Weight Loss Support - Ugh! The effects of shows like the Biggest Loser and Heavy




MzJuicyD
02-16-2011, 12:11 PM
I am a HUGE fan of weight loss shows, especially since im trying to drop weight. I like to watch and get tips on healthy exercise and diet plans. Now I know that the contestants on those shows spend about 6-8 hours a day working out, so they drop weight fairly quickly. I just hate how shows like that make me feel like I'm not doing enough. I try to workout 30 min to an hour a day. Some days, like mondays, I work out for over 2 hours. I feel like I need to work out that much everyday, but I know its not logical. I have 2 jobs and work almost all day everyday lol.


niafabo
02-16-2011, 12:17 PM
That's why I don't like those shows. I think they do more harm then good. People see the results and it may inspire them initially but they ultimately feel like failures when they are losing slowly and many just give up entirely.

fivestone
02-16-2011, 12:17 PM
Yeah, I think those shows -- especially Biggest Loser, because being sequestered away on a ranch is pretty artificial -- really skew what good/acceptable weight loss is for an average person. I would hate for somebody to just about kill themselves trying to lose 40 pounds in a month unsupervised... especially since Biggest Loser exaggerates the time frame (sometimes a week on the show is longer than a week -- it could be 10 days or even two weeks. Conversely, sometimes the "week" is shorter.)

Personally I remind myself that if I'm losing in a month what some people lose on the show in a week, I'm doing pretty good. You're kicking butt and taking names with your exercise, especially considering that you're working so much, unlike the Biggest Loser folks whose daily job is working out and winning immunity challenges. :)


OhMyDogs
02-16-2011, 12:21 PM
I've never watched The Biggest Loser, but I really enjoy Heavy and X-weighted. I have the time to work out 6 hours a day (am a stay at home mom, with 2 kids in school full time) but I don't have the inclination. I go to the gym 3x a week, do a few exercises at home on my "non-gym" days, and stick to 1200-1300 calories.

However, while watching Heavy this week, I looked at a portion of their food, and thought "How the heck are they eating 1200 calories? I eat 1200 calories and I have way more food than that per meal. Has anyone else noticed that?

Porthardygurl
02-16-2011, 12:21 PM
I know how you feel..i feel the same way...Im a stay at home mom and when my daughter is down for her nap, i work out on my wii fit...I will do it for sometimes 2 hours but i feel like its never enough..Its weird how shows like that can inspire but at the same time, also hinder success for others..Yes, we are motivated to work out, but also we are discouraged by are lack of ability to take all the time we want to do it. I guess what we dont think about often, is how, there needs to be balance in our lives..Cause for them, they arent balancing actual life circumstances. They are working out, eating and sleeping pretty much and thats it..There is no job, no family to worry about, there is no chores and there for the most part, is no temptations that reality holds...and they are surrounded by others with a common goal..So..its easy for them in some senses, more so then for us. However, i believe that we will have success based on the fact that we are living in our every day circumstances, and learning right now before we lose all that weight..Because if i had to choose between losing it and gaining it all back due to going back to real life or trying to figure it out while in reality.. i rather figure it out before i lose it all..so i know how to cope on a day to day basis with what life throws at me.

reptogirl
02-16-2011, 12:23 PM
yes, i even said something to my mom, about the food on heavy this week...are you serious!!!! especially as big as they are, they need some more calories then that, no wonder dude was hoarding food in his room!!

LindseyLou
02-16-2011, 12:23 PM
MzJuicy - Working out 30-60 minutes per day is awesome!!! The people on those shows aren't "normal" in the respect that the average, working adult doesn't have 6-8 hours per day to workout. We have lives that don't revolve around our workouts. We have husbands/wives/SOs, kids, jobs, school, etc... You're doing amazing, keep up the good work and I would hardly feel that you're "not doing enough!"

bunnythesAINT
02-16-2011, 12:26 PM
I think the thing to remember is, like you said, that these people are in specific places where they can be completely and totally dedicated to weight loss. What has always bugged me is the major hypocrisy of the shows. The trainers/doctors/etc "Just want to have the people re-gain their lives" but then tell them they're not doing "enough" or when they hit a natural stall or whatever the contestants become chatsised for it.
I like watching the shows but really only to see how people go from before and after for inspiration, I've found myself watching the beginning and then flipping the channel until the very end just to skip all the BS that gets crammed in the middle. That is, after all, what it's about on those shows. No matter what you watch.

fitkristi
02-16-2011, 12:27 PM
Here's the thing - those people on those shows are trying to attain unreasonable goals in a unreasonable time frame. No, those kinds of results aren't attainable for the average person.

OhMyDogs
02-16-2011, 12:27 PM
yes, i even said something to my mom, about the food on heavy this week...are you serious!!!! especially as big as they are, they need some more calories then that, no wonder dude was hoarding food in his room!!

As far as I am concerned, there is NO WAY that was a 300 calorie supper!! It was a SMALL piece of fish, and seriously like 5 or 6 green beans. I pointed that out to my husband too. And green beans, fresh or flash frozen, are like 25 calories per cup (I know cause I snack on these when I am hungry cause I can have a lot, and they are good for me).

MzJuicyD
02-16-2011, 12:47 PM
However, while watching Heavy this week, I looked at a portion of their food, and thought "How the heck are they eating 1200 calories? I eat 1200 calories and I have way more food than that per meal. Has anyone else noticed that?

im so glad you said that. I was thinking the same thing. They make it seem like they can eat nothing but salad and a small piece of fish. It made me very angry to see that. I eat a lot of low calorie food and my plates are full. Makes it seem so much more difficult.

I mean there was one episode of Heavy when the dude went back home and started working out at the gym there and he lost 3 pounds that week. His trainer was pissed! I was like "are you insane?!?!?!?" I did like the guy's comeback. He said something like "3 pounds lost is better than 3 pounds gained!" That made me upset because i WISH i could lose 3 pounds some weeks lol.

JohnP
02-16-2011, 12:55 PM
If losing weight was your full time job AND you could potentially win 100K then you could lose weight much faster than you are. But wait ... THERE'S MORE!

Water manipulation is used for dramatic effect. We have immunity? Great! Lets drink tons and tons of water. Shock - surprise .... we worked so hard this week. No immunity? Time to dehydrate the **** out of ourselves...

Read this article... (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/business/media/25loser.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1)

Bottom line is losing weight and keeping it off is all about developing healthy habits which has nothing to do with creating high ratings for television.

beerab
02-16-2011, 12:57 PM
I think that's why some of the shows like Biggest Loser got a lot of flack in previous seasons about not showing people how to do this at home. Hence why the past season or two they would talk more about "how to continue at home" and so on.

I remind myself that 2-5 lbs a week is perfectly acceptable weight loss and keep plugging along- to me a loss is a loss! :)

aimeebell
02-16-2011, 01:24 PM
im so glad you said that. I was thinking the same thing. They make it seem like they can eat nothing but salad and a small piece of fish. It made me very angry to see that. I eat a lot of low calorie food and my plates are full. Makes it seem so much more difficult.

Funny how we all noticed the piece of fish and couple green beans, my jaw dropped when I saw that. Those very large people sitting in front of an appetizer-sized portion of food called dinner was almost comical! They could easily add two vegetables to that "meal." I wish they would show more of the food aspect of those shows. It is said that losing weight is 80% food and 20% exercise, so I am surprised at the lack of nutrition information they give on the participants. Maybe the fish and five green beans were preceeded by a soup and salad and followed by fruit for dessert? Who knows? But I know they have to eat a lot more than what they showed to sustain 6 hours of workouts. My 344 calorie lunch today was 2 tortillas filled with 3 oz chicken, lettuce, onion, green pepper, 1/2 tsp olive oil, 8 asparagus spears, and one banana. So, ya they must do better than fish and 5 green beans with nutritionists and chefs on hand.

aimeebell
02-16-2011, 01:26 PM
Don't compare your weight loss to the "reality" weight loss shows. For one, it is usually the severely morbidly obese males dropping mega pounds. The woman on this week's Heavy lost 3 lbs the first week, which is awesome, unless you just spent 40 hours that week working out like it is your job while eating a toddler portion of fish and veg. I know when I saw that man drop 21 pounds this week, my first though was DANG!!! If I could do that, I would be done in a week! But it'll never happen for me.

I know that we all logically know not to compare ourselves to these shows, but it is hard not to wish, and sometimes difficult to take that 1/2 pound weight loss for the week after busting our butts day after day, I know that all too well!

Porthardygurl
02-16-2011, 01:35 PM
Tell me about it..I bust my butt and im down only half a pound..it makes losing weight for them like a piece of cake..I often think "man i wish i could do that, that fast"...But its never gonna happen..Funny thing, is that it has nothing to do with not having Bob or Jillian for a workout coach..it has to do with the fact, that im not willing to delete everyone from my life and leave my house a total mess and my baby girl not attended to, just to get to my dream body faster. Yes, i want a happier healthier smaller body..but the biggest loser way and the heavy way..just aint going to be my way..and its why we need forums like this..so that we can encourage and support one another..

SheriWantsToRun
02-16-2011, 01:47 PM
I thought the amount of food they showed on Monday's episode of Heavy was inadequate, as well, until I thought about it. They showed no other food. We have no idea if that meal consisted of appetizer, salad, entree, and some sort of low cal dessert.

I've never watched TBL because I've always thought that losing weight in a competition was just plain detrimental to the psyche, and I agree that the program shown on Heavy is unrealistic for most individuals. However, at least Heavy lessens the monitoring as they go and keeps the individual accountable to themselves rather than to the prize money.

kittycat40
02-16-2011, 01:52 PM
just want to add-
HATE THOSE SHOWS

fillupthesky
02-16-2011, 02:32 PM
my 2 cents-

i sometimes watch TBL just for entertainment purposes. take it at face value. i know it's not realistic for me. i'm currently unemployed, and i could work out for 6 hours a day, but i need to find a job...lol. and honestly, i'm not inclined to spend my whole day working out. 30-60 min, sure. i do wish TBL would focus on food more, (not just those product endorsements!) but then bob and jillian wouldn't get air time.
as far as the show heavy, i do like that they focus more on the addiction side of obesity. that there are different reasons why/how people get to that point. also, if you look at some of the women on the show, over the 6 month period, they lost a reasonable amount of weight. granted, their first month being in a controlled environment helped, but i think Flor's 60+lbs in 6 months is feasible, for someone at her start weight (but, again, that's her, not all of us, you know?)
i do wish heavy focused more on food too. i can't imagine that they would have had some of the heavier males on a 1200 cal a day diet with all that exercise...doesn't seem healthy.

edit- sorry, back to original post- we live in the real world, and we shouldn't compare ourselves to others who have been given such an opportunity. we also have to just go at our own pace, celebrate our victories, and keep at it. i don't think any of us have to put in 4 hours at the gym everyday. you're doing a great job. just focus on YOU and your success ;)

cherrypie
02-16-2011, 02:52 PM
sorry, but I don't understand how anyone can see these shows as anything other than unrealistic. Of course you can't duplicate the results at home. To me going on and on about it is like complaining Survivor isn't realistic because no one would REALLY go to china and live on the edge of a lake for a month with no water food or shelter. Or how Trading Spaces isn't realistic because no one would ever really trade houses with someone and do that much work on a weekend. Or how jeoprady is soo misleading because no one would ever really phrase an answer in the form of a question. It's entertainment just take it like that and maybe get a little inspiration from the before and after pics.

SCraver
02-16-2011, 03:01 PM
I THOUGHT (and don't quote me on this) that I read somewhere that after an hour of cardio, you are no longer getting any benefits. Even marathon runners don't run four hours a day.

katy trail
02-16-2011, 03:08 PM
i used to like watching TBL, because they gave tips on exercise and healthy food. now it seems to be almost every show too much game play and product placements. sometimes when they are talking about eating fiber one cereal, you can TELL the contestant doesn't like that cereal from the look on their face. sure it's like 60 cal. a serving. but the average person would hate the taste, and even for those of us that do like it, it needs some fruit or yogurt or something for flavor. even when curtis shows them healthier ways to cook, or when they have a cooking competition, there's not enough detail to how they made it healthier. or to use budget friendly ingredients. we can't all buy tri-color peppers and asparagus year round.

Tomato
02-16-2011, 04:44 PM
sorry, but I don't understand how anyone can see these shows as anything other than unrealistic. Of course you can't duplicate the results at home. To me going on and on about it is like complaining Survivor isn't realistic because no one would REALLY go to china and live on the edge of a lake for a month with no water food or shelter. Or how Trading Spaces isn't realistic because no one would ever really trade houses with someone and do that much work on a weekend. Or how jeoprady is soo misleading because no one would ever really phrase an answer in the form of a question. It's entertainment just take it like that and maybe get a little inspiration from the before and after pics.

