Is Tim Noakes running a Ponzi scheme?

manu55 said:
No, his website calls it The Tim Noakes Diet

"Welcome to The Real Meal Revolution the home of Banting & the Tim Noakes Diet. This site has everything you need to make you a better Banter. Expect to find information on banting, new tips and recipes, listings of shops that sell stuff you need and recommended (and certified) practitioners who can help you with more serious health issues. Have a walk through. Download stuff. Watch a video or just take notes. Let us know what you think or, even better, let your friends know what you think and share us on Twitter, Facebook or anywhere really! Most of all, have a great time!"

http://realmealrevolution.com/the-facts

But here is my favourite part:

"This is it! Officially, the fastest selling cook book in South African history. Written in just four weeks by Prof Tim Noakes, Sally-Ann Creed, Jonno Proudfoot and David Grier, the so called 'Red Bible' has changed the way an entire country eats."

4 Weeks. That's how long it took them to write the book.
Click to expand...

[-]I really cant find that line on the link you posted - lot's about banting but not that line (maybe it's my browser)[/-]

anyway, a side issue I suspect

Edit apologies - found it in the fine print right at the bottom of the page :o
 
"Is Tim Noakes running a Ponzi scheme?"

The results of his diet with all the people that have used it, is a resounding no.

No matter what anybody says, companies are losing because he is telling people what the right thing is to do, instead of food companies keeping doctors in business, and vice versa.
 
szeK2vn.png
 
manu55 said:
4 Weeks. That's how long it took them to write the book.
Click to expand...

And this is a problem why? It's not an autobiography where you need to call people, arrange meetings with them and then corellate their statements with each other. He already had the facts researched and documented beforehand in all likelihood, and so did the co-authors. All they had to do, is put it in a format usable by laymans.
 
manu55 said:
I was paraphrasing the article. And by fairly significant body of evidence do you mean the research of one person? Also, how narcissistic does a person have to be to name a diet after them-self? Is it not a Catch-22? You could argue that 'it's the work of many', then surely it should be called the LCHF diet, or by some other name? What about the input of the others? The name "Tim Noakes Diet" implies that it's mainly the research of one person, which, in the scientific community, does not prove anything. It needs to be confirmed or denied by the research of many people.

As opposed to you "well-being", why not google the long list of doctors and cardiologists who stand FIRMLY opposed to Tim Noakes, who by the way, has a doctorate in science, but is not a practicing medical doctor.

That's why people are skeptical of this fad. Surely there has not been enough research done to quantify the positives and negatives of the work of a single person?

No need to get so defensive. You merely contribute to bad name the Banters already have.
Click to expand...

And you contribute to the misinformation surrounding the diet. The fact that you think there is only one person's research involved in this. Or that Noakes is the only person worth mentioning that is pushing this information around, is quite telling of your complete lack of knowledge on the matter.

And all of the medical doctors that are firmly against this, are far less informed than their doctorates will lead you to believe. I am not saying that every doctor out there is not proactive in their research. But most doctors are bound by the Hippocratic oath as much as they are bound by the governing medical body of their country.

Doctors being opposed to it are merely opposed because they are told to be. There are a lot of medical issues that are so far out of a doctors hands, that they merely follow the herd and do not even consider doing their own research on the matter. Because their research does not make a difference to what they are allowed to do in their treatment. The LCHF diet is a prime example of this issue. They don't want legal backlash, so must prescribe the treatment that they are recommended by the medical board.

Large bodies like medical boards, take years or decades to change their minds on matters. And ones that are tied to legal precedence, as medical boards are, are even less likely to change their stance. Because if any cases have been won or lost based on the currently held status of the LFHC way of eating. Then suddenly doing a 180 will result in appeals coming out of their ears.

