Biggest Loser, who?

I generally don't watch reality shows and came across one of the recent Biggest Loser episodes by chance. It was interesting, and I kept watching for a while. I find it absolutely fascinating, though not for the traditional reasons - human spirit, determination and so on. What I find fascinating is how people fall for the drama, where there should not be one.



The very idea - fat people who lose least amount of weight getting kicked out of the show is - in my opinion - ridiculous. These are the people who need more help, yet they are excluded from it. Similar situation existed in the USSR of the 70-s in sport. When I was about eight, my mom got me into swimming. It was not as simple as it is in Sydney or any other civilized place now: go to the nearest swimming pool, join the group, pay the fee - very reasonable - and off you go. In Riga, the city with the population of almost 1 million there was one public swimming pool, and couple of others without the public access. In any case, I have always been a small kid, and at that time did not catch up with the kids around me. After six months and no progress the coach asked me (my mom) to leave. I learned swimming later, when I was about 35 years old. I am not bitter, but I believe that if I received a biot of personalized attention I could learn to swim and may be even make some junior rank, the pride of schoolkids in those times.


Besides kicking out those with most resistant obesity, another aspect of this program drew my attention: nazi style of coaching. For some reason tears and anger appeals to the general public. It must be extrapolated from the events like Olympic Games, where the athlete gives - justly so - everything he or she has for the victory, with tears, anguish and joy. Why it is supposed to be the same for those exercising for less glorious reasons - I don't know.


Couple of months ago I was in a commercial gym in small town in Australia and was watching a lady of about 55 - 60 "coached" by a personal trainer. She did about 15 minutes on the stationary bike, then 10 - 15 minutes on the treadmill, then did some skipping rope, then abdominal stuff, then some weights, then back on the treadmill. The breaks between these sets were minimal, and the intensity was all on the face of the poor lady. The torture lasted for more than an hour. It was the best way for that fitness professional to ensure that the client does not come back. And why should she?


Losing weight and simply getting fit are long term goals. The key word for the activities leading to these goals is SUSTAINABLE. Very few of us can work at high intensity every time we train. And there is simply no reason to do it for the amateur. Yes, I understand that some effort is required: you cannot expect to exercise without some degree of pain. But it does not have to be excessive and all out every time.

A while ago my exercise practice changed from paroxisms of going to gym for couple of months separated by longer periods - to regularly working out, even though often without definite purpose or goal. The reason for change was Tsatsouline's PTP, with it's theme "exercise often and not to failure". "Not to failure" was - still is - my favorite part.

Both volume and intensity have their value and place in training. For beginners volume training is considerably more forgiving, if not overdone, of course. And that's what the mainstream personal trainers forget - or simply don't know. Simple example: The Lore of Running, the bestselling book on running, contains a program of preparation for a marathon. It lasts about nine months, if I remember correctly. Guess what the program starts with? Walking! Then gradually walking is mixed with some intermittent running. Then it's running slowly. Then it's fartleks. And so on. The idea of the program is to run longer rather than faster.

If one wants to lose weight, the exercise should become a habit. It doesn't have to be intensive to the extreme for two reasons. First, it is unsafe and is likely to lead to injury. Two, it is unsustainable and therefore stops at some change. Pushing fat guys until they fall is stupid, just like that.

One of the objections I can foresee from a coach who believes in this style of training is that they have lots of trainees who successfully lost weight, maybe even many of those who kept the loss for couple of years. This however is what is called selection bias. Behind every successful "loser" there are many more of those who did not make it, those who have been kicked out or simply left. We can call them "lacking motivation". Or we can say that there are no bad students, only bad teachers.

For now though the public will be fed bullshit about will power and determination and wrong ways to train. That's in my modest opinion, of course.