Surprising weight loss article!
TheGetFitGal
Posts: 98 Member
Read this to day
In 2010, Mark Haub (who is a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University) wanted to prove the very same thing I’ve been explaining: that fat loss and fat gain always happen as a result of calories in vs calories out, and that a caloric deficit will ALWAYS cause a person to lose fat no matter what food sources those calories come from.
To do this, Mark took things to a very extreme point-making level that I would never actually recommend, but absolutely love for the purpose of proving that calories are what matter most.
Specifically, Mark went on a 10-week diet comprised primarily of snack foods. Twinkies, Little Debbie cakes, Doritos, Oreos, sugary cereals like Corn Pops and other equally crappy foods that are all highly processed, lacking in nutritional value, loaded with sugar and “bad” carbs, high in “bad” fat, contain trans fat, and possess other similar traits that are common among typical “junk food.”
But, he also created a caloric deficit.
He went from eating 2600 calories per day (his estimated maintenance level) to eating about 1800 calories per day instead. He just so happened to get the majority of those 1800 daily calories from the most junky foods you can think of.
The purpose? To prove that despite his daily diet being loaded with sugar-filled garbage and junk food, he’d still lose fat just fine because a caloric deficit was present.
The result? He lost 27lbs in 2 months and reduced his body fat percentage from 33.4% to 24.9%.
The conclusion? A caloric deficit is the sole cause of fat loss. Even if those calories come from the shittiest sources known to mankind, fat will STILL be lost. It’s not the source or the quality of those foods and the calories they provide… it’s the total quantity of it all.
In 2010, Mark Haub (who is a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University) wanted to prove the very same thing I’ve been explaining: that fat loss and fat gain always happen as a result of calories in vs calories out, and that a caloric deficit will ALWAYS cause a person to lose fat no matter what food sources those calories come from.
To do this, Mark took things to a very extreme point-making level that I would never actually recommend, but absolutely love for the purpose of proving that calories are what matter most.
Specifically, Mark went on a 10-week diet comprised primarily of snack foods. Twinkies, Little Debbie cakes, Doritos, Oreos, sugary cereals like Corn Pops and other equally crappy foods that are all highly processed, lacking in nutritional value, loaded with sugar and “bad” carbs, high in “bad” fat, contain trans fat, and possess other similar traits that are common among typical “junk food.”
But, he also created a caloric deficit.
He went from eating 2600 calories per day (his estimated maintenance level) to eating about 1800 calories per day instead. He just so happened to get the majority of those 1800 daily calories from the most junky foods you can think of.
The purpose? To prove that despite his daily diet being loaded with sugar-filled garbage and junk food, he’d still lose fat just fine because a caloric deficit was present.
The result? He lost 27lbs in 2 months and reduced his body fat percentage from 33.4% to 24.9%.
The conclusion? A caloric deficit is the sole cause of fat loss. Even if those calories come from the shittiest sources known to mankind, fat will STILL be lost. It’s not the source or the quality of those foods and the calories they provide… it’s the total quantity of it all.
0
Replies
-
Surprising? Not really. CICO - that's what MFP is all about.0
-
Thats means i can eat junk food?0
-
For weight loss you can eat whatever you like so long as you're eating at a deficit. For nutrition, however, you need to pay closer attention to the quality of the food you're eating.0
-
gaurikudav3 wrote: »Thats means i can eat junk food?
Yes, but for health and satiety I wouldn't recommend getting most of your calories from "junk" foods. I'd recommend a balanced diet with appropriate macros that is based on mostly whole foods and includes more indulgent foods in moderation.0 -
There is a difference between losing weight and health. Just because he is losing weight, does not mean it is healthy - there is likely nutritional deficits as well as his calorie deficit!
It would have been nice to see blood test results from the before and after.0 -
dakotababy wrote: »There is a difference between losing weight and health. Just because he is losing weight, does not mean it is healthy - there is likely nutritional deficits as well as his calorie deficit!
