FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


my tummy gets bigger





mrcool
i wanted to get rid of this....jogging isn't the best exercise for me to lose weight...i have take less food too...do you have any idea/ideas on how to have a slim or shape body...
deanhills
Why not see a naturopath. Perhaps your tummy could be something to do with less than perfect digestion of food. Naturopaths are usually good with working with patients to cleanse their bodies, and you will likely find that at the end of a cleanse like that, you will have trimmed away your tummy. You will also find you have lots more energy, the kind that will want you to do exercise. Natural exercise like taking on a sport will probably be much longer lasting than a gymnasium, but that is personal preference. Key however I think is diet with an expert such as a naturopath, as well as changing your lifestyle.
jessicawalker
For me, it's all in carbs. If I don't watch my carbs, they go right to my tummy. Which is so hard, because I love carbs.
Bikerman
If I were you I would steer clear of naturopaths and consult a qualified dietician. Naturopathy is poorly regulated, full of quacks, and often relies on woo-woo such as homoeopathy which has no proven benefit.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
If I were you I would steer clear of naturopaths and consult a qualified dietician. Naturopathy is poorly regulated, full of quacks, and often relies on woo-woo such as homoeopathy which has no proven benefit.
I think that depends on the country. In Canada there are very reputable Naturopaths and the courses you have to do to become a Naturopath are quite intense and take a number of years to complete. Quite often you would find medical doctors who have also trained as Naturopaths. I believe in the United States, UK and Germany as well as a number of other countries standards of training are the same. Like with the medical profession you may find naturopaths that are not as good as the other, but in general they are quite well-trained, otherwise discerning Canadians would not be using them. Medical doctors in my opinion are better at the extreme end of diagnosing and treating illnesses. Dieticians are more into the food groups although could by nature of their own interests be knowledgeable in other areas. Naturopaths are good for preventive type of treatments. I know some very good Naturopaths that in my opinion are better at this kind of thing than a medical doctor. They would also be the first to get a patient to see a medical doctor for those areas that fall outside their field of expertise.

This is a link for more information about Naturopaths and training in Canada and the United States:
http://www.naturalhealers.com/qa/naturopathic-medicine.shtml
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
If I were you I would steer clear of naturopaths and consult a qualified dietician. Naturopathy is poorly regulated, full of quacks, and often relies on woo-woo such as homoeopathy which has no proven benefit.
I think that depends on the country. In Canada there are very reputable Naturopaths and the courses you have to do to become a Naturopath are quite intense and take a number of years to complete.
Depends on the province. They are regulated in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia.
Quote:
Quite often you would find medical doctors who have also trained as Naturopaths. I believe in the United States, UK and Germany as well as a number of other countries standards of training are the same.
Nope. In the UK there is no central regulation so anyone can call themselves a naturopath. In the US it depends on the state - it is regulated in some and specifically outlawed in others (South Carolina and Tennessee). I am unaware of any central regulation in Germany.
Quote:
Like with the medical profession you may find naturopaths that are not as good as the other, but in general they are quite well-trained, otherwise discerning Canadians would not be using them.
LOL...that argument simply won't fly. Discerning Canadians use all sorts of nonsensical practices from horoscopes to homoeopathy. In medicine, as in all science, evidence is key. That is why medicine relies on double-blind testing. We KNOW that the placebo effect is very real - the National Health Service here in the UK, for example, actually employs 'spiritual healers'. That is not because it is thought that there is any such thing as 'spiritual healing' but because genuine scientific trials have shown that they produce a strong placebo effect and that is beneficial to the patient.*
The training issue depends on regulation - where the 'profession' is unregulated then nobody can say what training they have received and what the validity of any 'certification' actually is.
I don't doubt that there are some good naturopaths out there, but I stick to my original advice - consult a qualified dietician.

*Before anyone asks - the reason we know that it was placebo and not a 'spiritual' effect is because a genuine double-blind test was conducted. One group of actors performed spiritual healing and a group of 'genuine' spiritual healers did the same. The results were that in both cases there was a genuine improvement - actually the actors did slightly better. (This study was into back pain, but similar results have been shown in other medical conditions).
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
In medicine, as in all science, evidence is key. That is why medicine relies on double-blind testing. We KNOW that the placebo effect is very real - the National Health Service here in the UK, for example, actually employs 'spiritual healers'. That is not because it is thought that there is any such thing as 'spiritual healing' but because genuine scientific trials have shown that they produce a strong placebo effect and that is beneficial to the patient.*
The training issue depends on regulation - where the 'profession' is unregulated then nobody can say what training they have received and what the validity of any 'certification' actually is.
I don't doubt that there are some good naturopaths out there, but I stick to my original advice - consult a qualified dietician.
In my own personal experience I have had more results with naturopaths in the areas I have described, i.e. preventive medicine field than with medical doctors. And perhaps for the exact reason you have described above. You have to have real symptoms that have to be tested and proven first before the doctor will pay attention to you. Also in my experience they usually do not have much time to look at you as a whole person. They listen for about 5 minutes, then grab a pad to scribble down all the tests you have to have, then you have to wait and see them again, and they will come up with that there is "no evidence" that there is nothing wrong with you. With a naturopath they seem to have more time to spend with you, and they work on common sense areas of good digestion, regularity, cleansing of the system, sensitivity to certain foods, diet. They are not in competition with doctors, but they cover that area where there is no evidence of symptoms as you described. And in my experience they did a good job for me.

A year ago I could barely walk. Both ankles were really painful and I thought next step would have to be a wheel chair. I went to a medical doctor, who took x-rays, and said there was nothing wrong with my ankles! As of course there was no tangible evidence in front of him. I left his office quite depressed with no hope of solving the problem. I then learned about a good naturopath in North Vancouver and spent one month last summer looking for ways to sort out what the problem was. A naturopath tested me for allergies to certain foods, started on a cleansing diet, and I benefitted from that. I also went to see a chiropractor who immediately recognized the problem as achilles tendonitis and started to treat me for that. It took quite a while, but I am totally recovered and can walk perfectly again.
Bikerman
a) Anecdote is not evidence unfortunately. As I said, there are no doubt many good naturopaths out there and there are most certainly lots of quacks. Without a state registration system you have no way to know which is which.
b) Why do you need alternative therapy to shed weight? A conventional dietician is certainly the best option.
PennyLane
You can try swimming or going to the gym. For all I know, running doesn't work. It's good for your condition but I don't loose any weight with it.
Solon_Poledourus
Diets are all rubbish.
This idea that we all have to be "slim" in order to be healthy is a bunch of crap. If you could potentially survive on your own in the wilderness, then you are in good shape regardless of your weight. Everything else is just "image". Your body tells you what it needs, and you should obey it. Those who gain excess weight from craving certain foods should just be more active more of the time to counteract it. There are medical exceptions to this, but I'm speaking generally.
If you feel your belly is getting too big, think about what you eat vs. how much physical activity you get. The answer is almost always right there. But watching carbs and fibers and all that other stuff is just overthinking it, in my opinion. Eat, but don't over do it and don't shove a bunch of garbage down your throat. Nobody should ever feel bad for being heavy or skinny, just so long as it doesn't endanger your health.
Bikerman
I didn't advise a diet and I agree that most diets are nonsense. I advised a dietician. Most dieticians would agree that specific diets are not much use - what you need is a balanced intake which matches your energy expenditure.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
I didn't advise a diet and I agree that most diets are nonsense. I advised a dietician. Most dieticians would agree that specific diets are not much use - what you need is a balanced intake which matches your energy expenditure.
Agreed Chris. And dieticians are very well trained to do this too. Naturopaths would go a step further and work on better digestion as an easier way to loose weight. Also may test you for foods you may be allergic to. Not all naturopaths are equal though and agreed with that too. Like not all chiropractors are equal either. One needs to really shop around and usually the best way is word by mouth. The chiropractor I saw started talking about insets in my shoes, next thing I was looking around for a good podiatrist. Eventually it all worked out for me.

