7 ms·

What's the best advice to take? That from a doctor, dietitian, or nutritionist. Not some yahoo on the internet. Well, that's a good advice in theory, but did y

by Evgeny 16y ago

What's the best advice to take? That from a doctor, dietitian, or nutritionist. Not some yahoo on the internet. Well, that's a good advice in theory, but did you notice how many doctors, dietitians and nutritionists have contradicting points of view?

dgallagher 16y ago
Good point. I'm not sure how many do, but it does happen. I'd love to see data regarding this (e.g. how widespread is it?). Most doctors are essentially statisticians doing something like this: 1) Formulate a list of patient symptoms, ensuring credibility (e.g. are you lying/hiding/unaware-of something?). 2) Match those up with whatever diagnosis is statistically most likely. 3) Take "medicine X" and see what happens. 4) Cured? If not, go to step 2, repeat. Step 2 can be subjective, especially if there are several likely causes. This can lead to different doctors giving different diagnosis. The more times a doctor has seen the same problem, the more likely he/she will be correct the first time. Specialists come in handy here, gathering lots of experience regarding only specific conditions. For rare diseases, hard to diagnose, or those which aren't fully understood, repeating steps #2 - #4 is going to be more likely. This is where you'll find the greatest differences of "opinion". Step #1 can be repeated too if conditions change, of course. -------------------- Regarding dietitians/nutritionists, I'm not sure how they work. I'd imagine most of their disagreements come from studies contradicting one another. Results of studies can be questioned as well. There is some overlap with the statistical nature of doctors, though. Pinpointing food allergies/intolerances requires eliminating foods, one-at-a-time, from your diet and seeing what happens. I'm sure there are blood tests which can be done too. -------------------- In general though, it's not wise to discredit professionals just because they may disagree on certain things in their field. Unless the field is fully understood (I'm not aware of one which is!), you'll see that. Perhaps I should rephrase my advice: What's the best advice to take? That from "multiple" doctors, dietitians, or nutritionists. Not some yahoos on the internet. A second or third opinion reduces the likelihood of errors, while limiting received advice only from those educated and qualified to give it.
- Evgeny 16y ago
  In general though, it's not wise to discredit professionals just because they may disagree on certain things in their field. Unless the field is fully understood (I'm not aware of one which is!), you'll see that. I'd say that the field is quite poorly understood. Here's an article (long!) that kind of sums it up. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.... What's the best advice to take? That from "multiple" doctors, dietitians, or nutritionists. Not some yahoos on the internet. A second or third opinion reduces the likelihood of errors, while limiting received advice only from those educated and qualified to give it. I found out that even after that, I'm tempted to try and do some of my own research, and then apply the advice to myself and see how well it works ...
  - dgallagher 16y ago
    I'll have to read that article when I have some free time. Thanks for the link. :) While I do like some of the messages and ideas Michael Pollan (author of linked article, plus Food Inc.) is promoting, I always take him with a grain of skepticism. He's correct sometimes, and incorrect or questionable others. A common symptom of someone who's not a doctor or researcher in the field. I personally classify him in the same arena as Michael Moore. Not to be ignored, but instead to be questioned for every made claim, requiring non-cherry picked studies and scientific research to back him up.
jules 16y ago
You know why? Because the effects are not that big. It's hard to detect small effects. Here's what I do: I eat whenever I feel like it, whatever I feel like, as much as I feel like. But when I'm full, I stop. For breakfast this can be: - yogurt with banana and jam and sugar - slices of bread with cheese and tomato and olive oil heated in the oven - a bar of chocolate - bread with boiled egg and mayonnaise - bread with butter and cheese/jam/other - nothing - pizza left over from the previous night (home cooked of course ;) - any other left overs - fruit - when I'm hungry, a bowl of pasta According to every eating school of thought, at least half of these are very bad. Yet I am perfectly healthy. Not overeating (and undereating) is like 10 times more important than what you eat, as long as you get enough of all the nutrients you need. Don't obsess over what you eat until there is clear evidence. Eat things you like to eat.
- Evgeny 16y ago
  According to every eating school of thought, at least half of these are very bad. Yet I am perfectly healthy. What I personally would be worried about is the long-term effects. Unfortunately, these would be very hard to pinpoint as it would be virtually impossible to get enough people to volunteer eating a certain diet, without much fluctuation, for some 30 years or so. And even if such a study would happen, the endless argument would start: "But the diet A contained X, and diet B lacked Y, so obviously we can conclude ..." etc. Not overeating (and undereating) is like 10 times more important than what you eat, as long as you get enough of all the nutrients you need. This may or may not be true, and also we could argue about the factor forever. I would say it's way less than 10, especially in the long-term, but I have no way to prove it of course. Don't obsess over what you eat until there is clear evidence. Eat things you like to eat. Well, there is the "classic" - "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" by Weston Price. (Available online at http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc.html http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc.html) He traveled around the world and watched what happened to primitive societies when they introduced western foods in their diets. I read it briefly, and he made an emphasis on dental health, but literally introduction of white flour, sugar, polished rice and canned food produced a huge drop in dental health.
  - 16y ago

