A commenter recently posted some thoughts, opinions and questions that raised the wider question: Is Holfordism harmless? She obviously has a sufficiently strong interest in nutrition to prompt her to consider dedicating time and money to studying it.
I saw Patrick Holford on tv the other day and was quite impressed. I have also been thinking about studying nutrition and looking at his institute as a place to study.I certainly don’t agree with everything alternative medicine has to offer, but some of it does work, so please don’t criticise too much!
Nutritionists (as opposed to dieticians) want to help people towards optimum health - who doesn’t want to feel good? Some of us can’t seem to get the balance right ourselves and, since doctors and buying heavily marketed products often doesn’t help (docs, like dietitians, tend to want to cure rather than prevent), we want to ask someone who knows more than us.
Why do you not think that people who have studied the subject for a few years and gained a qualification, are qualified to help people in this way?
Who else would you suggest consulting?
I ask this as someone who both wants nutrition / health advice, and who is considering re-training under the nutrition umbrella.
I was a little taken aback at this characterisation of the work and practice of dietitians; I did wonder what had led this commenter to form such a partial opinion. We were very fortunate to have an excellent and robust response from Registered Dietitian, Catherine Collins.
As a practicing Registered Dietitian (RD), I’m concerned about the biased and inaccurate views that you have of my profession.I guess you’ve been reading prospectuses from ’self-styled nutritionist’ organisations such as ION or CNELM - or perhaps the pseudo-regulatory organisation BANT, which typically make these inaccurate claims. I guess this is their way of trying to justify their ‘nutrition-lite’ practices to people like yourselves who are thinking of training in this field.
RD’s are basically BSc graduate nutritionists with an extra year of study tagged on to the original 3 years to learn and practice the interface of nutrition with clinical disease. As such it gives us a very broad and deep spectrum of expertise which we can use to work in any arena we like.
In the community we work in private practice, health promotion attached to local education and health authorities, self-help groups and organisations, and increasingly sports nutrition (2012 beckons!). Our skills are valued by the food industry, food retailers, and other businesses related to healthcare - or not.
Alternatively - and as in my case - we have the skills to work with the clinically unwell in a hospital setting. Yes, some aspects of our work are dealing with those who abrogate health and nutrition issues until seriously unwell. But my field of intensive care also deals with those unfortunate individuals in the wrong place/ wrong time, and for whom nutrition treads a fine line of providing fluid, electrolytes,and macronutrients in the presence of multi-organ failure.
I take your point regarding the occasional benefits of non-conventional approaches to illness. Yet in the field of nutrition, you will find that the ‘alternative’ do not use a parallel evidence base (such as TCM does when compared to western medicine)- they just misintepret the SAME clinical evidence to promote their practices and wares - as this excellent site demonstrates.
It’s rather ironic of you to agree that “buying heavily marketed products” is not the key to good nutritional health, yet you feel an affinity towards an organisation and an individual which - from this site alone- can be seen to promote products which existing research indicates are futile, or even harmful.
Why should self-styled nutritionists take this approach? I guess it comes down to two reasons -
EITHER
they are unconciously incompetent (so they THINK they know the subject, but they don’t have the ability to translate it accurately or in context for the individual or group)
OR
they are deliberately misleading those who seek their advice…..But where does that lead dietitians? well, you won’t find us promoting detox or superfoods or megadose vitamins - because ’sexing up’ key nutrition research distorts the context for the public, and we don’t expect our patient to become guinea pigs for future interest - as all the work on high dose vitamins is increasingly demonstrating.
Equally, you won’t find dietitians pestering for column inches and broadcast time. We are well respected in the media because of our sound background, ethical approach and our conduct - incidentally, being the only nutritional professionals regulated by law (HPC Act 2002, formerly the CPSM Act 1980). Just google the term ‘dietitian’/ ‘dietician’ and you can see how we feature ‘out there’.
Finally, I wish you well on whatever nutrition path you take. Check out the dietitians website…or the bona fide Nutritionists website.
You can’t shortcut a route to nutrition, just as you can’t shortcut knowledge of atomic physics - despite what the nutrition-lite lobby will have you believe. If you choose the latter I guess you have to reset your moral compass or ignore the shortfalls in your training when it comes to dealing with the public who trust you……[Minor changes from the original to embed links.]
Depending on your budget, you might also compare and contrast the cost of studying with ION with that of obtaining a Registered Dietitian’s portable qualifications. If you don’t have science qualifications at ‘A’ Level, then ION offers Science Access Courses:
The Science Access courses are designed for those wishing to pursue the Nutritional Therapists’ Diploma/Foundation Degree Course (DipION/FdSc) but having insufficient background in the sciences to support study. The courses concentrate on aspects of these subjects that are relevant to nutrition.
So, you will pay around £3,090 for either the accelerated (3 month) version of this course, or the year-long course (texts and course notes included). You will also need to pick up the travel and maybe accommodation costs of attending the course in Richmond. For the (further) 3 years of the Nutritional Therapy Diploma course, you will need to pay tuition fees of £3,090 per year (I haven’t been able to establish whether the texts etc. are included in this).
