|
|
"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160144799.061756.126360@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rich wrote:
>
> Perfect nutrition will prevent or mitigate a vast number of chronic
> conditions, from cancer
Cancer is too broad a term for this to be true. Yes, we are learming more
and more about such preventive benefits as anti-oxidants reducing the rate
of cancer in general, and high fiber diets being somewhat preventive of
bowel cancer. But still, people with excellent diets do get cancer. Good
nutrition can reduce your risk of cancer just as good driving can reduce
your risk of dying in an accident. But like many drivers drive drunk and
stupid for years without mishap, millions and millions of people live to
ripe old age on absolutely abysmal diets.
> to diabetes to depression to obesity to
> arthritis to Crohn's and IBS and other GI problems to heart disease to
> immune suppression and lowered resistance to a multitude of infections
> and infectious agents to chronic fatigue syndrome etc etc.
Nobody denies that nutrition contributes to health, but even the very best
of nutrition cannot entirely prevent any of these diseases, nor will poor
diet inevitably cause any of them.
>
> The only dietary advice I hear coming from MDs is to cut dietary
> cholesterol to control blood lipids, which is nonsense.
Any doctor will tell you that exercise is more effective in controlling
cholesterol than diet.
> To cut fat and
> calories to lose weight, which is nonsense.
Not nonsense at all. Calorie control and exercise are the only way to lose
weight. All other effective methods are so only because they influence
calorie intake or encourage more exercise.
> To cut salt to cut blood
> pressure, which is nonsense.
Sodium does affect blood pressure, and many patients benefit from reduced
salt intake. No nonsense here, either.
> That is the average depth of MDs
> understanding of nutrition as it relates to human health. And that is
> not nearly enough for them to aproach the subject with any kind of
> critical thinking skills.
>
> A close friend of mine suffered from chronic fatigue syndrome, and yes
> there is such a thing as chronic fatigue syndrome, and the MDs strung
> her along for almost a year and in the end told her it was all in her
> head. Does that sound familiar? "We can't figure it out in a couple of
> ten minute doctors office visits, therefore it must not exist." Well,
> she went to a naturopath who immediately changed her diet. Within days
> she was improving and within months she was well.
Anecdotes do not prove scientific claims.
>
> On average, someone with a back problem will go to MDs and other such
> medical professionals for *12 years* before they find someone who can
> actually help them. I was one of these people, I got lucky and only
> took 18 months of going to different MDs before I found one that knew
> what he was talking about. The guy is a sports injury doctor. The
> difference with sports injury doctors, is that their goal is not just
> to pad their patient schedule but to actually effect a positive result
> for the patient. They are amazingly attuned to actually getting
> results. That is, sadly to say, only in comparison with the typical MD.
Yet more anecdotal nonsense. As for padding the patient schedule, most
general practitioners I know are overwhelmed by their patient schedule and
are not accepting new patients at all. I also doubt your perception that
sports docs are more result oriented than any other physicians.
>
> In most cases of back problems, the only tool the MD has is pills or
> surgery.
Not at all. They use physical therapists as referral resources. They also
prescribe such adjuncts as heat, rest, and exercises, and use of proper body
mechanics.
> They have no concept of any other way of treating back
> problems. And most times they end up making things worse. They don't
> even know which one of their colleagues to send their patients to to
> actually achieve positive results. All they know is that they don't
> know much about back problems, but they know what drugs to try or which
> surgeon to send you to. They are prepared to try all kinds of thing
> that may or may not work, They don't what is causing the back problems
> and they don't know how to fix it but they are more than willing to
> blindly try all kinds of shit like pills, surgery, extended bedrest,
> traction, etc. "Try this then come back in two weeks and we'll se how
> it went." So very helpful.
Bullshit.
>
> Then there are surgeons. Surgeons are virtually incapable of
> considering any other treatment options other than surgery. Not too
> many surgeons will tell you that your best option is not surgery.
Most will when that is the case. The key to successful surgery is selecting
those cases which can be helped by surgery. The great surgeons with records
of very high rates of surgical success are not just those with great skills
in the OR--the actual cutting is monkey work that about anybody could learn.
They are great because they are great at recognizing those they can't help
and sending them back to the internists.
>
> An MD is taught the names of all the parts of the body. They are taught
> all the names and symptoms of all the conditions and diseases. Then
> they ar given a list of pills and surgical procedures that they can
> apply to the conditions and disease. And that is basically it.
Bullshit. You have no idea of how a medical education works.
> On
> average, if an MD gets more than 3 months of training in nutrition, it
> is the exception and not the rule. Do a google search on medical
> training or medical schools or medical universities. The different
> universities will have their course outlines on the net. Have a look at
> how much of their courses are dedicated to nutrition. It would surprise
> you. I did exactly that some time ago and found out first hand that
> most universities will give their MDs in training maybe one or two
> courses in basic intro to nutrition and nothing more.
Those one or two courses are just the foundation. Doctors get much more
education in physiology and pathology, and the interaction of nutrients and
cells, tissues, and body chemistry are fundamental elements of that
education. Even a course in organic chemistry cannot take place in a vacuum
without including the actions of nutrients.
> When I say that
> MDs get little or no training in nutrition, I am not just blowing smoke
> up your butt, I base it on what I've seen in the universities course
> outlines themselves. Check it out for yourself.
>
> Exceptional health cannot be attained without exceptional nutrition.
> Period. Without proper nutrition, one cannot possibly be healthy. Good
> nutrition is an absolute pre-requisite for good health.
>
> And for MDs to sit there and rarely ever even consider nutrition to be
> a cause or a cure for many of the conditions that ail us, is absolute
> lunacy.
>
> At the very least, proper nutrition will place the patient in the best
> possible position for other cure or treatments to succeed. Even that
> idea is not considered by the MD. Considering the patients nutritional
> status and improving it should be the bedrock corner stone of our
> approach to health care. Once nutrition has been properly addressed,
> then the MD can consider additional treatments options.
>
> The word "doctor" means teacher. I've not ever been taught anything by
> a doctor. Except how often to take my pills and how many to take at one
> time.
Perhaps that's because you doctors recognized that you are unteachable. Do
you think they have time to sit around and argue with you about how much
nutrition education they've had?
>
> Appendicitis is an infection. Proper diet enables the bodies inherent
> ability to hold off infections. Most, if not all kidney stones are a
> result of improper diet.
Neither assertion is true. There is no known correlation of diet to
appendicitis, it happens to perfectly healthy people at any age. There is a
correlation of diet to certain types of kidney stones, but heredity plays a
much larger role. Dyhydration is also a big factor, though since water is a
nutrient too, I suppose that could be classified as nutritional.
>
> You really do not get it, do you? You simply cannot fathom the concept
> of the human body having the inherent ability to remain healthy and/or
> heal itself when properly nourished.
And you don't get it that nutrition is not the be-all end-all of health.
Well nourished people get sick too, and when they do they need other
intervention than diet change.
> MDs don't heal people, they are
> there to facilitate the bodies ability to heal itself.
No doctor would disagree with that.
>
> The human body, given the optimal nourishment, will maintain its health
> and the ability to heal itself.
Not universally.
> Without the intervention of MDs and
> their drugs.
Not universally.
--
--Rich
Recommended websites:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/
|
|