Dr. Tim Noakes facing censure for recommending LCHF
Replies
-
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/lowcarb/
Really interesting documentary called "low carb diet, fat or fiction" is at that link.
With Tim Noakes being interviewed in it.
0 -
It is my guess back in history if people ever did eat a very low carb diet that the kids did likewise.0
-
latimes.com/world/africa/la-fg-south-africa-fat-hearing-20151125-story.html
Saw a post on Facebook this morning promoting the story. Seems the LA Times has picked up the story. Does that make it an international story?0 -
businesstech.co.za/news/general/105573/tim-noakes-dietary-advice-deemed-irresponsible/
This seems to be a blip on the case from yesterday's hearing. I am starting to think this complaint is not based to science but damaged egos.
Below is the one comment on the article.
Ally B - LCHF PT • an hour ago
I was there today and this is not a representative article at all. Dhansay came across unprepared and ill-suited to present evidence in this hearing. He didn't understand the difference between LCHF and Ketogenic diets. He claimed ketosis was dangerous for children then said he'd used a Ketogenic diet on 2 infant patients. He didn't understand how to work out dietary percentages when advocate Ramdass cross-examined him and had not read the two books he referenced. the advocate on behalf of HPCSA was a time waster and tried to bring in a 'surprise' witness on Monday, much to the frustration of the committee. Professor Noakes' team brought their case down and did so with dignity and professionalism.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »It is my guess back in history if people ever did eat a very low carb diet that the kids did likewise.
The idea that our ancestors ate a low carb diet has likely been overstated. Evidence of humans eating grains and starchy tubers goes back more than 100,000 years. However, we're adaptable creatures, and we can thrive on low carb too. I just wouldn't experiment on kids, because their development is too precious. As adults we can try things out on ourselves, and probably do no lasting damage.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091217141312.htm0 -
What concerns me there are no studies proving high carb diets are safe for children. The medical news is full of conditions plaguing kids today that were unheard of 100 years ago or even 50 years ago. We know health is in a state of decline on the SAD (Standard American Diet) referred to in the 20 minute video below. Maybe it is the moral decline in the USA and not the diet causing a rash of cancer, heart attacks, childhood medical issues, etc is the medical community does not think it is diet related? The source of the $$$ behind any type of advice on any subject going forward in going to be on my radar. Someone is talking nonsense and my question is who.
I am thankful this court case is progressing. It has the force to move LCHF forward more than all progress of the last 50 years of efforts but only because it builds on the efforts of the past 50 years world wide. With millions more in the USA at risk to lose their levels of access to medical services enjoyed today due to the failing Affordable Healthcare Act the more important good health by diet becomes.
At my age this may not be critical to my own health but what about grandkids that may be born in the next 20 years. No I do not think civilization is going to collapse but our medical needs are advancing faster than our resources in my view.
Below is a debate in South Africa from this past June 2015.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=SQXd6tpu5bE0 -
I think it's clear that high sugar diets are very bad for kids. Apparently, even replacing the sugar with carbs helps. I wouldn't worry about about a moderate low carb diet that cuts out a lot of the grains that are part of the SAD. I have seen studies that suggest that too much carb restriction is detrimental to growth. It's a concern for kids on ketogenic diets for their epilepsy. Obviously, epilepsy is much more dangerous to a child than a ketogenic diet.0
-
I think if kids started out with moderate low carb diets excluding grains and refined sugar, and continued to eat that way through their lifetime, it would be enough to boost overall health and prevent the common issues we know are associated with high carb diets. They would probably never need to cut carbs further.0
-
lithezebra wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »It is my guess back in history if people ever did eat a very low carb diet that the kids did likewise.
The idea that our ancestors ate a low carb diet has likely been overstated. Evidence of humans eating grains and starchy tubers goes back more than 100,000 years. However, we're adaptable creatures, and we can thrive on low carb too. I just wouldn't experiment on kids, because their development is too precious. As adults we can try things out on ourselves, and probably do no lasting damage.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091217141312.htm
That depends on your ancestry. Different populations have more copies of the AMY1 alpha-amylase gene which facilitates the breakdown of carbohydrates, likely because they have evolved eating more starches.... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377015/
Even a high carb diet 100,000 years ago wouldn't compare with a high carb, SAD/western diet today due to the absence of highly processed and readily available refined sugars and grains.0 -
bluefish86 wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »It is my guess back in history if people ever did eat a very low carb diet that the kids did likewise.
