Biggest Loser Finale...what is going on??
Options
Replies
-
For their health? It's not exactly healthy for the average person to lose that much weight in that short a time.I find it interesting that so many people have said that they would do this (put 100+% into losing weight) to win $250,000. But they seem to have more of a problem doing this (losing weight) purely for their health.
Does that mean that people now value cash more than health?
Plus if you put 100% into losing weight, that means you're putting 0% into your job, 0% into your family and 0% into the other things they enjoy doing.
There was no advocating of the methods used by the biggest loser above. And no, putting 100% into losing weight does not mean you cant focus on the other aspects of your life. It just means you carve out time and 100% devote that time to working out and giving it your full effort and being devoted to eating a healthy, balanced diet. Millions of healthy people and people trying to get healthy do this every day and still have jobs, families, and a social life. When I work out, I put 100% into it (otherwise why do it?). Does that mean when its time to go to work that im putting 0% into it because I already put everything into my workout? No.0 -
I was 110 lbs at 5'7". I was fine. She doesn't look sickly.
The whole point of that show is to lose the most to win all that cash. I'm sure she will gain some weight back anyways. It happens to most of us when we are done losing. :P
It's sweet, sweet cash. I'd do the same. Unfortunately I don't have 50% to lose, lol.
I dont get why people are comparing their low weight to Rachel's. If a low weight is healthy on you, thats great. Its not healthy on Rachel. And when youre already 150 lbs, theres nothing healthy about losing 15lbs a month for 3 months. If you actually watched the show, you would see the complete lack of muscle mass in her arms and shoulders (and this girl used to be a competitive swimmer!). You would see the deep wrinkles in her face and realize how uncombertable it was to watch her talk and see that her extreme measures aged her when she had a young, vibrant look before she left the ranch.0 -
Did people really expect that this wasn't going to happen? Using money as a motivator to lose weight will make people do silly things rather than the want of losing weight for health reasons. The downside of competition and reality shows.0
-
Rachel was my favorite!!! I, too, was shocked and saddened by how Rachel looked at the finale. She is clearly an athlete as evidenced throughout her time on the show. She looked amazing on the last show before the fiinale. In my humble opinion, she is scared about being overweight again and has taken the exercise thing too far. Hopefully, she will gain back at least 10 pounds and keep it healthy.0
-
I guess you and I have different opinions on what 100% means.
For their health? It's not exactly healthy for the average person to lose that much weight in that short a time.I find it interesting that so many people have said that they would do this (put 100+% into losing weight) to win $250,000. But they seem to have more of a problem doing this (losing weight) purely for their health.
Does that mean that people now value cash more than health?
Plus if you put 100% into losing weight, that means you're putting 0% into your job, 0% into your family and 0% into the other things they enjoy doing.
There was no advocating of the methods used by the biggest loser above. And no, putting 100% into losing weight does not mean you cant focus on the other aspects of your life. It just means you carve out time and 100% devote that time to working out and giving it your full effort and being devoted to eating a healthy, balanced diet. Millions of healthy people and people trying to get healthy do this every day and still have jobs, families, and a social life. When I work out, I put 100% into it (otherwise why do it?). Does that mean when its time to go to work that im putting 0% into it because I already put everything into my workout? No.0 -
Uh no you weren't. Sorry, but that's considered well underweight for your height.I was 110 lbs at 5'7". I was fine. She doesn't look sickly.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I guess you and I have different opinions on what 100% means.
For their health? It's not exactly healthy for the average person to lose that much weight in that short a time.I find it interesting that so many people have said that they would do this (put 100+% into losing weight) to win $250,000. But they seem to have more of a problem doing this (losing weight) purely for their health.
Does that mean that people now value cash more than health?
Plus if you put 100% into losing weight, that means you're putting 0% into your job, 0% into your family and 0% into the other things they enjoy doing.
There was no advocating of the methods used by the biggest loser above. And no, putting 100% into losing weight does not mean you cant focus on the other aspects of your life. It just means you carve out time and 100% devote that time to working out and giving it your full effort and being devoted to eating a healthy, balanced diet. Millions of healthy people and people trying to get healthy do this every day and still have jobs, families, and a social life. When I work out, I put 100% into it (otherwise why do it?). Does that mean when its time to go to work that im putting 0% into it because I already put everything into my workout? No.
:laugh:0 -
I was 110 lbs at 5'7". I was fine. She doesn't look sickly.
The whole point of that show is to lose the most to win all that cash. I'm sure she will gain some weight back anyways. It happens to most of us when we are done losing. :P
It's sweet, sweet cash. I'd do the same. Unfortunately I don't have 50% to lose, lol.
I dont get why people are comparing their low weight to Rachel's. If a low weight is healthy on you, thats great. Its not healthy on Rachel. And when youre already 150 lbs, theres nothing healthy about losing 15lbs a month for 3 months. If you actually watched the show, you would see the complete lack of muscle mass in her arms and shoulders (and this girl used to be a competitive swimmer!). You would see the deep wrinkles in her face and realize how uncombertable it was to watch her talk and see that her extreme measures aged her when she had a young, vibrant look before she left the ranch.
Good point.0 -
I felt sad when she walked out. I remember her talking about her competitive swimming before she gained a lot of weight, and trying to find that athlete girl again. She seemed to have found that girl when she ran the triathlon, and she sure looked it at 150 with 19% bf... Then three months and 45 pounds later it seems like she lost all her muscle.0
-
At 5'4" and 105 lbs her BMI is 18.0. At 5'2" that would be 98.5 lbs.
Yes, you are correct about the BMI calculation. But I said my body fat percentage was 19%. This is different than BMI. My BMI is 19.2.
Rachel's fat percentage looks to be considerably lower than 19%.0 -
At 5'4" and 105 lbs her BMI is 18.0. At 5'2" that would be 98.5 lbs.
Yes, you are correct about the BMI calculation. But I said my body fat percentage was 19%. This is different than BMI. My BMI is 19.2.
Rachel's fat percentage looks to be considerably lower than 19%.
In the last episode, while on the ranch, her fat percentage was 19%, not on the finale!0 -
I'm not concerned about the weight, on the scale so much as Rachel is only slightly underweight HOWEVER she lost a ton of muscle and that concerns me for her long term health. If Rachel had not lost the muscle she would have lost the contest to another cast member. From what I read contestants are not followed by their trainers after they leave the ranch. They say the contestants are monitored by a physician but I wonder how closely after they leave the ranch are they monitored.
The Biggest Loser is a great concept EXCEPT the weight loss is measured only by the number on the scale. If contests like these focussed more on %fat loss rather than %total weight loss then contestants would be forced to make healthy choices that would serve them long term.
To say I'm disappointed would be an understatement because I used to be inspired by the show. I did not know that all that went on behind the scenes. Now, it makes sense why they have been spending more camera time on the workouts than the kitchen. I will still watch the show because I like seeing all the different exercises they do and I enjoy the stories behind the contestants. I also enjoy watching how they used their time on the ranch to invest in their future.0 -
......0
-
Yep, this.I am the one that started this topic and it was not set up to bash anyone thin or fat. I do think that this episode is going to raise the concern that a lot of people have had with the show as far as health. Do I think that someone can be underweight and be healthy? YES! Do I think that some can be overweight and healthy? YES! But beyond that, there gets to a point where unhealthy is unhealthy no matter how you tip the scale. On the skinny side, yes Nicole Richie is thin, but she is a slender healthy thin. What we saw tonight on Biggest Loser was a different level, at least what I saw. If we are too afraid to say it when we see it, then we are just as big as a problem than the people who call others "fat" or "twiggy". Its not about that...it is about being HEALTHY.
What makes you think that she is unhealthy? It said she was at 19% bodyfat. If that is unhealthy, then I guess I have one foot in the grave, and jillian 6 feet under. Yet I'm willing to bet that Rachel could probably outrun the majority of people making the negative comments about her.
Yes, she is very thin. But she is far from anorexic. And judging by the amount of negative comments on here and the internet in general, we have a huge perception problem in this country when it comes to what "healthy" looks like.0 -
I would just like to point out that on Access Hollywood Rachel stated her height as 5'5". So, therefore, she was 9-10 pounds underweight, not 3 as many have stated (and this is not subtracting any extra skin she may have). Her BMI was 17.5, not 18.0. A good meal would not have brought her up to a "normal" weight, unless it consisted of an entire buffet.0
-
I agree that some people on here defending her may be projecting their own issues or similarities. This thread to me isn't about a specific weight and height. Its about a specific weight and height as it applies to a specific person, Rachel. Because if you do not see that clearly Rachel does not look well and not well as in looks, but not well as in health, then I don't know what else you need to see that she isn't healthy. Bob knew this as did Jillian and that is why they looked the way they did when she came out and why they posted what they did ion their Facebook pages.
I for one identified with Rachel a lot, I really liked her and still do. This is why I am concerned for her and her health. Now, we don't know if she did it to win, or she has a serious problem. Doing what she did to get down to that weight isn't good either but would be better understandable, but if she truly doesn't know she's gone too far, that's a big issue and concern.0 -
To be honest it doesn't matter. Even if she did look ridiculously underweight, which she doesn't, for all we know it's just to win the competition. That's what the show's about and always has been. If I was on it I'd be aiming for as small as I could getI would just like to point out that on Access Hollywood Rachel stated her height as 5'5". So, therefore, she was 9-10 pounds underweight, not 3 as many have stated (and this is not subtracting any extra skin she may have). Her BMI was 17.5, not 18.0. A good meal would not have brought her up to a "normal" weight, unless it consisted of an entire buffet.0 -
Sorry I just read the post before mine, defending her for what exactly? For doing well at a competition? Or defending her against concerned people talking about how foul she looks? Yeah I'm definitely projecting my own issues0
-
chiming in again. I am not going to read this entire thread to see if this has been posted already so excuse me if I am rehashing.
IIRC they had her at 19%bf while sitting at 150 pounds. That means at that time she had 121.5 pounds of lean body mass which means she lost a bunch of muscle.0 -
Yes, she lost muscle. And her bf% is well below 19% (maybe down in the 12% range). You can see that her skin is sucked tightly against her small muscles. She lost muscle and fat (that is not a good goal in my personal opinion). This is not an example of "skinny fat", this is an example of very skinny. I can't diagnose her. I don't know why she chose what she chose. But, that is what anorexia looks like in a fairly extreme level (not fatal extreme). I'm not being judgmental. You can look at my photos, I am petite and small framed at 102 pounds, but I'm healthy for my very small frame.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 397 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 975 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions