Pseudoscience and bad advice
Replies
-
This thread keeps making me want to point people to Isaac Asimov's "Relativity of Wrong" article, assuming some of you haven't read it.
:laugh: I hadn't read that in years - thanks for reminding me of it, definitely pertinent to many discussions on MFP!0 -
That would only be true if the sources you checked were the media. Most medical entities have been saying to replace saturated/trans fat with non-saturated fat for at least 30 years. There was a brief period back in the 70's where low fat was the fad, but further research quickly showed that the type of fat was the really important thing.
I agree completely I just gave the wrong time scale. The point I think we are both making is that there was a point in history that if you had checked, current scientific opinion would have been "Fat is bad" if, at that time someone were to do a bit of research they would conclude that they should limit fat.
Very true. Which is why if anyone says they have it all figured out now we should immediately stop listening. I prefer to read/hear "There is still a lot we need to learn on this subject, but here is the best information we have now ...". And to keep reading and listening.0 -
OP - you are from the UK yes?
i suggest you read confessions of a GP - available for 99p for the kindle if you have one.
sure opened my eyes to the NHS and its targets.
dont be such a sucker.
Yes I read it already thanks. I get your point but for metabolic/medical problems (what I referred to in my initial post) I will trust a GP more than magazines, people on the net, and holistic medicine.
or how about you dont trsut a GP one dot.
they NEVER retrain, so that 55 year old dude you see who smells like candles and werthers, yeh, hes working on stuff he learnt 35 years ago.
YAY for the NHS.
try seeing a PRIVATE endocrinologist for those issues, i knew more about my prolactinoma than my GP, she was useless.
i had to hit her in the head with science to even get her to refer me to my own paid private consultant.
the NHS is tripe.
The End.0 -
Can't remember who said it but....
"Eat. Not too much. Mostly plants."
I try to keep this in mind-weight loss doesn't have to be rocket science! If it is--go see a doctor, you might have an underlying issue (like thyroid or hormone imbalance!)0 -
i feel that a lot of weight loss has to do with "simple common sense". you dont' need a degree to know that you need to exercise and eat nutritious healthy food...
so myfitnesspal is more a motivating factor to keep my mind on the job rather than straying off the path.
ideas on exercise, ideas on what to eat, and motivation to not fill myself full of sugar, fat and processed food. none of that needs degrees and science. just checking in here everyday to log my exercise and have a quick read (and look at people's successes and failures), it keeps me here, keeps me focussed.
i don't take alot of what people say too seriously, but it's just a group of ppl trying to be healthy / lose weight, and it's a help knowing i'm not the only one who falls off the wagon, gets injured, has small victories and small disasters along the way. it's nice to know there are thousands out there trying.0 -
Some really interesting comments on here. Some I agree with and some I do not.
I know I'm extraordinarily frustrated with how many people on MFP believe absolute nonsense, preach that nonsense as if it were the God-given-truth, cling to that nonsense despite evidence that suggests it is nonsense, worship the ground <insert "doctor" of their choice> walks on, so long as that doctor has written a blog/book/article claiming to have unraveled the mysteries of metabolism/nutrition/fitness despite the fact that the rest of us are still too freaking awed by the marvels of the human body to distill information down into one "secret".
So yes, I tend to urge people to go to Pubmed, go to the Mayoclinic, go to WebMD, go to some reputable specialists and read, read, read, read, and learn.
My hope is that any earnest, honest seeker will learn all that they need to be happy and healthy.
Of course... I am aware that some people will only become more confused. Some people will only become more ingrained in their voodoo, but at least I tried, right?
If I post an abstract, I'm doing so because I hope it will do good for someone, somewhere. Alas, I know it's not usually going to do a damned it of good for whoever I'm arguing with.... but if it can help someone who is more open... then that makes me happy.
It IS hard to know what is right and what is wrong when it comes to science. One research article will not do the trick. And it is frustrating to try and distill the information into something workable, understandable. So I'm totally cool with going to the 'experts' for help distilling the info if that's what you want to do.
Alas... how do you know who is an expert? That magic Dr. in front of their name is... well... not really magic at all
I wish it were easier. I get so frustrated with people who believe everything that one "doctor" supposedly says while disbelieving the words of 10 or 15 other doctors.
I guess I look for consensus if I don't know enough about a particular issue. I also make sure whatever I'm buying into passes the 'common sense' test. I'm lucky, I suppose, that I know enough about human physiology that I spot a lot of myths long before I waste my money and time, but I'm not fool proof either and I've falling for a few stupid things in the past.
