Two weeks ago I was playing pickup soccer at the Buda Sportsplex with YMCA folks. I had a little run-in with a fella and I suspect my leg was kicked (or perhaps planted my foot wrong while changing direction) and injured my right calf.
I didn't think much of it at first but as the game went on, it got worse. Shortly after, I volunteered to play goalie so I can rest and stretch a bit but finally gave into the pain. When I got home, I felt better and didn't bother icing it (or using the R.I.C.E procedure).
After cruising with my girl around the neighborhood, enjoying Christmas light decors, I came home to a swollen calf the size of a melon! Those who know me or seen me in shorts know that I have grapefruit/3rd stage tumor looking calves @ 18inches circumference). When I got home and did my webMD, I called up an old friend studies PT. I was informed that it was a 2nd degree strain and could take 2-3weeks to fully recover. It was about 19.5 inches around that night.
http://www.nativeremedies.com/ailment/natural-treatments-for-muscle-strains.html
Long story short, I found tons of articles on muscle strains and ways to relieve the pain, inflammation, and blood clot and found a herbal substance call "Arnica". Since I wasn't going to spent my last 2 paycheck to see a sports doctor, I'm willing to give homeopathy a try. Arnica is known for its legendary muscle and joint soothing qualities and is used clinically for post-surgery/injury recovery and pain relieve.
http://www.answers.com/topic/arnica
http://www.arnica.com/
Before I went out and spent $25 on a bottle, I wanted to know if it really does the trick, so I googled "arnica side effects", "arnica remedy", and "arnica research".
What I end up finding is that in 2003, a research journal published in the Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine suggest that in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial (which is pretty much the most unbiased, scientific rigorous testing protocol there is to find how significant the treatment [arnica] affects the outcome [healing] with all other possible variables being constant.) suggest that the "healing power" was actually in fact, a "Placebo Effect" and not so much the biochemical property of the substance. See the study and the Summary. Also discussed here. "Why does arnica have such a reputation for healing?
'Professor Ernst's answer is "positive selection bias". Some patients recover quickly from surgery, and if they have been taking arnica, they tell their friends that the remedy helped. If they recover well without arnica, or they took it but recovered slowly, they are much less likely to tell everyone their experiences and "the myth becomes reinforced".
This made me question the whole homeopathic industry, are there any truth or justifiable evidence to hundred or thousands of ancient/alternative medicine anymore? if so, how do we quantify the treatment or the results? Should we even question them in the first place if it had worked for so long?'
I found this article to be most informative and educational to answer those questions.
Dr. Ernst was clearly interested in applying the rules of science to complementary/alternative medicine (CAM) but in doing so, he often faces resentments from the homeopathic crowd.
He made 8 arguments that I would love to share with you guys because sharing is caring. Followed by a short comment.
Argument No. 1
`If it helps my patients, I don't need science to tell me that it works'.
This is a classic argument between a researcher and a clinician. "Clinicians must see their primary responsibility towards their present patients while researchers have a responsibility towards patients of the future... If medicine as a whole had adhered to the above argument during the past three hundred years, we would still indulge in blood-letting and purging to the detriment of our patients. The principle of merely doing the best one can, while not advancing therapeutics for future health care, stands in the way of progress." With proper testing, research can improve homeopathic treatments (e.g. adjusting the right quantity or frequency or whatever is tested for more effective healing).
Argument No. 2
`Years of experience and tradition are more important than modern clinical trials'.
`Years of experience and tradition are more important than modern clinical trials'.
"Traditional use and experience can teach us important lessons. However, experience and science are items with different (not superior/inferior) values. Clinical medicine is founded on experience and to ignore it would be entirely foolish... Unfortunately, experience can also be seriously misleading (the history of medicine is littered with examples). Experience enables us to formulate hypotheses, but to test them requires rigorous science. As powerful as personal or collective experience often seems, it may lead us to draw wrong conclusions. the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data."
What about modern diseases? how do homeopathic medicine propose to treat them without the years of tradition?
Argument No. 3
`The nature of my therapy is such that it defies the clinical trial'.
`The nature of my therapy is such that it defies the clinical trial'.
