Tim Noakes Not Guilty

copacetic said:
I suspect it's simply has to do with the fact that his views very much go against convention (other LCHF proponents around the world face much the same reaction). And since the evidence for it it being, at the very least, not dangerous at all and potentially quite beneficial, a lot of people are left with little more than irrational ad hominem attacks on Noakes and people who happen to eat this way.

That all being said, there are no doubt banting and Noakes supporters who are no doubt verging on the religious about the topic, which is just as silly. I honestly don't know why people get so damned worked up about what they eat. It's insane.
Click to expand...

So people think it's a dangerous diet because it is unconventional? Maybe the bad rep originates from media created by those who are losing financially over banting popularity, and people are regurgitating the information from those articles.
 
Proud Noakes disciple here, ate carbs for 2 weeks on holiday, felt awful and went up a pants size. Carb craving is a bitch, is amazing how you can recognize the craving over actually being hungry once you've banted for a while.
 
Jings said:
So people think it's a dangerous diet because it is unconventional? Maybe the bad rep originates from media created by those who are losing financially over banting popularity, and people are regurgitating the information from those articles.
Click to expand...

I would imagine it's a variety of factors that inspire such passion in people. If you look at the Noakes case, for example, it was literally a dietician who went after him - A dietician whose entire practice is predicated on conventional dietary guidelines. And here's a well-respected figure telling the world that what they have to say is completely wrong. No wonder they get butt-hurt.

It's telling though, that they go after a person (and people who eat LCHF), rather than the science and evidence itself. What's bizarre, is that the more Noakes and what he advocates is vindicated by this and the general weight of evidence, the more these idiots are just digging their heels in and spouting even more ****. Reminds me of the ANC, for god's sake.
 
Mephisto_Helix said:
you really love just throwing your bs facts in the thread, call everyone doing banting lazy or cult like and carry on ignorant don't you
Click to expand...

I never called banting people lazy did I? you see, misconstruing. everyone has laziness in them, everyone(99.99999*%) has the aim of minimal input and maximum output.



copacetic said:
Misconstruing? Again? If I'm not following you, perhaps you're not being clear enough?

What was crystal though was this:



What is there to say, really? You make an absolute claim, and set your 'victory' two decades in the future. Absolutely ****ing ridiculous manner in which to state your case. You also make over-simplified and sweeping claims about the nature of the diet and the apparent danger of fats as if you have some sort of direct line to the truth.
Click to expand...


"20 years or so" in other words over a long period of time, is it that difficult to understand. you seem to think i have some malicious evil desire to prove some point. i don't have to or need to.

you are so stuck on arguing with me and being pedantic over a specific 2 decade victory that you miss the point. but this arguing only makes you dig in deeper, i know this. the way you take personal offence at someone elses opinion over a diet is funny tbh.

i have the book, i didn't need to follow it because i make my own food anyway(which this book is mostly about), i eat lots of meats already because i require high protein, but i reduce the fat intake.

its good that this helps people reduce body fat. its bad that some people go too far and go overboard with fat intake, it will come back to hurt them.

Eating a diet that is high in saturated fat can raise the level of cholesterol in the blood. Having high cholesterol increases the risk of heart disease. Saturated fat is the kind of fat found in butter and lard, pies, cakes and biscuits, fatty cuts of meat, sausages and bacon, and cheese and cream
Click to expand...

people ignore the science like a cult and will argue it do death.
 
Sneeky said:
and thats where it flies right over your head.
It is not a fat thing, its a health thing.
To often bad health is solely associated with obesity.
Too often with this whole thing about eating better its about some lard arse on a chair doing jack diddly. While this is certainly concerning the food you are offered daily (in good faith) is more worrying.

You dont like the guy fine, move on. Science will prevail.
Click to expand...
Dude fat as in eat fats and not carbs.
 
lsheed_cn said:
"His attitude and desciples reminds of a ponzi scheme"

Unsure whether you are talking about disciples (his followers), or disciplines, or perhaps scruples?
The sentence makes no sense either way.
Click to expand...
Disciples of the noakes religion
 
Sinbad said:
Be honest... he laughed at your toe shoes and you've never gotten over it, right?