Agreed with Solon that diet on its own is not enough, sort of takes a total revamp and overhaul of a lifestyle.
Dean_The_Great
Quack doctors or no, a cleanse of your digestive system has been known to cause improvement in the stomach area because of unprocessed fecal matter lying in your digestive system. However, if it's because of fat, then exercise and a change of diet should be in order. "Dieting" is not something that should be considered as a limited time thing. What should really happen is a change in your lifestyle with a will for self-improvement.

If you eat a lot of fast food/processed foods/fried foods, you're going to have difficulty with your weight and figure. If you go on a crash diet, lose all the weight you want, and then resume your old diet, you will simply put it all back on. Making a choice to be a healthier individual, and consulting the right people (Dietitians/doctors/personal trainers) will allow you to achieve the goals you want, and live a longer healthier life.
Bikerman
Dean_The_Great wrote:
Quack doctors or no, a cleanse of your digestive system has been known to cause improvement in the stomach area because of unprocessed fecal matter lying in your digestive system.
Colonic irrigation is quackery, leave it alone.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/gastro.html
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Dean_The_Great wrote:
Quack doctors or no, a cleanse of your digestive system has been known to cause improvement in the stomach area because of unprocessed fecal matter lying in your digestive system.
Colonic irrigation is quackery, leave it alone.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/gastro.html
It can be as quackery as medical doctors are. Or it can be as specialist and expert as medical doctors are. There are good ones and bad ones, but obviously it is not a cure for being overweight.

Good digestion is definitely a good start for losing weight. You can still loose weight without sorting this out, but you can loose much faster if you get a handle on how you digest food.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Dean_The_Great wrote:
Quack doctors or no, a cleanse of your digestive system has been known to cause improvement in the stomach area because of unprocessed fecal matter lying in your digestive system.
Colonic irrigation is quackery, leave it alone.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/gastro.html
It can be as quackery as medical doctors are. Or it can be as specialist and expert as medical doctors are. There are good ones and bad ones, but obviously it is not a cure for being overweight.
I can find not one single study which shows that colonic irrigation is effective (and I scanned all the medical papers I have access to).
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Dean_The_Great wrote:
Quack doctors or no, a cleanse of your digestive system has been known to cause improvement in the stomach area because of unprocessed fecal matter lying in your digestive system.
Colonic irrigation is quackery, leave it alone.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/gastro.html
It can be as quackery as medical doctors are. Or it can be as specialist and expert as medical doctors are. There are good ones and bad ones, but obviously it is not a cure for being overweight.
I can find not one single study which shows that colonic irrigation is effective (and I scanned all the medical papers I have access to).
There are quite a number of people who will disagree with you on this, but then of course they are all non-medical people and may not count in your or the medical profession's opinion. I can't imagine that you would be interested in that kind of literature, after all, doctor's opinion is much more valuable than a patient's or the para-medical profession any day.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Dean_The_Great wrote:
Quack doctors or no, a cleanse of your digestive system has been known to cause improvement in the stomach area because of unprocessed fecal matter lying in your digestive system.
Colonic irrigation is quackery, leave it alone.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/gastro.html
It can be as quackery as medical doctors are. Or it can be as specialist and expert as medical doctors are. There are good ones and bad ones, but obviously it is not a cure for being overweight.
I can find not one single study which shows that colonic irrigation is effective (and I scanned all the medical papers I have access to).
There are quite a number of people who will disagree with you on this, but then of course they are all non-medical people and may not count in your or the medical profession's opinion. I can't imagine that you would be interested in that kind of literature, after all, doctor's opinion is much more valuable than a patient's or the para-medical profession any day.

