Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Watch out:


nutritionists are different to nutritional therapists different again to dieticians


dieticians have a lot of training and are regulated within the medical profession


nutritionists tend to work in an education capacity and have a voluntary register which requires a degree of proper training (involving at least some science) it can be checked here. they are not regulated


nutritional therapists are the ones who reckon they can cure conditions like MS and can set themselves up after a short correspondence course. They are unregulated and one of them recently had to pay out ?810000 to a woman left with brain damage after following her instructions to drink lots of water, even when she was fitting as a result of excessive intake of water.


In my opnion its total bunkum and they often prey on people's vulnerabilities, using pseudo-scientific jargon based on no evidence.


Of course, people will say they have had an effect and improved their life /condition. I don't doubt their sincerity but I would say that these people are often ill-qulaified to offer medical advice and can do harm unlike some of the other "alternative" therapies.



I have been asked to amend my post. I don't know the person recommended and know of no reason why she should be avoided in particular.


EDITED: to remove link to named nutritional therapist,


I absolutely stand by my comments on nutritional therapists. They are unregulated and do not have to be medically trained to practice. I would say absolutely beware.


It is of course true that regulated practitioners, like GPs, can also be guilty of malpractice, the difference is when they are they are not allowed to continue practising.


As I said I don't doubt that some people will genuinely feel they have benefitted from their services.


In my opnion, and I accept this may not be the opinion of everyone, its snake-oil.


I'd suggest that if someone has a problem that they suspect might be nutritional they should first see their GP.

I have to agree with you Bawdy-nan.


A few years ago I did one of the correspondence courses (purely for interest's sake, with no intention of ever making a career out of it) and was amazed that the college concerned felt that people studying that particular course would be capable of advising people after completing it. It did make me wonder just how many people out there are advising members of the public in a "professional" capacity having done a crash course in nutrition. Scary.


Don't get me wrong, it was an interesting course, met my needs perfectly - but far too basic to be considered an adequate grounding for someone then going on to use it as a basis for a career.


It's definitely worth being very careful, make sure you see someone with a "proper" qualification.

Bawdy I agree with you, but to an extent, as a trained Nutritional Therapist who trained to a degree level ,with three years of science including Biochemistry, physiology, pathophysiology, pharmacology, i have to say for the majority of us we are trained to a professional level otherwise we would not be allowed to practice, I can understand certain arguments, however we are going through voluntary regulation, and if you go on to the BANT website (british association of Nutritional therapists), it will explain all about regulation and how qualified you need to be to practice. Distance learning colleges and once a month colleges are frowned upon within the the industry anyway, I always recommend university based training

The NTC (nutritional therapy council) have a register listing all qualified therapists, the training and qualifications are scrutinised. There will always be cases of people having a bad experience because the therapist did not have adequate training, equally though this also happens in the medical profession.

Too who is looking for a nutritional therapist, look at the bant website

Jamma do your homework first please before you expound err rubbish, Dieticians are not medically trained, they have a 3 year course like the nutritionists, the difference is that Dieticians are bound to the NHS guidelines. Nutritionists train with Doctors in universities. I cannot understand why certain forumites feel they need to rubbish us and assume we follow a certain science when we do not, we follow the science all professionals follow.

Hi Monica


I'm aware of the BANT registration process with CNCH as I understand it.


I'm not entirely convinced by the process (though obviously, its still being developed): voluntary registration along criteria decided by the nutritional therapists, a code of ethics unavailable for public view and a set of practice criteria (not sure if this is the right phrasing) lifted from the dieticians. I;m not convonced it will be rigorously enforced (there seems to be quite a lot of wobble room) and in any case there's no "striking someone off" when a register is voluntary.


Trying to decipher just what the letters after the name mean is very very tricky (in all cases).


I have come across some very sane seeming, thoroughly careful and seemingly well-trained people who are nutritional therapists and I absolutely acknowledge that some of the training available can be very thorough. These are the ones who would not stray outside their spheres of knowledge or expertise.


I think the very big problem is that anyone can call themselves a nutritionist or nutritional therapist.


I have also come across a number of cases where the health advice given out by NT's has been downright dangerous, utterly unscientific.


I'm not a total CM refusnik and do, I think, have an open mind and have used arange of "alternative therapies". I just bristle at some of the claims made by this particular group and at the exploitation of people at their most vulnerable.


Best wishes


BN

Hy BN

I agree with what you say, that is why we are going through voluntary regulation, there are colleges and courses that are very unscientific and frowned up by main stream universities. The register will only acknowledge qualifications that are approved by the NTC. I know letters after the name can be confusing but if in doubt please ask the practitioner.

The registry will only acknowledge qualifications that have had at least 2 years of science, and 500 hours of supervised clinic.

I am about to embark on my Msc in Nutrition, I have a degree in Nutrition and after 1000 hours of clinic, pre and post qualification I am about to do another 500 hours, my tutors are a doctor and a professor. I know not all Nutritional Therapists are trained to this level, however the Register is there to protect the public

Bound to NHS guidelines makes them medical professionals in my book. Why don't all the 'good' nutritionists just go pro and become dieticians? Then they wouldn't have to worry about being tainted by the stain of Gillian McKeith would they?

As I said, with nutritionists there's a risk you're going to get a nutter. With dieticians that risk is minimal.

Of course I have 'issues' with 'complementary health'. It's a load of old cobblers. Fact.

And when people start believing in hocus pocus bad things happen so I'll fight it at every turn.

I'm happy to agree to disagree, you're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. It's just that mine is right and yours is wrong.

Jamma You are very entitled to your opinion, but does that give you an excuse to be so rude about it!!! I am not very wrong we all have our schools of thought and if you do not like it, then fine but please do not be so rude, this started as a request for a dietician/Nutritionist and its turned into a free for all to put down complementary health yet again. Although Nutrition is classed in Public Health.

desoizal Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> hi Strawbs, what do you need a nutritionist,

> dietician for?



Hey there


TBH I didnt really want to post in here because it all got a little hectic.. I wanted a dietician / nutritionist (admittedly I dont really know the difference) for weight management. I have a condition called exercise stimulated anaphylaxis which in a nutshell I have the same anaphylactic reaction to exercise that people do to nuts so it makes it quite difficult. I can do some i.e. cycle indoors on an exercise bike but it cant be too hard core blah blah blah..


I am a vegetarian (almost vegan so no cheese, egg, chocolate) which has been a major lifestyle change for the last 8 months and it hasnt made a scrap of difference... The Docs have checked my thyroid etc and its fine so I was just asking so that someone could take a look at my food journal that I have kept for the last week and for them to make any suggestions etc etc..


thanks to everyone who responded but any chance I can have my thread back? Regardless of people's opinions on each of the difference professions I just wanted to know if anyone had a rec of someone I could go and see..

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...