Nutrition Professor loses weight on "twinkie" diet

Quinlan said:
They might be less than optimal but I seriously doubt they're lethal.
Click to expand...

Not so sure; there was a LOT of high fructose and trans fat in that list; the former causing liver damage and the latter terrible HDL vs. LDL level balances.
 
NiennaLadyOfTears said:
1st of all, BMI does not work for everyone. It simply does not. For instance, right now, my BMI is 28 but I only have 17% body fat currently, as shown through hydrostatic weighing (the most accurate form of body composition testing). That's on the low end of ideal for a woman.

The amount you weigh does not necessarily correlate to your body fat... and that is what BMI assumes.
Click to expand...
Meh, it works for me cause I don't have above average muscle mass. Plus I'm saying that cause I'm not saying my actual weight *cough*.
 
~jet said:
Not so sure; there was a LOT of high fructose and trans fat in that list; the former causing liver damage and the latter terrible HDL vs. LDL level balances.
Click to expand...

No it does not cause this. It can lead to this problem in people with a strong genetic disposition for these sorts of disorders. Even then the corralation is not strong.

For one, the difference between table sugar (which is common natrual food as it is), and HFCS is quite small. HFCS contains only around 15 to 20% more fuctose. Table sugar (sucrose) is actually 50% fructose.
 
Let me prefix my post by stating that I'm currently enrolled at a chiropractic school, and we take a LOT of science classes. One class I'm currently taking is nutrition, and I'm kind of scared that a nutrition prof did something this stupid.
Matariki said:
Worst diet ever. Period. :m051:

I don't care how much he has lost, he is probably going to gain that all back plus more once he goes off the diet.
Click to expand...

Yep. You're right on the money. All he managed to do was to put his body in starvation mode (aka lowered his basal metabolic rate). As soon as he goes back to a normal diet, he's going to be taking in more calories than he needs. I would be surprised, actually, if he didn't end up heavier than where he started.

His total cholesterol dropped from 214 to 184 mg/dL. A cholesterol level of 200 mg/dL or higher raises your risk for heart disease.
Click to expand...
This is false, actually, but a very common notion. You need to compare HDL's to LDL's to get any true indication of heart disease risk.

His LDL cholesterol, also known as “bad cholesterol” dropped from 153 to 123 mg/dL. A level less than 100 mg/dL is recommended.

His HDL cholesterol, also known as “good cholesterol” increased from 37 to 46 mg/dL. Levels less than 40 mg/dL increase risk of heart disease.
Click to expand...
In a healthy individual, HDL's should be higher than LDL's. His HDL's are about a third the concentration of LDL's. Not good at all. This man is seriously in need of exercise. Believe it or not, exercise is the number one way to raise your HDL's. It's also an excellent way to help get his blood pressure under control. That and drinking a lot more water. And fricking eating healthy!

*shudders*
 
Last edited:
If calories in/calories out < 1, you lose weight.

If calories in/calories out > 1, you gain weight.

It's that simple. Really.
 
Norton said:
If calories in/calories out < 1, you lose weight.

If calories in/calories out > 1, you gain weight.

It's that simple. Really.
Click to expand...


Not necessarily.

Varying factors contribute to whether you can lose weight or not. I myself have two disorders that are both known to cause weight gain, even if you do count your calories and portion sizes. I was down to 1200 calories a day and STILL gaining weight before I figured out how I should best eat to support the disorders I have. Ironically, it meant more calories and more fat, and then I started losing weight.
 
NiennaLadyOfTears said:
Not necessarily.

Varying factors contribute to whether you can lose weight or not. I myself have two disorders that are both known to cause weight gain, even if you do count your calories and portion sizes. I was down to 1200 calories a day and STILL gaining weight before I figured out how I should best eat to support the disorders I have. Ironically, it meant more calories and more fat, and then I started losing weight.
Click to expand...

Yes necessarily, by not eating enough calories you're body must have been compensating by conserving energy somehow, perhaps by decreasing unconcious movement or something, therefore your calories in were still > calories out. There is no getting around it.
 
The laws of thermodynamics always prevail. But, without testing one's self in a metabolic chamber, it is impossible to know at least one side of the equation. Anecdotal experience doesn't count.
 
