![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 11 to 35 of 35. Go back in thread:
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 4, 2003, at 10:06:08
In reply to Re: Wow, some of the things I read here scare me., posted by srd1074 on November 4, 2003, at 8:51:01
> wow, I can't believe I started all of this. Fish oil? Fish oil is to help lower your HDL.
If you think that's all that docosahexaenoic and eicosapentaenoic acids do, I sure hope you're paying attention in the lecture hall.
> My mom did the same thing....she bought that fish oil remedy. It got her and extra 20 or so pounds of weight.
>
> My point was not to say meds are bad. My point is to say research - and I don't mean through the experiences of other people only.Do you not see how you have just contradicted yourself?
> But that is my point. Research.
>
> S.That will be welcomed, when you present research in place of opinion.
Lar
Posted by srd1074 on November 4, 2003, at 10:06:45
In reply to Re: Wow, some of the things I read here scare me., posted by karen_kay on November 4, 2003, at 9:14:07
I wasn't suggesting that hearing about side effects is a bad idea. I am concerned by the people that I am reading about who seem to be using this as their only reference.
Your efforts are great, and they are what I am referring too.
S.
Posted by srd1074 on November 4, 2003, at 10:54:49
In reply to Re: Wow, some of the things I read here scare me. » srd1074, posted by Larry Hoover on November 4, 2003, at 10:06:08
No, they do more. But watching people like my mother place so much faith in a substance based on what one doctor who was trying to make some money says, only to watch her fall further into her problems, makes me sad.
No, I did not contradict myself. I just didn't make myself clear. If you read one of my later postings about what I said about people learning about side effects, you will understand.
I don't need to present research in place of opinion. I don't use fish oil remedies. I eat a healthy diet including a lot of fatty fish. I have no use for that type of remedy in my life, therefore I really don't need to go further into the basics of what the substance does. It would be like me researching insulin when I am not a diabetic. I have a pretty good working knowledge of what the substance does and how it works at the cellular level.
However, people want to hear about experiences here, I presented mine.
S.
As far as what scares me, it is the misuse of medications and the pill popping that I am reading about without understanding of what is being swallowed. Psycho-neuro drugs are the least understood drugs out there. Why would anyone take for granted a chemical that could potentially help them, but hurt them just the same.
Posted by tensor on November 4, 2003, at 11:19:19
In reply to Re: Wow, some of the things I read here scare me., posted by srd1074 on November 4, 2003, at 10:54:49
> As far as what scares me, it is the misuse of medications and the pill popping that I am reading about without understanding of what is being swallowed. Psycho-neuro drugs are the least understood drugs out there. Why would anyone take for granted a chemical that could potentially help them, but hurt them just the same.Tell me then, who can you trust? Who do you trust? You shouldn't put complete trust in your doctor(he's paid, right?) and the same with the pharmacist. You said it yourself, psyc meds are the least understood drugs. So what can you do? Before science has acquired complete knowledge about the brain we are more or less forced to take pills that might help, might hurt or face a life bound to bed.
>Why would anyone take for granted a chemical that could potentially help them, but hurt them just the same.
Who's taking things for granted here? These chemicals potentially save lives.
Posted by KellyD on November 4, 2003, at 11:39:53
In reply to Re: Wow, some of the things I read here scare me., posted by srd1074 on November 4, 2003, at 10:54:49
"Why would anyone take for granted a chemical that could potentially help them, but hurt them just the same."
Personally, I don't - take for granted, that is. The chacteristic you describe is inherent in all meds. Just to let you know, there are some of us that do talk with their drs. and PharmD's, do follow instructions. Risk/Benefit - how harmful is it not to treat potentially fatal disorders, not to mention just plain quality of life issues?
Posted by sedona on November 4, 2003, at 11:55:47
In reply to Wow, some of the things I read here scare me., posted by srd1074 on November 3, 2003, at 20:51:44
>wow, I can't believe I started all of this. Fish oil? Fish oil is to help lower your HDL. If you think it is going to solve your health problems, you are investing too much faith in the advice of the person who told you this.<
>I don't need to present research in place of opinion. I don't use fish oil remedies. I eat a healthy diet including a lot of fatty fish. I have no use for that type of remedy in my life, therefore I really don't need to go further into the basics of what the substance does. It would be like me researching insulin when I am not a diabetic. I have a pretty good working knowledge of what the substance does and how it works at the cellular level.<
I think you have made a fine point, that you feel as though you don't need to do further research on the use of fish oil since it is not a remedy that you use. I also believe that research is very important, some research is good and some is not, and it is important for us all to develop critical thinking when doing research and looking at drug studies. However, many people on this board and elsewhere have had great success with fish oil. There have been many exchanges on this board regarding the studies that show that high doses of fish oil can be effective treatment for depression and bipolar disorder. That is what many of us have found through our research.In the world of psychiatric medicine, fish oil is not considered that unusual.
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 4, 2003, at 12:12:39
In reply to Re: Wow, some of the things I read here scare me., posted by srd1074 on November 4, 2003, at 10:54:49
> But watching people like my mother place so much faith in a substance based on what one doctor who was trying to make some money says, only to watch her fall further into her problems, makes me sad.
The problem here is not with the fish oil, but with the doctor shilling it. Don't blame the fish oil for human frailties. You need to develop reasonable expectations of what a substance will or will not do. Frankly, pharmaceutical company propaganda is more worrisome than some doctor exaggerating the potential health-promoting effects of a substance with clearly demonstrated health-promoting effects.
> No, I did not contradict myself.
Yes, you did. You presented anecdote, then discounted anecdote.
> I don't use fish oil remedies. I have a pretty good working knowledge of what the substance does and how it works at the cellular level.
IMHO, if you truly understood, you would not discount the use of fish oil.
> Why would anyone take for granted a chemical that could potentially help them, but hurt them just the same.
And, why would anyone take for granted a class of chemicals that will not hurt them, but may help them, just the same?
Lar
Posted by srd1074 on November 4, 2003, at 12:38:54
In reply to Re: Wow, some of the things I read here scare me. » srd1074, posted by tensor on November 4, 2003, at 11:19:19
I am not referring to not taking medicine at all. I am talking about people taking unnecessary and clearly uneducated chances with their meds. I remember for example that someone asked if it is okay to not wait the complete downtime after coming off an MAOI before starting an SSRI.
I am talking about the person who took adderal to help them think. It didn't seem like it was their prescription based on the posting. Could be wrong, but that is not why the drug should be taken. It should be for people who can't focus on one thing long enough to retain information. Yes, psycho-stimulants have that added bonus of clarity of thought, but this should not be taken for granted.
I am talking about people who take one drug to alleviate the withdrawl from another. I understand the necessity of this for something like cocaine or heroin, but ritalin? Go to sleep.
These are the types of things that I am talking about.
I take meds. I am narcoleptic. I also take two that have not been thoroughly researched as to the potential risks of their combined effects. In fact, other more potent substances are showing bad side effects.
However, I did this at my discretion and per my own idea. I also did it after fully discussing the potential problems with my doctor and my pharmacist and reading every little piece of information I could about both drugs and even their relatives. I carefully weighed all the potential pros and cons and watched my body like a hawk for the first few weeks. I still keep an open eye.
As for consulting paid professionals, I did not say ignore them or completely trust them. I said to listen to them and consider the source. Pharmacists are one of your best sources - Especially if you live in a state where they do not have the right to prescribe medication. The reason being because they are not as likely to be influenced by the pharmaceutical companies. They go to several years of school that focus on the chemistry and biology of the chemicals that we call medicine. They know their drugs well. They are the ones that frequently have to call the doctor and tell them "you can't mix these two." Doctors go to school to study anatomy, physiology, microbiology (to study disease), immunology.... and their specialties. They do study some medicine, usually those relative to their specialties, but it is a small, small fraction of their education.
My point is to get your facts by learning from all resources. Do not limit your resources or you will come up with only a partial truth. Consider the hidden motives of your resources. Consider the educational background and experience of your resources. Also, consider that these chemicals affect everyone differently. One person's side effects may not be another's. However, those warning labels and directions are there for a reason - not because YOU may experience something bad, but because studies have indicated that this is the safest parameter. Consider the fact that if it is too good to be true, it probably is. Look to the long run. I am seeing some microwave society problems withing the context of these postings. (The guy who didn't want to wait 2-4 extra days before starting the SSRI) We want a pill to just fix us. While, many of the issues that I am reading here need medicine, these medicines are not the only part of the solutions and probably aren't going to give a very fast solution. The opposite holds true as well.
S.
