Showing posts with label The Biggest Loser. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Biggest Loser. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Link Dump

I was going to post about my workout today, but that would require that I actually work out.



Instead, I've just been hanging out with the family and eating insane amounts of meat while on vacation here in Cabo (and plugging along on some extracurricular homework for Nom Nom Paleo). I did, however, gather a bunch of interesting reads for you to chew on:
Bye for now.

Friday, November 18, 2011

Hello, World.

With The Biggest Loser's Bob Harper putting Jillian Michaels through a CrossFit WOD beatdown on "The Doctors" AND Reebok taking out a full-page ad featuring Rich Froning in People Magazine's "Sexiest Man Alive" issue, is this the week when our little cult suddenly enters America's mainstream consciousness?


(I kind of wish Rich Froning was wearing the new Reebok CrossFit Nano shoes instead of the nubby RealFlex, though.)

Want to bet on whether Bob Harper'll incorporate CrossFit training into The Biggest Loser next season?

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

A Farewell to (Fat) Arms

Is the extreme weight loss approach used on "The Biggest Loser" extreme, unsafe and ineffective (in the long run)? Yes, yes, and yes.


But am I going to tune in for tonight's season finale? Totally. To miss it would be un-American.

You'll find me on my couch tonight, BodyBugg strapped on my arm, gnawing on a Subway sandwich dipped in Brita-filtered water, and fondling my collection of Ziplock bags, Extra Sugarfree Gum and Fiber One cereal.

Friday, May 21, 2010

Biggest Loser: Behind the Scenes

It's not all about peeing blood!

Following up on yesterday's post about "The Biggest Loser," I think you should also check out Lyle McDonald's Q&A with a former contestant on the show. I found this nugget to be particularly fascinating:

While a TV episode [purports to cover] 7 days in length that is not the case behind the scenes. So some ‘weeks’ the [weight loss] numbers are larger because some weeks we had 14 days between weigh ins. My season if you lasted until the final day you would be on the ranch 101 days (I got voted off on episode 7 and lost 83 pounds in 62 days). This season is like 121 days start to finish. And all that gets condensed into a 12-14 week show-airing schedule.
(Source: Body Recomposition)

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Exercise and Weight Gain Go Together Like Daris and Orange Afros

On Tuesday night's episode of "The Biggest Loser," the final four contestants -- Michael, Ashley, Daris and Koli -- were sent home and given a month to train for a marathon.


After shedding 150 pounds (and trimming back his Chia curls), Daris appears to be in the best shape of the bunch. He's under 200 pounds, and can exercise like a maniac. During his training runs, he must have pushed himself harder than anyone expected -- Jillian Michaels circled in a helicopter for what seemed like an eternity before spotting Daris running around the open fields of rural Oklahoma in his orange t-shirt.

But as NBC's eerie-green night camera footage shows, intense training for a 26.2-mile footrace makes Daris hungry. He raids his kitchen late at night (but remembers to turn on the videocamera and aim it at the refrigerator first), and confesses that he can't help himself.

His hardcore training paid off, though: Daris broke the "Biggest Loser Marathon" record by finishing the race in just 4 hours and 2 minutes -- more than 2 hours ahead of second-place finisher Koli, who looked like he was going to seriously fucking die of cardiac arrest when he crossed the finish line. Michael and Ashley strolled in sometime after everyone stopped caring.

At the weigh-in, however, our man Daris was the only contestant to have gained weight, going from 195 to 197 (even after the removal of 65% of his hair)! Cue the flabbergasted stares and accusatory WTFs from Jillian and Bob, whose eyes looked like they were going to shoot across the stage and riddle Daris' naked torso with holes. Daris, you sabotaged yourself! You have no self-control! Stop eating like you're stoned! AAAAAAGH!

But let's take a deep breath and consider: Was Daris' weight gain all that unexpected?
The guy trained for a marathon by busting his ass. You don't go from looking like a life-sized Cabbage Patch Kid to running an almost sub-4:00 marathon by kicking back. And guess what exercise does to your appetite?

As I've mentioned before, intense physical activity makes people hungrier. I know: This isn't rocket science. But for some reason, the "Biggest Loser" trainers appear to pin the blame on Daris' lack of willpower rather than on the physical demands he put on himself in order to kick everyone else's ass in the race. The harder you train, the greater the likelihood you're going to eat more. As Time Magazine put it:
"In general, for weight loss, exercise is pretty useless," says Eric Ravussin, Chair in Diabetes and Metabolism at Louisiana State University and a prominent exercise researcher. Many recent studies have found that exercise isn't as important in helping people lose weight as you hear so regularly in gym advertisements or on shows like "The Biggest Loser" -- or for that matter, from magazines like this one. The basic problem is that while it is true that exercise burns calories and that you must burn calories to lose weight, exercise has another effect: it can stimulate hunger. That causes us to eat more, which in turn can negate the weight loss benefits we just accrued. Exercise, in other words isn't necessarily helping us lose weight. It may even be making it harder.
There are plenty of reasons to squeeze in some vigorous physical activity. But on a show like "The Biggest Loser," where the name of the game is pure weight loss (and not setting marathon records or even achieving optimal health, for that matter), simply cranking up the intensity level of exercise isn't going to do the trick.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Battling the Bulge



When you have a moment, go check out Marc Ambinder's thought-provoking piece, "Beating Obesity," in The Atlantic this month.

Ambinder makes an interesting argument that "[m]uch of the solid advice society imparts to people who want to lose weight is best suited, intentionally or not, for well-off Americans." After all, celebrity trainers and diet gurus enjoy "the freedom [their] status and position in life give [them] to follow a diet." According to the author, simply telling (or, in some cases, shaming) people to diet and exercise isn't enough -- especially when their economic circumstances, shady agribusiness lobbyists, food marketers and the prevalence of cheap-but-toxic ingestables conspire to make it almost impossible to do so.

Pointing to "The Biggest Loser" as an example, Ambinder writes: "contestants are plucked out of their environment and social circle, sent to a weight-loss boot camp, and forced to radically change their calorie intake and output for several months. That’s one way to lose weight. But who, besides the very rich, or the very idle, can replicate the show’s setup?"

Of course, Ambinder recognizes that obesity is a killer, and acknowledges that "[w]e should care about what we put into our bodies, and we shouldn’t neglect exercise." However,
we need to recognize the limits of individual agency, especially in the new, “obesogenic” environment that’s been created over the past 30 years, and especially for those in the bottom third of the socioeconomic pyramid. Putting individual solutions and free will up against the increase in portion sizes, massive technological and societal changes, food-company taste-engineering, and the ubiquity of effective television advertisements is like asking Ecuador to conquer China. And yet, that is what public-health campaigns suggest we do.

The government can’t ask someone to pursue a healthier lifestyle—to attain a “normal” BMI, to become a non-stigmatized being—if it isn’t prepared to provide that person with the foundation for health granted to some of us purely by the accident of birth. “Increasing awareness” about healthy lifestyles is not simply gentle paternalism; in the absence of real support, it’s immoral. In that context, stigmatizing young children for being fat is unconscionable; stigmatizing poor adults is only marginally less so; and stigmatizing Mexican American boys and black women and American Indian children of both genders for their weight is both immoral and racist.
The problem of fat stigma is a real one, and I agree that it's often patronizing, cruel and in bad taste. I, for one, side with those who have concluded that shame and humiliation turns people off of exercise rather than the other way around, and that the best way to get people off the couch is through encouragement and support.

I also agree with Ambinder that "[t]he people most vulnerable to obesity ... do not have access to healthy food, to role models, to solid health-care and community infrastructures, to accurate information, to effective treatments, and even to the time necessary to change their relationship with food." People on the lowest socioeconomic rung on the ladder don't have easy access to fresh produce, let alone organic fruits and vegetables; instead, they're stuck with the corner convenience store, stocked with heavily-processed non-perishables -- junk food. For the poorest in our society, there is no access to preventative medicine or health education. The urban and rural poor have little to no resources with which to battle obesity.
I disagree, however, with Ambinder's generalization that only the rich and idle can afford to diet and exercise. For the vast middle class, getting healthy doesn't have to be expensive. It's true, of course, that gym memberships aren't free. As a general matter, organic, whole (non-super-processed) foods are more expensive. And yes, time is a precious commodity when you're hustling like crazy just to put food -- any food -- on the table.

But consider the following:

You don't have to pay for a gym membership. Snag free passesMake your own fitness equipment on the cheap and work out at home. Don't have time/skills to build your own weights? Do bodyweight resistance exercises and equipment-free cardio routines. Or go on a run. You don't even need shoes.

If you can afford to eat organically, you should -- but you don't need to eat organic to lose weight. If you're cash-strapped but want pesticide-free, sustainably-grown food, try Wal-Mart, where cheap(er) organic food can now be found. But nutrient-wise, food is food. And contrary to conventional wisdom, "real" food isn't more expensive than processed or fast food. Admittedly, it takes more effort to cook than to hit Burger King, and you have to have access to a kitchen, but come on:
[C]ooking cheaply can be done, and in much healthier fashion than buying chili dogs and donuts at the local convenience store. Assuming a kitchen, a stove, running water, etc., cooking is not that time-consuming -- it can be done while performing other household chores, or for that matter by using a slow cooker, which takes almost no time at all, since it’s almost entirely unattended. No. it’s not automatic. It’s not a true no-brainer. But it’s been done by the most varied assortment of the world’s citizens imaginable, since humans stood upright.
You can find time to diet and exercise. You're busy, but if you can find time to watch other people work out on "The Biggest Loser," you have time to work out. (Americans watch an average of over five hours of television per day.) It's a matter of setting priorities. As Ambinder puts it, "[t]he obese are more likely to be depressed, to miss school or work, to feel suicidal, to earn less, and to find it difficult to marry. And their health care costs a lot. Obese Americans spend about 42 percent more than healthy-weight people on medical care each year. Improper weight and diet strongly correlate with chronic diseases, which account for three-fourths of all health-care spending." So I daresay that working on your health is more important than catching the two-hour American Idol results show tomorrow night.

Of course, there are other options. Ambinder himself recently lost 85 pounds through bariatric surgery. "There is a way to beat obesity," he writes. It's "radical and expensive," but "no other diet or weight-loss approach is remotely as effective as bariatric surgery."

This makes me sad.

Monday, April 12, 2010

This is Just Dumb

It's great that a Texas-based fast food chain is trumpeting the fact that its extremely large sandwiches can send you to the hospital with a dislocated jaw.



I can't wait until "The Biggest Loser" starts accepting product placement from Which 'Wich. After all, lockjaw has to be better for weight loss than the Subway diet.

(Source: Dog & Pony Show)

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Calories In, Calories Out


I’m guessing that -- like me -- lots of folks got into P90X, Insanity, Turbulence Training, or other exercise program as a way to drop a few pounds and “tone up” a bit. But in the excitement of starting a new, challenging workout routine, we sometimes forget that diet's actually more important than exercise when battling the bulge.

It's a myth that working out is the key to losing weight. As I’ve mentioned before, the scientific consensus is that exercise alone doesn’t drive significant weight loss, but this message just isn't getting through. On shows like “The Biggest Loser,” overweight contestants are shown getting their asses handed to them by trainers who march them through up to six hours of exercise per day -- all in the name of surviving a humiliating “weigh-in” process at the end of the week. Yes, some onscreen time is devoted to doling out nutrition tips, but the grueling workouts remain the primary focus of the program. (I have to admit, though, that gawking at people who exercise to the point of vomiting is much more visually arresting than a watching a guy put three ounces of chicken on a kitchen scale while droning on about portion control).


But even outside of reality TV, there's a widespread assumption that exercise produces a post-workout “afterburn” that torches calories well after you've changed out of your gym clothes. As the New York Times points out:
“Many people believe that you rev up” your metabolism after an exercise session “so that you burn additional body fat throughout the day,” said Edward Melanson, Ph.D., an associate professor in the division of endocrinology at the [University of Colorado] School of Medicine ... If afterburn were found to exist, it would suggest that even if you replaced the calories you used during an exercise session, you should lose weight, without gaining weight — the proverbial free lunch.
But after conducting a study among athletes and non-athletes, University of Colorado researchers "found that none of the groups, including the athletes, experienced ‘afterburn.’ They did not use additional body fat on the day when they exercised. In fact, most of the subjects burned slightly less fat over the 24-hour study period when they exercised than when they did not."

The problem, it seems, is that vigorous exercise makes us want to eat more.
"In general, for weight loss, exercise is pretty useless," says Eric Ravussin, chair in diabetes and metabolism at Louisiana State University and a prominent exercise researcher. Many recent studies have found that exercise isn't as important in helping people lose weight as you hear so regularly in gym advertisements or on shows like The Biggest Loser ...

The basic problem is that while it's true that exercise burns calories and that you must burn calories to lose weight, exercise has another effect: it can stimulate hunger. That causes us to eat more, which in turn can negate the weight-loss benefits we just accrued. Exercise, in other words, isn't necessarily helping us lose weight. It may even be making it harder.
Plus, people tend to overestimate the calories they’ve burned, while underestimating the calories they ingest to sate their workout-induced hunger. The electronic calorie counters on fitness machines don’t help; in fact, many of them (especially the ones on elliptical machines) wildly overestimate users' calorie-burn.
              
In other words, while you may think you just torched 500 calories after a hardcore session on the elliptical (and that you're going to benefit from a post-workout afterburn, too), your actual output may be closer to 300 calories. And now, you're famished, but if you wash down a banana and a PowerBar with a bottle of Gatorade, you'll have consumed 460 calories.
[T]here's the rub: Few people appreciate the amount of activity required to compensate for even small amounts of food. To lose 500 calories through exercise would require a daily eight-kilometre walk or run, or an hour of vigorous exercise.

"It's always disheartening to be on the treadmill and be sweating and sweating and sweating, and you realize, this is just 200 calories? It's not even a candy bar," says Amy Luke, an associate professor in the department of preventive medicine and epidemiology at Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine.

People can overcompensate for the calories burned during a typical workout before even leaving the gym. The Dairy Farmers of Canada recently began promoting low-fat chocolate milk as a post-exercise recovery drink, based on studies suggesting that the protein found in chocolate milk helps recharge muscles.

One 500 ml carton of 1% chocolate milk contains 332 calories.

"For the vast majority of gym-goers that would be about an hour's worth of exercise," says Dr. Yoni Freedhoff, an Ottawa doctor who runs an obesity treatment clinic. "So, at best, you're breaking even. At worst, you come out behind."

One of Mark Sisson’s mantras is that “80% of your body composition will be determined by your diet. Yes, exercise is also important to health and to speed up fat-burning and muscle-building, but most of your results will come from how you eat.”
                        
I believe it. Towards the end of Round 2 (which -- as you’ll recall -- involved frequent Insanity sessions), I found myself taking in a lot more food after my workouts. In particular, I was loading up on carbs. I guess this shouldn't have come as a surprise; after all, calorie compensation “can be triggered by particularly intense workouts,” and we're conditioned to crave carbs when we're hungry.
[T]he desire to compensate is … physiological, says Church. "No doubt the body wants to replenish," particularly after a grueling exercise routine.

The widespread availability of calorie-dense, carbohydrate-heavy foods complicates the problem, says Leslie Bonci, director of sports nutrition at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Many people crave carbohydrates after a workout but, to a degree, that "taste" has been engineered by the marketing of energy bars and drinks packed with sugar, she says. "We've been conditioned, like Pavlov's dogs," says Bonci. "I don't know anyone who really craves a salad after working out."
So after a tough Round 2 session of Max Cardio Conditioning or whatever, I'd often reach for some lavash crackers and slather 'em with peanut butter. I'd eat them along with a banana. And maybe a cheese omelet -- sometimes with toast. And a big handful of nuts. And possibly a protein shake. In my hungry, exercise-addled mind, I'd burned so many calories during my workout that it didn't matter what I decided to eat afterwards.

I was wrong. I put on almost five pounds between the end of Round 1 and Round 2 -- despite doing crazy-intense interval training with Insanity.

With Round 3, I’ve renewed my focus on what I’m eating. No, I’m not counting calories (unlike M, who now has a BodyBugg and is logging all her food into the BodyBugg website with an almost religious zeal), and I'm certainly not depriving myself, but I’ve stopped eating mindlessly after my workouts. In fact, just cutting back my intake of carb-y, calorie-rich grains has made a huge difference; in less than three weeks, I’ve returned to my pre-Round 2 weight -- and I’m no longer hobbling around from too-frequent high-impact Insanity sessions, either.

I’m rambling now, so I’ll stop. But in case you missed it, here's the moral of the story: Exercise is awesome, but if you’re looking to lose weight or stay trim, don’t lose sight of the importance of diet and nutrition.

Still want more info? Check out this post by Nerd Fitness on "How to Lose Weight Without Doing One Minute of Exercise."

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Link Dump



Happy surfing, y'all:
  • Speaking of dumb: "Registered dietitian Jill Weisenberger once had a client who kept a puzzling food journal. The calorie counts were all out of whack. The woman's tuna sandwich had 33 calories. An apple: 144. Turns out the woman was mistaking a food-calorie book's index for a calorie chart." (Source: L.A. Times)

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

What's Your Biological Age?



On last night's episode of "The Biggest Loser," the mellow/creepy Dr. Rob Huizenga told a 27-year-old contestant that she had the health and fitness level of a 57-year-old, which made her cry. Huizenga also told a 51-year-old that she had the body of a 75-year-old. Fun times.

Want to know your own biological age? "The Biggest Loser" is offering to sell you a personalized "Know Your Number" HealthScore kit for the low, low price of $89.99. You just have to bleed into a kit, drop it in the mail, and wait for three weeks!

Or you could just go to RealAge.com and find out the age of your body for free. In minutes. Sure, RealAge doesn't bother to test your blood, and yes, the site makes money by selling your contact information to pharmaceutical companies so they can spam you to death. But it's free, and it's run by the guy in the scrubs on Oprah! (Just remember not to click on the buttons allowing RealAge and its partners to send you any junk mail. And to be safe, set up a new email account before registering with RealAge.)

"The Biggest Loser" is already raking in massive amounts of dough by drastically marking up everything in sight -- from calorie counters to fitness DVDs to compilations of shitty workout music. For example, the BodyBugg ("as seen on 'The Biggest Loser'!") retails for over $280, while the much sleeker and all-around awesomer (though not "Biggest Loser"-endorsed) FitBit sells for $99. (Thanks, Karin Tracy, for pointing me to FitBit.)

Screw you, "The Biggest Loser." We may spend our Tuesday nights gawking at enormous people as they work out and cry, but we're not such losers that we're incapable of comparison shopping.

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Who's That Guy With the Brown Socks?

So the winner of The Biggest Loser this season is Danny Cahill, who dropped from 430 pounds to 191 pounds. And you know that that means, right? Bunn-O-Matic's giving away coffee makers to charity! (WTF?)

Even more awesome? Danny ditched the soul patch.



The producers of the show are in the midst of a full-court press to defend charges that such rapid and massive weight loss is potentially dangerous, but for now, let's just raise our glasses to Danny and his amazing achievement, and hope that he's not urinating blood.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Peeing Blood and Getting Fat




The New York Times published an interesting piece last week questioning the safety and effectiveness of the "extreme" weight loss techniques used on NBC's "The Biggest Loser." The article points out that the winner of the show's first season, Ryan Benson, "is now back above 300 pounds" and has "publicly admitted that he dropped some of the weight by fasting and dehydrating himself to the point that he was urinating blood." Yikes.

The general rule of thumb is that it's unsafe to lose much more than about two pounds per week. According to medical experts, the type of crazy-fast weight loss seen on "The Biggest Loser" can result in a number of medical issues, including "a weakening of the heart muscle, irregular heartbeat and dangerous reductions in potassium and electrolytes."

Plus, you might piss blood.