It would have been nice to see blood test results from the before and after.
This isn't exactly a reputable news source (neither is the article the OP used) but it contains an interview where he talks about his blood work:
http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/did-kansas-state-nutrition-professor-dr-mark-haub-really-go-on-a-little-debbie-snack-cake-diet/9226
Apparently blood glucose and cholesterol both decreased.So, on one hand I am personally addressing the obesity epidemic, yet my fat loss and improvements in cholesterol are occurring through “unhealthy” means. It is also interesting that my current diet is considered unhealthy, yet I was borderline hypercholesterolemic (TC>200, LDL>150, HDL<40, TC:HDL ratio>5.0) when I was eating few snack cakes. Now after eating boxes of Twinkies, Nutty Bars, and Zingers, the only risk factor present is HDL< mg/dl, which has increased (37-->39 mg/dl). Based on the outcomes, eating most of my energy via junk food seems to have improved my health–at least according to heart health equations (AHA/NCEP risk calculators).
The CNN article about him says: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.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
What the OP's article doesn't mention is that he was supplementing with protein and a multivitamin and still eating some veggies too.0 -
Blood tests? Short term I would think that weight loss would trump nutrition.0
-
It's not surprising. You can eat mcdonalds and be at calorific deficit and lose weight.
However, your general health would go downhill.
I read a french article not so long ago about a guy who ate some snack all day long (I think it was mars bars ?!). He lost weight but he suffered terrible migraines, heart burn, and insomnia.
0 -
The only thing Surprising about it is that people still debate it and have to do things like this to demonstrate the science0
-
What is surprising about it? You eat less calories, you lose weight. You can eat only junk food and lose weight. If weight loss is the only goal, it will work, but health is more than weight.0
-
I can never understand why people are always touting what about his blood work?..part of the reason I decided to lose weight was to get my blood work better...it worked.
cholesterol will go down if you lose weight, blood pressure will typically go down if you lose weight...being over weight/fat/obese causes lots of issues for health and once the weight is gone so are those issues.
As for health is more important than weight no it's not...they go hand in hand. If you are over weight you are not healthy (and I don't mean BMI either)...if you need to lose weight you will be healthier than before (unless of course you go to far the other way)0 -
I can never understand why people are always touting what about his blood work?..part of the reason I decided to lose weight was to get my blood work better...it worked.
cholesterol will go down if you lose weight, blood pressure will typically go down if you lose weight...being over weight/fat/obese causes lots of issues for health and once the weight is gone so are those issues.
As for health is more important than weight no it's not...they go hand in hand. If you are over weight you are not healthy (and I don't mean BMI either)...if you need to lose weight you will be healthier than before (unless of course you go to far the other way)
0 -
I went from 203 pounds to 140 pounds @ 5'6", 61 years old. The weight loss and exercise didn't do a thing to my cholesterol. Still high. Weight loss MAY positively impact cholesterol. Not WILL.0
-
I can never understand why people are always touting what about his blood work?..part of the reason I decided to lose weight was to get my blood work better...it worked.
cholesterol will go down if you lose weight, blood pressure will typically go down if you lose weight...being over weight/fat/obese causes lots of issues for health and once the weight is gone so are those issues.
As for health is more important than weight no it's not...they go hand in hand. If you are over weight you are not healthy (and I don't mean BMI either)...if you need to lose weight you will be healthier than before (unless of course you go to far the other way)
That's correct, weight loss alone modifies many of these factors. My triglycerides for example went down from 480 to 90-110, My HDL went up and LDL went down, my blood pressure is down from 160/120 to 130/90, my blood sugar is down from 118 to 75.