Posted by srd1074 on November 4, 2003, at 12:44:22
In reply to Re: Wow, some of the things I read here scare me. » srd1074, posted by sedona on November 4, 2003, at 11:55:47
I am for any thing that aids in the solution to a problem, especially it if has negligible side effects. I only put a foot of caution out to placing complete faith in one thing. That is all. Even my own meds, I treat them like a small child. Watch them, worry about them, trust them only so much, but treat them with TLC.
S.
Posted by srd1074 on November 4, 2003, at 13:00:05
In reply to Re: Wow, some of the things I read here scare me., posted by KellyD on November 4, 2003, at 11:39:53
I don't think everyone here does. Only some of the things that I read here scare me. There is a reason why I was attracted to this message board. Some of it is in complete shock, some of it is to compare what I research to the lives of others. I do read that people here are taking care of themselves. However, I wanted to put this posting up to talk about those who don't in hopes that maybe it will affect even one person who doesn't.
My motivations for going into medicine are my own experiences with some of my doctors' lack of education, my health insurance company telling them how to treat me, my peers and families all trying to tell me I was depressed when I knew deep down I was not, and all the crap that I had to go through to finally find out that because I knew my body better than anyone else, I had been right the whole time. I have also found that I LOVE research and science - especially neurology and genetics.
If I had listened to any ONE person or resource, I would have never found out my actual problem, and I would be on about 10 different medications to treat all the symptoms. I was aggressive in my refusal to treat symptoms without knowing the underlying cause. For example, even being iron deficient should be considered before treating it. Why is it there? Anemia is not a disease, it is a symptom. Its kind of like AIDS. AIDS is not a disease, it is a symptom of HIV. HIV is the disease. You can have the same symptoms of AIDS and not have HIV. I hope to encourage people to look for deeper causes. Even look to the factors that may have caused real diseases. For example, bipolar disorder does not usually start in childhood (though I acknowledge it sometimes does). It is a theory that people who are bipolar have a genetic predisposition to the disorder that is brought on under certain environmental conditions. Stress and anxiety seem to play a big part since they affect cortisol levels.
This is the intention of starting this posting. I chose the heading I did to gain attention so that I would have a great response. I wanted to get people thinking about this issue that may or may not be a reason for it. My hopes is that it would make a difference.
S.
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 4, 2003, at 13:00:20
In reply to Re: Wow, some of the things I read here scare me., posted by srd1074 on November 4, 2003, at 12:38:54
> My point is to get your facts by learning from all resources. Do not limit your resources or you will come up with only a partial truth.
> S.I'm much more comfortable with your position now. I felt an air of condescension before that.
What I mean is, not everyone *can* interpret the evidence in the way that, say, you or I might. We have a background in science, and it permits us to assess the validity and reliability of what we read. Even the language of science might as well be written in Greek, for people lacking a scientific background.
The greatest gift you can give is access to your knowledge and interpretive skills. Welcome.
"A teacher affects eternity." Henry Adams
Lar
Posted by srd1074 on November 4, 2003, at 13:09:56
In reply to Re: Wow, some of the things I read here scare me. » srd1074, posted by Larry Hoover on November 4, 2003, at 12:12:39
Lar, I am sorry, but you are clearly reading my postings out of context. I never discounted fish oils. My point was that I know what they do down to a cellular level and in MY LIFE an EXTRA fish oil remedy beyond my diet would not have any added benefits.
The point of my posting was to say not to have too much faith in one thing - don't put all your marbles in one bag. Consider all sources and their motivations. The doctor who promoted fish oils is no better than a pharmaceutical company promoting their product. Take for example bayer aspirin. Aspirin has few to almost no bad side-effects. The only thing that is not negligble is that some people don't digest it so well. Yeah, and some people are allergic to fish. The only thing about that doctor is that his product isn't as lethal as say phen-fen or serzone. But, his motivation is to make a buck. I am not saying that he is wrong, his research has some credit to it. However, so does the FDA mandated research of the pharmaceutical companies. They are all as equally biased.
S.
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 4, 2003, at 13:13:37
In reply to Re: Wow, some of the things I read here scare me., posted by srd1074 on November 4, 2003, at 13:09:56
> Lar, I am sorry, but you are clearly reading my postings out of context.
I was reacting to the meta-message.
> S.
