Slashdot Mirror
Twinkie Diet Helps Nutrition Professor Lose 27 Pounds
Professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University Mark Haub has managed to lose 27 pounds in 10 weeks eating only junk food available at a convenience store. Haub wanted to prove that when it came to dieting calorie counting mattered much more than the nutritional value of food. From the article: "For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned."
Nutrition is for heath, and having more or less should not significantly effect weight (but is very important for overall heath).
So eating a small amount of twinkles a day will cause you to lose weight, but that does not mean you would not die of malnutrition if you continued to only eat junk food for a long time (no matter how much of it you were eating).
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Not sure where the 10 days comes from when the article clearly indicates it was over 2 months. It was just a clever trick to make me RTFA wasn't it?
When you have finished this cup of coffee your adventure will begin again.
He just has genetics, gut bacteria, etc. suitable for losing weight.
But we must not forget many people around us, in which those factors(*) cause them to be a thermodynamic perpetuum mobile. Major concentrations of them in just few places around the world certainly suggest genetic factors.
One that hath name thou can not otter
starvation is starvation
Oh, of course all that matters in the end for weight loss alone is calorie counting. But the problem in dieting is more about learning proper self-control, and eating a lot of sugary junk food is going to leave you with massive cravings all day. If you've got the willpower to lose weight in spite of that, then more power to you. Most people don't, though, and I wonder how long his diet is sustainable. A proper diet is a life-long decision -- not just something to do and then abandon one you reach a target number.
The other issue is that most diets have a secondary goal of improving your health overall. I could theoretically lose weight eating nothing but bacon strips and a multivitamin, but I don't think my heart would do well after a few months or years of doing this. I'd love to see what his lipid profile is like after such a diet.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The 'models' that the Renaissance painters painted would all be obese by today's standards. Back then your next meal was not as guaranteed as it is today. ( i don't know this for a fact. Any time travelers are welcome to correct me)
Being skinny is not always a survival characteristic.
She would be considered a lard-ass by today's standards.
FFS just compare the supposed ideal versions of women. For men, and for women.
It's as if some higher power is deliberately trying to raise male and female humans with completely opposite ideal expectations.
In order to reduce birth rate or something?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
See Dr. Joel Fuhrman for a good understanding of this (bot how to be healthy and lose weigt by eating a lot of vegetables, fruits, and beans):
http://www.diseaseproof.com/
Most chronic disease including obesity can be treated with nutritional intervention, which moslty comes down to eating a variety of plant foods, heavy on the vegetables.
It's true this guy lost weight, but he may have increased his disease risk. Also, it probably took a lot of will power that almost no one can keep up for years. A whole foods diet, heavy on stuff like vegetables fruits, and beans, with fiber to fill the stomach, and nutrients to satiate the metabolism, is a much more sustainable diet for the rest of his life.
Non-starchy vegetables, beans and fruits give you about 200 to 400 calories when filling up your stomach with lots of essential nutrients. (See "Eat to Live" by Dr. Fuhrman.) Fill up your stomach on meat and dairy and oil (plus maybe a little processed starch) and that will give you 3000 calories or so before your stomach is filled up (but little of the plant-derived phytochemicals your body needs for optimal health). That explains the mathematical basics of all anyone needs to know about weight loss and health. :-)
And so, as Dr. Fuhrman says, "make the salad the main dish".
BTW, if you are an Inuit descendent (Eskimo) several hundred years ago, eating free range fish from unpolluted waters, incuding the contents of fish's stomachs with some plant algae, as well as seaweed and some other occasional plant stuff, you can probably get away with a meat-heavy diet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet
The reports focus on the professor eating twinkies, but they slight that he was also eating vegetables, too, which may have helped him manage his hunger cravings and stay on his "diet". He could have easily eaten more vegetables and less junk food and got better results.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
A better metaphor might be the thermostat for a furnance. It is called the "appestat". Basically, when your body sense your stomach is full and your body sense it has enought nutrients (usually from plant foods), your appetite thermostat shuts off your appetite. See Dr. Fuhrman's book "Eat to Live" for a discussion of this.
So, if you get your calories from strained fruit juice or milk, your stomach does not feel full for long as liquid just passes through. If you eat leafy vegetables you will fill up your stomach on about 200 calories and your appestat will click off. If you eat a steak, you will fill up your stomach with 3000 calories (more than ten times as much) and your body will still feel like it is missing out on some plant nutrients so your appestat may take a while to click off.
When you exercise, your appestat setting tends to go up to balance the extra calories burned, which is why exercise, while otherwise great for you health, has only a slight value for weight loss.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
I saw a British video about obesity where they took an obese woman who claimed to have tried every diet and to have a slow metabolism, and they actually tested her in a hospital with a special test for that (respiration rate), and she had an average metabolism.
As Dr. Joel Fuhrman says inhis book "Eat To Live", tryng to control portion size breaks down eventually because no one can deny themselves foods they crave forever.
What works, reliably, is to switch ot a diet emphasizing vegetables fruits, and beans, where your stomach fills up with only 200 to 400 caloires of nutrient-dense plant matter, as opposed to, say, 3500 calories to fill your stomach with essentially phytonutrient-deficient cheese.
You may also need specific supplements, like vitamin D and DHA and B12 and some others.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
See Dr. Fuhrmans' presentation:
"Nutrient Density is the Key to Good health "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZGgeGHU1Bs
Or also:
"Eat For Health"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPiR9VcuVWw
Such a diet can cure most Type 2 diabetes too in a few weeks:
"Dr. Fuhrman Cures Diabetes - But Drug Companies Object "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46_GInjBeQU
And he is not the only one who says that:
http://www.rawfor30days.com/
And Herbet Shelton said it decades ago.
Most medical intervention in industrialized countries is unneeded and just covers up the symptoms of malnutrition (not lack of calories, but lack of phytonutrients and fiber). There are of course some other lifestyle issues (smoking, stess, lack of sleep, lack of exercise) as well as exposure to human-made toxins, so diet is not everything. But diet is still a really big thing for preventing (or in some cases, treating) chronic disease like much heart disease, diabetes, stroke, cancer, obesity, rheumatoid arthritis, and others.
The problem is, there is very little profit in telling people to eat more vegetables, get enough vitamin D, exercise more, and so on. The money is in things like (totally unneeded in most cases it turns out) heart operations like angioplasty for conditions more safely and more effectively treated with dietary changes.
Another part of the puzzle:
http://www.healthpromoting.com/the-pleasure-trap
So you are right to suggest the possibility there is a broad social problem, with profits to be had in harming people or endlessly treating them, but little profits to be had in prevention or cure. With more grassroots information, hopefully we can move past this medical problem of US malnutrition and free up a lot of resources and create a lot of positive energy to then address other unmet social needs.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.