http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/ Weight loss will occur on a diet of Twinkies (or Big Macs or anything) if a calorie deficit is present. His blood markers improved in spite of the Twinkies, which are sugary and would tend to raise blood triglyceride levels. Blood markers usually improve due to the fact that the person is not as overweight as they were before the weight loss diet was started, which can override the effect of the addition of a sugary food.
If you completely ignore the role hormones play in obesity. I have no doubt some people can lose weight on an all-Twinkee diet. I am also willing to bet that many people cannot -- calorie deficit or not. I would bet money that a person who has severe metabolic issues is not going to see the same results as the person the article is about. Also, this is an article from four years ago. I actually remember reading this article years ago. So what does the article prove? That calorie restriction works for some people while consuming processed junk food, as if that is somehow something other people should follow suit in doing? I would like to see the long-term results of such a diet, but then again all I would have to do is look around when in public.
Hormonal effects aren't ignored. They are included in the overall energy budget. When there is an energy deficit, weight loss occurs.
Weight loss will occur when there is an energy deficit, regardless of the diet type (high-fat or high-carb). This applies to everyone, including people who are metabolically deranged. Energy deficit means taking in less calories than what are being expended. The parameters of the energy balance model can and often do change in response to reducing one's calorie intake. For example, a person's activity energy expenditure (AEE) may decrease in response to reducing calorie intake. Or the BMR may decrease due to hormonal changes. See the thread I posted regarding Lyle McDonald's explanation of energy budget (the one that for some people was too long so they didn't read it. Others labeled it as 'strange'). Energy deficit means that an energy deficit is occurring in spite of changes in those parameters. It's true that if someone's AEE drops in reaction to a reduction of calorie intake the person may have to reduce calorie intake further to maintain the energy deficit (or make an effort to increase their AEE that they didn't notice had decreased). This isn't a violation of the energy budget model or some special unexplained attribute of someone with a metabolic disorder who can somehow magically not lose weight during an energy deficit condition (what Gary Taubes insinuates in his GCBC book). There is some point at which effects such as changes in AEE and hormonal responses can no longer thwart an imposed energy deficit. The body needs a minimal amount of energy to maintain current body weight keep living. A calorie intake below this point will cause weight loss.
http://www.hipforums.com/forum/topic/460517-saturated-fat-cholesterol-lies-from-fat-head-2008/ You posted the thread about the Fat Head movie which showed weight loss on fast food for one person. Yet you didn't express concerns about the long-term health effects of a fast food diet like you did for the Twinkie diet. You didn't express any concerns about prescribing such a fast food Fat Head diet to the general public. The person who did the Twinkie diet pointed out that it isn't an optimally healthy weight loss diet and not a healthy diet long-term. The purpose of it was to demonstrate that weight loss occurs if someone maintains an energy deficit. The same could be said about a weight-loss diet consisting of fatty, salty, sugary fast food. Regardless of the type of weight loss diet, the blood markers can and usually do improve as weight loss is occurring in an overweight person, even though the diet may be unhealthy if maintained in the long-run. People are making a mistake if they think that because blood markers improve for an overweight person while losing weight on a unhealthy weight-loss diet (Twinkies, Big Macs) that such a diet is healthy in the long-run.
With the recent disclosure of paid experts, I guess this shouldn't be to surprising. The professor that ate the Twinkie diet was being paid by Coca Cola. The New – and Secretly Paid – Faces of Coca-Cola http://www.dietdoctor.com/the-new-and-secretly-paid-faces-of-coca-cola snippet: Oh my. Coca-Cola was recently forced to list the organizations and scientists they fund. But it turns out they’re also giving out plenty of money to individuals. Exactly who is detailed in this fantastic and sometimes hilarious investigation: Medium: The New Faces of Coke Turns out that most are dietitians with a flare for local media outreach — a surprising number of whom could be played by Kristen Wiig in the made-for-TV movie of this scandal. Remember the professor who made big headlines for losing weight on a “Twinkie Diet”? Turns out he was paid by Coca-Cola. Perfectly aligned with their misleading message that weight loss is all about calories and personal responsibility (not about Coca-Cola). Have you seen any dietitian recommending mini-Coca-Colas on blogs or TV, or any chef cooking with Coca-Cola? Turns out they were all likely paid by Coca-Cola, behind the scenes. Have you seen a scientist on TV insisting that obesity is all about calories and the solution is all about exercise – perhaps he even wrote a book about it? He may very well have been paid by Coca-Cola.
Remember the professor who made big headlines for losing weight on a “Twinkie Diet”? Turns out he was paid by Coca-Cola. Perfectly aligned with their misleading message that weight loss is all about calories and personal responsibility (not about Coca-Cola). Have you seen any dietitian recommending mini-Coca-Colas on blogs or TV, or any chef cooking with Coca-Cola? Turns out they were all likely paid by Coca-Cola, behind the scenes. Have you seen a scientist on TV insisting that obesity is all about calories and the solution is all about exercise – perhaps he even wrote a book about it? He may very well have been paid by Coca-Cola. Oh no , you're right. Its corporations making people fat, not diet and/or sloth. They practically force you to consume their product.
For losing weight exercise and diet play very important role. Both are very important. If we talk about Twinkie diet then this is new for me and i never tried this diet but after reading about Twinkie diet i can say that this is really a useful diet plan for losing weight.
I've heard you can make a fasting day with chocolate, just not eating more that 700-800 calories. Though I haven't tried it...
If you selected any one obese person, you could say their condition is their fault. But when you see whole societies shifting to obesity, and the billions that they spend on advertising, misleading studies, and manipulation of public policy, I don't think you can blame it all on personal failings. I guess it's the combination of personal failings, circumstances, public policy making that can be bought, and a ruthless corporate model that's driven by the bottom line.
Looking at the Twinkie diet in more detail, Haub said that he was drinking a protein shake every day, eating some vegetables, and taking a multivitamin. The diet was about 66% junk food. http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/ His junk foods included products such as Twinkies, Little Debbie, and Doritos. Data from the web shows the following: Twinkies are 56% carb and 39% fat by calorie Little Debbie nutty bars are 40% carb and 54% fat. Doritos is about 47% fat Cheetos is 60% fat. Those particular junk snacks above are not high-carb and low-fat but rather about an equal mix of fat and carb. The carbs are mostly refined. The foods lack fiber, protein, and micronutrients, which is the reason Haub drank protein shakes and took multivitamins. Haub lost weight and his blood markers improved while losing weight, including a lower LDL cholesterol and lower triglycerides. The improvement in blood markers while losing weight, even a modest amount of a few kg, is seen in various weight loss studies. The effect of weight loss itself on improved blood markers and risk factors is a confounding factor that has to be considered before one can accurately assess the effect of the diet composition on the improvement of markers.
Some bloggers are still trying to promote the faulty notion that weight loss can't occur unless carbohydrates are cut completely or reduced significantly. It's an old notion that was resurrected by journalist Gary Taubes in the 2000's. Various high-carb diets researched since the 1940s such as the Kempner and Pritikin diets show that this is not true. The blogger DietDoctor promotes a diet that is low-carb and high in animal fat. It's not surprising that DietDoctor would be frustrated at seeing weight loss and blood marker improvement for diets such as the Twinkie diet or diets that he perceives as low-fat. He's resorting to conspiracy theories about Coca Cola funding Haub to do the Twinkie diet, although he hasn't given evidence that Coca Cola gave him money to do this personal experiment. He goes even more fringe than this by planting seeds of suspicion by making a general conspiracy claim that anyone who's involved in a low-fat diet is probably being funded by a company such as Coca Cola to promote it. Perhaps DietDoctor shouldn't be as upset about the Twinkie diet. Haub's Twinkie diet overall was 1589 calories per day and about 59g of fat per day, which is 33% fat by calorie. This is moderate fat. Gary Taubes has claimed that the reason people can lose weight on a predominantly carbohydrate diet is that because overall they are consuming less absolute amount of carbohydrate on the weight loss diet than they were eating before the diet. This is wrong, as many people have lost weight on diets that are very high in carbohydrate and very low on fat such that they were actually consuming as much or even more absolute amount of carbohydrate. The Kempner diet is an example with only a few percent calories coming from fat and protein and the rest coming from carbohydrate and refined carbohydrate (rice, fruit juice, and table sugar). People on the Kempner diet lost weight while their blood markers improved significantly enough that many no longer needed medications to treat high blood pressure and diabetes.
Denise Minger wrote a lengthy post recently that has many references to low-fat high-carbohydrate diets and the weight loss and associated improvements in blood markers and disease risk factors. http://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/comment-page-2/
