> You probably saw the compelling story on CNN that a nutrition professor ate only Twinkies for 10 weeks and lost 27 pounds! Except they didn’t disclose one important fact — he got paid by Coca-Cola. Perhaps “Coke-Funded Nutrition Professor Tries to Prove Junk Food Healthy” is now a more appropriate title. And his surprising finding that junk food can be eaten without consequence: perfectly on message for Coca-Cola.

And? Did he did he supplement the diet by eating Coca-Cola's money as a source of fiber? Because it still sounds like he only ate twinkies and lost weight.

Or are you suggesting that his data was falsified?

A lot of the issues with unhealthy food are mitigated by a caloric deficit. Additionally, almost regardless of diet if you lose a significant amount of fat your markers are going to improve.

Better demonstrations would be: * Compare people eating the same number of calories below requirements, but one on the twinkie diet and one on a healthy diet to see comparative changes in markers * Perform the same experiment as before, but this time with both groups eating the same number of calories above maintenance.

"A lot of the issues with unhealthy food are mitigated by a caloric deficit."

Which, if I understand correctly, is the whole point of the demonstration. You'll lose weight on a calorie restricted diet almost no matter what you eat. So long as people understand that weight loss should not be the sole measure of health, I don't see what the problem is.

> You'll lose weight on a calorie restricted diet almost no matter what you eat.

The problem is, a calorie restricted diet alone isn't always sustainable. Eg if you're eating crap, but so little that you don't gain weight, it's still going to mess you up (lethargy, irritability, lack of focus).

I also see a lot of people insane amount of salad or organic whatever because they think it will help them lose weight. God forbid if you eat junk food in front of them. You will hear everything wrong about processed junk food.

Certainly agreed that eating things that aren't twinkies is healthier in the big picture. I doubt Coke wanted to prove that wrong, they just want the "IF YOU EAT ANY JUNK FOOD YOU'RE GOING TO GET FAT" crowd to shut up for a few minutes. And frankly, so do I.

A twinkie has 135 calories (or 270 for a pair). It isn't a hard thing to fit into your diet if you aren't constantly snacking on things.

Certainly, if you're not eating for performance, flexible dieting is absolutely a viable strategy.

On the other hand, if you're riding the razor's edge and trying to do something crazy like get into lower single digit bodyfat while gaining muscle and strength, even a little junk food can make a noticeable difference. I recognize that isn't the typical case though.

I'd suggest a conflict of interest makes his results suspect.

I'd be more inclined to agree if it were a complicated subject with a lot of data to be cherry-picked and "interpreted." In this case, "lost 27 pounds" and "only ate twinkies" would be pretty hard to play games with.

But hey, maybe 20 different scientists ran the same experiment and only the one time when it was successful got published. No way to know for sure.

If you lose weight but end up with diabetes, or a serious vitamin deficiency, would you still think this research is legit?

Eating only one type of food for weeks will almost always result in losing weight, because it would disrupt the gut flora, as well as deprive one of necessary vitamins/minerals.

In order to be accepted as anything other than an anecdote, you would require a much more rigorous study with a LOT more people and a much higher level of scrutiny. We would want to control for external issues, possibly genetic complications, gut flora, blood glucose levels, liver and pancreas health, illness, infection, cancers, etc...

Anecdotal evidence if fine for discussion, but no one should act upon it without medical supervision.

> Because it still sounds like he only ate twinkies and lost weight.

The problem is that nobody can seriously eat only twinkies at a caloric deficit indefinitely. He was getting his caloric needs from sugar, and he was avoiding weight gain by undereating. If he kept it up for say, a year, he would have experienced all sorts of nasty symptoms– irritability, etc.

I'd liken it to staying awake for 3 days. Sure, you can do it, but it's not sustainable.

Nothing falsified about his data - just pointing out how its part of a larger campaign by companies like Coke to try and make sugar seem harmless, and lack of exercise the real enemy.

I mean, I could have a diet of pure whiskey for a month and lose weight. Weight loss on its own isn't healthy, especially if its only temporary.

This sounds like just trying to smear the guy by association, but try to contradict the actually findings of this experiment.

Even if I didn't know about the Coke association, the problem I would have with a 10 week study is that it's a 10 week study. It's not evidence of sustainability.

10 weeks of changing your diet in general will probably lead to weight loss as long as you're not increasing your total calories, but that doesn't mean that the diet is sustainable long-term. If you live on say, a few donuts a day, you'll lose weight, but it'll also give you terrible sugar crashes and you won't be able to focus. You'll be irritable. It will really suck, and you'll either end up eating more or seeing your quality of life suffer.