Question for Squad Dietitian

[j_young_80]

Just to fill in people who are wondering why they didn't see this thread earlier - it was discussed in private to protect the innocent (i.e. me) but since it contains some useful info., including some from Vikings and V-mobile's own Dietitian Erica Reeve we've moved it out into the public domain.

************************************************** *********************************************
After this mornings ride I was making my way back into the city and hit the Wall big style - white spots - the full deal. As Anla's story of last week, I seriously considered hitting up walkers for some food, even a piece of bread.

The reason I think is because I didn't eat brekkie this morning, nor do I tend to eat brekkie any morning before a training session but I think this mornings ride from the G + smashfest + return is a little much for my poor glycogen stores to handle.

In another unsubstantiated technique from a triathlon podcast, they recommend at least one "water only" session per week. I've been doing this for a couple of years now, and will actually bump it up to a couple of sessions per week if i'm looking to drop weight quickly. The reasons listed for this was to teach the body to sap away at the glycogen stores, so that in racing, the body does the exact same thing. It's worked pretty well for me up to this point I think - and I do tend to suffer a lot less than others in very hot conditions which i'm attributing to this.

It's a fairly tight line to walk as once the glycogen stores go - you bonk spectacularly but I can usually get away with it for an hour, hour and a half session. The counter argument I know is that you're not training at your best, and hence are doing detriment.

So my question is - does this sound like rubbish?

PS: Dan - you're lucky I didn't decide to do the extra loop, I would have been begging you for food about 30 mins in!

[Bean]

I find the loop (including ride from home - ~18 km) is right on the cusp for me dropping like a stone if I don't have extra food on board. I DO eat breakfast beforehand but have bonked once or twice after this ride. I now always take at least one muelsi bar and usually have a whole heap of stuff in my backpack just in case.

[SimonD]

Are you serious - two years? You might be teaching your body to delve into fat more readily but that's about all you're achieving. How can you improve without eating? You're right you're training will be rubbish and in addition so will your recovery. No wonder you are good at endurance but get dropped when you can't go lactic - your bodies probably too scared to burn precious carbs in case it starves to death!

If you're going to try this stuff, do it in base only. Once you have intensity, EAT! Your aim is to turn your body into an energy burning machine, not burn the most fat per work out - leave that to the gym junkies.

[j_young_80]

OK so this is the guy whose podcasts advocate water only sessions - and though this article doesn't state "only use water" he certainly is an advocate of this method - since this is where I picked it up from.

http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/article/nutrition-its-different-for-girls-16773

Nutrition: It's different for girls
By Joe Beer
Research suggests men and women require distinct nutritional strategies (BikeRadar)
The logic goes something like this: we all need carbs to fuel exercise. Long and/or back-to-back sessions strain this limited system. While there’s always plenty of fat to find for fuel, carbs in the muscle can be exhausted very easily.

This is where sports drinks come to the rescue – helping us get more training effect from rides, extending our endurance and making us faster.

However, while this general concept is true and may be ‘literally’ correct, there are some important differences between the sexes that mean that use of drinks and carbohydrates in the diet needs fine tuning for men and women. Recent research studies are to blame for rocking the boat.

Take 14 athletes and fast them overnight, give them a few hundred calories breakfast and have them ride for 90 minutes. During the ride provide them with either with a placebo (Aspartame flavoured water) or a sports drink (8% corn derived carbohydrate solution with a marker added). Look at their expired air and then calculate their fat, protein, internal (glycogen) and exogenous (sports drink) carbohydrate use.

That’s what the boffins at York University, Toronto did [1] with surprising results…

Horses for courses? We cannot be sure why evolution has made women and men different in their fuel use but what the research shows is that women and men need to be given slightly different advice. There isn’t a one fits-all rule. And for all those nay-sayers who don’t agree with supplements, or new training methods or a change to the status quo, there is other research to support the idea that women and men have differing relationships with carbohydrate when taking exercise into account. Argue the toss but the science backs this up…

The graph above shows that as the exercise session progressed the female riders were using more of the carbohydrate provided by the sports drink than their male counterparts. The fuel use was measured relative to lean body mass (LBM) and at the 90 minute point the women were using carbs from the drink at a rate equivalent to 35grams per hour. However, the drink carbs were not the main source for premium fuel as carbohydrate from muscle glycogen stores was being used at three times the rate of that provided by the sports drink at the 90 minute point.

Put these two sources of carb fuel together and close to 2.5grams of carbs were being used every minute, slightly more than the 2.28g/min used when the women were using just water. The data showed more fat use when both sexes drank water instead of a carb drink (men 21.9% vs 16.2%; women 22.8% vs 19.8%) but remember this was just a 60% VO2max session, a lot less than many of you would routinely ride at and the exercise also stopped after 90 minutes.

Lactic acid levels in the blood peaked at 3.5mmol and dropped to 3.0mmol by the end of the exercise illustrating that the athletes were riding within themselves. Overall, 70% of fuel came from carbs in this 90 minute ride at 60% of VO2max.

However, the females used 25% more carbohydrate from the sports drink than the males – this represented 14% of total female energy use and 11% of the males’.

It gets better for women
So women use more fat than men and are better at using the fuel contained in sports drinks. This is the reason why studies on women athletes have shown less performance improvement from carbo-loading than men. If men are from Mars and women from Venus, Martians use more stored muscle glycogen whilst Venutians use more carbohydrate from in-session grazing. And as women benefit less from muscle glycogen ‘loading’ their diet need not be as rich in carbohydrate.

Recent research suggests women can be on a low- or high-carb diet for six days (that’s either 3, 5 or 8g/kg of body weight of carbs per day) and this does not affect their performance in a test in which fatigue hit at around an hour [2]. Women are the diesel version of the species – so we need to think how we advise them how to eat on a daily basis and how to fuel during exercise.

FUELLING ADVICE
WOMEN

Use a diet that does not over-emphasise carbohydrate
Ensure use of carb drink in sessions to assist fuel provision and endurance
Do not heavily carbo-load before events but ensure regular carbohydrate meals balanced with good protein sources and fats
MEN

Use a diet that ensures at least 55% of calories from carbohydrate
Ensure use of carb drink in sessions to assist fuel provision and endurance but ensure post-exercise hi-carb snacking is planned for
Carbo-load before longer events and sessions by focusing on carbohydrate (2-3d) after several days(2-3d) of meals with slightly increased (healthy)protein and fat calorie foods
REFERENCES

[1] Riddell, M.C et al (2003) Substrate utilisation during exercise performed with and without glucose ingestion in female and male endurance-trained

athletes. Int. J Sports Nutrition & Exerc. Meta. 13(4): 407-421

[2] Dolins, K.R et al. (2003) Effect of variable carbohydrate intake on exercise performance in female endurance cyclists. Int. J Sports Nutrition & Exerc.

Meta. 13(4): 422-435


From the comments at the bottom;

Joe Beer
Posted Thu 5 Jun, 1:54 pm BST Flag as inappropriate

I advocate both using sports and also NOT using them.

I have written about fasted, on-water rides to promote

the use of IMTG fats, I think Mr Butcher wasn't watching carefully.

Cycling Science issue 194 talked about fasted water rides.

Also, off the top of my head, issue 205 Jan 2008 from Your Month on

Bikes (written by me):

"Carry a bottle of water even on the shortest ride. This can be useful

for getting debris from your eyes, throat or any minor cuts should you fall"

I give clients water-only sessions to do in the morning, anything from

30 to 120 minutes depending on the person, their health and fitness level.

I studied carbohydrate drinks during my degree and continue to sift

through the data on how carbohydrate sources can be used to improve performance. To ignore them is a bit luddite - akin to not believing in petrol

stations if you drive a car.

I do not advocate using sports drinks when they are not likely to help,

but on the other side of the coin there are still those that believe

drinks are a scam and totally ignore the benefits they can offer when used

correctly.

It is a matter of balance and I have presented both sides of the

argument.

Many Thanks

Joe

howiejmidlands
Posted Thu 5 Jun, 8:24 pm BST Flag as inappropriate

Dear Mr Butcher

As one of the Readers Team riders for Cycling Plus, i have had the courtesy of Joes advice since March. Let me assure you, that at no stage whatsoever, has Joe hammered home the sports drink message. I have been asked to ride some rides, in the morning fasted, and only use water.

As a rider returning to cycling after a 26 year sojourn, the new methods of training including hydration are very interesting. The days of only water and cramps are gone. I am now riding harder and longer, using sports drinks, and i may add, sports drinks different to those promoted on JBST.

Sports science has moved on from going out and hammering it for a few hours with 500ml of water, and for me the results are staggering and rewarding.

richardsonn
Posted Fri 6 Jun, 5:37 pm BST Flag as inappropriate

Tom,

as a coach one of the things Joe does really well is take the mistery out of sports drinks, he has helped me understand the correct in take of them and certainly doesn't have me using them on every workout.

His nutritional advice has helped me improve in training,racing and recovery. The article doesn't seem to be pushing sports drinks, and if aren't using them on your rides longer than an hour I would suggest you give them a go.


Nicky D-S
Posted Tue 10 Jun, 7:58 pm BST Flag as inappropriate

Hi, I'm both female and a client of Joe Beer's. For the record my training programme has sessions both with and without sport's drinks. Having previously always trained and raced with 'water only' I was pleasantly surprised to discover the improvement a 'tech' drink made. Also just in case there are some lingering doubts - maybe ' is Joe on someone's payrole?'. He's always supported me to go the natural, no additive path and does not appear to support any one sports drink.

[Startrek]

Jamie are you for real ,your article was written by Joe Beer .

[j_young_80]

Maybe I put too much faith due to his name. Beer would never hurt me....

[Chris]

Jamie it is a bit hard to assess JB's claims from his article with out access to the original references. He seems to be talking an awful lot from a couple of tables without looking at other factors, such as normalising data for varying body compositions and other factors. It would have been nice if he could have discussed the authors findings.

On another note I remember hearing him talk on a podcast about dehydration. His general point was that it was safer to be dehydrated than risk hyper whatever (the opposite). He generally dismissed performance decreases as relatively minor. After hearing him talk I was left with the impression that he sometimes likes to pull **** out of his head based on fairly flimsy evidence, but that was just my take and maybe he is just a poor communicator or didn't have the time to fully explain.

[SimonD]

Hyponatremia. Leads to iodine deficiency too, apparently.

[bosworth*]

Jamie it is a bit hard to assess JB's claims from his article with out access to the original references. He seems to be talking an awful lot from a couple of tables without looking at other factors, such as normalising data for varying body compositions and other factors. It would have been nice if he could have discussed the authors findings.

On another note I remember hearing him talk on a podcast about dehydration. His general point was that it was safer to be dehydrated than risk hyper whatever (the opposite). He generally dismissed performance decreases as relatively minor. After hearing him talk I was left with the impression that he sometimes likes to pull **** out of his head based on fairly flimsy evidence, but that was just my take and maybe he is just a poor communicator or didn't have the time to fully explain.


There is a series of clearly written dehydration articles here:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/01/featured-series-on-science-of-sport.html

[Hoops]

Jamie, I saw you and Erica having a chat this morning. What was the verdict?

[bluebike]

Ok, There is some small merit to what Jamie is saying but taking the 'water only' session on for that long isnt helpful.

There is a limit to how much glygogen your body can mobilise without replenishment from sugar in the gut and then blood. This is unlikely to be much more than 2 hours worth (varies based on lots of things including intensity) and for some people much shorter. This is why lost of us can go and do a UC in the morning with no breaky and be fine (but very hungry), but a Saturday morning long ride would be near impossible.

The 'water only' sessions are supopsed to be a way of helping to train your boy to mobilise energy quickly, however it is unnecessary to do water only for more than an hour or so if that was your aim, as 1 hour is a decent chunk of time to trick your body into using energy other than your blood sugar. It is questionable, because the preferred source of energy is muscle and liver glycogen first, then fat, and simultaneously blood sugar.

When you bonk it is because your body has found all the 'quick' energy that is can in the situation and stress, and it has started to draw on blood sugar. The brain becomes worried (central nervous system can only use blood sugar) and tells your body that it is game over and shutdown time. This is actually hard to recover from during a race (given it takes some time to absorb sugar), but in training if you had been able to scab a bit of bread or sugar and stopped for a few moments it would have been gulped down and absorbed quickly.

There isnt a need to do lots of water sessions and 'zap' your stores- what is the benefit? If you have already emcouraged it to start the ride with stored energy, you may as well resume eating.

Simon was right about performance, I was reading about this today and they were suggesting that consuming fuel in exercise 1-2 hours can result in 20-40% better performance during that time, presumably this is also good during training as it means you can use more energy training than mucking up your metabolism!

Someone else told me that they train for up to 3 hours with no sugar- dangerous and I cant see any value in it. A few people havee since corrected this and reported that they are training harder and stronger.

To balance both ideas, go the first 45mins without energy and then start consuming it so that it is absorbed by 60mins and you can perform.

Another side effect of going without energy and feeling starving by the time you reach the cafe, these people are more likely to overeat and snack on high energy foods during the day. The body craves it to make up for being starved temporarily and ice cream and chocolate start looking super appealing!

[bluebike]

Ps I have also made contact with the sports dietitian interest group and will find out about your other question Jamie, if you start eating mroe sugar, will you lose the ability to mobilise glycogen for longer periods than other people. My feeling is that it would make little differnce and even then, isnt so important.

I'll keep you posted.

Ps, why cant we spell check on this without downloading a program? I dont want people to think I am dum

[SimonD]

One of the Garmin riders (Christian Vandevelde?) went on a special diet to "teach his body" to better use fat, as this was identified as a weakness by his coaches at the end of long races. So he had to do heaps of training where he could only eat fatty things with litle carbs, or something. I don't really know. Maybe it was just a euphemism for injecting EPO. Have you heard anything about that, Erica?

[SimonD]

It was Tom Danielson. About a third of the way down this page: http://astanafans.com/jonathan-vaughters-interview-evolution-at-garmin-not-revolution-bicycling-com.html

[bluebike]

They say the only way to specifically burn fat is to do endurance exercise because fat burning doesnt kick in until your body is settled into aerobic exercize. The fat burning starts happening while glycogen is still being used.

Because of the issues we have with excessive body weight in australia, companies are always trying to capitalise on people being desperate to lose weight by marketing products that will teach the body to use fat as opposed to storage. as far as I know, none of these techniques or products have ever been found to do so.

I'll pop that in the email I send to the sports dietitians just in case they have something to say about it.

re: eating fatty things during a ride instead of carbs, that is crazy, because your firstly fat has to be broken down to be used as energy (therefore cant help your blood sugar levels), and secondly fat is absorbed quite slowly. This is why we say to avoid fatty foods like chocolate during races (despite the sugar content) and why none of the sports products like endura/gatorage/powerbars contain much (if any) fat.

I just read the interview and have never heard a dietitian base recommendations on blood acidity, it is quite strange. i see what he is saying re: some people having a speedier metabolism (the people with the 'hollow leg') but putting someone on low carb, high protein fat diet is crazy. The canadian sports dietitian association warn against it. When people go on low carb diets, they lose weight initially (feeling very very tired and weak) but almost surely when they do start eating carbs again (a very main and necessary part of australian diet) they gain weight rapidly. As I scrolled down surely enough, the poor guy eats a bowl or 2 of pasta and boom, gains heaps of weight. Low carb diets put your body into a starvation mode where you are tired, lethargic, and constantly hungry. It does adjust to it, but flicking back to normal metabolism (when you start eating normal foods (like cereal, rice, potato, corn, yogurt etc) will almost surely make you gains all the weight back (and more). The ppor guy will never be able to eat pasta and cycle again!

[SimonD]

Oh dear. Despite the clean team image of Garmin, Vaughters (like most of the rowdy "clean" DSs - Riis, Bruyneel, Stapleton) actually has a history of doping when he raced. The other unusual thing he's talked about was the team going gluten free during the Tour de France. Cynics have postulated that he is coming up with whacko theories to explain changes in rider performances which are actually because he's put them on a doping program.

[Chris]

i see what he is saying re: some people having a speedier metabolism (the people with the 'hollow leg')

On this point I saw a very interesting show on weight, I think it was a Quantum special, that addressed the issue of speedy metabolisms as part of a broader discussion on weight loss. There was a weight loss program run out of a UK hospital that actually measured peoples metabolic rest rates. They were doing it to prove to their patients that they had normal metabolic rates and the issue was that they were simply eating too much.

If I remember correctly they essentially weighted the person and dunked them to get % body fat. They then put them into a sealed room overnight measured, their weight in the morning, looked at the changes in atmosphere in the room (hand wave around some other measurements) and then calculated the metabolic rate. Surprise, surprise everyone bodies ran at similar rates ie the brain consumes x grams per hour, muscle consumed y grams/kg per hour. Everyone they tested fell well within the norm. Once they had proved this to the patient that they would then seriously discuss the persons diet.

Re hollow legs, as I understand it sure exercise can raise your metabolic rate by a above the norm, but I gather the hole slow metabolic rate thing for the average person is more a myth. Ms Bluebike is this a far comment or has the worlds changes since I watched this program?

I like to think about the whole weight gain issue as a Mars bar problem. If you eat a perfect diet but eat one extra Mars bar a week (not much) you will put on weight over the long term. ie Mars bar ~= 85g, assuming that you absorb only 20g per bar that works out at 1kg weight gain per year which equals 10 kg every decade. While the equation is not actually this simple it demonstrates that essentially the longer you live the more likely you are to put on a small amount of weight - it is a bit like compound interest.

[SimonD]

That's interesting. So the whole metabolism thing is wrong?

OK, here's one. Does fat take energy to maintain? I guess to expalin my question... say there are two people, one fat and one thin. They both eat the same as each other and metabolise the same amount of energy in a week. They both eat what they are burning. Do they both stay at the same weight? Does the fat person need to burn an excess of energy to lose fat, or will the fat sort of just slowly be metabolised/broken down/whatever and not replaced?

[bluebike]

I know what you are saying Chris and the obesity issue is most certainly a problem of mars bars and sedentary behaviour. Energy in and out. When you rearrange the equation, overweight people lose weight.


I guess when I talk about metabolism, in my mind Im also taking into account height, weight, occupation, exercise, sex etc as all these effect your overall metabolism. Also, some types of activity (ie lifting weights) are known to increase metabolic rates for a period after exercising. Also, when it comes to sport, some people do seem to use energy a little differently and can start burning fat a little sooner. Also, if you eat too little(and are an athlete), your body becomes defensive about losing weight and slows your metabolism as a defence. So in active people, there is still a little variability not explained by size/sex/activity levels (hollow legs). The variability is biggest between the sexes, so us women enviably watch you men consume more food more often and retain less weight! I consume half as much as my partner, exercise twice as much, but he rarely gains weight (except this year for those who have seen him!). When we were both doing triathlons, he needed 4 times the food I needed. Yes he is taller, more muscle mass etc but most likely also requires substantially more energy to do work, which means he has a higher metabolism than me which may not be explained by size etc.

As metabolism is hard to measure, it is a difficult one. But even within what scientists call 'within normal limits', there is some variability. This may only be equivelent to 3cal/10 minutes during exercise and 1.5 cal/10mins the rest of the time, with a 3 hour ride over a day this is nealry 200 cals which is a whole sandwich.

[bluebike]

That's interesting. So the whole metabolism thing is wrong?

OK, here's one. Does fat take energy to maintain? I guess to expalin my question... say there are two people, one overweight and one thin. They both eat the same as each other and metabolise the same amount of energy in a week. They both eat what they are burning. Do they both stay at the same weight? Does the overweight person need to burn an excess of energy to lose fat, or will the fat sort of just slowly be metabolised/broken down/whatever and not replaced?

Yes, it takes energy to be fat. Because your basal metabolic rate (rate you burn over 24hour without Factoring in the movement you do (ie if you sat in a chair alllll day) is based on your body weight, and overweight people have a higher body weight. To maintain that body weight, these people are eating copious amounts of food. If a skinny person was to eat that much energy, they would gain weight quickly, whereas large people need a certain amount of energy just for maintenance.

This is why when you watch shows like the biggest loser, caloric restrictions for these people result is massive fat losses in a short period. Some of them even drop 3-4 kg in a week, which is considered unreasonable for other people trying to lose weight. In the controlled environment, where they are forced to exercise, have no way of sneaking food, and someone else is preparing and serving their food, it is achievable.

In your example, the latter will happen, if the overweight person starts eating less than they move, they should start to burn fat. But, the questions is flawed as it asked if a thin and overweight person ate the same adn moved the same. Based on Chris's article, its unlikley that a huge person would be eating as little and moving as much as the thin person as they need to eat lots to stay overweight.

Stick with the equation- Weight maintainance is when energy in=energy out.

Weight loss is when someone starts moving more than they are eating. Bearing in mind that the overweight person has a higher energy requirement because they has a high basal metabolic rate.

Does that make sense?

[SimonD]

Yep. This is an excellent thread. We should be thankful that Jamie is an idiot, otherwise we wouldn't have had the opportunity for this discussion.

I think I have it. The main reason I was asking is whether you actually need an energy deficit to become skinny again, or if you just lead a balanced life the fat will naturally be lost. A fat person and a skinny person, where all else is equal, doing the same energy burning through exercise and eating the same input would eventually end up at similar weights. The fat person doesn't need to do more exercise than the skinny person to lose weight. This is because the fatter person is burning energy just by being fat. Do I have that right?

I hate the Biggest Loser and show like that with a passion. They perpetuate the myth of fad dieting and exercise sprees as the only way to lose weight. Then people worried about their weight will try to follow suit and mostly fail spectacularly. Becoming healthy is surely a lifestyle thing. Therefore it needs to be sustainable. Starving yourself doesn't work, but making healthy meals does. Bot camp doesn't work, but finding an activity that you enjoy and will continue with (cycling!) does.

Thanks again for sharing your knowledge on this, Erica.

[bluebike]

Yep- you have it!

Energy metabolism is a complex thing which scientists everywhere are trying to decode- Aussies spend $50,000,000 per year on weight loss products but what is needed is a lifestyle change.

This is my role at the Heart Foundation, pushing for better public transport infrastructure, walking paths, bike parking, safety, school walking buses, workplace activity programs etc.
We have an urban planner working for us to really help us press the gov to decrease parking spots and increase parking $$ in the city so it makes it harder for people to drive in. Pushing gov to invest more heavily in a public transport system which is quick and convenient, and also better urban planning with easier access to fresh produce etc. We are also advocating for a national food reformulation strategy which includes ethical marketing, maximum allowable salt and fat levels, making trans fat illegal, smaller serve sizes etc etc. And school policies which encourage activity during the day and prevent junk food being sold to children.

This is why I love public health more than clinical- it is hard to help people lose weight but you can create change at a population level!

[SimonD]

This is why I love public health more than clinical- it is hard to help people lose weight but you can create change at a population level!

Well, not to diss doctors and medical people, but while cancer research and medical things get all the glory, from what I understand the most important reasons we are living longer and healthier today are public health. Medicine is almost the icing on the cake that public issues have baked: the cake of sewers, hand washing, not spitting (Anla), fridges, healthy and varied food, etc.

[bosworth*]

I hate the Biggest Loser and show like that with a passion. They perpetuate the myth of fad dieting and exercise sprees as the only way to lose weight. Then people worried about their weight will try to follow suit and mostly fail spectacularly. Becoming healthy is surely a lifestyle thing. Therefore it needs to be sustainable. Starving yourself doesn't work, but making healthy meals does. Bot camp doesn't work, but finding an activity that you enjoy and will continue with (cycling!) does.


I hate the biggest loser for the same reason - it implicitly encourages overweight people to go on a diet. However a diet will never work, because dieting means eating differently for a while, and then going back to the same old crap. If you want to lose weight, you have to change your eating habits permanently.

[gsavage]

I hate the biggest loser for the same reason - it implicitly encourages overweight people to go on a diet. However a diet will never work, because dieting means eating differently for a while, and then going back to the same old crap. If you want to lose weight, you have to change your eating habits permanently.

Have any of you guys even read the material from the biggest loser show??? :mad: Whilst I hate the show itself, some of the messages from it are great and the book that they sell that complements the show is all about healthy eating and exercise for life, not fad diets.

As a person who has benefitted from weight loss programs (I used to be around 100kgs) don't poke fun at things that work, as long as the programs is not built around fad diets there is nothing wrong with them. The biggest loser program is not a fad diet program (excluding the show itself and those crappy diet bars and shakes that they promote). The full program (as in in the book) is very useful and I am using it now.

[bluebike]

The show has good and bad sides to it.

They have actually had a reputable Dietitian from the Dietitian’s Association of Australia write the nutrition side of the biggest loser. In the first season, some of the recommendations were perhaps a bit too restrictive and weren’t very well rounded nutritionally. Since then, the nutrition side has been much more sound and I agree Graham perhaps a good guide of what to eat to lose weight.

I think the guys are right on one hand though, the principle behind the show can encourage people to crash diet or make them feel like they are failing if they don’t lose weight as quickly. Massive amounts of weight loss can often be unsustainable. It is made possible in the show because of the catering, tailored meal plans, 1:1 instructors, and encouragement through adding the ‘competition’ to it. Some overweight people have also said that they find it a bit degrading.

[SimonD]

I know nothing apart from the show!

[SimonD]

If I have said anything else offensive, blame Jamie for moving this thread out of private. I find he is to blame for most things that go wrong around here.

[gsavage]

If I have said anything else offensive, blame Jamie for moving this thread out of private. I find he is to blame for most things that go wrong around here.

Don't worry Simon, he'll be the first person against the wall when the revolution comes...