Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Twinkie Diet Helps Nutrition Professor Lose 27 Pounds

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the you-are-how-much-you-eat dept.

Medicine 35

Professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University Mark Haub has managed to lose 27 pounds in 10 weeks eating only junk food available at a convenience store. Haub wanted to prove that when it came to dieting calorie counting mattered much more than the nutritional value of food. From the article: "For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well of course (2, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 3 years ago | (#34176170)

Nutrition is for heath, and having more or less should not significantly effect weight (but is very important for overall heath).
So eating a small amount of twinkles a day will cause you to lose weight, but that does not mean you would not die of malnutrition if you continued to only eat junk food for a long time (no matter how much of it you were eating).

Re:Well of course (3, Interesting)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34176904)


I'd like to know how many pushups he can do now that he's lost all that weight.

It's not so much that people should be trying to lose weight as it is they should be trying to lose fat

After all, equal volumes of fat and muscle: muscle weighs more.

Re:Well of course (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 3 years ago | (#34180302)

That's why I never liked the joke in the Simpsons where one of Marge's sisters 'sank like a rock' in the dead sea. The joke is she's supposed to be fat, not that she's more built than the Governator in his prime.

Re:Well of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34214528)

FYI (after reading the article as well as info from his notes [] ):
He was taking multi-vitamins and protein supplements. He was still exercising (claims that it was his normal regimen).
He also measured BMI and things like cholesterol levels and the like. All of which suggested he had become "healthier".
So, he has in some ways addressed the things that you are talking about.

Although, I think the main point of his experiment was to prove that for weight loss, counting calories is the most important. Not some notion of the "quality" of those calories.
These other details, that he ended up seeming to become healthier, were just surprising things that even he had not expected, that seems to imply that "eating healthy" is still poorly understood.

Re:Well of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34226128)

My father lost 14Kg in a week when he went to hospital last week. He is currently at hydration where he has daily limit of 1600ml and every food or drink gets calculated. He eats three meals a day + snacks. Calories what he gets from food is 2200.

Of course that 14Kg is not mostly fat but muscles and else. Pneumonia usually does that. Now today exactly after one week, he can not even stand or turn on the bed (even that he is at very good shape now after pneumonia). It will take many months to get back to shape where he can even walk itself... that for 66 years old person.

After all as well, the line between anorexia and bodybuilding is very very thin as both has very little fat in their bodies and both's muscles are shown very well.

Malnutrition causes cancer, heart disease, etc. (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | more than 3 years ago | (#34225588)

See Dr. Joel Fuhrman for a good understanding of this (bot how to be healthy and lose weigt by eating a lot of vegetables, fruits, and beans): []

Most chronic disease including obesity can be treated with nutritional intervention, which moslty comes down to eating a variety of plant foods, heavy on the vegetables.

It's true this guy lost weight, but he may have increased his disease risk. Also, it probably took a lot of will power that almost no one can keep up for years. A whole foods diet, heavy on stuff like vegetables fruits, and beans, with fiber to fill the stomach, and nutrients to satiate the metabolism, is a much more sustainable diet for the rest of his life.

Non-starchy vegetables, beans and fruits give you about 200 to 400 calories when filling up your stomach with lots of essential nutrients. (See "Eat to Live" by Dr. Fuhrman.) Fill up your stomach on meat and dairy and oil (plus maybe a little processed starch) and that will give you 3000 calories or so before your stomach is filled up (but little of the plant-derived phytochemicals your body needs for optimal health). That explains the mathematical basics of all anyone needs to know about weight loss and health. :-)

And so, as Dr. Fuhrman says, "make the salad the main dish".

BTW, if you are an Inuit descendent (Eskimo) several hundred years ago, eating free range fish from unpolluted waters, incuding the contents of fish's stomachs with some plant algae, as well as seaweed and some other occasional plant stuff, you can probably get away with a meat-heavy diet. []

The reports focus on the professor eating twinkies, but they slight that he was also eating vegetables, too, which may have helped him manage his hunger cravings and stay on his "diet". He could have easily eaten more vegetables and less junk food and got better results.

Re:Well of course (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34232946)

He didn't eat "only junkfood". Haven't you learned? Never trust the summary, and only trust TFA sparingly ;) He got 2/3 of his calories from twinkies, doritos, and other junk food. The other 1/3 came from protein shakes and canned green beans. Plus he also took multivitamins to avoid malnutrition. And, he didn't just lose weight. He lost fat, and maintained muscle mass, as well as improving his cholesterol ratio and lowering his triglyceride levels. The point of this isn't that nutrition is meaningless, it's that you can eat healthy, but still too much. Well, more like the converse, you can eat crap, but a small amount of crap, and still do OK. At least, better than he was doing before. So, when people say "Sugars = triglycerides = dead", this is only true if you go overboard. You (apparently) can get away with eating cake daily, if it's a small amount of cake.

Re:Well of course (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34242600)

you can eat crap, but a small amount of crap, and still do OK.

The problem with crap isn’t that it’s crap; it’s that it’s also not very filling and you crave more of it. So you end up eating a lot of it, i.e. a lot of calories. Can anyone say weight gain?

Also, how many sugar-addicts are going to bolster their diet with green beans? Most people seem to think vegetables are made of kryptonite unless they’re deep-fried or drenched in butter or high-fructose corn syrup.

27 lbs in 10 days (1)

Nozsd (1080965) | more than 3 years ago | (#34179078)

Not sure where the 10 days comes from when the article clearly indicates it was over 2 months. It was just a clever trick to make me RTFA wasn't it?

Re:27 lbs in 10 days (1)

DuoDreamer (1229170) | more than 3 years ago | (#34180440)

Well, the article says "10 weeks", so the poster obviously miffed that part.

Re:27 lbs in 10 days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34184582)

Losing 27 pounds in 10 days is rather unrealistic unless you are eating live crocodiles or hydrochloric acid.

Re:27 lbs in 10 days (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 3 years ago | (#34186498)

The article also says that he ate protein shakes, multivitamins and vegetables. So much hype in such a small summary.

Meh, proves nothing (2, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34182498)

He just has genetics, gut bacteria, etc. suitable for losing weight.

But we must not forget many people around us, in which those factors(*) cause them to be a thermodynamic perpetuum mobile. Major concentrations of them in just few places around the world certainly suggest genetic factors.

Re:Meh, proves nothing (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#34187730)

Major concentrations of them in just few places around the world certainly suggest genetic factors.

Or, the same crap lifestyle. Tough call.

Re:Meh, proves nothing (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#34190680)

Unless you manage to shut down the "metabolic furnace" so to speak with your crap diet and/or lack of movement your body will continue to consume relatively similar calories. So much like any balloon that has a hole letting more out than is being replace it will shrink. Being overweight is simply a product of too many calories coming in relative to those going out.

While genetics can play a role, food quality and physical activity will influence how hot furnace operates far more than any other factor for the overwhelming majority of the population. Highly available calories such as things consisting of fat, refined flours and esp. reduced sugars such as HFC cannot be used by the body for energy except for the relatively small quantity immediately required with the rest being stored as body fat. From that point forward the energy is no longer available and you feel that lack of energy, and of course soon will probably feel hungry again, thus rinse repeat.

Re:Meh, proves nothing (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193928)

There is, however, evidence that there exist pairings of people of similar build such that on exactly the same diet with the same routine, one will lose weight and the other will gain.

The ratio of calories metabolized to calories used does hold true, but apparently the ratio of calories eaten to calories actually metabolized varies in different people OR the ratio of physical activity performed to calories expended varies. Perhaps both ratios vary.

Re:Meh, proves nothing (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#34197404)

A person's physical build unfortunately does not provide a complete picture for the sake of like vs. like comparisons. People of similar builds may well have different caloric requirements for a number of reasons. I certainly wouldn't dispute that. Build and physical health do not necessarily go hand in hand for instance. Stronger (not necessarily larger) muscles tend to burn more calories even when at rest. Something as simple as how thoroughly food is masticated will affect the rate and efficiency of digestion. Models--such as my balloon example--will always overlook some of the nuanced details. But the principle is sound even if the values are personal.

