The Twinkies Diet Proves Fatty Fats Are Fat Because They Eat Too Much

I’m a cautious advocate of the Paleo diet. I’ve been doing it for a year now, and have no complaints. However, many Paleo gurus — as well as opportunistic fat apologists — have taken to claiming that the obesity plague disfiguring America’s women is, if not solely at least partially, the result of a mismanaged or even conspiratorial government-agribusiness alliance that shoves refined grains and sugars down our throats. In other words, fatties are fat because they’ve been eating what the government tells them to eat.

Eh, hold up. I ate a lot of the same crap when I was a kid that fatties eat, but I didn’t bloat up. The sugar-grains-vegetable oil trifecta of triglycerides and the concomitant omega 3 and 6 ratio imbalance isn’t the whole story. I’ve always felt it’s part of the story, but can’t be the sole explanation for the gross tonnage of shoggoths among us. That first law of thermodynamics looms large over everything. Calories in must equal calories out, or energy differentials lead to weight fluctuation. Ever see an overweight Ethiopian famine victim?

Nevertheless, the “fatties aren’t responsible for their grotesque appearance” crowd has been latching onto Paleo dietary theory as some sort of proof that their “condition” is the fault of someone else, like the government food pyramid, or genes, or advertising, or HFCS- and Canola-pushing globoagricorporate fat cats.

I smell a faint whiff of bullshit. And now some brave (or stupid) souls are experimenting on themselves to demonstrate the basic laws of weight gain.

Here’s a guy who went on a Twinkies diet for ten weeks and lost 27 pounds.

Twinkies. Nutty bars. Powdered donuts.

For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.

His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most — not the nutritional value of the food.

The premise held up: On his “convenience store diet,” he shed 27 pounds in two months.

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.

His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.

But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so.

Newsflash! You eat less, you lose weight, no matter what form the calories come in.

The most interesting result of Haub’s experiment in accelerated tooth decay was this:

Haub’s “bad” cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his “good” cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.

“That’s where the head scratching comes,” Haub said. “What does that mean? Does that mean I’m healthier? Or does it mean how we define health from a biology standpoint, that we’re missing something?”

He did eat some vegetables, which might account for the unexpected lipid profile. Nonetheless, his measured lipid numbers are highly counterintuitive.

Two-thirds of his total intake came from junk food. He also took a multivitamin pill and drank a protein shake daily. And he ate vegetables, typically a can of green beans or three to four celery stalks.

Haub’s results suggest that the QUANTITY of calories ingested is at least as important as, and maybe more important than, the type of calories for maintaining a healthy weight.

Haub’s body fat dropped from 33.4 to 24.9 percent. This posed the question: What matters more for weight loss, the quantity or quality of calories? […]

Blatner, a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association, said she’s not surprised to hear Haub’s health markers improved even when he loaded up on processed snack cakes.

Being overweight is the central problem that leads to complications like high blood pressure, diabetes and high cholesterol, she said.

“When you lose weight, regardless of how you’re doing it — even if it’s with packaged foods, generally you will see these markers improve when weight loss has improved,” she said.

Big bottom line: Being fat itself is bad for your health. “Fat and fit” is a myth. The change that counts the most is losing the weight, which can only be done by PUSHING AWAY FROM THE TABLE.

Haub had tried other diets:

Before his Twinkie diet, he tried to eat a healthy diet that included whole grains, dietary fiber, berries and bananas, vegetables and occasional treats like pizza.

“There seems to be a disconnect between eating healthy and being healthy,” Haub said. “It may not be the same. I was eating healthier, but I wasn’t healthy. I was eating too much.”

Being healthy means not overeating. Overeating is the path to the bulbous side. Overeating leads to corpulence. Corpulence leads to self-hate. Self-hate leads to donuts and alone time with the dildo. The very frightened dildo.

Haub plans to add about 300 calories to his daily intake now that he’s done with the diet. But he’s not ditching snack cakes altogether. Despite his weight loss, Haub feels ambivalence.

“I wish I could say the outcomes are unhealthy. I wish I could say it’s healthy. I’m not confident enough in doing that. That frustrates a lot of people. One side says it’s irresponsible. It is unhealthy, but the data doesn’t say that.”

Don’t take this post as a rebuke of the Paleo lifestyle. The science behind Paleo eating, sugars, and lipid profiles is strong, and real world evidence seems to back tenets of the theory. But Paleo is not the whole picture. There is an interplay between types of calories and amount of calories, as well as degree and kind of exercise, that likely synergistically affects weight gain or loss and how hungry we feel. Beyond good calories and bad calories there are simply too many calories.

The calories are too damn high!

And too many calories not offset by increased physical activity leads to obesity. Get out of the car and off your office chair and walk around a mile each day, and you’ve won half the battle toward rebalancing your caloric energy throughputs.

And why are people eating so many more calories? Well, maybe because it’s gotten dirt cheap to stuff your face.

…according to researchers at the University of Washington, a thousand calories of nutritious food cost $18.16, while a thousand calories of junk food cost a mere $1.76. How do they keep junk-food costs so low? Pretty simple, actually: flavor enhancers and other chemical additives…

As always, obesity is a question of character more than an issue of bad foods. Fatties put on low calorie diets whose caloric intake was monitored under controlled conditions showed more weight loss than fatties on experimental diets who self-reported their food intake. Surprise surprise! Fat people lie about how much food they wolf down. Kind of like how sluts lie about their number of past partners.

Maxim #105: Where there’s incentive, there are lies.

Fat fucks lack the self-discipline to stop stuffing their piggy maws. The grotesquely obese should be shamed and tormented for the weak-willed degenerates they are. Making an example of them would serve an excellent purpose. Hurt a few souls now, save a few hundred later.





Comments


  1. Is this crusade aimed totally at White people? Do you wish us to take up the burden of slimming down the burgeoning(in more ways than one) black/Amerindian minority pop? Well sir,good luck! And good luck with your social shaming!

    Like


  2. on November 10, 2010 at 12:26 pm Just A Horny Dude

    Brilliant and informative and entertaining, all-in-one!

    Like


  3. What you eat can help you control how you metabolize food. How you workout/live controls how you burn calories. The equation is still metabolized calories minus those you burn.

    Like


  4. Nice post, but you’re thinking of the Second Law (the entropy one), which governs the expenditure of energy to do work. The First Law applies to the universe as a whole, and it doesn’t translate to, “If the universe fails to keep mass-energy constant, it will gain or lose weight.”

    +++ for “gross tonnage of shoggoths”

    Like


  5. some people tolerate carbohydrate better. if insulin is elevated enough the body will store fat at all costs, even at the expense of brain tissue.

    Like


  6. This guy is still fat.

    Like


  7. What’s pushed by the govt, the news, the diet industry, common culture, and the scientific-techological complex is not only wrong, it’s the exact opposite of what you should be doing.

    This is becoming depressingly obvious in other areas, too.

    Like


  8. It would be interesting to see what would happen if the [US] government were to shift its corn subsidies to healthier produce instead. If the price of corn were made to find its own equilibrium, I’m guessing the cost of junk food would rise substantially.

    Like


  9. I’m a skeptic.

    Perhaps this is a publicity ploy by an academic.

    Academics are no longer the disciples of Truth they once were. They’ve been fudging sociological data for decades: just try finding easy access to crime and race stats.

    Then, there’s that scandalous Global Warming BS.

    Like


  10. 33.4% bf is appalling. wonder what would happen, blood-lipid and cholesterol-wise, to a normal who tried this.

    Like


  11. working out does nothing but make me hungry. for days.

    Like


  12. on November 10, 2010 at 12:46 pm Gunslingergregi

    It doesn’t say if the dude was excercising.

    You can eat anything you want if you run ten miles a day.

    Like


  13. I’m not sure where you were going with this. You cautiously embrace Paleo, but you also buy into the ‘calorie is a calorie is a calorie’ and ‘exercise yourself thin’ conventional wisdom. You don’t think food subsidies are to blame but you think food is too damn cheap? And if character is the main factor why were people so much thinner 50 or 100 years ago? Have people degenerated that much? And don’t bring up the thermodynamics and calories canard, please, I’m losing respect for you.

    Like


  14. you can get 1000 calories of nutritious food for a lot less than $18.

    25lb bag of oatmeal: 10 dollars is what I pay.

    1 lb bag of vegetables (Mixed/frozen): $1.50

    Protein shake: 5lb bucket for $40. about $.75 per shake

    I eat for less than 10 dollars a day and I have a ~2000 calorie diet.

    Base of diet: oats

    then 1lb bag of vegetables a day, 4 protein shakes and 4oz of chicken.

    then miscallaneous almonds, peanuts, cashews, pistachios etc.

    it’s not hard to eat health on the cheap if you have a brain.

    but so many people lack a brain which explains a lot.

    Like


  15. oh and i’m 8-9% bf

    lift weights regularly. If anything I should be eating more

    Like


  16. First and foremost, it’s all about the calories. Want to lose weight? Reduce (caloric) input, and increase output (exercise). That doesn’t mean nothing else counts, but excluding specific and particularly individual medical issues, everything else is secondary. Well-balanced and nutritious diet will get you nowhere if you’re consuming too many calories. It’s that simple.

    Like


  17. CR is good for fat people, no matter what they’re eating.

    That’s what we can conclude from this.

    It’s surprising. I wouldn’t have done well on that diet, I can tell you. I would have melted down into an incontinent puddle of pathetic humanity. I know, because I’ve seen me do it.

    Some people are genetically more capable of tolerating non-paleo diets than others.

    I’d be happy to put this hypothesis to the test:

    1 month on twinkie CR, vs. one month of unlimited fresh (not frozen) boiled fish.

    Test his bio-indicators then. If the twinkies win… I’ll be surprised. And probably start CR immediately.

    Like


  18. Spot the beta:

    Like


  19. on November 10, 2010 at 1:06 pm Ascending Alpha

    This goes to show that it’s fatties own fault that they are fat. It confirms that they are lazy and have no self control.

    Like


  20. on November 10, 2010 at 1:08 pm The Man Who Was . . .

    I’m a cautious practitioner of a paleoish diet too, with good results. I find I am a lot less hungry when I cut carbs, even whole grains, from my diet instead of fats.

    However, I do agree with our host. While what you eat _does_ affect your hunger level, metabolism etc., past a certain point if you eat too many calories of any kind you will get fat.

    Like


  21. Weight loss is a matter of three things: diet, resistance training and drugs.

    As far as diet, just eliminate carbs and eat only meat and veggies. Voila.

    Weight training and drugs are big subjects, others can talk about them.

    Calorie restriction for weight loss is inefficient because it slows the metabolism and burns muscle. Also, it requires more willpower than most people have.

    I’m not yet convinced of the health benefits of CR, because I haven’t seen it done from a proper paleo diet baseline. Eating less crap may be good for you, but what about healthy food? And I don’t mean grain.

    I’m also skeptical of CR animal studies, which all involve caged animals, who are not neurotypical. This little flaw has already invalidated much animal research. The perceived benefits of CR could easily result from its protective effects against the health detriments of cage life, such as a tendency to overeat.

    Whether human beings also live in cages and have a tendency to overeat is an interesting question.

    Like


  22. on November 10, 2010 at 1:08 pm Mr. Happy's Conscious

    I dropped over twenty pounds in three weeks by just eating very little twice a day and walking several miles a day.
    It works! It really does.

    You just have to want it bad enough.

    Like


  23. Anyway, I’m open minded, just playing the devil’s advocate. Intermittent fasting was certainly part of paleo life. If I do try CR, it will be via IF from 6pm to 6pm every other day.

    Like


  24. Joseph, moderate CR is good for everybody, period.

    The question is how you get people to the point where they can do it without feeling like they’re suffering or hey, the new gods of anti gluttony claiming that it takes self discipline when all it really takes is optimizing one’s intake.

    The self discipline crowd gets on my nerves more with every kilo.

    If you’re thin and not paleo (or some flavor of it), you’re not special. You’re just lucky until you get cancer or your pancreas gives out.

    Like


  25. calorie-counting? are you all men or housewives? get some steroids and eat a lot of protein. or don’t. either way, pull the sand out of your vaginas.

    Like


  26. No one denies that there is a correlation between the obese and eating too much. The question is to cause and effect. In this particular case, the question is whether the metabolic derangement causes the overeating, or whether the overeating causes the metabolic derangement. Good article on this same study here: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/11/twinkie-diet-for-fat-loss.html

    Like


  27. Knowing that the Chateau has a strong sense of duty to serve the public interest in combating the depletion of America’s most tapable resources, I welcome this post.

    I’d like to point out that the main preventable contributors to chicks aging into disgusting creatures that men with options are incapable of forming a pair bond with are:

    1. fatness
    2. smoking (ages skin and causes bone resorption and sags all tissue especially facial muscles and baby fat)
    3. excessive sun (causes light wrinkles)
    4. marathon running fads (done in excess causes oxidation stress and exposes one to sun)
    5. FACIAL BONE RESORPTION – mostly caused by acid/base imbalance by poor diet

    The Paleo diet addresses #1 _and_ #5. The twinkie diet only covers #1.

    http://thepaleodiet.com/pdf/calcium/Acid-base%20balance,%20bone%20resorption,%20&%20Ca%20excretion_06.pdf

    Facial bone resorption is the biggest factor in wall hitting. Calcium supplements don’t do jack shit for this because if you have a acid load you just pee it out.

    Look at recent pictures of Kate Moss. Sure her skin looks like shit from smoking – but the un-retouched images show facial bone resorption. She looks like a totally unfuckable piece of shit and didn’t even get fat.

    Social shaming of women should extend to all areas of bad habits that contribute to lowering their sexual market value.

    1. Bring back fattie shame
    2. Smoker chicks should be berated.
    3. Chicks eating too many grains without fruits and veggies should be called out.

    All these things begin to have major effects on a chicks tapablity starting in the late 20s and are very apparent by mid-30’s.

    Like


  28. The few obese people I know all have one thing in common: huge portions.

    On fasting… I had a buddy who was in one of those very hardcore Evengelical sects. For Lent he’d fast for the entire forty days. A slice of bread in the morning with a multivitamin, and water all day. He was very big and athletic, and swore by how healthy this fasting feels, in addition to the spiritual benefits he professed.

    I’d be tempted to try this out of curiosity if I were sure it woudn’t screw with my weight training and make me sluggish at work.

    Like


  29. Sean the moron:

    ” And if character is the main factor why were people so much thinner 50 or 100 years ago?”
    —Because we have MORE FOOD at CHEAPER PRICES. Since WW2, Capitalism has eliminated the fear of one of the Four Horsemen; faminine in a Western society is unheard of. We have an abundance of food. To wit: for all of history fat/wellfed correlated with wealth. Today is the first time in human history where fat correlates to poverty.

    Think about it, nimrod.

    “You don’t think food subsidies are to blame but you think food is too damn cheap?”
    —he never denied this or even commented on this. Keep up with that straw man you’re flailing at.

    Like


  30. I had been ambivalent about why fatties are fat growing up; there weren’t many fatties in my milieu. After traveling and attending college, and patronizing fast food joints, it became apparent that fat people just eat a helluva lot more.

    Fatties do a number of things to get shoveling At a buffet, fatties would:

    “Sit at a table vs. a booth.
    Face the buffet while eating, rather than have their side or back to it.
    Begin serving themselves immediately instead of surveying the buffet.
    Pick up a larger plate vs. a smaller one.
    Use a fork instead of chopsticks.
    Put their napkin on the table or tucked into their shirt vs. on their lap.
    Leave less food leftover on their plate
    Chew fewer times per bite.”
    And sit closer to the buffet [mentioned in other reports on the study]

    http://www.livescience.com/health/081202-buffet-eating-behavior.html

    All you need to know about fatties right dur.

    Like


  31. People forget that government and politicians run on money, thus everyone is paid and owned by someone. In most cases the huge fast food chains, sugar & food industry will donate money to influence government policies, not to forget they have an army of trained lobbyists to combat any actions taken by “health” groups.

    The wise person will do their own research, follow their own diet and exercise plan and give a finger to all the dumb fatties and corporate government.

    Physical form is one avenue of the manifestation of the mind. Thus most fatties have weak self-control, unless they devote all their time to money, power and fame, which are the only acceptable excuses for being obese.

    Like


  32. —Because we have MORE FOOD at CHEAPER PRICES. Since WW2, Capitalism has eliminated the fear of one of the Four Horsemen; faminine in a Western society is unheard of. We have an abundance of food. To wit: for all of history fat/wellfed correlated with wealth. Today is the first time in human history where fat correlates to poverty.

    That combined with a much much much more sedentary lifestyle than we ever had before. Many folks waddle from the house to the car and then car to the office and back again and that’s all she wrote in terms of exercise. The world we live in requires you to make time and space specifically for exercising, because normal everyday life for most people is very sedentary. That has a huge impact, as well as the cheap price of food. People today need much less in the way of food and total calories than they did in the past, especially most folks who live in metro suburbs — but they still eat like they were farmers. That’s the problem.

    Like


  33. What shocked me most about this study is that this guy, apparently no stranger to the dinner table, was able to control himself after eating a twinkie or whatever other junk food he ate. No longer being a kid, I know that the moment I eat mandatory-office-birthday cake or anything with sugar, I become a food zombie. Thanks to the glycemic index of these things, insulin goes crazy. So, this guy was able to eat one twinkie and walk away, not being affected by the jolt in his sugar level. That discipline alone would be good for weight loss.

    Also, food prices and production are (or at least were) subsidized in this country to maintain higher market prices, for some goods like vegetables and milk and cheese. On the other hand, some foods are subsidized to be cheaper, like sugar. One blog noted that the gov’t was on one hand subsidizing cheese while promoting diets that avoided things like cheese. that’s what happens with intrusive gov’t intervention in the markets, same result, just a lot more money spent (if you’re lucky).

    Like


  34. As someone who’s both bulked up and had to make weight before, I’d say that weight management is like 75% diet and 25% exercise. That is you can affect your weight through diet alone, but all the exercise in the world won’t make a difference if your nutrition isn’t right.

    I’ve heard about some studies where they found defective genes coding for leptin and/or it’s receptors in obese mice, but I’m not sure if this carries over to humans. If it does, then it means that some people just don’t feel “full” after eating as much as others. I’ve always wondered if that’s why some people eat so much. My problem was always forcing myself to eat the extra calories when trying to put on weight.

    And i’d also argue that being able to perform above certain fitness thresholds is more important than weight (though the 2 are usually correlated). For example, even though he’s kind of tubby, I wouldn’t say that Big Baby is out of shape.

    Like


  35. picture is unrelated:

    Like


  36. I’m a Paleo fanatic as well…

    What’s truly sad is…the paleo diet requires ZERO willpower…it’s the easiest diet ever…

    I’ve also been in crossfit for a year…

    I will admit that weight loss has been tough …mainly because since I’ve started working out FOR REAL…your body demands more food in order to have enough energy to workout

    Like


  37. Ugly truth: there’s not jack most people can do about their body types. You’re born within the range of mesomorph, or endomorph, or ectomorph. Fat people might be fatter because of their overeating, or their eating sugar, but ultimately the body type you were born with is the one you will have.

    Genetic determinism for ya!

    Like


  38. If you run a calorie deficit, you will lose weight. Simple physics.

    On the other hand, people have easy access to food and a body that really really doesn’t want you to run a calorie deficit – plus the conventional ideas about diet (low fat! whole grains!) turn the “don’t want to run a calorie deficit” signals so high that people are unable to ignore them.

    Paleo works through two means: (1) easier metabolic processing (no insulin resistance) and (2) better matching of calorie needs to hunger (you’re full now, stop eating).

    Like


  39. im 17 yr old virgin 511 280 lbs have i any chance to lose virginity before 18 roissy

    Like


  40. Sounds to me like the twinkie diet thing was done as a promotion for gastric bypass surgery (which will be free with obamacare).

    I’m telling you guys, it happened everywhere else with national healthcare. It’ll happen in the U.S. too.

    They push the idea that weight loss is a cure-all, and then the sheeple pay for the instant $olution.

    This is why I think shaming the fat after the fact more than shaming the herd mentality that leads to its overabundance is the blind leading the blind.

    If you’re going to play shepherd, pick up the stick with your hand, not your mouth.

    Like


  41. novaseeker, I don’t agree. Exercise has much less to do with weight loss. Yes, if you run 10 miles daily you’ll lose a lot of wieght if your diet remains the same, but that’s unrealistic. Portion control drops the pounds much faster.

    I should know. I’ve been running 3 miles every other day for a year now, with better than average times, and I barely shed more than a token 3 pounds from running and working out. But 4 months ago, I began counting calories and planning meals and I dropped 10.

    So 8 months of good running= 3 lbs.

    4 months of portion control= 10 lbs.

    Like


  42. If you’re thin and not paleo (or some flavor of it), you’re not special. You’re just lucky until you get cancer or your pancreas gives out.

    As far as diet, just eliminate carbs and eat only meat and veggies. Voila.

    Anecdotally, it seems the most adamant and strongly convinced of one diet or another are those who have or need to lose much weight.

    What’s truly sad is…the paleo diet requires ZERO willpower…it’s the easiest diet ever…I will admit that weight loss has been tough

    Dude, not losing weight does not make lack of willpower impressive.

    Like


  43. Someone lost weight while munching less calories and supposedly burning as much calories as he did before his experiment. Some problems I found:

    1) Correlation does not imply causation. His getting thinner may not be related to his diet change.

    2) The long term results of the diet are not known. Over time, his body may adapt to the diet and get more efficient in using less food, in the end gaining his old weight and even getting fatter. It’s called Yo-yo effect.

    3) How many people have tried such a diet before and did not lose weight or did gain weight? Of course such cases would not have gotten on a big TV channel, simply because: it’s not news to supposedly confirm something what everybody thinks they know for sure!

    4) So yeah, your sample size is 1. Not a big problem IF you had the statistics to back up your theory and only left it out to not bore your audience. BUT I don’t think that’s the case. Time and time again, new diets come up and deteriorate quickly. Why are there so many diets out there? It’s because there’s no single diet that has proven working that would have pushed the others out of the market.

    Like


  44. This post is so true.
    I eat everything with caution, usually, when i buy groceries i go to the local market, but i dont abstain myself from a greasy big mac, from my experience, the only things that works, is counting the calories. If you take in 1200 kcal, and walk home every day, you lose weight, i can eat a big mac and co and then eat nothing, its all in self control, an obese person can have salads and paleo food that is way over the weight loosing diet, or the calories you find in a big mac or whopper, then they complain about some mysterious fatty acid in the food that hinders them to loose weight.

    Like


  45. Self-hate leads to donuts and alone time with the dildo. The very frightened dildo.

    Classic Roissy!

    FYI, I have a new post up that I thought you might appreciate about women over 40 and their denial of their declining SMV: The Rationalization Hamster 500!

    Like


  46. Sid says, “Ugly truth: there’s not jack most people can do about their body types. You’re born within the range of mesomorph, or endomorph, or ectomorph. Fat people might be fatter because of their overeating, or their eating sugar, but ultimately the body type you were born with is the one you will have.”

    I used to believe that. Now I understand that it’s not so simple. Not only am I losing weight on an African/Native American diet, but my shape is changing as well.

    People may be predisposed to be shaped a certain way, but only a tiny, tiny fraction of people are genetically predisposed to be fat. Of those, most are afflicted with some other condition or birth defect that is severe enough to make the fat pale in comparison. This is why we’re “wired” to view obesity as a defect. For thousands of years of human history, it was due to a defect or to a degree, old age.

    Humans are not used to seeing women above reasonably rounded who are not menopausal, or fat men who aren’t incredibly rich, old, or disabled.

    Most people who are fat now, are fat because they’re eating like bovines and not like primates…predatory ones more specifically.

    Endomorphs abound in south and central America, in west Africa, and in northern Europe, and some groups who still eat the way they did 100+ years ago are indeed sturdy…but even among them, people who eat very well and a lot, you don’t see more than moderately overweight people.

    I come from a family of big people who used to be much fatter until we went natural. All of us who’ve done so have lost weight, slowly but surely, without even thinking much about calories. That comes up at about year 3 for the women, and year 1.5-2 for the men.

    We’re not genetically fat, just genetically sturdy. I think the genetically fat thing is yet another sell for the surgical $olution. It’s a two pronged approach to promote the idea that obesity is something that can’t be controlled any way but surgery…to say that it can’t be helped one way or another because they’re all genetically defective and/or mentally ill, and that calorie control is the be all and end all of being healthy.

    Like


  47. Nicole

    Sounds to me like the twinkie diet thing was done as a promotion for gastric bypass surgery (which will be free with obamacare).

    Finally, a social welfare solution that will indeed beautify all urban ghettos – like Detroit.

    Like


  48. Crap, I said endomorth when I meant ectomorph. I think I’m getting topic fatigue.

    Like


  49. Crap again. I had it right the first time. I haven’t used these terms in ages, can’t you tell?

    Like


  50. Nicole I get tired of your sermonizing on this topic, but those last two entries were cute.

    Like


  51. Just want to point out, as a reader wrote on The Daily Dish

    For one thing, the guy didn’t just eat Twinkies. He ate a can of vegetables, a protein shake and a multi-vitamin every day. Limbaugh doesn’t mention those trivial details in the transcript. The Twinkies provided the diet’s caloric content. The nutrition came from other sources. So, referring to it as a “Twinkie diet” is disingenuous. Another point Limbaugh fails to mention: when you do the math, the guy only ate five individual Twinkie cakes a day. That’s not exactly stuffing your face with Twinkies. Finally, though Twinkies have a reputation as being tiny cakes of death, they’re really nothing more than 150 calories of flour, sugar, eggs, and lard (plus a bunch of flavor and texture additives with scary names, that are nonetheless ubiquitous in processed foods). The fat content is 4.5 grams, so eating five a day amouts to 22.5 grams of fat intake a day, significantly less than the 30 grams that constitute a low fat diet. And the cholesterol content? A mere 20 mg, or 7% of the RDA. Multiply that by 5 and you’ve got a grand total of 35% of your daily recommended cholesterol content. No wonder his cholesterol count improved!

    Like


  52. @TyKa$h92

    You could always buy a prostitute.

    Like


  53. this is true. even if you eat mcdonald’s almost every meal, but count your calories, and get some exercise you should be relatively thin.

    i took some initiative to lose weight and lost 30 lbs over the course of 3-4 months. i jsut replaced a few meals with protein shakes, work out a few times a week (2x weight lifting, 2x yoga).

    i’m in college and smoke weed on a daily basis, drink diet coke plenty, although the rest of my eating is fairly healthy, a large part of my diet is still canned blah blah blah.

    Like


  54. i should add that i stopped eating almost all shitty carbs, which is probably also a big reason, and conditioned myself to not eat while high.

    Like


  55. Every once and a while Roissy busts out a Star Wars reference and reveals the latent nerd within.

    The best one is the title of the post on marriage, “It’s a trap!”

    Like


  56. Al, perhaps you are as tired of my sermonizing as I am of sanctimonious twits who think they’ve accomplished something superhuman by being skinny.

    It’s like the fat women skewing the sexual market thing. Not only do skinny people now think they are hotter than they really are, the think they’re better than they really are.

    I don’t see how someone thinks being a frothing maniac makes them better. Anger is one of the seven deadly sins too. So is pride. If you’re going to pick the Christian/Catholic morality, then go all the way…and if you’re going evo-bio, extreme outbursts of profanity towards people in the same social class are a sign of defectiveness too.

    Thing is, like being skinny might obscure the fact that you’re not that healthy, keeping your mouth shut unless you have something constructive to say may obscure the fact that you’re pathologically twitchy and oversensitive.

    Just sayin…

    If it’s about personal responsibility, I’m all for that. I just don’t think it’s a good idea to only apply that to the moral panic du jour, or to promote wolf solutions to sheep.

    A rich guy who will never ever need a fat person for anything ever can afford to be an ass. A regular guy whose nurse might be fat when he’s in the hospital after surgery for runner’s knee, cannot.

    One has to pick their battles and to fight them effectively, not blindly.

    Like


  57. I thought that Leah’s quote was from a hate filled lefty because the spleen was vented more at Limbaugh than at the reporters who actually wrote the underlying story that Limbaugh was reading. Yup, the quote is from batshit insane Andrew Sullivan. Brain-parasite addled Sullivan acts as if Limbaugh created the twinkie diet. Rush has always been a calorie counter, so of course he digs on the results of the TD (and yeah, RL sometimes gets big but he also loses weight when he wants to do so).

    Anyway, one twinkie has 19g of sugar. So, it’s sugary but not as calorie dense as a handful of Sour Patch Kids. The guy ate 5 a day, which is 750 calories including 95g of sugar. There’s still 1050 calories from other non-sugary sources like celery and other veggies. Maybe he should call it the built in cheat diet because maybe there’s enough sugar in it to make the medicine go down.

    I think that the people who have the most success with P90X, for example, follow Tony Horton’s diet plan (which isn’t that onerous).

    Like


  58. “a thousand calories of nutritious food cost $18.16, while a thousand calories of junk food cost a mere $1.76.”

    Total bullshit, made up by academics with an agenda to make people feel guilty that all those poor fatties living in public housing can’t afford healthy food. My favorite breakfast, old-fashioned oatmeal w/ one apple diced and added in, and brown sugar: $1.25. Lunch: Peanut butter sandwich with some fruit and a granola bar: $3.00, Dinner: hamburger W/ potatoes, broccoli: $4.00. Figuring very generously on what this costs at the supermarket, I come to $8.25 at the very most for about 1,800 calories.

    Like


  59. I follow Paleo principals and found I can do it, where watching how much I took in was tricky because of cravings. Taking sugar out of my diet reduced my cravings and heck my mood swings to almost nothing. You don’t have to white knuckle it, which I found I had to do before. But watch out – introduce sugar and you’re back to square one and three days of craving hell.

    I don’t count calories on it. I find it’s hard to be hungry enough to eat enough – but that’s a good side effect if you ask moi.

    Like


  60. a thousand calories of nutritious food is $18.16?
    One pound is 454 grams. One gram of protein is 4 calories. a thousand by 4 is 250 grams of protein. Let’s say an average piece of steak is half water, So, 1000 calories of steak would be about a pound. So, what slice of meat costs $18 a pound?
    A bag of frozen brocolli is about $2 for 12 ounces.
    Total bullshit.
    Obvious spin by an academic sin eater for the lazy, fat poor who eat too many french fries.

    Like


  61. Look, its not a expensive with just a plain bag of vegetables, what an utter bullshit that healthy food is expensive, its just not ready made that’s the only thing.

    Like


  62. If most of that was directed at me, Nicole, then you have made a lot of assumptions based on little information. If it is more generally directed, fair enough.

    As for lack of constructive things to say, guilty like much of the masses.

    Like


  63. Yes, you can lose weight by starving yourself. That’s obvious. But what about six months from now? What will this guy’s weight be then?

    Ancel Keys showed conclusively many decades ago that starvation always causes weight loss in the short run and net weight gain in the long run (meaning, you end up fatter than you started). That’s why 97% of all diets result in being fatter a year afterwards. The body isn’t stupid, and it will fight your self-induced famine with every tool available. Body temperatures will fall, metabolism slows, insulin sensitivity increases, and this guy will end up a fatty fatso in no time flat.

    Click the link in my name for a better analysis of the Twinkie Diet than our host here provides.

    P.S. Junk “food” is cheaper than nutritious food partly because of government subsidies to corn and sugar growers, and partly because it doesn’t have to be fresh. You can store a Twinkie in a warehouse for years. But it’s not actually food.

    Like


  64. Oh, and that cost of healthy food at the Yahoo link is utter bullshit. I “eat healthy”, consume between ~2,500 calories/day, and somehow manage to avoid a $50/day grocery bill.

    Like


  65. oh, by the way, this FACIAL BONE RESORPTION thing? That sounds scary. what the hell?

    Like


  66. “Ancel Keys showed conclusively many decades ago that starvation always causes weight loss in the short run and net weight gain in the long run”

    Its mostly happening to people who went on a diet and then started to eat massively again. Ive never seen this myth in real life.

    Like


  67. Ie, for people who went on a restricted diet, and then kept a healthy diet, this never happened.

    Like


  68. “Self-hate leads to donuts and alone time with the dildo. The very frightened dildo”

    Absolutely hilarious! “Shoggoth” is officially my new favorite term for fatties of horrific Lovecraftian proportions.

    Like


  69. BTW, that $18.16 lie came from an article in the Dec 2007 issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, I’d like to see their methodology which is summarized “High-energy-density foods provided the most dietary energy at least cost. Energy cost of foods in the bottom quintile of energy density, beverages excluded, was $18.16/1,000 kcal as compared to only $1.76/1,000 kcal for foods in the top quintile”

    So, here’s what happens, they and a complicit media turned “cost of foods in the bottom quintile of energy density” into “calories of nutritious food.” So, nutritious means, according to Udub having lowest energy density. what a bunch of dingdongs.

    Like


  70. Bronan!

    “Self-hate leads to donuts and alone time with the dildo. The very frightened dildo”

    this…is the shocking tragedy that happens in fluctuating Himalayan peaks and Challenger Deeps to Kelly Clarkson, Christina Aquilera and Jessica Simpson.

    don’t let bitches get fat.

    Like


  71. you just couldn’t let nicole go, can you?

    Like


  72. The main thing about the paleo is that you physically can’t eat enough to make yourself fat;the protein and fat content suppresses your appetite for long enough that its easy to keep the overall calories down.

    Fatties do indeed have zero willpower, and this is the no 1 reason they are fat. It might ‘hurt their feelings’ but that doesn’t stop it being true.

    As to the contention that anyone thin but not on a paleo diet is as fucked up as a fattie, thats just envy speaking.

    Like


  73. N=1 therefore this is useless information. Good to get on the news though.

    Like


  74. Set total calories below total daily energy expenditure.
    Set protein.
    Subtract kcal of protein from total kcal for the day.
    Eat the rest of calories from fat or carbs, doesn’t matter.
    Adjust maconutrient intakes and total calories based on progress towards goal.
    Lose weight.

    Its more complicated if you actually want to improve/maintain lean muscle mass and strengthen your cardio system, but weight loss itself is easy.

    Like


  75. The typical person has no idea how many calories they are consuming. I went into a Jack in the Box with my sister once, which had the calories posted on the menu board. She was shocked.

    Like


  76. How to keep your bitch thin:

    Like


  77. @Gunn
    The first main thing about paleo is that it (for most people) increases daily protein intake (and protein is the most satiating of the macronutrients). Also, the thermic effect of food for protein is around 18%, so 18% of the energy taken in from eating protein is lost as heat during digestion and absorption. Even though protein is listed at 4kcal/gram, due to TEF its closer to 3.25kcal/gram.

    The second main thing about paleo is that it removes or restricts almost all easy-to-binge-on tasty foods made of carbs and fats.

    So, increased satiety, significantly decreased trigger foods = magic!

    Like


  78. on November 10, 2010 at 3:36 pm Rudolf Clausius

    @Dan

    Sorry to burst your bubble but you are in fact the one confusing the laws of thermodynamics.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

    Like


  79. Al, it was mostly general. In my old age, and especially since I figured the fat panic out, I get sick of the crap coming at me from both ends.

    I do tend to sermonize, and try to keep it constructive, but it does get hard. If you think I’m bad here, you should hear what I’m like with the “I’m helpless” folks.

    I’ve found the best way to make your point with these people is to stand up, turn, and flourish. You can also find a fat friend who will volunteer to be your guinea pig. Losing weight without starving is a good sell.

    Keep the photos of their progress on your cell phone. I have my fat pics in mine. So if anybody wants to argue or call me crazy, I show them the before, when I was shaped like a watermelon, and my face was almost twice its current size. I’m still technically fat, but considerably less fat, and I don’t live like a fat person anymore.

    Though there are many doctors and health experts on our side, people love the mainstream. So it doesn’t help to try to explain insulin resistance as much as it does to pull out the pics.

    Like


  80. @Nicole: “Not only do skinny people now think they are hotter than they really are, the think they’re better than they really are.”

    But skinny people are hotter than they really are, because of all the fat people around.

    A skinny 4 will be a 6 or 7 in a city full of lardies.

    Like


  81. oh, noticed this “The calories are too damn high!”

    Forget about Star Wars references…CR gets props for Jimmy McMillan references.

    Like


  82. Gunn says, “The main thing about the paleo is that you physically can’t eat enough to make yourself fat;the protein and fat content suppresses your appetite for long enough that its easy to keep the overall calories down.

    Fatties do indeed have zero willpower, and this is the no 1 reason they are fat. It might ‘hurt their feelings’ but that doesn’t stop it being true.”

    You just contradicted yourself. If people who are currently fat went paleo (or ethno-anachronistic), they would lose weight regardless of “willpower”.

    It does not and never has required willpower to not be overweight. It is the default condition of humans. When one eats like a human, they return to their default. The speed only depends on the level of damage that was done in the process of their becoming grossly overweight.

    I am going through that right now.

    “As to the contention that anyone thin but not on a paleo diet is as fucked up as a fattie, thats just envy speaking.”

    No, that’s just being old enough to have had skinny friends have to have their spleens, gall bladders, uteruses, and breasts removed.

    Like


  83. FWDGF>Paleo

    Julia Childs=10

    Like


  84. wow dude, you’re a genius.

    I came here looking to read another relationship post and hear you are enriching other people’s lives with the facts. Very enjoyed.

    Like


  85. on November 10, 2010 at 4:00 pm Anonymouses Anonymous

    The report ignores an important point. Junk food, normally, has far more calories per cubic measure as compared to “healthier” foods.

    Like


  86. on November 10, 2010 at 4:07 pm Anonymouses Anonymous

    The report ignores an important point. Junk food, normally, has far more calories per cubic measure as compared to “healthier” foods.

    For instance, 774 in a cup of sugar versus 148 for a cup of oatmeal.

    Like


  87. on November 10, 2010 at 4:08 pm Gunslingergregi

    I am still on the line on whether being thin and making 66 dollars a month would be worth it.

    Go to poor country yea the guys are thin but they make shit money.

    Whereas I can be fat and have money and get thin chicks while at the same time be comfortable.

