- @
- Followers:
No Tweets Found
CNN POLITICS ON FACEBOOK » | CNN POLITICS ON TWITTER »
Update: Weight up, cholesterol up for man who lost 27 pounds on Twinkie diet
Nutrition professor Mark Haub, who lost 27 pounds eating mainly Twinkies, powdered donuts and Oreo cookies, is back to an average American diet.
Since ending his junk food experiment in November, he has gained 2 pounds and his cholesterol has also increased a little bit, he said. He also has gained a new insight into the debate over healthy eating.
"People have a hatred towards (processed) foods," he said. "I like them. I eat them. It's amazing how people believe if it's processed, it's not food."
What also caught Haub by surprise was "how vitriolic people can be when they take a stance, whether it's low-carb or paleo diet. It's like politics. Those discussions can get heated. It's the same thing with religion, I'm right. You're wrong."
Last fall, Haub shed 13% of his weight over two months restricting his diet to 1,600 calories while eating "junk food." Surprisingly, his cholesterol readings improved and his level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, decreased. This could have been explained by the decreased consumption of calories.
November 8, 2010: Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds
Today he eats three meals a day, consuming about 2,200 calories with food choices like turkey sandwiches, peanut butter, and snacking on pears.
"The main thing I did was reduce portion size," he said about what he learned from the diet. "It's that concept of mindfulness or mindful eating - I eat relatively the same. I just eat less."
And he still munches on an occasional Twinkie or snack cake.
I am a physician who also helps my patients dieting. Twinkies diet is about the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
If you think it's "the most ridiculous thing you ever heard," then you obviously didn't understand the importance of the Twinkie diet as an experiment and what it proved. It proved that simple calorie intake (even unhealthy calories) has a more dramatic effect on weight and health than what specific foods you eat. Eating a reasonably well-balanced diet of 2200 calories per day was worse for the subject's health than 1600 calories per day of Twinkies. This is important because many people justify their eating 2200 calories per day by eating 3 large reasonably healthy meals of salmon, steak, vegetables, baked potatoes, etc., (plus low fat snacks).....but at the end of the day, 1600 calories of twinkies improved a person's health more. Thus, we should be focused more on calorie intake than what we eat. The point of the diet was NOT to encourage people to eat Twinkies.
Because?????
True, and now he is taking in too many calories.
Making fire from a two inch stick, crossing the Atlantic ocean, and going to the moon were all thought ridiculous at one time as well. But it was done, with great success. Your completely off par response has a hint of.....mmmmmm....arrogant stupidity to it. Your response actually insinuates that this article suggests to people to go on a Twinkie diet. That would be stupid. Professor Haub was proving a very direct point; burn more calories than you intake, that is it. It is also a FANTASTIC way of dieting, regardless of which diet plan is implemented.
@Lou – Low cholesterol & weight loss does not necessarily equal healthy. If you read the article, you would understand that these figures were the by-product of LOWER calorie intake for a limited time. To continue eating such a diet would NOT result in health, in fact quite the opposite. It is stupid to draw conclusions based on a couple of facts. However, if anyone is stupid enough to take on a twinkie diet forever, go for it – natural evolution will take its course eventually 🙂
Well said @Anon regarding @Lou's reply. Lab values are not "health" – many (serum lipids specifically) are most likely nothing more than dietary proxies. Calorie restriction alone profoundly affects many markers and almost certainly exerts positive biological effects. However, the preponderance of research clearly indicates that dietary reductionism is not the long run answer to health and well-being.
To lose weight, the only variables to consider are calorie consumption and expenditure. That's a separate discussion from a healthy diet which nurtures and fortifies a body. Twinkie diets can accomplish the former and not the latter. The long-term health implications of a fully processed food diet would become evident over a long sample of time. A relatively healthy body can withstand rather short durations of extreme types of diets. The older or more abused bodies over years can not because they do not receive the necessary nutrition. It's not hard to understand. Don't overthink the story.
The math doesn't quite add up here. To lose 27 lbs in 2 month translates to a calorie deficiet of roughly 1600 calories per day. Claiming this kind of weight loss by only dropping 600 cal/day with no other changes simply doesn't add up. I suspect he also added exercise which will also have a positive impact on his cholesterol and triglycerides,
This experiment was too short to show that poor diet choices like twinkies can have long term effects like deficiencies in certain vitamins and proteins.
And he'll probably drop dead soon.
He is off the twinkie diet if you read the article.
An adult male of average size, who normally follows an average American diet, will lose weight eating ANYTHING if he restricts himself to 1600 calories. And he will gain back some weight when he ups his calorie intake to 2200 - no matter how healthy his food choices. Calories in, calories out. Why is this news?
It is news (or was when the original loss was reported) because the general population is plagued by moronic ideas about there being magical "good" and "bad" categories of food, and people have been following diets which tend to emphasize irrelevant novelties over simple calorie control. While a well-educated person might not be surprised that eating a limited amount of starch as a "diet" can reduce symptoms of over-eating, it is a shock to those who get their scientific knowledge via rumor. Just look at some of the comments here from laymen and quack doctors. Some of them are still denying it.
Cholesterol and weight are only 3 factors. It's irresponsible to say that processed foods aren't bad for you, there are many other factors.
Since May 1st, 2011 I've lost 83 lbs just by limiting my caloric intake to 1200 – 1400 calories a day and 30 minutes on an elliptical at night. My cholesterol is 93 total and blood pressure is 115/63 as of last week. Amazing! If someone had only told me that eating right and exercising were key to good health... lol Who knew?
good job rob,keep up the effort
actually, they taught you that in first and second grade. too bad you weren't paying attention, huh?
Great Job Rob, since 1985 , i have done 2.5 million yards of swimming. 65,000 miles of biking, 35,000 miles of running, now i train less,and i find balance, we have to exercise, keep our heart rate at 80 percent for 30 mins 5x days a week,thats the basic package, i did the high end package. 40 yr old man take your age subtract it from 180 + 140,that is your high end of a heart rate, now subtract another 10 from the 140 = 130, so keep your HR in those zones, and you will burn fat and strengthen your heart, 8 time ironman finisher
^
This guy doesn't understand sarcasm.
My reaction to the previous comment is to note that Mark Haub's cholesterol and triglycerides improved. So this does show more than just how the only variables for losing weight are "calorie consumption and expenditure". The "healthy diet" discussion is also impacted.
Don't trust him! He's just training to kill people and use those delicious cakes as the culprit!
Do not listen to this quack. He will still have a heart attack when he is 60.
Processed foods are nothing but empty calories that provide no real nutrition at all. That simply cannot be denied or even argued.
To make this study make better sense, he should have eaten 2200 Calories/day of Twinkies compared to his normal diet.
He was not trying to prove that the same amount of Twinkies was healthier, so that wouldn't make any sense at all. The point is that, for weight loss, calorie intake is more important than all of the rules (many lacking evidence) that eating or avoiding specific types of food is the secret.
actually pay attention, the article says that he quit his diet in November. So he has only gained two pounds since then, and his cholesterol is up "a little". Two pound weight gain in 9 months is statistically insignificant. If is really true that it's simply a matter of calories, then he would have gained the weight back as fast as he lost it when he bumped his calorie intake back up, think about it.
Clearly, he never mentions how fast his metabolic rate is.
WOW. what a breakthrough scientific discovery!....any logical person with some basic understanding of how the body works can come to the conclusion that if you consume less calories than you burn you will lose weight. and when you lose weight through burning fat your cholesterol levels will decrease as well because it is a fat soluble molecule. however, those two factors are not the only things that determine overall health. if that were the case those orphaned kids in Africa would be considered the healthiest people on earth. the guy still didnt look at blood pressure, hormonal levels, vitamin/mineral deficiency, etc. the be an overall healthy person you need fiber, antioxidants, vitamins, minerals, protein and other nutrients. he should also check out the various chemical preservatives in those twinkies he calls food.
What a waste of space. I'm done coming on this site. That cuts down my activities to two.
BTW, ya'll that's not me in the begining of this tread.... Those little BLEEPING trolls were high-jacking me again!