January 15, 2010 by Avery Jenkins.

That fount of modern female wisdom, Cosmopolitan magazine, inadvertently highlighted the fundamental problem with modern healthcare in its recent online article, Hairstyles Men Love.

Next to this picture of an undeniably-photogenic Anna Faris:

The article notes that “From an evolutionary perspective, guys subconsciously like hair that looks clean and healthy, like Anna Faris’s blond locks. “Hair that’s in top condition shows that you have a balanced diet and good health — signs of an ideal mate,” says biological anthropologist Helen Fisher PhD.”

So far, so good. Sociobiology, or the description of human behavior from a evolutionary perspective, has come a long way since its introduction 40-odd years ago, and is now a widely accepted (if oft-misused) theory. It is quite probable that in matters as fundamental as procreation, we are hard-wired to respond in certain ways just as much as the female Western Tanager will always go for the guy with the big red top.

But then Cosmo blows the lid off of the secret behind looking healthy:

“Work a silicone-based straightening serum through damp hair before blow-drying,” Cosmo advises. “Clip locks in 4-6 sections depending on how thick your hair is. Then tackle one at a time with a paddle brush and a blow-dryer equipped with a nozzle pointed straight down. Finish with a light shine spray.”

Ok, let me see if I’ve got this right. The secret to attracting guys, Cosmo says, is to develop that healthy glow, which presumably indicates a fecund future of healthy, bouncing babies to carry the genetic line forward. And the secret to attaining that health is a silicon-based straightening serum?!?

Not a word about the things that I associate with good health, like, maybe, good nutrition, exercise, sanitation — all that stuff that actually does give a person that healthy glow, instead of simply imitating it.

In the same way, mainstream medicine mistakes appearing healthy for looking healthy. Instead of looking at the person, they look at the numbers:

Cholesterol low?                   Check.

Thyroid hormone normal?     Check.

BMI “normal”?                      Check

All well and good. But the fact of matter is, manipulation of the numbers does very little to change a person’s health. You can have a normal body mass index and still be highly prone to cancer and heart disease. You can have normal thyroid hormone levels, yet still have a thyroid that is dysfunctional. And don’t even get me going on cholesterol. Cholesterol levels are no indicator of any kind of health whatsoever.

So, by manipulating the numbers, the modern MD thinks they are creating health in their patients. But, like the two ounces of straightening serum, they are only creating the appearance of health.

Reducing your cholesterol level has no effect on your overall lifespan. None. Zero. Zip.

Normalizing your thyroid hormones does not mean your “thyroid” symptoms will go away.

A normal BMI does not mean you are fit.

Just like two ounces of straightening serum will give the appearance of health without the reality, the statin drug or the synthetic hormones will make pretty pictures — but, in the long run, won’t change your health for the better.

Posted in medical folly, Uncategorized | Print | 1 Comment »

September 23, 2009 by Avery Jenkins.

Apologies to my readers: The link to the video on this post got broken, and I have not been able to re-locate it. I will insert the new link as soon as I find it.

Alternative medicine is under attack as it hasn’t been since the 1st District Court found the AMA guilty of antitrust violations in its ongoing war against chiropractic.

Pharmaceutical companies and “mainstream” medicine are feeling insecure as the sands of health care reform shift under their feet. And one thing they want to avoid at all costs is allowing chiropractic physicians an even playing field — because they know that will unlock  the floodgates, allowing patients who are seeking alternatives to drugs and surgery to freely find the assistance they so desperately need. As a result, the distortions about alternative health care in general and chiropractic physicians in particular are piling up again.

This video sets the record straight. Although I am not its producer, many of the facts presented in this video are data that I have used frequently in my own writing and seminars. But, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Please watch it. And pass along the link to this page to anyone who you know who cares about the future of healthcare.

Posted in politics, medical folly, allopathic medicine | Print | 1 Comment »

September 9, 2008 by Avery Jenkins.

Following on the heels of my previous entry regarding the absolute lack of credentials that MDs have in the field of nutrition, I discovered today that there is actually a movement afoot in the medical community to define an interest in healthy eating as a disease.

I kid you not.

Their new “disease” is called orthorexia. Of course, they are defining an interest in healthy eating as an “obsession,” but eating a raw foods diet, an Ornish diet, a vegetarian diet, a paleolithic diet, or essentially anything but an SAD (Standard American Diet), is considered prima facie evidence of an “obsession” with healthy eating.

Of course, if any of these doctors actually followed the nutritional research, they would know that the SAD diet is incredibly unhealthy. It is undeniably the root cause of both obesity and adult-onset diabetes, as well as the primary cause of heart disease.

In comparison, the diets which are claimed to be symptoms of orthorexia are actually quite useful for clearing up a variety of health problems, many of which were caused by the combination of a SAD diet and prescription drugs in the first place.

