Has Tim Noakes become a pop-scientist?

Randy Oldman wrote:

I'd agree fellow Limey, that there's no definitive link between a diet rich in healthy fats and heart disease, unless maybe you have an existing condition.

However I do believe in eating a balanced diet, around 30-40% carbs and the rest split between protein and fats but it doesn't need a faddy name.

Noakes is also spot on regarding the 8 pints off water a day crap, which has no scientific research behind it, and the myth that caffeine is any more diuretic than water.

Well, most people today don´t eat healthy fats.

mako wrote:

He can sell science to the public.

His CG-theory isn't science. It's not even pseudo-science. It's anti-science.

Science is to prove the existence of some law or entity through repeatable experiments. Newton and Popper are the fathers of scientific method, and all science today follows their examples/protocols/theory.

Science is NOT to define a "thing" and claim that whatever we do not know is the result of this thing. That's the way "science" was before Newton. Whatever you didn't understand was attributed to God. In fact in Noakes' texts you can replace the word "central governor" with "God" or "the angel on one shoulder and the devil on the other" and it's equally (un)believable.

Since Noakes can't swindle true scientists he swindles noob runners, in particular clueless ultra runners. Although his book is full of fairly standard exercise physiology, it's interspersed with paragraphs where he promotes his own stuff for which there's no proof or acceptance. That's the sign of a morally corrupt scientist.

He has diabetes. It works for HIM so that's why he's pushing it off to everyone else.

deds wrote:

He has diabetes. It works for HIM so that's why he's pushing it off to everyone else.

funny thing about that: he didn't get diagnosed with diabetes until after he went on his NEW SUPER NOAKES diet for 3 months. And despite cutting calories substantially on his new diet, he still has to take medication to control his diabetes. Looks like "works for HIM" is up for debate.

(also substantially cutting calories, regardless of macronutrient distribution, combined with some exercise, will reverse T2D in most people. You don't need some super trade-marked fad diet. This has already been demonstrated in studies. Noakes thinks he's come up with some great new ideas. He's proven nothing, and demonstrated nothing new, his diet is just warmed over Atkins/Taubes, etc)

SomeBloke wrote:

Central governor is a model. You don't have to prove it, it just has to explain what is observed. In that sense, it is a valid model as others also are.

Central Governor is a theory but I think it is a very good one. Look at the changes in men's marathoning in the last 10 years. Athletes are running faster probably due to a belief that they can run faster. There have been no great breakthroughs in training or nutrition. When men started running under 2:04, the other men thought they could do it to and they did. Many of our limitations are self -imposed even at the highest levels of athletics.

"Do you say your diet is right for everyone?

I’ve never said that. What I have said is: it will benefit you, if you are insulin resistant, and in my view, most people are these days."

Why does he believe most people are insulin resistant? Does he have any clinical data to back this up? Or is it just his intuition?

Science is essentially the same endeavor as history. You have a certain number of data points and one has to invent a narrative which explains those points. I.E. the sun rises, the sun sets...it must go around the earth. One develops a telescope and adds data points and now a new narrative needs to be invented to explain the phenomena. The central governor theory is just a narrative which explains certain data points. It seems to account for more than the previous models (waste build up or resource availability). Does this mean it is the "correct" theory? No. it never is, there will always be more data points to add and more adjustments to the narrative.

Running Formula reader wrote:

Why does he believe most people are insulin resistant? Does he have any clinical data to back this up? Or is it just his intuition?

I don't recall him ever making that claim. He has said that anyone displaying any of the symptoms associated with insulin resistance (e.g. overweight, blood pressure problems etc) should consider exploring the possibility of limited glucose tolerance. In terms of epidemiological data there is no shortage of individuals with such symptoms in South Africa and in the rest of the world.

Again this is a remarkably moderate and uncontroversial viewpoint but it gets skewed into a strawman (e.g. "Noakes says no-one should eat carbs!") by the idiot dietician and journalist camps. In one of his lectures in South Africa he even gets confronted by such a strawman by a professed MD specialising in diabetes but who has a surprising ignorance of the disease. It's truly remarkable what dogma can do to otherwise intelligent people.

Limey UK Runner wrote:

Running Formula reader wrote:

Why does he believe most people are insulin resistant? Does he have any clinical data to back this up? Or is it just his intuition?

I don't recall him ever making that claim.

Perhaps it is beneath you to read anything that a certain poster linked to this board. So I will repost it for you. That quote was from the interview below.

Apologies I misread your post. I did not realise you were quoting Noakes.

I must admit to only skimming the article and not watching the video. I have watched 4 or 5 hour+ long lectures by Noakes talking on this subject and giving essentially the same talk so I ducked out of watching more. My bad.

sub3over40 wrote:

SomeBloke wrote:

Central governor is a model. You don't have to prove it, it just has to explain what is observed. In that sense, it is a valid model as others also are.

Central Governor is a theory but I think it is a very good one. Look at the changes in men's marathoning in the last 10 years. Athletes are running faster probably due to a belief that they can run faster. There have been no great breakthroughs in training or nutrition. When men started running under 2:04, the other men thought they could do it to and they did. Many of our limitations are self -imposed even at the highest levels of athletics.

You clearly don´t understand the CG theory. It has nothing to do with conscious mental processes or having "a strong will" or "believing" this or that. It´s a bunch of regulating processes that takes place in the central nervous system.

economicus wrote:For a long time, Noakes has been a medical doctor masquerading as a scientist.

eh ?

when did he spend 5 years at medical school ?

ventolin^3 wrote:

economicus wrote:For a long time, Noakes has been a medical doctor masquerading as a scientist.

eh ?

when did he spend 5 years at medical school ?

From:

"Noakes attended Monterey Preparatory School in Constantia, Cape Town, then Diocesan College. He has earned an MBChB (1974), MD (1981), and DSc (Med) (2002)."

In the video, he shows a graph where 37% are insulin resistant, and 40% are undiagnosed. So it's part data, and part intuition.

Running Formula reader wrote:

"Do you say your diet is right for everyone?

I’ve never said that. What I have said is: it will benefit you, if you are insulin resistant, and in my view, most people are these days."

Why does he believe most people are insulin resistant? Does he have any clinical data to back this up? Or is it just his intuition?

Snake oil governer,

In your posts, I see three fundamental flaws that show you misunderstand:

1) what science is

2) what the central governor theory/model says

3) what Noakes has shown

The goal of science is in small part, to prove models, but it's much stronger science to disprove models, forcing a model refinement, if possible, or rejection, if not.

Noakes presents a model that says "peripheral" models of fatigue are incomplete, and that "central" mechanisms help prevent peripheral fatigue before an effort is finished.

Noakes (or his students) has contributed to science with studies that look at pacing strategies, temperature regulation, glucose consumption, asking basic questions like:

- if fatigue is peripheral, how are sprint finishes possible?

- in hot conditions, why do we slow down before body temperature rises?

I think Noakes greatest strength is not so much proving new realities, but forcing us to question what is behind our existing ideas of what we seem to take for granted, sometimes despite evidence to the contrary.

economicus wrote:

ventolin^3 wrote:

eh ?

when did he spend 5 years at medical school ?

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Noakes

"Noakes attended Monterey Preparatory School in Constantia, Cape Town, then Diocesan College. He has earned an MBChB (1974), MD (1981), and DSc (Med) (2002)."

Waiting for the usual "moron", "peabrain"...

3...2..1...