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.Let's think about his premise. It doesn't seem very controversial to me. Consuming less calories than you burn will result in weight loss, regardless of what kinds of food you are eating or abstaining from. If that's the case then "what matters most" is calorie reduction and not whether you accomplish this by dropping sweets, eating leaner cuts of meat, or cutting out the bag of pretzels. Haubs isn't saying that calorie cutting is the only thing that matters for weight loss. There might still be marginal benefits for one who chooses foods wisely, but there could also be a conflict between the goals of maintaining healthy eating habits and low calorie dieting.
His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
Here are three conclusions people will likely want to discuss after reading the article:
(1) It's possible to lose weight on a HSLC diet (high sugar, low calorie)
(2) The average person is likely to follow the HSLC diet for 10 weeks.
(3) It's better for someone to choose the HSLC diet:
(3a) It's more likely that someone will be able to maintain a HSLC diet than another diet
(3b) The HSLC diet promotes more fat loss (given the same number of calories) than other diets
The first conclusion is uncontroversial, and indeed this study confirms it. Big deal!
(3a) and (3b) could be argued against. For instance, some studies suggest that eating eggs for breakfast can help reduce your appetite, and result in consuming less calories throughout the day. The opposite can be said about sugary foods, which can increase appetite. The person who cuts out the eggs to reduce calories is not likely to achieve the same results as the person who cuts out their late afternoon cookie habit. This is independent of whether or not those foods actually promote, blunt, or reverse fat storage at the physiological level. It's simply an argument that a person is more likely to maintain a lower calorie diet if they don't feel hungry all day..at the psychological level if you will. So that would be arguing against (3a). Additional arguments could be made that sugary foods actually promote fat storage. This would mean that consuming 1800 calories and cutting the sugar is better than consuming 1800 calories and not cutting the sugar (3b). Regardless, drinking a protein shake may have helped Professor Haub curb his appetite despite the crash sugar diet. Also, the fact that he was conducting a study would have motivated him further than the average person. Would you want to fail in front of your colleagues and students? So the study offers no support for (2), since Haub is on a pretty motivating mission to prove something. Perhaps other people have equally compelling motivations to suffer through the hunger pains and diet this way, but does the average person? Haub probably doesn't think so. The article says, "Despite his temporary success, Haub does not recommend replicating his snack-centric diet." Yet we know how the public will construe this information.
"These foods are consumed by lots of people," he said. "It may be an issue of portion size and moderation rather than total removal. I just think it's unrealistic to expect people to totally drop these foods for vegetables and fruits. It may be healthy, but not realistic."
I definitely agree with him that portion size is the issue and not complete removal. But it's only an issue of "what matters most." So what is he arguing? One possibility is this:
(1') It's possible to lose significant weight on a HSLC diet in 10 weeks
(4) Losing significant weight can raise health markers more quickly than eating healthy foods
(5) Some people probably can't eat healthy foods and lose significant weight at the same time
(6) Therefore, it is healthier for some people to lose significant weight even if that means cutting the healthy foods
Why is this really newsworthy? Because he lost 27 pounds on a HSLC diet. That is almost 3 lbs/week...above the recommended average of 2 lbs/week. Just for accuracy's sake though: Haub didn't lose 27 pounds of fat. His body fat levels dropped from 33.4% to 24.9%. Using the starting and ending weight, we can then deduce that he lost about 3 pounds of muscle and 24 pounds of fat.
Anyways, this piece of news seems unworthy of the attention it will likely draw in the coming weeks. Perhaps this article will give a few smug co-workers some ammo next time someone starts yapping about the Atkins diet or the paleo diet. But an important point that the article could have made a little more clearly is this: there are a variety of dieting techniques that are available to a person trying to lose weight. Generally, they all aim at reducing calorie consumption. Eat less, move more...it really is that simple. Find a way that doesn't increase other health risks (commensurately)...you've done your job. Find a way that also improves other health factors...and you've done a good job. Perhaps Haub is just reminding us to keep our priorities straight. Don't eat tons of healthy food if you are overweight. It's unhealthy.
0 comments:
Post a Comment