Dr Noakes Introduces the Series
"Nutrition is the driving force behind most of the ill-health we find in our modern societies."
Human Nutrition - Evidence Based Dietary Patterns?
Nutrition Standards on Trial
A Course in Nutrition
America v Canada?
What's this About?
Health Professions Council of SA is investigating Noakes for "unprofessional conduct". ADSA (Association for Dietetics in SA) president Claire Julsing Strydom laid the charge against Noakes in February 2014.
The Association for Dietetics in SA (ADSA), reported Noakes to the Council for a single tweet, advising a mother to wean her baby onto meat and vegetables.
You should understand that BOTH parties walked into this battle open eyed. BOTH think they are right. Both believe they have good science on their side. EITHER one of them could have backed down, and this "trial" would never have happened.
In the beginning there was confusion and delay. But after the Stellenbosch Review was released the HPCSA decided to proceed. Early in 2016 this complaint finally got to court.
I think the HPCSA didn't understand what they were getting into. They thought this would be over quickly. That they would slap Dr Noakes on the wrist, the Real Meal Revolution would get some bad press, and that would be the end of it.
The costs today may be several million rand. And it's still not over. We fully expect Dr Noakes to win based on the evidence, and to claim his costs from the HPCSA. If that happens there will be some red faces. If the decision goes the other way, if the court decides to ignore the evidence, I expect Dr Noakes would appeal.
Essentially it's about two different paradigms of dietary health, the paradigm that's dominated the last 60 years, where glucose was the source of energy (particularly energy for the brain), and a newer paradigm which relies on free fatty acids as the main fuel for the brain and the body.
Click to enlarge
As Dr Noakes explains in his opening video, both his father and himself were diabetic. His father was given wrong dietary information 30 years ago, and lost a foot and eventually his life to the disease. The book page illustrates the incorrect advice. Today type 2 diabetes is curable, but that same bad advice is still being offered. Diabetes will not kill the son. He knows the advice is wrong.
The principles that underlie each of these two paradigms have such different starting points that the advocates of each system are talking about entirely different concepts while using the same words. There is no communication. The experts talk past each other, and the public is totally misinformed.
This is typically what happens when people with different paradigms, ways of understanding the world, come into conflict. There is heated argument and zero communication. Take time this is worth understanding. You own good health, and the health of your family, may depend on you doing that.
So in a nutshell here are the arguments: (1) We adopted a low fat high carbohydrate diet over 50 years ago, trying to protect ourselves from heart disease, and in the belief that although carbohydrates were fattening, they were a good source of calories (energy).
Click to enlarge
(2) Thirty years later, we find out that fat doesn't cause heart disease, that excessive carbohydrates in the diet creates disseminated vascular disease, inflammation, that's causing a lot of illness, including cancers, heart attacks, and type 2 diabetes. It's also making us fat, which isn't a disease, but most of us would look better and feel better, if we weighed less.
The recommended diet is killing us. Why don't we change it? Good question. The United States Department of Agriculture has the answer, they are committed to supporting the American Farmer. The USA has huge surpluses of corn and wheat. Commercial interests prevent new science from changing the dietary recommendation. We choose to follow the American model. We could choose differently.
Thankfully, because of the Internet, it's not possible for the officials to hide from the new science. But they can delay and delay claiming that the "evidence is not yet in." Since it's your health at stake, you can judge that for yourself if you follow the debate here.