The Twinkie Diet

KXanthos

Check it out...this man lost 27 pounds in 2 months by earting 1,800 calories of twinkies and other junk food every day. Crazy, eh?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

Sidesteal

Check it out...this man lost 27 pounds in 2 months by earting 1,800 calories of twinkies and other junk food every day. Crazy, eh?

Not really crazy IMO. Quite courageous for him to attempt it though.

KXanthos

Check it out...this man lost 27 pounds in 2 months by earting 1,800 calories of twinkies and other junk food every day. Crazy, eh?

Not really crazy IMO. Quite courageous for him to attempt it though.

Amazing to think about the implications of this. Perhaps it's NOT what we eat after all that matters, perhaps it really is all about the pure calorie count and portion sizes. Perhaps this partially explains why some diets such as low carb, where you ultimately end up eating less calories because your never hungry, work so well.... It would be interesting to see more studies on this.

MercenaryNoetic26

Makes me think of WALL-E; when his pet roach crawls in a twinkie and eats it from the inside!

KXanthos

Makes me think of WALL-E; when his pet roach crawls in a twinkie and eats it from the inside!

LOL

abbie017

A diet like this is asking for diabetes or other types of sugar problems. Not to mention the incredible amount of fat that you'd be consuming. Sure, eating less calories will help lose weight to a point, but do you really want to put all that artificial crap in your body? What you eat does matter...lean meats and proteins will help build lean muscle... 1800 calories of twinkes will turn you into a twinkie (or skinny-fat, as others say..).

_GlaDOS_

Interesting story. I wish we could see the long-term health outcomes of someone who eats like this but maintains a healthy weight. I think the key point of the story was really the last comment - "It is unhealthy, but the data doesn't say that."

jilliew

There is something to be said for calories vs nutrition. Sure, you'll lose weight if you eat less calories, regardless of what you eat. However, you won't be healthy unless you are getting the proper nutrients, vitamins, and whatever else you get by eating real, unprocessed foods. Skinny does not equal healthy.

hannahbellelechter

That's just gross. There's no nutritional value in junk food.

Hungry_Tuna

A diet like this is asking for diabetes or other types of sugar problems. Not to mention the incredible amount of fat that you'd be consuming. Sure, eating less calories will help lose weight to a point, but do you really want to put all that artificial crap in your body? What you eat does matter...lean meats and proteins will help build lean muscle... 1800 calories of twinkes will turn you into a twinkie (or skinny-fat, as others say..).

^ TOTALLY Agree!!!

WarriorMom2012

I'm on the Snickers Diet. All I eat is bite sized Snickers all day. I've lost 30 lbs.

drog2323

cals in and cals out.

but's still disgusting and would like to know what his insides look like.

being thin doesn't always equate to being healthy. IMO

Sidesteal

I think the results are intuitive if you're just looking at the short term effects. Apparently (forgive me as it's been a while since I've read it) he did this to prove a point about energy balance to his students, and he did that.

I would speculate that the long term application of this would not have good results in terms of health, unless you could find a way to supplement your body with all the necessary micronutrients while you still ate twinkies.

I actually think it's a brilliant study.

erickirb

Interesting story. I wish we could see the long-term health outcomes of someone who eats like this but maintains a healthy weight. I think the key point of the story was really the last comment - "It is unhealthy, but the data doesn't say that."

This was only over a short time period, if done for say 2 years I am sure there would be health issues around the sugar intake and insulin production.

KXanthos

I think this may be the most interesting thing in this article:

"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."

Very counter-intuitive...

KXanthos

I think the results are intuitive if you're just looking at the short term effects. Apparently (forgive me as it's been a while since I've read it) he did this to prove a point about energy balance to his students, and he did that.

I would speculate that the long term application of this would not have good results in terms of health, unless you could find a way to supplement your body with all the necessary micronutrients while you still ate twinkies.

I actually think it's a brilliant study.

He supplemented his diet with a multi vitamin and at least one serving of vegetables every day. And I'm with you, I think it's a brilliant study too. It also goes to show that there is a lot more to be learned in the health/weight-loss arena.

Russellb97

Losing weight is easy...short term

If you want to lose 10lbs, then don't eat.

The issue is long-term and keeping the weight off for good. Eating like that and/or starving yourself, is going to ultimately mess with your hormones and your metabolism.

Good study- it proves you can eat foods you love and still lose weight. We don't need to be "perfect"

Bad study- Some may think they can effectively lose weight long-term eating that way.

I bet the guy was hungry all day long, there was no nutrition in those calories so his body would have been craving more and more.

koosdel

That's just gross. There's no nutritional value in junk food.

I find this offensive. I've been on the twinky diet for 7 months. I don't make fun of your food..


