tldr: >41 year old nutrition professor decides to do an experiment and try an all junk food diet to see if he can lose weight >his hypothesis was the type of food doesn't matter, just calories >figured out his metabolic rate (2600 bc he's a sedentary college professor) ate at a deficit of ~1800 calories per day >His diet consisted of Twinkies, Oreos, Doritos, Little Debbie snack cake, sugary cereal (he did eat some vegetables, but only in front of his kids at the table, to not set a bad example. He did not eat any meat, whole grains, or fruit because of calorie density) >Followed diet for 30 days >bmi went from 33.4% to 24.9% >(not in this article but read it elsewhere, his bad cholesterol went down, his good cholesterol went up, his blood pressure, was normal)
>his quote: "I wish I could say the outcomes are unhealthy. I wish I could say it's healthy. I'm not confident enough in doing that. That frustrates a lot of people. One side says it's irresponsible. It is unhealthy, but the data doesn't say that."
Go ahead and keep thinking micros is worth a shit. When all it really boils down to is if you're a fattie, cut calories. All these threads based on the "right" diet and which "diet" is best are nothing but bullshit.
>everything you need to get off this board is in the sticky, why come here To shitpost, why else
Tyler Brooks
Unbelievably based
Wyatt Robinson
Nigger, all of this is confirmed in the sticky. Are you retarded?
Kayden Gray
Pretty sure most people here advocate cico anyway
Tyler Nelson
Wait a minute >nutrition professor >33.4% body fat What the fuck?
Camden Peterson
from the sticky: Focus your meals on traditionally cooked food. Try to consume the least amount of processed junk you can and try to only eat whole, naturally occuring foods. Eating these will keep you more full than the processed stuff and for less calories. There is a bunch of discussion about certain pieces of food being bad, and others good. As a rule of thumb, if it was part of a traditional diet, if you could make it by hand, it is good (eggs, butter, olive oil, oatmeal, fruit, …), if not, it's not (margarine, soda, pizza, gummi bears …).
>Many people make the first steps towards weight loss just by cutting out soda and dropping the Big Mac content of their diet. Aside from being made of unhealthy ingredients, fast food and soda are so awful because they make it easy to ingest immense calories without being especially aware that you're doing it. I'm not telling you that you need to abandon everything you like forever. You just can't have obviously unhealthy foods be a main component of your diet. Having a reasonably-sized portion of something "unhealthy" that you really like 1-2 times a week is not a problem if the rest of your diet is in order. But for too many people, unhealthy foods are their diet.
Complete broscience, in comparison to what this experiment shows.
Ryan Peterson
WRONG see: Yes, that's one of the reasons he did it, he was a nutrition prof, and also has kids.
Jayden Jenkins
is this "study" published in a peer reviewed journal?
Ethan Green
Brainlet OP doesn't realise that there are other measurements of health other than weight.
Lucas Jenkins
Brainlet poster has the reading comprehension of a toddler.
>all important health markers such as BMI, cholesterol, blood pressure were monitored >bad cholesterol went down, good cholesterol went up, blood pressure was completely normal
Would suggest you check out some remedial reading videos on YouTube since even green text is too challenging for you to read.
Jackson Perez
Forgot to mention his BMI went down into the normal range too. Again, already stated in green text in the OP
Isaac Lopez
So yeah. He ate less, less often, and he ate a lot of veggies(you know for his children) at major meals correct?
Uh huh. You know he stopped that diet because he had already hit the wall of what calorie restriction and weight loss could do for him in terms of health and his body was starting to rebel correct? That he got fat as fuck right after he stopped that diet correct?
Grayson Bennett
>being such a braindead fattie you think coca-cola's paid advertising is scientific
There was only one thing missing from this story. One glaring omission. He was paid by Coca Cola. In 2016, in response to growing criticisms about transparency, Coke released a list of researchers who took money. Mark Haub was one of those researchers relying upon Coke’s deep pockets to fund him and his kids college fund.
>I have not yet seen any kind of footage where the dastardly Mark Haub has admitted to accepting money from Coke. He is willing to sacrifice your health for the sake of a few dollars. But he’s not proud of it. So, he never talks about it in the hundreds of interviews and articles in the media about his Twinkie diet. In academic circles, misrepresenting your source of funding, which has grave implications for results, is tantamount to lying under oath. The original story sounded a lot better than “Coca Cola pays a guy to do an unsupervised, unverified study and claims to lose weight eating Twinkies”.
>Eat at a deficit >Lose weight No shit nigger, everyone with a brain can understand that and also bet the micros where shit.