by Evgeny 16y ago

dgallagher 16y ago

Good point. I'm not sure how many do, but it does happen. I'd love to see data regarding this (e.g. how widespread is it?). Most doctors are essentially statisticians doing something like this: 1) Formulate a list of patient symptoms, ensuring credibility (e.g. are you lying/hiding/unaware-of something?). 2) Match those up with whatever diagnosis is statistically most likely. 3) Take "medicine X" and see what happens. 4) Cured? If not, go to step 2, repeat. Step 2 can be subjective, especially if there are several likely causes. This can lead to different doctors giving different diagnosis. The more times a doctor has seen the same problem, the more likely he/she will be correct the first time. Specialists come in handy here, gathering lots of experience regarding only specific conditions. For rare diseases, hard to diagnose, or those which aren't fully understood, repeating steps #2 - #4 is going to be more likely. This is where you'll find the greatest differences of "opinion". Step #1 can be repeated too if conditions change, of course. -------------------- Regarding dietitians/nutritionists, I'm not sure how they work. I'd imagine most of their disagreements come from studies contradicting one another. Results of studies can be questioned as well. There is some overlap with the statistical nature of doctors, though. Pinpointing food allergies/intolerances requires eliminating foods, one-at-a-time, from your diet and seeing what happens. I'm sure there are blood tests which can be done too. -------------------- In general though, it's not wise to discredit professionals just because they may disagree on certain things in their field. Unless the field is fully understood (I'm not aware of one which is!), you'll see that. Perhaps I should rephrase my advice: What's the best advice to take? That from "multiple" doctors, dietitians, or nutritionists. Not some yahoos on the internet. A second or third opinion reduces the likelihood of errors, while limiting received advice only from those educated and qualified to give it.

Evgeny 16y ago
In general though, it's not wise to discredit professionals just because they may disagree on certain things in their field. Unless the field is fully understood (I'm not aware of one which is!), you'll see that. I'd say that the field is quite poorly understood. Here's an article (long!) that kind of sums it up. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.... What's the best advice to take? That from "multiple" doctors, dietitians, or nutritionists. Not some yahoos on the internet. A second or third opinion reduces the likelihood of errors, while limiting received advice only from those educated and qualified to give it. I found out that even after that, I'm tempted to try and do some of my own research, and then apply the advice to myself and see how well it works ...
- dgallagher 16y ago
  I'll have to read that article when I have some free time. Thanks for the link. :) While I do like some of the messages and ideas Michael Pollan (author of linked article, plus Food Inc.) is promoting, I always take him with a grain of skepticism. He's correct sometimes, and incorrect or questionable others. A common symptom of someone who's not a doctor or researcher in the field. I personally classify him in the same arena as Michael Moore. Not to be ignored, but instead to be questioned for every made claim, requiring non-cherry picked studies and scientific research to back him up.

jules 16y ago

You know why? Because the effects are not that big. It's hard to detect small effects. Here's what I do: I eat whenever I feel like it, whatever I feel like, as much as I feel like. But when I'm full, I stop. For breakfast this can be: - yogurt with banana and jam and sugar - slices of bread with cheese and tomato and olive oil heated in the oven - a bar of chocolate - bread with boiled egg and mayonnaise - bread with butter and cheese/jam/other - nothing - pizza left over from the previous night (home cooked of course ;) - any other left overs - fruit - when I'm hungry, a bowl of pasta According to every eating school of thought, at least half of these are very bad. Yet I am perfectly healthy. Not overeating (and undereating) is like 10 times more important than what you eat, as long as you get enough of all the nutrients you need. Don't obsess over what you eat until there is clear evidence. Eat things you like to eat.

Evgeny 16y ago
According to every eating school of thought, at least half of these are very bad. Yet I am perfectly healthy. What I personally would be worried about is the long-term effects. Unfortunately, these would be very hard to pinpoint as it would be virtually impossible to get enough people to volunteer eating a certain diet, without much fluctuation, for some 30 years or so. And even if such a study would happen, the endless argument would start: "But the diet A contained X, and diet B lacked Y, so obviously we can conclude ..." etc. Not overeating (and undereating) is like 10 times more important than what you eat, as long as you get enough of all the nutrients you need. This may or may not be true, and also we could argue about the factor forever. I would say it's way less than 10, especially in the long-term, but I have no way to prove it of course. Don't obsess over what you eat until there is clear evidence. Eat things you like to eat. Well, there is the "classic" - "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" by Weston Price. (Available online at http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc.html http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc.html) He traveled around the world and watched what happened to primitive societies when they introduced western foods in their diets. I read it briefly, and he made an emphasis on dental health, but literally introduction of white flour, sugar, polished rice and canned food produced a huge drop in dental health.
- 16y ago