Talk:Tim Noakes

Opinions of a non-expert
I am worried about the inclusion of the criticisms of a non-expert on this BLP page. I refer here to paediatrician Alastair McAlpine, a ~34-year old former student of Noakes, who (Noakes claims) has a worrying history of stalking and harassment of Noakes (and other proponents of low carb diets, according to Noakes), and more importantly has absolutely no credentials in the field of nutrition. I move that his comments be deleted from the page. I notice that another editor tried to insert some balance and was rebuffed here. If no contrary opinion is expressed, I will delete his comments within a week or so. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Alastair McAlpine is a reliable source per WP:NPOV and WP:RS. There is no need to do "personal research" into an author. But it's funny you claim he has no credentials in nutrition. Neither does Tim Noakes and the source you added Marika Sboros is a journalist and pseudoscience promoter. It's looks like you were trying to insert a false balance into the article and add original research. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Even leaving aside the question of the source, what is it issue here is a book review so not subject to BLP. On the other hand the OP's description of a person as having "a worrying history of stalking and harassment of Noakes" is a blatant BLP violation and may need admin attention. Bon courage (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. 1) the subject of a BLP may respond to attacks, so this is not "false balance". And self-published sources are allowed on BLPs, if they are by the subject himself, or at least they were the last time I checked the policy. Maybe you should check too? (Edit, from WP:BLP : "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article" - it's a pity that you are not aware of policy). And as for saying Noakes has no credentials in nutrition, how about his DSc in human physiology (which is what sports science is essentially), and the publishing of several peer reviewed papers on the topic? 37057184 28053201  34290045   35215511 etc. And you cannot possible call McAlpine a "reliable source" when he has no training or qualifications in nutrition. and has published NOTHING in this field. And just look at his Twitter feed to see how he harasses low carb proponents. His lack of balance is self-evident. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Noakes' column is published in Medical Brief, is it not "self-published". Bon courage (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Um, look at both sources. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Noakes' stuff on his own site is obviously self published, and using it to make allegation of criminality about a third-party would obviously be a serious BLP violation. Bon courage (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So you got that wrong, but you quickly raise another topic to cover your error, namely that to report what Noakes has said at his own website, without any challenge from the other party, would be a BLPvio. Nice try. Note that McAlpine has called Noakes an 'antivaxxer' numerous times, a totally false statement given that Noakes and his entire family, including grandchildren, are vaccinated. Calling someone an anti-vaxxer in the medical community is akin to 'pointing the bone' and is actionable, and would have been actioned if the two people involved lived in the same country, I suspect. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What matters to Wikipedia is what is published in reliable sources. Is there RS in which Noakes is called an antivaxxer? Bon courage (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, can't you use google? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Seems like our article needs an update! Bon courage (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Be careful. The existing quote from McAlpine is in flagrant violation of WP:BLPBALANCE where it is stated that Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, "so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone". The source you cite is even more shaky, considering that mainstream scientific opinion on the origins of the Covid virus now admits that it could have been from a bioweapon facility in China.  So the initial rejection of that possibility has been reversed. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The bioweapon stuff is a conspiracy theory with no support in RS (and plenty to describe it as a conspiracy theory). Bon courage (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Very poor edit from you. 1) Noakes simply posed the question, in a Tweet ffs, "Proven link between autism and early immunisation covered up?". For that single tweet he's been pilloried and with incredible undue weight, you've inserted it into his Bio. And 2) his suggestion that hydroxyq. is effective was based on a French study, since superseded. Again, an off the cuff comment on another area of medicine that he is not an expert in, but obviously had an opinion at the time, which no doubt has changed by now. If we are going to edit every bio to insert every tiny, outside-expertise comment every person makes, we'll destroy WP. And then you go further to source all this to an article that contests that the Covid virus could ever possibly come from bioweapons development, although more recently it has become an accepted theory. Wow. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And there is PLENTY of evidence that the bioweapon theory is under serious consideration, eg Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're spouting WP:PROFRINGE nonsense there, entirely made up. Follow the good sources. Bon courage (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What part of this quote do you not understand:"U.S. Department of Energy has shifted its stance on the origin of COVID. It now concludes .... that the pandemic most likely arose from a laboratory leak in Wuhan, China"? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nowhere does it mention bioweapons. The bioweapon stuff is extreme loon territory. A few people think it may have resulted from a lab leak because of too-many-bats-nearby or vaccine research gone wrong. But that's just fringe as opposed to max-crank. Anyway I've pinged WP:FT/N so hopefully some fringe-savvy editors will drop by. Bon courage (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Extreme loon territory? Do you know what they do inside the Wuhan Virology Lab? So one would be insane to think China is studying bioweapons, huh? Talk about naivete! Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm just informing you that, according to RS, the idea that SARS-CoV-2 was a "bioweapon" is an extreme conspiracy theory. Bon courage (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Um, once again, Noakes never called SARS-CoV-2 a bioweapon. He merely LINKED to an article that did. So using that news24 article as a source is the very definition of UNDUE. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't mention bioweapons (yet anyway), but it was you who wrote thew news source was "an article that contests that Covid virus could ever possibly come from bioweapons development, although more recently it has become an accepted theory. Wow." Bon courage (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

