They might be less than optimal but I seriously doubt they're lethal.
Not so sure; there was a LOT of high fructose and trans fat in that list; the former causing liver damage and the latter terrible HDL vs. LDL level balances.
They might be less than optimal but I seriously doubt they're lethal.
Meh, it works for me cause I don't have above average muscle mass. Plus I'm saying that cause I'm not saying my actual weight *cough*.1st of all, BMI does not work for everyone. It simply does not. For instance, right now, my BMI is 28 but I only have 17% body fat currently, as shown through hydrostatic weighing (the most accurate form of body composition testing). That's on the low end of ideal for a woman.
The amount you weigh does not necessarily correlate to your body fat... and that is what BMI assumes.
Not so sure; there was a LOT of high fructose and trans fat in that list; the former causing liver damage and the latter terrible HDL vs. LDL level balances.
Worst diet ever. Period.
I don't care how much he has lost, he is probably going to gain that all back plus more once he goes off the diet.
This is false, actually, but a very common notion. You need to compare HDL's to LDL's to get any true indication of heart disease risk.His total cholesterol dropped from 214 to 184 mg/dL. A cholesterol level of 200 mg/dL or higher raises your risk for heart disease.
In a healthy individual, HDL's should be higher than LDL's. His HDL's are about a third the concentration of LDL's. Not good at all. This man is seriously in need of exercise. Believe it or not, exercise is the number one way to raise your HDL's. It's also an excellent way to help get his blood pressure under control. That and drinking a lot more water. And fricking eating healthy!His LDL cholesterol, also known as “bad cholesterol” dropped from 153 to 123 mg/dL. A level less than 100 mg/dL is recommended.
His HDL cholesterol, also known as “good cholesterol” increased from 37 to 46 mg/dL. Levels less than 40 mg/dL increase risk of heart disease.
If calories in/calories out < 1, you lose weight.
If calories in/calories out > 1, you gain weight.
It's that simple. Really.
Not necessarily.
Varying factors contribute to whether you can lose weight or not. I myself have two disorders that are both known to cause weight gain, even if you do count your calories and portion sizes. I was down to 1200 calories a day and STILL gaining weight before I figured out how I should best eat to support the disorders I have. Ironically, it meant more calories and more fat, and then I started losing weight.
For one, the difference between table sugar (which is common natrual food as it is), and HFCS is quite small. HFCS contains only around 15 to 20% more fuctose. Table sugar (sucrose) is actually 50% fructose.
OH god, not another one... you are way off. FRUIT have way more fructose than table sugar, and yet it is not harmful in any way... why? It consists of fructose still naturally bound with sucrose; the fructose in HFCS is~not~bound... it is a wholly different monster that our bodies are not designed to understand.
Not necessarily.
Varying factors contribute to whether you can lose weight or not. I myself have two disorders that are both known to cause weight gain, even if you do count your calories and portion sizes. I was down to 1200 calories a day and STILL gaining weight before I figured out how I should best eat to support the disorders I have. Ironically, it meant more calories and more fat, and then I started losing weight.
I was down to 1200 calories a day and STILL gaining weight before I figured out how I should best eat to support the disorders I have. Ironically, it meant more calories and more fat, and then I started losing weight.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
Interesting little tidbit. As he said he is still on that fence about it but he does bring up the question about portion control. This has been echoed comparing fast food circa 1960s to today and elsewhere(2 for one deals, bulk buying, etc)
Thoughts?
I do have to say I would love to meet this professor and shake his hand
HERE WE GO!
glad to see someone is sane:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2010/11/12/nutritionists-to-america-for-the-love-of-god-dont-try-the-twinkie-diet/
You didnt read the initial post he said the same thing... don't do it
Nope, glanced at the list and decided it wasn't worth it.
I assume you didn't read indi's assertion that you demonizing of fructose is also has no merit.
Oh I read it, and he's wrong. My warnings about HFCS are intensely valid, given the fact that it's idea of fructose has little relation to the natural molecule by the same name that, instead, is bound with sucrose in a way our bodies are designed to understand. Between indigo and nutritional lab scientists, I'm going with the nutritional lab scientists.