Sad, but true...........Nutritionists

There is a HUGE difference between an RD (registered dietician) and a nutritionist. An RD is required to earn a bachelor's degree in nutritional science, complete an internship, pass RD exam, and have continuing education to retain an RD license.
There is NO defining requirements to become or consider ones self a nutritionist!!!

An RD is very knowledgeable in nutrition. Consider that an RD has two years minimum specialization in nutritional science, whereas a Dr. has approx. six to eight weeks in nutritional studies. Also an RD is registered...like a registered nurse but different specialization.

Im confused whats the point here?

Ummm, it was funny and sadly true....................

okie dokie,over my head since I could not care less about nutritionists

Then why look at the thread? Why?

because I can,and just because I dont care about them does not mean I do not know about them. I was curious to see what it was about. I just didnt get the picture or the humor

Oh Well...your avatars are pretty scary lookin.

i think its a halloween tribute to icp??? are you going as a juggalo for halloween?

No it was me zombiefied

:laugh: There is a huge difference between a nutritionist and and Registered Dietitian. So FWIW always seek out the R.d. It's a medical degree.
I would NEVER recommend ANYONE eat Mcdonalds. :grumble:

Hey, my mother is a Registered Dietician. She went on to obtain higher credentials (she also is called on by universities and hospitals for consulting). She eats healthy, is very active, and looks amazing! So as you can imagine, I didn't tell her for a while that I was on this site. I'm the overweight person in my family, and even though it stemmed from a medical situation, it's embarrassing when you're the only one above a size 6.

She actually reviewed the site when I told her I was using it, and had lots of positive feedback about some of the features and forums.

It's an insult to suggest otherwise. I doubt that most RDs have a clue as to who the corporate sponsors of the ADA are. Registered Dietitians deal with fact-based science. Often, people who are pushing their own food ideology (like Atkins doesn't have any corporate sponsors) do so with little or a very selective understanding of science. Sometimes that also means that RDs can be "behind the curve" in certain specialized areas (e.g. sports nutrition) because it often takes longer for a scientific consensus to emerge when new discoveries are made. Most of the time, that's a good thing.

I have worked with dozens of RDs in my 28 years in this business. Some knew more than others, but not one ever gave anything but their best professional effort.

I didn't mean to be insulting to any specific RDs, or even RDs in general. I just wanted to question the institution that is administering the crucial certification that stands between a nutritionist who might have all of the appropriate coursework and intern ship hours and the designation of RD.

But along the evidence based approach that the ADA is respected for, I wanted to look more closely at how that gets communicated. Here's some excerpts from the ADA's position paper on vegetarian diets http://www.eatright.org/about/content.aspx?id=8357 (I'm not trying to start a pro- and anti-veganism debate. Just using an example.)

This is from the abstract which, unfortunately is the only part that many lay audiences (the intended audience, I believe) read.

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.

This is from a bit later in the body of the paper (p. 1267):

In this article, the term "vegetarian" will be used to refer to people choosing a lacto-ovo-, lacto-, or vegan vegetarian diet unless otherwise specified.

I then assume this pertains to the abstract, although that is not entirely clear.

But then here is the evidence as it pertains to vegan diets for pregnancy and birth outcomes (emphasis added):

Macronutrient and Energy Intake.
EAL Conclusion Statement: ***No research was identified that focused on macronutrient intakes among pregnant vegans.*** Grade V = Not Assignable.

Birth Outcomes.
Four cohort studies were identified that examined the rela-tionship between maternal macronu-trient intake during pregnancy and birth outcomes such as birth weight and length (59-62). ***None of the studies focused on pregnant vegans.***

EAL Conclusion Statement: Limited rEsearch on non-US populations indicates that there are no significant health differences in babies born to nonvegan vegetarian mothers vs non-vegetarians. Grade III = Limited.

I don't see how the evidence (or lack thereof) of vegan diets in pregnancy lines up with what is stated in the abstract. Again, this is not an anti-veganism post. This is just a look at how some of the evidence-based knowledge and recommendations get communicated -- not necessarily by individual RDs, but by the ADA.

It's an insult to suggest otherwise. I doubt that most RDs have a clue as to who the corporate sponsors of the ADA are. Registered Dietitians deal with fact-based science. Often, people who are pushing their own food ideology (like Atkins doesn't have any corporate sponsors) do so with little or a very selective understanding of science. Sometimes that also means that RDs can be "behind the curve" in certain specialized areas (e.g. sports nutrition) because it often takes longer for a scientific consensus to emerge when new discoveries are made. Most of the time, that's a good thing.

I have worked with dozens of RDs in my 28 years in this business. Some knew more than others, but not one ever gave anything but their best professional effort.

I didn't mean to be insulting to any specific RDs, or even RDs in general. I just wanted to question the institution that is administering the crucial certification that stands between a nutritionist who might have all of the appropriate coursework and intern ship hours and the designation of RD.

But along the evidence based approach that the ADA is respected for, I wanted to look more closely at how that gets communicated. Here's some excerpts from the ADA's position paper on vegetarian diets http://www.eatright.org/about/content.aspx?id=8357 (I'm not trying to start a pro- and anti-veganism debate. Just using an example.)

This is from the abstract which, unfortunately is the only part that many lay audiences (the intended audience, I believe) read.

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.

This is from a bit later in the body of the paper (p. 1267):

In this article, the term "vegetarian" will be used to refer to people choosing a lacto-ovo-, lacto-, or vegan vegetarian diet unless otherwise specified.

I then assume this pertains to the abstract, although that is not entirely clear.

But then here is the evidence as it pertains to vegan diets for pregnancy and birth outcomes (emphasis added):

Macronutrient and Energy Intake.
EAL Conclusion Statement: ***No research was identified that focused on macronutrient intakes among pregnant vegans.*** Grade V = Not Assignable.

Birth Outcomes.
Four cohort studies were identified that examined the rela-tionship between maternal macronu-trient intake during pregnancy and birth outcomes such as birth weight and length (59-62). ***None of the studies focused on pregnant vegans.***

EAL Conclusion Statement: Limited rEsearch on non-US populations indicates that there are no significant health differences in babies born to nonvegan vegetarian mothers vs non-vegetarians. Grade III = Limited.

I don't see how the evidence (or lack thereof) of vegan diets in pregnancy lines up with what is stated in the abstract. Again, this is not an anti-veganism post. This is just a look at how some of the evidence-based knowledge and recommendations get communicated -- not necessarily by individual RDs, but by the ADA.

I am not 100% sure of your point, but I am reading it as you think the ADA is presenting "conclusions" that are not supported by specific evidence in the selective excerpts you cited. And, going one step farther, that--along with the corporate sponsorship-- somehow questions the ADA's objectivity and integrity.

What I read was an appropriate review that was totally consistent in both style and content to papers published by other professional organizations such as the American Heart Association and American College of Sports Medicine. The detailed grading of some of the evidence presented demonstrates a scrupulous level of integrity. In addition to the review, readers were directed to an online inventory of the studies reviewed so that they could review themselves. I am not a dietitian nor a member of the ADA, but the style of the review indicated that the format in which the information was presented was standard for the organization. The ADA is not a monolithic organization. Therefore, the information is presented in a standard, non-judgmental way that allows the professional members to read the conclusions but also review the evidence for themselves.

Again, I am not going to pretend I am qualified to speak on behalf of the ADA. I have read similar reviews in other professional publications, so I am willing to present my opinion. In presenting the overall "position" that vegetarian diets, including vegans are "healthful, nutritious, etc", the authors referenced three studies. If you look at the references, 2 specifically address the needs of planning vegan diets for children and infants. These were from peer-reviewed journal, so they would contain more references as well.

In skipping down to your other reference about specific evidence for pregnant women, they pointed out that the literature review did not specifically include vegans--hence the designation that the conclusion was Limited.

In some of the earlier introductory remarks, it was also pointed out there was a wide and complex set of diet behaviors that came under the heading of "vegetarian" --hence the admonition that

Individual assessment is required to accurately evaluate the nutritional quality of the diet of a vegetarian or a self-described vegetarian.

Even before that, it was written that in some cases, nutritional supplementation might be necessary--again it up to the individual RD to assess the *specific* habits of the individual client--regardless of the "name" they gave the diet. .

All in all, this is pretty standard stuff for position papers. The overall position is described, based on larger, "macro" studies and the less-clear areas identified. This is no different than ACSM position papers on cardio training, strength training, etc. Since the available evidence is not always unequivocal, the professional organizations must sometimes take a stand on the best information available--again, citing the areas of uncertainty so members can understand the whole picture.

Unfortunately, even someone with no medical background can call themselves a "nutritionist" as long as they get some silly internet certificate. You need to go to a medically certified Nutritionist...someone with a minimum of a Masters in Nutrition. I'm a clinical nutritional counselor and believe me, it's hard hearing what the random "nutritionist" at Jenny Craig tells so-and-so to eat this nasty frozen meal to lose weight. There are some of us out there who actually hold high degrees and know what we are talking about!

I beg to differ with people who have high degrees know what they are talking about. There are some Nutrtionists and Dieticians that are so closed minded and brainwashed that they are really no better than the picture I displayed when I started this thread.

In any profession there are those who are unqualified, despite their paper credentials. Education programs and certifying bodies are not perfect. They are designed, however, to conscientiously maintain a high level of consistent professional standards, to verify that "practitioners" possess the minimum standard of competency and learning, and to promote consistency in the practice of a particular discipline.

Overall, I think it works more often than it doesn't.

The percentage of trained and knowledgeable professionals far exceeds that among the pool of hobbyists and dilettantes.

There are always people of exceptional ability and insight who are able to achieve high levels of competency through self-learning. Some of those choose to obtain the conventional credentials and some don't. Ultimately, that means that some otherwise qualified people are not taken as seriously as they should be. That's just the way it goes. In my experience, the lack of willingness or ability to obtain professional credentials is often evidence of deeper flaws (I am speaking particularly to my profession of exercise physiologists/personal trainers, but my experience has shown it holds true in this area as well).

I guess that means you sometimes throw out the baby with the bathwater, but, in my experience, there are very few babies and the bathtubs are usually the size of a Great Lake.

One of the signs of a real professional is that they do not close their minds to new ideas from unconventional sources. They allow for the fact that new ideas can originate outside of "conventional wisdom", or that new research can change the "paradigm" and take our understanding in new directions. Ultimately, however, these new ideas must undergo the same empirical scrutiny before they obtain a consensus. If someone doesn't have the discipline to subject their ideas to empirical testing or scientific analysis, then I don't think they deserve a lot of credibility.

My son is a very picky eater. His doctor told me to basically starve him into eating. He now drinks pedia sure to make up for what he doesn't get with food.

REALLY?!?! I'm sorry but when did parents become the children and the children tell parents what to do?!?! You supplement vegetables and fruits with pedia sure?! I'm sure that's purely rational...like that commercial right?? Their not trying to sell you anything.

WAKE UP! Your the parent and you tell your kids what to eat...picky or not!!! Some people find excuse excuses.

I can't wait to become an RD and have parents complain about their picky eaters.

Hopefully your not one of those parents in the grocery store that gives in to their children after their tantrum or says "no,no" to something but then gives in after they've cried enough.

It's important to make sure you know the difference between "picky eaters" and "problem eaters". I'm in now way medical personnel, but we have learned a lot of the past while. Sometimes a picky eater is actually a child with oral aversions and behavioural issues that need intervention. Really interesting stuff.
[/quote]

I've seen children that must get proper nutrition through a feeding tube directly to their stomach or children that must learn to eat after cleft palate surgery so I do NOT sympathize much for parents that have "picky or problem eaters". Unless due to medical issues a parent or a child shouldn't make excuses as to not eating their fruits and vegetables. How lucky we are in America and yet how malnourished our children are. YES your child may prefer a McDonald's happy meal and yes they might cry for some candy but YOU are the PARENT and they are the CHILD so make them eat the damn broccoli!

When will people understand there is a direct link between nutrition, disease, mental health, physical health, etc.