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?
Options
Replies
-
jseams1234 wrote: »I don't get sick very often and it's been a couple of years since I've had a cold... but a few weeks ago I got a bad one. It felt like my head was was going to explode from the pressure - every symptom magnified 10x. I was miserable. I sent my wife off to CVS to pick me up some over the counter cold medication and she came home with Sambucol Cold & Flu. The packaging looked legit and advertised "Fast relief" from:
Nasal & Sinus Congestion
Runny Nose
Sore Throat
Coughing
Sneezing
Chills & Fever
So, I took it. Nothing happened. I still felt like absolute crap and finally read the package through bleary tear filled eyes.... homeopathic remedy. I didn't even know that CVS has an entire shelf devoted to this stuff. My wife didn't check, just grabbed something that listed my symptoms. lol
Sent her back and she got me a some DayQuil gel caps and wonder of wonders. I felt almost human again. Pretty good experiment, since I had no idea at first what I was really taking.
Out of all the types of alternative medicines, I think homeopathic medicines are the most bizarre. From Wikipedia:
"The preparations are manufactured using a process of homeopathic dilution, in which a chosen substance is repeatedly diluted in alcohol or distilled water ... Dilution typically continues well past the point where no molecules of the original substance remain."
Meaning by the time the remedy is processed, there's often no trace remaining of the original curative substance. And people think this works, how?3 -
There is a correlation between good grammar and clear thinking. The book, "On Writing Well" by Zinsser is on my short list of life-changing books. Because it changed my thinking. The author emphasizes the importance of reviewing and editing to get down to the essence of what is meant. As I reviewed and edited my work, I had to ask myself, "Is this what I really mean"?
For myself, I agree . . . which is to say that I try to use good grammar, proper syntax, thoughtful editing of my own writing, etc.
Beyond that, I try to employ a thoughtful, active (and generous but critical) approach as a reader, too.
Errant nonsense couched in beautiful, glowing prose is a particularly pernicious form of nonsense (*).
Also, there's a certain type of language usage peevery that's thinly-disguised ad hominem argumentation, sometimes with a vague, unpleasant scent of class prejudice about it besides. (**)
(*) Often, the problem is implicit assumptions, or use of abstract terms that sound persuasive, but leave one thinking "What does that actually mean in applied, practical terms? Hmmm, pretty much nothing." - i.e., cotton candy reasoning.
(**) I explicitly don't think that was the nature of @NorthCascades' critique of this thread. I think that critique was spot on.
You can probably tell I'm a little touchy about language usage criticism. As a kinda educated person from a blue collar family, I've seen it used too often by not-very-smart educated people to dismiss the ideas of smart less educated ones. (That's also not what happened on this thread, IMO).
As you say, @jgnatca, "Is this what I really mean" is a good tool. It's one that any of us can use, because clear communication ought to be the objective for both writer and reader.
Agreed. Communication is about paying attention to your audience and trying to convey what you want to convey in terms that your audience would understand and that would maintain their attention. To do otherwise, to try to impress with your thesaurus-infused sentences or bedazzle and confuse with as much jargon as you can use is to be jerking yourself off not to be trying to engage with whom you are speaking. At that point you are making it about showing off rather than about communicating.
Its hard to walk that line if you are speaking as an expert in a topic (having a lot of education in that field) as it is easy to slip into terminology that you have become comfortable with and use all the time with colleagues that others are not familiar with at all. When you spend 20 years on a topic it is quite easy to forget that certain terms or language is not in common usage. It takes effort to recognize what language is not appropriate for a given audience and to try to explain things in terms you wouldn't normally explain them in as to better engage with that audience. Personally I find that effort gratifying as going through that exercise helps me to better understand concepts I may have taken for granted.
