BANT say that NTs must be regsitered with the Nutritional Therapy Council. But the NTC say that such people do not ‘warrant statutory regulation’.

http://www.nutritionaltherapycouncil.org.uk/ntcstatus.htm

Looks like there is a lot of confusion out there. All these organisaitons trying to make nutritionists look like a regulated profession when indeed they are not!

as a dietitian the whole dietitian/nutritionist comment has been ongoing since i began as a student, personally i see our roles and interests different and have a great deal of respect for the main practising nutritional therapists out there giving sound advice to clients, its a shame there is so many cranks (most of whom appear to be on tv or running cranky websites) who ruin there reputation.

there seems to be the misconception that dietitans only deal with weight loss, diabetics and the odd supposed food intolerance, all of which i could not have less time for personally.

i get far more satisfaction helpingf patients with a clinicl condition that greatly affects there quality of life, be it cancer, renal disease, crohns, inflammatory bowel, dysphagia or many of the important clinical conditions where we can have a massive impact on imprving someones quality of life.

the focus on overweight and obese people in the press drives me INSANE its about time someone paid attention to the 1000s of undernourished people out there, the kind of people who i see every day that are far more in need of our care and advice and who cost the NHS twice the amount that overweight people do.

so to all you ignorant people out there who feel you can coment on dietetic practice, go fing out what we REALLY do, which is sound evidence based regulated practice, leave the weight loss advice to the nutritionists if they like doing it so much, they are welcome to it.

From what I have read, dieticians, nutritionists & nutritional therapists all differ from each other in what they study & how they practice. Reading this blog it seems to me that many people assume nutritionists & nutritional therapists are the same thing. It’s my understanding that they are not.

I am currently studying nutritional therapy & I understand that in order to practice once qualified I will need to be registered with BANT - only those obtaining a qualification that covers all the required theory plus a substantial amount of clinical practice will be able to register & obtain insurance etc. I would strongly advice anyone thinking of consulting a nutritional therapist to check that the person is BANT registered. Unfortunately these regulations are relatively new & there are people out there, including McKeith, who do not have the required level of qualification to register. That, I believe, is why Ms McKeith calls herself a ‘clinical nutritionist’ because she is not qualified to call herself a ‘nutritional therapist’.

Nutritional therapy is termed as a complemetary therapy because it complements other types of therapies & medical practices. This by definition means it does not need to exclude them.

So let’s stop stepping on each others toes & instead let’s start working together to share our knowledge in order to help people, each in our own way.

16 years ago at the age of 25 I cam to this Country, stable weight, healthy.
After some time I decided that to be even more healthy I should follow up British dietitians society recommendation for healthy eating: a lots of carbohydrates, low fat, etc.

Result 30 kg extra within a year. Completely disturbed life patern. Problems loosing weight, tiredness, sleepiness, bloatidness, candida…

And do not tell me it is something else, I went to British GP-s for years to find out what is wrong, and they could not find any “thyroid” or other disturbance. I was accused of eating “loads of chips”.
For you information I loath chips, and the only adjustment to my original diet (I come from Mediterranean country) is to follow instructions of BDA, hoping to be even healthier than I was.
Now I am stuffed, and the only way I found myself functioning is following my old eating habits which ar enot very different of what Dr Briffa is advoacting. However the health and the looks have been ruined by your advice, further toped by GP-s disinterest to help!
So. please do not make coments like above, because really it is depressing. You should try to learn something new.

Perhaps instead insullting, you should try to cooperate with and learn from other people. Why not disclose you close asociations with food industry.

I originally studied anthropology, and although I never practiced, and therefore have no qualifications to comment, this debate has looked to me like a ritual of the sort you see in all cultures. If you set up a ritual in a “closed” way, where only certain things can be said and done, then you can control the result to a large extent. That control isn’t here, so people are welcome to use it as they wish, and usually that means an attempt to achieve each individual’s goal - for power, exposure, status, money, or whatever it happens to be. Very few academics believe in the existence of altruism, so informed, constructive debate to advance to public good necessarily takes a back seat to these other agendas.

I don’t mean to criticise any of you in this. I don’t see how anything else could have happened.

If you really want to try to achieve a constructive debate, you could try an eGroup with heavy moderation. The moderator needs to be someone “outside” the debate who has an understanding of the subject and the respect of those posting. Posting needs to be controlled by the moderator according to publicly stated rules (e.g. only those with certain qualifications can post, all “personal” remarks rejected, evidence always cited - and the lack of it duly noted - etc). The moderator has the final decision about what to post and what to reject. And finally - absolutely all posts must be anonymous and untraceable to their writers. If you can manage that, you will get closer to constructive debate. People will still push their professional agenda, of course, but you can eliminate the purpose of a lot of the personal posturing.

I thought science was based upon evidence not emotions…

To be become qualified to speak on a subject, you have to answer the question you are being asked not the one you want to answer..

Again, let me reiterate I am genuinely willing to hear from anyone who feels they have suggestions to make about the way forward. You can comment, or contact me via the contact button above.

I would suggest that this whole thread - and the preamble - do not foster genuine debate regarding the relative roles of dietitians/ nutritionists/bloggers but IMHO merely serve as a piece of rather unpleasant media self-promotion by Dr Briffa.

These recent threads appear - for the first time visitor - to have been solely for the purpose of Dr Briffa to undermine the practice of dietetics, Registered Dietitians (ie the sole nutritional professionals regulated to practice nutrition within a legal framework in the UK) in general, and the dietetic professional association - The BDA - in particular.

One has to wonder - at a time when ‘nutritionism’ is under media scrutiny - why such vitriol from a member of the GMC, and from an individual with no apparent qualification in the subject? - although I am happy to stand corrected by Dr Briffa on this.

And just how ‘professional’ is it for a so-called ‘medical doctor’ to insult a profession about which it is clear he knows so little about? Does the GMC code of conduct endorse such vile and unjustified comments by its members?

I have to conclude that the sole reason must be that Dr Briffa - a medical doctor yet self-styled nutritionist - considers himself ‘in competition’ with dietitians for media and commercial exposure, especially after the furore raised by Dr Ben Goldacres ‘Bad Science’ columns in the Guardian.

It is clear from his website that Dr Briffa considers himself quite a nutritionist, and as a dietitian I have no issue with him promoting his unique approach to the subject. However, his condescending and frankly insulting replies to the comments of RDs and the BDA proves he knows has a limited nutritional repertoire typical of the ‘alt-nutritionist’ genre - quick to dismiss ‘evidence based’ approaches, eager to undermine perceived potential detractors, yet apparently unable to place his patronising comments into context of any useful advice for the public to take.

I will assume that Dr Briffa will post a reply to this note, but please be assured that my initial interest in how Dr Briffa presents himself to the public has been satisfied, and I have no further need for this site.

I would suggest that fellow RDs also do not waste time, effort and consideration on the futile practice of attempting a debate with Dr Briffa. I would, however, strongly recommend sampling Dr Ben Goldacres highly interesting debates on his blog, at http://www.badscience.net.

Dr Briffa may keep his coterie of likeminded nutritionists keen on his brand of nutritionism. As a dietitian, I will continue to practice dietetics.

Each to their own.

And if the public are confused about the status of nutritionism-medicine, I would suggest contemplating the following.

I trust my gynaecologist and my dentist. But I would not want them to swap ends…..

” I think Dietitian’s need to think further about what they mean by “evidence based”

I would apply that to ALL our health professions Marina. There is an underlying assumption among health professionals that because a large study or trial has been conducted on behalf of government or industry, it is good quality research. This plainly is not the case
How many professionals have the time to read much more than the abstracts of the myriads of papers that exist?
Equally, how much relevance has a trial that enrols twenty people and a dog for a 3 week multiple intervention ‘trial’?

It is difficult, but important that we all keep our critical faculties when looking at evidence.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said nutritionism shouldn’t be written off “on the basis of the images and emotions Gillian McKeith (and her like) conjure up”. But this is what people are likely to do when she talks nonsense without being held publicly accountable or even censured by members of her own profession.

Whilst there are pseudonutritionists out there using quack diagnostic techniques (the McKeith stool / tongue analysis, blood cell analysis, iridology, kinesiology, phrenology, Kirlean photgraphy etc), who are free to use the term ‘clinical nutritionist’ without any form of training and do not have to belong to a single recognised regulatory body that has powers of censure, then I do feel that ‘mainstream practice’ has the scientific highground.

Nutritionism is science, plain and simple. By regulating the profession and insisting on standards of qualification in order to practice, you would weed out the charlatans and quack science. This would not only improve the public’s perception of the profession but it would give you an equal status with dietitians and lend more weight to any nutrition-based argument you have with ‘mainstream practice’.