Nutrition - the black sheep of modern health studies.
This rant may ruffle a few feathers, so… trigger warning.
The Twinkie Diet… is good for you.
But it’s not good for you BECAUSE it’s good for you.
Bear with me.
Nutrition, and dieting in particular, has been one of the most challenging facets of coaching over the years. That’s always annoyed me because, technically speaking, it’s the simplest, most heavily researched, and straight forward of subcategories of the transformation domain.
There is zero perspective required and relatively little effort.
Weight loss is basic math.
Every year there’s a new fad, a new dietary approach, a new holy grail of health and wellness. And a year later, it’s old, washed-up news. So the frustrated trainee is not entirely to blame.
On the one hand, it’s an evolving science. We’re learning as we go. And on the other hand, it isn’t science. It’s commercial producers funding self-serving studies to sell more product. Its people in lab coats reducing an irreducibly complex subject to a few measurable variables, and then determining such and such mineral, vitamin, amino acid or enzyme matters more than the others.
You only find what you are looking for, really, if the truth be known. - Mary Leaky
Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful for the body of knowledge we have in the field of nutrition, and how its broken down and made simple for us common folk. But I do fear the closer we look the less we see, for the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Or at least that’s the conclusion I’d like to leave you with, after… the Twinkie Diet.
In 2010, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University set out to prove a very simple premise of applied thermodynamics - energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transferred. Metabolism, and by extension, body weight, is a tightly controlled homeostatic process, where living (or once-living) things are digested, transferring stored energy (calories) into chemical energy, much of which is transferred into electrical energy to perform 'work.' Body weight remains constant when energy-in equals energy-out.
And when it comes to weight loss, the ONLY significant factor, the one indelible truth, is whether the total amount of energy consumed is less than that expended.
And he succeeded.
By eating Twinkies.
Little yellow cakes that look like they’ll kill you. For those interested, here are Twinkie stats:
Take special note of the sugar, the cholesterol, the sodium, and the fat. Take note because that’s basically all that’s in there, lol. But I digress.
Over the course of 10 weeks, Mark Haub lost 27 pounds of bodyweight by eating one Twinkie every three hours instead of proper meals, and he supplemented with Doritos, cereals, and Oreos. Now, he did take a multivitamin (good on him, I guess), a protein shake (if it makes ya feel better...), and the occasional canned green beans and celery. But two thirds of his total caloric intake had junk food written all over it.
To make sure he stayed under 1800 calories a day (likely 500-800 calories shy of his caloric expenditure), he avoided meat, whole grains, and fruit. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a man of commitment. I may need a follow-up letter on reasonable commitments. Hmmm.
Ok, so our hero ate junk for 10 weeks and lost nearly 30 pounds (and 9 body fat percentage points, from 33.4 to 24.9), rather than turning into a Twinkie, proving the old adage “you are what you eat” incorrect.
“But surely, Tom, you misguided philosophizer,” I hear you contend.
“He may have lost weight, but he couldn’t have been healthier in the aftermath.”
Well, this is where things get stupider. If standard health metrics are indeed relevant and meaningful - meaningful in that they do in fact signify health - then our wayward professor got healthier.
- His “bad” LDL cholesterol dropped 20 %
- His “good” HDL cholesterol increased by 20%
- His triglycerides (a form of fat) reduced by 39%
Cue the clown music.
Health aside, Mark succeeded in proving what he set out to prove - that how much you eat (in calorie terms) matters more than what you eat, at least insofar as weight loss is concerned. This, in theory, should have worked, but few have the balls to eat crap with discipline for 10 weeks just to prove it.
And so, if you have ever asked (or heard anyone ask), “Is SUCH-N-SUCH food good for losing weight?” You now know the answer is, “It’s a stupid question.”
It doesn’t matter how many books on the science of nutrition you read, or how well you think you know your body. If you need to lose thirty to fifty pounds in the pursuit of health, then it likely matters more THAT you lose the weight, than HOW you lose the weight.
And that’s really important.
And weird. And I get that. But I want you hear it.
While there haven’t been volumes… or any relevant studies that look at these two demographics over an extended period of time:
Obese but 'healthy eaters'
And
'Unhealthy eaters' with low body fat
...we’re receiving a portrait of health here that is very counterintuitive. While ‘healthy’ foods contain nutrients that those in lab coats or hand-me-down generational heuristics tell us we must ingest for optimal health, perhaps targeted nutrients and “well balanced” diets aren’t the holy grail of health.
Perhaps, like the Twinkie Diet unveils, there are deep insights in the margins - in nuanced contradictions to the rules. A few other puzzling studies/approaches to consider:
- The Tarahumara, a tribe of elite runners - where running 400 miles in 50 hours is the norm, not the exception… you read that right - eat a predominantly carbohydrate diet of rice and beans (very little meat).
- The Inuits - whose stamina is legendary - eat an animal based diet and derive over 50% of their calories from animal fat, and the rest largely animal protein. They eat little to no grains, fruits, and veg.
- A therapeutic study in 1973 had a patient fast for 382 days… with no ill side effects and improved blood markers. Water only, for over a year. Ample studies on intermittent fasting corroborate the same, as effortless calorie reduction is one of the many benefits of eating less frequently.
- Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, and many monks alive today fast for 30+ days for spiritual and health reasons.
- The China Study - the single largest nutrition study ever conducted - would have us conclude animal products are killing us and vegetarianism (removal of most animal products) is the true path.
- Dr. Anthony Chaffee - advocate of the carnivore diet - would have us believe vegetables are killing us, and consuming the whole animal (not in one bite of course) is the true path.
All of them provide well researched, data-backed hypotheses on the optimal human diet.
While most of us get the same information regarding optimal macronutrient intake, the importance of the microbiome, general lifestyle and stress concerns, and on and on, there seem to be critical insights into the resilience of the human body, and it’s tendency toward environmental homeostasis, that get lost when we choose the path of modern day ‘health,' with all the precision, albeit fractured, that comes with it.
Indeed, The Twinkie Diet is one of those rare experiments that demonstrates that meaningful information is found in the margins - in those extreme anecdotes that break all the rules. To quote the late great Mark Twain,
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
I would be remiss if I didn’t point out the irony that Mark Twain historians don't know for sure that he actually said that.
Without a study like the one above I would have said we have no idea what truly makes us healthy, but we have a great idea of what doesn’t. But, thanks to Mark (both of them), we don’t know that either.
Those of you who have read my works or trained with me know I’m not advocating Twinkies and certainly don’t deny the critical importance of nutrition in regards to mental and physical performance, transformation, and designing weightless moments. But anecdotal experiments that break all the rules like that above are truly maddening for process-driven minds. They call into question a great deal of what we think we know for sure.
But there’s a silver lining. For while our assumptions of the role and relevance of healthy eating may take a bit of a hit, it sheds light on just how remarkable the human body is. And it gives us one very critical insight.
EXCESS is a problem.
The body is built to convert energy and excrete waste. When it has less work to do, i.e. when calories-in fall short of calories-out, the body does more than we realize to balance the system.
The most obvious shift that occurs is the drawing of stored energy called body fat to make up for the caloric deficit. But it also triggers something more special…
HEALING.
Energy that isn’t spent on digestion, assimilation, and excretion can be spent restoring and maximizing the performance of core systems. We know from studies on intermittent fasting that one of the most potent regenerative capacities of the body is triggered during windows of under-eating - autophagy - where cell damage or metabolic waste is restored or cleaned out.
Autophagy generally requires longer windows of fasting, but its underlying principle holds true all the way from single-cell organisms to our complex human organism. These systems has evolved to sustain, to survive, and to reproduce.
In times of excess there is ample energy to grow beyond one’s current state, whether we’re talking about cell division in single-celled organisms or the reconstruction and addition of skeletal muscle in body building. In times of lack, the organism fortifies itself against further lack, becoming stronger and more resilient, and does so by cleaning out waste and optimizing resilience… healing.
In times of excess, procreation and/or growth processes up-regulate.
In times of lack, survival takes precedence, and healing systems are optimized.
Despite Mark’s absurd food choices, in under-eating he gave his body the opportunity not only to efficiently manage the onslaught of Hostess delectables, but also the space to rid his body of unhealthy storages and inefficient processes.
From intermittent fasting research we’ve learned that when you eat may matter as much as what you eat in conversations of longevity, immunity, strength, mental acuity, and general health.
From the absurd Twinkie Diet we’ve learned that how much you eat may matter more than what you eat in terms of weight loss and global health (in contrast to eating ‘healthy’ while being overweight).
Granted… this was a short term study with a data set of 1. So we cannot extrapolate long term impact of these choices for the masses. But unless your ambition is to eat junk food 70% of the time, it may be a moot point. We’ve found a loophole, a ‘free pass’ if taken in moderation, and in the context of an otherwise whole food based diet.
Weightlessness Nutrition, for those looking for a battle tested, minimalistic, and robust model that provides progressions from detoxification to body transformation to weightless (burden free) living - I spell that out explicitly in The Essence of Lightness.
For those looking more for the theoretical underpinnings of the diet to apply as you see fit, I explore that in the Tao of Nutrition chapter in In Pursuit of Weightlessness.
Each book contains so much practical value, personally vetted and aligned to purpose, that I’ve got no problem steering you there. You’ll find something to take away.
But either way, one could integrate the insights of the Twinkie Diet very simply. Nobody is weightless if they’re simultaneously neurotic about their food intake - wanting the yummy yet carrying the guilt.
That’s not life. It’s obsession. And while it’s a ‘healthier’ obsession than addiction to sweets, it’s no way to spend the day.
So we can introduce a heuristic of our own, assuming one already lives by the mantra - move well, eat living (or once-living) things, and don’t forget to breathe:
On days you deviate you can eat whatever the hell you want… if you want. But to prevent the fallout inherent in gaining excess weight - which seems to be a greater health risk than the specific food in question - reduce your total calorie intake over a 24-48 hour period to account for the higher calorie, lower nutrition value of NAME-YOUR-GUILTY-PLEASURE.
NOTE: To do this effectively, you must calculate your average daily expenditure and your total calorie intake over 1-2 days. There are countless resources online to accomplish both!
One can easily and intuitively stay the course - achieve and maintain optimal body composition and performance - with Weightlessness Nutrition tactics without counting a single calorie AND including the occasional Twinkie. But the farther you reach into the cookie jar, the more important it becomes to count the number and/or size of the cookies you’re taking.
With great pleasure comes great responsibility.
Be weightless!
Tom Fazio