CrossFit/PALEO doctor Tim Noakes could lose medical license over FALSE advise

Moderation doesn't sell. Tim has no credibility on diet. He fried his systems being an extremist, now he goes to the other extreme. Looks dumb, looks desperate. Those are the conclusions I came to a couple of years ago when I saw his apologies for decades of hyping carbs, now I am sick , go paleo , let me be you pales star , bullshit. No biggie, just cross him off on diet.

Ross Tucker wrote:

If I'd collaborated and recognised the value of what others were doing in the field of fatigue and performance, then WE, the collective, would be more knowledgable about fatigue than we are today. I didn't, so we all lost.

Hence, my appeal to Noakes, Teicholz, Malhotra etc - don't make the same mistake for nutrition. It just holds us back relative to where we could be. We are walking, when we should be running.

Ross

Wow. I'll echo test2 in saying this is the best post I've read in ages.

I'm not convinced that Noakes is categorically wrong on LCHF, but it does pain me to see him trumpet it as an across-the-board solution for all segments of the population.

I think that stacked on top of the kind of polarizing zeal with which Noakes has historically championed ideas is also a very personal element in the diet debate. It's my understanding that Noakes's father and brother died due to complications related to diabetes — before Noakes got on the LCHF bandwagon. So in his case, it's personal.

My own hunch (not a physician, not a bench scientist, but know that the plural of anecdote is not data) is that when the debate shakes out over time, we'll find that the effects of LCHF are far more dramatic for a certain subsegment of the population: those who are genetically predisposed towards metabolic syndrome and diabetes. This might explain why meta-analyses don't seem to support LCHF, yet there are suggestions that *something* is happening for a significant number of people who undertake LCHF that goes beyond caloric restriction.

But in order to have that hypothesis tested in any meaningful scientific way, it would require exactly the kind of nuance, collaboration, and open-mindedness that Ross is calling for.

I hope we get it.

For anyone to eat like our paleolithic ancestors did is a ridiculous concept.

1. We have little to no evidence what they ate.

2. What they ate was going to be whatever was available - unless they all lived in the same place this is going to vary.

3. To eat like an educated guess of what they may have eaten you cannot eat anything bought from a shop or created using modern farming

anything that may have been exposed to modern pollutants

anything that has been cultivated by humans over the last two millennia

So, find the remotest spot you can and live on bugs and roots.

The Inuits have not thrived on a high fat, high protein diet.(Much like our Paleolithic ancestors did not seem to thrive....or simply did not live long enough to die from heart disease/stroke/diabetes that take longer to form on a high fat, high protein diet). There is some evidence that type II diabetes can also be caused by a high protein/high fat intake....it's not just refined carbs that are evil. It's not that simple. Obviously refined carbs/processed food is bad...but carbs from veggies and fruits are what the body can run on (and thrive from) very well. The best distance runners in the world don't eat a high fat diet and don't need that much protein. In long term studies the only diet that has proven to reduce risks of obesity, type II diabetes, cancer, heart disease and stroke is a whole foods, plant-based diet. It doesn't get any better than that (and the macro nutrient ratios are generally close to 80% carbohydrate/ 10% fat/ 10% protein. Note that carbs mainly come from plants/fruit and whole grain sources though.

NYC Runner_ wrote:

Angry Willy wrote:

Bingo! "The Inuit Paradox" is a perfect account of high fat / low carb eating.

Walrus meat (raw) has basically 45% FAT, 55% protein. Zero carbs.

It doesn't get much healthier than that - basically zero risk of CVD or diabetes.

(they get these diseases now because of imported GRAIN based foot)

noakistksjd wrote:

Prove the central governor hypothesis false in a paragraph or less, please.

Prove God to not exist in a paragraph or less, please.

S. Canaday wrote:

The Inuits have not thrived on a high fat, high protein diet.

There is some evidence that type II diabetes can also be caused by a high protein/high fat intake

In long term studies the only diet that has proven to reduce risks of obesity, type II diabetes, cancer, heart disease and stroke is a whole foods, plant-based diet.

How convenient that you don't cite any sources for your bogus claims.

The term Paleo diet doesn't make much sense. It is more of a branding than anything else. Real Paleolithic era nutrition would be much more similar to fasting-induced ketosis. If you were a paleolithic human, you would be starving most of the time and eating a wide variety of plants, fish, insects and eating meat would be quite rare.

The best research in this area isn't even being done by Noakes despite the fact that he's taking the most heat for it. Dominic D'agostino and Jeff Volek are two of the more well known researchers in this field. I think you could throw Mark Sisson into that group as well but don't think he is actively doing research.

Paleo eating is not the same as nutritional ketosis. The effects of nutritional ketosis on brain function and gene expression might be one of the most interesting areas of research going on right now. This research has potentially significant implications for the treatment of traumatic brain injury, Alzheimers and even cancer.

From a performance point of view, Mark Sisson once remarked that a sub 2hr marathon could be possible if the individual was keto-adapted but supplementing with more traditional performance aids on raceday (gels, salt pills, etc.).

Here is an interesting presentation by Jeff Volek that is worth watching if you are interested in the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgU8z-h3IKY

There might be some interesting finds in treating those already with cancer/brain injury/Alzheimers with ketosis. But for the general population.....?One of Volek's big studies was funded by Atkins...no bias there at all:http://www.metabolismjournal.com/article/S0026-0495(15)00334-0/fulltextI'm not familiar with Sisson's work in the area, but his claim for a sub 2hr marathon because of fat-burning/keto-adapted sounds much like Phil Maffetone's claims of a sub 1:50 being possible because of such changes in diet....he also promotes putting cream, raw eggs and butter in your coffee...but I digress. Eat more fruits and veggies....carb up.

