Mmmmmm, chicken McNuggets

This guy lost 27 pounds eating twinkies and showed its just as much about the cal. as anything else.

Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html)

This guy lost 27 pounds eating twinkies and showed its just as much about the cal. as anything else.

Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html)


His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.


In weight loss that is true less calories generally means your body will lose weight but is it healthy? I bet a million bucks he had terrible bouts of hungry during that diet and lacked energy.

So many people are hung up on weight when it really is your overall health that is the concern. Being overweight is unhealthy but so is being underweight.

This guy lost 27 pounds eating twinkies and showed its just as much about the cal. as anything else.

Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html)

One man doing one thing means zippy.

His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.


In weight loss that is true less calories generally means your body will lose weight but is it healthy? I bet a million bucks he had terrible bouts of hungry during that diet and lacked energy.

So many people are hung up on weight when it really is your overall health that is the concern. Being overweight is unhealthy but so is being underweight.
I agree but it was things like this that I found pretty intresting.

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.
"That's where the head scratching comes,"

One man doing one thing means zippy.


I think this pretty much sums firstdowns article. Everyone's body is different and it is hard to say sweeping comments like "just eat Twinkies" and think it will work for everyone.

So does the 1 man doing 1 thing also apply to the guy in the Supersize Me movie?

What McDonald's chicken nuggets really contain (http://www.montrealgazette.com/entertainment/What+McDonald+chicken+nuggets+really+contain/4112721/story.html)

Pretty good article for all the McNugget Hatters

Im all about people eating healthy on their own accord, and I think its good that Americans seem to be waking up about the fact of eating healthier. But at the end of the day if you eat too much organic food vs. too much processed food youre probably still gonna be fat and therefore unhealthy. I don’t think there is anything wrong with eating processed foods that are deep fried in delicious trans-fat oil, and then coated with salt, its letting that become the staple in your diet or eating too much of it that is bad. I would bet that eating 2000 calories of McDonalds every day is a whole lot better for your overall health then eating 3000 calories of organic food.

Also I kind of like the idea of eating mechanically separated chicken, it makes me feel like im a Native American in the old days when they would use every part of the buffalo (except chicken in our case). Would it be better to just use the premium cuts of meat from the chicken and tease starving counties with scraps that could be turned into food?


I just want to point out what i originally said and the article i was referencing. I actually try and eat somewhat healthy. But i also like fast food and in my opinion its not that bad for you and it absolutely is not as bad for you as a lot of people make it out to be. However eating too much of it is bad for you. Just like eating too much food from your organic raw bar. If you eat too much of anything odds are you are obese. If you youre obese odds are you are unhealthy.

Again I think being obese due to over eating “healthy” foods is worse for your body and more unhealthy then not being obese due to eating the recommended amount of calories of “less healthy” foods, ie McDonalds.

Also heres an absolutely awesome analogy I came up with…..

Your car is running really crappy because you put way too much oil in the engine. So you drain all the oil and put a lighter weight recommended oil in, but still way too much. Turns out your car still runs crappy, but maybe a little better. Now if you put in the recommend amount of oil it runs really really well no matter what weight oil you use. If you use the recommended lighter weight oil it maybe runs a little better but your engine might last a few thousand miles more, so you go ahead and do it because you really like your car.

So sure the recommended lighter weight oil makes your car last a little longer but only if you use the right amount. Using the right amount of oil is the most important thing to keep your car running top notch. Using the preferred weight is secondary

I just want to point out what i originally said and the article i was referencing. I actually try and eat somewhat healthy. But i also like fast food and in my opinion its not that bad for you and it absolutely is not as bad for you as a lot of people make it out to be. However eating too much of it is bad for you. Just like eating too much food from your organic raw bar. If you eat too much of anything odds are you are obese. If you youre obese odds are you are unhealthy.

Again I think being obese due to over eating “healthy” foods is worse for your body and more unhealthy then not being obese due to eating the recommended amount of calories of “less healthy” foods, ie McDonalds.

Also heres an absolutely awesome analogy I came up with…..

Your car is running really crappy because you put way too much oil in the engine. So you drain all the oil and put a lighter weight recommended oil in, but still way too much. Turns out your car still runs crappy, but maybe a little better. Now if you put in the recommend amount of oil it runs really really well no matter what weight oil you use. If you use the recommended lighter weight oil it maybe runs a little better but your engine might last a few thousand miles more, so you go ahead and do it because you really like your car.

So sure the recommended lighter weight oil makes your car last a little longer but only if you use the right amount. Using the right amount of oil is the most important thing to keep your car running top notch. Using the preferred weight is secondary

That was a awful analogy if you run any oil other then your recommend oil weight in your car over time the engine will suffer.

