Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds (Contains pictures of twinkies)

[WrenBird 11]

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.< /p>

The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.

For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily.So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.

His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.

But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so.

Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.

"That's where the head scratching comes," Haub said. "What does that mean? Does that mean I'm healthier? Or does it mean how we define health from a biology standpoint, that we're missing something?"

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

"I'm not geared to say this is a good thing to do," he said. "I'm stuck in the middle. I guess that's the frustrating part. I can't give a concrete answer. There's not enough information to do that."

Two-thirds of his total intake came from junk food. He also took a Multivitamin pill and drank a Protein Shake daily. And he ate vegetables, typically a can of green Beans or three to four celery stalks.

Families who live in food deserts have limited access to fresh fruits and vegetables, so they often rely on the kind of food Haub was eating.

"These foods are consumed by lots of people," he said. "It may be an issue of portion size and moderation rather than total removal. I just think it's unrealistic to expect people to totally drop these foods for vegetables and fruits. It may be healthy, but not realistic."

Haub's body fat dropped from 33.4 to 24.9 percent. This posed the question: What matters more for weight loss, the quantity or quality of calories?

His success is probably a result of caloric reduction, said Dawn Jackson Blatner, a dietitian based in Atlanta, Georgia.

"It's a great reminder for weight loss that calories count," she said. "Is that the bottom line to being healthy? That's another story."

Blatner, a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association, said she's not surprised to hear Haub's health markers improved even when he loaded up on processed snack cakes.

Being overweight is the central problem that leads to complications like high blood pressure, diabetes and high cholesterol, she said.

How well are you managing your diabetes?

"When you lose weight, regardless of how you're doing it -- even if it's with packaged foods, generally you will see these markers improve when weight loss has improved," she said.

Before jumping on the Ding Dong bandwagon, Blatner warned of health concerns.

"There are things we can't measure," said Blatner, questioning how the lack of fruits and vegetables could affect long-term health. "How much does that affect the risk for cancer? We can't measure how diet changes affect our health."

On August 25, Haub, 41, started his cake diet focusing on Portion Control.

"I'm eating to the point of need and pushing the plate or wrapper away," he said.

He intended the trial to last a month as a teaching tool for his class. As he lost weight, Haub continued the diet until he reached a normal body mass index.

Before his Twinkie diet, he tried to eat a healthy diet that included whole grains, dietary Fiber, berries and bananas, vegetables and occasional treats like pizza.

"There seems to be a disconnect between eating healthy and being healthy," Haub said. "It may not be the same. I was eating healthier, but I wasn't healthy. I was eating too much."

He maintained the same level of moderate physical activity as before going on the diet. (Haub does not have any ties to the snack cake companies.)

To avoid setting a bad example for his kids, Haub ate vegetables in front of his family. Away from the dinner table, he usually unwrapped his meals.

Study: U.S. obesity rate will hit 42 percent

Haub monitored his body composition, blood pressure, cholesterol and glucose, and updated his progress on his Facebook page, Professor Haub's diet experiment.

To curb calories, he avoided meat, whole grains and fruits. Once he started adding meat into the diet four weeks ago, his cholesterol level increased.

Haub plans to add about 300 calories to his daily intake now that he's done with the diet. But he's not ditching snack cakes altogether. Despite his weight loss, Haub feels ambivalence.

"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."

Reference: Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds - CNN.com

I thought this was really interesting. I hope people don't use this as an excuse to eat twinkies all the time, but he does make a good point.

What do you guys think of Haub and the article?

[elcee 3,341]

Interesting and it does seem to prove the calories in/out thing. What was most interesting was the bit about cholesterol. Personally I think the high cholesterol thing is a ruse by drug companies to force the majority of people to be on a drug for the rest of their lives that they can make big money out of.It is a substance that is produced naturally by your body that is important for lots of functions and the drugs to lower it can have horrible side effects.

Every time I have gone on the type of diet that is supposed to help lower my cholesterol it has gone up. Obviously my body makes more to compensate.

Just shows that there is still lots that we do not yet understand.

[WrenBird 11]

Interesting and it does seem to prove the calories in/out thing. What was most interesting was the bit about cholesterol. Personally I think the high cholesterol thing is a ruse by drug companies to force the majority of people to be on a drug for the rest of their lives that they can make big money out of.It is a substance that is produced naturally by your body that is important for lots of functions and the drugs to lower it can have horrible side effects.

Every time I have gone on the type of diet that is supposed to help lower my cholesterol it has gone up. Obviously my body makes more to compensate.

Just shows that there is still lots that we do not yet understand.

Wow...I didn't know that about cholesterol. The more you know, eh? :thumbup: What you're saying makes a lot of sense...I think there's a lot of that going on.

The calories in and out thing is the thing that really interested me. I'd like to see if he'd do a high nutrition (with plenty of food), low calorie diet and compare it to a low nutrition, high calorie diet (less eating) and test his metabolism and the rate his weightloss slows down.

[BetsyB 9]

I love this guy---he's fascinating to follow. But he admits that calories in/calories out is not the whole story.

For me, it's not just blood chemistry (cholesterol, etc) that is affected by the "wrong" foods. I simply do not lose or feel well when I eat improperly.

I fully realize that "improperly" is highly individualized.

[Cangel76 1]

Interesting....

Oh and as far as the cholesterol thing being a ruse. If your cholesterol is high for a long period of time it starts to build up on your artery walls. That is not a ruse, it is a proven medical fact. If you maintain a healthy cholesterol level you will have a less of a chance at a stroke or heart attack.

As far as the caloric intake, it would be interesting to see if he did it with healthy foods how much faster he would loose the weight. All that sugar is not healthy for your body and if you have medical conditions that cause your body to not process sugars properly you can pack on the weight I am sure.