But on a more serious note, the fact that you admit that the cause of your argument is that you don't like the man relegates every single post you make about this to the status of ad hominem - a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
No, you are reading my posts thinking I am against LCHF I'm not. I'm against the man Tim Jokes.

Separate the two.
 
copacetic said:
I would imagine it's a variety of factors that inspire such passion in people. If you look at the Noakes case, for example, it was literally a dietician who went after him - A dietician whose entire practice is predicated on conventional dietary guidelines. And here's a well-respected figure telling the world that what they have to say is completely wrong. No wonder they get butt-hurt.

It's telling though, that they go after a person (and people who eat LCHF), rather than the science and evidence itself. What's bizarre, is that the more Noakes and what he advocates is vindicated by this and the general weight of evidence, the more these idiots are just digging their heels in and spouting even more ****. Reminds me of the ANC, for god's sake.
Click to expand...

Isn't the scientific support for banting and diebetics research, which received some kind of award? Perhaps that is what created the butt-hurt. Although I disagree that the conventional dieticians are completely wrong. For a long time information has been available on certain carbohydrates and their effect on sugar levels.
 
access said:
"20 years or so" in other words over a long period of time, is it that difficult to understand. you seem to think i have some malicious evil desire to prove some point. i don't have to or need to.
Click to expand...

You claim that in 20 years you will be able to say "I told you so". It's not hard to understand your words, but easy enough to point out that they are empty.

you are so stuck on arguing with me and being pedantic over a specific 2 decade victory that you miss the point. but this arguing only makes you dig in deeper, i know this. the way you take personal offence at someone elses opinion over a diet is funny tbh.
Click to expand...

I'm not being pedantic at all - I'm simply commenting on the things you say, as is standard when people discuss a matter. As for taking personal offence, I haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about - Feel free to point out even one instance of me doing so on this forum, never mind in the context of our discussion...

i have the book, i didn't need to follow it because i make my own food anyway(which this book is mostly about), i eat lots of meats already because i require high protein, but i reduce the fat intake.

its good that this helps people reduce body fat. its bad that some people go too far and go overboard with fat intake, it will come back to hurt them.
Click to expand...

people ignore the science like a cult and will argue it do death.
Click to expand...

This goes for any idiot with a strong view. You are no different, with all your absolute claims.
 
Last edited:
Jings said:
Isn't the scientific support for banting and diebetics research, which received some kind of award? Perhaps that is what created the butt-hurt. Although I disagree that the conventional dieticians are completely wrong. For a long time information has been available on certain carbohydrates and their effect on sugar levels.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure I understand the beginning of your sentence, but the bottom line is that it's a complex topic - You are doing yourself a disservice if you are wanting to find any one reason for why it inflames people so. Myself, I just get irritated by the absolutely moronic displays of arrogant attitude that are often on display when it comes to this issue. I'm not invested in Noakes or the diet and of itself in any manner, outside of feeling pretty good when limiting carbs.
 
Last edited:
copacetic said:
You claim that in 20 years you will be able to say "I told you so". It's not hard to understand your words, but easy enough to point out that they are empty.



I'm not being pedantic at all - I'm simply commenting on the things you say, as is standard when people discuss a matter. As for taking personal offence, I haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about - Feel free to point out even one instance of me doing so on this forum, never mind in the context of our discussion...



This goes for any idiot with a strong view. You are no different, with all your absolute claims.
Click to expand...


you lack comprehension, eat some more sugar.
 
copacetic said:
I'm not entirely sure I understand the beginning of your sentence, but the bottom line is that it's a complex topic - You are doing yourself a disservice if you are wanting to find any one reason for why it inflames people so. Myself, I just get irritated by the absolutely moronic displays of arrogant attitude that are often on display when it comes to this issue. I'm not invested in Noakes or the diet and of itself in any manner, outside of feeling pretty good when limiting carbs.
Click to expand...

I was a little confused there too. The reason for Banting diet was William Banting, who was not in medicine, however he was a distant relative of Frederick Banting, co-discoverer of insulin. Should have searched up on it again to refresh my memory.