Back to McD's lets throw out the calories and fat and talk QUALITY. you really really need to watch this film and then come back to me and say you still want to eat McD's. I think you will end up choosing the 1k calorie bathroom scum over McD's after watching this.

Official Food, Inc. Movie Site - Hungry For Change? (http://www.foodincmovie.com/)


At this point I feel like I am talking to a 60 year old smoker how refuses to believe cigarette smoke is bad for him and insist that everyone of his grandparents from WV lived to 100 and smoked every day so it can't be bad for me.

So does the 1 man doing 1 thing also apply to the guy in the Supersize Me movie?

Yes I agree with you and the more I dig into Super Size the less I find his study complaining but it did do a good job of shinning the light on obesity in America. This still doesn't mean McD's is good for you.

Some interest stuff on the doc:

Critics of the film, including McDonald's, argue that the author intentionally consumed an average of 5,000 calories per day and did not exercise, and that the results would have been the same regardless of the source of overeating.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me#cite_note-12) He was eating solely McDonald's food in keeping with the terms of a potential judgment against McDonald's in court documents highlighted at the beginning of the film. However, in the comedic documentary reply Fat Head,[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me#cite_note-13) Tom Naughton "suggests that Spurlock's calorie and fat counts don't add up" and criticizes Spurlock's refusal to publish the Super Size Me food log; The Houston Chronicle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Chronicle) reports: "Unlike Spurlock, Naughton has a page on his Web site that lists every item (including nutritional information) he ate during his fast-food month."[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me#cite_note-14) The film addresses such objections by highlighting that a part of the reason for Spurlock's deteriorating health was not just the high calorie intake but also the high quantity of fat relative to vitamins and minerals in the McDonald's menu, which is similar in that regard to the nutritional content of the menus of most other U.S. fast-food chains.
About 1/3 of Spurlock's calories came from sugar. His nutritionist, Bridget Bennett RD, cited him about his excess intake of sugar from "milkshakes and cokes". It is revealed toward the end of the movie that over the course of the diet, he consumed "over 30 pounds of sugar, and over 12 lbs. of fat from their food."[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me#cite_note-15) The nutritional side of the diet was not fully explored in the film because of the closure of the clinic which monitored this aspect during the filming of the movie.
Soso Whaley, the owner of Literary Llama Productions (an independent film production company), made a reply[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me#cite_note-16) film called "Me & Mickey D."[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me#cite_note-17) [19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me#cite_note-18), in which she also ate all meals at McDonald's, yet lost weight -- 20 pounds over 60 days; 30 pounds in 90 days. Some of Whaley's requirements for her meals were the same as Spurlock's (had to eat everything on the menu over the course of the experiment, etc); but some were different (she didn't have to clean the plate -- Spurlock required himself to do so). Whaley also collected documentation in the form of itemized receipts for each meal, which Spurlock did not do. Whaley's results were quite different[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me#cite_note-19).
Likewise, fitness advocate Chazz Weaver also created a documentary [21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me#cite_note-20) of his own 30-day McDonald's diet in response to Spurlock, and again results were entirely different from Spurlock's. Where Weaver's premise differed from Whaley's, however, was the commitment to exercise. Weaver acknowledged that without exercise, the fat-laden diet he ate at McDonald's would have resulted in a weight gain. The thrust of Weaver's thesis was an exercise plan. His result was weight loss (222 lbs down to 214 lbs), as well as improved blood pressure, cholesterol, and triglycerides.
Spurlock claimed he was trying to imitate what an average diet for a regular eater at McDonald's—a person who would get little to no exercise—would do to them. Spurlock's intake of 5,000 calories per day was well over twice the recommended daily intake for a sedentary adult male, which would amount to only about 2,300 calories.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me#cite_note-21) A typical man consuming as many calories as Spurlock did would gain nearly a pound a day (which is roughly how much Spurlock gained), a rate of weight gain that could not be sustained for long periods. Additionally, Spurlock did not demonstrate or claim that anyone, let alone a substantial number of people, eats at McDonald's three times per day. In fact McDonald's is mentioned during the movie to have two classes of users of their restaurants: There are the "Heavy Users" (about 72% of customers, who eat at their restaurants once or twice a week), and the "SUPER Heavy Users" (about 22% of customers, who eat McDonald's three or more times a week).

Look this "experiment" is great and well, but the article clearly states they have no idea what the long term effect of consistently eating fast/processed food. That is a whole other argument, as many believe these kinds of foods lead to long term issues(cancer, allergies, etc.).

I am not saying I feel that way, but something the short-term study does not explore. I think there is some benefit of eating more natural foods(with limited caloric/fat/salt/sugar intake) as well, and perhaps that would show in a long run study. Not sure though, but it just seems like common sense.