"CAM claims to be holistic while science is accused of being reductionist. Clinical trials are... good for measuring what is measurable; but when we are dealing with the subtle effects of CAM, the clinical trial is thought to be inappropriate. When this argument is presented, we can reasonably ask what exactly the postulated subtle effects are. The answer may be `re-establishing a balance' (e.g. yin and yang), or boosting some energy, or increasing well being... For some of the outcome methods of quantification do exist (e.g. well being or patient satisfaction). Others, such as re-establishing a balance, seem to present greater difficulty. The problem, however, is only apparent, not real. Let us ask how the patient (or the therapist) recognizes that the goal of re-establishing the balance has been achieved. `Well, the patient feels better' is usually the answer. If this is the postulated effect, it too can be quantified. If a validated method of measurement does not exist, a method can (and should) be developed. Thus, argument No. 3 can invariably be shown to be wrong."
I got a story for you.
A regular customer of mine came in the restaurant the other day, she heard me talked about how human should eat and live according to our biological markers for the best genetic expression (paleo stuff I won't go any further with). She chime in and proposed that human "intuition" is very important, too. I was puzzled at first so I pressed further for clarity, she say she's been doing some extensive research and writing about human intuition and that we can heal any diseases or relieve stress with our heart... and the extension of our heart...
I thought she was crazy and (this is coming from a retired RN with 20 some years of experience in the medical field) so I asked her for some studies or references about what she's saying. She told me to look up "heartmath". Before I could get home and google it, I asked her if this is at all scientific and how did the researchers quantify the treatment and the outcome, she was baffled by my questions.
She made up something like 'yeah, there's a book and plenty studies on it'. I asked "what journal? who's the author? what studies?" She had nothing substantial or sensible to say relating to her theories.
Then I proceed to explain to her the importance of "scientific research"... "If you can't quantify it, there's no way to measure the treatment variables and the results, it's not scientific nor logical, there's no observable cause and effect, It's like make believe... like faith... or placebo."
She seem offended at first but too embarrassed (and slow) to respond back.
Then I proceed to explain to her the importance of "scientific research"... "If you can't quantify it, there's no way to measure the treatment variables and the results, it's not scientific nor logical, there's no observable cause and effect, It's like make believe... like faith... or placebo."
She seem offended at first but too embarrassed (and slow) to respond back.
I was shocked that I'm hearing this crap from someone with a pretty highly regarded degree/education in the health industry and yet so ignorant to the academia side of her profession. I'm not saying heartmath is not scientific or ineffective, I'm just saying, if you're trying to sell something (the heartmath lady), your ideas, equipments, or books, master your craft before you try to present yourself as an expert.
I did go home and google the shit out of heartmath, first 5 pages that popped up tried to sell me some kind of emWave machine to measure my stress levels so they can sell me something else to reduce it. It's marketing 101, create a demand (fear, disease, sin), add urgency (consequences, biase data and trends of aftermath), present a (limited) choice/solution - the product, and 4, this is how you order.
http://www.heartmath.org/http://www.heartmath.com.au/index.html
Argument No. 4
`The clinical trial is inadequate, being based on the assumption that individuals can be put in diagnostic categories whereas CAM sees each as unique'.
'This argument neglects several facts at once. First, the methodology of single case (n of 1) trials is established and is well suited to individualized approaches. Such studies can be conducted with all the scientific rigour of other clinical trials; for instance, they can adopt randomization, double-blinding or placebo controls. Secondly, the argument merely means that each individual requires a treatment that differs from that of the next patient. This can be accommodated through simple modifications of the standard clinical trial. Examples are abundant in homeopathy.'
If you've ever taken a 'Experimental Design" class in grad school, you will know that there's at least 10 ways to measure any type of funky, worldly phenomenons exist in the world. If you're a Microsoft excel geek, you'll know that there's a function for almost any type of calculations to determine an cause/effect, pattern, or significant value of those measurable phenomenons.
to read more about it, read the rest of the article!
Argument No. 5
`For my therapy no credible placebo exists and blinding is impossible; clinical trials can therefore not be performed'.
`For my therapy no credible placebo exists and blinding is impossible; clinical trials can therefore not be performed'.
Argument No. 6
`My therapy has no immediate effects at all, yet it will help patients stay healthy in the long term'.
`My therapy has no immediate effects at all, yet it will help patients stay healthy in the long term'.
