I get the feeling Tim Noakes is starting to go off the reservation

(1/5) > >>

cr1t (July 25, 2014, 13:27:37 PM):
"He sticks to what's published in the scientific literature, and there's a whole bunch of information that is suppressed. Why? Because industry controls it."

Noakes's guru is US investigative journalist Nina Teicholz.

"If you haven't read her book The Big Fat Surprise, you're clueless", he says.

"We are being totally manipulated and controlled - by industry, by governments, by the pharmaceutical industry - to believe a particular way. And that is why I am criticised. Not because what I'm saying is not healthy, but because it threatens massive industries."

The food industry has decided that its job is to make profits, not agonise over health. If its addictive processed foods cause obesity and diabetes, so be it.

His critics in the medical profession are in effect paid by the pharmaceutical industry to perpetuate the myth that designer drugs are the answer to the resultant problems. Thus, for example, they promote the use of statins, "the most ineffective medicine ever developed".

brianvds (July 25, 2014, 14:45:29 PM):
Lucky for me, I'm old enough not to give a damn about my weight anymore. :-)

As far as I can tell, humans are omnivores and you can eat whatever the hell you like.
Whyohwhy (July 25, 2014, 14:47:41 PM):
His current fervour over this ticks all the signs of quacks boxes for me. Perhaps he is right, but right now I'm not convinced by the evidence he uses. He is a doctor speaking about something that is not his area of expertise, and nearly all dieticians and cardiologists and endocrinologists seem to be saying he is incorrect. He also bases some of what he says on his own experiences rather than on objective research. I know quite a few people who follow this diet and are losing weight and are happy, I also know a few who have achieved nothing except higher cholesterol. I feel like I"m the only person who doesn't eat this way (though I'm carrying a bit of extra weight, so, perhaps I should, because my current diet of mostly chocolate isn't working for me), but my spidey senses are tingling over this diet and I'm automatically wary of anything that suggests entire food groups be left out. Another thing that concerns me is that he seems to follow the same romanticised paleo notion that our forebears didn't eat carbs - but I've recently read an article (I think it was on IFLS though) that says that remains with teeth plaque were recently discovered that show that carbs were eaten by the paleolithic people, soooo...
Brian (July 25, 2014, 15:53:17 PM):
sometimes Noakes talks shit. Some years ago he was touting jogging and said something like "for every (insert here) miles you run you live (insert here) years longer..." no evidence to back this up. Somehow though I tend to agree with his latest diet fad. I listened to some experts talk on this over the radio (that thing in your car!) and it seems that some people will indeed lose weight on it while others won't. The key is to have your system tested for the manner in which it processes fat and carbs...not everybody does it the same way.
Mefiante (July 25, 2014, 16:59:54 PM):
The trouble with such claims is that they usually take years, even decades to evaluate properly. This is a gremlin that bedevils most of epidemiology. The only certainty here is that in the long run we’ll learn something new about human physiology, perhaps even something surprising.

Still, if nothing else, someone at least sees the punny side of Noakes’ nutritional about-face.



[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page