Finally somebody who thinks like I do. Except that I don't see the shows as unrealistic - they are realistic, but only in those settings and under those circumstances as presented on TV. I do not understand why anybody would compare his/her weight loss to those of the contestants.
I sure don't. Why should I?

- I work full time
- I am not on a ranch where my only duties are excercise and healthy diet
- I don't have medical supervision 24/7
- I don't a trainer who is responsible for making sure all my body parts are getting equal workout
- and, I don't need to lose 250+ lbs

beerab
02-16-2011, 04:45 PM
Exactly! I always say if I were on a ranch I'd probably lose the rest of my weight in 2 months- BUT I'm not. I'm a wife and sister and daughter and I work a full time job, etc. I WISH I had what they did.

Lori Bell
02-16-2011, 04:48 PM
I like all the weight loss shows, though I have yet to catch "Heavy" yet.

I don't know why anyone would watch these shows to learn how to lose weight, these shows are made for entertainment. Most people wouldn't watch a TV reality show to learn how to treat themselves for a life threatening disease. They all put up the warning notices numerous times that a person should seek medical advice before starting a weight loss program. I think most people who want to lose weight know you normally can't lose 20 pounds in a week... I think most people who watch these shows just like watching the transformation. But maybe I'm a little naive. I kind of think if a person doesn't like it, they shouldn't watch it.

Anyway, I think the message in all of them is that obesity will kill you and you need to talk to your doctor and find a way to take care of it.

OhMyDogs
02-16-2011, 05:07 PM
The main reason I enjoy watching these shows is because i find them inspiring. I know that I won't lose at that rate, but I can look at these people who are 400, or 500 or 600 lbs and think "if they can commit to making the change, and stick with it, so can I".

shannonmb
02-16-2011, 06:12 PM
I thought the amount of food they showed on Monday's episode of Heavy was inadequate, as well, until I thought about it. They showed no other food. We have no idea if that meal consisted of appetizer, salad, entree, and some sort of low cal dessert.


Right, I totally agree. But I think they kinda do a disservice to people who watch the show in hopes of changing their own lives. Thankfully I have a good idea of nutrition and already have my solid plan in place. But if I did not and was given the idea that THAT was what I had to eat to do it, I have a feeling I would just give up before I even started.

It's a show, a show that I happen to really enjoy watching! I do like the segment where they go to the grocery store with the nutritionist. But I think in general they are missing an opportunity to really educate people on good, respectable weight loss with good, respectable, delicious menus that anyone could really follow for life. That meal rubbed me the wrong way because it looks like every time I ever tried to starve myself to lose weight. I would LOVE it if they showed all the meals, snacks, etc, that amount to the 1200 calories the people are supposed to be eating. Maybe their intention isn't to educate, but it sure would fit in well with the rest of the program!

Ultreos
02-16-2011, 08:11 PM
Something to remember about these shows, other then the Dark side of them where people do things in an unhealthy way to lower the pounds for the scale.

Working out more gets faster and greater pounds lost. Don't try and kid yourself that more working out means you have stopped gaining benefits after a certain period of time. This is after all why there are two types of heart rates fat burning zone and cardio zone. If these were not real things it would not be possible for people to lose certain amounts of weight in certain periods of time without potential muscle loss.

Take me for example. I eat when I am hungry, my weight loss so far has been huge, and I sit at 17.2% body fat. Since my last starting weight of 225 pounds, and my last fat% measurement of 27-28% using some professionals device. From 225 to 200 has been entirely fat loss. I am 8 weeks into my own training regimen.

This is an average of 3 pounds a week I work out close to two hours a day. 5-6 days a week. All of it, according to the numbers I have gotten from professionals for fat percentage, and current weight has been fat.

I had a week off from work last week, and I started that week at 206. I worked out for four hours a day that week. By my own weigh in time I had lost 6 pounds.

Now granted I am a man, but please don't fool yourself into thinking that massive weight loss like that is impossible. If a person as average as they come like me can lose 6 pounds in one week when he has so little body fat left to lose, then maybe when you have all the time in the world to focus on weight loss you can actually pull those numbers.

Not that I recommend putting yourself through my regimen, or a biggest loser type regimen. I am simply stating that weight loss like this is plenty possible, just hard for people with average lifestyles.

Also I eat close to 2500 calories a day, in case any kind people were worried a little about me.

Nola Celeste
02-16-2011, 08:12 PM
I'm so glad others noticed the same thing I did while watching "Heavy"--namely that those meals looked alarming! I saw that tiny piece of fish and those few green beans and thought, "Wow, if that's representative of a meal on a 1200-calorie-a-day diet, I must be doing something very wrong to eat the way I'm eating on 1500 calories a day because I eat mounds more food than that." It actually made me double-check my own counts and consider cutting back further even though I'm losing weight steadily on my current caloric intake. That morsel looked like punishment on a plate to me, and if my own diet isn't punishing me, it made me wonder if I should punish myself for better results--and that can't be a good way to think.

It's a little unsettling to me that I can become so paranoid about what I'm putting in my mouth because it isn't as "diet-ish" as the stuff I saw on a television show. What's on the screen should not be more realistic to me than what's weighed out on my own plate, especially when I'm about 99% sure that that was only one course and not their whole meal!

So yeah, I agree that weight-loss shows of every variety can be discouraging or misleading as well as encouraging at times. I would cry if faced with eating portions like those if those were all I got during a day. Anyone watching that episode who isn't well-versed in calorie counts could easily see that pathetic portion and say, "Well, guess that's the way I have to eat to lose weight" or worse, "If that's what it takes, then I'd rather be fat."

Nola Celeste
02-16-2011, 08:39 PM
Ultreos, I had to respond to your post separately, so please forgive the two Nola posts in rapid succession. :)

With all due respect, Ultreos, as you point out you are a guy. If I'm not mistaken, you're also pretty young and you're about a foot taller than a lot of us posting here. I respect your ability to shed pounds so quickly and applaud your efforts to make it happen, but it truly isn't realistic for some to match your loss rate--not because of lifestyle, but because of biology.

Evolution has made us different in more ways than the obvious ones. Female bodies have less lean muscle tissue than those of equal-sized men. We pack on fat easily and lose it more slowly because female hominids who had those characteristics produced viable offspring in times of scarcity. Your body did not evolve to support pregnancy; ours have, and that means easier weight gain, tougher weight loss.

The woman on last week's "Heavy," Flor, lost around sixty pounds in six months. That's an average of ten pounds a month--pretty moderate weight loss for a woman with her starting weight. Yet she had every advantage in which to lose, especially in her first month during which she had no distractions and ample access to facilities that most of us can only dream of having at our disposal. Did she just not try hard enough? Sure didn't look like that was the case, considering she puked her guts up and still kept trucking without complaint or fuss. She worked hard.

So yes, there are people who cannot come close to multiple-pounds-per-week weight loss even under ideal conditions. It really is much tougher for some than for others even if everything else--gym access, workout times, effort--is equal.

My husband has lost the same weight I have and reached his goal already without changing his diet much at all. He never weighs, he never measures, he never counts a calorie--he's just limited his soft drinks, stopped drinking sugar in his coffee, and quit fast foods and junk-food snacks. Meanwhile I've had to weigh, measure, and record every bite of food I eat, adhere to a calorie budget, eschew a lot of the foods he still eats, and work out half an hour a day to get the same results.

Unfair? Nah, no more so than the fact that he can reach the top of the fridge and I can't. It's just how I'm built, and while I don't cry about it--after all, I'm still perfectly capable of losing weight--I also acknowledge that there are plenty of others like me for whom the double-digit weight loss per week as shown on various weight-loss shows is not possible.

"If I can do it, anyone can!" is not a biological truth, especially not when spoken by a young guy a foot taller than me. ;) I'm not saying that with rancor, just saying that evolution gives you an advantage in the weight-loss race, Ultreos. Far from being upset by it, I'm impressed that you're putting it to use and seeing such success--you deserve to be proud of what you've accomplished.

Just pointing out that for a fortyish short woman, a pound a week is reason to celebrate, not beat myself up and push myself to work out with a puke-bucket like poor Flor just because it doesn't match your weight loss. :)

Ultreos
02-16-2011, 08:43 PM
And adding some more to the discussion. I don't know how many people know about the fat burning zone and the cardio zone for your heart, but it apparently works something like this.

If you are in the fat burning zone 50% of the calories you burn are from fat, 50% of the other calories would thus come from the energy you consume.

At an aerobic level heart rate, 35% comes from fat, 65% would come from the caloric energy you consume.

You will burn both forms of calories slower in the fat burning zone then you will in the cardio. But hour for hour, you will burn more fat calories in the cardio zone then the fat burning zone because your body needs more.

This is how the science behind it is supposed to work.

If the science is 100% accurate, and I'm not saying it is or isn't. Then if I sit in the cardio zone and burn 200 calories in 20 minutes I will burn 70 fat calories and 130 other calories. Now if I sit in the fat burning zone for 20 minutes and burn 100 calories, 50 of those calories will be fat calories, 50 of it will be other calories.

So essentially if I do cardio level heart rate for an hour, I will burn 210 fat calories, if I do fat burning zone for an hour, I will burn 150. These are all made up numbers by the way. The difference becomes how hungry I am. An hour in the fat burning zone will only make me hungry for about 150 calories worth of food. An hour in the cardio zone will make me hungry for 390 calories worth of food. In both scenarios you will likely need that food to replenish your body's energy need for that day.

I guess the difference comes from what you desire to accomplish, yes you will burn more fat more quickly in the cardio zone, but I find that how hungry I feel after the cardio zone for extended periods of time puts me at greater risk of over eating beyond my needs. Does it mean I will do that for sure? Not necessarily, but I bet I could keep up my calorie restrictions better spending 6 hours in the fat burning zone then I could in the cardio zone.

Just some food for thought.

Ultreos
02-16-2011, 08:56 PM
I appreciate the reply Nola, and that you took time to read my post.

What my post was meant to do, and I apologize if you got the wrong idea, was not that if I can do it anyone can. It was to not have people pretty much think that what these shows are showing is impossible.

If a person, as average as I am, at as low a body fat percentage as I am, can in one week lose 6 pounds of fat by exercising more often then I was before, and maintaining healthy eating, without a personal trainer or someone supervising me, then what I ask is why think that what is on these shows is physically impossible to do without being unhealthy.

Unrealistic to accomplish for the average person yes. Impossible without doing it in an unhealthy manner, not so much.

I had a week off, I was curious if doing workouts for a lot longer period of time had not only bigger effects, but if it was possible to do it while being healthy.

I know a lot of the people in these shows are much less healthy then myself, and possibly most people here. But I'd like to think that if I can do it in a healthy manner and get a loss that great in a week, then maybe these shows are not quite as unrealistic or unhealthy as a lot of people out there think (My family included believes it is unhealthy and completely unrealistic period)

Again my point was not to say anyone can do it. My point was that more exercise can and does bring greater results and can still be done in a healthy way, was more of pointing out that these shows might not be as unhealthy as people want to believe.

Nola Celeste
02-16-2011, 09:41 PM
Ah, I see what you're saying. Sorry if I'd misinterpreted it as an "if I can do it, anyone can" kind of thing--because while I applaud what you've done wholeheartedly, I can't even keep up with a guy in his 40s, let alone a younger one. :D

I agree that many people can indeed have some shockingly big results from really attacking their weight loss full-on. In one sense the losses on these shows are realistic in that they're not necessarily falsified or enhanced with dehydration or clever editing that makes a TV "week" ten days long. It is possible to have "Heavy" style results.

But! It's possible only if you're leading a "Heavy" style life. Jodi, one of the earlier participants on "Heavy," has a thread around here in which she described some of what her time at the resort was like. They exercised four or five hours a day and ate a rigidly calorie-controlled diet for a month. The vast majority of us don't have the luxury of doing these things, and I think most folks know that from that standpoint, it's unrealistic that most of us will have that kind of big loss.

So, it's realistic in that you don't have to damage yourself for it--but it's unrealistic in that you have to set everything else in your life aside to get that kind of result, and the very act of doing that is unrealistic for most people. I think you and I agree on that, we're just agreeing from different angles. :)

I'd love to see a comparison of "TBL" weight losses and "Heavy" weight losses. It seems to me that the people on "Heavy," although showing extraordinary losses, aren't even approaching the kinds of huge numbers on "TBL." That suggests to me that reports about dehydration and other unsafe practices at "TBL" are accurate--but then, when there's so much money at stake in a contest format, the show is about the money for contestants as much as it is about the weight loss.

JohnP
02-16-2011, 10:32 PM
And adding some more to the discussion. I don't know how many people know about the fat burning zone and the cardio zone for your heart, but it apparently works something like this.

If you are in the fat burning zone 50% of the calories you burn are from fat, 50% of the other calories would thus come from the energy you consume.

At an aerobic level heart rate, 35% comes from fat, 65% would come from the caloric energy you consume.

You will burn both forms of calories slower in the fat burning zone then you will in the cardio. But hour for hour, you will burn more fat calories in the cardio zone then the fat burning zone because your body needs more.

This is how the science behind it is supposed to work.


This is not how it works, at all. You might want to check your sources.

The reason they call it "The Fat Burning Zone" is because at lower intensity your body can supply all the energy necessary from fat stores. Note this does not mean you are going to be burning all fat but your body can supply fat fast enough to maintain this intensity. At higher intensity your need carbs and/or muscle glycogen. How it works is fairly complicated and depends on a lot of variables but it really doesn't make a single bit of difference in a hypocaloric (deficit) situation. Wether you burn fat, digesting carbs, or muscle glycogen you're still utilizing energy which contributes to the total amount of energy utilized through the day.

The simple way to look at it is that exercise burns calories. Higher intensity burns calories at a faster clip than lower. It really doesn't need to be any more complciated than that for someone who just wants to get in a little better shape and lose weight.

As for how intensity relates to hunger this is highly dependant on the individual. Some people get hungry from doing low intensity cardio, others not. Some people get really hungry from high intensity work, others not. Using myself as an example low intensity cardio makes me hungry while after high intensity cardio I have no appetite at all for hours.

I work out close to two hours a day. 5-6 days a week.

Obviously you're single and have no kids. :D Great job with the weight loss dispite your questionable science. :)

Ultreos
02-17-2011, 09:42 AM
That isn't how fat burning and cardio burning zone works at all?

http://exercise.about.com/cs/cardioworkouts/l/aa022601a.htm

As for the hunger example, I was more referring to the bodies need of replacement energy if the science behind this is correct.

When I read your post however it sounds like you are saying the same thing I did worded differently. Fat burning can grab your energy from fat stores, cardio grabs less fat from fat stores. Both utilize energy, one simply utilizes more energy from what you have consumed as opposed to what you have stored, the other grabs more energy from what you have stored then what you have consumed.

Reading what you said it sounds like the "Science" I heard about is spot on.

While of course there will always be variables, the reason a science exists in the first place is that it generally falls into it works a good portion of the time.

SCraver
02-17-2011, 10:08 AM
I THOUGHT (and don't quote me on this) that I read somewhere that after an hour of cardio, you are no longer getting any benefits. Even marathon runners don't run four hours a day.

I sit corrected! I did a little google-ing and what I said is totally wrong. More exercise = more benefits.

SCraver
02-17-2011, 10:20 AM
And adding some more to the discussion. I don't know how many people know about the fat burning zone and the cardio zone for your heart, but it apparently works something like this.

I don't understand... Higher intensity, you are still burning more fat calories - but the ratio changes. Does the ratio matter? More fat burned is more fat burned.

The problem I have with the "fat burning zone" is the charts say my target heart rate should be at 112 - 130 given my age and my being an average exerciser (max being 187). If I keep my heart rate at that level - I won't improve. 112 is like a fast walk for me. Whoop dee doo. I want to be able to run an entire 5k. And do it in under 30 mins. So I have to push myself. When I really push - my HR gets up to 190. When I am not going crazy, I do intervals and get my HR up to about 160 - 170.

Ultreos
02-17-2011, 10:31 AM
The difference lies in how much energy you expend it seems. One needs more food to go into your body quicker, one you move slower, but there is a good chance that by the time you reach the same distance (Assuming you could keep up a pace that has your heart racing at 170 and higher) at a lower pace you might forseeably burn the same amount of energy you got from food.

I have no clue what so ever what the overall difference lies in other then how long it allows you to exercise. If you can keep your heart rate going at 170 and higher for an hour or however long you want to try and use cardio to burn fat, by all means, don't let those charts stop you. All I can gather from it, is that you get more efficient results from going a little slower, but you can gain faster results if you go a little faster, at the cost of obviously, more energy used.

The reason I mentioned it anyway was that it makes sense that contestants in TBL can work out for as long as they do doing cardio while eating so little if they are maintaining a proper heart rate (Not saying they do one way or the other) Thus allowing them to burn more fat and have more weight loss, and require less food to do it. Where going above that heart rate would likely begin a process of the body hitting starvation under TBL conditions.

Again this is also assuming that the science behind it is fairly accurate or accurate enough that it works for most individuals.

SCraver
02-17-2011, 10:37 AM
The reason I mentioned it anyway was that it makes sense that contestants in TBL can work out for as long as they do doing cardio while eating so little if they are maintaining a proper heart rate (Not saying they do one way or the other) Thus allowing them to burn more fat and have more weight loss, and require less food to do it. Where going above that heart rate would likely begin a process of the body hitting starvation under TBL conditions.

I GET what you are sayin'! <<Instert smiley with lightbulb over head here>>

JohnP
02-17-2011, 12:03 PM
When I read your post however it sounds like you are saying the same thing I did worded differently. Fat burning can grab your energy from fat stores, cardio grabs less fat from fat stores. Both utilize energy, one simply utilizes more energy from what you have consumed as opposed to what you have stored, the other grabs more energy from what you have stored then what you have consumed.

Reading what you said it sounds like the "Science" I heard about is spot on.


Now that I have read your follow up thoughts I can reinterpret your first post. You understood the main point of, simply put, higher intensigty burns more calories and that is what matters even though it burns less fat calories directly.

What I have a problem with from your first post is your specific ratios of where energy is coming from and (looking back) how you are artculating your point. What if we do intense cardio first thing in the morning? Our bodies use stored glycogen. It is not fat stores nor energy from what we have recently consumed. It is "stored energy" in our muscles. All energy we use is from food we have consumed. I still have no idea where you're coming from regarding hunger because in my experience hunger after cardio (or not) is highly dependant on the individual.

Hopefully this makes sense and I apologize for any umbrage I may have caused you.

Tomato
02-17-2011, 12:05 PM
Ultreos, I had to respond to your post separately, so please forgive the two Nola posts in rapid succession. :)

With all due respect, Ultreos, as you point out you are a guy. If I'm not mistaken, you're also pretty young and you're about a foot taller than a lot of us posting here. I respect your ability to shed pounds so quickly and applaud your efforts to make it happen, but it truly isn't realistic for some to match your loss rate--not because of lifestyle, but because of biology.

Evolution has made us different in more ways than the obvious ones. Female bodies have less lean muscle tissue than those of equal-sized men. We pack on fat easily and lose it more slowly because female hominids who had those characteristics produced viable offspring in times of scarcity. Your body did not evolve to support pregnancy; ours have, and that means easier weight gain, tougher weight loss.

The woman on last week's "Heavy," Flor, lost around sixty pounds in six months. That's an average of ten pounds a month--pretty moderate weight loss for a woman with her starting weight. Yet she had every advantage in which to lose, especially in her first month during which she had no distractions and ample access to facilities that most of us can only dream of having at our disposal. Did she just not try hard enough? Sure didn't look like that was the case, considering she puked her guts up and still kept trucking without complaint or fuss. She worked hard.

So yes, there are people who cannot come close to multiple-pounds-per-week weight loss even under ideal conditions. It really is much tougher for some than for others even if everything else--gym access, workout times, effort--is equal.

My husband has lost the same weight I have and reached his goal already without changing his diet much at all. He never weighs, he never measures, he never counts a calorie--he's just limited his soft drinks, stopped drinking sugar in his coffee, and quit fast foods and junk-food snacks. Meanwhile I've had to weigh, measure, and record every bite of food I eat, adhere to a calorie budget, eschew a lot of the foods he still eats, and work out half an hour a day to get the same results.

Unfair? Nah, no more so than the fact that he can reach the top of the fridge and I can't. It's just how I'm built, and while I don't cry about it--after all, I'm still perfectly capable of losing weight--I also acknowledge that there are plenty of others like me for whom the double-digit weight loss per week as shown on various weight-loss shows is not possible.

"If I can do it, anyone can!" is not a biological truth, especially not when spoken by a young guy a foot taller than me. ;) I'm not saying that with rancor, just saying that evolution gives you an advantage in the weight-loss race, Ultreos. Far from being upset by it, I'm impressed that you're putting it to use and seeing such success--you deserve to be proud of what you've accomplished.

Just pointing out that for a fortyish short woman, a pound a week is reason to celebrate, not beat myself up and push myself to work out with a puke-bucket like poor Flor just because it doesn't match your weight loss. :)

Excellent post, Nola! :cp:

sacha
02-17-2011, 04:52 PM
Just on a tangent but that could easily be a 300 calorie meal. You have no idea if there is 1 tablespoon of olive oil used. One of the biggest shock for most overweight/obese people is portion size when you use a scale, etc. It is scary how much we used to overeat.

Ultreos
02-18-2011, 12:44 AM
I see what your saying about hunger, what I am talking about is hunger and need at the same time.

I don't always articulate well on the little sleep I sometimes get after a graveyard shift, but what I am saying, is if the science is more or less correct, then does it not stand to reason, that the way the people on these shows can lose so much weight, and eat so little, might have something to do with the fat burning zone?

While you individually might get hungrier after lower intensity, and not be hungry for hours on a higher intensity, the question becomes an issue of your hunger vs. your caloric need.

You become hungry after lower intensity this is true, but how hungry? Are you hungry to the point that a banana can satiate you for an hour or two? Or are you hungry to the point that you need say a 400 calorie sandwich with meat, lettuce, tomato and cheese to be satisfied.

Likewise after a higher intensity, in those hours to come, will you be hungry for just that banana, or will you need something more filling?

All metabolisms work differently as to when we get hungry, it is how much we need where issues start to rise as to how fast we may or may not lose weight correct?

What I am saying about this science, is that in order for you to create a lesser caloric need in a day, IE what must be consumed so you aren't hungry all the time, a lower intensity, by the science, will offer better results as to caloric values, where as a higher intensity, while you may burn more creates a higher need for more calories assuming the science is correct.

In other words. After an hour of low intensity, my replacement need will normally be, less then the need of someone who went at a higher pace. While the higher intensity will burn the fat quicker, you, by the logic of the science, will need higher replacement calories for your body to maintain itself energy wise. My body will burn fat at a slower pace, but still a reasonable pace, but I will require less replacement energy.

Fat percentage for fat percentage, the higher intensity does the job quicker. But I will need less to eat then the higher intensity work out by that science, assuming the two different bodies act in accordance to the science.

Meaning that in the biggest loser tv show. Perhaps the reason they can eat so few calories and lose so much weight, and perhaps even still do it in a healthy way, may have to do with the logic behind the heart rate zones.

It is my guess that the person who works at a less intense rate will appear to be eating less then a person working at a higher intensity, but still be able to shed a fair share of fat and pounds just as much as the person who works at the higher intensity. While the difference between the two may not make a huge impact on the scale one way or the other. The amount of food we have to eat may look far disproportionate to each other.

In other words at the end of the day. I might need 2000 calories to burn my fat and sustain myself, but you might need 2300 to sustain yourself by the end of the day.

The difference is quite minimal true, but my only reasoning for mentioning it has to do with how it might be possible to eat so little, lose so much, and workout so long. The need a higher intensity creates, is 15% larger then the need a lower intensity can create. Does that mean it will always hold true from person to person? No of course not. We are all built differently enough that there can be huge differences in responses to different things.

But as far as the science behind the heart rates goes, it stands to reason that if we are only burning 35% from our fat, and 65% from other stores of energy from a higher intensity, where the lower intensity is 50/50 that we are going to normally be hungrier and need more that day then if we went at the lower rate.

Sorry if it sounds like I am rambling, I am trying to make it as clear as possible, good discussion so far though. :)

DixC Chix
02-18-2011, 03:48 PM
What I am saying about this science, is that in order for you to create a lesser caloric need in a day, IE what must be consumed so you aren't hungry all the time, a lower intensity, by the science, will offer better results as to caloric values, where as a higher intensity, while you may burn more creates a higher need for more calories assuming the science is correct.



I would not attribute fat vs cardio zones as having a hunger causing quotient as a general rule. You have to take endorphins and other hormones and chemicals released by various physiological responses from physical activity into account. Also pre-workout calorie consumption with regard to type (fat, protein, carb) as well as timing of consumption and of course hydration pre, during and post workout.

Calories in and calories out.

hope for recovery
02-19-2011, 09:31 AM
Hey girl there is no competition. You are good enough. You are doing this weight loss because you love yourself and you care about yourself. You cannot be loving and caring with a quick weight loss. It is good for the body, slowly but surely. Be nice to yourself, give yourself the gift of time!

Ultreos
02-20-2011, 10:29 AM
Like I said, all I am saying is don't completely disparage these shows because of how quick the weight loss can be. As there does happen to be some science behind fat loss, weight loss, and what calories are burned from where for what work outs towards the end goal.

If you could perform workouts that burn nothing but fat, thus eliminating the need for energy from food to accomplish said workout, I doubt there is any one of us that would say no, we won't do that, we want to accomplish it slow and steady.

The energy from our fat stores, versus the energy from what we eat, both are used to accomplish a workout. No one would work out if they were told that you can not lose your fat stores by working out.

I am a firm believer in eating whenever my body says it is hungry. If certain types of work outs burn less energy from what I eat, and burn more of that wobbly stuff throughout my body. Thus I simply perform activities that are more likely to burn the energy I want to remove. Because apparently there is a science behind it.

And so you know, fat loss towards overall weight loss is a competition for everyone. We are competing against our bodies, and our bodies, compete against our minds and wills at all times. Weight loss is the hardest competition in the world, because it's a fight against two very powerful aspects of ourselves. It is a fight we should all try to win if it is our want.

Like I said a good discussion can be had. Shows like these may not be the pinnacle of examples of health and fitness, but it inspires research, discussion, and learning.

I always wondered why only two pounds a week could be the only healthy weight loss. Why not 1-4 or 1-6 why not half a pound only? Some quote that it creates harder strain on the heart. But why? If you lose weight you have less there to put strain on the heart. If that were true why does liposuction not end in more heart attacks? Others quote muscle loss. I have lost 6 pounds in one week very recently, and not a single pound of my recent weight loss has gotten me muscle loss.

Then it dawned on me. Maybe it is said 1-2 pounds, because the average person does not know how to lose weight quicker then that on their own in a healthy way. And I'll bet there is more science to that line of thought then strain to the heart and muscle loss because it's one to many pounds.

Again, just thoughts, and potential. I am not trying to change any of your beliefs, I simply believe in good discussion based off the research out there that has gone into this subject.

To me all of you losing one pound, half a pound, quarter pound or even less a week, and even staying the same or even a simple gain, are accomplishing leaps and bounds across the largest of gaps. You are all striving to win against the largest fight any of us can participate in. So no matter what the weekly weigh in says or the daily, or the hourly, what you are all trying to do or wanting to do is on a grander scale in my mind then you can imagine.

I simply enjoy the idea that maybe there is more out there that has yet to be learned that might still be waiting to be discovered by, well, anyone.

Kahokkuri
02-20-2011, 06:38 PM
I feel like I've been fortunate to be able to indulge in my trashy TV habit without it affecting my weight loss or my mentality. I really do love watching Biggest Loser/I Used to Be Fat/Heavy on a regular basis, but I enjoy it much more for watching their attitudes change than their waistlines. I know that their goals are completely unrealistic for me and I can't remember a time when I wanted or expected to lose weight that quickly. But when I see lazy, whiny people turning their lives around and becoming more confident and put together, I do feel better about my own decision to change my life.

I know some people take these shows as gospel truth--"If I eat carefully and work out for one week I'll lose 14 pounds!"--and I hate that it may be breaking their spirit to change their lifestyle, but I still selfishly enjoy these shows quite a lot.

Nola Celeste
02-20-2011, 07:40 PM
I always wondered why only two pounds a week could be the only healthy weight loss. Why not 1-4 or 1-6 why not half a pound only? Some quote that it creates harder strain on the heart. But why? If you lose weight you have less there to put strain on the heart. If that were true why does liposuction not end in more heart attacks? Others quote muscle loss. I have lost 6 pounds in one week very recently, and not a single pound of my recent weight loss has gotten me muscle loss.



You're in a fortuitous spot when it comes to holding onto muscle and losing fat because you're a guy. :)

I wanted to address this part of your post because the reason larger weight loss (for most people) is a bad idea is that the body burns muscle as well as fat when deprived of calories. Some people might think, "Okay, fine, I'll sacrifice a little muscle in my arms and legs to look thinner, as long as the weight comes off more quickly." But what they forget is that the heart is also a muscle; overly rapid weight loss can quite literally weaken the heart (not to mention reducing lean muscle mass elsewhere in the body and leading to even easier fat gain and less physical fitness in the long run).

Lipo wouldn't cause heart attacks because it isn't the quick removal of fat that is dangerous, it's the process of destroying muscle. Studies of people affected by famines or eating disorders show pretty clearly why sustained, rapid, unsupervised weight loss is a bad idea. Note that all three of those elements would be present for someone who tried a TBL-style weight loss program at home.

Your six-pound loss doesn't meet the criteria of those three words above because it isn't sustained. The people on TBL and Heavy are supervised (how well supervised is another issue). It's important to remember that despite supervision, people have already had to have medical attention and in one case an airlift to a nearby hospital for emergency care while on the show. That is NOT good behavior to model, nor is it realistic for the average Joe or Jane who wants the weight to come off more quickly. I don't have a camera crew following me; if I run until I pass out, I'd better hope that someone sees my dumb *** go down so they can call 911. :D

My doctor recommended losing no more than 1% of my body mass per week on average. From what I've read, that recommendation has a fair amount of research behind it. For some people--maybe even for most people--it isn't that the average person doesn't know how to lose more than that on their own in a healthy way, it's that there is not a healthy way for them to lose more than that. TBL and Heavy show people who are losing weight dangerously, but because they're being monitored, it's considered worth the risks they're running. I'm unconvinced that it really IS worth the risk, personally.

I say this with respect for our differences of opinion--please don't assume that I don't know I could speed up my weight loss by exercising for hours a day and eating 1200 calories a la TBL and Heavy. I know I could--I just disagree that it would result in sustained multi-pound-weekly weight loss or that it's even worth doing. I know because I've done a lot of drastic things in the past that DID take the weight off quickly and yet here I am with weight to lose.

I'm going to borrow Kaplods' excellent analogy from another post. For most people, drastic efforts to lose weight quickly are like holding your breath--you can only be successful at it for so long before something has to give. It isn't willpower or a lack of effort, it's simple biology.

rachael
02-20-2011, 10:25 PM
I would like TBL more if they allowed the people who were voted off to stay on the ranch, just not in the competition.

Ultreos
02-21-2011, 02:35 AM
I happen to not be a firm believer in direct calorie restriction. I believe in restricting the types of foods eaten as opposed to how much one eats.

For example, if I were on a 1200 calorie diet, but I was half way through the day, had already eaten all my calories and was literally starving IE stomach audibly growling, then why would I ignore my body when it is telling me something? Because I have to eat 1200 or I won't lose weight?

As for there not being a healthy way to lose more weight then the recommended amount a week, that would essentially require me to believe that what I am doing is not actually healthy even though I have sustained above a 2 pound average a week 3 pounds in fact for almost 9 weeks, and not only have I not lost muscle, but I am never hungry, and that one week with a 6 pound loss did have a lot more exercise included while still eating when I was hungry.

I believe there are healthy ways of losing weight in a quicker fashion, not because I believe it is a good idea for the average joe to try. But lets face it 1200 calories a day and exercising 6 hours a day is restricting oneself from eating when the body tells someone that they are hungry. If you are working out that hard a day, and your body tells you that you are hungry, you should eat.

While I believe that calorie restriction has some purpose, I believe that calorie restriction in this day and age, along with exercise is starting to take itself to far.

I think that calorie restriction, much like how are eating habits are supposed to be like to not put on massive weight, needs to be taken in moderation. If you work out six hours a day how can you sustain your body on 1200 calories like the biggest loser contestants, sometimes, if not always try to do? We have a natural metabolism, and the exercise burns more. When we ignore something that is literally screaming in our ears in a deafening roar because someone told us we had to or we would not lose weight in a healthy manner then there is something wrong.

I can accept the reasoning behind your beliefs in that it is studied regularly. But the science behind that reasoning, IE calorie restriction... I am told that I must have 1600 calories a day for my body to be fine. That this is what a male needs. This is pretty much solid health and fitness rules for losing weight.

I look at that science, and every fiber of my being screams how wrong it stands to be. Proven to work for decades, does not mean that it is actually correct. It means that it does the job that people want it to do.

Maybe I have a higher metabolism, maybe my body is more apt to burn fat as opposed to muscle, but when I eat an average of 2600 calories a day sometimes more to keep myself from feeling hungry, lose more then two pounds a week, and keep it going for two months I gotta ask myself why I was trying to restrict my calories in the first place.

Because this science is proven to do the job we want it to do? Sure it does what we want it to and doctors/nutritionists/fitness instructors swear by it and it being healthy. Yet a person like me is unhealthy for losing more and eating nearly double what they recommend for a person losing weight, well I might be biased simply because I am my only example so far. But I can't help but feel insulted when people tell me that I am unhealthy (Not saying at all that you did) for losing more then two pounds a week but the only difference is they probably leave themselves feeling hungry some of the time if not all the time, and I never feel hungry except for the first sign of hunger when I eat.

Something about being told I am unhealthy by nearly all nutritional and weight loss science because I eat more and lose more weight and exercise a lot just does not seem right. Yes I know about the science, but the more I learn about exercise, nutrition, and health, the more I begin to question the science that more people use that achieves the results yet leaves people hungry. Not that this is the case for all, but any friend I have that does similar things always tells me the same thing...

I learned to ignore my body when I was hungry.

Something about this science scares me when I hear those words out of peoples mouths.

Nola Celeste
02-21-2011, 03:54 AM
I agree that sometimes we need to strike out on our own. I'm convinced that there is no signpost reading "This Way to Easy, Rapid Weight Loss." If there were, we'd all be exactly the size we like and the weight loss industry would collapse. ;)

And you're right that the phrase "I learned to ignore my body when it says it's hungry" sounds like bad news. In a sense, it doesn't matter what words follow "I learned to ignore my body"--it's probably not healthy behavior if it means overriding biological imperatives on a regular basis. I'm not at all a fan of going hungry and in fact I decided on my calorie level specifically because I wanted to eat enough good-tasting, nutritious food to avoid hunger and to actually enjoy what I was putting in my mouth.

One of the things I enjoy most about reading here is seeing that there really isn't One True Way. I couldn't live on low-carb; I tried it and got dizzy spells and after a couple of weeks, my tongue turned black and furry (no kidding, I looked like I'd been grooming my cat). I couldn't do low-fat, either, and felt miserably deprived on those plans. After my years of smoking and at 41 years of age, I couldn't do what you do and work out for hours at a time. Yet I see people all over 3FC who are having amazing success with these methods that would be totally wrong for me.

So I've adopted a lot more of a "live and let live" attitude toward what others are doing, unless what they're doing is obvious shenanigans like eating nothing but Colon Blow and lollipops or something. I've come to think it's more important that people keep searching, tweaking, and learning about what works best for themselves than to get disgusted that the methods popular on TBL aren't having TBL-like results for them.

We're all little genetic melting pots, the sum of thousands of ancestors who had all kinds of dietary restrictions placed on them by their environments; it stands to reason, then, that each of us loses weight in slightly different--sometimes even strikingly different--ways. When even present-day populations thrive on diets as different as we do, there's no doubt in my mind that we're all highly individual when it comes to eating what's best for us.

Believe me, I'm not saying that you must eat 1200 calories a day to lose--quite the contrary. I'm saying that there are people for whom 1200 calories a day results in ideal weight loss and that there are others for whom it just plain doesn't work that way. To return to the original thread, there are people--many, many people--for whom ultra-rapid weight loss from strenuous exercise and calorie restriction like we see on TBL does not work or, if it worked, would be unsafe.

My husband lost his weight almost entirely through exercise, as you did. More power to him. But that doesn't mean that calorie restriction, low-carb, low-fat, etc. are wrong--just different. :)

rachael
02-21-2011, 11:28 AM
I think it's pretty obvious that if you're losing 2-3 pounds a week (with an aberration of 6 pounds in one week) and eating 2600 calories that you have a higher metabolism than someone who struggles to lose weight on 1500 calories if both of you are working out the same amount. What I'm wondering here, though, is why you're so hung up on this "It's not unhealthy to lose the way I am" thing when, except for one week, you're losing 2-3 pounds a week. That's barely outside of the recommended norm. I don't think that anyone who says that rapid weight loss has the potential to be unhealthy would say that your occasional extra pound (and one time extra 4 pounds) is indicative of unhealthy weight loss. You keep likening your situation to that of the people on extreme weight loss shows. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think your situation is like theirs. Your "big loss" week was 6 pounds. Not 35.