This is a non-argument. As I have said before, you can use that argument to support ANY type of hocus-pocus. I can take you to people who swear they have been healed by crystals; others who swear that their horoscope is 100% accurate; others who swear that not only have they had a colonic irrigation, but it was performed by a bunch of aliens on their spaceship. Should I therefore take these seriously?
There is a well known effect in medicine called the placebo effect - basically, if you believe it will work then it stands a higher chance of working. Doctors used to regularly prescribe placebos - sugar pills. The placebo effect is real and is measurable. The only way you can tell whether the specific treatment is having the effect claimed, or whether it is placebo, is by conducting a double-blind test where neither the patient NOR the doctor knows whether the treatment is real or not. Unfortunately there is no easy way to do such a test on a procedure such as colonic irrigation, so we have to rely on other medical data. As far as the medical profession is concerned it is of use in a very limited number of people who have bowel disorders or who are suffering post-operative complications from bowel surgery. I tend to agree with that.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Dean_The_Great wrote:
Quack doctors or no, a cleanse of your digestive system has been known to cause improvement in the stomach area because of unprocessed fecal matter lying in your digestive system.
Colonic irrigation is quackery, leave it alone.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/gastro.html
It can be as quackery as medical doctors are. Or it can be as specialist and expert as medical doctors are. There are good ones and bad ones, but obviously it is not a cure for being overweight.
I can find not one single study which shows that colonic irrigation is effective (and I scanned all the medical papers I have access to).
There are quite a number of people who will disagree with you on this, but then of course they are all non-medical people and may not count in your or the medical profession's opinion. I can't imagine that you would be interested in that kind of literature, after all, doctor's opinion is much more valuable than a patient's or the para-medical profession any day.

This is a non-argument. As I have said before, you can use that argument to support ANY type of hocus-pocus. I can take you to people who swear they have been healed by crystals; others who swear that their horoscope is 100% accurate; others who swear that not only have they had a colonic irrigation, but it was performed by a bunch of aliens on their spaceship. Should I therefore take these seriously?
There is a well known effect in medicine called the placebo effect - basically, if you believe it will work then it stands a higher chance of working. Doctors used to regularly prescribe placebos - sugar pills. The placebo effect is real and is measurable. The only way you can tell whether the specific treatment is having the effect claimed, or whether it is placebo, is by conducting a double-blind test where neither the patient NOR the doctor knows whether the treatment is real or not. Unfortunately there is no easy way to do such a test on a procedure such as colonic irrigation, so we have to rely on other medical data. As far as the medical profession is concerned it is of use in a very limited number of people who have bowel disorders or who are suffering post-operative complications from bowel surgery. I tend to agree with that.
OK, I probably should have done this earlier on, as I trusted that you could not find a single medical article, but I have found a few in Pub-Med and am quoting two:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18720454?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Quote:
1: Br J Surg. 2008 Oct;95(10):1273-9. Links
Prospective study of colonic irrigation for the treatment of defaecation disorders.Koch SM, Melenhorst J, van Gemert WG, Baeten CG.
Department of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospital Maastricht, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Retrograde colonic irrigation is a possible treatment for defaecation disorders when conservative treatment or surgery has failed. The aim of this prospective study was to investigate its effectiveness. METHODS: Patients were divided into three groups: those with faecal incontinence (A), constipation (B) or both (C). The Biotrol Irrimatic pump or the irrigation bag was used for colonic irrigation. Patients completed a questionnaire at baseline and after 3, 6 and 12 months, as well as a Short Form 36 health survey and an American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgery quality of life questionnaire at baseline and after 6 months. RESULTS: The study included 39 patients (26 women; mean age 58.0 years). In group A, 11 of 18 patients were pseudocontinent for faeces at 3 months (P < 0.001). Parks' incontinence scores decreased for all patients in this group at 3 months (P < 0.001), 6 months (P = 0.036) and 1 year (P = 0.005). In group B, three of ten patients reported a major improvement. The mean score for the feeling of incomplete evacuation decreased at 3 months (P = 0.007), 6 months (P = 0.013) and 1 year (P = 0.036). In group C, six of ten patients became pseudocontinent for faeces (P = 0.009) and three reported improvement in constipation. The overall quality of life scores improved (P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Retrograde colonic irrigation is an undervalued but effective alternative treatment for intractable defaecation disorders.

and
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9221856?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
Quote:
1: Dis Colon Rectum. 1997 Jul;40(7):802-5.Links
Clinical value of colonic irrigation in patients with continence disturbances.Briel JW, Schouten WR, Vlot EA, Smits S, van Kessel I.
Department of General Surgery, University Hospital Dijkzigt, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Continence disturbances, especially fecal soiling, are difficult to treat. Irrigation of the distal part of the large bowel might be considered as a nonsurgical alternative for patients with impaired continence. PURPOSE: This study is aimed at evaluating the clinical value of colonic irrigation. METHODS: Thirty-two patients (16 females; median age, 47 (range, 23-72) years) were offered colonic irrigation on an ambulatory basis. Sixteen patients suffered from fecal soiling (Group I), whereas the other 16 patients were treated for fecal incontinence (Group II). Patients were instructed by enterostomal therapists how to use a conventional colostomy irrigation set to obtain sufficient irrigation of the distal part of their large bowel. Patients with continence disturbances during the daytime were instructed to introduce 500 to 1,000 ml of warm (38 degrees C) water within 5 to 10 minutes after they passed their first stool. In addition, they were advised to wait until the urge to defecate was felt. Patients with soiling during overnight sleep were advised to irrigate during the evening. To determine clinical outcome, a detailed questionnaire was used. RESULTS: Median duration of follow-up was 18 months. Ten patients discontinued irrigation within the first month of treatment. Symptoms resolved completely in two patients. They believed that there was no need to continue treatment any longer. Irrigation had no effect in two patients. Despite the fact that symptoms resolved, six patients discontinued treatment because they experienced pain (n = 2) or they considered the irrigation to be too time-consuming (n = 4). Twenty-two patients are still performing irrigations. Most patients irrigated the colon in the morning after the first stool was passed. Time needed for washout varied between 10 and 90 minutes. Frequency of irrigations varied from two times per day to two times per week. In Group I, irrigation was found to be beneficial in 92 percent of patients, whereas 60 percent of patients in Group II considered the treatment as a major improvement to the quality of their lives. If patients who discontinued treatment because of washout-related problems are included in the assessment of final outcome, the success rate is 79 and 38 percent respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with fecal soiling benefit more from colonic irrigation than patients with incontinence for liquid or solid stools. If creation of a stoma is considered, especially in patients with intractable and disabling soiling, it might be worthwhile to treat these patients first by colonic irrigation.

Bikerman
Which is EXACTLY what I just said - the medical profession is quite clear that colonic irrigation IS useful IN A SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE who have severe bowel problems or post-operative complications following bowel/gastero-intestinal surgery.
There is absolutely no disagreement about that. Of course it is useful, where patients have severe constipation - that is a no-brainer. More interestingly it is also useful in patients with faecal incontinence - slightly less intuitive but medically 'proven'.
None of this is relevant to the OP. There are many medical treatments for particular conditions, but that does not mean that they are either useful or desirable in people without those conditions.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Which is EXACTLY what I just said - the medical profession is quite clear that colonic irrigation IS useful IN A SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE who have severe bowel problems or post-operative complications following bowel/gastero-intestinal surgery.
There is absolutely no disagreement about that. Of course it is useful, where patients have severe constipation - that is a no-brainer. More interestingly it is also useful in patients with faecal incontinence - slightly less intuitive but medically 'proven'.
None of this is relevant to the OP. There are many medical treatments for particular conditions, but that does not mean that they are either useful or desirable in people without those conditions.

I thought this is what you said:
Bikerman wrote:
Colonic irrigation is quackery, leave it alone.

Most people I know do colonics because of constipation or issues relating to constipation and to become more regular. Do I then gather that your problem is with when it is offered outside the licensed medical profession? I have nothing against the medical profession, but maybe this is a case in point again where medical profession only comes up with remedies for manifested medical problems. The para-medical profession tries to prevent that from happening and responds to symptoms that are on their way to their problems, but which doctors in the pure scientific world cannot identify as a medical problem yet and therefore cannot treat it yet. By nature of their scientific training they can only treat medical problems that they can test positively for.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
I thought this is what you said:
Bikerman wrote:
Colonic irrigation is quackery, leave it alone.

You are selectively taking a passage out of context. The advice was specific to this case - loosing weight around the stomache area. In that case Colonic irrigation is indeed quackery and should be left well alone.
Quote:
Most people I know do colonics because of constipation or issues relating to constipation and to become more regular.
So nothing to do with weight loss then? The fact is that you don't know what you are talking about and you should leave medical advice to those that do. Now, of course, I am not medically qualified and do not offer specific medical advice either (in that respect we are both similar) - which is why my comments are those supported by the medical profession in my country, and most other countries.
Quote:
Do I then gather that your problem is with when it is offered outside the licensed medical profession? I have nothing against the medical profession, but maybe this is a case in point again where medical profession only comes up with remedies for manifested medical problems.

The case in point is not a manifest medical problem and doesn't require a 'quack' solution.
What I said was clear, unambiguous (unless selectively quoted) and correct. Colonic irrigation, as a potential 'help' in this case is sheer quackery. In fact it is sheer quackery for most people. A bout of constipation is best cured by laxatives. In extreme cases (normally post operative) then there is a case for colonic irrigation but to suggest it in this context is dangerous quackery.
Quote:
The para-medical profession tries to prevent that from happening and responds to symptoms that are on their way to their problems, but which doctors in the pure scientific world cannot identify as a medical problem yet and therefore cannot treat it yet. By nature of their scientific training they can only treat medical problems that they can test positively for.
It is important to distinguish between paramedics and 'para-medical'.
Para-medics are those who operate 'alongside' medical professionals. I have a great deal of respect for paramedics and most of them, certainly in this country, are well trained and committed professionals. The 'para-medical' field is full of quacks who have no competence and deserve nothing but scorn. It depends on the definition, but more importantly, on the qualifications and certifications of the people involved. Many people operating as 'paramedical practitioners' are nothing more than quacks. Fortunately here in the UK we have recognised qualifications and certifications for GENUINE paramedics.
Dean_The_Great
That's awesome. The article that you provided when you quoted me earlier (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/gastro.html) was really great, and totally makes sense to me.

I've since forwarded it to a few friends of mine who told me about the gastro-cleanse, though I don't think they bought it... which doesn't make sense, considering how well it's cited.

Anyway, just wanted to let ya know.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I thought this is what you said:
Bikerman wrote:
Colonic irrigation is quackery, leave it alone.

You are selectively taking a passage out of context. The advice was specific to this case - loosing weight around the stomache area. In that case Colonic irrigation is indeed quackery and should be left well alone.

I don't understand. How is the quote selective. This is the total context you made your statement in and you did not qualify it in anyway, you made a blanket summary judgment of colonic irrigation as quackery and to leave it alone:
Bikerman wrote:
Dean_The_Great wrote:
Quack doctors or no, a cleanse of your digestive system has been known to cause improvement in the stomach area because of unprocessed fecal matter lying in your digestive system.
Colonic irrigation is quackery, leave it alone.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/gastro.html


Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Most people I know do colonics because of constipation or issues relating to constipation and to become more regular.
So nothing to do with weight loss then? The fact is that you don't know what you are talking about and you should leave medical advice to those that do.
I object to this Chris. I most certainly was not giving medical advice. I was having a debate with you on your negative perception of colonics to the point of saying it is quackery. I am the last one to give medical advice.

