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

Macronutrient trends:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/12/us-weight-lifestyle-and-diet-trends.html

Fat consumption is dropping, and animal fats were substituted significantly with plant oils. Caloric intake is increasing, with people consuming added sugar in "low-fat/no fat" foods.

The S.A.D. is a high carb diet (50% carbs), with associated plant oils, which as PUFAs and trans-fats have a corrosive effect on health.

Notice that the 50% carb/30% fat dietary composition is the effective inverse of the breast milk that nature provides intrinsically for healthy growing infants: 55% fat, 40% carb.

Is this your own blogspot/website you are citing as a source?A 50% carb diet is not "high carb." High carb is 70%+ generally. Just like in a lot of studies they cite a "low fat" diet as being 25-30% fat. No. "Low fat" is more like 10-15% fat. Generally it is pretty darn healthy and people who follow that (along with lots of veggies and fruit) tend to not be as obese...Caloric intake may be increasing with serving size (also note over twice as many calories per gram in fat (9g) compared to carbs/protein. (4g)) So much easier to pound a lot of calories when eating a lot of fat. Most Americans also have way too much oil and sodium in general as well. No doubt that refined sugar and highly processed food isn't healthy either. That is obvious. Are you suggesting that we revert back to breast milk as adults (or somehow try to mimic the macronutrient ratios in breast milk as part of our everyday diet...for a normal adult.)?!Eat less, mostly plants (and still have fun crushing carbs in fruits/vegges/breads/pasta/waffles/ and beer!).

50 Shades Of Gray Area wrote:

Macronutrient trends:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/12/us-weight-lifestyle-and-diet-trends.html

Fat consumption is dropping, and animal fats were substituted significantly with plant oils. Caloric intake is increasing, with people consuming added sugar in "low-fat/no fat" foods.

The S.A.D. is a high carb diet (50% carbs), with associated plant oils, which as PUFAs and trans-fats have a corrosive effect on health.

Notice that the 50% carb/30% fat dietary composition is the effective inverse of the breast milk that nature provides intrinsically for healthy growing infants: 55% fat, 40% carb.

Completely agree with you Sage.

For all the keto fans. You better start with studying some basic biochemistry and energy generation pathways. Then you wont talk utter bs about fat being more efficient fuel. Especially when your body goes into state of keto acidosis.

Yes, the fat is incredibly effiecient fuel but it is very slow when you need to access this energy. If you want to run for a week non stop at 9:00 min/mile pace which is completely aerobic pace for most trained runners then fat is the way to go. If you want to run 10 miles at 5:00 min/mile pace, fats will never be good fuel source. They are just too slow to burn to provide enough energy to meet the energy requirements at this pace.

serious questions wrote:

So what does raise cholesterol if eggs don't?

Did science ever figure out whether cholesterol is bad in itself or if it's just a generally good indicator that other bad things going on? You can raise your cholesterol by eating cholesterol-rich foods that are otherwise pretty healthy like eggs and shrimp but you make your own cholesterol (in the liver, right?) when you eat fat, particularly saturated fat. These are two distinct ways to raise your cholesterol. Anyone who if they are equivalent?

rather, anyone know whether they are equivalent?

I'm a strong supporter of a plant-based diet - by Michael Greger is a wack job. I'd suggest other references.

serious questions wrote:

And why do I feel better when I run after eating carbs the day before?

It's called "placebo effect." You feel better because you think you did something good for running.

Once you are liberated from the dogma, you will feel better after eating fat.

A) I'd like to say that the troll that started this thread was not me. But excellent job mr troll, because you got some excellent responses.

test2 wrote:

Ross Tucker wrote:

Just wanted to clarify a few things and share a couple of opinions on this diet issue....

Ross

Best post I've seen on here in half a decade.

B) I agree with you on Ross: It is certainly one of the best/most in depth posts I've seen on here in awhile also. And yes, at the risk of tooting my own horn, 99% of it is what I've been posting on here for.....over a half a decade. I've literally made everyone one of those points he made (many almost word for word). I am glad a smart guy like him agrees with me so wholeheartedly.

