http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html?hpt=T2


"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."

Great advice. I can't wait to try this out.
I would love to see someone try this for a year. I'm sure they'd look and feel great.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/08/2010 01:42PM by Stinkfist.

Stinkfist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the
> nutritional value of the food.

If he's only counting calories, the dude must have been hungry alot. That stuff has so much sugar in it, just a small amount of it adds up pretty quickly calorie-wise. That's why it's better to just eat healthy- you can eat normal-sized portions and not feel like you're starving all day.

Plus who the hell would want to eat a Twinkie every three hours??

TheMeeper Wrote:
Plus who the hell would want to eat a Twinkie
> every three hours??


Not me. But I could rock a Oatmeal Cream Pie every 3 hours. I don't know how he could possibly be sastiated.

Stinkfist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>. I don't know how he could possibly be
> sastiated.

Every three hours would equate to eating about 5 twinkles while you're awake. That's about 750 calories. Of Twinkies!

Throw in a few handfuls of Doritos, and that adds about 500 calories.

That's a total of 1250 calories. It would be easy to shed weight if thst's your total intake. But it's not very much food and you'd probably feel shitty and hungry all day. You'd also probably need to take a vitamin every day to keep your hair and teeth from falling out.

Twinkies- gross.

Ho-Ho's FTW.

__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.
Attachments:

Losing weight is quite simple - tis simple mathematics

Figure out your weight now + age + height - there are several online calculators that will tell you your required daily caloric intake.

Be a nazi about everything you eat, write it down (use a tabulation chart of some kind). If you need 2000 calories to maintain your weight, you'll need to bring in ~1,600 to lose a pound a week.

If you exercise you can eat more than 1,600 (depending on the exercise/calories expended) but that's the simple mathematics of it.

And yes it can be anything, but the caveat is, if you eat poorly for an extended period your body will react in other ways than just losing weight. If you eat only high fat foods but keep the calories down, your heart will still clog up...you'll just be leaner on the outside!

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you eat only high fat foods but keep the
> calories down, your heart will still clog
> up...you'll just be leaner on the outside!

Only true if carbohydrate intake is also up. If you go high-fat and low-carb your body will process stored fat and not store it for artery-clogging goodness... that is the premise of the Atkins diet and why it works as long as you don't cheat.

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> the Atkins diet

Plus with Atkins, you can eat a block of cheddar cheese and an entire package of bacon for lunch, instead of some stupid Twinkie.

Warhawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Twinkies- gross.
>
> Ho-Ho's FTW.


+1

Twinkies are shit compared to Ho-Ho's.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Little Debbie Swiss Cake Rolls...rock!

Stinkfist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.
> professor/index.html?hpt=T2
>
>
> "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."
>
> Great advice. I can't wait to try this out.
> I would love to see someone try this for a year.
> I'm sure they'd look and feel great.


Leave it to a college professor to do something so stupid. How old is he? 15? He sounds like the type who would enter a food eating contest...throwing down 50 hot dogs at the state fair just to prove some stupid point.

My girlfriend and I once had a contest to see who could drink the most water. We both ended up vomiting. We were 13.

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Losing weight is quite simple - tis simple
> mathematics
>
> Figure out your weight now + age + height - there
> are several online calculators that will tell you
> your required daily caloric intake.
>
> Be a nazi about everything you eat, write it down
> (use a tabulation chart of some kind). If you
> need 2000 calories to maintain your weight, you'll
> need to bring in ~1,600 to lose a pound a week.
>
> If you exercise you can eat more than 1,600
> (depending on the exercise/calories expended) but
> that's the simple mathematics of it.
>
> And yes it can be anything, but the caveat is, if
> you eat poorly for an extended period your body
> will react in other ways than just losing weight.
> If you eat only high fat foods but keep the
> calories down, your heart will still clog
> up...you'll just be leaner on the outside!


+1

This diet has the Meade Skelton seal of approval.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Leave it to a college professor to do something so
> stupid. How old is he? 15?





Yes, 15 is the average age for a PhD teaching at a college.

If you're a guy and you eat below 1500 calories your metabolism will start to shut down and once you eat more again you'll gain all your weight and more. When people lose weight like these they lose mostly water and muscle, not as much fat. They become skinny-fat. The only true way to lose fat (and not just weight) is to exercise daily- and lift some weights and keep your calories relative to what you need each day.

The human body developed based on a hunter/gatherer diet. Some protein, some vegetables, and lots of nuts and berries. The emphasis that we have placed on bread...even bread that is supposedly good for you...runs contradictory to how our bodies evolved.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

i didn't know what a cookie was until i was nine.
both my brother and i grew up thinking cookies were saltine crackers.
as a result, we both dislike sugar, and have never had a cavity or broken a bone.

thanks, ma.

yeefuckinghaw

HeatlhNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you're a guy and you eat below 1500 calories
> your metabolism will start to shut down and once
> you eat more again you'll gain all your weight and
> more. When people lose weight like these they lose
> mostly water and muscle, not as much fat. They
> become skinny-fat. The only true way to lose fat
> (and not just weight) is to exercise daily- and
> lift some weights and keep your calories relative
> to what you need each day.


This. You gotta eat to lose weight. A guy really shouldn't go under 1800 unless they're very small or in a program under supervision by a doc.

themuse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i didn't know what a cookie was until i was nine.
> both my brother and i grew up thinking cookies
> were saltine crackers.
> as a result, we both dislike sugar, and have never
> had a cavity or broken a bone.
>
> thanks, ma.


That's abuse. Plain and simple. ;)

My mom went diet soda loco in the 90's. We never had the juice boxes or regular soda. To this day I can't drink a full can of non-diet soda in one sitting. It makes me cringe. But, I have no problem downing chocolate milk and sweet tea (though I prefer iced tea unsweetened with Splenda added in).

themuse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i didn't know what a cookie was until i was nine.
> both my brother and i grew up thinking cookies
> were saltine crackers.
> as a result, we both dislike sugar, and have never
> had a cavity or broken a bone.
>
> thanks, ma.

What happened at age nine?

At age five, I, along with a four year old accomplice, broke into a neighbor's house, stealing a package of Oreos and a bag of Chips Ahoy!.
Attachments:

Stinkfist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> themuse Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > i didn't know what a cookie was until i was
> nine.
> > both my brother and i grew up thinking cookies
> > were saltine crackers.
> > as a result, we both dislike sugar, and have
> never
> > had a cavity or broken a bone.
> >
> > thanks, ma.
>
>
> That's abuse. Plain and simple. ;)
>
> My mom went diet soda loco in the 90's. We never
> had the juice boxes or regular soda. To this day I
> can't drink a full can of non-diet soda in one
> sitting. It makes me cringe. But, I have no
> problem downing chocolate milk and sweet tea
> (though I prefer iced tea unsweetened with Splenda
> added in).


You mean diet soft drinks? Those are the worst. Diet cokes are awful for you. Regular soft drinks are actually ok in moderation.

Id also like to add that to lose fat and build muscle, you need lots of protein. Men need at least 80 grams of protein- bare minimum. Most people dont even get half that a day. Muscle keeps us lean and healthy and trim.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The human body developed based on a
> hunter/gatherer diet. Some protein, some
> vegetables, and lots of nuts and berries. The
> emphasis that we have placed on bread...even bread
> that is supposedly good for you...runs
> contradictory to how our bodies evolved.


You mean designed.

Healthnut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The human body developed based on a
> > hunter/gatherer diet. Some protein, some
> > vegetables, and lots of nuts and berries. The
> > emphasis that we have placed on bread...even
> bread
> > that is supposedly good for you...runs
> > contradictory to how our bodies evolved.
>
>
> You mean designed.

Heh, no. As in, "fuck no."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Some people are able to do it, while others get fat. The bottom line, however, is that it's not going to be good for your body in the long run, regardless of weight gained or lost.

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alias Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Leave it to a college professor to do something
> so
> > stupid. How old is he? 15?
>
>
> Yes, 15 is the average age for a PhD teaching at a
> college.

Thanks eesh, I thought the average age was 16 and assumed this guy had skipped a year in preschool.

ever had banana twinkies?

that was the original flavor - back then they only had a shelf life of 3 to 4 days.

they were made available briefly a few years ago - not bad either

Too bad he will be dead in ten years from artery
blockage due to all the TRANSFAT in those Twinkies.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Healthnut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The human body developed based on a
> > > hunter/gatherer diet. Some protein, some
> > > vegetables, and lots of nuts and berries. The
> > > emphasis that we have placed on bread...even
> > bread
> > > that is supposedly good for you...runs
> > > contradictory to how our bodies evolved.
> >
> >
> > You mean designed.
>
> Heh, no. As in, "fuck no."
Its funny. I used to think just like you did. But the more I studied the human body in my studies, the more I was perplexed. There's no way its an accident. The human body is a complete design. Its an amazing one at that.

HealthNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> >
> > Heh, no. As in, "fuck no."
> Its funny. I used to think just like you did. But
> the more I studied the human body in my studies,
> the more I was perplexed. There's no way its an
> accident. The human body is a complete design. Its
> an amazing one at that.

The human body is what remains after billions, if not trillions, of failed mutations throughout our Evolution. The reason the human body seems "designed" is because all other failed alternatives no longer exist.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/10/2010 11:05AM by WashingTone-Locian.

Here we go again with WashingTone-DEAF-Locian acting like
he knows that the human body was not designed.

At the very least the perameters of survival are the
means in which our bodies were designed.
The perameters that were set, were created
by the creator of perameters.

Now go fuck yourself idiot.

*Correction : Parameters^

keep editing that idiotic post WTL, maybe you can even break out
some of your favorite sock puppets to argue with me like old times.

Yep our bodies were designed...by evolution....still evolving too...only a matter of a few hundred thousand years before our pinky toes disappear altogether!

Yup, we evolved two lungs and NOT two hearts for obvious reasons.

Too bad we didn't follow the Frog and his evolutionary path or we
would be able to regenerate lost limbs or change sexual orientation
as desired or even change our physical appearance of our skin to suit our fancy.

OH THAT's right the common Frog has NO history in evolution
because they have remained unchanged for HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of years.
This FACT refutes Evolutionary theory.

Also we have neat unexplained organs like our appendix that seem
to have lost FUNCTION, but did not get lost despite being non-benneficial
for survival.

So the appendix proves evolution a FARSE because of it's existence.

What will the Frog look like in another 300 mil. Years? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> So the appendix proves evolution a FARSE because
> of it's existence.

Either that, or, God was so intelligent that he designed us with an organ that serves no purpose. That makes sense.

What will the Frog look like in another 300 mil. Years? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> OH THAT's right the common Frog has NO history in
> evolution
> because they have remained unchanged for HUNDREDS
> of MILLIONS of years.
> This FACT refutes Evolutionary theory.
>
>

That would be wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3342595/Missing-link-fossil-settles-frog-evolution-debate.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Not only does that website NOT prove me wrong, it raises more questions.
But how about the Horse Shoe Crab? Got any links that don't explain
it's 300 Million year long evolutionary stagnation?

*WashingDumbass-Locian* Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not only does that website NOT prove me wrong, it
> raises more questions.

No it doesn't. The article indicates that frogs evolved.

> But how about the Horse Shoe Crab? Got any links
> that don't explain
> it's 300 Million year long evolutionary
> stagnation?

It reached it's evolutionary stopping point 300 million years ago and managed to survive. But I digress.

Explain to me the evolution of...

The Horse
The Crab
The Dog
The Cow
The Kangaroo
The Rhino
The Hippo
The Giraffe
The Cat
The....virtually every other fucking species on Earth....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Well then how do you EXPLAIN the gourd? Or the way it has been designed to emit various gases under certain light conditions, without even the need for seedngs or photosynthesis?

Or what about animals? Does a buck snort?

Explain that one you faggotass.

Is that what the article indicates to you?
Then the article indicates YOUR MENTAL RETARDATION to me.



So Horses ect. are still evolving?

If 'Evolution' reigns supreme, then all species would look
more alike and there would be more intelligent beings like
ourselves. There would also not be such a wide range of
variety throughout nature, and then when it came to intelligent
two foot language using creatures we relatively have just ONE kind.
So your Evolytionary Hypothesis proves to be SELF-REFUTING.

You REALLY are an IDIOT, so your digression was deserved.

I love how a thread can go from a fucking snack food to the debate of the origin of man.

With this diet, who cares if he lost weight? The concerns for high cholesterol, diabetes, high blood pressure, (to name a few), are only going to make someone fat at some point anyway.

Elle Diabla Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> With this diet, who cares if he lost weight? The
> concerns for high cholesterol, diabetes, high
> blood pressure, (to name a few), are only going to
> make someone fat at some point anyway.


Not necessarily fat but VERY unhealthy.

All of the conditions that I listed go hand in hand with people who are overweight. One, because the conditions alone are so taxing on one's system that individuals often succumb to feeling like shit and out goes any sort of active lifestyle. Second, because these conditions are maintained with medications that lead to extra weight as a side effect.

Stinkfist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love how a thread can go from a fucking snack
> food to the debate of the origin of man.


lol.

yeefuckinghaw

.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2011 08:38PM by chuckhoffmann.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm