Biggest Loser...?

This may come as a surprise to some people who know me, but I actually watched the Biggest Loser Finale last night.  I'm not a regular fan of the show, but my mom watches it religiously--almost annoyingly, if you watch it with her, because if she misses ANYTHING that anyone says on the show, she stops the show (yes, it is being DVR-ed, despite the fact that we are watching it live)--and she convinced me to have a seat and learn the ways of the biggest of all losers.

My initial impression, being the data-first, emotion-second kind of personality that I am, was that the people on this show are losing weight at an alarmingly fast rate.  In fact, I would even have to say that it is GREATLY EXCEEDING the recommended 1-2 pounds of weekly weight loss.  In almost the same instant, I determined that for people who are quite obese, the standard weight loss model might break down, because their body fat percentage is so high that losing 5-10 pounds a week is feasible.  

[The reason that it is unhealthy for an individual to lose more than 1-2 pounds a week, in general, is twofold: 1. It is nearly impossible to create a habit out of that kind of change in eating/diet regimens.  For example, if I am used to eating 2500 calories a day, and I all of a sudden go to 1100 calories a day, I probably won't be able to keep that up for long.  2. The math doesn't add up for most people, meaning they are losing more than just fat.  To illustrate, imagine you are a fairly lean young woman who, to maintain her exact weight, needs to eat 2,000 calories a day (this makes our math easy).  Burning (and, consequently, losing) a pound of fat requires burning 3,500 calories.  So, even if our fine young lady only eats 1,000 calories a day for a week, she will only burn a total of 7,000 calories--2 pounds of weight loss.  Consequently, if she loses three pounds, and has been hydrating herself properly, one of those pounds is going to be muscle mass, not fat.  Make sense?  This, of course, would be different if she were, say 350 pounds, and if she were eating 6,000 calories a day to keep her large figure.  Then, even if she goes down to the 2,000 calories a day, she will cut 28,000 calories in a week for a total weight loss of 8 pounds.]

My next thought during this program was that we oftentimes forget what a profound impact CULTURE has on our perception of physical fitness and ideal body shape.  The two personal trainers on Biggest Loser--one a man, who, despite being tattoo-laden and sporting a smattering of facial hair, had the body of an athletic eleven-year-old girl; the other, a snarling woman, whose broad shoulders could out-military-press her colleague's.  While I have nothing against thin men and powerful women, I would beg the question: are THESE individuals the ideal?!  Has the wiry, spry man lost something of his natural aura by shedding some of his bulk (fat AND muscle)?  Is the musclebound woman our society's replacement for the curvaceousness of the Venus or the simple smoothness of the Holy Virgin?

I don't know.

I guess what I am saying, though, is that having recently returned from a three-month stay in Bulgaria--a place where ultra-thinness is oftentimes more a byproduct of lack of nutritional opportunities--I saw the individuals on the television screen in a different light.  The almost artificiality of the physical trainers was all-too-apparent, as they robotically marched across the stage; truly, they seemed as bizarre to me as the oversized posters of Biggest Loser hopefuls from Day 1.  

I repeat:  I don't know.  In the same breath I will find myself yearning for this artificial ideal--pushing myself to reach an ever-fleeting point of personal satisfaction with my body and its appearance/capabilities.  

Perhaps the perpetual dissatisfaction is the problem, and not its end products.