1)

a) The "flawed manners" that that past "gospel" information was "gathered" are the very same "manners" in which people who promote low-carb diets have gathered their info. Really. And in fact, Noakes and Taubes have engaged in this quite a bit. Just because you like the new "answer", doesn't mean it is a better answer. It just appeals to you emotionally (' the powers that be were wrong! The gov't gave us bad info! Eat as much steak and butter as you want! Everything you ever knew about nutrition was wrong! We have a NEW DIET REVOLUTION! I was WRONGED by the "experts"! ' Yes, all very appealing emotionally. )

b) People who immediately bring up Taubes in a nutrition discussion lose a lot of credibility. Just an FYI.

2)

a) yes, we do know "far more about short-term dietary changes than lifelong ones. We draw a lot of conclusions from surveys and mortality data. " Yes. And this is the VERY SAME info that the low carb people are drawing their HUGE NEW CONCLUSIONS about diet from.

B) See "1b" above. (Taubes is hardly the first person to promote/fund/do "real science" on nutrition. There is plenty of "real science" out there. Again, you might not always like the answer, but it's out there).

There are far, *far* more experts (rather than just "folks") questioning the positive role of a high HDL, which is what many low-carb supporters point to as "metabolic/cvd" advantage of high fat/high sat fat diets. A genetically high LDL results in early heart attacks almost *always.* A genetically high HDL? Virtually zero protection from CVD compared to those with much lower levels.

Sage, I know you are firmly entrenched in your vegan/90s nutritional dogma (based on "science" funded by pharmaceutical and soft/sports drink companies BTW), but for your professional benefit I encourage you to hear out Jeff Volek with this presentation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQbgdRoAfOo&nohtml5

particularly after 20 minutes he describes the results of his FASTR study of LCHF v. HCLF ultra runners from Western States. Absolutely eye-opening, if not mind-blowing stuff. Imagine not only being able to process and regenerate glycogen as well as you do now, but being able to extract DOUBLE the energy from fat right fro the starting gun. It is like having an extra fuel tank the entire way.

You might want to discuss this topic with Zach Bitter and Jeff Browning if you get the chance. Along with Jeff Volek, my impression isn't so much of ideological zeal and dogma, but humble and insightful attunement to the demands of the human body under superb challenge:

http://www.gobroncobilly.com/hurt-100-experiment-of-one-and-ofm/

"The LCHF diet has been amazing. I just can’t say enough. I was able to go on half the calories I normally would intake in a 100-miler (GU Roctane, Vespa, unsweetened banana chips, and few orange wedges mainly). It’s a different, less traveled road, but worth it for the health benefits. My post-race recovery was like nothing I’ve experienced before. Truly unbelievable."

Disclosure:

I was a "First-wave" vegetarian ("vegan" hadn't been coined yet) HCLF athlete for 15 years in the 70s and 80s. By age 28 I was a complete wreck, despite a "healthy" diet and lifestyle based on "whole grain/no added sugar". I was pre-diabetic, anemic and had IBS and chronic fatigue. LCHF was a nascent concept would have given me back decades in my athletic prime, but better late than never. As I embraced higher protein and fat (yes, began eating healthy meats), and stripped away first gluten and milk (lactose-intolerant) and eventually all grains, I gained strength and vitality, to the point where I am now more LCHF than not, though my weakness for fruit is still evident. I count myself as one of the very few and very lucky, and currently likely the healthiest and most fit man my age that I know, that while dwelling within an admirable adventure fitness community of accomplished peers.

As a "radical centrist" by nature, I take some humor and solace with being lodged between the eye-rolls of hardcore Paleoites for my occasional "pizza-cheat night" as well as the moral disdain of vegans towards my deep appreciation of a tasty grass-fed steak.

It is a journey, one on which depends a crucial life: your own. Spend it well.

50 Shades Of Gray Area wrote:

Sage, I know you are firmly entrenched in your vegan/90s nutritional dogma (based on "science" funded by pharmaceutical and soft/sports drink companies BTW), but for your professional benefit I encourage you to hear out Jeff Volek with this presentation:

I may make other comments later, but a quesiton for you:

why do low carb people always presume that there is a conspiracy of big $ support for pro-grain/carb research/advice, but none for the higher meat/fat research/advice, etc?? You don't think the meat and dairy industry have a lot of clout??? Seriously? Do you Jeff Volek has ever received funding form one of of these sources? I'd be shocked if the answer was "no." And nearly everyone of the bloggers/authors you or others would cite......do you think they see advertising $'s from groups that sell either protein/fat supplements or foods naturally high in fats and protein? Again, I am absolutely sure, that most of the time the answer is yes.

So please, the funding by groups with a conflict of interest to support "science" cuts both ways. It's beyond naive to think otherwise.

One last comment: for ULTRAmarathoners, I would believe that for some, high fat diets might be a benefit. That is a very, very small segment of not only the population at large, but even a very, very small segment of the sporting population. In short, what's better for some ultra runners, might be of little to no benefit (and even detriment) for the large majority of others (and by the way, TdF cyclists, certainly ultra endurance competitors, but those that also rely on high end power too, generally eat a high carb diet. I'd say it works pretty well for them.

I've been high carb vegetarian my whole life (30 years now). This is not "90s nutritional dogma." or whatever you're talking about?...my parents are in their 60s and have been on that diet for the past 40 years...pretty darn healthy and doing a lot of running. Not sure if you can call yourself a "first wave" vegetarian or whatever that means? But personal stories are not really part of this...this is not a "study of one" but rather a "study of many."

Anyway for ultras: if you want power to climb up hills on the mountains trails you need to tap into your glycogen stores....you need to take in carbs during a run. Sure, I can go out right now and jog around for 8-10 hours and not take in anything but water...but I'm not going to be going very fast! (it's going to be more like a jog/slog). Yeah, you can burn more fat (a higher %), but so what? Does it help you run faster? I can eat some carbs on the run and perform at a higher level instead.

If you've noticed I've already got into debates with Jeff Browning on that very

blog post you linked to (in the comments section).

Me: 56 yrs old, 6'1", prior running h.s. and one year of college in mid-late 70's, 22 months ago was 220 pounds and 1 mile on the track 12+ minutes and dying, now 168 pounds and doing 5Ks to half 7 - 8:30 min/mile. Also inspired by my high school kids and plenty of great trails to run around here. Run 25 to 40 miles / week. Nautilus-type workouts a couple of times a week: 8-10 machines, 1 set, 8-12 reps, just like the guy who invented them intended. Yeah, I know, just a lowly hobby jogger.

Taking his guy's (Karl Denniger) advice likely responsible for most of my weight loss by LCHFMP. Specifically: no bread, no white rice, no potatoes, no fast processed carbs except for a teacup of ice cream once in awhile. For me it is fish, steak, turkey,pork sausage, nuts and colorful veggies, piece or two of fruit once a day and tea or water to drink. Avoiding beer helps me with this and the added bonus of avoiding unpleasant "social" work functions. Surprisingly the beer was easier to give up than ice cream maybe because of that.

Debate this guy at your own risk, better show up with logic and facts.

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231309

Oh, They Lied? (Statins)

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231308

In A Word, 'Duh'

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231306

Pure, White and Deadly -

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin

So Vegetarian Means Healthy?

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?blog=Market-Ticker&page=2

So Why Don't You Tabulate The Cost Of The Fries?

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231300#discuss

Sage, each of us as athletes, and as people, are "an experiment of one" (old Sheehan quote). The difference between you and I, as well as Noakes and many many others, is that we have seen and experienced this issue from at least two completely different perspectives. You are still young, and full of certainty as befits your demographic (young, male, gifted athlete, privileged education), but you may at some point find that life has a way of bringing the truth in hard ways. I am fortunate that when it hit me hard, I had the resiliency and the antifragility to bounce back, and return stronger than ever. I know well that old Neitzche quote.Best of luck in your ventures, may you and your loved ones stay well. For those who are open-minded on the topic of diet and athletic performance, I have, I think, provided plenty of material for further thought and research.

Thank you. I actually followed the subject person and his favorite ultra runner on twitter for a long time. I stopped after he kept tweeting that his favorite runner could have done just as well in ultras like Comrades with a low carb diet. I guess his favorite runner has converted too, but his times even age-graded are not impressive although he doesn't really compete anymore. IMO, he could NOT have performed as well without enough carbs.

Any case, I found it so so so very tiring to hear all the diet talk all the time. I unfollowed them both for this reason. I would similarly unfollow anyone who tweeted constantly about high carbs being better too.

You cut out nearly an entire macronutrient. Of course that helped you cut calories (a key to your weight loss). You also clearly cut out desserts (ice cream) and beer. You also started working out a lot more, and got completely dedicated to a diet plan.

Is there any surprise that you lost weight and got in better shape?? Of course not. You could have done the same thing with many other diet plans (some high carb/low fat ones) that involved less calories, good protein, no ice cream, no beer, and included a lot more exercise. Really.

(FYI: Ice cream and other desserts are high in sugar AND fat. As are lots of fast foods meals. If you stop eating dessert and at McDonald's, you ain't just cutting carbs, though many seem to think this is what is happening)

With all due respect you don't sound like a "radical centrist" on diet. Generally people who are vegans are VERY attached to their diet plans, like control, and have strong feelings about diet. This also seems true of those on the other end of the spectrum (high meat, high fat folks). You seemed to have been in BOTH camps (and I've seen this 180 degree switch often too). This doesn't make you a centrist just because you've gone from on extreme to the other. In fact, it makes you the opposite of one.

Also: Anyone who thinks that eating a good amount of fruit is a "weakness " in their diet, or who thinks eating a rare "slice of pizza" signals being not very strict in their diet regimen doesn't sound very centrist to me (not saying one should eat pizza all the time, but within the context of the right amount of calories and other positive food choices, it ain't a big deal in moderation).

The moral to your story is obvious, and *not* one about being misled by the diet authorities, and then having to miraculously claw back to health via the radical naysayers and non-conformists of the diet world (or something like that). No, it's either

a) you are gluten and lactose intolerant, and didn't realize it, and once you eliminated those foods you felt a lot better AND/OR you were a vegan/vegetarian who was possibly not committed to or knowledgeable enough about the diet to avoid common pitfalls (low B12, low iron, low protein) with this diet and thus felt better on a less challenging (from a getting enough macro/micronutrients perspective) diet. Really pretty simple. But yet you seem to want to attribute your past malaise/diet issues to a more general "too many carbs, not enough fat" dichotomy that many latch onto in this debate.

b) Or.....your above diet issues were not really to blame, but there were other issues in your life (I have no idea what), and you improved your health in many other ways, but you want to attribute your improvements only to diet. More likely A), but plenty of people fall into category B.

Either way, I don't see the "moral" of your story as you see it.

Absolutely I am a centrist on diet. I never have gone into full ketosis that I know of (except a 5-day fast decades ago), but I have found that the more I lean towards lowER carbs, specifically no grains or starches, the better I feel and perform. And when I was meatless I ate eggs and dairy, which of course would appall our vegan purists.In any case I have no interest in gaining favor with board trolls on any topic, much less one with actual import in the real world.Off for a nice 14-miler. One benefit of going grainless has been that my spring allergies from the past are mild to nonexistent now.

Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:

With all due respect you don't sound like a "radical centrist" on diet. [/quote]

50 Shades Of Gray Area wrote:

I count myself as one of the very few and very lucky, and currently likely the healthiest and most fit man my age that I know, that while dwelling within an admirable adventure fitness community of accomplished peers.

Why don't you post your recent times for various distances so that we could compare them with the Masters World Records? You may also want to post your typical weekly training schedule.