Twinkie diet

[51M0n]

Interesting story here on a professor of human nutrition who tried out a calorie controlled fast food diet http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html?hpt=T2

Kind of underlines the whole, it's not what you eat, but how much (energy) you eat that matters most.

[Carlos Daniel]

Sure, but that's not really news to people that actually value scientific research instead of common broscientific sense.

[LimieJosh]

Yeah, I dont think anyone sensible would have believed that this would turn out any other way. It does miss the ppoint just as much as those on the other side of the coin though. Many other just as ridiculous diets have shown similar results in the short term. What matters is whether short term results can be maintained over the long term, and that is all about adherance. The important part of that is that not all calories are created equally in terms of allowing someone to consistently eat the appropriate number of calories and feel satisfied.

[Carlos Daniel]

The important part of that is that not all calories are created equally in terms of allowing someone to consistently eat the appropriate number of calories and feel satisfied.

That is an important point. The reason salads are better weight loss food is because there is only so much salad you can eat and they don't have a lot of calories, not because of some magical salad property.

[Age_of_Aquarius]

This would certainly lead to nutritional deficiencies in the long run.

Caloric Expenditure > Intake = weight loss, true. Doesn't mean low calorie diets are inherently healthy. Obese people are often malnourished due to the consumption of nutritionally scarce food - there's more to a healthy diet than controlling energy consumption.

Also I wonder how his performance levels were on the diet - physical strength and concentration must have deteriorated. Won't do dental hygiene much good either.

Why doesn't this idiot now reproduce this experiment on the healthy diet he was supposedly on prior to the study, whilst controlling portion sizes? Or was he just trying to be antagonistic for the sake of it? Getting bored of his job perhaps?

Interesting he never mentioned fasting blood sugar levels.

[LimieJosh]

Interesting he never mentioned fasting blood sugar levels.

No it isnt

[OITW]

To be fair, he never advocated this as a healthy diet, only as a demonstration that reduced calories will result in reduced weight. I think he was frankly shocked this his blood lipids actually seemed to improve. However, the first thing I noted was that he didn't exercise much, no weight training, and he ate nearly no protein (he did eat some good food, vegetables mostly). I'd be very interested in how much muscle mass he lost.

[Carlos Daniel]

To be fair, he never advocated this as a healthy diet

Sure, that much is obvious but it somehow escaped AoA's attention.

[Ian Kovtunovich]

Sure, that much is obvious but it somehow escaped AoA's attention.

Now how could that have happened?

[Age_of_Aquarius]

"I wish I could say the outcomes are unhealthy. I wish I could say it's healthy. I'm not confident enough in doing that. That frustrates a lot of people. One side says it's irresponsible. It is unhealthy, but the data doesn't say that."

He has a rather neutral standpoint.
And in an age where we are plagued with diseases spurred by sedentary lifestyle and poor dietary habits, publishing studies like these will only encourage unhealthy people to stay that way. The benefits of healthy long term eating are unanimous amongst the scientific community and pointless studies like this are nothing but a hindrance to getting this important message across to the general public.

People are becoming lazier, they don't want to work, they don't want to study, they eat like shit, feel like shit and it truns into one lethargy inducing, chest clenching viscious cycle.
It seems in recent times we have produced the biggest bunch of slackers, whiners and complainers humanity has probably ever seen. These dregs of society breed like rabbits for the welfare, and claim additional benefits when they end up with illnesses incurred by there own lifestyle choices. And this will all be at the taxpayers expense of course. And it fucking PISSES ME OFF to say the least.

And then I read studies like this and know it will simply encourage such people since they can and will warp the interpretation of these results, emphasising the last part here - "It is unhealthy, but the data doesn't say that". It's Monday 12pm and they role out of bed receive their welfare check then put there feet up and open a beer, oh but now they can eat a few doughnuts too because some scientist guy says its not unhealthy. They have no discipline and would rather be told how to live their lives through correlational studies than by thinking for themselves.

Of course a few years down the line these will be the same people who's kids end up in juvy and they will need gastric bands, transplants and medicaitons, all of which of course I, and fellow hard working citizens will have to contribute towards. And what the fuck do I get out of it??

And attention-seeking jackasses like the mr 'know-it-all shove-a twinkie-up-my-ass' in the article, publishing counterproductive research studies for their 15 minutes, are simply adding to this pandemic.

It's an abomination.

Such studies have been kicked to death already and one more with such ambiguous findings is essentially useless. So I didn't miss the point, as the study didn't really have much of one.

[Age_of_Aquarius]

And then his other points like meat raising cholesterol? Wtf

How much had LDL levels risen after reintroduction of meat?

How much meat did he consume? What kind of meat was consumed? Was the meat particularly high in saturated fat? Cholesterol? How much of the cholesterol had been oxidized? How did he control extraneous variables?

