Prof Tim Noakes has written a love-letter to confirmation bias for the end-of-year edition of The Big Issue. Here’s the first instalment of some comment on his contribution.
I recently spoke at an event themed “demystifying the Banting diet”, at which Dr Celeste Naude and I presented reasons to be skeptical of the hype regarding LCHF and Banting. Dr Naude spoke on the science, I spoke on the hype. Here’s my talk.
Prof Tim Noakes™ says that we “must never trust consensus guidelines, because they are anti-science”, but this is simply another instance of playing scorched earth with understanding of the scientific method.
Prof Tim Noakes has yet to meet an obnoxious LCHF advocate. If he applies the standards he sets for himself in Internet debate, you might think a dictionary an appropriate thing to gift him.
We can often focus on more than one goal at the same time. Advocating for dietary change in an attempt to improve health doesn’t need to come at the cost of our mental health – or at least, the dulling of our critical faculties.
An attempt to clear up some confusions that seems to result from any criticism of LCHF or its proponents.
Whether Noakes is right or wrong, it would be great for him to sound like a scientist once in a while.
Tim Noakes’ essay-length comment on my previous blog post is unfortunately a simple amplification of the fact that eminent scientists can be guilty of some of the most elementary errors in reasoning.
The SAMJ has published a “study” by Prof Tim Noakes, in which 127 self-reported anecdotes are presented as evidence of the need for a trial.
Tim Noakes has moved from advocating carbo-loading to suggesting that carbohydrates are an addiction that poses severe health risks. But while his revised recommendations are couched in the language of science, does the science support them?