Tim Noakes hits back
TOM Bergmann-Harris “Base diet on science” (Cape Times October 31), suggests had those defending the Banting diet conveniently ignore the facts “when the latter don’t suit the former’s ‘arguments’.” I wonder if he is as critical of those who defend the current low-fat, high-carbohydrate dietary guidelines based on making “starchy foods” the main constituent of most meals.
In the recently completed Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) hearing held in Rondebosch, I and three expert witnesses presented more than eight days of testimony (including more than 6 000 pages of scientific material) and an additional 41/2 days of cross-examination on the science supporting the efficacy of the low-carbohydrate (Banting) diet.
With clinical efficiency, expert witnesses Dr Zoe Harcombe and Nina Teicholz, author of The Big Fat Surprise, showed that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting the current low-fat, high-carbohydrate “heart healthy” dietary guidelines which were embraced uncritically across the globe in 1977 and which, as we argue, have become the direct cause of the obesity/ diabetes epidemics that began shortly thereafter in 1980.
Instead, we presented the evidence from a growing body of peer-reviewed, published scientific studies showing that the inclusion of appropriate (to taste) amounts of “healthy” fats to replace sugar and excess carbohydrate in the diets of those who are insulin-resistant, can be life-saving.
We argue that the promotion of this dietary guideline on a national basis is essential if we truly wish to reverse the current obesity/diabetes epidemics and to prevent their reappearance in the future.
An analysis of all the evidence presented on both sides of the HPCSA hearing can be found at Marika Sboros’s website – www.foodmed.net.
I have never stated that “our brains have absolutely no need for carbohydrates”. The correct statement that I make frequently is that “our brains have no need for ingested (exogenous) carbohydrate”.
The biological explanation is simple: Humans have a miracle organ – the liver – able to produce all the glucose (and ketone bodies) required to fuel the brain, whether or not we are ingesting any exogenous carbohydrate.
I make this statement with confidence as our research team may be the only such group in the world yet to have measured directly this rate of (endogenously produced) glucose in persons eating low-carbohydrate diets. Our recent publication [Webster CC et al. J Physiol 594:15 (2016); pp 4389–4405] found that even when exposed to the additional stress of exercise, the capacity of the liver to produce endogenous glucose in those eating low-carbohydrate diets is more than adequate to cover all the brain’s (essential) glucose requirement.
Mr Bergmann-Harris’s untutored error is not to understand the difference between glucose that is ingested from that which is produced (endogenously) by the liver.
Mr Bergmann-Harris is correct that breast-fed infants do indeed ingest substantial amounts of carbohydrate in breast milk. But as I argued extensively at the HPCSA hearing, it is fat, from the diet or from body fat stores, that is the critical building block required for the optimum growth of the infant’s brain. The role of dietary fiber in the prevention of constipation is not relevant to the discussion since fiber intake is greater on the diet we promote – Green List of Real Meal Revolution – than it is on the standard low-fat “heart healthy, prudent diet, in moderation”.
My educated guess is that the composition of the bacteria in the gut – the gut bacterial flora – determines whether or not constipation occurs.
If correct, this would mean that the treatment of constipation requires the re-establishment of the ideal gut bacterial flora (which may or may not require the ingestion of fiber) alongside other key nutrients to support the growth of this ideal gut bacterial flora. Tim Noakes Constantia