    Like


  88. on November 10, 2010 at 4:10 pm Gunslingergregi

    Or lets say being thin doesn’t equate to having no problems.

    Like


  89. on November 10, 2010 at 4:13 pm Gunslingergregi

    The thing that should probably be talked about is being poor in the west really no excuse for it.

    Worse than being fat.

    Worse than anything.

    Like


  90. on November 10, 2010 at 4:16 pm Gunslingergregi

    You want to make fun of fat people are you independantly wealthy?

    Can you live without a job for years?

    What would happen to you if you lost your job?

    Like


  91. I wonder about not only over weight people’s intake, but their outtake (pooping) hahaha!! You ask..why are you thinking that? hehe!! I don’t know hahah!!!….. I guess storing the grease and sugar and ewew fat is not healthy. To eat is to focus on eliminating. What goes in must come out. If it’s only inputting, what happens to the stuff? where does it go? When you eat healthy (foods that assist in elimination), the body’s natural process is to eliminate what is WASTES. But, if you don’t eat healthy it might trick the body not knowing to eliminate.

    roughage is GOOD!!

    Like


  92. on November 10, 2010 at 4:18 pm Gunslingergregi

    Do you own your house and car free and clear or are you making payments?

    What is your excuse?

    Like


  93. @Nicole

    Sounds to me like the twinkie diet thing was done as a promotion for gastric bypass surgery (which will be free with obamacare).

    I’m telling you guys, it happened everywhere else with national healthcare. It’ll happen in the U.S. too.

    They push the idea that weight loss is a cure-all, and then the sheeple pay for the instant $olution.

    Many members of the bariatric surgery industry are leaders in the “fat acceptance” movement, although I’m not sure why this is. Perhaps many of the obese are in denial or are delusional about the extent of their condition and therefore can not proceed to take the next step to do something about it until they have “accepted” their current state and claimed it, so to speak.

    Like


  94. what

    I wonder about not only over weight people’s intake, but their outtake (pooping) hahaha!! You ask..why are you thinking that? hehe!! I don’t know hahah!!!….. I guess storing the grease and sugar and ewew fat is not healthy. To eat is to focus on eliminating. What goes in must come out. If it’s only inputting, what happens to the stuff? where does it go? When you eat healthy (foods that assist in elimination), the body’s natural process is to eliminate what is WASTES. But, if you don’t eat healthy it might trick the body not knowing to eliminate.

    roughage is GOOD!!

    and here i thought you a dim, unoriginal troll.

    but, your silly fixation on food and, more conclusively, expertise on poop proves you really really are an asian chick.

    Like


  95. Bone resorption, what the fuck is that?

    Like


  96. Firepower,

    yeah, us Asians like to do everything well….and poooooping is nooooo exception! hahaha!!

    Like


  97. How do they calculate calories in food?

    Like


  98. People eat too much shit today, I have always eaten fairly healthily because of what my parents cooked. They always cooked homemade food, good amounts of meat. Processed food is not that common in my house. We have occasional sausages for breakfast but other than its nutritional indian food.

    Like


  99. on November 10, 2010 at 5:01 pm (R)Evolutionary

    Roissy,

    You make great points. A couple things to think about:Two things: one, Professor Haub is on faculty at a large midwestern university, which are known to be bankrolled and beholden to Big Ag. I’m not saying your points are wrong, I’m saying they’re leaving data out. I’m sure he did lose weight on the twinkie diet, but I’m also positive he did not become healthier.

    Notably they did not test him (or if they did, it was not mentioned) for glycation, which is the process of sugars bonding inappropriately to sugars, and as such is the mechanism by which diabetes damages the body. With that diet I would expect to see his glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) to be through the roof–at 6 or above. Below 5 is normal, and tenth of a point movement represents an exponential increase in glycation damage. THere’s a reason why the damaged proteins caused by glycation are called AGE’s –Advanced Glycation End-products–they age people, and badly.

    All in all, your points are well-made. BTW, one of the big benefits of the Paleo diet is that it reduces glycation and thus AGEs.

    Like


  100. I think one of the points behind the paleo diet is that its prevents the urge to overeat. A leafy salad simply is not going to fit in any quantity that causes fat.

    Like


  101. Legion

    Bone resorption, what the fuck is that?

    Thats where minerals come from in an empty diet.

    Like


  102. In an article that just came out today:

    “Think of body mass like cement. It is rather easy to shape when it is new, but once it settles, it is very resistant to change. Data show that weight ranges and body mass indexes are set early in life. According to a study by the Diabetes Center at Howard University, obesity in infants is only a 20 percent predictor of obesity in adulthood, but by the time children are 6 years old, it is 50 percent. By the time they are adolescents, it is 90 percent. Other data, though somewhat less dire, point in the same direction.”

    “The lesson of all this is that the physicians, dietitians and other public health professionals who determine our health care policies should shift most of their efforts to working with parents. They should not focus on reducing the parents’ body mass, but that of their kids.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/10/etzioni.dieting/index.html?hpt=Sbin

    Like


  103. on November 10, 2010 at 5:13 pm ironrailsironweights

    Unshaved women are less likely to overeat.

    Peter

    Like


  104. There is also the argument made by Gary Taubes that by reducing caloric intake one automatically reduces carb intake which leads to weight loss. Exercise also helps to reduce insulin resistance.

    I think you are right though, people seldom get obese eating normal portions of anything (although i do still think paleo/low carb is optimal, if not for the reduction in advanced glycation alone).

    i like low carb b/c i am never hungry and have a higher caloric threshold than with a low fat diet.

    Like


  105. The counter study would be interesting to see. Have someone in need of losing 20-30lbs eat a 2,600 calorie a day paleo diet while engaging in moderate cross-training three days a week. Compare the results.

    Still anecdotal, but it would offer a counterpoint.

    Like


  106. “novaseeker, I don’t agree. Exercise has much less to do with weight loss. Yes, if you run 10 miles daily you’ll lose a lot of wieght if your diet remains the same, but that’s unrealistic. Portion control drops the pounds much faster.

    I should know. I’ve been running 3 miles every other day for a year now, with better than average times, and I barely shed more than a token 3 pounds from running and working out. But 4 months ago, I began counting calories and planning meals and I dropped 10.

    So 8 months of good running= 3 lbs.

    4 months of portion control= 10 lbs.”

    Running is bad excercise (the way you are doing it), it lowers T levels and brings the body into a catabolic state. By restricting calories and running 3 miles every other day you may have lost weight but it was most likely at the expense of your lean body mass. You would be losing muscle not fat. Try eating a Paleo style diet until you are not hungry, with most calories coming in at night along with 10 minutes of interval sprints instead of of the standard 3 mile jog. This would spare muscle mass, boost T levels and will get you trim, not just lose pounds.

    Like


  107. on November 10, 2010 at 5:30 pm French Connection

    Learn game -> bang chicks -> burn calories -> lose weight

    =D

    Like


  108. on November 10, 2010 at 5:32 pm greatbooksformen GBFM

    lozolozlzozlzozlzl

    if yu want to lose weight

    1) exercise more
    2) eat less

    zlzlozozlzlzlz i cannot beleieve this is a multi billion dollar indusrttdyydydta industry lsoslssololzzzozolz buttehehtxhnx

    Like


  109. Roissy did you coin the term rationalization hamster? Some of the commenters on my site are asking. I always assumed it was you because this is where I saw the term first.

    [Editor: The term was coined here at the Chateau. May it endure for posterity!]

    Like


  110. Thanks both for the confirmation and the original gift of the term. It names the previously unnameable.

    I coined one of my own a few months back: Post Marital Spinsterhood. I think it has a nice ring.

    Like


  111. The comments section always feeds my evilness.

    “Healthy Indian food”

    “Beautiful fat people”

    So many “oxymorons” on this board, its a painful experience than Nicole’s panties goes through on a daily basis.

    Then again, I don’t expect much from people who eat silver for dessert to know anything about diet.

    Like


  112. It is a woe to behold that american nation has gone so far in its atrophy that it takes them a scientifical experiment and a hot debate to prove the axiom that the less you eat and the more you move the more weight you lose.

    P A T H E T I C

    [Editor: An excellent observation. In fact, we can distill this into a maxim:

    Maxim #… oh, I dunno… 1776: The farther along a nation is in its decline, the faster and more frequently the nation’s citizens spin their collective rationalization hamsters.

    It’s an ego protection mechanism. We are entering the era of the hamster.]

    Like


  113. Shoggoths. lol.

    Maybe these tubs of lard are the giant penguins they use for food.

    Like


  114. You eat twinkies for 10 weeks, maybe your health doesn’t suffer.

    You eat twinkies for 10, 20, 30 months, different story.

    Let’s not draw any unwarranted conclusions here.

    Like


  115. “Whereas I can be fat and have money and get thin chicks while at the same time be comfortable.”

    Some people carry weight better than others. I felt noticeably worse at 180 than I do now at 165. Aches and pains, more heartburn, etc. I feel better all around when I’m lighter.

    Like


  116. The_Queen, your Lesbian fantasies about my panties are not the readership’s business.

    Like


  117. 1. The half life of serum insulin is extremely short.
    2. Muscle tissue is built up or maintained if it is used. It is burned as fuel when it is not. Regardless of diet – if enough protein is supplied.
    3. Resting metabolic rates vary only slightly and can vary only slightly. Muscle use is practically unlimited as far as calorie burning is concerned.
    4. Mammalian energy physiology is about 100% efficient in the absence of disease. IE, all the calories in food get absorbed and none get out except by being turned into work and/or heat.

    Without an intimate awareness of these facts, a persons opinions about weight loss, etc are absolutely worthless.

    Like


  118. on November 10, 2010 at 6:30 pm too late for romance

    Tallahassee agrees.

    (Zombieland spoilers)

    Like


  119. @Rum

    PT 4.) Try 40%:

    http://www.uwsp.edu/biology/faculty/chartleb/Biol101/Chapter%20outlines/co08.pdf

    Since you do not known the facts, your opinion is worthless indeed.

    Like


  120. NMH

    The total energy content of food is actually its mass times the speed of light squared.
    But if we want to limit the discussion to biological systems…
    My point is that no one person has a “metabolism” that magically does more with AVAILABLE food energy than anyone else.

    Like


  121. In other words, if a fatty is forced to walk up 6 flights of stairs at a brisk pace the energy needed to raise 300lbs 20-30 meters is what it is and energy stores will be used up in the process.

    Like


  122. The problem with the “eat less/exercise more” mentality is that it largely doesn’t differentiate between the types of calories you’re eating and how your body processes them.

    Your body processes fats, proteins and carbs differently.

    1000 calories of sugar vs. 1000 calories of protein will yield entirely different physiological responses.

    There’s a reason why fat people can’t help themselves and eat so much food.

    They’ve eaten so many carbohydrates over the course of time, they’ve developed insulin resistance.

    Fat asses stuffing their faces are in fact eating as much as they need to keep their cells fueled.

    When you develop insulin resistance, your body needs to produce far more insulin than a normal person would. This elevated insulin levels commands your body to store calories as fat as soon as you digest it. So as soon as fat people with screwed up metabolisms eat carbs, their elevated insulin levels store it quickly as more fat..leaving them without enough fuel on a cellular level, which is why the get hungry again so quickly. So they eat more.

    In other words, they’re not getting fat because they’re eating more; they’re eating more because they’re getting fat.

    In simpler terms, if you eat too many carbs and processed foods, your body goes into fat storage mode. Every time you eat, your body stores it as fat quickly, leaving you hungry again in a short period of time.

    If you limit your carbs and start eating fats and proteins, your body no longer produces all that elevated levels of insulin, and your body gets used to burning FAT for fuel, not sugars (what ALL carbs converts to when digested), when your body uses up the energy from the low/non-carb foods, than it will start to burn your fat stores.

    This is why eating a high-fat/high protein/low-carb diet makes you lose weight relatively quickly.

    Like


  123. Rum-

    “The total energy content of food is actually its mass times the speed of light squared.”

    lol!!!!! This has nothing to do with the issue.

    Anyway, your statement that “that no one person has a “metabolism” that magically does more with AVAILABLE food energy than anyone else.” is wrong: People have significantly different resting metabolisms:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate
    http://www.shapeup.org/interactive/rmr1.php

    and so some people will burn off more energy just setting still than others.

    You appear to be very confused.

    Like


  124. DIH

    Insulin does not persist after blood sugar falls. It goes away in just a few minutes. “Fat storage mode” goes away in a few minutes.
    This is why anybody can eat a bowl of sugar and immediately go on a 20 mile hike. You feel like crap for a few minutes but then the fuel is released as needed.

    Like


  125. NMH

    Basal metabolic rates vary plus, minus 10%. Some people fidget more than others. Being fat still sucks.

    Like


  126. However, many Paleo gurus — as well as opportunistic fat apologists — have taken to claiming that the obesity plague disfiguring America’s women is, if not solely at least partially, the result of a mismanaged or even conspiratorial government-agribusiness alliance that shoves refined grains and sugars down our throats. In other words, fatties are fat because they’ve been eating what the government tells them to eat.

