| Author | Post |
|---|
Doug
New Member
| Joined: | 9 September 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 44 |
|
Posted: 14 September 2007 02:48 pm |
|
Am I the only one that thinks all the “Biggest Loser” style TV shows do a lot more harm than good? Are these only popular in the US or do you see them in other countries?
When I see these programs they are a showcase of what is wrong with the way people try to lose weight, not a good example. Instead of showing how to make permanent lifestyle changes they focus on quick fixes, unhealthy crash diets and injury inducing extreme exercise programs. I also think a large part of their popularity is from people watching them as a freak show. One guy at work (who does not know I lost 110 pounds several years ago) mentioned how hysterically funny he found it to see really fat people try to exercise. Whenever I bring this subject up at work everyone but me thinks they are good thing because they are so “inspiring”.
The latest one is a show called “Fat march” where several severely obese people are on their own personal version of the Bataan death march. Now that’s entertainment!! Imagine the ratings they could have gotten by broadcasting the real thing.
At the start of the show they explained how the contestants are given a healthy diet with everything they need. Later on one of them had ride an ambulance to the hospital due to low blood sugar. They claim doctors and trainers monitor the contestants to make sure the exercise program is safe but on the first show they lost one contestant due to stress fractures and severe blisters. The producers had no trouble with this contestant trying to continue despite these injuries, it was so “inspiring”. What part of healthy do these idiots not understand? If you are riding an ambulance to the hospital you are not healthy.
The weight loss the contestants achieve sets a very unrealistic example. I rarely watch these shows because I tend to end up writing a rant like this one every time I do. But I heard someone comment at work that on one of them somebody lost 30 pounds in one week and was upset because she only lost 2 on her diet. They show apparently never mentioned the only way to lose 30 pounds in a week is to lose a lot of water and muscle instead of fat. A pound of glucose with the associated water contains about 450 Calories, a pound of muscle contains 750 Calories and a pound of fat has 3500 Calories. The only way to lose that much weight is to make sure you are burning glucose and muscle instead of fat. A diet and exercise program that extreme cannot be maintained for more than a few weeks.
They seem to have airtight non-disclosure agreements on these shows because I never see anyone mentioning the long term adverse affects on the contestants. At the end of the first season of the “Biggest loser” they showed clips of the people who had dropped out earlier on and casually mentioned that stress and overuse injuries had forced many of them to quit exercising completely. I would love to see someone do on expose on the long term damage these shows do to those who participate in them.
Sorry for the rant, I promise to never watch one of these shows again so you will not have to see another.
|
abnormalapathy
Senior Member
|
Posted: 14 September 2007 04:54 pm |
|
| I actually wrote a rant about Fat March in my journal a few weeks ago (the first time I saw an episode). I share your feelings on these shows. These definitely lend to the "quick fix" mentality that most people have, and when they don't see their results that fast, they give up. I used to do the same thing, with the same thought process. It has taken me 24 weeks to lose almost 32 pounds, but eventually I will reach my goal and in the process I will be living a "thin life" not worrying about gaining it back when I "get off my diet" and go back to eating.
|
Ohm
Senior Member
|
Posted: 14 September 2007 05:00 pm |
|
I am watching "The Biggest Loser Australia" for the first time. I've not watched it before, even though it is an old show from a few years ago. I am astounded at the mass each contestant is losing each week. When you consider that there are 2.2 lbs in every kg, and each week each participant is losing up to 8 kg - it is astouding. But you are absolutely right that it is not realistic, and there is no way that the contestants are osing just fat. Water must make up the majority of what they are losing (by volume), followed by some muscle and fat.
That kind of rapid weight loss is just not sustainable and if real dieters compare their progress to that kind of lunacy it is highly demotivating - but there again, real dieting is as boring as watching paint dry, so it would make lousy TV.
|
Trixie.in.Dixie
New Member
|
Posted: 14 September 2007 05:08 pm |
|
I am always alarmed at the draconian exercise routines they put the contestants through - none of them are active people to begin with, and they always seem to be in great pain when they are shown doing the workouts or walking up a mountainside or stadium steps. I realize that excercise should raise one's heartrate, but those contestants always seem to be pushed to the point of possible danger. Not to mention somebody always has some sort of health problem anyway. Is that really a good idea - to have people who are not particularly healthy to begin with doing a super-accelerated diet and workout routine that could seriously injure them?
The other thing is that they work with the group for a short period of time, like 2 weeks, and then leave them to their own devices for months before bringing them back to the show. I have never understood this... do they really expect the contestants to completely change themselves and learn a whole new way of life from just the brief experience at the beginning? Or is it really a cruel joke to see who screws up and goes off the rails? With the celebrity version, the individuals are coached the whole way through, but with the non-celebrities they just leave 'em hanging.
|
Doug
New Member
| Joined: | 9 September 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 44 |
|
Posted: 14 September 2007 07:14 pm |
|
Becci Aryal wrote: . . . but there again, real dieting is as boring as watching paint dry, so it would make lousy TV . .
I think this is also why they emphasize exercise instead of diet. Video of people not eating is not terribly exciting.
I am glad to hear I am not the only one that does not like these shows. They seem to be popular and cheap to film.
|
suenos
Moderator
|
Posted: 15 September 2007 01:46 am |
|
Sorry, but I'm one of those people who actually like the Biggest Loser. During my own weight loss period I found it both motivating ("if these chicks who outweigh me by 50 pounds can work-out 6 hours a day, surely I can haul my own hefty butt to the gym for an hour 3 days a week") and inspiring (seeing the physical transformation take place week by week and knowing I had that to look forward to no matter how tough it seemed at the moment.). And during every season I've always found one contestant that had a "story" that I could identify with and I found myself "rooting" for their success through the process.
But, I never looked to the show for educational purposes though. I mean, bottom line it's just entertainment: a show about everyday people struggling to overcome some form of adversity in a competition setting with a monetary reward at the end - pretty much the basis of ALL reality shows, only in this case the adversity just happens to be obesity. I've always assumed that most people accept that the BL is not meant to be an educational, medically oriented show on safe or healthy - or even realistic- weight loss strategies. I mean, how many people watch something like the Bachelor for dating/relationship guidance? Or viewed the Apprentice as some sort of guideline for success in the business world? Why would we take our bodies/health any less seriously and look to what is essentially a game show for nutrition/exercise guidance?
About Fat March though...ugh....I caught a couple of the shows and was overwhelmingly disgusted by it - and I don't know why, same premise as BL, but it just hit a nerve - maybe cause it was more blatantly obvious in it's disregard for the health of the contestants? maybe because there was something less inspirational and more "freak show" in concept? or maybe just because I often found myself wondering what the smug, non-sweaty, slightly over-fed "trainers" were doing while the contestants were walking 15-20 miles a day in the blazing heat?  I don't know. But I had far more respect for the early contestant who said "forget the money, this is nuts" and walked off (no pun intended) early in the show rather than those who persevered past the point of non-reversible self-injury.
|
BlacknWhite
New Member
| Joined: | 9 September 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 19 |
|
Posted: 15 September 2007 03:30 am |
|
I dont know anything about fat march but what i do know is this
Those people on the show are alot heavier so even if it looks like hours of workin out its prob at the most 2-3 hours of VIGEROUS exercise. I see NO PROBLEM with the word and action of vigerous. It burns fat it burns alot of cals and they do teach and show on television there choices to eat. Its a wonderful thing seeing them taught actually cause this can bring out the motive to an obese or overweight person to say "hey.. wow look at them.. yeaa i sure need a good kick in the #%@&!".
Hard workouts are wonderful! Ever felt the feeling that once you worked out your hardest and just when you think you feel like falling down you finally get that second wind? Your body turns cold and you are rearing for another bootcamp drill workout! All the lovely literal drips of sweat fallin off your stomach and neck? That is true exercisin right there.. This slow mediocer stuff aint fun. Its just long.. lol.
If they have health issues then of course they are gonna have to stomp there foot and say no but cmon.. its not easy telling whether the person is lieing or not. After all they have been avoiding the gym for the reason of excuses for years yeah?
So i pretty much like the biggest loser show and there real fat poundage of loss has to be real for the fact that they cardio, tone up and eat right. Just because there doin it a lil more rough doesnt mean a thing  . Speeds the motab, cleanses the body of toxins and more importantly exercise is a great mental healer. They get use to it and after a while enjoy it. So yeah thats my opinion ^^ lol. A good kick in the nads is what we all can use somedays.
::Edited:: forgot to add somethin up there lol. "They are alot heavier so obviously there losing alot more pounds in the first weeks. Dont we all in the beginning? So there high weight loss dont bother me at all. "
Last edited on 15 September 2007 03:33 am by BlacknWhite
|
Scoobees
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 15 September 2007 03:53 am |
|
Well, BL is about a little more than 'vigorous exercise'...more like insane exercise. I am a huge fan of the series and have watched the previous 3 seasons and currently the 4th now. It's well known that these contestants exercise 4-6 hours a day and eat very low calorie diets. It's a competition. I know it's crazy. I certainly don't look to this show for info/advice on weight loss, I simply enjoy the human element of it all. I was obese, I share many of the same thoughts and feelings they do and feel a sense of triumph when I see them do well. And the transformations are awesome. Unfortunately, the fact remains that there really are people out there that are wondering why they can't lose 31 pounds in a week like that 62 year old guy did on the last episode. That's the one part that does bother me.
|
Ohm
Senior Member
|
Posted: 15 September 2007 01:50 pm |
|
The awfyl thing is: it is such compulsive viewing. I know they are doing dangerous things with their diet and exercise levels, especially for people who must have been pretty sedentary before the show. I know that it is not repeatable outside the lab. I know it isn't, therefore, really any kind of reality except under studio conditions - but it's just compulsive viewing. If it's on, I watch it!
|
Dazed1
New Member
| Joined: | 12 August 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 75 |
|
Posted: 15 September 2007 06:28 pm |
|
I admit I like to watch The Biggest Loser, but it does raise some questions. The 62 year old fellow who lost 30 lbs. the first week defies the Laws of Physics or at least the Laws of Weight.
30 Lbs. X 3500 calories/lb = 105,000 calories
24 hrs in a day X 7 days in a week = 168 hrs
105,000 calories / 168 hrs = 625 Calorie DEFICIT/hr for each and every hour of the week. Other than running a marathon just try to maintain that kind of deficit for even 2 hours. I would think either 1 lb does not = 3500 calories, our calcultaions of calories burned are faulty or somebody is fudging on the numbers.
I have been on a plan for the past 25 weeks and have lost 50 lbs. Because of a rotator cuff problem I have been limited to walking and diet as my program. After 25 weeks of tracking exercize and calories I do believe in the 3500 calorie figure, and also the calories burned figures. I also know that as my weight has dropped so have my calories burned so I have had to increase the intensity of my walking to maintain 2lbs/wk weight loss.
Although I question some of their weight loss figures there can be no denying that there have been some amazing changes that no scale can lie about. The show is an inspiration not because of the numbers, but because of the visual proof.
|
Ohm
Senior Member
|
Posted: 15 September 2007 07:41 pm |
|
HI Dazed1, yes I can see where you are coming from, but don't forget that the super morbidly obese tend to retain vast amounts of fluid, probably because of their high salt and sugar diet choices. Also, interstitial fluids (the fluids between the cells) in the fat or adipose tissue is lost as fat is lost, thus when any fat is lost, some fluid or water is lost too. So he would not necessarily have had to burn quite that number of calories, but yes, I agree, he was probably dehydrated to have lost that amount of mass. A lot of it had to be water weight.
B
|
Doug
New Member
| Joined: | 9 September 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 44 |
|
Posted: 16 September 2007 04:56 pm |
|
Dazed1 wrote: 1 lb does not = 3500 calories
That number is only true for fat. If the weight loss comes from muscle it only takes a 700 Calorie deficit to lose a pound. If you cannibalize a pound of muscle you will get as many calories from it as if you ate a pound of very lean meat like a chicken breast. When you are an extreme crash diet you lose muscle no matter how much you exercise you are doing.
For glucose and the associated water it only takes about a 450 Calorie deficit to lose a pound. My theory for the reason many people quickly lose several pounds when they first start a diet is that their bodies first go to glucose when making up a calories deficit since it is the easiest source of energy. After a few weeks they will start to burn muscle and fat and bring their glucose levels up. This will result in a plateau or even a weight gain until their glucose and fluid levels stabilize. Over the long term the 3500 Calories/pound of fat will hold true but can be a lot of short term fluctuations, particularly when people make a sudden drastic change.
As Becci pointed out there are a lot of other ways for people to lose a lot of weight from water. This is usually temporary. Odds are that next week the contestant that lost 30 pounds will lose very little weight or even gain a few pounds. He will undoubtedly be dismayed and confused how this can be possible since he was working out and following the same diet as before. He and the trainers will give all sort of theories for the cause of this "mysterious plateau". They might even blame it on starvation mode. The real reason will be that there is no way he lost 30 pounds of fat in one week. As you posted, the math does not add up.
|
Dazed1
New Member
| Joined: | 12 August 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 75 |
|
Posted: 16 September 2007 06:09 pm |
|
Doug, thanks for the explanation. The math is still Fuzzy, because of the variables involved. I would question that he could be burning that much muscle while performing weight resistance training. The water lose is a given and must represent the majority of his weight loss. Let me play with the numbers again. Here are my assumptions:
Water loss = 20lbs * 450 calories = 9000 calories
Muscle Loss = 5 lbs * 750 calories = 3750 calories
Fat Loss = 5 lbs * 3500 calories = 17500 calories
Total calories to lose 30 lbs = 30250 / 7days = 4321 calory deficit/day
Calories burned by a 300 lb very active man = 4647
A dramatic increase in the water loss figure would make this more believable. Red Flags are just thrown up for me whenever I hear number like these and a change in my assumptions could explain the numbers.
|
Doug
New Member
| Joined: | 9 September 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 44 |
|
Posted: 16 September 2007 06:45 pm |
|
With all the variables it is impossible to know where the 30 pounds came from. But I think we all agree it was not 30 pounds of fat. As Becci pointed out glucose is not the only thing that has an effect of fluid levels.
For all we know he may have deliberately dehydrated himself to show a bigger loss. These shows are not about promoting good health practices. For the producers they are all about ratings and for the contesants are there for the money. Being dehydrated for a couple of days would be a pretty small price to pay for winning a large amount of money. If I was on a show like that and thought it would increase my chances of winning a lot of money it is certainly something I would consider.
Last edited on 16 September 2007 06:51 pm by Doug
|
BlacknWhite
New Member
| Joined: | 9 September 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 19 |
|
Posted: 16 September 2007 09:04 pm |
|
Fact is that dehydration is actually better then being overly hydrated. I know that man didnt intentionally starve himself for the better.. did you see how he won that mile race?
What i think is people believe too much on the bodies weaknesses. Its not a fragile baby.. our bodies can handle much more then you think. So with all these calculations and all lets just all accept the fact that they lost pounds and pounds of great accomplishment that hasnt been done to them in years. Bravo to them.
|
Ohm
Senior Member
|
Posted: 16 September 2007 10:20 pm |
|
Fact is that dehydration is actually better then being overly hydrated.
Better? Is this some use of the word "better" that I have not come across before?
Um, how so? In what way? I can see how it might be considered so in releiving the strain on a strained heart (which is why frusemide, a diuretic, is given to people with congestive heart failure and high blood pressure) but it isn't given to other patients willy-nilly on the basis that being dehydrated, even slightly, is not a good idea.
Can you qualify what you have said?
|
Dazed1
New Member
| Joined: | 12 August 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 75 |
|
Posted: 17 September 2007 12:14 am |
|
| BlacknWhite, I don't blindly accept anything, especially something that seems to go against common logic. Advertisers and the News Media thrive on people who believe everything they are told. People are already reacting to your comment on hydration.
|
BlacknWhite
New Member
| Joined: | 9 September 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 19 |
|
Posted: 17 September 2007 02:13 am |
|
What on earth are you 2 getting upset about? Ppl fear the body so much its ashame. Every little thing does damage but goodness this is pittiful. Attack me if you want but i'm so ignoring this subject as to the poor attacks i'm getting just from speaking my opinion that seems to swim against the wave here.
Common logic? Lol.. even i would hold my tongue on that if i were you. Just because i think different then everyone else here i have no common sense? Whats ignorant is to live based on a chart daily and media daily. To believe everything can kill everything can hurt.. this is how people end up with a 10 years shorter life span from fear of it all. Why not just roll with it. SO again.. heres your proof enjoy it. Says it write here on this website.. and I quote "the available evidence indicates that overhydrating is a bigger health threat than underhydrating".
runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,sss6-242-302--5382-1-2X3X5X6-5,00.html
Now read it, read again what i said. Was i threatening? No. So sleep well and fear the sense that I have actually spat an opinion against all these other wonderful dieters! Goodness man just relax i'm not here to bring down the white house.
Last edited on 17 September 2007 07:42 am by
|
clarinetgurl
Moderator
|
Posted: 17 September 2007 05:44 am |
|
Hi, I am sure Nir will catch this soon and edit it for you, but should you care to edit it yourself--per the CPH rules, we are not to post "clickable" links unless they are to another page on this site. (ie just take out the http: //www)
And, if I may so say so--I don't think Becci or Dazed's intent was to attck you. You must admit that you made a statement that directly contradcits what most people have been taught, even the link you provided points out that what it's saying is not what is generally accepted.
Becci and dazed asked you to provide evidence as to what you were saying was true. If I came in and said, "Guess what folks? Doughnuts are actually very good for you." would you not say something along the same lines of what they did?
Just a thought.
CG
|
Ohm
Senior Member
|
Posted: 17 September 2007 10:25 am |
|
What on earth are you 2 getting upset about? Ppl fear the body so much its ashame. Every little thing does damage but goodness this is pittiful. Attack me if you want but i'm so ignoring this subject as to the poor attacks i'm getting just from speaking my opinion that seems to swim against the wave here.
Common logic? Lol.. even i would hold my tongue on that if i were you. Just because i think different then everyone else here i have no common sense? Whats ignorant is to live based on a chart daily and media daily. To believe everything can kill everything can hurt.. this is how people end up with a 10 years shorter life span from fear of it all. Why not just roll with it. SO again.. heres your proof enjoy it. Says it write here on this website.. and I quote "the available evidence indicates that overhydrating is a bigger health threat than underhydrating".
runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,sss6-242-302--5382-1-2X3X5X6-5,00.html
Now read it, read again what i said. Was i threatening? No. So sleep well and fear the sense that I have actually spat an opinion against all these other wonderful dieters! Goodness man just relax i'm not here to bring down the white house.
As usual, ClarinetGirl, you are right on the money.
BlacknWhite, I'm not upset. Not at all. It is simply that, as ClarinetGirl has said, I disagree (both with your remark and with the article). People can do that. I do it quite a lot. It makes for a more interesting life. How dull would it be if we all believed exactly the same things.
By the way, although I absolutely endorse your right to air your views, you really should try to be a little less confrontational. Your manner is very aggressive, and - how can I put this? - people don't take kindly to being told what to do.
I didn't mention logic, common or otherwise.
I'm not afraid of differences of opinion. Nir (the moderator) and I disagree on, for example, starvation mode, but we are courteous to eachother, and I consider him my friend. I don't agree with quite a few of his opinions, but I accept and respect his right to those opinions, as does he of me. Can you not manage to do the same without being rude?
Do you really feel that you "spat" your opinion? Is this not the kind of behaviour only used against adversaries (and usually by pre-school children)?q We are not your adversaries, we are just people discussing our opinions. Please don't spit anything at me, or my respected and well intentioned fellow forum users.
And lastly, this article is from runnersworld. It is aimed at runners. I am not a runner. I have never been a runner. I do not aspire to be a runner. I am a Mum, a lecturer, a researcher, a professional psychologist, a wife, a dieter, I am many things. I am not a runner. There are lots of things which apply to runners and not to the general population at large. This article may be one of those things, don't you think? The population at large is not at risk of collapse because we have a very good plumbing system, which detects a lowering (dilution) of the sodium level (which is how hyponatremia kills and corrects the sodium level by causing us to excrete excess fluids. Hyponatremia is very rare and even the article says that only 2 deaths have occurred due to this cause (in the specified race).
Lastly, the article does not say that dehydration is better than over hydration - although it does question the aml-effects often attributed to dehydration. The article does not say that dehydration won't kill you - that would be madness - people die of dehydration all over the world, every day. The article merely questions the advice of drinking eight 8fl oz glasses of water a day, without consideration of muscle mass, body mass or sweat/fluids lost.
Lets all be nice!
B
Last edited on 17 September 2007 10:44 pm by Ohm
|
Dazed1
New Member
| Joined: | 12 August 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 75 |
|
Posted: 18 September 2007 03:10 am |
|
| BlacknWhite, lighten up, I am here to learn not to teach. There are people on this forum who are eons ahead of me, I just have to rationionalize the math to myself. You posted a very interesting article, but it did seem dedicated to runners.
|
Trixie.in.Dixie
New Member
|
Posted: 19 September 2007 12:28 am |
|
I read the article and it says a few things for sure that I have been reading elsewhere - not everyone needs the same amount of water, water will come from many sources like other beverages and food, and that it is possible to drink too much water. Everyone seems bent on the 8X8 rule, but I have never been a believer in it. I know water is vital, but I'm not going to force myself to drink more than my body needs because somebody said I need to consume this amount. Everyone is different.
As for the issue of dehydration, as far as this article is concerned, it is only being discussed in the context of a runner who is running for a long period. It does not state or even imply that dehydration is a good thing, or that it's normal or healthy. It just says that people who run often deplete their water levels during a long run to the point that they are "a little" dehydrated, and that's okay, because the assumption is that they will rehydrate afterward. What the author of this article is trying to point out to runners is that they shouldn't try to overhydrate beforehand to compensate for what they may lose while running. So, no the concept as it is presented in this article does not really apply to everyday water consumption and hydration for the general population, under everyday conditions.
|
CodeMonkey
Senior Member
|
Posted: 26 September 2007 05:24 pm |
|
I watched The Biggest Loser last night for the first time. I wish I had read these posts before watching it. I want the 2 hours of my life back that I wasted watching that show.
I wondered about the rapid weight loss. People were all upset for losing 3 pounds a week, where I'd be excited. The 10+ pounds lost in one week made me realize this was strictly for entertainment. I had hoped I would learn something by watching this show. What's scary is some people may watch that show and think this is the way to go to lose weight.
The first time I realized the show was #%@&! was when they allowed each person to enter a room and eat anything they want for 4 minutes. The person who consumed the most calories in that 4 minute slot would win and be able to knock 3 pounds off their weight at the end of the week. The table was filled with all kinds of high-calorie foods, all over the place. Most of them just looked at it and walked out. A few of them pigged out, stuffing their faces with all kinds of junk. One woman didn't eat anything, but did put a little bit of frosting from a cupcake on the side of her mouth so when she walked out they would think she gave in. Now that's something I would have done!
Anyway, I won't watch that show again. I have better things to do.
|
Dazed1
New Member
| Joined: | 12 August 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 75 |
|
Posted: 27 September 2007 01:27 am |
|
I like the show, and I think it has been an inspiration to a lot of people. It is not easy to lose 3 lbs in a week. I just questioned some of the early weight loss figures, specifically the 31 lbs lost by the 62 year old guy, who, by the way, was voted off last night. This despite the fact that he has lost the most amount of weight on the show. I try to think of this as getting rid of weight instead of losing it, because if you lose something you usually try to find it again, and if you get rid of it you don't want it anymore. 
|
suenos
Moderator
|
Posted: 10 November 2007 03:00 pm |
|
I get a bi-weekly newsletter...this week's offering was an article based on comments from a former contestant on Biggest Loser ......I thought what the former contestant had to say would be interesting to a lot of people on this forum...but I didn't think it was "right" to either simply copy & post the whole thing or post the link (because you have to register with the site to receive access to the newsletter...but darnit I still want to share the info!! So I figured (hopefully correctly) that a good compromise would be just summarizing, but not directly quoting the info provided by the former contestant.
According to the former contestant:
The contestants worked out a total average of 4 hours a day, 6 days a week....one hour cardio in the am & 1 hour cardio in the pm without trainers & 2 hours in the afternoon on a circuit resistance (combo of weights/cardio) with trainers - a 75%cardio/25% weights split.
The goal was to lose 1lb a day....and in a neat observation of when "more is not better"....one of the contestants decided on their own to work out 6 hours a day and drop cals down to 500 - he only lost 3lbs that week but everyone else who ate more & worked out less averaged 7-10 lbs.
They typically worked out at 75-90% of max heart rates when with trainers and 65-85% when working without trainers.
The trainers provided nutrition advice, but the contestants were responsible for preparing all of their own meals.
Although the episodes make it look like it's a weekly weight-in, in reality it's condensed for the season's airing schedule so some weeks there were actually 14 days between weigh-ins (putting some of those huge scale drops in a different perspective).
Even though it's been two years since he/she was on the show, the former contestant says he/she has to keep weight in check by a lot of exercise (both cardio & weights) as well as either daily food tracking via a food diary or simply eat the same things every day.
He/she alluded to some scale manipulation going on via water/glycogen/sodium loading/depletion (but we all knew that anyway after this current season).
He/she said that he/she is constantly continuing to read, learn and experiment with food intake/exercise and said that the reason others former contestants tend to gain the weight back after the show is they stop engaging in the learning process post weight loss.
|
DaniMae1
Senior Member
|
Posted: 6 March 2008 11:20 am |
|
| In reality, who can exercise 4 hours a day, 6 days a week???!!! This show is entertaining, but that's about it.
|
Tratra
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 6 March 2008 03:34 pm |
|
| I think the point is, they need a real kick-start to get going, and seeing the big losses is a huge motivation for them. It also gets them in the fitness mindset, and shows them they can do a whole lot more than they once thought. I'm sure not too many of them keep it up once back in the 'real world', but at least they have the tools and are well on their way!
|
Current time is 07:55 am | |
|
