Ugh! To be able to lose weight like that! LOL! Only a man. And truly, I wonder if the study would have the same results if a woman tried it. I honestly doubt it!! And I want to know what kinds of cravings he had. Was it hard to resist another twinkie that would take him beyond the calorie restriction? Or did he crave vegetables? I've done that before where I ate so poorly I actually craved the really good stuff.

Very interesting, but I can't help believing my current good health is due to my drastically improved diet. No more pickling my insides. My bowels are so regular I can go camping and know exactly when I'll need to go!! You don't get that with a twinkie.

Interesting stuff! It does create a lot more questions than it answers. I've been following the studies on caloric restriction and how it extends life span, which is somewhat on a parallel path. I couldn't imagine myself doing well on what he was eating, though. In the quirkiness of individual makeup, hey, if it works for him, great. More power to him.

I just sent this article to my husband. He is 6'6' and weighs 370 (down from 490 2 years ago).

He and I were discussing caloric intake. I eat 1,000 calories a day and am losing an average of 2.5-3lbs per week (mostly).

He eats probably around 1800-2200 per day (on average) and goes to the gym 3 times a week and loses a fraction of a pound a week. At his height and weight on that calorie level he should be losing at least 2lbs per week.

He is doing low carb (same as me) and it has not really made a difference.
He said last night, I might as well eat bread again and be happy.

So its obvious his metabolism is "messed up" for lack of a better word, he is kind of at wits end about what to do.

His premise is right on target though! He basically says what many of the long term dieters in here have said OVER and OVER: calories in versus calories out.

I really believe now that it doesnt matter what you eat per se* Weight loss really just comes down to making sure your body uses calories than it takes in, period end of story.



*there are reasons why its better to choose health food ie: glucose spike avoidance, fast food triggering binge eating, the calorie for calorie quantities of fat foods tend to be smaller than those of health foods etc. satiety is harder to reach on small high fat portions than it is on bulky low cal selections etc.

I've done it! I lost a lot of weight eating all the bad stuff but eating it in much smaller portions. I'd carry on having a candy bar, just instead of a meal rather than in between them. I can't recall what I lost but I think it was over 30lbs. But you go hungry ALL the time, so it's only going to be an option for people who are extremely ruthless with their calorie count even if they are physically starving and rumbling in the tummy. Have no idea how sustainable it ever was because I dieted for a specific situation, achieved the goal (come in under the maximum BMI for IVF treatment) and then got pregnant. Ironically I lost a lot of weight during my pregnancy (first time in my life I ever had a flat belly just when I was meant to be blooming) and then piled it on breastfeeding, so my body is well and truly messed up anyway! But yes, in terms of raw weight loss it does work.

WOW...I am amazed that a basically pure snack food diet worked for him. I wonder if it would have the same weight loss effect for women. I'm not rushing toward this diet though like the article said they can't be sure of the long term effects of this type of diet on the body.

It was really interesting....I'm e-mailing it to my friends

kEZIAH, my husband is also 6'6 and used to weight 382. Last January he started eating "better" and lost almost 40 pounds in 2 months. He stopped "dieting and exercising" and has been losing weight anyways. He is down to 328 and still eats pretty bad, just not as bad as he used to.

Im thinking your husband is not eating enough calories, and that's why he is not losing weight. He needs almost 4000 cal to keep that weight, so he could easily be eating 2500-3000 per day and still lose weight.

PS: We never stopped eating bread...

Anyone else read this?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08...ex.html?hpt=T2
SO... It really is proof that a deficit in calories is what it takes to lose weight. It's not WHAT you eat... it's HOW MANY CALORIES you consume overall.

At least he's not touting this as a "healthy" lifestyle, thank the gods! (I think it's important to note that he IS a professor of nutrition! He did this for a class project, - he 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.

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.)

I am currently on a definite mission to adjust my diet by calorie decrease. I would love to try this "diet" for myself, but I know better! -my body would reject it 100%, mainly because since I've drastically reduced my intake of sugar, I can hardly stand to eat anything sweet anymore (yay!). But I do think there's room for cutting calories, so I plan to find it!

I think it's worth noting that it worked for him. I'm not sure it would work for everyone.

And I agree with you BP, I would not feel well on this "diet."

ETA: I think there's an interesting subtext here -- the hypothesis that it's not the bad food that makes you sick, but the very fact of being overweight. Even though he ate unhealthy food, his health indicators improved, and they theorize it's simply because he's leaner. There's a lot of discussion here about whether or not it is truly healthier to be thin. This "experiment" points to yes, but of course it's a sample of one and not exactly rigorous science.

It's not proof for me- it's one man- if they had 100 people do it I might take notice. There are way too many factors, he may have good genes, he may be like my husband who can eat anything and not gain weight, etc.

Overall for men IMO, it's much easier to lose weight cuz they don't have 75 million hormones like women do. I bet if a woman followed that diet she'd balloon to 400 lbs.

I can't eat anything off plan or I don't lose PERIOD. For me if I eat 1500 calories with a 55-60% carb diet nothing happens, but when I change carbs down to 30% the numbers go down, after two years I know my body is this way because I followed a low fat and high carb diet for years to only get bigger and bigger.

But he didn't eat the same thing every day - he alternated between junk foods! This speaks volumes to the fact that you don't have to eliminate all of your favorite foods to lose weight - you just need to eat less OF them.

I know him! (Well, I've met him a few times).

Anyway, if you read the article you see he didn't JUST eat Twinkies...he ate a variety of junk foods, plus some milk, carrots, and protein shakes. So he had some variety. I agree that the major point is to reduce your calorie intake, and it's great that his labs improved. I don't think I could live for very long eating that way. It sounds great but I'm sure I'd start craving healthier, heartier foods.

Although I would never consider this diet for myself, I definitely believe this would work for anyone, male or female. The bottom line is a fact; taking in fewer calories than you burn equals weight loss.

I agree with cieloarge- Keziah your husband sounds like he may be eating too little- specially if he's also working out. I would have him change to 2500 calories a day for a month and see if he starts to lose- sometimes too little calories makes you stop losing weight also.

Wow he must have been starving all the time!