Pick up this week's TIME Magazine - Jun 11, for an issue dedicated to dieting and ...
eating right. Several good articles within about research around maintenance and which diets work for which types of people. Also a very shocking story about The Biggest Loser and one of its winners in particular (not good) . The cover has a sundae in a beaker, so it's pretty easy to spot.
I clicked on that link and I read something there about how different shape people and how they lose weight on different diets. Apple shaped did alot better with a low- gyclemic diet, other that low-cal, low-fat. And pear shaped was equally the same, with either diet. Why is this getting more complex that calorie in vs. calorie out? I kinda understand about the low-gyclemic diet because doesnt it reduce belly fat? But I thought dieting was made up to all these different diets, when it simply is calories. Because isnt that what all these programs are anyway. Like WW, and Jenny, you might by there food, but all it is, is eating the right amount of calories. Same with WW, you still base everything on calories. Am I wrong?? Is this more complex than calories?
The article also references VOlumetrics, and says the author is critical of plans like WW (which does not count real calories as much as portions) which are portion control bc she wants people to eat large volumes of nutrient dense food. People starve on WW bc they count points but eat the wrong foods. She said you could eat a pot of bean or 2 jelly donuts for the same calories, but one will keep you full much longer. That was just one piece of it. The real mag has a pic of TBL contestants that the online site doesn't, like how Ryan looks now, back up at 300+ lbs. Kelly Miner is continuing to lose however, and they have her pic too.
Is Volumetrics one of our reviewed books here? I might check it out from the library. I also got the Calorie King's pocket calculator at the library today and it has a TON of restaurant caloric listings. Saves you from going to each restaurant's website individually to look the stuff up. Not sure if the website for the book is free or not, but it's calorieking.com.
A couple of observations from the biggest loser article:
If you'll remember, in season 1, they actually counted in body fat % reduction as PART of the final score. Unfortunately, it was overshadowed by the total weight loss part of the equation. It should be, in my opinion, the total or heavily weighted factor by which they judge. Of course, they would have to do make sure they adjust for the fact that women carry more essential fat, but they can easily account for that.
In Season 1, while Ryan was the winner based on the numbers they use, he actually lost a lesser body fat % than both Kelly and Gary. He lost a lot of lean body mass. He basically became skinny fat and his metabolic rate surely took a big decrease from a severe caloric restriction and the loss of metabolically active muscle. This is why people need to disregard the damn scale as it measures weight. We need to be concerned with FAT loss. You should lose points for muscle loss. I think the loss of muscle made him much more susceptible to a regain.
In a competition that rewards the loss of muscle tissue, it is no wonder people are resorting to tactics like Kai. They didn't do body fat numbers at the finale of season 2. While they did put up some numbers on their website afterwards, I don't think they were legitimate. Look at Matt Hoover even when he had all of his fat mass, you could clearly see some muscle underneath. He basically became a bone rack by the final. He lost a LOT of muscle. Going to a body fat system would eliminate the hijinx, be healthier for their contestants in the long run, and set a better example for the rest of us.
That said, I still find the show extremely inspirational.
Thanks for the heads up Fran and Meg - I read it online and it was all very interesting. I think I'll pick up a copy of the mag to read and see those extra photos as well.
Cindy
Thanks Depalma, I always find your posts so enlightening. Yeah, I love the show but was disillusioned by what I read. I also read in googling Suzy Preston, that she said somewhere that she passed out backstage before the finale. At the time she told everyone it was nerves, but later said dehydration. Which, I really don't understand bc Bob Harper said long ago that the scale is a fake and they weigh privately in the morning on a real scale, but are not told their results until the fake scale shows the number, thus their reactions are genuine surprises. So she could have rehydrated after her final weigh-in, but then it was probably too late or she didn't want to risk having to "go" all during the live finale. I lost faith though because how can the trainers be associated with the show knowing this goes on - with what they do before the weigh ins, I would think their electrolytes could be off and they are serious cardiac risks. So ethically, how could they align themselves with that.
I always knew the show was extreme what with 3-4 hrs of exercise a day, nothing to worry about except planning your next meal, etc. But I didn't realize they were using these kind of tactics to make the grade. SO really, the biggest losers are those voted off long ago for not being the biggest number droppers. Interesting.
In regards to The Biggest Loser - maybe all of this stuff is why Jillian Michaels left the show - I'd heard that she wasn't agreeing with everything the producers were doing and so she left. She tried doing the Australian version of the show, did a few seasons, and then left that as well.
Cindy
I read the Time articles last night. Going back to the glycemic index question vs. calories in/calories out, I know I've been in the minority here for saying that it does matter in my experience. I was a Weight Watchers and low fat failure for years- regaining what little I would lose on those plans no matter how much I exercised. It wasn't until I started SugarBusters which is entirely based on low glycemic eating that I successfully lost and continued to lose, and have maintained that loss for almost six years. I am (or was) a complete apple and having gestational diabetes would indicate that my insulin regulation and use is not up to snuff! Finally science is backing up my trial and error methodology!
I clicked on that link and I read something there about how different shape people and how they lose weight on different diets. Apple shaped did alot better with a low- gyclemic diet, other that low-cal, low-fat. And pear shaped was equally the same, with either diet. Why is this getting more complex that calorie in vs. calorie out? I kinda understand about the low-gyclemic diet because doesnt it reduce belly fat? But I thought dieting was made up to all these different diets, when it simply is calories. Because isnt that what all these programs are anyway. Like WW, and Jenny, you might by there food, but all it is, is eating the right amount of calories. Same with WW, you still base everything on calories. Am I wrong?? Is this more complex than calories?
What I gleaned from it is that if people who have insulin problems are not on a diet that evens out the blood sugar that they will have sugar spikes. Which will cause them to eat more and gain weight. If I am right, then it's still about calories in/calories out, in that it's ultimately eating too much that causes weight gain.
But this new research suggests that some people will really benefit from certain diets because they will help curb cravings, etc. So for those people especially, the KIND of calories matter.
Not to say they don't matter to the rest of us. I have come to really believe that nutrition matters on so many levels...
I used to think that it was all about eat less and move more (that being the basis of all successful weight loss regimens), everything else was window trimming.
However, I'm beginning to see that we each are a unique machine with unique functioning. There are so many factors in our makeup that contribute to size that it's mindboggling. I now believe that the window trimming is personalization. The everything else is what makes our plans work for our unique machine.
I read the Time articles last night. Going back to the glycemic index question vs. calories in/calories out, I know I've been in the minority here for saying that it does matter in my experience. I was a Weight Watchers and low fat failure for years- regaining what little I would lose on those plans no matter how much I exercised. It wasn't until I started SugarBusters which is entirely based on low glycemic eating that I successfully lost and continued to lose, and have maintained that loss for almost six years. I am (or was) a complete apple and having gestational diabetes would idicate that my insulin regulation and use is not up to snuff! Finally science is backing up my trial and error methodology!
Mel
I am somewhere in between. I think both are important. To paraphrase Will Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition: Calories In/Calories Out will determine whether you lose or gain, where those calories come from will determine what you lose or gain.
I think insulin control is critical to anyone seeking to improve body composition whether it be mainly through the loss of fat or through the addition of muscle. Insulin is the key to fat storage but it also key to pulling amino acids into cells and protein synthesis.
So, I try to keep my blood sugar stable most of the time by getting my carbs from low-GI sources such as vegetables and fruits. The exceptions being post-workout, where I will use faster acting carbs in order to take advantage of the anabolic functions of insulin.
While calories in and calories out do matter, this is does not mean that a "calorie is a calorie." A 100 calories of broccoli and a 100 calorie "diet" pack of mini-oreos are not the same!
Pick up this week's TIME Magazine - Jun 11, for an issue dedicated to dieting and ...
. The cover has a sundae in a beaker, so it's pretty easy to spot.