If you wish to obtain a BSc in Nutrition Science in association with the University of Luton, you will need to dedicate another year of study and a further £3,000 in fees (if you study full-time, at current prices). I have not yet been able to discover how many ION graduates top-up their diploma with a BSc, nor the degree class that they commonly obtain.
Unlike most tertiary education establishments, ION doesn’t offer an overview of their research facilities, lecturers and researchers online. It would be useful to know the research projects that are in progress at ION and their list of publications. E.g., if I were interested in studying the Sports Nutrition module in Year 3, it might be helpful to know if I could have access to a gas analyser for the study of exhaled breath (e.g., useful for metabolic analysis) or something like one of the latest, very accurate body fat and metabolism analysers; I might want to know if I would be supervised by someone who is certified to conduct blood draws for lactic acid studies or similar. Coracle offers a very interesting overview of research funding in the UK and the research assessment exercise; it would be useful to know if ION is engaged in this sort of academic research .
It might be considerably faster and cheaper to study for a BSc in Nutritional Science; you may be able to qualify as a registered Dietitian in the time that it would take you to study for a Diploma with ION and then top-up to a BSc degree. You can assess for yourself the value of the assurance the DipION/FdSc is accredited by the University of Luton and validated by the British Association of Nutritional Therapists (BANT) and “meets BANT’s stringent requirements for certification of nutritional therapists”.
I’m sure that all of the contributors to Holford Watch wish the commenter well with any future studies and career. However, I am concerned at the role that Holfordism might have played in shaping the mis-perceptions of the role/practice of Registered Dietitians. Further than that, I’m slightly alarmed at the notion that nutritionists have the inside track to ‘feeling good’ or having “optimum health”. To me, this notion not only overlooks the appropriate intervention of professionals such as GPs but it deprecates people’s own commonsense. Is this harmless?
46 responses so far ↓
Shinga // January 1, 1970 at 12:00 am
Yes, please - communication details as per About.
Oddly enough, I suppose that if people were to ‘top-off’ their qualifications to obtain the BSc, then they might be sufficiently qualified to work in the community but I would have thought that this would require them to do some clinical registration work as Catherine Collins describes in the above post. Strictly speaking, I suppose the author of the page might have been indicating that it is possible to use this qualification to progress and obtain other qualifications/experience that would permit this.
Le Canard Noir // May 30, 2007 at 6:03 pm
medocs, like dietitians, tend to want to cure rather than prevent
I love that phrase, typical of quackspeak. So many canards in so few words. let me count the ways…
1)”Curing is bad” The moral undertones that it is your own fault if you are ill.
2)”Doctors don’t prevent” - like anti-smoking and drinking(it was docs that proved the link between cancer an smoking), malaria prevention, sanitised operatations, condoms, excercise and eating advice and of course (in hushed tones) vaccination. Saved more lives than anything.
3)”Prevention is sufficient” eat your ‘optimum’ diet and have 100% health as the nutriquacks would have it, like diet is the only factor in disease. Have they never heard of germs and viruses, genetic problems, accidents and trauma, aging diseases, mental health. Yes, nutritionists, I am sure, would have us believing that such things just require mega-doses of vitamins. Rot. Dangerous Rot.
4) “Docs and Dieticians and somehow motivated only to ‘cure’.” ‘Big Pharma’ has got them!!! Push those pills.
5) “Nutritionists don’t push pills”. One has to hold some severe doublethink to believe this.
Shinga // May 30, 2007 at 7:02 pm
LCN - do you need to go and swim with some dolphins?
Perhaps we would have a fuller understanding of such matters if Patrick Holford were to offer to donate a copy of ION’s Home Study Course. I am thrilled by this claim: “As you work through the Home Study we believe you will learn more than you ever thought possible and by the time you have completed the course, will know enough to keep you your family and friends in the best possible health” [mistakes are as in the text].
Regards - Shinga
Ciaran // May 31, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Have you three loosers really nothing better to do. With all the scams being pulled by pharmaceutical companies every day that are really costing lives and health and you waste you time spitting out ridiculous arguments. Who thinks curing is bad? Everybody thinks curing is good but most believe prevention is better than cure. Now that makes sense doesn’t it? Good.
And who uses words like rot? Except maybe a stuck up stuffy old Tory fogy. Its high time you looked around and realised that modern diseases are caused mostly by modern lifestyles. Where was heart disease and cancer 200 years ago? The medical model needs to update itself urgently. Doctors who simply use the monthly magazine sent to them by pharmaceutical companies are in danger of loosing their patients. People want good heath service. They want to be taken care of all round and not just dosed up with drugs every time there’s a problem. You probably can’t see this because your Daddy is the director of a pharmaceutical company and you’ve been too busy fox hunting haven’t you?
Shinga // May 31, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Hi Ciaran,
Always a pleasure - I hadn’t realised that you had cut and pasted an entire satirical blog piece with the Hold It Up for Ridicule item - would you mind deleting it and replacing it with a short quotation and the link? If it is your copyright, would you mind making that clear?
