Prof Patrick Holford is somewhat sensitive to remarks about himself, his qualifications and scientific rigour. It is the more remarkable given that his own Food for the Brain (FFTB) organisation has no qualms about labelling children as “stupid”. The press release for the recently released FFTB survey trumpeted (reproduced as is, errors are theirs):
BRITAIN’S BIGGEST EVER SURVEY OF OVER 10,000 CHILDREN REVEALS FOODS THAT MAKE CHILDRENSMART … OR STUPID
Outstanding sensitivity; thank goodness that they decided to perform a bodyswerve and avoid sensationalising their findings or adversely labelling some of the participants.
At some point, we may find the time to address this report that is:
- based on self-selected participants
- based on a questionnaire that (mostly) parents filled out about their children’s diet
- based (mostly) on parental reports of behaviour and school performance (with SAT scores for around 30% of the children)
- included respondents from a school that was involved in an FFTB project and other special measures (including reading schemes and other measures that were already improving SATS performance).
On a usability testing note, the questionnaire included unclearly worded questions and did not provide explanatory footnotes. E.g., whether I cook from scratch or cook for the freezer, it is not unusual for my preparations to start with frying an onion. You will understand that this is not deep-frying and I am not referring to cooking battered onion rings, tempura or pakora in recycled fat. Nonetheless, Q. 60 asks how many times a child “Eat(s) fried food, takeaway food or foods cooked in heated fat?” Is sweating down onions or other vegetables in olive oil prior to making a soup, casserole, dhal or pasta sauce really equivalent to (say) a deep-fried, battered fish or chips? Does a stir-fry or frittata count or not? If the way in which somebody cooked the food, or its quantity, is relevant, then the question needs to be expressed differently and with appropriate nuance.
It might be interesting to read the report and find out if there were any interesting correlations between the answers to (say) the questions about drug abuse or type of school (independent prep; state with/out selection etc.) and SAT scores or reports on behaviour. I have no idea what FFTB did with the information about marital status, household income, primary occupation of the breadwinner etc. but consideration of that can wait. After all, we have the more pressing issue of learning which foods “make children smart…or stupid”.
Except that we don’t. We have the results of a survey that shows some correlations but most people are familiar with the notion that correlation does not indicate causation. In the press release, we don’t have a definition of “stupid” so it is difficult to know how the report can definitively tell us about children who were made stupid by particular foods. Although, it may not be the food so much as the preparation of that food (e.g., deep-frying?). It is a little puzzling that the table is supposed to be a summary of results that:
shows the difference in overall health, behaviour and academic performance SAT scores between high and low consumers of different food groups.
As presented, the table doesn’t seem to present any explicit information about high and low consumers of different food groups. There do seem to be some interesting gaps or quirky results. E.g., fruit seems to be neutrally associated with SAT scores; dairy consumption (unspecified) seems to co-occur with good health, have no discernible links to behaviour or performance at school yet have a deleterious association with SAT scores.
Rather more disturbingly, the analysis of the results lead Holford to comment:
Children who eat good fats, from raw nuts, seeds and oily fish, double their chances of high academic performance. Children who eat damaged fats, in fried food and takeaways, are twice as badly behaved, as well as performing badly at school. In a sense these fats make your brain thicker, less responsive, and they appear to make children thicker too…
Failures in government initiatives to improve academic performance may be because we’re not putting money where our mouth is. This survey provides strong evidence that an optimal diet, with more vegetables, oily fish, nuts, seeds, fruit and wholefoods makes a big difference.
“Thicker”? Really? When was the last time you heard that expression used? Again, exquisite sensibility when discussing children and their academic performance. The more so when there is no information about what is meant by “stupid” or “thicker”. Do these terms relate to an objective measurement such as IQ or SAT scores? How was the bad behaviour quantified, so that we know how the assessment “twice as badly behaved” could be made?
I don’t know anybody who needs to be convinced of the value of a good, healthy way of eating for children. However, I don’t know of any evidence that indicates that the benefits of a special diet and supplements outweighs the value of small class sizes, good school facilities etc. for the general population of children.
I do wonder if Holford has any misgivings about appearing to so readily discount the advantages of his own education at Westminster School (according to a Lucy Mayhew piece). One might be interested in whether attending some schools such as Westminster rather than others (such as those in ’special measures’) might, in itself, make “a big difference” or “double [children's] chance of high acacemic performance”.
Whatever the shortcomings of the press release, I have to admit that I find it distasteful to see such use of the words “stupid” and “thicker” when describing children and their performance. It is the more extraordinary when it is associated with someone who displays exquisite sensibilities in the matter when the subject is himself.
Update Jan 12 2008: it seems that FFTB noticed Holford Watch’s objections to their insensitive and inappropriate language. Rather than refer you to an archived copy of the page, we have included a snapshot of the page at that time where you can read some of the text that we mention.
Update: Feb 6 2008. Holford Watch has carried out a multi-part analysis of the Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007. The quality of the report is even more lamentable than we had anticipated.
Further Reading
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: The Promotion
Holford Watch looks at the literature review:
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 1
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 2
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 3
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 4
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 5
Holford Watch appeals for help to Professor Holford and two members of the Scientific Advisory Board who approved this report and then looks at the data and analyses:
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 7
64 responses so far ↓
coracle // September 12, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Hmm, think someone in the camp hasn’t been taking their own advice. I’ve cut and paste some of the press release headline here:
REVEALS FOODS THAT MAKE CHILDRENSMART
Childrensmart? That’s a word now?
I know, I’m childish. But when one is making press releases about intelligence, one should make sure that the headline (at the very least) is correct!
Shinga // September 12, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Indeed, Coracle.
It has been pointed out to me that the Holford CV/case for support for his professorship is riddled with spelling mistakes and grammatical solecisms. I, likewise, thought that it might be gratuitously unkind to comment on such slips even though one might expect better proof-reading for such an important document.
I might make a remark about age-appropriate tantrums and how to judge behaviour but I shall refrain for now.
jonhw // September 12, 2007 at 11:33 pm
The Brain Bio Centre page on dyslexia and dyspraxia contains this gem:
“A number of studies have proved the connection between high lead levels and low intelligence and in addition Copper is another toxic element that has been reported to be high in dyslexic children.”
A page on how to treat dyslexia - which rather implies that dyslexic people are of low(er) intelligence - and they rather mangle the sentence structure.
Remind me, how do you spell ‘irony’ ;)
Shinga // September 13, 2007 at 7:36 am
Well, I would suggest an alternative spelling for irony, Jon, but perhaps I need to consult the vade mecum that Holford kindly provided to govern my interwebs use before I engage in any such activity.
Claire // September 13, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I see dairy foods get ‘highly significant negative’ when it comes to SATs scores - which can influence a child’s chances of admission to secondary schools. Cue the pushy parents banning dairy from children’s diets. I wonder how my daughter managed to achieve all level 5s in her Year 6 SATs, despite her intake of dairy.? Worrying, considering a recent study on spinal BMC in young teenage girls who restricted dairy foods, in some cases due to perceived intolerance - http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/562475 . This Medscape report requires registration.
Shinga // September 13, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Yes, Claire. Unfortunately, some people might be tempted to ban dairy at a time when young people are in need of plenty of calcium for so many reasons.
I loathe the Sesame Street classification of this issue as ‘good’ and ‘bad’ foods.
Some of the writing in the post was quite contorted as I was trying to emphasise that this is a data dredge and the analysis can only show correlation rather than causation. Maybe the report proposes putative mechanisms of action as to why ‘bad’ fats make children “thicker” or why dairy has a +ve association with health but not SATS but I’m yet to be convinced on this point.
James // September 18, 2007 at 4:02 pm
I have just viewed 2 clips of Holford on the GMTV website (you can browse and find them easily) Its just blatent advertising…You can see his bank balance increasing KERCHING…! Im all for healthier food in schools, and for children getting the most out of their schooling….but this whole supplement holford thing in schools is just wrong. Are the parents of the children in chineham going to feel obligated to buy supplements for their children? Do they really believe that their children will become smarter? It beggers belief. Yes you can improve your results in tests with practice and good teaching…but your intelligence..you get that in your genes its inate..and as long as you get the right start as an infant thats it. End of.
