Dispelling nutrition myths, ranting, and occasionally, raving


5 Comments

Are pharmacists the new dietitians?

zombomeme26052018142546

The other day I was in a grocery store when a recording came over the PA system encouraging customers to speak to the in-store pharmacist about making healthy food choices. Naturally, I was like “what the fuck??”. People wonder why dietitians are so defensive of our profession. This. This sort of thing is exactly why. Because everyone seems to think that they’re qualified to dole out nutrition advice despite the fact that dietitians are the only professionals who spend over four years studying nutrition in university and must indefinitely continue our education to maintain our licensure.

It’s not cool of the chain to be asking pharmacists to provide dietary counselling. If you want to offer that service, hire yourselves some damn dietitians. It’s also not cool of the pharmacists to accept that added responsibility.

Yes, pharmacists are a wealth of knowledge when it comes to medications and they can be hugely helpful in advising customers about potential drug-nutrient interactions regarding medications that customers are taking. They more often than not, likely have a greater knowledge about nutrients in food than your average person. However, none of this equips them with the expertise to provide nutrition counselling.

The scope of practice for pharmacists in Canada contains no mention of nutrition or dietary counselling. Store owners may not know that this service is outside the scope of practice for pharmacists. Therefore, I believe that the responsibility lies with the pharmacists on-staff to let the company know that they are should not be providing this service to their customers. As allied health professionals they should recognize the limitations of their own scope of practice and defer to RDs in matters of nutrition counselling.

When I worked in a grocery store we had an in-store dietitian as well as pharmacists on-staff and everyone worked together to provide customers with the best service possible. Pharmacists have enough to do without having to get into nutrition counselling with customers, which, when done appropriately, can be quite time-consuming. Do you really want to wait longer to pick up your prescription? Setting aside the issue of expertise, do pharmacists really have the time to devote to counselling customers on nutrition? Let dietitians, who are actually trained to provide individualized dietary advice, provide this service so that pharmacists can focus on their own area of expertise.

Advertisements


3 Comments

Just because it’s “always delicious” doesn’t mean it’s not a diet book

Follow my diet to lose weight!.jpg

Last week I attended the Ambition Nutrition Symposium in Toronto, to which I was fortunate enough to win free tickets. The theme of the conference was “bringing it home” and was intended to help translate nutrition theory into the kitchen and onto client’s plates. While I’m not sure the day really succeeded in that regard, I still found it to be an interesting conference with a variety of speakers and delicious food (thank you George Brown culinary students!). That being said, from my perspective, there was an elephant in the room. That elephant was the tension between professions and dietary dogma.

We started the day with a great presentation by Dr. Kelly Brownell, director of the World Food Policy Centre, among numerous other titles. He spoke about the difficulty we often face when addressing food-related issues through policy as something that benefits one area (e.g. nutrition) may cause unintended harm in another (e.g. agriculture). The goal of his new centre is to bring stakeholders from all the areas together to try to develop policies that will benefit all areas. As an aside, one thing I noticed about the list of stakeholders he shared was the lack of the public. As “end users” I think that it’s essential that the public (or specific groups from the public such as those experiencing food insecurity) are involved in these discussions.

Later in the morning we had an excellent presentation by Nishta Saxena, a dietitian. Maybe I’m a little bit biased as an RD but I felt that she did a fantastic job of presenting the struggles we face in addressing healthy eating with clients when they are constantly bombarded by misinformation in social media. How do we combat “sexy” social media influencers as professionals who must provide evidence-based factual information and are less inclined to posed half naked with overflowing mason jars of green smoothies? Several years later and dietitians still aren’t sexy ;)

We also had Saxena and chef Christine Cushing call out juicing and juice diets (while a new cold pressed juice company presented at one of the breakout sessions and provided samples during food breaks). Cushing mocked the caveman diet and then we had a snack break with “paleo” brownies. Saxena belittled meal kits and our swag bags contained a coupon for Hello Fresh. Hello elephant.

Follow-up Saxena’s fantastic presentation with a discussion with Dr. David Ludwig and his wife chef Dawn Ludwig to promote their new book “Always Delicious” which we all got a copy of in our swag bags. Full disclosure, I have been critical of Ludwig in the past. I tried to come into it with an open mind though, I really did but the elephant would not settle down. Despite their protestations that it was not a diet book, if it talks about weight loss, fat adaptation, is filled with testimonials (from readers who have lost weight), and has a prescriptive DIET with three phases, it’s a goddamn diet book. I’m not going to get into the science of his insulin hypothesis here because my point is not to critique his beliefs but if you want to read more about it I recommend this short article by Stephan Guyenet. I’m also not here to question the “success” people have had on Ludwig’s diet. If people are happier and healthier following this plan, I think that’s great. My issue is with the framing of this diet as the best way to eat for everyone and that the best way of eating is one that promotes weight loss. They talked about “NSVs” (non-scale victories) but the only examples I saw in the book and heard during the talk were a reduction in blood pressure and going down a pant size (which while technically not a weight loss “victory” is still a “victory” over an “unruly” body).

