Article: Eat dairy with caution: Noakes

phaktza said:
Fall over due to too little sugar? Go into renal failure due to too much protein? Seriously?
Click to expand...

Nope, I eat and drink whatever I feel like. I run at least 10km a day and then play ball with the dogs at least 4 times a day. I am almost 40. The end
 
We are now getting to a point where we are basically told not to consume anything at all, if we take all diets into consideration. I live by a simple rule. You can consume whatever foods you want, as long as it's in moderation. Eating copious amounts of full cream yoghurt will be bad for you. You don't need a dietician to tell you that, it's common sense.
 
BLIXEMPIE said:
We are now getting to a point where we are basically told not to consume anything at all, if we take all diets into consideration. I live by a simple rule. You can consume whatever foods you want, as long as it's in moderation. Eating copious amounts of full cream yoghurt will be bad for you. You don't need a dietician to tell you that, it's common sense.
Click to expand...


Exactly, which is what kilojoule counting is.
 
Except for red meat. You can eat copious amounts of moo cow at no risk to your health. It says so in chapter 4 of the Man Guide.
 
phaktza said:
The average age of death for hunter-gatherers who survived past 15 was 72, so I find your conclusion a bit lacking.

In fact, Noakes, et al are encouraging us to add to our food things were previously abhorred all the while preaching moderation in things such as carbs and protein. You won't be doing this until you achieve goal weight, you will do it for the rest of your life.
Click to expand...

Provide some citation from a neutral source and you can come to the party.

If you look at what mainstream diets like kilojoule counting recommend, they recommend a balanced diet, which does include fat.

Noakes is the one who is saying you should cut out food groups.
20g of carbs a day(about one apple) ,is not moderate.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

I know it is Wikipedia, but it's sources actually to scientific papers.

Palaeolithic : 32 years
Neolithic :20 years
Bronze age :26 years
And so on.
 
Grep said:
Nope, I eat and drink whatever I feel like. I run at least 10km a day and then play ball with the dogs at least 4 times a day. I am almost 40. The end
Click to expand...

That's great, but your advice still sucks. Don't eat less, eat healthy.
 
konfab said:
Provide some citation from a neutral source and you can come to the party.

If you look at what mainstream diets like kilojoule counting recommend, they recommend a balanced diet, which does include fat.

Noakes is the one who is saying you should cut out food groups.
20g of carbs a day(about one apple) ,is not moderate.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

I know it is Wikipedia, but it's sources actually to scientific papers.

Palaeolithic : 32 years
Neolithic :20 years
Bronze age :26 years
And so on.
Click to expand...

High infant mortality rate skews those figures, that's why I specifically stated they had to reach adulthood.
 
konfab said:
Provide some citation from a neutral source and you can come to the party.

If you look at what mainstream diets like kilojoule counting recommend, they recommend a balanced diet, which does include fat.

Noakes is the one who is saying you should cut out food groups.
20g of carbs a day(about one apple) ,is not moderate.
Click to expand...

You only go below 20g if you want to enter Ketosis. As such, Noakes, et al, are not encouraging cutting out all carbs unless you want massive weight loss.

You remind me of an REO Speedwagon song: heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who heard it from another...

You clearly don't know what Banting is about, you skim read a few biased articles and now believe yourself to be an expert. There are plenty of success stories on this forum alone, all you have is media hype.
 
phaktza said:
You only go below 20g if you want to enter Ketosis. As such, Noakes, et al, are not encouraging cutting out all carbs unless you want massive weight loss.

You remind me of an REO Speedwagon song: heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who heard it from another...

You clearly don't know what Banting is about, you skim read a few biased articles and now believe yourself to be an expert. There are plenty of success stories on this forum alone, all you have is media hype.
Click to expand...

Fine, I will up that to two apples for the Noakes- recommended 50g.
 
konfab said:
Fine, I will up that to two apples for the Noakes- recommended 50g.
Click to expand...

You are very uninformed, please read up if you actually want a reasonable argument.

For your education:

ketogenic diet = A diet consisting of 25 to 50g of carbohydrates per day.

You only have to enter ketosis if you're looking for large weight loss. If you've reached your goal weight, this doesn't have to apply, namely is a lifestyle not a diet.
 
konfab said:
The last thing I want to add is this:
Removing a major food group is from your diet and not calling it a diet is rubbish.
Google defines diet as " the kinds of food that a person, animal, or community habitually eats", thus what Noakes calls a lifestyle©®™, is in fact a diet.
He is using another word to try and distance his diet from the rest of the failed dieting "revolutions" .
Click to expand...

The problem is that carbs were added to the 'normal' diet some 30 or 40 years ago. All in the name of food security, politics, and profits. And some really bad science behind what actually causes heart disease.

So if you are the type that runs a million miles a week, yes, maybe you can each pretty much what you want. But it actually hides much that is wrong. Noakes, by his own admission, was wrong. He ran marathons and the common knowledge was to carbo-load. Most of us don't have bio-engine that burns through the carbs and the left over carbs store as fat a whole lot easier than left over protein.

Smokers. Habit or addiction? Same applies to food. Food manufacturers would be out of business if what they made tasted vile. And when you get into the chemistry of the food, especially around the sugars, you'll find that they depress the trigger that lets the brain know that you're full, and they mess around with the production of insulin.

Possibly not something noted by those that eat in moderation - but let's say that those folk are already in the right lifestyle. It's the rest that get caught up in the whole convenience of carbs trap. Cutting out carbs is a good thing. Probably an overkill but a whole lot easier than trying to count slices of bread.

To me a diet has calorie counting or weighing of portions or special shakes. Basically a huge fiddle. Lifestyle is easy - no cool drinks, bread, no pasta, no rice, no potatoes, in fact no veggies from beneath the ground and you're good. Okay, the hard part is around alcohol but a glass of wine isn't out of order and a beer on a hot day isn't going to end the world - goal weight (if that's what you are after) may take a day longer to achieve.
 
This is my problem with the logic around the Banting diet. Everyone says carbs are the enemy but if you look at the statistics people have been eating carbs forever.

In the 50's and 60's obesity rates were at a fraction of what they are now and people ate balanced diets with carbs.

Through a process of elimination this means that carbs are not the problem so we need to look elsewhere. My money is on people eating masses of processed food containing huge amounts of sugars and people living sedentiary lifestyles.

Yes carbs promote appetites but you need to be responsible, show some self awareness and eat reasonable portions and that factor sudeenly becomes a non-factor.

To those of you on the banting diet who swear by it - the only reason it works is because it let's you eat large portions of food you like. Go back to eating the correct amount of calories for your body and metabolism with a balanced diet, exercise and you'll lose just as much weight.

Of course it doesn't give you the instant gratification that shoving endless quantities of fat in your face does.
 
Last edited:
Albereth said:
The problem is that carbs were added to the 'normal' diet some 30 or 40 years ago. All in the name of food security, politics, and profits. And some really bad science behind what actually causes heart disease.

So if you are the type that runs a million miles a week, yes, maybe you can each pretty much what you want. But it actually hides much that is wrong. Noakes, by his own admission, was wrong. He ran marathons and the common knowledge was to carbo-load. Most of us don't have bio-engine that burns through the carbs and the left over carbs store as fat a whole lot easier than left over protein.

Smokers. Habit or addiction? Same applies to food. Food manufacturers would be out of business if what they made tasted vile. And when you get into the chemistry of the food, especially around the sugars, you'll find that they depress the trigger that lets the brain know that you're full, and they mess around with the production of insulin.

Possibly not something noted by those that eat in moderation - but let's say that those folk are already in the right lifestyle. It's the rest that get caught up in the whole convenience of carbs trap. Cutting out carbs is a good thing. Probably an overkill but a whole lot easier than trying to count slices of bread.

To me a diet has calorie counting or weighing of portions or special shakes. Basically a huge fiddle. Lifestyle is easy - no cool drinks, bread, no pasta, no rice, no potatoes, in fact no veggies from beneath the ground and you're good. Okay, the hard part is around alcohol but a glass of wine isn't out of order and a beer on a hot day isn't going to end the world - goal weight (if that's what you are after) may take a day longer to achieve.
Click to expand...

People have been eating bread for millennia.
 
BobsLawnService said:
This is my problem with the logic around the Banting diet. Everyone says carbs are the enemy but if you look at the statistics people have been eating carbs forever.

In the 50's and 60's obesity rates were at a fraction of what they are now and people ate balanced diets with carbs.

Through a process of elimination this means that carbs are not the problem so we need to look elsewhere. My money is on people eating masses of processed food containing huge amounts of sugars and people living sedentiary lifestyles.

Yes carbs promote appetites but you need to be responsible, show some self awareness and eat reasonable portions and that factor sudeenly becomes a non-factor.

To those of you on the banting diet who swear by it - the only reason it works is because it let's you eat large portions of food you like. Go back to eating the correct amount of calories for your body and metabolism with a balanced diet, exercise and you'll lose just as much weight.

Of course it doesn't give you the instant gratification that shoving endless quantities of fat in your face does.
Click to expand...

In the 70's the USA was faced with a problem of escalating food prices. With the 72 election looming as well as a bit of a scuffle in SE Asia Nixon gave instructions for food to be taken off the table, so to speak, as an election issue. The USA went balls to the wall on fence to fence farming of corn.

Yes, people were eating carbs. In vegetables, in potatoes, in bread, in whatever. But part of a 'balanced' diet. Carbs weren't invented in the 70's, they just became a lot more accessible. And with the sudden surplus of corn more and more products became available and accessible. And cheaply too. A couple of other things happened. The discovery of corn syrup (which is often called Japan's revenge for dropping the nukes), microwave ovens and more TV channels.

Yes, we are responsible for the things we put in our mouths. But it's akin to smoking. If the thing you are putting in your mouth is addictive....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X