WOW!!!! 10 Pounds in one week...
Options
Replies
-
considering 1 Lb of fat = 3,500 calories I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that most of that 10 lb loss was water. You know...science and stuff. Nobody loses 10 Lbs of lard in a week.
they were in week 7 or 8
He is saying it is not all fat. weighing in while dehydrated could show a drastic loss on anyone. Doesn't mean it's actually a fat loss.
Not even remotely suggesting that I think anything about the Biggest Loser is healthy. That said...
In week 1, when they're losing 20+ pounds a piece, yes, probably most of that is absolutely water weight. However, if they're dehydrated every weigh in, then the change from week to week *can't* be water weight, right? Because if they were dehydrated at the point of the last weigh in, then there's no water weight to lose at the next weigh in? Or at least very little. You know what I mean?
I see what you're saying. It kind of makes sense but dehydration isn't black and white. There are varying levels, which would explain how some weeks they lose 7 lbs and some weeks they lose 20 pounds.
Having said that, wouldn't the editors aim for the most drastic possible results? We can't fully know but if a *week is subjective than maybe levels of hydration are also controlled for dramatic effect.
Now I'm sounding like a conspiracy theorist :ohwell:
No, you're probably right. My understanding is that the trainers are the ones who decide/direct whether/how much to dehydrate the contestants. And that they record the weights long before they do the "weigh-in" scene - sometimes even the day before. It wouldn't shock me if the producers weighed the contestants at strategic times to decide at what point to end the "week" in order to provide the most drama, and/or used that info to make "suggestions" to the trainers about what to do.
Yup, total conspiracy theorist. Shall I send you a tinfoil hat? I have a few extras.
0 -
considering 1 Lb of fat = 3,500 calories I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that most of that 10 lb loss was water. You know...science and stuff. Nobody loses 10 Lbs of lard in a week.
they were in week 7 or 8
He is saying it is not all fat. weighing in while dehydrated could show a drastic loss on anyone. Doesn't mean it's actually a fat loss.
Not even remotely suggesting that I think anything about the Biggest Loser is healthy. That said...
In week 1, when they're losing 20+ pounds a piece, yes, probably most of that is absolutely water weight. However, if they're dehydrated every weigh in, then the change from week to week *can't* be water weight, right? Because if they were dehydrated at the point of the last weigh in, then there's no water weight to lose at the next weigh in? Or at least very little. You know what I mean?
I see what you're saying. It kind of makes sense but dehydration isn't black and white. There are varying levels, which would explain how some weeks they lose 7 lbs and some weeks they lose 20 pounds.
Having said that, wouldn't the editors aim for the most drastic possible results? We can't fully know but if a *week is subjective than maybe levels of hydration are also controlled for dramatic effect.
Now I'm sounding like a conspiracy theorist :ohwell:
No, you're probably right. My understanding is that the trainers are the ones who decide/direct whether/how much to dehydrate the contestants. And that they record the weights long before they do the "weigh-in" scene - sometimes even the day before. It wouldn't shock me if the producers weighed the contestants strategically throughout the "week" to decide at what point would provide the most drama, and/or used that info to make "suggestions" to the trainers about what to do.
Yup, total conspiracy theorist. Shall I send you a tinfoil hat? I have a few extras.
I've recently made my own. Mulder would be proud.0 -
considering 1 Lb of fat = 3,500 calories I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that most of that 10 lb loss was water. You know...science and stuff. Nobody loses 10 Lbs of lard in a week.
they were in week 7 or 8
He is saying it is not all fat. weighing in while dehydrated could show a drastic loss on anyone. Doesn't mean it's actually a fat loss.
Not even remotely suggesting that I think anything about the Biggest Loser is healthy. That said...
In week 1, when they're losing 20+ pounds a piece, yes, probably most of that is absolutely water weight. However, if they're dehydrated every weigh in, then the change from week to week *can't* be water weight, right? Because if they were dehydrated at the point of the last weigh in, then there's no water weight to lose at the next weigh in? Or at least very little. You know what I mean?
I see what you're saying. It kind of makes sense but dehydration isn't black and white. There are varying levels, which would explain how some weeks they lose 7 lbs and some weeks they lose 20 pounds.
Having said that, wouldn't the editors aim for the most drastic possible results? We can't fully know but if a *week is subjective than maybe levels of hydration are also controlled for dramatic effect.
Now I'm sounding like a conspiracy theorist :ohwell:
Water weight can be very tricky...I easily fluctuate 2-5 Lbs either way per day. I've had my official weigh ins and been 5 lbs heavier than I was the previous week...only to be 7 Lbs lighter the very next day...it's water.
1 Lb of fat = 3,500 calories. This isn't opinion...don't believe me, just do some research...it's science. To put it in perspective...to lose 10 Lbs of fat in a week, one would have to have a 35,000 calorie deficit per week...that's a deficit of 5,000 per day for 7 days. My maintenance level of calories is 2,600 calories roughly...so, I'd have to net a NEGATIVE (- 2,400) calories per day to accomplish a loss of 10 Lbs of fat in a week...frankly, I'd be dead or very near death in 7 days.0 -
The biggest loser show has the contestants eat 1200 calories six days a week and on the seventh day they get 2000. Jillian claims this "cheat" day keeps their metabolism guessing so they don't plateau. The "starvation" factor is way over played here sometimes - there are many AWESOME and informative threads on this subject. It takes a lot of time to put your body into starvation mode and if you are carrying 200lbs of extra fat your body is going to use it instead of going into starvation mode.
To say that quick weight loss is better or worse, I think the big difference really is that when you do is slowly and as a "lifestyle" change it is more likely to become habit. When you do anything "quickly" it is a temporary fix and people often think "Oh once I lose this weight I can go back to eating Big Macs three times a day." We all know that is not the case.
In favor of TBL they are trying to teach the contestants how to make the right choices as habit. They are pushing them to show them they CAN do it. However many of them probably do gain the weight back because they don't have the disipline to keep it up on their own after the show. That said I bet if you did a poll of MFP losers who have been away from MFP for awhile you would find similar weight gain percentages.0 -
considering 1 Lb of fat = 3,500 calories I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that most of that 10 lb loss was water. You know...science and stuff. Nobody loses 10 Lbs of lard in a week.
they were in week 7 or 8
He is saying it is not all fat. weighing in while dehydrated could show a drastic loss on anyone. Doesn't mean it's actually a fat loss.
Not even remotely suggesting that I think anything about the Biggest Loser is healthy. That said...
In week 1, when they're losing 20+ pounds a piece, yes, probably most of that is absolutely water weight. However, if they're dehydrated every weigh in, then the change from week to week *can't* be water weight, right? Because if they were dehydrated at the point of the last weigh in, then there's no water weight to lose at the next weigh in? Or at least very little. You know what I mean?
I see what you're saying. It kind of makes sense but dehydration isn't black and white. There are varying levels, which would explain how some weeks they lose 7 lbs and some weeks they lose 20 pounds.
Having said that, wouldn't the editors aim for the most drastic possible results? We can't fully know but if a *week is subjective than maybe levels of hydration are also controlled for dramatic effect.
Now I'm sounding like a conspiracy theorist :ohwell:
Water weight can be very tricky...I easily fluctuate 2-5 Lbs either way per day. I've had my official weigh ins and been 5 lbs heavier than I was the previous week...only to be 7 Lbs lighter the very next day...it's water.
1 Lb of fat = 3,500 calories. This isn't opinion...don't believe me, just do some research...it's science. To put it in perspective...to lose 10 Lbs of fat in a week, one would have to have a 35,000 calorie deficit per week...that's a deficit of 5,000 per day for 7 days. My maintenance level of calories is 2,600 calories roughly...so, I'd have to net a NEGATIVE (- 2,400) calories per day to accomplish a loss of 10 Lbs of fat in a week...frankly, I'd be dead or very near death in 7 days.
I liked what was said in the earlier post... weigh ins could be conducted daily, but shown when participants are at the lowest weight of the week. I weigh daily so that I can monitor water fluctuations.0 -
Very true, I watch the show off and on, and I was thinking the same thing!! Who actually sticks with the weight loss, and who turns around and puts it all back on?0
-
1 Lb of fat = 3,500 calories. This isn't opinion...don't believe me, just do some research...it's science. To put it in perspective...to lose 10 Lbs of fat in a week, one would have to have a 35,000 calorie deficit per week...that's a deficit of 5,000 per day for 7 days. My maintenance level of calories is 2,600 calories roughly...so, I'd have to net a NEGATIVE (- 2,400) calories per day to accomplish a loss of 10 Lbs of fat in a week...frankly, I'd be dead or very near death in 7 days.
You and me both but if you are someone who has been eating 6,000 calories/day - your body is used to that so when you cut down to 1200 calories/day you have a deficit of 4800 calories/day. That's a weekly 33,600 add another 500 calories/day burned in exercise and you have a 37,000 calories deficit! It is possible (not recommended but possible).
And although 6,000 calories seems like a lot I saw a woman on Maury who ate 3lbs of Bacon, a loaf of bread, a bowl of cereal and a stack pancakes every morning for breakfast. That doesn't even add in to what she ate the rest of the day, she was upward of 450lbs. She had been doing it for years so to cut back to 1200 calories would definately caused a HUGE deficit for her.0 -
1 Lb of fat = 3,500 calories. This isn't opinion...don't believe me, just do some research...it's science. To put it in perspective...to lose 10 Lbs of fat in a week, one would have to have a 35,000 calorie deficit per week...that's a deficit of 5,000 per day for 7 days. My maintenance level of calories is 2,600 calories roughly...so, I'd have to net a NEGATIVE (- 2,400) calories per day to accomplish a loss of 10 Lbs of fat in a week...frankly, I'd be dead or very near death in 7 days.
You and me both but if you are someone who has been eating 6,000 calories/day - your body is used to that so when you cut down to 1200 calories/day you have a deficit of 4800 calories/day. That's a weekly 33,600 add another 500 calories/day burned in exercise and you have a 37,000 calories deficit! It is possible (not recommended but possible).
And although 6,000 calories seems like a lot I saw a woman on Maury who ate 3lbs of Bacon, a loaf of bread, a bowl of cereal and a stack pancakes every morning for breakfast. That doesn't even add in to what she ate the rest of the day, she was upward of 450lbs. She had been doing it for years so to cut back to 1200 calories would definately caused a HUGE deficit for her.
That's terrifying! I couldn't eat that much in a day!0 -
The biggest loser show has the contestants eat 1200 calories six days a week and on the seventh day they get 2000. Jillian claims this "cheat" day keeps their metabolism guessing so they don't plateau. The "starvation" factor is way over played here sometimes - there are many AWESOME and informative threads on this subject. It takes a lot of time to put your body into starvation mode and if you are carrying 200lbs of extra fat your body is going to use it instead of going into starvation mode.
To say that quick weight loss is better or worse, I think the big difference really is that when you do is slowly and as a "lifestyle" change it is more likely to become habit. When you do anything "quickly" it is a temporary fix and people often think "Oh once I lose this weight I can go back to eating Big Macs three times a day." We all know that is not the case.
In favor of TBL they are trying to teach the contestants how to make the right choices as habit. They are pushing them to show them they CAN do it. However many of them probably do gain the weight back because they don't have the disipline to keep it up on their own after the show. That said I bet if you did a poll of MFP losers who have been away from MFP for awhile you would find similar weight gain percentages.
I agree...0 -
Makes you wonder, doesn't it? I'm sure part of that has got to be water weight... either way, not sustainable in the long run and people who have to try and lose weight while also going to work, raising a family, etc, etc, etc. (ie: NOT on a secluded ranch) should probs not measure their success off of someone like this.0
-
I saw an interview where one woman said that they made her eat nothing but asparagus the day before weigh-in. Asparagus is a natural diuretic. It would just make you pee so much that you'd lose lots of water-weight for sure.0
-
Sure. You can lose 10 pounds with docotrs around, and nutritionists, and trainers, etc. You can. We have seen it. What I am worried about is, for the average person watching that doesn't understand what is going on with all that support, and really is trying to lose weight like they see on TV, it is setting them up for failure. Of course, steady weight lose and improved lifetime fitness wouldn't make such dramatic TV.
It's like that show where they rebuild these mansion for people who have lived in sub-par situations. Rebuilding a decent, manageable house doesn't makes as much of a visual impact as building them over-the-top monster homes with everything...and then they can't afford it down the road.
I get what you are saying, I just think it isn't good.0 -
That's terrifying! I couldn't eat that much in a day!
I could eat that much. Look at Michael Phelps. He works out 6 hours a day and supposedly his daily caloric intake is 8-9k
(edit) at least when he was still training for the olympics0 -
The biggest loser is such a joke. Having personally known people on the show, the weigh-ins for one "week" can be much longer than a week. Don't get caught up in the non-reality of reality tv!0
-
Judging by the people who've kept large amounts of I'd say their metabolism are fine. People worry about that way too much in my opinion. Eating 400 calories and netting 400 calories is totally different and a concept many don't understand.i hate t think of the damage they are doing to their metabolism while on that show. if they thought it was bad before... yikes
netting 400 calories is in no way healthy. period.
Depends on your weight. It's fine if your very overweight. It reversed my high blood pressure , high heart rate and reversed my type 2.diabetes. Once you get close to goal it isn't healthy, but when over weight it's fine I've worked with many professionals, and my stats show it's done me good. My bloods are now perfect. I know once I get to 180lbs I'll increase calories, but for now it's absolutely fine, just as it is for BL contestants.
Also on 6 months bed rest, I maintained weight whilst eating a good amount, so my metabolism is fine. I'm not saying 400 net is right forever, but it's fie when you have a lot to lose!
YES! YES! and YES!!. VLCD has very little effect on metabolism. Yes it slows...a little. And yes, it rebounds fast....very fast, as soon as the calorie restriction is lifted. Yes!. A VLCD can be good in specific cases...but for anyone needing to lose less than 75lbs. stick to the basics.0 -
Edit: should have quoted...will fix later.0
-
The biggest loser show has the contestants eat 1200 calories six days a week and on the seventh day they get 2000. Jillian claims this "cheat" day keeps their metabolism guessing so they don't plateau. The "starvation" factor is way over played here sometimes - there are many AWESOME and informative threads on this subject. It takes a lot of time to put your body into starvation mode and if you are carrying 200lbs of extra fat your body is going to use it instead of going into starvation mode.
To say that quick weight loss is better or worse, I think the big difference really is that when you do is slowly and as a "lifestyle" change it is more likely to become habit. When you do anything "quickly" it is a temporary fix and people often think "Oh once I lose this weight I can go back to eating Big Macs three times a day." We all know that is not the case.
In favor of TBL they are trying to teach the contestants how to make the right choices as habit. They are pushing them to show them they CAN do it. However many of them probably do gain the weight back because they don't have the disipline to keep it up on their own after the show. That said I bet if you did a poll of MFP losers who have been away from MFP for awhile you would find similar weight gain percentages.
I totally agree with this. I actually think that promoting a "cheat day to keep the metabolism guessing so you don't plateau" is really just a good way to provide some relief from the dieting without creating guilt. Several years ago I lost a significant amount of weight with "Body for Life" and that lifestyle includes that "cheat day" for the same reason. It was always a day to look forward to and you don't have the guilt because you believe you are keeping your body out of starvation mode. True or not, it provides a release day from never having some of those foods you so enjoy. And it makes it easier to accept your diet and exercise as a lifestyle change instead of just a short term "diet".0 -
90% of them have gained a significant amount of weight back. Like other diets and programs of fast weight loss, only a certain percentage of people will carry on.The measure of weight loss success is not in how fast you lose it, but in whether you manage to keep it off.
It'd be interesting to see a study of all Bigger Loser contestants 5 years down the line to see how many of them have maintained their loss.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I lost 10lbs in one month last summer (the healthy way!) and thought that was an accomplishment.
I'd be too scared if I dropped that amount in one week. Most of it was probably water weight, but it doesn't seem safe to me to pursue that kind of weight loss...even if you're on a show with doctors monitoring everything.
I wish the Biggest Loser documented their process more clearly. I feel like they set unrealistic expectations on that show.0 -
The goals you set for yourself in MFP seem MUCH MORE realistic and doable than what TBL participants have to undergo. I agree though that it would be a fascinating study to compile all of the data from willing MFP users' reports...I know not everyone is as diligent as they could be using MFP but it would be nice to see where the numbers fall for those who have left MFP and for medium- and long-term users of MFP. What went into that Consumer Reports report? I wonder if they studied long-term weight loss.
On a personal note, I can't stand TBL. I think it's absurd and irresponsible to train people like that all for the bottom line...unfortunately watching someone transform through slow, steady, and healthy weight loss, increased strength, and real emotional/behavioral changes doesn't appeal to many. We want tooth fairy results and we want them right away. And that pile of crap is what sells.
When is the food industry going to take a beating like the tobacco industry????? For the most part, this industry loves and thrives off of obesity. Someone should study the role obesity plays in our economy in the U.S. - both consumerism and the health care costs. That would be a good read.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 935 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions