Why is it that people on the Biggest loser etc

ladyhawk00

so are you saying that the people on the biggest loser arent losing weight in a healthy way?

Remember that the people on these shows have HUGE amounts of fat to lose. The more fat you have to lose, the higher calorie deficit your body can withstand. Someone with 100+ lbs to lose can better handle a 1500-2000 cal deficit per day, whereas someone with only 50 lbs to lose CANNOT handle more than maybe a 1000 cal deficit, and probably only 500.

Also, keep in mind that a LOT of the people on the shows regain some or all of their weight (or more) after the show ends. AND, they are there for a very limited amount of time, the rate at which they lose is NOT that fast once they get home. Much as I appreciate the fact that BL and other shows inspire people to lose weight, trying to compare the average person's situation and rate of weightloss to the show is simply unrealistic. And, as noted, they are monitored by dieticians and doctors. Unless you are as well, you should NOT be attempting the same strategies.

Here are some great threads that explain metabolism and why eating too little will slow it down, not speed it up.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/61706-guide-to-calorie-deficits

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/10589-for-those-confused-or-questioning-eating-your-exercise-calo

MisdemeanorM

One post was right that the (short-term) rules do change some when you are jump starting the metabolism of a severely overweight person. But also, how long does the show take? A couple months? There are people who net 500 or 700 calories a day for years and can't figure out why they can't lose fat - that's a little different than 1 or 2 months. Shaking up your intake for a couple months, especially when you are that large, is different than say someone at 210 consistently eating 1200 calories a day and burning off 800 or more of them. I'm also not sure what the calorie intake for the show is. I know they are eating really balanced and good meals, but they might be eating a good 2500 calories a day, just because it's a salad or fish doesn't mean there are not some high calorie foods in there like nuts or avacados that are packing in some healthy calories onto the contestants.

Plus - Just remember - 1200 is NOT a magic #. I stall if I eat below about 1400 or 1500 net. Some people, based on their body, might be lower or higher a #. 1200 is just a general # people throw out there. The general concept of eating back your exercise calories is solid (or, in other words eating to your daily energy needs level, minus a small amount for weight loss - notice how if you list your activity level as "active" you get to eat more than if you are listed as "sedentary"? That makes sense right? Well, that is the exact same thing as eating your exercise calories, it just goes on the assumption that you exercise / are active every day so it builds it in.)

wolfchild59

I've never watched the Biggest Loser, so I can't comment on what they're doing.

But I look at this way, I watch the Olympics every two years. I love 'em, watch everything, including all of the random stories and news bits in between all the events. Every single time, there is at least one news story where they talk about the Olympic atheletes in training and how much they eat while in full training mode. Depending on the sport and the training, most of the atheletes days consist of 2500 all the way up to 4000 calories a day. I think that Michael Phelps was eating about 3500 a day when he was in full olympic training.

So if eating back a sizable chunk of their exercise calories works for Olympic atheletes, then it's probably a good enough for me to try.

And I'll say this, I'd been completely plateaued for over a month when I was eating around 1400 calories a day - keeping in mind that was only netting me about 800-900 calories a day. So I upped it to between 1600-1800 a day, depending on the day and the workout. I wasn't eating back 100% of my exercise calories (since I don't have an HRM and use the machine readings after entering age and weight) since I wanted a buffer in case the machines were wrong. But I started losing again when I upped my calories.

idahogirl71

I have been watching the Biggest Loser for 10 seasons now and have tried out twice to go on the show. They work out an average of 6-8 hrs daily and they are consuming well over 1500 calories a day to have the energy to do so. Bob & Jillian both tell them when they have a low weight loss week that they need to get their calories. Most of the people on there were consuming well over 5000 calories a day at home. I mean there is one contestant this season that had a pizza delivered to his house every night for dinner, he didn't even have to call them, they just delivered it. He said it was a large with everything. And that was just one his meals.
3500 calories equals 1 pound so in order to drop one pound a week you need to eliminate 3500 calories from your diet each week. I went to a trainer & nutritionist who did a full-body evaluation on me. It showed that at my weight my body needs 1900 just to survive. I was placed on a 900-1000 calorie program and lost 36 during the first 45 days. It has slowed down since then and I am down 13 pounds since joining this site about 3 weeks ago. It is not what you eat that matters, but rather how much you eat. You can still eat treats, in fact it is recommended because if you deprive yourself you will give up.
And as they show on the Biggest Loser, it is not only about the food and exercise. It is also psychological. Anyone can lose weight, but to keep it off you must find out the reason you overate to begin with. I want to be a personal trainer/psychologist once I get my extra weight off. I am a Psychology major now working toward that and I can tell you from experience that once I got my emotional garbage out the way, the eating healthy followed suit.

nuttybuttersmommy

First of all I have read every ones comments and some are just plain rude... If your not going to post helpful things in a helpful way then you should keep your mouth shut....

Ok to answer the original post... Please do keep in mind that not every thing is going to be shown on the biggest looser, they may actually eat more than what they tell you they do...

But the way cals intake works is you have to have a min of 1200 cals a day... this website is designed to help you try and figure out about how many cals you need to eat a day... my intake is about 1450. my goal is to eat the 1450... if I exercise and earn 200 extra cals it is up to me if I want to eat them. some days I am hungry and i eat them others I am not so I dont... it really is up to you... I have spoke to my nutritionist and my Doc and that is what they have told me...

If your still confused I would suggest talking with your doc or a nutritionist...

MisdemeanorM

Depending on the sport and the training, most of the atheletes days consist of 2500 all the way up to 4000 calories a day. I think that Michael Phelps was eating about 3500 a day when he was in full olympic training.

Actually - it's 7000 -12000 per day. :noway:

wolfchild59

Depending on the sport and the training, most of the atheletes days consist of 2500 all the way up to 4000 calories a day. I think that Michael Phelps was eating about 3500 a day when he was in full olympic training.

Actually - it's 7000 -12000 per day. :noway:

Yeah, after I posted that I realized that I'd posted the non-Olympic training calories and was coming back to update it. *facepalm* But yes, the full Olympic training is just what you posted and Michael Phelps was somewhere around 11,000 or so.

I remember them showing his average day of meals and just having my draw drop in amazement. lol

ColeyCannoli

I don't get all the attacking on here. I don't eat my exercise calories cause I'm not hungry. Listen to your body. Eat what you need to and you'll be fine. I lose at least 500 a day at the gym and I'm not going to stuff myself just to meet some arbitrary number meant for THE MOST AVERAGE PERSON EVER.

Why is "do what is best for you and your body" so hard to grasp?

ladyhawk00

I don't get all the attacking on here. I don't eat my exercise calories cause I'm not hungry. Listen to your body. Eat what you need to and you'll be fine. I lose at least 500 a day at the gym and I'm not going to stuff myself just to meet some arbitrary number meant for THE MOST AVERAGE PERSON EVER.

Why is "do what is best for you and your body" so hard to grasp?

Um. Do what works for you. But the cal goals on MFP are NOT calculated for "the average person" - they're calculated for YOU, specifically, based on your height, weight, age, activity level and metabolism. It is far from arbitrary. It may need slight tweaking, but is quite a successful formula (Mifflin - St. Jeor equations), used by doctors, trainers, dieticians and health experts to determine your metabolic rate. It is hardly "pulled out of thin air."

chrisdavey

Do you want to lose weight or FAT?

Biggest Loser people don't care about fat loss hence they eat SFA and exercise a ****load. It's a competition at the end of the day about weight loss not body recomposition. If you wanted to look like a saggy skinned person then following the advice of the biggest loser is a great way to do that (obviously depends on individual circumstances).

ColeyCannoli

I don't get all the attacking on here. I don't eat my exercise calories cause I'm not hungry. Listen to your body. Eat what you need to and you'll be fine. I lose at least 500 a day at the gym and I'm not going to stuff myself just to meet some arbitrary number meant for THE MOST AVERAGE PERSON EVER.

Why is "do what is best for you and your body" so hard to grasp?

Um. Do what works for you. But the cal goals on MFP are NOT calculated for "the average person" - they're calculated for YOU, specifically, based on your height, weight, age, activity level and metabolism. It is far from arbitrary. It may need slight tweaking, but is quite a successful formula (Mifflin - St. Jeor equations), used by doctors, trainers, dieticians and health experts to determine your metabolic rate. It is hardly "pulled out of thin air."

They are helpful guidelines, but the gist of this site is to make a caloric deficit of about 500 calories a week in order to lose the 3,500. Not all humans work to mathematical perfection. Four factors doesn't make it that personalized. They measure your height and weight (which doesn't measure your body fat percentage) and they measure in very general terms your daily life. "Nurse, construction worker" are not the only jobs our there that need high energy, so it would make sense if someone under/over estimated what they need. This is a free site and gives general advice and guidelines. This is not your doctor with your medical records. This is not your trainer who has worked with you for months or years. And this is not, most importantly, YOU.

Do what is best for YOUR body. Not what fits the site which is, I'm sorry, made for the most average person of your height/weight/activity level.


Edit: I should add here that I don't mean to say that the site doesn't work, but that the "tweeking" as you put it comes in handy if you deviate from the average.

ColeyCannoli

Do you want to lose weight or FAT?

Biggest Loser people don't care about fat loss hence they eat SFA and exercise a ****load. It's a competition at the end of the day about weight loss not body recomposition. If you wanted to look like a saggy skinned person then following the advice of the biggest loser is a great way to do that (obviously depends on individual circumstances).

So true

FrenchMob

Just an FYI - Biggest Loser people have 1400 cals for women, 1800 cals for men minimum cals they are required to eat, but it's tailored to each individual and usually ends up being higher than those...again those absolute minimums. That info has been posted several times on different interviews with various past participants.

fuzzymel

A number of times on the show they have told people they had a small loss that week because they were not eating enough calories for the exercise they were doing.

It can be hard for the contestants to grasp at times.

ifychudy

BUMP

runningneo122

I keep reading these people posting abt their dietician or Dr. or PT telling them, "Don't eat your exercise cals." Every, and I mean EVERY, thing I have read says to eat MOST if not ALL of your exercise cals. I dated a woman who was a P/T at a gym and she told me to eat my exercise cals and I lost weight. I continue to wonder why these naysayers CANNOT cite a reliable source or even ANY source whatever. Here's the one I SWEAR by and a couple book reviews:

Burn the Fat, Feed the Mucle by Tom Venuto

http://www.fitnesstipsforlife.com/burn-the-fat-feed-the-muscle-complete-review.html

http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archives/2009/12/cheating_on_your_diet.php

I run every AM and do ISO 3 times a week. Cals burned last week: 10464. I eat close to the goal every day and am dropping 2 pounds per week like clockwork.

Alison_84

From my understanding, the reason you CAN eat your exercise calories is when you first sign up for the site, it asks you all your information.. height, weight, etc, asks you how often and for how long you plan to exercise, and asks you how much you would ideally like to lose per week.
Based on the information you provide, it calculates *roughly* what your BMR would be - and gives you however many calories based on your BMR.

So the calories you have to eat in a day are already at a deficit! (To make you lose whatever you said you wanted to in the first place... 1, 1.5 or 2 pounds a week... aka healthy loss)

So for me, a woman who is 5'6 and 159 pounds, my *estimated* BMR is 1478, and MFP tells me to eat 1350 calories a day to lose ONE pound a week.

Of course this will vary person to person, because the BMR it gives you in the first place is only an ESTIMATE. If your body naturally burns LESS than what it tells you then it makes sense that you would not lose while eating exercise cals - because the deficit given to you in your food diary is not actually a deficit for you...

FearAnLoathing

this is the ONLY place ive ever heard about eating you calories back.

FearAnLoathing

I keep reading these people posting abt their dietician or Dr. or PT telling them, "Don't eat your exercise cals." Every, and I mean EVERY, thing I have read says to eat MOST if not ALL of your exercise cals. I dated a woman who was a P/T at a gym and she told me to eat my exercise cals and I lost weight. I continue to wonder why these naysayers CANNOT cite a reliable source or even ANY source whatever. Here's the one I SWEAR by and a couple book reviews:

Burn the Fat, Feed the Mucle by Tom Venuto

http://www.fitnesstipsforlife.com/burn-the-fat-feed-the-muscle-complete-review.html

http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archives/2009/12/cheating_on_your_diet.php

I run every AM and do ISO 3 times a week. Cals burned last week: 10464. I eat close to the goal every day and am dropping 2 pounds per week like clockwork.

im going by what worked for me when I lost 40 lb and kept it off.

immacookie

I'm not getting involved in the eating your exercise cals debate.... but if you haven't read the interview with former BL contestant Kai, it's rather eye opening to what they go through.

This is part 1... part 2 and 3 are linked within the text of the article...

http://www.bodylovewellness.com/2010/06/09/kai-hibbard-biggest-loser-finalist-part-1-of-3/

stereomad

its not even that simple i.e you burn 600 calories therefore you have 600 more to play with food wise

If you do a high intensity work out, you may burn 600 calories but theres an After Burn Effect,

I saw a documentary once and a guy did 90 mins of work out and burnt the equivalent of 16grams of fat.

But in the following 24-48 hours he burnt an additional 48grams not doing anything. This is because your body keeps the high rate of metabolism as if you were exercising for a period after words. Therefore theoretically your burning much more the next 2 days than you ever did at your original workout.

Thats why weight losses are never scientific enough to work out to any mathematical equation (i.e your net calorie deficit per week is 3500 that means 1lb of fat loss - but ive had calorie deficits of 1000 some weeks and lost 5 or 6 lbs)

the only problem with this is that you need to work damn hard exercising, and then do more each time you exercise as just a 30 minute stroll in the park wont create the after burn effect.

scagneti

I don't get all the attacking on here. I don't eat my exercise calories cause I'm not hungry. Listen to your body. Eat what you need to and you'll be fine. I lose at least 500 a day at the gym and I'm not going to stuff myself just to meet some arbitrary number meant for THE MOST AVERAGE PERSON EVER.

Why is "do what is best for you and your body" so hard to grasp?

My body wants chocolate chip cookies and cheesecake every day. Should I listen to it or to my brain that tells me that if I eat that stuff, I'll get fat? That's the same brain that can't comprehend how people can think that their bodies NEED the same amount of food if they sit around all day or if they burn 800 calories a day working out.


As for the Holocast comparison, obviously if you eat NOTHING all day, you'll lose weight. Your body isn't programmed to never need calories. The camp prisoners ate miniscule calories per day (we're not talking 700-1000 calories a day, we're talking 100-200 of food with very little nutrients). They lost fat (and muscle), their bodies stopped working efficiently and their organs eventually stopped working. So they died. The problem with what people are doing here is that they're feeding their bodies ENOUGH that the body maintains bodily functions (unlike Holocast victims) but because the body is starved, it holds on to the calories it does get (those 800-1000 compared to 100-200) so your body won't efficiently burn fat. So no, starvation mode is not a "myth". Read the thread about gaining on 700 calories a day and it explains it better than I can.

runningneo122

I don't get all the attacking on here. I don't eat my exercise calories cause I'm not hungry. Listen to your body. Eat what you need to and you'll be fine. I lose at least 500 a day at the gym and I'm not going to stuff myself just to meet some arbitrary number meant for THE MOST AVERAGE PERSON EVER.

Why is "do what is best for you and your body" so hard to grasp?

My body wants chocolate chip cookies and cheesecake every day. Should I listen to it or to my brain that tells me that if I eat that stuff, I'll get fat? That's the same brain that can't comprehend how people can think that their bodies NEED the same amount of food if they sit around all day or if they burn 800 calories a day working out.


As for the Holocast comparison, obviously if you eat NOTHING all day, you'll lose weight. Your body isn't programmed to never need calories. The camp prisoners ate miniscule calories per day (we're not talking 700-1000 calories a day, we're talking 100-200 of food with very little nutrients). They lost fat (and muscle), their bodies stopped working efficiently and their organs eventually stopped working. So they died. The problem with what people are doing here is that they're feeding their bodies ENOUGH that the body maintains bodily functions (unlike Holocast victims) but because the body is starved, it holds on to the calories it does get (those 800-1000 compared to 100-200) so your body won't efficiently burn fat. So no, starvation mode is not a "myth". Read the thread about gaining on 700 calories a day and it explains it better than I can.

Absolutely BRILLIANT observation !!!

rileysowner

If you do weight training even on very low calorie diets (700 cal in the one study I read an abstract of) your metabolism will not slow down significantly. (I AM NO RECOMMENDING 700 cal diet nor as far as I know did the people who ran the experiment). The issues are whether you are learning to eat differently than you did before. If you lose weight very quickly, say like the biggest loser contestants, you do not have the time to learn new eating and thinking patterns that will keep you from gaining back the weight. I have been on my weight loss journey for a little over a year now (seriously for more like 7 months) and I am still working on learning new eating habits. It is getting more natural now, but say I had done the biggest loser approach and said I can lose 10-15 pounds a week. In a matter of months I would have been at my goal weight (as opposed to having another few months to go) I would have learned nothing about how to eat or had an of my bad habits changed as there would simply not be enough time to change them. That, not a slowed down metabolism, would have put the weight back on. I would very quickly be back to eating and acting the way I did before thinking I could just take it off again the same way.

kiuney

I'm not getting involved in the eating your exercise cals debate.... but if you haven't read the interview with former BL contestant Kai, it's rather eye opening to what they go through.

This is part 1... part 2 and 3 are linked within the text of the article...

http://www.bodylovewellness.com/2010/06/09/kai-hibbard-biggest-loser-finalist-part-1-of-3/

Wow, thanks for sharing. I suspected some unhealthy things were going on but I had no idea it was that demoralizing. How sad.

As a personal trainer, The Biggest Loser just makes my job so much harder... People are already unrealistic about weight loss and seeing folks lose double digits in a "week" furthers that. I tried watching it two seasons ago and actually quit watching it because I got so irritated when someone would ONLY lose 3 pounds in a week and the trainers would shake their heads disapprovingly and say "You need to step it up." As you all know, in the real world, 3 pounds in a week is a LOT.

rileysowner

and I dont mean to sound confused but yet i am some say you should eat some of your exercise calories and some say not to.. I just dont get which is best

Some do and some don't because I think those that don't just don't understand the concept (not trying to be snarky here). Yes, the common way of thinking about losing weight is to exercise to burn off calories. But you shouldn't reduce your calorie intake AND work out because then your body isn't getting enough fuel.

Think of it this way, say you need 2000 calories a day to stay the same weight you are. You need to eat 500 calories a day less in order to lose a pound a week. So MFP builds that calorie deficit into your daily plan so you are now eating 1500 calorie. Now you could just eat that 1500 calories and lose weight without exercise, but exercise is good because it tones and burns fat faster and improves your cardiovascular health. So if you're going to work out, you've got to eat those calories back so that you are getting enough food. If you burned off an additional 500 calories, your body is then getting a 1000 calorie deficit and your only netting 1000 calories, that's not enough.

Think of your body as a car that needs fuel, as you burn off that fuel, you need to replace it so it can continue to run properly.

I understand the concept just fine, I just happen to disagree with it based on various peer reviewed articles and reading I had done. I don't really want to argue it as either approach will work, but I do take offense at people saying that just because one disagrees with it means they don't understand it. I understand it just fine but realize that measuring the number of calories consumed is not as easy as adding up the numbers on the nutrition labels and measuring the calories burned is not as easy as writing down the number on the readout on the exercise machine or inputing your time in the appropriate exercise on MFP. The calories in are almost always more than the label states, and the calories burned are almost always less than estimated. I'm not even sure a heart rate monitor helps that much although it should be more accurate than the estimates. Either way, based on my research I disagree with the MFP approach at this point. More reading may change my mind, but what I am doing works just fine for me.

ShrinkinMel

Hmm I wondered too especially after seeing the recent one where the board shows 1050 calories or something like that. I was like huh and then they exercise those away. But I'm thinking they have snacks.

I have definite mixed feelings on the show. They also seem to be making people think they can go on and lose double digits each week its just unrealistic. They are monitored and from the body scans losing fat and not just muscle and fat. Its hard to say what happens. I don't think its really 10+ lbs in a week. Former contestants have said it was much longer between weigh ins but I really don't know.

jrbb0309

I've lost 11 pounds so far since joining roughly a month ago. I understand the "eat your exercise calories" and most of the time I do, but that's because it's working for me and I'm seeing progress and because my exercise calories are not extreme. Approx 200-300 a day.

If I found my weight loss really slowed for a significant amount of time, I might reconsider eating my exercise calories for a couple of weeks and see if that made any difference.

If I was working out and burning twice what I do, 400-600, I might only eat half my exercise calories and see how I feel.

*This* is what people mean by doing what works for you. You need to tweak for what works for your body and keeps you motivated and you need to continually tweak as you go and you encounter plateaus and/or your body gets used to what you're doing.

Ideally, if you're eating your 3 meals and 2-3 snacks a day, drinking your 8 - 8 oz. glasses of water, eating enough of your exercise calories to keep your body from going into starvation mode, you should be losing, you should be feeling satisfied (hunger-wise).

Your 3 meals should be 300-400 calories each and your 2-3 snacks should be roughly 100 each, depending on the calories you've been allotted and the amount of exercise you're doing. My figures are based on someone on a 1200-1500 calorie plan.

Protein is really important and I see so many people eating a ton of fruit and veggies and feeling like they're starving. Eat some protein! A handful of nuts, some chicken or turkey breasts, some beans or legumes with your salad, etc. Protein fills you up and you stay full longer. As great as fruit is, it does turn to sugar fairly quickly and you burn it up, feeling hungry much quicker.

Anyway. As for Biggest Loser. I watch it but it annoys me to no end that it's so warped people's sense of what is good and sensible weight loss. Double digits are not normal. Four, five, six pounds a week is not normal. These people have trainers, nutritionists and doctors watching them the whole time. Most of them are *this close* to dropping dead when they go on the show. It's essentially a medical intervention and it does not reflect what most people can do - or should do - at home, on their own.

As long as that scale is going down over a period of a month, be it by a 1/2 pound or by 8 pounds (2 a week maximum), be happy and be pleased with yourself. You're much more likely to have that weight stay off in the long run. If your scale yo-yos, it's likely your sodium intake. Monitor it and see what happens. You'll notice a pattern.

If you diet all week and cheat all weekend, you'll also confuse the heck out of your body and it will become more stubborn about holding onto the pounds. Notice I said cheat all weekend, not have one meal out on a Saturday night where you don't worry about calories.

And lastly, yes, women will notice a huge variance in their weight during the week of their period and the week leading up to it. Whee! That's two weeks out of the month we can expect our scales to be screwy, hence it being better to watch your overall progress, month by month, then to hang on each week's reading.

Sorry for the long-winded response. But when I first joined MFP I thought I would find everyone doing this the "sensible" way with food and exercise and I'm actually stunned by how many people are doing the HCG diet and taking various pills and quick fixes and by how many people aren't even aware of the most basic things about how our bodies work and basic nutrition.

mrscjwilson

Remember the pictures of holocaust death camp survivors? Well they weren't that skinny cause they were eating 6 meals a day, I'll tell you that! "Starvation mode" is really a misnomer: yes, your metabolism will slow down in your body's effort to preserve itself, but if you keep pushing it, it doesn't have a choice but to use that fat supply just to live.

The harm in entering starvation mode isn't that you stop loosing weight, its that when you return to a normal diet, you gain exponentially.

Exactly and you may lose some muscle as well!

mrscjwilson

The majority of the contestants gain a substantial amount of there weigh back...not all of them but a lot!