The Twinkie Diet! Lose weight, feel great!

[Jake]

Twinkies. Nutty bars. Powdered donuts.

For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.

His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food. The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.

So there you have it.

Fruits and vegetables? We don't need no stinkin' fruits and vegetables!

 

[Buckeye513]

His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food. The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.

Counting the days until I see an article about someone losing weight on the "Auschwitz" diet.

 

[jlb1705]

So there you have it.

Fruits and vegetables? We don't need no stinkin' fruits and vegetables!

Based on things I've read, a lot of processed foods don't seem to be bad for you in and of themselves - their main danger is that they are made in a way to make you crave them more or not be able to stop eating past a moderate amount.

To me it seems like 2000 calories is 2000 calories no matter how you get them. The problem with some foods is that you just don't stop at 2000. If you keep track of your calories and control your impulses it shouldn't matter what you eat - at least where weight control is concerned.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

Can't imagine anyone would feel "great" while on this diet...


2,000 calories might be 2,000 calories, but most of that processed stuff doesn't bring any nutritional value in the way of vitamin, minerals, protein, etc.... he supplemented his crap diet with vitamins ...and ate some veggies...

 

[muffler dragon]

1) This idiot makes scientists look like jackasses.
2) Let's talk about sustainability.
3) I like what Mark Sisson's short and concise thoughts on the matter:

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/meditation-for-life-extension-and-the-twinkie-guy/

The Twinkie Guy

This has been covered to death. Stephan covered it. Richard and Don both did, too. There?s not much to add, but I?ll throw my two cents in.
- The guy did this for three months. Try doing it for life and see where it gets you. Even if the results were maintained for years, keeping the calories low and eating Twinkies for life would be torturous. Hell, during the Irish potato famine, people lived on seaweed and shoe leather for months at a time (carbs and fiber). I?m sure they lost weight, too. Doesn?t mean that?s the secret.
- When you?re on a mission to prove something (and boost your academic reputation and perhaps garner a bit of extra funding), doing the impossible becomes a whole lot easier. It?s human to rise to the occasion. He had the weight of media scrutiny and the desire to prove a point snapping at his heels; the hunger and cravings were secondary to that, and temporary. There was an end in sight. The unemployed single father with life?s boot tripping him up at every turn might not be able to resist his body?s cry for more calories and more Twinkies. And he won?t have things nicely and neatly wrapped up after three months, with plenty of media coverage.

 

[MaxBuck]

1) This idiot makes scientists look like jackasses.
2) Let's talk about sustainability.
3) I like what Mark Sisson's short and concise thoughts on the matter:

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/meditation-for-life-extension-and-the-twinkie-guy/

I disagree, and I think Sisson missed the point entirely.

Haub wasn't trying to develop a new Twinkie-based weight-loss program. The premise being tested was, "Is net caloric intake the primary factor in weight control?" The answer clearly is yes. And a subsidiary question was, "Is weight in itself a primary determinant of health parameters such as serum cholesterol, triglycerides, and other blood chemistry?" Again, the indication is yes (with limited data).

Professor Haub doesn't recommend that people start to consume Twinkies as a replacement for healthier foods. But his work points out something very important - most diets that argue they are "healthy" may not be, precisely because they aren't sustainable by the average person. Very-low-fat diets are a prime example. In my own case, I've lost about 40 lb by reducing glycemic index in my diet and by exercising regularly, but I intentionally did NOT reduce total fat intake; dietary fat is extremely important in generating satiety (the feeling that you've "eaten enough").

Bottom line to me is that Haub's research poses some interesting new questions in nutrition. Being such a fat nation, we need to know all we can about the psychology and physiology of weight control.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

I can't believe it takes such a stupid stunt to show that if you burn more calories than you take in, you will lose weight. Holy. Shit.

 

[muffler dragon]

I disagree, and I think Sisson missed the point entirely.

Haub wasn't trying to develop a new Twinkie-based weight-loss program. The premise being tested was, "Is net caloric intake the primary factor in weight control?" The answer clearly is yes. And a subsidiary question was, "Is weight in itself a primary determinant of health parameters such as serum cholesterol, triglycerides, and other blood chemistry?" Again, the indication is yes (with limited data).

Professor Haub doesn't recommend that people start to consume Twinkies as a replacement for healthier foods. But his work points out something very important - most diets that argue they are "healthy" may not be, precisely because they aren't sustainable by the average person. Very-low-fat diets are a prime example. In my own case, I've lost about 40 lb by reducing glycemic index in my diet and by exercising regularly, but I intentionally did NOT reduce total fat intake; dietary fat is extremely important in generating satiety (the feeling that you've "eaten enough").

Bottom line to me is that Haub's research poses some interesting new questions in nutrition. Being such a fat nation, we need to know all we can about the psychology and physiology of weight control.

It appears that I was not clear above, and I'll attempt to do so now so that you can see we're not drastically far off from each other.

1) This idiot makes scientists look like jackasses.

When I said this, the basis of my statement is what sort of scientist would attempt to do a study on one person. It's meaningless. It has no more impact than if the exact opposite of what readings he received after the fact.

2) Let's talk about sustainability

His "test" lasted all of two months. This is yet another parameter that limits the credibility of the experiment. Considering that a two month stint would still place the body in a state of limbo, there is a good chance that he was just seeing initial changes and not something of longevity.

3) Regarding Mark's sentiment:

I agree, it's not particularly on the point directly; however, I think that he does present a thought process behind the reason why such a poor experiment was performed.

Lastly, I believe you and I are closer in our thought process due to our own changes in diet and exercise. Personally, I have slowly transitioned to a low carb diet while increasing my proteins and vegetables. Meanwhile, I am now at the end of the Second Phase of P90x. While weight isn't the best metric on this, I have lost 9 pounds in a little over 7 weeks. My strength has increased so I know I'm not losing lean mass. My waist line is shrinking nicely. You and I have adopted changes in our system that are outside of "conventional wisdom". Granted, Haub is attempting to do that as well; but he doesn't have nearly the pool of information to determine the validity.

Anyway, if nothing else, his work is a gateway to discussion.

 

[Taosman]

Twinkie Sushi

 

[muffler dragon]

Swedish Fish! Yum!

 

[powerlifter]

Yes,you lose weight,when you drop below maintenance calories of current weight. Most people don't just won't to lose weight though. They want to look better. Macronutrients matter if you are getting in shape. Diets of useless calories below maintenance will drop weight,but you will just appear to be a smaller version of yourself at a similar BF% of where you already are.

Regardless if someone did have positive results with irrational dieting. Dieting is something you need to be able to do consistently.

 

[jlb1705]

It appears that I was not clear above, and I'll attempt to do so now so that you can see we're not drastically far off from each other.

1) This idiot makes scientists look like jackasses.

When I said this, the basis of my statement is what sort of scientist would attempt to do a study on one person. It's meaningless. It has no more impact than if the exact opposite of what readings he received after the fact.

2) Let's talk about sustainability

His "test" lasted all of two months. This is yet another parameter that limits the credibility of the experiment. Considering that a two month stint would still place the body in a state of limbo, there is a good chance that he was just seeing initial changes and not something of longevity.

3) Regarding Mark's sentiment:

I agree, it's not particularly on the point directly; however, I think that he does present a thought process behind the reason why such a poor experiment was performed.

Lastly, I believe you and I are closer in our thought process due to our own changes in diet and exercise. Personally, I have slowly transitioned to a low carb diet while increasing my proteins and vegetables. Meanwhile, I am now at the end of the Second Phase of P90x. While weight isn't the best metric on this, I have lost 9 pounds in a little over 7 weeks. My strength has increased so I know I'm not losing lean mass. My waist line is shrinking nicely. You and I have adopted changes in our system that are outside of "conventional wisdom". Granted, Haub is attempting to do that as well; but he doesn't have nearly the pool of information to determine the validity.

Anyway, if nothing else, his work is a gateway to discussion.

I don't think the point of this "experiment" was to reach a conclusion. The "findings" raise more questions than they answer - questions that before may not have been entertained at all because they sounded absurd on their surface or ran counter to conventional wisdom.

All of the criticisms you raised - they are simply questions for further, more rigorous research.

 

[DubCoffman62]

Yes,you lose weight,when you drop below maintenance calories of current weight. Most people don't just won't to lose weight though. They want to look better. Macronutrients matter if you are getting in shape. Diets of useless calories below maintenance will drop weight,but you will just appear to be a smaller version of yourself at a similar BF% of where you already are.

Regardless if someone did have positive results with irrational dieting. Dieting is something you need to be able to do consistently.

I know someone that lost about 30 pounds by eating one microwaved burrito from 7-11 and a Lipton tea per day. Yes, he lost weight but he looked like an old, stretched out deflated balloon.

 

[jlb1705]

I know someone that lost about 30 pounds by eating one microwaved burrito from 7-11 and a Lipton tea per day. Yes, he lost weight but he looked like an old, stretched out deflated balloon.

Anybody can lose a bunch of weight if they go on a diet that makes the shit their brains out every day, damn.

 

[ScriptOhio]