werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (05/27/85)
From 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Third Edition' aka DMS-III (by the American Psychiatric Association) Psychological Factors Affecting Physical Condition This category can be used for any physical condition to which psychological factors are judged to be contributory. It can be used to describe disorders that in the past have been referred to as either "Psychosomatic" or "Psychophysiological." Common example of physical conditions for which this category may be appropriate include, but are not limited to: Obesity, Migraine Headache, Tension Headache, Angina Pectoris, Painful Menstruation, Sacroiliac Pain, Neurodermatitis, Acne, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Asthma, Tachycardia, Arrythmia, Gastric Ulcer, Duodenal Ulcer, Cardiospasm, Pylorospasm, Nausea and Vomiting, Regional Enteritis, Ulcerative Colitis, and frequency of micturition. My comments: I just thought many people on the net would find this interesting. And just as a thought, I couldn't help but notice that this list is almost identical to the list of diseases that respond to nutritional therapies. -- Craig Werner !philabs!aecom!werner "The world is just a straight man for you sometimes"
tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) (05/29/85)
In article <1687@aecom.UUCP> werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) writes: >From 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Third Edition' > aka DMS-III (by the American Psychiatric Association) > > Obesity, Migraine Headache, Tension Headache, Angina Pectoris, >Painful Menstruation, Sacroiliac Pain, Neurodermatitis, Acne, Rheumatoid >Arthritis, Asthma, Tachycardia, Arrythmia, Gastric Ulcer, Duodenal Ulcer, >Cardiospasm, Pylorospasm, Nausea and Vomiting, Regional Enteritis, >Ulcerative Colitis, and frequency of micturition. > >My comments: I just thought many people on the net would find this >interesting. And just as a thought, I couldn't help but notice that this >list is almost identical to the list of diseases that respond to nutritional >therapies. > Funny, in the real life instances I have seen of people being cured using only nutritional (and the obvious mental changes required to use natural methods) the cases that are most successful are those involving heart and circulatory problems, with arthritis a close second. And let us not forget "The Anatomy of an Illness", in which Norman Cousins shows us how attitude helped in his disease. Please stop grabbing at straws to try and defend modern medicine. I think that we all have dealt with it at one time or another. Even though there are many wonderful things that people have seen come from modern medicine, the price in human suffering has been great. One of the people I respect in my field has taught me that if I must go to a doctor, go to an older one. He feels that they will have had a greater chance to see the suffering that is caused in the process of helping people with medicine. And therefore they will be more open to alternative ways. By the way you have not answered my question, how many hours of nutritional training are required to get a medical degree? How many hours have you had? {allegra|ihnp4}!cbdkc1!tjs
sck@elsie.UUCP (Steve Kaufman) (06/01/85)
In article <980@cbdkc1.UUCP>, tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) writes: > > how many hours of nutritional > training are required to get a medical degree? > I've seen this question many times before. To those who tend to ask it, how many hours of what _other_ subjects would you delete to make room for _more_ hours on nutrition? Or are you suggesting that the 4-year curriculum should be extended to give additional training in nutrition?
werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (06/01/85)
I don't know why I feel obliged to respond to Tom Stanions, but why not: I actually posted something that actually agreed with his philosophy, and still he attacks me and the medical profession. I've decided that he's a hopeless ideologue, but I'll try this one last time. Please, read on ... > >My comments: I just thought many people on the net would find this > >interesting. And just as a thought, I couldn't help but notice that this > >list is almost identical to the list of diseases that respond to nutritional > >therapies. > > Funny, in the real life instances I have seen of people being cured using > only nutritional (and the obvious mental changes required to use natural > methods) the cases that are most successful are those involving heart and > circulatory problems, with arthritis a close second. Well, arrythmias and tachycardia (irregular and quick pulse) were on the list, as was Rheumatoid arthritis. I thought I gave nutritionists the benefit of the doubt on this one. Now, let me make the point. These diseases have been shown to be altered by purely psychological factors. Obviously adopting a nutritional regimen requires a certain mindset. AND, as long as the nutritional therapy (lifestyle, diet, call it what you wish) does no harm, the mindset alone that caused the nutritional approach to be adopted, is sometimes enough to alleviate the symptoms. The human body is a wonderful thing, and constantly amazes. I expect to get attacked by at least three people (I won't name names.) A little reassurance by mail would be appreciated. -- Craig Werner !philabs!aecom!werner "The world is just a straight man for you sometimes"
carter@gatech.CSNET (Carter Bullard) (06/03/85)
In article <980@cbdkc1.UUCP> tjs@dkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) writes: > >Funny, in the real life instances I have seen of people being cured using >only nutritional (and the obvious mental changes required to use natural >methods) the cases that are most successful are those involving heart and >circulatory problems, with arthritis a close second. And let us not forget >"The Anatomy of an Illness", in which Norman Cousins shows us how attitude >helped in his disease. > >Please stop grabbing at straws to try and defend modern medicine. I think that >we all have dealt with it at one time or another. Even though there are many >wonderful things that people have seen come from modern medicine, the price in >human suffering has been great. One of the people I respect in my field has >taught me that if I must go to a doctor, go to an older one. He feels that >they will have had a greater chance to see the suffering that is caused in the >process of helping people with medicine. And therefore they will be more open >to alternative ways. > >By the way you have not answered my question, how many hours of nutritional >training are required to get a medical degree? How many hours have you had? > How many seconds of nutritional education have you had? Do you consider biochemistry a prerequisite to an understanding of nutrition? Is organic chemistry ( its natural because its organic ) a useful introduction to some of the basic principles of nutrition? Do you feel that anthropology is a reasonable starting point for an understanding of the history of human nutrition? Does one have to have educational experience with Ecology in order to grasp the concept of food chain positioning and its effect on human nutritional decisions? -- Carter Bullard School of Information and Computer Science Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia 30332 CSNet:Carter @ Gatech ARPA:Carter.Gatech @ CSNet-relay.arpa uucp:...!{akgua,allegra,amd,ihnp4,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!carter
cm@unc.UUCP (Chuck Mosher) (06/03/85)
In article <elsie.5142> sck@elsie.UUCP (Steve Kaufman) writes: >> >> how many hours of nutritional >> training are required to get a medical degree? > > I've seen this question many times before. > > To those who tend to ask it, > how many hours of what _other_ subjects > would you delete to make room for _more_ hours on nutrition? Delete obstetrics and put it back in the hands of midwives! Or do you think that a 20-40% c-section rate is "normal"?
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (06/03/85)
> I don't know why I feel obliged to respond to Tom Stanions, but why not: > I actually posted something that actually agreed with his philosophy, and > still he attacks me and the medical profession. ... a > > > > ... Craigs comments ... > > > > ... Toms reply ... > > ... Craigs clarification ... on > Perhaps the reason for the 'attack' was that your posting seemed to be an attack in it's own right? When I read it, it seemed to be saying that all of the effects of nutritional therapy could be accounted for by 'mind set', therefor nutrition per say was not important. The implication being that there is no physical basis for this, just an attitude. If this was not your intent, could you please explain your position? I must admit that even your clarification left me with the feeling that you were taking the position that nutrition was still a flakey approach. > I expect to get attacked by at least three people (I won't name > names.) A little reassurance by mail would be appreciated. > Please, name names!! The net wouldn't be the net without name naming!! Cheer Up!! You provide much useful information and some good opinions to take pot shots at! (is a :-) really needed?) Sounds like your getting a bit worn though, what say we all give Craig some assurance that he is of value to us all? (And no fair attacking him until his next posting!) -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems Tilapia Zilli is the way and the light. This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.
geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks) (06/05/85)
> >Delete obstetrics and put it back in the hands of midwives! Or do you think >that a 20-40% c-section rate is "normal"? The c-section rate has little to do with training and much to do with economics and the threat of malpractice if a baby delivered through the canal is damaged. I am all in favor of more midwives. I have worked with them, and with GPs who do home deliveries, and think that both have a place. However, the drastic decrease in maternal mortality during the last 150 years is due to medical obstetrics, not midwives. Maternal deaths were COMMONPLACE in the old days. A properly trained midwife or GP makes an assessment of the likelihood of a complicated delivery and refers such cases to an obstetrician. Even when things look like they will go well, home delivery can be a bad choice. I recall seeing a child with a klumpke's paralysis (paralyzed hand) which occurred during a home delivery. Although the same thing may well have occurred in a hospital delivery, the mother was psychologically devastated and guilt-ridden for having had a home delivery. Maternal psychology is thus a factor to be considered, and is often hard to forsee. G. Banks, M.D.
tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) (06/06/85)
In article <218@gatech.CSNET> carter@gatech.UUCP (Carter Bullard) writes: > How many seconds of nutritional education have you had? Seconds, do you really want me to answer that question in seconds? I am forced to assume that you are simply being condescending. I have no degree-credit hours type of training, however I do not tell people what they should do, I suggest and explain myself. However I have attended several lectures given by both doctors and non-doctors on the subjects of nutrition, health, iridology, reflexology and other forms of non-drug,non-medical help. I have had classroom training in iridology and have been taught and practiced foot reflexology by licened reflexologists (I have poor hand strength witch prevents me from doing well as a practicioner in this field). I have given and received polarity treatments. And I will spare you a long list of books. But most importantly I hear endless testimonials from people who were/are helped by nutritional and other methods (these are my best tools for they are lifes real experiments). Also I believe in and practice what I preach. Surely you find all the above of no real value. Again remember that a doctor has been impowered to deal with life and death issues *FOR* the people whose lives are involved. I on the other hand will say only what I know, it is the person who is ill who must decide. > Do you consider biochemistry a prerequisite to an understanding of > nutrition? No. Remember that we are dealing in a field where we can not hope to understand all the variables. I assume by this question that you feel that an understanding of the chemical nature of what we eat is important. Most of what we now know about herbs and different foods is based on knowledge that was gained by human experience long before the word biochemistry was invented. > Is organic chemistry ( its natural because its organic ) a useful > introduction to some of the basic principles of nutrition? Organic is a trick word. Using the definition "formed from living things" I disagree that if you dissassemble a living plant and make a drug it is still organic. If you heat an organic food above ~120 degrees you destroy enzymes, above ~200 you dystroy protien, can it still be called organic? Again, we shouldn't try to understand what we cannot. If we can't have all the information we must remember that a little knowledge is dangerous. God/nature has all the information, we should take their advice in the total packages that they supply it in (being careful not to corrupt the contents). > Do you feel that anthropology is a reasonable starting point for an > understanding of the history of human nutrition? I feel that history is our most important teacher. Today we have abandoned the knowledge of the past and seem to be starting again from scratch. The use of the word anthropopogy is again condescending. > Does one have to have educational experience with Ecology in order > to grasp the concept of food chain positioning and its effect on > human nutritional decisions? Just study history, and remember that history is being made every day. Look at what has been eaten in the past, we knew our place in the food chain when we were created. Keep it simple. Let's not overcomplicate our lives. We are not machines with limited variables, we are people and are hopelessly complex. I hope I answered your questions to your satisfaction. And I want to thank "snoopy" for answering mine. I guess this is a sore subject in the medical field. Maybe you could denie/confirm his answer? Maybe you could even answer some of my other questions? {allegra|ihnp4}!dkc1!tjs
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (06/06/85)
> In article <980@cbdkc1.UUCP> tjs@dkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) writes: > > > > ... ( long list of quoted stuff on nutrition in medicine ... ) > > > >By the way you have not answered my question, how many hours of nutritional > >training are required to get a medical degree? How many hours have you had? > > > > How many seconds of nutritional education have you had? OK, this I can see as a reasonable flame in response to something you didn't like. > Do you consider biochemistry a prerequisite to an understanding of > nutrition? This is also connected, sort of, though the thread is getting thinner. > Is organic chemistry ( its natural because its organic ) a useful > introduction to some of the basic principles of nutrition? Here we start to get off the deep end. Organic has two meanings. One is reserved to chemistry and, roughly, means "containing carbon". The other is reserved to the granola groupies and means, roughly, 'not unduly mollested by people'. To confuse the issue by mixing two different meanings is pointless. Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana. Same words, different meanings. And organic chem as an intro to *BASIC* anything? Surely you jest... > Do you feel that anthropology is a reasonable starting point for an > understanding of the history of human nutrition? > Does one have to have educational experience with Ecology in order > to grasp the concept of food chain positioning and its effect on > human nutritional decisions? > I really don't under stand the point in this part. The answer to these questions is yes, but the author seems to be using them to 'poke fun at' the earlier posting. (If one is studying the HISTORY of nutrition, anthropology *IS* important, if one is studying good nutrition, antro is not important. Similarly if one is wondering why people in an area are showing high mercury levels, an understanding of the food chain coupled with the observation of high tuna levels in the diet would be useful. A fundamental factor in ecology is the food chain. It is usually found to be more efficient to gather knowledge by education rather than re-discovery ... ) I doubt whether anthro or ecology is needed in a medical curriculum, but that is not the question asked by the poster. So whats the point? (Sorry for the confusion, maybe I'm just having one of my 'slow' days ... :-) -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
kinne@asgb.UUCP (Robert W Kinne) (06/14/85)
> In article <218@gatech.CSNET> carter@gatech.UUCP (Carter Bullard) writes: > > How many seconds of nutritional education have you had? > > suggest and explain myself. However I have attended several lectures given by > both doctors and non-doctors on the subjects of nutrition, health, iridology, > reflexology and other forms of non-drug,non-medical help. I have had classroom > training in iridology and have been taught and practiced foot reflexology by > > Do you consider biochemistry a prerequisite to an understanding of > > nutrition? > > No. Remember that we are dealing in a field where we can not hope to > understand all the variables. I assume by this question that you feel that an > understanding of the chemical nature of what we eat is important. Most of what > we now know about herbs and different foods is based on knowledge that was > gained by human experience long before the word biochemistry was invented. > > > Is organic chemistry ( its natural because its organic ) a useful > > introduction to some of the basic principles of nutrition? > > Organic is a trick word. Using the definition "formed from living things" I > disagree that if you dissassemble a living plant and make a drug it is still > organic. If you heat an organic food above ~120 degrees you destroy enzymes, > above ~200 you dystroy protien, can it still be called organic? Again, we > shouldn't try to understand what we cannot. If we can't have all the > information we must remember that a little knowledge is dangerous. God/nature > has all the information, we should take their advice in the total packages that Please move drivel of this type to net.religion, it has absolutely nothing to do with medicine or science.