How can the food for the brain be a charity? when its website promotes supplements and holfords books? Hes just getting more advertising without paying tax…
James // September 18, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Im sorry I have to leave another message! I have just read your disclaimer re: dont expect to get medical advice from a Blogg..yes quite right too… why does Holford on GMTV give out loads of advice??? He actually says that he needs to get “Autistics” when their young as when their in their 20 s he cant help them as much….hes really patronising.
Sorry Holford maybe Im thick and my kids are thick….maybe I dont care…Also I really love cheese….yum…and my kids hate fish.
Shinga // September 19, 2007 at 9:43 am
James, it does seem as if Holford has a smart and capable business team to support his developing network of books, supplements, workshops, TV appearances etc.
I really don’t know whether there is any provision for continuing to fund supplements for the children in the studies now that the ‘experimental’ period is over. Depending on your children and their age, providing supplements for all of them might be quite costly, especially when you might just spend that money on foodstuffs.
Patrick Holford and the ASA: Advertising Must Be Legal, Decent, Honest and Truthful « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science // September 19, 2007 at 3:12 pm
[...] (Committee of Advertising Practice) Code was disseminated prior to his appointment. However, given Holford’s recent characterisation of some children as ’stupid’ or ‘thicker&#… it is particularly surprising to learn that this is not the first ASA adjudication against Holford [...]
Dunc // October 6, 2007 at 9:37 am
Just a comment on the dairy thing. Im not sure of the occupation of Shinga, but do you really not see the cons of consuming dairy products. There are much healthier ways to consume calcium. We are the only adult species to eat dairy
Dunc // October 6, 2007 at 9:44 am
There are low levels of magnesium, it is so mucus forming. Lots of studies show that it increases risk of diabetes. There are problems with allergies and eczma etc.
Have you all really fallen for the calcium arguement, oh no!!
jonhw // October 6, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Dunc, milk isn’t mucus-forming (at least, not in the sense in which people usually mean). Instead:
We’re already discussed this here. Of course some people need to avoid dairy - due to allergy, intolerance etc. - but that doesn’t mean that everyone should. And yes, dairy can be a valuable source of calcium - and tasty :)
dunc // October 6, 2007 at 1:37 pm
So much better ways to get calcium! What about the cal/mag ratio which is so important. What about the high levels of antibiotics and hormones in milk. Dairy is just not a food group that promotes health. The dairy industry is extremely powerful.
Lets look at the fact that no other species on the planet consume milk into adulthood. This has to tell you something.
jonhw // October 6, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Dunc- that’s good, so you agree now that milk isn’t mucus-forming in healthy subjects?
Lets look at the fact that no other species on the planet consume milk into adulthood. This has to tell you something.
Absolutely - we’re the only species on that planet that has developed a system for farming dairy animals.
By the way, we’re also the only species on the planet to take vitamin supplement pills. Does this tell you something? ;)
LeeT // October 7, 2007 at 10:04 am
Most cats seem to be partial to cheese. Presumably some other creatures are when given the opportunity to sample it.
dunc // October 8, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Supplements can have tremendous impact on health, in a world that puts us under a huge amount of stress and gives us food with dramatically declined micronutreints.
jonhw // October 8, 2007 at 1:49 pm
dunc, we evolved while consuming our micronutrients in whole foods - rather than in pill form. It appears that the different constituents of foods such as fruit and veg work together synergistically in our bodies: e.g. while a diet rich in beta carotene is a good thing, supplementing it may actually increase mortality.
dunc // October 8, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Yes im fully aware of that, i am afood man through and through, but that cannot take awy the fact that supplements have there place. I have been studying for many years. Antioxiadnts need to be taken in synergy with others if supplemented. Hey i was reading on another page concerning holfords book, nutrition for the mind. It was claiming he says that we should cut out all sugars. This is incorrect, what he is saying is cut out fast releasing sugars. It is so important to get sugar from long chain slow releasing sugars, to prevent glucose imbalance. What do you think. It seems like you lot are criticising his works unjustly sometimes. I think holford is definatly a business man, but hes certainly pretty clued up as well.
are you aware of Robert o young and his works, what do you think.
dunc // October 8, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Lee T That is a very poor arguement, but out unless youve got it goin on buddy!
dunc // October 8, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Jonw, what do you think of udo erasmus. Do you think he is worth criticising
ben // October 8, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Lee t
Cats are naturally a predatory species but have been forced into a scavenger lifestyle due to domestisity. Therefore they will be partial to anything they can get their hands on.