Turning around and saying, oops, actually it is high carb intake, that turns remodels LDL into the dangerous ones. And high carb intake will result in a dangerous increase of triglycerides. It also leads to insulin resistance in most people, which can turn into full blown diabetes in the long run.
And... erm... well basically everything that we previously blamed on saturated fat, where heart risk factors are concerned, well... we can tie them more reliably to grains and highly processed carbs. So um oops. :erm:

Yeah, the worldwide legal ramifications of doing that would be incredible. I don't see medical bodies changing their tune too soon. And therefore most doctors will not change their tune either.
 
Ho3n3r said:
And this is a problem why? It's not an autobiography where you need to call people, arrange meetings with them and then corellate their statements with each other. He already had the facts researched and documented beforehand in all likelihood, and so did the co-authors. All they had to do, is put it in a format usable by laymans.
Click to expand...

Yes, but who did they use to test this method? Did they perform clinical studies by gender, age, race? Where genetics taken into account? Did they research the long term effects of this diet? The main point I was making is that in any 'scientific' study, you have a method. And I have read the book, and the biggest problem for me is that the timeline for the research isn't justifiable. And by producing a theory in layman's terms, surely some of the information is lost in translation. There is also too much bias, as Tim Noakes has published his theory for financial gain. He will only mention the positives of his methodology, and his research will also be biased towards this.

I am not disproving or claiming anything. I am on the fence. But I am also a skeptic. There just has not been enough research done to prove anything. People have only been banting for a few years due the recent surge in popularity, but do you truly see yourself eating like this for the rest of your life, and you can honestly say 100% without a doubt that it is having no negative impact on your health?

The bible has been around for thousands of years, but we have yet to prove the existence of g-d. Just because a theory has been around for a long time, doesn't mean its true. It needs to be proven. So the fact that banting has been around for a long time, doesn't necessarily mean its healthy.

Give me evidence; give unanimous positive opinions that this method is healthy, then I will believe. Until then, I cannot take this method of eating seriously. Because you have a slew of cardiologists and doctors (plural) who say this is unhealthy. But what do they know. Tim Noakes 'researched' it.
 
It is just another fad-diet, specially crafted to lure people into its grip by touching on their insecurity about weight in order to make money. Nothing new here and the fact that Noakes is "proudly South African" just helped line his pockets more.

But calling a ponzi scheme? That's a but harsh. A cult suits it better.
 
SoulTax said:
And you contribute to the misinformation surrounding the diet. The fact that you think there is only one person's research involved in this. Or that Noakes is the only person worth mentioning that is pushing this information around, is quite telling of your complete lack of knowledge on the matter.

And all of the medical doctors that are firmly against this, are far less informed than their doctorates will lead you to believe. I am not saying that every doctor out there is not proactive in their research. But most doctors are bound by the Hippocratic oath as much as they are bound by the governing medical body of their country.

Doctors being opposed to it are merely opposed because they are told to be. There are a lot of medical issues that are so far out of a doctors hands, that they merely follow the herd and do not even consider doing their own research on the matter. Because their research does not make a difference to what they are allowed to do in their treatment. The LCHF diet is a prime example of this issue. They don't want legal backlash, so must prescribe the treatment that they are recommended by the medical board.

Large bodies like medical boards, take years or decades to change their minds on matters. And ones that are tied to legal precedence, as medical boards are, are even less likely to change their stance. Because if any cases have been won or lost based on the currently held status of the LFHC way of eating. Then suddenly doing a 180 will result in appeals coming out of their ears.

Turning around and saying, oops, actually it is high carb intake, that turns remodels LDL into the dangerous ones. And high carb intake will result in a dangerous increase of triglycerides. It also leads to insulin resistance in most people, which can turn into full blown diabetes in the long run.
And... erm... well basically everything that we previously blamed on saturated fat, where heart risk factors are concerned, well... we can tie them more reliably to grains and highly processed carbs. So um oops. :erm:

Yeah, the worldwide legal ramifications of doing that would be incredible. I don't see medical bodies changing their tune too soon. And therefore most doctors will not change their tune either.
Click to expand...

spot on....
 
cerebus said:
This has nothing to do with how a ponzi scheme operates. It's a very specific kind of pyramid investment scheme:

What the writer describes is a collective, cult-like frenzied delusion.


