Currently at the University of Worcester a minimum 2 years (Full Time) MSc in NT, (entry requires; a first or second-class Honours Degree in a relevant, cognate discipline or Professional qualifications in an appropriate area or Relevant practical experience). In the case of other practical experience and qualification an access course is needed to be passed.

(very similar to dietetics Msc entry requirements)

I can assure you, everyone would be suprised at the scientific content of the course, we dont just say “ahhh just chuck 50 pints of water down ya, that’ll sort you out” as some may think.
The in depth analysis of an individuals dietary intake, symptoms, family history, medical history, drug nutrient interactions, nutrient interactions etc (all specific to the indvidual, not as applied to the general population) requires a great deal of time and expertise. The assumed nutritional knowledge upon starting the course is very extensive and very biochemistry and anatomy heavy, rightly so.A profile submitting proof of learning for this knowledge is required.

I welcome criticism as this is the only way BANT/NTC are going to iron out the shortcomings and improve standards (i.e. clamp down on the wishy washy courses!). NT is not protected and this is a problem, allowing individuals to misrepresent and drag the profession down. Needs to be sorted really because the individuals who are well educated and do have the potential to offer quality nutritional advice are dragged down.

Its a bit of witch hunt instigated by an influential individuals’ views, most of you on this site have no idea the amount of scientific, evidence based work involved in NT. But I guess i can only speak for myself on that part, there are are more than questionable ‘universities’ which provide NT courses. In that sense i guess this is where the people who have studied for at least 5 years in nutrition get tarred with the same brush as the quacks.

I would love Ben oldacre to have a discussion with a few of the more reputable people in NT (not Patrick Holford!), i think the lack of understanding of what we actually do combined with a, lets face it, poor regulatory body makes us an easy target.

That being said, I think, in most cases, quacks really believe what they are doing is correct, and since no law exists to keep them from practicing, can they really be blamed for their own ignorance? If they’re not smart enough to understand what is wrong with their particular brand of lifestyle/nutrition choices, can we really expect them to be smart enough to realize it would be best not to push said choices unto others?

Hmmm, so if doctors kill their patients its OK if Nutritionist do too?

I think you missed the point of the article. Yes, doctors do occasionally injure and sometimes even kill their patients. The point is that they are not complacent about this but make strenuous efforts to do better next time. Shouldn’t Nutritionists and other CAM therapists try to do better next time too?

After she had been ill the nutritionist said drink up to 6 pints of water to rehydrate.

It was this ladies responsibility to consult her GP. Why didn’t her husband call the GP regardless of what the nutritionist had said?

People need to take responsibility for their decisions and not blame others.

knowing how no win no fee cases work (see how confident the adverts are, where there is a claim there is a gain, guaranteed!)looks like the nutritionist got stitched up.

What would the GP have recommended, drink plenty of fluids!

Does anyone who is not British understand how much is in a pint or ounce…?

Ah, the difference is in the ‘country of origin’

a UK pint is 20 fl oz or 568ml
a US pint is 16 fl oz or 454ml

Oh, all right. Thanks!

I took it to mean that the Telegraph was wrong because they recommended pregnant women take Folic Acid for the first four weeks of pregnancy, whereas “both Department of Health and NHS guidelines are identical, recommending very clearly that potential mothers should take a 400-microgram supplement from the time that they start trying for a baby, or from when contraception is stopped, up to and including the 12th week of pregnancy” [Linky]
If women took the Telegraph’s advice at face value, then they would be at greater risk of having a baby with NTDs than the women who took the DoH and NHS advice, because (1) they wouldn’t be taking Folic Acid from the time they started trying for a baby – only beginning once they had a positive test and (2) they would cease taking the Folic Acid after four weeks instead of twelve.

Cheers,
jdc.

Sorry, I’m not sure if I got this right.

Did you mean that the Daily Telegraph was wrong because they alleged folic acid supplementation for pregnant women increases the risk of neural tube defects in babies? Or did you mean that they wrongly alleged that it decreases such risk?

Last I knew, folic acid supplements at the time of conception and throughout the first 12 weeks of pregnancy reduces NTDs by approximately 70%. I haven’t had time to dig through recent literature but Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, 17th Ed., pegged the recommended daily intake at 0.4 mg. If I recall correctly, Williams Obstetrics says the same thing. I just don’t have my copy with me right now so I haven’t been able to double check.

People are all different, so an intake that makes one person full of vitality can kill another person. It depends on what you’re used to. It seems that this woman went from 2 to 6 pints a day. Six pints is a not a lot. It’s more the fact that she suddenly tripled her intake, whilst no doubt keeping her intake of nutrients such as salt no higher than they were.

People’s own sense of thirst is quite often a sufficiently accurate guide.

We can recognise the above (and therefore understand cases holistically) without indulging in hippified qigong nonsense advocated by “realitycheck” in his/her comment. It’s doctors like Ben who are the most holistic.

Above all, the best lesson here for woosters is that if something you do makes you ill, then think about stopping it, rather than stepping it up on the basis that it’s just the “detox” process.

Does anyone who is not British understand how much is in a pint or ounce…?

..the British don’t understand drink measures in ozs… only Americans use those…!

And is it really possible that someone have a disease that makes him drink 15 – 20 liters a day???

Certainly is. Diabetes insipidus (not related to sugar, so don’t confuse with the well-known diabetes mellitus) could be associated with a water intake of 100 mL/kg body wt/day or more. So 10 litres or more is certainly possible for an adult, and I have heard “up to 20 Litres” mentioned. There is a little bit about DI, and some links, in my post on “8 glasses a day” water-woo, which also includes an extended discussion of Heinz Valtin’s Am J Physiol review that Frisbee mentioned above.

DI is rare but can arise in various ways. To quote the American DI Foundation:

It is now known that there are four types of DI:

(1) neurogenic (or central) DI, where the water diuresis results from a deficiency of the antidiuretic hormone (ADH), often referred to as AVP (arginine vasopressin);

(2) nephrogenic DI, where water diuresis results from an inability of the kidneys to respond to ADH;

(3) primary polydipsic DI (or primary polydipsia) in which the water diuresis is due to suppression of ADH by excessive fluid intake [the high intake can result from abnormal thirst (dipsogenic DI), from psychological or emotional disturbances (psychogenic DI) or from fashionable - but scientifically unproven - beliefs in the benefits of a high fluid intake (iatrogenic DI)];

(4) gestagenic DI, which occurs only during pregnancy and is due to destruction of vasopressin by the placenta.

- emphasis mine.

Does anyone who is not British understand how much is in a pint or ounce…?

..the British don’t understand drink measures in ozs… only Americans use those…!

And is it really possible that someone have a disease that makes him drink 15 – 20 liters a day???

Certainly is. Diabetes insipidus (not related to sugar , so don’t confuse with diabetes mellitus) could be associated with a water intake of 100 mL/kg body wt/day or more. So 10 litres or more is possible. There is a little bit about DI, and some links, in my post on “* glasses a day” water-woo, which also discusses Heinz Valtin’s Am J Physiol review that Frisbee mentioned.

DI is rare but can arise IN VARIOUS WAif you have problems with the brain centres that regulate thirst and/or kidney water reabsorption, or if the kidney water reabsorption mechanisms don’t work properly. It can also be “psychogenic”, normally in the sense of “caused by someone drinking vast amounts of water due to a mental health problem”. To quote the American DI Foundation:

It is now known that there are four types of DI: (1) neurogenic (or central) DI, where the water diuresis results from a deficiency of the antidiuretic hormone (ADH), often referred to as AVP (arginine vasopressin); (2) nephrogenic DI, where water diuresis results from an inability of the kidneys to respond to ADH; (3) primary polydipsic DI (or primary polydipsia) in which the water diuresis is due to suppression of ADH by excessive fluid intake [the high intake can result from abnormal thirst (dipsogenic DI), from psychological or emotional disturbances (psychogenic DI) or from fashionable - but scientifically unproven - beliefs in the benefits of a high fluid intake (iatrongenic DI)];

(i) umbrella-ing existing quack bodies (about whose idiocies we have heard already) …and/or

(ii) prescribing compulsory B.Sc degrees in nuttery for new “practitioners” (hence potentially many more B.Scs in Homeopathy, eastern mysticism, and “crystal healing”); and finally:

(iii) “grandfathering” in any existing practitioner who can show they have been in business for a while.

So the kind of regulation being proposed for things like acupuncture, if extended to the nutri-nutters, would almost certainly catapult “water detox” loons straight onto a “register of licenced nutritionists”.

The pay-back is SUPPOSED to be that, once registration exists, one could de-licence, and thus prevent from working, people who do things like what is described in the post. However, I have to say I am not at all confident this would happen. After all, note that the pracitioner in this case admits NO liability. Can you imagine a disciplinary panel containing other “colon cleansing” types actually opting to discipline someone like this? Personally I very much doubt it.

And is it really possible that someone have a disease that makes him drink 15 – 20 liters a day???

Is this correct?

What the freak are these professions doing? Actually – I’m beginning to think that I should stop referring to them as professions at all.

Take it from an NHS quack that knows – this IS embarassing.

JH

July 29, 2008 at 9:35 am

But what of BANTs role in all this – how can they ‘distance themselves’?

Bloomin CAMs and their regulatory bodies.

http://jonathanhearsey.com/?p=47

Idiots

Well, they aren’t regulatory bodies – BANT, the SoH and all of the CAM spokesorganisations. They exist to promote the scams they represent, not regulate them. It isn’t unknown for them to break their own codes of practice which demonstrates just how unregulatory they are. Marketing, devising schemes to part the gullible from their money… that’s their function, along with supplying an endless stream of bullshit to the media who lap it up because they can cash in too.