Seeing as we are adressing natural nutritional therapy it seems folly to include a diet which is completely abstract, naturaly speaking to the speices you have mentioned. Stick to the point, you are not that clever.
ben // October 8, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Try listening to this dunc chap, he seems to know what hes talking about
LeeT // October 8, 2007 at 10:24 pm
I make no claims to cleverness, but seeing as it was claimed no other species ate dairy products I thought I would post a comment. Like most people on the blog I’ll listen to anyone and anything.
You might be interested in the opinions of three groups of people much cleverer than me:
(1) The British Medical Associations in its Family Doctor publication “Food and Nutrition” does not see any reason for healthy people to take supplements
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Food-Nutrition-Understanding-Joan-Webster-Gandy/dp/1898205760/ref=sr_1_7/203-8906053-1879100?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191876732&sr=8-7
(2) The Food Standards Agency:
http://www.eatwell.gov.uk/asksam/healthydiet/vitandminq/#A221080
(3) British Dieticians Fact Sheet “Nutritional Nirvana – a Pill for Every Ill”?: http://www.bda.uk.com/Downloads/November04foodfacts.pdf
jonhw // October 8, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Ben- I presume Lee was talking about domestic cats (if he has a wildcat wondering around his house, I suspect that nutrition is the least of his concerns). These are ‘artificial’ creations anyway - bred by humans for certain characteristics that we view/ed as desirable. When cats were being bred and domesticated, wouldn’t the move towards a scavenger diet have been part of this process?
Dunc- please be polite to other commenters: don’t tell people to ‘but out’.
Hey i was reading on another page concerning holfords book, nutrition for the mind. It was claiming he says that we should cut out all sugars. This is incorrect, what he is saying is cut out fast releasing sugars. It is so important to get sugar from long chain slow releasing sugars, to prevent glucose imbalance.
Holford’s New Optimum Nutrition for the Mind advises readers to “Avoid any form of sugar” (p. 428). At the end of Chapter 10 (titled ‘Sugar and stimulants make you stupid’) Holford advises readers to “Avoid sugar and foods containing sugar. This means anything with added glucose, sucrose and dextrose. Fructose is not so bad, but still best reduced” (p. 95). If Holford isn’t advising readers to cut out or significantly reduce all sugar consumption, then this is - at best - horribly badly written and unclear. I think it’s fair enough to criticise this.
By the way, for most of us there isn’t any need to cut out all fast-releasing sugars, just to eat them in moderation - they can be nice to eat, and the occasional piece of cake, chocolate, sweet etc. isn’t going to kill you :) For people doing very vigorous exercise, eating or drinking some fast-releasing sugar around the time of exercise may actually be useful (though evidence is a bit mixed, from what I remember).
dunc // October 9, 2007 at 9:37 am
I cannot beleive how ignorant this response is…I wont be visting this site again
dunc // October 9, 2007 at 9:38 am
Cake and chocolate.. pleeease!
LeeT // October 9, 2007 at 8:00 pm
I don’t think one could say that the average British domestic cat has been forced in to a, “scavenger lifestyle due to domestisity [sic]” Presumably they eat dairy products because they like them? Yes, I was referring to domestic cats simply because those are the ones with which I am most familiar. I would have thought they would be willing to give it a try if they were hungry.
They also seem to like licking white wine off fingers. Not sure what Patrick Holford would think of that! I wonder what kind of diet the Holford family rabbit eats?
jonhw // October 10, 2007 at 12:35 am
Cake and chocolate.. pleeease!
Is that a request? Throw in some white wine, too, and you’re talking :)
LeeT // October 10, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Sorry, I think the cat’s drunk it all
gary // October 10, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Sugar, dairy and cheap white wine. Sounds like an early grave to me!
LeeT // October 10, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Who said anything about CHEAP white wine? I was thinking more about high quality varieties from a great wine producing region such as Oxfordshire see: http://www.brightwellvineyard.com/
http://www.hendredvineyard.co.uk/
http://www.bothy-vineyard.co.uk/
(By the way unlike some people I could mention I am not on commission for my endorsements.)
Regarding the health of such a diet, “In early 2003, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a meta-analysis (…) based on 35 studies of alcohol and stroke, showing that men who took two drinks a day were 30 per cent less likely than those who never drank to have a clot-related stroke.” (Nutrition for Dummies p.105)
Regarding the small print Catherine Collins pointed out in a Guardian interview that 10% of our daily calorie intake can come from “naughty” food so bring on the cakes and chocolate! http://observer.guardian.co.uk/foodmonthly/story/0,,1502075,00.html
gary // October 11, 2007 at 9:48 am
Oh no not the gardian! LeeT, the mediacal association, come on now. No doubt there is a massive influence from pharmaceuticals.
What do you mean, naughty foods can can make up 10 % of calories. Maybe you just beleiving what you want to beleive. You will no doubt want to eat these foods because of your blood sugar imbalance. Sugar cravings are so powerful. When your blood sugar dips you will consume some simple sugars and be fooled that you enjoyed it only because you have raised your glucose again. It is all a viscous circle.
There is so much money behind sugar. Do not be fooled
jonhw // October 11, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Gary- Catherine Collins is an NHS dietitian, so not exactly a sugar industry shill. For those of us in good health, our bodies can do a relatively good job of regulating their blood sugar levels.
It seems like there’s a lot to be said for the commonsense advice of ‘all things in moderation’. I mean, you *could* cut out all foods with added sugar - but for most of us there’s no need to do so.
LeeT // October 11, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Gary
“The Guardian” has long been Britian’s major centre-left newspaper. It is part of the Guardian Media Group owned by the Scott Trust a charitable foundation. Therefore, I would say it is probably less likely to be influenced by pharmacuetical or other interests than other major British newspapers.
The quotation was from Catherine Collins a leading dietician. The advice from the experts is that a small amount of sugar-based foods does not do us too much harm. I eat very little chocolate which means I don’t need to feel guilty about the times when I do indulge.
Whilst I am sure there is money in sugar there is also money in supplements and alternative health.
gary // October 11, 2007 at 8:59 pm
not much harm, so there is some harm then?
Are we not talking about how to achieve optimum health here? This is impossible to achieve whilst consuming any processed sugar.
gary // October 11, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Dieticans are not qualified enough to comment on optimum health.
LeeT // October 11, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Gary
The Food Standards Agency and The British Dieticians Association have produced an “eat well” plate about healthy eating. (You can see on the FSA website.) That’s where the figure of 10% a day for salty/sugary foods comes from.
Eating chocolate occasionally is not going to cause you significant harm i.e it is not going to put you at increased risk of diabetes or take two years off your life.
Not sure how you would define optimum nutrition, but on a personal level my aim is to eat five portions of fruit and vegetables. When the majority of British people do that then we can start talking about the more technical aspects of nutrition.
Dieticians have do a three year BSc honours degree and a year’s post-graduate clincial training. So who do you think is qualified to comment on optimum nutrition and what qualifications do they have?
jonhw // October 11, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Are we not talking about how to achieve optimum health here? This is impossible to achieve whilst consuming any processed sugar.
Are you sure about that? E.g. it’s pretty common practice for sportsmen and women to consume some processed sugar during and/or shortly after exercise, to help with performance and recovery. Are they all doomed never to achieve optimal health?
Dieticans are not qualified enough to comment on optimum health.
None of them? Does a dietetics qualification rule one out from achieving expertise in this area (e.g. what if a dietitian also achieves a PhD?)
