Problems with "You: On a Diet" TV Show

I watched most of an episode of the "You: On a Diet" show on the Discovery Health Channel last week, and I've got some beef with it. Nutritionwise, the advice seemed to be pretty sound. The ingredients to avoid (hydrogenated oils, high fructose anything, etc.) sounded right on target. Now I know that Dr. Oz is more about health than weight loss, but watching the show I was shocked several times at the misleading and sometimes just plain untrue data about weight loss thrown around during this episode:

1) The doctors told one girl (average height, about 190 lbs) that she was only probably burning 1500 calories in a day, and that by eating an 800+ calorie breakfast she was using up 3/5 of her daily allowance. Okay, while 1500 calories is a good weight loss amount, it is most likely way less than she is actually burning in a day. Can you imagine if your maintainence calories were 1500? You could only eat 500-1000 calories a day to lose weight! Shouldn't these doctors just explain to her the real deal about weight loss and calories?

2) They said that muscle burns 50 times more calories than fat. Now, we know that muscle uses more energy than fat, but 50 times? A quick google search ("muscle burns" "more calories than fat") gives anywhere from 3 to 50 times more calories burned per pound each day. However, think about this: If a pound of fat burns 2 calories per day, which seemed to be fairly well agreed upon in the search I did, 50 times more than this would be 100 calories burned per pound of muscle each day. Now I don't know how many pounds of muscle the average person has, but by these figures, you would burn 1000 extra calories per day for each ten pounds of muscle you had. That just doesn't sound right to me.

3) The girl mentioned above was trying to lose weight with her father. They had 90 days to change their habits. Now in six weeks this girl went from taking the elevator to taking the stairs all the time, started subtituting salads for fried foods, and lost something like 4-5 inches off her waist. Her dad also changed his lifestyle considerabley and lost maybe 7-9 inches off his waist. It seems to me that they both made very important steps toward improving their health and should have both been praised. However, they told the girl she was not losing weight fast enough, and so to scare her they took her to this labratory where they made her hold an enlarged heart! I'm sorry, but would you complain if in 6 weeks you lost 4-5 inches off your waist? I might, but only because I would be going through pants so fast.

Anyway, had to get this off my chest, because if there's one thing I can't stand it's misinformation and manipulation. I know nothing about Dr. Oz outside of this program and what I've read on the forums, so I hope his book is not so sensationalized. TV does tend to do that I guess...

I only watched Dr.Oz on Oprah....I didn't feel any of the information he provided was "new" or "exciting", furthermore, I thought some of the topics mentioned in the show were pointless.

For example, he says that our tongues are making us fat & if we crave meats we are angry, if we eat sweets we are depressed....& so on. It was like, "ok, thanks for the information, but what do we do about it." 

Or the suggestion about using breath strips for snacks....umm...doesn't sound appetizing to me. The "secret fat-burner" really gave me a good laugh.  Basically he suggests we should be fidgety to lose weight.  Ummm...I don't see being anxious & fidgety as a benefit to my health.

THat is so hilarious!  I must be both ANGRY and DEPRESSED!  hehehehe  I'm fat because I was eating all the time and not exercising enough.  Not too hard to figure out.

Last time I watched anything on T.V. about losing weight it was mostly about people getting gastric bypass surgeries.  Blahh

Before I got cable, I always thought that the Discovery Channel and National Geographic Channel and stuff like that were educational.  Did they used to be, or have they always been trashy?

First off, I gotta say that to maintain my weight I'd have to eat 1400-1500 calories a day (if I don't exercise).  But I eat 1100-1400 calories a day and have a decent deficit because of additional exercise.  But yes, there are people whose caloric expenditure for an entire day is only 1500...and I am one of them.  Not that it's important, just thought I'd throw it out there. 

ANYWAY...there are goods and bads about anything they put on TV and even these more "educational" channels try to be edgy to get an audience.  They certainly have NOT always been trashy, and in fact I find they still have a slew of informational, interesting shows.  Sometimes you just have to dig through the crap to get to the goodies.

I hope you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving...and best of luck!

aesb - actually fidgeting is good.  If you play air drum on the steering wheel while driving or tap your feet to the beat of commercial music and just move about you are going to burn a little more calories an hour than just sitting there being totally passive.  During commercials I get up and walk up and down the hallway - heck it may only burn 15 extra calories an hour but for me watching alot of tv thats about 75 calories extra a day.  Or get up and load and unload the dishwasher fold the laundry sweep / vacuum the floors heck even clean the toilets - all these little extra movements add to your calorie burn.  Being anxious has nothing to do with fidgeting.  Anxiety is not healthy - but adding a little extra movement to your day is better than nothing.

I saw part of that show and I think the order mentioned is a bit different.  The drs did surprise visits and if I remember right - the young teenager wasn't doing well, she was also "cheating" and the drs took her on that field trip to see the heart and aorta of obese people during one of the surprise visits and that's when they told her she wasn't losing as quickly as she should.  I think it was that field trip that made her turn around and start eating right and excercising more and then lose the inches.  I could be wrong, but that's the way I saw it.

As far as calorie burn - my dr last year told me my cal burn based on some formula wasn't quite 1500 too.  I don't know how tall that teenager was, but she didn't look that tall so 1500 could very well be all the cals she needs a day. 

I thought the show was pretty good and for a "diet" show alot more doable for the average jo than say the Biggest Loser.  The Discovery Health Channel also has their "Body Challenge" series coming up in January.  You can go to their website and it explains their program.  You can sign up and last year if you signed up you also got a free month membership at Bally's I think or some other chain gym.

That is very true about fidgeting, it may not seem like much but it can add up over a day.

and abotu muscle burning 50x more than fat, it is true, and if you did gain 10 pounds of PURE muscle, which might I add takes ALOT of time, effort and hard work and is a very long rpocess to even gain a pound of pure muscle, you couldburn up to an extra 1000 calories a day

I can see how fidgeting could be a useful way to burn extra calories.  I know that sometimes when I am pacing on the phone during a long conversation I feel like I'm really getting a workout, versus just sitting on the couch and talking. 

I still can't really get on board with this whole muscle burning 50x more than fat thing though.  Take this guy for example:  http://www.bodybuilder.ro/stats/stats.htm  185 lbs, 14% bodyfat.  That would mean that about 26 pounds of his body was fat.  I found out that the average skeleton weighs around 20lbs, and I truthfully do not know how much organs and blood and stuff like that weigh, so I will just make up a number for argument's sake.  Lets say blood and guts weigh... 100lbs.  That still leaves this guy with 59lbs of muscle, if I'm not forgetting anything.  If we use 100 calories per pound of muscle, this guys muscles alone require him to eat 5,900 calories per day.  This just does not sound reasonable to me. 

Anyway, that's my math for the month.  Let me know if I forgot to take something into consideration, or if anyone knows how much blood and guts really weigh.

Well according to the new tv series a brain weighs 3 lbs LOL

Unless you have a really muscular brain ;D

I know this is an old post, and I don't know how I got here, BUT...

where are you getting 5900 calories? 50 times 59 is 2950, which for a bodybuilder, sounds about right. They tend to eat up in the 3000's for maintnance.

Because the claim is that muscle burns 50 times more than fat.  Fat is generally agreed to burn about two calories per pound, so if muscle actually burned fifty times more than that, that would be 100 calories per pound of muscle. 

So, fifty-nine pounds of muscle would require him to eat 5,900 calories per day to maintain that muscle mass.  That's not even including what he would need to keep his organs running smoothly.

I have since read from some fairly reliable sources that muscle burns about three times more calories than fat, at about six calories per pound.

Hope that answered your question :)

The thing about fidgeting is, I think, that you're either a fidgeter or you aren't.

We've all known fidgeters. We want to slap them sometimes. They are ALL skinny.

So if you study skinny fidgeters, then yes, fidgeters burn more calories.

But I think it's really hard for a non-fidgeter to increase their level of fidgeting to the level of a fidgeter. Fidgeters don't have to think about fidgeting ... they have to fight themselves to stop. Non-fidgeters have to drink a lot of coffee in order to get that urge to fidget.

So to just "fidget" for the sake of weight loss, I don't think we could possibly do enough to make a difference.

It is true, though, that moving is better than not moving, so as much as you can remember to move, the better.

Well, in my studies as a NASM personal trainer, I've always heard that muscle uses about 50 calories per pound. Perhaps Dr. Oz understands that fat burns around 1 calorie per pound instead?

The thing is that 2950 (59 lbs of muscle times 50 calories per pound) would still be only for muscles.  That's not even counting the bare minimum for bodily functions and a minimal level of activity.

I read "You:On A Diet" and I was kind of unimpressed with Dr. Oz and his diet plan.

Dr. Oz takes you through a whirlwhind tour of your body. Explaining both what makes you hungry and sated, and generally how your body processes food, and I thought that was good, if lacking in details. And if the Discovery Channel got into that, I might actually look to see if I could catch it.

Where I think Dr. Oz goes astray is his diet plan.

Oh, on the surface it looks good, but I strongly disagree with some of his theories.

One of the theories Dr. Oz espouses is that you should have as little variability in your daily diet as possible. For example, he suggests you eat the same lunch, at least, day after day after day. His reasonings for this are that if you eat that having too much choice in tastes tends to make you overeat. That's why you tend to overdo it at places like Indian Buffets that have a huge selection of tastes. I disagree with this idea, because A) This is a BORING way to do it, but mostly B) If you eat the same thing day in and day out, studies show your body starts getting more adept at processing it, and you burn less calories digesting it. I have no idea how fewer calories, but fewer.

Another thing I disagree with is walking as the ultimate exercise. If you're in any way fit, or have become fit, like any exercise, walking is only good if you're working hard enough. Once your body gets better at it, you need to be doing something else. The best exercise is whatever exercise you enjoy doing. Whether it's... sports, DDR, walking, running, spinning, etc.

Another thing I disagree with is his premise that waist size, not weight, is the ultimate gain. Shocking, I thought, for a doctor to say this. It totally ignores the concept that different bodies are shaped differently and lose weight different.  Personally, I think the ultimate end is more than just a number, any number.  It's clothes' sizes, a weight, a blood pressure, a cholesterol level. It's a combination of numbers suggesting that you are overall healthy. Remember, studies show that for people who can't lose weight easily, it's HEALTHIER to be obese, but fit, than to be thin and unfit.
And Finally, I found his diet plan... highly unsatisfactory.  I understand that most diet books feel the need to offer recipes to help get you on the right track, but I hate when someone gives you the "Eat This and Only This to Lose Weight" schtick. That's bull boogers. When you're first starting out losing weight, you should endeavor to eat better, but I DON'T believe you need to follow someone else's plan. Just get a find-out on what you should be eating and some places to look for recipes for that (or some sample recipes, if you like), but let people make their own choices.

Now, I don't think the entire book was... bull boogers, and there's some useful informtion here. But... I've been waiting for a reason to say this.

Sorry for going vaguely tangential on this... rather older thread. :)

There was a study awhile back. Not that long ago. Fidgeters do burn quite a bit more.

3000 calories a day really isn't that much. I'm eating 2400 plus every day and still dropping a little weight. I figure I need better part of 2700 to maintain.  If I was younger and more active I'd need a lot more.

The waist size issue would seem to tie in with the waist/hip studies. You can be over weight with a smallish waist but big hips and not be at risk of heart issues.  Or you can be nomral weight with a belly with a higher then normal risk.

What they are touting is nothing new.  It all comes down to choosing the right foods in the right calorie range for YOU and your lifestyle.  They have put it into a book and have laced weight loss with it which has made them a bestseller.

Keep your intake to the percentages and limited amounts of anything processed and you will be healthier and probably have the added benefit of losing weight (if your body needs it and if not you will definitely be a healthier person for it).

However, again, nothing new!  If we all went back to whole foods as a nation we as an obese population would be an endangered species!