Argument No. 7
`Science destroys the very nature of CAM, so its application must be opposed'.
`Science destroys the very nature of CAM, so its application must be opposed'.
Argument No. 8
`If clinical trials show that my therapy is not better than placebo, people will stop using it, and those who previously bene®ted will no longer do so; therefore rigorous CAM research is foolish'.
`If clinical trials show that my therapy is not better than placebo, people will stop using it, and those who previously bene®ted will no longer do so; therefore rigorous CAM research is foolish'.
So can homeopathic treatments work with scientific testing?
I think so. History shows that we've been wrong plenty times and I don't see any harm of using quantifiable measures to test the efficacy of any healing treatments (holistic or not). People needs to know what they're paying for and if it actually works! If we want placebo, we're better off swallowing a sugar pill and consult with a hypnotist.
From what I learned on WebMD and the above articles regarding my downfall (8 days on crutches!!), I realize that no matter how highly recommended a supplement, herbal remedy, or even a dieting/training protocol become in the mainstream, without seeing some hard evidence on its effectiveness, applicability, and scientific value, it is questionable and most likely garbage.
To be a good consumer of research, one has to be openminded to new scientific findings. This entails being able to differentiate truthful information beneficial to one's clients/patients from hearsays and media hype. People ought to be willing to change their stance/opinion and put their personal experience aside if they ever want to excel in this industry as professional 'healers'.
As a client, patient, trainee, or athlete, we must also ask the "why" question against tips we recieve from the so-called experts in the field. If we simply follow authorities just because they have a good reputation, awesome personality, or a string of titles after their name, we're bound to spent wasteful money for something we could do for ourselves (education).
As a client, patient, trainee, or athlete, we must also ask the "why" question against tips we recieve from the so-called experts in the field. If we simply follow authorities just because they have a good reputation, awesome personality, or a string of titles after their name, we're bound to spent wasteful money for something we could do for ourselves (education).
It's been two weeks and the swelling has reduced to18inches now. Still limbing a bit but able to go to work and walk the dog. Doing hot/cold and stretching/ROM as often as possible. I sure learned my lesson, next time, always...
REST
ICE
COMPRESSION
ELEVATE
...and stay away from crazies.
...and stay away from crazies.
Jem Yeh M.Ed. CSCS, CPT.
Learn more about my Programs
Check out my Champions
Find out how HIT Center Austin Can help you reach your fitness goals today!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Update:
Feb 21, 2011
"Placebos as effective as antidepressants"
"efficacy of antidepressant drugs revealed that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which are the most commonly prescribed drugs to treat depression, have no clinically meaningful advantage over placebo."
Summary points
- SSRIs have no clinically meaningful advantage over placebo
- Claims that antidepressants are more effective in more severe conditions have little evidence to support them
- Methodological artifacts may account for the small degree of superiority shown over placebo
- Antidepressants have not been convincingly shown to affect the long-term outcome of depression or suicide rates
1 comment:
For you Mercola, holistic nut job, snake oil lovers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola
"Mercola gives the lie to the notion that holistic practitioners tend to be so absorbed in treating patients that they aren't effective businesspeople. While Mercola on his site seeks to identify with this image by distinguishing himself from "all the greed-motivated hype out there in health-care land", he is a master promoter, using every trick of traditional and Internet direct marketing to grow his business... He is selling health-care products and services, and is calling upon an unfortunate tradition made famous by the old-time snake oil salesmen of the 1800s.[3]
He promotes and sells numerous dietary supplements, including krill oil, vitamin K, probiotics, and anti-oxidant supplements.
Mercola's website has called microwave ovens dangerous, claiming both that they emit dangerous radiation and that microwaving food alters its chemistry.[18][19] In contrast, academic reviews have concluded that "no significant nutritional differences exist between foods prepared by conventional and microwave methods."[20] Other studies have suggested that food cooked in microwave ovens can be more nutritious than conventionally-cooked food.[21][22] The Harvard Medical School Family Health Guide states that "as a general proposition, cooking with a microwave probably does a better job of preserving the nutrient content of foods because the cooking times are shorter."[23]"
He's also against HFCS consumption which he provide no substantial evidence to support it as well as other 0-kcal, articifical sweeteners.
Post a Comment