Our lecturer
Like in every profession, there are good practitioners and bad, and nutritional therapy is no exception. For this reason the training standards at BCNH are exceptionally high. Students ‘slave’ for their marks and curse the Principal in the process (don’t worry, I am quite used to it by now), but at the end of the day, in my view, our graduates are simply the best.
BCNH and BCNH qualified practitioners do not profess miracle cures or magic potions and we do not recommend obsessive, faddy diets. In fact, we do not believe in dieting at all; what we do believe in, is healthy eating and healthy lifestyle - for life. We do not make any glamorous claims and we do not prescribe any ‘miracle’ pills, either. What we teach and what we do is evidence based.
We do recognize our limitations and we try our best to work with the medical profession, not against them. Orthodox medicine is invaluable; doctors save lives day after day. However, nutritional therapy is equally valuable - at the end of the day, we are what we eat, and to be more precise, what we digest, absorb and metabolise.
I do not understand why should complementary and orthodox medicine fight each other. Surely, what we all want is the best outcomes for our patients. Egos aside, complementary medicine (I use the word complementary, not alternative) should focus on prevention and orthodox medicine should focus on cure. However, nothing is black and white or clear cut. Sometimes complementary medicine will achieve the results where orthodox medicine has reached its limit. Trust me; I am talking from personal experience.
I have two doctors in my family - and we are not at each other’s throats. We may not agree on every health issue, but we respect each other’s views and we recognize that both sides have limitations - orthodox medicine does not have all the answers, either.
I assume Dr Goldacre has been unlucky enough to have only negative experiences of nutritional therapy. What a shame.
THE RISE OF THE LIFESTYLE NUTRITIONISTS
MISSED A PROGRAMME?
Go to the Listen Again page
Dr Ben Goldacre explores our past and present fascination with nutrition and lifestyle.
Mondays 24 and
Food has become a huge cultural issues today. The public is constantly bombarded with an assortment of mixed messages from scientists, food gurus and the media about what’s good and bad for our health. But where do these ideas come from and how much is based in science? Over two programmes Dr Ben Goldacre explores our past and present-day obsessions with what we eat.
Dr Ben Goldacre
Programme 1
Diet Quacks and Snakeoil
Long before science understood anything about diet and health, a huge industry was built on the back of so-called miracle cures or magic potions offered to a gullible public by travelling medicine peddlers, adept at inventing both the disease and the cure. In the
Health Gurus
By the 19th century health gurus such as Sylvester Graham and John Harvey Kellogg (he of the cornflake) had opened specialist clinics promoting bizarre regimes and extreme diets in the name of good health. But the ‘true’ father of the alternative health movement was Bernarr Macfadden who mixed often sensible notions about healthy eating and exercise with more extreme measures and even started a religion based on his ideas.
Hadacol Boogie
By the time science had finally caught up with the faddists, medicine shows were dying out but there was one final fling in the form of Hadacol. Promoted as “good for whatever ails you” Hadacol contained 12 percent alcohol and was so popular that poor families in the southern
The Science of Nutrition
Not until the 1930 and 40s did the science of nutrition finally arrive as researchers discovered the micronutrients in food – the vitamins and minerals – and just how they sustained the body. Since then scientific evidence has been difficult to come by and in the lull, a new generation of self-styled health gurus have arisen promoting new diets and new pills and potions. But just how much of what they’re offering is based in science?
 Listen again to programme 1 | ||
 | ||
 | ||
| ||
| Programme 2 Listen again available after the programme |
1 comment:
There is much more fame and money to gain/make by ridiculing complementary medicine. Ben Goldacre would not be able to fill his weekly column in the GUARDIAN without his famous criticism and sarcasm, which I even enjoy very often. Of course, Gillian McKeith and Patrick Holford (just two examples) offer too much controversy and are therefore - often rightfully - easy targets for criticism or even ridicule. But buy expressing "all nutritionists are quacks" is as useful as saying "all Germans are wearing leather trousers and do the yodeling".
Also: the ones who criticise the most are often the ones who cannot stand even the minimum of critisism against them. Funny, isn't it?
Post a Comment