As for the rest - bless you, you have uncovered my eyes and when I have the time and resources I shall set off on a quest to discover my real father.
Regards - Shinga
Jon // May 31, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Right - Ciaran, I’ve deleted the comment where you post the whole Hold It Up For Ridicule piece on Goldacre. Feel free to post an excerpt if you’d like, or if you own the copyright just make this clear. Please don’t cut and paste any copyrighted material in full into the comments here, though.
Anyway, Ciaran, thanks for the helpful comments. I’ve looked through the site, though, and I really can’t see where we’ve said prevention is a bad thing. Perhaps you could point that out to me?
I never knew that doctors opposed prevention, either. Mine seems depressing keen to tell me to eat healthily, exercise, not drink too much, etc. Where are all these doctors who prescribe beer and pork pies to their patients - and how do I sign up!
Oh yeah, and if I had a fiver for every person who has e-mailed me or commented on the blog to claim we’re in the pay of big pharma, the budget for Holford Watch would have been multiplied several fold :(
Le Canard Noir // May 31, 2007 at 7:12 pm
ciaran, sorry for not replying sooner. You now how it is in the city, buy-sell, buy-sell. Anyway, before I go out and swill loads of champagne and run over some oiks in my range rover, I must say this:
We three losers are not impressed by silly ad hom attacks. We use basic science to challenge Holford’s claims. If you spot we have got something wrong then please point it out to us and we will correct it. Your speculations about our lifestyles are just plain silly and your view of the medical profession offensive.
Right. Must dash. The peacocks on the lawn are attacking the labrador puppy again.
Anonymous // June 1, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Ciaran says:
Its high time you looked around and realised that modern diseases are caused mostly by modern lifestyles. Where was heart disease and cancer 200 years ago?
er- totally correct, Ciaran. Thats because modern diet and modern lifestyles and modern medicine (based on evidence, not entrails or guru-speak) allows to all to live to a great old age - which unfortunately brings age-related problems such as, er, heart diseae and cancer…..
lucky the 18th century dandy who died beautifully in bed, mid 30’s - heart intact, pity about the plague, the pox, the dietary deficiencies blah blah blah
and just one more thing. Just to help you ‘place’ me as a working-class- bod-who-went-to-tory-grammar-school. Learn to spell. It’s not ‘Looser’(ie to slacken) - it’s ‘Loser’….. and ‘Fogie’/ ‘Fogey’(since 1780), not ‘Fogy’
Good. sorted. off to read more interesting stuff on this website…..
Jon // June 2, 2007 at 12:09 pm
anonymous- thanks for the kind words. Yes, it’s remarkable how much you can reduce cancer and heart disease diagnoses if you just ensure that people die relatively young. Of course, as a ‘cure’ for cancer this may not have many takers…
Anonymous // June 3, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I happened to scan through this commentary. Reading all the criticism of a person is an admission of guilt of having done some harmful actions against the person or the field being criticised. Nutrition works. Why don’t you spent constructive time helping others and team up with Patrick Holford in his work to educate people on nutrition and correct lifestyles. Your criticisms only show your low levels of confront and what sticks out as a sore thumb are your hidden crimes which you hope no one will find out. Well they are there. I don’t care what they are. Get busy and do something constructive which you can be proud of.
Sincerely
Allan
Shinga // June 3, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Well, bless you too, Allan. Do I take it that you are a signed up member so the Psychic Friends Network and this is where you have obtained your information about our “hidden crimes”?
What with fox-hunting and hidden crimes - you and Ciaran are really putting together an interesing lifestyle profile for us.
We are correcting Holford’s mis-interpretation of the literature and basic science in some of his promotional work for his vitamin sales. In many ways, we are helping him to disseminate a more accurate, evidence-based educational message about nutrition.
Actually, if we can dissuade healthy people from paying out remarkable sums of money for supplements with no assessment of their likely clinical benefit - then I think that we can be proud of that…
Regards - Shinga
Anonymous // June 3, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Allan again,
If you claim to correct, then what can you show for your work? Do you have a website, a book or materials that supplant the “lies” or “untruths” that we can access to?
I design supplements and used some of Patrick’s work and had good results from the formulations. So how can I believe what you say?
Show me your materials I can read and maybe I can use them to better my services.
Sincerely
Allan
Shinga // June 3, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Allan - read through this site - particularly the references to homocysteine, the bioavailability of curcumin, the ‘quality’ of the research on MSM etc. There is a reasonable body of work here - particularly for a blog that has only been up for a few weeks.
You might choose to believe what I write because I reference the technical literature and discuss it. By the by - what evidence do you have for the success of your supplement formulations? Is that published anywhere in any of the forms that you suggest?
Are you challenging my costings for Holford’s supplements v. statins - because I took those figures from his site.
Are you denying that he gave the wrong figures for the premature mortality figures to support his promotion of homocysteine testing etc.?
If you have quoted Holford on any of the above, then you can already improve your materials by taking on board our comments.
Regards - Shinga
Anonymous // June 3, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Shinga,
I just happened to come across your site and saw a lot of criticism. I didn’t honestly look closely at your materials. But what caught me is the criticism and if not backed up by corrective measures tells me something odd is going on.
