Man Loses 27 Pounds Eating Twinkies and Doritos

[Altorin]

It gets him to lose weight. But if someone else tried it, any number of things could happen.

People are different, whats healthy for one person could kill someone else. Each person has a health system unique to them. Hell I went a week of eating fast food and lost 2 pounds. I'm sure if anyone else tried that they would gain weight.

Its why I don't do diet plans.

most notably, they'd feel like they were starving, so they'd end up giving up on the idea all together and just eat a crazy amount of food to relieve that feeling.

the point is, the only thing that really determines weightloss or gain, in relation to reducing or increasing bodyfat, is calories, and he dropped that by as much as a whole child eats.

 

[redisforever]

Bah, that's nothing. I eat pretty much only French Fries and other kinds of potato. (I love potatoes) Junk food, chicken nuggets, hot dogs, stuff like that. I'm only 120 lbs. No matter how much I eat, never get bigger.

 

[ark123]

This is fucking retarded.
Losing weight is a matter of math. You burn 2200-2400 calories every day by existing. If you consume less, you lose weight. Doesn't matter if you consume 1500 calories in twinkies, M&Ms or drinking lard, as long as you're getting enough nutrition to survive in 500 calories, you lose weight.

But I guess "Man loses weight by eating less calories than he had been eating before" doesn't have quite the same ring to it

 

[ark123]

All this guy proved is that you can get a videogame site to print a story about dieting by doing what Weight Watchers have been teaching people to do since 1963

 

[SelectivelyEvil13]

I can't say I'm surprised whatsoever; calories in vs. calories out, no matter what they are from. The key difference is mostly the matter of nutritional macro and micro-nutrient content. A Twinkie by no means is competitive with a healthy serving of food concerning vitamins, antioxidants, good fats, carbohydrates, and protein. In other words, a Twinkie (let's say 150 calories) is not going to be as beneficial as a balanced, healthier option (let's say oatmeal, again 150 calories). The multivitamin, vegetables, and protein powder surly helped sustain the body's various needs, but that is not to say that eventually this would not catch up to someone. A multivitamin, even the best, is not going to cover everything good for the body nutritionally.

Then of course is the sustainability, which honestly could swing different ways depending on how else the subject eats/drinks in conjunction with the "junk food."

When the obesity epidemic is brought into play, that last aspect along with self-control become major culprits. Typical junk food is gourged on far past a reasonable serving (and who can honestly eat one cookie?!?), so a moderate splurge becomes a caloric nightmare far exceeding an indivdual's caloric balance to maintain a healthy weight.

As a final point, macro nutrient content becomes very important as it pertains to not just energy levels, blood changes due to high glycemic carbohydrates, and healthy fat benefits, but to body composition in general. Without enough protein, a person could wind up as "skinny fat," which is another undesirable and unhealthy bodily state.

Regardless,the study certainly holds merit because it is further evidence that healthy weight management is constructed partially around the general caloric intake, flying in the face of some of the absurd health claims we are bombarded with every day on television and other media sources.[footnote]See fad diets like "The Cookie Diet" that do not take into account the basal metabolic requirements for the individual for general and healthy sustainability.[/footnote]

 

[geldonyetich]

Main trouble I could see with a diet of smaller quantities of fatty processed food is that kind of food has a tendency to make you hungrier by raising insulin levels (due to a high carb content) and, consequently, it would be harder to exercise your willpower doing that over filling those calories with healthier but more filling food, like fruits and baked chicken.

You'd also have to make up for the nutrient deficiency somehow, like he did here with, "multivitamin, a serving of vegetables and a protein shake," or else you'll end up feeling really sick in short order as the organs that rely on those nutrients start struggling.

 

[Logic 0]

Who knew the convince store was selling food to make you lose weight.

 

[Jumplion]

While I'm not exactly overweight, I have lost about 10 pounds since the beginning of school, and I'm pretty much eating the same things I've always eaten except in smaller portions. Makes me feel good, though I do need to concentrate on building muscle instead. This is a pretty neat experiment, hopefully this will be delved into more.