I'll often post something, re-read it, decide it would be phrased better this way. Edit it. Read it again, catch a typo, edit it...repeat repeat. I don't change the point or meaning of the post, just how I am saying it. I'm a bit of a perfectionist that way, probably annoys people who read the first version of my post only to find it longer and phrased differently 5 minutes later. I am sure that I still come across as a pompous douche to a lot of people
Can't please them all. 6 -
jseams1234 wrote: »I don't get sick very often and it's been a couple of years since I've had a cold... but a few weeks ago I got a bad one. It felt like my head was was going to explode from the pressure - every symptom magnified 10x. I was miserable. I sent my wife off to CVS to pick me up some over the counter cold medication and she came home with Sambucol Cold & Flu. The packaging looked legit and advertised "Fast relief" from:
Nasal & Sinus Congestion
Runny Nose
Sore Throat
Coughing
Sneezing
Chills & Fever
So, I took it. Nothing happened. I still felt like absolute crap and finally read the package through bleary tear filled eyes.... homeopathic remedy. I didn't even know that CVS has an entire shelf devoted to this stuff. My wife didn't check, just grabbed something that listed my symptoms. lol
Sent her back and she got me a some DayQuil gel caps and wonder of wonders. I felt almost human again. Pretty good experiment, since I had no idea at first what I was really taking.
Out of all the types of alternative medicines, I think homeopathic medicines are the most bizarre. From Wikipedia:
"The preparations are manufactured using a process of homeopathic dilution, in which a chosen substance is repeatedly diluted in alcohol or distilled water ... Dilution typically continues well past the point where no molecules of the original substance remain."
Meaning by the time the remedy is processed, there's often no trace remaining of the original curative substance. And people think this works, how?
It's not always a curative, sometimes its an alleged poison(arsenic, cyanide, belladonna) which actually has health promoting properties in low doses, but obviously not the low(0) doses found in the diluted water.
There's interesting evidence from responsible studies that properly dosed cyanide has some very interesting properties. Unfortunately, due to the risk, dietary sources are the only way to get cyanide, as supplementation would be problematic at best.
2 -
jseams1234 wrote: »I don't get sick very often and it's been a couple of years since I've had a cold... but a few weeks ago I got a bad one. It felt like my head was was going to explode from the pressure - every symptom magnified 10x. I was miserable. I sent my wife off to CVS to pick me up some over the counter cold medication and she came home with Sambucol Cold & Flu. The packaging looked legit and advertised "Fast relief" from:
Nasal & Sinus Congestion
Runny Nose
Sore Throat
Coughing
Sneezing
Chills & Fever
So, I took it. Nothing happened. I still felt like absolute crap and finally read the package through bleary tear filled eyes.... homeopathic remedy. I didn't even know that CVS has an entire shelf devoted to this stuff. My wife didn't check, just grabbed something that listed my symptoms. lol
Sent her back and she got me a some DayQuil gel caps and wonder of wonders. I felt almost human again. Pretty good experiment, since I had no idea at first what I was really taking.
Out of all the types of alternative medicines, I think homeopathic medicines are the most bizarre. From Wikipedia:
"The preparations are manufactured using a process of homeopathic dilution, in which a chosen substance is repeatedly diluted in alcohol or distilled water ... Dilution typically continues well past the point where no molecules of the original substance remain."
Meaning by the time the remedy is processed, there's often no trace remaining of the original curative substance. And people think this works, how?
Yeah I'll admit going after homeopathy is pretty low hanging fruit in the realm of criticisms of the batsh*t crazy that can come out of the "alternative" field.
How it works is that the water has a memory of what was originally in it and adopts a structure that is curative by the way.3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Unfortunately, due to the risk, dietary sources are the only way to get cyanide, as supplementation would be problematic at best.
Could always just eat more almonds.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »It's not always a curative, sometimes its an alleged poison(arsenic, cyanide, belladonna) which actually has health promoting properties in low doses, but obviously not the low(0) doses found in the diluted water.
If memory serves in homeopathy the substance isn't chosen on curative properties ever. How it is selected is that if a disease or an issue has a symptom, say an itchy rash, then find something that causes that symptom, like poison ivy, grind that up make an extract and then dilute that extract to the point of non-existence and treat with that. The idea being that mixing that ingredient into water changes the properties of the water to make the water curative by....some mechanism.
