Do we trust professionals too much?

I'd make an observation that a lot depends on the profession that one is looking at, and applicability to other disciplines.

I've noticed that in the US medical fraternity the seem to be ever more esoteric sub-specialisations, almost as if being a generalist is a bad thing. It's not common here in the UK and clearly I'm observing a segment of the US population in a range of places that might misrepresent that.

Looking at other areas there are clearly subjects where there is cross discipline applicability. Here in the UK there are three running coaching fields. I wouldn't advocate a trail or fell coach leading on a county level 400 metre objective, but any of them could quite easily do the majority of mid level development. Similarly all three have some knowledge of strength and conditioning work, but wouldn't volunteer for developing someone who has specific strength objectives rather than running. The track coach is more likely to have a greater focus there.

Developing into other areas the applicability of a qualification may not be quite as obvious. Some misuse their qualifications by using them to imply credibility, others may not use qualifications as the lay person may not appreciate the applicability.

Going back to the original comments. A personal trainer may have nothing more than 7 days of training and assessment as a PT, but could bring a wealth of relevant experience thats not immediately obvious. Is, for example, a PhD in biochemical toxicology useful? Or an MA/ MSc in Psychotherapy?

Very much in the realms of caveat emptor, but it does need a degree of reflection on what one expects. Equally a recognition that in some areas one may not be competent to make a judgement, regardless of how intensely one might gain Google expertise.

I went to a dietician at my local hospital as referred by my doctor at my request. I'm overweight, not obese, and have "exemplary" (docs words) cholesterol, excellent blood sugar / fasting and non-fasting, no high blood pressure, no disease. I just want to know how many calories, macros, nutrients to feed my body that runs 4/5 times a week for 3-4 miles, lose weight at a reasonable rate and not feel like "kittens".
She had little to say, up my carbs a little, a little more fiber, maybe a few less cals. Consider timing - eat early after waking, not too late.
Then she said to exercise less - stick to 30 mins. And handed me a list of foods and a sample menu. Jaw drop. There were so many processed foods, the protein recommended was just 40 grams (only low fat and lean) and the recommendation to drink things like diet soda and eat sugar free pudding and low fat ice cream I was like - what?!?!
Shouldn't the focus be on healthy foods, less processed stuff? Maybe the protein is debatable, but I thought it would be a bit higher. Not outrageous high protein, but not merely 40. That wasn't the killer for me though, it was the processed foods and sugar-free stuff that had my eye brows raised.
And she's a professional with a fancy degree at a prestigious hospital. I'm not impressed.

The professionals who are trusted and relied upon too much are the ones with "M.D." after their names.

stealthq wrote: »

In general, I'd say yes. It's not just professionals in the diet industry, either. How many people turn their finances over to a financial advisor without (much) question, or do whatever their doctor tells them no matter what - even when the treatment doesn't seem to be working or the symptoms don't fit the diagnosis?

But then, I'm cynical. I've run into too many instances where doctors do things like prescribe drugs that have potentially fatal interactions with other drugs the person is already taking, or have a GP and a specialist be at odds - and it turns out either the GP is more knowledgeable than the specialist or neither knows current best standards.

Unfortunately the reverse is also true. Too many people ignore doctor's advise and instead follow some woo they found online.