I now know your site and it can be a source of information for me. What is easier is books to read. Do you have books?
I do nutritional research. I cured my asthma from studying and applying nutriton. I am not for mega doses of supplements, but I do recommend mega doses to people when they start their healing and then adjust their diets to eat the correct foods to prevent the illnesses and diseases from coming back. They then reduce the doses of supplements as the foods will be supplying them their nutrients. Depending on their lifestyles, they might need supplements that add to what their foods do not supply adequately.
Let me get back to the reason I got on your site. I am researching information on the safety or dangers of aspartame. So if you know any information that can be trusted, let me know.
On my product, I get feedback, it is prescribed by doctors and they report the results and it is working. I have not gone further. If it works, it gets recommended and it keeps selling.
Chat to you then.
Allan
UKdietitian // June 3, 2007 at 6:37 pm
well Allan, I sincerely hope that you are not one of the ION acolytes typically working in the home counties…. you know, where a pretty face, a pseudo-clinical manner and a pretty office/ salon within a healthfood shop/ beauty parlour works wonders with the affluent codgers willing to part with lots of dosh for an hour of ‘holistic nutrition’ and an empathic manner.
The sort of ‘nutritionist’ who finds it essential to have a ‘pretty’ website with lots of faux scienciness and pictures of green things to emphasise the ‘naturalness’ of your practice - perhaps even promoting other ’soft sciencey”professionals such as chiropracter (pseudo physio), applied kinesiologist (pseudo allergy specialist) etc etc
Perhaps I denigrate you incorrectly. But it appears you promote your ‘holistic but nutrition-lite’ approach to dealing with people with health issues serious enough for you to share ‘GP knowledge’ with.
If you do, then your GPs are in breach of their PCT contracts that insist that a secondary referral is to a ‘qualified’ individual, which in Dept of Health terms means a Registered Dietitian, not an ION ‘nutritionist’.
Its also worrying that you state you help ‘formulate supplements’ - at megadose levels for beginners, that you ‘do’ nutrition research and you are ‘researching’ that 10 year old, done and dusted alt.nutrition concerns about the ’safety’ of aspartame.
This does not fill me with confidence in the quality of your knowledge. But thats not your fault if you have to rely on Holford books from Holford institutes and Holford training programmes to educate you.
There are sound nutrition manuals out there but because Holford has nothing to do with them you will not be aware of their existence. I think you would reconsider your practice substantially should you ever review non-Holfordesque opinions on nutrition, but I remain concerned about the level of nutrition information you impart to your clients.
But well done in using this site as a potential resource. I find it useful as well.
Anonymous // June 3, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Thanks.
I am not part of any nutrition or diet related organisation.
Have taken note of your site and will read through as needed.
Regards
Allan
Shinga // June 3, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Allan - what is odd about promoting a more accurate, evidence-based view of nutrition, or whether or not a recommended device will actually reduce or increase EMR etc.?
If you are selling a test and supplement programme by frightening people about their likelihood of premature mortality then I think that it does behove you to state the correct figures and not quadruple them - we may differ on this point.
You say that you didn’t look at the materials - is it possible that you criticised first, checked your facts later? Likewise, for the accusation of “hidden crimes”.
Hmm - Holford is not strong on the message of “you can get all the nutrients that you need from food”. In fact, you can see that he recommends a basic selection of supplements that you should “take every day” for a current special offer of £34.80 per month.
As for the aspartame, apart from the odd turnaround from “So how can I believe what you say?” to asking me to cite research/sources on aspartame for your benefit - I shall decline on the grounds that we will likely differ on what we believe to be information that can be trusted.
What product/s have you formulated and can I read about it somewhere?
Regards - Shinga
Jon // June 4, 2007 at 10:50 am
Allan- could you please clarify. You say that “I am not part of any nutrition or diet related organisation.” However, I get the impression that you also have patients referred to you by doctors and ‘prescribed’ these pills - doesn’t that make you part of a nutrition-related organisation? Or, if not, how do you describe your work?
What evidence do you have for megadoses of vitamins ‘working’? No-ones arguing that people prescribed megadoses will often get better. However, aside from the placebo effect, many illnesses would heal without any intervention (e.g. colds will get better with a megadose of vitamin C; they will get better without this, too, though…) That’s why randomised placebo-controlled trials are important.
Persiflage // June 5, 2007 at 10:50 am
“At 03 June 2007 17:12 , Anonymous said…
I happened to scan through this commentary. Reading all the criticism of a person is an admission of guilt of having done some harmful actions against the person or the field being criticised. [...snip...] Your criticisms only show your low levels of confront and what sticks out as a sore thumb [...]“
And jon said (much later): “…doesn’t that make you part of a nutrition-related organisation?”
Guys, read the end of the first paragraph I quoted. I can tell you exactly what nutrition-related organisation he belongs to, as that “low level of confront” statement is immediately recognisable as a very specific brand of drivel: he’s a Scientologist. I’d imagine it’s the Narconon programme he’s associated with, with all the vitamin mega-dose buffoonery that implies.
