Surprising weight loss article!

I know all about this because it's a local story and it was a big deal on the news here. Too many people don't read -- or don't want to read -- the parts of those articles that say his experimental diet is not sustainable for the long term and can lead to health problems like heart disease or diabetes. His numbers looked good, but we are all different. For example, I can't fathom why my cholesterol numbers are so good, given the way I've been eating for so long -- but they're really good. He could not explain why it worked, and I imagine the K-State food sciences researchers were intrigued enough to consider a study on this in the future. For now, K-State Extension Food Volunteers do not recommend eating like this. Neither would any nutritionist or doctor.

I purposely have never posted a link to this story because I think it encourages people to eat badly. Yes, I used the B-word there. He ate badly. The ends don't justify the means, imo.

kpk54 wrote: »

@terrapin: actually they did change. I guess I should have said my cholesterol did not improve and perhaps many would consider "got worse". "Cholesterol is too high despite having good triglycerides and HDL because the LDL is too high" according to both reports. Overall went from 209 to 245. Tri: 65 to 68. HDL: 60-55. LDL: 136-176 (November 2013-June 2014).

If you have a sure fire method of lowering LDL, I'm listening!

What types of fat were you eating prior(209 and 136 LDL) and what types of fat were you eating when it was tested again? You have ideal triglyceride numbers and they didn't really move and HDL moved from the low end of ideal to better, but not ideal. So, what changed in your diet?

tinascar2015 wrote: »

I purposely have never posted a link to this story because I think it encourages people to eat badly. Yes, I used the B-word there. He ate badly. The ends don't justify the means, imo.

I don't agree, and I am actually troubled when I see on the threads a desire to misrepresent facts (you will too lose only if you eat healthy!) as opposed to trusting people to act responsibly with the truth. IMO, if you really understand, reasonable people who care about health (or just want to diet successfully) WILL tend to eat more healthy than not. The idea that there's some benefit to hiding the truth or telling people what you think will cause them to eat better, no matter what, is kind of like telling extreme (and false) stories about what smoking pot will do in order to convince kids not to try it (or claiming that sex before marriage invariably causes something terrible).

I think understanding the facts is always better than buying into ridiculous myths, which the diet industry is way too full of.

(For the record I'm not suggesting you would tell lies here--it was just a convenient post to expand into that discussion.)

Too many people don't read -- or don't want to read -- the parts of those articles that say his experimental diet is not sustainable for the long term and can lead to health problems like heart disease or diabetes.

I think this is why there's no real threat that someone will choose to do something like the Twinkie diet long-term. It's NOT sustainable, and most people would feel terrible on it (he was supplementing with vitamins and stuff).

There was an article in Runner's World or some such by a guy who experimented with only gels for a week (apparently someone who consumed a lot already) and he was basically sick by the end of the week, not because of what the gels were doing to his body, but because there's only so much of that sort of thing most can eat (and I don't believe he was on restricted calories). Few people (only those who already have extreme diets, probably) would even want to eat like this, even if 1500 calories of Twinkies didn't leave most hungry. So I'm convinced that knowing the truth about how weight loss works and learning to understand what makes you satiated and what makes you feel good will generally cause most people eating at a deficit to eventually gravitate to a diet that is more based on nutrient dense foods.

And if they don't, they wouldn't have anyway--they aren't interested or ready--and that's their choice. Not for us to trick them into by avoiding uncomfortable truths like that you can lose weight just fine eating poorly.

And for many people an incremental approach to change really is easiest, and the number one thing they can do for their health is losing weight.

Robertus wrote: »

ldeoprecor wrote: »

Robertus wrote: »

ldeoprecor wrote: »

Robertus wrote:

Of course not. But it is really simple math. How do you account for his weight loss? 800 calorie per day deficit for two months only accounts for half of his weight loss.


That's why I said that his calculations may have been off. Kind of embarrassing for a professor of nutrition.

You do realize that the "3500 calories = 1 pound of fat" is a loose guesstimate at best, right? It's a rule of thumb that is based on the idea that weight loss is 100% adipose tissue (which, while ideal, isn't what happens in real life).

It's obvious that putting yourself in a calorie deficit will lead to weight loss, but it isn't so cut and dry as most people on this board tend to suggest. Even this "study" is a poor example. It's one person doing this, without a control group.

Yes, of course, but it shouldn't be off by a factor of 100% over a period of 2 months.

And why not? Water losses, lean body mass losses, leptin levels etc... He did not lose 27 pounds of fat. Although his fat percentage drop was insane for that short a period, it still isn't 27 pounds of fat.

I presume the 3,500 calorie guestimate is probably based or validated, at least in part, on real-world experience in a relatively large population of people dieting over the years. I do not think it presumes that all weight loss is 100% fat, just as this guys weight loss was not 100% fat. I doubt it is a common experience for people to accurately track their food and exercise calories and find results that are 100% off. Is that your experience? In other words, do you think some people lose a pound of weight with a calorie deficit of only 1,750 calories while others require a deficit of 7,000 calories to lose one pound?

Is the 3,500 calories/lb of fat accurate for me? I just did an analysis and found that it is scary how accurate it has been. Tracking calories eaten and estimating calories of exercise since January 14th, using the default MFP sedentary setting (desk job) and the 3,500 calories/lb number, I calculated that I should have lost 47.5 lbs over these 84 days. Weighing myself at the gym on gym, I had actually lost 46 lbs as of last Saturday or 45 lbs as of Monday. I admit a few times I cheated by underestimating the calories of a meal at the fancy restaurant I go to, including on Easter Sunday!

Well I read somewhere (I'm not saying it's true) that your body can't tell the difference between calories from chocolate and a calories from an apple? So it's possible to loose weight just eating 'crap' (btw I'm not saying to do it )