Is Tim Noakes running a Ponzi scheme?

[CheekyC]

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.

The fact is that our current 'low fat is good / high fat is bad' was pushed by the american food industry. The sugar industry in particular. I have a book that documents much of the research and how the 'murrican guvverment vetoed and influenced the outcomes and spent billions in lobbying congress. All a big scam driven by money...

 

[Nom Chompsky]

The fact is that our current 'low fat is good / high fat is bad' was pushed by the american food industry. The sugar industry in particular. I have a book that documents much of the research and how the 'murrican guvverment vetoed and influenced the outcomes and spent billions in lobbying congress. All a big scam driven by money...

This book:

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462 ?

The book explains that:

1. The 'calories in, calories out' mantra is a myth

2. 'A calorie is a calorie is a calorie' is a myth

3. The 'just eat less and do more exercise to lose weight' message seems to be logical but is actually wrong and unhelpful

4. Overweight and obese people often eat no more calories, or even less, than their thinner counterparts

5. Low calorie diets also reduce the amount of nutrients in the diet

6. It is a myth that the brain and CNS needs 120 - 130 grams of carbohydrate as fuel in order to function properly, as the body can use fat and protein equally as well, and these fuels are likely the mixture our brains have evolved to prefer.

7. Restricting calories with a low fat/high carb diet just makes you hungrier and more lethargic and slows your metabolic rate. Weight loss is only maintained if the patients stays on a semi-starvation diet forever, which is impossible for most people and also undesirable. Being far more active just makes you far more hungry.

8. It is a myth that reducing calories slightly or increasing activity slightly will lead to weight loss.

9. It is a myth that we evolved through periods of feast and famine to be very good at holding onto fat. Fat gain is due to excessive insulin levels caused by high dietary refined carbohydrate intake. It is a sign of something in the body going wrong, not a healthy adaptation.

10. Fructose is not much better than glucose and the two together may cause more harm than either individually.

11. The idea of a weight 'set point' is a myth

12. Insulin is the overall fuel control for mammals. High insulin levels cause the body to store fat and stop the body from using fat as fuel. This means that high carbohydrate foods make you put on more fat, and also leave you still feeling very hungry and unsatisfied.

13. Our bodies have evolved to do best on a diet of plentiful fat and protein (including saturated fat), lots of greens and minimal fruits and starchy vegetables. This diet is the best for health and also for losing weight and stopping weight gain.

14. Dietary fat, including saturated fat, is not a cause of obesity. Refined and easily digestible carbs causing high insulin levels cause obesity.

15. To say that people are overweight due to gluttony and slothfulness is just not correct and it is very unfair. Overeating and a sedentary lifestyle are often CAUSED by eating a high carbohydrate diet! This association has wrongly been interpreted as a cause of weight gain, rather than an effect.

16. Hunger caused by eating a high carbohydrate diet (or excessive exercising while on a low calorie diet) is a very strong physiological drive and should not be thought of something mild and psychological that can be overcome with willpower. This is something serious occurring in the body, not the brain!

Thus psychological 'treatments' for obesity are inappropriate and cruel. Most people are overweight due to bad medical advice, NOT a lack of willpower, greed, laziness or because they lack 'moral fibre'

17. People have different insulin secretory responses. Even if insulin secretion is slightly off, weight gain can occur.

18. Eating large amounts of a high sugar and high fat food like popcorn is easy because the body will not use most of the carbohydrate and fat for immediate fuel but will store much of it as fat - leaving you able to eat a lot of it and still be hungry a short time later as well.

19. Eating foods with a large bulk or high in fibre wont fill you up, you need the correct proportion of macronutrients and will stay hungry until you get them.

20. Those advocating the low calorie and high carb diets for health and weight loss are not involved in legitimate science. These approaches are not supported by the evidence.

Or this one - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/14...pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1688200382&pf_rd_i=507846 ?

 

[CheekyC]

The fact is that our current 'low fat is good / high fat is bad' was pushed by the american food industry. The sugar industry in particular. I have a book that documents much of the research and how the 'murrican guvverment vetoed and influenced the outcomes and spent billions in lobbying congress. All a big scam driven by money...

I'll just leave this here...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7oum7exb2fhdh6b/Health.zip?dl=0

This is an extract from a book on health and nutrition. It talks about our misconceptions and how our current (old) thinking was shaped by the US food industry. Fascinating read..

 

[ShaunSA]

Ponzi scheme my arse!

At a guess I would say Magnus needs to lose weight but has nfi how. So he rather points fingers at those who are successfully losing weight to make himself feel better.

Go shed some of those kilos instead of flinging them around Magnus!

 

[MandM]

I have seen the Banting diet work in lots of people (mostly men), but there is also a subset for whom it doesn't. I think any meal plan not involving take aways and lots of sugary drinks will allow you to lose weight. The trick is to keep it off!

 

[BCO]

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.

Well put.

 

[SoulTax]

Well put.

Not well put at all. Total lack of information and understanding on the topic. Thinking that Tim Noakes is the only person that has done research on this.
Points out that he requires proof of the principles of the Banting diet, then summarily forgets that he doesn't require the same proof for the current HCLF eating regiment.

You people wont put your faith in this way of eating.... fair enough.... but then go back and put the same level of scrutiny into the currently supported diet by all of those Medical professionals. Put some effort into it and you might be frightened by what you find.

Be skeptical about the new as well as the old or ingrained. Until you can do that, you really don't have a very well informed opinion on the matter.

 

[SmartKit]

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.

/facepalm

What is with these uniformed idiots that only read mass media hysteria and suddenly believe themselves to be experts on the subject?

 

[SmartKit]

/facepalm

What is with these uniformed idiots that only read mass media hysteria and suddenly believe themselves to be experts on the subject?

1. It's called the Banting Diet
2. Noakes is an MD, and has a Doctorate in Science
3. Tim Noakes is joined by Sally-Ann Creed, Jonno Proudfoot, David Grier; he is not a single person

Read up on what you're arguing about because your arguments have no basis and you look foolish.

 

[SmartKit]

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.

Long term research has given us an increase in obesity and diabetes. Tim Noakes doesn't just preach, his health is a result of this diet.

Ironically you state that because Banting has been around a while doesn't mean it's true; yet imperial evidence suggests that modern recommended daily allowances and diet recommendations aren't either!

 

[SmartKit]

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.

There are plenty of people on this forum that have positive results and are much healthier, so it's odd you believe it to be a passing fad. In fact, Noakes is one of those who have benefited from this diet.

 

[SmartKit]

Not well put at all. Total lack of information and understanding on the topic. Thinking that Tim Noakes is the only person that has done research on this.
Points out that he requires proof of the principles of the Banting diet, then summarily forgets that he doesn't require the same proof for the current HCLF eating regiment.

You people wont put your faith in this way of eating.... fair enough.... but then go back and put the same level of scrutiny into the currently supported diet by all of those Medical professionals. Put some effort into it and you might be frightened by what you find.

Be skeptical about the new as well as the old or ingrained. Until you can do that, you really don't have a very well informed opinion on the matter.

Exactly, and maybe it's not for everyone but it's worked wonders for many.

 

[BCO]

Not well put at all. Total lack of information and understanding on the topic. Thinking that Tim Noakes is the only person that has done research on this.
Points out that he requires proof of the principles of the Banting diet, then summarily forgets that he doesn't require the same proof for the current HCLF eating regiment.

You people wont put your faith in this way of eating.... fair enough.... but then go back and put the same level of scrutiny into the currently supported diet by all of those Medical professionals. Put some effort into it and you might be frightened by what you find.

Be skeptical about the new as well as the old or ingrained. Until you can do that, you really don't have a very well informed opinion on the matter.

I put a fair amount of scrutiny into the health of my own diet, thanks. Having said that, I'm not aware of any long term studies with large sample sizes (like the Harvard Nurses Study or the China Study) that confirm the long term safety of the Banting diet. If you'd care to point me in the direction of such a study I'd be happy to read it, but I haven't located one myself.

I am not at all "frightened at what I find" about the dietary recommendations of the Harvard School of Public Health, which is what I base my diet on. My main issue with many Banting followers is the belief that your diet is the ONLY healthy way to eat, when there is plenty of evidence to indicate that there are other healthful diets out there.

 

[SmartKit]

I put a fair amount of scrutiny into the health of my own diet, thanks. Having said that, I'm not aware of any long term studies with large sample sizes (like the Harvard Nurses Study or the China Study) that confirm the long term safety of the Banting diet. If you'd care to point me in the direction of such a study I'd be happy to read it, but I haven't located one myself.

I am not at all "frightened at what I find" about the dietary recommendations of the Harvard School of Public Health, which is what I base my diet on. My main issue with many Banting followers is the belief that your diet is the ONLY healthy way to eat, when there is plenty of evidence to indicate that there are other healthful diets out there.

I don't think that's true, it is probably an easier way to eat when you reach your goal weight as there is only so much skinless steamed chicken and broccoli one can handle.

 

[copacetic]

I put a fair amount of scrutiny into the health of my own diet, thanks. Having said that, I'm not aware of any long term studies with large sample sizes (like the Harvard Nurses Study or the China Study) that confirm the long term safety of the Banting diet. If you'd care to point me in the direction of such a study I'd be happy to read it, but I haven't located one myself.

I am not at all "frightened at what I find" about the dietary recommendations of the Harvard School of Public Health, which is what I base my diet on. My main issue with many Banting followers is the belief that your diet is the ONLY healthy way to eat, when there is plenty of evidence to indicate that there are other healthful diets out there.

If you are healthy and happy, that's all that matters, I say.

 

[BCO]

If you are healthy and happy, that's all that matters, I say.

Agreed!

 

[SoulTax]

I put a fair amount of scrutiny into the health of my own diet, thanks. Having said that, I'm not aware of any long term studies with large sample sizes (like the Harvard Nurses Study or the China Study) that confirm the long term safety of the Banting diet. If you'd care to point me in the direction of such a study I'd be happy to read it, but I haven't located one myself.

I am not at all "frightened at what I find" about the dietary recommendations of the Harvard School of Public Health, which is what I base my diet on. My main issue with many Banting followers is the belief that your diet is the ONLY healthy way to eat, when there is plenty of evidence to indicate that there are other healthful diets out there.

While I think that the HSoPH has a much better view on diet as a whole, than many other institutions out there. I just cannot take an organisation seriously, that recommends olive oil (Really good) and canola/sunflower oil in the same sentence. In fact, that they recommend canola oil at all is a huge warning sign for me.

Much of the rest of their recommendations are actually fairly reasonable, but for the same reasons that the Keto diet is.

Literally the only difference between Keto and Harvard school's is that Keto has gone one step further in removing most of the grains and other carbs.
All of their studies, that show a reduced risk of Type 2 D or Cardiac disease, put the focus on fiber rich carbs as the good part of the diet. But those are just the words they use. If you look at the whole site, you realise that they have been recommending the high fat intake from olive oil, avocados, poultry and fatty fish in the same sentence as fiber rich foods. So you can actually not draw a line in the sand and claim that it is the fiber in isolation that is producing the health benefits. In fact, you cannot even state that it is the fiber at all. Because there are studies in support of the Keto diet that show the exact same health benefits, without the fiber.

So in actual fact, those huge 500 000 person studies, can actually be borrowed by the Keto diet at least in part. As the Keto research has very similar results, although in smaller data sets for now, can we even reliably put any of the health benefits on the fiber portion of the diet at all. Especially considering that Keto has simply upped the good fats and removed the fiber, yet still boasts the same health benefits.

And as a side note. The fiber eating plan boasts like 21% reduced chance of developing Type 2 D. Keto is more likely closer to 100% chance. As you cannot develop Type 2 D if you are not reactively producing insulin to your food intake. Evidently, fiber still carries a risk of developing type 2 D, even if it slows down the conversion rate of carbs into blood sugar.

The fact is it still happens. So if you eat 50g of carbs that spikes your insulin now, but your body gets under control. Or 50g of carbs that raises your insulin over the next 5 hours. I don't really see the massive health benefit. Your body is still being exposed to higher insulin levels over time, and so if you are genetically likely to develop Diabetes, you are still likely to get it on a fiber diet. Because Insulin resistant Diabetes is about your body becoming resistant to a hormone that it sees a lot, and in excess of normal amounts.

Edit* Removed superfluous analogy.

Final thought on the Type 2 Diabetes and fiber diet. They showed a reduction in occurrence which is great. But is that because they tested before the critical threshold of that person's body was reached?
If eating sugars like a mad man produces diabetes after 3 years. Eating an unhealthy diet produces it after 8 years. And eating a fiber rich (Slower release) diet produces it after 20 years. [All if you are genetically predisposed to it in the first place]. Yet they test at the 10 year mark. They might claim that Type 2 has not occurred right now, but that may be because they tested too early.