Is Ed Whitlock correct in looking askance at the medical profession? Does anyone else follow his example: not go to MD

Depends on the circumstances. They're excellent, if not cheap in emergencies. However, apart from that, I can honestly say that doctors have NEVER helped me with any of the complaints I've sought medical attention for, and have instead repeatedly harmed me with actions that were within the accepted standards of practice. I've had three orthopedic surgeries that I now know were unnecessary. I've been labeled with "mental disorders" like ADHD and "clinical depression" that have no factual basis, and prescribed drugs that are proven to be no more effective than placebo, but have a laundry list of terrible adverse effects that the great guardians of "the public health" never bothered to warn me about and that were excruciating to get off of. Let's see, what else? I had already lost most confidence in doctors by the time this happened, so I did not comply, but a hospital doctor once ordered me to take beta-blockers for the rest of my life for a heart arrhythmia that was went away on its own within a few years and was harmless in the first place. I've been prescribed massive "functional foot orthoses" that radically altered my gait for running injuries caused by the same overzealous footwear that most podiatrists assume we shouldn't even be walking around our houses without. Every doctor I've ever seen has been a pathetic joke. I honestly think that if you seek medical attention for almost anything other than an emergency or something obviously very abnormal like a lump on your balls, you're just asking for some arrogant little shit who went to med school just to impress people to tinker with you in ways that will just move you further away from normalcy. F*ck doctors.

Many posters are misinterpreting what Ed was quoted as saying.

It's important to not be a passive consumer when it comes to your own health and medical treatment. Ask questions. Learn about procedures. Learn about what's happening to your body. Get 2nd opinions. It's important to listen to your body.

That said, doctors aren't very good with running injuries. They are trained to help the masses, who are mostly overweight couch potatoes. We runners are way outside the norm. I've been helped by sports specialists. That's who you should see with a sports injury.

I was told I could never run again. I got a second opinion... same thing. This was from two specialists at the Mayo Clinic. I took two years off and then returned to running.

Oh, one final point, some medical treatments aren't approved for insurance but they work wonders for some people. Be sure to look outside traditional insurance-approved medicine. There's some useful stuff out there. A couple of my running friends have used prolotherapy with good results. I had great results from... I can't remember what it's called... transinferential therapy with dry needling? If I were a friend of Ed's, I'd suggest that he look into some of these non-traditional therapies for healing. Maybe he'll read it here.

Agreed. And with all the information that is available to us using your own judgment helps when making decisions. My brilliant wife told me many years ago that you have to be your own best healthcare advocate. Arm yourself with knowledge and don't be passive when it comes to your treatment. Don't be a Luddite about your body.

well.... wrote:

You have to be a special kind of idiot to avoid doctors for diagnosing and treating things like disease, infections, serious injuries, or cancer. Modern medicine has been wildly successful at treating these. And vaccinations, of course. There's a special place in hell for those who choose not to get their vaccinated when they have no medical conditions that indicate against it.

On the other hand, there's really no need to see a doctor for routine running injuries like PF or minor tendinitis or muscle injuries, or routine illness like colds or minor viral infections. You also have to be a special kind of idiot for demanding your doctor give you antibiotics for a cold.

MD avoidance wrote:

Does anyone else here AVOID doctors?

Is Mr. Whitlock correct in his avoidance of them?

Ed Whitlock wrote:

It is not really correct to say that I avoid doctors. I take time to consider before consulting them about any issue particularly those that seem to be running related. In my experience therapies for those type of issues do not seem to help me, only time seems to cure my aches and pains. On more general health issues I am more likely to visit a doctor. To date I have not been on any prescribed medication. I am currently struggling with various aches and pains, training and racing is suffering.

Thanks to Mr. Whitlock for clarifying his stance.

Running doc wrote:

It is not that docs know nothing about injury, it is simply a matter that there are extremely limited treatment options- RICE, physical therapy and, for about 1%, surgery. If one desires to seek professional help for an injury they should see a physical therapist first ( they have far more training than a MD in regards to injuries), then if a PT says to see an orthopedic surgeon, then take there advice. I don't know why general docs were ever put in the mix. What are we supposed to do?

That's difficult and expensive if you don't have private medical insurance, which I'm sure Ed doesn't, as the assignment of medical professionals in a public health system is fairly random, so there's a good chance of getting treated by someone who doesn't know anything about the sport.

It's quite common for doctors to advise people to stop running. My friend got told that he was too old to run when he was 45! He found another doctor.

In Ontario, there are a number of clinics that specialize in sports injury and are covered by provincial health care. I used one once when I had a knee issue.

Randy Oldman wrote:

That's difficult and expensive if you don't have private medical insurance, which I'm sure Ed doesn't, as the assignment of medical professionals in a public health system is fairly random, so there's a good chance of getting treated by someone who doesn't know anything about the sport.

It's quite common for doctors to advise people to stop running. My friend got told that he was too old to run when he was 45! He found another doctor.

Agree, the health system should change and just let people go immediately to physical therapists for injuries- not have to go through a PCM to see a physical therapist. Don't blame us docs ( unless they say to give up running) for a broken system ( at least in regards to injury). I pretty much alway send people with chronic injuries and even most acute injuries to a physical therapist and often feel guilty they had to waste time ( I'm a military doc so their health care is at least free) and see me first.

well.... wrote:

You have to be a special kind of idiot to avoid doctors for diagnosing and treating things like disease, infections, serious injuries, or cancer. Modern medicine has been wildly successful at treating these. And vaccinations, of course. There's a special place in hell for those who choose not to get their vaccinated when they have no medical conditions that indicate against it.

That special place in hell is called being Healthy, and not tossing your life away.

Vaccinations and other medical treatments are the #1 cause of death in America.

Running doc wrote:

It is not that docs know nothing about injury, it is simply a matter that there are extremely limited treatment options- RICE, physical therapy and, for about 1%, surgery. If one desires to seek professional help for an injury they should see a physical therapist first ( they have far more training than a MD in regards to injuries), then if a PT says to see an orthopedic surgeon, then take there advice. I don't know why general docs were ever put in the mix. What are we supposed to do?

Because you need a referral from your GP if you want your physical therapy to be covered by your insurance. The last time I went through physical therapy, the referral cost me more than five weeks of physical therapy. The former was 100% out of pocket (since I had not met the deductible) and 90% of PT was covered by my insurance. Had I skipped my GP, I could have saved a little money there, but would have had to pay 100% of my PT cost (which would have been far more expensive in total).

Hate the system, not the physicians. By the way, any advice I ever give a runner I actually state "this is coming from a runner, not a doctor". MDs ( not DOs) learn absolutely nothing about sports injuries in medical school AND residency unless you do a sports med or orthopedic elective. If you have to see a GPM prior to PT referral, I would see a DO ( this is coming from a MD). DOs learn a great deal about manipulation and may actually provide physical therapy.

I don't hate the physicians. I was only answering to your question on why GP ever comes into the mix. The answer is that's how the system is set up. And I absolutely hate the system.

Rule #1: Make sure your primary care doc is a runner. My old one was (fast, too). I then moved to a new state (five months ago). Needed a physical. Did a little research and found my guy. On our visit for the physical, it was ten minutes routine health stuff and 15 minutes of running talk.

Old and healthy wrote:

well.... wrote:

You have to be a special kind of idiot to avoid doctors for diagnosing and treating things like disease, infections, serious injuries, or cancer. Modern medicine has been wildly successful at treating these. And vaccinations, of course. There's a special place in hell for those who choose not to get their vaccinated when they have no medical conditions that indicate against it.

That special place in hell is called being Healthy, and not tossing your life away.

Vaccinations and other medical treatments are the #1 cause of death in America.

Oh, stop your hippy bull.

Depends which MD

Most would think extreme distance running is bad for the body so therefore Whitlock is smart to avoid them

There are a few good ones who understand

Dhndnd wrote:

Depends which MD

Most would think extreme distance running is bad for the body so therefore Whitlock is smart to avoid them

There are a few good ones who understand

I am not sure that extreme distance running is good for one's general health. It may be necessary for good performance but a more moderate exercise regime is probably better in most instances for one's general health and reduced injury risk. So probably "most" doctors have a point.

Ed

sparkles and magical things wrote:

People really don't get the Canadian system... it's free.

Blood Test wrote:

If you're 50 or over go to your Doc at least once a year for a simple health screening blood test, the cost varies depending on insurance etc, but it could be the best money you ever spend.

Not that your advice is bad.

I think you missed the bit about "the cost varies" and we are on the 'world wide' web not just Canada.

Ed is correct! .Marathon training/racing is not conducive to good health. Walking 30/60 min a day, every day, is more conducive to good health. And the pace is not important. Marathon racing before age 25 and after age 50 should not be attempted.

Many of us have atrial fibrillation/flutter. I do for the second time.