His weird statement about reading criticism of someone being tantamount to admission of harmful action is straight out of HCO (Hubbard Communications Office) bulletins explaining to the faithful why reading adverse material on LHR is wrong, now incorporated into their core teachings.
Looks like Holfordism and $cientology are indeed excellent bedfellows, although I doubt Mr. H would want to flaunt that relationship to the general public just yet!
Le Canard Noir // June 5, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Persiflage - you are my new best friend. What a marvelous spot re the scientology language. And thanks for the support on the quackometer too.
Persiflage // June 5, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Well thanks for that, I’m genuinely honoured. Not to hijack the comments thread and turn this into some sort of love-in, but I really admire the quackometer and this blog.
As for the Scientology language, I’ve learned to spot it! It isn’t the first time I’ve noticed Scientologists joining these discussions, but in keeping with the ethos of science-critique forums I haven’t brought it up as it hasn’t been directly relevant.
Today it seemed to be, so I did.
Your work is greatly appreciated Monsieur le canard, you and all the others trying to maintain these calm islands of sanity in the never-ending storm of woo!
Claire // June 6, 2007 at 9:35 am
Some unexpected findings in a newly reported study of folic acid supplementation in colorectal cancer -
“New research indicates that folic acid supplementation does not decrease the risk of benign colorectal tumors, but may possibly increase the risk for some types of colorectal tumors, according to a study in the June 6 issue of JAMA. Some previous studies have suggested that folate supplementation may help to prevent colorectal tumors…”
The news release reporting this is at http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/530491
Shinga // June 7, 2007 at 8:47 am
Thanks, Claire. It is fascinating to see that even relatively small amounts of some supplements (and this trial used a much smaller amount than the mega-doses that some people advocate) are being linked to adverse outcomes. The mechanisms involved are intriguing.
Regards - Shinga
Anonymous // June 16, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Hi just a quick note to any potential dietitians, food scientists, nutritonists…if you havent got the relevant science background to enter a science based degree course, you can do an access to science course, cost around 100 pounds. Check out your local community college. I studied at TVU Reading, an enjoyable year and am now studying Nutriton at uni. And a fellow student on the same course is going to Surrey to study dietetics. Im not sure how much the optimum nutrition people are charging for the science access? (Also most unis offer a foundation year of science)
Patrick Holford, Professor Andre Tylee and the Endorsements That Can Not Die « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science // August 29, 2007 at 3:30 pm
[...] given to everyone to approach the polymath standards of Patrick Holford whose expertise ranges from clinical nutrition and clinical psychology to the dangers of WiFi, correct dental hygiene, how to prevent cancer and [...]
Lee Thacker // September 2, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Mrs Jones was leaving her scientologist church. The pastor asked her how her husband was getting on. “Ohh,” she said, “he is ill.” “No,” corrected the pastor, “he is under the illusion that he is ill.” A few months later the pastor again asked how her husband was getting on: “He is under the illusion that he is dead.”
Love reading this website. You may have already heard the above joke before, but it is an amusing illustration of what can happen when you trust “alternative” remedies too much.
Best wishes,
Lee
LeeT // September 16, 2007 at 6:24 pm
“I have not yet been able to discover how many ION graduates top-up their diploma with a BSc, nor the degree class that they commonly obtain.”
The ION gives a list of practitioners across the country. Many of them, predictably enough, have their own website. I spent a little bit of time quickly looking through several dozen of them. The answer to your question would at first sight be, “none of them.”
I am very keen to avoid a libel writ from the ION arriving on my door mat so I should point that: (1) perhaps several have or are studying for a BSc in Nutrition, but did not see fit to mention it (2) possibly I did not spend enough time looking through the websites and several do indeed have a BSc in nutrition (3) it could well be that those without websites/those whose websites I did not look at are studying for the qualification.
Several have batchelors degrees such as biochemistry which combined with their ION diploma might entitle them to membership of The Nutrition Society. (Could some one from the NS clarify?) However, please see points one to three in the previous paragraph!
Would the ION be willing to confirm how many of its diplomates (is that the right word?) have or are studying for the aforementioned qualification? CPD is the buzz phrase amongst professionals today so what are they doing to encourage them to do so?
After all that research I think I deserve a handful of mixed nuts - unsalted of course ….
‘Bye for now,
Lee
Shinga // September 17, 2007 at 11:03 am
Kudos for that level of research, Lee: that is dedication.
I have emailed the course organiser some time ago; I haven’t had a response so I must follow-up. I suppose that one of the difficulties might be is that there is no obvious financial or other advantage to slogging through another year’s study if the diploma is accepted as enough for some people to start private practice and they have no interest in working in the sort of areas that might mandate a degree qualification.
It was probably just as well for me that Sainsbury’s discontinued a particular mixed nut range with lemon and thyme…
LeeT // September 18, 2007 at 12:49 am
How has the ION diploma changed now it is validated by the University of Bedfordshire?
It seems a bit unfair they get a diploma and foundation degree at the same time - that is the case isn’t it? You would think they would have to do a bit of extra work to get the foundation degree.