IndigoSensor said:
For one, the difference between table sugar (which is common natrual food as it is), and HFCS is quite small. HFCS contains only around 15 to 20% more fuctose. Table sugar (sucrose) is actually 50% fructose.
Click to expand...

OH god, not another one... you are way off. FRUIT have way more fructose than table sugar, and yet it is not harmful in any way... why? It consists of fructose still naturally bound with sucrose; the fructose in HFCS is~not~bound... it is a wholly different monster that our bodies are not designed to understand.
 
glucose+fructose=sucrose

HFCS = Glucose and Fructose anywhere from 42%-55% fructose
 
Last edited:
~jet said:
OH god, not another one... you are way off. FRUIT have way more fructose than table sugar, and yet it is not harmful in any way... why? It consists of fructose still naturally bound with sucrose; the fructose in HFCS is~not~bound... it is a wholly different monster that our bodies are not designed to understand.
Click to expand...

I am a chemistry major less then a year away from a degree in said subject, and I have taken advanced courses in biochemistry; I know what I am talking about. Metabolically, there literally is no difference between the two. The first thing that occurs to sucrose metabolically is it is broken down into fructose and glucose. Our bodies do understand what fructose is, it just gets processed through a different pathway.
 
NiennaLadyOfTears said:
Not necessarily.

Varying factors contribute to whether you can lose weight or not. I myself have two disorders that are both known to cause weight gain, even if you do count your calories and portion sizes. I was down to 1200 calories a day and STILL gaining weight before I figured out how I should best eat to support the disorders I have. Ironically, it meant more calories and more fat, and then I started losing weight.
Click to expand...


I HAVE done this too..starved myself for the sake of burning more than i took in. Worked out 3 hours a day 7 days a week and lost nothing. I have yet to find what my body needs to lose weight, but im going to find it.
 
NiennaLadyOfTears said:
I was down to 1200 calories a day and STILL gaining weight before I figured out how I should best eat to support the disorders I have. Ironically, it meant more calories and more fat, and then I started losing weight.
Click to expand...

Not ironic at all. Fat is a MAJOR fuel source for the body. It's what your heart runs on - and it doesn't run on anything else. If you don't consume any fat, your body will manufacture it from what you do eat (ie. carbs). Once your body is satisfied that you're consuming enough carbs, fats, and proteins to support it, (well-balanced, diverse portions) then it'll stop (eventually) trying to hoard as much as possible. It'll still hoard some, but not nearly so much. Heh - maybe it's a trust thing. ;)
 
Kavalan said:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html


Interesting little tidbit. As he said he is still on that fence about it but he does bring up the question about portion control. This has been echoed comparing fast food circa 1960s to today and elsewhere(2 for one deals, bulk buying, etc)


Thoughts?

I do have to say I would love to meet this professor and shake his hand
Click to expand...


Interesting that his health seemed to have improved. Perhaps the lack of diversity in his diet caused his body to become more efficient at absorbing the few nutrients he was taking in (from the 1/3rd of his diet not composed of junk food, lol).
 
Kavalan said:
You didnt read the initial post he said the same thing... don't do it
Click to expand...

Nope, glanced at the list and decided it wasn't worth it.
 
~jet said:
Nope, glanced at the list and decided it wasn't worth it.
Click to expand...

I assume you didn't read indi's assertion that you demonizing of fructose is also has no merit.
 
Kavalan said:
I assume you didn't read indi's assertion that you demonizing of fructose is also has no merit.
Click to expand...

Oh I read it, and he's wrong. My warnings about HFCS are intensely valid, given the fact that it's idea of fructose has little relation to the natural molecule by the same name that, instead, is bound with sucrose in a way our bodies are designed to understand. Between indigo and nutritional lab scientists, I'm going with the nutritional lab scientists.
 
~jet said:
Oh I read it, and he's wrong. My warnings about HFCS are intensely valid, given the fact that it's idea of fructose has little relation to the natural molecule by the same name that, instead, is bound with sucrose in a way our bodies are designed to understand. Between indigo and nutritional lab scientists, I'm going with the nutritional lab scientists.
Click to expand...

sucrose.gif


The first thing that you body does when sucrose enters your stomach is cleave that glycosyl bond forming glucose and fructose.

free fructose is used in the krebs cycle to form citric acid. So you, like any nutritional scientist who fail to acknowledge this are blowing smoke out of thier ass
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top