Of course, that brings us to the recommended cure for this “disease.” It is drugs, of course! Specifically, antidepressants, because, by all means, a focus on improving one’s health through diet is a sign of depression, right?

Err…no. Actually, quite the opposite. But that’s a topic for another day.

What is also interesting is the background of some of the medical “authorities” promoting this imaginary illness.

Let me first point you in the direction of Steven Bratman, MD. No, I’m not going to post his URL here, because just reading that site makes me a little ill, but you can find it easily enough with the help of Mr. Google.

Bratman is a self-proclaimed “quackbuster,” which means he ignores all research which disagrees with his preconceived opinions. He has also written a book, “Health Food Junkies,” which — surprise — is all about this mythical disease of orthorexia.

Of course, Bratman has the qualifications to address nutritional disorders and therapeutics because, according to his biography,  he opened a now-defunct health clinic, where he “worked closely with a wide variety of alternative practitioners, and received training in acupuncture, herbal medicine, nutrition, massage, osteopathic manipulation, and body-oriented psychotherapy.”

Ok. So this guy’s qualifications are…he watched someone else do nutritional counseling? Holy cow, asking Bratman for nutritional advice would be like asking someone to pilot an airplane because they’ve watched a few take off.

He’s also written a lot of books, mostly for the pharmaceutical industry, and serves as a “consultant” in alternative medicine, whatever that may be. Pretty good for a guy who, according to his own data, possesses no certifications, license, or formal education in the field of alternative medicine.

In fact, I would be willing to bet I have had more formal education in pharmacology — drugs, that is — than Bratman has had in clinical nutrition.

Unfortunately, people do listen to unqualified individuals such as Bratman, and thus incredibly inane ideas such as orthorexia get wheels.

All of this wrongheaded manipulation over proper eating reminds me of a case I had a number of years ago. A mother came to me concerned because she thought her teenage daughters should be on a diet. Of course, I agreed to evaluate the girls and see if there would be some way in which I could help.

A few days later,  the patients came in. I conducted a history and physical exam, and low and behold, the girls were healthy. While perhaps a bit on the high side of normal in terms of their body fat, they were still within the normal range. They were physically active, with no complaints. Their diet, while not the best in the world, actually included some fruits and vegetables, which I considered an astounding success for two late-20th-century adolescents.

In short, there was really nothing much to do.

I consulted with the parent, and said that the girls looked fine, and I thought any special diet was unnecessary.

Mom began arguing with me. “Isn’t there some diet you could give them?” she asked.

I told her to bring the girls back in a few days, during which time I would do a more thorough analysis of their food journals and see if there were some pertinent recommendations that I could make.

When they came back,  they entered the office with an air of excitement and anticipation. And it slowly began to dawn on me what was happening.

I was the instrument of a rite of passage: A Girl’s First Diet. Like menarche or a training bra, the Diet was a step on the pathway to womanhood, because, of course, dieting is something all women must do.

I brought the girls and their mother in, and sat them all down. I explained to them that I had reviewed their diets carefully, as well as their physical exam findings, and that the best thing that they could do for their diet would be to include more fish and have more vegetables, particularly cruciferous vegetables. They should also make sure they should drink plenty of water.

Their faces fell with disappointment.

“Don’t you have a meal plan for us?” One asked.

“I don’t really like fish,” said the other.

“What about foods they shouldn’t have?” said the mother.

I explained to the disappointed multitude that, in fact, their diets were already pretty good, except for the absence of omega 3 fatty acids, which would be satisfied by the inclusion of fish. I added that I saw no reason to restrict their foods or create an unnecessary diet plan to follow, given their overall good health.

Their disbelief was palpable. I had ignored all of the sacraments of this ritual, developed at the Church of Weight Watchers and practiced at the altar of Jenny Craig. There was no arcane list of proscribed foods. No complex eating plan. No admonishments against those foods which medical doctors consider bad for you, like butter, or whole milk, or red meat.

We went back and forth for a while; it really took a good 15 minutes to get through to them that I really didn’t want them to restrict their eating, but rather they should just emphasize certain foods. After they eventually realized I was not about to capitulate to their desire for their First Real Diet, two confused girls and a rather angry mother left.

I don’t know whether or not the girls eventually got their diet or not, but the encounter did get me thinking about how twisted the messages about healthy eating and good nutrition get in this society. Somehow, medicine and marketing have turned a wholesome diet full of a range of nutrients, with an emphasis on foods that do not contain pesticides, hormones, chemical additives and preservatives, into an illness.

Orthorexia? If it were really a disease instead of a chimera, I would wish that more of my patients suffered from it.

Posted in medical folly, nutrition, allopathic medicine | Print | 2 Comments »