The primary point of my argument was to explain the fallacy of the genetic excuse for why people are fat. As I mentioned, genetics can play a role, however with exceedingly rare exception, a person's lifestyle is the overwhelming contributor to their being fat. It is a known but shoved aside reality because people generally resist changes to their lifestyle, esp. if they perceive their existing lifestyle as comfortable. Even when people do come around to change, it is often with the expectation that the restoration of their health will come easily or at least with rapidity. A multi-year turn around does not provide the same immediate satisfaction as a bag of Cheetos and a nap on the couch. Eventually temptation reestablishes the status-quo.

Re:Meh, proves nothing (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34198104)

Quite the contrary! Yes, some people are fat due to lifestyle and diet issues alone. Others because they have metabolic differences. Yes, anyone at all can lose weight by consuming less calories that they expend. However, some people's metabolisms will very easily go into a conservative more where they feel listless and have a greatly reduced expenditure.

In other words, for some people consuming less than they expend is much easier said than done. By the time their expenditure is further reduced through weight loss and their metabolism switching to conservation, they reach a point where they never actually feel satiety. What a hell of a way to go through life to conform to social norms.

Let's face it, there are plenty of people who want to lose weight and keep it off, and there's great volumes of information about it and several industries devoted to it, and yet it rarely works out long term unless the person cultivates an eating disorder (let's face it, if you devote most of your time to obsessing over what you eat vs. what you expend, you have the same eating disorder as an anorexic even if your metabolism spares you the life threatening aspects). Clearly the model is over-simplified, it just doesn't match reality.

SOME people loose weight and keep it off using the very simplistic model and enjoy improved health as a result. They are the ones that just happened to fit the model. For the rest, the prevailing wisdom is about as useful as drinking milk and trying to relax more was for ulcer sufferers before we discovered that ulcers are caused by H. Pylori in the vast majority of cases.

As for health, it turns out that people who are moderately "overweight" according to current standards tend to be healthier as long as they're otherwise reasonably fit.

So, yeah, a multi-year turn around where you feel like crap the whole time and spend your every free moment dedicated to a single issue just doesn't bring the same satisfaction in life as saying fuck-it and just trying to be otherwise fit. They would probably be more successful at that if our current social order were more conducive to good health.

You said it yourself, build and physical health don't go hand in hand. Some very fit people look "fat" and some people who look "fit and trim" are in terrible health and get worn out climbing a single flight of stairs (the classic 90 pound weakling).

Looking from another angle, current stats are claiming that 8 out of 10 people over 25 are overweight. When MOST people are overweight (as that stat suggests) it's either the actual norm (and the lables are wrong) or the problem exists at the social/cultural level rather than at the individual level and the few (2 out of 10) who are not overweight are the outliers. If you want to solve that, it's the culture that must change. There's only so much an individual can do counter to the culture and remain employed and connected to society.

Re:Meh, proves nothing (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#34201978)

I think we aren't necessarily speaking about the same type of people. I am not suggesting that people ought to fit the supermodel body type. For the average person that would be unhealthy and next to impossible to maintain. Regardless of what our culture says a modest amount of padding isn't necessarily a medical problem. It sounds as if you believe I'm lumping them and what physicians call obese and more specifically morbidly obese in the same basket. I'm definitely not. I am referring to people whose excessive body fat has a negative impact on their health.

Classic "dieting" as you seem to be referring by calorie restricted starvation diets are definitely unsustainable, definitely unhealthy and for the reasons you cite. However the simple act of switching to "quality" calories and not eating for the simple reason that it makes you feel good will yield significant improvements in a persons health over the long term. Adding even modest exercise to that will dramatically improve that person's health and size. This is what I am referring to by multi-year turn around, in contrast to your suggested starvation diet of significant calorie restriction. It took years to pack it on, it will take a good long while straighten things out again. If the approach taken switches the body into "survival" mode through calorie conservation it's the wrong approach. I'm talking about changes no more drastic than swapping a Big Mac, fries, and a 32oz soda, for a pork chop, salad, bake potato, and a 12oz glass of unsweetened iced tea. That's less than half the calories yet equally filling and satiating. If you want ice cream, fine then have ice cream, but don't eat it immediately before bed and don't eat a full pint of Ben and Jerry's! Common sense, moderate eating, not starvation coupled with modest exercise. If people did this I guarantee there wouldn't be talk about obesity epidemics, and people living shorter lives than their parents.

I very much agree that the problem exists at a social/cultural level. The American culture is oriented towards unhealthy, low quality calories and excessive portion sizes.

Re:Meh, proves nothing (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203422)

I very much agree that the problem exists at a social/cultural level. The American culture is oriented towards unhealthy, low quality calories and excessive portion sizes.

While those certainly don't help (right along with restaurants that charge as much for ice water as for soda), other factors also play.

For example, too many jobs where the PHB doesn't believe you're working if your butt isn't glued to a chair. It's hard for people to get an adequate amount of daily exercise when they're not supposed to stand up.

Too many people feeling pressed for time such that home cooking seems to be becoming a lost art replaced by not terribly healthy pre-processed crap.

A bunch of bad advice taken too far by the media then jumped on by rabid marketing has been a disaster. It turns out that low fat everything delays and diminishes the sense of satiety such that you consume more calories and enjoy it less.

For years people avoided lard in favor of transfat laden hydrogenated vegetable oil for the supposed health benefits.

As for the level of padding, even some (certainly not all) of the people the medical community labels obese (particularly when the over simplified height-weight charts are used as the only criterion) are in fact, quite healthy. Meanwhile a number of people in the normal category are actually underweight.

Re:Meh, proves nothing (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227806)

As for the level of padding, even some (certainly not all) of the people the medical community labels obese (particularly when the over simplified height-weight charts are used as the only criterion) are in fact, quite healthy.

That is funny, I just responded to the previous post that I am one of those people. I have been accused of painting on my abs at the same weight and boy fat ratio as I have been called 'obese'. Mind you, the lighting was just right for my stomach muscles to stand out that well, but still, it is ridiculous to think that just having the light come from the right direction could make someone who is 'obese' look like they painted on abs. Heck, the entire time that Arnold Schwarzenegger was Mr. Universe, he would have been considered 'obese'.

Meanwhile a number of people in the normal category are actually underweight.

I would take it one step farther and would also say that many people in the normal category are actually overweight.

The obsession with weight is incredibly unhealthy, and unhelpful in getting people fit. Body fat content, while still not perfect, would be a vast improvement over a scale and ruler. It amazes me that hydrostatic weighing isn't more popular. I have to drive 2 hours to get hydrostatically weighed. There is no excuse for any gym of reasonable size to not have the equipment, yet non-seem to have it.

Re:Meh, proves nothing (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34235206)

Evidence suggests that body fat content in itself has very little to do with health as long as the cardiovascular system is in good shape.

I saw an extreme example just last night on Medical Incredible. The guy has a well documented exceptionally efficient metabolism so that his daily caloric requirement is unreasonably low even though he is a tri-athlete who competes monthly and trains daily. Because of his metabolism, he looks like a typical heavy-ish middle-aged man with the middle-ages spread.

Re:Meh, proves nothing (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227750)

Well, I have had physicians call me obese, and suggest I lose more weight than what I have in body fat to get into the 'normal' range. I get regularly hyrdostatically weighed, and I currently have enough lean body mass that even if I had 0% body fat, I would be "over weight" per the government, medical, and insurance industries. The only reason that I have as little lean body mass as I do is because I DON'T work out. I build muscle extremely fast. Now, I am carrying about 20 lbs. of extra body fat that I could lose, and I could squeak in at only being 'overweight'. If I exercised, it is unlikely that I could survive getting down to the 'over weight' range.

If I ate a pork chop, salad, baked potato, and a 12oz glass of unsweetened ice tea, I would pack on fat like there was no tomorrow. Now, if I ate a porkchop, a couple of sides of bacon, a few eggs, and a 12oz glass of unsweetened ice tea, THEN I would lose weight. Unfortunately, I hate ice tea, and I end up eating salads and bread.

I agree that low quality calories are a serious problem, but until they stop being recommended by the government, health, and insurance industries, that is unlikely to change. Excessive portion sizes are more of a symptom than the problem. When your body doesn't get what it needs, you tend to get cravings. You just are not satisfied, so you keep eating.

Nutrient Density is the Key to Good health (2, Interesting)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | more than 3 years ago | (#34225944)

I saw a British video about obesity where they took an obese woman who claimed to have tried every diet and to have a slow metabolism, and they actually tested her in a hospital with a special test for that (respiration rate), and she had an average metabolism.

As Dr. Joel Fuhrman says inhis book "Eat To Live", tryng to control portion size breaks down eventually because no one can deny themselves foods they crave forever.

What works, reliably, is to switch ot a diet emphasizing vegetables fruits, and beans, where your stomach fills up with only 200 to 400 caloires of nutrient-dense plant matter, as opposed to, say, 3500 calories to fill your stomach with essentially phytonutrient-deficient cheese.

You may also need specific supplements, like vitamin D and DHA and B12 and some others. []

See Dr. Fuhrmans' presentation:
    "Nutrient Density is the Key to Good health " []

Or also:
    "Eat For Health" []

Such a diet can cure most Type 2 diabetes too in a few weeks:
"Dr. Fuhrman Cures Diabetes - But Drug Companies Object " []

And he is not the only one who says that: []

And Herbet Shelton said it decades ago.

Most medical intervention in industrialized countries is unneeded and just covers up the symptoms of malnutrition (not lack of calories, but lack of phytonutrients and fiber). There are of course some other lifestyle issues (smoking, stess, lack of sleep, lack of exercise) as well as exposure to human-made toxins, so diet is not everything. But diet is still a really big thing for preventing (or in some cases, treating) chronic disease like much heart disease, diabetes, stroke, cancer, obesity, rheumatoid arthritis, and others.

The problem is, there is very little profit in telling people to eat more vegetables, get enough vitamin D, exercise more, and so on. The money is in things like (totally unneeded in most cases it turns out) heart operations like angioplasty for conditions more safely and more effectively treated with dietary changes.

Another part of the puzzle: []

So you are right to suggest the possibility there is a broad social problem, with profits to be had in harming people or endlessly treating them, but little profits to be had in prevention or cure. With more grassroots information, hopefully we can move past this medical problem of US malnutrition and free up a lot of resources and create a lot of positive energy to then address other unmet social needs.

Re:Meh, proves nothing (1)

harrytuttle777 (1720146) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202478)

Very true. Hypothetical case study, sitting at the same table at lunch table you see:

Person A: Eats a salad, and diet coke everyday. for lunch everyday. Consumes ~2000 kcal / day. Works out and lifts weights, but is a lard ass.

Person B: Eats large bowl of pasta, and 20 hot wings for lunch everyday. Consumes around 3Kcal. However, he has 7% body fat, and a GQ body. The only exercise he gets is the sweat he builds up from making love to all the hoties that he gets as a result of his perfectly sculpted body.

This is the result living in a society where food is in abundance. Now if they were to be magically transported to a place where food was scare, and survival is not guaranteed, person B, would quickly starve, and person A, would be getting all the hotties.

The ability to put on kg / pounds / stones while consuming a moderate diet is a survival characteristic that is superfluous in a society of abundance. Some people do fine on a 2000 cal / day diet. Other's need to eat a LOT less if they do not want to balloon up.

Take for example Lynne Cox long distance swimmer that swam all the way to Antarctica. Sure she is a warrior, and IMHO in shape, but, if you saw her picture, you would no doubt label her as a fat ass. On the other hand there are not too many skinny long distance swimmers swimming in Antarctica.

The 'models' that the Renaissance painters painted would all be obese by today's standards. Back then your next meal was not as guaranteed as it is today. ( i don't know this for a fact. Any time travelers are welcome to correct me)

Being skinny is not always a survival characteristic.

Why go back as far as Renaissance? (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#34212172)

The 'models' that the Renaissance painters painted would all be obese by today's standards. Back then your next meal was not as guaranteed as it is today. ( i don't know this for a fact. Any time travelers are welcome to correct me)

Being skinny is not always a survival characteristic.

She [] would be considered a lard-ass by today's standards.
FFS just compare the supposed ideal versions of women. For men, [] and for women. []

It's as if some higher power is deliberately trying to raise male and female humans with completely opposite ideal expectations.
In order to reduce birth rate or something?

Re:Why go back as far as Renaissance? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34328172)

There's another factor at work except present fertility and likely ability to take care of a child for a few years (Playboy) - young age and future "potential" (Vogue)

Re:Meh, proves nothing (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | more than 3 years ago | (#34225226)

At any weight, there is no doubt some variation in metabolism based on genetics, activity level, and gut bacteria. With that said, I doubt the difference is huge.

You can't tell what those people are eating at other times.

Also, vitamin D deficiency may be linked to obesity, so that is another variable: []

Dr. Joel Fuhmran goes into detail to a proven approach to weight loss and increasing health by eating more vegetables and fruits: []

Thinking about what he says, I'd suggest the person eating the salad is puttng a lot of dressing on it and adding lots of hidden calories that way.

Re:Meh, proves nothing (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34328236)

Diet coke tricks your organism into expecting lots of sugar to process...which doesn't come. So now your organism, revved up, really starts to crave it / you will eat unhealthy quantities (but feeling small) quickly enough.

Re:Meh, proves nothing (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34328544)

What does it change? It still means that those people are simply eating too much (while claiming they eat normally or even very little, hence me making a jab at such claims, amounting to claiming one is a thermodynamic perpetuum mobile...). There is no obesity epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa.

Appestat (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | more than 3 years ago | (#34225674)

A better metaphor might be the thermostat for a furnance. It is called the "appestat". Basically, when your body sense your stomach is full and your body sense it has enought nutrients (usually from plant foods), your appetite thermostat shuts off your appetite. See Dr. Fuhrman's book "Eat to Live" for a discussion of this.

So, if you get your calories from strained fruit juice or milk, your stomach does not feel full for long as liquid just passes through. If you eat leafy vegetables you will fill up your stomach on about 200 calories and your appestat will click off. If you eat a steak, you will fill up your stomach with 3000 calories (more than ten times as much) and your body will still feel like it is missing out on some plant nutrients so your appestat may take a while to click off.

When you exercise, your appestat setting tends to go up to balance the extra calories burned, which is why exercise, while otherwise great for you health, has only a slight value for weight loss.

Re:Meh, proves nothing (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34328552)

I was actually aiming at "Funny" (telling how it got "Insightful"...) - I thought describing those people as perpetuum mobile gave it away.


Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34183764)

starvation is starvation

Yeah, but the devil's in actually doing it. (1)

Valdrax (32670) | more than 3 years ago | (#34211236)

Oh, of course all that matters in the end for weight loss alone is calorie counting. But the problem in dieting is more about learning proper self-control, and eating a lot of sugary junk food is going to leave you with massive cravings all day. If you've got the willpower to lose weight in spite of that, then more power to you. Most people don't, though, and I wonder how long his diet is sustainable. A proper diet is a life-long decision -- not just something to do and then abandon one you reach a target number.

The other issue is that most diets have a secondary goal of improving your health overall. I could theoretically lose weight eating nothing but bacon strips and a multivitamin, but I don't think my heart would do well after a few months or years of doing this. I'd love to see what his lipid profile is like after such a diet.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?