The Biggest Loser show seems to contradict what were taught
Replies
-
read this;
http://www.bodylovewellness.com/2010/06/16/kai-hibbard-biggest-loser-finalist-part-2-of-3/
but i have to disagree with your number 1 and 4
starvation mode is a myth, and proper nutrition isnt needed to lose weight, its needed to be healthy
[/quote
If you believe 'Starvation Mode' is a myth then you have never seen what children look like who are starving. Their bellies are so huge the circumference is bigger than their height.
Cliff {:{)0 -
The Biggest Loser is a horrible show. They basically torture the contestants. I mean come on, super low calorie intakes for people that big with excessive amounts of exercise? They have got to be starving.
And that's not even it.
They force their contestants to exercise even when they have injuries that should prevent them from exercising.
And on weigh-in days, they don't allow the contestants to eat OR drink anything whatsoever the night before until after they've weighed in the next day.
And because I know people on here will want a source, I will work on finding where I read all this.
Here is that link: http://www.bodylovewellness.com/2010/06/09/kai-hibbard-biggest-loser-finalist-part-1-of-3/
An interview with a Biggest Loser finalist on her experiences.
Don't listen to anything, ANYTHING you hear on Biggest Loser. There's so much that goes on behind the scenes, and the methods the trainers use are so beyond extreme that the weight these people lose is not possible in any reality.0 -
read this;
http://www.bodylovewellness.com/2010/06/16/kai-hibbard-biggest-loser-finalist-part-2-of-3/
but i have to disagree with your number 1 and 4
starvation mode is a myth, and proper nutrition isnt needed to lose weight, its needed to be healthy
[/quote
If you believe 'Starvation Mode' is a myth then you have never seen what children look like who are starving. Their bellies are so huge the circumference is bigger than their height.
Cliff {:{)
Oops, I didn't realize someone already posted that link! :ohwell:0 -
That doesn't mean nutrition is bullsh*t. The Twinkie professor also had protein powder and a vitamin every day. Because nutrition.
I'm not saying *not* nutrition, I'm saying it's so simple it hurts, and making these huge human constructs about them, the paleo craze, cleansing, the ideas that permeate the lay people of this country are SICK because of one blip on studies here and there, and half explained scare titles on newspaper headlines.
Take the Gluten free craze.
We are allowing ignorance to run rampant, and I will stand up against it!!
No, eating brown rice will not lower your risk for heart disease, unless you were one of the people in the study from asia, who *already* ate brown rice, and other cleaner sources of food, fish, soy... That sort of changes the headline of the study doesn't it?
And now, another study is out there about how brown rice may be causing a nutrient deficiency, because the fiber in the rice is what contains the nutrients.. and it's fiber.
Fiber is *not* digestible, so we're pooping all the extra "nutrients" from brown rice right out.
That brown rice BS, is just ONE example of a health industry on drugs or something. They're flat out lying, and hiring scientists to offer competing studies with each other. That sounds like a good idea.
My point is about the whole argument in a larger sense. This guy, the OP, didn't understand that there WAS such a thing as a VLCD and what the benefits and risks were of it. Knowledge is power.
I'm not saying let's all VLCD, but, there is something to be learned by the process about how our bodies work. As close as the subject touches to eating disorders, it's hard to have a discussion about it as a whole.
Because the argument is now "Why not VLCD, or even talk about it? The biggest loser VLCD's, clearly."
"Because some people might be encouraged to follow their eating disorder by reading posts about it."
That seems like a really awful reason to ignore truth and logic, because some people might take it and twist it?0 -
Or maybe i'm just missing something - which is entirely possible.
Dis.
But given the number of threads you've started, it's time you start figuring things out on your own.0 -
I agree completely, I think we should adhere to the rules of the show instead, don't you?
On an unrelated note, I was watching this show called Game Of Thrones, and I saw dragons flying around. Doesn't this go against everything we've been led to believe? I am going to pray to the old gods and the new to send me some damn dragon eggs, that seems like the right thing to do in this case. I'll lose weight super fast, be ripped and I'll have some awesome dragons to boot.
You sir, win your very own crown - you may pick it up from Viserys.
0 -
I want to be clear that I am NOT claiming the Biggest Loser way to be healthy, or the "right/ideal" way to lose weight. It just seems like they have sorta disproved some of the theories that get repeated on this forum.
Or maybe i'm just missing something - which is entirely possible.
No, you said succinctly what I was trying to say, in a much more eloquent way. Kudos :drinker:0 -
TBL is a TV show. They can call it a reality show, but it isn't real. They show you what they want you to see, and hide what they don't. They highlight the aspects they think you will relate to and reel you in, and they breeze over the other stuff. You can be inspired by the show if you want. You can see it as emotional entertainment if that's your thing. But you shouldn't pattern your eating or fitness on it. Because it's a TV show.0
-
seriously.This guy again.
My thoughts exactly.
0 -
Remember that reality TV isn't reality. The "week" on the biggest loser can be several weeks - if you've ever known a contestant they will tell you that the 12 week show takes months to do.
Starvation mode, IMO, is a myth - if you have fat storage, you aren't going to go into starvation mode.
Loose skin - ever wonder why they start the show wearing sports bras and always taking their shirts off and at the end of the shows the weigh-ins are with T-shirts.... Plus, they exercise constantly...that helps with skin sag (in real life we have to work and can't exercise 6-8 hours a day.
IMO, The Biggest Loser show...is a loser. It makes the general population feel that huge weight loss can be done in a very short period of time - it can't!
Plus, how many of the winners (let alone general contestants) actually keep all their weight off in the long run?0 -
Or maybe i'm just missing something - which is entirely possible.
Dis.
But given the number of threads you've started, it's time you start figuring things out on your own.
You...I like you...0 -
Huh?
to put it simply, everything that comes out of a nutritionists mouth is opinion, not science.
simply put, NO one knows if eating less processed sources, more raw sources of different foods which contain different levels of nutrients all in different bio-available forms are any better or worse for us than a multivitamin, which have been argued to be almost worthless.
"You need to eat nutritious food, clean calories, and cut out the empty calories."
But, why can't I enjoy a coke with some Jack at the end of my day, and plan out my 2000 calorie diet around that? If I eat a multivitamin and greens throughout my week..
There was a guy in kansas, wanted to prove his students wrong, so he ate chips and little debbies and junk, but in a calorie deficit, and he lost weight. In fact, all his markers for health at his physical afterwards had improved.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
It doesn't matter what you eat, your body will break down the complex carbs into simple glucose, and send that into your bloodstream. It doesn't matter if you eat an apple or a snack cake (albeit the sources and ratios of the types of sugar will be different, the effect on calories is the same... hmm....)
protein powder vs meat
bread vs no carbs.
it doesn't matter what you eat, it matters how much you eat, in terms of energy. You can count calories if you want, but I just watch the scale over time.
Did that make more sense?
ETA: Bombshell, I meant we should eat what we want, and we should all choose to refrain from overeating. As to HOW each of us comes to Jesus, I don't really think I'm an authority to tell someone else how to eat, I dunno what they like. Less processed food has less calories in it though, and that will make it easier for someone to stick to a calorie goal..
That doesn't mean nutrition is bullsh*t. The Twinkie professor also had protein powder and a vitamin every day. Because nutrition.
Don't forget he also had some vegetables every day too. I think a "Siege Tank" fires heavy percussive shells, maybe his brain is in shock from its operation and he's having a hard time writing what he means?0 -
No, the reality is much simpler. Nutrition is bullsh*t.
My 3 month old daughter needs only milk to thrive and have the energy to get through the day, and the contestants, and anyone else with that level of bodyfat...
Will use the stores of fatty acids on their body as food. So long as essential vitamins and minerals are ingested, along with essential amino acids, you don't need to eat.
There was a 400 pound man in the 70's who fasted for 380 days under doctor's supervision. Couple missteps in refeeding him, but he got to 180 or something like that, and to this day he's slightly overweight, not obese like he used to be.
What we NEED for nutrition is only what this magnificent machine requires.
Most of the starvation mode, eating to fuel, it's all hype.
Coma patients exist on protien powder with added carbs and fats, in a shake, fed through a feeding tube.
I mean, honestly, the fact that we all haven't woken up to this realization before now is astounding. At least, I can't speak for everyone, but I'm ashamed of myself for not following common sense.
ETA: eat for your body. Eat what you like. And if you start to gain fat, change your diet slightly, and find what works for you. If you want to lose weight for a boxing match or to look thinner, the principles are the same. You are what you eat.
Was about to click the X on this thread...
...but then I saw this post...
...and now I'm in.
YOu understood this? Please, explain to me. Does this mean I can live on milk and protein shakes? So confused.
It means micro, vitamins and minerals, nutrients is way more important the macro nutrients.0 -
read this;
http://www.bodylovewellness.com/2010/06/16/kai-hibbard-biggest-loser-finalist-part-2-of-3/
but i have to disagree with your number 1 and 4
starvation mode is a myth, and proper nutrition isnt needed to lose weight, its needed to be healthy
If you believe 'Starvation Mode' is a myth then you have never seen what children look like who are starving. Their bellies are so huge the circumference is bigger than their height.
Cliff {:{)
That is a specific condition, called kwashiorkor, which is caused by severe protein deficiency, which can accompany starvation, or occur for children in very poor areas who eat carbs enough to sustain life but don't get protein. (I think we're talking less than 10 or 20 grams a day ... something very severe). It has little to do with "starvation mode" and holding onto body weight. (The distended bellies are mostly edema and enlarged liver)
Edited to fix quotes. Also, darnit, now this is showing up on my topics until it rolls or gets nuked :grumble: :laugh:0 -
No, the reality is much simpler. Nutrition is bullsh*t.
My 3 month old daughter needs only milk to thrive and have the energy to get through the day, and the contestants, and anyone else with that level of bodyfat...
Will use the stores of fatty acids on their body as food. So long as essential vitamins and minerals are ingested, along with essential amino acids, you don't need to eat.
There was a 400 pound man in the 70's who fasted for 380 days under doctor's supervision. Couple missteps in refeeding him, but he got to 180 or something like that, and to this day he's slightly overweight, not obese like he used to be.
What we NEED for nutrition is only what this magnificent machine requires.
Most of the starvation mode, eating to fuel, it's all hype.
Coma patients exist on protien powder with added carbs and fats, in a shake, fed through a feeding tube.
I mean, honestly, the fact that we all haven't woken up to this realization before now is astounding. At least, I can't speak for everyone, but I'm ashamed of myself for not following common sense.
ETA: eat for your body. Eat what you like. And if you start to gain fat, change your diet slightly, and find what works for you. If you want to lose weight for a boxing match or to look thinner, the principles are the same. You are what you eat.
Was about to click the X on this thread...
...but then I saw this post...
...and now I'm in.
YOu understood this? Please, explain to me. Does this mean I can live on milk and protein shakes? So confused.
It means micro, vitamins and minerals, nutrients is way more important the macro nutrients.
Pretty sure that's the opposite of what that guy was saying.0 -
is that a joke? the distended stomach in malnourished children is caused by fluid retention in the abdomen.read this;
http://www.bodylovewellness.com/2010/06/16/kai-hibbard-biggest-loser-finalist-part-2-of-3/
but i have to disagree with your number 1 and 4
starvation mode is a myth, and proper nutrition isnt needed to lose weight, its needed to be healthy
If you believe 'Starvation Mode' is a myth then you have never seen what children look like who are starving. Their bellies are so huge the circumference is bigger than their height.
Cliff {:{)
thats a little different than someone 300 lbs who skips their daily cheeseburger0 -
Babies need only breastmilk, which was shocking to me because I sat there thinking, but all these studies, where's the fiber, where's the whole grains? I felt stupid when I realized how much babies and coma patients had in common, and the correlations between everything.
It's been awhile since I changed a newborn's diaper but fiber does have it's value.
0 -
I understood completely. Ignore the gif brigade.
I want to be clear that I am NOT claiming the Biggest Loser way to be healthy, or the "right/ideal" way to lose weight. It just seems like they have sorta disproved some of the theories that get repeated on this forum.
Or maybe i'm just missing something - which is entirely possible.
No, you said succinctly what I was trying to say, in a much more eloquent way. Kudos :drinker:0 -
Babies need only breastmilk, which was shocking to me because I sat there thinking, but all these studies, where's the fiber, where's the whole grains? I felt stupid when I realized how much babies and coma patients had in common, and the correlations between everything.
It's been awhile since I changed a newborn's diaper but fiber does have it's value.
:laugh: :laugh:
How true!0 -
No, the reality is much simpler. Nutrition is bullsh*t.
My 3 month old daughter needs only milk to thrive and have the energy to get through the day, and the contestants, and anyone else with that level of bodyfat...
Will use the stores of fatty acids on their body as food. So long as essential vitamins and minerals are ingested, along with essential amino acids, you don't need to eat.
There was a 400 pound man in the 70's who fasted for 380 days under doctor's supervision. Couple missteps in refeeding him, but he got to 180 or something like that, and to this day he's slightly overweight, not obese like he used to be.
What we NEED for nutrition is only what this magnificent machine requires.
Most of the starvation mode, eating to fuel, it's all hype.
Coma patients exist on protien powder with added carbs and fats, in a shake, fed through a feeding tube.
I mean, honestly, the fact that we all haven't woken up to this realization before now is astounding. At least, I can't speak for everyone, but I'm ashamed of myself for not following common sense.
ETA: eat for your body. Eat what you like. And if you start to gain fat, change your diet slightly, and find what works for you. If you want to lose weight for a boxing match or to look thinner, the principles are the same. You are what you eat.
There were actually two 400 lb men that did that starvation thing. One died. Oops. So much for your "it's ok not to eat" metric.
A bunch of other people at high weights tried to eat at very low uncontrolled diets and died in the 70s.
Honestly, you should be ashamed for not following common sense. :noway:0 -
Also, babies have very little in common with coma patients.
I imagine mom is taking most of the care of the newborn?0 -
If you believe 'Starvation Mode' is a myth then you have never seen what children look like who are starving. Their bellies are so huge the circumference is bigger than their height.
Cliff {:{)
Okay there is ignorance and then there is this. This is just offensive. The condition is called kwashiorkor which is severe edema in the abdominal area caused by extreme protein deficiency and malnutrition. This coupled with reabsorption of the muscle of the abdominal wall from starvation causes the distended belly that is just made that much more prominent in young children. Basically their gut is swollen by fluid and their organs are spilling forward to push against their skin due to the lack of muscle in their abdominal wall. It has nothing to do with fat retention what a horridly ridiculous thing to think.0 -
Don't forget he also had some vegetables every day too. I think a "Siege Tank" fires heavy percussive shells, maybe his brain is in shock from its operation and he's having a hard time writing what he means?
Entirely possible. That is not outside the realm of possibilities, I could very well be wrong0 -
Really OP? Actors have been doing rapid weight loss/gain for film roles for decades now. Its amazing what a motivator money can be. I'd imagine the same applies to the BL contestants.
Medical advice & common sense dictates that rapid weight loss isn't healthy or sustainable due to individuals not learning good long term dietary habits. VLCD are only really recommended when the other choice is presumably the person dying from complications due to their high body weight.
This isn't rocket science - Stop trying to flame bait or find a more creative topic please.0 -
12 weeks is months... Just saying...Remember that reality TV isn't reality. The "week" on the biggest loser can be several weeks - if you've ever known a contestant they will tell you that the 12 week show takes months to do.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
1) We are taught that eating too few of calories will result in "starvation" mode and our body will hold onto weight. On the show, contestants afterwards spoke about eating 800 to 1100 calories per day and yet they consistently would lose 5 to 20 pounds per week. Obviously they exercised endlessly. But no "starvation" mode...
2) We are taught that if you lose weight too fast, skin will just hang around. Last years winner (and many winners before that) lost 150+ pounds in 6 months -- yet her skin wasn't hanging. What gives?
3) We are taught that you must eat lots of protein to retain muscle mass. I can't imagine them getting much protein on 800 calories per day, yet they look ripped and shredded by the end of the 6 months. I wonder how?
4) On the same tone as #3, we are taught that we must have proper nutrition to lose weight. Once again, I'm not sure how they're getting proper nutrition on 800 to 1100 calories a day? Especially the big guys. Yet they consistently drop pounds.
5) We are told that it is dangerous to lose more than an average of 2 pounds per week. Yet these people lose on average around 6 pounds per week and at the end their bodyfat testing, blood, etc are all much better than at the beginning. Or perhaps they paid off the doctors to give a misleading result. I dont know.
I want to be clear that I am NOT claiming the Biggest Loser way to be healthy, or the "right/ideal" way to lose weight. It just seems like they have sorta disproved some of the theories that get repeated on this forum.
Or maybe i'm just missing something - which is entirely possible.
Here is the secret:
STOP WATCHING THAT BULL NONSENSE (sorry Jillian)
Do what works for you and learn to live a healthy life!
Lol no..Jillian knows better. She has since resigned from the show after the last season. She basically said that The Biggest Loser is unhealthy and she does not want to be apart of the "bull nonsense".0 -
This content has been removed.
-
There were actually two 400 lb men that did that starvation thing. One died. Oops. So much for your "it's ok not to eat" metric.
A bunch of other people at high weights tried to eat at very low uncontrolled diets and died in the 70s.
Honestly, you should be ashamed for not following common sense. :noway:
Nowhere did I advocate for the adoption of "not eating". I said it was physically possible. I advocate knowledge and getting to the truth of how our bodies work.
Hint: starvation mode isn't truth, nor is eating more. You can add any title you want, but the fact remains that most people who advocate for certain things, do so because that plan is what worked best for them to stick to.
We should all be in this together, each other's cheerleader's. And any time we come across someone who lies or tries to sell half truths should be sprayed in the face with pepper spray until they go far enough away to where we can't hear them.0 -
This thread is an enigma wrapped in a mystery. If one replaces "enigma" with "stupidity" and "mystery" with "steamy dog poo".
And IN for slacker babies who aren't eating their whole grains!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions