elcruxio

It doesn't matter. Hippocrates lived a long time ago in a time where there just wasn't proper scientific medicine. The oath is a philosophic statement which gives an ethical working ground for doctors. But it could have been invented by a beggar and it'd still be as valuable as an idea. Though then it probably would not have gained popularity or recognition.

As to your bad experiences, I have the opposite. Without modern medicine I'd be long dead. I would have died an excruciatingly painful death probably six years ago if it weren't for the advances of modern medicine. But both of these are anecdotes and thus not really of much value. What is of value is the scientific reasoning that is put into the developement of modern medicine. We are able to understand how certain compounds affect the human body and a lot of times also why they do what they do. Insulin for example is a hormone I don't produce but I can't live without. The working mechanism of insulin is well known and the need for it is also well known. But it cannot be replaced by placebo because the chemical reactions which happen with insulin aren't related to the placebo effect.

To continue on my previous comment, the placebo effect is well known in modern medicine and it is frequently used. For example the colour of pills you take have a strengthening or weakening placebo effect on top of the medicinal effect. But weirdly the colour effect changes with the condition so for some conditions red pills are better and for some blue pills are better. For pain management placebo has been shown to be extremely effective.

But here's the thing. Placebo is the baseline against which actual medicine is tested against. It has been already mentioned, but medicinal compounds are tested against placebo groups and if the effect is better with the medicinal compound, it can be shown to have an actual effect. Hence if a medicine or treatment has a pure placebo effect it can be safely said that it likely isn't doing anything else. So there isn't any medicinal effect, just the placebo.

Essentially naturopathic treatments, homeopathy, reiki weeabooism and all that jazz AND sugar pills are equally effective. But the sugar pills are just a lot cheaper. With placebo what counts is presentation so if the quack selling you homeopathy can convince you that it really works, your own belief will magnify the placebo effect, but it is still placebo.
And this is actually something the actual medical field could benefit from. If doctors could sell the medicine better, it might be more effective because the placebo would potentially strengthen the actual medicinal effects.

BUT

The reason placebo isn't usually prescribed as treatment is the fact that in many cases it would be incredibly unethical. A doctor knows a patient would benefit from actual pain medication but prescribes placebo because of reasons. IF the placebo doesn't work the patient suffers a longer duration and essentially for no reason at all. Also with certain conditions the placebo effect would be detrimental because the patient could report better outcomes than the medicine is actually giving him/her. In these instances the doctors are interested in the actual physical effects and how the patients body is responding to the meds instead of how the patient is feeling.

So even if doctors were to utilize the placebo to a greater extent by selling the meds better to the patient, one would need to be extremely careful about which meds are being sold with the placebo effect because of reasons I've outlined above.

It's not something doctors don't know. They obviously know. But unlike alternative medicine people, medical doctors are bound by a strict ethical code where one needs to be careful about how and what treatments are given so a minimal amount of harm is done to the patient. One needs to be really careful about that stuff because untested stuff can have unforeseen consequences. That's why getting a pill on the market takes years and costs millions, because before it can be sold to people it needs to be proven to be safe and thus there is some pretty rigorous testing involved.
On the other hand the alternative quacks are ready to promise the moon from the sky whilst fleecing you from all your cash. Because they aren't making people better, they are making money.

As a disclaimer, many doctors, especially private ones are also making money. But they are still bound by all the ethical codes, rules, laws, regulations etc. which govern the work of medical doctors.

KraneXL

So you're one of them? Big Pharma pulls everybody's strings, including those in congress. It sits among the largest industries in the world, and by far the greatest financial lobby group in Washington D.C. .

bruce19

Again, just to clarify...I am not saying that one must make a choice between Naturopathic Medicine and traditional Western Medicine. I am saying that both have value but to discount Naturopathic Medicine is IMO self-limiting when considering treatment options. And, for those who don't seem to know, it is based on science. For example....when I was attempting to treat my high BP my MD put me on a Beta Blocker. For those who understand what a Beta Blocker does to lower BP you can imagine what this did to me on the bike. In addition I would wake up at 5 AM and by noon have to go to sleep again. I'd sleep for 4-5 hrs. On top of that I became very depressed. When I mentioned that to my friend the ND she advised that I stop taking the meds and drink 100% organic beet juice. I thought she was nuts. I said, "Fran don't feed me a bunch of airy fairy nonsense." She assured me this was science based and explained why it worked. So, every morning I drank about 4 oz of beet juice. BP went back to normal. Science says that beet juice and some other natural substances have nitric oxide which lowers BP naturally. My BP returned to normal. So, why did my AMA MDs (3 actually) not mention this and go straight to meds. I have been told it's because of the influence of Big Pharma. I have also been told by my motorcycling buddy and recently minted ER doc that this is not taught in AMA med school. He also encouraged me to continue with my ND. I advocate looking at all the treatment options and making your own decisions. If you know little to nothing about Naturopathic Medicine and want to discount it out of hand, that's your choice.

bruce19

Wow you seem to know a lot about people you've never met and rides you've never been on.

elcruxio

Uuh.. Sure, why not. My wife the doctor gets huge piles of cash directly from pharma companies so she doesn't spill the beans on how everyone is being led by the nose and it's all a big scam. We have an offshore account on the bahamas for that, because it's not like we can disclose it in taxation...
In case this went over your head, that was sarcasm.

So what can be taken from all that is that you were prescribed medication, you had side effects which you found to be intolerable, stopped the meds and went 'natural'.
From what I was able to dig up is that apparently nitric oxide supplementation may have positive results in BP control in some individuals who have some sort of issue with utilizing NO. However it would also seem that there hasn't been all that much study done on the issue, possibly because it didn't go anywhere, because it's just too niche a treatment option or whatever other reason. It is an interesting area of study. But a quick search did not bring up results which would indicate that NO supplementation would improve BP values in the general population. It needs to be kept in mind that NO is a chemical that the body produces naturally so deficits may indicate an underlying health problem.
Also as a further point NO is being used as a treatment for other issues, such as sickle cell anemia, breathing issues etc. So it's not like its medicinal qualities are unknown.

But this is also one reason why naturopathy and other alternative medicine are useless, irresponsible and potentially harmful. They jump the gun. There simply does not seem to be enough information on the effects NO supplementation may have on BP. If a person has trouble producing enough NO they may have some more serious underlying issue. Or not. Could be that they just need more NO in their diet and that's that. But the naturopath doesn't know that. They just know that beet juice is natural and it helps with blood pressure. They just read somewhere that for some people it does. But the mechanism is unknown and more importantly the reason for the original deficiency is unknown. So supplementing with NO may hide the original issue by bringing the BP back to normal levels.

The medical process is sometimes uncomfortable because it takes time. Sometimes one needs to try different medications to find the right one or try to fix issues with lifestyle choices which takes time. During that time more tests are done. It's detective work where the issue is being tracked down through ruling out other issues. On the other hand the alternative quack gives you a simple quick solution which may have some real effect, may be placebo BUT the issue remains unsolved.

Now I know little to nothing about medicine so I won't try to be a doctor to myself. But I do know enough about the scientific method to know that alternative medicine doesn't work. I remains in the alternative category, because it has not been shown to work via the scientific method.
But it is a good thing there are professionals who have studied actual medicine and know how the science works. So when I go to them with an issue they don't try to offer a quick natural fix but rather want to know what is causing the issue and how to treat that.

Just an assumption. I do know a lot of doctors. Like I said earlier, if med students pay attention in med school, by the time they graduate they'll know that alternative medicine doesn't work and is quackery and scam artistry.
So either your riding buddies are
A) not very good doctors or
B) being polite.
Personally I'm going to with the option B, but obviously it can be A as well.

bruce19

Although I don't know the doctors that you know, I'm sure they are all quacks and being supported by Big Pharma. Just an assumption.

elcruxio

Well you did have the opportunity defend your stance rationally and reasonably. But you chose this instead. You must realize this kind of argumentation is not going to garner support for your cause. Try not to take it so personally and instead try to counter with facts, studies and/or logic.

KraneXL

Just one of many reason why I have such little faith and esteem for the medical community. (Yes, I recognized your sarcasm). Although not sarcasm. Big Pharma pulls the strings of congress and congress makes the laws. Your wife is merely a pawn and does what she is told. If she didn't, she wouldn't be a doctor for very long -- that is if we're talking MD?

I was recently at the doctors and complained of my chronic back pain. Instead of getting a perspiration of something to relieve the pain, I got a lecture on the opioid epidemic -- which has nothing to do with me since I've never had an addicted to any drug prescription or otherwise.

Point being, it was Big Pharma that produced and pushed the over prescribing of the opioids in the first place. It doesn't take the wisdom of Solomon to see that modern medicine is nothing more than Big Pharma's legal drug trade. Not a personal attack btw, this is a worldwide issue, and far, far, beyond you or any other individual here.

elcruxio

It's a good thing we don't live in the US so the big pharma thing or congress don't really apply to me or my wife.
In terms of does she do what she's told? Well she gets to work every day. She has tenure so getting to work is mandatory. Also she performs her work related tasks. But when she sees patients her responsibility is to them, no one else. In terms of what drugs she prescribes or does not prescribe is not up to anyone but her. And currently she's in a position where she actually doesn't prescribe anything I think. The issues she deals with simply do not require medication.

More seriously I do recognize that the US has large issues with pharmaceuticals and the medical community and most importantly healthcare. But what the US does is something that stays in the US. We're in the EU, where things are infinitely better in pretty much every metric. Of course there are things to improve upon. There always is. There are things I don't agree with. But generally speaking the healthcare system where I live is among the best, if not the best on the planet. And use of generics is rampant so doctors can prescribe a drug from a big pharma company but chances are that if the pharmacy has the generic on the shelf they'll recommend that instead.

Seattle Forrest

That sounds paranoid, to be honest. A few centuries ago, people loved to the ripe old age of 30, women died in child birth, people were horribly disfigured by diseases that people with access to medical care don't get, or barely suffer from. AIDS is no longer a death sentence. Compare the difference between ebola outbreaks here versus in Africa. Yeah, screw those lying medical people, what have they ever done for us.

AlmostTrick

Emerging evidence suggests a 10:1 ratio of carbohydrates to proteins may protect the body from the ravages of ageing.

“It is quite the opposite of current popular diets that advocate a high protein, low carb diet,” says Samantha Solon-Biet, who researches nutrition and ageing at the University of Sydney. Despite the popularity of the Atkins and Paleo diets, however, there is minimal evidence that high-protein diets really do bring about long-term benefits.

BBC - Future - A high-carb diet may explain why Okinawans live so long

redlude97

That's not evidence really, and the second link actually furthers the point that high BP and inflammation are independent otherwise there wouldn't be a correlation relating their combined increased risk

Seattle Forrest

This is tangentially the same thing at play here.


The researchers found the following interesting results:

• 34% of US adults felt that they knew as much or more than scientists and physicians about the causes of autism.
• 36% of the same sample population felt the same about their own knowledge relative to that of medical experts.
• Incredibly, 62% of those who performed worst on the autism knowledge test believed that they knew as much or more than scientists and physicians.
• On the other hand, only 15% of those scoring best on the knowledge test believed that they knew more than experts.
• 71% of those who strongly accept the link between vaccines and autism believed that they knew as much more than physicians and scientists about the causes of autism.
• This compares to only 28% of those who reject that link. I guess I’ll accept the rare Dunning-Kruger effect in those who actually accept the factual science behind vaccines!
• 30% of people who are overconfident in their knowledge strongly support giving parents the right to not vaccinate their children
• On the contrary, only 16% of those who do not think they know more than medical experts support that right.
• In addition, overconfidence is also associated with the increased support of non-experts, like celebrities, who participate in the vaccine policy-making process.

Linky.

OBoile

So you're admitting that alternative medicine is, in fact, a trick and works no better than a placebo (and yeah, everyone acknowledges that the placebo effect is a real thing)? How much did you pay for these placebos? For half the price, I promise to realign your damaged spirit alignment. As long as you believe in it, it has just as much a chance of being successful as that acupuncture you're into.

OBoile

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not, but this was kind of my point. Yogurt vs. Dairy Queen Blizzard. Both "processed". One is generally considered healthy, the other isn't. There are probably at least 100 different ways carbs can be "processed". What types of processing lead to this inflammation that the ND referred to? Is a certain type of processing only bad when used on a certain type of carb? What type/method combinations are okay? A blanket statement like "processed carbs cause inflammation" is way to general in nature to be accurate. It's one thing to say something like this on a message board, but a health professional trying to convey information to a client should be more precise.

OBoile

I agree with everything you said. I just wanted to comment on these two things in particular.
My understanding is that this is correct. However, from what I've read, it turns out you can also do acupuncture deliberately incorrectly (i.e. intentionally put the needles in the wrong place) and it works just as well as when done "correctly". This clearly indicates that the currently explanation put forth for why it works is false and paying for a practitioner's expertise is a waste of money.


Yeah. When your argument depends on the other side being involved in some massive conspiracy that "they" have managed to keep quiet for years... well you're probably wrong.

Look, sometimes alternative medicine gets it right (which is why I said to take what the ND says with a grain of salt, not to discount it completely). But, as others have said, when it's been proven to work, it drops the "alternative" part of the label.

Carbonfiberboy 

Instead of the yakity which really helps no one because, well, there are no perfect systems, have a look at this: Low back pain: From crippled to 100% in 10 days ? Steven Low

I've had nasty low back pain for years, though not on the bike TG. I even had an MRI done years ago. The McKenzie exercises/positions are the first thing I ever found that actually helps. I don't take pain meds of any sort for my back because I want to know what's going on with it. I've been experimenting with exercises and stretching for years, and this works for me. I only have to do it a couple times a day to keep the pain away and it does seem like it's improving from day to day.

Nope, no MD, no ND, just some climber nutcase who knows physiology. No one knows everything, but as the Beatles said, "So little time, so much to know!"

The BP/NO issue is that BP blocker meds knock it right out. Saves your life. But no, you can't ride worth a damn on them. Then the question becomes, "What do you value most?" Some would pick cycling, others long life.

There's also an unnecessary reaction against alternative meds, even when supported by RCTs: https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart...blood-pressure
Nitrate supplementation is not as effective as the blocker pharmaceuticals. That's the average drop on nitrate, which is what a scientist would go on. Some will do better, some worse. I experiment on myself and don't blame the docs for my personal issues.

Thing is, does your MD read the studies? Is he/she interested in developing therapies? When I tell my MD about some new thing I read, he already knows about it - duh - reading the journals is part of his being a professional. If your doc doesn't read the journals, switch to someone who does. Mine's in his 60s.

I have a riding buddy who's had BP/BP meds issues for years. He finally decided to lose 40 lbs. and get down to looking like a bike rider. BP issues now mostly gone, on very mild meds. I haven't been able to get him to try NO augmentation - he's a PhD physicist, worked on Star Wars. Science only, please. He's single, so he took cooking classes, did CI/CO on his phone, eats precise portions of organic food. And he's always voted Republican.

Carbonfiberboy 

That's not a cite. That's an fact-free opinion article. There are a zillion of similar articles out there, a veritable flood of them. What's the origin? Post a link to an isocaloric RCT which showed that refined carbs cause inflammation.

What's weird is that articles like this are accepted as fact by a sub-population of good-nutrition advocates. In the last go-round, it was fats. Gotta be some demon somewhere, can't be just science.

No, it's simply calories in/calories out which drive those "escalating rates." What the processed carbs make it easy to do is to gain weight really easily by eating fat along with those carbs.

Seattle Forrest

Also escalating rates of obesity have a lot to do with the shift in our economy from manual labor to information work. In the 1950s people would walk across the building to the file room, instead of checking a database without leaving their chair. Car ownership is starting to decline but it used to be one per family, a lot of women would walk to the grocery store and take a cab home. People went outside for leisure instead of finding it in their pocket.

Add that we have an abundance of cheap and palatable food to the fact that we're burning significantly fewer calories, and guess what?

On top of all that, judging by the number of Americans taking antidepressants, a lot of people are eating for emotional reasons, which means eating more. I don't have numbers to prove it's happening more now than in the past, but a lot of people don't get as much social contact as everybody used to, and I think that's part of it all.

People are eating more and moving less. Not our food is fundamentally different. (They had TV dinners way back when. "Refined people eat refined foods.")

wolfchild

IOW when two different types of fuel sources are eaten together, the human body will only use the one which provides the fastest and easiest source energy and it will store the other one as fat for later use.

Seattle Forrest

If you burn enough calories to match your eating, it won't matter for weight reasons what kind of calories they are.

Full stop.

wolfchild

It's not just Okinawans that live long...The regions of Abkhazia and Soviet Georgia in southern part of Russia is well known for producing extraordinary long living people....I think it's a lot more than just a high-carb diet. There are many other cultures in the world who live on high carb-diets but never live as long as those people.

Carbonfiberboy 

Not really. But if you eat an adequate number of calories of carbs and also eat fat, the fat converts to adipose fat with zero loss, gram for gram. I think it's pretty obvious that it's very difficult to get fat on brown rice, or on nothing but white sugar either. So you're having a high carb recovery meal after a ride and you eat to satiation. Fine. But then you have a bowl of ice cream and there's a good chance for a small weight gain. I think we all know that. Similarly, if the folks who drink a lot of soda only drank soda, pretty hard to gain weight. But a Big Gulp and a hamburger and there you go.

AlmostTrick

True, and the fact that other factors could be at play was openly advanced. But there was other evidence and studies cited besides just the Okinawa people that also pointed to higher carb diets being healthier than low carb diets. Especially long term.

The low carb diets are the latest "Lose weight quick" fad diets for people who ate poorly for years. Not a long term solution for optimum health.

KraneXL

Not paranoia, if that were the case I'd avoid doctors altogether. They have their worth at the proper times. The cure and prevention of communicable disease is one of those times. Most people will say "avoid carbs" when its more precisely stated as avoid processed carbs. Processed carbs, in this case, indicates those carbs that have the majority of their natural nutrition value removed or their molecular structure altered. Sugar would be the quintessential example of a highly processed carbs.

As for alternative medicine, any medicine that is not generally scientifically accepted in the medical community as treatment for most physical and mental maladies.

When people refer to carbs as the culprit for weight gain they're referring primarily to simple carbs/sugars. Those things that are easily consumed and moved quickly through your digestive system. Complex carbs have to be chewed -- something Americans stopped doing a long time ago -- and take much longer to digest due to their natural high fiber content.