new weightwatcher system?

foundry

Hi all,
I realise ww has it's own thread but i felt this deserved it's own!

I heard on the 6pm 2fm news that weight watchers were changing their system and abolishing the points method and calorie counting with saturated fat as it's "old fashioned". :-O

edit:google weightwatchers u-turn on alcohol. (I'm on boards mobile so can't quote links!)
Sounds brilliant! Love the real life points!

Frogdog

Are they still encouraging eating an unhealthy diet by limiting healthy fats?

FunkZ

Frogdog wrote: »

Are they still encouraging eating an unhealthy diet by limiting healthy fats?

Hahahaha excellent :P

I wonder why they're changing, the points system seems to greatly motivate most people that I've known to do WW.

Ciaran500

It still looks like it will be promoting pre packaged food and I'd be very surprised if they did a u-turn on saturated fats.

rubadub

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jy_YwWCxUEg2868mDhfcG9rXy_VQ?docId=N0057471288358796344A

WeightWatchers in U-turn on alcohol

(UKPA) – 1 day ago

WeightWatchers is discarding its famous fat and calorie-based points plan in favour of a new system that allows alcohol and the odd fast food binge.

The international dieting company said it was adopting the new "ProPoints" system because "science had moved on" and the previous style of calorie-counting had been proven to be inaccurate and "outdated", The Grocer magazine reported.

The new plan, set to be announced on Monday, will centre on the amounts and types of protein, carbohydrate, fibre and fat in food, while the old calorie-based point system has been recalibrated to factor in the energy used in chewing and digesting the food.

In an added bonus, followers will for the first time be granted extra "real living" points so they can treat themselves to their favourite drink and fast foods, while all fruit and most vegetables will carry zero points.

Dieters will be allowed a typical daily allowance of up to 29 of the recalculated ProPoints, compared with 18 points previously, plus the weekly bonus of 49 "real living" points.

A gin and low-calorie tonic will account for two ProPoints, a pint of lager adds six points and a Big Mac costs 12 points.

WeightWatchers spokesman Chris Stirk told The Grocer that the changes to the 15-year-old system would help consumers lose weight while living in the real world. While he denied the changes were an admission that the old system was flawed, he admitted it had needed to be updated to keep pace with the latest scientific thinking.

Mr Stirk said: "Points have been phenomenally successful but science has moved on. We have learned so much more about how we metabolise the food we eat and how we can give people the best programme for sustainable weight loss success."

WeightWatchers dietician Zoe Hellman added: "We've taken all the best nutritional science from around the globe and distilled it down into one simple, easy-to-follow plan to give healthy, sustainable weight loss for life."

Manufacturers who will have to make changes to their WeightWatchers packaging to carry the new ProPoints system include Heinz, Yoplait, Greencore and Warburtons.

All fruit being zero seems very odd.

Frogdog

rubadub wrote: »

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jy_YwWCxUEg2868mDhfcG9rXy_VQ?docId=N0057471288358796344A


All fruit being zero seems very odd.

I know you're a Mod and who am I to question you etc etc - but from reading that whole article that's all you found odd??? :pac:

The whole thing is a mess and gets me very annoyed! :mad:

rubadub

Frogdog wrote: »

but from reading that whole article that's all you found odd???

there is not a lot of info there, I remember a program on obesity with a lad eating 35 oranges a day thinking he was doing great. Does this mean that instead of calculating points on a museli packet they could have 100g of oats and 150g of "free" raisins. On the old points system I pointed out many times that
600kcal portion of coconut is 21.5points
600kcal portion of sugar is 8.5points

I would like to see the new forumla and how they decided on it.
here is the new calculator http://www.wijvallenaf.nl/Weight-Watchers/ProPoints-Calculator.html

100g of coconut is 354kcal and 10.8 points
354kcal of sugar is 9.8 points

A typical pint is ~200kcal and a big mac is 450kcal so I would have thought a big mac would have more points than 2 pints.

They must have some different forumla for alcohol, since that gin they mentioned should have zero points as it would have no figures to put in the calculator.

Lantus

When Mr tirk says "We have learned so much more about how we metabolise the food we eat." I think he's really talking about the WW brigade because from my undertsanding there has been a robust ad solid understanding of nutrition in a modern sense from at least the 70's and possibly earlier.

The new system sounds much better and I will review it when it arrives on the scene. It will be interesting to see how WW re-packages and jazzes up the tried ad tested method of macronutrient ratio's for the general public.

