Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2025 »
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Diabetes Discussions
Inflammation and Diet
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ButtterflyLady" data-source="post: 901387" data-attributes="member: 43498"><p><strong>Part one </strong></p><p></p><p>Hi Winnie53</p><p></p><p>I don't want to get into an endless back and forth about medical science vs alternatives so I will try to keep this as focused as I can and just comment on a few things.</p><p></p><p>I don't think I will be able to persuade you to change your mind about the subject, but I hope to raise questions and issues for you and others who are reading. I also don't think you will be able to persuade me to change my mind on the subject, but I do believe in keeping an open mind.</p><p></p><p><strong>My experience</strong></p><p>Some personal context that might be helpful to know is that over the years I have read extensively about and tried a large number of alternative options for my various illnesses, mostly with not much effect. I have watched the Wahls video you mentioned, as well as reading a lot of stuff on her website and subscribing to her emails for a couple of years. I don't think there is any new information on her website that would make a difference to my current views. As I live with chronic illness, the time I can spend on reading and viewing videos is limited.</p><p></p><p><strong>Skepticism</strong></p><p>You say you are not a skeptic. But I would bet that you are a skeptic about many other things in life, such as whether the moon landings were faked, or whether crop circles are made by aliens. (FWIW, I think the moon landings were real, and crop circles are human made). We are all skeptical about some things, the difference is that some of us try to apply skepticism to as many things as we can. I think when it comes to our health it is in our interests to be as skeptical as possible. There are lots of websites with information on how to assess claims and figure out what kinds of evidence are more likely to be reliable than others. My ability to assess evidence has grown over the years but I am always learning new things.</p><p></p><p><strong>Clinical experience</strong></p><p>Like you, I also strongly believe in the value of clinical experience. But there is a fine line between that and personal anecdote. My own experience can tell me something about treatment options, but high quality science based evidence is at least as important, and probably more important. If it wasn't for science, we wouldn't know we had diabetes, how to monitor it, or how to treat it. If it's good enough for the scientific method to show us how to do these things, then why isn't the same method reliable in showing us which treatments are more likely to be effective and safe? </p><p></p><p><strong>Science and drugs</strong></p><p>Science doesn't say everyone who takes a certain drug will respond the same way; it provides data on how the majority of the people will respond, and also on how others are likely to respond. Science also updates itself constantly with new information. So, when a drug is approved and starts being used by the population, if a significant number of reports about a side effect or risk are made, warning information can be released to all doctors and the public, or in some cases, the drug can be withdrawn completely. This is rare, though, because of the lengthy and detailed process a drug has to go through before it is approved.</p><p></p><p><strong>Alternative products</strong></p><p>Alternative products do not have to go through this process, so the information we have about effectiveness and safety is much lower. Such products are not regulated to ensure the active ingredients are as potent as what is said on the label or what was found in pre-marketing research. We really cannot know with certainty what we are taking.</p><p></p><p><strong>Nutrition training</strong></p><p>Supporters of alternatives to medicine often say that doctors don't receive much training in nutrition, and that naturopaths receive more training and can therefore give better advice about nutrition. In fact, doctors do receive adequate training on those aspects of treatment where diet has been shown to make a significant difference. Perhaps the most important piece of dietary advice that anyone can give is to not consume more calories than you need. I am guilty of ignoring this advice for most of my life until the last few years. Doctors are certainly trained in why this advice is so important, and they do give the advice. If patients ignore it, it does not mean that doctors are ignorant about nutrition. I agree that a registered dietician has the best training about nutrition and anyone with specific needs in this area should see one. However, most people do not need to.</p><p></p><p>Your psych, gastro and endo doctors should have checked for the deficiencies you mentioned, as it is current mainstream practice for those specialties, and for general practice, and well supported by evidence. </p><p></p><p>Again, none of the things you mention that naturopaths do cannot be done by a GP. Checking thyroid function is mainstream. </p><p></p><p><strong>Gut health</strong></p><p>Many of the claims about gut health that are made by supporters of alternatives are not adequately supported by evidence. This does not mean you can't experiment with an exclusion diet and find you feel better avoiding certain foods. However, if you do, that doesn't mean everyone would be likely to find similar things, nor does it mean doctors are ignoring an area of health that makes a difference to diabetes management, morbidity or mortality. I was gluten and dairy free for 3 years. Currently I'm not convinced that such dietary changes improved my health or that resuming eating these things worsened it. I certainly enjoy the varied, tasty, and more convenient diet. I feel lucky that I can eat these things, as I know for example people with coeliac disease can't eat gluten.</p><p></p><p><strong>Functional medicine</strong></p><p>I have read a lot about functional medicine over the years. Many diseases are functional more than they are structural, and this has always been known about in medicine. For example, I have a type of GORD/GERD that is a functional illness. Despite testing, no physical evidence such as a hiatal hernia or h.pylori infection was ever found. But I and my GP and gastro doc know I have GORD and we also believe that in my case it is best controlled with medication. It doesn't matter what I eat or whether I eat, I would still get symptoms. If I don't take medication, I get intense pain, sweating and shortness of breath that feels like a heart attack. So I am not going off my GORD medication any time soon.</p><p></p><p>Continued in next post</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ButtterflyLady, post: 901387, member: 43498"] [B]Part one [/B] Hi Winnie53 I don't want to get into an endless back and forth about medical science vs alternatives so I will try to keep this as focused as I can and just comment on a few things. I don't think I will be able to persuade you to change your mind about the subject, but I hope to raise questions and issues for you and others who are reading. I also don't think you will be able to persuade me to change my mind on the subject, but I do believe in keeping an open mind. [B]My experience[/B] Some personal context that might be helpful to know is that over the years I have read extensively about and tried a large number of alternative options for my various illnesses, mostly with not much effect. I have watched the Wahls video you mentioned, as well as reading a lot of stuff on her website and subscribing to her emails for a couple of years. I don't think there is any new information on her website that would make a difference to my current views. As I live with chronic illness, the time I can spend on reading and viewing videos is limited. [B]Skepticism[/B] You say you are not a skeptic. But I would bet that you are a skeptic about many other things in life, such as whether the moon landings were faked, or whether crop circles are made by aliens. (FWIW, I think the moon landings were real, and crop circles are human made). We are all skeptical about some things, the difference is that some of us try to apply skepticism to as many things as we can. I think when it comes to our health it is in our interests to be as skeptical as possible. There are lots of websites with information on how to assess claims and figure out what kinds of evidence are more likely to be reliable than others. My ability to assess evidence has grown over the years but I am always learning new things. [B]Clinical experience[/B] Like you, I also strongly believe in the value of clinical experience. But there is a fine line between that and personal anecdote. My own experience can tell me something about treatment options, but high quality science based evidence is at least as important, and probably more important. If it wasn't for science, we wouldn't know we had diabetes, how to monitor it, or how to treat it. If it's good enough for the scientific method to show us how to do these things, then why isn't the same method reliable in showing us which treatments are more likely to be effective and safe? [B]Science and drugs[/B] Science doesn't say everyone who takes a certain drug will respond the same way; it provides data on how the majority of the people will respond, and also on how others are likely to respond. Science also updates itself constantly with new information. So, when a drug is approved and starts being used by the population, if a significant number of reports about a side effect or risk are made, warning information can be released to all doctors and the public, or in some cases, the drug can be withdrawn completely. This is rare, though, because of the lengthy and detailed process a drug has to go through before it is approved. [B]Alternative products[/B] Alternative products do not have to go through this process, so the information we have about effectiveness and safety is much lower. Such products are not regulated to ensure the active ingredients are as potent as what is said on the label or what was found in pre-marketing research. We really cannot know with certainty what we are taking. [B]Nutrition training[/B] Supporters of alternatives to medicine often say that doctors don't receive much training in nutrition, and that naturopaths receive more training and can therefore give better advice about nutrition. In fact, doctors do receive adequate training on those aspects of treatment where diet has been shown to make a significant difference. Perhaps the most important piece of dietary advice that anyone can give is to not consume more calories than you need. I am guilty of ignoring this advice for most of my life until the last few years. Doctors are certainly trained in why this advice is so important, and they do give the advice. If patients ignore it, it does not mean that doctors are ignorant about nutrition. I agree that a registered dietician has the best training about nutrition and anyone with specific needs in this area should see one. However, most people do not need to. Your psych, gastro and endo doctors should have checked for the deficiencies you mentioned, as it is current mainstream practice for those specialties, and for general practice, and well supported by evidence. Again, none of the things you mention that naturopaths do cannot be done by a GP. Checking thyroid function is mainstream. [B]Gut health[/B] Many of the claims about gut health that are made by supporters of alternatives are not adequately supported by evidence. This does not mean you can't experiment with an exclusion diet and find you feel better avoiding certain foods. However, if you do, that doesn't mean everyone would be likely to find similar things, nor does it mean doctors are ignoring an area of health that makes a difference to diabetes management, morbidity or mortality. I was gluten and dairy free for 3 years. Currently I'm not convinced that such dietary changes improved my health or that resuming eating these things worsened it. I certainly enjoy the varied, tasty, and more convenient diet. I feel lucky that I can eat these things, as I know for example people with coeliac disease can't eat gluten. [B]Functional medicine[/B] I have read a lot about functional medicine over the years. Many diseases are functional more than they are structural, and this has always been known about in medicine. For example, I have a type of GORD/GERD that is a functional illness. Despite testing, no physical evidence such as a hiatal hernia or h.pylori infection was ever found. But I and my GP and gastro doc know I have GORD and we also believe that in my case it is best controlled with medication. It doesn't matter what I eat or whether I eat, I would still get symptoms. If I don't take medication, I get intense pain, sweating and shortness of breath that feels like a heart attack. So I am not going off my GORD medication any time soon. Continued in next post [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Diabetes Discussions
Inflammation and Diet
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…
