Nutrition
January 30, 2011
Perhaps you’ve seen the headlines: Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds. In case you missed it, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, conducted a weight loss experiment. The premise: could he lose weight on a diet consisting primarily of junk food? The results: 27 pounds lighter over the course of ten weeks!
Surprised? You shouldn’t be. As I’ve noted in previous posts, Haub simply followed Newton’s First Law of Thermodynamics by consuming fewer calories than he expended. Specifically, he cut his calories from about 2600 calories per day to less than 1800–a daily deficit of 800 calories. Given that there are approximately 3500 calories in a pound of fat, do the math and it all adds up. What might be somewhat surprising is that in addition to losing weight, Haub actually saw an improvement in his lipid profiles, with a 20% drop in LDL (i.e. the “bad” cholesterol) and a 39% reduction in triglycerides. Pretty impressive, huh?
Now before you run out to your local 7-11 and stock up on Twinkies and Ho-Ho’s, a couple of things must be taken into account. For one, based on body fat estimates provided by Haub, he lost about 6 pounds of muscle over the diet period. Given that muscle is metabolically active tissue, his metabolic rate would have crashed, hastening the onset of a weight loss plateau. For another, the excessive intake of sugars undoubtedly sent his blood sugar levels skyrocketing, increasing hunger. Taken together, these factors would make it increasingly harder for him to sustain weight loss over time and likely result in the dreaded rebound effect where body fat is regained at an accelerated rate.
The take home message here is that any diet will help you to lose weight in the short-term provided there is a caloric deficit. Long-term weight maintenance, however, requires a change in lifestyle. This involves adopting a “metabolically friendly” nutritional regimen combined with regimented resistance training. Central to this approach is making sure that protein intake is maintained at approximately 1.6 to 2.0 grams per kilogram of body weight (slightly less than 1 gram per pound of body weight). Studies repeatedly show that protein intake is the most important determinant of body composition, particularly during times of caloric restriction (i.e. when you are “dieting”). Consuming adequate protein attenuates muscle loss while enhancing satiety–essential factors in achieving lasting weight loss.
Bottom line: take a sensible with your nutrition. If weight loss is desired, make sure you take in fewer calories than you expend. Science tells us it’s the only way to lose weight. What’s more, focus on eating protein-rich foods that furnish your body with the necessary raw materials for building lean tissue. Despite what you may have been led to believe, protein is the most important dietary nutrient, hands down. I’ll address the research on the topic in an upcoming post. Stay tuned…
Stay Fit!
Brad
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Entries (RSS)
Hopefully, this professor did this as an experiment and that he’s not advocating this (so-called) diet. I pulled this quote from the CNN link:
“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.”
Amazing. These are the very food items that one NEEDS to lose weight effectively and in a healthy manner.
Thanks for bringing this to the forefront.
Comment by JC — January 30, 2011 @ 11:15 pm
I’ve been eating healthy (whole grains, proteins, and veggies) and exercising for over two months now. And like the professor, I’ve lost weight. But I’ve also increased my vital energy and changed my entire outlook on life. I now look forward to exercise, I am well-rested in the morning, and my relationships have improved. Can the Twinkie-eating professor say all that? I doubt it.
Comment by Joel C — January 31, 2011 @ 1:55 pm
Hey JC:
From what I gather, Haub did this purely as an experiment and is not advocating this as a long-term strategy. The only issue I see is that some people might not see it this way. People usually want the easy way out, and if they think they can get skinny eating doughnuts and Ho-Ho’s then they’ll stock up on such junk.
Brad
Comment by Brad — February 2, 2011 @ 10:36 am
Excellent point, Joel. People often forget the impact of food on how you think and feel. Sugar-laden foods ultimately have a negative effect on these parameters, which in itself reduces dietary adherence.
Comment by Brad — February 2, 2011 @ 10:37 am
Does it really add up?
@ 3500 cals /lb of fat we’re looking at 94500 calories (27 x 3500). And yet he has an 800 calorie/day deficit for 70 days. That only adds up to 56000 calories which should only net him 16 lbs of body fat lost.
So where’s the rest?
Suggests that not all of his 27 lbs lost was fat and likely a fair amount – too much to be acceptable at least – was muscle. Even if the math is loose, since it just represents an approximation, 60% of his weight loss, according to the math, is body fat. What’s the other 40%?
That said, I definitely agree with your overall take home point, it’s just that I think this ‘twinkie diet’ and the results need to be looked at a bit more closely. I doubt any of us would be happy with such a proportion of fat to LBM loss.
Comment by Erik Ledin — February 2, 2011 @ 12:48 pm
True, Erik. I made these very points in my post. As far as the ratio of lean vs. fat mass lost, I noted that the math suggests about 6 pounds would have come from muscle catabolism. Add to that the loss in fat and it’s in the range of what he claims to have lost. The human body does not operate at 100% efficiency so formulas are only approximations. It’s possible if not likely that he may have even lost more lean tissue given the composition of his diet.
Brad
Comment by Brad — February 2, 2011 @ 12:59 pm