advertisement


The Great Obesity Epidemic

JADISMAN said:
(1) I'm not your mate

(2) I just eat sensibly, mainly fresh fruit and vegetables and occasionaly a little fresh meat or fish. The sort of stuff you refer to is not added to anything I would eat, so I have no opinion on it other than to agree it is probably best avoided. It really isn't that difficult.
Click to expand...
Wondering what it is I refer to because I don't add anything to what I eat, so yes, it's easy for you not to add what I don't add either.

As I've said before, I'm not telling anyone what to eat.

By the way, there have been plenty of threads on this subject and by your own admission you have no opinion, yet here you are posting in the thread. Why not leave it to those who do have an interest?
 
gassor said:
Exactly. But I'm baffled about metabolic rates. They are supposed to be the same for everyone. Yet I eat 50% (not kidding, no snacks though) more than most people I know and I'm not overweight. I exercise, but the calories burnt are not very big. It seems to annoy some people.
Click to expand...

Metabolic rates vary quite a lot AFAIK.

Basal rates are affected by levels of activity and muscle mass so even when you are not exercising your metabolic rate is higher than a bone idle fat bloke who sits on the sofa scoffing doughnuts. :)

An overactive thyroid will also cause elevated calorie consumption so if you find yourself not sleeping well or feeling hyper a lot it's worth getting checked out.
 
Brian said:
You find that a surprise? :eek:
Click to expand...

It is not a surprise to me. Moreover, I don't think it comes as much of a surprise to any psychiatrist that primary chemical imbalances may not be the cause of a number of different mental illnesses.

A number of drugs, like SSRIs, may chemically alter the brain but this does not and probably never did mean that a chemical imbalance caused the problem in the first place.

I think few psychiatrists believed that anxiety and depression were caused by chemical imbalances. The drugs available merely offered a chemical solution that could be used in the longer term.
 
I psychologist friend -- as in a proper practising one in the NHS not someone who did a Psych degree as they had borderline A levels -- is very much of the view that most mental illness has a real life foundation and long term solutions invariably come from some form of therapy. And it is my impression that this is a reasonable consesnsus.
 
Modern SSRI's etc. offer no convincing evidence that they are more effective than a simple placebo sugar pill.

What they do manage is to make the pharmaceutical companies a lot of money and to spare the NHS the cost of providing proper long term care to the mentally ill IMHO.

It's therefore refreshing to hear the BBC pointing that out. You would think from the way people talk that modern anti depressants and anti psychotics address the real problem.
 
Steven Toy said:
It is not a surprise to me. Moreover, I don't think it comes as much of a surprise to any psychiatrist that primary chemical imbalances may not be the cause of a number of different mental illnesses.

A number of drugs, like SSRIs, may chemically alter the brain but this does not and probably never did mean that a chemical imbalance caused the problem in the first place.

I think few psychiatrists believed that anxiety and depression were caused by chemical imbalances. The drugs available merely offered a chemical solution that could be used in the longer term.
Click to expand...
It's not surprise to me either

matthewr said:
I psychologist friend -- as in a proper practising one in the NHS not someone who did a Psych degree as they had borderline A levels -- is very much of the view that most mental illness has a real life foundation and long term solutions invariably come from some form of therapy. And it is my impression that this is a reasonable consesnsus.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think most would agree with that.
 
I find audio forums to be the most reliable source of information about medical conditions. Doctors are all in the pay of Big Pharma, after all.
 
There are some good doctors. There are also some whose ignorance is a concern IME. Still, always good to have faith in professionals, be they involved with medicine or audio equipment. Best not to question them.
 
Doctors have to study for long periods and pass difficult exams in their specialisms. Any gobshite can set himself up as an 'audio professional'.
 
merlin said:
Modern SSRI's etc. offer no convincing evidence that they are more effective than a simple placebo sugar pill ...

It's therefore refreshing to hear the BBC pointing that out. You would think from the way people talk that modern anti depressants and anti psychotics address the real problem.
Click to expand...

It's obvious that anti-depressants and anti-psychotics don't address the real problem. I have an ex-girlfriend who takes the latter, if she stops she loses the plot and gets sectioned. She knows the pill isn't the long term solution, but it helps in the interim.

Have you ever taken an SSRI?

If you have suicidal thoughts and go and see a doctor, after filling in a tick-box questionnaire, the chances are you will be told that you are depressed.

Your doctor will then offer you an SSRI and six counselling sessions. This is what the NHS give to many people who are thinking about suicide.

Your notion that SSRIs are no more effective than a simple placebo sugar pill is nonsense that appears to suit some bloke who is pushing CBT.

I would be surprised if you could find any potential suicide victim, treated with SSRIs, who would agree with you. They chemically alter people's lines of thought.

Jack
 
matthewr said:
I psychologist friend -- as in a proper practising one in the NHS not someone who did a Psych degree as they had borderline A levels -- is very much of the view that most mental illness has a real life foundation and long term solutions invariably come from some form of therapy. And it is my impression that this is a reasonable consesnsus.
Click to expand...

I would agree.
 
merlin said:
Modern SSRI's etc. offer no convincing evidence that they are more effective than a simple placebo sugar pill.

What they do manage is to make the pharmaceutical companies a lot of money and to spare the NHS the cost of providing proper long term care to the mentally ill IMHO.

It's therefore refreshing to hear the BBC pointing that out. You would think from the way people talk that modern anti depressants and anti psychotics address the real problem.
Click to expand...

SSRIs are effective but can make the patient feel worse for two to three weeks before they feel better. You come across as the pub bore here who has an opinion. . . You then trawl the net for stuff that may confirm this opinion.

The clue is in the name - they basically do what it says on the tin.


http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/SSRIs-(selective-serotonin-reuptake-inhibitors)/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Medicine is an art as much as it is a science just as it is with audio. Good doctors treat patients as well as illnesses. They take into account both signs (objective) and symptoms (subjective). They also live with uncertainty. Indeed, a central plank of CBT is doing just that - learning to live with uncertainty.

There is no room for absolutism in medicine. What patients report back is considered evidential. Unlike in audio. . .
 
Steven Toy said:
There is no room for absolutism in medicine. What patients report back is considered evidential. Unlike in audio. . .
Click to expand...

What a patient, or even several patients, may report back, has no more weight as evidence in science/medicine than in audio or anywhere else. However, a statistically significant number of reports may constitute data, if collectively they pass appropriate analytical muster.

Patients, much like audio enthusiasts, can be prone to wild flights of imagination, not to mention particular gullibility to things they read on the internet.
 
russel said:
From experience, you are talking out of your bum.
Click to expand...

I am only stating the evidence based opinions of various research scientists - some of which was explained in the link I provided.

If that happens to contradict your beliefs then that's fine - but again suggestions of talking out of the wrong orifice are wide of the mark and uncalled for.

It's remarkable how defensive and yet offensive many people get when confronted with the possibility of responding to a placebo.
 
merlin said:
Modern SSRI's etc. offer no convincing evidence that they are more effective than a simple placebo sugar pill.
Click to expand...

This statement suggests to me that there is no convincing evidence anywhere supporting the effectiveness of SSRIs. Is this your contention?

I tried to follow the link you say you provided (the "halleluja!" link?), but it dead-ended at an internal error notification.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top