The idea that our ancestors ate a low carb diet has likely been overstated. Evidence of humans eating grains and starchy tubers goes back more than 100,000 years. However, we're adaptable creatures, and we can thrive on low carb too. I just wouldn't experiment on kids, because their development is too precious. As adults we can try things out on ourselves, and probably do no lasting damage.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091217141312.htm
That depends on your ancestry. Different populations have more copies of the AMY1 alpha-amylase gene which facilitates the breakdown of carbohydrates, likely because they have evolved eating more starches.... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377015/
Even a high carb diet 100,000 years ago wouldn't compare with a high carb, SAD/western diet today due to the absence of highly processed and readily available refined sugars and grains.
If you think that it's important to eat like your specific ancestors did, or to correlate your copy number with the amount of starch you eat, you could have your genome sequenced!
I'm sticking with keto, regardless of my ancestors, because it seems to help my hand and neck pain.0 -
The ancestory thing is interesting. Luckily my ancestors were northern and eastern European where farming didn't come into the picture until the Romans introduced it a few thousand years ago, so I figure that I must be on the right track.
0 -
It's entirely possible that having a grain eating ancestry and heightened ability to break down starches quickly is actually a health deficit when surplus food is readily available. Although I felt generally good on a moderately low carb diet, I did not feel good on a high carb diet. I don't know my AMY gene profile. Some of my ancestors were European, and some were big game hunters until nearly the end of the 19th century.0
-
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »My endocrinologist told me to eat leaner meats and more fruits and veggies. I'm going against her advice with a lchf det.I know a ketogenic diet, and IF, lowers growth hormone
Fasting increases growth hormone, not lowers it:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/fasting-and-growth-hormone-physiology-part-3/
Interesting. I've read the opposite. If I get it retested in the upcoming months, then I guess I'll know how IF and keto affect me.
Regardless, both approaches limit heavily refined carbs...
True, but I find a carb is carb (beyond straight sugar and soda) when it comes to controlling my BG. Adding more didn't help me.
Yup, not disagreeing.0 -
lithezebra wrote: »bluefish86 wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »It is my guess back in history if people ever did eat a very low carb diet that the kids did likewise.
The idea that our ancestors ate a low carb diet has likely been overstated. Evidence of humans eating grains and starchy tubers goes back more than 100,000 years. However, we're adaptable creatures, and we can thrive on low carb too. I just wouldn't experiment on kids, because their development is too precious. As adults we can try things out on ourselves, and probably do no lasting damage.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091217141312.htm
That depends on your ancestry. Different populations have more copies of the AMY1 alpha-amylase gene which facilitates the breakdown of carbohydrates, likely because they have evolved eating more starches.... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377015/
Even a high carb diet 100,000 years ago wouldn't compare with a high carb, SAD/western diet today due to the absence of highly processed and readily available refined sugars and grains.
If you think that it's important to eat like your specific ancestors did, or to correlate your copy number with the amount of starch you eat, you could have your genome sequenced!
I'm sticking with keto, regardless of my ancestors, because it seems to help my hand and neck pain.
I'm not saying we need to eat exactly what our ancestors ate, but I think it's an important clue explaining why some of us thrive on a low carb diet while others do better with higher carbs.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/30/salivary-carb-breakdown-gene-obesity-study0 -
bluefish86 wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »bluefish86 wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »It is my guess back in history if people ever did eat a very low carb diet that the kids did likewise.
The idea that our ancestors ate a low carb diet has likely been overstated. Evidence of humans eating grains and starchy tubers goes back more than 100,000 years. However, we're adaptable creatures, and we can thrive on low carb too. I just wouldn't experiment on kids, because their development is too precious. As adults we can try things out on ourselves, and probably do no lasting damage.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091217141312.htm
That depends on your ancestry. Different populations have more copies of the AMY1 alpha-amylase gene which facilitates the breakdown of carbohydrates, likely because they have evolved eating more starches.... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377015/
Even a high carb diet 100,000 years ago wouldn't compare with a high carb, SAD/western diet today due to the absence of highly processed and readily available refined sugars and grains.
If you think that it's important to eat like your specific ancestors did, or to correlate your copy number with the amount of starch you eat, you could have your genome sequenced!
I'm sticking with keto, regardless of my ancestors, because it seems to help my hand and neck pain.
I'm not saying we need to eat exactly what our ancestors ate, but I think it's an important clue explaining why some of us thrive on a low carb diet while others do better with higher carbs.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/30/salivary-carb-breakdown-gene-obesity-study
It might be that the people who break down carbs most easily are the ones who do worst on a modern high carb diet. Glucose would get into the bloodstream faster, after all, contributing to insulin resistance. Insulin resistance is also an evolutionary adaptation. What people have now in developed countries is insulin resistance that isn't interrupted by periods of scarcity.
0 -
news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/noakes-hearing-to-continue-in-2016-20151130
https://biznews.com/health/2015/12/02/tim-noakes-and-legal-dream-team-helping-him-survive-trial-by-ambush-banting-lchf-ketone/
Looks like we will have to wait until Feb 2016 for the rest of the story. Both the above articles and comments are interesting to me. Hopefully we will learn the true cause for going after Tim Noakes at this point in life.
Some of links embedded in the articles I found very interesting side stories.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/noakes-hearing-to-continue-in-2016-20151130
https://biznews.com/health/2015/12/02/tim-noakes-and-legal-dream-team-helping-him-survive-trial-by-ambush-banting-lchf-ketone/
Looks like we will have to wait until Feb 2016 for the rest of the story. Both the above articles and comments are interesting to me. Hopefully we will learn the true cause for going after Tim Noakes at this point in life.
Some of links embedded in the articles I found very interesting side stories.
Thanks for the links, Gale. The Biz News one is long but informative. What a surreal world we live in.0 -
Stunning story. Thanks for the articles!0
-
That biznews article was great. Bizarre case.
0 -
I think the way things are looking putting Tim Noakes on trial may move LCHF to the forefront even in the medical world over time. This could only possibly happen due to all the years of hard work from Banting's time until today.0
-
Yeah, it's a bit like The Scopes Trial, but in this case the prosecution seems to have a bungling legal team. Not sure it'll be a great platform for scientific evidence given the way they're proceeding.0
-
Love, love, love the bacon ribbon (but it would look more attractive cooked, lol).
0 -
Did you guys read the comments?
This one guy has crazy skills! Here are some things he said in reply to others. I found them quite clever.
Wikkel Spies
a day ago
A raw egg
Every morning
A dash of Tobasco In a glass
Bottoms up
Delicious
Wikkel Spies
2 days ago
Steeped in food antiquity
And wedded to the past,
With guidelines now outdated
Aspersions freely cast.
Disorganised – shambolic
Defines their management,
With no regard for cogency
Disorderly descent
Into a state of disarray
Huge bumbling writ large.
Left all those in attendance
Wondering who’s in charge.
I went to see real justice
The hope to see it done
What did I come away with?
Emphatically none!!
Wikkel Spies
a day ago
They would have the world believe
It's all about that tweet,
Their goal is more destructive though
The food they'd have us eat.
That overdose of sugar
Those carbs refined to paste
Processed junk with every meal
And all just toxic waste.
And lurking then behind the mask
Is jealousy writ large
Unable to accept the fact
They're no longer in charge.
Wikkel Spies
a day ago
The problem is obduracy
It is a baneful force
The groupies of old Ancel Keys
Are quite without remorse.
They would have us all believe
Their's is the only way
Refuse to listen to good sense
But lead the world astray.
They have done this all the while
For forty years - and some
This hearing is proof positive
That they are simply dumb.
Refuse to listen - ever
Will not concede a point
The simple truth is obvious
Their nose is out of joint.
This guy comes up with brilliant rhymes as replies and I'm over here like
Roses are red,
and kinda smelly.
Bacon is good,
in my belly
Lol. I tried...0 -
Yes, this guy is great!0
-
lithezebra wrote: »@Dragonwolf: since Noakes' tweet read “Baby doesn’t eat the dairy and cauliflower. Just very healthy high fat breast milk. Key is to wean [sic] baby onto LCHF,” it isn't clear what he meant by LCHF. If he was advising against cauliflower, the advice seems excessive.
That seems insanely out of contex, but given what's there, it sounds like he's talking about a currently exclusively breastfed infant, and discussing weaning strategies as the time approaches. It doesn't look like he's advising against cauliflower at all.lithezebra wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »I know a ketogenic diet, and IF, lowers growth hormone
Fasting increases growth hormone, not lowers it:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/fasting-and-growth-hormone-physiology-part-3/
Fasting isn't recommended for children. Besides the fact that kids are growing, they're a lot more prone to dehydration than adults, and they may not say anything, or even be able to say anything, if they have a problem.
fwiw, here is Dr. Jay Wortman's blog post about his 2 healthy kids, raised on lchf: http://www.drjaywortman.com/blog/wordpress/2012/08/24/low-carb-baby-n1-three-year-progress-report/
He stopped the blogging, but was on the Low Carb cruise last May: http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/the-llvlc-show-episode-1029-dr-jay-wortman-2015-low-carb-cruise-lecture/25538
Like I said, I would want to see multiple studies that show, specifically, that ketones provide adequate energy for growth and development, before I'd put kids on a ketogenic diet, with the exception of children who need a ketogenic diet for seizure control. A few seemingly healthy kids doesn't demonstrate that they're as healthy or as smart as they could be. That doesn't mean that most children wouldn't be a lot healthier on a very low sugar, low to moderate carb diet, rather than the high sugar junk food diet that is so prevalent today.
I'd like to see multiple studies that show that the USDA recommended diet is safe and healthy for children. Even your "low sugar, low to moderate carb" is not the USDA diet. Even a "good" one is about half from gains, which are by nature often pretty heavily refined (especially to get the recommended amount). The seemingly healthy kids on a high cab diet don't show that they are as healthy or as smart as they could be.
Also, LCHF is not synonymous with keto. You don't need to be keto to be LCHF. That said, you'll probably want to look at the studies out there about breast fed infants and milk composition, particularly of Indonesian populations. Their high coconut intake leads to higher levels of lauric acid fats in the milk, which are ketogenic. Combined with a sugar content not far off from the MCT assisted keto diet, and odds are good they're living on a fair bit of ketones.
As for "a few healthy kid," kids with diabetes are often told to reduce their carbs, and there have been entire native and modern populations that lived on very few carbs (the Inuit are far from the only ones), so it's actually far more than a few, but modern medicine and media ignore them, because they don't fit the agenda.0 -
lithezebra wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »It is my guess back in history if people ever did eat a very low carb diet that the kids did likewise.
The idea that our ancestors ate a low carb diet has likely been overstated. Evidence of humans eating grains and starchy tubers goes back more than 100,000 years. However, we're adaptable creatures, and we can thrive on low carb too. I just wouldn't experiment on kids, because their development is too precious. As adults we can try things out on ourselves, and probably do no lasting damage.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091217141312.htm
Some humans in some locations. Ah, the joys of being omnivorous. Ancient diets are all over the map.
While people close to the equator typically eat higher carb (with a lot of sugar), those to the climate extremes increasingly eat fewer, and what's still available is more often starches.
I know of about half a dozen populations that were historically very low carb, off the top of my head, but I also know of about half a dozen very high carb populations off the top of my head, and about half a dozen that fall somewhere in between.
In other words, the evidence for any given diet can really only be applied to the populations in the area, not humanity as a whole.0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »It is my guess back in history if people ever did eat a very low carb diet that the kids did likewise.
The idea that our ancestors ate a low carb diet has likely been overstated. Evidence of humans eating grains and starchy tubers goes back more than 100,000 years. However, we're adaptable creatures, and we can thrive on low carb too. I just wouldn't experiment on kids, because their development is too precious. As adults we can try things out on ourselves, and probably do no lasting damage.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091217141312.htm
Some humans in some locations. Ah, the joys of being omnivorous. Ancient diets are all over the map.
While people close to the equator typically eat higher carb (with a lot of sugar), those to the climate extremes increasingly eat fewer, and what's still available is more often starches.
I know of about half a dozen populations that were historically very low carb, off the top of my head, but I also know of about half a dozen very high carb populations off the top of my head, and about half a dozen that fall somewhere in between.
In other words, the evidence for any given diet can really only be applied to the populations in the area, not humanity as a whole.
Those populations that have historically eaten low carb diets may not have been eating ketogenic diets. Arctic diets, for example, have historically been very high in protein, and protein is readily used to make glucose.0 -
lithezebra wrote: »Dragonwolf wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »It is my guess back in history if people ever did eat a very low carb diet that the kids did likewise.
The idea that our ancestors ate a low carb diet has likely been overstated. Evidence of humans eating grains and starchy tubers goes back more than 100,000 years. However, we're adaptable creatures, and we can thrive on low carb too. I just wouldn't experiment on kids, because their development is too precious. As adults we can try things out on ourselves, and probably do no lasting damage.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091217141312.htm
Some humans in some locations. Ah, the joys of being omnivorous. Ancient diets are all over the map.
While people close to the equator typically eat higher carb (with a lot of sugar), those to the climate extremes increasingly eat fewer, and what's still available is more often starches.
I know of about half a dozen populations that were historically very low carb, off the top of my head, but I also know of about half a dozen very high carb populations off the top of my head, and about half a dozen that fall somewhere in between.
In other words, the evidence for any given diet can really only be applied to the populations in the area, not humanity as a whole.
Those populations that have historically eaten low carb diets may not have been eating ketogenic diets. Arctic diets, for example, have historically been very high in protein, and protein is readily used to make glucose.
I expect very few ever ate true ketogenic diets with survival as their only goal. Emotional eating was invented after the TV was invented.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »Dragonwolf wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »It is my guess back in history if people ever did eat a very low carb diet that the kids did likewise.
The idea that our ancestors ate a low carb diet has likely been overstated. Evidence of humans eating grains and starchy tubers goes back more than 100,000 years. However, we're adaptable creatures, and we can thrive on low carb too. I just wouldn't experiment on kids, because their development is too precious. As adults we can try things out on ourselves, and probably do no lasting damage.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091217141312.htm
Some humans in some locations. Ah, the joys of being omnivorous. Ancient diets are all over the map.
While people close to the equator typically eat higher carb (with a lot of sugar), those to the climate extremes increasingly eat fewer, and what's still available is more often starches.
I know of about half a dozen populations that were historically very low carb, off the top of my head, but I also know of about half a dozen very high carb populations off the top of my head, and about half a dozen that fall somewhere in between.
In other words, the evidence for any given diet can really only be applied to the populations in the area, not humanity as a whole.
Those populations that have historically eaten low carb diets may not have been eating ketogenic diets. Arctic diets, for example, have historically been very high in protein, and protein is readily used to make glucose.
I expect very few ever ate true ketogenic diets with survival as their only goal. Emotional eating was invented after the TV was invented.
Keto fixes some of the ills of being able to get far more food than we need, with hardly any physical effort at all.0 -
The ancestory thing is interesting. Luckily my ancestors were northern and eastern European where farming didn't come into the picture until the Romans introduced it a few thousand years ago, so I figure that I must be on the right track.
uhm, the romans didn't "introduce farming" in northern and eastern europe. it was there much earlier
http://sciencenordic.com/how-agriculture-came-scandinavia
that's 5000 BCE.
however, interestingly:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/beads-suggest-culture-blocked-farming-northern-europe?mode=topic&context=49
and
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ancient-farmers-foragers-kept-genes-themselves
0
This discussion has been closed.