The Biggest Loser: Where Are They Now?
I remember watching the first season of the network show, “The Biggest Loser” and being amazed as participants would weigh-in each week and lose 10-25 pounds a week.
By the end of the show, the winner was crowned and his name was Ryan Benson. In one season, he was able to lose a staggering 122 pounds!
So how is Ryan Benson doing these days?
A recent article in Time magazine checked in with some of the former “Biggest Loser” winners, including Benson who has gained back roughly 90 pounds after the show was over.
He claims that as soon as the show was over, he regained “32 pounds in 5 days simply by drinking water.” This is incredible and points to the fact that when any person loses weight rapidly, (faster than 1-2 pounds a week) normally the weight loss is mostly due to water loss.
The participants of the show are exercising with a trainer between 4-5 hours a day, thus creating a dramatic loss of water. This is combined with 24 hour television coverage of each of the participants, which discourages any “cheating” on the ultra strict diets.
Would you cheat on your diet, knowing that millions of people would witness it?
The article went on to say that last season’s runner-up winner, Kai Hibbard, consumed only sugar-free Jello and asparagus for several days along with jumping in and out of a sauna for six hours prior to the final weigh-in.
The show supposedly tries to discourage such behavior by threatening penalties for being to dehydrated, but has not issued any violations yet. (I guess living on sugar-free Jello and asparagus for a few days is considered safe by the television networks.)
As the article points out, Benson is actually considered a success for still keeping 30 pounds off for over a year. According to the National Weight Control Registry, “only a fifth of dieters with a history of obesity sustain a loss of 10% of their body weight for a year or more.”
Where is Kelly Minner Now?
One former participant who is still losing weight after losing the show is Kelly Minner. The first-season runner-up went from “242 lbs. to 163 lbs. by the finale and now weighs 140 lbs.”
How does she maintain her weight loss?
She exercise 6 days a week for 1 to 4 hours a day. I agree that exercise is definitely paramount to maintaining weight loss, but for the average person, exercising for 4 hours a day is just unrealistic.
With this kind of high exercise volume, I would also worry about the high risk for injuries that could end up stopping exercise altogether.
As mentioned in a prior post, Shaquille O'Neal’s new show is focused on helping obese kids to lose weight. For the benefit of the children, I hope Shaq learns from the Biggest Loser and teaches kids how to lose weight safely.
88 Comments
Add Your Comment
ADVERTISING
New
- FROM DIET BLOG
- On-Off Fasting: Does It Work?
- 400 Calorie Fix
- 5 Factor World Diet
- Quick Giveaway: Powerhouse Weight Loss Game
- FORUM
- Low Carb Atkins Diet- Tips to Cut the Carbs.
- How Can I Gain a Healthy Weight and Keep it?
- How Do I Eat Healthy at University?
- Starving Myself and Exercising, But Not Losing an Ounce?
Categories
| Body Image Celebrities Diet Pills Diets Exercise |
Fast Food Funny Stuff Success Stories Teens and Kids Tips and Tools |
RSS Feed
Follow @DietBlog on Twitter
When we lose weight fast, we again are sure to get it back at a fast pace. The weight we lose in a fast way is more of water weight. So losing weight fast is not going to help us in any way. We have to make life time changes to be able to lose it forever.
ReplyThat is beyond ignorant. These contestants are burning copious amounts of fat. They do not lose an average of 80 pounds per contestant of WATER. Granted they are likely going to gain water weight once they tone down the excercise routine. But they now have large amounts of muscle tissue replacing fat and burning fat itself and they will NOT naturally gain the weight back.
ReplyI agree, you dont gain the weight back fast if you lose it fast, im proof of that. The majority of weight loss is water weight but also fat loss and muscle gain, it all factors in together. Gaining weight back is ONLY from lack of exercise and eating fatty foods.... period.... you must stay disciplined and have the wilpower to live healthy, if not you will fail at your weight loss.
ReplyYes, lets make this clear for everyone, If you gain 90 lbs under any circumstance, than you EAT TOO MUCH FOOD. People can blame the biggest loser all they want. To imply that the large amounts of weight lost is "mostly water weight" is flat out wrong.
ReplyI also often wondered what the producers of "The Biggest Loser" weren't revealing during the course of a season. It seemed to me that the dramatic weekly weight losses had to result from excessive dieting and exercise that would be unrealistic in "real" life. Sure enough, many contestants went on to regain most, if not all, of the weight they lost. Additionally, I would imagine that such a huge weight loss and gain in a short amount of time taxes the heart and cannot possibly be healthy.
