had prostate cancer and a skin cancer near his eye, and his doctor said that his life expectancy was such that a slow growing tumor would not endanger him before something else killed him, so they should just ignore it. Which turned out to be true, he died of pneumonia following a stroke two years later.2 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »I can't be bothered going back and quoting but regarding giving treatment to the very elderly - My grandfather was damn near in a vegetative state, with late stage Parkinson's Disease and had been in a nursing home for years, and the doctor would still burn the skin cancers off his hands and arms.
Not melanomas, basal cell carcinomas. Because of his ill health, the wounds would take forever to heal.
There was no way those cancers were going to kill him before the Parkinson's did, and even if they did, it would have been a mercy, and the resulting wounds were presumably painful, but the doctor insisted it had to be done.
Not all doctors feel this way. My dad had prostate cancer and a skin cancer near his eye, and his doctor said that his life expectancy was such that a slow growing tumor would not endanger him before something else killed him, so they should just ignore it. Which turned out to be true, he died of pneumonia following a stroke two years later.
Oh i absolutely know that not all doctors are like that. It was just a shame.3 -
TenderBlender667 wrote: »I'm 2 months into a holistic nutrition program and I can't help but question some of the things I'm learning. I've been on mfp for several years and I've learned quite a bit on here, but a lot of the information on mfp contradicts the information I'm learning in school. People think everything from a holistic standpoint is "woo" or BS. Even if I provide some scientific evidence, most people still disagree with any information I provide. It's upsetting since I'm a firm believer in using nutrition and lifestyle as a way to improve health and manage some chronic health conditions. The teachers in my school truly believe that leaky gut syndrome and candida overgrowth are REAL problems, even the one's who've practiced allopathic medicine and have years of education behind then. I go on mfp and it's the complete opposite of everything I'm learning. Am I being scammed?
@TenderBlender667 holistic nutrition is accepted by most using MFP I expect but most do not post on MFP. Most with a medical background and/or leaky gut, candida, etc related health issues know they can be real health issues. Keep learning your way forward but keep asking your good questions and questioning all sources and in time you can better sort out the difference between facts and personal opinions not supported by research.37 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »TenderBlender667 wrote: »I'm 2 months into a holistic nutrition program and I can't help but question some of the things I'm learning. I've been on mfp for several years and I've learned quite a bit on here, but a lot of the information on mfp contradicts the information I'm learning in school. People think everything from a holistic standpoint is "woo" or BS. Even if I provide some scientific evidence, most people still disagree with any information I provide. It's upsetting since I'm a firm believer in using nutrition and lifestyle as a way to improve health and manage some chronic health conditions. The teachers in my school truly believe that leaky gut syndrome and candida overgrowth are REAL problems, even the one's who've practiced allopathic medicine and have years of education behind then. I go on mfp and it's the complete opposite of everything I'm learning. Am I being scammed?
@TenderBlender667 holistic nutrition is accepted by most using MFP I expect but most do not post on MFP. Most with a medical background and/or leaky gut, candida, etc related health issues know they can be real health issues. Keep learning your way forward but keep asking your good questions and questioning all sources and in time you can better sort out the difference between facts and personal opinions not supported by research.
Yeah, and there are probably tens of thousands of MFP users that never set foot into the community that fully believe in the health benefits of colon cleanses and the fat burning properties of ACV. Most of the world believes you can spot reduce fat by buying an ab-roller. Hundreds of thousands of men think that an herbal supplement will raise failing Testosterone levels. Millions of people think that Aliens crashed in New Mexico and enough people think that Kanye West is a musician to make him a millionaire. 27 -
jseams1234 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »TenderBlender667 wrote: »I'm 2 months into a holistic nutrition program and I can't help but question some of the things I'm learning. I've been on mfp for several years and I've learned quite a bit on here, but a lot of the information on mfp contradicts the information I'm learning in school. People think everything from a holistic standpoint is "woo" or BS. Even if I provide some scientific evidence, most people still disagree with any information I provide. It's upsetting since I'm a firm believer in using nutrition and lifestyle as a way to improve health and manage some chronic health conditions. The teachers in my school truly believe that leaky gut syndrome and candida overgrowth are REAL problems, even the one's who've practiced allopathic medicine and have years of education behind then. I go on mfp and it's the complete opposite of everything I'm learning. Am I being scammed?
