Has the biggest loser gone too far?

I saw Dr. Oz talking about Karen yesterday. He said that her weight range should start at 110 pounds - so she is only 5 pounds under that. Like I said, I think she wanted to be sure that she won the prize. I am quite sure that she will put on 10-15 pounds now that the show is over.
 
This is what Dolvett posted on Facebook

"Last night's Biggest Loser Finale has sparked a huge reaction and I do not want the day to end without addressing it. Biggest Loser is a journey which has its ups and downs. Please try not to look at one slice of Rachel's journey and come to broad conclusions. Rachel's health is and always has been my main concern and her journey to good health has not yet ended!!"
 

This is what Dolvett posted on Facebook

"Last night's Biggest Loser Finale has sparked a huge reaction and I do not want the day to end without addressing it. Biggest Loser is a journey which has its ups and downs. Please try not to look at one slice of Rachel's journey and come to broad conclusions. Rachel's health is and always has been my main concern and her journey to good health has not yet ended!!"

In other words, what we saw on Tuesday night was NOT "good health" because her "journey to good health" has not ended. Pretty clear admission, I think that she went too far even for her trainer. He certainly couldn't have meant that she needed to lose even more weight!

Also, I read reports from one on-line source from an interview with her that she was eating 1600 calories per day, and working out AT LEAST 3 hours a day, PLUS walking on a treadmill instead of sitting at a desk to work. At that level of activity, her body would be cannibalizing muscle (the same as happens to anorexics). Very, very damaging to your body including that all important heart muscle.

A woman her age of "normal" activity would need 1800-2400 calories per day to sustain weight. Her activity level was extreme. Sigh. Such a bad example for other young women.
 
In other words, what we saw on Tuesday night was NOT "good health" because her "journey to good health" has not ended. Pretty clear admission, I think that she went too far even for her trainer. He certainly couldn't have meant that she needed to lose even more weight!
That is exactly what I got from his statement as well.
 
/
In other words, what we saw on Tuesday night was NOT "good health" because her "journey to good health" has not ended. Pretty clear admission, I think that she went too far even for her trainer. He certainly couldn't have meant that she needed to lose even more weight!

Also, I read reports from one on-line source from an interview with her that she was eating 1600 calories per day, and working out AT LEAST 3 hours a day, PLUS walking on a treadmill instead of sitting at a desk to work. At that level of activity, her body would be cannibalizing muscle (the same as happens to anorexics). Very, very damaging to your body including that all important heart muscle.

A woman her age of "normal" activity would need 1800-2400 calories per day to sustain weight. Her activity level was extreme. Sigh. Such a bad example for other young women.

She was not there to set an example. She was there to win.

The way to set an example is to maintain a healthy weight and promote that like some of the other winners have.
 
Today's size six is not a real '6' - you do know that they added inches to each standard size? A six is really more like a size 10 in the 'old days'. I used to wear a 7 thirty years ago. Now I wear a 3, and I weigh 10 lbs more now. I have an old dress that is a women's 6, and it measures as a 2 today.

I guess I just don't see weight the same as the rest of you. I don't have any eating issues, I just see deposited fat as a bad thing. It puts a strain on your organs and raises your chances of getting cancer. We are not a species that hibernates or migrates, so there is no need for a store of fat to make it through a long winter.

I suppose it depends on what you're looking at as "the old days" - going back to the 50s, sure, though everything was also made for more petite women then as well (my 5'7" was too tall for most of the vintage things my grandmother had stored away, though they fit otherwise). Back to the 80s and 90s? Not so much.

Did you look at the makeover and triathlon pics of Rachel? She wasn't tiny but neither was she fat. She was quite muscular for a woman, especially in the upper body - typical of a swimmer's build. She wasn't bigger solely or primarily because of "deposited fat"; she lost a great deal of muscle mass to get down to her finale weight. And that, rather than her specific weight or size, is what brought out the negative reactions.
 
This is what Dolvett posted on Facebook

"Last night's Biggest Loser Finale has sparked a huge reaction and I do not want the day to end without addressing it. Biggest Loser is a journey which has its ups and downs. Please try not to look at one slice of Rachel's journey and come to broad conclusions. Rachel's health is and always has been my main concern and her journey to good health has not yet ended!!"

Great response and doesn't sound so PR guy generated. I agree with the PP who said she was there to win...I guess if I was about to win a quarter of a million dollars I'd starve myself,too.

It will only take her a few days or weeks to rehydrate herself and get back on track and take the controversy off her back.

This was posted today by ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/social-media-erupt-biggest-loser-winner-22385674

Social Media Erupts Over 'Biggest Loser' Weight Loss

safe_image.php


A day after Rachel Fredrickson won the latest season of "The Biggest Loser," after shedding nearly 60 percent of her body weight, attention wasn't focused on her $250,000 win — but rather the criticism surrounding her loss.

Experts cautioned that regardless of her current weight, the criticism being levied on social media about her losing too much isn't helpful. A more constructive message is needed, they say, centering on body image and healthy living.

The 5-foot-4, 24-year-old Frederickson dropped from 260 pounds to 105 under the show's rigorous exercise and diet regimen — but also time spent on her own before the finale. She was a three-time state champion swimmer at Stillwater Area High School in Minnesota, and said she turned to sweets for solace after a failed romance and gained the weight over several years.

Frederickson's newly thin frame lit up Twitter on Wednesday, with many viewers pointing to the surprised expressions on the faces of trainers Jillian Michaels and Bob Harper during the show's Tuesday night finale. Many tweeted that Fredrickson looked anorexic and unhealthy, while others congratulated her for dropping 155 pounds.

Frederickson's body mass index, a measure of height and weight, is below the normal range, said Jillian Lampert, senior director of the Emily Program, an eating disorder treatment program based in St. Paul, Minn. But she said the criticism directed against Frederickson isn't helpful.

"As a society we often criticize people for being at higher weights — that's part of why we have the TV show 'The Biggest Loser' — and then we feel free to criticize lower weight," Lampert said.

A more constructive message to send young people would center on well-rounded health and the importance of eating well, moving well and sleeping well, she said.

"We certainly see a lot of people who struggle with eating disorders who use the same behaviors on that show to an extreme," she said. "That can't be helpful."

Joanne Ikeda, a dietitian and retired faculty member at the University of California at Berkeley's Department of Nutritional Sciences, added that focus needs to be on embracing body-size diversity.

"We are just obsessed with body size, women particularly. There's just tremendous body dissatisfaction," Ikeda said. "I'm sure even if she was the exact right size, someone wouldn't like the look of her fingers or the length of her hair."

"We should be happy we don't all look like Barbie and Ken," she said.

A listed phone number for Frederickson couldn't be found by The Associated Press late Wednesday. During an appearance on "Access Hollywood," Frederickson didn't directly respond to the criticism but said she intends to live a healthy lifestyle going forward.

"My journey was about finding that confident girl again. Little by little, challenge by challenge, that athlete came out. And it sparked inside me this feeling that I can do anything I can conceive. And I found that girl, and I'm just going to embrace her fully," she said.

In a statement released late Wednesday, NBC said it was committed to helping all of the show's past contestants live healthier lives.

Among the social media commentators was 36-year-old Shannon Hurd, who tweeted that Frederickson looked weak and unhealthy. In an interview Wednesday with AP, Hurd said she became anorexic at age 16 and has been recovering since she was 19.

"Looking at her 'after' photo, I guess I saw ... a piece of myself way back when, and it really just struck something deep down," Hurd said from her home in suburban Denver. "I don't know if she's anorexic, but I do think her weight loss is so extreme there is no way her loss can be maintained through normal habits, and unfortunately that leads to distorted thinking."
 
She was not there to set an example. She was there to win.

The way to set an example is to maintain a healthy weight and promote that like some of the other winners have.

Exactly.
I think too many people are overthinking what the Biggest Loser is about. It's a reality show that centers on overweight people losing the most weight in a short period of time to win a cash prize. Rachel did just that and won.
I can't fault the show for her actions afterwards. If she decides to be underweight then that's her decision and her life. Just like if another contestant decides to become overweight after the show. Their life, their decision.
 

Great article.

I must admit I've never watched a complete season of the Biggest Loser, it seemed to me more like an hour long commercial for products. I only watched this year because of Ruben Studdard... who btw looked GREAT! So much attention was given to the winner that the ones who look great were just forgotten and most looked like they should have after a rigorous exercise and diet 7 month program. I guess that's why I was so disappointed, I thought it was better than this but it looks like it's exactly like it was portrayed.
 
I don't watch the Biggest Loser, so can't really comment on the show. In some of the photos posted here, Rachel looks great; in others, a little gaunt in the face.

I do believe, however, that clothing sizes have definitely changed.

In the 1980's I was a size 8 - I weighed between 115-120 lbs., 5'8"

I am now a size 4, but weigh 124 lbs.

No way could I wear a size 8 now... and back then, no way could I have squeezed myself into a size 4!

So how is that explained?
 
I'm sorry, I respectfully disagree with the above. I can't believe anyone feels that way. Makes me wonder if you're not looking at people and weight through a tainted view.

This...I cannot believe that poster thinks everyone else has looked fat at the end on that show. How sad!
 
I don't watch the Biggest Loser, so can't really comment on the show. In some of the photos posted here, Rachel looks great; in others, a little gaunt in the face.

I do believe, however, that clothing sizes have definitely changed.

In the 1980's I was a size 8 - I weighed between 115-120 lbs., 5'8"

I am now a size 4, but weigh 124 lbs.

No way could I wear a size 8 now... and back then, no way could I have squeezed myself into a size 4!

So how is that explained?

Yep, the wonders of "vanity sizing" drives me nuts, so silly.
 
I think Tanya's face in the background of that picture says even more than the faces of Jill and Bob.
 
I don't watch the Biggest Loser, so can't really comment on the show. In some of the photos posted here, Rachel looks great; in others, a little gaunt in the face.

I do believe, however, that clothing sizes have definitely changed.

In the 1980's I was a size 8 - I weighed between 115-120 lbs., 5'8"

I am now a size 4, but weigh 124 lbs.

No way could I wear a size 8 now... and back then, no way could I have squeezed myself into a size 4!

So how is that explained?

Were you wearing Jrs in the 80s? I know my size definitely changed when I switched from Jrs to adult clothes.
 
I admit to watching the show but missed the last 2 episodes. I like to see the successes of the contestants at the start of the show when they have a lot of weight to lose, but things start to get uncomfortable for me once the final 4 are selected. I usually think that they all look pretty darn good at the semifinal and I know that come hell or high water the finalists will starve themselves to win.

I didn't think that anyone could look as bad a Helen did a few seasons ago. I was wrong. Poor Rachel! I was pulling for Rachel all season because my 14-year old DD is a competitive swimmer. It was a lesson all season about giving up opportunities to swim in college and get a free ride ... all for some boy. And how those choices can effect you in ways that you don't even think about ... like developing an eating disorder. And now, I feel that Rachel has swapped one compulsion for another. That fact that my 14-year old, not an ounce of fat on her, size 2, solid muscle, 5'4" swimmer weighs 15 pounds more than Rachel makes me ill.

The good news is that many of the Biggest Loser contestants gain back a bit and maintain a healthy weight. The swimming community would like Rachel to swim Masters but she'll need to gain back some of her muscle to do that. I hope she makes that a goal because it will help her become healthier and not just skinny.

Now I'm off to watch the finale so I can see all the shocked expressions.
 
This isn't surprising. It's only surprising that it's taken until NOW for it to happen. I'm amazed that they haven't actually killed someone on that show yet.

Bob and Jillian can wear whatever shocked expressions they want; they're part of it. THEY are more than happy to berate the contestants when they don't lose enough (and as trainers they should be more than aware that weight loss has occasional plateaus). After watching them push some of the contestants much too far (throwing up is never necessary and is definitely a sign that someone has been pushed too hard too soon), I'm not sure they get to play the responsible trainers now. They are, IMO, hypocrites. Sure, they're not directly responsible for the total weight loss of this girl but maximum weight loss is what they push for every week on the ranch and Rachel just took that and applied it to the final stretch.

This girl was doing what it took to win - and with $250,000 I might have been tempted to do the same. I understand the point some people are making about maybe they should have a rule that you can't win if you drop below a healthy BMI, but then some people on the show would never be eligible to win because their percentage of weight lost could never match that of the heavier participants. Yeah, it's probably not healthy that she dropped to such a low weight for her frame (and hopefully she just dropped this low for the final weigh-in and the win), but most of TBL has nothing to do with health and everything to do with shock value and ratings.
 

PixFuture Display Ad Tag












Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE














DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Back
Top