Prof Tim Noakes' U-turn on Carbohydrates

[usxorf]

I'm really confused as to why Noakes is getting so much flak. We've been duped since before I was born into believing fat is bad; I know a few overweight folk insisting on low-fat milk in their coffee with 3 spoons of sugar. I'll believe the overwhelming anecdotal evidence over a flawed seven countries study.

Edited March 27, 2014 by usxorf

[Dirt De Vil]

"LCD was shown to have favourable effects on body weight and major cardiovascular risk factors; however the effects on long-term health are unknown." [my emphasis]

 

Ignore the risks, you're an adult and may do as you please.

You seem happy to ignore the risks of a high carb diet. As you said ignore at your own peril. Age old studies that promotes high carb diets have been found wanting (of banting). It will be a to and fro for more time that I care to consider.

 

The general layman like me that is a weekend warrior, not skinny but very happy to participate in the sport that make me feel great, prefer to experiment with whatever "program" that deliver results. And the LCHF lifestyle has resulted in me being the healthiest and strongest I have ever been. I have none of the allergies left that used to be a constant issue. You do not need a double blind study to confrim that. All, and I empasise ALL of my friends that went on to the lifetsyle has the same results. I firmly believe that only a very small percenatge of the population can process sugar and grains with no effect, the rest will suffer because of it.

 

The proof is in the pudding... em fat.

[Cellar]

I believe all these "high" in any one area diets are all a load of old cobblers. What happened to a balanced diet?

[Dirt De Vil]

I believe all these "high" in any one area diets are all a load of old cobblers. What happened to a balanced diet?

Like a coke zero and a pie?

[nonky]

Noakes goes too far - doctors

 

September 14 2012 at 12:08pm

By Michelle Jones

Comment on this story

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.iol.co.za/polopoly_fs/copy-of-st-noakes-1.1266750!/image/2156424738.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_300/2156424738.jpg

.

Professor Tim Noakes, professor of sports science and exercise at the University of Cape Town, says it's not carbohydrates we should be loading, but protein and fat.

 

Related Stories

• Noakes's big fat mistake
  
• High carb vs high fat/protein diet
  

Cape Town - Sports scientist Tim Noakes goes too far in suggesting that a switch to a high-fat, high-protein diet is advisable for everyone, say six top doctors and academics.

It may, in fact, be dangerous for anyone with or at risk of heart problems, they say, adding in a letter to the Cape Times (full text below): “Having survived ‘Aids denialism’ we do not need to be exposed to ‘cholesterol denialism’.”

The six signatories of the letter were doctors Patrick Commerford (professor of cardiology and head of the cardiac clinic at UCT and Groote Schuur Hospital), Miko Ntsekhe (of the cardiac clinic at UCT and Groote Schuur Hospital), Dirk Blom (of the lipid clinic department of medicine at UCT and Groote Schuur Hospital), David Marais (of chemical pathology and clinical laboratory services at UCT’s Health Science Faculty), and cardiologists Elwyn Lloyd and Adrian Horak.

Noakes, a professor of exercise and sports science and head of the Sports Science Institute of SA, launched an updated edition of his book, Challenging Beliefs, earlier this year, which contained an abrupt turnaround on his previous views toward carboloading – instead promoting a high protein and fat, low-carbohydrate diet.

The doctors’ warning comes as Noakes received a lifetime achievement award for his research in sport science, at the National Research Foundation awards ceremony on Thursday night in Milnerton.

Speaking to the Cape Times from there, Noakes hit back, saying some of the signatories had attended his presentation on the subject at UCT in July and none of them had the courage to say he was wrong:

“None of them got up. It will be interesting to hear them say what I’m wrong about. There was a nutritionist, Dr Priscilla Steyn, who stood up and said I simplified the issue. But I’m happy to give a talk again.”

In their letter, the six said Noakes’s new views contradicted “many aspects of conventional wisdom and accepted medical practice”.

They said that some of what he said might be true and that “his views on the contribution of refined carbohydrates to the obesity epidemic are almost certainly correct”.

“However, we believe he goes too far in suggesting that a switch to a high-fat, high-protein diet is advisable for all persons.”

They said that such a diet might have allowed him to lose weight and run faster. “But its widespread implementation is contrary to the recommendations of all major cardiovascular societies worldwide, is of unproven benefit and may be dangerous for patients with coronary heart disease or persons at risk of coronary heart disease.”

His questioning of the value of cholesterol lowering agents, or statins, was at best unwise and could be harmful to many patients.

 

“To present these controversial opinions as fact to a lay public, in his un-refereed book, is dangerous and potentially very harmful to good patient care.”

The doctors said they understood some patients were placing their health at risk by discontinuing statin therapy and their prudent diets on the basis of this “expert opinion”.

“Scientists and clinicians have an ethical obligation to ensure that the information they impart to their patients and the public at large is correct, in line with best available evidence, and will not cause harm,” the doctors concluded. - Cape Times

 

FULL TEXT OF THE LETTER (Cape Times, September 14, 2012)

In his book Challenging Beliefs, Professor Tim Noakes takes issue with and contradicts many aspects of conventional wisdom and accepted medical practice. Some of what he says may well be true and his views on the contribution of refined carbohydrates to the obesity epidemic are almost certainly correct.

However we believe he goes too far in suggesting that a switch to a high-fat, high-protein diet is advisable for all persons. Such a diet may have allowed him to lose weight and run faster but its widespread implementation is contrary to the recommendations of all major cardiovascular societies worldwide, is of unproven benefit and may be dangerous for patients with coronary heart disease or persons at risk of coronary heart disease.

Further his questioning of the value of cholesterol lowering agents (statins) is at best unwise and may be harmful to many patients on appropriate treatment. The very strong evidence is that statins in patients with coronary artery disease improve mortality (they make you live longer). Multiple placebo-controlled studies have confirmed this.

Generic statins are now cheap and should be widely used. The side-effect profile of these agents is benign and there is general agreement that their benefits far outweigh any minor risks associated with their use.

Noakes is welcome to his views. As an academic it would be appropriate for him to air these and to debate them in an academic forum and the medical literature where they could be critically evaluated and challenged by his peers.

To present these controversial opinions as fact to a lay public, in his un-refereed book, is dangerous and potentially very harmful to good patient care.

We understand some patients are placing their health at risk by discontinuing statin therapy and their prudent diets on the basis of this “expert opinion”. Having survived “Aids Denialism” we do not need to be exposed to “Cholesterol Denialism”.

Scientists and clinicians have an ethical obligation to ensure that the information they impart to their patients and the public at large is correct, in line with best available evidence, and will not cause harm.

Patrick Commerford

MB ChB FCP(SA) FACC (Professor of Cardiology and Head Cardiac Clinic UCT and Groote Schuur Hospital)

Dr Miko Ntsekhe

MD PhD FCP(SA) FACC (Cardiac Clinic UCT and Groote Schuur Hospital)

Dr Dirk Blom FCP(SA)

PhD Lipid Clinic Department of Medicine UCT and Groote Schuur Hospital

Professor A D Marais FCP(SA)

Chemical Pathology, Clinical Laboratory Services, UCT Health Science Faculty

Dr Elwyn Lloyd MD FCP(SA)

FACC Cardiologist

Dr Adrian Horak FCP(SA)

Cardiologist

[nonky]

You seem happy to ignore the risks of a high carb diet. As you said ignore at your own peril. Age old studies that promotes high carb diets have been found wanting (of banting). It will be a to and fro for more time that I care to consider.

 

The general layman like me that is a weekend warrior, not skinny but very happy to participate in the sport that make me feel great, prefer to experiment with whatever "program" that deliver results. And the LCHF lifestyle has resulted in me being the healthiest and strongest I have ever been. I have none of the allergies left that used to be a constant issue. You do not need a double blind study to confrim that. All, and I empasise ALL of my friends that went on to the lifetsyle has the same results. I firmly believe that only a very small percenatge of the population can process sugar and grains with no effect, the rest will suffer because of it.

 

The proof is in the pudding... em fat.

 

 

I am not ignoring the risks of ANY diet, I am merely skeptical of noakes' damascene conversion and the lack of research behind same.

 

It appears that many much more learned academics than me feel the same - see letter above.

 

He MAY be right but to advocate a possibly dangerous diet without proper scientific backing is reckless at best.

[davetapson]

Noakes goes too far - doctors

 

September 14 2012 at 12:08pm

By Michelle Jones

Comment on this story

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.iol.co.za/polopoly_fs/copy-of-st-noakes-1.1266750!/image/2156424738.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_300/2156424738.jpg

.

Professor Tim Noakes, professor of sports science and exercise at the University of Cape Town, says it's not carbohydrates we should be loading, but protein and fat.

 

Related Stories

• Noakes's big fat mistake
  
• High carb vs high fat/protein diet
  

Cape Town - Sports scientist Tim Noakes goes too far in suggesting that a switch to a high-fat, high-protein diet is advisable for everyone, say six top doctors and academics.

It may, in fact, be dangerous for anyone with or at risk of heart problems, they say, adding in a letter to the Cape Times (full text below): “Having survived ‘Aids denialism’ we do not need to be exposed to ‘cholesterol denialism’.”

The six signatories of the letter were doctors Patrick Commerford (professor of cardiology and head of the cardiac clinic at UCT and Groote Schuur Hospital), Miko Ntsekhe (of the cardiac clinic at UCT and Groote Schuur Hospital), Dirk Blom (of the lipid clinic department of medicine at UCT and Groote Schuur Hospital), David Marais (of chemical pathology and clinical laboratory services at UCT’s Health Science Faculty), and cardiologists Elwyn Lloyd and Adrian Horak.

Noakes, a professor of exercise and sports science and head of the Sports Science Institute of SA, launched an updated edition of his book, Challenging Beliefs, earlier this year, which contained an abrupt turnaround on his previous views toward carboloading – instead promoting a high protein and fat, low-carbohydrate diet.

The doctors’ warning comes as Noakes received a lifetime achievement award for his research in sport science, at the National Research Foundation awards ceremony on Thursday night in Milnerton.

Speaking to the Cape Times from there, Noakes hit back, saying some of the signatories had attended his presentation on the subject at UCT in July and none of them had the courage to say he was wrong:

“None of them got up. It will be interesting to hear them say what I’m wrong about. There was a nutritionist, Dr Priscilla Steyn, who stood up and said I simplified the issue. But I’m happy to give a talk again.”

In their letter, the six said Noakes’s new views contradicted “many aspects of conventional wisdom and accepted medical practice”.

They said that some of what he said might be true and that “his views on the contribution of refined carbohydrates to the obesity epidemic are almost certainly correct”.

“However, we believe he goes too far in suggesting that a switch to a high-fat, high-protein diet is advisable for all persons.”

They said that such a diet might have allowed him to lose weight and run faster. “But its widespread implementation is contrary to the recommendations of all major cardiovascular societies worldwide, is of unproven benefit and may be dangerous for patients with coronary heart disease or persons at risk of coronary heart disease.”

His questioning of the value of cholesterol lowering agents, or statins, was at best unwise and could be harmful to many patients.

 

“To present these controversial opinions as fact to a lay public, in his un-refereed book, is dangerous and potentially very harmful to good patient care.”

The doctors said they understood some patients were placing their health at risk by discontinuing statin therapy and their prudent diets on the basis of this “expert opinion”.

“Scientists and clinicians have an ethical obligation to ensure that the information they impart to their patients and the public at large is correct, in line with best available evidence, and will not cause harm,” the doctors concluded. - Cape Times

 

FULL TEXT OF THE LETTER (Cape Times, September 14, 2012)

In his book Challenging Beliefs, Professor Tim Noakes takes issue with and contradicts many aspects of conventional wisdom and accepted medical practice. Some of what he says may well be true and his views on the contribution of refined carbohydrates to the obesity epidemic are almost certainly correct.

However we believe he goes too far in suggesting that a switch to a high-fat, high-protein diet is advisable for all persons. Such a diet may have allowed him to lose weight and run faster but its widespread implementation is contrary to the recommendations of all major cardiovascular societies worldwide, is of unproven benefit and may be dangerous for patients with coronary heart disease or persons at risk of coronary heart disease.

Further his questioning of the value of cholesterol lowering agents (statins) is at best unwise and may be harmful to many patients on appropriate treatment. The very strong evidence is that statins in patients with coronary artery disease improve mortality (they make you live longer). Multiple placebo-controlled studies have confirmed this.

Generic statins are now cheap and should be widely used. The side-effect profile of these agents is benign and there is general agreement that their benefits far outweigh any minor risks associated with their use.

Noakes is welcome to his views. As an academic it would be appropriate for him to air these and to debate them in an academic forum and the medical literature where they could be critically evaluated and challenged by his peers.

To present these controversial opinions as fact to a lay public, in his un-refereed book, is dangerous and potentially very harmful to good patient care.

We understand some patients are placing their health at risk by discontinuing statin therapy and their prudent diets on the basis of this “expert opinion”. Having survived “Aids Denialism” we do not need to be exposed to “Cholesterol Denialism”.

Scientists and clinicians have an ethical obligation to ensure that the information they impart to their patients and the public at large is correct, in line with best available evidence, and will not cause harm.

Patrick Commerford

MB ChB FCP(SA) FACC (Professor of Cardiology and Head Cardiac Clinic UCT and Groote Schuur Hospital)

Dr Miko Ntsekhe

MD PhD FCP(SA) FACC (Cardiac Clinic UCT and Groote Schuur Hospital)

Dr Dirk Blom FCP(SA)

PhD Lipid Clinic Department of Medicine UCT and Groote Schuur Hospital

Professor A D Marais FCP(SA)

Chemical Pathology, Clinical Laboratory Services, UCT Health Science Faculty

Dr Elwyn Lloyd MD FCP(SA)

FACC Cardiologist

Dr Adrian Horak FCP(SA)

Cardiologist

The point of posting a two year old newspaper story being? That somebody, somewhere is feeling threatened that what they were taught (and thus themselves are teaching?) is wrong?

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Noakes goes too far - doctors

 

September 14 2012 at 12:08pm

By Michelle Jones

Comment on this story

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.iol.co.za/polopoly_fs/copy-of-st-noakes-1.1266750!/image/2156424738.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_300/2156424738.jpg

.

Professor Tim Noakes, professor of sports science and exercise at the University of Cape Town, says it's not carbohydrates we should be loading, but protein and fat.

 

Related Stories

• Noakes's big fat mistake
  
• High carb vs high fat/protein diet
  

Cape Town - Sports scientist Tim Noakes goes too far in suggesting that a switch to a high-fat, high-protein diet is advisable for everyone, say six top doctors and academics.

It may, in fact, be dangerous for anyone with or at risk of heart problems, they say, adding in a letter to the Cape Times (full text below): “Having survived ‘Aids denialism’ we do not need to be exposed to ‘cholesterol denialism’.”

The six signatories of the letter were doctors Patrick Commerford (professor of cardiology and head of the cardiac clinic at UCT and Groote Schuur Hospital), Miko Ntsekhe (of the cardiac clinic at UCT and Groote Schuur Hospital), Dirk Blom (of the lipid clinic department of medicine at UCT and Groote Schuur Hospital), David Marais (of chemical pathology and clinical laboratory services at UCT’s Health Science Faculty), and cardiologists Elwyn Lloyd and Adrian Horak.

Noakes, a professor of exercise and sports science and head of the Sports Science Institute of SA, launched an updated edition of his book, Challenging Beliefs, earlier this year, which contained an abrupt turnaround on his previous views toward carboloading – instead promoting a high protein and fat, low-carbohydrate diet.

The doctors’ warning comes as Noakes received a lifetime achievement award for his research in sport science, at the National Research Foundation awards ceremony on Thursday night in Milnerton.

Speaking to the Cape Times from there, Noakes hit back, saying some of the signatories had attended his presentation on the subject at UCT in July and none of them had the courage to say he was wrong:

“None of them got up. It will be interesting to hear them say what I’m wrong about. There was a nutritionist, Dr Priscilla Steyn, who stood up and said I simplified the issue. But I’m happy to give a talk again.”

In their letter, the six said Noakes’s new views contradicted “many aspects of conventional wisdom and accepted medical practice”.

They said that some of what he said might be true and that “his views on the contribution of refined carbohydrates to the obesity epidemic are almost certainly correct”.

“However, we believe he goes too far in suggesting that a switch to a high-fat, high-protein diet is advisable for all persons.”

They said that such a diet might have allowed him to lose weight and run faster. “But its widespread implementation is contrary to the recommendations of all major cardiovascular societies worldwide, is of unproven benefit and may be dangerous for patients with coronary heart disease or persons at risk of coronary heart disease.”

His questioning of the value of cholesterol lowering agents, or statins, was at best unwise and could be harmful to many patients.

 

“To present these controversial opinions as fact to a lay public, in his un-refereed book, is dangerous and potentially very harmful to good patient care.”

The doctors said they understood some patients were placing their health at risk by discontinuing statin therapy and their prudent diets on the basis of this “expert opinion”.

“Scientists and clinicians have an ethical obligation to ensure that the information they impart to their patients and the public at large is correct, in line with best available evidence, and will not cause harm,” the doctors concluded. - Cape Times

 

FULL TEXT OF THE LETTER (Cape Times, September 14, 2012)

In his book Challenging Beliefs, Professor Tim Noakes takes issue with and contradicts many aspects of conventional wisdom and accepted medical practice. Some of what he says may well be true and his views on the contribution of refined carbohydrates to the obesity epidemic are almost certainly correct.

However we believe he goes too far in suggesting that a switch to a high-fat, high-protein diet is advisable for all persons. Such a diet may have allowed him to lose weight and run faster but its widespread implementation is contrary to the recommendations of all major cardiovascular societies worldwide, is of unproven benefit and may be dangerous for patients with coronary heart disease or persons at risk of coronary heart disease.

Further his questioning of the value of cholesterol lowering agents (statins) is at best unwise and may be harmful to many patients on appropriate treatment. The very strong evidence is that statins in patients with coronary artery disease improve mortality (they make you live longer). Multiple placebo-controlled studies have confirmed this.

Generic statins are now cheap and should be widely used. The side-effect profile of these agents is benign and there is general agreement that their benefits far outweigh any minor risks associated with their use.

Noakes is welcome to his views. As an academic it would be appropriate for him to air these and to debate them in an academic forum and the medical literature where they could be critically evaluated and challenged by his peers.

To present these controversial opinions as fact to a lay public, in his un-refereed book, is dangerous and potentially very harmful to good patient care.

We understand some patients are placing their health at risk by discontinuing statin therapy and their prudent diets on the basis of this “expert opinion”. Having survived “Aids Denialism” we do not need to be exposed to “Cholesterol Denialism”.

Scientists and clinicians have an ethical obligation to ensure that the information they impart to their patients and the public at large is correct, in line with best available evidence, and will not cause harm.