Pembily

I can't understand how all fruit and most vegetables are are zero, I would have thought all vegetables and some fruits are zero!!!

I found the no count program very good but people seemed to have problems with portion size!!!!

Good to see they are changing with the times!!!

Frogdog

Pembily wrote: »

Good to see they are changing with the times!!!

Are they though???

If they were changing with the times and keeping up with the latest in nutrition, tests, studies, etc. then surely they would change their approach completely, and instead of healthy food like nuts, avocados, various oils, salmon etc. being given these ridiculously high "points" in comparison to other foods, they'd surely lower them to encourage people to eat a healthier diet (ie. more fat), rather than the high carb, low fat one that they've been pushing previously, and are still continuing to push with this latest "announcement"?! :rolleyes:

In my opinion this "announcement" is nothing new. They're a huge worldwide company and are only trying to drum up a bit of interest in the product that they're selling, just in time for certain people to start thinking about dropping a few pounds so that they look better in their dress/suit at the office Christmas party.

/Rant over! :pac: Sorry, but WW is my number 1 pet hate!

El_Dangeroso

I know the flaws in WW too, but I do think this is an overall positive move. At least they are finally starting to acknowledge that quality of food matters. I wonder will wine gums still be low points? From the article I'm getting the impression that they might be increasing protein by giving it less points. As for all fruit being zero, that will work for some people, but I know if it were me I'd be eating a bunch of grapes and a pineapple every day some people can't handle a lot of sugar, even if it is in the form of fruit.

candy-gal1

Sounds great tbh, makes a lot more sense to me for fruit and veg to be zero. I always felt stupid pointing something that grows in the ground :rolleyes:.
Anyone know if this new points system is in now?

pinkypinky

I imagine they'll launch in Ireland in January. Every 2 years, they launch a new program that has some variations on the past one in Jan. EG, in 2004, they had the 2 programs (no count and core) and then abandoned no count later on because it wasn't popular (which was a shame because I lost over 2.5 stone using it). On the last one, it was all points again but they encouraged you to eat more filling foods like wholegrain carbs and protein.

rocky

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Sounds great tbh, makes a lot more sense to me for fruit and veg to be zero. I always felt stupid pointing something that grows in the ground :rolleyes:.
Anyone know if this new points system is in now?

How would you feel when you find out that avocados are ~365kcals? eat 5 of them in a day and you're fast aproaching the daily maintenance calories.

"I can't lose weight, even though I eat only healthy food that grows in the ground!! "

jakeypooh

OOh how interesting
When is is starting ?

Blatter

It would make more sense for WW to say some fruit and most vegetables will have zero points.

I think fruits like strawberries, starfruit, blackberries, apricot, plums, rasberries etc. all have pretty much negligible calories, once their not eaten by the kilo.

Bananas, raisins, dates, prunes etc. are another story.

It would be a better idea for WW to list all the fruits and vegetables that have negligible calories rather than causing a whole load of problems for a whole load of people. Maybe they will do this though...

rocky

Weight Watchers Works. For Two Out of a Thousand. (And They Probably Weren’t Fat to Begin With)

http://fatfu.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/weight-watchers/

who.dunnit

Not sure why people get so hung up about weight watchers? It works for some people and not others, think people need to get over this obsession of trying to prove it doesn't work. Essentially ww motto is eat less and move more which I'm pretty sure any health professional would tell you to do in order to lose weight.

rocky

Sure, it works for 2 people out of 1000. Form an orderly queue please.

rocky

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1326447/Weight-Watchers-Pro-Points-plan-A-new-approach-dieting-success.html

Another major difference from the old system is that all fruit and most vegetables — whether fresh, frozen or canned in natural juices then drained — have been given a zero rating, meaning you can snack on them whenever you want without adding extra ProPoints.

brb eating 30 bananas a day and losing weight.

El_Dangeroso

rocky wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1326447/Weight-Watchers-Pro-Points-plan-A-new-approach-dieting-success.html



brb eating 30 bananas a day and losing weight.

That's weird you say that because there's a bunch of low-fat raw vegans that have a website called '30 bananas a day', which is basically what they purport to eat, and lose weight on, they might be right but they're completely looney tunes all the same.

who.dunnit

rocky wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1326447/Weight-Watchers-Pro-Points-plan-A-new-approach-dieting-success.html



brb eating 30 bananas a day and losing weight.

