Junk food diet stunt

[DaveMc]

I think "stunt" is a fair description, but it's interesting: I ran into this story about a professor of nutrition who is doing a self-experiment in which he eats a carefully controlled number of total calories, but those calories come entirely from "junk food".

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Scienc ... -food-diet

He's eating 1800 total calories a day, and losing weight (as one would expect if he's a moderately active, relatively large male). He's also supplementing with vitamin pills to avoid getting scurvy or something, and he freely admits that this is a terrible idea -- but he's doing to illustrate that it's not the details of what you eat, it's *how much* you eat, that matters in terms of weight loss. That's an idea that I thought would sound familiar to people around here, and I think it's part of the reason that NoS gets away without the detailed constraints on what you should eat that feature so prominently in most diets -- if you just eat less in total, the details aren't so important.

Of course it's better to eat healthy foods, and one's food intake should *not* be entirely about weight loss! And I doubt anyone could seriously expect to keep up such rigorous control of their junk food consumption over the long term, even if the other health problems didn't kill them first. Still, interesting stuff ...

[Nicest of the Damned]

The president of the British Society of Gastroenterology, Professor Chris Hawkey, agrees that the problem isn't what people are eating, it's how much we're eating:

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nu ... tro-expert

He says, "The problem facing society is not the content of our diet but it’s the quantity we are consuming and the consequential impact of obesity."

[marygrace]

This is interesting, and I hope his results get a lot of media attention, since in my experience way too many people are clueless when it comes to trying to lose weight in a reasonable fashion. My dad, for instance, was starting to gain weight, mostly because of huge portions. I told him about NoS--and suggested at the very least he consider maybe having a small cup of ice cream after dinner instead of a huge bowl. Instead, he decided to go on a "beans and spinach" diet: He ate no breakfast and no lunch, and for dinner had a massive plate of--yes, beans and spinach (all of the fiber which really upset his stomach). Then I think he'd still snack after dinner. He did lose some weight, but as soon as he got tired of the beans and spinach, he put it back on, since he hadn't done a thing regarding his main problem, which was portion control.

Since this professor is using his own body as an experiment, so it's understandable that he'd want to avoid scurvy and the like by supplementing with a vitamin. However, I think the results would be even more powerful if he passed on the supplement. It would still give attention to portion control, but wouldn't give people the idea that hey! it's okay to eat 1,800 calories worth of junk every day as long as it's only 1,800 calories.

[Murphysraven]

I think meat portions have become one of the biggest out of control portions out there.

It seems like every resteraunt I go to has obsurd serving sizes of meat. being able to order a 26 oz steak?!? yeah it might fit on a plate but really?

I've read and been told that the serving size of most meat should be like 5-7oz. or about the width of your open palm (so I guess 8-10oz for most men?). and that your stomach can only digest about that much meat at a time and the rest just rots in your tummy and intestines.

Anyone with nutrition knowledge able to confirm or debunk that information?

[wosnes]

I think meat portions have become one of the biggest out of control portions out there.

It seems like every resteraunt I go to has obsurd serving sizes of meat. being able to order a 26 oz steak?!? yeah it might fit on a plate but really?

I've read and been told that the serving size of most meat should be like 5-7oz. or about the width of your open palm (so I guess 8-10oz for most men?). and that your stomach can only digest about that much meat at a time and the rest just rots in your tummy and intestines.

Anyone with nutrition knowledge able to confirm or debunk that information?

The portion size of meat is 3 ounces -- about the size of a deck of cards. Here's a neat tool for determining portion size.

As far as the excess rotting in your tummy and intestines. Pure bunk. If it weren't digested, we wouldn't gain weight from the excess. It's all digested.

[Murphysraven]

Thanks for the info wosnes! I hate spreading bad info!

[reinhard]

Thanks for the link, DaveMc. If it's a stunt, then it's a useful one. Sheer, simple excess is the biggest problem for most of us here, and if this experiment draws some more attention to that fact, all the better.

There are a thousand reasons to eat decent, real food (and most no-essers report that they eat a far greater proportion of this than they did previously)-- we just have to make sure that we don't let them become an excuse or smokescreen for excess.

Reinhard

[Nicest of the Damned]

If you eat too much, even if what you're eating is "healthy" food, you will not be thin or healthy. It's that simple.

There are very few foods that you can eat in any quantity you want and maintain a reasonable weight (and reasonable health- if you ate a lot of salty foods, you wouldn't necessarily get in trouble with calories, but it still isn't good for you). I suspect that if you tried eating only foods you can eat in unlimited quantities (as some diets try to get around portion control by doing), you'd have serious dietary deficiencies. Or you'd just be craving what you can't have all the time, and is that any way to live?

The traditional food of sumo wrestlers, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chankonabe, is a soup with protein (usually tofu, chicken, or fish) and vegetables, eaten with rice and beer. That could be a reasonably healthy dinner. But the sumo wrestlers eat it in enormous quantities. You don't need junk food to get fat.

[DaveMc]

I've been thinking lately that I am now finally, after about 14 months of NoS, moving into what I think of as the "advanced nutrition" phase. That is, initially I was so focused on getting the habits down that I didn't have a lot of concentration left over to think much about the details of what I was eating. Now, the N day habits are so engrained that it's been pretty easy to start looking at things like eating more fruits and vegetables. I know some people probably can do this from day 1, but one of NoS's nice features, for me, is the way it lets you sneak up on this sort of thing. If it doesn't come automatically for you, you can defer the "advanced nutrition" portion for a while. It's *so* much easier to address when you're already used to moderate, three-times-a-day eating!

(Not that I haven't eat fruit or vegetables for the past year! I just realized that if I'm going to get enough servings in a day, I need to make a conscious effort to include more of those in my three meals.)

[FarmerHal]

That may be true- unless you are insulin resistant. Then, like me, if you eat much carbohydrate in the form of grains or sweets or dairy, you just put weight ON rather than the theory of "just eating too much."

JMO

[vafnord]

What I find interesting about this stunt, is it points out the one thing that junk food has going for it: if you eat nothing but pre-packaged junk food, counting the exact number of calories, grams of macronutrients, RDA % of vitamins and minerals, etc., becomes incredibly easy: just read the package. Which might be at least part of why calorie-counting diets usually come marketed with dozens of pre-packaged food-like products.

You can certainly get thin eating this way. Would you be healthy? I guess it better to be thin and malnourished than fat and malnourished.

[Over43]

Beans ans Spinach diet? Sweet Hey Seuss, I'd have to wear Depends. I heard on the radio a few years back about a kid who was the first know patient in the US, in years who had scurcy. He was attending Michigan and was living on beer and chips.

I always wondered if I could doo the "reverse" Super Size Me, but eat at McDonald's everyday, a reasonable sized meal, count calories, and see If I could lose weight?

But I had a 6.5% pay cut this year, that experiment will have to wait.

[Nicest of the Damned]

I always wondered if I could doo the "reverse" Super Size ME, but eat at McDonald's everyday, a reasonable sized meal, count calories, and see If I could lose weight?

Eat This, Not That has information on substitutions you can make while eating out:

http://www.everydiet.org/diet/eat-this-not-that

And of course there's Jared's Subway Diet:

http://www.everydiet.org/diet/subway-diet

You can download a Nutrition Info guide from mcdonalds.com, that has nutrition information including calories for everything they sell. From that nutrition guide, it looks like you could make reasonable choices at McDonald's, provided you stuck with the regular hamburger or cheeseburger, small fries, side salads, premium salads, and milk, water, or diet soda, and didn't eat too much at any one meal. Even some of their nonfat lattes are not horrible (120 calories for a 20 oz cup, the flavored ones are higher).

[Nicest of the Damned]

Update:

http://www.geekosystem.com/twinkie-diet/

He lost 27 pounds and improved his cholesterol and body fat percentage.

Conclusion:

Haub... and common sense prove that eating the occasional cream-filled cake or greasy burger isn’t anything over which to fret, and it’s the amount of food eaten and amount of physical activity performed that are the real catalysts of weight loss.

[oolala53]

I missed this here in Sept., but saw the update another place. It's really making me think about my own willingness to be reasonable 7 days a week. I've had so many green N days, though in the last 6 months few full green weeks. But what I eat on N days is nothing compared to what happens on S days. got to really think about how not to be so attached to just wanting the freedom to eat too much on weekends. So far I've just hated the idea that I have to control myself for any reason. Setting ANY limits has just not stuck. But maybe thinking about this guy just plodding through may be an inspiration. However, I wonder if a man limiting himself to 1800 calories a day for 10 weeks is really analogous to a woman sticking to the smaller amount she would need to. Okay, now I'm already looking for an excuse. Enough!

[kccc]

I I've had so many green N days, though in the last 6 months few full green weeks.

Start with green weeks. That will make a difference.

And they WILL "bleed over" into S-days. Maybe very gradually, but they will.

On S-days, don't limit, just be very mindful. Attending to "what do I REALLY want?" tends to change the balance from quantity to quality... as well as helping you identify what's under the desperation to indulge.

As they said on another thread, work on the step you're on. (There was a GREAT Apollo 13 quote that I can't recall enough to reproduce, but it's worth a read if you can locate it.)

[Nicest of the Damned]

As they said on another thread, work on the step you're on. (There was a GREAT Apollo 13 quote that I can't recall enough to reproduce, but it's worth a read if you can locate it.)

Here it is:

All right, there's a thousand things that have to happen in order. We are on number eight. You're talking about number six hundred and ninety-two.

Another thing I like to say about limiting S-days is a paraphrase of Lao-tsu. Limiting S days is like cooking a small fish. It takes a very light touch.

I find limits on how and where I eat on S days to be more palatable than limits on what, when, or how much I eat. My S-day limits are:

1. No eating except when sitting.

2. No eating directly from food packages, unless you are away from home and it is a single-serving package. Packages must be closed up and put away before you can start eating. Food should go on a single-serving plate or in a single-serving bowl before you can eat it.

Those limits don't deprive me of any kinds of foods, and don't directly limit how much I can have. But they do make it less likely that I'll "graze" all day, or eat a whole bag of chips.

[osoniye]

Wow. I saw a piece on this on the morning news today. I'm usually all for using our bodies as a food experiment, but my goodness! I really think this guy could be headed for all kinds of health problems unless this is just a temporary thing to prove a point. Yikes!

[bluebunny27]

This was all over the news ... on Twitter I saw it mentioned numerous times too... I guess people want to have their CAKES and eat it too (pun ??)

I think it would be possible to lose weight only eating Twinkies and whatnot but you would probably be starving every day and feeling ravenous. It would be HARD to do since you would have to count your calories precisely not to gain weight having only high calorie items in limited portions.

Cheers !

Marc

38 Years Old, 5'10" Tall
Nov. 1st. 2008 : 280 Pounds
Nov. 1st. 2009 : 190 Pounds
(1 Year : - 90 Pounds)

Current Weight : 193 Pounds

[DaveMc]

It would be HARD to do ...

Yeah, I imagine that a lot of people are seeing the story and thinking, "Lose weight eating Twinkies? Awesome!", but they're not taking into account the amount of discipline it would take to eat precisely 1800 calories a day, without fail. Especially since just a couple of extra Twinkies would put you so far over your "budget".

[RJLupin]

I think this was actually a very important "stunt" because it does show that there aren't any "magic" foods that cause one to gain weight; we gain weight because we eat too much. Now, I do think it's true that some people have problems with sugar, and too many refined carbs and such probably aren't good, but it does prove that no one food is "bad."

I know people, as I am sure we all do, who fastidiously eat what they think is "diet" food and never get any thinner. Some people are still clinging to the old "low fat" diet thing, and consume all kinds of artificial "lite" products, cut the skin off chicken, won't eat meat because it's "bad," etc. And yet they're still overweight because they still eat too much.

[Nicest of the Damned]

I know people, as I am sure we all do, who fastidiously eat what they think is "diet" food and never get any thinner. Some people are still clinging to the old "low fat" diet thing, and consume all kinds of artificial "lite" products, cut the skin off chicken, won't eat meat because it's "bad," etc. And yet they're still overweight because they still eat too much.

That would be me, prior to No S. I mostly ate stuff that would be at home in a Mediterranean or Asian diet. I used olive oil for cooking, or, rarely, canola, almost never butter. I didn't eat a lot of red meat. I was even trying to eat more whole grains and fewer refined grains. Problem was, I was eating too damn much of all this healthy stuff.

[wosnes]

I think this was actually a very important "stunt" because it does show that there aren't any "magic" foods that cause one to gain weight; we gain weight because we eat too much. Now, I do think it's true that some people have problems with sugar, and too many refined carbs and such probably aren't good, but it does prove that no one food is "bad."

I know people, as I am sure we all do, who fastidiously eat what they think is "diet" food and never get any thinner. Some people are still clinging to the old "low fat" diet thing, and consume all kinds of artificial "lite" products, cut the skin off chicken, won't eat meat because it's "bad," etc. And yet they're still overweight because they still eat too much.

I agree. I think one important thing to note is that no matter what method you use to lose weight, cholesterol will improve and so will blood sugar. A weight loss of as little as 10 pounds can make a significant difference.

However, and this is my own opinion, I don't think that cholesterol is necessarily a good indicator of heart health -- good or bad. My cholesterol was 179 when I had my heart attack. One artery was about 50% blocked. I'm beginning to think we rely too much on that set of numbers to predict risk of heart disease.

I've read some about the anti-inflammatory diet. I first read about it in Dr. Andrew Weil's book on aging. Essentially, there are things we consume and come into contact in other ways that act as inflammatory agents. Various chemicals in our diet and environment, some fats, smoke, probably faux foods and altered foods as well as other things act as inflammatory agents, causing chronic inflammation in our bodies This inflammation is suspected not only of causing things that end with "itis", but also Alzheimer's, diabetes, heart disease and some cancers.

I've also read a lot about the Mediterranean diet and the low rates of disease in those countries. One thing that fascinated me was that the Greeks are very heavy smokers, but they have very low rates of heart disease, stroke and lung cancer. It didn't make a bit of sense to me until I read about the anti-inflammatory diet. It could be that their high intake of whole foods, especially vegetables high in anti-oxidants, and minimal use of ultra-processed foods prevented or in some way counteracted the inflammation caused by smoking.

Well, back to my point. I think it's entirely possible that eating the junk food diet might lead to decreased cholesterol and improvement of other lab values. Even if those numbers stay low, I don't think the risk of heart disease is necessarily lowered and may be increased due to the inflammatory process.

I don't think there is one magic food or group of foods (though vegetables are probably close) that will improve this, but rather a limited use or absence of ultra-processed, faux foods.

Just my opinion....

[oolala53]

Just heard Dr. Haub interviewed on Weekend Edition. I think he said he ate 4 "servings" a day. I'd guess 2 Twinkies is a serving. (BTW, they are only about 25% fat; Ding Dongs are near 50%). I wish the interviewer asked him how he felt eating like that. When he was asked which one he would choose if he were on a deserted island, he asked if he could half of each. I thought he'd say, neither, give me a steak. But I guess it was a desserted island. Aiiyyy, don't shoot me! I couldn't resist.