• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Zoe Harcombe and her Diet


Zoe had claimed to have been studying for a PhD many years ago in the press, see:

Ben Goldacre http://www.badscience.net/2011/01/how-to-read-a-paper/

She started it in 2012:

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2016/03/the-evidence-for-dietary-fat-guidelines/

and, after checking on Ethos (the British Library's MPhil/ PhD repository) was awarded it in 2016.

Libel revolves around a lie pertaining to the reputation of the claimant. If they have made public something which is untrue the onus is on them to prove otherwise.

I'm well aware about the Law - that's what my PhD is in.
 
Last edited:

And a bare faced lie is what in legal terms?

From your linked article " Zoe boasts in the Mail that she is “studying for a PhD in nutrition” but she admitted to me, tediously, inevitably, that she’s not registered for a PhD anywhere (although she is thinking about doing one in the future)."

I can't see a claim that she has a PhD anywhere - you'd better take yourself to court...

My bold in your quote by the way..

I'm not a great advocate of Dr Zoe Harcombe, although I do admire the work she put in for her PhD on the flaws in the diet heart hypothesis and she speaks very well. But for you to come here and libel her is a little concerning
 
Phdpaul said:
Zoe had claimed to have a PhD many years ago in the press, see:
Click to expand...
Your source, Dr Paul PhD, says,
Zoe boasts in the Mail that she is “studying for a PhD in nutrition” but she admitted to me, tediously, inevitably, that she’s not registered for a PhD anywhere (although she is thinking about doing one in the future).
She does not say that she HAS a PhD, simply that she is working towards one. As she now has a PhD, this is demonstrably correct.
I expect Zoe has more interesting things to do than respond to this tittle tattle, after all, she is internationally respected for her work.
Sally
 
Please quote where i made such an assumption because nothing i've said remotely translates that way
 
You said
ghost_whistler said:
But the point is that brown rice is a sugar rich food and, generally, it is reasonable to assume that might best be avoided in a diet intent on addressing a blood sugar problem.
Click to expand...

and I responded with
Brunneria said:
You are assuming that everyone has similar problems and requires the same dietary regime, and that simply isn't true.

As usual on these boards, it all comes back to 'test your own reactions to food, and adjust your way of eating accordingly.'
Click to expand...
 
So it's not reasonable to assume brown rice might best be avoided? That's not a reasonable reocmmendation a dietician might make?

How is that the same as saying I assume everyone needs the same diet? Zoe cannot possibly know the dietary foibles of every reader, just as a doctor cannot know what foods one might respond badly to even if they same otherwise well indicated?

As for my decision to post, I thought people here might be familiar with her work. I don't see that as an unreasonable question.
 
@ghost_whistler

We regularly get threads by people saying things like 'can I eat rice/bread/potatoes/porridge/sweet potatoes/bananas?'
And there are always a range of responses. Some people find the food in question spikes them, others don't. Some can eat small portions. Or large. Or none.

Admittedly, the majority of diet controlled T2s are likely to be amongst the ones spiking, but there are often exceptions. And there is a lot of variation.

So the person usually gets recommended to eat to their meter.

Personally, i do spike silly-high with rice, but seem to cope increasingly well with potato. I find this very odd, since 6 months ago, my potato tolerance was much lower. But repeated tests confirm it. Meanwhile, wheat is spiking me higher. So I really think we should all be testing for ourselves, and allowing our diets and food choices to evolve over time.
 
brown rice need not be avoided by most of the general population, and some diabetics of all types. Harcombes advice is aimed at most of the general population. Statistically only a minority even of diabetics, need to avoid brown rice. For example: I am type 2 and find i can tolerate a small portion with no problems. Therefore Harcombes advice is reasonable, given her target audience.

Your post is assuming that the focus of Harcombes advice is on the minority who have problems with it. I cant think of a different way to explain why your confusing post is confusing..
 
I made no such assumption. I simply said that it is not unreasonable to assume that brown rice ought be avoided if you have blood sugar issues. I don't see that as a flawed statement. It doesn't presume that everyone can't handle brown rice anymore than it presumes everyone should avoid it.
 
The library had a copy of one of her books. I don't know how old it is compared to the rest, but the author's name is not accompanied by any credentials so pretty early.

It seems the diet comes from her studying of diets that help with hypoglycemia, candida, and food intolerance. She says she was diagnosed with the latter and, unless I'm mistaken, self diagnosed the first two.

The list of foods you cannot eat in phase 1, which lasts 5 days, includes all fruit - and avocado. Unfortunately I cna't find a reason why this might be. They are low in sugar and net carbs, and if carbs were an issue why allow brown rice? Ive not seen an explanation for this, even though there may be a very good one. Not much is really explained, so perhaps her later works go into more detail.
 
I goggled 'candida fruit' and 'hypoglycemia fruit' and came up with pages of web info. Far to many to list. If you do the same, you can see all the websites that come up and pick and choose one you would like to read more about. Its a wide set of subjects, with views for and against.
 
I don't think I have candida. there's nothing i've seen that would indicate i have it.

Just seems odd that she chooses to remove certain foods but not others. Avocados are very good for you and contain no more sugar than any of the veg she allows which she says can be eaten liberally.

Would love to know the rationale, but the book doesn't seem forthcoming there. Perhaps alter editions or works are more enlightening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…