BRS physio or Kaplan lecture notes?

[ally1]

---

Members don't see this ad.

So I hear BRS physio is a must, and I did read it. But skimming thru kaplan, it seems as thought kaplan lecture notes have way more graphs and path processes. I wanted to know if BRS physio is enough since you get physio from doing questions also (incorporating graphs and all that).

Or could kaplan physio (which seems way more detailed in renal and cardio etc) substantially improve your score?


peace

 

[VeggieGal]

and, along the same page, would anyone recommend Kaplan physio over BRS physio altogether? I have been listening to the Kaplan Physio audio and following along in the book, and really like it. However, the consensus has always been to go with BRS, so I would appreciate any insight on this topic as well. Thanks!

 

[DrFraud]

My overall impression of both resources thus far is excellent. For my usmle prep, I am primarily using BRS, and I am supplementing with kaplan as time permits.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

I liked the Kaplan Notes + Videos. I didn't read BRS in detail but I did do the questions at the end of each chapter.

 

[JDWflash44]

They're both great, cant go wrong with either one. I would suggest using the one that you think works best for you.

 

[drss]

I did BRS and now doing kaplan,i like kaplan more( BRS is good as well,simple written) but kaplan + video = awesome. but its individual choice.read few chapters/topics in BRS then from kaplan to compare which way you like the most.(just to add,i am yet to take step 1)

 

[ginger60]

I can't really say anything regarding Kaplan, but I think that BRS phys had all I needed to know for phys for step 1. But if you are weak in a certain phys topic then supplementing from a more detailed source is definitely worthwhile. I personally used Costanzo to supplement for cardio and I think it was worthwhile given the importance of charts and other visual aids for understanding that subject. Unless you have a ton of extra time, I don't think it is worth your time to use a more detailed phys source than BRS in its entirety--just supplement as needed.

 

[jsong812]

for those of you who used the kaplan lecture notes + video, would you first first go through the material with the video and then re-read the section again? or did you just consider "going through the material" as just following along with the video? thanks

 

[bambi]

I am a UK student and have the Kaplan books but don't have any videos, where can I get them? Sorry, bit off topic but you are all talking to them so thought I would ask.

 

[tfom08]

This thread is a few months old so you might not get quick answers from the previous posters. I can say that I used kaplan physio and did not have access to the videos. The book is a great stand alone resource, so if I had access to the videos I would probably only use the videos if I was having difficulty understanding a topic in the book. I guess it depends on how much time you have to study but in general I think the book is plenty of coverage so if you are on a tight schedule you can probably leave the videos out.

 

[Knicks]

The books state that they're not to be used alone.

The videos complement the books and vice versa.


And having used both, I completely concur with their "warning".

 

[tfom08]

The books state that they're not to be used alone.

The videos complement the books and vice versa.


And having used both, I completely concur with their "warning".

Yeah but I think that warning is meant to somehow dissuade people from using other peoples books without purchasing the online video course. Many people who have seen both say the home study books that are sold without videos contain virtually identical information as the 7 book set that is sold with the video course. I don't doubt that watching the videos helped you grasp some of the material; but I used the kaplan physio, biochem, and anatomy books alone without videos and can say with certainty that the books were effective for me without the videos.

 

[Knicks]

^^ Yeah, to each his own, I guess.


But from my experience, the videos contained a lot of supplemental information that I annotated into the books, which is what I think that "warning" was getting at.


But that's just me.

 

[DrFraud]

I used the BRS book, the kaplan physio book, and I also watched some videos in areas that I was wanted to further review, and my opinion is that you should only watch the videos if you have lots of extra time or if you need to make significant improvements in your physiology questions based on NBME/UW questions. The videos are good, and I'll always remember the 'double bubble' story and 'little timmy', but going through them does take a lot of time.

 

[Instatewaiter]

I can't really say anything regarding Kaplan, but I think that BRS phys had all I needed to know for phys for step 1. But if you are weak in a certain phys topic then supplementing from a more detailed source is definitely worthwhile. I personally used Costanzo to supplement for cardio and I think it was worthwhile given the importance of charts and other visual aids for understanding that subject. Unless you have a ton of extra time, I don't think it is worth your time to use a more detailed phys source than BRS in its entirety--just supplement as needed.

I think this statement needs to be clarified since Costanzo wrote BRS and the book ginger is talking about. Little costanzo= BRS the book ginger is talking about most refer to as "big costanzo".

I found everything I needed to know in terms of phys was in BRS. It surprises me that anyone would use anything else. Perhaps I am a bit biased since Costanzo teaches our phys but I thought the 2 books that you just cant mess with were BRS phys and RR path.

 

[bambi]

Ok so lots of replies but no answers! Where do I get the videos?

 

[Knicks]

^^ Did you try going to the kaplan website? 🙄

 

[bambi]

^^ Did you try going to the kaplan website? 🙄

Yeah I have looked and I must just be being thick but can't find them, the only thing that mentions the lectures doesn't tell you how to get them. I swear I saw it somewhere the other week but can't find where!

 

[Knicks]

Sorry to stray off-topic, but is there an errata list for BRS Pathology as well?

 

[Knicks]

^^ bump

 

[Instatewaiter]

BRS>>>> Kaplan

 

[Instatewaiter]

Seriously, you would be an idiot to give up costanzo phys

 

[diosa428]

Yeah I have looked and I must just be being thick but can't find them, the only thing that mentions the lectures doesn't tell you how to get them. I swear I saw it somewhere the other week but can't find where!

It's under USMLE Step 1, and it's called "webprep". Comes with both the online lectures and the books.

 

[Knicks]

Sorry to stray off-topic, but is there an errata list for BRS Pathology as well?

?

 

[Instatewaiter]

BRS Physiology, Third Edition -- errata:
1. p. 16, C.1.b. An action potential in a presynatpci cell is INsufficient...
2. p. 37, B, first point. After Adrenergic Neurons, delete "whether in the sympathetic or parasympathetic nervous system.
3. p. 222, 1. Under Mechanism of slow wave production. Delete "is the cyclic activation and deactivation of the cell membrane Na-K pump. Instead, it should read: "is the cyclic opening of Ca channels (depolarization), followed by opening of K channels (repolarization)."
4. P. 256, Figs 7-2 and 7-3. Should be GDP --> GTP
5. p. 276, e. (2), Should read increased mineralocorticoic levels (not aldosterone)


BRS Physiology, 4th edition, errata:
p. 111, Question 57. Change choice (C) from angiotensin II to angiotensinogen. Also adjust explanation.
p. 134, D, 1. Under "where" list, the last entry should be PaO2 (arterial PO2)
p. 139, Fig 4-12. V/Q for pulmonary embolus shoudl be infinity

 

[UditNarayan]

BRS physio is solid, as is Costanzo physio (larger textbook one). quick read tho, worth doing i think esp if you're weaker in physio...

 

[Knicks]

Instatewaiter,

thanks for the BRS Physiology errata,,,,, is that the complete list, or are there more errors?

Also, do you have any errata lists for BRS Pathology as well?


Thanks in advance.

 

[ZonaRidicularis]

z

 

[Knicks]

^^ Awesome, thank you so much. 🙂


(too bad the FA site doesn't have an official errata list for the 2006 edition, though)

 

[ZonaRidicularis]

z

 

[Knicks]

^^ Yeah, I know about that thread, I've posted in it 😀 But thanks for the effort, (really, thanks).

But I'm curious as to whether or not there are more errors in that book that haven't been posted in that thread...... that's why I hoped that the FA website would have an 'official' errata list, but alas!

 

[RunwayModel]

So I hear BRS physio is a must, and I did read it. But skimming thru kaplan, it seems as thought kaplan lecture notes have way more graphs and path processes. I wanted to know if BRS physio is enough since you get physio from doing questions also (incorporating graphs and all that).

Or could kaplan physio (which seems way more detailed in renal and cardio etc) substantially improve your score?

peace

I thought the Kaplan Physiology with the videos was spectacular for the Physiology section. The book is a lot more conceptual than BRS which seemed too be very much outline-ish. Along with the videos, I felt like I was understanding what was going on in the graphs rather than just memorizing them. Remember they can change the x or y axis and so it doesn't look like the cardiac cycle graph you're used to seeing. Also the organ systems with greater emphasis have more pages, than unlike GI which is very few pages, as there is not much GI Phys on the exam (this is bc GI Phys is more memorization than application, unlike Cardiac or Renal Phys) vs. BRS has pages and pages of all these GI hormones that may not be worth memorizing.

 

[Instatewaiter]

Instatewaiter,

do you have any errata lists for BRS Pathology as well?


Thanks in advance.

Sorry I dont. I only have the BRS phys errata b/c Costanzo is one of my professors and she posted it for us.