Nah! Just kidding. I think its interesting. And unhealthy.

bcattoes

Amazing to think about the implications of this. Perhaps it's NOT what we eat after all that matters, perhaps it really is all about the pure calorie count and portion sizes. Perhaps this partially explains why some diets such as low carb, where you ultimately end up eating less calories because your never hungry, work so well.... It would be interesting to see more studies on this.

There have been many studies on it, and yes, for weight loss it is all about calories in < calories out.

koosdel

Amazing to think about the implications of this. Perhaps it's NOT what we eat after all that matters, perhaps it really is all about the pure calorie count and portion sizes. Perhaps this partially explains why some diets such as low carb, where you ultimately end up eating less calories because your never hungry, work so well.... It would be interesting to see more studies on this.

There have been many studies on it, and yes, for weight loss it is all about calories in < calories out.

...assuming one wishes to lose, and doesn't care what they lose.

Russellb97

Amazing to think about the implications of this. Perhaps it's NOT what we eat after all that matters, perhaps it really is all about the pure calorie count and portion sizes. Perhaps this partially explains why some diets such as low carb, where you ultimately end up eating less calories because your never hungry, work so well.... It would be interesting to see more studies on this.

There have been many studies on it, and yes, for weight loss it is all about calories in < calories out.

Yes it is but...It's not that simple

There's a difference between "weight loss" and "fat-loss"
We could both go on a diet and lose 10lbs, but on my diet I lose 10lbs of fat and you lose 7lbs of fat and 3lbs of lean body mass.

1. Calories are NOT created equal- for example protein has an added "thermic effect" on our metabolism. So eating more protein calories increases our calorie expenditure.

2. Carbohydrate calories can have an impact on insulin, thus limiting the release of glucagon(fat burning hormone)

3. Protein and fiber take longer to digest, so you we feel full longer.

4. There are high volume/lower calorie foods and calorie dense foods. For example a 1,000 calories of ice cream can fit in a bowl but a 1,000 calories of broccoli...you would need a large table.

5. If we don't get enough of what we need (vitamins, nutrients, protein, fats) our brain will cause us to crave more food making it difficult to stay on track.

backstreet1008

What I don't understand is how it was even possible for him to eat that little! Since junk food is so high calorie he would have to eat a lot less food overall. What would 1800 calories be? Like 12-15 twinkies? Maybe less?

KXanthos

What I don't understand is how it was even possible for him to eat that little! Since junk food is so high calorie he would have to eat a lot less food overall. What would 1800 calories be? Like 12-15 twinkies? Maybe less?

I doubt I could ever look at a Twinkie again after being on a diet like that! Those things are nasty enough as it is, but to eat 12-15 of them a day? Ew!

bcattoes

Amazing to think about the implications of this. Perhaps it's NOT what we eat after all that matters, perhaps it really is all about the pure calorie count and portion sizes. Perhaps this partially explains why some diets such as low carb, where you ultimately end up eating less calories because your never hungry, work so well.... It would be interesting to see more studies on this.

There have been many studies on it, and yes, for weight loss it is all about calories in < calories out.

...assuming one wishes to lose, and doesn't care what they lose.

Exactly. If weight loss is the only goal.

krist3ng

Okay, let's all pretend we hate twinkies....

it says he had lots of different cakes and chips and stuff. Trust me, as someone with a terrible sweet tooth, you don't get tired of twinkies.

ImJDLookatME

Check it out...this man lost 27 pounds in 2 months by earting 1,800 calories of twinkies and other junk food every day. Crazy, eh?

Not really crazy IMO. Quite courageous for him to attempt it though.

Amazing to think about the implications of this. Perhaps it's NOT what we eat after all that matters, perhaps it really is all about the pure calorie count and portion sizes. Perhaps this partially explains why some diets such as low carb, where you ultimately end up eating less calories because your never hungry, work so well.... It would be interesting to see more studies on this.

Of course you could lose weight by eating less. But I am guessing his nutritional values are really low. His body would eventually shut down and it's not really healthy.

Russellb97

Okay, let's all pretend we hate twinkies....

it says he had lots of different cakes and chips and stuff. Trust me, as someone with a terrible sweet tooth, you don't get tired of twinkies.

I'm with you. I could eat a whole box without blinking.

hannahbellelechter

Lol. Did not mean to offend. I just hate twinkies

KXanthos

If it ain't chocolate, it aint worth it!

Jeff92se

1800 per day / 150 calories in each one = 12 twinkies a day. I'd be really hungry.

tidmutt

I think this may be the most interesting thing in this article:

"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."

Very counter-intuitive...

What this says to me is that losing weight has a great impact on blood lipids. If he ate a "healthy" diet and lost the same weight he may have improved his numbers even more. This whole study proves absolutely nothing other than he responds well to a twinkie diet. YMMV. I could never stick to his diet, especially over a long period of time.