And what is an appropriate qualification: a 2:2 from York and an ‘honorary’ DipION?
ben // October 11, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Hello and greetings to the open minded …..if that applies to any one here .
what I feel we all need to address is ,what the aim of this is about ….surly its about OPTIMUM health (for definition quote dictionary,as we are simply stating opinions in english )
therfore,anything that isnt completly benificial is nothing to do with it and has no place within said discussions.
So to conclude, the odd cream bun or glass of wine or “CATS” comment is just self indulgence due to over education and blinkerage.
p.s John, athletes as I am one (proffessionaly speaking )strive for a hightened energy output within a very short space and time span.
……by any LEGAL means possible .This is not optimum health…..its sport and competition.
gary // October 11, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Lee, The food plate produced by the government is very poor and if you follow that advice there will only be the absence of disease. This is very different to optimum health. That plate is a joke.
Athletes and heavy exercisers will find it quite hard to acheive optimum health due to excess free radical damage within cells. Many heavy exercisers will die before there time due to this. Statistically, this has been proven.
As far as i am aware, the ION qualified person would be a better judge than any government.
Ben // October 11, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Gary, nice comment, as an ex proffessional athlete, this is the very reason I am now an ambassador for NATURAL ways to achieve optimum performance . without jeperdising long term health.
Humans are carnivors which turned to being omnivos so as not to starve as ,for example the gorrila ,the chimp etc etc .
I wonder if ancient man downed a quick lucazade before embarking on a 12 hour hunt .
would you agree that they ,in essence ,apitamise optimum health through a none polluted environment.
surly we need to be drawing inspiration from this ………Keep it simple,fruit seeds veg pulses to be consumed at the right times and in the right proportions …..if one wants non-essential luxuries . I would say that would be for example meat and dried fruit .
anything else detracts from our cause…..optimum ,human health in the”human animal”. The words wine, sugar, milk dairy….JUST HAVE NO PLACE HERE.
[someone pretending to be] LeeT // October 12, 2007 at 10:10 am
You have got me there. To be honest i dont know much about health and nutrition so i think you are probably right. There is no doubt Patrick Holford knows his stuff and helps many people.
gary // October 12, 2007 at 10:19 am
I thought as much Lee.
Can i just ask. What is this website actually set up for. Is it disputing that good food makes you feel good and junk food makes you feel like crap. I cant quite work this out. Are you actually saying that pharmaceutical drugs actually have more of a place than wholefoods and supplements? This is very strange.
Here is an example of why supplemnets have their place.
Statins, which stop the production of both hdl and ldl cholesterol also block the enzyme that make coq10. This molecule is so important. Supplementing coq10 is essentail when taking this money making drug
gary // October 12, 2007 at 10:33 am
Dont tell me you going to tell me to look at study on statins!
Science is great and all that but sometimes you have to use some common sense. Not just look at someone elses work all the time.
[the sockpuppet of someone using the name] Stuart // October 12, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Just to join in the discussion. I have been looking at the difference between a dietican and a nutritional therapist. Unfortunatly a dietican works on the guidelines given by the government concerning rda of nutrients. These levels are awful and need to be reveiwed big time. There are many more difference giving a N.T a far superior knowlegde when dealing with optimum health.
LeeT // October 12, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Can I just say to everyone I did NOT post the 1010am comment with my name on it. There is no space between “Lee” and “T” in the username I give myself. Also, I take the trouble to write the personal pronoun “I” in uppercase letters.
Ben - can I say I am open minded. The evidence for this I used to be an admirer of Patrick Holford. I have read two of his books, but on encountering other points of view I began to have doubts about some of his more extravagant claims. I am still a little a bit unsure as to what “optimum nutrition” is. I consume most of the foods you suggest, but I also eat dairy products, red meat and moderate amounts of chocolate. I have tried supplements, but did not feel they did me any good.
Gary - if you feel the food plate is that bad I suggest you arrange to meet your local member of parliament. Perhaps, with your help, he or she can persuade the government to adopt something better. If eating healthily brings a disease free life that’s good enough for me.
jonhw // October 13, 2007 at 12:02 am
Firstly, someone did post pretending to be LeeT, and has also started posting with a sockpuppet. If they do it again, I’ll ban this person from posting on this blog - I can’t be bothered to mess around with this nonsense.