@TenderBlender667 holistic nutrition is accepted by most using MFP I expect but most do not post on MFP. Most with a medical background and/or leaky gut, candida, etc related health issues know they can be real health issues. Keep learning your way forward but keep asking your good questions and questioning all sources and in time you can better sort out the difference between facts and personal opinions not supported by research.
Yeah, and there are probably tens of thousands of MFP users that never set foot into the community that fully believe in the health benefits of colon cleanses and the fat burning properties of ACV. Most of the world believes you can spot reduce fat by buying an ab-roller. Hundreds of thousands of men think that an herbal supplement will raise failing Testosterone levels. Millions of people think that Aliens crashed in New Mexico and enough people think that Kanye West is a musician to make him a millionaire.
LMFAO
5 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »TenderBlender667 wrote: »I'm 2 months into a holistic nutrition program and I can't help but question some of the things I'm learning. I've been on mfp for several years and I've learned quite a bit on here, but a lot of the information on mfp contradicts the information I'm learning in school. People think everything from a holistic standpoint is "woo" or BS. Even if I provide some scientific evidence, most people still disagree with any information I provide. It's upsetting since I'm a firm believer in using nutrition and lifestyle as a way to improve health and manage some chronic health conditions. The teachers in my school truly believe that leaky gut syndrome and candida overgrowth are REAL problems, even the one's who've practiced allopathic medicine and have years of education behind then. I go on mfp and it's the complete opposite of everything I'm learning. Am I being scammed?
@TenderBlender667 holistic nutrition is accepted by most using MFP I expect but most do not post on MFP. Most with a medical background and/or leaky gut, candida, etc related health issues know they can be real health issues. Keep learning your way forward but keep asking your good questions and questioning all sources and in time you can better sort out the difference between facts and personal opinions not supported by research.
"Most with a medical background"?
Yeah, right, that's why they're not considered real diseases by those with a medical background.
Except maybe optometrists that never practiced.20 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »TenderBlender667 wrote: »I'm 2 months into a holistic nutrition program and I can't help but question some of the things I'm learning. I've been on mfp for several years and I've learned quite a bit on here, but a lot of the information on mfp contradicts the information I'm learning in school. People think everything from a holistic standpoint is "woo" or BS. Even if I provide some scientific evidence, most people still disagree with any information I provide. It's upsetting since I'm a firm believer in using nutrition and lifestyle as a way to improve health and manage some chronic health conditions. The teachers in my school truly believe that leaky gut syndrome and candida overgrowth are REAL problems, even the one's who've practiced allopathic medicine and have years of education behind then. I go on mfp and it's the complete opposite of everything I'm learning. Am I being scammed?
@TenderBlender667 holistic nutrition is accepted by most using MFP I expect but most do not post on MFP. Most with a medical background and/or leaky gut, candida, etc related health issues know they can be real health issues. Keep learning your way forward but keep asking your good questions and questioning all sources and in time you can better sort out the difference between facts and personal opinions not supported by research.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority
https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781442253926/Finding-Reliable-Information-Online-Adventures-of-an-Information-Sleuth6 -
Leaky gut is a fake disease only "diagnosed" by quacks. Candida is not a real condition in the way that quacks "diagnose" it. It can't be cured with diet and supplements.GaleHawkins wrote: »TenderBlender667 wrote: »I'm 2 months into a holistic nutrition program and I can't help but question some of the things I'm learning. I've been on mfp for several years and I've learned quite a bit on here, but a lot of the information on mfp contradicts the information I'm learning in school. People think everything from a holistic standpoint is "woo" or BS. Even if I provide some scientific evidence, most people still disagree with any information I provide. It's upsetting since I'm a firm believer in using nutrition and lifestyle as a way to improve health and manage some chronic health conditions. The teachers in my school truly believe that leaky gut syndrome and candida overgrowth are REAL problems, even the one's who've practiced allopathic medicine and have years of education behind then. I go on mfp and it's the complete opposite of everything I'm learning. Am I being scammed?