They actually tell people you can't eat 30 bananas a day and it's all about balance but I guess reading a dailymail article means you know everything there is to know about the plan. And with any diet there's going to be people it works for and people it doesn't but at least by going to ww you're trying to make an effort to lose weight and I think those people should be applauded rather than told that ONE study said only 2 in 1000 people will lose weight and keep it off so why bother even trying

rocky

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

That's weird you say that because there's a bunch of low-fat raw vegans that have a website called '30 bananas a day', which is basically what they purport to eat, and lose weight on, they might be right but they're completely looney tunes all the same.

I know the website . They must be very small bananas, 30 medium ones are 3k+ kcals and 800+g carbs.

who.dunnit wrote: »

They actually tell people you can't eat 30 bananas a day and it's all about balance but I guess reading a dailymail article means you know everything there is to know about the plan. And with any diet there's going to be people it works for and people it doesn't but at least by going to ww you're trying to make an effort to lose weight and I think those people should be applauded rather than told that ONE study said only 2 in 1000 people will lose weight and keep it off so why bother even trying

WW replaced a flawed understanding of a 'healthy' diet with a new one. Is it better than the old one? Possibly. But that wasn't hard to achieve.

Any diet will work for weight loss as long as calories in < calories out. That's not difficult. However, it will be difficult for people that haven't got an understanding of nutrition (and go to WW) to see why they are not losing weight even though they're eating zero ProPoints fruit.

I'm looking forward to WW revision 3.0 where they say fruit have points after all.

who.dunnit

rocky wrote: »

I know the website . They must be very small bananas, 30 medium ones are 3k+ kcals and 800+g carbs.



WW replaced a flawed understanding of a 'healthy' diet with a new one. Is it better than the old one? Possibly. But that wasn't hard to achieve.

Any diet will work for weight loss as long as calories in < calories out. That's not difficult. However, it will be difficult for people that haven't got an understanding of nutrition (and go to WW) to see why they are not losing weight even though they're eating zero ProPoints fruit.

I'm looking forward to WW revision 3.0 where they say fruit have points after all.

Have you ever been to a WW meeting? Because in the meeting they promote healthy eating and a balanced diet with smaller portions. And if anyone feels they aren't losing weight but doing everything right then they're asked to write down everything they ate all week including portion size and the leader goes through it with them to see where it could be improved. It's a support system for people who are trying to lose weight to get encouragement, ideas and tips, swap stories and met people who are going through the same situation as themselves. Just like AA is a support system for people giving up alcohol.They don't go around saying things like oh just have 20 bananas for the day and you'll definitely lose weight. And one of the reasons they're making fruit zero is to encourage people to reach a piece of fruit when they're hungry and not a chocolate bar which before was probably the same points.

El_Dangeroso

Please, don't equate WW with AA!

WW is first and foremost, a business, there's nothing wrong with that, but that means that their first priority always was and always will be their bottom line.

It's lovely that they talk about a balanced diet in the meetings but they not only endorse, they manufacture, brand and sell processed rubbish, which is unhealthy and the same stuff that people get fat eating in the first place. That to me is a MASSIVE conflict of interest.

Put it this way, who does WW make more money off, the constant dieter who loses and regains the same amount of weight, or the person who goes a few times and never has to come back?

who.dunnit

A support system is a support system. Food is a much an addiction to some people as alcohol is to others. In fact I think DSM IV is thinking of adding food, internet and gambling to their addictions when they review it next time. I know AA is different kind of support and WW is a business but no more so than the pharmaceutical companies that produce drugs to combat cancer aren't doing it outta the goodness of their hearts. I know people who struggle with their weight and diets their whole lives and the amount of people who a reduction in weight could make such a difference to their general health that I hate when people give out that ww is some evil machine. If it helps people to lose weight in a healthy and slow way than I am all for it. Alright they make products for people on the go that might be high in salt etc...so? They never force it down their throats and usually get you to suggest the foods you buy yourself and then to think up recipes with those foods. A frozen ww meal is still probably better for you than ringing the Indian down the road when you come in after a hard days work and don't feel like cooking

Blatter

who.dunnit wrote: »

A support system is a support system. Food is a much an addiction to some people as alcohol is to others.

If it's true that food is an addiction (which is another debate in itself), then WW's methods are even more wrong.

What do AA do you when your an alcoholic? Help you towards eliminating alcohol from your life, forever.