Digestion and constipation are key issues in losing weight. In fact it could be the reason for bloat around the tummy as well. If you solve constipation and digestion often you would loose weight right there and then. And before you label this under medical advice, the digestion and constipation issues as key to losing weight are very well documented everywhere. You agreed that colonic irrigation is good for constipation, so if it can relieve constipation, it can assist in an overall weight loss programme. Naturopaths would only do colonics as part of a programme, not as a one-off solution, and not all naturopaths use colonics, as there are many ways to treat constipation. Most naturopaths also do not do the colonics themselves. They refer patients to professional colonic specialists.

Bikerman wrote:
Now, of course, I am not medically qualified and do not offer specific medical advice either (in that respect we are both similar) - which is why my comments are those supported by the medical profession in my country, and most other countries.
Good to know that of course!


Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Do I then gather that your problem is with when it is offered outside the licensed medical profession? I have nothing against the medical profession, but maybe this is a case in point again where medical profession only comes up with remedies for manifested medical problems.

The case in point is not a manifest medical problem and doesn't require a 'quack' solution.
What I said was clear, unambiguous (unless selectively quoted) and correct. Colonic irrigation, as a potential 'help' in this case is sheer quackery. In fact it is sheer quackery for most people. A bout of constipation is best cured by laxatives. In extreme cases (normally post operative) then there is a case for colonic irrigation but to suggest it in this context is dangerous quackery.
Here you refer to it as "quackery" again. Am I quoting you out of context again? How can you make that assessment? Especially when you are not medically qualified to do that?

Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
The para-medical profession tries to prevent that from happening and responds to symptoms that are on their way to their problems, but which doctors in the pure scientific world cannot identify as a medical problem yet and therefore cannot treat it yet. By nature of their scientific training they can only treat medical problems that they can test positively for.
It is important to distinguish between paramedics and 'para-medical'.
Para-medics are those who operate 'alongside' medical professionals. I have a great deal of respect for paramedics and most of them, certainly in this country, are well trained and committed professionals. The 'para-medical' field is full of quacks who have no competence and deserve nothing but scorn. It depends on the definition, but more importantly, on the qualifications and certifications of the people involved. Many people operating as 'paramedical practitioners' are nothing more than quacks. Fortunately here in the UK we have recognised qualifications and certifications for GENUINE paramedics.
So are you then an expert on who are quacks and who are not quacks? And let's just get it straight here before you accuse me of giving a medical opinion here. I am taking issue with your very severe judgment of labelling experts as quacks without having the facts of their qualifications and medical counselling and treatments in front of you. In your blanket judgment you are including people who happen to have worked dahm hard at what they are doing and are really caring about the wellness of their patients with very good results. But of course, if you come to me and say that you have medical evidence in front of you that X person has created a problem that led to negative consequences, then of course that is not good and that X person should be prosecuted to the "n"th degree. I believe that is the rule in the medical profession as well, and the medical profession also has doctors from time to time that have been identified as less than qualified and quacks. But to make a blanket across the board summary accusation of quackery as quoted above, I disagree with that "blanket judgment" black and white point of view. Naturopaths have a definite contribution to make in the field of preventive measures for health and wellness such as right lifestyle, diet and looking after digestion and constipation issues and checking on foods that patients are allergic to. I have personal experience of that and so have many of my friends and can testify to the benefits it has had on my own health.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I thought this is what you said:
Bikerman wrote:
Colonic irrigation is quackery, leave it alone.

You are selectively taking a passage out of context. The advice was specific to this case - loosing weight around the stomache area. In that case Colonic irrigation is indeed quackery and should be left well alone.

I don't understand. How is the quote selective. This is the total context you made your statement in and you did not qualify it in anyway, you made a blanket summary judgment of colonic irrigation as quackery and to leave it alone:
No - I gave SPECIFIC advice THAT IN THIS CASE it is quackery. I also posted that it has got uses in severe digestive illnesses - mostly post-operative complications. Colonic irrigation has no role in weight loss - to pretend that it does is, as I said, quackery. That is not MY opinion, it is the opinion of the BMA, RCNA and numerous papers from numerous scientists.
If you want to loose weight then eat less calories than you burn. Simple.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I thought this is what you said:
Bikerman wrote:
Colonic irrigation is quackery, leave it alone.

You are selectively taking a passage out of context. The advice was specific to this case - loosing weight around the stomache area. In that case Colonic irrigation is indeed quackery and should be left well alone.

I don't understand. How is the quote selective. This is the total context you made your statement in and you did not qualify it in anyway, you made a blanket summary judgment of colonic irrigation as quackery and to leave it alone:
No - I gave SPECIFIC advice THAT IN THIS CASE it is quackery. I also posted that it has got uses in severe digestive illnesses - mostly post-operative complications. Colonic irrigation has no role in weight loss - to pretend that it does is, as I said, quackery. That is not MY opinion, it is the opinion of the BMA, RCNA and numerous papers from numerous scientists.
If you want to loose weight then eat less calories than you burn. Simple.

You specifically said:
Quote:
Colonic irrigation is quackery, leave it alone.
You did not specify that this statement was restricted to weight loss only. Your posting consisted of this statement only. I read that statement in the way that you presented it and argued against that. You then tried to focus away from your statement by trying to overturn mine, as well as make me look like an idiot in the habit of dishing out quack medical advice. The argument I started with was about naturopaths. And that they have a good place in looking after health. I most certainly did not say that colonic irrigation is for losing weight. It can solve constipation if it is needed for constipation. And sometimes depending on the specific case, the person may be carrying excess weight because he/she is constipated. Usually when a person is constipated they also have a problem with their digestion. The two seem to always go along with one another and are factors in obesity. Not all naturopaths use colonics for a solution to constipation. And it is always preferred that the person consults with a medical practitioner or a very good and reputable naturopath when they think colonics.
Bikerman
It should be clear that my comments relate to the original post which was about weight loss around the stomache area.
You introduced a whole unnecessary section about naturopaths and colonic irrigation - not me. I responded that both are unnecessary in this context and colonic irrigation (in this context) is quackery. If you can point me to a single peer-reviewed paper on the use of colonic irrigation in weight loss then please do so. If you can't then I stick to my original statement, which is supported by the UK NHS as a whole, as well as most, if not all, of the professional bodies within the NHS (such as the BMA, the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Nursing, and so on..).
silverdown
NOTE THIS IS BASED ON PERSONAL EXPERIENCE , CONSULT A NUTRISTIONIST OR DOCTOR BEFORE TRYING THIS METHOD. I AM NOT A PROFESSION NUTRUSTIONIST OR DOCTOR.


I am a little overweight, what you can try if you feel like it is eat smaller portions all thru the day such as

MAIN MEALS

Breakfast
Lunch
Diner

and have 3 snacks in the middle between the meals

example

Breakfast
SNACK
lunch
SNACK
Dinner
light SNACK

This would tell your body you will get food and stop storing food and pass it thru your system.
ashgray2
Before I have a big tummy out here. When I notice it's getting bigger and bigger I started to reduce from eating foods and drinking water. But it only loose weight not my tummy. So I started doing the 300 workout from home. Now I'm having my 6 pack abs.
Related topics
Forum suggestion.
Salman khan case whole report
Grand Theft Auto : San Andreas
BrothersInArms forum
[OFFICIAL] World Cup 2006
Favorite Free E-mail
Mr. El Convento Rico
CSS- Text size
Link Active status
Free FRee traffic!
ANYONE THINKS TIME TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE?
The Middle East Conflict
Compatibility among IE, Firefox and Opera
Fantasy PC Community *5000 Articles*10 Members A Day*
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Health and Beauty

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.