The Dictatorship
Netflix’s new docuseries reveals a cruel truth about ‘The Biggest Loser’
When it debuted in 2003, “The Biggest Loser” might have seemed like a great idea for a TV show. By then, America had become increasingly obese. The contrast between a media obsessed with thinness and the reality of what American adults weighed was incredibly stark. The premise of the hit show was simple: Contestants with obesity, divided into teams and assisted by full-time coaches and a medical doctor, competed to lose the highest percentage of body weight within 30 weeks. Again, it might have seemed like a good idea — but it was not.
It might have seemed like a good idea — but it was not.
Yet for 17 seasons and well over a decade, “The Biggest Loser,” which originally aired on NBC, was a cultural phenomenon and a smash hit. At its peak, one premiere episode drew some 11.7 million viewers. The winner of any given season would leave Hollywood with their new body and their $250,000 cash prize and begin a media tour. And it wasn’t just a normal media tour; the winner didn’t simply perch on morning show couches sipping coffee or speak with entertainment reporters for a write-up. No, they would be asked to do things like stand inside of their old “fat jeans” and wave their hands in astonishment at the size, as the live studio audience gasped.
I do recall watching, although we didn’t tune in as a family like we did for, say, “American Idol” or “Survivor” or one of the other reality television shows that dominated the airwaves at the time. But “The Biggest Loser” was such a behemoth of a franchise that seemingly everyone knew about it.
That success, though, did not bequeath a legacy. Although cultural attitudes toward thinness and body positivity are changing every day — currently for the worse, I might add — the general sentiment toward “The Biggest Loser” is that it was exploitative at best and incredibly dangerous at worst.
That is what a three-part docuseries from Netflix that debuted this week explores. Called “Fit for TV: The Reality of the Biggest Loser,” the series examines the show from the perspective of former contestants, former winners, former producers and one of the notorious coaches, Bob Harper. Harper’s counterpart, an always screaming Jillian Michaels, did not participate in the documentary.
It should go almost without saying that the weight loss methods used on “The Biggest Loser” — extreme exercise, calorie restriction and, controversially, caffeine pills — did not work. Many of the contestants and even some of the winners gained all or much of the weight back after departing the show. Ultimately, though, the conversation around “The Biggest Loser” is not a conversation about health and wellness, but one about the way we treat people with obesity or who are overweight in this country.
The premise of writer and social commentator Roxane Gay’s 2017 book “Hunger: A Memoir of (My) Body” kept playing like a loop in my mind while I watched “Fit for TV.” In it, Gay writes, “When you’re overweight, your body becomes a matter of public record in many respects. Your body is constantly and prominently on display. People project assumed narratives onto your body and are not at all interested in the truth of your body, whatever that truth might be.”
There is a moment in the middle of “Fit for TV” where a season seven contestant named Joelle Gwynn recalled being berated on a treadmill by Harper.
There is a moment in the middle of “Fit for TV” where a season seven contestant named Joelle Gwynn recalled being berated on a treadmill by Harper. From footage that aired in 2009, we watch Gwynn, in her large “Biggest Loser” gray T-shirt, her hair slicked back from sweat, struggle to finish a 30-second run on the treadmill. She slows down at 20 seconds and Harper, standing in front of her, screams a torrent of profanities. Gwynn, reflecting on the incident in the documentary, said, “When Bob starts berating me, I go out of body, that’s the only way — I literally kid you not, I went out of body. … I’ve never seen someone get abused like that. It was very, very, very, very embarrassing. … It brought me back to home. I’m there because I would get s— like that at home and eat. So, you cursing me out doesn’t help me.”
But heightened emotional situations, manipulation and abuse were part of the show’s DNA — and a large part of what drove its success. Aside from verbal blow-ups between coach and contestant, something that Michaels in particular was known for, each episode would include what was called a “temptation.” Temptations would generally involve food, high-calorie fattening food, and a timed challenge. Whichever contestant ate the most hotdogs, for example, within a five-minute period would have the opportunity to win immunity from elimination or a cash prize. One particularly controversial temptation allowed the winning contestant to speak with a family member over the phone. Counterintuitive as it might seem for a weight loss show, temptations illuminate what “The Biggest Loser” is really about: spectacle and humiliation, not healthy and sustainable habits.
There is a well-documented connection between trauma, particularly childhood traumaand obesity in adults. One study found that of patients undergoing bariatric surgery, which could include gastric bypass or a gastric sleeve, some 69% “reported some form of childhood abuse or neglect.” There are many studies that have found the same conclusion. As the documentary notes, “The Biggest Loser” prided itself in finding contestants with what they called “good stories.” That is, they selected contestants whose painful life experiences would make their weight loss success even more inspiring and poignant for viewers — and more emotionally taxing on the contestant.
The documentary asks the questions: Was there adequate emotional support on the set of “The Biggest Loser”? Of course not. Harper and Michaels functioned as both coaches and pseudo-psychologists, a sort of dystopian good cop/bad cop. Were either of them trained or licensed to perform as anything more than a fitness instructor? Again, of course not.
