Article: Eat dairy with caution: Noakes

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...

You are confusing life expectancy with life span.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/05/01/falsehood-if-this-was-the-ston/
 
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...

No it doesn't. No more than approximately 280g of protein a day (less than the size of your palm), almost no carbs and only all you can eat veggies and fat (and dairy, if you're at your goal weight).

It's astounding how many people here have an opinion on Banting yet have no idea what is being proposed, only what they've gleaned (briefly) from the mass media.
 
konfab said:
People have been eating bread for millennia.
Click to expand...

Yes, but in addition large amounts of fatty protein (either meat or dairy). The 50s-70s saw a reduction in the overall protein and an increase in the (even more refined) breads and starches.
 
According to the chart titled "Macronutrient Intake, 1906-2006" in the article

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html,

it is only a half-truth that carbohydrate intake increased around the 1960s. Yes, carbohydrate intake did begin to increase in the 1960s and 1970s compared to the 1940s-1950s but only because carbohydrate consumption in the 1940s to 1950s was unusually low. The average American today eats about the same macronutrient portions as they did a century ago.

The article in the above link is excellent. I stumbled upon it while reading Gary Taubes' book "Why We Get Fat And What To Do About It". When I have time, I'll write down my thoughts about this book. On the whole, I thought it was an excellent book and Taubes' arguments are quite convincing. One thing that kept bothering me while I was reading his book is why so few people in the medical establishment see thing Taubes' way. The arguments that Taubes makes are so logical and convincing yet most cardiologists, endocrinologists, epidemiologists, obesity experts, etc., come to different conclusions when reading the same papers as he did. Why?

One possible explanation is that Taubes may be economical with the truth. His arguments make lots of sense, the way he presents them, assuming he is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and as a layperson reading his books, I simply wouldn't know. If he writes that such and such study concluded this and that, then I have to assume that he is giving an accurate representation of the study's outcomes and I have to assume that he is not omitting to mention other studies that might contradict the study he is using to support his argument.

Other explanations may be the Dunning-Kruger effect (why do so many highly trained medical scientists disagree so strongly with Taubes while most of the LCHF adherents seem to be laypeople) or simply the fact that, as a science journalist, Taubes is largely motivated by selling his books and articles, and hence has to make the science interesting enough - in the process possibly oversimplifying things that should not be oversimplified - that people would actually want to buy his books.

I thought: "If Taubes is writing nonsense, surely people will call him out on it?" Hence I did a Google search using the phrase "debunking Gary Taubes". I found a number of websites - the one above being probably the best - where sceptics and fact checkers criticised his work, though I found far fewer websites than one would expect if he were really writing complete nonsense.

One of the criticisms that the author of the article above has against Taubes' ideas is that Taubes seems to completely ignore the role of leptin and ghrelin in hunger regulation and overweight - an example of Taubes oversimplifying a complex cascade of endocrinological factors by reducing obesity to simply eating too many carbohydrates.

I watched a panel discussion on YouTube between Taubes, Dr Mehmet Oz, Dr Dean Ornish and a representative from the American Heart Association (I think her name was Dr Barbara Taylor). Amusingly they seemed to actually agree on most things, including that carbohydrates in excess are unhealthy.

The message that I took home from Taubes' book is that refined and complex carbohydrates are unhealthy in excess though I am not yet convinced that near total elimination of carbohydrates is the way to go. I know that Taubes is a proponent of the LCHF diet yet I did not pick this up in his book. His message in the book was not "high fat" as much as "low carb" and only towards the end of the book did he briefly mention ketosis, and only in passing. The main message that I picked up from his book was:

  1. Carbohydrates raise blood sugar which raises insulin which promotes fat storage. (My comment based on my own knowledge: This seems essentially correct but somewhat oversimplified.)
  2. Dietary fat is not unhealthy. (My comment: I will need some more convincing on the claim that saturated fat is not unhealthy either. Simply saying "there is no evidence that saturated fat is unhealthy" as Taubes and Noakes do is not very convincing for me. If this is true, I'd like it explained why the conclusions reached about saturated fat by the medical mainstream are wrong.)

I actually find Taubes to be much more responsible in how he promotes his message than Noakes. Noakes doesn't do his cause or himself any favours when he makes crude statements like that carbohydrates cause cancer (assuming he was correctly quoted by the journalist who wrote the story in The Star last week).
 
BobsLawnService said:
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.
Click to expand...

No it wont
I gymned 5 times a week like a beast, to the point where walking the 1km back home was a mission all on its own. I also only ate when hungry, and only after trying to suppress the hunger with 300-500ml of water. I did not lose any noticeable amount of body fat doing this for 2-3 months. So now what?
 
Archer said:
No it wont
I gymned 5 times a week like a beast, to the point where walking the 1km back home was a mission all on its own. I also only ate when hungry, and only after trying to suppress the hunger with 300-500ml of water. I did not lose any noticeable amount of body fat doing this for 2-3 months. So now what?
Click to expand...

It depends on how much you ate. It doesn't help going to gym, then eating 3 pies.
 
konfab said:
It depends on how much you ate. It doesn't help going to gym, then eating 3 pies.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I ate when I was hungry. The only way I could have eaten less was to sit with a grumbling stomach for hours each day. But I guess I was still doing it wrong eh? :rolleyes:
 
Archer said:
Like I said, I ate when I was hungry. The only way I could have eaten less was to sit with a grumbling stomach for hours each day. But I guess I was still doing it wrong eh? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Did you record what you ate? Eating too little causes your body to shut slow down its metabolism.
 
Last edited:
Humberto said:
According to the chart SNIP last week).
Click to expand...

Shoddy research done resulted in the 'fat is bad' doctrine that was put out. Or, rather cholesterol is bad.

Seeing that just about every cardiologist etc. was on this bandwagon as well as those who like to make money, was it any wonder that a perfect storm was created. Carbohydrate based food producers had carte blanche to print money on the back of the cholesterol is bad scaremongering and the medical fraternity could avoid being sued if they advocated a diet plan in line with policy and the patient still kicked it.

There is a fair amount of cultural pressure on the whole how we became tubby story. People would have remembered the deprivations of either the depression or the war and the sudden bounty provided by the abundance of corn would have seemed like Christmas every day. And the UK had this weird phenomenon of having snack bars drummed into them.

It's so easy to become addicted - you need food anyway and here is some that doesn't have cholesterol, and you are telling me that I deserve a break? Where is the Kit Kat?
 
konfab said:
Did you record what you ate? Rating too little causes your body to shut slow down its metabolism.
Click to expand...

And now we get to the crux of the matter - eating too little can have the opposite effect (you go into starvation and your body stores even more fat), so calories in, calories out is not the be all and end all. Which implies that exercise to burn excess calories is also not the be all and end all. Will either of the afore mentioned help in fat loss if done properly? Of course, but there is more to it than that. Switching to a high fat diet I dropped body fat without much effort, vs an incredibly intense workout regime and having to manage all of my meals (yes I counted calories) which did pretty much nothing besides make me tired all the time.
 
Archer said:
Like I said, I ate when I was hungry. The only way I could have eaten less was to sit with a grumbling stomach for hours each day. But I guess I was still doing it wrong eh? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Nope - sounds like you were doing everything right. But people are different and you may have an underlying medical condition.
 
Archer said:
And now we get to the crux of the matter - eating too little can have the opposite effect (you go into starvation and your body stores even more fat), so calories in, calories out is not the be all and end all. Which implies that exercise to burn excess calories is also not the be all and end all. Will either of the afore mentioned help in fat loss if done properly? Of course, but there is more to it than that. Switching to a high fat diet I dropped body fat without much effort, vs an incredibly intense workout regime and having to manage all of my meals (yes I counted calories) which did pretty much nothing besides make me tired all the time.
Click to expand...

If you count your calories now, you will still find you are limiting yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X