Author Topic: The Biggest Loser  (Read 4347 times)

The Biggest Loser
« on: January 10, 2011, 09:26:43 pm »
Competitive weight loss competition on ITV now, with contestants collapsing left, right and centre on a stationary bike challenge. I don't know why I'm watching but I think I'm hooked.

I hope this isn't why I bought a HD box and HD TV  ::-)

Rhys W

  • I'm single, bilingual
    • Cardiff Ajax
Re: The Biggest Loser
« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2011, 09:56:37 pm »
I just flicked over on your recommendation. So the ones who lose the least weight are eliminated? I guess they then go home, give up the exercise and maybe indulge in a bit of comfort eating.

Jacomus

  • My favourite gender neutral pronoun is comrade
Re: The Biggest Loser
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2011, 09:47:02 am »
Competitive weight loss competition on ITV now, with contestants collapsing left, right and centre on a stationary bike challenge. I don't know why I'm watching but I think I'm hooked.

I hope this isn't why I bought a HD box and HD TV  ::-)

We watched that too. It was quite scary how little it took for those people to collapse.

It was also very heartening to see that guy finish his ride, shortly before his wife collapsed, leap onto her bike and finish the race for their team. Same thing when the twins had the same problem.

The PTs are nowhere near as fun as the American ones though.
"The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity." Amelia Earhart

LEE

Re: The Biggest Loser
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2011, 10:20:53 am »
Topless weigh-ins, cash prizes, voting contestants off... I'm surprised they don't throw in a coach-trip and a singing competition, possibly whilst ice-skating with Ann Widdecombe.

Lovely touch how they get rid of the ones who need it most, that made me laugh a lot (with them, not at them you understand?).

Of course I will watch it again, and can't wait for ITV's "Transplant Factor", where the person with the saddest home life gets the new heart, whilst we get to watch the losing contestants keel over clutching their chest as Andrew Lloyd Webber watches on, laughing, from a Gilt Throne.

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: The Biggest Loser
« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2011, 10:38:32 am »
There are no winners - only losers.
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Re: The Biggest Loser
« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2011, 12:03:53 pm »
I was reading about the US version that it copies. There the top prize is $250k. They have a prize of $100k for the individuals who were kicked out of the camp, and had to diet alone, so they have an incentive to keep on.

What is shocking, is how competitive the US competitors are, they quickly realised that the only way to win was to stay constantly dehydrated, to the extent that competitors admitted that they were peeing blood etc.

They always say that that the safe rate to lose weight is 1 to 2 lbs a week, and here we have people losing a stone a week.

Re: The Biggest Loser
« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2011, 12:08:58 pm »

I hope this isn't why I bought a HD box and HD TV  ::-)

Widescreen could be usefull ?

toekneep

  • Its got my name on it.
    • Blog
Re: The Biggest Loser
« Reply #7 on: January 11, 2011, 12:55:13 pm »
I don't understand how the format can be sanctioned on health grounds. Competing to lose the most weight each week must surely lead to some serious problems as referred to in the American version. In these days of litigation I would have thought the program makers were leaving themselves wide open.

Nightfly

Re: The Biggest Loser
« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2011, 02:00:54 am »
I've not seen it, thankfully. It sounds very distasteful and unpleasant. Nasty. It's fair to say a hard line in terms of exercise should be taken with those over weight, but not like this. It sounds like pure commercial exploitation by production companies and TV stations. Queue the first death. I bet there are lawyers, ambulances and paramedics on stand by. Any sign of Dr Gillian McKeith?

LEE

Re: The Biggest Loser
« Reply #9 on: January 12, 2011, 10:05:05 am »
I've not seen it, thankfully. It sounds very distasteful and unpleasant. Nasty. It's fair to say a hard line in terms of exercise should be taken with those over weight, but not like this. It sounds like pure commercial exploitation by production companies and TV stations. Queue the first death. I bet there are lawyers, ambulances and paramedics on stand by. Any sign of Dr Gillian McKeith?

It actually isn't fair to say that.

Re: The Biggest Loser
« Reply #10 on: January 12, 2011, 10:22:00 am »
I've not seen it, thankfully. It sounds very distasteful and unpleasant. Nasty. It's fair to say a hard line in terms of exercise should be taken with those over weight, but not like this. It sounds like pure commercial exploitation by production companies and TV stations. Queue the first death. I bet there are lawyers, ambulances and paramedics on stand by. Any sign of Dr Gillian McKeith?

Why would they want McKeith ?  They already have Davina and she does 'sincerity' second only to Bob Monkhouse.

Rather than base your opinions and views on posts on a cycling forum, why not watch a single episode and then come and tell us what it was like?

Your view will probably still be the same and will still agree with many of us here but it will be your view.

Personally, I watched it because I couldn't believe that they could stoop that low; they did; Davina made my flesh creep as usual; the people most at risk and most in need get rejected each week; the %age weight loss doesn't seem quire right; the lightest and fittest of the heavy unfit should go through and win the money as they are more likely to complete the various tasks.  JUST MY OPINION.

If that sounds antagonistic, it wasn't intended to be ... I'm still waiting for my first cup of expresso. :)

Re: The Biggest Loser
« Reply #11 on: January 12, 2011, 10:27:19 am »
The thing is, the contestants know they have a problem, and have tried everything with the exception of invasive surgery.

Trying normal methods haven't worked, so it's the gameshow route for them.

I've watched 1 episode, I think I enjoyed it, and I think I'll still dip in and out of it.

Nightfly

Re: The Biggest Loser
« Reply #12 on: January 12, 2011, 03:04:10 pm »
I've not seen it, thankfully. It sounds very distasteful and unpleasant. Nasty. It's fair to say a hard line in terms of exercise should be taken with those over weight, but not like this. It sounds like pure commercial exploitation by production companies and TV stations. Queue the first death. I bet there are lawyers, ambulances and paramedics on stand by. Any sign of Dr Gillian McKeith?

It actually isn't fair to say that.


I did say it. It is fair.

Nightfly

Re: The Biggest Loser
« Reply #13 on: January 12, 2011, 03:14:14 pm »
I've not seen it, thankfully. It sounds very distasteful and unpleasant. Nasty. It's fair to say a hard line in terms of exercise should be taken with those over weight, but not like this. It sounds like pure commercial exploitation by production companies and TV stations. Queue the first death. I bet there are lawyers, ambulances and paramedics on stand by. Any sign of Dr Gillian McKeith?

Why would they want McKeith ?  They already have Davina and she does 'sincerity' second only to Bob Monkhouse.

Rather than base your opinions and views on posts on a cycling forum, why not watch a single episode and then come and tell us what it was like?

Your view will probably still be the same and will still agree with many of us here but it will be your view.

Personally, I watched it because I couldn't believe that they could stoop that low; they did; Davina made my flesh creep as usual; the people most at risk and most in need get rejected each week; the %age weight loss doesn't seem quire right; the lightest and fittest of the heavy unfit should go through and win the money as they are more likely to complete the various tasks.  JUST MY OPINION.

If that sounds antagonistic, it wasn't intended to be ... I'm still waiting for my first cup of expresso. :)

For healthy dietary advice and to examine their poo?

I would rather not. I trust the observations of fellow posters here sufficiently so to form a view of what the show involves. I think my view would still be the same. Anyway I only listen to radio now as tv is either repeats or the depressing exploitative fodder we are now discussing.

Also the title of the programme "The Biggest Loser" is calculated to humiliate as well as suggest the most weight lost. Perversely the biggest losers are the contestants who don't manage to lose sufficient weight and are excluded from the show compounding, I should imagine, their low self esteem and humiliation caused by their condition which is the reason they appeared on the show.
 
Rather than contestants riding fixed bicycles why not have each train for the London Marathon which would mean they would receive help in eating healthily, nutritional advice and gradual exercising to achieve a more normal weight to abe able to run the marathon?? It would be a great sense of achievement surely? These people would then gain some genuine help to overcome their eating disorder and reduce excessive accumuluated weight.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: The Biggest Loser
« Reply #14 on: January 12, 2011, 03:22:48 pm »
Bicycles are non-impact, running isn't. The damage to hip, knee and ankle joints could be irreversible.
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

Nightfly

Re: The Biggest Loser
« Reply #15 on: January 12, 2011, 03:27:44 pm »
Bicycles are non-impact, running isn't. The damage to hip, knee and ankle joints could be irreversible.

True. Alright then how about doing LeJog or swimming? I have been running pretty much all my life and haven't suffered the ailments you refer to. Perhaps this is my good fortune or is the trick to being a normal size fit and healthy and perhaps where these people and many others have gone wrong?

Re: The Biggest Loser
« Reply #16 on: January 12, 2011, 03:40:06 pm »
Complaining about punning titles is a bit much.

I googled previous winners of Biggest loser, and the previous winner also won the I'd do anything show, which is really quite impressive.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/B_-Y5wSib_o&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/B_-Y5wSib_o&rel=1</a>

The trainers were hard on the contestants as they thought they were slacking, and faking injuries to get out of exercise.

Re: The Biggest Loser
« Reply #17 on: January 12, 2011, 04:21:21 pm »
Bicycles are non-impact, running isn't. The damage to hip, knee and ankle joints could be irreversible.

True. Alright then how about doing LeJog or swimming? I have been running pretty much all my life and haven't suffered the ailments you refer to. Perhaps this is my good fortune or is the trick to being a normal size fit and healthy and perhaps where these people and many others have gone wrong?

People differ. If you met me, you wouldn't say I'm overweight. I've even been very fit at times, run a few half-marathons, competed in kayak racing at middling level.

I can't run any distance anymore due to damage to joints, particularly one hip. 'Any distance' meaning anything over 400m. Jogging that far now puts me in pain for a week. My lifestyle hasn't been unhealthy, it's just a combination of genetics, injuries and childhood illnesses.

A rowing machine might be better for these very large people. The seats are bigger and that's got to help when you are putting a lot of weight on your backside.  Aquarobics could be good, too, just for starting to give them some aerobic fitness.
<i>Marmite slave</i>

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: The Biggest Loser
« Reply #18 on: January 12, 2011, 07:04:34 pm »
A rowing machine might be better for these very large people. The seats are bigger and that's got to help when you are putting a lot of weight on your backside. 
(not sure about the seat size thing  :o :) )

Yep, rowing seems good to me. Also has the advantage that big uns can rack up comparable speeds than skinny bastards without being "super fit" => nice morale boost!
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Psychler

  • Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr........
  • 33.2 miles from Steeple Bumpstead
Re: The Biggest Loser
« Reply #19 on: January 13, 2011, 01:55:43 am »
Being of fuller figure myself [who said "fat bastard"?], I've followed nearly all the various series of Biggest Loser that have been shown on the box over here [American and Australian versions as well as the British ones] to try and pick up some weight loss "secrets".

What I've gleaned is that the Biggest Loser method to losing insane amounts of weight [100lbs in seven weeks is the record!!!!!] is to intake insanely few calories [men 1400 per day, women 1200] whilst doing insane amounts of exercise [6-7 hours in the gym per day over four sessions].  No vitamins or supplements allowed.  Some contestants have lost over 50% of their bodyweight but many have put a lot of weight back on after the finale weigh in.

The challenges, eliminations and temptations supposedly are there to stimulate the competition and promote rivalry but in doing so seem to be more about belittling the contestants to gain ratings ie

- In the first episode of one of the American series, 27 potential competitors had to race a mile through the heat of the Nevada desert with only the first 18 guaranteed a place on the show. The last 9 were actually told they had missed out before a third trainer turned up.  

- In the Australian versions, the competitors are given a "last meal", where they gorge themselves on their favourite foods in an attempt to put on as much weight as possible before the first weigh-in.

- In the early stages of the show, the men's shirts come off for the weigh-ins but in the later stages when all the saggy flesh is showing the shirts stay on.  What is the point of the "shirts off" in the first place?  

- And why do the women have to weigh in wearing tight lycra shorts?

- In the latest American series, the competitors had to have their first weigh-in in their home towns in public ie a packed football stadium

There is a lot of debate about game play as opposed to genuine desire to lose weight.  There have been contestants who have water loaded to ensure that the scales only show small amounts of weight loss if they have gained immunity, so that they appear to lose more the following week.  Alternatively, some contestants will dehydrate themselves to lose more.

There is an on-line "Biggest Loser Club" who's sole raison d'etre seems to be to sell meal replacement products which are not mentioned or seen on the shows, whilst the American contestants are regularly seen eating from "Subway" who are now sponsoring the British version.  The laptops used by the trainers to record their competitors info were shown on the British show this week with the screens angled towards the camera and they just happened to be on the "Biggest Loser Club" page "from only £2.50 per week".

The show is only there to make money by exploiting us chunkies but I still watch it.  Pick from that lot what you will.
I'm gonna limp to the pub and drink 'til the rest of me is as numb as my arse.

Clandy

Re: The Biggest Loser
« Reply #20 on: January 16, 2011, 09:40:23 am »
A couple of years or so ago there was a similar series where they got morbidly obese people to walk several hundred miles across the US in a set timeframe. At the same time their diet was 're-educated', and they added in a 'vote off the least popular' factor. It was interesting.

Have just got up The Biggest Loser on the itvPlayer (PS3 great piece of kit, bluray, catch up tv etc). These people are small compared to the American equivalent.


<edit> The US show was called Fat March.

Re: The Biggest Loser
« Reply #21 on: January 17, 2011, 09:05:07 pm »
On now.

A 30 stone man doing push ups. Impressive.