But yeah, I'm trying to understand the reasons why it inflames people so. Yet, on the other hand, it is the internet and there are people that get arrogant over many issues.
 
I attended a event where Noakes was a speaker and the key to banting is finding out how insulin resistant you are and how much carbohydrates you can tolerate to lose and maintain weight and improve and prevent diabetes. Some people can eat loads of carbs and never have a problem and others can have very few. When doing a maintenance diet most healthy active people can eat all types of COMPLEX carbohydrates and not gain weight or be at risk for diabetes. Staying away from simple carbohydrates is basic common sense nutrition so his advice is good for everyone but also differs depending on your physiology.
 
Noakes is a living example of how Banting works. He lives what he is preaching as despite following all the now proven incorrect advice, he himself became ill and has Type 2 Diabetes. Being the scientist he is he started revisiting past information and that revealed how we had all been mislead including himself. Before he opened up about Banting he adopted the lifestyle for himself and the rest is history. By the way Banting is not Prof.Noakes' diet, it's been around longer than this episode. It was swept under the carpet in favour of low fat high carb foods which currently contributes to the world's obesity crisis. Tim has turned the nutrition world upside down because to put it plainly he had the balls to stand up and say no.
 
access said:
the cult like defense of this diet and this guy is amazing. and funny.

misconstrued what I say to put this on a pedestal.


anyway, as you were. enjoy the lekker bacon breakfast this morning. I will. :D
Click to expand...
access said:
people look for a miracle pill or diet or the easiest thing to lose wait, its called laziness.

not eating carbs or eating very little carbs, forces your body to use its fat reserves, this it the thing that produces the weight loss results. there is nothing miraculous about it.

eating the fatty foods has almost nothing to do with the weight loss apart that its fast and high heat burning fuel for the body. its whats left over that's the problem.

like its funny how people twisted the eskimos diet to suite their diet plan sales, meanwhile nobody told them their life expectancies and what illnesses they suffer of later in life.

I also find it sad, that in a country where we are the leaders in heart medicine / procedures, that people will ignore actual medical scientists /professionals advice. but I suspect its to protect their yummy diet, heaven forbid someone tells them to get off their ass and do something.

just like in the past after several years, people eating too much fats will suffer. come back in 20 years or so and I will tell you "i told you so"
Click to expand...
Don't paint everybody with the same brush. For me it is not a defense of any particular diet but about the hypocrisy of the medical profession. For all their theories they have nothing to show for it and if anything people are dying more. But just let someone say something that is actually supported by some evidence. You just have to look at the parties involved to see the vested interest.

I'm not saying it's magic and neither is anyone else. What people find is that on average they eat less when filling their diets with some fats. Sugar also causes inflammation which puts your body into permanent stress causing weight gain. It's not about burning fat due to a shortage of sugar. Also don't equate the white unhealthy fat from animals bred in captivity to the yellow fat of those roaming free. I can't stand the white fat and cut all of it off.

If anything it is you with a cult like defense of anything conventional despite evidence to the contrary. If you don't believe me just go and look at the evidence. No meta study has ever shown heart health to improve when lowering cholesterol. They all show there's no measurable benefit and some even show adverse effects. Heck even the father of the modern hypothesis has changed his mind coming out to say that unless you're a rabbit 75% of your cholesterol is made by your liver and what you eat isn't going to have any effect. Yet the medical profession has ignored all of this evidence in favour of an industry that functions on something that acts exactly like an opioid and drugs with adverse effects being given to more and more people without good results. That is the definition of a cult following.
 
purpleheart said:
I attended a event where Noakes was a speaker and the key to banting is finding out how insulin resistant you are and how much carbohydrates you can tolerate to lose and maintain weight and improve and prevent diabetes. Some people can eat loads of carbs and never have a problem and others can have very few. When doing a maintenance diet most healthy active people can eat all types of COMPLEX carbohydrates and not gain weight or be at risk for diabetes. Staying away from simple carbohydrates is basic common sense nutrition so his advice is good for everyone but also differs depending on your physiology.
Click to expand...

Yep. And eat women as well. Good for both :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X