For a day that was meant to promote health through food there was a whole lot of talk about The Obesity Problem which is really not the direction that we want to take if we want to encourage people to have healthy relationships with food and their kitchens. I encourage everyone to read this piece about one woman’s “life as a public health crisis”.  If obesity is a “problem” then food is the enemy. That mindset does not lead to healthy attitudes and behaviours. You don’t need to “retrain” your fat cells, they are not disobedient puppies. Rather, we as a society need to retrain our attitudes toward our bodies and our food so that we can once again be friends with both.


5 Comments

Naturopaths are jumping onboard #NutritionMonth and this boat ain’t big enough for all of us

Screen Shot 2018-03-24 at 6.03.40 PM.png

As you probably know, March is Nutrition Month. Traditionally this is the month in which dietitians come out in full force on social media, and in news articles, with nutrition tips, recipes, etc. This year I noticed a change. Yes, dietitians are still out there telling everyone to eat more vegetables, promoting the profession, and encouraging people to “unlock the potential of food”. Interspersed throughout those posts and articles though are ones from a new voice, naturopaths.

On March 15th the Institute for Natural Medicine put out a news release titled “Naturopathic Doctors Complete 155 Hours of Nutrition Education in Medical School: March is Nutrition Month“. In the linked FAQ: “What advanced nutrition education do naturopathic doctors receive?” the INM states that, “Naturopathic doctors provide individualized nutrition assessment and guidance utilizing evidence based nutritional recommendations” (emphasis mine). On addition, one of the “areas of concentration” is “collaboration with Registered Dietitians, as needed”. While part of me is glad to see Nutrition Month catching on, rather than being an echo chamber of RDs, another part of me is frustrated to see it being co-opted by a pseudoscientific profession.

The use of the term “evidence based” concerns me. What evidence might that be? Those of us working in dietetics and medicine often talk about the need for treatments, interventions, and programs to be evidence-based. However, these interventions are only as good as the evidence on which they’re based. Ideally, you want high level evidence like guidelines and and summaries which draw on a larger body of research demonstrating consistent results (check out the 6S Pyramid from the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools for more details). At the bottom of the pyramid, are single studies. The single studies aren’t necessarily poor (they’re the foundation for the higher levels of the pyramid) but if there aren’t many and they aren’t in agreement it becomes difficult to make solid evidence-based recommendations. Also, it can be easy to cherry pick single studies to support nearly any position and proclaim your stance to be “evidence-based”. Without attending naturopath school, I can’t say how credible the evidence-base they’re drawing on is with certainty. However, based on what I see on the websites, social media feeds, and have heard from many people who’ve seen naturopaths, I think it’s wise to question the quality of the nutrition education they’re receiving.

I also question the statement about collaborating with RDs. I’m sure that someone will tell me I’m wrong in the comments but in my experience, I have never heard of a naturopath referring a client to a dietitian. Considering their 155 hours of nutrition education and their alleged nutritional knowledge I’m not sure why they would see a benefit to referring a client on to one of us.

Now, I’ll be the first to tell you that the plural of anecdote is not evidence and I’m sure that seeking responses from twitter is likely to have skewed toward my own bias, but I was curious what sort of nutrition advice people are receiving from naturopaths. I received a number of responses ranging from negative to positive. I assured everyone anonymity so names have been changed – thank you to everyone who was willing to share their experience(s) with me. Here you have it:

The good:

Emma told me that they started seeing a naturopath to improve her diet, energy, and overall health. She found the naturopath to be very down-to-earth with realistic expectations and advice in-line with current research. She said, “She’s always been incredibly supportive; always learning; always approaching everybody as an individual and very willing to make adjustments depending upon someone’s reactions to process.” This naturopath also provided affordable recipes and shopping plans.

Ava went to a naturopath for IBS and was told to try a FODMAP elimination diet.

The bad:

Emma’s naturopath promoted organic products as best and advised her to avoid GMOs.

Ava was also told to eliminate gluten (despite having expressed no issue with gluten and not having celiac disease). She was also not provided with sufficient support to feel like she could adhere to the low-FODMAP diet and quickly abandoned it.

Liam was diagnosed with hypercholesterolemia and prescribed medication by his doctor. He didn’t tolerate it well so he went to a naturopath who sold him a special drink and put him on an alkaline diet.

Sophia went to a naturopath to help her control her severe asthma. The naturopath advised her to eliminate gluten and follow a vegan diet with the explanation that, animal products increase inflammation in the body and were worsening her asthma. As she had previously eliminated gluten and experienced no benefit she followed a vegan diet for about 6 months. She experienced no decrease in symptoms during this time so she reintroduced animal products to her diet.

The ugly:

Liver cleanse supplements were part of the plan provided by Emma’s naturopath.

Olivia went to see a naturopath and was told to cut out dairy, given a stack of photocopied book chapters and opinion pieces, and $800 worth of liver detox tablets, supplements, and powders. To be fair, this was pre-Internet times so photocopies were not so odd, and the profession may have grown since then. But, that also makes the cost of supplements even more exorbitant than it sounds today.

