The Biggest Loser Finale 2014 - Some Thoughts ...

When I saw who the winner of The Biggest Loser was this year, I was stunned.
Not because she lost 60% of her body weight - which is an unprecedented amount and the highest anyone has ever lost in the show's history ...
Rather, I was stunned because Rachel Frederickson was so TINY.
Not healthy tiny either ...
She looked sickly, skeletal, and as one doctor put it, "malnourished".
And I wonder ...
How did it get that far? How was she ALLOWED to get that far??

The whole proponent of The Biggest Loser is the idea that the contestants are losing weight through healthy methods - diet and exercise. They are taught nutrition and exercise techniques such as cardio and weight training. The idea is to gain muscle and lose fat to reach and maintain a healthy weight goal.

Read that last part again:
A HEALTHY WEIGHT GOAL.

Is Rachel's current weight a healthy one?

But then, I have to stop and think about something ...
She WORKED for that.
She dieted and exercised her way to 105 lbs. (we assume ...).
Her trainer ALLOWED her to go that far.
Assuming this is what the case was, where do we draw the line?
And how does that apply to us that have had bariatric surgery?

Those of us that have had weight loss surgery know all to well the ideas behind losing too much. It certainly becomes a fear that many of us have, and it has happened to several people that have had everything from the gastric bypass to the vertical sleeve. Every year we read stories or see news reports on that very issue, and it has caused thousands to either turn away from surgery as an option or to look down on surgery for being an "unhealthy method" to weight loss. In a society so surrounded by obesity, bariatric surgery has become the "black sheep" of weight loss methods. We are told that we are using it as a crutch, as a "magic pill for weight loss." When anyone that's had it knows that's not the case. But it brings up a good point ...

We can sometimes get so lost in the aspect of losing that we forget the reason behind the surgery and the change in the first place:

HEALTH.

I didn't get surgery so I could weight 110 lbs and look like a stick insect that's had elephant skin implants. Rather, I got the surgery so I could get out of my morbidly obese 300-lb RUT and be healthy. So I could live longer and spend more time with my kids. So I could walk up a flight of stairs without getting winded or so I could cross my legs like a normal woman.

I think so often we get caught up in the mentality of "how much CAN I lose" and forget all about "how much SHOULD I lose" ...

This is a wonderful reminder of that - in some ways, even though Rachel is not (to the best of my knowledge) a bariatric surgery patient, I'm sure that many of us can relate to what she is going through. That innate desire to be the "biggest loser" and to win - to lose as much as you possibly can and see just how far you can go.

I think when we get to this point, it's a good idea to step back and re-evaluate our goals. How much did we want to lose from the beginning? Why did we want to lose weight? What is our ULTIMATE goal?

Remember, we did this for our HEALTH - NOT to be the thinnest person out there! And honestly, if you DID do it to be the thinnest person out there, then you REALLY need to re-evaluate your goals!

Now, back to Rachel for a minute.
You have to stop and wonder what made her go as far as she did.
Obviously her trainer didn't have issue with it.
Obviously the producers didn't have issue with it.
I wonder about her doctors?
It's true - we DON'T know the whole story - and I think we need to remember that in this case.
But we do know that societies views on health and beauty are skewed. And sometimes, that comes out in places that we'd least expect it.

What are your thoughts on the Biggest Loser finale this year and Rachel Frederickson's dramatic and seemingly drastic weight loss?

--Jen--