Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!sun!amdahl!ems
From: ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: Psychological Factors Affecting Physical Condition
Message-ID: <1625@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Jun-85 15:58:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdahl.1625
Posted: Thu Jun  6 15:58:25 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Jun-85 00:50:04 EDT
References: <1687@aecom.UUCP> <980@cbdkc1.UUCP> <218@gatech.CSNET>
Distribution: na
Organization: Circle C Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, Ca
Lines: 60

> In article <980@cbdkc1.UUCP> tjs@dkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) writes:
> >
> > ... ( long list of quoted stuff on nutrition in medicine ... )
> >
> >By the way you have not answered my question, how many hours of nutritional
> >training are required to get a medical degree?  How many hours have you had?
> >
> 
> 	How many seconds of nutritional education have you had?

OK, this I can see as a reasonable flame in response to something
you didn't like.

> 	Do you consider biochemistry a prerequisite to an understanding of
> 	nutrition?

This is also connected, sort of, though the thread is getting thinner.

> 	Is organic chemistry ( its natural because its organic ) a useful
> 	introduction to some of the basic principles of nutrition?

Here we start to get off the deep end.  Organic has two meanings.  One
is reserved to chemistry and, roughly, means "containing carbon".
The other is reserved to the granola groupies and means, roughly,
'not unduly mollested by people'.  To confuse the issue by mixing
two different meanings is pointless.  Time flies like an arrow; fruit
flies like a banana.  Same words, different meanings.

And organic chem as an intro to *BASIC* anything?  Surely you jest...

> 	Do you feel that anthropology is a reasonable starting point for an
> 	understanding of the history of human nutrition?
> 	Does one have to have educational experience with Ecology in order
> 	to grasp the concept of food chain positioning and its effect on
> 	human nutritional decisions?
>
I really don't under stand the point in this part.  The answer
to these questions is yes, but the author seems to be using them to
'poke fun at' the earlier posting.  (If one is studying the HISTORY of
nutrition, anthropology *IS* important, if one is studying
good nutrition, antro is not important.  Similarly if one is wondering
why people in an area are showing high mercury levels, an understanding
of the food chain coupled with the observation of high tuna levels in
the diet would be useful.  A fundamental factor in ecology is the food
chain.  It is usually found to be more efficient to gather knowledge
by education rather than re-discovery ... )
I doubt whether anthro or ecology is needed in a medical curriculum,
but that is not the question asked by the poster.

So whats the point?

(Sorry for the confusion, maybe I'm just having one of my 'slow'
days ... :-)

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems

This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but
not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)