Patrick Commerford

MB ChB FCP(SA) FACC (Professor of Cardiology and Head Cardiac Clinic UCT and Groote Schuur Hospital)

Dr Miko Ntsekhe

MD PhD FCP(SA) FACC (Cardiac Clinic UCT and Groote Schuur Hospital)

Dr Dirk Blom FCP(SA)

PhD Lipid Clinic Department of Medicine UCT and Groote Schuur Hospital

Professor A D Marais FCP(SA)

Chemical Pathology, Clinical Laboratory Services, UCT Health Science Faculty

Dr Elwyn Lloyd MD FCP(SA)

FACC Cardiologist

Dr Adrian Horak FCP(SA)

Cardiologist

 

The text of this letter is being disproven more and more often - current / previous medical "guidelines" were based on big pharma recommendations in order to push cholesterol lowering meds, which were introduced to lower cholesterol after the introduction of the high carb diet in the 70s and 80s.

 

CURRENT medical studies are finding more and more often that cholesterol isn't the big bad monster that everyone was led to believe. And that includes doctors, nutritionists and other professionals who relied on "peer reviewed" studies of the past, which are now being shown as irresponsible and on some cases even false.

 

It sounds more and more as if you're playing the man himself as a result of his turnaround on his previous carb centric recommendations... why isn't he allowed to use other scientists studies to back up his claims, without doing studies of his own (which by all accounts he is trying to do now)?

[Cellar]

Like a coke zero and a pie?

 

Week-olds from the local BP and make mine a Tab instead.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

 

Week-olds from the local BP and make mine a Tab instead.

 

Eish. Tab. No sugar but soooooo much other shaite to compensate.

 

Yuck

[jaco369]

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.

margerine is basically one molucule away from being plastic.

[Dirt De Vil]

I am not ignoring the risks of ANY diet, I am merely skeptical of noakes' damascene conversion and the lack of research behind same.

 

It appears that many much more learned academics than me feel the same - see letter above.

 

He MAY be right but to advocate a possibly dangerous diet without proper scientific backing is reckless at best.

Ok, so a person must heed the risks, take an informed decision, experiment and measure the results to allow you to cease the approach if not for you.

 

I think that is what many hubbers that are in the LCHF camp - including Noakes - are saying.

 

There were plenty studies on both sides if you take a totally unbaised look. However, very few with humans due to ethic codes etc. I personally, prefer evidence however anectodal it might be, of living humans that can share their experience and results. We are happy to take Bear Grylls word on survival, but unhappy to take Noakes and our fellow cyclists word on their own experience and results.

[Dirt De Vil]

Week-olds from the local BP and make mine a Tab instead.

Your living on the edge man - too extreme for me.

[jaco369]

if every one will just go and read the damn book they will see, it not HIGH fat like you eating stupid amounts. its a lot of veggies, medium protein and the fat that comes with it, be it from the proteien or what you used to prepare it.

 

actually its a lot like sunday lunch at your grans, without the rice and potatoes.

[Slowbee]

I am not ignoring the risks of ANY diet, I am merely skeptical of noakes' damascene conversion and the lack of research behind same.

 

It appears that many much more learned academics than me feel the same - see letter above.

 

He MAY be right but to advocate a possibly dangerous diet without proper scientific backing is reckless at best.

 

And of course, scientific backing makes it right. We should all believe scientific backing.

 

How long did it take for them to change their minds that the earth was not in the middle of everything?

[jaco369]

Ok, so a person must heed the risks, take an informed decision, experiment and measure the results to allow you to cease the approach if not for you.

 

I think that is what many hubbers that are in the LCHF camp - including Noakes - are saying.

 

There were plenty studies on both sides if you take a totally unbaised look. However, very few with humans due to ethic codes etc. I personally, prefer evidence however anectodal it might be, of living humans that can share their experience and results. We are happy to take Bear Grylls word on survival, but unhappy to take Noakes and our fellow cyclists word on their own experience and results.

in the book it states that you must judge the amount of fat you are comfortable with. a it is rich. main thing is do not cut out the fat. eat it. thats it. it is that simple.

also eat natural. if you cant recognise what it is in its natural form, dont eat it. also if it has a label you should prob not eat it.

 

there is anyway more evidence showing us that hi carb diets is bad than the the other way around