The Silencing of a Low-Carb Rebel

December 12 2016 by in Professor Tim Noakes

Professor Tim Noakes

Are you curious about best-selling author, leading exercise scientist and low-carb rebel Professor Tim Noakes? Then you can check out this great new article about him and his story. It’s well worth a read:

Outside: The Silencing of a Low-Carb Rebel

Videos with Professor Tim Noakes

Cereal Killers
1:00:07
What if you could – in fact – break records without eating massive amounts of carbs?
Run on Fat – Cereal Killers 2
1:01:17
The great follow up to the Cereal Killers movie. What if everything you knew about sports nutrition was wrong?
"We are not designed to be chronically ill"
25:54

Earlier

“They Want to Destroy Tim Noakes”

“The Nutrition Trial of the Century” With Prof. Noakes Restarts Today

4 comments

1
bill
December 12 2016 1
Indicative of what the author got
wrong in this article, he attributes this
quote to Noakes:

“It’s bizarre when I’m called dogmatic,” [Noakes]says. “I have changed my mind, from high-carb to low-fat.”
2
Heike
December 13 2016 6
Just the statement alone of "the brain needs glucose to operate" without the explanation, that no external glucose is required, disqualifies this whole article as being badly researched . This is only a biased would-be portrait from someone not really knowing what he is writing about, but relying on mainstream advice without deeper knowledge.
1 comment removed
4
Jennifer Bowerman
December 14 2016 5
I am a fan of Tim Noakes. Indeed it was an interview with him that I accidentally stumbled upon that first turned me on to this web site which I believe is a powerful tool in the war against diabetes and obesity. But there was something about this interview and the way it is written that I find disturbing. Tim Noakes may be dedicated to his belief system about the link between diabetes and low fat carb laden diets, but he didn't make the theory up. There is loads of evidence to support what he is saying. Somehow the author of this article is writing as though the theory is still weird, and that Noakes is overly extreme in his support of it. I don't think so. And this stupid case in South Africa is a demonstration of the wilful blindness of mainstream nutritionists. Just like Tim Noakes, many of us have had to find our own way out of the consensus that a few carbs are ok, especially if they are complex, sugar is ok in moderation, fat is greasy, disgusting and will simply sit on our hips. And that we should eat regularly, and inject ourselves with insulin until we die of a heart attack, or liver failure, or some other dreadful diabetic side effect. It's in our genes we are told! I believe Tim Noakes is right in his assessment of the modern day diabetes scourge and what causes it; the emotion with which he defends his position may put some people off, but he is worth listening to, and in a world where we put money and vested interests, in this case big pharma, and big sugar before all else, the power of his intensity with which he expresses his beliefs is refreshing. It is a modern day paradigm shift. God knows we need a lot more! I think the author of the article is himself sceptical of a diet low in carbs and high in fat as a cure for diabetes. Sometimes he almost talks about the need for balance. I can just imagine him saying all things in moderation. I think he could have drawn a more sympathetic portrait of a modern day a David, someone with a brilliant mind and an enormous capacity for hard work, who unwittingly perhaps is leading the charge against an establishment which not only is often incompetent but which does not want to willingly change!
5
RT
December 17 2016
This article strikes me as a thinly-disguised hit piece. As Heike pointed out, the Marion Nestle quote failed to include the fact that your own body can generate all the glucose you need via gluconeogenesis. So, yes, while certain portions of the brain need glucose to function, you do not need to consume glucose, or anything that breaks down into glucose (i.e. carbs & sugar) in order to get it. And the rest of your system works fine on ketones. This is one of those biochemical elephants-in-the-room people like Nestle ignore as they falsely insist that Noakes was somehow endangering a baby's life with his tweet. How, then, have Inuit or Sami babies survived the allegedly horrific meat-and-veg-with-no-grain danger that Nestle implies would prevent proper brain function? (Their traditional diet is blamed for the Inuit's relatively low life expectancy compared to the rest of Canada, ignoring the fact that their smoking rate is much higher than other population groups.) This is underscored by the fact that children with brain-related disorders such as epilepsy have been successfully treated with ketogenic diets.
Noakes' attitude may be a little over the top, but it doesn't change the fact that people are trying to destroy his reputation and career over a single tweet which by any reasonable standard cannot be said to have been "endangering a baby's health." The writer makes a couple of good points, but seems intent on framing Noakes as a kind of cult leader or tinfoil hat conspiracist.

Videos with Professor Tim Noakes

Earlier

4 comments

Leave a reply Cancel reply