That's Fit

Last night, my fiance and I sat down and watched an episode of The Biggest Loser. I tell you, what a great show that is. The amount of weight the contestants have lost so far has been nothing short of astonishing. The program truly is a testament to how effective exercise and proper diet can be in helping to shape a healthier body.

What's equally refreshing about the show is that it does not pull any punches. It makes it quite clear; if you want to get into better shape, you have to work HARD. At no point did I see any of the trainers pushing any quick-fix diet solutions or pills on the contestants. Do you know why? Because 99.9 percent of those quick-fix diets are completely ineffective, that's why.

A great article was brought to my attention by a reader, highlighting The 25 Most Ridiculous (and Ineffective) Popular Diets. Click HERE to read the full article, which was published this past Tuesday on RNCentral.com. Or, just take a quick look below at how they ranked each diet.

1. The Atkins Diet

2. The Subway Diet

3. Cabbage Soup Diet

4. The Tapeworm Diet

5. The Cereal Diet

6. The Low-Fat Diet

7. Hallelujah Diet

8. South Beach Diet

As 2007 gives way to 2008, many people are going to resolve to finally lose weight, and, tired of unsuccessful diets, many of them will sign up for one of the popular dieting plans out there. But diets are expensive. Want to know just how expensive? The Consumerist recently looked into this -- here's what the popular diets cost per month on average:

• Atkins Diet: $402
  
• Diet To Go (1600 Calories): $524
• Diet To Go (1200 Calories): $468
• Dr Siegal Cookie Diet: $224
  
• Dr Sears Zone Diet : $371
  
• Jenny Craig: $551
  
• MediFast: $275
  
• NutriSystem: $294
  
• Ornish Diet: $299
  
• Slim Fast: $310
  
• South Beach Diet: $314
  
• Sonoma Diet: $274
  
• Weight Watchers: $387

Wow -- that's a lot of moola, and some of them don't even include the cost of food. What do you think -- is it worth it? Or are we being ripped off by the diet industry?

It seems like -- in some celebrity circles, at least -- it's hip to be losing weight and endorsing the program that's helping you do it. Even PEOPLE magazine has started a weekly weight loss feature with the celebrity du jour who has 10 or 20 or even 70 pounds to lose. I think it's great to see people take charge of their health, even if they look for a little publicity in the process.

Rachel Hunter, on the other hand, has never been overweight. She also has never used Slim-Fast and has no immediate plans to start. But yet she's the face of Slim-Fast's new campaign, "Find Your Slim," a 10-week dieting campaign. When asked why she chose to sponsor the drink, Hunter said, "I think it's a really good, positive message for women to "find your slim."

On the one hand, I think consumers may not realize that Hunter isn't using the product and if they're drawn to it because of her or because of her shape, that doesn't seem fair. On the other, I like Rachel's take on weight loss: She's not going to drink the shakes because she doesn't think she needs to lose weight, and she believes women shouldn't get all wrapped up in image and a number on the scale. On yet another hand, she's endorsing Slim-Fast. Hmm ... I'm not sure what to think, what about you?