Whoops, I got grassed up to the head honcho of metabolic typing for my "slam" of the system. Firstly their was no "slam" of metabolic typing, I still think it has its uses in certain conditions. Their is no doubt (or is their) that MT can identify if a person is presently able to metabolize certain foods. The problem for me is that maybe we should be thinking about fixing things rather than avoiding the problem. Sure you can argue that we aren't designed to eat certain foods, and I'd agree to a point. Prepackaged manmade foods have no doubt caused a lot of problems but demonizing a lot of natural foods (that we probably metabolized fine as a child) points to an issue with human function rather than the food group.
My main point was that the validity of a questionnaire relies first and foremost upon reliability. If our questionnaire cannot be shown to be reliable, then we have no discussion about validity. For me personally I worked hard to maintain reliability when using questionnaires but I still can't see how its entirely reliable as the variable tends to be the clients current perception, and latterly the perception they've been taught by a practitioner.
Validity refers if our questionnaire measures what we intended it to measure. That is my issue, how can we know that the results haven't been skewed? I've seen a client fill one in and was almost certain he'd filled it in based upon his "current" understanding of food and health. He naturally became a slow oxidizer (carb type), a few days later after some Weston A. Price style "education" he retested as a fast oxidizer. Nothing wrong with that but how can we prove the results are not skewed by someone reading a book or chatting with a practitioner? I'm not trying to suggest that practitioners are the only ones guilty of imparting their views, its natural to advertise your beliefs, its part of sales and you can rest assured that Hovis will continue to try and convince people that fibre is of upmost importance for health.
Ledley (1956) found that questionnaires could prove a useful tool to match a respective set of symptoms with a diagnosis. So it is my suggestion that the use of a questionnaire can prove useful as a preliminary appraisal of a clients health (Brodman, Erdmann, Lorge, Wolff & Todd, 1951). After that the practitioner should be seeking to make a more thorough investigation using validated tools and methods.
My main point was that the validity of a questionnaire relies first and foremost upon reliability. If our questionnaire cannot be shown to be reliable, then we have no discussion about validity. For me personally I worked hard to maintain reliability when using questionnaires but I still can't see how its entirely reliable as the variable tends to be the clients current perception, and latterly the perception they've been taught by a practitioner.
Validity refers if our questionnaire measures what we intended it to measure. That is my issue, how can we know that the results haven't been skewed? I've seen a client fill one in and was almost certain he'd filled it in based upon his "current" understanding of food and health. He naturally became a slow oxidizer (carb type), a few days later after some Weston A. Price style "education" he retested as a fast oxidizer. Nothing wrong with that but how can we prove the results are not skewed by someone reading a book or chatting with a practitioner? I'm not trying to suggest that practitioners are the only ones guilty of imparting their views, its natural to advertise your beliefs, its part of sales and you can rest assured that Hovis will continue to try and convince people that fibre is of upmost importance for health.
Ledley (1956) found that questionnaires could prove a useful tool to match a respective set of symptoms with a diagnosis. So it is my suggestion that the use of a questionnaire can prove useful as a preliminary appraisal of a clients health (Brodman, Erdmann, Lorge, Wolff & Todd, 1951). After that the practitioner should be seeking to make a more thorough investigation using validated tools and methods.
As CHEK Practitioners and HLC II & III's we have an arsenal of tools to help us deduce what the underlying issues are. Yes metabolic typing is hugely helpful in that initial period, but we as practitioners should be aiming to restore health fully and not stick a band aid over a clients inability to metabolize a food group. As I've said before my initial 6 months on MT were nothing short of a miracle as all my symptoms came back. Then they returned, not as bad at first but they all gradually returned over a period of 6 years. Every test I did (I did some with other practitioners as well as my own and they one when I took the advanced training) told me I was a fast oxidizer. Sadly I had to become more and more extreme to the point where I followed it 100% of the time.
I've had other practitioners tell me that they don't follow it too strictly and they find it works. That really is proof it doesn't work long term as they aren't following the programme!!
References
Brodman, K., Erdmann, A. J., Irving, L., Wolff, G., & Broadment, T, H. (1951). The cornell medical index-health questionnaire as a diagnostic instrument. Journal of the american medical association. 5, 152
Ledley, R. S., (1956). Logical aid to systemic medical diagnosis, unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting, Operations Research Society.
RSS Feed
