Physiology textbooks?

**caster** · 22-02-2004, 05:59 PM

I found that Vander, Sherman & Luciano simplifies things to such an extent that it was really pretty useless for degree-level study. Its maybe good as a revision guide, but to be honest I think its a bit of a waste of money for medical students.

**hipponax** · 22-02-2004, 07:38 PM

I would disagree it is useful for essays as most junior degree essays ask things like "outline the processes involved in .,.."

**Jake** · 22-02-2004, 07:42 PM

I think Guyton and Hall is an excellent Physiology text book. Its the right depth and understandable.

**caster** · 22-02-2004, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by hipponax

it is useful for essays as most junior degree essays ask things like "outline the processes involved in .,.."

I suppose it depends on the course to some extent. I don't think Vander is in enough depth for the human physiology course at St Andrews, but maybe it fits in well with courses at other universities. I agree with Jake - Guyton & Hall was at exactly the right depth for me, but, again, maybe it would be too detailed for other courses. However, Vander isn't in that much depth, so definitely be careful before buying it, and make sure that you are doing a course that fits in with it before you buy it.

I also think choice of textbook is quite a personal thing. What I find explains stuff really well, somebody else might find really difficult to understand, and vice versa.

**Sipadan** · 23-02-2004, 03:37 AM

I don't think that any of the mainstream textbooks are sufficient in themselves for final year (science) degree study, especially if you're aiming for a first. Textbooks for the basics, then reviews/papers for the rest.

With respect to medicine it's going to be dependent on the course as Caster says. I should imagine that Vander and the like will be fine for the modern happy clappy courses. After all, how much physiology (or any basic science for that matter) does a doctor really need to know?

**smiley** · 23-02-2004, 04:01 AM

Originally Posted by Sipadan

With respect to medicine it's going to be dependent on the course as Caster says. I should imagine that Vander and the like will be fine for the modern happy clappy courses

And which are the happy clappy courses? :roll: :P

**Sipadan** · 23-02-2004, 04:58 AM

Thought that might draw some attention

. Some of the GEPs come to mind, especially Warwick and Georges - courses where hard science content is (rightly IMO) reduced in favour of learning communication skills and the psychosocial ascpect of medicine. The phrase was coined by a friend of mine on the George's GEP.

**smiley** · 23-02-2004, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Sipadan

Thought that might draw some attention

.

lol! And I wanted to get in first

I tend to agree - you need to know the basics and be able to learn to neccessary stuff for a chosen specialty. After all, a psychiatrist doesn't need to know physiology in the same depth as, for example, an anaesthetist...

**Jake** · 23-02-2004, 12:57 PM

Thought that might draw some attention . Some of the GEPs come to mind, especially Warwick and Georges - courses where hard science content is (rightly IMO) reduced in favour of learning communication skills and the psychosocial ascpect of medicine. The phrase was coined by a friend of mine on the George's GEP.

Hate to break to you Sipadan, but at Warwick we are most definitely taught hard science. Thats why the course is so intensive. Warwick isn't PBL in the traditional sense and the lecture depth is very (indeed our anatomy lectures are at the level needed for the membership exams :roll: ). There is communication skills and biopsychosocial aspects of medicine, but there isn't really any point of these if you don't know what your doing.