If they contrived the fundamental principles of the diet, it seems reasonable.
Click to expand...

I'm no fan of the diet but the author of that article has absolutely no idea what a Ponzi scheme is. That is ridiculous considering the site it was published on.
 
manu55 said:
Yes, but who did they use to test this method? Did they perform clinical studies by gender, age, race? Where genetics taken into account? Did they research the long term effects of this diet? The main point I was making is that in any 'scientific' study, you have a method. And I have read the book, and the biggest problem for me is that the timeline for the research isn't justifiable. And by producing a theory in layman's terms, surely some of the information is lost in translation. There is also too much bias, as Tim Noakes has published his theory for financial gain. He will only mention the positives of his methodology, and his research will also be biased towards this.

I am not disproving or claiming anything. I am on the fence. But I am also a skeptic. There just has not been enough research done to prove anything. People have only been banting for a few years due the recent surge in popularity, but do you truly see yourself eating like this for the rest of your life, and you can honestly say 100% without a doubt that it is having no negative impact on your health?
Click to expand...

I realise that you are on the fence here. But I find it rather silly that you hold such high expectations of the Banting diet and its researchers before ascribing to it. Yet the currently held dietary lifestyle, that you and your thousands of doctors ™, is supposedly the answer to all our health woes; has even less evidence to support it.

I am just saying, that even if you split the hair down the middle on cardiac risk. That there is "research" to support both fat and carbs as the enemy here. So allow them to cancel each other out. The situation on diabetes is absolutely concrete. Excess carbs, produces excess insulin, which creates the internal environment for your body to become insulin resistant. (You dont need to be obese to be insulin resistant).

So on the one hand we have fats that may or may not be the devil as far as cardiac risk is concerned.
On the other we have carbs that may or may not be the devil as far as cardiac risk is concerned, but most definitely is the devil as far as obesity and diabetes is concerned.

I know which side of the fence I will lean towards on that argument.

Also most doctors tend to agree that the two largest factors that contribute to heart attacks, is obesity (Carbs being the primary culprit in causing this epidemic) and genetics (something you cannot avoid).

I just stick all the pros and cons on a balancing scale and LowerCarbHigherFat just wins out.


Final thought:

When the HCLF fad first got introduced. And "Cholesterol" was pinned as the thing to avoid. They went out saying that eggs were bad for you because they are high in cholesterol. 95% of all doctors have changed their tune on this by now. For obvious reasons. Those obvious reasons are the underpinning point as to why Banting works.
 
JacquesR said:
Sweden hasn't, no. The SBU is an independent advisory body, not the government. Even the authors of the SBU study have been trying to tell people that this zombie fact is untrue, but - true to the name - it just won't die.
Click to expand...

Heh, thanks for the link. That's what happens when people tell me stuff and I'm too lazy to verify it.
 
SoulTax said:
And you contribute to the misinformation surrounding the diet. The fact that you think there is only one person's research involved in this. Or that Noakes is the only person worth mentioning that is pushing this information around, is quite telling of your complete lack of knowledge on the matter.

And all of the medical doctors that are firmly against this, are far less informed than their doctorates will lead you to believe. I am not saying that every doctor out there is not proactive in their research. But most doctors are bound by the Hippocratic oath as much as they are bound by the governing medical body of their country.

Doctors being opposed to it are merely opposed because they are told to be. There are a lot of medical issues that are so far out of a doctors hands, that they merely follow the herd and do not even consider doing their own research on the matter. Because their research does not make a difference to what they are allowed to do in their treatment. The LCHF diet is a prime example of this issue. They don't want legal backlash, so must prescribe the treatment that they are recommended by the medical board.

Large bodies like medical boards, take years or decades to change their minds on matters. And ones that are tied to legal precedence, as medical boards are, are even less likely to change their stance. Because if any cases have been won or lost based on the currently held status of the LFHC way of eating. Then suddenly doing a 180 will result in appeals coming out of their ears.