@TenderBlender667 holistic nutrition is accepted by most using MFP I expect but most do not post on MFP. Most with a medical background and/or leaky gut, candida, etc related health issues know they can be real health issues.
Why don't you take your own advice here? All you do accept sources that agree with your inane fixed narrative and handwave away that which proves you wrong.Keep learning your way forward but keep asking your good questions and questioning all sources
Again, take your own advice here. Even with your "terminal degree" you for some reason can't separate facts from your personal opinion that is not supported by research.and in time you can better sort out the difference between facts and personal opinions not supported by research.
14 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »TenderBlender667 wrote: »I'm 2 months into a holistic nutrition program and I can't help but question some of the things I'm learning. I've been on mfp for several years and I've learned quite a bit on here, but a lot of the information on mfp contradicts the information I'm learning in school. People think everything from a holistic standpoint is "woo" or BS. Even if I provide some scientific evidence, most people still disagree with any information I provide. It's upsetting since I'm a firm believer in using nutrition and lifestyle as a way to improve health and manage some chronic health conditions. The teachers in my school truly believe that leaky gut syndrome and candida overgrowth are REAL problems, even the one's who've practiced allopathic medicine and have years of education behind then. I go on mfp and it's the complete opposite of everything I'm learning. Am I being scammed?
@TenderBlender667 holistic nutrition is accepted by most using MFP I expect but most do not post on MFP. Most with a medical background and/or leaky gut, candida, etc related health issues know they can be real health issues. Keep learning your way forward but keep asking your good questions and questioning all sources and in time you can better sort out the difference between facts and personal opinions not supported by research.
?? How would you know this if they don't post??16 -
stevencloser wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »TenderBlender667 wrote: »I'm 2 months into a holistic nutrition program and I can't help but question some of the things I'm learning. I've been on mfp for several years and I've learned quite a bit on here, but a lot of the information on mfp contradicts the information I'm learning in school. People think everything from a holistic standpoint is "woo" or BS. Even if I provide some scientific evidence, most people still disagree with any information I provide. It's upsetting since I'm a firm believer in using nutrition and lifestyle as a way to improve health and manage some chronic health conditions. The teachers in my school truly believe that leaky gut syndrome and candida overgrowth are REAL problems, even the one's who've practiced allopathic medicine and have years of education behind then. I go on mfp and it's the complete opposite of everything I'm learning. Am I being scammed?
@TenderBlender667 holistic nutrition is accepted by most using MFP I expect but most do not post on MFP. Most with a medical background and/or leaky gut, candida, etc related health issues know they can be real health issues. Keep learning your way forward but keep asking your good questions and questioning all sources and in time you can better sort out the difference between facts and personal opinions not supported by research.
"Most with a medical background"?
Yeah, right, that's why they're not considered real diseases by those with a medical background.
Except maybe optometrists that never practiced.
There's also much more involved in being an "excellent researcher" than typing buzzwords into Google and taking the first links that pop up at face value.9 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »TenderBlender667 wrote: »I'm 2 months into a holistic nutrition program and I can't help but question some of the things I'm learning. I've been on mfp for several years and I've learned quite a bit on here, but a lot of the information on mfp contradicts the information I'm learning in school. People think everything from a holistic standpoint is "woo" or BS. Even if I provide some scientific evidence, most people still disagree with any information I provide. It's upsetting since I'm a firm believer in using nutrition and lifestyle as a way to improve health and manage some chronic health conditions. The teachers in my school truly believe that leaky gut syndrome and candida overgrowth are REAL problems, even the one's who've practiced allopathic medicine and have years of education behind then. I go on mfp and it's the complete opposite of everything I'm learning. Am I being scammed?
@TenderBlender667 holistic nutrition is accepted by most using MFP I expect but most do not post on MFP. Most with a medical background and/or leaky gut, candida, etc related health issues know they can be real health issues. Keep learning your way forward but keep asking your good questions and questioning all sources and in time you can better sort out the difference between facts and personal opinions not supported by research.
?? How would you know this if they don't post??
Great question! Damn, I mad I missed it. I got caught up with rest of his nonsense.4 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »TenderBlender667 wrote: »I'm 2 months into a holistic nutrition program and I can't help but question some of the things I'm learning. I've been on mfp for several years and I've learned quite a bit on here, but a lot of the information on mfp contradicts the information I'm learning in school. People think everything from a holistic standpoint is "woo" or BS. Even if I provide some scientific evidence, most people still disagree with any information I provide. It's upsetting since I'm a firm believer in using nutrition and lifestyle as a way to improve health and manage some chronic health conditions. The teachers in my school truly believe that leaky gut syndrome and candida overgrowth are REAL problems, even the one's who've practiced allopathic medicine and have years of education behind then. I go on mfp and it's the complete opposite of everything I'm learning. Am I being scammed?
@TenderBlender667 holistic nutrition is accepted by most using MFP I expect but most do not post on MFP. Most with a medical background and/or leaky gut, candida, etc related health issues know they can be real health issues. Keep learning your way forward but keep asking your good questions and questioning all sources and in time you can better sort out the difference between facts and personal opinions not supported by research.
Most? Seriously?
Recently had my physical with my real M.D. We were discussing my previous history of ulcers and I piped up and said, "Maybe I really had leaky gut syndrome instead?" She gave me the side-eye and then when I burst out laughing, she said, "Damn, I thought you were serious there for a moment!"17 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »TenderBlender667 wrote: »I'm 2 months into a holistic nutrition program and I can't help but question some of the things I'm learning. I've been on mfp for several years and I've learned quite a bit on here, but a lot of the information on mfp contradicts the information I'm learning in school. People think everything from a holistic standpoint is "woo" or BS. Even if I provide some scientific evidence, most people still disagree with any information I provide. It's upsetting since I'm a firm believer in using nutrition and lifestyle as a way to improve health and manage some chronic health conditions. The teachers in my school truly believe that leaky gut syndrome and candida overgrowth are REAL problems, even the one's who've practiced allopathic medicine and have years of education behind then. I go on mfp and it's the complete opposite of everything I'm learning. Am I being scammed?
@TenderBlender667 holistic nutrition is accepted by most using MFP I expect but most do not post on MFP. Most with a medical background and/or leaky gut, candida, etc related health issues know they can be real health issues. Keep learning your way forward but keep asking your good questions and questioning all sources and in time you can better sort out the difference between facts and personal opinions not supported by research.
?? How would you know this if they don't post??
Basic research that does not even require a terminal degree.
That basic research shows a very low percentage of forum readers (1%+) actually post to thread that they read. I did not say I knew what the non posters point of view is but I know most are not sharing any point of view in a thread that calls posters liars and other form of cyber bullying.25 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »TenderBlender667 wrote: »I'm 2 months into a holistic nutrition program and I can't help but question some of the things I'm learning. I've been on mfp for several years and I've learned quite a bit on here, but a lot of the information on mfp contradicts the information I'm learning in school. People think everything from a holistic standpoint is "woo" or BS. Even if I provide some scientific evidence, most people still disagree with any information I provide. It's upsetting since I'm a firm believer in using nutrition and lifestyle as a way to improve health and manage some chronic health conditions. The teachers in my school truly believe that leaky gut syndrome and candida overgrowth are REAL problems, even the one's who've practiced allopathic medicine and have years of education behind then. I go on mfp and it's the complete opposite of everything I'm learning. Am I being scammed?
@TenderBlender667 holistic nutrition is accepted by most using MFP I expect but most do not post on MFP. Most with a medical background and/or leaky gut, candida, etc related health issues know they can be real health issues. Keep learning your way forward but keep asking your good questions and questioning all sources and in time you can better sort out the difference between facts and personal opinions not supported by research.
?? How would you know this if they don't post??
Basic research that does not even require a terminal degree.
OK. I'd like to see the research that confirms that most of the MFP members who don't post believe in holistic nutrition. I'm really not buying it.13 -
This content has been removed.
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »TenderBlender667 wrote: »I'm 2 months into a holistic nutrition program and I can't help but question some of the things I'm learning. I've been on mfp for several years and I've learned quite a bit on here, but a lot of the information on mfp contradicts the information I'm learning in school. People think everything from a holistic standpoint is "woo" or BS. Even if I provide some scientific evidence, most people still disagree with any information I provide. It's upsetting since I'm a firm believer in using nutrition and lifestyle as a way to improve health and manage some chronic health conditions. The teachers in my school truly believe that leaky gut syndrome and candida overgrowth are REAL problems, even the one's who've practiced allopathic medicine and have years of education behind then. I go on mfp and it's the complete opposite of everything I'm learning. Am I being scammed?
@TenderBlender667 holistic nutrition is accepted by most using MFP I expect but most do not post on MFP. Most with a medical background and/or leaky gut, candida, etc related health issues know they can be real health issues. Keep learning your way forward but keep asking your good questions and questioning all sources and in time you can better sort out the difference between facts and personal opinions not supported by research.
?? How would you know this if they don't post??
Basic research that does not even require a terminal degree.
Seriously, this is your answer?!?!? So that's basically your way of saying that you're lying as usual. Got it.14 -
I don't personally drink the poptarts-all-day kool-aid (nor do I believe anyone enjoying any long term success does) Food IS our fuel, it's literally the only way our bodies receive the vitamins and minerals and macros they need to fight disease and thrive. I can't think of a single credible person on this site that would disagree that cake < broccoli in terms of HEALTH, but common sense would have us all strike a balance that allows us the freedom to include foods we love to eat because they taste good, with foods we love to eat because they have health benefits. You don't have to be one way or the other. Persons on either side of this argument are equally obnoxious and I personally like to hang out in the calories have context middle ground.9
-
mrsnattybulking wrote: »I don't personally drink the poptarts-all-day kool-aid (nor do I believe anyone enjoying any long term success does) Food IS our fuel, it's literally the only way our bodies receive the vitamins and minerals and macros they need to fight disease and thrive. I can't think of a single credible person on this site that would disagree that cake < broccoli in terms of HEALTH, but common sense would have us all strike a balance that allows us the freedom to include foods we love to eat because they taste good, with foods we love to eat because they have health benefits. You don't have to be one way or the other. Persons on either side of this argument are equally obnoxious and I personally like to hang out in the calories have context middle ground.
A diet of nothing but broccoli could possibly more detrimental to your health than a diet of nothing but cake.
In terms of HEALTH, context of the entire diet is important, no single food item.11 -
stevencloser wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »I don't personally drink the poptarts-all-day kool-aid (nor do I believe anyone enjoying any long term success does) Food IS our fuel, it's literally the only way our bodies receive the vitamins and minerals and macros they need to fight disease and thrive. I can't think of a single credible person on this site that would disagree that cake < broccoli in terms of HEALTH, but common sense would have us all strike a balance that allows us the freedom to include foods we love to eat because they taste good, with foods we love to eat because they have health benefits. You don't have to be one way or the other. Persons on either side of this argument are equally obnoxious and I personally like to hang out in the calories have context middle ground.
A diet of nothing but broccoli could possibly more detrimental to your health than a diet of nothing but cake.
In terms of HEALTH, context of the entire diet is important, no single food item.
Plus, just because it's cake doesn't mean there's nothing good in it. There are calories and then the three macros. Depending on the cake, (a lot have fruit in them for example), then there are going to be quite a few micros as well. So it can contribute positively to an overall diet just as much as broccoli.2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »TenderBlender667 wrote: »I'm 2 months into a holistic nutrition program and I can't help but question some of the things I'm learning. I've been on mfp for several years and I've learned quite a bit on here, but a lot of the information on mfp contradicts the information I'm learning in school. People think everything from a holistic standpoint is "woo" or BS. Even if I provide some scientific evidence, most people still disagree with any information I provide. It's upsetting since I'm a firm believer in using nutrition and lifestyle as a way to improve health and manage some chronic health conditions. The teachers in my school truly believe that leaky gut syndrome and candida overgrowth are REAL problems, even the one's who've practiced allopathic medicine and have years of education behind then. I go on mfp and it's the complete opposite of everything I'm learning. Am I being scammed?
@TenderBlender667 holistic nutrition is accepted by most using MFP I expect but most do not post on MFP. Most with a medical background and/or leaky gut, candida, etc related health issues know they can be real health issues. Keep learning your way forward but keep asking your good questions and questioning all sources and in time you can better sort out the difference between facts and personal opinions not supported by research.
?? How would you know this if they don't post??
Basic research that does not even require a terminal degree.
That basic research shows a very low percentage of forum readers (1%+) actually post to thread that they read. I did not say I knew what the non posters point of view is but I know most are not sharing any point of view in a thread that calls posters liars and other form of cyber bullying.GaleHawkins wrote: »TenderBlender667 wrote: »I'm 2 months into a holistic nutrition program and I can't help but question some of the things I'm learning. I've been on mfp for several years and I've learned quite a bit on here, but a lot of the information on mfp contradicts the information I'm learning in school. People think everything from a holistic standpoint is "woo" or BS. Even if I provide some scientific evidence, most people still disagree with any information I provide. It's upsetting since I'm a firm believer in using nutrition and lifestyle as a way to improve health and manage some chronic health conditions. The teachers in my school truly believe that leaky gut syndrome and candida overgrowth are REAL problems, even the one's who've practiced allopathic medicine and have years of education behind then. I go on mfp and it's the complete opposite of everything I'm learning. Am I being scammed?
@TenderBlender667 holistic nutrition is accepted by most using MFP I expect but most do not post on MFP. Most with a medical background and/or leaky gut, candida, etc related health issues know they can be real health issues. Keep learning your way forward but keep asking your good questions and questioning all sources and in time you can better sort out the difference between facts and personal opinions not supported by research.
9 -
#goalpostsbackinplace4
-
VintageFeline wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »I don't personally drink the poptarts-all-day kool-aid (nor do I believe anyone enjoying any long term success does) Food IS our fuel, it's literally the only way our bodies receive the vitamins and minerals and macros they need to fight disease and thrive. I can't think of a single credible person on this site that would disagree that cake < broccoli in terms of HEALTH, but common sense would have us all strike a balance that allows us the freedom to include foods we love to eat because they taste good, with foods we love to eat because they have health benefits. You don't have to be one way or the other. Persons on either side of this argument are equally obnoxious and I personally like to hang out in the calories have context middle ground.
A diet of nothing but broccoli could possibly more detrimental to your health than a diet of nothing but cake.
In terms of HEALTH, context of the entire diet is important, no single food item.
Plus, just because it's cake doesn't mean there's nothing good in it. There are calories and then the three macros. Depending on the cake, (a lot have fruit in them for example), then there are going to be quite a few micros as well. So it can contribute positively to an overall diet just as much as broccoli.
In the US (not sure about other places), many cakes are made with enriched flour so it's going to be a source of B vitamins and iron. I bake frequently and while some baked goods are higher calorie and can be difficult to fit into a calorie-restricted plan, I haven't found one yet that doesn't supply micronutrients (and, of course, macronutrients).6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions