NLP Master Practitioner 2019:
This NLP Master Practitioner course is specifically created with nutrition professionals and health coaches in mind. It will include a 4 day version of the Why Weight course, which focuses on clients with weight/eating issues, yet is essentially useful for work with any client with challenging issues, and then will also include at least 2/3 days specifically concerning NLP and Health.

Other days will firstly focus on developing and deepening your existing NLP skills, and will consistently present these skills with coaching/nutritional therapy in mind. These skills will include: - 

Overall, the journey is toward developing Mastery in applying and using NLP in your work and life.

Content Topics:
The Hero’s Journey and Metaphor, and their relevance to your life and the life of others. 

Course Dates and Times:
August 1-4
September 5-8
October 10-13
November 7-10
December 5-8
Each day will run from 10.30 – 17.30

Course Tutors:
Chris Rasey, Faye Hall, Wendy Frost, Mel Richens, Tony Nutley [All are Certified NLP trainers]

Course Fee:
£2,250

Entry Requirements:
This course is available to anyone who has already qualified as a NLP Practitioner. For those who are not CNELM students, it is particularly appropriate if you are involved in coaching, and/or some aspect of health or therapy.

Course Location:
CNELM in Wokingham
 

I would welcome a selection of brief reflections on your studies, student experience, or clinic or coaching clients that you think would be helpful to other students. We would really like to develop this section of the Student Newsletter over the coming year. Please email me at coriander@cnelm.co.uk with your input. 

This edition’s case discussion comes from the TAP and discusses an 38 year old man  with colitis, depression and hypertension. 

Read the case discussion here and please do send me your thoughts on this case study for discussion in the next edition at coriander@cnelm.co.uk 

By Helen Halliday, PG Dip graduate & Clinical Supervisor:

I graduated from CNELM in August 2016 and recall feeling anxious about heading out into the world of Nutritional Therapy all on my own. I found myself questioning whether I would remember everything I had learnt, what would I do if I was presented with a condition I did not understand, how would I run my business and how could I do it all on my own?

As I was heading towards the end of my Nutritional Therapy Practice Diploma, I vividly recall a representative from BANT attending a lecture and talking about a recently launched supervision programme where they talked about what it involved and the benefits that it offered.

BANT Supervision is available for BANT registered nutritional therapists, whether you have just started practising or have been practising for many years. You join a group in a specific area and meet at regular times - usually around 6 times a year. Each session lasts 2 hours and during this time you work as a group reflectively to share and solve problems relating to your nutritional therapy practice. Problems can range from interventions for specific health conditions or client issues such as not returning for a consultation to running your own business and generating more clients. These sessions are confidential within the group, which is small in number.

The timing of this presentation was perfect for me and I felt this was just what I needed as I headed out on the journey of my new career in Nutritional Therapy. I managed to secure myself a place in a group locally to where I live and initially the group consisted of three of us, which after a few months grew to a group of five.

During my time in these groups I have shared many problems with them and they have guided me to reflect and seek solutions which I have since put into practice. Just some of the benefits I have experienced include changing my working processes and cost structures, implementing a new pricing structure and finding solutions to more precisely address some very complex client conditions, which have led to improvements in my clients health. In return I listened to other practitioners problems and whilst I helped guide their reflections I was able to learn for myself on their challenges and guide my own work further.

Attending these sessions at the start provided me the confidence and belief in myself that I could become a professional nutritional therapist practitioner and over time has guided me to expand my knowledge and training, enabling me to apply this to benefit my clients. In addition, we have become a close knit group of practitioners who not only guide and trust each other but also now meet independently from the formal sessions to socialise and to share our knowledge to help each other.

As a clinic supervisor at CNELM I often recommend this scheme to students seeking more confidence or a support network for after they have graduated. So, if you are graduating soon then I recommend taking a look here at what groups are close to you. 


 

Lakshmi Appadorai-Baker, BEC in preparation for PGDip + NTPD:

The book Evolving Ourselves by Juan Enríquez & Steve Gullans discusses epigenetics and a whole lot more about where we've come from and where we're heading to as a species. I found their prediction about the next big thing in functional medicine particularly interesting - 'viruses within us and the role they play' and how viruses have left some of their genetic coding in us over time and what this translates to in terms of our biology.

I also recently attended a nutrigenetics talk by LifeCodeGx and though I learnt quite a bit, it was just a bit too advanced for me at this stage of my course. I went because I'm very interested in nutrigenomics and possibly want to specialise in this someday.

Thoughts on veganism and the LANCET EAT report, by Christa Maynard PG Dip grad 2018, NTPD:

I believe we all have a moral responsibility to be considerate of the environmental impact of lifestyle choices, whether we recommend food as part of our jobs or not. In the future, it may be even more difficult to eat what nutritionists may consider an optimal diet. Fish may become a luxury item, levels of contamination may increase, and there may be shortages in availability of quality nutrient-dense produce.   

The LANCET EAT report came up with an average dietary composition that was derived from a combination of factors: 1) Impact on the planet and sustainability, 2) health and prevention of disease, 3) production capacity, 4) current dietary preferences. When we compare current dietary patterns with impact on the environment and health, the strongest message is that reduction of animal products would benefit the planet and health of the average person.  

Compared to what we as nutritionists in the West may consider an optimal diet for most, in the Lancet ‘healthy reference diet’ grain intake was quite high whilst root vegetables were very low. It advised that good health could be achieved by consuming zero animal products, but that a certain amount was acceptable in their model for both the environment and health. For the most part, the majority of the world would be reducing their meat and dairy consumption, which predicted for the most part would impart both health and environmental benefits.  

Veganism is feasible for the consumer of semi-prepared, takeaway foods and the boom of vegan takeaway-fast-food products and takeaway options makes this easier. How healthy one makes a convenience vegan diet is a similar issue to how healthy one makes a convenience omnivorous diet and is based on food choices and the inclusion of a wide variety of whole foods.  

Whilst the majority of individuals should be able to live quite healthily with more of their protein and fat coming from plant-based sources, some individuals for optimal health may have a greater need to consume some of their nutrition from animal products.   

The EAT report was basing the average diet on a combination of factors: 1) health needs, 2) current food preferences, 3) production capacity. Hence, some foods we consider less than healthy were included.  

The EAT reference diet proposes an average of 71g of meat, 13g egg and a whole 250g dairy per day. This contains a lot less animal-derived food than the average population is currently consuming and thus might help us achieve climate goals and likely improve the health of the average person.   

Comments on ANH critique of the EAT report: - 

I felt that the ANH report was unnecessarily critical and misrepresented the EAT report in numerous instances.  

The ANH critiques the low protein content of the vegan diet they themselves put together based on the simplified ‘healthy reference diet’ table, but I wonder why didn’t they increase the nuts and soy to the upper end of the range, considering no animal products were included? The report states that ‘legumes, peanuts, tree nuts, seeds and soy are interchangeable’, yet ANH chose the ‘average’ amount of these foods (except legumes), rather than compensating for the absence of animal protein sources by selecting the upper end of the range.  

The ANH critique came across as determined to find the guidelines nutritionally inadequate by pointing out the inadequacy of the EAT report example diets in protein for certain population groups. The protein content of the EAT report’s example diets do seem on the low side of what we understand as nutritionally optimal for most individuals and the grain content also seemed quite high. I interpreted that these dietary examples take into consideration the population’s current dietary preferences for high-carb, grain-based foods, and that increasing vegetable and pulse intake to replace some grain would also be environmentally acceptable, if meat and other animal products were reduced or eliminated.  
 
Please also continue to email me with any insights or contributions you would like to make to this very important topic which is likely to be discussed and reviewed many times in the future. All our views may shift and change with emerging arguments presented to us.