I’m still confused as to the significance of all these references to our evolutionary ancestors are doing. The life expectancy of early man was significantly lower than that of humans in the UK today (dying younger is an effective way to reduce rates of cancer, heart disease etc., but I suspect it would be unpopular). We’ve evolved the ability to eat and live on a wide range of foods.
Of course a healthy diet is a good idea (though many ‘healthy’ choices - from oatcakes to modern apples - are things our evolutionary ancestors wouldn’t have eaten). I’m not at all convinced that this means excluding a wide range of foods, though - or that eating the occasional square of chocolate will have a significant negative impact on my health :)
Gary // October 13, 2007 at 9:53 am
What an absolute load of bollocks!
And what are outcakes, are they cakes you eat outside?
Gary // October 13, 2007 at 9:54 am
What is a sockpupet? This sounds really up your own ass mate!
Gary // October 13, 2007 at 9:55 am
What about the statins arguement, it is funny how you always side step any issue you know nothing about
jonhw // October 13, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Gary- thanks for pointing out my typo. Phrases like ‘pot calling the kettle black’ spring to mind’, but anyway.
There’s plenty about statins on this site. Try using the search facility.
As to what a sockpuppet is, see here.
coracle // October 13, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Regarding CoQ10 for statin therapy, I did think this was a rather interesting comment. There’s a discussion of this issue here.
jonhw // October 14, 2007 at 4:52 pm
thanks Coracle - very interesting post.
Jane // October 16, 2007 at 1:30 pm
A message to john….
I was thinking of studying at ION next year as i am very interested in nutritional therapy. I had a consultation with a ION graduate and she has helped tremendously. I had so many symptons it was unreal. Since following her advice, i must say that everyone of them has cleared up and am enjoying life again. (doctors, herbalists, homeopaths didnt seem to help)
I would like to know what you think about the course and why i should not do it. What would you advise.
Many thanks
jonhw // October 16, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Jane- Glad you’re feeling better now. We discuss some related issues here. Basically, my advice would be to do a 3 year BSc in Nutrition, or a 4 year course in Dietetics, instead of a DipION.
You’ll be able to cover nutrition in greater detail in a BSc than a DipION (3 years full rather than part time); fees will be near enough the same; you’ll have the option of studying at a good research university, so you can participate in high quality nutritional research, and learn from those who are at the cutting edge of their fields, etc. Your lecturers at University will generally be highly qualified - increasingly, a PhD is becoming a minimum requirement. You’ll also be able to achieve your BSc in 3 rather than four years.
On the other hand, if you study at the ION it will take you 3 years just to get your foundation degree. You may also face concerns in the future about the quality of your education there (see for example Prof Colquhoun’s recent article).
In other words, if you get a nutrition BSc, or a dietetics qualification, this will keep all your options open - a dietetics qualification, in particular, will open opportunities that a DipION wouldn’t. See here for some more details re. dietetics qualifications.
Anyway, good luck with your future studies. If time allows, I might post more later on.
UK dietitian // October 16, 2007 at 3:18 pm
I do wonder ‘Gary’ how you define ‘Optimum Nutrition’? I think its an absence of disease (acute or chronic), coupled with the presence of good mental, physical and physiological health - which is easily achievable by most with modest attention to diet, lifestyle and karma.
To suggest that avid reading of ‘ON’ ‘Bibles’ (incidentally, how funny that there’s never any ‘ON’Korans, nor Talmut, isn’t it??Wonder why that is?), whilst adopting the mantra of COQ10vstatins/ vitaminCinquantitiestomatchourclosestgeneticrelativetheapesneeds/antioxidantstopreventmoderndiseasesofliving is grossly incorrect and misleading.
I’m sure you consider the WCRF also ‘in the pay’ then when they acknowledge that a third of cancers are diet related. Goodness! By default - thats two thirds that aren’t. So what went on there, then, in the ‘Optimum Nutrition’ lifestyle?
It worries me that yourself- like so many other members of the public with a smattering of health knowledge - accept these plausible but highly inaccurate comments as wrong. IMHO Holfordwatch is disputing the Holford Approach - but in a scientifically robust manner. If you choose not to ‘do Science’ then feel free. But don’t try to apply non-science and biologically implausible arguments to the science of nutrition.
Dietitians are more than capable of interpreting dietary recommendations for their clients to help them achieve these goals. We don’t need to do the ‘mumbo jumbo’ approach towards nutritional supplementation, nore make snide - and i have to say grossly inaccurate -comments about Big Pharma whilst promoting the unregulated, but ‘nice’ Big Nutrition Pharma and its Big Nutrition Therapists.
Catherine Collins RD // October 16, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Hi Jane
Nutritional therapy is of growing interest in the prevention and management of disease, but I would consider carefully which course you take.
We routinely get applicants with ION/ ION type courses applying for dietetic jobs within the NHS, and unfortunately the courses don’t train you adequately to be able to work in clinical dietetics.
The vast majority of ION qualifiers work in private practice, or move into ’soft’ areas of healthy eating such as schools/ gyms etc. Health Promotion depts within local govt offices will also only employ BSc Nutritionists or dietitians so this area is not open to you either.
I guess that you’re choice will be dictated to by your finances. Really, to be a Dietitian requires a 4 year full time course, which can prove difficult if you have kids/ mortgage etc. However, it does allow you a much wider field of practice. Don’t let other therapists suggest otherwise. We work in sports (in fact the UK sports bodies only recruit RNutr’s or RD’s to national and Olympic squads), gyms, health clubs, GP practices, private practice, the community, health promotion units, and, of course, hospitals. I work full time in the NHS working with people on intensive care (using artificial liquid feeds) and in an outpatient rheumatology clinic. I work with the media in my own time, and know how they value the opinion of RDs like myself and others to ensure the public are given accurate and impartial info about diet. Our ability to place clinical evidence in context for the individual and their health concerns/ needs is a key factor that sets us aside from other nutritionists. As stated above, we dietitians ‘don’t do mantra’s’….
if you enjoy a combo of people + food + medicine then a dietetic course would be more useful to you than a nutritionist course (although the 3yr - not ION - nutritionist course can be converted to a dietetic qualification (RD) with a 2 year post grad diploma or MSc.
check out http://www.bda.uk.com/edqualify.html for course details.
Dietetics is a fascinating career which is why so many people try to emulate us!
And personal experience of how dietary changes can help improve your quality of life often gets people thinking about a change of career….
Glad you’re feeling better. Good luck with your choices..
Trev // October 17, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Hi everyone
Was wondering if anyone on this site knows anything about Paul Clayton.
Coracle on Statins and Coenzyme Q10 « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science // October 22, 2007 at 2:27 am
[...] 22nd, 2007 · No Comments Really interesting post from Coracle, in response to a comment on this blog. Coracle argues that: Coenzyme Q10 levels may have a role to play, but it is by no [...]
Trev // October 28, 2007 at 9:41 am
So… a role to play. Would that mean a supplement, in this situation, might be warrented???????
jonhw // October 28, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Trev - if you follow the provided links, you’ll find an answer to your question. The short answer is maybe - more research is needed. If supplementation were easy and free or cheap, I think it would be worth considering.
Georgie // November 22, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Let me define stupid for you: UNABLE TO LEARN
This is different than ignorant, which basically means HAVEN’T LEARNED YET, and implies HAVEN’T BEEN EXPOSED TO IT YET
Let’s not kid ourselves. There are stupid kids out there. They will grow up into stupid people. They will have kids, who may or may not grow up to be stupid.
Food will never be a cure for stupidity. Nor will smaller class sizes, nurturing care, higher taxes or any of it.
I’ll tell you what helps kids become stupid - TV.
Thanks
Food for the Brain Child Survey: The Promotion « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science // January 8, 2008 at 7:48 pm
[...] and mental health of UK children. The present FFTB Child Report summary is an improvement on the previous version, but, like the report, is badly written. Some journalists and commentators mistakenly reported that [...]
Leave a Comment