Don't make me want to take back what I just posted, 'kay? ;-)
Lar
Posted by srd1074 on November 4, 2003, at 13:37:19
In reply to Re: Wow, some of the things I read here scare me. » srd1074, posted by Larry Hoover on November 4, 2003, at 13:00:20
Yes, it is true that most medical stuff is in common man's greek - I still have a hard time with a lot of it. However, on that, when I was trying to assess myself, it was before I went back to school and had any science background. There is some really easy-read stuff out there. One type of source that I found to be great was the support networks out there. I am not referring to "support groups," but organizations that have been created to inform and educate non-medical people. I am narcoleptic. The day I put all the pieces together was the day that I found Narcolepsynetwork.org. Their page gave me the last piece to the puzzle. After that I spent a lot of time comparing my findings to other sources to decide if this was a valid self-diagnosis. Then, I researched the medications (and their side effects actually added to my validity). Then, I read stuff like these postings to see how similiar my life problems were. Then, I called a sleep disorders neurologist. He put me through all the necessary testings and here I am. No longer do I have to take iron pills and diabetic meds. No longer are doctors trying to shove toxic ADs like serzone down my throat to treat my "insomnia." That drug isn't even one associated with treating sleep disorders. GEEESH! Now, I have my Ritalin (at my request due to the cost of Provigil) and my Paxil for my cataplexy. Aside from having to schedule around the 6-hour time limits of each pill, my life is just about normal. Why none of the other meds? Because I had a theory that proved to be right. I kept telling my doctors and my family that "my get up and go, got up and left." I also said that I think that the reason why I am borderline diabetic is because my body's metabolism is slow because I am too damned tired to metabolize. I was right. No issues when I am on stimulants. No more sleepy face right after I eat. My blood is even a darker shade of red - a sign of being higher in nutrients. My grumpy ass mood goes away when I have my meds. People would swear I was depressed because I was grumpy all the time. Well, wouldn't you if could never quite wake up?
The efforts I went through to be diagnosed were ones that I didn't expect to have to go through. I had thought up to that point that if I went to a doctor or two, someone could tell me what was wrong. Problem is, general practitioners aren't educated in sleep disorders beyond sleep apnea and those related to depression. UGGHHHH!!!
This is why I highly encourage people to get out there and know everything they can about their body and how it works and what they put into it. No need for and A&P class. I am talking about knowing your individual body, getting into a gym and maybe talking to a trainer about A&P and nutrition. Talking to a nurse or ... the list of references are endless.
S.
Posted by srd1074 on November 4, 2003, at 13:40:31
In reply to Re: Wow, some of the things I read here scare me. » srd1074, posted by Larry Hoover on November 4, 2003, at 13:13:37
Yeah, I am not much of a meta-message person. Don't read into my stuff. I think and process VERY, VERY differently than most people, or so says a couple of personality inventories and a therapist or two. Anyway, if you read into me, the message won't come out right. Take it for its surface value.
S.
Posted by KimberlyDi on November 4, 2003, at 16:21:02
In reply to Re: Wow, some of the things I read here scare me. » srd1074, posted by Larry Hoover on November 4, 2003, at 12:12:39
> > Why would anyone take for granted a chemical that could potentially help them, but hurt them just the same.Why would anyone take Chemo or Radiation? In my bestest Dr. Phi impersonation "Let's get real people." I never believed the science of medicine was exact. Are you going to be a doctor that doesn't practice medicine? In search for a cure, medicine offers what was otherwise absent, hope. With malpractice added to keep it real.
If you're talking about religious faith, there's another board for that. If you're talking about alternative medicine, "same answer".
Good day,
KDi in Texas
Posted by EREIAMJH on November 4, 2003, at 19:59:23
In reply to Wow, some of the things I read here scare me., posted by srd1074 on November 3, 2003, at 20:51:44
... if you had been a fly on the wall for the decades I've dealt with various medical professionals in the treatment of neurobio disorders.
I'm amazed by your statements that "people don't understand that NO-ONE knows their body better than they do" and "People should be actively involved with understanding their own bodies - it would help their doctors make a better diagnosis." The ugly truth is that most of us understand both of these points better than you can imagine, and the vast majority of the time this understanding and self-education is looked at with hostility and suspicion by medical professionals.
Read my thread below re: Paxil withdrawal woes for an illustration. After being shrugged off by my doc when reporting some alarming side effects, I looked them up on my own. When I reported my findings to the doctor, I was told, "Okay, you have to stop reading those things. They are what's causing your problems." Apparently they believe *reading* now can cause impairment of platelet aggregation due to platelet serotonin depletion, psychosomatically. Hmmm...