Other professional organisations take a different view. See, for example, The Institute of Credit Management’s website http://www.icm.org.uk/home.asp?edit_id=8&nav=8&branch=0 Their students study part-time for three years and have the option to go and do a foundation degree followed by an honours degree. The ICM’s diploma is validated by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
I only mention the ICM’s education scheme because I am familiar with it. It would be interesting to hear other people’s experience of professional qualifications.
Shinga // September 19, 2007 at 10:01 am
Actually, it hadn’t occurred to me that the Diploma now came with a side-order of Foundation degree :oops:
The ICM does seem to have an understandable framework for their qualifications which is a good role model.
LeeT // September 19, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Shinga
Yes, that would certainly appear to be the case - http://www.ion.ac.uk/education.htm
What I find a bit odd is that several Nutrition Therapists mention having a Dip ION and FdSc on their websites which leads to the impression they have studied for two separate qualifications. Courtesy (and cowardice!) prevents me posting the details on a public forum like this, but I could email them to you if you want to see them.
Also of interest may be The University of Bedfordshire’s information on the course -http://www.beds.ac.uk/courses/bysubject/biobiosci/fd-nutthe-iop
One of the possible career options is working in a GP’surgery!? How did they get that impression?
Lee
James // September 19, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Not to hijack the comments thread and turn this into some sort of love-in, but LeeT rocks.
LeeT // September 19, 2007 at 7:10 pm
That’s jolly kind of you, James.
However, I just have to confess to being some one who bought “Optimum Nutrition for the Mind” and “The Optimum Nutrition Bible”. I also took supplements including one specially formulated by Patrick Holford to aid concentration and memory. It did not do much good.
Presumably, in view of the latest ASA adjudication he and Higher Nature (www.highernature.co.uk) will be revising the website. Not that they have to given the ASA’s remit does not cover websites. Still, I have got a magazine. Alternatively, the MHRA may be interested given the unsubstantiated medicinal cliams such as “aids memory and concentration”….
The above notwithstanding, I have met a number of good people in nutritoinal therapy. So going right back to the original question (!) “Is Holfordism harmless?” - probably most of the time.
Shinga // September 20, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Indeed, James. Take the internet
loveapprobation where you can get it, LeeT.It seems that one of my earlier comments failed to post, I would imagine that people who take the top-up degree are entitled to go and acquire clinical experience in a recognised venue and thence on to a NHS surgery?
If the 2003 adjudication that LeeT located didn’t prompt them to word the websites more appropriately, then I doubt that this 2007 one will, sadly.
Holfordism may be comparatively harmless in the West, with a mostly well-nourished and comparatively disease-free population: I would argue that that doesn’t obtain in countries such as South Africa where he is gaining more influence.
Actually, I may turn this into another post.
LeeT // September 21, 2007 at 12:05 am
“I would imagine that people who take the top-up degree are entitled to go and acquire clinical experience in a recognised venue and thence on to a NHS surgery”
You would hope so since prospectuses for, for example, law degrees usally point out their course will enable students to go on and train as lawyers. Presumably some one at Bedford or the ION has checked or is checking? It would be quite tragic if some one got to the end of the degree disillusioned with the ION, but found the only career option open to them was as a BANT nutritional therapist.
It would certainly be extremely interesting to hear about nutritonal therapy in South Africa.
Shinga // September 21, 2007 at 12:19 am
Well, Holford is the man to tell you about nutritional therapy in South Africa as he has been appointed as Patron of the SA equivalent of BANT…
Anjelica // October 18, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Hello all. I stumbled across this site quite by accident and hope you won’t mind me sticking my oar in!
I am a former NHS senior sister (London teaching hospitals) and also have a BSc Hons and an MSc. I am only telling you this in the hope that you won’t classify me as a new-age pseudoscientist type because I am also a graduate of ION.
Firstly, in defence of ION, the training really was quite rigorous (I have no idea what it is like now) and whilst there was the odd lecturer who either did not reference research properly or who seemed to ‘misinterpret’ research findings, on the whole most of the tutors were quite careful to present information that had its basis in research and that was referenced properly so one could check it oneself, including the all important methodology of course. The reason I think this important is because there seems to have been a lamentable trend over the past decade for professional/scientific journals to accept and publish research which, in terms of methodology, probably wouldn’t have made the grade in times past (in my humble opinion), and in the opinion of many of my medical colleagues and friends.
Anyway, that aside, I think one of the major problems with ION, and places like it, largely lies with there approach to admissions. I will give an example. I was an early applicant for the year I enrolled and I applied as a person with 12 yrs experience as a registered general nurse, 3 yrs experience as a senior sister, and with a BSc and MSc in health related subjects. They still demanded that I did the ‘quicky’ science foundation course. I felt suspicious at the time that this was all about money since they did not know how many applicants they would ultimately receive that year and they wanted as much money as early in the year as possible. However, I did it anyway. As it turned out I quite enjoyed refreshing my memory re chemistry and biochemistry but really could have done without the anatomy and physiology etc. The tutor was also very able and was an A level science tutor at a public school if I remember correctly. Incidentally, quite a few people didn’t make it through this stage. After I’d started on the three yr course, I came across people who’d applied after me, who had no background whatsoever in health, science or anything even remotely related, but who were accepted and not required to do any science foundation courses – presumably because it was too late and there were still vacancies for the DipION for that yrs intake.
Generally the students could be divided into those with a background in health (including a few GP’s, nurses like myself etc), people with science degrees, and people who had no background in health or science. There was quite a high failure and drop out rate among those without a background in health or science because it really was quite a difficult course. Also, I used to be concerned about students checking research for themselves if they had no prior experience of doing so, rather than just taking the word of the lecturer and then blindly referencing the same source themselves ad infinitum.
Anyway, the reason I say all this is because if ION and organisations like them are allowed to produce practitioners who are actually let loose on the public, I think what they really have to get right is who they accept on to the course in the first case. There are always ethical problems related to perverse incentives and moral hazard when it comes to private institutions of this type (they certainly exist in the private sector in health care too - in my experience), and this is where the gvmnt has been remiss with regards regulation. If the gvmnt are going to allow institutions like ION to offer the kind of training that produces practitioners who are going to work in a clinical setting and take money from people, they at least ought to tighten up admissions policies so that those trained have some prior background/qualification in health care/science. This might help weed out those who, quite frankly, are keen to make a quick buck from desperate people or those that are unquestioning/unconcerned about research findings or how they are presented and utilised.
In terms of Holford himself, he always referenced the research he referred to in lectures, so, although I didn’t always agree with his interpretation of the findings, at least I could check it for myself and refer to it in the way I understood it. His biggest fault imo is that he comes across as some kind of marketing guru and has his fingers in too many-money making pies for my liking. I don’t think its any accident that the most successful of ION’s graduates were people who previously worked in marketing either.
Having said that, when I worked as a research nurse I resigned in disgust because some dr’s seriously meddled with the research in order to get the desired result for the sponsor. And I do mean seriously meddled - one example being not reporting people who had withdrawn from the study because the medication/placebo made them feel ill. Instead the drs would continue to collect that subjects allocation of study drug/placebo and report on them as if that subject was still in the trial. I refer to this because one poster mentioned the fact that we can’t entirely trust medical research when it is so closely associated with drug companies etc and in my experience this is definitely true.
Considering this type of thing goes on in medical research (and I have many more examples), I thought I ought to provide a little balance in terms of the fact that there is corruption and greed associated with not only medical research but also in private medicine where drs conduct invasive tests (that are not without mortality risk/serious side effects) when the patient clearly doesn’t need them, and of course in institutions that churn out practitioners, some of whom really aren’t adequate to the task but don’t even know it, and worst still take people’s money.
So, whilst I understand and admire your desire to discuss the failings of an unregulated industry, and to expose pseudoscience where it exists, I do wish you wouldn’t tar all ION graduates/nutritionists with the same brush as many of us have a good grounding in health care and/or science to the degree necessary to serve our clients safely and well. So, in the interest of balance why not also address the failings / corruption / manipulation associated with medical research? Private health care? And of course there is always homeopathy…..
jonhw // October 18, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Hi Angelica, thanks for the very detailed reply :) Thanks for telling us about your experience of the ION, and of their ‘quicky’ course - very interesting to know. If you’d like to share any more details on your experience and education there, do let us know.
Re. Holford referencing his work - I can’t say what his lectures were like in the past, but reading his work now there are problems with referencing. E.g. he often includes references, but uses references that are not adequate to back up what he is saying - one example here, but we could go on…
While I wouldn’t want to ‘tar’ all DipIONs with the same brush, I am cautious about whether a 3yr part-time course can be adequate preparation for clinical practice (but some - as in your case - do have relevant pre- or post-DipION education).
re. corruption in medical research, flaws in homeopathy, etc - I’d point out that we all do things other than write this blog, and that some of us have addressed these issues elsewhere. In terms of poor quality journal articles - I’ve just posted about some of the problems with research presented as evidence for the Dore treatment. That said, though, there’s a limit to how much we can do - and I think that writing about Holford is one legitimate use of our energies.
Claire // October 18, 2007 at 8:53 pm
@jonhw
perhaps one way of defending yourselves against charges of unfairly concentrating on Mr Holford (though the blog’s name is a teeny, weeny clue to your concerns…) would be to have a kind of miniblog sidebar thing. You could, in that way, alert readers to things like the ghostwriting article in the current issue of PLOS medicine or articles on problems in conventional medicine, CAM etc. Of course, I suggest this without the slightest idea of how much work something like this would entail!
jonhw // October 18, 2007 at 10:26 pm
thanks - I was thinking of something like that. Just need to work out details like how…and how much work it would take ;)
Nutritionists , London // January 4, 2008 at 2:40 am
That’s very nice of Catherine Collins to clear that up.
I thought that was the whole point of setting up the NTC to get some regulation of the Nutrition therapy industry.
superburgermuncher // January 4, 2008 at 6:58 pm
I totally agree with angelica.