Turning around and saying, oops, actually it is high carb intake, that turns remodels LDL into the dangerous ones. And high carb intake will result in a dangerous increase of triglycerides. It also leads to insulin resistance in most people, which can turn into full blown diabetes in the long run.
And... erm... well basically everything that we previously blamed on saturated fat, where heart risk factors are concerned, well... we can tie them more reliably to grains and highly processed carbs. So um oops. :erm:

Yeah, the worldwide legal ramifications of doing that would be incredible. I don't see medical bodies changing their tune too soon. And therefore most doctors will not change their tune either.
Click to expand...

As others have mentioned before, Noakes is new to the scene. Many others - some of them doctors themselves - have been on about this for many years.
Google Dr Peter Atiah if you want to see one of them.

Noakes book is really 70% cookbook relative to stuff available in SA and 30% information that is freely available on the internet.
 
Last edited:
Rocket-Boy said:
As others have mentioned before, Noakes is new to the scene. Many others - some of them doctors themselves - have been on about this for many years.
Google Dr Peter Atiah if you want to see one of them.

Noakes book is really 70% cookbook relative to stuff available in SA and 30% information that is freely available on the internet.
Click to expand...

Attia is actually the guy that I first found when looking into LCHF. Noakes is not even a feature on my LCHF list tbh.
 
Noakes has the drive, he's managed to stir things up and get people thinking and created some doubt in the minds of others who were cemented in their beliefs and that's why they are upset.
 
Response to banting/Ponzi claim

Dear Mr. Heystek

I have just had the pleasure of reading the article, “Is Tim Noakes running a Ponzi scheme?”

I’m used to hearing “Tim Noakes” and “running” in the same sentence, as I’m sure you are. But imagine the surprise when I discovered he’s been implicated in some kind of fraud. I was intrigued. The click bait had worked and I read on.

You then proceeded to discuss your many heroic examples of rescuing the unenlightened from pyramid schemes that you had uncovered. As you pointed out, your courageous reporting didn’t bring the praise you deserved, but rather threats, denials and accusations.

Permit me if you will Mr. Heystek, but your life story seems to bear an uncanny resemblance to Professor Noakes’s life story. At least it did before your noble stint as the people’s champion was replaced by your current role as a tabloid opportunist.

I’m afraid that’s where the Tim Noakes allegory ends for you Magnus. Can I call you Magnus?

Today, indeed everyday, Professor Noakes goes out to bat for something he believes in. Something that science, medicine, history and common sense support, something that is complicated by socio-political and economic interests but that the world is nonetheless beginning to understand. His message: essentially that we are consuming far too much in the way of carbs and sugar.

Indeed Noakes has his detractors (some of whom are even qualified to speak on the subject). But that isn’t surprising, as it’s not easy to admit that much of your work has been based on a misconception. Just ask Noakes himself.

There’s a terrific irony in your ‘article’ Magnus, where an investment strategist feels compelled to weigh in on the subject of health and nutrition. It’s like asking me to write a think piece on investment strategy. I too would probably waffle on about my past successes before advising everyone to throw it all on black.

I will stop short of suggesting that you chose to sensationalise the topic of Tim Noakes and Banting in order to ride a popular wave and secure a few more valuable clicks. But your newfound area of expertise suggests that the world is currently short of investment opportunities.

If, Magnus, you are genuinely dismissive of Professor Noakes and Banting, we would like to challenge you to do the Beginner Banting Course. Like many others, you might soon find yourself converted. And if you chose to temper this newfound fanaticism with a slice of bread here and a bowl of pasta there, I’m sure Professor Noakes wouldn’t object.

In the meantime Magnus, keep an eye out for genuine Ponzi schemes. By your own admission, you were very good at that.

Jonno Proudfoot
The Real Meal Revolution
Click to expand...

http://www.moneyweb.co.za/moneyweb-political-economy/response-to-bantingponzi-claim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X