
Remember ‘The Biggest Loser'? Docuseries ‘Fit for TV' explores the harm the show did in the name of health
It was discomfort worth grappling with for a shot at better health and a new life, many of the contestants said. But 'Fit for TV: The Reality of 'The Biggest Loser,'' a Netflix docuseries premiering Friday, suggests that the cultural phenomenon may not have been healthy for the contestants or the country at large.
When creating the new show, filmmakers asked themselves whether 'The Biggest Loser' was, in fact, part of an industry promoting health and wellness in the United States, said Skye Borgman, the director of the docuseries. 'Everybody always wants a magic bullet that's real. And the thing about magic bullets — they're never real.'
'Fit for TV: The Reality of 'The Biggest Loser'' investigates how the highly popular show affected the contestants and conversations around health. The docuseries also explores the implications of so many viewers being willing to watch –– and sometimes laugh at –– people attempting to lose weight.
'It was such a huge phenomenon and absolutely reflected and perpetuated some of the really harmful messages around weight and weight loss,' said Dr. Rebecca Pearl, associate professor of clinical and health psychology at the University of Florida.
In a show claiming to transform people's health, what did the contestants' regimens look like?
Men were advised to cut their calories down to 1,500 to 2,000 per day and women to 1,200 per day, said Dr. Robert Huizenga, physician on 'The Biggest Loser,' in the series. But sometimes, trainers might have recommended as few as 800 calories daily, he added.
The amount of exercise was also intense, sometimes spanning eight hours a day, former contestant Danny Cahill said in the docuseries.
The series showed clips of contestants dropping to the floor from a treadmill run, many people vomiting in the gym, and instances when caffeine pills were utilized to curb appetite.
'There's not any way that an entertaining show and a health show can 100% exist together. … One of them is always going to take the lead,' Borgman said. 'In the case of 'The Biggest Loser,' I feel like the entertainment value of the show far outran the health aspects of the show.'
An extreme diet and exercise regimen is associated with significant health risks, Pearl said. Losing too much weight too quickly or not getting enough calories can lead to gallbladder complications, muscle loss and nutritional deficits, she said. Overexercising can result in heart problems, dehydration and injury –– which also prevents people from maintaining healthy behaviors.
Eating a balanced diet and getting movement in your day is generally good for health, but the punishing approach to food and exercise showcased on 'The Biggest Loser' also worked against long-term health-promoting activities, Pearl added.
'One predictor and one recommendation for engaging in physical activity long term is to find an activity you enjoy,' she said. 'The kind of grueling, suffering activity that was shown on that show is not setting someone up to build a healthy, positive relationship with physical activity or with their body.'
One theme that may have kept viewers coming back to the show was the hope that someone could make a dramatic, lasting change to their body. But a weight loss transformation that stood the test of time wasn't always necessarily the result even in 'The Biggest Loser,' Borgman said.
A 2017 study following 14 contestants in the years after 'The Biggest Loser' wrapped found that many regained much or all the weight they had lost over the course of the show.
The return of the weight makes sense, said Dr. Larissa McGarrity, clinical psychologist in physical medicine and rehabilitation at University of Utah Health. The degree of calorie restriction and intensity of exercise were at levels that neither the contestants nor the viewers could implement at home in a realistic way, she said. Also, the amount of weight lost from week to week was extreme.
At times, show participants were losing up to double digits at each weekly weigh in. Experts tend to recommend a sustainable weight loss rate of 1 to 2 pounds per week, McGarrity said — adding that the best guidance is to utilize the methods you can keep up long-term.
'The answer instead is probably, 'how do I slowly make changes in my life that help me to get in the right nutrients to help my body feel good? How do I move in a way that will allow my body and mind to feel at its best over time?'' she said. 'Making too many changes at once tends to not go well for most people from a psychological or behavioral standpoint.'
Even if viewers at home could implement the stringent protocol followed by 'The Biggest Loser' contestants, research suggests metabolic changes from the dramatic weight loss depicted on the show made it harder to keep the weight off.
