I don’t doubt any of that. I would recommend FedUp & Fat the Documentary for a look at how it’s working out in practical terms for the average patient
But I can watch 3 youtube videos and call myself an expert! So there.
I wish they had time in medical school to do more nutrition!
But recommendations change all the time - think about the recommendations for low-fat foods, which were basically replacing fat with sugar? and the prevalence of certain foods may all just be due to lobbying by their industry. And now there are people putting butter in their coffee in the name of health.
And med school curriculum just isn’t that dynamic, and nutrition is highly individual. There isn’t one thing that is going to be the best for everyone. Not everyone’s goals are the same, bodies work the same, etc.
I think that’s the benefit of having good RDs. They have an entire set of training (often 4-6 years), regarding diets, lifestyles, and the history of them.
I think they can go hand in hand (medicine and nutrition), but definitely need the “good eggs” of both of them.
Our recent podcast guest, Fatima Cody Stanford, is a physician who does obesity research. They touch on it a tiny bit in the episode, but she’s got a lot of interesting journal articles. Fatima Cody Stanford | Care & Disparity - Podcast Episode - BioLogos
2 Likes
How does EMF cause severe muscle pain?
2 Likes
It could if you stood in front of a stationary radar antenna long enough (it wouldn’t take too long), or if you defeated the interlocks on your microwave oven, started it and put your hand in. (Irony alert.)
Right, but one would think that the recommendations would NOT be changing all the time if they were based on the “Hundreds of hours are spent on studying metabolism,metabolic pathways, biochemistry, the digestive system and its disorders, hormonal influences on weight etc. all of which is the foundation of nutrition” . . .
@T_aquaticus Oxidative stress, perhaps? I don’t know. As Steve said, this is an area that hasn’t been studied very well because it’s considered a “crackpot” idea. There are studies from other countries, which I linked, that so show negative effects on the body from non-native EMF. The thing that I find disturbing about these responses is the basic lack of curiosity about others’ concrete experiences. Isn’t science supposed to be endlessly curious- especially about topics which have been studied so little? I don’t really understand how this forum is productive if its main function is as an echo chamber for a group of people holding tightly to all the same beliefs. Maybe other topics get more variety & consideration of various viewpoints but on health- a much bigger source of suffering than whether evolution or 7 day creation is true- that doesn’t appear to be the case.
That’s not that different from putting your hand close to a 1000 watt lightbulb. The energy in a given photon is found in this equation:
E = h ν
E is energy in joules, h is Plank’s constant, and v is the frequency of the light. Therefore, energy is directly related to the frequency of the light. The higher the frequency the more energy it has.
The frequency of wifi is about 6E8 Hz while green light is 5.45E14 Hz. A photon of visible light is 10,000 times more energetic than a photon from your wifi router. If people are sensitive to EMF, why aren’t they melting when they turn their lights on at home?
For me, a concrete example would require a mechanism of action. Simple correlations without a causal linkage aren’t concrete examples in my eyes. On top of that, there are many studies that don’t find correlations.
That’s why I am asking for a mechanism of action.
1 Like
Randy, you sound incredibly kind and compassionate- I have no doubt you’re a wonderful doctor and that your patients love & appreciate you. Based on my experiences, I think the easiest tip I could give from a patient perspective is to be open to other avenues your patients might want to try- that’s what I appreciated most about my ophthalmologist. He never made me feel dumb or like he was annoyed that I was trying various supplements along with my medication. On the contrary, he encouraged me to keep him informed of everything I was doing so he could document each visit and trace any improvements or setbacks. That goes a long way.
No disagreement there, except maybe that microwave energy from radar (or Radaranges 
) is more penetrating, the depth varying with frequency, of course (25–38 mm for microwave ovens, per wikipedia).
Yes, but i think that’s the point. the recommendations are not coming from doctors. it’s why they are separate fields. Nutrition and Food Science are different fields completely from how to identify and treat illnesses, even though that seems counter intuitive. Physicians already go to school for a long time. If they were also to have an RD or something, they’d never finish. 
and arguably, most specialists wouldn’t have very much use for this type of education.
You left out the true focus of my statement:
and this is why recommendations not only change, but are individual.
2 Likes
Off by two orders of magnitude. A photon of visible green light is 1,000,000 times more energetic than a photon from your wifi router.
Or when they walk outside during the day.
This is a question worth pondering carefully.
Best,
Chris
Stupid maths. [/Homer voice]
My thoughts exactly.
1 Like
You know how it is. Diet fads come and go and people like to sell books and make money off of them. However, basic nutrition really has not changed much, just the popular press and fad diets. If you look back over the last 30 years, you see a new fad every few years, that then fades into obscurity. Minor recommendations have changed for diabetes and such to accommodate new information, but the basics have not really changed. Culture seems to have more influence on diet than science, for better or worse.
6 Likes
I’ve been following nutrition “news” for twenty years. At the end of the day, “eat less, move more, get your fruits and vegetables, and avoid excess sugar and refined carbohydrates” has been the enduring theme.
6 Likes
@Chris_Falter all very interesting. Have either of you looked at any of the 30 studies I’ve now linked twice?
And then is it every other year … (or is it on alternating months?), that wine, coffee, chocolate, etc. are good for you, and then bad for you?
1 Like
Chocolate is always good for you. I don’t care about the other two.
5 Likes
Hi Jessica,
You will recall from our previous private message conversation that I have looked at several of the studies that you referenced.
Thanks and have a great day!
Chris