Originally Posted by flyjunky
Now when it comes to diet things get a little more dicey. Many people think they can get everything they need from their diet, and that is true if you want to try and help prevent scurvy and rickets. How many people do you know that are still dying of these infectious diseases today? We are dying of degenerative diseases,
I came across this board by accident when searching for instructions on how to use hackle guards of all things. I saw this post and felt compelled to respond, so I signed up. This seems to be a nice forum. Shannon however has said several incorrect things. I am a practicing physician. First off, scurvy and rickets are not infectious diseases. They are vitamin deficiencies. They are not infections.
The RDA is very accurate information. Virtually no one
eating a well-rounded western diet (as we in the USA do) will suffer from any type of vitamin deficiency in this day and age. I don't believe for a minute that the SG says 67% of all disease is caused by problems with diet. That's ridiculous. Not in the USA. The RDA has new, updated standards that are available online. I share them with my patients all the time. They are accurate, and now referred to as DRI's. (Guess that didn't come up in those hundreds of papers you read):
Originally Posted by USDA website
In 1997, the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences did something dramatic: they changed the way nutritionists and nutrition scientists evaluate the diets of healthy people with the creation of the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs). Remember the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs)? From 1941 until 1989, the RDAs were established and used to evaluate and plan menus that would meet the nutrient requirements of groups as well as other applications such as interpreting food consumption records of populations, establishing standards for food assistance programs, establishing guidelines for nutrition labeling, to name a few. Their primary goal was to prevent diseases caused by nutrient deficiencies. Technically speaking, the RDAs were not intended to evaluate the diets of individuals, but they were often used this way.
The USDA website is an invaluable tool for both physician and nutritionist and, moreover, all the information is available to everyone. It is a wonderful tool for those committed to their health.
I think Mark did a fair job discussing the trials and the FDA approval process. Studies don't get published in large credible journals (NEJM, JAMA, etc...) without being doggedly reviewed, looking at many parameters: strength of study, design of study, bias, methods, etc.
While heart disease and cancer remain the two greatest killers, we have come so far in controlling so many other diseases it is incredible. Everybody has to die from something Shannon. If you live long enough everyone will either suffer heart disease or cancer. The few cancers that we have accepted screening methods for have dropped tremendously in their numbers. I'm thinking about coln cancer as proof of this. Link.
I could go on, but it is best that I don't. Suffice it to say that the most uninformed statement you made was that being a doctor is all about "writing prescriptions and cutting people up." Walk a mile in my shoes and you would see how wrong you are. My job is to be well informed and use my education and training to act as the primary health advocate for each person that I treat. Writing prescriptions is only a small part of what I do. I take that responsibility with a great deal of seriousness, as do my colleagues. Every time a pateint swallows a pill, or takes an injection, or goes for surgery that I have recommended there are possible good and bad outcomes. Each doctor visit is about the patient and the doctor weighing them out together for the best interest of the patient.
Now you'll have to forgive the newbie for the rant.