Are we doomed?

emdeesea
emdeesea Posts: 1,823 Member
edited December 2024 in Health and Weight Loss
What does everyone think of this article? Sounds pretty depressing to me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html?_r=1
«13

Replies

  • eyeshinebright
    eyeshinebright Posts: 51 Member
    vismal wrote: »
    No because journalists misinterpret studies all the time. Remember the study that had journalists claiming the "one minute workout" was the key to fitness success just a week or two ago? They manipulate what a study actually says to get an interesting, click-baity, article.

    Exactly! My alma mater did that study and I was confused why all the headlines said one minute workout, when in fact it was really more of a 10 minute HIIT workout. You just can't read or watch anything in the media anymore haha.
  • RosieRose7673
    RosieRose7673 Posts: 438 Member
    eyeshinebright wrote: »
    vismal wrote: »
    No because journalists misinterpret studies all the time. Remember the study that had journalists claiming the "one minute workout" was the key to fitness success just a week or two ago? They manipulate what a study actually says to get an interesting, click-baity, article.

    Exactly! My alma mater did that study and I was confused why all the headlines said one minute workout, when in fact it was really more of a 10 minute HIIT workout. You just can't read or watch anything in the media anymore haha.

    Ha! That's funny! I actually just saw a short news clip of this today! The news really does manipulate the information for more views!
  • DrewMontoya
    DrewMontoya Posts: 77 Member
    Here's the actual study, not some pop rag's interpretation of it.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/epdf

    Now, look at Table 1. Enter those average stats into your favorite TDEE/BMR calculator. 3. Compare your calculated numbers with the RMR values in Table 1. The 30 week numbers are surprisingly close, and in fairness, the 6 year numbers are quite different once you enter the 6 year stats into the calculator. However, the article makes it sound as if a 1900 kcal BMR means you'll be on an unhealthy restriction to keep the weight off.
  • rollerjog
    rollerjog Posts: 154 Member
    weight loss shows LOL after the people lose there weight, i bet the show dont show them how to maintaine and educate the people how to keep the weight off, i bet a small percent of people stay at the weight that they ended up at the end of the show, the rest are right back to the see food diet
  • jandsstevenson887
    jandsstevenson887 Posts: 296 Member
    CoffeeNCardio wrote: »
    They kept saying "have slower metabolisms when they lost the weight" when I think what they were really talking about was the completely normal situation where being thinner means you need fewer calories.

    What the heck did the author think was gonna happen? That a 190 lb man and a 430lb man can have the same calorie needs?

    And everyone here knows exactly why they gained back the weight. NBC just pushed them to lose as many lbs as possible as fast as possible and as a result they learned NOTHING about sustainable weight loss techniques. That's just what happens when you lose weight by using tactics you don't intend to use for the rest of your life.

    I may not log for the rest of my life, but at least when I'm at goal, I'll know how to stay there: by watching my intake.

    I'm wondering this myself. I took it as, their metabolism was much slower than a person the same as their new size but I'm not sure.
    I read this today and it did concern me that maybe some people do develop a much slower metabolism. I do think what they do on the show is unsustainable.
  • Hiro_Protagonist
    Hiro_Protagonist Posts: 40 Member
    https://youtu.be/s2jvANh2aEc
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    DrewMontoya wrote: »
    Here's the actual study, not some pop rag's interpretation of it.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/epdf

    Now, look at Table 1. Enter those average stats into your favorite TDEE/BMR calculator. 3. Compare your calculated numbers with the RMR values in Table 1. The 30 week numbers are surprisingly close, and in fairness, the 6 year numbers are quite different once you enter the 6 year stats into the calculator. However, the article makes it sound as if a 1900 kcal BMR means you'll be on an unhealthy restriction to keep the weight off.

    Taking those numbers from that table and running them through the McArdle equation shows that there is indeed a large metabolic adaptation.

    zb4mhnhxaoi2.png

    In blue, the numbers from the article.

    In green, my calculations for RMR based on Katch-McArdle Formula (x 1.25 activity level for RMR from BMR). This tends to agree with the idea that there is a 400-600 calorie difference from expected to measured.

    Given that these individuals showed 1900 ± 460 RMR it actually might mean that they will need to have an unhealthy restriction or very high exercise levels to lose weight (since their average BMI 6 years after was 43.8!!)

  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 26,097 Member
    CoffeeNCardio wrote: »
    They kept saying "have slower metabolisms when they lost the weight" when I think what they were really talking about was the completely normal situation where being thinner means you need fewer calories.

    What the heck did the author think was gonna happen? That a 190 lb man and a 430lb man can have the same calorie needs?

    And everyone here knows exactly why they gained back the weight. NBC just pushed them to lose as many lbs as possible as fast as possible and as a result they learned NOTHING about sustainable weight loss techniques. That's just what happens when you lose weight by using tactics you don't intend to use for the rest of your life.

    I may not log for the rest of my life, but at least when I'm at goal, I'll know how to stay there: by watching my intake.

    +1
  • extra_medium
    extra_medium Posts: 1,525 Member
    edited May 2016
    Look at it logically. The contestants had built up bad habits over the course of their entire lives, went on a TV show where every aspect of their lifestyle was completely controlled, then were released back into the wild after several weeks.

    Of course they lost weight while in the program, and of course they slowly (or quickly) slipped back into their old lifestyles after the show was over. It has nothing to do with "my metabolism can't recover" nonsense.
  • robininfl
    robininfl Posts: 1,137 Member
    CoffeeNCardio wrote: »
    They kept saying "have slower metabolisms when they lost the weight" when I think what they were really talking about was the completely normal situation where being thinner means you need fewer calories.

    What the heck did the author think was gonna happen? That a 190 lb man and a 430lb man can have the same calorie needs?

    No, the study is saying that the 190 pound man who got there by starting at 435 and doing an extreme weight loss diet cannot eat as much, to maintain that 190 pounds, as an average 190 pound man. If they eat to maintain 190 like most guys can, they will gain weight. If they want to maintain at 190, they must eat as though they are much lighter, or as thought they are still trying to lose. Normal calculations will not work. Their bodies have adapted to run on less energy than would be expected.


    Which makes sense, logically. Because they were obese, and then starved, and survived it. If a body could think, and it had survived starvation conditions by making itself obese once, it seems like a good strategy to put the fat back on, in case you experience another starvation.

This discussion has been closed.

Categories