Thread: Professor loses weight on snack-food diet

Saw this online and wondered what you thought. I thought, if I start eating this stuff I just won't stop.





Nutrition professor drops two stone on snack food diet

Calories count more than nutritional value


Print



Share



Send




Wed 10 Nov, 2010 12:00 am GMT
© Dr Mark Haub

It sounds like a dieters fantasy - lose weight by eating junk food and sweets - but in the case of university professor Mark Haub, it really worked.
Dr Haub, who teaches human nutrition at Kansas State University, lost 27 pounds in two months on a diet of chocolate bars, chips, biscuits, pizza, doughnuts and sugary cereals. He occasionally ate some low-calorie vegetables.
At the start of his snack food diet Dr Haub said: “It’s portion controlled. I’m eating foods that are deemed by many to be unhealthy; we will see if they are."
He restricted his diet to 1800 calories per day, compared to the 2600 an average man consumes.
Dr Haub wanted to show that the calorie content of food mattered most, rather than its nutritional value, when trying to lose weight.
And who can argue with his results? Dr Haub's body mass index fell from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is within the normal weight range.
As a professor of nutrition, Dr Haub was well aware of the health risks involved. Blood cholesterol and glucose levels were monitored throughout his diet, as well as blood pressure and body composition.
Despite his diet of sugary, salty and fatty processed food, his health indicators actually improved. His LDL-cholesterol, which is linked to a greater risk of heart disease, fell 20 per cent, while his 'good' HDL-cholesterol rose by 20 per cent. Dr Haub's body fat also fell from 33.4 to 24.9 per cent.
"All I know is that my bad cholesterol has decreased on my diet, and my good cholesterol has increased," he said.
If cholesterol is a valid marker of cardiovascular disease risk, then it would appear my risk for cardiovascular disease decreased," Dr Haub added.
The diet was not an indulgence, Dr Haub said, but an experiment aimed at making the point that what matters in weight loss is the number of calories, rather than the quality of the food you eat.
Dr Haub whose diet cost around $5 per day said: “I am not promoting this or recommending it; it’s just an exercise in nutrition.”

I read this, I find it hard to believe. What about that documentary, super size me was it called?

and the portions cant have been very big. and omg all that sugar! you would have a sugar crash and crave more surely?

Originally Posted by Jim

I read this, I find it hard to believe. What about that documentary, super size me was it called?

In supersize me he ate in excess of 5000 calories a day :/ yikes.. i feel sick after one bigmac.. lol

and yeah i couldn't do this diet either.. i mean i'm watching calories, but i'm watching where the calories are coming from, healthy nutritional choices... i wouldn't have any self control for this diet either Amanda.. i would eat a box of twinkies at a time ! lol

He must just have a good metabolism is all I can think.

Quote "...Dr Haub wanted to show that the calorie content of food mattered most, rather than its nutritional value, when trying to lose weight..."

Well obviously, but it is hardly sensible, is it? I think that diabetes is lurking just around the corner if someone has this type of diet.

Quote "...And who can argue with his results? Dr Haub's body mass index fell from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is within the normal weight range...."

Which just goes to show, really, that 'slim' people are not automatically healthy, particularly if they have the Professor's diet, and overweight people (according to BMI) are not automatically unhealthy eaters if they follow a balanced diet, but eat a bit more than they can work off.

If you starve yourself completely with no food whatsoever, you are going to lose weight lol. And no doubt your cholestrol levels would come down too as a result. He was on this for 2 months, so no great harm done, but no doubt long term this would be a bad idea. No mention in the report if he was deficient in other areas of nutrition.

It cant have been easy doing this sort of diet, as the level of carbs must have had him craving for more food. Personally i would be craving salad i think lol.

It says in the report that he was trying to prove that calories count more than nutrition when trying to lose weight. Thats the bit that got me thinking the guy is a complete nutcase and should be struck off haha

Am thinking of that programme Supersize Vs Superskinny on channel 4. A lot of the time it is the skinny one that is eating the junk food, living off of cakes and chocolate etc. It is usually the bigger one that has the more nutritional diet. The programme shows that you need a balance.

You can be slim and very unhealthy just as the other way round.

Can't see many takers on his junk diet as it is not just about being slim but healthy too.

Yeah i think hes just makin the point that portion size is really important. If ur eating healthy enough food like chicken/potatoes etc, you're not gona lose weight if u eat tonnes of it.

Before I started losing weight my diet mainly consisted of huge quantities of sugar laden food.

Since I have joined lighterlife lite I have stopped eating chocolate and other junk. Nevermind the weightloss side of it I have benefitted from having more energy, my skin has cleared up and my teeth no longer feel furry! I'm also less ratty!!! I may be wrong but I also feel that I look less wrinkly!

Excessive amounts of sugary foodstuffs in the diet are in my opinion detrimental to your body regardless of whether their fat content is less.

I also think you have a leaner body when you eat low fat foods, eating all this junk would give you very bad cellulite and lots of spots probably!

I'd really like to see the data - don't see any reason why this wouldn't work in principle. In practice, I think I'm too weak to hack this

On the plus side, suggests that the occasional (maybe more than occasional) "cheat food" isn't so harmful

Hurrah?

There was a woman on a BBC biology programme recently who'd lived on Monster Munch for years and years. Purely Monster Munch. She was slim, but her hair was falling out and her gums bled.

While I agree with everyone here that the diet he went on was unhealthy (in fact he himself said he doesn't recommend it), but it does at least present a counter-argument to generalisations about foods that make you fat. Eating all the "right" things, and never any "wrong" things, still won't make you lose weight if you're taking in more calories than you're using. Portion control is also very important.

Very interesting. I recently watched "Fat Head", the documentary "response" to Super Size Me. It tries to prove that fat isn't the problem, it's carbs. The guy eats junk food (burgers, cheese) but leaves the carbs (buns and fries), loses weight, and his cholesterol levels improve.

Well, this experiment seems to knock that theory over too. Basically, it seems it's just a case of calories in vs calories out, regardless of whether it's carbs, fat or protein.