The Biggest Loser Diet, Analyzed
Friday March 13, 2009
Although I've only seen part of one episode of the TV show "The Biggest Loser", I've been curious about the Biggest Loser Diet I've been hearing about. I was sure it is low in calories, but how were the calories distributed? In particular, did contestants cut down their carb intake? To aid me in my research, I took the description of the Biggest Loser Diet in Prevention magazine, and created menus for three different days of the diet. I tried to choose menus that I thought would be typical when following the guidelines, and deliberately avoided making choices that were the highest or lowest in carbs in each category. Here's what I found out about the Biggest Loser Diet:1) Calories: The diet has about 1100 calories per day - all three days came to within 35 calories of this in either direction.
2) Carbohydrate: The menus I chose were between 88 and 120 grams of carbohydrate per day, which was between 42% and 53% of the calories. The diet does not allow any added sugar, refined grains, or potatoes, so most people would be eating a diet that is somewhat lower in carbs, and much less glycemic than the way most people eat.
3) Protein: The diet is relatively high in protein. The menus I chose were between 100 and 120 grams of protein per day, which was between 35% and 46% of the calories.
4) Fat: The diet is very low in fat. The highest fat day was the one where salmon was included; that one had 20 grams of fat at 16% of calories. Other days were around 12% fat.
Thoughts on the Biggest Loser Diet:The whole point of the Biggest Loser TV Show (and the part I object to, which is why I will not watch it) is to lose large amounts of weight as fast as possible. Of course, this makes great TV, but outside the confines of the strictly-regulated regieme of the contestants (and probably not even there), it's really not a good idea.
For most people, this diet would not be sustainable, as after awhile hunger will assert itself forcefully into the equation. Small, relatively inactive women might be able to sustain it for longer periods, but part of the idea of getting healthy is to become active. For this reason, I'm not a fan of low-calorie diets, as I think they tend to set people up for failure in the long run. At the very least, the number of calories should be customized to the individual.
I am also not thrilled with diets which are very low in fat, as our bodies need fat to run well. In this diet, the fat is mostly replaced with protein, rather than carbohydrate, which is an improvement over the usual low-fat diet. Still, I can't imagine many people living with this for more than a few months, and most of them would drop out long before.
The diet is said to be "carbohydrate modified" in that all refined carbs are eliminated, and other high-carb foods are limited to moderate amounts. This is a good thing, and this amount of carbohydrate restriction works for many people (though some people require a lower-carb diet).
Conclusion: The Biggest Loser Diet could be the basis for a workable diet. I suggest that anyone who tries it and has difficulty add sources of healthy fat if they get hungry. For example, add avocado, nuts, olive oil, coconut oil, flax seeds, etc. (Saturated fats are probably also fine, at least in the context of a low-carb diet.) If they continue to have trouble, they can try cutting out some of the grain servings. Or check out my Low-Carb Food Pyramid.
Photo © Linda & Colin McKie
Related Resources:
Great post Laura!! I also refuse to watch the show. I saw a clip one day of the female trainer screaming in one contestant’s face!!
I get a kick out of diets like this. Since the fat is low, there are a lot of vitamins and minerals that are not going to be absorbed or used properly! It’s good they have a higher protein intake, but with low fat they are setting them up for failure and possibly illness.
I read a post by Dr Mike recently saying we’re almost out of the “dark ages” of nutrition…..but then you see a show like this and you’ve got to wonder!
Hi Laura,I read in the Glycemic index site (Curly questions)that cooling boiled potato for 24 hours &adding vineger or lemone juice to it will reduce its glycemic effect by 43%,So may I ask you three questions about that..1)what about boiling then cooling pasta in the fridge for 24h then adding to it the favorite sauce,can this reduce its glycemic effect by icresing the resistent starch ? 2)what if I use the same Idea of cooling for pita and pizza crust? 3)what happens if the cooled potato is warmed before eating…does the resistent starch become available starch again? thanks
Great analysis, Laura! I always wondered about that. It’s sad when diets set people up to lose long-term. I love how you take the ’slow and steady wins the race’ approach.
Cindy: Thanks! I’m optimistic, but it certainly isn’t happening at rocket speed!
Thanks, Elizabeth!
Nariman:
That is an interesting study. I will interested to see if those results are replicated, because they are out of proportion with the change in the amount of resistant starch. Realize that in any study of blood glucose that doesn’t include diabetic and prediabetic people, the results cannot be generalized to those people, who are the ones who care the most! Those people often process carbohydrate more quickly than non-diabetics.
The amount of resistant starch in most foods has to do partly with the configuration of starch molecules and partly with how accessible they are to digestion. Cooling potatoes in the study raised the amount of RS from 3.3% to 5.2%. (This means that the vast majority of the starch is still broken down into glucose, although possibly not as quickly.)
Once you grind a grain into flour, you’ve vastly reduced the amount of starch inaccessible to breakdown in the small intestine — it basically doesn’t matter what you do to it after that. The exception is al dente pasta, where the center of the pasta is firm. That pasta is less glycemic than soft-cooked pasta or when the flour is used in baked goods. As far as I know, the temperature is not what makes the difference in the GI of the pasta.
I have never seen a study of cooled and reheated potato.
I watched a rerun of a recent episode on FLN last night. Two of the contenstants were a offered Fiber One granola bar by Bob, one of the trainers. I found the nutritional analysis of this bar on line and it has HFCS and 29 grams of Carbs http://www.generalmills.com/stream_image.aspx?rid=27752 Nasty!!!
Laura,
Thanks for this post. Your information is very important to the millions that watch the show. I agree with your thoughts about the show. “For most people, this diet would not be sustainable” but the problem is that most people do not realize it. They will attempt to get on the diet and fail. Adding another ride on the diet roller coaster.
I will post a link of your article on my web site http://www.bigtimesinfo.com. Maybe just one more person will read and it will make a difference in their life.
Thanks,
Ken
Laura,
I have never watched this show. I feel that the way they do it is not good science, and not sustainable life long. I know that tv needs to speed things fast, but as we all know ( or should) to lose the weight AND KEEP IT OFF we need to lose it the way we gained it, one pound at a time. To demean the client is just plain wrong! Low carb is sustainable, may the world wake up soon!
Hugs,
G
I disagree with your analysis. You say this may be good for an inactive female, but look at the workout routines these people going through. They could not do this under your explanation and your analysis of their diet. Obviously you are missing something crucial.
I too question the safety of losing so much weight so quickly. I have got my mind stuck in the no more than 2.5 pounds a week. Where did I get this idea about not losing weight to quickly? From the same sources everyone else gets it, online, in books, from Authors, doctors, etc.. But why is it bad to lose weight quickly? These contestants after 17 weeks of the show have all lost over 100 pounds of weight (2009), most of them are now off of their diabetic and blood pressure meds. They look great and feel great. How is this bad? Because they will gain it back when they leave the show, you say… yes, if they go back to eating the way they used too. Maybe it is time too rethink the old ways of diet and exercise. The proof is in the results. I see the results on every biggest loser show. The world used to be flat, that idea was challenged and we now know better. I think for the morbid obese, maybe it is not bad to lose weight quickly, if monitored by a physician.
I say…if your 400lbs and dieing…losing fast is the only way. There are doctors on the show, right? Or are they just actors?
It’s funny that you say there is not much fat in the diet. When they allow a leway of 200 additional calories of nothing but fat. Not only that they tell you the appropriate of including atleast 2 servings of fish with omega 3’s. To me, that would be the appropriate. Also if someone is trying to LOSE weight, they should most definately eat a low calorie diet and an active life style. It is important to add calories once you become a healthier weight to maintain muscle and fuel you through out the day. In order to LOSE weight it’s important to only have the bare min to average of what you need for nutrition. They also say to take a muti-vitamin if you don’t feel you are getting enough energy for your workouts.
The biggest loser diet is perfectly healthy and there is nothing wrong with losing weight quickly. All contestants are monitored closely by physicians. The main reasons these people are losing so quickly is because they have gone from eating 2000+ calories per day (not to mention the percentage of fat) and not being active at all to eating 1200 – 1500 calories a day and being so active that they are burning more than they are taking in, approximately 1600 calories a day. As long as you have the proper fuel to sustain your daily routines and workouts, and are being monitored, there are no health risks with this plan.