If I get tag-team reverted on this, I'll set up a RfC.Ratel 🌼 (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Probably best to do some WP:RFCBEFORE, maybe by raising at WP:FT/N. Meanwhile, I hadn't been keeping up with Noakes' sourcing, but what's all this ?? Bon courage (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do not drag red herrings into this. We are not discussing his off-the-cuff personal views on coronavirus circa 2019, delivered in a radio interview, which is not his area of expertise. This has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For a thread entitled "opinions of a non-expert" it seems jolly apt! In any event Wikipedia follows sources. Must look more at Noakes/COVID ... Bon courage (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Open Letter
Does this open letter bear mentioning in the article? jps (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Here is the publication that was based off the letter. jps (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It's just some members of the establishment "distancing themselves" from Noakes. We already know about this. And Noakes has extensively defended himself concerning that letter. It's going to clog up the article with repetition. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Here is another article that mentions this letter: I think it is relevant and deserves inclusion. jps (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * These are old articles. His recommendations have evolved since then. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources which indicate that with respect to these particular articles? Or is this just your own research? jps (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes that article says he eats either no carbs or one Ryvita a day. In morte recent articles he has said several times that his diet allows 50 carbs a day. So things have changed.Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

It is hardly surprising that Noakes's positions have changed in 9 years, but do we have any sources that say that explicitly? Something that says, "Noakes now eats 50 (grams?/calories?) or carbohydrates a day which is an increase of ???" would be nice. jps (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * While I see where he says he eats 50 to 75 g of carbohydrates, I don't see where Noakes identifies how his views have changed from his previous diets. Can you identify that? jps (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Previous article said "no carbs" or one Ryvita. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He is quoted as saying that he eats one Ryvita a day, indeed. Later he says he recommends 50 to 75 g of carbohydrates. That does seem to be a contradiction, so I would conclude that either he has changed his mind, he was misquoted, or he wasn't telling the truth at some point. But unless we have a source that explains this is the case, our hands our tied by WP:NOR. We go by what the sources say and I don't see any remarking on the differences between the one-Ryvita-a-day claim and the 20% the normal recommended carbohydrate intake recommendation. jps (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The Noakes diet
We shouldn't be linking to a primary source written by Noakes 11 years ago. If the banting diet is to be described which Noakes advocates, this is a better source. I am not saying these following sources are reliable, but just to give an update on what diet Noakes is actually doing right now. He is doing the carnivore diet and is claiming "We Don’t Need Carbs Or Even Veggies". The 2012 source that Ratel was adding was clearly outdated. Everything Noakes says about diet is in opposition to evidence-based medicine and science. He is telling people to eat a meat only diet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "He is telling people to eat a meat only diet." Not in his books. That video is also old, and he actually says in it that he is eating 25 carbs a day "now". His statement that "We Don’t Need Carbs Or Even Veggies" is correct in theory, as we can see from Inuits, but he's not advocating it. So how about we use his book "The Real Meal Revolution" for details of the diet? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The carnivore diet interview was 2 years ago. I wouldn't call it old. I would call 7, 10 or 12 years old. The The Real Meal Revolution was published in 2015, the carnivore diet interview was from 2021. None of these sources are reliable but why would you want to cite an older source? Tim Noakes in his own words from the carnivore diet video linked above, ""I have a predominately carnivore diet" and "doesn't see any reason to change". He then says he doesn't eat fruit, any sugar or any carbs apart from some vegetables. Apart from some leafy greens he is basically on a carnivore diet. This is very much in the realm of pseudoscience which the Wikipedia article on the carnivore diet notes. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't find where Noakes says that he is on a carnivore diet, and clearly means carnivore diet. If he eats non-animal products, he is by definition not on the carnivore diet. Perhaps you are reading too much into his comments? It sounds a lot more like the Low-carbohydrate diet than the carnivore diet. - Bilby (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's in this video "Professor Tim Noakes improves health on the carnivore diet", in the section "Current Diet" starting at 7 minutes. This is the Shawn Baker podcast. There is also another interview  "Tim thinks we don’t need carbohydrates or even vegetables", his personal way of eating these days is "almost carnivorous".
 * Even Shawn Baker has admitted to having cheat days on his carnivore diet and occasionally eats berries. The Liver King has also admitted to occasionally eating berries and leafy greens. Paul Saladino eats fruit, rice and potatoes. Ken Berry eats sweet potatoes and occasionally green vegetables. Most influencers on the carnivore diet actually eat berries, rice and a few vegetables because the diet is not sustainable long-term so they are all doing an "almost carnivorous" diet, not a full one. Nobody does 100% carnivore. Most of the carnivore diet fad "gurus" have now redefined the carnivore diet to be 90% carnivore. This is not really relevant right now due to the lack of reliable sources but in the future if we have reliable sources then the article needs to be updated because Noakes dietary ideas have gotten more extreme over time. Ratel was editing the article with a primary source from 2012 claiming Noakes includes all food groups in his diet but this is no longer the case. His diet has changed a lot since then and is now much more extreme. We should not be using primary sources. We should wait until a reliable source is published in this area. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an incredibly strange conversation. I think it may be because you are confusing two things:
 * a) The Noakes Diet, as described in The Real Meal Revolution and Lore of Nutrition: Challenging Conventional Dietary Beliefs
 * b) Noakes's diet, as in "what he eats today".
 * When describing the former, contemporary primary sources make sense. When describing the latter, I'm left wondering why we care? If you are saying that the current "Noakes Diet" is different to the published "Noakes Diet', then yes, I agree we would need reliable sources to identify the difference. Similarly, if you are saying that his views have changed, then yes, once again, I agree we would need reliable sources to show that change. - Bilby (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying but there doesn't appear to be any recent reliable sources describing "The Noakes Diet". I don't see the point in citing sources from 10 or 12 years ago because he is no longer promoting that diet anymore to anyone. He is now promoting an almost carnivore diet which he is eating himself and promoting to others. Because there are not recent reliable sources on any of this its probably just best to wait until reliable sources cover it and not cite outdated primary sources from 2012 or 2015. In other words we should just leave mention of his diet off the page. We already mention he eats a low-carb high-fat diet and I think we can just leave it at that. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are two older sources from 2015 describing the Noakes diet comparing it to the paleo diet, . I agree you probably could create a section describing the "Noakes diet" from 2015 as found in The Real Meal Revolution. I wouldn't revert if you add it in but I don't think we should be citing primary sources here. As stated above I wouldn't add it myself because its clear to me he has changed his dietary views since 2015. I have written a lot of diet related biographies and I always think they should be up to date if we have reliable sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He is now saying (Jan 2023) that he personally is on a carbohydrate-free diet but does mention that, depending on your carb tolerance, he recommends a carbohydrate-restricted or carbohydrate-free diet. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Diet Cults
I do not believe Ratel is giving the best summary to what is found in the book Diet Cults in regard to Noakes. This sentence this user added is off-topic in regard to Noakes and not giving full context, "although Fitzgerald also states that "the biology [of sugar in the human body] is complex and not yet fully understood" and that "there is some justification for the bad reputation that sugar has acquired". These are both cherry-picked from POV.