Ross, to even begin to understand Tim's mindset on this topic, answer as truthfully as you can: did his adoption of LCHF reverse the symptoms and course of his diabetes? Until you have experienced such a change in a life-threatening condition, you will not be able to understand the profundity of motivation it can cause.

Aside from my own personal experiences, which are similar to Tim's, what I have seen observing others in my 60-plus years in American culture has been: every aspect of government and established nutritional recommendations going AGAINST the intake of saturated fats and cholesterol and PROMOTING the use of carbohydrates (whether it was simply "low-fat" in processed foods or whole-grain vegetarianism), and what my eyes and every measure of societal health have seen in those decades is a populace getting more obese than their forebears. This even in the presence of routine exercise and tremendous pressure against the acquisition of weight as they age. The system is thoroughly broken, and people like Tim, Gary Taubes, Peter Attia, Scott Volek, etc, are taking it on against stacked odds (this witch-hunt in SA being but a single flash-point).

Answer my question above and you will begin to see this issue with some empathy and clarity. In similar fashion I would not expect to disregard Arthur Lydiard's experience with relatively high-mileage training for long-term development simply because other athletes performed well off of low-mileage training. His system worked for most when adopted in a consistent fashion, just as LCHF works on a long-term when properly applied.

Blah Blah Blah Blah wrote:

Heart attack territory wrote:

Only a deluded person would think that is good.

My total cholesterol is in the low 120's and I'm somewhat older than you are.

Your cholesterol is borderline too low. Low cholesterol is correlated with cancer.

Total hogwash.

Tyranosaurus Rexing wrote:

He's probably the most famous PALEO doctor and now he could lose his medical license, because science does not agree with his advice:

http://www.runnersworld.com/general-interest/tim-noakes-on-trial

I am glad there are still progressive countries out there where doctors are held accountable for their doings.

If every MD that had a wacky diet (think Atkins) they promoted were to lose their medical license there would be many fewer MD's. Maybe that would be a good thing, maybe not. That being said, sounds to me like this guy is merely trying to make a buck. Not much if any research supports his contention, and plenty of research showing just the opposite IE a high fat diet consumed over many years is associated with atherosclerotic vascular disease, and some forms of cancer. Perhaps he should stick to medicine, and leave the dietary advice to the RD's.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

If every MD that had a wacky diet (think Atkins) they promoted were to lose their medical license there would be many fewer MD's. Maybe that would be a good thing, maybe not. That being said, sounds to me like this guy is merely trying to make a buck. Not much if any research supports his contention, and plenty of research showing just the opposite IE a high fat diet consumed over many years is associated with atherosclerotic vascular disease, and some forms of cancer. Perhaps he should stick to medicine, and leave the dietary advice to the RD's.

It doesn't seem like Noakes is doing this to make money--I believe proceeds from his book are going to charity. By all accounts he thoroughly believes in this diet and has seen it work for him. The sticking point is whether that makes for good science or good medicine.

Heart attack territory wrote:

Blah Blah Blah Blah wrote:

Your cholesterol is borderline too low. Low cholesterol is correlated with cancer.

Total hogwash.

Actually, that cholesterol isn't bad if you're in your 60's but if you're older than 40 it leaves something to be desired. Also depends on what your LDL is, should be less than 100 to be optimal. Then it does not really matter what your HDL is. As far as the cancer discussion, there was some data back in the 80's showing that cancer was associated with low cholesterol. Pretty much debunked. Even so this would not be a causal relationship IE the low cholesterol was due to the deleterious effect of the cancer (liver), not the other way around. These patients were often sick for years, so one would not expect that a healthy runner would be prone to CA if their cholesterol was low.

That being the case, if it works for him, he can do anything he wants. "Belief" however is not a substitute for good solid scientific evidence, as i'm sure you would agree. Particularly as recommendations for the general populace.

Ross Tucker wrote: ...

Ross

Excellent posts. Thanks for the serious contributions.

NYC Runner_ wrote:

Angry Willy wrote:

Bingo! "The Inuit Paradox" is a perfect account of high fat / low carb eating.

Walrus meat (raw) has basically 45% FAT, 55% protein. Zero carbs.

It doesn't get much healthier than that - basically zero risk of CVD or diabetes.

(they get these diseases now because of imported GRAIN based foot)

Assuming what you say about Inuit is true, is it generally applicable?

The Inuit have been living mostly off of seal blubber for thousands and thousands of years. Given their harsh environment, they didn't have any other choice. Those who couldn't thrive on this diet died and didn't have descendants.

My ancestors probably lived mostly off of oats and turnips with the odd bits of meat or dairy for thousands of years. Other people's ancestors survived mostly on rice for thousands of years.

Is there one optimal diet for all human beings with such different ancestral diets? It seems unlikely.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

test2 wrote:

It doesn't seem like Noakes is doing this to make money--I believe proceeds from his book are going to charity. By all accounts he thoroughly believes in this diet and has seen it work for him. The sticking point is whether that makes for good science or good medicine.

That being the case, if it works for him, he can do anything he wants. "Belief" however is not a substitute for good solid scientific evidence, as i'm sure you would agree. Particularly as recommendations for the general populace.

Absolutely. Sometimes I think that what it takes to be a great scientist is wholly at odds with being a good scientist. A good scientist is cautious and especially dubious of their own biases but to be great requires huge leaps of faith to create, support and promote radically new ideas. From my knowledge of Noake's career he's the latter and that may have set him up for this fall.

This was mentioned in the article, but I haven't seen it here - Noakes hasn't practiced medicine in 10 years, yet this trial is all about revoking his medical license? If it's really

about giving bad medical advice on Twitter...there's nothing that can really be done about that.

A quote from Ross' thread that everyone should remember.

"I dare the world would be a better place if people didn't speak so much about stuff they're not really experts in."