 

[Lord_Ascendant]

I have one thing to say: Finally, someone actually proved what we've all known. Junk food, red meat and alcohol are all being shown to actually be good for you in some ways. Its eating like a rabbit that kills you faster.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Gee whizz, cut back on the calories. Thats only what every diet book and nutritionist have been saying for the past 50 years.

 

[Quaidis]

I feel like something is missing here, like how much exercise he did a day. Even if you cut portion control, your body will remain a fat mess if all you did is sit on the couch all day watching the tele or morbidify yourself in front of a computer screen playing games.

 

[Dastardly]

The world would fix itself almost instantly if everyone could grasp two simple but impossible concepts:

1. If you spend less money than you make, you cannot go broke.

That may work in theory but not in practice. You?re ignoring all the events that could occur in life- losing a job, paying unanticipated bills, replacing damaged or stolen property etc.

Not ignoring, just oversimplifying for sake of the point. If those things come up, you're having to (likely) spend more than you're making. But if you avoid spending more than you're making, you can't go broke.

The next, more advanced step, would then be spending less than you make so that you have a cushion in case of emergencies. Our problem is that we instantly want to "live up to our means." And our perception of that is warped to the point that we include unwise credit purchases as part of "our means," which means we're actually programming ourselves to live beyond them.

 

[Richioso]

Obviously he lost fucking wait, he went from eating 2600 cals a day to 1800.

Definately not rocket science and who the fuck funded this??

 

[Dastardly]

It gets him to lose weight. But if someone else tried it, any number of things could happen.

People are different, whats healthy for one person could kill someone else. Each person has a health system unique to them. Hell I went a week of eating fast food and lost 2 pounds. I'm sure if anyone else tried that they would gain weight.

Its why I don't do diet plans.

Some things are consistent. Each person has different metabolism, but everyone's bodies obey the first law of thermodynamics. You can't create mass or energy.

So, if you determine your baseline for how many calories you burn during the day, and you make sure that your intake is, say, 10% less than that, you'll see weight loss. It doesn't mean the exact same diet works for everyone, but the exact same method does. Matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed.

Huh, did not think about that while ranting.

Good points. Now I feel rather silly.

Don't, you've got a point--just maybe not the one you thought. Different people will react differently to this specific diet, because different people have different needs in terms of vitamins, minerals, fiber, and other non-nutritive aspects of food and drink. Also, different people have conditioned themselves to accept different levels of "fullness." 1600 calories a day might be enough to sustain you, but (especially at first) you might feel hungrier than another person on the same diet depending on your old habits.

All this particular study was trying to prove is that it's your total caloric intake that determines whether you're gaining weight or losing it. Eat all the healthy food you want, but if you're eating too much of it or not burning enough of it, you'll gain weight.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Ya the really important note here is limited calorie intake.
It's not like you should go out and stuff your face with twinkies and coke to lose weight, you actually haveto eat less to do that.

So the upside of fruit and vegetables comes in with the calorie gain, apples for example give you no extra calories, in fact eat only apples and you will starve.
This is simply because apples are heavy on digestion, and you actually burn more calories digesting an apple then you gain from it.

 

[EmzOLV]

This is by far my most favourite news story of the day.
This just encourages me to eat more crap food than I already did before.

Bring on the coronary!

 

[Dastardly]

I feel like something is missing here, like how much exercise he did a day. Even if you cut portion control, your body will remain a fat mess if all you did is sit on the couch all day watching the tele or morbidify yourself in front of a computer screen playing games.

Not true. You burn calories during the day just living, probably around 1400-1600, even if you're considered "sedentary." If you take in fewer calories than that baseline metabolic rate, you'll lose weight. If you take in too few, you might go into any of several emergency metabolic states that do things like cannibalize muscle tissue or overload your blood with ketones, but if you balance it right, you'll burn off fat.

Now, you won't get any stronger without exercise. You won't drastically improve your cardiovascular health without exercise. Anaerobic interval training will increase the proportion of fat calories you're burning. But it's not necessary to lose weight.

Most people can't win the weight battle by fighting on the exercise front. A lot of folks don't have the time, the space, or the money to fight a winning battle there. Diet is the best way to go about it for those people, since it's something they can control without additional expense of time/money/space.