Professor Drops 27 Pounds In 10 Weeks On 'Twinkie Diet'

In an attempt to prove that caloric intake is the main factor in weight loss, a nutrition professor at Kansas State University has been subsisting on mostly Twinkies and other snack foods for 10 weeks.

From CNN:

For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub’s pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.

His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.

It wasn’t just the pounds that dropped off; he also saw a 20% drop in bad cholesterol and a 20% uptick in good cholesterol. His triglyceride count dropped by 39%.

It should be noted that while 2/3 of his total intake came from junk food the professor was also eating vegetables every day, took a multivitamin pill and drank a protein shake daily. He also cut out meat, whole grains and fruit.

In spite of his thinner waistline, the professor isn’t quite recommending others follow his lead:

I’m not geared to say this is a good thing to do… 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…

These foods are consumed by lots of people… 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.

Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds [CNN]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. GWC3 says:

    So eating twinkies helps to lose weight. Got it. No need to read the rest of the article. Thanks, Consumerist!

    • The hand that feeds, now with more bacon says:

      I lost a little over 30 pounds on a diet consisting almost entirely of Taco Bell. I was eating Taco Bell almost exclusively and one day decided to cut my portions exactly in half. I lost about 5 pounds a week and saved some money.

    • whitecat says:

      Wow, another able-bodied white man under 50 with no medical conditions, taking no medication, loses weight by reducing caloric intake.

      This is not news.

      If you found a woman over 50 with a thyroid condition, taking asthma medication, losing weight by reducing calories, THAT would be news.

  2. Kate says:

    Wow – I gain weight on 1800 calories a day and I’m a tall chick. Must be nice to drop weight like that so easily.

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      Unless you are extremely active, I don’t think 1,800 calories is normal, even if you’re tall.

      • pop top says:

        It should be mentioned too that men shed weight much more easily than women. We have a natural layer of subdermal fat that we start out with.

      • domcolosi says:

        Actually, 1,800 Calories is about normal for a woman. If you’re a slender woman, your needs might be lower.

        • pecan 3.14159265 says:

          Really? I’m doing just fine with 1,200 calories. Then again, I’m only 5’3 and am of normal weight.

          • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

            Must be nice.

          • DoubleBaconVeggieBurger says:

            1200 is pretty low. If that works for you, that’s good, but from what I understand, 1200 is the absolute bare minimum that just about anyone should be eating.

            • pecan 3.14159265 says:

              Now that I think of it, I don’t keep track so strictly that I hit 1,200 and quit, so there are probably some days (weekend splurge days for instance) that I hit 1,300 or 1,400 and don’t bat an eye. Conversely, there are days where I’ll eat more knowing that I’m going to be more active, and days when I eat less because I know I’m going to be stuck at my desk all day. Today is one of those slow days. I’ve had about 740 calories. When I get home I’ll have another ~500 calories for dinner, and that’ll be it. Tomorrow I’ll have a slightly bigger lunch because I’m going to be walking a few miles tomorrow because I’m running errands.

          • Anri says:

            Then perhaps you shouldn’t go around telling tall women that their caloric intake is weird?

      • bsh0544 says:

        1800 calories isn’t that much provided you get some degree of regular exercise (and you should). “Extremely active” goes too far. I wouldn’t even call myself “extremely active” and I’m supposed to be eating roughly 2800-3300 calories/day just to maintain my weight.

    • jiarby says:

      I lose 1.75lbs a week on 2300

    • Michaela says:

      Same. I would gain weight at 1800 (and yes, I am very active). However, I am teetering on “underweight,” so most any amount of calories makes me gain.

      It is important to note that being heavier (and a dude), that this guy would see more dramatic results than a lighter person dieting. It takes more and more restriction as one decreases their weight to lose pounds, since smaller bodies need less calories to operate properly.

    • hattrick says:

      In general, women appear to have higher metabolic efficiency than men do, which is why women tend to need fewer calories than men in order to maintain weight, and why they generally lose weight more slowly than men do.

      They also tend to be smaller, which means in most situations they’ll require fewer calories, but the size variable is an independent variable from the gender one.

      A 150lb woman with the same activity level as a 150lb man simply needs fewer calories. And it appears her body adjusts faster metabolically to scarcity, which means that in a “diet” situation, she hits the plateau much faster than a man does.

      This has interesting implications for long-haul space travel–I think NASA has done some good research on it.

      • trentblase says:

        A 150 pound woman also likely has a higher fat percentage than a 150 pound man. Since muscle burns more calories per pound than fat (way more) this could account for the difference.

  3. Megalomania says:

    Controlling your calorie intake will naturally make you lose weight, and of course he isn’t going to recommend people eat junk food in controlled amounts to lose weight when it’s not the junk food itself that made the difference.

    That said, I would not expect most men to lose almost 3 pounds a week by dropping to 1800 calories (gals, 1800 a day isn’t going to do much for you). It’s a hard, slow way to lose weight, but it will work if you give it time.

    • dulcinea47 says:

      You really can’t make that kind of generalization about how many calories a day people burn. It varies *widely*. If I exercise, I can eat over 2000 cals a day and still lose weight. And I’m a “gal”.

      • TooManyHobbies says:

        True. It depends on lots of things. The ambient air temperature and how you dress, for instance, makes a lot of difference to how many calories you need to keep yourself warm. Cross-country touring cyclists eat 4000 or even more calories a day and lose weight. The smallish women doing that sometimes enjoy going in to truck stops and wolfing down hungry man breakfasts, then wondering if they should have seconds.

        • pecan 3.14159265 says:

          I was reading an article about Eric Fehr, a Washington Capitals hockey player, and it said something like he ate 6,000 calories a day. Given that these guys are at least 6’1 usually and weigh 200+ pounds, it isn’t surprising. For perspective, Eric Fehr is 6’4 and weighs 212, and he was trying to gain weight.

      • Megalomania says:

        I’m talking about weight loss via pure calorie counting, not including exercise (e.g., desk jobs and falling asleep in front of the TV each night). Most women – if they do not exercise – will not be able to lose an appreciable amount of weight by eating 1800 calories a day – the average for calories burned per day is for men is about 2,500, and for women is around 2,000, but 200 calories is well within the wide variance you spoke of.

        I stand by that without exercise, most men will lose weight if they eat 1800 a day, and that most women will not.

    • Duke_Newcombe-Making children and adults as fat as pigs says:

      Acutally, slow is they way to lose weight. Too rapid a rate of weight loss is show to be detrimental to health, and is unsustainable both during and after the weight loss. Besides, 3lbs/week = 156 lbs in a year. Even accounting for “falling off the wagon” and plateaus, if one only lost two-thirds of that amount, that is 104 pounds–not a trifling amount.

      • Firethorn says:

        I’ve just started dieting via calorie restriction. I set my goal towards 1.5 pounds a week, I started at 185, goal is 165-160(we’ll see).

        I’m using ‘myfitnesspal’ after the other one I tried for my phone kept crashing. Daily goal is 1590 calories, and that’s without any workouts. I try for ‘as close as possible’, not ‘as close w/o going over’, if that makes sense. It’s okay to eat over occasionally, I just try to ‘make it up’ the next day.

        Bonus for my ‘program’ is that I get to deduct exercise. Right now I’m in line to lose right on the 1.5 pound mark; I’ve fluctuated between 1-3 pounds down on days 3-5.

    • Mr. Fix-It says: "Canadian Bacon is best bacon!" says:

      Not everyone has the same metabolism. It’s the reason that skinny basketball star in high-school can pound through half-a-dozen cheeseburgers and not gain an ounce.

      Now, that’s not to say his metabolism won’t slow Waaay down later, but still.

      • the Persistent Sound of Sensationalism says:

        The reason that skinny basketball star can eat a pile of cheeseburgers is because he’s working out every night of the week. If he wasn’t an athlete, he’d just be another high school fatty. (And yes I have fat aggression, no one has anyone to blame other than themselves, myself included.)

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          They have their parents to blame, who taught them how to eat to be fat.

          • MongoAngryMongoSmash says:

            No they have McDonald’s to blame for promoting fatty foods by enticing them with cool toys.

            Don’t you read Consumerist?

    • the Persistent Sound of Sensationalism says:

      I just found the Daily Burn app on the iPhone which (with the free version) tracks intake, exercise, and calories. I’ve done the work before from 210 down to 160 and let myself go back up to 230 and have a current goal of 170. I’ve done Atkins, Weight Watchers, South Beach, and I read all the material, plus much more.

      It’s true that at the core, it’s tracking your calorie intake that will help you reach your goal. Each diet may have a different way of kicking your metabolism into high gear, but in the end, it’s calorie intake and getting off your ass that does the trick.

      I tell ya, going from being a nursing assistant to an IT admin eliminates a lot of walking and calories burned. Anyone who wants it will have to work for it.

      P.S. – F*** your fat gene. It’s nurture in the case of your fat a**. (general comment not directed at anyone in particular)

    • rpm773 says:

      I believe that 1 pound is dropped for every 3500 calories burned or reduced from one’s break-even value. So, by his calcs, that’s X – (3 * 3500 calories )/7 days = 1800 cal day…means he has reduced his intake by 1500 calories and had been consuming 3300 calories a day prior to starting his diet and somehow maintaining a constant weight.

      That may not be too far out of the ballpark…assuming he had already been fairly active. He had a high BMI, so if we were active he would also burn more calories for his activity…and perhaps able to maintain his weight even by consuming that much.

      I think reducing your intake by 1500 calories without shocking your metabolism into conseriving fat would be the trick….

      I think the take-away here is that the guy sounds like he already knew what he was doing

  4. Mr. Fix-It says: "Canadian Bacon is best bacon!" says:

    Living off of twinkies for 10 weeks? You’d need a twinkie… roughly 35 feet long, and weighing 600 pounds.

  5. XBL: Legend xKWx (Kyle) says:

    I sent this in not 20 minutes ago, woop woop!

  6. Mom says:

    Yeah, the whole calorie thing…that’s fine, but 8 twinkies and a few vegetables a day would leave me very hungry. I wouldn’t last a week. I personally prefer real food.

  7. Blueskylaw says:

    While restricting your calories will obviously make you lose weight, getting 2/3 of your calories from “junk” food such as twinkies, chocolate, bacon, chips etc. can’t possibly be good in the long run even if you have the will power to do it. Any nutritionists out there who can tell us the harmful long term effects this would have on your body?

    • cabjf says:

      You would likely be raising risks for things like heart disease, diabetes, high cholesterol, and all sorts of other ailments. Not only will eating junk food so regularly add in lots of not so great stuff, like simple sugars and saturated fats, replacing that much of your diet with empty calories will prevent your body from getting the proper amounts of nutrients it needs, like vitamins and minerals.

      • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

        From the post:
        “…he also saw a 20% drop in bad cholesterol and a 20% uptick in good cholesterol. His triglyceride count dropped by 39%.”

      • HogwartsProfessor says:

        You have a point about the nutritional deficiencies. He did take a vitamin every day, but how many people who eat like this in real life would do that, or add in the veggies? Not many I’d bet.

      • ceriphim says:

        I would tend to be more worried about malnutrition, though TFA did state he ate veggies and a vitamin so that may be part of it. Just off the top of my head I wonder where he got stuff like fiber and calcium, as well as those vitamins and minerals that aren’t water-soluble. Then again, IANAN(utritionist)…

    • jessjj347 says:

      Don’t know, but is anyone here a biologist that can perhaps also comment on the metabolic implications of such a diet?

    • 12345678nine says:

      I think the point is that caloric intake is the main factor in weight loss, no matter what the calories come from. Obviously, your body needs healthier foods to be healthy, but as far as simply dropping weight, it’s the calories that matter.
      This is for the people that think that a cupcake is going to be that much worse for them than a plate of pasta of the same caloric intake for their weight loss.

  8. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    A twinkie has 150 calories. At best, each meal consisted of 4 twinkies. Filling? Doubtful.

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      A can of soup is around 150-180 calories and can easily be one or two meals depending on how easily your hunger is satiated. People who are used to eating huge meals might suffer for a little bit, but they’ll adjust. I think the Twinkie thing was just a gimmick to prove that it could be directly attributed to caloric intake, and had nothing to do with nutrition.

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        It’s about satiation, not calories.

        150 with strong fiber will fill you up better than 150 calories of processed crap.

        • majortom1981 says:

          Yeah oatmeal is proof. Real non instant oatmeal fills you up real fast. if people ate that for say breakfast all the time we would all be a lot healthier.

    • Anonymously says:

      Yes, twinkies have filling.

  9. catskyfire says:

    One thing to keep in mind is that eating the same thing tends to make you kind of sick of it. To the point that you will eat enough to quell your hunger, and then stop.

    • jessjj347 says:

      Yeah, that’s very true. You may even stop wanting to eat. Although, conversely, you may binge on another food out of angst.

      • Kate says:

        Or more likely binge because you are craving something else big time.

        I’m constantly having cravings, they drive me nuts and I can’t get much done till I eat whatever it is – sometimes healthy, usually not. Personally I think it’s hormones.

  10. denros says:

    “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.”

    There’s plenty of data out there, and it’s a dead horse that’s been beaten to a pulp: Less Calories = Less Weight. Less weight = better cholesterol.
    the “other markers” (cholesterol is the only one specifically mentioned) improved – but he doesn’t say by how much, or even if he’s actually AT healthy cholesterol / blood sugar levels. This does not refute any “conventional wisdom” about processed, sugary foods being worse for you than natural foods.

    What annoys me about this about this article is all the things it subtly suggests without outright claiming them – the part about food deserts, or the fact that he cut out whole grains, fruit and meat. He says when he added meat again, his cholesterol went back up – but again, doesn’t mention if this was accompanied by a gain in weight.

    Everything in this article is explainable by well-understood physiological processes, and it doesn’t really contradict any science that’s out there. It really seems like they went out of their way to leave out enough information to skew interpretation.

    • upsidedown09 says:

      Agreed! This articles lacks any sort of factual evidence that he even lost weight! Who cares about BMI and who cares about scale weight. He should have compared BF test results to see if he actually lost body fat rather than muscle.

      And the test only lasted for 10 weeks?? Eventually, in a reduced calorie state, your body will catch on that you’re starving it and will go into starvation mode. His weight loss would eventually plateau and he would probably actually gain weight. Our bodies adapt and if it catches on that you’re starving it, it’ll store what ever you stick in your pie hole as fat and will burn muscle for engery. With the lack of protein in his diet, even with a shake, I would venture to say he lost a lot of muscle during this process. This is where Zig Zag dieting shines!

      So yeah, useless data collected in this study even if the whole “eat less calories than you burn” isn’t anything new.

      • Kate says:

        Yeah, don’t you love all the people who have this short little diet, lose some weight and go on to trumpet how easy it is. You notice no one comes back after a few years and testifies how easy it all was.

        It’s like breathing – anyone can hold their breath for a few minutes, but try breathing shallowly for the rest of your life.

        • denros says:

          to his credit, he DID offer the standard disclaimer for his finding, saying he’s “not confident” in them. But the subtext throughout the article seems to say “…or IS it? YOU be the judge!”

  11. fortymegafonzies says:

    So you’re telling me you’ll lose weight and improve your cholesterol profile if you radically cut your caloric intake, increase your vegetable intake, and cut out meat/dairy and all the saturated fat and cholesterol that goes with it? That’s preposterous.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      No, actually that’s not what happened at all. For starters, he still took in saturated fats. And in theory, without knowing his previous diet, he cut his vegetables too. Also cut out all fruits.

      Also, took a vitamin pill because they has vitamin deficiencies.

    • Anonymously says:

      Dietary cholesterol does not directly lead to blood cholesterol, fyi.

    • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

      Any time you cut meat, dairy, and animal products your cholesterol will drop. Mine was at a very healthy level when I was a vegetarian (although I lost no weight.) It went right back up to being too high when I ate meat again. Now I eat meat and dairy in very limited amounts and have normal cholesterol, but never as low as when I was meat free.

  12. hattrick says:

    This is a stupid experiment. No kidding it’s portion control and moderation. This is why pretty much ANY diet works–when you watch what you’re eating, you eat less. When you eat less, you lose weight. You don’t keep it off once you stop dieting, of course…

    And there’s more to health than HDL levels. A lot of the things he was eating are high SUGAR foods, not high fat foods. So, um, it’s no surprise that his fat didn’t go up when he was eating foods that weren’t high in fat. And of course this increased sugar hasn’t given him screwy diabetes measurements. Type II doesn’t develop in 3 months (or, at least, not in a way that we can track like we can HDL levels)…

    3 months of data doesn’t prove anything we didn’t already know, which is when you do ANY kind of diet that restricts calories, you lose weight.

  13. brianary says:

    There doesn’t seem to be anything about his energy level, mental clarity, or mood.

    • YouDidWhatNow? says:

      He’s quite angry about the fact that he no longer remembers who he is, but he’s asleep all the time anyway…so it doesn’t matter.

    • haggis for the soul says:

      No kidding. I’d be a surly slug on a regular Twinkie diet.

  14. GMFish says:

    Wow, he drastically lowered his consumption of food to show that calories matter. And for his effort he lost about three pounds per week. Which is great.

    However, when I did a low carb diet I lost on average 6 pounds per week over a period of six months and I was eating over 3000 calories per day.

    So I was able to consume more food and lose more weight.

    I’m not saying that my diet is better than his. I’m only saying that calorie consumption is only one factor of many.

    • KillerBee says:

      Agree 100%. I’ve tried both ways and been successful. Lost 30 pounds on a low carb, high calorie diet a few years back, and I’m currently going the low cal route and having success with that as well (10 lbs in 2 months). Although I enjoyed the low carb method a lot more (nothing is better than eating as much cheese and beef as I could handle), I think the low carb diet is much healthier and it’s helping me to develop better eating habits to use when I’m finished.

    • Anonymously says:

      How much were you eating before the diet. How did you track it? Did you increase your exercise?

      Either you cut your net calorics without realizing it, or you discovered something scientific-award-worthy.

      • QuantumCat says:

        I’m with John Q here.

        One thing the guy is trying to point out is weight loss is driven by Calories in

        It’s very likely you miscounted calories (in and/or out). If not, I’d march yourself to the nearest university and present yourself to the head of their nutrition department. You’ll be famous world-wide among Nutrition researchers.

  15. AngryK9 says:

    This sounds like a Mythbusters episode in the making.

    • JulesNoctambule says:

      I would love to see Adam after a few weeks of Twinkie intake. I can only imagine how erratic he’d be then!

    • KillerBee says:

      I think you’d need a Mythbuster that’s not already TV anorexic to begin with. Maybe Jamie could stand to lose a few, but as for the rest of them… you’d have to cut off a limb for them to lose any appreciable weight.

  16. Groanan says:

    So, Kansas State University finds a single human being’s dietary results over a ten week period to be publish worthy science?

    How hard would it have been to get thirty students to join in? Or to do this study more than once?

    And isn’t it clear that the results this specific professor wanted to find are the exact results that he did find? It does not sound as if he was going in with an unbiased opinion which makes the results even less reliable.

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      You’re shaking your first for absolutely nothing. There was nothing published. It was just one professor doing an experiment. There was no indication that he wanted to publish the results. CNN picked up the story. KSU was not involved.

      • Groanan says:

        The fact that it is on the internet now shows that it was published.

        I know there is supposed to be a difference between peer review journals publishing studies, and blogs, but when a professor at a university’s blog is used as newsworthy science, fists should be shaken!

        A KSU professor conducted the experiment and commented about it to the press, if he did not want to publish the results he would have done better not cooperating with CNN to do so.

        Where is the scientific community to step in and squash these sorts of things when publication can bypass peer review and go straight to CNN?

        This story would not have been much of a story if it was “just some guy” who ate junk food for ten weeks and lost weight. Considerable credence is given to this person’s story because of their status as a professor at KSU.

  17. Ceric Neesh says:

    One of my friends has him for a teacher, and I’ve seen him around campus a few times. I didn’t know he was doing this, it’s rather interesting.

  18. fluffernutter09 says:

    I don’t get it. Is he proving his own argument wrong? He should’ve had about 2600 calories per day. He cut it to 1800. That’s a net shortage of 800 per day, times 7 days a week, is 5,600 calories shortage per week, or 1.6 lbs you would in theory lose per week. However in 10 weeks he was averaging about 2.7 lbs per week. Soooooo…. something is screwy, or he’s proving it’s not actually a 1:1 with calories in and out.

    Disclaimer: No I didn’t RTFA, I’m assuming the Consumerist summary is legit. What am I missing?

  19. gqcarrick says:

    I gained 5 pounds just seeing the picture.

  20. thelauhingsun says:

    Yeah, this makes sense. I lost lots of weight in college (got down to 118), even though I ate mostly fast food, whereas my “healthier-eating” roommate gained and gained. The thing is, I basically subsisted on $5 a day, so that meant I usually only got about 300-500 calories out of every meal. I thank my french blood for keeping my cholesterol stable – the only real downside was that I was thirsty ALL THE TIME.

  21. UltimateOutsider says:

    The story doesn’t say anything about whether he was doing any exercise to maintain lean body mass. If he wasn’t, his poor diet will hurt him in the long run. He will be more likely to gain weight faster, because he likely lost muscle and perhaps even some bone density- both things that boost your metabolism.

    I have a hard time believing he’s an actual “Nutritionist.” Any modern text book on health and fitness explain the science behind what he experienced. They also explain the importance of a balanced diet. (Vitamins, which he took, aren’t as effective as a diet that supplies the same nutrients.) Also, the only measure of health they refer to is his cholesterol. What about blood pressure? How about aerobic fitness? Can he still (or could he ever) jog a mile uninterrupted? Also, two months isn’t long enough to make a huge impact on fitness (aside from weight loss); six months maybe.

  22. Rectilinear Propagation says:

    I want to know what this guy’s diet was like before if having two-thirds of his food come from junk food caused improvements in his cholesterol and triglycerides.

  23. Krang Krabowski says:

    Finally someone backs my point about caloric intake being the most important factor in weight loss. Physics rules.

    You can’t gain weight on different calories it’s all just calories. which is a measure of the energy that food contains. Which means when you burn it, it’s gone. 1 calorie of cookie dough is the same energy as 1 calorie of banana.

    • Kate says:

      It does make a difference whether the calorie is turned to fat or just to blood sugar. One is easy to burn, the other a b—-tch. So yes, it makes a difference to those of us with insulin resistance whether the calorie is carbohydrate or protean, since carbs in our bodies are turned directly to fat and we still feel hungry after eating them.

  24. Hoss says:

    I suspect he’s greatly increased his physical activity. The good news is, he won’t need embalming when he croaks

  25. MrHacks says:

    Did the mention the part where after he was done, he had a voice inside his head telling him to kill Harvey Milk?

  26. Poisson Process says:

    A guy I know was in medical school in the 50′s. He joined an experiment for a couple weeks in which the only thing they ate was butter. They had different flavors; they ate it in a bowl like ice cream. He lost weight on the diet too, mostly because he got sick of eating straight butter!

  27. Dieflatermous says:

    If they were really versed in nutrition they’d understand the basic math of “you cannot burn 1800 calories in a day unless you are mountain biking for 10 hours, therefore it’s impossible to burn more calories than you take in”.

    • baquwards says:

      Your body’s processes burn a majority of those calories. Then add physical activities and you can easily exceed 1800 calories per day.

  28. baquwards says:

    But but but, don’t twinkies have carbs? There is no way that you can lose weight and eat carbs. LOL!

  29. dush says:

    So eat less calories – lose weight. Science!

  30. anduin says:

    Thats funny, I remember a high school teacher in my senior year was so PO’d from that McDonalds movie about the dude eating nothing but McD’s and gaining some 20+ pounds in a month or something. So he did the same thing but exercised as well 4-5 times a week. He lost something like 12 pounds over the course of the month.

  31. Levk says:

    umm.. duh??

  32. modolk2 says:

    i’m not sure if i like giving this information to the general public in fear that they may misinterpret it. The message that it’s just calories in vs calories out is very important. (explained more at http://www.diet-myths.com) I’m just worried people will see this and assume they can jam their faces full of twinkies. It would be pretty difficult to eat only 1800 calories of junk food since it’s all pretty energy dense and won’t fill you up. If you can do it you will lose weight, but it’s best to eat a balanced diet AND watch your calories.

  33. mikull says:

    Since when did this blog become the barely *science* interest story on the evening news?

  34. Nekoincardine says:

    Am I the only person who spent this entire article distracted by the Sackboy?