What's Wrong With "Biggest Loser", 1 of 3

By now I'm sure you've all heard the media hype surrounding "Biggest Loser" and their most recent winner.  (By the way, in case you didn't know, Rachel Frederickson is from Stillwater, MN - an interesting tidbit in the storm surrounding this event.  Somehow that makes me feel more connected to her, though it shouldn't.  Just because I live within a 50 mile radius of her shouldn't change things... but whatever.)

Rather than discuss Rachel Frederickson's win, I want to talk about "Biggest Loser" as a whole.  Or, more specifically, I want to spend some time talking about what's wrong with the show.  I know I've ranted about the show here and here, but this time I want to take a more logical approach.

There are a variety of things I could talk about regarding this topic, but to keep the discussion from getting too long, and to help keep myself on point, I am going to focus on three topics:

(1) "Healthy" Weight Loss - or, more specifically, what amount of weight is too much for a person to lose over a set period of time

(2) Why people watch this show - IE entertainment versus inspiration

(3) The mental impact of one's weight on their life

Since these are all rather weighty topics, I am going to roll them out one day at a time on this blog.  And I'm going to keep the discussion rather serious (sorry to those of you who enjoy my snarky or offbeat humor).

Today, I will start with point #1 above.  You can see the other two points in the upcoming days.

---

"Healthy" Weight Loss

In regards to "Biggest Loser", the fundamental issue I have with the show is the volume of weight that is lost.  I don't think what they portray is healthy or maintainable, and here's why.

Taking Rachel as an example, let's look at the science behind her weight loss:

Starting Weight	Ending Weight		Net Loss		% Body Weight Lost
260	105		155		60%

Initially, this seems like quite an impressive number.  Wow, she lost 155 pounds!  So inspirational, so impressive!  People should want to have success in weight loss just like her... right? 

Well, wait - how fast did she do it again?  Five MONTHS?!?!  So that ends up being...

Net Loss	Time Period		LBS / Month		LBS / Week
155	5 months (est. 22 wks)		31		7

Woah!  Seven pounds a week? 

Well, ok, at this point you might be thinking "I think I can do that for ... maybe a week or two.  Maybe.  But I don't know that I could maintain it..." (FYI - Doctors recommend 1-2 pounds of weight loss per week for a reason, folks).

Regardless, let's not worry about if you can do it for right now.  Let's just look at what you have to do to lose seven pounds a week.

First, let's take into consideration the 3500 calories per pound of fat rule that I talked about in this post. 

Time for a little math to figure out our weekly goal.

LBS/Week	Calories/LB		Goal Reduction
7	3500		24500

Ok, so we need to create a calorie deficit of 24,500 calories each week.  (More on this in a minute.) 

Hmm... does that seem like a lot to anyone? 

If you answered yes, good job.  Because if you think about that in terms of how many calories the average person should eat in a week, here's what you get:

Calories/Day	Days/Week		Total Weekly Intake
1500	7		10500

Yeah.  So, to lose what Rachel did, most people would have a caloric reduction goal that is over double what they should even eat in a week.  That's insane!  (Yes, 1500 calories is an average and doesn't take into consideration highly active folks, but let's be honest - these people aren't on Biggest Loser because they're training for a marathon).

Ok.  Data overload.  Let's refocus.  In case I lost you - our goal is to reduce ourselves by 24,500 calories a week.

Regardless of how much sense that goal makes - let's just see if we can do it.

To take the focus off of Rachel, and to bring this a little more into perspective, I'm going to use "Fat Natalie" as an example (that's me).  I think this will bring reality into the goal of reducing yourself by 24,500 calories a week. 

Don't roll your eyes!  You know I used to weigh 240 pounds, and if you didn't, you can read about how I lost weight here.  And yes, I realize "Fat Natalie" isn't nice, but it wasn't nice being "Fat Natalie", either, so I'm going to keep that name.

We will start with the basics - "Fat Natalie's" diet.  What does she currently eat, and what will she have to switch to?

"Fat Natalie"			"Diet Natalie"
	Calories			Calories
Breakfast			Breakfast
Jimmy Dean Breakfast Pizza	800		Oatmeal & Banana, Coffee w/cream	400
Lunch			Lunch
Take-Out Meal	1500		Salad, Fruit, Whole Wheat Roll	500
Dinner			Dinner
Oversized Home Cooked Meal	800		Portioned Home Cooked Meal	600
Total	3100			1500
3100 - 1500	=		Reduction in Caloric Intake - Daily	1600
1600 * 7	=		Reduction in Caloric Intake - Weekly	11200

Yes, it's true.  I used to eat stuff like that.

I'm not too proud to admit I used to love those Jimmy Dean Breakfast pizzas.  Biscuits and Gravy was my favorite pizza at the time.  Because what is better than fat?  Fat topped with fat and microwaved.  For breakfast.

And yes, foods like that, plus out of control portion sizes and booze is what helped me balloon to 240 pounds.  But back on topic.

By following the above TOTAL DEPRIVATION DIET (red flag), I am able to reduce approximately 11,200 calories from my diet.

So, 24,500 goal - 11,200 already out = 13,300 calories to go. 

Oof - we hardly made a dent in our goal.  Better get working out.

Uh-oh.  I think "Fat Natalie" is already sweating just at the mention of a gym.  (True story.)

Realistically speaking, "Fat Natalie's" body can't take the high intensity activities one would really need in order to burn this many calories quickly and effectively.  Not only would doing those moves be severely damaging at her high weight for her joints and bones, she simply can't do them due to years of living a sedentary lifestyle.

Most likely, activity would be limited to things such as low impact aerobic classes, speed walking at an incline and swimming. 

Average calories burned for these activities at 240 pounds?

Activity		Calories Burned (Approximate)
Low Impact Aerobics		540 per hour
Walking - 3.5mph, uphill		650 per hour
Swimming		650 per hour
All three completed daily		1840
Completed 7 days/wk		12880

Ugh!!  I didn't hit my 13,300 goal by working out 3 hours per day, 7 days per week (red flag)?!  And even GOD rested on the 7th day (red flag).

Not to mention, as the weight comes off, I will need to start increasing my time or intensity of my workouts, because that caloric burn will start to drop:

Activity	Weight	Calories Burned (Approximate)
Low Impact Aerobics	240 lbs	540 per hour
	220lbs	500 per hour
	200 lbs	450 per hour
Walking - 3.5mph, uphill	240 lbs	650 per hour
	220lbs	600 per hour
	200 lbs	540 per hour
Swimming	240 lbs	650 per hour
	220lbs	600 per hour
	200 lbs	540 per hour

Man, this is some serious work.  "Fat Natalie" will go on a total deprivation diet, work out 3 hours a day for 7 days a week, have to continually increase her workout time or intensity... and maintain her normal life at work and home (red flag)?

Before I continue... did you just make this face?

Ok, good.  Because I did, too.

One other thing... Did you notice all my red flag comments?  Let's count them up.

First - Deprivation diet
Second - Working out 3 hours a day / 7 days a week
Third - No rest days allowed
Fourth - Trying to maintain current professional and personal commitments

And we didn't even touch on a fifth flag - the fact that we would have to do this for an average of 22 weeks - 22!!

Yes, at this point you all can argue with me about how I chose to structure this entire discussion.  It's true that not everyone will want to lose 155 pounds, not everyone will work out at lower levels of  intensity or have to do a total deprivation diet, that you can invest in a trainer and/or diet coach to assist in your goals, etc., etc., etc. 

There are other points you can make, too, but I'm not going to list them all here, or refute them.

I have made the above "average" generalizations to make a basic point - trying to lose a high volume of weight quickly is NOT healthy or maintainable. 

If you try to incorporate any kind of program like the above into your lifestyle, you MIGHT be able to do it for a week or two... or maybe even a month.  But at some point you're going to have some serious fall out.  It may be a sports injury, it may be a malnourishment issue, it may be that you eventually just gain everything back because you can't stick with the program (like most people on "Biggest Loser" do), or it may be something even more severe.  Let's not forget death happens, friends.

And this is my primary issue with "Biggest Loser".  By promoting such extreme weigh changes in minimal time frames, I just don't see how it can be healthy - regardless of what kind of coaching or export support is offered.  And yet, that is how it is portrayed as on the show, or even glorified as being.

In reality, losing weight and working towards a healthy lifestyle is a gradual process.  People need to realize that it took years to get their body to where it is now, and it will take time to bring it back into a "healthy" zone again.  And that's not only OK - that should be what we encourage.  NOT this fast track approach to weight loss.