There is more in life than loosing weight but the landwhales on this site can't see that and probably never will.
Aaron Morales
No, he didn't eat "a lot of veggies" he had some at the dinner table which are basically calorie free. What's your point considering all his calories came from junk food?
He stopped the diet because he got to his goal BMI.
I have no idea what the follow up is, other than what the article said:
>To curb calories, he avoided meat, whole grains and fruits. Once he started adding meat into the diet four weeks ago, his cholesterol level increased.
Haub plans to add about 300 calories to his daily intake now that he's done with the diet. But he's not ditching snack cakes altogether. Despite his weight loss, Haub feels ambivalence.
Camden Hernandez
Yet no mention of blood sugar levels. Get back to me in 5 years when it turns out he has diabetes
Wyatt Green
OP BTFO OP is silent OP is faggot prolly? >cnn article about how eating junk food is actually good for you mfw
>No, he didn't eat "a lot of veggies" he had some at the dinner table which are basically calorie free. What's your point considering all his calories came from junk food? >He stopped the diet because he got to his goal BMI. >I have no idea what the follow up is, other than what the article said: >>To curb calories, he avoided meat, whole grains and fruits. Once he started adding meat into the diet four weeks ago, his cholesterol level increased. >Haub plans to add about 300 calories to his daily intake now that he's done with the diet. But he's not ditching snack cakes altogether. Despite his weight loss, Haub feels ambivalence.
user, any retard with half of a brain knew this was shill science from the beginning. He ate veggies like motherfucker and not because of fucking calories. But because he needed the fucking nutrients to keep his body from fucking rebelling.
We have no idea of how much shit food he ate compared to veggies. You yourself said that veggies have almost no calories correct?
Levi James
Nice deflection, except this experiment had nothing to do with Coca-Cola.
He's such a monster with ulterior motives when he's quoted as saying both within the article:
Despite his temporary success, Haub does not recommend replicating his snack-centric diet.
>"I'm not geared to say this is a good thing to do," he said. "I'm stuck in the middle. I guess that's the frustrating part. I can't give a concrete answer. There's not enough information to do that."
>"There are things we can't measure," said Blatner, questioning how the lack of fruits and vegetables could affect long-term health. "How much does that affect the risk for cancer? We can't measure how diet changes affect our health."
Found this to be more specific in the article:
>Two-thirds of his total intake came from junk food. He also took a multivitamin pill and drank a protein shake daily. And he ate vegetables, typically a can of green beans or three to four celery stalks.
Lincoln Walker
>hurr durr BTFO when typing long replies to the copes in the thread
Okay? Great, for people who have no impulse control, probably wouldn't make it on a normal diet anyways either, so what's your point?
Ryan Jackson
This article used to be posted here on the daily. Back when /fit was all about IIFYM and CICO. Now it's just "BRUTAL MOGS" and "VEGANS ON SUICIDE WATCH" and "KETARDS BTFO" bullshit.
I won't say /fit was ever great, but it certainly wasn't the level of dogshit that it is now
Joshua Garcia
>this experiment had nothing to do with Coca-Cola He was paid by Coca-Cola.
It was no experiment. It was processed food advertisment. Learn the difference.
The OP is just trying to show people not to put too much faith into ANYTHING and question EVERYTHING.
I've always been a firm believer in calories in calories out. I do understand that a fattie with poor impulse control this kind of "diet" probably isn't a great idea. However, for the normal person, who chooses to lose some weight, it goes to show that they really can fit junk food into their macros and not get all bent out of shape about it.
Those are the only points I was trying to make, but you have the autists and copists who can't stand to have their sacred cows questioned.
If CICO works why is only paid advertisement from Coca-Cola and McDonalds offered as proof?
All randomized controlled trials show CICO doesn't work long term.
Mason Ortiz
Then why did the other group better? One Professor doing undocumented stuff is just the shittiest 'study' in existence, but it's in the internet, where nobody is allowed to lie!
Parker Richardson
Nigger, if you can't glean from that that it is all about CiCo, you're retarded. All it's saying is healthier options will keep you full longer and are good for you, which is factually correct. It's addressing three issues at once: >CiCo (what the professor did) >satiety >healthiness Yes you can do CiCo on fucking twinkies. No, you won't feel good and your body won't be good in the long run.
Oliver Jenkins
Jow Forums has always advocated CICO, fucking retard. Lurk more.
Nolan Gomez
How's his insulin resistance?
Anthony Anderson
so are you a ketard or snake juice shiller?
Camden Scott
>people do CiCo short term, works >people get OFF CiCo, eat like pigs again >gain weight
Have you bothered to read that Mark Haub is a dishonest paid shill?
Adam Martinez
No they don't, dumbass. They fail to re-calulate their new TDEE, eat like pigs again, and get fat.
Dominic Garcia
Okay Jow Forumscel whatever you say, you won. Go tell your mommy, you won. But you may have to actually get your fat-ass up the steps from the basement to do so.
Luis Hernandez
>Lost 20kg with cico after 6 months >Stopped >Gained 2kg after 3 months Wooooow look at all this weight gain.
Kayden Fisher
>post body >post diet
Ryder Long
Faux News is controlled opposition.
Ayden Jenkins
>Coca-Cola and McDonalds are trustworthy >who cares about RCTs those are for nerds
Wait what? Why are you quoting me in that nonsense? I never said anything about cocacola or mcdonalds
Nolan Moore
Randomized controlled trials show CICO doesn't work.
Paid advertising from Coca-Cola and McDonalds say "a calorie is a calorie".
Jose Barnes
>eating nothing but sugar Yeah, well maybe he should do bloodworks and see how his lifts improved.
Christopher Hill
>post body >post diet
Brandon Russell
>Eat less and work more doesn't work >Only my dad diets work
Jordan Ward
Post randomized controlled trials.
Gavin Cook
Read the fucking article nigger he had blood test regularly and they where fine.
Jose Jones
another genius who can't read. All major health markers such as cholesterol, glucose, blood pressure, were measured. His bad cholesterol went down, good cholesterol went up, BMI% went down, lbs went down, blood pressure normal, glucose normal.
As far as lifts, he wasn't lifting weights, he's a college professor who was trying to lose weight.
Dylan Roberts
Every study I've seen that claims this failed every meta analysis done later. What you're spewing is a well known myth. It's not true and you're retarded.
>MUH "I DON'T LIKE THE SOURCE" FALLACY The sources to all the studies they tallies are in the link. They didn't do the experiments themselves, they just collected them and tallies up the results. You know you're wrong and you have nothing to fall back except logical fallacies. You've failed.
Parker Cook
What's the source of the opinion you excerpted? It has no citation.
Looks like the opinion of Adam Tzur the sci-fit article author.
Angel Thomas
NIGGER THE SOURCES TO THE SCIENTIFIC STUDIES ARE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE. ALL 450 OF THEM.
I really hope you're shitposting because if not, you really are retarded.
Elijah Collins
Can you find a single randomized controlled trial that shows long term success of CICO?
Connor Richardson
>where's your sources? >here's 450 of them >I DON'T SEE THE CITATION FOR THE FIRST STATEMENT THAT CONCLUDES ALL 450 AGREE CiCO WORKS
Then go read all 450 sources yourself, dumbass. Lmao ketards really are idiots
Connor Smith
There are 450 diet studies in THAT LINK, DUMBASS. GO READ THEM.
Samuel Thompson
CICO BTFO
>Over 7 years, women reduced their daily calorie intake by 361 calories per day. They reduced their percentage of calories from fat and increased their carbs. They also increased their daily exercise by 10%
>Sounds like they followed the ‘Eat Less, Move More’ advice to a tee. So they must have lost lots of weight and thanked their academic doctors profusely as they slipped into their skin-tight yoga pants.
>Yeah, not really. Here’s what happened to weight loss. Against the comparison group that followed their usual diet, there was an initial weight loss, followed by the now familiar weight plateau and then eventual regain. There were no improvements in waist circumference either.
>300 calories a day >literally half of the recommended deficit to lose at least 1 lb a week >most likely didn't count their "beauty bites" which easily equal 300 calories a day >It DoEsN't WoRk GuYs
>"“The failure of some obese subjects to lose weight while eating a diet they report as low in calories is due to an energy intake substantially higher than reported and an overestimation of physical activity, not to an abnormality in thermogenesis.”"
>“Two years of CR had broadly favorable effects on both whole-body and regional adiposity that could facilitate health span in humans. The decrements in FFM were commensurate with the reduced body mass; although men in the CR group lost more FFM than the women did, the percentage of FFM in the men in the CR group was higher than at baseline. ”
>“Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.”
>“Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.”
>“Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.”
>“Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.”
Chase Long
Thank you for using a name so everyone can filter your retardation.
>Also, it is important to note that women did, in fact, stick to their calorie reduced diet. Yet the weight regain still happened. BUT it wasn’t because of non compliance. This is often ignored, because physicians giving the dietary advice want desperately to believe that people fail on their diets because they didn’t follow it. They simply cannot face the super-obvious but highly inconvenient truth staring them in the face. If these women followed the diet, but still failed to lose weight – the problem is the DIET, and not the PATIENT. Doctors cannot play their favourite game of ‘Blame the Victim’.
>"In any given subject, the rate of weight loss was essentially constant throughout the entire study. It is therefore obvious that the significant factor responsible for weight loss is reduction of calories, irrespective of the composition of the diet."
>"An imbalance between energy intake and energy expenditure will lead to a change in body weight (mass) and body composition (fat and lean masses). (...) Here, we show that a mathematical model of the macronutrient flux balances can capture the long-term dynamics of human weight change"
>The preponderance of evidence suggests that as long as caloric intake remains constant, there is no intrinsic advantage to cutting carbohydrate intake"
Robert Thomas
>my one study completely trumps this mountain of evidence this other user loaded on me Lmao
Jacob Hill
>I'm gonna filter this user because he's destroying my illogical bias
Charles Robinson
I'm gonna filter him because he's a retarded crapflooder who can't read or understand evidence.
He actually cited a study done on nonobese people as evidence that CICO works.
Hunter Robinson
>he wasn't lifting weights cringe
Thomas Morgan
>everyone pretty sure the only one looking to ignore evidence ITT is you, ketard
Jason Ward
>falling for coca cola advertise You are not very bright are you?
Anthony Miller
>I'm gonna ignore this ONE study I don't like >what do you mean all the others prove me wrong?
>>“Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.”
Can any anti-CiCo fags address this please? Seems pretty clear cut you're wrong
Nathaniel Price
So he didn't eat only junk food and he ate multivitamins and vegetables. Lots of multivitamins and vegetables
user, you can lose fat on any diet as long as you eat less of something or eat in a way that is super deficient in one needed macro. But once your body has used up all of the stored energy and aminos to help it survive whatever diet you are on, then you're fucked.
He realized it. That's why he ended this "FANTASTIC" marketing scam of a diet.
Leo James
He also linked studies like this: >Limiting consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages has a particularly important role in weight control.
>The quality of the diet may exert its effect on energy balance through complex hormonal and neurological pathways that influence satiety and possibly through other mechanisms
Which clearly disagrees with him and supports the hormonal theory of obesity.
He's a clueless retard.
Hudson White
He never said that hormones and other issues weren't factors. Actually, I've never met any CiCo people who claim there aren't a myriad of complex factors when it comes to metabolism.
The issue is you idiots throw the babies out with the wash because you assume those things means CiCo doesn't work or isn't the foundation for weight loss. News flash, it still is.
Gavin Lee
By keeping the Nigerian prince scam, they could immediately and efficiently identify the most gullible people who would hand over cash. In this way, the Nigerian prince scam is a great marker for gullibility.
The Calories In/ Calories Out (CICO) model performs the same task for me. The CICO model has been tested over and over again. Multiple trials have shown it to be a complete failure. If somebody vociferously defends the CICO paradigm, I can immediately and efficiently identify them as people who have not really understood what causes obesity, and have no serious grasp of the physiology behind weight gain. These are the people who keep parroting ‘A calorie is a calorie’, as if I had asked them ‘Is a calorie a calorie’? The question I ask is ‘Are all calories equally fattening’, to which they usually stare blankly at me, before replying ‘It’s all about calories’, as if the body had any actual method of measuring calories.
The CICO model very useful because it efficiently flags idiots people who are not all that knowledgable about obesity, and I can safely ignore them. There are many of these people out there, and not everybody is worth listening to.
>multiple trials have shown it to be a complete failure So you're saying all those studies the other user linked are lies? Where are your studies disproving this? The only thing I've seen so far is a loose study done on women who barely reduced their calorie intake by 300 a day which is a joke. They most likely lost the weight and their TDEE readjusted. Couple that with human error and there you go, weight loss stops.
Even if what I just said isn't what happened (which most likely it is), ONE study doesn't disprove the mountain of evidence he just loaded unto here. You're an ideologue if you really believe that.
Jonathan Jackson
The question “are all calories equally fattening?” is nonsense. user you were the retard all along
The body has no receptors for calories and has no way of measuring calories.
Consider two foods that are equal caloric values – a plate of cookies versus a salad with olive oil with salmon. As soon as you eat, the body’s metabolic response is completely different and easily measured. One will raise insulin a lot, and the other won’t. So why do we pretend like the body cares about calories. That’s like saying that foods that are blue are the same – whether they are blueberries or blue raspberry Gatorade. The body doesn’t care about color, so why would I? In the same way, the body doesn’t give two sh**s about calories, so why should we? However, the body DOES care a lot about the hormonal response to the foods we just ate.