Isabella told me, “I got “nutrition advice” from a naturopath. I walked in, he fat-shamed me, and gave me a whole sheaf of paper basically outlining how I already eat.”

Mia was advised to consume raw milk, and to give the same to her three year old child.

Amelia has both celiac disease and multiple sclerosis. Despite following a gluten-free and dairy-free diet, taking recommended supplements and medications, she still experienced digestive issues. She went to see a naturopath who advised her to get IgG allergy testing. Due to the nature of this not recommended form of allergy testing the naturopath told her she could no longer consume the foods that she was consuming the most of leaving her with very little that she could still eat.

Harper went to see a naturopath after being diagnosed with breast cancer. After spending over $15, 000 on a “natural” treatment overseas she ended up having a double mastectomy but sadly died within a year.

If this is the sort of nutrition advice that naturopaths are providing I’d rather have Nutrition Month remain the echo chamber of dietitians promoting truly evidence-based nutrition recommendations.


Leave a comment

Does protecting the public infringe on freedom of speech?

Screen Shot 2018-01-28 at 9.46.48 AM

So, I already blogged about a very similar issue not all that long ago, but I can’t let this article pass without comment.

Essentially people (aka business owners who are hiring unqualified individuals) are pissed off because they won’t be able to hire just anybody to provide nutrition counselling to customers and clients if a NY bill passes. Which means they might actually have to hire qualified nutrition professionals (aka Registered Dietitians) and maybe pay them a semi-decent salary if they want to continue offering nutrition counsel to their clientele.

The bill would define the practice of dietitians and nutritionists and make it illegal for anyone to provide these nutrition services who’s not licenced by the State to practice either dietetics or medicine. The example the article provides to make their case that this is outrageous, in my opinion, actually serves to exemplify precisely why this bill would be a good thing.

The representative of the group attempting to defeat the bill complained that someone who’s not licenced to provide nutrition services would be able to say, “for example, “Fish contains vitamin B12.” But you could not go further to say, “If you’re feeling tired, or lack energy, try foods or supplementing with vitamin B12.”” You see, a RD would know better than to give a recommendation like this because it’s not our job to diagnose. Rather, we might suggest that a person bring their concern to their doctor and ask about having their vitamin B12 level checked. There can be many reasons why an individual is lacking energy and we wouldn’t just push a supplement on someone. I can see why health food store owners might not want to hire us as pushing supplements is what keeps them in business.

Again, what the article fails to mention is the reason for the bill. It’s not for the benefit of Registered Dietitians, although it would likely benefit RDs practicing in NY. No, it’s to protect the public. It’s to ensure that unscrupulous and/or inadequately trained individuals aren’t providing nutrition services to the unwitting public (although there are plenty of exemptions). It’s so that the public aren’t provided unhelpful, or even potentially harmful nutrition advice. It’s so that the public aren’t pushed to buy unnecessary, or even potentially harmful supplements. It’s so that the public aren’t encouraged to follow unhelpful, or even potentially harmful diets. It’s so that the public don’t have to navigate the confusing titles to determine if a professional is qualified to provide them with advice. This bill would serve to ensure that the public is receiving nutrition services from qualified credible regulated professionals.


7 Comments

If children are the future we may be in trouble

Screen Shot 2017-12-16 at 6.11.01 PM.png

After coming across a few teacher resources I’ve started to wonder about what lessons we’re really teaching children in schools.

The first example was actually a list of nutrition curriculum supports for teachers compiled by dietitians. Most of them were great but a few that really stood out to me were ones produced by companies whose m.o. is to sell products, not to educate. I found it concerning that nutrition professionals would consider promoting self-esteem resources from Dove and videos about farming from companies like Kashi to students would be appropriate. Considering the clear lack of media literacy and nutrition literacy in our society, I think it’s vital that as nutrition professionals we do our utmost to promote credible, unbiased (or at least as unbiased as possible) sources of nutrition information to the public and particularly to children and youth.

So, there was that. Then I came across a (US-based) website of “food resources” for teachers with a number of activities featuring candy to teach kids lessons about various subjects such as math and science. For example, we have: gummy bear genetics, gummy worm measurements, the history of marshmallows, math with candies, and chocolate and solvents. Why exactly do we need to use sugary treats to teach children in school? Is this the norm? Is the prevailing perception that children need to be bribed to learn anything in school?

There’s lesson plans on the website including things like “Juice Nutrition 101” which one might reasonably assume would be about the pros and cons of juice. If so, you would be incorrect. It’s actually only about the alleged benefits of juice and was (get this) used with permission from Ocean Spray Cranberries, inc. I shit you not.

What kind of lessons do these sorts of things actually teach children? Not critical thinking, I’m sure. Nor do they teach children accurate unbiased nutrition information. They also normalize and encourage the regular consumption of candy and treats that should really be “sometimes” foods. We need to have more dietitians involved with the development of educational resources. We need to ensure that teachers are nutrition and media literate so that they don’t use resources such as those mentioned above in their classrooms. If children are the future we need to do better at equipping them with the skills to navigate and emerge from this “post truth” era.