    On this Roissy, I’ll at least partly agree…when I wrote about this comment I certainly wasn’t seeking to excuse or justify a fat person and that it is the fault of the Government/Agribusiness complex.

    But the most relevant point regarding that is the same Government and Agribusiness interests that are promoting high-carb/low-fat diets that contributes to the obesity, are the same sort of folks responsible for the ubiquitous propaganda that permeates our society regarding what is a “healthy diet.”

    Based on observations of people, I see most moderate fat people are aware of their problem.

    So they try to “eat healthy” like conventional wisdom says is “healthy eating.”

    i.e. – low fat, plant-based, less meat and more “whole grains.”

    Weight loss may or may not occur..but it is not easily maintained, and the person gets frustrated after awhile, than abandons “healthy eating” and goes back to eating whatever they want, getting even fatter.

    And yet, most people are so influenced by mainstream media and agribusiness marketing slogans on processed food packages, they have a hard time accepting dietary advice that goes against the wisdom, even if they have anecdotal evidence right in front of their face.

    As a guy who lost 35 pounds and have kept it off for almost 4 years now, a guy in my office still refuses to believe me when I say “eating fat doesn’t make you fat.”

    He still uses “I can’t believe it’s not butter,” eats only low fat or non-fat dairy, and only eats “whole grains.” And he’s still about 40 lbs. overweight – most of it in his wheat belly.

    Like


  127. @ Sid
    “Ugly truth: there’s not jack most people can do about their body types. You’re born within the range of mesomorph, or endomorph, or ectomorph. Fat people might be fatter because of their overeating, or their eating sugar, but ultimately the body type you were born with is the one you will have.

    Genetic determinism for ya!”
    ——
    Don’t believe it. At 6’5″ I’ve been a 180 pound skinny weakling, a 300 pound blimp, and a rock hard 205 at different points in my adult life. It’s all about how much attention I pay to nutrition and exercise.

    Like


  128. on November 10, 2010 at 7:44 pm Mr. Happy's Conscious

    Feel free to beat on me for what I’m doing, but here goes.

    Five years ago I lost 65 pounds and then let myself go. I gained 45 of it back over the next four years.
    Recently, I decided I had to dump it all (in a hurry) and so I got busy.
    I cut my caloric intake down to 600 Kcal a day and I walk between 2 miles (light day) and 10 miles on a heavy day. I do that barefoot on beach sand.
    I also swim and bicycle every single day. I lift a moderate amount of free weights every third day.

    Yeah, it’s a bitch, but it works.

    No fast food, no junk anything, and all I eat are raw veggies and a soup I like to eat that I make myself.
    No cheats, no deviation from the plan.
    My only reward system is seeing a lower number on that scale every day.
    Every other day I will have a 150 calorie turkey patty pan fried in a table spoon of olive oil.

    I’m loosing about a pound a day and have been since I started.

    At this point I believe that almost all dietary advice that does not restrict calories and include sensible eating of non-processed foods combined with plenty of exercise is probably crap.

    Caloric deficit.
    You are either doing it or you are not.

    Like


  129. The idea behind the paleo/low-carb/no-carb diets is simple:

    1. eating fat does not make you fat
    2. eating too many calories makes you fat
    3. the easiest way not to eat too many calories is to maximize the sense of having a full stomach while minimizing ones caloric intake
    4. what makes you feel full is protein, fat, and vegetable fiber. Carbohydrates actually trick you into feeling less full.
    5. so eat nothing but protein, fat, and vegetable fiber, and your weight goes down

    I did south beach and was stunned by the results. While the first 6 days of eating no carbohydrates left me with a pounding headache after 2PM every day, I saw results immediately. As in within 36 hours my pants fit better.

    Like


  130. Forget for a second about fat chicks being repulsive (which they are). One of the things fat chicks don’t get is that what any guy with any sense is thinking is:

    “If you do not have the self-discipline to control what you put in your mouth, or the will power to exert your body, what other problems do you have that I will have to deal with?”

    In the case that man wants to have children (and, despite what this sites owner says, I am under the impression that there are some men who genuinely want to have families) he is thinking “If this is what you are doing to yourself, what are you going to do to our kids?”

    Expect to be pumped and dumped until you make yourself worthy of commitment, ladies.

    [Editor: For the record, no host at this site has ever said there are no men who want families. Cautioning against marriage is not the same as claiming men don’t have *any* paternal drive.]

    Like


  131. question for the “caloric defecit” crowd: If that is the holy grail of weight loss….what do suppose happens when you’ve burned off all your excess calories – i.e. your stored fat.

    What happens if you continue to burn more calories than you consume?

    Are you supposed to apply a mathematical formula to the amount of food you consume to reach a new equilibrium for which you only eat enough calories commensurate with how much you burn off?

    What does that entail than? Wearing a pedometer so you’re aware of how many your burning so that you can accurately calculate how many calories to consume at your next meal?

    The caloric defecit theory is bullshit. Sure you will lose weight if you are already overweight and have excess calories to burn…but if that’s the approach you have to your body weight, that is precisely why you get stuck in ”
    yo-yo” dieting mode.

    Far better to understand what foods you can eat without worrying about the calorie count to maintain good nutrition and optimum body weight.

    Like


  132. Are we implying that 5000 EMPTY calories of junk food, bread, and pasta is equal to 5000 nutrient RICH calories from meat, animal fats (organ meats especially), vegetables, fruit, and nuts?

    We all know the answer to that – its common sense, and that answer alone debunks that whole article.

    I would like to know who sponsored this article, because that will tell more than the article itself.

    Like


  133. “4. Mammalian energy physiology is about 100% efficient in the absence of disease. IE, all the calories in food get absorbed and none get out except by being turned into work and/or heat.”

    So you think human feces have zero energy value? The dry mass of feces are mostly comprised of intestinal bacteria and used up red blood cells (hence the color). Animal feces may contain over 50% of the original energy of the food eaten. I suppose the efficiency of the human digestive tract does not vary much from one healthy person to another.

    Body temperature at rest is a good indicator of metabolic efficiency. Around average body temperature, a change of one degree Celsius corresponds to about 13% change in metabolic rate (given constant comfortable ambient temperature).

    Like


  134. When I was in school our nutrition class was basic – calories in and calories out. There was no discussion of fats, carbs, diets, etc. It was you need to eat as many calories as you expend, period. It is odd at how quickly we forgot this basic principle in the modern age.

    After college, when I was younger, I needed to cut some weight. Years of drinking beer had made me porky and it was hurting my game both in the office and in the field. I tried various “diets” and none of them worked. So I did what a friend recommended who had dropped about 30 pounds in 3 months – instead of eating dinner have 2 or 3 martinis. It sounded crazy but it worked. Instead of 1000-1200 calories dinner I had about 300 calories worth of vodka. The alcohol killed my appetite and I could make it through the night without eating. Was it “healthy”? Probably not, but was being 25 pounds overweight health, definitely not. I dropped about 35 pounds in 2 months using this system, then reverted to regular eating. I kept the weight off too. Why did it work? Calories in were less than calories burned. Simple.

    Like


  135. The author of the study in question consumed whey protein and various supplements, it wasn’t all about gorging on junk food.

    All in all, I’m not impressed by the study, since it just proves the obvious, albeit in a roundabout way. The author was going from a state of complete unfitness to becoming somewhat fit via caloric reduction. If you do that, it’s a fact that you initially make very rapid gains (called “noob gains” on bodybuilding forums). Keeping those gains and developing on them is a different matter.

    [Editor: This has been a most productive comment thread. The maturity exhibited has violated every precept of the Chateau mission statement.]

    Like


  136. question for the “caloric defecit” crowd: If that is the holy grail of weight loss….what do suppose happens when you’ve burned off all your excess calories – i.e. your stored fat.

    What happens if you continue to burn more calories than you consume?

    Are you supposed to apply a mathematical formula to the amount of food you consume to reach a new equilibrium for which you only eat enough calories commensurate with how much you burn off?

    What does that entail than? Wearing a pedometer so you’re aware of how many your burning so that you can accurately calculate how many calories to consume at your next meal?

    The caloric defecit theory is bullshit. Sure you will lose weight if you are already overweight and have excess calories to burn…but if that’s the approach you have to your body weight, that is precisely why you get stuck in ”
    yo-yo” dieting mode.

    Far better to understand what foods you can eat without worrying about the calorie count to maintain good nutrition and optimum body weight.

    Dude, you don’t know wtf you are talking about here.

    When you burn more cals than you consume and have no body fat left you start catabolize muscle tissue. Eventually you’ll get to the point where your body is breaking down bone and organ tissue. This eventually death by starvation

    And you don’t need to apply any complicated mathematical formulas, nor do you need to count every calorie that goes in or goes out of your body in order to lose weight. Ballpark figures work just fine.

    Like


  137. Dude, you don’t know wtf you are talking about here

    No dude, YOU don’t know WTF I’m talking about here.

    [blockquote] Many so-called experts think there is only one thing that matters when trying to lose weight: calories consumed versus calories used. They try to lead you to believe that a calorie of protein is equal to a calorie of fat is equal to a calorie of carbs, and that all you have to do is cut down the amount consumed to lose body fat. In order for this to be true, the physiological processes by which the human body transforms food into energy – metabolism – would have to be the same for every type of food. This is a simplistic, unscientific and untenable view.

    All macronutrients — including fats, carbohydrates and proteins — contain energy. The energy contained in food is expressed as calories. We tend to associate calories with food, but in reality, calories apply to anything. For example, a gallon of gasoline contains approximately 31 million calories.

    A calorie is the amount of heat needed to raise 1 kilogram of water 1 degree Celsius at sea level. What does this mean? A Double Whopper with cheese contains 960 calories. If we were to burn this burger, it would produce 960 calories — enough energy to raise 960 kilograms of water 1 degree Celsius.

    Calorie is a shortened name for kilocalories, to reflect the simplified math. A kilocalorie contains 1,000 calories, so the Double Whopper with cheese is actually 960,000 calories. Now don’t get your panties in a bunch — this simplified math also applies to exercise calorie charts. If the piece of cardio equipment you’re using says you burned 200 calories, it’s simplified for 200,000 calories. However, don’t rely on exercise equipment charts — they are grossly inaccurate. This is due to several factors, mainly genetics, because the rate at which individuals burn calories varies greatly and cannot be measured on a piece of cardio equipment.

    Calories can and are measured in a sealed device called a “calorimeter” which locks in heat of burning food. A small vacuum container of water is contained above the food. Once the food is completely burned, the temperature of the water is measured. The rise in temperature will determine the amount of calories. While the calorimeter can show the total amount of energy in a serving of Fruit Loops, it cannot account for what the human body doesn’t absorb, or the energy used in the digestion and assimilation of it. It also cannot show one’s ability and efficiency to use food as energy, as opposed to storing it as fat.

    Does counting the number of calories consumed matter, or is it even necessary when trying to lose weight? No! Counting calories is completely inaccurate and a waste of time. Our bodies do not process food like a calorimeter. The assertion that macronutrients are all processed the same between individuals is just foolish. Yet, this is the basis for the calorie theory.[/blockquote]

    Like


  138. America is fat because High fructose corn syrup is in everything. Read the fucking labels. This does not excuse poor willpower, but does make it much easier to get fat than at any other point in human history.

    The modern western diet causes so many diseases that simply do not exist in remote tribal areas, like acne.

    You’d also find that squatting to take a dump is really healthy, versus the western toilet (seriously look that shit up). Hemroids rarely occur for people who squat whilst enjoying a fine turding.

    Like


  139. A year ago today, I weighed a hefty 250 lbs at 5’11”. In March 2010, I signed up for Jenny Craig at 245 lbs. After spending a ridiculous amount of money on food whose nutritional content differed only marginally from frozen meals, I stopped paying $250/week for “premium” frozen goods and started buying hot pockets, microwaveable Chinese food, cereal, sandwich stuff, and Goldfish crackers. I’ve been eating that, with McDonalds mixed in, since. I now weigh 205 and my recent bloodwork / vitals are all great. I’ve lost 45 pounds by just dropping my number of calories, and (as part of that) cutting alcohol almost entirely out of my diet. I’m probably not in perfect health – I could sure do with more fiber, but I actually stick to that recommended 2,000 cal/day diet and it works, as far as weight loss goes.

    Like


  140. OK so how come folks ate greasy burgers, pizza, fries etc in the 1960s and 1970s and did not get fat? Did all of a sudden will power evaporate ? Hardly.

    The Govt-Farm Cartel introduced chems in the food (esp. grains) that turn off the appetite suppression triggers in the brain.

    The reason paleo and low grain diets work is because these diets avoid the chems in the grains.

    even today people who consume lots of no-chem carbs (like the italians) do not bloat up to wal-mart sizes.

    See Bill Sardi’s book ‘downsizing your body’ for more details.

    Like


  141. Nevertheless, the “fatties aren’t responsible for their grotesque appearance” crowd has been latching onto Paleo dietary theory as some sort of proof that their “condition” is the fault of someone else, like the government food pyramid, or genes, or advertising, or HFCS- and Canola-pushing globoagricorporate fat cats.

    –> Well the powers-that-be do have an interest in not letting the paleo diet go mainstream, because lol we don’t have enough meat animals to feed 300 million people on that kind of diet.

    In the unlikely event that this diet went mainstream, and in the even more unlikely event people actually listened and did what was good for them (lol) then we might be seeing some food wars. Not good

    Like


  142. Good article I found on Tim Ferris’s blog (from author Robb Wolf.)

    http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2010/09/19/paleo-diet-solution/

    Cliff notes:
    If endeavoring not to be a fat fuck, avoid gluten. It’s very bad for you.
    Paleo FTW

    Like


  143. Of course it’s true that if calories in exceed calories out by any significant amount or over a long period of time, that the person will gain weight.

    The low price of food in the West and especially America is much, much less significant a factor in our obesity epidemic than the sedentary lives of most Americans – and even more so since the internet, video game, and hundreds of channels of movie and other tv age began in the 90s.

    The principal point of the low carb diets, pioneered by Atkins and made currently fashionable with some tweaks as Paleo, is that it’s much, much easier to restrict calories if one avoids sugars especially, but also other carbs – the more refined the worse. The idea and I think reality is that sugars sate appetite for only a very short time, and then more sugar or refined carb craving sets in as “hunger”. Whereas in contrast eating proteins mixed with fat tends to give lasting fullness satisfaction for the same fairly low number of calories.

    As well on the fairly rapid weight loss side, eating a fat and protein rich diet (but small portions) very very restricted in carbs (limited to low carb high vitamins and other nutrient veggies) leads to ketosis, which is far more conducive to the body metabolizing it’s own fat, in a way that doesn’t induce serious hunger pangs, merely a dull longing after awhile. I’ve in the past lost weight on Atkins and this is also what I personally experienced.

    As well a twinkie diet kept up not for two months but for six or a year, will lead to muscle degeneration. Muscles (and the brain, whose mass doesn’t increase after adulthood) are what burn the most calories, and do so even when relatively sedentary. It’s also damn hard to seriously calorie restrict under a twinkie diet, esp. over the longer term.

    As in many things there are snowball effects — in both directions. The fit and trim tend to WANT to exercise and use their muscles, and seek out opportunities little and big to do so. The significantly overweight tend to avoid exercise and sport as something they’ll not do well at, will embarrass them, and is hard for them.

    Like


  144. @Nicole

    It should be a concern since it takes 10 kids in sweatshops to make your size of clothes, instead of the typical 1 or 2 for average sized clothes. Not to mention the wear and tear you cause to public transport and eyes of innocent strangers.

    I would cock slap you to discipline, but you seem to have too much padding everywhere.

    Like


  145. I went on a diet and lost about 40 pounds in six months. I ate mostly red meat and fruit. No pills. I noticed I had a metallic taste in my mouth from time to time.

    I was inspired by seeing a Nazi WW II newsreel. All the inmates in the V2 factory were skinny. Therefore, everybody loses weigh on a low calorie diet. Why not me?

    My next trip to the dentist was a blowout. The first thing my regular dental hygienist said to me when she looked in my mouth:
    “What happened to your teeth?

    The dentist told me they see tooth changes in people who go on high protein diets to lose weight.

    Well, losing the weight was worth a few fillings. But, lesson learned. No more crash diets for me.

    And, no more KFC, French Fries, or Papa Johns. Or, regular three meals per day. That’s only for farmers. (I was raised on a farm.)

    BTW, the worse enemies when you want to lose weight are your friends, coworkers (they celebrate every birthday with a cake) and family. My wife is a constant hazard to my keeping my weight down.

    Like


  146. @lone wolf

    “OK so how come folks ate greasy burgers, pizza, fries etc in the 1960s and 1970s and did not get fat? Did all of a sudden will power evaporate ? Hardly.

    The Govt-Farm Cartel introduced chems in the food (esp. grains) that turn off the appetite suppression triggers in the brain.

    The reason paleo and low grain diets work is because these diets avoid the chems in the grains.

    even today people who consume lots of no-chem carbs (like the italians) do not bloat up to wal-mart sizes.

    See Bill Sardi’s book ‘downsizing your body’ for more details.”

    Could be, 10 years ago I bought two cases of pasta imported from Italy, earthquake food was my thought. Anyway, I started eating into it because , you know I had two CASES of it and I lost weight for the next year or so without really trying. Never really thought about that ’till now.

    Like


  147. @askjoe
    “oh, by the way, this FACIAL BONE RESORPTION thing? That sounds scary. what the hell?”

    Your bones are continually being eaten and pooped out by little bugs called osteoclasts. For chicks up until the late 20’s and dudes into the mid 30’s the osteoplasts build up bone. From then on the osteoclasts net eat your bones up. Net reduction of bone mass and density is called “resorption”. It is what causes osteoporosis but it is behind a number of other things like tooth loss and stuff.

    Facial cosmetic surgeons and maxillofacial surgeons (I golf with them) tell me that the some of the biggest changes to a chicks face that makes her look like shit when she gets old is actually changes to the bony structure under the face and not just wringles. When you get old the bones simply disolve and the bones in the face shrink. The gooey flesh is no longer stretched taught over those cute perky cheekbones, etc… and the face looks like shit. The nose cartilage stays the same or continues to grow and the nose droops and appears to elongate and turns into a witch nose. This is why superficial cosmetic procedures like face lifts and wrinkle fixes make chicks look fake like trannies as CR has pointed out before. Quality cosmetic procedures usually involve screwing with the bones under the face but cost a LOT more and are much more invasive.

    The differential rate at which the osteoclast bugs eat/poop is influenced by a number of things:
    (1) The microscopic circulation of blood is one and this is severly impacted by smoking and diabeties like conditions.
    (2) Mechanical microfractures in the bones caused by stresses on them. Usually these stresses increase the deposition of bone. So feed your chick dog chew toys.
    (3) The net acid/base load presended at your kidneys due to the types of food you eat makes big difference in setting the balance between the two. This is a huge benefit of the paleo diet besides you not getting fat
    (4) All sorts of hormonal shit we have no idea how to control through lifestyle choices

    Like


  148. It’s hard to conclude anything from self-experimentation since it presents a ton of problems: not only is there no control person/group, it’s hard to stay objective in the methodology. For example he consumed a regimen of vitamin and protein supplements, and who knows if he consumed those regularly beforehand or if he changed his exercise and daily routine in subtle ways, so there could be a confirmation bias.

    Like


  149. One source of endless confusion in these debates is the dis-connect between what Medical People mean when they use a phrase that looks like a formula – like calories in greater than calories out equals weight gain – and the way tech people use formulas. In Med-Land it is assumed that no component of such an equation stays constant over time or is even likely to be measurable with any degree of accuracy outside an exotic laboratory. Engineers think about changing one variable and calculating the response of the rest of the system. That often makes sense in their world. This rarely applies in animal/human physiology.
    “Formulas” in Med-Land are rarely used to calculate or predict anything on the level of individuals because there are no constants, only variables.
    They are useful however as reminders of basic polarities. To keep anyone from expecting blood flow to be against a pressure gradient or that muscle/metabolic work can occur without enough fuel.
    In other words, to use the calorie equation as a fat loss guide, just keep increasing ones calorie burn/work outs while decreasing ones calorie intake and fat will eventually start to come off while muscle is preserved. You do not need to put numbers on anything. It is enough know the directions to take to get where you want to go. Just keep pushing farther along those lines and you cannot miss. It is way too easy for smart sounding people to think right past this simple truth.

    Like


  150. Dave from Hawaii.

    Dude, you could have just stated the following:

    Carbs and Protein = 4 cals per gram

    Fat = 9 cal per gram

    Alcohol = 7 cal per gram.

    Protein is a little special case as it has a higher TEF (thermic effect).

    But so long as protein intake and calories are the same across the board, whether you are eating a high fat/low carb diet or a high carb/low fat diet (regardless of the source, brown rice vs white rice vs table sugar vs whatever) you will lose the same amount of bodyfat. Notice how I didn’t say weight, because low carbers are gonna lose more water. Studies that have rigorously controlled calories have found this time and again. Just go to pubmed and look them up. Low carbers and paleo-tards love trotting out research where calories and food are self reported. As roissy has kindly pointed out above, people are liars. What’s really happening when people are switching to paleo or low carb is that they are upping the amount of solid protein and fat they are consuming which 1) are macronutrients that are more satiating than non fibrous carbs and therefore results in them staying fuller longer and eating less overall calories 2) forcing people to eliminate a large portion of the calories the used to consume effortlessly (guzzling down a liter of coke, eating a bag of chips etc.). There is no metabolic advantage to paleo or low carb eating vs a regular mixed diet (so long as protein is kept the same, for the reason mentioned above).

    Like


  151. also, this whole idea that because it’s absurdly difficult to accurately gauge the exact amount of calories someone is consuming (and burning) that it’s therefore utterly useless is moronic beyond belief. When I count my calories for the day I’m not so stupid to assume that I ate exactly 3500 calories. Sure I’m probably over or under that figure by a little bit. But let’s say I calculate 3500 cals every day for a week and check my scale weight and it doesn’t move. Well, logic would dictate that I would need to either cut calories or increase them depending on my goals. If I wanted to lose weight I’d drop them to 3000 (-500 cals per day x 7 days = 3500 calories or 1lb of fat). By the end of the week I’d lose close to 1lb of bodyfat. Now are these figures going to be exact? Of course not, they are close approximations. They are instructive enough to tell me which way I need to adjust my diet. This stuff is so basic.

    Like


  152. alright, I’m off my soapbox.

    carry on

    Like


  153. First time poster here.

    I don’t have the time to look it up now, but Peter at Hyper Lipid has a post somewhere detailing a similar study with a group of people. Those that were overweight fared better than those that were already at an optimum weight when on a crappy hypo-caloric diet. Much of that had to do with the stored body fat used as energy, is a pretty good source of nutrition. But someone with little to no fat to burn would suffer on a crappy diet like that. I’d like to see the Twinkie guy try that month after month, year after year. Even with a multi-vitamin, it’s not sustainable.

    Like


  154. Where some of the disconnect is that you can’t measure other health indicators whilst losing weight. The effect of losing weight is magnitudes of order larger then say vitamin status. Many overweight people are also vitamin/mineral/antioxidant deficient. Eating the same shit, but cut servings in half may result in weight loss, but the deficiencies will get worse.

    substituting the twinkies with fruit will go a long way in correcting deficiencies, slowing the ageing process and otherwise damaging your “health”. I think many Doctors make the mistake to think that your cholesterol, blood preasure, and lipid profile is the sum total of your health.

    to abuse paraeto’s (80/20) principle Losing fat is the 20% of cause of your 80% of results. But it is certainly not the entire 100%.

    Like


  155. We should have an International Take Food Off Fatties Day. Once a year we take food off fat people we see eating in public.

    Like


  156. Jerkdog, what about people whose heads just seem to get bigger and wider as they age? I’ve seen some guys who had fairly narrow faces in their youth, and their skull seems to just expand when they get into their 40s. It doesn’t seem like excess fat.

    Like


  157. They’re stealing our vital essences and replacing them with HFCS! It’s all there in the Dark Crystal people!

    Like


  158. Please write something about this image. It’s important to me that a statement of this type be shamed. The man to whom she is referring knocked her up after she told him she had cervical cancer and couldn’t get pregnant (hence, they could fuck without a condom!!)

    When he got her pregnant, she called it a “miracle baby” so of course they just COULDN’T get an abortion, God WANTED this baby to exist!

    The guy is the worst kind of beta who cockblocked me for years before I learned some game and cut off contact with this loathsome herb. The girl is a skank who rode the cock carousel like crazy and this guy doesn’t even have the balls to ask for a paternity test for fear of upsetting his now bride-to-be whom he DOESN’T EVEN LIKE.

    Anyway… here’s the facebook status that made me post all of this.

    Like


  159. [Editor: For the record, no host at this site has ever said there are no men who want families. Cautioning against marriage is not the same as claiming men don’t have *any* paternal drive.]

    One of the main efforts of the Men’s Rights Movement should be for men to be “allowed” to have babies without governments stepping in to control = destroy his life.

    Only a man knows how much he can afford for his offspring. He should be allowed to pawn at least half a child’s upkeep on the mother’s parents if the mother and her parents want custody of the child (otherwise the man gets custody or his parents get custody – my parents would love to get custody of a child of mine and finance it all themselves).

    I’ve been noting that govt mandated child support in Eastern Europe can be as low as $100 per month. But feminists are changing that as we speak. A 19 year old told me two nights ago that she was sure that this was for unemployed men while men with good jobs were forced to pay 40% of their income (she then noted that this only applied to men who had been married to the mother – she said she was not yet aware that it was possible for the government to force a single man to take a DNA test).

    While we dawdle, the feminists are moving full speed with their various agendas of severely cramping out style (they don’t want us to be able to afford even one baby, they don’t want us having sex with younger women, they don’t want responsibility for anything, etc).

    Like


  160. There seems to be a consensus that the laws of thermodynamics strictly applies to open systems like human beings, which is not true. This is yet just another misinformation propagated by countless “fitness” magazines and this one piece of study will not be able to reverse proper research and incredibly strong evidence on the contrary.

    Educate yourself about why a calorie is not just a calorie, insulin production and dieting here

    http://journal.crossfit.com/2010/04/insulin-body-weight-and-energy-production.tpl#featureArticleTitle

    and here

    http://journal.crossfit.com/2009/08/crossfit-nutrition-presentation.tpl

    Like


  161. The_Queen proclaimed, “I would cock slap you to discipline, but you seem to have too much padding everywhere.”

    You’d have to grow a cock first, your highness.

    Like


  162. Opera, that is just appalling. She should hire dwarves to shave her legs like I do. Handy little buggers.

    Like


  163. Another thing to consider is the addictive properties of unhealthy foods. If I eat a chocolate chip cookie, it doesn’t particularly affect my weight. But what it does do is make me crave more junk food within a few hours, which eventually will lead to weight gain.

    I used to be a smoker, and that craving for junk food feels similar to the craving for a cigarette.

    Like


  164. “Overeating is the path to the bulbous side. Overeating leads to corpulence. Corpulence leads to self-hate. Self-hate leads to donuts and alone time with the dildo.”

    Yoda is such a playa!

    Like


  165. Wow, this thread is actually civil and polite (at least for INternet standards). My instinct tells me that, since is not about sex, isn’t filled with the usual desire of Internet Warriors to prove that they are God’s gift to the opposite sex.

    That out:

    Of course that the amount of food that we eat matter. Of course that a change of food habits instead of a on-and-off diet is the only way to guarantee a permanent change of weight. The fact that so many studies are neccesary to prove the reality that we can see with our own eyes is depressing.

    “Common sense”. Yeah right, common my ass.

    Also, exercise. Yeah, yeah, you have to schedule it. Cry me a river. It helps A LOT. And you look and feel good, after the second month or so.

    Like


  166. on November 11, 2010 at 11:51 am Gunslingergregi

    postal one of funniest movies ever.

    Like


  167. on November 11, 2010 at 11:53 am Gunslingergregi

    ””””’And you look and feel good, after the second month or so.”””

    Naa it really doesn’t make you feel any better that is bullshit.

    Like


  168. @ Nicole,

    “”The_Queen proclaimed, “I would cock slap you to discipline, but you seem to have too much padding everywhere.”

    You’d have to grow a cock first, your highness.””

    lol!!! hehehe!!

    Like


  169. There was a guy who lived on Twinkies and Cutty Sark for 11 years… I’ll bet he lost weight. (Probably not as nicely as the prof from Kansas State did.)

    Like


  170. So true, agreed. Eat less, burn more and you can be the bang-able girl than the disgusting fattie.

    For a guy, its even more easier and productive, bodybuilding helps put extra muscles and burn the ugly fat. Going to gym is what every guy should do.

    Like


  171. on November 11, 2010 at 1:13 pm Gunslingergregi

    I guess chicks also having hard time getting fired from jobs.

    Looks like the big corporations want them younger hotter tighter.

    http://yourlifesentence.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/in-memory-of-a-career-girls-frivolity/#comments

    Like


  172. […] The Twinkies Diet Proves Fatty Fats Are Fat Because They Eat Too Much « Citizen Renegade. […]

    Like


  173. No other program in the world does what The 7-Day Belly Blast Diet can do… and the BEST part is, your secret weapon isn’t a starvation diet or endless exercise… it’s eating delicious FOOD all day long. Now you really can eat your way thin and see jaw-dropping results in your very first 7 days!

    Visit to : http://bellyblastdiet.info/

    Like


  174. There is so much wrong with both the reporting and your analysis.

    1) Thermodynamics only puts a cap on the maximum amount of energy your body can extract. You could eat 5000 calories a day and still not get fat (particularly if you’re getting less than 25 g of carbs per day).

    2) The guy was eating 1800 calories a day. A single twinkie has 140 calories. If all you eat is ten twinkies a day you are going to lose weight. Have you ever seen a twinkie? They’re not the big. He’s eating approximately 420 g of food a day assuming all he is eating is twinkies. 1800 calories a day is like six slices of pizza. If you only ate two slices of pizza for breakfast, lunch, and dinner you might lose weight too. This assumes you eat nothing else at all during the day that is more calorie dense.

    3) We have lots of evidence showing that calorie restriction works to improve health even in the presence of carb consumption. The side effects when you do calorie restriction instead of intermittent fasting are that you get cranky and stupid. Not good things

    4) Lowering your cholesterol that dramatically is not a good thing. The whole cholesterol thing is a myth propagated by Key’s acolytes. Cholesterol levels below 160 are associated with cancer and various degenerative diseases. Cholesterol levels above 240 are associated with increased risk of heart attacks. We have since keys published his original study discovered that C reactive protein (Crp) is much more indicative of a heart attack than high cholesterol. Hypercholesterolemia is fine as long your Crp is okay.

    5) The guy is an idiot who adheres to the “healthy grains” message of the WHO and USDA. We have a preponderance of evidence that inflammatory omega 6 fats found in grains and feedlot beef are bad for you. Phytase in grains is bad for you. This guy has clearly not read a study challenging his bias in his entire career.

    On the subject of whether or not fat people are responsible for being fat, I still hold fat people responsible for not watching what they put in their mouth. There is no excuse for not taking care of yourself to the point you are morbidly obese. Clearly, something is not working and you need to get off your ass and figure out what it is.

    As a counter example to failed nutritionist that somehow has managed to get in the news, with his retarded short term study of one:

    1) I eat approximately 5000 calories a day. I usually consume 1 – 1.5 lbs of grass fed beef/lamb cooked in coconut oil, butter, or lard. Occasionally, I mix in pastured chicken
    2) I intermittently fast (16/9 can’t do alternate day fasting with my workouts).
    3) My triglycerides are undetectable. My cholesterol is 180. My HDL is 90. I’m at around 7% body fat. Where’s my CNN article?

    Here’s a guy with a Ph. D on the neurobiology of weight regulation doing a much more thorough debunking.

    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/11/twinkie-diet-for-fat-loss.html

    Like


  175. Roissy has made it big finally. I can tell because there are now spam bots in the comments.

    Also, if you are fat you and you want to lose fat, eat less calories than you need. Even if you don’t exercise (which I know some of you hate) and just change your diet and stick to it, you will lose weight. Aside from losing weight, all the toxins stored in your fat will be removed as well.

    Like


  176. on November 11, 2010 at 2:45 pm Mr. Happy's Conscious

    That bellyblast dies is snake oil.
    Fuck off spammer.

    Like


  177. on November 11, 2010 at 3:03 pm Gunslingergregi

    Just ate another kilo of steak must say my woman has upped her cooking skills to nirvana level of blissfull eating he he he

    Like


  178. That’s bullshit. Eating only junk food, which doesn’t have minerals, vitamins, essential fats, and essential amino acids is going to lead to severe deficiencies of all of these. So in the end your organism will strongly demand replenishing these essential substances… ending in overeating! In the end you will end fatter than before. Not to mention you can loose more LEAN BODY MASS (=muscles) than fat on these kind of diet.

    http://180degreehealth.blogspot.com/2010/03/ancel-keys-and-biology-of-human.html

    There’s that whole “anti diet” blog called 180 degree health that deals with stupidity of dieting.

    Also new weight loss methods like Gabriels Method (by John Gabriel) actually identify lack of minerals as one of the factors of getting fat (along with such unexpected factors like a lack of sleep or stress).

    Like


  179. Stress and a lack of sleep “unexpected” factors of weight gain? Eating fewer calories shouldn’t be too difficult if a person finds their center and programs themselves to stay away from overeating, and to eat good calories, including the good fats.

    Like


  180. Nullpointed – 7% bodyfat and 5000 caloriries a day. Sounds like e-stats. Do you have a pic?

    Like


  181. “As always, obesity is a question of character more than an issue of bad foods. ”

    Nah, it’s a question of upbringing. Fatties are largely (har!) from lower socioeconomic orders. They develop bad habits very early.

    Like


  182. All this fat talk reminds me — what became of Lemmonex?

    You ever get all up in them guts, R?

    Like


  183. I could really use some dust juice right about now

    Like


  184. I could really go for some dust juice right about now

    Like


  185. This kind of misses and hits the point at the same time.

    First, a big chunk of the whole point of going paleo is: Tada, apetite control. Just as we don´t have a problem with people dropping dead from overconsuming water, we really shouldn´t have a problem with people chronically overconsuming calories.

    Hint: We haven´t had calorie counting in the mainstream for more than a couple of decades. Ironically, those are the very decades of the invasion of the walking walrusses. Under normal conditions, our apetite tends to work.

    This is especially true as the notion that humanity has never dealt with persistent food surpluses before is transparently bullshit.

    But yeah, shame should work. How would shame work? Why, by keeping fatties away from Twinkies, supergulps, fries, potato chips, cake, etc.

    Side note: We´ve actually had a big shaming campaign intended to get people slim going on for the last couple of decades – against meat and fat. Oopsie.

    PS.
    The main thing this proves is that the professor in question is:

    A) Not very bright. (Let´s try an RCT of the Twinkie diet to see how it performs)

    B) A publicity whore.

    Like


  186. “America is fat because High fructose corn syrup is in everything. Read the fucking labels. This does not excuse poor willpower, but does make it much easier to get fat than at any other point in human history.”

    “Willpover” is not some unlimited force. Try holding your hand close to a flame for 30 minutes. Willpower is biologically regulated behavior, just like all other human behavior.

    Just as shaming bad behavior can impact willpower, not fucking up your hormonal balance and blood sugar can impact your willpower. Doing away with notions of “free will” makes it much easier to understand the world.

    Like


  187. “Willpower is not some unlimited force. Try holding your hand close to a flame for 30 minutes.”

    You can do this, but your hand burns off. Takes far less will power to be healthy.

    “Doing away with notions of ‘free will’ makes it much easier to understand the world.”

    So easy you don’t even exist.

    Like


  188. The problem with the calories-in/calories-out mindset is that they are not independant variables. Meaning, if you eat less, your body will lower metabolism and burn less. So just reducing calories alone may not induce weight loss.

    Like


  189. the problem with calories in/calories out and weight gain mindset is that E=mc2 is a mathematical formula

    Like


  190. “You can do this, but your hand burns off.”

    Yes, if you have an extraordinary reserve of willpower. Which was the point.

    “Takes far less will power to be healthy.”

    Yes, in the moment. But unlike the flame example, you will be tested on this score 365/7.

    Finally, one of the beautiful long-term effects of the twinkies (high sugar) diet is – wait for it – sloth.

    Like


  191. “The problem with calories in/calories out and weight gain mindset is that E=mc2 is a mathematical formula”

    There are some pretty confused people here.

    When you refer to a certain mass of food (ie sugar) as having calories, you DO NOT (REPEAT DO NOT) use E=mc2 to calculate the energy from the mass of food.

    Where the energy comes from is not related AT ALL to the mass in the E=mc2 formula. Instead, it’s the energy comes from the breaking of the chemical bonds in the sugar (food) molecule, and that is determined empirically, from a calorimeter for example.

    Glucose is a food that is broken down in our cells. A molecule of glucose has chemical bonds that enzymes in your cells break to release the energy. Inevitably, glucose, and fats and proteins, can, in principle, be broken down all the way to carbon dioxide and water.

    The chemical bond energies were determined in the 1920’s using calorimetry and other methods, and that is how we know that glucose has about 6 calories per gram.

    E=Mc2 is a reference to atomic mass that can dissapear in a nuclear reaction and can be converted to energy. This can only occur under extreme temperatures (millions of degrees) and pressures. We CANNOT CONVERT MASS TO ENERGY using E=mc2 in the human body.

    Jesus f*cking christ. We are a nation of idiots.

    Like


  192. I am most probably not from your nation.

    I will restate: Try making a thermodynamic system gain mass by giving it heat.

    “Glucose is a food that is broken down in our cells. A molecule of glucose has chemical bonds that enzymes in your cells break to release the energy. Inevitably, glucose, and fats and proteins, can, in principle, be broken down all the way to carbon dioxide and water.”

    and are they all broken down the same way? To the same end products? DO they produce the same amount of energy? Are the chemical bonds in them the same?

    “The chemical bond energies were determined in the 1920′s using calorimetry and other methods, and that is how we know that glucose has about 6 calories per gram.”

    and gasoline has thousands per gram, so what? do you see combustion taking place anywhere in the human body?

