I have been indulging my interest in The Fat Summit. You can attend remaining sessions here. First of all, great tag line--Separate Fat from Fiction. Second of all there are a lot of interesting discussions. I have it queued up in the background instead of my beloved New York City classical station WQXR.
Fat from Fiction was going to remain my little secret until I thought about the data link. I guess there is also a donut connection--the topic of obesity, diabetes, role of fat and sugar--integrates into medical writing. New data is challenging weight loss/gain as an energy imbalance and introducing the science of hormonal imbalance. Gary Taubes is a journalist and has a welcome ease discussing the flawed "science" behind American dietary guidelines, the truth about good vs. bad calories, and heart disease.
I opted out of writing for continuing medical education for many reasons. The main reason was the conflict of interest I was required to report to participate on advisory councils, panel discussions, and for many speaking opportunities outside of industry.
Another reason is the infrastructure that rewards conveniently finding gaps in disease states--and drug categories--with the deepest pockets.
If you have a strong interest in the science I would recommend NuSI Nutrition Science Initiative. No industry funding--pharma or food.
There is also a disconnect between what doctors want in medical education and what they are being provided. For example, Family Medicine practitioners desperately need resources to help their patients BEFORE they are diagnosed with chronic disease.
1. Utilization of ancillary services (diabetic counseling for diet, exercise regimens for weight loss and other therapeutic lifestyle changes for comorbid disease) are not applied routinely in caring for the diabetic patient despite guideline recommendations advocating these elements. This is due to lack of time, resource access and financial coverage.
2. Screening for, and treatment of, other comorbid conditions (hypertension, dyslipidemia) does not occur consistently.
3. Physicians do not take advantage of opportunities for managing at risk populations prior to the onset of clinical diabetes.
4. Patient registries and group medical appointments to identify and manage cohorts of diabetic patients within practices are still underutilized, despite government and insurer incentives to institute these.
But what do many CME stakeholders request? Data to support treating numbers, pharmaceuticals to tighten glycemic control, and other cost drivers of healthcare.
I have puns and I am going to use them. The Gastropod podcast continues to feed my curiosity. I don't know how many readers are listening to the podcasts I recommend but this one is quickly moving to the top of my list. It combines the interests of a foody with science and history.
Interested in the topic? Like or share! Thanks...
Thoughtful discussions about content development and outcomes analytics that apply the principles and frameworks of health policy and economics to persistent and perplexing health and health care problems.
Sign up for our newsletter!
Browse the archive...
Thank you for making a donution!
In a world of "evidence-based" medicine I am a bigger fan of practice-based evidence.
Remember the quote by Upton Sinclair...
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”