Nutrition Class is a Joke!

I will say that nutrition courses are moving in the right direction though. I had to take a nutrition class a couple of semesters ago, and the teacher did present alot of new information outside of what was in the books. She printed her own notes for us to have as well. So i would say not all is bad with the world of nutrition, just takes a little longer for those things to catch up with what most use already know.

And yep i would have failed miserably if i hadn’t read the notes throughly and some parts of the book. Overall i think it was a good learning experience, not nearly as terrible as some of you have experienced. Could just be the professor and the different learning paths that they took.

OP, suggest a different book or other up-to-date teaching aids to the professor - whining here won’t do you much good.
100% on a test? Are you dealing with absorption/digestion and chemical processes or is it a mickey-mouse class?

Offtopic: San Diego City College - lot of stoner’s, or does it just sound that way to me?

Brick- Struck a nerve there dude? I wasn’t disparaging the entire field based on my class, just venting a bit.

The book is a custom book for this class at City, called “Nutrition 150.” Doesn’t even have an author listed on the cover. It’s spliced from two other books: “Nutrition: An Applied Approach” by Janice Thompson and Melinda Manore; and “Nutrition: Real People” by Susan J. Hewlings and Denis M. Medeiros.

The point of the op was that I should be failing this class. And maybe that I’m disappointed in the quality of education I’m receiving. But it’s free and better than nothing, I suppose. Hopefully, by the time I take any of the classes mentioned, I will be in a better school.

archie- Mickey mouse all the way. Stoners everywhere.

[quote]AceRock wrote:
It’s spliced from two other books: “Nutrition: An Applied Approach” by Janice Thompson and Melinda Manore; and “Nutrition: Real People” by Susan J. Hewlings and Denis M. Medeiros.

[/quote]

I have not read the second of those two books, but have read Janice Thompson’s “Nutrition: A Functional Approach” (Canadian version of the one you mentioned) and it’s actually a decent read if you keep an open mind.

In terms of basic introductory information for the non-science oriented person interested in nutrition, it’s actually not all that bad and the book is actually hesitant to make definitive claims about the dangers of high protein intakes or even high sodium intakes (mentions when topics are still up for debate).

Sure, the book has many (mainly a high reliance on government guidelines and stringent ranges of macronutrient percentages) faults and isn’t that filled with information compared with some other textbooks out there, but it’s far from terrible.

[quote]AceRock wrote:
Brick- Struck a nerve there dude? I wasn’t disparaging the entire field based on my class, just venting a bit.

The book is a custom book for this class at City, called “Nutrition 150.” Doesn’t even have an author listed on the cover. It’s spliced from two other books: “Nutrition: An Applied Approach” by Janice Thompson and Melinda Manore; and “Nutrition: Real People” by Susan J. Hewlings and Denis M. Medeiros.

The point of the op was that I should be failing this class. And maybe that I’m disappointed in the quality of education I’m receiving. But it’s free and better than nothing, I suppose. Hopefully, by the time I take any of the classes mentioned, I will be in a better school.

archie- Mickey mouse all the way. Stoners everywhere.

[/quote]

Struck a nerve? Perhaps. But it’s not like I’m all wound up like everyone here thinks I am most of the time. Never knew where that came from. Sometimes I post half asleep.

It’s just that I believe some people on here have NO idea of what dietitians and nutritionists do. Only a fraction of a percent work in sports nutrition. 99% of what you learn in an undergrad in nutrition has absolutely nothing to do with sports nutrition or body composition. Just look at the titles of those classes.