Now the previous tests are the most important, and can be achieved with weight loss to varying degrees. What eating more nutrient rich foods does is, naturally, keep your micronutrients in check. These can vary regardless of your weight. I have always had trouble getting enough B12 even as a 300+ pound person, and got a deficiency which needed a few (painful) shots. Weight loss wouldn't have helped that. I had to manually work on finding ways that made fish and poultry more palatable (I still find it hard to enjoy red meat unless prepared in very particular ways). That was the best way to help my deficiency, weight loss wouldn't have done it.0 -
gaurikudav3 wrote: »Thats means i can eat junk food?
Yes. I lost around 150 pounds eating ice cream, donuts, brownies, cookies, chips, candy, etc.
I still try to hit decent protein, fiber, & micronutrient goals to keep be sated throughout the day.0 -
CICO isn't true if you have a metabolic syndrome. In the case of MS your body processes sugars and carbs totally differently than someone without MS. Probably this guy didn't have MS and so CICO works for him, but everyone's body works in a unique fashion. This case only proved it worked for him.0
-
I can never understand why people are always touting what about his blood work?..part of the reason I decided to lose weight was to get my blood work better...it worked.
cholesterol will go down if you lose weight, blood pressure will typically go down if you lose weight...being over weight/fat/obese causes lots of issues for health and once the weight is gone so are those issues.
As for health is more important than weight no it's not...they go hand in hand. If you are over weight you are not healthy (and I don't mean BMI either)...if you need to lose weight you will be healthier than before (unless of course you go to far the other way)
Weight loss will improve your health, even without modifying anything else. So will changing your eating and exercise habits, even without weight loss. Ideally, there should be a combination of everything: healthy weight, balanced diet, daily exercise. The more goals you can achieve, the better. Bad eating habits (regarding quality, and I do not mean having a treat, but a diet as described in the OP, long term) will still affect your health, even if you are at a good weight. Same as being obese and on a "perfect" from a nutrition point of fiew diet, will also affect your health. There is no doubt that being obese is a huge factor, but it is not the only one.
0 -
Is this the "Twinkie Diet"?gaurikudav3 wrote: »Thats means i can eat junk food?
You can eat 1500 calories of the junkiest foods you want and the scale number will go down. Apparently.
Congrats on finding an article that supports your desire.
Best of luck on your journey.
ETA: Citation for your cut and paste. Always polite to cite the stuff you steal.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-lose-fat/
0 -
Yes you can eat junk food and lose weight as long as you're in a calorie deficit. However, it can take a toll on your health.0
-
emilycarr71404 wrote: »CICO isn't true if you have a metabolic syndrome. In the case of MS your body processes sugars and carbs totally differently than someone without MS. Probably this guy didn't have MS and so CICO works for him, but everyone's body works in a unique fashion. This case only proved it worked for him.
The rate of loss maybe affected but if someone is at a true calorie deficit they will always lose weight over a period of time, simply put you can not make something out of nothing.
0 -
Also here is an award for this thread...
0 -
I went from 203 pounds to 140 pounds @ 5'6", 61 years old. The weight loss and exercise didn't do a thing to my cholesterol. Still high. Weight loss MAY positively impact cholesterol. Not WILL.
If you notice I said typically will...not will.
You can't say you aren't healthier tho with just the weight loss.I can never understand why people are always touting what about his blood work?..part of the reason I decided to lose weight was to get my blood work better...it worked.
cholesterol will go down if you lose weight, blood pressure will typically go down if you lose weight...being over weight/fat/obese causes lots of issues for health and once the weight is gone so are those issues.
As for health is more important than weight no it's not...they go hand in hand. If you are over weight you are not healthy (and I don't mean BMI either)...if you need to lose weight you will be healthier than before (unless of course you go to far the other way)
Weight loss will improve your health, even without modifying anything else. So will changing your eating and exercise habits, even without weight loss. Ideally, there should be a combination of everything: healthy weight, balanced diet, daily exercise. The more goals you can achieve, the better. Bad eating habits (regarding quality, and I do not mean having a treat, but a diet as described in the OP, long term) will still affect your health, even if you are at a good weight. Same as being obese and on a "perfect" from a nutrition point of fiew diet, will also affect your health. There is no doubt that being obese is a huge factor, but it is not the only one.
Agreed...I lost weight blood work got better, I was on a roll so decided to add in exercise which made me want to hit my macros hence I am even healthier now than with just weight loss...
Not sure I totally agree that if you change eating habits, exercise but still are overweight that you are healthier than if you didn't change anything...regardless of exercise etc being overweight/fat/obese is not healthy and causes major issues if not kept under control and I am speaking from experience.
0 -
emilycarr71404 wrote: »CICO isn't true if you have a metabolic syndrome. In the case of MS your body processes sugars and carbs totally differently than someone without MS. Probably this guy didn't have MS and so CICO works for him, but everyone's body works in a unique fashion. This case only proved it worked for him.
How many people do you know have a metabolic syndrome where CICO doesn't work?
0 -
emilycarr71404 wrote: »CICO isn't true if you have a metabolic syndrome. In the case of MS your body processes sugars and carbs totally differently than someone without MS. Probably this guy didn't have MS and so CICO works for him, but everyone's body works in a unique fashion. This case only proved it worked for him.
Weight loss is about energy in vs out. Metabolic syndrome will effect the calories out side of the equations, but a caloric surplus is still needed to gain weight, and a deficit to lose...
0 -
emilycarr71404 wrote: »CICO isn't true if you have a metabolic syndrome. In the case of MS your body processes sugars and carbs totally differently than someone without MS. Probably this guy didn't have MS and so CICO works for him, but everyone's body works in a unique fashion. This case only proved it worked for him.
Not completely true. Check here:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/metabolic-syndrome/basics/causes/con-20027243
From the link:
Metabolic syndrome is primarily caused by obesity and inactivity
So, a failure to eat the appropriate calories and to burn enough calories, so yes, CICO, leads someone to suffering from metabolic syndrome, not the other way round.0 -
Well, that's not really surprising. Calorie deficit is how weight loss happens. But just like fat doesn't always equal unhealthy, thin does always equal healthy. He lost weight, but I doubt his overall health improved.0
-
No change in HDL or LDL or triglycerides? Really? All stayed the same? Raise didn't change? Really?I went from 203 pounds to 140 pounds @ 5'6", 61 years old. The weight loss and exercise didn't do a thing to my cholesterol. Still high. Weight loss MAY positively impact cholesterol. Not WILL.
0 -
Velum_cado wrote: »Well, that's not really surprising. Calorie deficit is how weight loss happens. But just like fat doesn't always equal unhealthy, thin does always equal healthy. He lost weight, but I doubt his overall health improved.
If his body fat % did drop like that then yes his health improved from a high risk area above 30% body fat to in the 20s.0 -
2600 - 1800 = 800 cal/day deficitgaurikudav3 wrote: »He went from eating 2600 calories per day (his estimated maintenance level) to eating about 1800 calories per day instead. He just so happened to get the majority of those 1800 daily calories from the most junky foods you can think of.
The result? He lost 27lbs in 2 months and reduced his body fat percentage from 33.4% to 24.9%.
800 cal x 61 days = 48,800 calories
48,800 / 3,500 calories/pound = 13.9 lbs expected weight loss
Apparently he was exercising about 800 calories per day as well.
0 -
2600 - 1800 = 800 cal/day deficitgaurikudav3 wrote: »He went from eating 2600 calories per day (his estimated maintenance level) to eating about 1800 calories per day instead. He just so happened to get the majority of those 1800 daily calories from the most junky foods you can think of.
The result? He lost 27lbs in 2 months and reduced his body fat percentage from 33.4% to 24.9%.
800 cal x 61 days = 48,800 calories
48,800 / 3,500 calories/pound = 13.9 lbs expected weight loss
Apparently he was exercising about 800 calories per day as well.
Heh.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions