Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Twinkie Diet
Eat Junk, lose weight, be healthy...
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
It's all in the calories, dude
(I think this is far more important than its post counst suggests...)
I had to Google twinkie - had heard of them but didn't realise what they were. Stupid name.
I'll stick to eating my vast amounts of delicious, healthy food and continue not to have a weight problem.
I will not be going on this diet - I'd far rather munch on an apple than a twinkie. (having very many American friends I new what they were without googling).
He also ate some veg and took a multi vit - clearly a diet of twinkies would not provide all the nutrients a body needs.
Guess if you can count the calories and stay within your limit then you're going to loose weight. It's the nutrients that you'll be lacking though.
I don't think it was surprising that he lost weight given that he was consuming less calories. I think the interesting bit is that his cholesterol levels improved and from the tests his health in general appeared to have improved despite switching to a diet that was two thirds junk food.
The article does say that if you loose weight then your health will improve - what would be interesting to see is whether that improvement would continue one this man has maintained a healthy weight for a while. Obviously the body can burn fat and use it for fuel much like carbs and protein, lets face it - too much protein will be stored as fat.
Twinkies are totally vegetarian with no animal fats, he also consumed no meat even if his diet wasn't totally vegetarian.
Don't actually know how he managed not to to throw up though - oreao of all things - they are disgusting, how you can eat one and not feel ill beats me - never had a twinkie and I really don't think I want to change that.
This was only a short term trial - health after 6 months or a year?
We also already know that low fat diets don't reduce cholesterol.
Have to admit that I don't really like the results as they seem to stand, but we also know that a healthy diet of fruit and veg and lots of goodly stuff can result in weightgain - calories in V calories out and all that but you can be, and remain to be healthy and overweight on a healthy diet - not so on an unhealthy diet. (was another thread about that here).
Whops - missed a rather critical word.
Why don't you like the result? Eat less - lose weight - get connected health benefits (lower cholesterol, etc)
Obviously if this diet were continued for a long period the person would slide along the normal distribution curve to a higher risk of getting various cancers, etc (since the natural preservatives and other stuff in a varied diet have a protective effect). However, they could live to 100 and be perfectly healthy.
Somebody else could eat the "perfect" human diet, ie the one we evolved with, of red meat and lots of mixed seasonal vegetation - and die of a heart attack at 40.
Normal distribution curves are SO annoying, aren't they?!
It's not the eat less loose weight, it's eat junk loose weight.
Oh well - maybe I'm trying to hard, I could just go for the easy option - I have to eat on the hoof most days and find buying food so hard. I read the small print. I like to think that I'm choosing healthy food, though it doesn't look like it matters much.
In the article he is eating less (1800 cals Vs 2600 cals) and losing weight even though what he is eating is junk.