173 replies to this topic

[Stone]

A nutritionist sets out to show that weight loss is about calories.
27 Pounds in two months. Better cholesterol levels.

But how long until he dropped dead?

[foodie52]

Incredible. And I just conducted a mini lesson in my daughter's 5th grade class on reading ingredients and nutrition labels. This guy is dangerous.

On the other hand, he has so much preservative in his body now that he'll probably live forever.

[Wilfrid]

Mix it up with the Twinkie Toploader, #2 here.

[Stone]

Incredible. And I just conducted a mini lesson in my daughter's 5th grade class on reading ingredients and nutrition labels. This guy is dangerous.

On the other hand, he has so much preservative in his body now that he'll probably live forever.

have food preservatives ever hurt anyone?

[porkwah]

27 pounds in 2 months is about 3 pounds per week or about 10000 calories per week, roughly 1400 calories per day. if his equilibrium was 2400, that means he was consuming about 1000 calories per day. so not so many twinkies per day!


eta: he says he ate 1600 calories per day -- seems like a lot for that quick weight loss -- perhaps he got more exercise? in any case it's at odds with his statement that he is gaining weight consuming 2200 calories per day.

[irnscrabblechf52]

Incredible. And I just conducted a mini lesson in my daughter's 5th grade class on reading ingredients and nutrition labels. This guy is dangerous.

On the other hand, he has so much preservative in his body now that he'll probably live forever.

if a 5th grader eats a twinkie a day but a) gets all the nutrients they need from other foods and b) doesn't gain any weight (ie is at their metabolic equilibrium)/bmi remains healthy, is that bad?

[Suzanne F]

Incredible. And I just conducted a mini lesson in my daughter's 5th grade class on reading ingredients and nutrition labels. This guy is dangerous.

On the other hand, he has so much preservative in his body now that he'll probably live forever.

if a 5th grader eats a twinkie a day but a) gets all the nutrients they need from other foods and b) doesn't gain any weight (ie is at their metabolic equilibrium)/bmi remains healthy, is that bad?

It's not great, because s/he will think it's okay to eat crap like that, which can lead to terrible habits later.

Remember, Twinkies are a gateway drug.

[irnscrabblechf52]

Incredible. And I just conducted a mini lesson in my daughter's 5th grade class on reading ingredients and nutrition labels. This guy is dangerous.

On the other hand, he has so much preservative in his body now that he'll probably live forever.

if a 5th grader eats a twinkie a day but a) gets all the nutrients they need from other foods and b) doesn't gain any weight (ie is at their metabolic equilibrium)/bmi remains healthy, is that bad?

It's not great, because s/he will think it's okay to eat crap like that, which can lead to terrible habits later.

Remember, Twinkies are a gateway drug.

idk, "can" seems to be the operative word. obviously, every parent (and by extension child) needs to make their own food choices. i know many well-adjusted children (and adults) who can and do handle eating processed foods in moderation and at their recommended serving size. although many foods are engineered to encourage excessive eating, i do think it's possible to learn a balanced approach to eating those foods. so, ideological/political/ethical issues aside, I don't think that there's anything intrinsically wrong with twinkies, ie I don't think that twinkies themselves (alone) lead to those "terrible habits" (overeating I assume? substituting non "nutritious" processed foods for "nutritious" unprocessed foods)--rather, exposing certain people to certain foods in a certain environment leads to self-destructive eating. of course, there's a social/cultural component to the equation as well.

so I don't think that twinkies themselves are "crap"--there's an interesting gladwell article somewhere (i know, he's not a fan favorite on this board) in which a flavorist describes a number of processed foods as "beautiful" and signs of technological artistry. twinkies aren't even that bad for you on a macronutritional scale--only 150 calories a serving, which is a lot fewer calories than a few scoops of that artisanal ice cream w/ home made hot fudge. hence why that professor lost a ton of weight eating twinkies, some canned vegetables and a multivitamin (i think, might want to double check). so again, setting aside ideological/political/ethical issues, the crusade against twinkies is framed as a nutritionist movement in order to attack a strawman. the issue is not twinkies as a nutritional entity, but rather the way our culture treats them (as a substitute for X). it's a lot easier to stigmatize the twinkie and solve that superficial problem instead of attacking the core problems, which no one even addresses. plenty of people eat themselves to death on organic diets, too.

[prasantrin]

Incredible. And I just conducted a mini lesson in my daughter's 5th grade class on reading ingredients and nutrition labels. This guy is dangerous.

On the other hand, he has so much preservative in his body now that he'll probably live forever.

if a 5th grader eats a twinkie a day but a) gets all the nutrients they need from other foods and b) doesn't gain any weight (ie is at their metabolic equilibrium)/bmi remains healthy, is that bad?

It's not great, because s/he will think it's okay to eat crap like that, which can lead to terrible habits later.

Remember, Twinkies are a gateway drug.

My SIL (who spent one year studying to become a registered dietitian, but had to drop out because couldn't handle the sciences) feeds her two daughters smoothies for breakfast, and leaves cereal within reach for them to nibble on throughout the day. Her smoothies, btw, have fruit, fruit juice, and protein powder, and her daughters are 4 and 7 (or thereabouts). One of her children is a very picky eater who likely has sensory issues, but rather than helping her overcome her aversions, SIL indulges them. She, too, is a very picky eater and mind-bogglingly, uses herself as an example of why what she's doing is OK ("I used to be a picky eater, and I'm much better now,". . . uh, no, you're not, because you still only eat a limited number of foods and balk at trying anything new)

Don't ask me why my brother married her. It's still a mystery to all of us.

[Orik]

so I don't think that twinkies themselves are "crap"--there's an interesting gladwell article somewhere (i know, he's not a fan favorite on this board) in which a flavorist describes a number of processed foods as "beautiful" and signs of technological artistry. twinkies aren't even that bad for you on a macronutritional scale--only 150 calories a serving, which is a lot fewer calories than a few scoops of that artisanal ice cream w/ home made hot fudge. hence why that professor lost a ton of weight eating twinkies, some canned vegetables and a multivitamin (i think, might want to double check). so again, setting aside ideological/political/ethical issues, the crusade against twinkies is framed as a nutritionist movement in order to attack a strawman. the issue is not twinkies as a nutritional entity, but rather the way our culture treats them (as a substitute for X). it's a lot easier to stigmatize the twinkie and solve that superficial problem instead of attacking the core problems, which no one even addresses. plenty of people eat themselves to death on organic diets, too.

I think you've got this one wrong.

Setting the social signifiers aside, 1600 calories is just 10 ounces of twinkies plus a little canned veggies. You're likely to be very hungry eating that much food, especially when it's very sweet.

[irnscrabblechf52]

so I don't think that twinkies themselves are "crap"--there's an interesting gladwell article somewhere (i know, he's not a fan favorite on this board) in which a flavorist describes a number of processed foods as "beautiful" and signs of technological artistry. twinkies aren't even that bad for you on a macronutritional scale--only 150 calories a serving, which is a lot fewer calories than a few scoops of that artisanal ice cream w/ home made hot fudge. hence why that professor lost a ton of weight eating twinkies, some canned vegetables and a multivitamin (i think, might want to double check). so again, setting aside ideological/political/ethical issues, the crusade against twinkies is framed as a nutritionist movement in order to attack a strawman. the issue is not twinkies as a nutritional entity, but rather the way our culture treats them (as a substitute for X). it's a lot easier to stigmatize the twinkie and solve that superficial problem instead of attacking the core problems, which no one even addresses. plenty of people eat themselves to death on organic diets, too.

I think you've got this one wrong.

Setting the social signifiers aside, 1600 calories is just 10 ounces of twinkies plus a little canned veggies. You're likely to be very hungry eating that much food, especially when it's very sweet.

oh I agree that it's not a practical diet for most people. i just think it indicates that in moderation, processed food is not going to kill you. so the issue is, processed food ≠ filling/satiating, so you eat more of it, certainly not in moderation. so the question is, how do you (people in general) control yourself and only eat 1 (150 cal) twinkie instead of the whole box, and/or why do we (people) feel the need to eat the whole box. one answer is that there's something addictive about the twinkie (processed food) taken by itself, which is partially true. but i don't think that entirely explains why we have such a problem addressing overconsumption of processed foods. there's a psychological (and cultural) dimension that, though interconnected with the physiological response, isn't really taken into account in the "fight childhood obesity": eat organic/eat healthy/exercise rhetoric.

[Orik]

I agree there are psychological and cultural components*, but my theory is that processed foods don't just posses some very obvious traits that humans really like (sweet, fat, salty), but more importantly they avoid or mask properties that humans dislike. Grapes may feature tannic skin, pits, acidity, variability in ripeness, and other issues, but grape flavored jellies don't have those problems. Therefore a child is more likely to eat 20 jellies than 100 grapes and get the same amount of calories.


* although the same problem seems to exist in all cultures into which those foods are introduced, no?

[irnscrabblechf52]

I agree there are psychological and cultural components*, but my theory is that processed foods don't just posses some very obvious traits that humans really like (sweet, fat, salty), but more importantly they avoid or mask properties that humans dislike. Grapes may feature tannic skin, pits, acidity, variability in ripeness, and other issues, but grape flavored jellies don't have those problems. Therefore a child is more likely to eat 20 jellies than 100 grapes and get the same amount of calories.


* although the same problem seems to exist in all cultures into which those foods are introduced, no?

that's interesting, but don't you think that processed foods can have off-putting effects that might normally dissuade consumption, e.g. idk if you've eaten a ton of girl scout cookies in one sitting, but it makes you feel pretty terrible. i don't really know that much about delayed punishment conditioning in children though

the most obv. example that comes to mind re introduction into unfamiliar cultures = inuit groups. some might explain the response as interpenetrated by the colonized/colonizer complex. it's hard to untangle.

[foodie52]

Just read the ingredients label. It's a shame to put into your body stuff that you can't pronounce. If there's more than a 1/2 inch of ingredients to read, there is too much additives/preservatives in the product.If I can't pronounce the ingredients, forget it. And for someone who weighs 40 to 50 lbs, what are the long term consequences? Sure, the "occasional" Twinkie won't hurt in the long run, but let's face it: someone who is buying the occasional Twinkie is also snacking on items from the same grocery aisle every day. Occasional? Bull shit.

In my job, I interact with too many obese, pre diabetic, out of shape 10 and 11 year olds not to know that this stuff is lethal. If I am teaching during snack time, the baggies of multicolored cereal and power bars are the norm. There might be one or two kids munching on grapes or a mandarin orange. The fat kids have the processed snacks.And it ain't just the 'free lunch' demographic. Sorry to be so brutal and unPC.

My grandparents ( mine...maybe you're a whole lot younger than I am ) made food from scratch. Snacks didn't exist. You ate three meals a day. If you wanted cake, you baked it or bought it in a bakery. You couldn't use high fructose corn syrup or partially hydrogenated oils or dyes, or fractionated coconut oil.

We are finding that the children of the parents who grew up in the 70's are alarmingly out of shape. Children are eating dinner in the family car, on the way to piano, soccer, baseball, etc. Ditto for breakfast, but that's mostly granola bars or pop tarts. (SO nutritious because they are whole grain...ha.) Oh, and don't get me started about the new ads for Fruit Loops - added fiber!! Wow! Drive throughs are ubiquitous. When I ask kids what they like to eat, it's all pizza and chicken nuggets. If I show them a whole bell pepper or an eggplant, most of them have no idea what it is. But they can name all the junk food, no problem.

[porkwah]

I agree there are psychological and cultural components*, but my theory is that processed foods don't just posses some very obvious traits that humans really like (sweet, fat, salty), but more importantly they avoid or mask properties that humans dislike. Grapes may feature tannic skin, pits, acidity, variability in ripeness, and other issues, but grape flavored jellies don't have those problems. Therefore a child is more likely to eat 20 jellies than 100 grapes and get the same amount of calories.


* although the same problem seems to exist in all cultures into which those foods are introduced, no?

my theory is what you said + the fact that they taste exactly the same every time amplifies a pavlovian-type response (taste => calories=good).

that or obesity is caused by an as-yet-undiscovered virus. nobody has clearly explained to me why eating more food doesn't just make people more hyper. it did for me until 20-something and i have no idea what changed.