Why ‘Operation Transformation’ is a superficial reality show

walshb

papu wrote: »

Look at the foods they recommend , bread , pitta , cereal.

Following the food plan might be alright , but you're not going to eat those meals everyday of the year. You're going to start having sandwiches more and more ,
then adding crisps to it , next thing you know you're off the wagon and waiting for the next season of OT to get your life sorted again... It's all about sustainability , even some of the people on the show can't sustain the lifestyle so how are the people watching and following it supposed to? Its much better to educate people so that they
can make their own choices , meal plans , and understand what they should be eating. It isn't difficult , Hanley even made it into a dance

From His Seminars

They recommended more than just bread/pitta and cereal, which can be healthy. They highlighted fruits and vegetables.

walshb

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

A low fat carb heavy diet equates to one that is high in sugar and low in protein and fat. Advocating grains and wheat as a dietary stable is bad advice, particularly for overweight people attempting to undergo a dramatic caloric deficit. In one of the episodes a 135kgs male was being asked to exist on a heavily carb based 2000 calories a day diet plan and was falling asleep at his desk in the afternoon. Top notch advice.

Regardless, there are plenty of healthy and advisable foods that are high in carbs/sugars and low in fats/proteins. The key is moderation. Low bad fats/low bad sugars and low salt is the best advice I would give. Failing this I think the food pyramid is spot on. There is no perfect diet for humans.

As before, I don't believe they banned all fats. Some of the best foods are high in fat, and I think Avocado was referenced

Gummy Panda

At the end of the day its a TV show and all these TV shows like to show is active portions like fat people killing themselves running or on treadmills.

The reality is they probably need two full body workouts a week and emphasis placed on eating high protein, lots of veg and some fat thrown in. Watching someone eat 3-4 meals of chicken/beef/fish + veg + fat source isn't going to get viewers every week.

nice_guy80

My main issue is the unsustainable approach they take with people. Guilt trip.

For a lot of the people on the program, if they just learned how to shop for food properly and cook healthy meals they would probably lose just as much weight.

The main message being promoted should be: stop filling your trolley with crap foods and stop feeding your kids crap food and drink.
Portion sizes, at all meals!
Increasing veg and fruit.

then get out and do exercise that is suitable

All you have to do is look at the advertising during the breaks in the show - nothing but low fat products, weightwatchers, slimming world. Surely that is irresponsible broadcasting?

groovyg

Well Jacky seems to have ruffled a few feathers in RTE to prompt a response from them

Mellor

walshb wrote: »

Regardless, there are plenty of healthy and advisable foods that are high in carbs/sugars and low in fats/proteins. The key is moderation. Low bad fats/low bad sugars and low salt is the best advice I would give. Failing this I think the food pyramid is spot on. There is no perfect diet for humans.

As before, I don't believe they banned all fats. Some of the best foods are high in fat, and I think Avocado was referenced

The good food pyramid is extremely flawed. If you think it's spot on, there's the issue here.
"Bad Sugars" is a strange phrase. Sugar is sugar. There are no good sugars. Unlike fats which aren't all equal.

If there a dame of a typical day advised on OT? As some people are saying its low fat, you are suggesting it's only cutting out bad fat. It would be easily if we all looked at the same sample.
FWIW, Just because they suggest avocado as a good fat, which is a positive, doesn't mean they are advocating enough fat.

Transform

It continues to amaze me as to how completely uninformed well intentioned people are about training and nutrition.

overall operation transformation should be applauded for its ability to attract show sponsors and finance from advertisers - thats where it ends.

i dont have a single client that would watch that show and NOT think how they're training and how they're eating is vastly removed from the advice i give.

walshb

Mellor wrote: »

The good food pyramid is extremely flawed. If you think it's spot on, there's the issue here.
"Bad Sugars" is a strange phrase. Sugar is sugar. There are no good sugars. Unlike fats which aren't all equal.

If there a dame of a typical day advised on OT? As some people are saying its low fat, you are suggesting it's only cutting out bad fat. It would be easily if we all looked at the same sample.
FWIW, Just because they suggest avocado as a good fat, which is a positive, doesn't mean they are advocating enough fat.

The food pyramid is a guide. It's not an exact science. It's fairly spot on. It was devised by experts in the field of nutrition. It can't be that far wrong. You say extremely flawed. That needs explaining. For the general population how is it extremely flawed?

Personally the food pyramid here looks fairly ok: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/daily/graphics/diet_042005.html

As to sugars. Isn't there natural sugars and added sugars etc. Not identical.

http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/good-bad-sugars-7608.html

Transform

its flawed because as its base it encourages massive intake of carbs which for the average individual thats metabolically damaged (overweight, pre diabetic, inactive) this is not good mmmmkay.

it never mentions how carb intake should be reflected on how lean and active you are.

++++++++++++

Have we not been over this before in the stickys???

+++++++++++



Their take on fats is completely out of date - they still see saturated fats as bad.

Read this - http://www.dominicmunnelly.ie/2014/05/the-essential-guide-to-saturated-fat-no-reading-this-wont-give-you-heart-disease/

Ive worked directly with two recently qualified nutritionists that are going on to phds and not one would agree with whats recommended on the pyramid and certain parts of their degree.

The pyramid was designed by people selling grains...

Transform

bluewolf wrote: »

The pyramid was designed by people selling grains...

i honestly couldnt give a toss about what the government recommends because if you are relying on advice from people that take 10yrs to come up with a plan or to adopt a new plan then you're pretty much fu*ked.

talk to people that have a sensible approach to training and nutrition, people that produce results without turing their clients into narcissistic training and self absorbed idiots.

its a wild and crazy idea that's just a small (read large) step up from simply 'take the stairs more' and 'eat some fruit and veg'

sh1tstirrer

Transform wrote: »

It continues to amaze me as to how completely uninformed well intentioned people are about training and nutrition.

overall operation transformation should be applauded for its ability to attract show sponsors and finance from advertisers - thats where it ends.

i dont have a single client that would watch that show and NOT think how they're training and how they're eating is vastly removed from the advice i give.

Supermarkets are sponsoring them to promote expensive menus

walshb

Transform wrote: »

it never mentions how carb intake should be reflected on how lean and active you are.
.

It does emphasise that you should be active and stay physical. If the food pyramid(s) are so flawed then how are they getting approval by the relevant authorities. The WHO I assume are ok with it? I can understand anyone querying it and maybe tweaking it here and there, but to be so dismissive of it seems bonkers? There is no perfect pyramid. Seems some here think they have the precise answer to the health and diet of humans.

walshb

Transform wrote: »

i honestly couldnt give a toss about what the government '

It's not government. It is society as a whole. Not just here in Ireland. Worldwide.

Gits_bone

Transform wrote: »

its flawed because as its base it encourages massive intake of carbs which for the average individual thats metabolically damaged (overweight, pre diabetic, inactive) this is not good mmmmkay.

it never mentions how carb intake should be reflected on how lean and active you are.

++++++++++++

Have we not been over this before in the stickys???

+++++++++++



Their take on fats is completely out of date - they still see saturated fats as bad.

Read this - http://www.dominicmunnelly.ie/2014/05/the-essential-guide-to-saturated-fat-no-reading-this-wont-give-you-heart-disease/

Ive worked directly with two recently qualified nutritionists that are going on to phds and not one would agree with whats recommended on the pyramid and certain parts of their degree.

You can't say inactive/overweight people shouldn't eat carbs. It's about calories. If It Fits Your Macros.

Transform

Gits_bone wrote: »

You can't say inactive/overweight people shouldn't eat carbs. It's about calories. If It Fits Your Macros.

didnt say that and ive said many many times on this forum that carb intake (NOT no fu8king carbs) should be reflected on how lean and active you are.

Transform

walshb wrote: »

It does emphasise that you should be active and stay physical. If the food pyramid(s) are so flawed then how are they getting approval by the relevant authorities. The WHO I assume are ok with it? I can understand anyone querying it and maybe tweaking it here and there, but to be so dismissive of it seems bonkers? There is no perfect pyramid. Seems some here think they have the precise answer to the health and diet of humans.

ive a fairly good idea yes

Gits_bone

Transform wrote: »

didnt say that and ive said many many times on this forum that carb intake (NOT no fu8king carbs) should be reflected on how lean and active you are.

It's about calories.

A calorie is a calorie.

Transform

Gits_bone wrote: »

It's about calories.

A calorie is a calorie.

That's a different conversation chief.

Gummy Panda

Gits_bone wrote: »

It's about calories.

A calorie is a calorie.

Opening Pandoras box there...

LuckyLloyd

walshb wrote: »

It does emphasise that you should be active and stay physical. If the food pyramid(s) are so flawed then how are they getting approval by the relevant authorities. The WHO I assume are ok with it? I can understand anyone querying it and maybe tweaking it here and there, but to be so dismissive of it seems bonkers? There is no perfect pyramid. Seems some here think they have the precise answer to the health and diet of humans.

walshb wrote: »

It's not government. It is society as a whole. Not just here in Ireland. Worldwide.

Lobby groups
Economic interests
Politics

Lots of farming / food processing industry is heavily focussed on grain production. Lots of large powerful companies employ lots of people in the Western World off the back of producing / marketing / selling grain based food.

So the will was there to take some deeply flawed research and use it as the medical basis for a prescription of the 'low fat high carb' food pyramid.

Gits_bone

Transform wrote: »

That's a different conversation chief.

OT is about losing weight. The healthy thing comes into it from losing all the weight.

Pretty sure there's no one not classified as obese on the show.

Mellor

walshb wrote: »

The food pyramid is a guide. It's not an exact science. It's fairly spot on. It was devised by experts in the field of nutrition. It can't be that far wrong. You say extremely flawed. That needs explaining. For the general population how is it extremely flawed?

It was developed in the 70s, amidst heavy lobbying also. We're learnt a lot more about nutrition in the last 40+ years.
Also, the pyramid details amounts in "servings". But doesn't make a serving size clear. This is pretty terrible as most people massively over estimate a serving. A serving of pasta that a typical person will give themselves, is about 4 servings according to the Food pyramid.

So the ratios are way off to begin with, due to outdated science. And this us further compounded by people's misconceptions of portion size.

As to sugars. Isn't there natural sugars and added sugars etc. Not identical.

http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/good-bad-sugars-7608.html

Actually, chemically, they are identical.

Processed sugar is lacking the benefit of natural food. But the benefits are from the vitamins, fibre, etc. Not the sugar, which is no different. And why would it be, "added sugar" isn't made in a lab, it started out naturally occurring in fruit and vegetables like sugar beet/cane and corn.

walshb

The food pyramids have been updated/tweaked and modified through the years.

I agree, the servings and sizes should be stated, but the foods and types and percentages/amounts to be ingested aren't bad.

Maybe there are pyramids that detail a bit better what a serving is in the physical sense.

Gits_bone

walshb wrote: »

The food pyramids have been updated/tweaked and modified through the years.

To a Ferrero Rocher.

Mellor

walshb wrote: »

The food pyramids have been updated/tweaked and modified through the years.

In the US, it's developed/promoted by the Dept of Argriculture, hardly unbiased. And they tweeked it over the years, but not significantly imo. And it was often made worse.

The original advice had no guideline amount for bread and grains. This was later changed to 6-11 serves. That's a ridiculous amount.
Oil and fat was originally "some everyday". This became lower in later versions. The U.S. recently dropped the pyramid in favour for a plate, and it makes no mention of oils or fats.

The Irish goverment basically adopt the same guidelines. Spend millions on research and promotion a few years ago. To still come up with the same dated info.

The Harvard Dept of Nutrition have been critical of it out years. They put out their own version, that significantly better.

MiaG

I do like he Harvard guides, glad to hear others view them as better than the general government recommendations

sh1tstirrer

RTE say the before and after pictures of the woman in the blue dress are proof that it works :rolleyes:
http://www.evoke.ie/extra/operation-transformation-meal-plans-too-expensive/

Blacktie.

Walshb is like the anti Bruno. I want to see a thread with both of them!

Gummy Panda

sh1tstirrer wrote: »

RTE say the before and after pictures of the woman in the blue dress are proof that it works :rolleyes:
http://www.evoke.ie/extra/operation-transformation-meal-plans-too-expensive/

Wat?

Where did she lose the six stone from? Did she lose a leg?

Worse comparison pic ever

Sangre

sh1tstirrer wrote: »

RTE say the before and after pictures of the woman in the blue dress are proof that it works :rolleyes:
http://www.evoke.ie/extra/operation-transformation-meal-plans-too-expensive/

I honestly can't tell which is meant to be before/after.

groovyg

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Wat?

Where did she lose the six stone from? Did she lose a leg?

Worse comparison pic ever

To be fair that contestant would have been in the morbidly obese camp when she went on the show. She is only five foot in height and at the beginning of the programme she weighed in at over 17 stone!!!!! She wasn't going to lose it all over the length of the programme.

The John Murray show had a few of them back in Oct/Nov to launch OT 2015 and to see how they were getting on and she was one of them, by then she had lost over four stone and was down to just under 13 stone which would still put her in the overweight category. She has another 3/4 stone to lose before she is in the healthy weight range. She seems to be doing lots of exercise and activities so hopefully she will get down to a healthy weight.

It kills me to see contestants on that show who are so overweight running!! of all the exercises to do I'm surprised they don't end up with loads of injuries!

walshb

MiaG wrote: »

I do like he Harvard guides, glad to hear others view them as better than the general government recommendations

I like theirs too, but it's just a variation. There is no perfect pyramid. That was my main point. The criticism of the standard and most recent U.S. one, for example, is OTT.

groovyg

Sangre wrote: »

I honestly can't tell which is meant to be before/after.

Thats the after pic at the end of the show last year. I don't what her over all weight loss was during the programme but she is only 5ft and weighed 17 stone at the start, which would mean she was carrying almost double the weight of what she should be.

walshb

groovyg wrote: »

It kills me to see contestants on that show who are so overweight running!! of all the exercises to do I'm surprised they don't end up with loads of injuries!

I agree. Running is the last thing any quite heavy set person should be doing. They can get to running, but not right from the start!

Transform

walshb wrote: »

I agree. Running is the last thing any quite heavy set person should be doing. They can get to running, but not right from the start!

Well we can at least all agree on that.

sh1tstirrer

groovyg wrote: »

Thats the after pic at the end of the show last year. I don't what her over all weight loss was during the programme but she is only 5ft and weighed 17 stone at the start, which would mean she was carrying almost double the weight of what she should be.

Funny I watched the show last year and don't remember her with that Cleopatra hair style, the picture on the right is how she looked after last years show. They say she lost 6 stone but don't have the picture to prove it.

Alf Veedersane

She was on som follow-up show and, to be fair, she does look like she'd lost 6 stone. She could barely walk last year and they showed her out running there recently.

sh1tstirrer

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

She was on som follow-up show and, to be fair, she does look like she'd lost 6 stone. She could barely walk last year and they showed her out running there recently.

The picture on the left is her at the start of this years program. If you think that she lost two stone between those two pictures great but it doesn't seem like it to me.

http://www.thestar.ie/star/operation-transformation-veterans-urge-others-to-sign-up-53835/

Alf Veedersane

sh1tstirrer wrote: »

The picture on the left is her at the start of this years program. If you think that she lost two stone between those two pictures great but it doesn't seem like it to me.

http://www.thestar.ie/star/operation-transformation-veterans-urge-others-to-sign-up-53835/

She was starting from a point where a forklift was needed to get her out of bed.

Mellor

walshb wrote: »

I like theirs too, but it's just a variation. There is no perfect pyramid. That was my main point. The criticism of the standard and most recent U.S. one, for example, is OTT.

Of course there's no perfect pyramid. That doesn't mean all variations that exist are equally adequate.

The latest "plate" model has improved ratios between everything. Where fruit and veg us the bulk, not grains. But it's missing data and oil still. This isn't good advise and it further promoted misconceptions people already have.

walshb

Mellor wrote: »

Of course theirs no perfect pyramid. That doesn't mean all variations that exist are equally adequate.

The latest "plate" model has improved ratios between everything. Where fruit and veg us the bulk, not grains. But it's missing data and oil still. This isn't good advise and it further promoted misconceptions people already have.

The original and updated pyramids have more than adequate advice/amounts as regards fruit and veg intake. Grains are a very important nutrient. So they have grains as a higher input versus fruit and veg. Hardly way off, or bad advice.

It's fats and oils are well covered under meat/poultry/eggs/fish and nuts and yogurts and cheese sections.

The U.S. now use the food plate. Pretty good and easier to understand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyPlate

Naos

I just looked up the site and picked the lightest woman and the heaviest guy.

Eilish is 5'5" and 13st 2lbs
Alan is 6'0" and 26st 8.5lbs

They have the exact same eating plan (for today at least).

Riverireland

Sangre wrote: »

I honestly can't tell which is meant to be before/after.

I would have thought she looked slimmer in the picture on the left. However due to the way she is dressed and her hair styled to look "classier" in the picture on the right I reckon left if before and right is after.

feelgoodinc27

walshb wrote: »

I agree. Running is the last thing any quite heavy set person should be doing. They can get to running, but not right from the start!

What exercise should they be starting with?

Stench Blossoms

Lads, the girl did lose an awful lot of weight. Those pictures aren't the best but there's no need to mean about it.

While I don't agree with the methodologies OT use, it's helping to get some people on the right path.

walshb

feelgoodinc27 wrote: »

What exercise should they be starting with?

Walking and maybe some light weights and stretches/exercises. When they build up a bit of cardio, drop lbs then they can begin to pound the pavements.

Alf Veedersane

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

Lads, the girl did lose an awful lot of weight. Those pictures aren't the best but there's no need to mean about it.

And she's run a half-marathon in the meantime.

Which is a massive achievement considering the mess she was in at the start of the show, when she was struggling to do basic physical activities.

walshb

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

And she's run a half-marathon in the meantime.
s.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

groovyg

feelgoodinc27 wrote: »

What exercise should they be starting with?

For the contestants on that show swimming/cycling, even using an elliptical trainer would be far easier on the joints than pounding the pavements. That young lad on the show is 6ft and weights 26stone!! Thats alot of weight to carry around never mind trying to run with.
The biggest and the most important thing they need to change is their attitude to food! Its just awful. What you eat plays a fair greater role in controlling your weight than doing exercise.