There were many people on the ion course who were not capable.
Although you love to think as ion as a part time course, i probably put about 40 hours a week into it, which certainly isnt part time.
I think that is why lots of people drop out and are not capable at the end, because they are not 100% dedicated and do not put the work in.
I think one mistake you are making is that ion students just follow holfords research. This is not the case at all. I looked at every study before citing it and never took the word of a lecturer. Holford only gives two lectures in the three years i was there.
What ever the down falls of ion, surely it is obvious that this has to be the way forward when concerning health care.
I read here that you are concerened with supplements. Would that be multivits and mins or supplements in general?
The most common problem i deal with would be blood sugar problems. I have helped countless patients reverse type 2 diabetes (usually within 1 month), doctors and dieticians seem to struggle with this. What are your thoughts on this?
LeeT // January 4, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Tony
Unfortunately, the NTC do not seem to want to do much regulating at the current time:
http://www.nutritionaltherapycouncil.org.uk/complaint.htm
Hopefully, 2008 will see more news as to how our £900,000 has been spent
http://www.bant.org.uk/bant/pdf/AN_UPDATE_FROM_NTC_%20Dec_2005.doc
Superburgermuncher
It is interesting that several Dip IONs have come on here to disassociate themselves from Patrick Holford. Certainly, no sensible person would disagree with the idea of optimum nutrition. Although, the Dip ION may be hard work it is still only a Foundation Degree. Would you agree it would be a good idea if all nutrition therapists did the full honours degree? Perhaps the ION could work more closely with dietitians?
dvnutrix // January 4, 2008 at 11:31 pm
SBM - as a matter of interest, do you advise your clients that IgG blood tests are of any relevance in the diagnosis of food intolerance? If you do, which papers do you rely upon for your evidence and why would you prefer that interpretation over that of the evidence given here, or by Dr Glenis Scadding to the House of Lords, or the summary of evidence produced by the ASA in finding that there was no evidence to support the use of IgG tests in such a way.
I am curious because so many ION graduates offer IgG testing etc. for the diagnosis of food intolerance. Similarly, although there is no indication that they have any relevance outside very specific heavy metal exposures, a number of ION Diplomates offer hair mineral testing and I see that it is part of the curriculum along with other similar oddities.
A propos your suggestion about ION being the way forward, I’ve never been one for the faute de mieux argument. I think that there are substantially better methods that might be integrated into the general education system. Similarly, I will be interested in the assessment of the Superhealth GP practices that involve doctors rooms, gyms, pools, kitchens, teaching facilities etc.
As for the diabetes, hmm. It is not my experience so much that doctors and dietitians have any difficulty informing people about the benefits of the Portfolio or Mediterranean Diet but they do have difficulty in persuading people to follow it. Might I suggest that the people who have difficulty following these tremendously useful dietary recommendations are not the ones who pay to see a nutritionist, privately?
I, too, know a considerable number of people with Type II Diabetes who do control it by following their doctor’s dietary recommendations and take no medication at all. I could estimate these numbers, however, so they are a far cry from your countless, although, I would have thought you kept client records that would enable you to make such an estimate.
Supplements have a place for the people who need them. One of my niggling concerns is that unless people obtain the supplements from a reputable source (e.g., the sort of supplements used by the NHS and possibly supplied on an FP10) then it is only too feasible for people not to be entirely sure what they are taking (accurate dosages or possible contaminants - ConsumerLab in the US has written up some eye-opening findings in this area).
Beyond that, I do have difficulty with the notion that supplements can be promoted as if their efficacy for a general population is clinically proven. E.g., for all the posturing about cinnamon, the studies that have been done are almost all on people with established blood sugar derangements. You will be aware of the recent paper that showed a suprising number of worse health outcomes for people who take (typically) a multivitamin and mineral supplement. The reasons as to why this might be subsequently confirmed or not are fascinating.
superburgermuncher // January 5, 2008 at 9:24 am
Blimey, you have seemed to have written a blog without sounding arrogant. Well done.
It is however my opinion that doctors do not hand out good advice when concerning diabetes.
Interseting about multivits and mins. This is one supplement i do not advise very often. I have come across many examples where they make people feel worse. The symptoms i have recorded seem to be dizziness, fuzzyness and muscle aches.
I dont bother with intolerance testing . It is more important in my experience that the integrety of the gut wall is improved. Gut permeabilty seems to be more of a problem.
low gastric juice secretion also seems to play a big part. Many people who i see are not breaking down proteins properly. Betaine HCL supplentation, avoiding stress and glutamine use seems to help many.
No doubt you are going to disregard my experience in clinic and tell me these supplements are of no use.
gimpy // January 5, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Superburgermuncher, you said
That is an interesting argument to make. It assumes that your personal, subjective, experience trumps objective peer-reviewed papers and DBRCT trials. That is an argument beloved by homeopaths and frequently used to justify a scientifically untenable position.
But anyway, I am curious as to how you diagnose gut permeability, low gastric juice secretion or the inadequate breakdown of proteins?
Leave a Comment