It’s hard not to consider the show’s title as an empathetic viewer in 2025. “The Biggest Loser” is a cruel double entendre, reinforcing the unshakable cultural perception that to have obesity is to be lazy and weak. Who ultimately loses, though, when we sit around at night watching a show based on others’ pain and humiliation? I know this much: It is not the contestants.
Hannah Holland is a producer for BLN’s “Velshi” and editor for the “Velshi Banned Book Club.” She writes for BLN Daily.
More than a month into the war in Iran, there’s still great uncertainty about why the United States launched this military offensive in the first place. There’s reason to believe, however, that the conflict has something to do with Iran’s nuclear program.
At an unrelated White House event on Tuesday, for example, Donald Trump said“I had one goal: They will have no nuclear weapon, and that goal has been attained.”
It was a curious comment, in part because by the president’s own assessmentIran didn’t have a nuclear weapon before he decided to launch the war, and in part because Secretary of State Marco Rubio this week presented the administration’s four major objectives in the conflict, none of which had anything to do with Iran’s nuclear program.
As for whether Trump’s newly manufactured “goal” has actually been “attained,” The New York Times reported“Unless something changes over the next two weeks — the target Mr. Trump set to begin withdrawing from the conflict — he will have left the Iranians with 970 pounds of highly enriched uranium, enough for 10 to a dozen bombs. The country will retain control over an even larger inventory of medium-enriched uranium that, with further enrichment, could be turned into bomb fuel, if the Iranians can rebuild that capacity after a month of steady bombing.”
The American president has acknowledged that these details are true, though he apparently no longer cares. Ahead of an Oval Office address to the nation about the war in Iran, the Republican spoke to Reuters about his perspective:
Of the enriched uranium, Trump said: ‘That’s so far underground, I don’t care about that.’
‘We’ll always be watching it by satellite,’ he added. He said Iran was ‘incapable’ of developing a weapon now.
The president’s comments definitely have a practical element: It’s been an open question for weeks as to whether Trump intends to try to seize Iran’s uranium stockpile, which would require ground troops and be profoundly dangerous for U.S. military service members.
If Trump told Reuters the truth and is prepared to let Iran keep the uranium it already has because he no longer “cares about that,” it would drastically reduce the likelihood of a ground invasion — one that would almost certainly cost lives.
But there’s another element to this worth keeping in mind as the process moves forward: Ever since the Obama administration struck the original nuclear agreement with Iran in 2015, Trump has insisted that it was wrong to allow the country to hold onto nuclear materials that might someday be used in a nuclear weapon.
A decade later, he’s suddenly indifferent to Iran’s uranium stockpile — which has only grown larger since Trump abandoned the Obama-era policy.
Trump’s goalposts, in other words, are on the move.
Indeed, if the American president’s comments reflect his true perspective (and with this guy, one never really knows), we’re due for a serious public conversation about the motives and objectives for the war. Because as things stand, before the war, Iran had a regime run by radical religious clerics and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard; the country had a significant uranium stockpile; and the Strait of Hormuz was open.
And now, Trump’s apparent vision for a successful offensive will include Iran with a regime run by radical religious clerics and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard; the country still holding a significant uranium stockpile; and the Strait of Hormuz will be open.
Mission accomplished, I guess?
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
Just days after labeling the Senate deal to end the record-breaking shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security a “crap sandwich,” Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., now appears ready to swallow it whole.
Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., announced Wednesday they will move forward with the two-track approach senators unanimously backed last Friday. They will pass a bill to fund most of DHS — with the exception of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and parts of Customs and Border Patrol — and then look to approve money for ICE and CBP in a separate reconciliation package.
“In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited,” Johnson and Thune said in a joint statement.
The announcement amounts to a stunning reversal for Johnson, who was facing pressure from conservatives to oppose the Senate deal. Their objections centered on the lack of money for ICE, as well as the Senate’s failure to include new voter ID restrictions, championed by President Donald Trump, with the so-called SAVE America Act.
Instead, Johnson on Friday forced a House vote on an alternative measure to fund all of DHS for eight weeks. While it passed almost entirely along party linesthe stopgap measure stood no chance in the Senate, where Democrats have repeatedly rejected a similar proposal in recent weeks.
Lawmakers were back to square one.
But it turns out, all they needed was a little push from Trump.
Less than three hours before Johnson and Thune’s announcement, Trump urged Republicans — in a lengthy statement on Truth Social — to pass funding for ICE and border patrol through budget reconciliation. While that approach allows GOP lawmakers to bypass Democratic opposition, it requires near-unanimous GOP support.
Trump said he wants the legislation on his desk by June 1 — an ambitious timeline that dramatically increased pressure on Republicans.
“We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won’t be able to stop us,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We will not allow them to hurt the families of these Great Patriots by defunding them. I am asking that the Bill be on my desk NO LATER than June 1st.”
With Johnson suddenly on board, lawmakers appear poised to end the DHS shutdown just as soon as the House can reconvene. It’s unclear exactly when that might happen. The House isn’t due back until April 14. But Johnson could always call lawmakers back sooner — or look to pass the Senate bill while both chambers are out on recess through a special process.
Because the House never technically sent its 60-day continuing resolution to the Senate, the House could just recede from its amendment of the Senate-passed bill and immediately send the legislation to the president.
Either way, barring another sudden shift from Trump or House leadership, the longest government shutdown in U.S. history may soon be over — and Democrats are already taking a victory lap.
“Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. “We were clear from the start: fund critical security, protect Americans, and no blank check for reckless ICE and Border Patrol enforcement.”
“We were united, held the line, and refused to let Republican chaos win,” Schumer added.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.
Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.
The Dictatorship
Former White House official: Trump’s Supreme Court attendance could be ‘perceived as intimidation’
President Donald Trump became the first sitting American president to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning when he sat in the audience to hear his administration argue to limit birthright citizenship guarantees for the children of undocumented immigrants and temporary U.S. residents.
Before arguments began, Trump entered the courtroom wearing his usual red tie and sat in the front row of the public seating area. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Attorney General Pam Bondi were also in the room.
None of the justices acknowledged Trump’s presence while he was in the courtroom.
As the justices began to question U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, who was arguing on behalf of the administration, Trump remained focused and wore a blank expression.
After Sauer finished his arguments, Trump remained in the courtroom for a few minutes. He got up and quietly left, flanked by Secret Service agents, shortly after Cecillia Wang began her arguments for the ACLU.
Trump’s presence at the court is significant. A sitting president of the United States has never attended oral arguments at the high court before, which is widely considered a sign of respect for the balance of power between the federal government and the judiciary.
Two senior White House officials who requested anonymity to speak about the president’s internal strategy told MS NOW that Trump wanted to listen to the oral argument because “it’s an important case.” The outcome of the case will have sweeping legal implications for Trump’s sprawling immigration enforcement agenda.
“Behind closed doors there’s a realization of the tremendous legal wall this is to climb,” a former White House official familiar with Trump’s thinking who spoke on the condition of anonymity told MS NOW.
“I’m not sure of the calculation from him to go today. It will be perceived as intimidation, and some justices won’t like that,” the former official said.
Trump has shown scorn for the justices for their ruling on his aggressive tariff policy. Earlier this year, Trump said the justices who ruled against the policy were an “an embarrassment to their families.” The president has railed against the justices, including the ones he appointed in his first term, for striking down his sprawling trade agenda.
Trump has pivoted between slamming the justices on social media for the February tariff ruling and calling on them to uphold his birthright citizenship order.
Domicile, the legal term for the place where an individual maintains a permanent home, was at the heart of Sauer’s argument Wednesday. Sauer argued that parents of children born in the U.S. must be domiciled in the United States and demonstrate allegiance to the country in order for their children to be granted citizenship.
Trump left the court after his administration’s argument faced pushback from the court’s key conservative justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch, as well as the rest of the justices on the bench.
As Trump’s motorcade rolled back to the White House, droves of tourists watched and responded with positive and negative gestures. National Guard members were in the crowds, as well.
The case, Trump v. Barbara, centers on the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to confer citizenship to almost all individuals born on U.S. soil: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
Shortly after returning to the White House last year, Trump signed an executive order seeking to end that guarantee. The justices will weigh whether the executive order complies with the federal statute that codified that clause.
Trump did not stay to hear more than the first few minutes of the dissenting arguments. But after returning to the White House, he posted a response on his Truth Social platform. “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow “Birthright” Citizenship!”
Sydney Carruth is a breaking news reporter covering national politics and policy for MS NOW. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at SydneyCarruth.46 or follow her work on X and Bluesky.
Jake Traylor is a White House correspondent for MS NOW.
Fallon Gallagher is a legal affairs reporter for MS NOW.
- ‘No evidence it’s real’: Officials see few signs Trump’s NATO rhetoric is turning into action
- ‘I don’t care about that’: Trump moves the goal posts on Iran’s uranium stockpile
- Mike Johnson caves to the Senate, paving the way for likely DHS shutdown deal
- Former White House official: Trump’s Supreme Court attendance could be ‘perceived as intimidation’
- The Strait of Hormuz is the U.S.’ problem now — whether Trump likes it or not
- Sen. Mark Kelly slams Pete Hegseth for injecting Christian rhetoric into Iran war
- Hill staffers brace for their boss’s ‘TMZ moment’
- Trump’s strategy to calm markets during Iran war is falling flat
- Trump’s MAGA allies have a new plan for mass deportations. It could splinter the coalition.
- Isaacman aims to reinvigorate NASA’s image, starting with the moon
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics12 months agoDemocrat challenging Joni Ernst: I want to ‘tear down’ party, ‘build it back up’