While I agree wholeheartedly that patients should work to educate themselves both on the disorders they or their family members have, and the medications they are taking or considering, I think that a fundamental change must be instilled in the attitudes of medical professionals to facilitate and welcome this.
Every time I speak to a doctor about neurobio disorders in which I am well versed, I feel the need to dumb down my verbage for fear I'll be accused of displaying Munchausen's or Munchausen's by Proxy. One neurologist nearly had a fit when I said I felt it was time to test me and my son for Antistreptolysin O and Antideoxyribonuclease B when we displayed negative strep cultures but severe increases in vocal tics following strep exposure. Guess what? After he grudgingly agreed (in his words, "just to humor you") our titers proved to have elevated levels. Yet I was still eyed with suspicion whenever I vocalized a concern or any apparent knowledge of the disorders or related research and treatment.
If you haven't read it already, I'd highly recommend reading an article from JAMA, January 17, 2001—Vol. 285, No. 3, titled Stigma, by Myrna M. Weissman, Ph.D. It not only details the shocking bias against neurobio and "behavioral" disorders and the families who deal with them, but also the prevalent attitude of medical professionals towards parents who are perceived as "overly focused" on their own children's medical conditions. If you are unable to access it, let me know and I'll locate a link to it. You should find it quite illuminating, and disturbing I should think, based on the feelings you seem to have IRT patient input and participation.
Posted by avid abulia on November 4, 2003, at 20:14:44
In reply to Re: Wow, some of the things I read here scare me. » srd1074, posted by tensor on November 3, 2003, at 22:13:55
> >People do not understand the ramifications of the substances they put in their bodies.
>
> Well, i agree with you to some extent. But does anyone know the ramifications? I try to read as much as i can and for all AD´s the exact mechanism of action is not known, the same applies to long-term side effects for using a certain AD. I would NOT take any of my meds if didn't have to, as a matter of fact i hate them. Another aspect is that when you are depressed, anxious or whatever you might not have the energy to undertake an adequate research in each drug that the doctor may prescribe you.
>
> > or getting on the Internet and learning all that they can.
>
> This is internet, and we are learning from each other, exchanging experiences. Very useful and often better than reading a drug book.
>
> /tensor
Many of the people here *do* do a lot of research, but of course there is limited information as tensor states. Another issue, besides depression causing apathy, lethargy, and abulia, is that a lot of us are consciously or unconsciously, and to varying degrees, suicidal, and we just don't give a flip what happens to our bodies cuz consciously or unconsciously we don't want/expect them to be around much longer...Others, well, they just want to feel better *now* and are desperate enough to accept what someone in a position of authority.
And as for happy stories... whoever heard of those???
~AA
Posted by Elle2021 on November 5, 2003, at 1:08:58
In reply to srd1074, you'd be much more shocked..., posted by EREIAMJH on November 4, 2003, at 19:59:23
Couldn't have said it better myself... :)
Elle
> ... if you had been a fly on the wall for the decades I've dealt with various medical professionals in the treatment of neurobio disorders.
>
> I'm amazed by your statements that "people don't understand that NO-ONE knows their body better than they do" and "People should be actively involved with understanding their own bodies - it would help their doctors make a better diagnosis." The ugly truth is that most of us understand both of these points better than you can imagine, and the vast majority of the time this understanding and self-education is looked at with hostility and suspicion by medical professionals.
>
> Read my thread below re: Paxil withdrawal woes for an illustration. After being shrugged off by my doc when reporting some alarming side effects, I looked them up on my own. When I reported my findings to the doctor, I was told, "Okay, you have to stop reading those things. They are what's causing your problems." Apparently they believe *reading* now can cause impairment of platelet aggregation due to platelet serotonin depletion, psychosomatically. Hmmm...
>
> While I agree wholeheartedly that patients should work to educate themselves both on the disorders they or their family members have, and the medications they are taking or considering, I think that a fundamental change must be instilled in the attitudes of medical professionals to facilitate and welcome this.
>
> Every time I speak to a doctor about neurobio disorders in which I am well versed, I feel the need to dumb down my verbage for fear I'll be accused of displaying Munchausen's or Munchausen's by Proxy. One neurologist nearly had a fit when I said I felt it was time to test me and my son for Antistreptolysin O and Antideoxyribonuclease B when we displayed negative strep cultures but severe increases in vocal tics following strep exposure. Guess what? After he grudgingly agreed (in his words, "just to humor you") our titers proved to have elevated levels. Yet I was still eyed with suspicion whenever I vocalized a concern or any apparent knowledge of the disorders or related research and treatment.
>
> If you haven't read it already, I'd highly recommend reading an article from JAMA, January 17, 2001—Vol. 285, No. 3, titled Stigma, by Myrna M. Weissman, Ph.D. It not only details the shocking bias against neurobio and "behavioral" disorders and the families who deal with them, but also the prevalent attitude of medical professionals towards parents who are perceived as "overly focused" on their own children's medical conditions. If you are unable to access it, let me know and I'll locate a link to it. You should find it quite illuminating, and disturbing I should think, based on the feelings you seem to have IRT patient input and participation.
Posted by MamaB on November 5, 2003, at 10:46:07
In reply to Re: Wow, some of the things I read here scare me. » Ron Jones, posted by tensor on November 4, 2003, at 1:37:30
I know that I am going to get flak for this, but this physician says it better thatn I can:
"The human body uses hundreds of internal chemicals to execute its metabolic functions. It is tempting to think that we can help the processes along by supplying extra amounts of the chemicals. If some is good, then more must be better! Although promoted by nutritional supplement enthusiasts, this theory is rooted only in hope and is contrary to scientific evidence. The body is an incredibly fine-tuned machine, and an excess of natural chemicals is more likely to gum it up than to charge it up. Periodic outbreaks of serious illness (for example, tryptophan myopathy) caused by ill-advised use of health foods and health supplements point out the danger of blindly trying to perfect on God’s work.
A better reason to use vitamins, minerals or nutritional supplements is to replace a deficiency. Avoiding the deficiency by proper diet is best. When the diet is lacking, supplements can be helpful if taken in amounts that approach (but do not exceed) the normal daily requirement."
"Vitamins: They are safe if restricted to daily requirement doses. A single daily multivitamin tablet or capsule is sufficient and is even a good idea. Avoid high-dose preparations of individual vitamins unless prescribed by a physician. High doses of vitamin A, C, D or E are unlikely to improve health and have the potential to make it worse. Vitamin A is clearly harmful if taken regularly in doses that exceed the body’s daily requirement. Vitamin D is often added to calcium tablets to promote intestinal absorption of this mineral, and the small doses used by reliable manufacturers are safe. Higher doses can result in dangerous elevations of blood calcium. High doses of vitamin C or E pose less of a threat to health, but benefits have not clearly been demonstrated by scientific studies."Minerals: Salts and minerals such as sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, iron and zinc are essential for the body’s function. In a well-balanced diet they are provided in abundance. Potassium supplements should not be taken unless prescribed by a physician. The elderly are particularly susceptible to the potentially grave consequences of too much potassium. Salt (sodium) substitutes may contain large amounts of potassium, so be cautious and inform your doctor if you use these products. Calcium is required to maintain bone strength and is often deficient in the diet of older adults. Although usually advisable, calcium preparations can lead to significant problems if taken in excess amounts. Iron supplements should be used only when an iron deficiency is discovered by a blood count. In the elderly, iron deficiency is often a sign of serious unrecognized internal bleeding and must be investigated by a physician. Excess iron intake over a prolonged period of time can lead to serious health problems. Deficiency of zinc or magnesium is uncommon in the absence of disease, malnutrition, alcoholism or the use of certain prescription medications. Excess amounts of these minerals can be harmful."
"Miscellaneous nutritional products: Hundreds of concoctions are available -- maybe thousands. Most often they are formulated as large doses of natural food substances. But they may be unnatural substances not normally present in the diet. The ascribed benefits are promoted by hucksters who are more interested in your money than your health. And some of the stuff is clearly dangerous. Beware! Avoidance of these products will save you money and protect your health. Consider them bad medicines."
"The fountain of youth remains undiscovered. Multivitamins, calcium and fiber can be helpful, but the rest of the nutritional supplements are best classified as worthless, potentially harmful or beneficial only when recommended by a physician. The grocery store remains a better source of nutritional products than the drugstore."Dr. Spilane is an internal medicine specialist and geriatrician. He is a member of the Healthpartners Medical Group and practices at the Senior’s Clinic at Regions Hospital.
(c) Amherst H. Wilder Foundation. All rights reserved.
E-mail: [email protected].
919 Lafond Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55104 (651) 642-4000
Posted by sfloridamatt on November 5, 2003, at 11:30:28
In reply to Re: Wow, some of the things I read here scare me. » Ron Jones, posted by tensor on November 4, 2003, at 1:37:30
> Dr Berggin? You make it sound so simple, eat fish oil and all problems are gone. Personally i don't think so. Scientific research also says that remeron, prozac, effexor etc. works, and...
> No offense, i'm sure people can benefit from fish oil but you have to agree it can't be the answer to all mental illnesses. Btw. doesn't this sort under the alternative babble?yeah i don't really like that guy either...and his prozac bashing books. i strongly believe in modern medicine in combination with a healthy diet to combat mental illness.
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 6, 2003, at 10:28:32
In reply to Re: Wow, some of the things I read here scare me., posted by MamaB on November 5, 2003, at 10:46:07
> I know that I am going to get flak for this, but this physician says it better thatn I can:
Not flak, but an opposing voice......
I put a challenge up on sci.med.nutrition, open to anyone, to devise a diet that supplies 100% of the RDA of all nutrients, in a total calorie package that was practical. No one was successful, because it can't be done. And that's based on the nutrient database of the USDA.
Just Google the thread "Can you get 100% of the RDA...."
The French government's health department published an article declaring that it was impossible to meet nutritional requirements by diet alone. I can give references, if required.
And, that doesn't even take into account the fact that the RDA is *demonstrably* inadequate, by definition. See:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20031023/msgs/272243.html
> Deficiency of zinc or magnesium is uncommon in the absence of disease, malnutrition, alcoholism or the use of certain prescription medications.
False. Table in the babble link provided.
> The grocery store remains a better source of nutritional products than the drugstore.
Demonstrably false, but that is the current dogma.
Lar
Posted by joebob on November 6, 2003, at 10:54:55
In reply to Re: Wow, some of the things I read here scare me. » MamaB, posted by Larry Hoover on November 6, 2003, at 10:28:32
alternative board.........i watch that one more closely for your posts
i will circulate it when i get itwelcome back!
thannks,
joebob
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 6, 2003, at 11:30:30
In reply to lar...can you post the french article here and on » Larry Hoover, posted by joebob on November 6, 2003, at 10:54:55
> alternative board.........i watch that one more closely for your posts
> i will circulate it when i get it
>
> welcome back!
>
> thannks,
>
> joebob(**emphasis added**)
Ann Nutr Metab. 1984;28(1):11-23.
[Caloric value of food and coverage of the recommended nutritional intake of
vitamins in the adult human. Principle foods containing vitamins][Article in French]
Mareschi JP, Cousin F, de la Villeon B, Brubacher GB.
Two daily food consumption models were defined. One of them (I) is
representative of the French eating habits, the other (E) of a diet with a
theoretically balanced content of macronutrients for a caloric intake of
2,500 kcal. **For each of these two models, four menus were calculated to
obtain four caloric levels (1,500, 2,000, 2,500 and 3,000 kcal). The vitamin
content of these menus was established on the basis of the literature (food
composition tables).** Nutritional losses resulting from usual cooking
methods were taken into account. The results show that the dietary intake of
some vitamins, such as folic acid, pantothenic acid, vitamin A,
beta-carotene, vitamin C and B1, was likely to be inadequate and are in
agreement with those of epidemiologic surveys carried out in developed
countries. **The threshold of 80% of the recommended allowances is not
reached with a caloric level of 2,500 kcal (balanced diet)** or 2,700 kcal
(unbalanced diet). For an allowance of 1,500 kcal, most of the vitamins do
not reach or just reach 50% of the recommended level. This result shows that
the former eating habits of the French population, whose caloric intake was
high (more than 3,000 kcal), were correct as they covered the recommended
intakes of micronutrients. This work corroborates the great importance of
some food groups in covering the recommended vitamin intakes and underlines
the necessity of diversifying food.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2003, at 1:37:12
In reply to Re: lar...can you post the french article here and on, posted by Larry Hoover on November 6, 2003, at 11:30:30
> [Caloric value of food and coverage of the recommended nutritional intake of
> vitamins in the adult human. Principle foods containing vitamins]I'd like to redirect follow-ups regarding food to Psycho-Babble Alternative. Here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20031104/msgs/277371.html
Thanks,
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.