    “We CANNOT CONVERT MASS TO ENERGY using E=mc2 in the human body.”

    how does the difference in calories in to calories out make you gain weight(mass)?

    “E=Mc2 is a reference to atomic mass that can dissapear in a nuclear reaction and can be converted to energy. ”

    Mass–energy equivalence does not imply that mass may be “converted” to energy, and indeed implies the opposite. Modern theory holds that neither mass nor energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another.

    E = mc2 has sometimes been used as an explanation for the origin of energy in nuclear processes, but mass–energy equivalence does not explain the origin of such energies. Instead, this relationship merely indicates that the large amounts of energy released in such reactions may exhibit enough mass that the mass-loss may be measured, when the released energy (and its mass) have been removed from the system.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

    You may not be an idiot, but you are surely ignorant.

    Like


  193. On a Paleo/Exercise note.

    My ex wife saw me this past week. We went out to a club and she was there with her friends (all single but for one, a happily married woman who I know peripherally).

    My girl and I were talking and having a nice time, and on the way out, I nodded over to my exes direction. I smiled at her, a genuine smile, gave her the Salute we used to give each other (slight head nod, finger on the side of the temple), she smiled at me, nodded, and I walked out.

    Three days later, I bumped into common friend in the mall. She was alone, so I walked over and chatted.

    I mentioned I’d seen her a few days before in (club). She said – I know, I saw you, too. You were the subject of conversation.

    My ex wife said that life wasn’t fair. I didn’t seem to be aging. In my late 30s, I look better than I did when I was 30. She’s not aging well, at all.

    I shrugged it off and sad, talk to me in 15 years and see where it’s at.

    Secret:

    I went paleo three years ago; and exercise.

    I push weights three times a week, an hour and half each day. That’s all. No aerobics.

    I swear to you, weight training is halting the aging process. Forget that: It’s reversing it.

    For the past year, I’ve felt like a teenager on steroids. More sexual energy than I had when I was 25. More overall energy than I’ve ever had.

    Weight training, and stacking, my friends. Do it.

    {Editor: I posted a link somewhere on the blog a while ago to a study showing that weightlifting improves markers of aging in mitochondria. So there is scientific evidence for your observation.]

    Like


  194. Gorb,

    Wondering how important no-grains is. I’d find that difficult. I should try to replace grains with fruits and veggies but the question is do you you have to get rid of all grains or is there a reasonable acceptable level?

    In 4 months this year I lost 25 pounds by mild increases in exercise (mostly walking, plus swimming or elliptical training a couple of times a week), being good about not eating between meals, and skipping a meal every couple of days. (Weight loss tip: acquire an obsession, something you do as your default task during downtime instead of eating.) I took 25mg Ephedra daily for a while (stacked with caffeine and aspirin), but it didn’t seem to make too much difference whether I did or not. But I’ve been stuck for the last month or so (I’m 6’2″, 206 lbs) so I’m going to have to start with the weights I think, I really want to get down to 195-200 as my ideal range.

    Weights work well because they increase your muscle mass so you burn more calories all the time, the calories you burn while doing the weight work are not so significant.

    Like


  195. namae, are you seriously trying to use the mass-energy equivalence einstein equation (which is for NUCLEAR reactions) to account for the combustion of food?
    my god, i’m just a stupid uruguayo and even *i* know that’s wrong.

    tell you what: why don’t you take one gram — ONE GRAM — and put it into that equation, and you’ll get, well, 90,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy. that’s roughly 20,000,000,000,000 kcal (food calories).
    i don’t know about you, but one gram of my stupid uruguayo food does not have twenty trillion calories.

    the equation you’re looking for is the equation for the combustion of glucose, in the presence of oxygen, into co2 and water. as a very crude approximation, the heat of combustion for that reaction will give you an idea of the amount of calories you’re talking about.

    however, there is very obviously more to weight maintenance than “calories in calories out”. it’s like what rum said, above.
    remember, according to the simple model, 3500 extra food calories is one extra pound of fat, right?
    well, there are about 3500 days in ten years. so, according to that model, if you drank just an extra *half a can* of coke (100 food cals) a day, you would be about 100lbs heavier after ten years.
    doesn’t something seem a bit off about that?
    your body maintains homeostasis in a lot more ways than you think; there is indeed some truth to the bleeding-heart idea that some of the fat people have their “homeostasis settings” in the wrong place because of all the chems they’re eating.

    Like


  196. “namae, are you seriously trying to use the mass-energy equivalence einstein equation ”

    what else should I infer from being told that calories in/calories out can make a difference in weight? or didn’t you read my post in reply to NMH.

    “the equation you’re looking for is the equation for the combustion of glucose, in the presence of oxygen, into co2 and water. ”

    no, the “equation” your are looking is for is that of glycolysis.

    Like


  197. I prefer diet by drinking lots of water. but I’ve just started. what is going to succeed?

    Like


  198. After this discussion i wonder, if i eat a burger in outer space, traveling two times faster then the speed of light, and held up a mirror in front of me, if i would be able to see myself or not.

    Like


  199. @bictopia
    After this discussion i wonder, if i eat a burger in outer space, traveling two times faster then the speed of light, and held up a mirror in front of me, if i would be able to see myself or not.

    You’d see yourself eating the hamburger, but in reverse.

    Like


  200. Roissy,

    I think you’re wrong on the science. You simplify things too much when you make this a dichotomy between having the willpower to eat fewer calories, or lacking it, pigging out, and getting fat.

    That’s part of the story sure, but I’m certain that within 10 years we’ll come to realize that metabolic genes, gut flora, and pathogens are the majority causal factors for obesity.

    Like


  201. … figured you might be interested in some details if I’m saying you’re wrong on the science.

    In short,
    1. there’s a virus that’s consistently and significantly connected with obesity. This could be an “epidemic” in more than name.
    2. gut flora (the friendly bacteria that live in your gut) are extremely tightly linked to energy extraction, and in the majority of obese individuals we see a significant imbalance from the normal set of flora. Correlation vs causation, sure, but causation would make sense. Get the wrong bugs growing in there and “helping” you digest stuff, and you get fat.
    3. metabolic genes, blah blah blah, I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this point.

    On the obesity-viral infection link:
    http://www.aolhealth.com/2010/09/20/study-links-obesity-to-childhood-virus/
    Researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine examined 124 children ages 8 to 18 and looked for the presence of adenovirus 36 (AD36), which is the only human virus currently linked to obesity. There are more the 50 strains of adenovirus known to infect humans and they cause a host of respiratory and gastrointestinal infections.

    Dr. Jeffrey B. Schwimmer, associate professor of clinical pediatrics at UC San Diego, said that the AD36-positive children weighed almost 50 pounds or more on average than kids who were AD36-negative.

    (small study size, needs confirming, but that specific virus has been consistently connected with obesity in many studies.)

    On the obesity-gut flora link:
    Physiology: Obesity and gut flora
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7122/full/4441009a.html

    And here’s Wikipedia summing up multiple studies that show weight is Not a simple product of caloric intake:
    “The mutual influence of gut flora composition and weight-condition is connected to differences in the energy-reabsorbing potential of different ratios of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes, especially in the digestion of fatty acids and dietary polysaccharides, as shown by experiments wherein the (caecum) gut flora of obese mice was transplanted into germ free recipient mice, leading to an increase in weight despite a decrease in food consumption.[32][33][34][35]”

    Increase in weight despite a decrease in food consumption.

    Like


  202. @bictopia
    “After this discussion i wonder, if i eat a burger in outer space, traveling two times faster then the speed of light, and held up a mirror in front of me, if i would be able to see myself or not.”

    At twice the speed of light, you’d be travelling backwards in time; unfortunately, the atoms of your physical body would have been ripped to shreds long before then (and we all know how painful that can be!).

    Like


  203. Well, i am aware of the limited realism of my comment, i wanted to highlight how unrealistic it was to try fit in the e=mc2 into any everyday handy energy calculation without calling any names, so i put mine, but insert ……… if you like.

    Like


  204. […] 10: Found!“, “Cocktease Asks “What Am I Doing Wrong?”“, “The Twinkies Diet Proves Fatty Fats are Fat Because They Eat Too Much“, “Arjuna, You Magnificent […]

    Like


  205. roissy,
    This is a major issue in Gary Taubes’ and Robert Lustig’s views. They certainly don’t deny the laws of thermodynamics. Rather, they claim that sugars will tend to *cause* you to eat a higher number of calories per unit of exercise.

    I’ll hold exercise constant in for the following. Lustig says that if you eat 200 cal of almonds, you get 200 cal of usable energy and about 200 cal of satiation perceptions – which cause you to eat 200 cal less food during the rest of the day than you otherwise would. But, he says there are some foods where 200 cal of energy delviers only 100 cal of satiation. With fructose he claims the satiation is actually *negative*.

    In brief, these dudes claim that what you eat has a huge effect on whether (and how badly) you *want* to eat more calories than you expend. Maybe some dude, who is enjoying his little polemical act, can lose weight on twinkies, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not harder that way – and it really doesn’t stick it to Taubes or Lustig in any way. What would stick it to them is if he could prove it was less painful for him to lose weight on a twinkie diet than on a paleo one.

    By the way, I don’t necessarily believe in Taubes’ or Lustig’s views. I have no opinion.

    Like


  206. Haub’s results suggest that the QUANTITY of calories ingested is at least as important as, and maybe more important than, the type of calories for maintaining a healthy weight.

    This advice is boring and doesn’t sell books tellinging fatties with no impulse control that it’s not their fault.

    Basically, it all boils down to Roissy’s Maxim 105.

    The Paleo Diet seems to be based on the idea that our genomes are unchanged for the past 100,000 years which is of course bunk. Agriculture has had an enormous effect on our genomes.

    The people arguing with you are idiot savants. Weight control is so mind-numbingly simple it’s beyond debate.

    Like


  207. the calories are too high!!!

    Like


  208. Roissy:
    “And now some brave (or stupid) souls are experimenting on themselves to demonstrate the basic laws of weight gain.”

    weight gain?? that was a weight *loss* experiment, not weight gain. There’s way too many weight loss experiments and not enough weight gain. Weight gain experiments would be much more useful to understand the obesity problem but for some reason they’re rare.

    Eating less will make you lose weight (but not all fat, Haub lost muscle mass too) but eating too much will not necessarily make you fat or at least not as fat as you think. It depends on your genetics, the type of foods you eat and the type of exercise you do.

    In his Big Fat Fiasco speech Tom Naughton mentions some overeating studies. A researcher overfed lean prisoners thousands of extra calories daily and they didn’t gain as much weight as the calorie balance theory predicted:

    (at 4:30)

    some people gain fat easily, others don’t and the first factor isn’t likely the amount of calories consumed but the amount of unnatural food in your diet, i.e. refined carbohydrates & sugars. The second factor is probably the type of exercise you do. The fatties should lift weights, not jog to burn calories.

    I don’t know why you took the CNN article seriously. The media jumped on Mark Haub like flies on dog poop. THAT’S the real story here, not some guy losing weight on 1500 calories a day eating a MIXED diet of Little Debbies + steak & brocoli & protein shakes & vitamins & vegetables.

    and then you take a page out of Morgan Spurlock’s book and quote an article written by the editor of some glossy magazine who quotes some University researchers saying a 1000 calories of fresh vegetables & fruits cost 18 $. 18?? Teh poor minorities, they can’t afford the organic ladybug-friendly celery! that’s utter BS.

    Like


  209. Roissy
    This post is silly and so typical of you… Can you say “confirmation bias”? The ugly truth is, you want ooohh so badly to blame fat women as much as possible for being fat. So you use one study on one guy as ammo for blaming the victim.

    There were no neolithic societies that were obese like Americans let alone paleolithic. Food surpluses have frequently been common in history, and yet America is starting to resemble a Farside comic but never before has it ever been like this. Of course it is the food silly!!!! and many other lifestyle changes. People never needed “willpower” in the past..

    You want to tease out the blame (of course to bash fat women), but the truth is the blame rests on all of us. You are just as much to blame as any fat woman (e.g. exaggerating the benefits of the twinkie diet is counterproductive). The weakness of the people is a reflection of the weakness of our society, the unnaturalness of our lifestyle, how distant we are from our nature.

    So I got one thing to say to you: yo dingdong, man ding dong yo.

    Like


  210. hey, give credit where credit is due sucker!
    😦

    Like


  211. People with hypothyroidism often gain weight and have difficulty losing weight despite a normal diet. This can be frustrating. Fortunately with successful treatment of hypothyroidism weight loss can become successful and permanent. Long term weight loss for thyroid disease patients is something that patients can realize with the help of their doctors or healthcare practitioner.a

    Like


  212. From http://www.xkcd.com comes this brilliant piece on fat (2nd comic from above) 😀

    http://xkcd.com/824/

    Like