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

SInce you are so up in the large bowel of Dean Ornish (puny n=25 hahaha), perhaps you can do a comparative study which shows it's superiority to Atkins...oh wait, a VEGAN DOCTOR already did that...and proved it INFERIOR! SOooo sorry about your loss mate! Good luck in the next life...the one where you can buy half a clue when you are so far up the wrong road that you can't tell your caecum from your esphagus!

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

[quote]U Asked For It wrote:

A study comparing Atkins, Ornish, zone and LEARN diets in concluded that greatest weight reduction in 12 months, was in the Atkins diet, also greatest improvement in HDL and other markers:

Adkins is high fat, of course it would raise HDL. The issue is that the Ornish study is the definitive study that documented the reversal of coronary atherosclerosis on a 10% fat high complex carbohydrate diet. Once LDL is below 100mg/dl, matters not what the HDL is, reverse cholesterol transport is active.

OLD SMTC SOB obviously knows what he's talking about. There are some crappy studies out there on all sides of the diet "debate." Small sample size, big bias, etc. You can look at the work of Dean Ornish....but also check out Dr. Esselstyn and Dr. T. Collin Campbell (amongst others). Lots of evidence that a whole-foods Plant based diet is far superior to Atkins/Paleo not just with reversing CHD but with lowering rates of cancer, diabetes, stroke and obesity.I mean can you really argue that eating more fruit and vegetables (high carb, god forbid!) is bad for a person?

bile acid sequestrant wrote:

SInce you are so up in the large bowel of Dean Ornish (puny n=25 hahaha), perhaps you can do a comparative study which shows it's superiority to Atkins...oh wait, a VEGAN DOCTOR already did that...and proved it INFERIOR! SOooo sorry about your loss mate! Good luck in the next life...the one where you can buy half a clue when you are so far up the wrong road that you can't tell your caecum from your esphagus!

Listen clown, you are clearly the one without a "half a clue." Now stop masturbating to paleo blogs and books/articles by Cordain.

This thread has thoroughly revealed the depth of vegan self-righteous arrogance and ignorance on any inquiry in the area of diet, a subject that each and every one is the self-appointed keeper of all universal moral and biological knowledge. Not that that this anti-omnivore Jihadism isn't abundant at every turn in the comments section of any youtube or article on diet. But to see someone like Canady putting his name to the blinkered denial of not only the preponderance of modern research, but the experience of his competitors, many of whom are passing him by as his career stalls and stagnates while he digs his heels in on an extreme view of diet and lifestyle, is as sad as it is predicable. He's becoming a cliche', Durianrunner without the entertaining aspect of his narcissim: some element of wit and lively caricature.

Holy crap do you spew nonsense. Please tell me that you don't talk like that in real life?! My God you must be impressed with yourself, and your ability to express yourself in such a pretentious/highfalutin manner. I'd rather converse with that imbecile neanderthal "XFIT_BRO_CLOWN" than you.

You're that idiot LimeyUK_A$$, correct? can spot you from a million miles away.

Oh, and you're still wrong about your views. Just like you were last year (and the year before that, and the one before that, and .....)

Hey thanks for the support Tyrone ReXXXING!@bile acid sequestrant (or whoever you are):I truly hope you find peace in life!

bile acid sequestrant wrote:

This thread has thoroughly revealed the depth of vegan self-righteous arrogance and ignorance on any inquiry in the area of diet, a subject that each and every one is the self-appointed keeper of all universal moral and biological knowledge. Not that that this anti-omnivore Jihadism isn't abundant at every turn in the comments section of any youtube or article on diet. But to see someone like Canady putting his name to the blinkered denial of not only the preponderance of modern research, but the experience of his competitors, many of whom are passing him by as his career stalls and stagnates while he digs his heels in on an extreme view of diet and lifestyle, is as sad as it is predicable. He's becoming a cliche', Durianrunner without the entertaining aspect of his narcissim: some element of wit and lively caricature.

Namaste, muddafuggas

Yeah, good question. I'm hesitant to commit to a definitive answer, because I'm neither a pediatrician, dietician or endocrinologist.

I think giving any advice on social media is probably reckless though. How can you possibly appreciate the context of each situation when all you have is a tweet? So I think that's questionable on his part, but probably not as serious as it was made out to be.

I think the legal case against him which you allude to, is more the outcome of a series of things he has said in the SA media over the last four years. He's been on every major TV show here and doesn't miss a chance to criticize dieticians (nutritionists, in SA). Some of his criticism is justified - the diet industry in SA is so bland and stale that they're almost irrelevant, and so I too sometimes want to shake them up in a sporting context where I work. But that's a story for another day.

But a lot of what Tim was saying was slanderous and insulting to them. I think that built up over time, and then this tweet to that mother came up, and they decided it crossed a line and the next thing there were legal proceedings at the Health Council of SA. All in all, nobody emerges well from it, I think there are far better ways of dealing with it.

But to answer your question, I think giving specific health advice out, when concerning a new born, over Twitter, is at best careless. Perhaps its harmless, but until you know, it's probably best not to take that risk!

Ross

OK, here's my truthful answer: Tim was never diagnosed as having diabetes. He self-diagnosed it, using HPA1C, and not the glucose tolerance test. Depending on your position regarding the validity of that test, you can decide what it means.

The other thing I will tell you (truthfully, again), is that when this all began, Tim advocated it as a high protein diet, and there was not a single mention of diabetes. About 9 months later, the diabetes thing began. Initially it was for weight loss.

As for the main body of your post, i you read the article I wrote, and then the post, you'll see that I don't disagree with you about carbohydrates.

However, I also care about evidence. And the one point I can make in response to you is that yes, those guidelines were issued, and yes, they did overplay the dangers of fats, and they did end up replacing fat with carbs (all of which I strongly acknowledged, twice now). However, you may also be aware that people DID NOT follow guidelines. The consumption of fats did not go down.

Instead, what happened were a few things:

1. Mass production of food got cheaper and cheaper.

2. More and more people were urbanized

3. Mass production of cars made them more and more affordable

The result was that people ate more and more, exercised less and less, and that is what has put us in the situation we are in now. There is no evidence, at all, that people got fat and unhealthy because they actually followed the guidelines. So the argument you offer is great, in theory, but in reality, people didn't listen, and here we are. Blaming the wrong thing.

As for a witch hunt, that's your perception. I see a group of people with good intentions responding to insults and unfair accusations that they are in bed with sugar companies. Which is laughable. That's why I can't stress strongly enough the need for the conspiracy theory nonsense to stop.

Tim is absolutely right to challenge things. It's HOW he has done it that is wrong, and I think I made this very clear in my initial article.

Ross

Ah yes, I dared to make a typo and now it's a poorly formed sentence, here on the boards where people flex their might.

Thanks for the catch.

As for your concern, I think people need to know what they don't know. Unconscious incompetence, I think they call it, in management and business. The most dangerous situation.

[/quote

I will reiterate..........the first study to show reversal through diet other lifestyle changes. And the only dietary regimen that will promote that result physiologically. Sorry. Low sample size is not unusual in studies involving invasive procedures I.E. Angiography. The literature is also replete with unfounded dietary advice and pseudo science. And it these boards are replete with pseudo scientists. Read wisely my friend.

Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:

What's your take on the latest thinking on HDL (as pertains to my link) ? Possibly just a marker, possibly not protective ?

HDL is protective, as it is involved in reverse cholesterol transport out of the arteries. That being said, there is a finite level of HDL that can be achieved, based on individual physiology. Once that finite level has been reached, as LDL goes up, the movement out of the arteries is less than that being deposited. Thus the atherosclerotic process accelerates. The protective effect diminishes as the LDL goes down, and the HDL level is irrelevant at LDL's below 100 mg/dl, as no LDL is being deposited. Now this is for a normal healthy individual with no vascular disease. IF someone has pre existing vascular disease, its wise to employ strategies to maximize HDL, as the goal is then to accelerate reverse cholesterol transport, and reduce the size of the stenosis, thereby increasing the flow of blood through it, and thus to the organ system/muscles it feeds. The protective effect is on a sliding scale, the higher the LDL, the greater the need to have high HDL. The focus thus should be on lowering LDL as much as possible. A low fat diet (10 to 15% of total calories) is the best option in this regard, with 65 to 75% complex (not simple) carbohydrates.

Thanks for taking the time to write this Ross. Again, every point you make below, I've made on this board before (many, many times, but probably less succinctly. But coming from you, who appear to be much less of a jerk than I, will maybe convince a few people. Then again, people don't like to change their minds, so........oh well, get prepared for an onslaught of Paleo/Taubesian/Atkins/Low Carb dogma rebuttals).Let me just add: I love the irony that many in the low carb camp love to state that the relationship found in many studies between, say, a) high red meat intake and cancer, or b) high cholesterol/ldl cholesterol and CVD, or c) high saturated fat intake and CVD are all "correlations, not causations" (despite some strong casual evidence in each case). **YET**, these very same people trumpet each and every study (no matter how poorly done) that finds a different correlation or lack of correlation if it supports their diet philosophy (like some of the controversial/much maligned population studies from a few years back on the supposed lack of correlation between sat fat intake and CVD). It's fine to find studies with alternative results, but instead of stating: "look, not ALL population/epidemiology studies find this correlation," they instead say (based on a couple contrary population studies): "See, NO RELATIONSHIP EXISTS, therefore there IS no cause and effect!" Suddenly, correlation (or lack of) IS causation (or lack of), and that is now the gold standard. This hypocrisy is maddening.And on that same note (finally getting around to one of your below points), these are the people that state so confidently: Americans got fatter once the nutrition guidelines told them to decrease fat/sat fat, and increase proportion of carbs/ grains. Therefore.....the guidelines are to blame!!" Again, the anti-correlation folks are suddenly the "correlation IS causation" folks when it suits them. Again, very silly (and as you point out, there are loads of confounding factors [people not following the guidelines, people becoming more sedentary, the food supply growing rapidly, people eating more of EVERYthing, etc) that make that particular correlation likely not causal in any meaningful wayThat is all.

THanks for your feedback. Though I disagree with you slightly on a couple points:a) as the article points out, the long-standing view on HDL is under review, and the mechanisms of protection might not be as pronounced as was once thought (though I agree that these mechanisms still likely play a role, especially as LDL risesb) you state that a very low fat diet is best way to reduce LDL. While I think this diet works well, many studies have shown that replacing sat fat with unsat fats lowers LDL more than replacing with carbs. So a 20-25% fat diet made up of mostly unsat fats ( n-6 and n-3 and monounsats), particularly from nuts (almonds), might reduce LDL even more than the lower fat diet you propose. And in regards to CVD deaths, clinical studies replacing sat fats with unsat fats have shown the most dramatic results. Other than the Ornish studies you mention (which contained many lifestyle improvement confounders) show such improvements when replacing sat fats with mostly complex carbs (though not many of these studies have been done). Either way though, we are talking replacement of high sat foods (mostly meats) with low-sat fat foods/plants (grains, legumes, tubers, nuts, seeds)

I had this debate with Dr. George Sheehan many years ago, during a panel discussion at the pre race evening pasta meal prior to a major marathon in Florida. I realize I'm dating myself here, although I was 28 at the time, he was in his mid to late 60's. While I do agree that HDL has been under review recently, its not really germane to the discussion, as my contention all along has been that the focus should be on lowering LDL, as once LDL is under 100, HDL is irrelevant (unless you already have CAD). Also, while the point that poly's lower cholesterol is true, poly's have a significant tumor promoting effect and are still significantly dense in calories IE 9/gram. So better to substitute complex carbs. The studies I was involved in using this diet (as well as other lifestyle changes) consistently produced TC cholesterol reductions in the 25% to 30% range in one month without the use of statins or HMG CO-a Reductase inhibitors. Long term results were consistent as long as the participants followed the diet. At the end of the day, Dr. Sheehan and I still disagreed on the starting point.........mine was to start at 10% and move up, his was to start at 30% (the typical American diet was 40% at that point) and move down. We shook hands and parted as friends, and agreed to disagree.

Great stuff OLD SMTC SOB! Thanks for sharing your knowledge and experience!

Sage, just watched your last video and it seems you gained weight. at least your face looks more puffy than before.

1977 called and they want their not-even-then-state-of-the-art research back!Sage you are a fool not to watch that Volek lecture. Feels better to plug your ears and squeeze your eyes shut I guess.

S. Canaday wrote:

Great stuff OLD SMTC SOB! Thanks for sharing your knowledge and experience!