Some good info from Jillian Michaels

Good info! Thanks for posting!

Hi All,

I got this in an email today I thought yo might all find it interesting



Q: I love that I have the information I need to lose 2 pounds a week; however, I would like to lose more than that. How can I lose 4 to 5 pounds a week? I have a total of 96 more pounds to lose.

Jillian Michaels A:

To lose a pound, you must burn 3,500 calories. As I've said before, it's all about the math — how to burn more calories in the most effective way.

You can only do so much resistance training without damaging your muscles and impeding your results. Additionally, you can't starve the weight off: If you eat fewer than 1,200 calories a day, you will sabotage your optimal results. Therefore, cardio is weight loss extra credit. It allows you to burn additional calories without overtraining. This is one of the reasons some Biggest Loser players can still lose 20 pounds a week, even 7 weeks into the program.

Think about the math: If you are eating 1,500 calories a day — we assume your BMR without exercise is 1,600 (this is actually my BMR) — and you do two 1-hour cardio sessions that burn 500 calories each (one in the morning and one at night), the two sessions, along with your regular daily activity, will speed up your base metabolism to at least 2,000. As a result, you will have burned about 1,500 calories that day — that is, almost half a pound. At that rate you will be losing up to 3.5 pounds a week.

That said, you are bound to lose more weight during the first two weeks of any weight loss regimen because of the dramatic change in your diet and the loss of excess fluid. After that, it's all about crunching the numbers, and cardio is the key.

This is so flawed, unethical and irresponsible, I don't even know where to begin.

What she fails to mention, is that there are relatively few people who SHOULD be trying to lose at that rate - only someone with AT LEAST 100+ lbs to lose can withstand that kind of deficit in a healthy manner.

She's also basically advocating eating under BMR - which is also a well-known, well-proven bad idea.

*sigh*

Edited to note: Eating under BMR is a bad idea for the vast majority of people - it can be appropriate for someone under a doctor's care trying to lose weight before surgery, or some other specific kind of circumstance in which the person is monitored closely and it is absolutely necessary they lose weight very quickly.

Thank you for sharing that... recently I have been very lax with the exercising, now I can't wait to get up in the morning and do it!! Thank you thank you thank you!

working out twice a day? I hate giving up me time to just work out once a day....not sure i could manage twice.

This is so flawed, unethical and irresponsible, I don't even know where to begin.

What she fails to mention, is that there are relatively few people who SHOULD be trying to lose at that rate - only someone with AT LEAST 100+ lbs to lose can withstand that kind of deficit in a healthy manner.

She's also basically advocating eating under BMR - which is also a well-known, well-proven bad idea.

*sigh*

:flowerforyou: I'm right there with you Ladyhawk. There's a reason she's on her fourth lawsuit for her products.

Here's a more effective and truthful version for her to use next time:

Exercise is a key component to a sensible and healthy lifestyle. Keep your net calories above 1200 if you're a woman, 1500 if you're a man, and you'll lose the weight and look good when you're done! Building muscle makes your weight loss even easier, so remember- exercise!

See, that's not so hard. It's amazing what people try to sell to a quick-fix culture when this is a problem that will _never_ have a quick or easy fix.

edit: to the poster above ^^^, here you go:

http://www.naturallyintense.net/blog/weight-loss/the-biggest-loser-a-bad-example-for-weight-loss/
http://www.bodylovewellness.com/2010/06/09/kai-hibbard-biggest-loser-finalist-part-1-of-3/

There are examples like this all over the internet. MTV has a show about teen pregnancy, it doesn't mean I'm going to tell my daughter it's a great idea. The Biggest Loser is an "entertainment" program, and it's not a very entertaining one, at that. 24 hours in a day for the people on it but a one-hour segment to show it all... of course they're not going to show everything that takes place. Peace~

This is so flawed, unethical and irresponsible, I don't even know where to begin.

What she fails to mention, is that there are relatively few people who SHOULD be trying to lose at that rate - only someone with AT LEAST 100+ lbs to lose can withstand that kind of deficit in a healthy manner.

She's also basically advocating eating under BMR - which is also a well-known, well-proven bad idea.

*sigh*

Edited to note: Eating under BMR is a bad idea for the vast majority of people - it can be appropriate for someone under a doctor's care trying to lose weight before surgery, or some other specific kind of circumstance in which the person is monitored closely and it is absolutely necessary they lose weight very quickly.

You know, I would like just once for all the people that say you have to eat 1200 net calories to show me the proof. Since it's a well-proven bad idea, please show me where they proved it. Just cause people say it a lot doesn't make it true.

In fact, here is a research article showing people can eat 800 calories a day and maintain their muscle and metabolism as long as they add resistance training http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/18/2/115

Where is the research article showing proof of the exercise calorie and starvation mode dogma that is slung around these threads? If we don't have it we shouldn't be using mfp folklore to slander a professional's name

The following describe the various risks inherent in LCDs and VLCDs (eating below BMR, typically), especially without supervision of a doctor and dietician. And these are mostly for obese/morbidly obese people - The dangers for a relatively lean person can be far higher.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8777329&dopt=AbstractPlus

http://www.ajcn.org/content/47/6/981.full.pdf+html

http://www.ajcn.org/content/56/1/230S.full.pdf+html

http://www.ajcn.org/content/39/5/695.full.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/content/vl488623pn1q0219/


Long-Term Weight Patterns and Risk for Cholecystectomy in Women
Background: Obesity and rapid weight loss in obese persons are known risk factors for gallstones. However, the effect of intentional, long-term, moderate weight changes on the risk for gallstones is unclear.

Objective: To study long-term weight patterns in a cohort of women and to examine the relation between weight pattern and risk for cholecystectomy.

Design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: 11 U.S. states.

Participants: 47 153 female registered nurses who did not undergo cholecystectomy before 1988.

Measurements: Cholecystectomy between 1988 and 1994 (ascertained by patient self-report).

Results: During the exposure period (1972 to 1988), there was evidence of substantial variation in weight due to intentional weight loss during adulthood. Among cohort patients, 54.9% reported weight cycling with at least one episode of intentional weight loss associated with regain. Of the total cohort, 20.1% were light cyclers (5 to 9 lb of weight loss and gain), 18.8% were moderate cyclers (10 to 19 lb of weight loss and gain), and 16.0% were severe cyclers (≥ 20 lb of weight loss and gain). Net weight gain without cycling occurred in 29.3% of women; net weight loss without cycling was the least common pattern (4.6%). Only 11.1% of the cohort maintained weight within 5 lb over the 16-year period. In the study, 1751 women had undergone cholecystectomy between 1988 and 1994. Compared with weight maintainers, the relative risk for cholecystectomy (adjusted for body mass index, age, alcohol intake, fat intake, and smoking) was 1.20 (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.50) among light cyclers, 1.31 among moderate cyclers (CI, 1.05 to 1.64), and 1.68 among severe cyclers (CI, 1.34 to 2.10).

Conclusion: Weight cycling was highly prevalent in this large cohort of middle-aged women. The risk for cholecystectomy associated with weight cycling was substantial, independent of attained relative body weight.
http://www.annals.org/content/130/6/471.full

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v22/n6/pdf/0800634a.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8696424?dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7489033&dopt=Citation

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t462u540t7151722/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0689/is_n3_v41/ai_17516395/

http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/18/6/620?ck=nck

http://www.ajcn.org/content/53/4/826.full.pdf+html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2341229&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2613433?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html

http://www.ajcn.org/content/45/2/391.full.pdf+html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6694559&dopt=AbstractPlus

http://www.ajcn.org/content/57/2/127.full.pdf

http://www.ajcn.org/content/51/2/167.abstract?ck=nck

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n3/abs/0803720a.html

http://win.niddk.nih.gov/publications/low_calorie.htm

]

This is so flawed, unethical and irresponsible, I don't even know where to begin.

That's a little harsh. Whilst I am a little ambivalent about Jillian Michaels that email wasn't THAT bad.

The 1,200 calorie limit is a generic recommendation. It assumes that most women will be unable to obtain a sufficient amount of minerals & nutrients from their normal food intake below that figure. I think this is generally true unless you eat clean all the time (as in no junk whatsoever.) However it can be done. Medically supervised VLCDs are nutritionally complete at 800 calories.

Now, we come to calorie restriction. Most people understand that the leaner you get the less able your body is to handle an aggressive deficit. Whilst your body doesn't stop shedding fat (in the short term at least) if you eat too low it sacrifices a proportionally much greater amount of lean mass in the process and creates an adaptive reduction to BMR. This is where the 500 - 1000 calorie limit kicks in. If you don't understand why losing lots lean mass is a disaster you need to read the guide to calorie deificit thread & the 700 caloires a day and not losing thread asap (if someone could link them that would be great.)

So, we've established FAT loss if the goal and NOT indiscriminate weight loss. In addition, we understand that our bodies cannot handle overly aggressive calorie deficits unless we are obese. Is it therefore possible to lose much more than 1-2 lbs of fat per week safely and without disproportionate amounts of lean mass?

The answer is yes but it requires extraordinary effort, planning and application. Flawless nutrition & properly structured exercise including anaerobic and aerobic components for many, many hours a day. Could 99% of the people on this website, myself included, structure or follow such a plan properly? No. If you think you can you are probably deluded.

Finally, we should also remember that starvation is not only a severe restriction of nutirients but also energy intake. The participants in the Minnessota Starvation Experiment were eating about 1,600 calories a day (if I remember correctly) during its most restrictive phase but were also expected to do many hours of physical activity a day to create a severe reduction of energy intake. Now we all know what ended up happening to them....

In short, is a 1,200 calorie / high exercise frequency routine suitable for the vast majority of this website. Undoubtedly no.

Quite well put. I may have been a bit harsh - I've been getting more and more frustrated and disillusioned with JM & BL.

The boards here are a large part of why I think it IS so irresponsible to frame a response to a question in the way that she did. There was very little, and certainly no where near enough, of an explanation of how to put that kind of strategy into everyday use in a safe manner. There was also no suggestion that anyone who is attempting such a strategy should be under the supervision of at least a doctor, and preferably a dietician.

These are glaring errors, to me - and you can see that by the several threads there have been recently regarding BL in particular and eating too low under cal goal in general. As you said, 99% of the people on these boards should not be attempting this kind of strategy - either because they do not have the supervision, or even the ability/need to follow the necessary restrictions and ensure that all risks are addressed properly. Unfortunately, MANY people simply do not know, understand or take the time to find out why the average lady sitting on her couch watching BL cannot and should not attempt the same strategies she sees on BL. There's been a thread floating around about it the last few days. There are many people who simply "monkey see, monkey do."

Now, obviously, part of the blame is on these people who neglect to educate themselves in any way. But as with a parent and children, it also the responsibility of the person (especially if they are placed in and embrace a position of extreme authority and knowledge on the subject) dispensing the education to at least PROVIDE the relevant information and in an arena such as weightloss - also point out the risks and give some guidelines for what is actually healthy and sustainable for the audience.

I'm quite sure JM is aware that there are a whole LOT of people out there that are inspired by BL and herself. And I think it's great that the show has inspired people. But I think they have done a piss-poor job of fully illustrating that the methods they use are NOT intended, or safe or desirable, for the vast majority of the population and that there are serious risks involved that usually are not overridden by the benefits - in large part because there are safer and more reasonable and effective methods and options.

Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be.

The following describe the various risks inherent in LCDs and VLCDs (eating below BMR, typically), especially without supervision of a doctor and dietician. And these are mostly for obese/morbidly obese people - The dangers for a relatively lean person can be far higher.

Ladyhawk, the argument Jillian is making is that you should eat your BMR, but you don't have to eat your exercise calories. I looked at all the articles you cited and they were all about the dangers of very low calories. There wasn't a single study in which the subject ate their BMR calories and did additional exercise to drop more weight, ie nothing about net calories or eating exercise calories. She doesn't advise eating below your bmr so she would agree with all the papers you posted.

I am still waiting for proof you have to eat your exercise calories. So far, all I have seen is proof that Jillian knows how to get people lean.:flowerforyou:

I'm getting to the point where I'm just not going to open Jillian Michaels threads on the boards, so please, if you want to post something about her, just put her name in the title.

I don't have an opinion about her other than she's marketing to an audience and she's making money on your hard work. That automatically makes me suspicious. She's no altruist, that's for sure.

Interesting discussion going on... I for one can't watch Biggest Loser because of the way they treat the contestants. I did attend a class and weight loss dinner that featured the chef/nutritionist from the BL a couple of years ago (she's from WI and has family in MN). She mentioned to us the extreme weight loss plans the contestants are on since they have so much to lose. Everything is doctor supervised and they start their weight loss program months before the TV season is aired. People who watch the show may not realize how much medical supervision they have and the reality of how long their journey really is.

Having been a yo-yo dieter in the past and always gaining back the weight and then some when I no longer can maintain the "diet", I'm done with extreme exercise and eating routines. In this society people want instant gratification from weight loss. The only way to take off the weight and keep it off is to be sensible and make your exercise and eating routines healthy and something you can maintain as a lifestyle. That includes eating a reasonable amount of calories of nutritious foods that keep bones and muscles healthy and provide a person the energy to stay active.

Maybe it's my age showing but what's the hurry? Slow and steady wins the race...Shouldn't the goal be to lose the weight and keep it off?

Ladyhawk, the argument Jillian is making is that you should eat your BMR, but you don't have to eat your exercise calories.

Actually, Jillian says to eat 1,500 calories with a BMR of 1,600 without exercise. Then she says to burn an additional 1,000 calories and not eat those either. :noway:

Straight from the letter:

Think about the math: If you are eating 1,500 calories a day — we assume your BMR without exercise is 1,600 (this is actually my BMR) — and you do two 1-hour cardio sessions that burn 500 calories each (one in the morning and one at night), the two sessions, along with your regular daily activity, will speed up your base metabolism to at least 2,000. As a result, you will have burned about 1,500 calories that day — that is, almost half a pound. At that rate you will be losing up to 3.5 pounds a week.

Think about the math: If you are eating 1,500 calories a day — we assume your BMR without exercise is 1,600 (this is actually my BMR) — and you do two 1-hour cardio sessions that burn 500 calories each (one in the morning and one at night), the two sessions, along with your regular daily activity, will speed up your base metabolism to at least 2,000. As a result, you will have burned about 1,500 calories that day — that is, almost half a pound. At that rate you will be losing up to 3.5 pounds a week.

Ok, I have no idea if you are supposed to eat exercise calories or not, but I am really confused by these numbers. Can someone help me understand what she is trying to say?

+1500 (calories eaten) - 1600 BMR = -100 calories, -1000 (exercise calories) = -1100, she then says that this with your daily activity will will speed your base metabilism up to 2000. So to equal the 1500 calorie deficit she predicts daily, does that mean burning 1000 calories a day will increase your daily activity calorie burn from 1600 to 2000? Not counting the 1000 extra you burn in your exercise?

Yes, so first of all I believe bmr was a typo. She meant daily calorie burn or maintenance cals. She weighs 5lbs less and is the same height as me so i know her bmr is closer to 1300, it's 1600 with sedentary to light levels ofactivity. So you have -1100 with the exercise and the slight calorie deficit over maintenance, then getting your heart rate up twice a day increases your metabolism because of after burn. So you end up around the negative 1500 cause you add the extra 400 in.