I suppose if I could wave my magic wand, I'd bequeath an understanding on everyone of what "science" is and what it isn't, what it can do and what it can't. Those scientific articles we read? They present numbers, data, facts... but they also present opinion... and the key to knowing what is good 'science' and what isn't is learning to understand what the data means.
All scientists have bias, even me. But a good scientist knows that everyone is biased, and he/she watches out for it. He/she presents all possible interpretations of the data and tries to be fair even when something doesn't fit her bias.
*sigh*
I'm rambling... so I'll shut up now.
Just... good luck everyone. I hope you use that marvelous brain of yours. Read. Learn. Decide. Best wishes!0 -
Even graduates will still be fooled by research papers. Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard, but they are not created equal. Was there a control group? Was there allocation blinding? Subject blinding? Clinician blinding? Assessor blinding? Was intention to treat analysis used? Did the participants that didn't complete the study bias the results? These are all in the small print and have to be factored in when looking at rcts (plenty of other variables as well) What do the cochrane reviews say? Systematic reviews?
Each trial itself can look good, be peer reviewed and published, but the quality of that trial is still under question. It is NOT cynical to apply critical thinking to information provided to you by others, but it is amazing how most people do not respond well to having their opinion critically evaluated.0 -
Even graduates will still be fooled by research papers. Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard, but they are not created equal. Was there a control group? Was there allocation blinding? Subject blinding? Clinician blinding? Assessor blinding? Was intention to treat analysis used? Did the participants that didn't complete the study bias the results? These are all in the small print and have to be factored in when looking at rcts (plenty of other variables as well) What do the cochrane reviews say? Systematic reviews?
Each trial itself can look good, be peer reviewed and published, but the quality of that trial is still under question. It is NOT cynical to apply critical thinking to information provided to you by others, but it is amazing how most people do not respond well to having their opinion critically evaluated.
Very true... but it's also important not to dismiss a trial because it doesn't fit your bias. I've known plenty of researchers who invest their soul into an idea and then when that idea doesn't pan out in clinical trials, they sooth their bruised ego by nit-picking the trial apart.0 -
the NHS is tripe.
The End.
Spoken like someone who's never had to live with the alternative. Particularly who's never had to live as someone who doesn't have a lot of money, with the alternative.
The NHS is a brilliant institution. Drs are certainly stretched too thin, but that's largely because those who *have* don't want to bite the bullet of needing to pay a little more to support this incredibly important institution.
Labrat. I liked a lot of what you had to say.0 -
What do you mean by "holistic"? Because some things that get thrown under the "holistic" label can be backed by research, some can not, and some haven't actually been all that tested so far. For instance, some medicinal herbs have been studied, and shown to have certain benefits. That's not voodoo.
I think you've got an idea of what "holistic" means, that perhaps is not precisely accurate. Holistic means looking at the body as a whole - looking at systems rather than disparate parts. Aiming to treat underlying causes rather than managing symptoms. Unfortunately, many times allopathic medicine sometimes loses sight of the whole - for instance, they don't much care to learn how nutrition affects the body, beyond the fundamentals that they get in med school.
Other modalities get lumped under the holistic umbrella, like chiropractic, acupuncture, massage therapy, reiki, meditation, homeopathy, herbalism, etc -- some of these can be a valid part of a healthy lifestyle. Some of them have a strong placebo effect. Some of them are bunk. Some of them can go either way, depending on the practitioner and what they're claiming they can do for you.
Deciding that since "reiki" falls under "holistic" that anyone who ascribes to a holistic view of health must be a flake is reactionary, IMO, and it doesn't address what those of us who believe in holistic, natural health might actually be saying. I say, if you do find out exactly how much in-depth education a GP receives in the area of nutrition, and you still trust them more than your own ability to do independent research, then that doesn't seem very savvy. Have a good relationship with your GP, but be smart about it. I certainly have a holistic view of health, but that doesn't mean I buy into all that might be tossed under that label, and likewise I do not eschew allopathic medicine, even though I've become educated on the limitations of that approach and the education involved.
The best advice I can think of, is certainly not "In the case of conflicting advice, just trust your GP implicitly," it is "Learn to take everyone's advice and information with a grain of salt, including doctors and experts and gurus and websites and people you saw on Oprah." You can sometimes trust information in magazines. (Sometimes, articles will cite sources that can be followed up on and vetted.) You can sometimes use the magazine as firelighter and be better off for it. I like the part of the post that advocates discernment. Dislike the part where it seems that autonomy is supposed to be turned over to someone who may or may not have the necessary information required - that's not discerning at all.0 -
I always go by the adage: If it's on the internet, it must be true. :laugh:0
-
If you had diabetes or high cholesterol, or you were obese with bad asthma and wanted to start losing weight, you'd probably head to your GP as a first step. I would.
Then you would be a fool. When I was diagnosed with diabetes 2 years ago, the GP asked me (!) how much medication i should take. They haven't offered any advice, an eating plan or education. And do you know how I have managed to reverse my diabetes and high blood pressure? Research. Trial and error. Discussion with people on MFP with the same issues as me (like PCOS). And I've done that without my GP's help. When he has been blown away by my recurring test results showing everything is normal, he still won't take me off my meds. Because the NHS doesn't consider diabetes to be reversible.0 -
A lot of nitpicking later and rebuilding the world through modern medicine vs. alternative medicine, bashing GPs and the rest, I'm really pleased it's turned into an interesting discussion with lots of good points, and for the people out there who like me at the beginning were clueless and didn't know where to look or who to trust, I hope my initial post was useful to help you sort out sources of information.
Good luck everyone with your goals, however you may chose to reach them :flowerforyou:0 -
What do you mean by "holistic"? Because some things that get thrown under the "holistic" label can be backed by research, some can not, and some haven't actually been all that tested so far. For instance, some medicinal herbs have been studied, and shown to have certain benefits. That's not voodoo....
NOTE: I cut your quote just to reduce the wall of text, but I'm really replying to the whole thing.
I know I'm not the "you" that you are referring to here, but I'd like to address this.
I will admit from the start that I am biased against anything holistic, any "natural remedies", and against most forms of "alternative medicine". I try to be objective, but the bias is there and I'd rather be upfront about that from the start.
The problem that I have with "holistic", "natural remedies", and "alternative medicines" is that they 1) aren't regulated in any way, 2) aren't subjected to the same intense scientific scrutiny that pharmaceuticals are subjected to, 3) there isn't anyone to 'punish' if the remedy damages your health or even worse, causes death (you can sue Glaxo-Smith-Kline, but who are you going to sue if you OD on Tyroamine because you were taking St. John's Wart and ate pickled herring.
I guess I'd add another point... people assume because something is 'natural' or 'holistic', that there is nothing dangerous about it, but that's not true at all. Many of the natural remedies ARE dangerous.
That said... yes, absolutely, some of those herbs have chemical compounds in them that interact with receptors in the body and cause some kind of effect. So I won't deny some of them work.
But we don't know what it's doing in the human body. We don't know why (IF?) it works. We don't know what it interacts with... we just don't know any of that because "holistic", "natural/alternative medicines" are based in large part on folk-lore, hear-say, and so on. It was handed down from generation to generation. People collected that info and put it together and added to it and it's just so impossible to know what's what.
So... I DO tend to think of it as voodoo until I see a scientific study or 10 that say, hey... yah... this really does work.
I believe in St. John's Wart, for the record :P That's because I know what it does... it has been scientifically studied.0 -
If you had diabetes or high cholesterol, or you were obese with bad asthma and wanted to start losing weight, you'd probably head to your GP as a first step. I would.
Then you would be a fool. When I was diagnosed with diabetes 2 years ago, the GP asked me (!) how much medication i should take. They haven't offered any advice, an eating plan or education. And do you know how I have managed to reverse my diabetes and high blood pressure? Research. Trial and error. Discussion with people on MFP with the same issues as me (like PCOS). And I've done that without my GP's help. When he has been blown away by my recurring test results showing everything is normal, he still won't take me off my meds. Because the NHS doesn't consider diabetes to be reversible.
One bad experience with an MD does not mean they are all bad.
Usually, your doctor is a good place to start. Yes, you have to be a responsible patient too. You need to do your homework. You need to be assertive. But doctors have more education about the human body than the average person, so they are certainly a valid starting point.
I'd start with my doctor if something were wrong. Does that make ME a fool? I don't think it does. I understand my limitations. I understand the strengths and weaknesses of my education, and I have NO business trying to diagnose and treat myself for anything beyond a hang-nail.0 -
There are some very annoying, misinformed people on this site who claim they are nurses or fitness trainers, and practically have their resume in their signature (as if we should all be impressed). These types of people are usually the most outspoken and the most adamant that they are always right.