I think this will cause some people to give themselves the ok to eat Little Debbies three times a day. LOL

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I think what he did proves that it really is calories in vs calories out which is what all the popular diet programs do - like saying low carb is best. They ALL just reduce calories and get results. One is not better than the other. But speaking of making money - well that's where the big money is - diet programs, books, supplements, etc..

Some people cannot lower their cholesteral despite losing weight and dieting - it's genetic. They need medication. It has been shown to lower their risk of heart disease and stroke.

[ElfiePoo 109]

Some people cannot lower their cholesteral despite losing weight and dieting - it's genetic.

This is so true. My stepdad's family is rife with heart disease. The vast majority have never been overweight. His younger brother died at 34 and my dad is considered to be long lived at 76 because all of his family members have died before the age of 64 from heart disease. My stepdad, despite living a very healthy life (exercises daily, eats a balanced healthy diet, etc.) having to take cholesterol meds despite that, has serious cholesterol problems. While my maternal family members are all overweight, love fried foods, junk foods, sweets, etc...live into their 90's and have no heart disease (or related) health problems. Go figure.

.

[WrenBird 11]

This is so true. My stepdad's family is rife with heart disease. The vast majority have never been overweight. His younger brother died at 34 and my dad is considered to be long lived at 76 because all of his family members have died before the age of 64 from heart disease. My stepdad, despite living a very healthy life (exercises daily, eats a balanced healthy diet, etc.) having to take cholesterol meds despite that, has serious cholesterol problems. While my maternal family members are all overweight, love fried foods, junk foods, sweets, etc...live into their 90's and have no heart disease (or related) health problems. Go figure.

.

Can you please ACTUALLY put me on ignore this time instead of just saying you will?

[elcee 3,341]

I know most people believe the claims made about cholesterol and heart disease that have been put out over the last 50 or so years. But there is a lot of evidence that shows very conflicting views. Do an internet search and some of the info is very interesting.

Yes supposedly cholesterol builds up and blocks arteries - interestingly it doesn't do the same to veins! Also there is not a big difference in heart disease between those with lower cholesterol levels. Lowering it for most makes a very minimal difference.At the end of most ads for drugs such as Lipitor there is actually a disclaimer about whether or not it lowers the risk of a heart attack!

I am not trying to change anyones mind or cause an argument. It might just be interesting to know that there is another point of view - a bit like global warming!

[ElfiePoo 109]

At the end of most ads for drugs such as Lipitor there is actually a disclaimer about whether or not it lowers the risk of a heart attack!

Pharmaceutical ads in general always crack me up because their 'contraindications' generally end in ..."and death". :thumbup:

.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

All medications should be weighed with benefits vs risks and discussed with your doctor. Statins have been shown to lower cholesterol in those who have high cholesterol. Whether that translates into a lower risk for heart disease and stroke would depend on other factors, like family history and lifestyle.

There are always some scientists who will oppose generally accepted scientific evidence, like global warming. My opinion is that the debate is over. Like the earth is not flat, but I'm sure you could find some who think they have evidence it still is.

Edited November 10, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[elcee 3,341]

As I said I have no intention of arguing.

[Kat817 19]

elcee, my Dad's cardiologist and us were just discussing this during his last visit, the beginning of October. My Dad has coronary artery disease. He is 77, has had 2 rounds of bypass surgery----over 20 years apart tho! He had his first surgery in 1979 or so, and has diligently followed a low fat diet, and he walks---daily 5-6 miles, in the hills, at a very fast pace. He is able to work circles around men half his age----but still he has had to have both carotid arteries operated on, and thick (and surprisingly HARD) sections of build up removed.

He is on Rx medication, and his cholesterol is under 100 at this point, BUT he still suffers from the disease.

The Dr. said that it seems every study out contradicts the last one done!

Now he never told him to go on a Twinkie diet either!!!

I just agree, that consensus says if you do the right thing,and take the appropriate measures and medications, it should help.....but it doesn't always. Then again, we have no way to know what he would have been like had he not taken care of himself as he has......

Edited November 10, 2010 by Kat817
spelling....as usual!

[elcee 3,341]

Kat that is interesting.Have no idea what a reading under 100 means as here they must measure it differently The desirable range is between 0 and 5.5! I would have thought having 0 cholesterol would actually create a whole host of other problems.

There doesn't seem to be an answer at this point and the problem is that the FDA, AHA, drug companies and lots of others have invested lots of time and money into proving how much of a problem cholesterol is. They are not likely to backtrack any time soon as it would cost too much both in money and credibility.

It would be nice if they had solved the puzzle and if the solution was as simple as popping a daily pill but it seems that the truth is actually a lot more complex and that they are not anywhere close to solving it.

In the meantime the drug companies continue to rake in the dollars and people are lulled into a false sense of security.

I believe that if people are happy to take statins that is fine. But people should be aware that they are not the solution to heart disease that they are promoted to be and they do come with some very horrible side effects(as do all drugs).

I hate taking anything blindly and like to know all the pros and cons so that I can weigh them up and decide whether or not the perceived benefits outweigh the possible risks.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I have been taking statins for over 10 years and have had no side effects and liver enzymes are fine. My weight loss and exercise have not improved my cholesterol numbers, particularly the HDL. In fact, my numbers were slightly better when I was heavier. Plus I have a strong family history of heart disease and stroke. I am also a pro-active and informed patient and research all my meds.

There is a lot of grant money out there and when all the studies come to the same conclusion then there are those who will try to disprove that in order to get that grant money. My oncologist told me that when I asked him about drinking a glass of wine and breast cancer and how some researches have concluded that it will cause breast cancer. So, I take all the research that tries to disprove accepted research with a grain of salt.