Scientists have misled the public - Tim Noakes

Last edited:
I'm so gatvol of this man. He is everywhere, like the Kardashians. Enough, I promise never to eat a koeksister again.
 
Sneeky said:
You incorrectly assume it's just the fizzy drinks. the so called healthy juices, energy drinks, vitamin waters, etc, are all saturated with added sugar in one form or another.
Click to expand...

You know what I meant:)
Besides which, you don't have to use hyperbole and incorrectly use the word "saturated". At room temperature, sugar has a solubility of about 66 % [1], which means that in a 250 g can of water you can dissolve 165g of sugar, that is about 11 tablespoons. A 250 ml can of coke has 33g of sugar so it isn't even close to the scientific definition of saturation. If it were, then if you cooled your drink, you would start to find sugar crystals.

If I have to say it again, portion control is the key here. If you ate copious amounts of carb free broccoli and cheese, you would get just as fat as you would by doing the same with any other type of food.
 
Which is exactly one of the points he keeps making. A low carb & high fat is more satiating and results in you being less hungry compared to a high carb & low fat diet, making it easier to control your portions.
 
bokdrol said:
I'm so gatvol of this man. He is everywhere, like the Kardashians. Enough, I promise never to eat a koeksister again.
Click to expand...

there are also people with diabetes everywhere :p
 
konfab said:
You know what I meant:)
Besides which, you don't have to use hyperbole and incorrectly use the word "saturated". At room temperature, sugar has a solubility of about 66 % [1], which means that in a 250 g can of water you can dissolve 165g of sugar, that is about 11 tablespoons. A 250 ml can of coke has 33g of sugar so it isn't even close to the scientific definition of saturation. If it were, then if you cooled your drink, you would start to find sugar crystals.

If I have to say it again, portion control is the key here. If you ate copious amounts of carb free broccoli and cheese, you would get just as fat as you would by doing the same with any other type of food.
Click to expand...

Sure, loaded then. Bottom line is most people do not realize how much they are consuming on a daily basis even on a so called healthy diet.
That is exactly what the sugar film illustrates succinctly. He replaces his sugar free diet directly with a so called healthy diet, the exact same amount of daily calories as best can be calculated. Nothing else changed in his routine, he packed on the pounds and his bloods went south.

Sugar is not 'bad' for you, neither are carbs , its about knowing what you are eating and most people eat things they think are good for them regularly that are anything but. A plate of pasta or slice of bread is easy to define from a carb perspective, but hidden added sugars in almost everything else you buy at the supermarket are not.

As for the broccoli eating, well you would not, because you would get full faster and stay that way for longer.
Its like drinking an apple juice loaded with sugar or eating 4 or 5 apples one after the other. You would probably stop after 1 actual apple.
 
konfab said:
You know what I meant:)
Besides which, you don't have to use hyperbole and incorrectly use the word "saturated". At room temperature, sugar has a solubility of about 66 % [1], which means that in a 250 g can of water you can dissolve 165g of sugar, that is about 11 tablespoons. A 250 ml can of coke has 33g of sugar so it isn't even close to the scientific definition of saturation. If it were, then if you cooled your drink, you would start to find sugar crystals.

If I have to say it again, portion control is the key here. If you ate copious amounts of carb free broccoli and cheese, you would get just as fat as you would by doing the same with any other type of food.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
I would love to see somebody getting fat on eating a ton of broccoli and cheese. I highly doubt this can happen. Even if you should somehow pig out on it.
 
Sneeky said:
Sure, loaded then. Bottom line is most people do not realize how much they are consuming on a daily basis even on a so called healthy diet.
That is exactly what the sugar film illustrates succinctly. He replaces his sugar free diet directly with a so called healthy diet, the exact same amount of daily calories as best can be calculated. Nothing else changed in his routine, he packed on the pounds and his bloods went south.

Sugar is not 'bad' for you, neither are carbs , its about knowing what you are eating and most people eat things they think are good for them regularly that are anything but. A plate of pasta or slice of bread is easy to define from a carb perspective, but hidden added sugars in almost everything else you buy at the supermarket are not.

As for the broccoli eating, well you would not, because you would get full faster and stay that way for longer.
Its like drinking an apple juice loaded with sugar or eating 4 or 5 apples one after the other. You would probably stop after 1 actual apple.
Click to expand...
If this was true then you could put diesel into a petrol engine and expect the same results.

Your body processes fats proteins and sugars(carbs) in different ways; if you get the balance wrong you can easily overtax parts of your metabolic system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatty_acid_metabolism

When blood sugar is low, decreasing insulin levels signal the adipocytes to activate hormone-sensitive lipase, and to convert triglycerides into free fatty acids.[3] These have very low solubility in the blood, typically about 1 μM. However, the most abundant protein in blood, serum albumin, binds free fatty acids, increasing their effective solubility to ~ 1 mM. Thus, serum albumin transports fatty acids to organs such as muscle and liver for oxidation when blood sugar is low.
Click to expand...
In other words, when you're eating fat instead of carbs or sugar and you use that to get your daily energy it has a completely different interaction with your blood's insulin levels; is it really surprising that removing this energy mechanism from your metabolism by declaring a Jihad on fat has lead to a diabetes pandemic around the world?

I don't think people need to be carbohydrate nazis, but there's a very strong argument to be made for increasing the amount of fat in your diet and decreasing the carbs. Like it or not, people who try to follow this diet do tend to experience a decrease in sensations of hunger.
 
All I can tell you is that ever since my old man started eating Noakes' recipes, he's lost more than 10kgs and no longer needs to take cholesterol tablets. His blood sugar is perfect and where it should be as well -he checks it. Every. Single. Morning.

"That Sugar Film" watch it. (Fructose is the main culprit.)

EDIT: Who here in this thread is a doctor?
 
Sl8er said:
All I can tell you is that ever since my old man started eating Noakes' recipes, he's lost more than 10kgs and no longer needs to take cholesterol tablets. His blood sugar is perfect and where it should be as well -he checks it. Every. Single. Morning.

"That Sugar Film" watch it. (Fructose is the main culprit.)

EDIT: Who here in this thread is a doctor?
Click to expand...

I don't see any Doctor Who's here in this thread:D
 
Sl8er said:
Who here in this thread is a doctor?
Click to expand...

More specically...who here in this thread is a real, qualified nutritionist with peer reveiwed publications? Noakes certainly isn't.

Noakes is dangerously misleading the public, he changes his mind more than most change their undies

rpm said:
Professor Tim Noakes said his eyes were opened the day his own health failed.

"It is the day I saw the truth,"
Click to expand...

And this is how he does his science...whatever happens to him, let's change something, write a book and suck everybody in. He has done the same with running for many years.

What you do Noakes is not science, it is anecdote based on your own experimentation with yourself and compliant others. You have not done double blind studies, never ever have with anything and you have always jumped onto lesser known ideas and made it your own.

That was the case with The Central Governor Theory, first proposed by Hill in early 1900's but made your own, without any proof andf now claiming "it is accepted".
The same with hyponatraemia, it is and was well known that too much water causes low sodium concentration amongst others and it is not rocket science that when more slow people started running ultras with all the walking involved and the numerous aid stations (for example Comrades) you will drink more water than you expire....you made this 'theory' your own.

Then absurdly you point to your study (or observation) of unorthodox batsmen being the best, as another one of your unconventional theories that is 'accepted', notwithstanding that you have no proof other than naming some reasonably good batsmen, whilst ignoring that the highest run scorers are orthodox. As if to bolster your credibility...it works with the masses. What works for scientists is statistical correlation.
If I gave you a better anecdote, it would be that batsmen who bat with the opposite 'hand' to dominant hand are better...there are much more examples than yours, yet it is still not 'science'.

Let's stop with that absurd 'unconventional acceptance' (there were 7 that you claimed you led the world on) and back to your fad diet, which is what it is. Any diet which excludes food groups and focuses on others is a fad. Banting is one of them...you did not invent it, you merely woke up to your diabetes and did exactly what a non scientific person would do...exclude totally the one thing that could have caused it, forgetting that it was your overconsumption of sugar, well known to cause diabetes for 100's of years.

...and when you get a heart attack, god forbid, you will blame it on something else, or perhaps jump onto another fad.

You are misleading many people..thankfully mainly in SA (or sadly mainly in SA) who either do not understand science/respect people like yourself/want others to tell them.

Here in Aus we have a celebrity chef , Pete Evans, promoting paleo, even to babies. We can laugh at Evans, he has no credentials other than being a TV show judge and we can show him to be a fool....
...but to get someone like you to do likewise , as a medical Doctor that has taken the hippocratic oath, is an absolute disgrace...oh, I hear that you don't care about that anymore, you are not a registered GP anymore...perhaps made too much money out of suckers

...and I am just getting started...I will be posting an article on Jacques Rosseau's site soon...I hear he loves your work ;-)
 
Last edited:
WaxLyrical said:
Low fat = high carbs.
Click to expand...

No Low fat + low carbs + low protein + low everything else = less calories = lose weight.

Noakes does not tell you what calories his banting people do on fat alone

Eat in moderation, every decent nutritionist that fights a new fad diet every week have been saying this for years
 
OzzieCapie said:
More specically...who here in this thread is a real, qualified nutritionist with peer reveiwed publications? Noakes certainly isn't.

Noakes is dangerously misleading the public, he changes his mind more than most change their undies



And this is how he does his science...whatever happens to him, let's change something, write a book and suck everybody in. He has done the same with running for many years.

What you do Noakes is not science, it is anecdote based on your own experimentation with yourself and compliant others. You have not done double blind studies, never ever have with anything and you have always jumped onto lesser known ideas and made it your own.

That was the case with The Central Governor Theory, first proposed by Hill in early 1900's but made your own, without any proof andf now claiming "it is accepted".
The same with hyponatraemia, it is and was well known that too much water causes low sodium concentration amongst others and it is not rocket science that when more slow people started running ultras with all the walking involved and the numerous aid stations (for example Comrades) you will drink more water than you expire....you made this 'theory' your own.

Then absurdly you point to your study (or observation) of unorthodox batsmen being the best, as another one of your unconventional theories that is 'accepted', notwithstanding that you have no proof other than naming some reasonably good batsmen, whilst ignoring that the highest run scorers are orthodox. If I gave you a better anecdote, it would be that batsmen who bat with the opposite 'hand' to dominant hand are better...there are more examples than yours, yet it is still not 'science'.

Let's stop with that absurd 'unconventional acceptance' and back to your fad diet, which is what it is. Any diet which excludes food groups and focuses on others is a fad. Banting is one of them...you did not invent it, you merely woke up to your diabetes and did exactly what a non scientific person would do...exclude totally the one thing that could have caused it, forgetting that it was your overconsumption of sugar, well known to cause diabetes for 100's of years.

...and when you get a heart attack, god forbid, you will blame it on something else, or perhaps jump onto another fad.

You are misleading many people..thankfully mainly in SA (or sadly mainly in SA) who either do not understand science/respect people like yourself/want others to tell them.

Here in Aus we have a celebrity chef , Pete Evans, promoting paleo, even to babies. We can laugh at Evans, he has no credentials other than being a TV show judge and we can show him to be a fool....
...but to get someone like you to do likewise , as a medical Doctor that has taken the hippocratic oath, is an absolute disgrace...oh, I hear that you don't care about that anymore, you are not a registered GP anymore...perhaps made too much money out of suckers

...and I am just getting started...I will be posting an article on Jacques Rosseau's site soon...I hear he loves your work ;-)
Click to expand...

TL;DR

Are you a doctor, nutritionist, dietitian or health professional (specifically diet related)?
 
Last edited:
Sl8er said:
TL;DR

Are you a doctor, nutritionist, dietitian or health professional (specifically diet related)?
Click to expand...

Why don't you read it, or do you want Noakes one liners?

It has nothing to with diet related, it has to do with the science of it and I am a scientist who works only with proven facts.

Noakes mention 7 unconventions that he made accepted, none of them have proof or are relevant nor have statistical correlation.

And I do have a physiologist/dietician (PhD level) righ here anyway. We dont have to be an expert in everything, but Noakes isnt a nutritionist himself. He is a GP who rode the back of his running book to make himself a sports scientist
 
OzzieCapie said:
Why don't you read it, or do you want Noakes one liners?

It has nothing to with diet related, it has to do with the science of it and I am a scientist who works only with proven facts.

Noakes mention 7 unconventions that he made accepted, none of them have proof or are relevant nor have statistical correlation.

And I do have a physiologist/dietician (PhD level) righ here anyway. We dont have to be an expert in everything, but Noakes isnt a nutritionist himself. He is a GP who rode the back of his running book to make himself a sports scientist
Click to expand...

So that's a "no" then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X