If the levels had risen significantly maybe he should've at least tried consuming the equivalent number of calories through beta-glucan rich foods like oatmeal, or foods high in other sterols proven to help balance cholesterol levels, instead of stuffing his face with twinkies, like that ever did anyone any good. It would've at least given a more positive impression. Cause all this implies is that 'meat is bad m'kay'.

This research study is absolute bullshit.

[Carlos Daniel]

Are you fucking retarded? It's not a "research study" for fuck's sake. The guy was just trying to see what happened, his data is not going to end up in a paper in Nature or Science.

What was he going to do, loose weight by eating salads? That would be very surprising, generating a huge uproar in the nutrition community. Headline: "Professor eats salads and oatmeat and looses weight, against all expectations from his peers".

They should put people like you in jail or keep you away from kids at the very least.

[Age_of_Aquarius]

Why are you so persistent with the use of the word 'retarded'? That's not a nice word to use man, I especially expect more from someone in healthcare.

And why should I be kept in a jail? Because of a diverge in opinions? Are you a fascist carlos?

I don't know how things work in Brazil, but I live in a democracy.

[Carlos Daniel]

Because retarded people should be in jail, you know.

[OCG]

AOA, you have a learning disability don't you?

As far as the diet goes, not terribly surprising to anyone who is not either ignorant or believes something rather unsupported (insulin causing weight gain, HA!). Of course this isn't a good way to lose weight or a healthy long term diet, but nobody is saying that, it's simply an interesting way to demonstrate thermodynamics to ignorant folks. If someone takes this to mean they can stuff their face with shit, well, people being retards isn't the good doctors fault.

A direct quote from the article:

Despite his temporary success, Haub does not recommend replicating his snack-centric diet.

[Carlos Daniel]

@ Aoa

Have you heard about the book "Good calories, bad calories" by Gary Taubes? I haven't read the book but I know it says that a calorie is not a calorie and that the energy balance thing is only a hypothesis so it's not like the guy is beating a dead horse. A lot people believe that calorie balance is somewhat irrelevant or at least secondary when it comes to dieting. This is due to the fact that people are bad regarding counting calories, such as yourself: if I remember correctly you claim to eat 3000 kcal and gain weight yet that would be impossible. A person of your BW that lifts would have to eat 3500-4000 to gain weight.

[tertius]

Why are you so persistent with the use of the word 'retarded'? That's not a nice word to use man, I especially expect more from someone in healthcare.

And why should I be kept in a jail? Because of a diverge in opinions? Are you a fascist carlos?

I don't know how things work in Brazil, but I live in a democracy.

What the fuck?
You swore off posting down here.
And yet here you are, you little bastard troglodyte. I think someone might owe me money on this...

[OCG]

A lot people believe that calorie balance is somewhat irrelevant or at least secondary when it comes to dieting. This is due to the fact that people are bad regarding counting calories,

Thinking about it, there's tw- three main reasons for this:

Firstly, self reporting of diets is unreliable. It's like asking guys their penis size. It's just not reliable. Unfortunately people still insist on using this data for something other then toilet paper.

Secondly, a high protein high fat diet increases satiety, causing people to eat less and intake less calories then they otherwise would. This is how the Atkins and many other high protein and fat diets work. For some reason, certain people are still unaware of this.

Thirdly, good results, not only weight loss wise but health wise, may be obtained simply from actually monitoring your diet. If you have a shitty diet that you don't pay attention to, and then switch to a slightly less shitty diet which you actually pay attention to, good results will be had. Many people seem to think that because a person suddenly stops eating complete shit and starts actually paying attention that it makes a certain diet magical. No, not so much. If you switch someone from another "good" diet to a "better" one and better results are had, then we're getting somewhere.

We have actually stuck people in wards for months at a time and monitored and controlled all of their food. The results, that caloric balance is what matters for weight loss beyond anything else, were not inconclusive.

[Carlos Daniel]

All of the above is true, but then the twinkie diet guy wasn't performing a scientific study, he just wanted to see if he could illustrate it with a counter-intuitive diet. For what it's worth, interesting stuff came from it: his cholesterol, for instance.

[tertius]

Thinking about it, there's tw- three main reasons for this:

Firstly, self reporting of diets is unreliable. It's like asking guys their penis size. It's just not reliable. Unfortunately people still insist on using this data for something other then toilet paper.

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm always entirely truthful about my enormous cock.

[OCG]

All of the above is true, but then the twinkie diet guy wasn't performing a scientific study, he just wanted to see if he could illustrate it with a counter-intuitive diet. For what it's worth, interesting stuff came from it: his cholesterol, for instance.

I was speaking generally about the funny ideas people sometimes have about proper eating habits.