Weight Loss TV Shows - Good or Bad?

RaeBeeBaby wrote: »

I watched a show from the UK for awhile that I thought was really entertaining. Not sure if it was Secret Eaters or not. They would talk to these people about their diets and they really thought they were eating healthy, but then there were films of them drinking and eating at the pub, buying take-out, etc. The show producers would show the film to the person and they'd be really surprised at all the "hidden" calories. I can't recall how I stumbled upon that one but it was fun.

Yes that sounds like Secret Eaters. The host was a witty woman with a sleek black bob hairdo? Anna Henderson? As I mentioned before, and as has been noted by other too, what I appreciate about this show and Supersize vs. Superskinny is that they depict things that can actually translate into small changes in daily life by people watching, which I think makes the difference from shows like Biggest Loser. I forgot to mention before that the key with Supersize vs. Superskinny was not just that the undereater and overeater bunk up for a week, it's that they have to eat each other's daily diet over the course of that week. So what sometimes happens in a positive outcome is that the overeater, watching the undereater struggle, sweat, and even get ill trying to get through their own 'normal' diet, feels guilty that they're literally physically abusing that person. In turn they realise they've been doing the same to themselves. With the undereater the lightbulb moment may come with the opposite—seeing how they're starving their flatmate—but as someone else pointed out, often comes with the help of the doctor showing pictures of their medical future (say, rickets or osteoporosis just as examples) if they keep being deficient in particular nutrients given their weekly diet. Both also get sent off with personalised meal plans, then there is a 3-month follow-up at the end of the show and a typical weight loss looks like maybe 20–30 pounds in that period. Nothing extreme about that.

MelodiousMermaid wrote: »

If the data in this study are reliable, and there is not an issue of causation versus correlation, I would have to vote "bad".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4989512/

A lot of people like to follow along or mimic experiences, and if there has been true lasting damage, it would be better to have more "vanilla" shows (healthier regimens) or ones that are built over a long period of time, which could either be in the format of a "season" where things have been edited for fitting regular timeslots, or they could be worked into another show format (e.g. news or daily show) where there are periodic check-ins where people are filled in on what's going on.

I have a feeling neither idea would sell really well to the general public, though.

I love getting my "success fix" in the success thread section. I'm currently noshing on the AMA thread by Vismal. He's got a great thing going there, and has a lot of great advice for people.

I have been fascinated, ok obsessed with this study post weight loss. What I find odd is that predicted TDEE's came out, but metabolism slid. That's my understanding at least. I think there may have been some issues with he formulas they used when making original RMR studies and new RMR studies. Kevin Hall, while brilliant, is not infallible.

Some weight shows good and bad. Sometimes I think when people lose weight they become to obsessed then lose to much.

I don't like them. They're often too unrealistic, so having to watch an entire episode just to weed out a couple of things I could use, if any, doesn't sound very appealing to me. They are also full of reality TV kind of drama which I don't find enjoyable because it feels like unsolicited emotional manipulation. I don't enjoy any "modern freak show" kind of programmes and documentaries for the same reason, weight related or not. That's why I don't watch them personally, because they don't interest me. I have issues with the ethics of how some of these shows are structured, but that's show business for you and the participants are adults who made their own choices. With that said, I don't see why someone who enjoys these shows shouldn't watch them as long as they know it's purely for entertainment. Some people find them motivating too, and there is nothing wrong with that. What's sad is that not everyone who watches them knows how skewed and far from what can be realistically achieved some of these shows are.

I watch the shows all the time. I think it does a good job at "scaring" me. I get scared and do not want to turn into a morbidly obese person.

RaeBeeBaby wrote: »

<<<<< Guilty pleasure watcher here. I do enjoy the weight loss programs. I want to see the people be successful and I cheer them on (in most cases). Are they realistic for the common man/woman? No, of course not. It's a TV show and it's always going to be the extreme or it doesn't make for good TV.

Because I feel a certain affinity with the players, I usually only watch these while exercising - walking on the treadmill or doing a dumbbell workout. If I was sitting down eating pizza or a pint of ice cream, then there's something definitely wrong there. I guess if I'm exercising it makes it OK. I'm sure a psychologist would have a field day with that philosophy, too.

All of this is me, too. I DVR them and only allow myself to watch them while I'm on my elliptical.

Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »

Biggest loser - Terrible!

Some of the contestants have even come out and said that they were given all kinds of drugs to keep them going in the gym and dehydrate them down...

Ever noticed how the beginning of the season, everyone takes their shirts off for weighing, for no other reason than to show how obese they are to the camera, but at the end of the season, they all weigh with shirts.... To hide the loose skin!

Also, it's just terrible how they starve these people with insane caloric deficits and then bait them with cash and food to break their diets... They are not trying to help these people, they are just trying to exploit them

The show has never actually shown or told the viewers what the daily calorie intake actually was, so it's just an assumption that it's an insane caloric deficit. I remember one episode where the trainers were encouraging the contestants to eat all their calories in order to fuel their workouts, but still no mention of what that was. I felt like it was way more focused on the workouts than on their diet anyway.

As far as exploitation, remember this is a game show and those people pretty much knew what they were getting into. Casting calls nationwide with thousands upon thousands of people wanting on the show. I'm pretty sure all of them had watched it before they applied. How is it exploitation if they entered into it voluntarily pretty much knowing what to expect?

I admit, I’m a sucker for before and after shows, although I also admit, because of good editing it’s not realistic. However, I sometimes learn a trick or two that I didn’t think about regarding my own life. I think if you can see them for what they really are...a 1/2 or 1 hour show, then they can be good motivation to do better.

I got curious about 'My 600-lb. Life' after reading this thread and I'm not sure I've ever sat through a whole hour and a half of television with my mouth hanging open the whole time before. A lot of moving stories and interesting insights there. I have a lingering question from watching that I hope will not come off sounding snarky because it's not meant that way. I was hoping one of you might be able to point to what I'm missing:

Everybody on the program (or at least the 5 eps I've seen so far) has to lose a significant amount of weight on their own before they're approved for surgery. This seems to be a combination of getting them to a safer weight for surgery AND of seeing whether they're serious about the program. What I keep wondering—and I know I must be thinking too simplistically here—is if the participants are able to lose effectively via a calorie-restricted diet, why do they not keep going that way and instead follow through with surgery? Is it just the power of short-term motivation to be approved for surgery but couldn't be sustained long-term?

On the one hand, I can understand that without the fear of re-stretching their post-surgery stomachs or making themselves sick because they can't digest certain foods anymore maybe in the long term it'd be too hard to stay away from trigger foods (or simply too much food) forever. On the other hand, the show announces there's only a 5% long-term success rate anyway, and I'm sure we've all heard those stories about people who 'ate themselves out of their gastric sleeve' within a few years. Regarding the supplemental psychological treatment offered pre-surgery to help patients with their food issues, why could that not happen outside of a surgery-related context?

The issue is clearly complex, and I totally get the logic from the government angle that bariatric surgery has been shown to be a more cost-effective healthcare solution than paying for the aftermath of morbid obesity in the form of treating the diseases that come along with it. I'll leave aside the question of prevention vs. surgery, and I also get that clinically overseen calorie restriction programs in the form of so-called 'fat farms' fail in the long term because that isn't a 'real world' solution and participants eventually have to go home and fend for themselves. But that pre-surgery diet that all the show's protagonists endure is basically a physician-overseen calorie restriction diet done on an outpatient basis. Unlike a fat farm, they shop for and prepare their own food, so in concert with supplemental psychological care, I don't get why that couldn't be the solution in and of itself. Can someone enlighten me with an answer other than 'Because then bariatric surgeons would stop making money'?