Six years after contestants were on the show, the 14 studied on average still had a slower metabolisms, even if they had regained about two-thirds of the weight they had lost, according to the study. Their bodies were naturally burning fewer calories throughout the day and increasing hunger cues.
'It essentially means that keeping the weight off long term is nearly impossible without continued extreme measures over many years, because your body will fight against you to maintain that weight or defend that weight at that initially higher level,' McGarrity said.
Often interwoven into 'The Biggest Loser' –– from coaches, in depictions of bodies, and in the audience interactions –– was a lot of shame, McGarrity said.
The format supported a myth around weight: that the size of a person's body is totally under their control, and having a larger body is a sign of lack of willpower or moral failing, she said.
That myth ignores the realities of things like genetics, environment and individual metabolisms, and it paves the way for denigration and callousness, she said.
'Cruelty, verbal abuse, sort of indirect physical abuse, in terms of being forced to really torture your body in unhealthy ways –– there was a sense that if you're in a larger body, you deserve this,' said Oona Hanson, a parent coach who specializes in helping families navigate diet culture and eating disorders.
'It made us participate as viewers in kind of like a pity or even disgust response in terms of the way people's bodies were portrayed, in the way they talked about their bodies,' she added.
The docuseries showed just how dehumanizing or degrading those images could be, with cameras shaking as contestants fell to make it look like they caused an earthquake or challenges asking contestants to carry whole loaves of bread in their mouths.
'Without really being completely aware of it, the show succeeded in making fun of fat people,' Borgman said.
Some contestants did say that they found empowerment and representation in being part of a competition in which they succeeded in goals and accomplished physical feats, she added. But it isn't hard to find a clip from 'The Biggest Loser' in which contestants are put in disparaging situations, Pearl added.
Content that stigmatizes the size of a person's body and emphasizes thinness at all costs impacts not just the contestants, but also the viewers at home, Hanson said. It's hard for those viewers not to internalize those negative stereotypes, affecting how people see their communities and themselves.
'The Biggest Loser' may have been canceled years ago, but 'Fit for TV' shares that the reality show's lasting influence underscores the fact that the United States has not elevated the way people talk about weight and bodies, Borgman added.
'We as a culture feel like we're super evolved. … We don't judge. We take people for who they are,' she said. 'I don't think that's true at all. So, I hope people walk away from this series and look at themselves a little bit more and how we treat people.'
Get inspired by a weekly roundup on living well, made simple. Sign up for CNN's Life, But Better newsletter for information and tools designed to improve your well-being.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


WIRED
a few seconds ago
- WIRED
I Tried the Best At-Home Pet DNA Test Kits on My Two Cats
If You Have a Dog, Consider These Kits I don't have a dog, so I didn't try these at-home DNA test kits for dogs, but these are the kits specifically for dogs from Basepaws and Wisdom Panel, the two companies I've tested for my cats. How Does a DNA Testing Kit Work? Pet DNA tests rely on pet owners collecting cells for testing through a cheek swab, where the sample is put into a sealed stabilizing or preserving fluid for transit. You'll mail the sample back to the lab in the prepaid envelope. It takes up to five weeks to get results. (The first time I sent my cat Basil's Basepaws sample, the company emailed that the results were inconclusive, and I had to wait for another kit to be sent, re-swab him, and wait another five weeks for results.) At the lab, the sample is analyzed against the company's breed and genetic health database. They use single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays—the standard technology used to identify breed ancestry—as well as various inherited traits and risk of common diseases. Essentially, different breeds have distinct patterns of SNPs in their genomes, which act as the genetic markers. These tests analyze the pet's DNA sample for specific SNPs and then compare them to the company's existing database to estimate the composition of breed types in the animal. This not only tells you about breed composition, but can also identify the specific DNA sequences that are markers for potential health risks, like predispositions to diseases or hereditary cancers. Don't take the health or DNA test results as absolute truth, however. 'This can lead to a false sense of security or false alarms," says veterinarian Amanda Chambers. Forward your results to your veterinarian and always follow up with scheduling a visit to the vet if your pet is marked as a carrier for any genetic disease. Limitations of At-Home DNA Test Kits After chatting with Jamie Richardson, head of veterinary medicine at Small Door Veterinary, I've found that these are the major areas of limitations with at-home DNA test kits: Results depend on the size/diversity of the genetic database Most kits test known markers only—not full genomes Feline data is less developed Misinterpretation of results can lead to unnecessary concern How Accurate Is At-Home DNA Testing? Wisdom Panel claims its breed results for cats are over 98 percent accurate and that tests for dogs are over 99 percent accurate. I've outlined the results below, so you can see the disparity in results from the two kits I tested, particularly with breed ancestry. One problem with the vast disparity in results is that the two companies have different sample sizes and metrics for identifying breeds. But the biggest issue for cat owners taking these at-home DNA tests is that you can't really identify most cats' breeds the way you can with dogs. Unless your cat is a purebred, around 95 percent of cats don't belong to a recognized breed. Cats' genetic backgrounds are muddied—they're just similar mixes with different physical characteristics, so the tests only show the breed(s) they share the most markers with. Basically, these tests for cats aren't able to reliably tell us about breed composition, just similarity to other breeds' traits in the company's data pool. From my research, it seems the breed identification part of these tests is more accurate for dogs, as dog DNA is so much more diversified. Breeds have been clearly defined after centuries of diversifying from other breeds, and dog DNA mutates quickly, with genes changing quickly after just a few generations. Cats are not much different from their Egyptian ancestors. Interestingly, in this report from CBS in 2023, the news organization sent dog and human DNA to different at-home test companies and got various results, ranging from 65 to only 29 percent German shepherd DNA for the dog. The human DNA results were attributed to a bulldog, border collie, and cane corso mix. TL;DR There isn't one catch-all way to determine a pet's genetic makeup or ancestry. Humans like categories. And breeds are essentially human constructs, based on the way the dog or cat looks. The genetic part of the test is fun, but take it with a grain of salt—especially with cats. Ancestry Results If you read above, you know that there's a significant disparity in results based on the pool the sample is compared against. For example, below are the results I got for my cat Clover, who's a dilute calico with long, white fur and visually looks most like a Maine coon or Norwegian forest cat. (I also tested my run-of-the-mill gray cat Basil, but he was almost entirely 'American domestic cat' and 'polycat/domestic shorthair'—basically the mutt final boss, a result of many generations of mixed breeding between different types of cats, where ancestry and origin is almost impossible to determine.) Health Results Wisdom Panel tests for 49 genetic health predispositions by comparing the pet's DNA against a panel of cat or dog genetic health checks. It tests for the top five genetic conditions that could impact the pet's vet visits—essentially, the most common conditions that are seen in cats or dogs with a similar breed makeup as your pet. These are for things like drug sensitivity, immune deficiency, and bleeding disorders. They also identified the cat's blood type (both of my cats were A) and transfusion risk (both were moderate). Basepaws tests for up to 115 health markers, but my cat received results for only 44 genetic diseases (owners are encouraged to check results often in case missing markers are added as more data becomes available). This list felt more in-depth than the Wisdom Panel test, testing genes for markers against disorders in musculoskeletal and connective tissue; eyes; metabolic, autoimmune, and endocrine systems; blood; and more. Both of my cats, Clover and Basil, were cleared as having none of the genes that mark them as potential carriers of genetic diseases. It also identified blood type and transfusion risk, which were A and moderate (the same results I got with Wisdom Panel's test). If your pet gets flagged for any of these results, don't panic. 'The presence of a certain gene does not always mean a patient will develop a certain disorder that is associated with that gene—it just means they're at higher risk of it. I would encourage owners to reach out to their veterinarian if they have questions after receiving the results of a DNA test,' says Chambers. Oral Health Results Wisdom Panel doesn't screen for oral health, which is a huge problem in many pets, and can lead to tooth extraction and bigger health issues. Oral health was a concern for me, and Basepaws tests for oral health by testing against an oral microbiome database. In this regard, Basepaws wins out. According to the Basepaws results, Clover was a low risk for periodontal disease and tooth resorption, but at a high risk of halitosis. The report said bad breath could be indicative of a larger health issue, but she was cleared for disease, so I wasn't sure what to do with that information. Courtesy of Molly Higgins My other cat, Basil, was at high risk for all the dental markers mentioned above, and Basepaws came up with a health plan for him: 'adopt a daily oral healthcare routine, consider supplementing Basil's routine with products accepted by the Veterinary Oral Health Council, and schedule an appointment with your veterinarian in the next month.' Courtesy of Molly Higgins Although I was alarmed at the results, I liked that Basepaws gave me recommended next steps so I could come up with a plan of action for care. And it's important to remember that these results don't necessarily mean a pet is guaranteed to develop the disease. "These can be a helpful flag for your veterinarian to keep an eye on [...] but does not necessarily mean aggressive testing is needed at that moment,' says Richardson. 'DNA tests are tools to support—not replace—veterinary care.' Traits Results Both of the tests had this section, which tests for coat color traits and variants, but I found it mostly useless. Wisdom Panel's assertions of both cats' physical traits were correct. But with Basepaws, Clover, a dilute calico, was marked as being likely black in color. I can see with my eyes what my cat(s) look like, but if you're a genetic nerd, this might be fun to see what the actual DNA reflects. A Note on At-Home Allergy Testing Kits I recently tested both of my cats for their allergies and intolerances using a similar at-home test kit, 5Strands Pet Food & Environmental Intolerance Test for $100. For this, you only need to send a fur sample in the mail to a lab; results were sent to my inbox within seven days. The report showed that both of my cats showed strong intolerances to common ingredients in their diet, like various types of fish and chicken meal. This sent me into a panic about the health and (dis)comfort of my cats. After more research, I learned that hair/fur samples are not an accurate way to measure allergies and intolerances, and studies show kits claiming to provide these results perform no better than chance and often produce inconsistent or false results. 'There's no scientific evidence to support allergy testing through hair, fur, or saliva,' says Richardson. 'Veterinarian-supervised elimination diets to test for food allergy and intra-dermal skin testing or blood tests to test for environmental allergies remain the gold standard.' So, save your money and consult a vet instead if you suspect your pet is suffering because of allergies or intolerances. Compare Our Top Picks Meet the Experts


Android Authority
an hour ago
- Android Authority
Pairing your Galaxy Watch with a non-Samsung phone? Here's what you're missing out on
Andy Walker / Android Authority Samsung's smartwatches (and the Galaxy Ring) are compatible with most Android phones, but you'll only get the full experience when paired with Samsung Galaxy smartphones. This applies to older Galaxy Watch models up to the latest Galaxy Watch 8 series and Galaxy Watch Ultra 2025. But what are these features, and are they worth considering switching smartphones for? Do you use a Galaxy Watch with a Samsung smartphone? 0 votes Yes, I do. NaN % No, I pair my Galaxy Watch with another Android phone. NaN % No, I use a Samsung phone paired with another smartwatch. NaN % No, I don't own a Galaxy Watch or a Samsung phone. NaN % There are many features, but only a few truly make the partnership worthwhile, at least for me. I don't own a Galaxy Ring, but I can comment on the synergy between my Galaxy Watch 4 and Galaxy S24 FE. While most benefits are health-related, several ecosystem features make owning Samsung products more attractive and worth considering. Don't want to miss the best from Android Authority? Set us as a preferred source in Google Search to support us and make sure you never miss our latest exclusive reports, expert analysis, and much more. Additional health features Kaitlyn Cimino / Android Authority I use my Galaxy Watch primarily as a fitness tracker, so I prioritize features that monitor health issues. Most fitness tracking features are available across all Android phones, including basic heart rate tracking, step tracking, sleep, and SpO2 insights. However, if you want to use your wearable specifically to check your heartbeat or blood pressure, you need to pair it with a Samsung smartphone and download the exclusive Samsung Health Monitor app. This app is also limited to specific markets, so check availability if these features are essential to you. Notably, the app enables the Galaxy Watch 4 and newer models' ECG capabilities, or electrocardiogram, which samples your heart's rhythm and offers guidance if it detects irregularities. Thankfully, my heart's still strong, but I regularly use this feature when I feel unusually tired or stressed. Health Monitor also unlocks the Galaxy Watch series' blood pressure monitoring feature, which requires calibration with a standalone monitor before use. This feature is great for quick checkups if you're away from home without a dedicated monitor. Other Galaxy Watch features that require a Samsung smartphone include stress reminders, sleep apnea monitoring, and Energy Score insight. Sleep apnea monitoring samples your breathing and heart rate rhythm at night, checking for any concerning dips in blood oxygen levels. It then provides further guidance. I use this feature a few times a year, and it offers great insight into my overall sleep health. Energy Score insight adds AI-powered context to your Energy Score — a figure that quantifies your daily readiness based on previous activity and rest. Energy Score works without a Samsung phone, but you'll only get the number and not much else. Several new Galaxy Watch health tracking features aren't exclusive to Samsung smartphones but are available in newer versions of One UI Watch. This includes Vascular Load, Antioxidant Index, Running Coach, and Bedtime Guidance. Galaxy AI Andy Walker / Android Authority I agree, the constant chatter about AI can be annoying, but Galaxy AI on the Galaxy Watch is quite helpful. I've highlighted how it enables some health features on the wearable, but it's also found in more general applications. Samsung's use of AI isn't particularly intrusive and improves the experience of several features and apps on the small screen. Notably, Galaxy AI features require the watch to be paired with a compatible Samsung smartphone. So what are these features? One that I find particularly useful is Smart Replies, which provides context-aware response options to messages sent via a messaging app. While this feature is available through Samsung Messages, it also works well with WhatsApp and Google Messages. Bixby Andy Walker / Android Authority Believe it or not, Samsung's often criticized voice assistant is actually quite good. I ditched Google Gemini for a week to use Bixby exclusively, and I enjoyed it. Its availability across both the Galaxy Watch and Samsung smartphones makes pairing the two devices worthwhile. I find that Bixby triggers settings faster on these devices than Gemini, making it a better utility for controlling your device on your wrist. I use it to set timers, adjust alarms, and start exercises. Tapping the Bixby button and talking to my watch is often easier than scrolling across its tiny display to tap an even smaller button. I wouldn't consider the voice assistant better than Gemini for online tasks. Google's product is still better for anything you need fetched from the web. But, personally, I usually use my phone for these tasks. You can use both on your watch using different wake words or physical shortcuts for each. Modes and Routines Ryan Haines / Android Authority Modes and Routines are a core part of my digital life that I couldn't imagine living without them. This is perhaps the one feature I'd miss most if I separated my Galaxy Watch and Galaxy phone. In short, Modes and Routines allow me to trigger specific settings conditionally, based on location, time of day, or connected network. But this is just skimming the surface. In another article, I elaborated on the various uses of Modes and Routines, including activating power-saving mode on my watch when I don't need all its features, flipping through watch faces automatically, or making full use of my phone's Driving mode to make content on my watch more legible. There are various integrations possible with this tool. Some modes trigger automatically, too. A Samsung smartphone and Galaxy Watch will also sync other settings with one another, including alarms (via Sleep mode) and Do Not Disturb status. Camera Control Andy Walker / Android Authority I'll admit, this is one quirky reason to pair a Samsung smartphone with a Galaxy Watch, but I've grown to like it. Using a tripod for smartphone photography is a boon, especially if you want to capture nighttime shots without jittering the device's hardware. In these cases, the camera control feature is convenient. Annoyingly, it doesn't support specific camera modes that would make it genuinely helpful, like Slow Motion or Hyperlapse. Nevertheless, I have used this feature more than I thought I would. As the Galaxy Ring lacks a screen, you cannot use it to control the camera of your Galaxy phone or any Android phone. While some of these features have workarounds or alternatives, many of the above features genuinely enhance the Galaxy Watch and Ring experience. I wouldn't suggest you rush out and purchase a Samsung phone today if you own a Galaxy Watch, but it's something to consider going forward. As Samsung continues developing more Galaxy AI-heavy features that require its smartphone hardware, don't be surprised to see more features locked behind its walled garden. Follow


CNET
an hour ago
- CNET
Generative AI Gave MIT Scientists a New Tool to Fight Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria
Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are dangerous because they already "know" what most antibiotics look like. Scientists at MIT have found a way to create something new: using generative AI to design two antibiotic compounds from scratch that can kill drug-resistant gonorrhea and MRSA in lab dishes and mice. Antibiotic resistance is one of the world's biggest public health threats yet new antibiotics have been scarce for decades. Traditional drug discovery methods rely on screening known chemical libraries -- a slow process with a limited pool of existing molecules to test. In contrast, MIT's AI system generated more than 36 million theoretical compounds, many with chemical structures never seen before, and zeroed in on two standouts. Both are unlike any antibiotic currently in use, offering a glimpse at how AI can move beyond speeding up research to imagine medicines that might have been impossible to find otherwise. "We wanted to get rid of anything that would look like an existing antibiotic, to help address the antimicrobial resistance crisis in a fundamentally different way," said Aarti Krishnan, MIT postdoc and one of the study's lead authors. "By venturing into underexplored areas of chemical space, our goal was to uncover novel mechanisms of action." Read also: Do You Really Learn When You Use AI? What MIT Researchers Found How the science was pulled off The MIT team bypassed the limitations of screening existing chemical libraries by asking AI to invent molecules from scratch, generating more than 36 million theoretical compounds, which were then narrowed down to a few to be tested against drug-resistant superbugs. This involved two AI-driven strategies: Fragment-based design: The AI began with a chemical fragment (labeled F1) that showed promise against gonorrhea. It produced millions of derivatives, ultimately refining a shortlist of about 1,000 candidates. Of the 80 chosen by researchers, NG1 emerged as a standout compound that successfully treated drug-resistant gonorrhea in cell cultures and a mouse. Unconstrained generation: The team let the AI roam freely, designing molecules on its own, aiming at MRSA. This produced more than 29 million candidates, which were filtered down to 90 compounds for synthesis. Twenty-two were produced, six performed well in lab tests and one in particular, DN1, proved able to eliminate MRSA skin infections in mice. NG1 and DN1 are structurally distinct from any currently known antibiotics and appear to destroy bacteria by disrupting their cell membranes. NG1 specifically targets LptA, a previously untapped bacterial protein involved in constructing the outer cell membrane. What's next for antibiotic research Phare Bio, a nonprofit in the Antibiotics-AI Project, is refining NG1 and DN1 to improve their drug properties, while researchers expand the AI platform to target other tough pathogens like Mycobacterium tuberculosis (the causative agent of tuberculosis) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (a group of bacteria that often causes infections in health-care settings). The study, first published in the journal Cell, signals a hopeful turn in the global struggle against superbugs. However, these findings are early-stage. Initial tests and lab results are encouraging, but human safety and efficacy must be established through rigorous lab refinement and clinical trials, a process that could span several years. This effort builds on MIT's previous breakthroughs in AI-guided antibiotic development, including halicin, discovered in 2020 via deep learning, and abaucin, discovered in 2023 via a machine-learning algorithm. Read more: AI Essentials: 29 Ways to Make Gen AI Work for You, According to Our Experts