What's with weight loss TV shows that have people lose 5 lbs a week?!

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LauraRose

New member
I'm getting really annoyed. I like to watch the kinds of shows that involve regular people, or celebrities (washed up or not) trying to lose weight, but dammit, I am getting super annoyed with the pounds of weight they lose a week! I would never be even to come close to losing five, or 10 pounds in one week, but yet the weight loss TV shows make it looks so easy, and the doctors on the show urge them to!

What is up with that? That can't be good for you, can it?
 
NO! its not good for you! This is my biggest grudge against this kind of television. Its not realistic at all...its not healthy! its very misleading. If memory serves me correctly, one of the biggest losers said in an interview that a "week" on BL is actually 10 days, not 7.

Its nothing more than entertainment...don't put any more stock into it then that.
 
Maybe if you weigh 500 lbs it's ok but... yeesh. I mean, the first week or two you might lose that much because some diets end up with a lot of water weight lost. But that's not actual fat.

I think 3 lbs was my record for a week :p 2% a week is enough for most people, anything faster than that and you're at enough of a deficit you risk being undernourished unless you really really know what you're doing.
 
I do get envious of how much weight they loose a week in the biggest looser. but then remember that they're working out basically the entire day. I just do 30minutes or 1hr of exercise a day so the amount of work I put in was only a fraction of what they did.

As for it being good for you, I think that they'll have more sagging problems because losing so much in such a short time frame doesn't let your body recover efficiently.
 
but really, how unrealistic is it working 4-6 hours a day?
I get envious as well, but the truth is losing small amounts and steady, and feeling overall healthy is much more important than losing it all ''fast'' and gaining it all back less than a year later, which happens on those shows a lot!
 
Easy come, easy go. I wonder just how many of these TV weight loss people have kept all the weight off 12, 24 months, 5 years later? The slower the changes, the easier they tend to be to stick to in the long term.

And its probably not all fat loss- not at that rate! The human body cannot metabolise more then about 2lbs of fat per week, any more then that and its muscle, glycogen and water loss.

I'd agree with the above, its unlikely to be all done within 7 days, I'd bet its 2 week shots, for a start taking people from 0-60 within days and keeping them working out all day every day for so long is just a disaster waiting to happen- overuse injuries, fatigue, loss of motivation are just a few of the problems which spring to mind. They'd have people walking out left right and center!
 
LauraRose said:
I'm getting really annoyed. I like to watch the kinds of shows that involve regular people, or celebrities (washed up or not) trying to lose weight, but dammit, I am getting super annoyed with the pounds of weight they lose a week! I would never be even to come close to losing five, or 10 pounds in one week, but yet the weight loss TV shows make it looks so easy, and the doctors on the show urge them to!

What is up with that? That can't be good for you, can it?
Click to expand...

No, and if you're really overweight losing weight that fast may well leave you with hanging skin. But of course if the alternative is impending death from being extremely overweight, it's a good thing.

People on shows like the Biggest Loser work out intensely as a full time job. I used to watch biggest loser, and I remember that the men were expected to burn 6000 or 8000 calories a day by exercise alone (I don't remember exactly). That means working out full time, literally, from dusk to dawn. And that's what they do on the Biggest Loser.

They are also motivated by the financial prize at the end. People will do all sorts of things for large sums of money.

Doctors recommend a 1-2 pound a week weight loss.
 
I know everybody says 1-2 pounds a week, but that's too slow for me (especially with a lot to lose). That is a good general guideline for healthy weight loss for the average person.

The biggest loser "week" is actually 10 days (as mentioned above), I've heard bob say it.
 
stuco said:
I know everybody says 1-2 pounds a week, but that's too slow for me (especially with a lot to lose). That is a good general guideline for healthy weight loss for the average person.

The biggest loser "week" is actually 10 days (as mentioned above), I've heard bob say it.
Click to expand...

It certainly feels too slow, but if the alternative is having hanging skin that can only be removed by surgery I would rather wait.

You won't see that on the Biggest Loser because at the finale they can put their contestants in girdles/other body shaping things under the clothes. Also the guys after a point start wearing t-shirts to weigh themselves. Likely because if they took it off you'd either see the girdle or a hanging bag of skin. There is no way you can loose 100 pounds in 10 weeks or whatever the Biggest Loser men pull, and have your skin adjust.
 
1-2% a week is what I've heard. So someone who weighs 300 lbs could be losing 6lbs a week without it being a problem. But it works out to 1-2 lbs a week for the 'average' person. Most I ever lost in a week was 3 lbs, so YMMV :D
 
By all means lose more then 1-2lbs a week but its likely to be glycogen, muscle and even bone. Some put back as soon as you eat normally/stop a day of exercising, the rest with more sevear health problems. Who really wants to be wheelchair bound by the time they are 50 because they have weak bones due to losing too much weight too fast.
 
Jeanette401 said:
1-2% a week is what I've heard. So someone who weighs 300 lbs could be losing 6lbs a week without it being a problem. But it works out to 1-2 lbs a week for the 'average' person. Most I ever lost in a week was 3 lbs, so YMMV :D
Click to expand...

It's true that the severely obese people can get away with losing more without losing organs/muscles, but loose skin is still going to be an issue.

Also, unless the poster you responded to is very severely obese in the range of 400lbs, it's just going to be very difficult to lose weight without nutritional deficiences.

For example, if I, a 5'5" female weighed 300 lbs I would need 2500 calories a day to maintain my weight. This is not that much. I could at most cut my calories to 1200 beyond which I would be risking screwing up my metabolism, that would give me a 2.5 per week loss.

Also if I were 300 lbs, I probably would be unable to do any significant exercise without risking serious injury. So I couldn't go ahead and burn 1000 calories a day by say running for 1.5 hours. I could walk or swim for a half hour, maybe burn another 250 calories raising the loss to 3 lbs per week.


Someone who can work out a lot wouldn't be limited this way obviously, and running for 2 hours a day as well as eating 500 calories less than maintenance would probably easily give someone a 4lb /week loss.
 
Last edited:
I feel its very slow also... thats why I decided on once a month weigh in so if I lose like I should then I should have an 8 or 6 or more... that way the number isnt like only 1lb... when you see a bigger number its more motivation to keep going even if you didnt weigh in once a week but once per month. I would easily get discouraged if I did once a week. Im not sure how the daily people even keep going especially women since their bodies fluctuate so much.
 
It's probably possible if you're living in an environment where you have the support of those around you doing the same thing, your meals are cooked for you (and you have no opportunity for binging on the side) and you're spending large amounts of time exercising. Most people in real life wouldn't lose such excessive amounts of weight though because it'd be impossible to find the time (or the discipline). A friend of mine does residential weight loss bootcamps here in the UK & never fails to lose about a stone (14lbs) in 2 weeks. Personally I wouldn't be able to stick that though.
 
Being as overweight as i am i have no issue losing 8-10 lbs in a week without my diet being unreasonable. that being said, guys my size on that show frequenlty lose mid teens to almost 20 in a week. The shows do not teach sustainable healthy habits. losing that kind of weight that fast is unhealthy, but on top of that working out 5 hours a day and having a personal nutritionist all day every day isnt realistic either

I refuse to watch BL or similar shows. Jillian Michaels hates fat people. Looks down on them like we are less human.
 
biggestloser105 said:
It's true that the severely obese people can get away with losing more without losing organs/muscles, but loose skin is still going to be an issue.
Click to expand...

Are you sure on this? My brother was losing faster than that and he didn't have any loose skin issues. My dad managed to lose 30 lbs in a single month and also didn't have loose/hanging skin. He started at around 300lbs I believe. I'm sure a good chunk of it was water weight, but still.

Also, unless the poster you responded to is very severely obese in the range of 400lbs, it's just going to be very difficult to lose weight without nutritional deficiences.
Click to expand...

Again, my brother was doing this (He started 350) and didn't have nutritional deficiencies. But he's also a guy - which I expand upon more below ;) Realistically, people eating too much can still have nutritional deficiencies, but below 1200 calories is where this really starts to rear it's ugly head.

For example, if I, a 5'5" female weighed 300 lbs I would need 2500 calories a day to maintain my weight. This is not that much. I could at most cut my calories to 1200 beyond which I would be risking screwing up my metabolism, that would give me a 2.5 per week loss.
Click to expand...

I wanted to comment on this because it's a common myth that you can 'screw up your metabolism' by dropping below 1200 calories. That's not really true, your metabolism pops up again when you eat more, there's not really a 'starvation mode' to speak of. ( ) The real risk of the sub 1200 calories is not enough nutrients and not enough protein (i.e. the organ and muscle loss you spoke of).

Also, you're using what's basically the lowest end of the BMR scale (female & sedentary) for your example. A sedentary guy at 5'10" and 300 lbs will burn 3000 calories a day just sitting on his butt. For him, losing 3-4 lbs a week is still quite possible while staying above 1200 calories. If he does moderate exercise, he maintains at 4000 calories a day (yes - I am very jealous).

It might not be practical at all for you to lose 4 lbs a week (and I never managed more than 3lbs, and I imagine some of that was water weight) but it doesn't mean it's not reasonable for others - especially larger males.

Also if I were 300 lbs, I probably would be unable to do any significant exercise without risking serious injury. So I couldn't go ahead and burn 1000 calories a day by say running for 1.5 hours. I could walk or swim for a half hour, maybe burn another 250 calories raising the loss to 3 lbs per week.


Someone who can work out a lot wouldn't be limited this way obviously, and running for 2 hours a day as well as eating 500 calories less than maintenance would probably easily give someone a 4lb /week loss.
Click to expand...
I think also it's easy to underestimate the amount of calories that can be burned without risking injury. I can burn an extra 200 to 300 calories in a day simply by making it a point not to sit down when I get home. Supposedly the difference between the number of calories you burn while sitting down compared to standing up for an hour is the equivalent you'd burn by walking a mile. And just about anyone can walk. Now, I'm not saying someone who's 300 lbs and out of shape is going to be burning an extra 1000 calories a day. But an extra 500 is not really all that unreasonable - which works out to an extra lb a week.

I'm not advocating huge deficits, however I know that when you're starting at the beginning of the weight loss journey, seeing substantial progress can have a huge impact on your motivation. That's why even the Mayo Clinic's new diet book includes a 2 week 'rapid weight loss' section at the vary beginning - to demonstrate that you are capable of losing the weight, and not just at a snail's pace, Apparently their trials revealed that the confidence gained was an important factor in whether people were able to stick with the program.
 
Jeanette401 said:
Are you sure on this? My brother was losing faster than that and he didn't have any loose skin issues. My dad managed to lose 30 lbs in a single month and also didn't have loose/hanging skin. He started at around 300lbs I believe. I'm sure a good chunk of it was water weight, but still.
Click to expand...

Well, 30lbs is not enough to cause loose skin, it's more a consideration for people looking to lose in the realm of 100lbs. It depends on the person as well, some people are lucky and have elastic skin. If a person is younger their chance of loose skin is lower. If you google loose skin, you can see some examples of people. Even losing weight slowly is no guarantee you won't have loose skin if you're looking to lose over 100 lbs. There are many factors that contribute to it, and rate of weight loss is just one of them.

Loose skin is not the end of the world obviously, because you can conceal it under clothes or you could have surgery to remove it. Only in some extreme cases of people losing vast amounts of weight do they actually need to have surgery to remove loose skin to prevent ulcers and the like.

I wanted to comment on this because it's a common myth that you can 'screw up your metabolism' by dropping below 1200 calories. That's not really true, your metabolism pops up again when you eat more, there's not really a 'starvation mode' to speak of.
Click to expand...

It may pop up, but while you're on reduced calories it will be lower. It can cause you to lose weight at a slower pace than you could, while at the same time running on a lower caloric expenditure, possibly being tired, cold, and even nutrient deprived.

Also, you're using what's basically the lowest end of the BMR scale (female & sedentary) for your example. A sedentary guy at 5'10" and 300 lbs will burn 3000 calories a day just sitting on his butt. For him, losing 3-4 lbs a week is still quite possible while staying above 1200 calories. If he does moderate exercise, he maintains at 4000 calories a day (yes - I am very jealous).
Click to expand...

It's not that big of a difference



2790 calories for a 300 lbs 5'10" male. Also, hes not going to lose 1000 calories a day by moderate exercise. He'd have to do intense exercise for over an hour a day to lose that much, and chances are a 300lb person can't pull that kind of thing without ruining their joints (provided they even have the ability to do it).


Males run an even higher risk of loose skin because their weight concentrates on the stomach, whereas women's fat is distributed throughout.
 
My dad actually lost over 100 lbs total, that was just the first month. He may have slowed down to 1 to 2 lbs a week toward the end, but that was also following the 1 to 2% rule.

My point isn't that everyone should cut to as low as possible, just that it's not necessarily unsafe or something that no one should ever do it. Ultimately each person needs to decide for themselves what works best for them. There are people that go on protein sparing modified fasts and eat the bare minimum and are fine - and people who just couldn't handle it. There's no 'one size fits all' in diet plans, so people need to figure out what's best for them. Maybe 1 to 2 lbs a week is it, but judging by the studies I've seen, losing 1% to 2% isn't going to cause harm.

Also, I got the 4000/day figure from a BMR calculator with a 5'10" male, 30 years old, 300 lbs with a 'moderate' activity multiplier - - comes out to 4115.25
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top