So it isn't that the substances homeopathy chooses are sometimes not curative. They are never curative, they are chosen on the basis of them eliciting the same symptoms as what you are trying to cure. Thankfully they are diluted to non-existence so you are safe.
And yes products based on this principle can be found on shelves in your grocery store next to the pharmacy.3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »I don't get sick very often and it's been a couple of years since I've had a cold... but a few weeks ago I got a bad one. It felt like my head was was going to explode from the pressure - every symptom magnified 10x. I was miserable. I sent my wife off to CVS to pick me up some over the counter cold medication and she came home with Sambucol Cold & Flu. The packaging looked legit and advertised "Fast relief" from:
Nasal & Sinus Congestion
Runny Nose
Sore Throat
Coughing
Sneezing
Chills & Fever
So, I took it. Nothing happened. I still felt like absolute crap and finally read the package through bleary tear filled eyes.... homeopathic remedy. I didn't even know that CVS has an entire shelf devoted to this stuff. My wife didn't check, just grabbed something that listed my symptoms. lol
Sent her back and she got me a some DayQuil gel caps and wonder of wonders. I felt almost human again. Pretty good experiment, since I had no idea at first what I was really taking.
Out of all the types of alternative medicines, I think homeopathic medicines are the most bizarre. From Wikipedia:
"The preparations are manufactured using a process of homeopathic dilution, in which a chosen substance is repeatedly diluted in alcohol or distilled water ... Dilution typically continues well past the point where no molecules of the original substance remain."
Meaning by the time the remedy is processed, there's often no trace remaining of the original curative substance. And people think this works, how?
Yeah I'll admit going after homeopathy is pretty low hanging fruit in the realm of criticisms of the batsh*t crazy that can come out of the "alternative" field.
How it works is that the water has a memory of what was originally in it and adopts a structure that is curative by the way.
But water doesn't remember everything it's been in contact with, only healing things. It forgets sewer grates, the intestines of wicked people, and icy asteroids being irradiated in space.6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Unfortunately, due to the risk, dietary sources are the only way to get cyanide, as supplementation would be problematic at best.
Could always just eat more almonds.
Or whole apples... Turns out there was something to that whole apple a day thing we learned in school.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »I don't get sick very often and it's been a couple of years since I've had a cold... but a few weeks ago I got a bad one. It felt like my head was was going to explode from the pressure - every symptom magnified 10x. I was miserable. I sent my wife off to CVS to pick me up some over the counter cold medication and she came home with Sambucol Cold & Flu. The packaging looked legit and advertised "Fast relief" from:
Nasal & Sinus Congestion
Runny Nose
Sore Throat
Coughing
Sneezing
Chills & Fever
So, I took it. Nothing happened. I still felt like absolute crap and finally read the package through bleary tear filled eyes.... homeopathic remedy. I didn't even know that CVS has an entire shelf devoted to this stuff. My wife didn't check, just grabbed something that listed my symptoms. lol
Sent her back and she got me a some DayQuil gel caps and wonder of wonders. I felt almost human again. Pretty good experiment, since I had no idea at first what I was really taking.
Out of all the types of alternative medicines, I think homeopathic medicines are the most bizarre. From Wikipedia:
"The preparations are manufactured using a process of homeopathic dilution, in which a chosen substance is repeatedly diluted in alcohol or distilled water ... Dilution typically continues well past the point where no molecules of the original substance remain."
Meaning by the time the remedy is processed, there's often no trace remaining of the original curative substance. And people think this works, how?
Yeah I'll admit going after homeopathy is pretty low hanging fruit in the realm of criticisms of the batsh*t crazy that can come out of the "alternative" field.
How it works is that the water has a memory of what was originally in it and adopts a structure that is curative by the way.
Here's a link to the Wikipedia article, it goes into some detail about the history and philosophy. It's actually fascinating, more so than I think other types of alternative medicines, which I think can have their place when not attempting to cure actual illnesses. I'm thinking here about chronic pain management and symptom relief for minor nasal congestion from colds and stomach upsets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy0 -
Mandygring wrote: »I would love to actually have the experience of testing both in a laboratory.
It happens all the time, usually with poor results for alt-med (though not always).
Anecdotally:
I'm kinda old (62). Since my childhood, there's been alt-med under various names (holistic/wholistic health, "traditional" or "non-Western" medicine, complementary therapies, etc.).
I've seen a few things (some of the higher-numbered vitamins, for example) move from being trumpeted by alt-med advocates based on limited (or no) evidence, to being accepted as mainstream science once more and better evidence accumulated. Usually things on that track were not originated by the alt-med establishment, BTW: They were originated by mainstream scientific researchers, and alt-med advocates were more willing to run with limited, poorer-quality initial evidence.
I've also seen the alt-med industry, through that whole period, continue trumpeting things that have been repeatedly debunked. (Kind of makes me wonder which party looks more like it's cynically trying to run a conspiracy, frankly).
Conclusion: The alt-med batting average really isn't that great, and things that turn out to be valid do move up to the big leagues.
Unlike some, I don't completely ignore alt-med sources, but I do (1) examine the nature and history of their evidence; (2) recognize that relatively new alt-med enthusiasms are slightly more worthy of attention, because the truly promising ones do get tested in labs, and some of them may eventually be scientifically validated; (3) seriously consider whether there's adequate safety evidence, even where efficacy evidence may be new/weak.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »If you would indulge a bit of a rant.
I hate the term "Western Medicine" that people who support so called alternative or holistic medicines parade about. There isn't a "western" medicine. Modern medicine is based on our current scientific understanding of both the world and our bodies, an understanding developed globally. Not only that but lots of things you would associate with "Western" medicine weren't even first developed in the West. Sushruta, who is considered to be the inventor of the modern concept of surgery was Indian who legend has learned the techniques from Lord Dhanvantari, the Hindu god of medicine. I can only imagine the term comes from the idea that in western countries we talk about the hippocratic oath for doctors which is based on Hippocrates and the concept of doing no harm and because Hippocrates happened to be Greek that must be a Western philosophy then. Like the West owns the concept of doing no harm.
But even for those techniques of modern medicine that were first pioneered in parts of the world that are considered to be "western" so what? That makes medicine "Western" then? Where else do we apply that principle?
The ability to build skyscrapers is based on the application and development of engineering techniques that are based on the physical understanding of materials and gravity. The first skyscraper was built in the United States but the United States doesn't somehow own the concept of skyscrapers or the knowledge used to build them. We don't go around the world referring to skyscrapers in China or in India as being "American buildings" or "Western buildings" do we. In fact that would sound rather insulting and weirdly ethno-centric wouldn't it?
A lot of the foundational concepts of modern mathematics were developed in the middle east. Things like algebra or the concept of algoritms were first conceived there (hence the sound of their names Al-gorithm, Al-gebra). That said if you solve a problem with algebra you don't refer to it as applying "Middle-eastern math" do you? Sounds a little silly doesn't it?
So why do it with medicine? Is it because in western countries the techniques of modern medicine are practiced where everywhere else in the world different techniques are used? No, not at all. If you get a bacterial infection while traveling in India and you go to a hospital guess what they are going to do...they are going to give you antibiotics. Same literally anywhere in the world. They aren't going to rub tumeric into it or give you apple cider vinegar. Because modern medicine is just that, the current application of medicine in the modern age globally. Would you complain to your Indian doctor in India that you are skeptical of "Western medicine"? Might sound a little insulting in that context wouldn't it?
5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »There is a correlation between good grammar and clear thinking. The book, "On Writing Well" by Zinsser is on my short list of life-changing books. Because it changed my thinking. The author emphasizes the importance of reviewing and editing to get down to the essence of what is meant. As I reviewed and edited my work, I had to ask myself, "Is this what I really mean"?
For myself, I agree . . . which is to say that I try to use good grammar, proper syntax, thoughtful editing of my own writing, etc.
Beyond that, I try to employ a thoughtful, active (and generous but critical) approach as a reader, too.
Errant nonsense couched in beautiful, glowing prose is a particularly pernicious form of nonsense (*).
Also, there's a certain type of language usage peevery that's thinly-disguised ad hominem argumentation, sometimes with a vague, unpleasant scent of class prejudice about it besides. (**)
(*) Often, the problem is implicit assumptions, or use of abstract terms that sound persuasive, but leave one thinking "What does that actually mean in applied, practical terms? Hmmm, pretty much nothing." - i.e., cotton candy reasoning.
(**) I explicitly don't think that was the nature of @NorthCascades' critique of this thread. I think that critique was spot on.
You can probably tell I'm a little touchy about language usage criticism. As a kinda educated person from a blue collar family, I've seen it used too often by not-very-smart educated people to dismiss the ideas of smart less educated ones. (That's also not what happened on this thread, IMO).
As you say, @jgnatca, "Is this what I really mean" is a good tool. It's one that any of us can use, because clear communication ought to be the objective for both writer and reader.
Agreed. Communication is about paying attention to your audience and trying to convey what you want to convey in terms that your audience would understand and that would maintain their attention. To do otherwise, to try to impress with your thesaurus-infused sentences or bedazzle and confuse with as much jargon as you can use is to be jerking yourself off not to be trying to engage with whom you are speaking. At that point you are making it about showing off rather than about communicating.
Its hard to walk that line if you are speaking as an expert in a topic (having a lot of education in that field) as it is easy to slip into terminology that you have become comfortable with and use all the time with colleagues that others are not familiar with at all. When you spend 20 years on a topic it is quite easy to forget that certain terms or language is not in common usage. It takes effort to recognize what language is not appropriate for a given audience and to try to explain things in terms you wouldn't normally explain them in as to better engage with that audience. Personally I find that effort gratifying as going through that exercise helps me to better understand concepts I may have taken for granted.
I'll often post something, re-read it, decide it would be phrased better this way. Edit it. Read it again, catch a typo, edit it...repeat repeat. I don't change the point or meaning of the post, just how I am saying it. I'm a bit of a perfectionist that way, probably annoys people who read the first version of my post only to find it longer and phrased differently 5 minutes later. I am sure that I still come across as a pompous douche to a lot of people Can't please them all.
Not at all Aaron. I appreciate that you take the time to explain and simplify. I've learned alot from your posts--thank you.1 -
There is an approach that the Canadian Cancer Society calls "complimentary therapies" that are intended to work alongside conventional treatment to help the patient reduce stress and anxiety and gain a sense of control.
http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/diagnosis-and-treatment/complementary-therapies/?region=on
So I don't think it has to be an adversarial relationship with alternative therapies. As long as proven therapies aren't trashed.
5 -
There is an approach that the Canadian Cancer Society calls "complimentary therapies" that are intended to work alongside conventional treatment to help the patient reduce stress and anxiety and gain a sense of control.
http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/diagnosis-and-treatment/complementary-therapies/?region=on
So I don't think it has to be an adversarial relationship with alternative therapies. As long as proven therapies aren't trashed.
Agreed. A lot of things that some would call holistic are things I think can be very important (stress reduction, movement, nutrition, a focus on sleep and overall well-being). The difference is not trashing medical treatment or suggesting those things are a substitute.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »There is an approach that the Canadian Cancer Society calls "complimentary therapies" that are intended to work alongside conventional treatment to help the patient reduce stress and anxiety and gain a sense of control.
http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/diagnosis-and-treatment/complementary-therapies/?region=on
So I don't think it has to be an adversarial relationship with alternative therapies. As long as proven therapies aren't trashed.
Agreed. A lot of things that some would call holistic are things I think can be very important (stress reduction, movement, nutrition, a focus on sleep and overall well-being). The difference is not trashing medical treatment or suggesting those things are a substitute.
Yep, when my mom was undergoing cancer treatment her doctor suggested yoga to help relieve her stress and worked with her to make sure she had a nutritional plan that fit her needs and lifestyles. The big distinction is that this was *in addition* to the regular treatment, not instead of it.
3 -
There is a correlation between good grammar and clear thinking. The book, "On Writing Well" by Zinsser is on my short list of life-changing books. Because it changed my thinking. The author emphasizes the importance of reviewing and editing to get down to the essence of what is meant. As I reviewed and edited my work, I had to ask myself, "Is this what I really mean"?ladyreva78 wrote: »Needs to go on my reading list.
I would also recommend The Sense of Style, by Steven Pinker.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »If you would indulge a bit of a rant.
I hate the term "Western Medicine" that people who support so called alternative or holistic medicines parade about. There isn't a "western" medicine. Modern medicine is based on our current scientific understanding of both the world and our bodies, an understanding developed globally. Not only that but lots of things you would associate with "Western" medicine weren't even first developed in the West. Sushruta, who is considered to be the inventor of the modern concept of surgery was Indian who legend has learned the techniques from Lord Dhanvantari, the Hindu god of medicine. I can only imagine the term comes from the idea that in western countries we talk about the hippocratic oath for doctors which is based on Hippocrates and the concept of doing no harm and because Hippocrates happened to be Greek that must be a Western philosophy then. Like the West owns the concept of doing no harm.
But even for those techniques of modern medicine that were first pioneered in parts of the world that are considered to be "western" so what? That makes medicine "Western" then? Where else do we apply that principle?
The ability to build skyscrapers is based on the application and development of engineering techniques that are based on the physical understanding of materials and gravity. The first skyscraper was built in the United States but the United States doesn't somehow own the concept of skyscrapers or the knowledge used to build them. We don't go around the world referring to skyscrapers in China or in India as being "American buildings" or "Western buildings" do we. In fact that would sound rather insulting and weirdly ethno-centric wouldn't it?
A lot of the foundational concepts of modern mathematics were developed in the middle east. Things like algebra or the concept of algoritms were first conceived there (hence the sound of their names Al-gorithm, Al-gebra). That said if you solve a problem with algebra you don't refer to it as applying "Middle-eastern math" do you? Sounds a little silly doesn't it?
So why do it with medicine? Is it because in western countries the techniques of modern medicine are practiced where everywhere else in the world different techniques are used? No, not at all. If you get a bacterial infection while traveling in India and you go to a hospital guess what they are going to do...they are going to give you antibiotics. Same literally anywhere in the world. They aren't going to rub tumeric into it or give you apple cider vinegar. Because modern medicine is just that, the current application of medicine in the modern age globally. Would you complain to your Indian doctor in India that you are skeptical of "Western medicine"? Might sound a little insulting in that context wouldn't it?
That looks xkcd-ish2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »There is an approach that the Canadian Cancer Society calls "complimentary therapies" that are intended to work alongside conventional treatment to help the patient reduce stress and anxiety and gain a sense of control.
http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/diagnosis-and-treatment/complementary-therapies/?region=on
So I don't think it has to be an adversarial relationship with alternative therapies. As long as proven therapies aren't trashed.
Agreed. A lot of things that some would call holistic are things I think can be very important (stress reduction, movement, nutrition, a focus on sleep and overall well-being). The difference is not trashing medical treatment or suggesting those things are a substitute.
Doctors often prescribe outdoor exercise for depression. At first glance that might sound "alternative" since being among nature is hippie crap. But research consistently shows that order exercise is the most effective treatment for depression. Doctors also don't rely exclusively on this because research also shows that depressed people tend not to exercise, unfortunately. So other forms of therapy (chemical, behavioral, talk) are also used in conjunction.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 995 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions