Biggest Loser Study round 2: contestants must "exercise like crazy" to keep the weight off
archive.is/6YpXtPosted Nov 3, 2017, 3:47 AM UTC
5190
archive.is
35 minutes a day is something most people can't for into their lives? Wtf? How much time does the average person spend watching TV a day?
59
I still can't believe how often I am told that I am "lucky to have so much spare time" when I mention I go swimming several times a week. The people who tell me this are women in a knitting group which I am leaving early to go swimming.
42
I have just started responding with "I don't have time, I make time." to shut them up.
19
I'm going to steal this.
1
[deleted]
1
According to Bureau of Labor and Statistics, American adults spent about 2.7 hours per day watching tv in 2016. Not like you can’t sit on a stationary bike and watch tv at the same time!
29
I watch a lot of TV but somehow manage to exercise in between my job and that.
16
I watch Netflix on the elliptical. Life Hacked
22
Same. The treadmills and ellipticals in my facility even have TVs with cable access built into them.
9
Same, but treadmill. I even have a few shows I've agreed I can only watch at the gym... So if I want my soaps, I gotta be moving.
8
I do this with my stair master. Unfortunately no more Futurama on Netflix, though.
3
I get in 90 minutes a day and still watch too much TV. It's all about priorities, multitasking and making time for things.
5
I need to invent a treadmill - powered TV. Wanna watch TV? Walk.
12
Oh I would love this. It could have a setting where you set a minimum speed to keep the tv on too. I might be 10K-ready by the end of a game of thrones season
9
As a bonus, it would stop people from eating in front of the TV.
3
Who the hell has 2.7 hours a day to spare?
3
I think most people multitask while watching TV, and many people go to sleep with it on. That’s just during the business week.
5
I watch tv while folding laundry. Usually the only time I watch it. But that's like 2.7 hrs a week not a day.
1
I'm a full-time college student, work two days a week, and I usually watch 1-2 hours of tv a day....after my 2 hour workouts 3-4 days a week.
Some people suck at time management
13
Right?! Full time student, work full time as a supervisor, work out 2hrs a day 4x a week/ 1hr a day 2x, and still manage to watch tv
8
I think it's easier to make the "no time" excuse with young kids in the mix. I still manage to workout every other day (not counting the past 2 weeks or so), but it can be hard when they wear you out and 8pm sounds like a good adult bedtime lol
1
It is truly appalling how some people have devolved. Our ancestors hunted fierce beasts on the plains. We where designed for continuous hard physical effort. Now half an hour a day is too much?
9
Get an exercise bike and stick it in front of the TV to solve that problem.
5
[deleted]
1
I'm still wading through the study but it seems to me like they're estimating energy intake (calories in), not though having the subjects log food. They're estimating total physical activity as TDEE - BMR - (0.1 * TDEE). This equation is based on accepted science, so not a problem in and of itself. However, total physical activity is calories expended through all of your activity throughout the day, so I don't see where the article writer is getting "exercise like crazy" from in the statement that they do it to maintain weight now, six years after the show.
30
As I read the article I got the impression that the author, despite her Ph.D. did not understand the study and was drawing bullshit conclusions. The alternative would be intentional lies.
The "crazy" exercise is 35 minutes of jogging per day is derived from the difference in resting metabolic rate and the measurement explained half way through the article. So either the author didn't understand the measurements and the numbers coming from it, leading to a vast overestimation with those 35 minutes of jogging, or she decided to leave that out to get some agenda across, in other words, lie.
17
Can't access the archive.is from work. Is the average PAL over 1.6? IIRC that was the PAL at the endpoint in the original study.
That is the top end of "office worker" PAL according to the WHO.
1
Biggest Loser contestants must exercise like crazy
That works out to a daily total of more than 80 minutes of moderate exercise, such as brisk walking,
We're fucking doomed. DOOMED.
23
[DOOOOMED!] (https://m.imgur.com/r/daftpunk/DweBevu)
5
Think of all the sitting and eating they'll miss out on!
2
My bike commute every weekday is a total of over two hours. And I usually go for a walk during my lunch break, weather permitting. This...doesn't seem crazy to me.
2
If you sit on your ass all day otherwise, even what they are actually doing is not a lot of activity.
16
Basically the author said, they have to go jogging for 35 minutes, so they can stay in bed all day. And that apparently is working out like crazy.
27
My bike commute us about that and I do it 4 times a week (because gotta rest for leg day). And I also go to the gym...
That's what it takes to look good with a desk job and a diet where I get to indulge quite a bit... And frankly not to go insane. I am pretty sure I will make it to older age in a pretty good state if I keep this up and it's an enjoyable life. I just don't see the down side here.
12
Yeah but my point was that the author boils all activity down to 35 minutes of jogging per day. Later on he explains that this data was obtained by measuring resting metabolic rates and comparing those to total expenditure through the water-isotope-thingy.
So while the author claims "35 minutes of vigorous exercise! insanity!", he conveniently ignores the fact that "all physical activity" in these measurements includes things like:
- sitting
- standing
- showering
- going to the toilet
- preparing food
- eating the food
- going to work
- probably even working at work
- doing groceries
- cleaning the house
- doing laundry
basically everything that is not lying in bed, aka "resting metabolic rate".
So it isn't even the insane 35 minutes of jogging a day. Probably not even close, if any at all. It's a bullshit article, pulling up numbers and then telling lies. These people were not put on a treadmill, but their TDEE was measured for the whole day.
edit: Funny. I just looked at who wrote that article and noticed that the author has a Ph.D in biochemistry. Since this is not rocketscience, either she lies intentionally, or should consider handing her title back in. But I guess that's what happens when you somehow manage to struggle through academia and then end up sucking at the job due to incompetence. You write articles for ars technica.
13
Toilet time can be rigorous if you have IBD like me. 😁
6
the water-isotope-thingy
Doubly-labeled water?
1
I haven't yet thoroughly read the study. Based on the previous study and my brief reading of this one, the average PAL was about 1.8 for all participants. I didn't see what the PALs of the low vs high exercise groups were.
PAL of 1.4 - 1.6 results from the list of stuff you show. It's what the WHO considers "office worker" PAL. 1.8 would be office worker + light exercise, or housewife / shop worker who spends a lot of time on their feet.
EDIT: in the first study, there is a chart showing the participants weight trends during the 2 weeks they were studied at the 6 year endpoint. It was there to show that their weights were stable. However, there was a clear visible downward trend, but the p value was .9 for weight loss, so it wasn't significant. If they were busy trying to lose weight to not look bad for the nice scientists, then there would be transient BMR suppression resulting in both apparent slight "metabolic damage" plus a larger PAL due to a smaller denominator.
1
When you never exercise, it is.
3
sure. but if you don't literally stay in bed all day, you most likely don't have to do that either.
The article is painting a picture of those biggest loser candidates as if they had to work out like machines constantly to keep their weight off, due to some weird damages to their metabolism. Reality is that they probably don't have to work out all and just live a normal life, using their arms and legs to manipulate the world around them.
So the "work out like crazy" conclusion is based on a false interpretation of the numbers provided by the study.
3
This is the new study: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21986/full
Here are some posts on r/fatlogic pointing out flaws in the first study:
https://www.reddit.com/r/fatlogic/comments/4i0m8i/the_glaring_problem_with_the_biggest_loser_study/
https://www.reddit.com/r/fatlogic/comments/4hq425/a_look_at_whats_wrong_with_the_biggest_loser_study/
And here's a letter to the editor titled "Overstated metabolic adaptation after “the biggest loser” intervention" published in the same journal that points out problems with the first study:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21638/full
14
The comments also contain some fatlogic gold!
The thermodynamics approach to exercise isn't necessarily actually how things work in real life on an individual level. You might burn up the energy stored in your fat reserves, but that does not necessarily mean that your body will permanently shed the mass of your now-emptied fat.
what bruh?!
14
You lost weight but you didn’t lose weight? Also, thermodynamics is theoretical at best, not applicable?
That’s my translation of their fatlogic.
8
Isn't there a claim/belief that fat cells may be emptied of their contents, but remain behind to fill up again? Maybe that's what they're talking about. Empty fat cells taking up space on your body like vacant houses. Then you eat a donut, and it "squats" in some of your conveniently available empty fat cells. O_O
4
This is true. The number of fat cells in your body remains fairly constant. They shrink in size as you lose weight, rather than be eliminated entirely, and vice versa.
7
[glares at them] Don't even think about getting bigger! @@
1
Fat cells can increase in numbers (during childhood). They however do get smaller when you lose weight and they sure don't break the laws of thermodynamics.
3
They get smaller, but they don't go away! [hides] ;__;
1
Yeah but only if you eat the donut in the first place and then fail to burn it off.
2
I know. :) Don't want the donut anyway.
1
The study makes the assumption:
Because body weight was stable at baseline and 6 years after the end of “The Biggest Loser” competition, energy intake (EI) was assumed to be equal to TEE.
They find the average TEE was, at every point in the process, over at least 3000 calories. So they acknowledge that these people are on average eating over 3000 calories daily.
They know it, we know it, but we should focus on comparing the "percent change in energy intake from baseline" to the "percent change in physical activity from baseline"? What is the big mystery that this bizarre calculation is meant to solve?
13
The mystery of why they can’t eat like they did when they were much heavier?
8
80 minutes of moderate exercise? Not what I was expecting when I saw "crazy."
8
According to my Fitbit, I get about 90 minutes of activity every workday. I take the train to work, so my commute is mostly sitting, but I have walk to and from the train station. My job is sitting at a desk. I walk to get lunch and walk back. I have a dog that needs walking so I do that twice a day (partner does the other two times). I have some household chores throughout the week. I don't workout at all (though I really should, I'm working on starting that). That all amounts to roughly 90 minutes of activity. Yeah it's faster to drive everywhere and take my dog to the dog park so I don't have to do any activity, but it's completely reasonable to get in that much activity and not even work out at all.
3
90?!? How have you not dropped dead from all that activity?!?!?
2
That works out to a daily total of more than 80 minutes of moderate exercise, such as brisk walking, or 35 minutes of vigorous exercise, such as jogging
OMG say it ain't so! 35 whole minutes of jogging? 80 minutes of walking?!? What? You want me to spend less than 10% of my waking hours actually moving...with purpose? that's absurd
7
I run for 17-18 minutes and walk for 30-40 minutes (run to meet hubby from work and walk back home with him), exercise bike for 30-40 minutes and 20 minutes of calisthenics (evening workout) per day, five days per week. Saturday I bike for 40-60 minutes and dance for 60... and Sundays I rest and walk or bike for maybe 30 minutes. I don't consider that exercising like crazy. That's just being active.
6
I'm an office worker and I easily average 60 minutes of brisk walking while at work. That's my daily baseline. I just walk on my breaks, nothing crazy. I do more exercise either before or after work, some days just a 20 minute run before work and some days as much as 2 hours lifting weights. It's not difficult, even when I'm really busy. I'll do kettle bell swings in my living room before bed. It only seems "crazy" because people are so fucking sedentary that any movement that lasts more than 30 seconds is deemed excessive
3
Have you always been that way, or is it a reaction to weight gain from getting a more sedentary job?
1
Prior to this job I had an active job where I was moving around constantly. I gained all my weight and started losing while I was still working that job. I just walk on my breaks now like a large portion of people here. I think I've always been "fairly active" but only recently did I start working out and doing things beyond walking.
1
35 minutes of vigorous exercise a day?! Say it ain't so! How could anyone possibly have that much time in a single day?
3
Have we as a species really devolved to such an extent that JOGGING is considered vigorous exercise? Really.
2
I miss jogging, too hard on my joints.
6
That's what I was thinking. I was thinking jogging was the moderate activity.
1
Welcome to r/fatlogic! Be sure to read the rules before commenting or posting; Fat hate is not allowed. Ignorance of the rules will not garner you sympathy after a ban. As a reminder, discussions about politics will be grounds for a ban. Should you see someone violating the rules please use the report option, do not engage them.
We have the following weekly threads to suit your needs.
- Have a suggestion for the sub? Our Meta threads are on Mondays.
- Family or friends getting you down? Fat Rant threads are on Tuesdays and Fridays.
- Have a recipe you wish to share? Recipe threads are on Thursdays.
- Want to share your progress? Wellness threads are on Wednesdays and the Weekends.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
The thing people are missing, is just to maintain their already overweight appearance they have to exercise and eat like a "normal" person.
They aren't losing weight, just to be fat and not gain any more weight, they have to do more.
So the reason they are fat, and you are thin doesn't have to do with the amount of work you do vs how much they do, they have something in their bodies that keep them fat.
It isn't their fault and it doesn't have anything to do with their willpower.
Their bodies have diminishing returns, the harder they work, the harder it becomes to be "normal".
-14
All false I'm afraid. The original TBL study was [deeply flawed,] (https://www.reddit.com/r/fatlogic/comments/4i0m8i/the_glaring_problem_with_the_biggest_loser_study/) on a scale that wouldn't think possible for a published scientific study. Try that math on yourself, it'll show you have metabolic damage even though you absolutely don't and neither do they.
There is nothing different about their bodies than anyone else's. They don't have to do more, there is nothing keeping them fat other than the food they are eating. Willpower gets your started, habit keeps you going - they never got into really good habits and learned how to manage their huge appetites, being largely determined by individual endocrinology as predisposed by their genetic makeup. Nonetheless with effective behavioural and psychotherapies this can be overcome to produce lasting weight reduction as result of behavioural habit and lifestyle modification. This never happened because TBL was televised torture and was never designed to actually help them long term, and that is why they can't keep the weight off. It is absolutely their fault, even if the reasons are subtle, complex and and not a moral or character failing.
We have people in this sub who have lost 200+ lbs and have kept it off permanently. I had lost 130 lbs at my lightest body composition, that was around 18 months ago. I've gained 15 lbs back recently because I know I have been out of good habits with food due to unusual circumstances, it's not because of metabolic damage or wizard aliens and I can easily cut it down again when I choose. I still have an obese person's appetite and can regain weight very easily through over eating, I'm just much better at managing it now.
That is, some who cut the fewest calories by the end still maintained their weight loss, while others who cut lots of calories still regained dozens of pounds.
This is always observed during studies using self reported calorie intake. The people who report eating more end up cheating less. It's entirely a psychological phenomenon, and this effect is never seen in ward studies where the methodology includes [inverse calorimetry and doubly labelled water] (http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1415-52732001000200006) - because it is largely impossible to cheat and lie in such studies. They know exactly how much is going in (the doubly labelled water) and exactly how much is going out (calorimetry.) From that link:
In adults, reported intake is often insufficient to cover minimal energy needs.
Frequency questionnaires tend to induce over-reporting, whereas the classical 24 hours recall is very susceptible to large under-reporting. Even obese adults can provide accurate reports of their daily food intake if properly trained and motivated.
This TBL study is on par with the Wakefield MMR study in terms of damaging missinformation, and it will never go away now that it's out.
14
It isn't flawed, that person's assumption that their math and model is correct is the flaw. The Biggest Losers weren't modeled, they were directly measured using indirect calorimetry. The poster doesn't have the right measurements because their idea and estimates are wrong. That's the whole point.
That's the problem with this subreddit. You're using outdated science because you're absolutely convinced you're right. This is the Wakefield subreddit because you all refuse to listen to the new science that has come out.
The NY Times is wrong,. Harvard Medical School is wrong, NHS is wrong, NIH is wrong, Dr Kevin Hall, Dr Ludwig, Traci Mann PhD, Gary Taubes is wrong. Adam Ruins Everything is wrong.
Guess what? Maybe your 1970 idea of calories in vs calories out model is flawed.
Like people have been trying to tell you, but it far easier to blame other people.
-19
u/SomethingIWontRegret wrote that post and I'm sure he'd be happy to explain his thinking in detail. They used inverse calorimetry to measure actual BMR yes, but they compared it to an expected BMR that was calculated using their flawed proprietary formula and that led them to the conclusion that there was "metabolic damage." What they should have done is compare their formula to well validated ones like Mifflin St Jeor or Harris Benedict, which would have produced results to within a few percent of BMR as measured through inverse calorimetry. Their unvalidated formula was bad, therefore the study was bad. [Even Yoni Friedhoff had doutbs.] (https://imgur.com/mfRN4LR)
Guess what? Maybe your 1970 idea of calories in vs calories out model is flawed.
Maybe we trust it because everyone who adheres to it gets the results they want, i.e. they lose weight and keep it off. How do you explain that if we're so incorrect? What are we erroneously attributing our success to, in your view? What is the actual reason that we are all unicorns and can do the supposedly impossible?
I think it's because the behavioural modifications we encourage (based on that filthy 20th century science) work in harmony with the hormones which affect hunger, satiety and even simple pleasure, so we're able to stick to the calorie restricted diet plans that we make for ourselves because we don't feel strong urges to cheat on them. Thus, finite and fickle willpower is not required.
But please, explain to me again how if we're so wrong we end up being right.
13
Basically, you believe your right because your normal. It works for you. So everyone else is wrong. Not because your right. Which is possible even if the new science is right. You're normal because your predisposed to be normal, not because of anything you are actually doing. aka "It works for me!" model.
The problem is your so prejudiced against fat people, your ideology is keeping you from the truth.
-18
Let me repeat the words of Rippetoe: you are not a special snowflake. You are not a medical miracle that defies the laws of physics. You are FAT because you EAT more than you need and move too little. Same as every single fat person on earth.
There is no medical, environmental, sociological or chemical condition that creats fat out of thin air. When you stuff your face with more energy than you expend, you store the energy as fat. Any refinements or details are of interest only to elite athletes. For your non-athletic obesity, the foregoing simple truth is all that matters.
6
The NY Times is wrong,. Harvard Medical School is wrong, NHS is wrong, NIH is wrong, Dr Kevin Hall, Dr Ludwig, Traci Mann PhD, Gary Taubes is wrong. Adam Ruins Everything is wrong.
The NY Times is more than one person and more than one opinion. But it is not a science journal, and Gina Kolata deliberately misrepresented this study.
The Harvard Medical School agrees with us, mostly: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-causes/diet-and-weight/
The actual emerging science is that self-reported intake is untrustworthy so their NHANES based recommendations on food types is suspect.
The NHS agrees with us: https://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/loseweight/Pages/understanding-calories.aspx
The NIH agrees with us: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/healthy-weight-basics/balance.htm
Dr. Kevin Hall also agrees with us. He even acknowledges this flaw in his study, but then argues that obese people should expect to continue to burn more calories and that dropping to expected levels for their weight is too large a change: http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2016/11/are-super-obese-ones-who-are.html#more - Check the Twitter exchange - "IMO it is more important to consider changes experienced by individuals rather than comparing absolute values with other people" OMG!
Traci Mann is a psychologist who isn't staying in her lane. However actually reading her paper and the studies she reviews, you reach a less dismal conclusion than she's claiming.
Dr. Ludwig is watching his insulin obesity hypothesis crumble to nothing thanks to Dr. Kevin Hall and others.
Gary Taubes is a propagandist who turned a $750,000 book advance into a fortune.
Adam Ruins Everything - lol. You bring up a Youtuber.
6
The Biggest Losers weren't modeled, they were directly measured using indirect calorimetry.
Yes they were modeled. Read the actual paper. Dr. Hall created a brand new, never before seen linear regression based on only the 14 contestants' starting measurements. These weren't my "ideas and estimates" - they were taken directly from the paper. Hell, if you'd actually read my post you'd know that. I even provide a direct link to the full text of the paper.
EDIT: Look - I'm not the only one who saw these flaws. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21638/full
5
Honestly, I'm still unsure as to which is more worrying. That flaws like this can go under the radar in major studies, or that randoms on the internet can spot them right after reading the paper.
I still think that OP of yours I repeatedly link to re TBL is one of the best posts ever to be made in this subreddit.
1
Jesus christ. Go actually read the study before commenting.
That's the problem with this subreddit. You're using outdated science because you're absolutely convinced you're right. This is the Wakefield subreddit because you all refuse to listen to the new science that has come out.
That's a strange claim. We have the vast majority of published studies, and scientific consensus, on our side.
The NY Times is wrong
The NYT isn't a scientific journal.
Harvard Medical School is wrong, NHS is wrong, NIH is wrong
At least these three are actual scientific institutions. The vast majority of their studies on the topic all support our side, though.
Dr Kevin Hall, Dr Ludwig, Traci Mann PhD, Gary Taubes is wrong. Adam Ruins Everything is wrong.
Kevin Hall is frequently cited in support of our positions. Traci Mann is a fucking psychologist. Her work is largely about self-control, not about energy balance. The few times she's ventured from her area of expertise she's been slapped down.
Dr Ludwig and Gary Taubes both have books to sell, and thus have a monetary investment to support their ideas no matter what. They twist studies, revise anthropological history, and claim anything that doesn't agree with their preconceived notions "Junk Science". They are not paragons of scientific integrity.
Adam Ruins Everything is wrong.
Adam is a comedian, with literally no scientific background or apparent understand of the topic at hand. He made some videos that were woefully misinformed, and failed to cite up-to-date studies. Why would anyone use a comedian as a source of truth?
You have an incredibly odd view of this sub. I can only guess that you made your decisions ad-hoc and are trying desperately to rationalize them after the fact. It's interesting that you claim the people here are anti-science when you can't even cite actual studies to back up your claims, no do you bother to actually engage with the scientific consensus on this topic.
But, hey, you keep doing you.
5
Wish I'd seen your reply before posting mine.
3
trying desperately to rationalize them after the fact.
It's definitely that.
2
I think you need to spend some more time on this sub... Also, you should know, most of the people on this sub are either in the process of losing weight, or have lost weight.
5
[deleted]
1
Literally everything you just said is wrong.
4
[removed]
2
They make it sound like the CDC recommendation for exercise is a maximum instead of a minimum
It definitely seems that way. I've gotten so many weird looks when it comes up that I work out more than the bare minimum.
I think people really underestimate what counts as proper exercise and not merely basic activity. It's part of the reason why people are obese, they think they burn more calories through activity than they really do.
And that the most extreme of eaters still probably have stretched out stomachs.