Nutrition Professor loses 27 pounds on twinkie/junk food diet

Well, calories count in weight loss. But in addition there are plenty of other studies saying other factors play a part in weight loss also - sleep, nutrition content for some people, thyroid health, feeling of fullness for example. And this is just one guys experience.

This is fine for fat people, but good luck gaining lean muscle mass with that diet. Also, ignoring the health of your internal organs is worse than being fat. Ok, not really, but almost.

What are the qualifications for becoming a professor of nutrition at KSU? I tune out any obese person telling me what/how to eat. Not to say they can't know the answers, but they're the wrong messenger.

You guys are looking too much into this, all he's saying is that calories out > calories in WORKS for loosing weight. Obviously he's not talking about a long term diet consisting of twinkies, a multi a whey shake. He's not saying either that you should do that to gain lean mass. He's not bringing something new appart from the strange fact that his good cholesterol went up.

So what is that like three twinkies a day? No thanks.

That's a good point about his good cholesterol going up. Diet does play a part in HDL cholesterol. It matters not only in the amount of HDL present but also in size - and for cholesterol size matters! Small dense HDL, created by sugary foods, are not thought to do much good in the body though.

HDL cholesterol is sensitive to sun exposure/ vitamin D3 creation. So the professors rise in HDL might not only have been due to a calorie deficit, but more likely that it is the end of summer/ early fall, which is the time we witness a peak in our D3 levels.

Here's one article on the sunshine vitamin, D3, raising HDL dramatically.

http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/20...olesterol.html

^^ probably mroe than that Nutrition facts Serving Size 1 twinkie Amount per serving Calories 150 \tCalories from Fat 40 Hide Daily Values \t% Daily Value* Total Fat 4.5g \t7% Saturated Fat 2.5g \t12% Cholesterol 20mg \t7% Sodium 220mg \t9% Total Carbohydrates 27g \t9% Sugars 19g Protein 1g Vitamin A \t0% \t Vitamin C \t0% Calcium \t2% \t Iron \t2% * Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000

Nutrition Professor said: Data doesn't say that? data doesn't say what happens with long term habitual 500-800 daily calorie deficits. Calories in/out definitely works but if you're drastically reducing calorie to lose weight, you'll definitely suffer from metabolic damage and when you're off of this 'magic diet' your weight will go back to normal and then some. Starving yourself doesn't do shit.

ummmmmmmmm yes it does.

wtf is "metabolic damage"?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Think he means it could cause your metabolism to slow down.


And a nearly 2000 calorie diet is not exactly a "starvation diet"

ah, one of my favourite idiot ideas.


+1

Yes, he wasn't exactly starving per se. On the metabolism stuff. I know than the yo-yo effect is probably because after a person starve himself, he would probably go back to binge eating after being so strict on food eating and therefore regain his weight loss if he don't keep his diet in check. But are you saying that keeping your calories like 1000 calories below maintenance for a certain amount of time won't affect your metabolism? Serious question.

ok, so what exactly is this "metabolism"?

my understanding of how most people define it:
One's efficiency to convert food into energy for use.

so poor efficiency=fast metabolism because people broadly said to have a "fast metabolism" are thought to be able to eat a lot without doing much exercise and not getting fat. (really, really really hard to prove, but whatever, we'll let it slide)

then presumably high efficiency=slow metabolism because we all know fat people say they eat the same amount as skinny people (even though we know they don't and we know they don't evercise). Again, whatever, we'll let it slide.



Now this all seems a bit counter-intuitive. Don't athletes train for high efficiency? why yes they do. They want to be able to utilise the most energy from their food as possible.

so then, presumably an athlete who stops training will then get fatter than a non-athlete on the same diet?

why does this not make sense? Because the increase in an athletes metabolism is due to their increased ability to supply oxygen to their muscles (aerobic metabolism is much more efficient than anaerobic) - therefore, their enhanced efficiency is due to greater cardiovascular efficiency.

So then, it's good to know that running won't make you fat when you don't run. Phew


cool. Now, the other idea is that going on a caloric deficit is going to slow down your metabolism i.e. make it more efficient, therefore when you return to eating the same diet, you'll put on more weight then before.

this doesn't seem that bad an idea. It would make sense that eating less would force your metabolism to be more efficient. But how, exactly would this happen? And then, if it can change to being more efficient, can't it change back to being less efficient again? and then, how else can you lose weight? you can't.

Personally i don't think that being on a caloric deficit increases your metabolic efficiency. Perhaps it increases your absorption of nutrients from your diet. perhaps it decreases your fidgetiness. perhaps it slows your brain activity. perhaps it increases your desire for fatty and high calory foods - but then all these factors confound this idea of "metabolism" being responsible.