Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91   ^
Old Thu, Nov-11-10, 23:57
PilotGal PilotGal is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 36,355
 
Plan: KetoCarnivore
Stats: 206.6/178/160 Female 5'7
BF:awesome
Progress: 61%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_d
I could polish off several potatoes for breke -- provided they were browned in pure Duck Fat

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=bl_sr_g...dtextbin=Rougie
Oooooooooooooohhhhh! i got some of this today at Williams & Sonoma.... i can't wait to try it with one of my thanksgiving dishes!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #92   ^
Old Fri, Nov-12-10, 00:24
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valtor
I agree with this.

My guess is that he did not count calories before his experiment. So he took his estimated calorie expanse of 2600 and the fact his weight was stable to conclude that he was eating 2600 kcals before. But instead he was probably nearer to 3100 kcals of intake before his experiment.

You mean your "guess" agrees with your hypothesis. You're missing the point. For the calorie hypothesis to be true, Eout before the experiment must match Eout exactly during the experiment, not just roughly approximate. It does not, no matter how you look at it.

Last edited by M Levac : Fri, Nov-12-10 at 00:34.
Reply With Quote
  #93   ^
Old Fri, Nov-12-10, 06:44
Valtor's Avatar
Valtor Valtor is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,036
 
Plan: VLC 4 days a week
Stats: 337/258/200 Male 6' 1"
BF:
Progress: 58%
Location: Québec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
You mean your "guess" agrees with your hypothesis. You're missing the point. For the calorie hypothesis to be true, Eout before the experiment must match Eout exactly during the experiment, not just roughly approximate. It does not, no matter how you look at it.
You said it yourself: "we can't conclude anything definitive from it". He doesn't know what his intake really was before. The guess is his.
Reply With Quote
  #94   ^
Old Fri, Nov-12-10, 07:20
Elfie's Avatar
Elfie Elfie is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 588
 
Plan: Bernstein
Stats: 330/140/140 Female 5' 3"
BF:
Progress: 100%
Default

I can't tell you how many times this 'Twinkie' story has been thrown in my face by people who refuse to believe that I was on an 800 calorie Optifast diet for a month and lost *nothing*. They refuse to believe that on a 1200 calorie diet that is low fat and high carb, I will only lose *maybe* 5 pounds a month and then hit a stall for weeks. They refuse to believe that I can eat close to 2000 calories, low carb, high fat and lose more than either of those two diets.

It's not about calories in/calories out. There is so much more and until the 'nutrition' industry *gets* that, the world's population will contain to gain weight.

I can't believe how the media has jumped on this. The man only did this experiment for 10 weeks and in an uncontrolled environment. We don't really know whether he cheated...or even ate the Twinkies he said he did.

.
Reply With Quote
  #95   ^
Old Fri, Nov-12-10, 07:55
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valtor
You said it yourself: "we can't conclude anything definitive from it". He doesn't know what his intake really was before. The guess is his.

You said: "My guess is..." Sorry buddy, you said it. The article, on the other hand, gave an exact figure: 2600 kcals. Furthermore, considering that the figure for Eout of 3375 kcals during the experiment is a daily average over the ten weeks, and considering that a bigger system requires and uses more energy than a smaller system, and considering that the guy started out heavier and ended up lighter, we must assume that Eout at the onset was even higher than the average for the 10 weeks, much higher than your guess. Maybe you'd like to argue against the First Law of Thermodynamics? I strongly advise against it. After all, the calorie hypothesis is based exclusively on it: You'd be arguing against yourself.

No, the only thing we can conclude is that considering everything we know about the case, the calorie hypothesis just can't explain any evidence about the case.
Reply With Quote
  #96   ^
Old Fri, Nov-12-10, 08:01
Angeline's Avatar
Angeline Angeline is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,423
 
Plan: Atkins (loosely)
Stats: -/-/- Female 60
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfie
I can't tell you how many times this 'Twinkie' story has been thrown in my face by people who refuse to believe that I was on an 800 calorie Optifast diet for a month and lost *nothing*.

.


Tell them that making any conclusions about this experiment of one is about as logical as saying that smoking is harmless because your great aunt lived to age 90 smoking a pack a day.
Reply With Quote
  #97   ^
Old Fri, Nov-12-10, 08:04
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angeline
Tell them that making any conclusions about this experiment of one is about as logical as saying that smoking is harmless because your great aunt lived to age 90 smoking a pack a day.

Exactly. Nevertheless, the calorie hypothesis is supposed to apply to everybody, since the First Law of Thermodynamics is supposed to apply to everybody. So in a way, if we say everybody is different, we are saying the First Law of Thermodynamics applies to everybody differently and we can't have that.
Reply With Quote
  #98   ^
Old Fri, Nov-12-10, 08:57
costello22's Avatar
costello22 costello22 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,544
 
Plan: VLC
Stats: 265.4/238.8/199 Female 5'5.5"
BF:
Progress: 40%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfie
I can't believe how the media has jumped on this. The man only did this experiment for 10 weeks and in an uncontrolled environment. We don't really know whether he cheated...or even ate the Twinkies he said he did.


He's also just one guy. He's proved nothing. This isn't science.
Reply With Quote
  #99   ^
Old Fri, Nov-12-10, 09:05
costello22's Avatar
costello22 costello22 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,544
 
Plan: VLC
Stats: 265.4/238.8/199 Female 5'5.5"
BF:
Progress: 40%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfie
I can't tell you how many times this 'Twinkie' story has been thrown in my face by people who refuse to believe that I was on an 800 calorie Optifast diet for a month and lost *nothing*. They refuse to believe that on a 1200 calorie diet that is low fat and high carb, I will only lose *maybe* 5 pounds a month and then hit a stall for weeks. They refuse to believe that I can eat close to 2000 calories, low carb, high fat and lose more than either of those two diets.


Of course, Elfie. You know you must have been eating "mindlessly." Or misjudging your calorie intake. Or flat out lying. Fat people lie, you know.

Luckily people don't throw anything in my face. The people in my world mind their own flippin' business - probably because they get an earnest lecture on low carb or some other aspect of nutrition if they do. They flip on my on switch, listen to me for a short while - nodding but looking doubtful - then start looking like they wish they could escape or find my off switch. Nothing worse than a sermon from an enthusiastic convert!
Reply With Quote
  #100   ^
Old Fri, Nov-12-10, 10:46
Elfie's Avatar
Elfie Elfie is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 588
 
Plan: Bernstein
Stats: 330/140/140 Female 5' 3"
BF:
Progress: 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by costello22
They flip on my on switch, listen to me for a short while - nodding but looking doubtful - then start looking like they wish they could escape or find my off switch. Nothing worse than a sermon from an enthusiastic convert!


ROFLMAO. Wish I had the patience to deal with people this way...but sadly, I don't.

.
Reply With Quote
  #101   ^
Old Tue, Nov-16-10, 07:57
leemack's Avatar
leemack leemack is offline
NEVER GIVING UP!
Posts: 5,030
 
Plan: no sugar/grains LCHF IF
Stats: 478/354/200 Female 5' 9"
BF:excessive!!
Progress: 45%
Location: UK
Default

Interesting analysis from Tom Naughton http://www.fathead-movie.com/index....e-twinkie-diet/



Over the past several weeks, I’ve received quite a few emails and comments about Kansas State nutrition professor Mark Haub and his “Twinkie Diet.” I became aware of professor Haub’s experiment awhile back because he emailed me about it. He’s seen Fat Head, and if I remember correctly, he said he shows it to his students in class.

In case you haven’t heard about his experiment, here’s a typical headline, this one from a CNN article:

Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds

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.

As you might imagine, a lot of the emails and comments I received included a question along the lines of “How can this guy be losing weight when he’s living on all those refined carbohydrates?” I replied that I’d need to see a breakdown of what he actually ate. Fortunately, Professor Haub (unlike Morgan Spurlock) has nothing to hide and has made his food log and health assessments public. I finally spent some time going over them and crunching some numbers.

So, the answer to the question How can this guy be losing weight when he’s living on all all those refined carbohydrates? is … (wait for it): By not actually consuming a high number of carbohydrates.

Despite the headlines, Professor Haub wasn’t living on a “Twinkie Diet” or a “Little Debbie Snack Cake Diet.” He was on a diet that includes Twinkies and Little Debbie Snack Cakes.

First, let’s look at a couple of daily menus:

November 12
Pumpkin Spice Donut
Coffee
Protein shake
Onion Rings
Steak
Broccoli
Macaroni and Cheese
Baked potato casserole
Dynasty Lychees
Baby carrots
Peanut butter cookies
2% milk

October 29
Hostess cupcake
Coffee
Sesame chicken
Teriyaki chicken
Egg roll
Chicken nachos
Broccoli
Lemon zingers
Kit Kat

Like my Fat Head fast-food diet, nobody would mistake this for any kind of health-food diet. The guy is definitely consuming sugar. And yet he lost weight, lost body fat, raised his HDL, and lowered both his triglycerides and LDL. How can that be? Well, let’s look at the numbers.

I copied the daily nutrition totals into Excel and calculated Professor Haub’s average daily intake of calories and macronutrients over the 10 weeks he’s been on the diet:

Calories: 1457
Fat (g): 61
Carbohydrate (g): 173
Protein (g): 54

As a percent of daily calories, it works out to:

Fat: 38%
Carbohydrate: 47%
Protein: 15%

Now, 173 grams of carbohydrate per day certainly isn’t low, but it’s not high either. Depending on whose figures you use, that’s about half as many carbohydrates as an average American male consumes per day. It’s also at least 1,000 fewer daily calories than an average male consumes. So it doesn’t surprise me at all that Professor Haub lost weight on a “Twinkie Diet” that is actually moderate in carbohydrates and very low in calories. I’d lose weight on that diet, too. (I’d hate it, but I’d lose weight.)

I would also lose muscle on such a low protein intake, and according to his health assessments posted on Facebook, Professor Haub did in fact lose 6 pounds of lean body mass over the 10 weeks. So we’re looking at a fat loss of 20 pounds in 10 weeks, or two pounds per week.

As with dieters everywhere, his weight loss appears to be slowing down as he goes along. During the first four weeks of the diet, according to his online data, he lost an average of 3.75 pounds per week, but slowed to 1.8 pounds per week over the next six weeks. That’s not surprising. There’s usually some initial water loss in the early phase of a diet, and of course once you begin to lose weight, your basal metabolism tends to drop. What would be interesting to see is how quickly he’d regain the weight if he went back up to 2500 calories per day and consumed more carbohydrates — not that I’d encourage him to try it.

Overall, it looks like an interesting experiment, and it’s certainly generated a lot of media buzz. It’s just too bad the buzzing media reporters aren’t taking a little closer look at the professor’s online food log. There’s certainly junk food in this diet, but it is not (as one headline described it) a Junk Food Binge. When you consume fewer than 1500 calories and 175 carbohydrates on an average day, it’s not any kind of binge.
Reply With Quote
  #102   ^
Old Tue, Nov-16-10, 09:07
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Every moment is NOW.
Posts: 23,064
 
Plan: LC (ketogenic)
Stats: 520/381/280 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 58%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

"Man eats steak, teriyaki chicken, carrots, and LOSES WEIGHT!" blares the new headline.

Oh wait! That wasn't quite what we heard.

PJ
Reply With Quote
  #103   ^
Old Tue, Nov-16-10, 10:18
sugarjunki's Avatar
sugarjunki sugarjunki is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 993
 
Plan: IF
Stats: 220/203.4/199 Female 71"
BF:
Progress: 79%
Location: Miami Beach, FL
Default

I already posted the link to his food log, and said that he wasn't eating 1800 cals a day. I guess that doesn't matter because I don't have my own movie or blog though.
Reply With Quote
  #104   ^
Old Wed, Nov-17-10, 10:06
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

The six-pound lean mass seems to come from this comment on facebook;

Quote:
It looks like your lean body mass was 134 lbs and is now 128 lbs. That's a 6 lb loss.


in response to this post by Professor Haub;

Quote:
WEEK 10 Update: Body weight pre= 200.8 lb; post = 174.2 lb (-26.6 lbs);
Body fat pre= 33.4%; post =24.9% (-8.5%)...


I don't get it.

33.4 percent of 200.8=67.062
24.9 percent of 174.2=43.378
So fat lost=23.684
Weight lost was 26.6 pounds, that leaves only 3 pounds as lean mass lost. I guess since Haub didn't question the poster's math, Tom didn't bother either. Given water losses, and the tendency to carry around less glycogen on his decreased carbohydrate intake, I have trouble taking his three pound lean mass loss to be any sort of a serious threat to this guy, with the information given, we can only work back from the fat loss, so "lean"=anything that isn't fat. I do wonder whether this guy does any sort of weight training.
Reply With Quote
  #105   ^
Old Wed, Nov-17-10, 14:42
JL53563's Avatar
JL53563 JL53563 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,209
 
Plan: The Real Human Diet
Stats: 225/165/180 Male 5'8"
BF:?/?/8.6%
Progress: 133%
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Default

Quote:
33.4 percent of 200.8=67.062
24.9 percent of 174.2=43.378
So fat lost=23.684


This guy is what I call "skinny fat". He is not overweight, per se. But almost 25% BF for a man is high. Over 25% for a man between 20 and 40 is obese.

http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/libra...dyfatcharts.htm

Last edited by JL53563 : Wed, Nov-17-10 at 14:59.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:22.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.