A recent “discussion” between Tim Noakes and an eminent cardiologist on 702 WTT [8th August 2014] during which Noakes was accused of “being criminal” brought this issue to the forefront again. What does the latest research reveal regarding this debate?

Conventional wisdom decrees that fat is bad for one’s health and if one so much as lets a glob of fat past one’s lips, one is liable to suffer from high cholesterol and die. The eating of all forms of fat including eggs, cream and fat on meat was not only eschewed, it was verboten. If any product had .005% less fat than a standard product, it would have the words low fat emblazoned all over it as if even such a miniscule reduction in imbibing fat would be beneficial.

Main picture: Tim Noakes

On the other hand, one cannot find on any product anywhere where an item boldly proclaims itself to be high fat. Imagine the opprobrium that would be heaped upon the shopper if they had to walk the length and breadth of Pick ‘n Pay with the offending article radiating its message of don’t care about my health to all passing shoppers. The less extrovert of them would snigger derisively whereas the others might chortle in condescending tones while pointing at the incriminating items, “Are you sure that that xxxxx should pass your lips?”

Artificial sweetners

Worse still they might even address their comments at an accompanying child with a comment such as “Tell you mommy that yyyyy is full of nasty pesky fat and will kill you.” Embarrassed the parent would surreptitious place the offending item on the closest available shelf so as not to endure the startled gaze of fellow shoppers any longer. Have you ever wondered why packets of high fat salami were placed next to the tampons? Now you know. A sheepish mother had offloaded unwanted produce there.

Well now I suggest that you pin a copy of a report by the University of New Orleans which boldly declares that the ingestion of fat is in fact good for one onto the side of your trolley. Even with the evidence at hand, one must still be prepared for an invasive confrontation with prying fellow shoppers. The message has not yet reached their ears in spite of the evangelical campaign by Tim Noakes who has borne the brunt of the vituperatic invective of the South African medical profession. Furthermore he has been roundly condemned in that prestigious magazine The South African Medical Journal.

Blood for a cholesterol check

For the most part what Noakes has been in conflict with is the lack of data to buttress his position. What he inevitably resorts to is the Banting diet experiment in the 1960s together with the lack of scientific proof of the correlation between fat and high blood pressure.

Help is on its way. The cavalry is coming to town. The results of the first recent clinical study to support Noakes’ contention that the malefactor is carbohydrate and not fat was a year-long study performed by the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine in New Orleans. [See the main article in the Times dated 3^rd September 2014 entitled Noakes-type diet comes out ahead in year-long study] in which they claimed that “people who avoid carbohydrates and eat more fat, even saturated fat, lose more body fat and have fewer cardiovascular risks than people who follow the low-fat diet that has been favoured for decades.”

Furthermore it went on to state that Dr Allan Sniderman, a professor of cardiology at McGill University in Montreal claimed that “the decrease in risk on the low-carbohydrate diet should translate into a substantial [health] benefit.”

I have summarised the results below:

‘* HDL = Good cholesterol

High far diet excludes trans fat

Overall: Much better to eat a high fat low carb diet

If one is of the opinion that this is an aberration, I would like to disabuse you of this belief. Today’s on-line Time Magazine [19^th October 2014] has as its lead article Soda May Age You as Much as Smoking, Study Says.

 The article states that Epel and her team analyzed data from 5,309 adults in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from about 14 years ago. They found that people who drank more sugary soda tended to have shorter telomeres. Drinking an 8-ounce daily serving of soda corresponded to 1.9 years of additional aging, and drinking a daily 20-ounce serving was linked to 4.6 more years of aging. The latter, the authors point out, is exactly the same association found between telomere length and smoking.

 Maybe this is not as closely related to Noakes’ claims but it highlights once again the deleterious effects of the consumption of sugar.

Why does carbohydrate cause such severe problems when consumed in such quantities and for so long? Firstly let me make it plain that these studies are discovering that no more than a few spoons of sugar a day is all that one’s system can handle. In contrast one can of Coke contains 8 spoons of sugar and most natural fruit juices even more.

The sugar in one can of Coke is sufficient carbohydrate for a whole Comrades. So why then does one have to imbibe Coke every few kilometres? That is due to its pernicious effect. The joker in the pack is insulin. Insulin performs a vital function in the body in that it removes glucose which would become toxic if left in situ. In this process it converts the glucose into fat and if one is consuming carbohydrate whether as sugar in a cool drink on Comrades or eating a packet of crisps, insulin efficiently removes the glucose from the blood but at the same time it oxidises the cholesterol coating the blood vessels. It is this oxidised cholesterol which is harmful to one.

On the other hand, the ingestion of fats provides the necessary energy without activating the pancreas to excrete insulin.

Even Noakes agrees that the jury is still out on the ultimate understanding on the correct form of dieting. He claims that the basic assumption that fat is good and carbohydrate is toxic is irrefutable but exactly how, why and what will only be established by research over the next 20 years.

In the interim rancorous debate, mud-slinging, finger-pointing and vituperative point-scoring will be the order of the day as witnessed on 702 Talk Radio.

In my opinion, the jury now has additional evidence at hand to arrive at its final decision. This evidence represents the smoking gun. It is now the crime labs responsibility to marshal all the remaining facts to make their verdict one of beyond reasonable doubt.

Related articles:

Challenging Beliefs – Memoirs of a Career by Tim Noakes

Summation: A Thoughtful Rebuttal of Medical Orthodoxy & Prevailing Wisdom

http://thecasualobserver.co.za/challenging-beliefs-memoirs-career/

Dieting: The Fat Debate

Studies reveal that 95%+ of people who diet never lose weight permanently. Fat which was previously

http://thecasualobserver.co.za/dieting-fat-debate/

The Diet Delusion – An in-depth scientific investigation into dieting

This book is not for the faint-hearted. Like a defence advocate in a trial, in the book The Diet Delusion Gary Taubes builds his case against the accepted wisdom on dieting from the very first scientific test on the efficacy of various diets way back in the 1860s.

http://thecasualobserver.co.za/diet-delusion-depth-scientific-investigation-dieting/