For anyone new to the site or inexperienced with using the internet on a frequent basis, I'd suggest being wary of these type of folks.0 -
The problem is just when a novice who begins to read the literature then starts giving advice - it should be taken with the caveat that this person may not fully understand or appreciate the material. Understanding and assessing medical statistics isn't particularly easy
This. ^^
It's all well and good for me to read about clinical trials and studies but as someone who is less scientifically inclined I don't trust my ability to determine if a study was conducted properly, or my ability to accurately interpret the results. So, like it or not, I am at the mercy of those who are more educated. This is the curse of being born with limited gray matter I've accepted that the best I can do is to read whatever materials I can but with the understanding that my conclusion might not be accurate, and try to defer to the "experts" (which often means reading several opposing perspectives and trying to sort through the bias). Not ideal, but like everything else in life, we pays our money and we takes our choice.0 -
While I will ageee that there is a lot of mis information and half truths abundent in the internetsphere about diet/nutrition/fitness/ disease prevention and management. I disagree with the assertion (intentional or not) that the average joe or common man isn't capable of of coming to "correct" or "scientific" truths on their own. I know how to read, evaluate information, experiment safely, and come to scientific outcomes ( within the scope of my own body). And whether intinial or not. your op insinuates that unless you have a phd after your name ( or are working towards it) you are not cabable of of a an intellectual,unbiased, scientific thought process. I kind of resent that.
And just for the record I have never met a gp I would take nutrition/fitness advice from. And every registered diatition I have interacted with has had jsuch a narrow scope of training and advice it was laughable.
Just my two cents0 -
That's from Michael Pollan's "Food Rules" and makes a lot of sense. Thanks for mentioning it. I think I'll go find that book again.Can't remember who said it but....
"Eat. Not too much. Mostly plants."
I try to keep this in mind-weight loss doesn't have to be rocket science! If it is--go see a doctor, you might have an underlying issue (like thyroid or hormone imbalance!)0 -
I disagree with the assertion (intentional or not) that the average joe or common man isn't capable of of coming to "correct" or "scientific" truths on their own.
I know this wasn't directed at me, but, I totally agree that the average person is capable of sussing out good information and coming to accurate conclusions when it comes to their general health. But I do think we have to do a little more "homework" and sort through more information to make an informed decision.And whether intinial or not. your op insinuates that unless you have a phd after your name ( or are working towards it) you are not cabable of of a an intellectual,unbiased, scientific thought process.
I didn't get that impression from the OP, but I agree with the point in general. Like you, I've heard some pretty terrible advice coming from registered dieticians : /0 -
What do you mean by "holistic"? Because some things that get thrown under the "holistic" label can be backed by research, some can not, and some haven't actually been all that tested so far. For instance, some medicinal herbs have been studied, and shown to have certain benefits. That's not voodoo....
NOTE: I cut your quote just to reduce the wall of text, but I'm really replying to the whole thing.
I know I'm not the "you" that you are referring to here, but I'd like to address this.
I will admit from the start that I am biased against anything holistic, any "natural remedies", and against most forms of "alternative medicine". I try to be objective, but the bias is there and I'd rather be upfront about that from the start.
The problem that I have with "holistic", "natural remedies", and "alternative medicines" is that they 1) aren't regulated in any way, 2) aren't subjected to the same intense scientific scrutiny that pharmaceuticals are subjected to, 3) there isn't anyone to 'punish' if the remedy damages your health or even worse, causes death (you can sue Glaxo-Smith-Kline, but who are you going to sue if you OD on Tyroamine because you were taking St. John's Wart and ate pickled herring.
I guess I'd add another point... people assume because something is 'natural' or 'holistic', that there is nothing dangerous about it, but that's not true at all. Many of the natural remedies ARE dangerous.
That said... yes, absolutely, some of those herbs have chemical compounds in them that interact with receptors in the body and cause some kind of effect. So I won't deny some of them work.
But we don't know what it's doing in the human body. We don't know why (IF?) it works. We don't know what it interacts with... we just don't know any of that because "holistic", "natural/alternative medicines" are based in large part on folk-lore, hear-say, and so on. It was handed down from generation to generation. People collected that info and put it together and added to it and it's just so impossible to know what's what.
So... I DO tend to think of it as voodoo until I see a scientific study or 10 that say, hey... yah... this really does work.
I believe in St. John's Wart, for the record :P That's because I know what it does... it has been scientifically studied.