As a woman of normal weight who nonetheless bought into the media's unrealistic standards of beauty and have tried every weight-loss method since my teens, I finally learned that there is no magic formula, no pill, shake or special diet to replace the tried-and-true eat less (or at least cut back on the bad stuff) and increase your activity. I also learned that my body favors a certain weight and cannot be forced into maintaining weight less than its ideal for very long.
It would be great if more people woke up to this fact; unfortunately the way "Alli" is flying off the store shelves shows we have a painfully long way to go.
ReplyThis is the problem with rapid weight loss and unnatural methods. Of course they are going to regain, unless they keep up the drastic measures that they began with-and then how healthy can they really stay long term? When I lost my weight (initially 40 lbs), I lost it at a rate of about 1/2 a pound a week. I did it with exercise and a change in diet. No pills, no diet drinks, none of that. It drove me nuts that it was taking so long. But guess what? It's stayed off with very little effort--in fact I've dropped an additional 20 without really trying at all. I'm now at a good weight for my height and I know that as long as I don't start "supersizing" my meals again, I'm not going to regain it.
ReplyLosing weight is the easy part, keeping it off is what's hard. Not only that, but fat cells don't go away after losing weight, they just shrink. Pretty soon those fat cells start yelling at you to eat. "EAT! EAT! EAT!" After so long of that yelling in your head, you break down and after awhile, you've gained it all back and your fat cells have replenished and multiplied.
Happy 4th of July!
Mr. F.
ReplyWow, Ryan gained back 90 lbs?? That's incredible. Well, not really I guess. I suppose I'd gain back weight if I went from being kicked in the butt by Bob and Jillian every day and eating nothing but fish and veggies back to a normal life too. Right now, I'm working out about 2-3 hours a day most days because I'm training for a marathon, but it's not realistic to expect most people to work out that much. And although I'm very careful about not getting hurt, anything can happen and you have to be prepared. I always did wonder how those people managed to lose like, 12 lbs a week. I figured it had to be mostly water because they were eating really clean and working out so much.
ReplyCongrats on your success, ayse! I think people need to realize that it can be done - without fads, starvation or extremes. Hopefully it will be your message - and other messages like yours that will burst through the hype of faddish and unrealistic weight loss.
Since the shows inception, I have always felt it to be a travesty that the person who loses the most scale weight wins. Did anyone else notice that those who lost the least actually looked the best? They looked like they had some lean tissue, no lose skin, etc. I wonder if they did a follow-up with the "losers" of "the biggest loser" - I would be willing to bet that they didn't gain as much of their weight back.
In short, the show is just another vehicle for promoting unrealistic expectations on a desperate and unsuspecting public.
ReplyI don't really think gaining back 90 pounds is a success, regardless of the thirty pounds he is still down. Sure, he is better off, but gaining such a huge amount of weight rather than maintaining... :/
ReplyFast losing weight through dehydration really hurts our body. And I can't see any benefits except promoting programs or products.
The point of losing weight is losing fats. Maybe we should start to use the terms "fat loss" instead "weight loss".
Losing water to lose weight is very easy and fast. Convert fatty acids to energy takes time and it takes lots of vitamin and nutrition.
So, for people who really heading to lose weight. Give yourself at least 1 month. Do light exercise and eat more vegetables and fruits. It's more easy and it's effective!
ReplyI was always a little upset at the fact that the contestants of the biggest loser lost so much weight so fast and that it sent a message that that kind of weight loss was reasonable
and expected.
Weight loss isn't the goal, fat loss should be the proper goal. You lose much more than 2 pounds per week without losing lean body mass.
And on a completely different subject I love how diet blog automatically resizes the page to fit the screen size. It looks and reads great from my iPhone, from which I am posting this comment. I love that I can read diet blog anywhere at anytime!
ReplyShe has to exercise four hours a day to stay at a healthy weight? Why? How much does she eat? I don't really understand, why is it that people who have always been thin often are able to maintain their low weight by never exercising and simply eating in moderation, while people who used to be overweight have to be extreme dieters and exercisers to maintain their wieght? All the people I hear about who used to be obese and are now healthy exercise obsessivly and eat 1400 calores a day or less. It seems like they should constanty be losing at a rapid rate.
ReplyI eat about 2300 calories a day, workout 60-90 minutes a day on average, and have maintained a loss of 100 pounds since 2002. I'm a personal trainer now helping others lose in a HEALTHY way.
BL disgusts me. Fitness should be fun. Weight loss should be sane. It CAN be done in moderation...I did it and I know hundreds of people who have or are doing it without resorting to dangerous activities.
I remember reading an interview with Suzy who was runner up (married Matt). She was so dehydrated the day of the final weigh in she could hardly stand. I'm sorry, that's criminal to drive someone to that type of behavior.
Another season I watched when someone water-logged (drank gallons of water) to gain on the show so that someone else wouldn't be voted off. He should have been let off the show that night. That can be DEADLY! I'm surprised the idiot producers allowed it. (Look up Hyponeutrenia, or water poisoning. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing.)
Last year BL had auditions for new trainers and people urged me to apply because of my story. No way. They wouldn't want me any how (haven't been a trainer that long, don't look good in a skimpy outfit as 100 lbs does stretch that skin). I just simply do NOT agree with their exploitation of people who are desperate.
ReplyIt's because calories in - calories out is completely untrue. I'm formerly obese and right now the amount I have to eat (not eat) to maintain my healthy weight (140 @ 5'7'') is scandalously low. I have fat people genes and always will, and feel like it's probably inevitable that I will regain some weight, if not all of it. It feels really hopeless. I'm telling myself to enjoy it while it lasts.
This article is so depressing and not at all surprising. Well, a little surprising, I would have guessed they'd regain, but am horrified by how much and how rapidly it all came back. I guess they're not doing their contestants any service at all.
ReplyCalories in calories out is completely true. When obese people are monitored in study after study they eat way more then they admit to or even realize. When they are strictly monitored they lose weight the same as every-one else. Obesity is a lot different from being a bit over weight. It's a genetic problem and not one of metabolism but inaccurate signals from your body to eat. Obese people feel much more hungry and feel that way much more often. That feeling causes an addiction to food that is nearly impossible to break. Statistics show that approxamately 1 in 1000 obese people who lose weight are able to keep the weight off over 5 years. I think it's an absolute travesty that people in this country see obesity as a lack of control instead of the genetic abnormality that it truly is. Even worse, they've convinced a generation of people that obesity is a mental disorder of convergence. Certainly, people who have issues with food eat more whan they are stressed but they do that because they are adidcted to food due to a genetic abnormality, not because they are mentally ill. There are a only 2 ways a person can lose weight associated with obesity and hope to keep it off, Gastric bypass or a lap band system. I see it this way, if my child was born with any other genetic abnormality that affected their long term health and emotional happiness I would get them the surgery to fix that proplem as soon as I could. Obesity should be no different. These people need real medical intervention, not blame or completely unrealistic eating plans that cause them to be tortured by hunger every day of their life in exchange for a healthy body.
ReplyI'm glad the biggest loser is there to show people how to eat healthy and that you need to exercise but it's not the real cure for the obese. It's how they need to live AFTER the extreme hunger caused by genetics is removed surgically.
I think that you have been fooled by the FDA. How many people get gastric bypass surgery to lose weight and it doesn't work. My dad had the lap band surgery done and he didn't lose any weight until he started to manage his food intake and start exercising. SURGERY is an un-necessary bad solution to a problem that can be controlled with eating healthy and exercising. Not necessarily to the extreme they do on the biggest loser but a healthy exercise. This world is so brain washed by the government making people think that surgery and drugs solve every health issue. Why not eat healthy and MOVE to lose weight. Such an easy concept yet hard to do for some people myself included. Yes I have been overweight my entire life, I have never been skinny. I know what I need to do to lose my weight but so far I have chosen not to do it for more than one reason.
ReplyIf this is true, then why, for example, do countries like Norway have an almost nonexistent obese or diabetic population? Obesity can be mapped around the world, and there is an undeniable correlation between lifestyle and obesity rates. Norway has very little fast food, and a general lifestyle tendency towards physical activity (lots of walking, etc.) and what are actually normal sized meals that many overweight Americans would consider mini appetizers. Lots of veggies and fish, no fries, chips and pizza.
The scary news is that in a few cities, as Mickey Dees and others are invading and selling their toxic fat-laden wares in enormous portions, a few obese Norwegians are popping up, and are just beginning to emulate their fat American counterparts in claiming, "I can't help it!" Even though it's a horrible first for their (my) country, suddenly we're supposed to believe that it's some sudden, unavoidable 'genetic' disorder. True genetic metabolism disorders are incredibly rare.
And strangely enough, closer to home, the Amish almost never get fat. They eat lots and physically work lots more. The heavier ones tend to be women who do more sitting and sewing and such.
ReplyOMG, there is no truth in anything you say! The only effective way to lose weight is surgery? You believe this huh? BTW, caloric energy in = energy out + heat comes from Einstein's equations of mass and energy, so I suppose he was wrong to huh? Go ahead Laura let someone take a knife to your stomach because your convinced its the safe way to lose weight! Your a surgeon's dream come true!
ReplyPeople have a predetermined number of fat cells that shrink and grow based on calories in/out... once you exceed the capacity of these cells they signal the body to produce more fat cells. Unfortunately it doesn't work the other way around... when you lose weight those extra cells that were created when the threshold was exceeded do not go away. This is part of why sustained weightloss is difficult...
Reply1-4 hours a day isn't too ridiculous. Most people spend a lot of times on other things that would be that much time. I mean, to get your cardio in, and weight training? That can take up time. You want 1+ hours of cardio (at least, I do.) A 20 mile training run, for me, takes near 4 hours by itself.
Replywhat's sad is that the show doesn't examine what has happened to these past contestants....what these people HAD to do in order to win a show about losing weight. remember: they don't get the prize for being healthy, they get the reward ONLY for lowering the numbers on the scale and in their BMI.
Last season's runner-up, Kai Hibbard, 28, an aerobics instructor in Alaska who says she spent the night before her final weigh-in hopping in and out of a sauna for six hours, consumed only sugar-free Jell-O for several days and wolfed down asparagus, which is a natural diuretic. "It's amazing the things you learn in a weight-loss competition," she says.
wow - just IMAGINE if that tidbit was shared with the viewing audience before her weigh in. imagine if a show that is supposed to champion a healthy lifestyle let the viewers know exactly how kai got her weight down before weigh-in. i wonder if the show would examine the long term effects of overweight and obese adults going on crash diets like this (i really don't care that they are medically supervised...if that was the case, why did kai have to go to those lengths?) and then eventually gaining the weight back like ryan. and truly, how could any of us fault the guy for gaining most of the weight back? the show put him in a surreal situation that doesn't exist in his everyday life. it's hard to find 2-3 hours to work out every day AND have all of your meals specially made...even celebrities have a tough time and they have the means to PAY FOR IT ALL (trainers, meals, gyms). are these people professional jockeys/olympic wrestlers or are they supposed to be embracing a healthy lifestyle?
i always found the people who didn't win the competition to be the most inspiring...many of them go on to lose weight and do so while living their normal lives. that, to me, is far more inspiring than the actual winners.
i have overheard people say that they watch the show because it inspires them. too bad the truth isn't as inspiring as the reality show editors make it out to be.
ReplyThis is very sad that they did not learn good habits to keep it up, but this is not surprising given the show is really about entertainment.
1-4 hours of exercise is not unreasonable. I don't have time during the week to exercise for 1 hour blocks straight, however, I get a minimum of 1.5 hours of exercise Monday through Friday, then 4 hours on Saturday and Sunday. This adds to about 15.5 per week, out of the approximate 119 hours a week that I am awake. Approximately 13% of the time I am awake is dedicated to exercise per week.
I do high intensity cardio (heart rate of 75% of max) for 30 minutes in the morning before work, then 30 minutes of high intensity cardio after work. I spend an extra 15 minutes of weight training 2-3 times a week. I eat lunch, then take a 30 minute walk. On the weekends, I get out of the gym and do something outdoors. Sometimes it's an average of 12 miles on the bike, where I'll ride downtown and have lunch, then go to the park and watch the boats before I head home. Or take a hike along the numerous trails in Washington state. Or go kayaking/canoeing on the lakes.
While 4 hours is not doable for me on a weekday, 1 hour is more than possible. I have to break it into 2 chunks, though, or else it might be more difficult to accomplish. You have to fit things where you can. You have to eat, and you have to drink water. These things are not optional to live. You have to make time to eat and drink water. You have to think of exercise the same way - you have to set aside time to exercise. You make time at noon every day to eat lunch, no matter what other kids/work/chore requirements you have. Why not exercise?
ReplyI agree. I watched the show a couple times and it was sort of weird to hear the contestants complain that they "only" lost 10 lbs that week or something. I think I would have peed my pants for joy if I had EVER lost that much in one week when I was losing weight. I think the most I ever lost was 5 lbs in one week and that was when I had food poisoning and was severely dehydrated. So yeah, I think they should go by body fat...isn't there another weight loss show that does that? Or am I imagining things? :)
ReplyCount me as another person who finds 1-4 hours of excercise a day unreasonable. Yes, if it were my number one priority in life, I could make the time. But I work full-time, read, spend time with friends, am generally fairly social. I have no problem making excercise a priority in my life - my alarm is set almost every morning to make time for it. But I don't want it to be THE priority, just as I don't want my weight to be the number one priority in my life. Sometimes I find it creeping up there and that's when I feel like I'm being someone who lives to eat rather than eating to live.
Yes, being physical is great, but sometimes there's this attitude that anything sedentary is worthless. I feel bad for people who need more than an hour a day or intense physical activity to stay in decent shape, since the thing I worry about the most is how much I worry about food and excercise. All counting calories and going to the gym makes me someone who bores all my friends.
ReplyCalories in calories out is a myth.
Calories are used to define the amount of heat energy needed to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree C.
So food has calories, but calories do not control our biochemical processes.
Hormones affect our biochemical processes.
Marconutrient and micronutrient content of food affects our hormones, and the composition of food is way more important than the calories.
ReplyWell, I know you didn't ask, but do you remember Moe? He's actually running for Nashville City Council! WalkerForNashville
And I'm sorry, but I still love the show.
Oh - remember Matt and Suzy? (Matt won on season 2) They got married and just had a baby.
ReplyThe 4 hours exercise is indeed to much. Plus, doing it for 6 days will most likely bore us, not to mention that our bodies wouldn't we in condition for exercising each day.
ReplyI read that article last month and thought it was very revealing. It goes to show that a lot of people can lose weight in an artificial environment, but out in the real world where there are stresses and no personal trainer or cameras to watch people fall off the wagon.
In New Zealand we have Downsize Me which is pretty good, but they went back after a year and reviewed the contestants from the first season - only 1, a mother son combination, had kept up both the diet and the exercise. Some kept up the exercise and not the eating, citing stress, emotional eating etc as their downfall.
ReplyIt is basic biology, but some people have such an adaptable metabolism that they have to restrict basically to starvation levels to lose any weight at all, much less maintain. Apparently.
I don't really get what people mean when they say "calories in - calories out doesn't work." Of course it works. If your body is dead-set against burning calories unless absolutely necessary, then it will be difficult to get the "calories out" part of the equation to a weight-losing level. That doesn't mean it "doesn't work", just that it sucks for you.
But for the rest of us, who weren't put on a crash diet when we were five and endlessly harangued to be skinny by vain but well-meaning relatives during our formative years (I keep hearing this scenario over and over from people who say that this treatment permanently screwed up their metabolism and now they pretty much have no hope of ever losing weight), yes, Virginia, if you restrict calories and exercise more, your body will be forced to make up the difference by burning fat, and you will lose weight.
ReplyHi,
Calories in-calories out, is a false myth. The only time it would be true, if all the food was the same thing. Like one cupcake is better than 5. A calorie is a unit of measure, sota like a box of a certain size. Now this box can have gold in it, ot it can have dirt in it. Calorie in/out theory, also totally disregards the way different foods affect the body. Take two equally obese people, one of them feed daily 3000 calories of cupcakes and potato chips, the other person, feed them 3000 calories of brocolli, spinach, tuna, and chicken breast. I am willing to bet that the latter will drop excess fat weight like a rocket, while the former stays obese. It's because a calorie is not a calorie is not a calore, as a cupcake is not a baken salmon. This is why the calorie in/out is a faulty myth.
Replyhmmmm i dont think you are right. i would still gain A LOT of weight eating 3000 worth of broccoli calories a day. you have to burn the calories youre taking in if you want to lose weight, it is simple.
those who dont believe in calories in calories out are probably obese people who dont want to exercise at all.
ReplyDifferent foods do affect the body differently -- for the person eating junk food, the sugar in the cupcakes will screw around with their blood sugar and insulin levels and make them crave even more sugar, and the salt in the chips will make them retain water like crazy -- but, sorry, you would lose your bet.
In the first place, it would be very difficult for most people to consume 3000 calories of broccoli and chicken in a day since 3000 calories' worth of healthy stuff is so much more food than 3000 calories' worth of crap, and in the second place, if they did manage to consume 3000 calories of broccoli, they would not lose weight. In order to make your body burn excess fat, you need to be running a calorie deficit. If you're getting at least enough calories to meet your metabolic needs, your body doesn't care whether they came from cupcakes or broccoli. The only time it's going to start digging into the fat reserves is if there aren't enough calories coming in from food. And if you're getting more than enough calories to meet your needs, your body still doesn't care whether they're from cupcakes or broccoli, it's going to store them as fat. That's the way it works.
ReplyHi,
Well, like I said, it's a unit of measure. That's all. The fact is different food affect the body differently. And this is why it's not really true, when applied to the body, for weight loss. Yes, eating less in general, would have an effect, and eating 2 Twinkies as opposed to 8 would have an effect. But the way the body stores and usues fat, is largely, mainly about hormones, of insulin, and glucagon. Calories, just as calories, is not cut and dry science as I showed in my original post. But also, and overall eating of less, has an effect. But foods are different mainly, and that is really why calories is not cut and dry, as the body reacts in it's fat storage and usage, differently from different foods. The calorie theory's main problem is is seeks to equate a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, which is full of holes. But that said, a decrease in overall food from what one normally eats will make an effect too, though I would not really relate that to the "calorie theory".
ReplyI think what Tim is trying to get across is that the composition of certain foods affects how many calories we actually absorb from them. Foods with a lot of fiber bind up fats and help them pass out of you without being digested. I also think calorie DENSITY is important. If you screw up and eat 3 servings of say, carrots, you're going to do a lot less damage than if you eat 3 servings of ice cream.
I try to follow the rule: eat foods that are low in calories and high in water/fiber. It definitely works.
ReplySpectra's right about fiber slowing down digestion, but I think Tim was instead suggesting that calories from fat and carbohydrates are different than calories from proteins and organic acids. I would guess that he thinks calories from alcohol would also be different.
So, do we have any nutritionists around? From what I understand of the way calories are computed now, it's not based on a bomb calorimeter (as was done in the past) but instead on the amount of energy the body produces from the macronutrient. That is, a calorie IS a calorie, at least averaged over a large population, because that's the way they're now defined.
ReplyJosie said: "All the people I hear about who used to be obese and are now healthy exercise obsessivly and eat 1400 calories a day or less. It seems like they should constanty be losing at a rapid rate."
I was just commenting on this in another thread. Whether you call it the "fat gene", a tendency to gain weight, drawing a short straw in the genetic lottery or whatever, if you've been obese then lose weight, you will always have to work at maintaining your weight.
I'll bet that many "normal" people (ie someone who had never been obese) who adopted my workout regime and diet would lose weight, but I need to do it just to maintain.
And RJ - don't say it's inevitable that you'll regain. Dr J had some good advice for you. Build some muscle and find a cardio activity that you enjoy. Hang in there!
ReplyThanks for your concerns, but please don't worry about me, I play a competitive full-contact sport. I've played it fat, and now I play it at a much lower weight. I work out (practice) 2 hrs 5x/week. And I eat low-carb. And to not re-gain, I have to keep it fairly low-cal as well. My diet consists of lean protein & vegetables.
I was feeling kind of grumpy when I posted earlier, I apologize for my hopeless tone. That said, studies show that almost no formerly obese person keeps the weight they lose off.
And I don't think anyone participating in this thread is going to be persuaded to the other position, but I strongly believe that the macronutrient composition of one's diet has far more significant implications for weight loss than the calorie count.
For me personally, if I eat high-carb food in the same calorie amounts as my current low-carb diet, I will re-gain weight. Same calories, different macronutrients? I will gain.
ReplyI don't know anything about macronutrients, so I can't really follow that part of the thread. The thing about the "fat gene" though, I've read that the so-called fat gene wasn't based so much on natural metabolism but on the fact that people are born with different amount of appetite controlling hormones in their body that end up determining how much they eat, along with the fact that as long as someone has lost weight significantly, their body has a higher "set weight" for about five years and is constantly fighting to get back up to it by telling the body to eat more. That's why I don't understand how someone could eat low-cals and still not lose weight. I've also read that the most that people's natural metaolism could differentiate (apart from cases of hyper or hypothyroidism) was about 700 calories. So I'm just confused here. Perhaps I've read wrong.
ReplyJosie - That's interesting about the metabolic variation of 700 calories. But 700 calories is a lot! For me, it's around 1/3 of my maintenance level. For other people, it could be almost half of their daily intake.
ReplyIt might not be true, I just remember reading it in some magazine a few years back and now I can't find anything on it. Its probably just a rumor or I'm remembering wrong since I can't find anything on it now.
ReplyI don't think you can ever screw up your metabolism permanently, unless you abuse thyroid medication or something. Anybody can lose weight, even people who have been on a crash diet when they were five or people who have hormone imbalances. The trick to it is that you have to learn to eat unprocessed foods. My entire family is "genetically fat", or something like that. But they are all sedentary and eat like crap too. When my dad started eating fewer refined carbs and started walking every day, he really lost quite a bit of weight. When my mom (who attributes all her weight gain to having kids, the youngest of whom is now 21) eats a low processed foods diet, she loses weight too.
I'm not 100% sure how they determine calorie content in foods now, but I do know that eating combinations of certain foods can alter the amount of calories that you actually absorb from them. I'm actually pretty sure that's why nuts are so good for you...even though they are technically high in calories, they are also high in fiber, so I don't think you actually absorb as many calories as they have.
As far as alcohol goes...it's a seperate macronutrient that you use for fuel. Since it's already partially metabolized when you consume it, you can get 7 kcals/gram out of it for energy (vs. 4 kcals/gm for carbs or protein and 9 kcals/gm for fat). And you tend to use alcohol calories first, as opposed to fat or carbohydrate. It's not a good thing to drink a lot if you're trying to lose weight, but a moderate amount is fine, especially if you're not trying to lose anymore.
ReplyHi,
The basic point I was trying to say, is all calories are not equal. The way I tried to show this, as a calorie is a unit of measure, let's say like a suitcase. Well the suitcase may be filled with gold, or trash. So, in that way, yes, a suitcase is a suitcase is a suitcase. But what's in it, is what's important, not only for the value, but with how it effects. Refined carbs, like flour, sugar, and starchy carbs like white potatos effect the body differently, with it's blood sugar and insulin differently than spinach and tuna does. My main argument against the calorie idea, is that a 1 lb of M&Ms is not the same, for how the body will be effected, and fat stored, as 1 lb of zuchini and chicken breast. In diet and body workings, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, just isn't actual. It'd be like saying a pound is a pound is a pound. And we know a lb of fat is not the same as a pound of muscle. I hope this makes sense. I guess my bottom line, I believe, is it's what you eat that's most important, for many foods, you can eat however much, regardless of calories, because they are not stored as fat, as other types of food are.
ReplyAs a surgeon, I need things to be simple to understand them. I look at it this way. If you eat lousy foods, you will build a lousy body. Lousy bodies are not healthy bodies. Energy units be damed. :-)
Replyl like your approach Dr J! I only get so many calories a day, so I have to make sure I spend them wisely; I have no room for poor-quality food in my body.
ReplyI always try to fill my diet with foods that are nutrient dense, but not calorie dense. It's pretty easy to do...read the labels on something like white bread. It has calories, but barely any protein, vitamins, nutrients, minerals, fiber, etc. Compare that to, say spinach, which has very few calories yet packs a lot of vitamin A, C, iron, folate, vitamin K, etc...Or tuna, which has few calories per serving, but is loaded with protein and good fats. I try to make sure the majority of my diet is nutrient dense food (probably about 90% or so) and the rest can be beer and Skittles :) (or in my case, beer and Hershey's kisses)
ReplySpectra!
You are the 'poster child' of how to maintain weight loss :-)
RedPanda!
Thank you! I'm the same, only 'not-lousy' foods for me!
I'm guessing we do it in a similar way, with some personal variations. It didn't happen overnight, but we learned what we needed to do to stay fit. It wasn't necessarily easy, but we became committed and over time it became easier. Now it's just a life style. It's really not that different from the treatment of diseases. I'm always amused that even though there are a lot of diseases out there, there really are not that many treatments. Usually a 'healthy' life style will treat every disease! So from my hopeful perspective, 'treating' yourself with the preventive 'healthy' lifestyle will prevent disease. With some luck and good choices we can compare notes years and years from now :-)
Reply