Prof Tim Noakes' U-turn on Carbohydrates

[nonky]

There is NO science to back up Noakes' assertions. No research. No peer review.

[davetapson]

There is NO science to back up Noakes' assertions. No research. No peer review.

 

Eh? How can one person sound so confident and be so wrong?

[nonky]

Eh? How can one person sound so confident and be so wrong?

 

Ok, where is the peer review of Noakes' recent research? He admits himself that it was based on feedback received from followers of his diet. He didn't even see them in person. No control group. No peer review.

[BigT4]

Everyone should just follow whatever eating plan that works for them and realise we are all made differently and what works for some doesn't work for others.

 

To me people who are on LFHC like to impose that this is the best thing since sliced bread........

Edited March 27, 2014 by BigT4

[jcza]

This was published in South African Medical Journal in 2013.

7302-38523-1-PB.pdf

[jcza]

Everyone should just follow whatever eating plan that works for them and realise we are all made differently and what works for some doesn't work for others.

 

To me people who are on LFHC like to impose that this is the best thing since sliced bread........

 

Not sure who is on Low Fat High Carb but personally I can tell you that being healthy is even better than sliced bread.

[MTBeer]

There is NO science to back up Noakes' assertions. No research. No peer review.

these guys seem to be moving towards Noakes' point of view

 

Could eating too much margarine be bad for your critical faculties? The "experts" who so confidently advised us to replace saturated fats, such as butter, with polyunsaturated spreads, people who presumably practise what they preach, have suddenly come over all uncertain and seem to be struggling through a mental fog to reformulate their script.

Last week it fell to a floundering professor, Jeremy Pearson, from the British Heart Foundation to explain why it still adheres to the nutrition establishment's anti-saturated fat doctrine when evidence is stacking up to refute it. After examining 72 academic studies involving more than 600,000 participants, the study, funded by the foundation, found that saturated fat consumption was not associated with coronary disease risk. This assessment echoed a review in 2010 that concluded "there is no convincing evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease".

 

Full article here

 

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/mar/23/everything-you-know-about-unhealthy-foods-is-wrong

[nonky]

Eh? How can one person sound so confident and be so wrong?

 

His "research" is all based on ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE - it is bad science. The SAMJ article is widely regarded as a scandal and should never have been published.

 

He MAY be right but he does not possess the EVIDENCE.

 

By Noakes' own admission, NO scientific trial has been conducted.

 

Please prove me wrong.

[nonky]

these guys seem to be moving towards Noakes' point of view

 

Could eating too much margarine be bad for your critical faculties? The "experts" who so confidently advised us to replace saturated fats, such as butter, with polyunsaturated spreads, people who presumably practise what they preach, have suddenly come over all uncertain and seem to be struggling through a mental fog to reformulate their script.

Last week it fell to a floundering professor, Jeremy Pearson, from the British Heart Foundation to explain why it still adheres to the nutrition establishment's anti-saturated fat doctrine when evidence is stacking up to refute it. After examining 72 academic studies involving more than 600,000 participants, the study, funded by the foundation, found that saturated fat consumption was not associated with coronary disease risk. This assessment echoed a review in 2010 that concluded "there is no convincing evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease".

 

Full article here

 

http://www.theguardi...-foods-is-wrong

 

As I have said, Noakes and Co MAY be right but there is NO science to back them up at present.

 

We don't go around telling people what to EAT on the basis of unproven / anecdotal evidence.

[BigT4]

I am healthy, losing weight and my cycling has improved and my mates have noticed how strong I am getting. 7kgs in 12 weeks

 

And sometimes a slice of bread tastes pretty good.........

[BigT4]

I found what works for me and I think everyone should as well..........

[nonky]

Erm, I've been to quite a few talks where he was a guest speaker. He had often said that this is NOT for everyone. numerous times. And at times vociferously. He does, however, say that everyone must stay away from refined cars and sugar.

 

Did he ever admit that it was bad science based on anecdotal evidence?

[davetapson]

Ok, where is the peer review of Noakes' recent research? He admits himself that it was based on feedback received from followers of his diet. He didn't even see them in person. No control group. No peer review.

 

You are referring to the occasional survey article that he wrote in SAMJ. It was explicitly stated as a set of anecdotes to provide a heads up to the medical community of the effect of a lchf diet on 127 people, esp. with regard to reversing type 2 diabetes, which is commonly thought of as irreversible.

 

If it was explicitly stated that it was an occasional survey (and thus not a 'scientific article') why are you complaining about peer reviews and control groups?

 

If you want to find that stuff, at least bother to do five mins of googling before posting tripe on the hub. And maybe bother to read the original article as well.

[jcza]

As I have said, Noakes and Co MAY be right but there is NO science to back them up at present.

 

We don't go around telling people what to EAT on the basis of unproven / anecdotal evidence.

 

Nobody is telling anyone what to do. We are all free to choose. Personally I quite like what I eat.

 

If you are sick and tired of being overweight then try it. If not continue as you were.

[davetapson]

His "research" is all based on ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE - it is bad science. The SAMJ article is widely regarded as a scandal and should never have been published.

 

He MAY be right but he does not possess the EVIDENCE.

 

By Noakes' own admission, NO scientific trial has been conducted.

 

Please prove me wrong.

 

Take five mins on google - you can prove yourself wrong without too much effort.

[nonky]

Take five mins on google - you can prove yourself wrong without too much effort.

 

C'mon, show us some evidence.

 

Noakes HIMSELF ADMITS no scientific trial was conducted.

 

I think you should provide us some EVIDENCE or concede and PLEASE don't come here with the Atkins or Paleo or Bloodgroup diets. THanks.