I know you stated "natural remedies" and given your further reply am assuming you are speaking purely of ingested remedies and not of practitioners, because many alternative medicine practitioners are regulated and have to be licensed. Given that states control licensure certification can vary by state. I agree with many of your points, especially pointing out that natural remedies do not mean danger-free, but disagree in some ways with the association with folklore. Modern allopathic medicine has a very strong foothold. Having an automatic bias against natural remedies is similar to having an automatic bias against midwives (whether lay or certified), which largely exists due to the development of allopathic medicine. Allopaths have their place, but also have an amazing amount of control, something to keep in mind when thinking about alternative medicine practice and medicines.0 -
I know you stated "natural remedies" and given your further reply am assuming you are speaking purely of ingested remedies and not of practitioners, because many alternative medicine practitioners are regulated and have to be licensed. Given that states control licensure certification can vary by state. I agree with many of your points, especially pointing out that natural remedies do not mean danger-free, but disagree in some ways with the association with folklore. Modern allopathic medicine has a very strong foothold. Having an automatic bias against natural remedies is similar to having an automatic bias against midwives (whether lay or certified), which largely exists due to the development of allopathic medicine. Allopaths have their place, but also have an amazing amount of control, something to keep in mind when thinking about alternative medicine practice and medicines.
My feeling about practitioners is mixed. My roommate is a chiropractor, which is 'alternative medicine' to most. I actually like her approach. She's very down-to-earth, very practical, and not in anyway a voodoo artist :P But I've heard of other chiropractors who take their art too far, claiming that chiropractic medicine can cure everything including things that have no relationship at all with the back (autism... depression... you get the idea). I've also been to a massage therapist, which is also 'alternative medicine' and I credit the woman with getting rid of some pretty debilitating headaches. I'm okay generally with the concept of midwives, though I'd never be comfy with the midwife in my house thing... I'd want to be in a hospital, just in case (midwife in the hospital is fine with me). I have a harder time with eastern medicine- acupuncture, acupressure, reki (sp?), and anything that deals with the 'energies' of the body. That seems a bit too much like 'magic' to me and makes me uncomfortable.
I see your point with the word 'folklore'. That was perhaps an unfair word for me to use. I let my bias get the best of me with my word choice.0 -
On the issue of trusting your GP, both times I visited my doc about losing weight, I walked out with a pharmaceutical prescription. When I asked to see a dietician or have some nursing input into a weightloss programme, I was told they wouldn't tell me anything I didn't already know. Well since I couldn't lose the weight clearly what I knew was wrong- they were pretty much admitting what they advise doesn't work!
In the end I pretty much ignored what the NHS says is a healthy diet, upped my fat intake, slashed the carbs, and it is working. So whether it's pills or nutritional pie-charts, I definitely do NOT trust NHS advice.
The NHS is a fabulous organisation and does many, many wonderful things. They manage the health of our entire population have have a wealth of data and experience to draw upon.
Your GP is not "the NHS". All GP's are independant contractors who bill to the NHS for treating you. As the name suggests General Practitioners are generalists not specialists. They are also all different. Some will qualify and never pick up a medical journal again and will carry the teachings from 40 years ago through to retirement. Others give up their own time to keep up to date whilst others still participate in trying to move thinking forward.
Your GP seems a bit crap in the area of weightloss, but that doesn't mean every GP is like that, so I'd urge anyone to listen to the GP then decide for themselves if that advice makes sense.
oh and no, I don't work for the NHS, but I have received amazing service from them. 0 -
OP - you are from the UK yes?
i suggest you read confessions of a GP - available for 99p for the kindle if you have one.
sure opened my eyes to the NHS and its targets.
dont be such a sucker.
Why yes indeed, there is no way that a book written to make money would ever be sensationalist and unbalanced in order to be entertaining is there?
who is the sucker?
[is there a Smiley for Extreme Sarcasm?]0 -
the NHS is tripe.
The End.
Is there a way to hide comments from people who speak utter tosh so I don't have to endure them?0 -
If you had diabetes or high cholesterol, or you were obese with bad asthma and wanted to start losing weight, you'd probably head to your GP as a first step. I would.
Then you would be a fool. When I was diagnosed with diabetes 2 years ago, the GP asked me (!) how much medication i should take. They haven't offered any advice, an eating plan or education. And do you know how I have managed to reverse my diabetes and high blood pressure? Research. Trial and error. Discussion with people on MFP with the same issues as me (like PCOS). And I've done that without my GP's help. When he has been blown away by my recurring test results showing everything is normal, he still won't take me off my meds. Because the NHS doesn't consider diabetes to be reversible.
That is a shame, but in no way means that every doctor is like this and everyone who goes to a doctor is a fool. I know next to nothing about the NHS, but do you not have the option to switch doctors?0 -
I think the point is more that your GP is a generalist (it's in the name!) whose job is, among other things, to direct you to more appropriate specialists.0
-
oh and no, I don't work for the NHS, but I have received amazing service from them.
The NHS near killed me several times in my early youth, and have endangered my life since by using a sedative I was allergic to, have come to the conclusion that my blood pressure issues in my mid teens were 'something I'd grow out of' (and one of the reasons I'm now overweight), failed to diagnose my mothers stomach condition for over 2 years, induced a coma in my father that left him mentally damaged (and he died soon after) and my GP didn't bat an eyelid when I went in recently at the 124.9kg of me, because they were running a satisfaction survey and they're frightened of upsetting their patients.
Do not tell me that the NHS is not a load of *kitten*.0 -
oh and no, I don't work for the NHS, but I have received amazing service from them.
The NHS near killed me several times in my early youth, and have endangered my life since by using a sedative I was allergic to, have come to the conclusion that my blood pressure issues in my mid teens were 'something I'd grow out of' (and one of the reasons I'm now overweight), failed to diagnose my mothers stomach condition for over 2 years, induced a coma in my father that left him mentally damaged (and he died soon after) and my GP didn't bat an eyelid when I went in recently at the 124.9kg of me, because they were running a satisfaction survey and they're frightened of upsetting their patients.
Do not tell me that the NHS is not a load of *kitten*.
Problems associated with medical negligence occur everywhere. This is tragic, and I'm truly sorry that you've been so disproportionately affected by these. But they're not unique to the NHS. Live in a country where there isn't any form of social medicine, or with a two tier health service, and perhaps we'll talk then about whether public healthcare is really a bad thing.
I took a woman into a county hospital, 15 years ago. I'd found her on the street with a head wound. I think she'd been attacked and raped, judging from the state of her. We sat in the hospital, and she bled, and bled and bled, for hours, in a hospital corridor alongside what seemed like hundreds of other bleeding, groaning, puking patients. She died, unattended, while I held her hand.
A family member of mine was recently diagnosed with cancer, while in the US. her insurance didn't cover it, so guess what? Nobody wants to treat her. I guess she'll die of not having enough money. No-one should have to do that.
A friend of mine was crying over the phone to me a few months ago. Her father in law had kidney failure. He was on dialysis. His insurance ran out, his family double mortgaged the house to continue paying for his treatment. Eventually they had to make the decision to let this otherwise healthy man who they loved die because they couldn't carry on paying the bills. Imagine having to make that choice....
3 different countries. No NHS. Bad stories.
THe NHS has its flaws, They're largely flaws associated with underfunding. Largely a consequence of the reality that we pay less in national insurance (which remember covers a whole range of insurances not just health) than most people in countries with a two tier or private health care service pay *just* for healthcare. If we put more into it, it would be a far better system.0 -
The NHS is a fabulous organisation and does many, many wonderful things. They manage the health of our entire population have have a wealth of data and experience to draw upon.
Your GP is not "the NHS". All GP's are independant contractors who bill to the NHS for treating you. As the name suggests General Practitioners are generalists not specialists. They are also all different. Some will qualify and never pick up a medical journal again and will carry the teachings from 40 years ago through to retirement. Others give up their own time to keep up to date whilst others still participate in trying to move thinking forward.
Your GP seems a bit crap in the area of weightloss, but that doesn't mean every GP is like that, so I'd urge anyone to listen to the GP then decide for themselves if that advice makes sense. oh and no, I don't work for the NHS, but I have received amazing service from them.
But it is "the NHS" dietary advice that I have learned to ignore, not that of my GP, since he didn't give me any. Such faulty advice is right there on "the NHS" website, not my GP's website. How would you prefer I refer to this? I have learned to ignore the advice of the people who write the text that goes on the website that purports to be in the ownership of the NHS? Come on, nitpicker much?
Perhaps you made the leap that I was criticising the NHS as an institution or idea when I criticised the help and advice I've received. That's an assumption, and an incorrect one. The idea of an NHS is wonderful, but it can only ever be as good as the advice it doles out. In the area of diet and weight loss, I contend that this is almost uniformly crap. Since I cannot conceivably visit every single doctor and dietician in the NHS, I must speak from my experience of half a dozen or so, all of whom, on the issue of my weight (a longstanding issue covering several GP surgeries) have been terrible. I'm very glad you had a good experience with the NHS. I generally have too. Their advice on diet is still awful.0
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