The full quote here is not about what Noakes believes, it is Matt Fitzgerald talking about the harmful effects of sugary drinks, "There is evidence, however, that consuming large amounts particular forms of sugar — especially sugar-sweetened beverages — increases the risk of becoming overweight and developing diabetes and heart disease. The biology is complex and not yet fully understood. The bottom line is that there is some justification for the bad reputation that sugar has acquired. One study found that women who consumed one or more sugary drinks per day were 83 percent more likely to become diabetic than were women who drank less than one a month."

This content is basically saying that sweetened beverages are bad for health as they increase obesity risk, this is very true and nobody disputes this. There is no reason to include this quote because it is not about Noakes, on the previous page is this quote "Members of this cult believe that sugar is bad in all amounts and contexts, including in sports drinks intended strictly for use during prolonged exercise. It doesn’t matter that literally hundreds of studies have shown it improves performance" but Ratel won't cite that, nor will Ratel cite the other paragraph which says "there is no independent link between the amount of sugar a person consumes and the risk of diabetes". I am suggesting that we do not include any of these quotes because they are not about Noakes. We only need to include what is on topic about Noakes. I made a short summary saying Noakes' claims about sugar are misleading. That is clearly accurate to what the book Diet Cults says on just 2 pages, found here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Matt Fitzgerald (MF) has a BA degree in English, and some sort of certification in nutrition (you can buy them on the net). He is not a university-trained dietitian or scientist, so quoting his views about a man with a Doctor of Science degree, who is famous internationally for his work in human physiology, is asinine. Secondly, you put words into MF's mouth to push your POV here. MF says that Noakes has joined a cult, but does not use the words "misleading" and "extreme" in relation to Noakes. That's your inference. A little less barrow-pushing would be appreciated.


 * I fully intend highlighting critical commentary of Noakes, but I won't be adding the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR you seem intent on.


 * As for your quotes where MF says, in his 2014 book, that there are no studies linking sugar consumption and diabetes, that's simply out of date . There is an undeniable link.


 * In summary, my vote is to remove the MF text completely and find a better source.Ratel 🌼 (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Having just checked the book myself I don't think either of you did a good summary of what it says. 1. We should be attributing things to people rather than vaguely saying "has been criticized" 2. "Cultish" seems closer than "extreme and misleading" 3. Those comments about sugar (that Ratel added) aren't really about Noakes. Is this source even good enough for inclusion though? Matt Fitzgerald is an "Author, Coach, Nutritionist, Athlete" and "Pegasus Books" doesn't look like a very solid publisher for these claims Tristario (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It goes without saying that in WP:BLPs we should take a lot of care to represent what the sources say as accurately as possible, and use high quality sources. Tristario (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ratel, there are few registered dietitians, anyone can be a nutritionist. Tim Noakes is not a dietitian either. I am not sure why you are doing these "personal researches" into authors to attack them. It is irrelevant to what Fitzgerald's qualifications are. Matt Fitzgerald's book Diet Cults is used on other Wikipedia articles and it is a reliable source because it represents evidence-based medicine and is a criticism of fad diets. I am not saying we need to use to book to make medical claims. It's obvious that Noakes' views on sugar are fringe and misleading. Perhaps I should not have used the word "extreme" per that source but misleading is accurate to what Fitzgerald said about Noakes. You are also promoting misinformation on here about diabetes, all the leading dietitian associations do not say that diabetes is caused by sugar. There is no direct link between diabetes and sugar, that is a common myth. "It’s also not true to say that type 2 diabetes is caused by sugar. However, the chances of developing this type of diabetes are greater if you are overweight or obese", "Fact: Eating sugar does not cause diabetes" . Your editing as a low-carbohydrate diet proponent is coming into issues of WP:ADVOCACY. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll tackle just one of the statements you make above, due to time constraints. You say: "There is no direct link between diabetes and sugar, that is a common myth"
 * I say
 * Worth thinking about, although ConAgra, Kraft, Coca Cola etc have commissioned studies to "debunk" those studies.
 * Just quickly, regarding Fitzgerald, he's not a good source for making a critical comment on a BLP. The guy is not a scientist. I don't care where else you use his book. His qualifications (or lack thereof) are definitely germane here. The article will make clear that Noakes is a maverick making claims not supported by the mainstream. We don't need the Fitzgerald book, and I don't think we have to start inferring quotes like "misleading" when this word was not used in relation to Noakes by Fitzgerald. I used the word "cult", because that's what Fitzgerald said. Stop putting other words in his mouth. Thanks. More later ... Ratel 🌼 (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there is a bit of confusion here since it seems it's the case that there is no independent association between sugar and diabetes, but there is an association mediated via overweightness and obesity. Anyway, I would appreciate it a lot if people involved in editing this article could assume more good faith from eachother. Ratel is right to be concerned about this source - it does not seem good enough for these claims, and the qualifications of the author are relevant. Psychologist Guy is also right that we need to take care in regards to fringe ideas. If you could both give serious consideration to the concerns the other party raises, I think that would be beneficial to producing a solid article. Tristario (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ratal, you are citing low-carb advocacy proponents, you understand the bias with this? Your first source is James DiNicolantonio that cites outdated animal studies. Your second link is Robert H. Lustig. Per advocacy and fringe guidelines, this is not the way Wikipedia works. Why not cite a neutral scientist? Let me give you an example. We know that red meat increases bowel cancer but on Wikipedia we do not cite vegan activists or vegan sources for this, we have professional governmental bodies, dietetic associations and organizations saying it. We do not cite biased sources. Professional governmental bodies, dietetic associations and organizations are not saying sugar causes diabetes only fringe folk from the low-carb crowd are saying it so we have no reason to mention it.
 * There is no direct association between sugar and diabetes, its true there is an association between obesity. The claim that fructose is "a principal driver of type 2 diabetes" is nonsense. No diabetes or dietetic association would claim this. I agree to leave the Fitzgerald book off the article. It's unlikely there are any other reliable sources discussing Noakes and his diet so I doubt this article can be expanded until new reliable sources are found or published. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There are unaligned sources (AFAIK, have not researched it because not my interest) e.g.  etc. Contrary studies are usually funded by Coca Cola or similar (check the Conflict of Interest sections at the end of the papers, it's always there). So, in reality, this is still a topic under active research and the scientific community has not returned a solid Yea or Nay yet (even studies funded by Big Sugar admit that the topic is in flux). But this is not the point, let's not get dragged into the long grass. No matter whether sugar or fructose is part of the explosive expansion of diabetes since we all began eating vast amounts of this stuff is not something we are claiming in the article. All that Noakes says is that harsh carb (sugar) restriction has enabled him to control his diabetes, the same disease that killed his father at the same age (a "horrible death"). That's not properly explained in the article, and it's an interesting point. It's his "belief", and WP:NOTBMI says beliefs are not BMI and therefore do not have to meet MEDRS standards. And quite apart from whether or not sugars/fructose are diabetogenic, the belief that restricting sugar can control diabetes is mainstream medicine  so that's not controversial. So I have to disagree with you about article expansion. I still think the page can be made more interesting and encyclopedic, and I am also looking to expand the critical sections, but with solid sourcing. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * we should put the climate denial stuff in, and maybe the homophobic stuff? Bon courage (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you've got solid sourcing for it, then go ahead Tristario (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If Noakes is going to do dumb stuff, and it gets reported in RSes, let it in. But with one caveat: WP:UNDUE. Inflammatory or provocative retweets don't deserve more than the briefest mention. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * we should put the climate denial stuff in, and maybe the homophobic stuff? Bon courage (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you've got solid sourcing for it, then go ahead Tristario (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If Noakes is going to do dumb stuff, and it gets reported in RSes, let it in. But with one caveat: WP:UNDUE. Inflammatory or provocative retweets don't deserve more than the briefest mention. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Page refactoring
I've refactored to make it flow more logically and to match the data in the infobox, which lists the Noakes Diet as what the person is known for. Some sources are still required, will fix that in the next few days. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I see that is deleting information about Noakes as falling verifiability and therefore "irrelevant", even though other sources are available. Why? This is a story Noakes has told over and over again, a key moment in his life. If concerned about WP:V, why not put an inline template on it asking for more or better sources? Why the aggressive deletion of data when I have already stated some better sources are coming? This looks like tendentious editing. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Add unsourced WP:PROFRINGE material to a BLP is not great. Getting accusatory when it's fixed is worse. Bon courage (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You've gutted the article. You've removed a key moment in a scientist's life, one which made him completely change course, and why he did so, and you've removed what the diet is about. People researching Noakes will now have to go elsewhere to find out what the Noakes Diet is, and why Noakes formulated it. You are basically sabotaging the encyclopedia. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a credulous fan site. There are WP:PAGs for a reason. Bon courage (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Handwaving bullshit. Which PAG is contravened in describing the key moment in a famous scientist's life? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that Bon courage is entirely within their rights to remove poorly sourced or unsourced content, particularly if it concerns personal information, and I would once again like to encourage everyone to assume good faith. Perhaps the information about the father dying goes better in the "Background" section? I'm not entirely sure Tristario (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * On another note, I think the restructuring of the article was a good idea, it's easier to follow now Tristario (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll work the father story into the text tomorrow to avoid falling into WP:3RR traps laid for me. Noakes has repeated this story in almost every interview he's had, not only in the sources quoted below (there are others too), but also in podcasts and YT videos. Sources are plentiful. It was clearly a defining moment in his life, and since his own father, at Noakes's current age, was either dead or in extremis, he's increasingly convinced he made the right dietary choice. However, I think the article should also mention (suitably sourced) that he takes metformin in addition to his unusual diet, so that the tone does not become profringe. Full disclosure, no unreasonable claims, and more proof I am not trying to promote Noakes. And since this is a diet-specific factoid, it probably belongs where it was, in the Noakes Diet section. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This talk of "traps" is a further show of bad faith. I think the dead father stuff is admissible so long as Wikipedia doesn't imply that Noakes' ideas about cause and effect, or the need to avoid carbohydrate to prevent/manage diabetes are "correct" as a result; it may need some mainstream context to ensure his FRINGE ideas on this matter are clearly identified as FRINGE. And yes, we probably might want to mention that following Noakes' "damascene moment" diet switch, he progressed from pre-diabetes to full diabetes. Bon courage (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Noakes's father story

 * "...his father had also been diagnosed with diabetes in his sixties, and it eventually killed him..."
 * "He said that at the time his father that type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure and that he would go on to lose a foot, then his legs and his mind."
 * "I saw my father die in [an] appalling condition."
 * Having a father with diabetes and being pre-diabetic prompted Noakes’s anti-sugar and anti-carbohydrate crusade.
 * It was even scarier because his father had also been diagnosed with diabetes in his sixties, and it eventually killed him. Noakes worried that he’d contributed to that outcome by going along with the conventional wisdom about what his dad’s diet should be: low-fat, high-carb. “I realized that I’d just sat passively by, because I’d been trained to think he was being treated properly,” he says. “That was my eureka moment,” he adds. Carbs were out. No more bread, no more desserts.

Carb recommendations
"He recommended that people eat between 25g and 200g of carbohydrates a day."

2012: "I’m not saying eat no carbohydrates; I eat 50 grams of carbohydrates a day. Most people eat 300 to 400. You need to run 20km a day to justify that. If you’re only running 10km a day, drop it to 200 – you’ll lose a few kilos and you’ll run faster." Ratel 🌼 (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Will add more WP:V stuff soon. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

NIH Review Study 2021
I was going to work this into the text but don't want to run afoul of OR:

A 2021 NIH-funded review study concluded that so far no large-scale long-term clinical trials have been conducted to test whether low-carb diets can prevent type 2 diabetes, and the benefits and risks of low-carb diets remain controversial or unresolved, particularly for very low carbohydrate diets (VLCDs).

Seems to me to be the best description of the current scientific consensus of this issue, and more instructive than simple accusations of fad and cult. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC) Ratel 🌼 (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * A Low-carb diet is not always a fad diet. The problem is that most low-carb diets are fad diets (pseudoscientific). It's probably possible to construct a sensible low-carb plan that is not high in saturated fat like most low-carb fad diets. Unfortunately if you look at the low-carb diets over the last 100 years they have all been fads (Atkins, Protein Power, Gundry's Plant Paradox, Paleo, Grain Brain, Noakes diet, Wheat Belly diet, Scarsdale diet, carnivore diet etc) that make extreme and pseudoscientific health claims.
 * As you said the review concludes that no large-scale long-term clinical trials have been done. Most clinical trials are not long-term. There is no data in this area for most diets. You are jumping from data does not exist to no fad diet. By your logic the carnivore or Atkins diets are not fads either because no long-term trials have been done. Does not make sense. The NIH review is not relevant to the Noakes fad diet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no data in this area for most diets.  Well no, that's not true. There are long-term diet trials, example (which concluded inter alia that a "lower consumption of processed food and sweets" was positive for brain health), a long-term trial on the Atkins diet  (found Atkins effective for weight loss but not more effective than other diets), Mediterranean diet  (found it was good for cognitive function), the 5:2 diet  (good results) etc. So you're talking nonsense. And I'm not jumping from anything to anything. I'm saying that while dieticians have labelled this a fad diet, it's also true that there have been no long-term trials testing weight loss, lipids, insulin, etc to tell us whether it's a fad or not. That's what the science says. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to me including this review would be OR. This review isn't necessarily applicable to the Noakes' diet, for roughly the reasons Psychologist Guy raised. Probably Psychologist Guy meant to say something more like "there is no good data in this area for most diets". Tristario (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ratel, my statement is accurate, there is not any long-term clinical trials for most diets, your own post failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. There are long-term epidemiological studies. Two of the trial papers you linked to were 12 months. That is not long-term. Think about a human lifespan. 12 months is not a large frame of time. Long-term would be 8, 10 or 20 years plus. It's obvious this will never happen in most cases because of the difficulties and ethics involved with controlled trials and diets. We have long-term epidemiological studies that are consistent with the Bradford Hill criteria and mendelian randomization studies that have shown us low-carb diets raise LDL-c, total blood cholesterol and ApoB, thus increasing cardiovascular disease risk. This is a fact not up for debate. That is why the American Heart Association and all the other heart experts rank the low-carb diet so low and do not recommend it. We have about 50 years of studies showing this. Yes long-term data from consistent epidemiological studies. The Mediterranean diet is not a low-carb diet, people on that diet are eating plenty of bread, pasta, high-carb fruits and vegetables so I am not sure why you are linking to that. The articles you are linking to are irrelevant to the Noakes Wikipedia article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How "long-term" is defined is open to interpretation. You said there was a total paucity of long-term diet studies; I showed there were, for various diets. If you want to define long-term as multi-year only, then there are studies like that ran over 36 years (not specific to low carb but dealing with AHEI and AMED). And low-carb diets (which I do not personally follow, just for clarity, so I am not advocating for this) can be healthy. It's more correct to say that a LCHF diet will raise LDL cholesterol, whereas a LCLF diet will in fact drop LDL. Within the LCHF diet, one can also substitute fish, macadamia nuts, avocados, and olive oil for saturated fats, so preventing LDL-c rise. So it's more nuanced than you suggest. Even the American Heart Association qualifies its low ranking of low-carb diets as due to them being "often higher in animal-sourced foods and saturated fat" — often but not always. So it's simplistic to say that there is only one form of low-carb diet, and that it's bad for all people. It may be very useful for people with certain health conditions, and until proper studies are done, we'll never know. As Dr Gardner says (he's one of the most respected people in this field BTW): "benefits and risks of low-carb diets remain controversial or unresolved".
 * In any event, this is no longer a proposed edit, so we can stop discussing it. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Biznews as a source
I'm a bit nonplussed at the deletion of data sourced to Biznews. Biznews is owned and run by Alec Hogg, a respected journalist in South Africa (see his Guardian articles here ). It's not as if the data itself is controversial or likely to be challenged, and it can be sourced elsewhere if needed. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look like a reliable source to me. Their coverage of covid-19 seems very questionable Tristario (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * We could argue about this, but since the deletion you made was of data that can be lost without much harm to the article, I don't think I'll bother to re-insert it with a different source (and there are others). But the problem with the current edit is that it loses the connection between Noakes witnessing his father's appalling death and his own subsequent diagnosis, and the eureka moment of realization and change of course. That narrative is missing now. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We do roughly include that information, I think we should be careful about giving too much weight to "narratives" like that though. Better to keep things impartial and to the point Tristario (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm. As it stands, his father's diabetes is simply noted as a sort of arbitrary fact that some future editor will probably delete as irrelevant. Re-read it as if you knew nothing about Noakes and his motivations. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you mean. Maybe the wording could be improved. But I think care should be taken to make sure it's written in a conservative and impartial manner, I'm concerned about the appropriateness of describing things like "eureka" moments in wikipedia articles Tristario (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've made as neutral a rewording of that passage as I can. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Noakes' father's diet and death
has removed Noakes's attribution of his father's diabetes death to a HCLF diet, but this mangles the narrative, once again. The reason Bon courage supplied is "unsourced" when in fact the source clearly states: It was even scarier because his father had also been diagnosed with diabetes in his sixties, and it eventually killed him. Noakes worried that he’d contributed to that outcome by going along with the conventional wisdom about what his dad’s diet should be: low-fat, high-carb. “I realized that I’d just sat passively by, because I’d been trained to think he was being treated properly,” he says. “That was my eureka moment,” he adds. Carbs were out. No more bread, no more desserts. Clearly, Noakes attributes the death to the diet, and I summarised that as succinctly as I could with the words I chose. I think this is an important part of his thinking and the development of his diet. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, nothing about "low-fat, high-carb" which seems to be your invention. The father's diet is described as following "conventional wisdom" (whatever that means). In any case I think this inane speculation about cause it not useful here (especially since in other articles Noakes later conceded his family had a genetic predisposition to diabetes). Bon courage (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the article is fine without including that specific speculation, it's not really a vital piece of information for this biography. Reading the current wording, I think it's easy to follow what it's saying Tristario (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ...nothing about "low-fat, high-carb" which seems to be your invention... Say what? Are we reading the same quotation? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * evidently not; so yes from the above - Noakes does believe conventional wisdom is "high carb". But as I say, this speculation isn't useful. Bon courage (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that Noakes believes that his father's demise stemmed from diet is a pivotal part of his life story, one he repeats on every possible occasion, and it's sourceable to several RSes, and his books. I'm not sure what speculation you are talking about. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we'd need some decent secondary sourcing for this (probably psychoanalytical). The speculation is from Noakes that he was responsible for his father's death through the recommendation implicit in his life's work. Bon courage (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Who would know what Noakes was speculating better than Noakes? - Bilby (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well it's what he says. But where's the knowledge here? Might just be marketing schtick for a diet/book. Bon courage (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is setting an unreasonable bar. We can use primary sources, and this does not seem obviously self-serving, so it should be ok. - Bilby (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Can use, carefully. I'd oppose any such use here as it's just a dubious factoid with zero knowledge value. Bon courage (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Noakes has no idea what caused his father's death.  I think his speculation about it is self-serving.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and at other times he's served a word salad claiming the cause was "a particularly toxic combination of the genetic polymorphisms that cause insulin resistance". Soem sources say the 'diabetes' was the cause of death, others that improper management of the condition was the cause. This whole area is dodgy. Bon courage (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

We just don't know his motivations for saying it. But it is a belief he firmly holds, and as such whether or not his father actually died from poor T2DM management or whether from a HCLF diet is unknowable (and irrelevant — we simply echo what's reliably reported elsewhere). This is a BLP and WP:NOTBMI applies. So it is what it is, and should be inserted to maintain the coherence of his motivations for readers. Currently it's disjointed. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * How do you know it's a belief he firmly holds? At FTN you said Noakes just said things to get a reaction. Bon courage (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, Retweets to get reactions. But something that he has stated in many interviews over many years is obviously a core belief. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Doubt it. Which version of the story do you believe anyway? I don't think it's worth pursuing this any further. Bon courage (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe he believes it. I don't pass judgment, that's not my (or your) role. I can provide several RSes, incl. his books. Can you restrain your urge to editorialise and curate his life story? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just checked his book The Lore of Nutrition. The string "father" appears 50 times in the book, and here are some of the passages:
 * One of the great ironies of my journey is that in 1976 I was one of a group of five people, including two cardiologists, who started the Cape Heart Foundation, which would ultimately become the Heart and Stroke Foundation of South Africa. Naturally, we innovators were the first personally to adopt the 1977 USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans that promoted LFHC diets based on ‘7–11 servings a day of cereals and grains’. It is my opinion that because of my genetic predisposition – my father suffered all the worst complications of T2DM, ultimately dying from it, while specialists advised him to eat a high-carbohydrate diet – it was this diet that caused my T2DM, even though I was (reasonably) active all my life and never obese (although my body mass index did increase gradually to reach an undesirable, overweight 28 kg/m2 in December 2010).
 * When my father battled with T2DM, dying a diminished man as a result of the complications of disseminated obstructive diabetic arterial disease, my medical training allowed me to hide behind a false reality. I believed that some outcomes in medicine are just inevitable: that people with T2DM are predestined to become progressively sicker until they die an awful death. That is just the way it is. But here were four people with T2DM telling me that it does not have to be this way. By just changing their diets, they had managed to reverse all their symptoms.
 * Noakes’s evidence was a powerful mix of the personal and the professional. One of the first slides he presented was a photograph of him and his parents at his graduation in 1981. He had just received his Doctor of Medicine (MD) degree – a PhD equivalent that allowed him to teach and set up a sports-science course at UCT. His father, Reginald ‘Bindy’ Austin Noakes, had been diagnosed with T2DM a few months earlier. At the time, Reginald also had high blood pressure and other features of IR and the metabolic syndrome. He was the same age then (68) as Noakes is today. Within six years, he would lose his foot from the consequences of diabetic PAD. Within eight years, he would lose both legs and surrender his mind to the disease. That faded photograph spoke volumes about what drives Noakes as a scientist, a medical doctor and an ordinary mortal: the search for truth and the desire to help people improve their health. It spoke particularly of Noakes’s mission to save diabetics from the grim fate that had befallen his father after following orthodox dietary advice. At the time of his father’s illness, dietitians and doctors (Noakes included) believed that diabetics needed regular carbohydrates to ensure there was enough glucose for the brain. Noakes did not blame the dietitian, Joan Huskisson, who advised his father. She gave advice that she thought was right at the time. She based her advice on a hypothesis that many doctors and dietitians still hold dear today: when prescribing diets for patients with T2DM, the sole consideration is that the brain requires glucose to function (see Chapter 7). ‘This hypothesis is wrong,’ said Noakes. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Meh, with a side of Yikes! I think this just confirms we'd need a secondary source to make sense of whatever knowledge can be gleaned from all this, especially all the dubious biomedical implications. Bon courage (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Knowledge gleaned?" What are you talking about? The issue is whether he believes it or not, and he clearly does. Every time I prove something to you, you change the goal posts. We don't need to prove him right or wrong, that's not the WP editor's function, afaik. But we do need to be fair to the subject and report his life and beliefs and what led him to make major decisions. This is starting to look tendentious. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but without secondary sourcing we're into WP:ARSEHOLES territory. Who cares what Noakes (says he) believes, especially if it's intermixed with dodgy health stuff? This is where secondary sourcing comes in. Bon courage (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You're going around in circles. I provide a secondary source for his belief, you say "unsourced". When that is shown to be false, you say "marketing schtick". When I prove it is a long-term core belief for the subject of this BLP, as shown by his books, you go back to demanding a secondary source, which I have already provided above. Not sure where you are going with this. You seem to want more than a secondary source, something that "makes sense of whatever knowledge can be gleaned" from Noakes's life history and motivations, which is a totally unreasonable demand. I'm puzzled. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not a secondary source, since it provides none of the analysis, commentary or synthesis we look for to identify such sources; it's more WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Wikipedia articles are based on secondary sources so they reflect accepted knowledge; we don't just plop down factoids, particularly if they're opaque and/or misleading. Bon courage (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Since when does a BLP subject's claim, however daft, need secondary sourcing that includes analysis of the BLP's belief? You're setting an unrealistically high bar on this article. His beliefs are well reported, why not include them, since they are already known to everyone, including his critics? Even the Fitzgerald book on Cults discussed above talks about Noakes's father. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Articles must be based on secondary sources, and inclusions of "beliefs" that have not drawn atrtention from such sources risks being undue. If the view is "daft" NPOV would, even more, require some context to say why. WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Three words for you: summary, accepted, knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Since when does a BLP subject's claim, however daft, need secondary sourcing that includes analysis of the BLP's belief? You're setting an unrealistically high bar on this article. His beliefs are well reported, why not include them, since they are already known to everyone, including his critics? Even the Fitzgerald book on Cults discussed above talks about Noakes's father. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Articles must be based on secondary sources, and inclusions of "beliefs" that have not drawn atrtention from such sources risks being undue. If the view is "daft" NPOV would, even more, require some context to say why. WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Three words for you: summary, accepted, knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Removal of mention of Noakes's diet book
The mention of Noakes's book on diet was deleted with reason given as "promotional". This holds Noakes to a different standard than other low-carb proponents like Gary Taubes and David Ludwig (physician), whose books are not censored from their pages. Let's be consistent. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Trying to clean up a sentence, realized I might have stepped in it
(also moving this since I put it the wrong place? I think?)

I'm new to editing Wikipedia (or rather, have been gone for a decade and have totally forgotten everything I knew); I wandered in, saw a sentence that didn't make sense why it was there, and I tried to fix it. I'm not sure my source is particularly high quality, but I found *a* source for his father's job and then also included the information from that source that it's why he's trying to tell people about his beliefs about diet. I hope I've written it well enough, but if I've majorly messed up, I'm sorry about it! Kalany (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Am realizing now that I'm reading the bottom of this page that apparently information about his father is rather controversial? I hope I worded my change in an acceptable way. Kalany (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Eduard Grebe OP-ED: GroundUp or News24
An older version of this article incorrectly attributed Eduard Grebe's opinion piece mentioned under the Controversies heading as having been published by News24.

The piece was written for GroundUp News, and it is the original publisher (check the time stamps, not just the date). News24 frequently republishes GroundUp articles, which are under a Creative Commons license, as explained on the GroundUp Wiki entry. The News24 version explicitly credits GroundUp.

GroundUp is a reputable news agency and has won multiple awards for their work, so I don't understand what user "Dumbassman" means by "stronger" in his reason for reversing the change.

Surely it makes more sense for the original source to be cited, rather than a republisher? SnickerdoodleRat (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)