How do gamblers anonymous help you when your a gambler? Help you to eliminate gambling from your life, forever.

How do WW help you when you are ''addicted'' to food? Help you to keep on eating the junk food your addicted to by creating their 'fat free yoghurts', '3% fat chocolate pudding' and their boxed processed meals.

Spot anything wrong there?

I dont see AA releasing 2% alcahol beer or gamblers anonymous advocating bet 'small money'.

Catari Jaguar

That's an interesting article in the Daily Mail and summed up what I thought was wrong with WW. I like the idea of fruit being free, if like that woman quoted in the article claims, she'd have a curly-wurly over the banana (same points) because she preffered it. Anything that encourages healthy choices is great.

That said, on that 29 point list healthy day example there are foods that I would class as bad if I had eaten them and listed them in my diary e.g. the jam, toast, fruit salad, low fat yogurt, jacket potato, more potato, AND a mini crunchie. Way too much sugar for me in a day. Crazy amount of carb in the morning. I'd be starving or crashed out by lunch.

WW was a pet hate of mine, I have read some food diaries that just make me want to bang my head off a wall.

Frogdog

I am really beginning to think that WW members do not know what a healthy diet is! :eek:

How many times have I heard the argument: "Have you ever been to a meeting? At the meetings they teach us how to eat a healthy diet." Well let me ask these people why do WW do their utmost to limit fat???

How in the name of God they believe that a diet low in fat is a healthy diet is beyond me. :rolleyes:

Catari Jaguar

Obviously if they promote "low fat" they can sell high carb treats. In any shop the yummy stuff in the shiny wrappers is all carbs - claim it's low fat and suckers will buy it. They'll crave more when blood sugar drops and buy more (guilt free!) - won't lose weight so will buy more. It's a business and they want you to fail.

Look at their "low fat" bread. What fat is even in bread?! (I'm not nutrition student btw) Their slices are just thinner. If you take it gram for gram it has more calories than regular bread. How you can eat a diet that includes copious amounts of white bread & expect to lose weight is beyond me....

who.dunnit

If people could drink alcohol in moderation and not let it go to excess then I think AA might encourage one or two drinks. Unfortunately that's not how it works with most(if not all) alcoholics and also with gamblers. Hence why they have to cut it out completely out of their lives.

However people need to eat and you can have some sweet things in moderation so I hardly think it's a big deal saying to people if you want one chocolate mousse and you can make it one that is lower in fat and sugar than another brand you shouldn't go for it?

Some people choose to cut out junk food completely from their life, that's fine let those people go and follow that path. However ww says it's alright to have junk food every once in a while so long as you eat healthily the rest of the time. Such bad advice clearly. What ww promotes is a balanced diet with moderation. They say when you're cooking your dinner have your protein, have your carbs and have alot of veg...again such bad advice? They don't tell us to limit our fat, yes they work on saturated fat but what they actually spend their time doing is promoting good food choices ie inside of chicken kiev, why not cook your own chicken with some garlic in it...bad advice again? They say to have red meat once a week...bad advice? They say to eat eggs, to have dairy every day, to have 5 portions of fruit and veg, to try and exercise at least 5 days a week if you can.....such bad advice!!

I'm not sure exactly what other people think a healthy diet is? There is not one food that ww says you can NEVER EVER eat, once you can work it into your diet than go for it.

I kinda feel people have this idealistic diet they want everyone to follow when food choices are peoples own. Yes I've seen some of the ww food diaries and some of them aren't the healthiest in the world but ww aren't following people home and cooking their meals for them. WW promotes healthy eating and some where along the line people take responsibility and chose what they put into their body. If someone wants to use their points on chocolate bars that's their choice, not ww saying to go and do it.

Blatter

Look, we could argue untill the cows come home about this.

There are two important, underlying facts here.

The first fact is, 90%+ of people who lose weight on WW, pile the weight back on.

The second fact is that, the vast majority of People who realise that the reason they were overweight in the first place was because of their intake of processed food, bad carbs and junk, and, just as importantly, realise that fat is not the problem but rather part of the solution, tend to maintain their new weight.

As far as I'm concerned, that is the bottom line.

Mellor

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

I dont see AA releasing 2% alcahol beer or gamblers anonymous advocating bet 'small money'.

Jesus, that really is a terrible example.

How can you know see that the fundmental difference is that food is essential for survival, alcohol and gambling are not.

I can imagine it now,
Food Addicts Anony: Just stop eating. It's simple. :rolleyes:

Mellor

I just had a look at the calculator, and its pretty good imo.
It's now based on protein, fats and carbs. Which essentiall means that its based on calories.

360 kcal protein = 8pts
360 kcal carbs = 10pts
360 kcal fat = 10pts

IMO, thats pretty much what it should be. They are all almost equal, with protein being slightly favoured. There are prob still things wrong with it, and they are likely things that can't be removed from a majic calculator.

Now, if they jsut started enouraging decent eating habits.

Red Cortina

rocky wrote: »

WW replaced a flawed understanding of a 'healthy' diet with a new one. Is it better than the old one? Possibly. But that wasn't hard to achieve.

This is how I feel about WW too. People nowadays seem to think that a diet which adheres to the nutritional principles advocated by WW is the optimal diet to follow.

who.dunnit wrote: »

Have you ever been to a WW meeting?

Yes I have. 1 stand out moment for me was the demonising of a pat of kerrygold butter. The leader showed us a pat of butter and said you can either eat this or have 1 banana, 2 apples and 2 oranges. In fairness though they were just trotting out the party line when it comes to saturated fat. Another stand out moment for me was the leader telling us all about ‘Pink and Whites’ (the most garbage of garbage food) and how they were only half a point and what shops stocked them…

who.dunnit wrote: »

I'm not sure exactly what other people think a healthy diet is? There is not one food that ww says you can NEVER EVER eat, once you can work it into your diet than go for it.

See this is my problem with WW, they aid people in the rationalization of crappy food choices, ie it is ok for me to eat my chipper chips tonight as I have ‘saved up’ my points. If they are going to take on to give nutritional advice to people then they should be saying that it is never ok to have chipper chips. But they won’t make such a statement as they know that that would drive away a lot of people from attending the meeting and so their revenue would be negatively impacted.

Blatter

Mellor wrote: »

Jesus, that really is a terrible example.

How can you know see that the fundmental difference is that food is essential for survival, alcohol and gambling are not.

I can imagine it now,
Food Addicts Anony: Just stop eating. It's simple. :rolleyes:

You've completely missed my point.

Replace your last line there with this

Food Addicts Anony: Just stop eating bad carbs and junk. It's simple. :rolleyes:

How stupid does that sound now?

And btw, how can you not see the fundamental point that junk food, processed food and bad carbs are not essential for survival.

Blatter

cherub rock wrote: »

Obviously if they promote "low fat" they can sell high carb treats. In any shop the yummy stuff in the shiny wrappers is all carbs - claim it's low fat and suckers will buy it. They'll crave more when blood sugar drops and buy more (guilt free!) - won't lose weight so will buy more. It's a business and they want you to fail.

Look at their "low fat" bread. What fat is even in bread?! (I'm not nutrition student btw) Their slices are just thinner. If you take it gram for gram it has more calories than regular bread. How you can eat a diet that includes copious amounts of white bread & expect to lose weight is beyond me....

+1

This post is bang on the money. A low fat diet is high in carbs by definition. WW make several times more money by selling products mainly consisting of carbs than they ever could by selling products high in fat/protein.

who.dunnit

Red Cortina wrote: »

See this is my problem with WW, they aid people in the rationalization of crappy food choices, ie it is ok for me to eat my chipper chips tonight as I have ‘saved up’ my points. If they are going to take on to give nutritional advice to people then they should be saying that it is never ok to have chipper chips. But they won’t make such a statement as they know that that would drive away a lot of people from attending the meeting and so their revenue would be negatively impacted.

Wow I'm glad you're able to resist junk food completely and never ever eat it to be able to say "it's never ok to have chipper chips" which I think is a ridiculous thing to say. What ww tries to do is say look it's better that you don't eat junk food but if you really have to, well at least just have one piece of chocolate rather than a piece of chocolate and a chinese and a bag of crisps. People have to be able to live and if they really want to have some chips every now and again and they can work this into their diet then fine! Some people can't and they have to give up junk food completely and that's fine but I'd hardly say never ever eat junk food. I'm not sure people look back at 80 and say I'm glad I never touched a chip in my life.

I hate the way people are acting like ww is the devil and what they're promoting should be done away with when you've pharmacies promoting diets like lipotrim.

As for people who put weight back on, do they follow people up 5 years later to see what their weight is then? Because just like people giving up any addiction they tend to relapse and it can take a few times before they are able to give up their addiction for good. Also in ww people don't sit around discussing why they overeat which I think could be an important factor in many cases. But you're paying ten euro for ww, they're not trained psychiatrists and psychologists. So people might have to go and seek professional help for reasons they became so big in the first place. Is that ww's job? Definitely not

Davei141

who.dunnit wrote: »

Wow I'm glad you're able to resist junk food completely and never ever eat it to be able to say "it's never ok to have chipper chips" which I think is a ridiculous thing to say. What ww tries to do is say look it's better that you don't eat junk food but if you really have to, well at least just have one piece of chocolate rather than a piece of chocolate and a chinese and a bag of crisps. People have to be able to live and if they really want to have some chips every now and again and they can work this into their diet then fine! Some people can't and they have to give up junk food completely and that's fine but I'd hardly say never ever eat junk food. I'm not sure people look back at 80 and say I'm glad I never touched a chip in my life.

You see thats the mentality of your average WW goer , that one piece of chocolate turns into a curly wurly a day, hey its only 1 point right? Well that curly wurly has just triggered a craving for some more junk, ill have a curly wurly with a pack of treble crunch. 2 Points yay! Oh wait, im terribly hungry again and i can't stop thinking about food.

I hate the way people are acting like ww is the devil and what they're promoting should be done away with when you've pharmacies promoting diets like lipotrim.

I would rather see both done away with.

As for people who put weight back on, do they follow people up 5 years later to see what their weight is then? Because just like people giving up any addiction they tend to relapse and it can take a few times before they are able to give up their addiction for good. Also in ww people don't sit around discussing why they overeat which I think could be an important factor in many cases. But you're paying ten euro for ww, they're not trained psychiatrists and psychologists. So people might have to go and seek professional help for reasons they became so big in the first place. Is that ww's job? Definitely not

They relapse because they haven't a clue about nutrition at all, they keep eating bits of crap that keep them wanting more of the same and end up back at square one. Another gripe about WW is they never seem to push proper exercise, brisk walking seems to be the most extreme.

If fruit is going to be zero points then i hope people bloody eat it before and after a very hard exercise session instead of snacking on it while sitting down all day. I can't see that ending well at all

who.dunnit

Davei141 wrote: »

You see thats the mentality of your average WW goer , that one piece of chocolate turns into a curly wurly a day, hey its only 1 point right? Well that curly wurly has just triggered a craving for some more junk, ill have a curly wurly with a pack of treble crunch. 2 Points yay! Oh wait, im terribly hungry again and i can't stop thinking about food.

They relapse because they haven't a clue about nutrition at all, they keep eating bits of crap that keep them wanting more of the same and end up back at square one. Another gripe about WW is they never seem to push proper exercise, brisk walking seems to be the most extreme.

If fruit is going to be zero points then i hope people bloody eat it before and after a very hard exercise session instead of snacking on it while sitting down all day. I can't see that ending well at all

I'm not such how you can claim that's the mentality on the average ww goer?? You have to prove it to make a claim like that

They relapse because they have issues with food ie they eat when they're angry/upset/happy/frustrated. What they need to do to deal with the emotions through a different outlet that's not food related and to only eat when they're hungry.

They promote all types of exercise but because alot of the women attending these meetings have families/are very busy/recession times, they tend to promote exercise that is free and easy to fit into your day which in the most case is going for a brisk walk or a jog. Not everyone can afford gym membership.

Red Cortina

who.dunnit wrote: »

They relapse because they have issues with food ie they eat when they're angry/upset/happy/frustrated. What they need to do to deal with the emotions through a different outlet that's not food related and to only eat when they're hungry.

I would have to disagree with you here. The reason that WW works for as many as 2 in one thousand (was that the statistic quoted earlier in this thread?) is because the folks doing WW follow a severely calorie restricted diet, lose muscle which is metabolically active which ultimately leaves them with a lower Basal Metabolic Rate. When they can no longer stand being hungry, cause being hungry is so absolutely and utterly miserable and totally unsustainable, they return to eating the same amount of calories as before and end up putting back on more fat plus interest.

I am speaking largely from experience here, not to mind the many many women at work who follow the WW plan and end up back where they started and worse.

Are these folks who follow WW better than the hugely overweight folks who do nothing? I think yes. But there is no doubt in my mind that these folks would be a million times better off eating real whole unprocessed food and kicking their sugar habit.

Davei141

who.dunnit wrote: »

I'm not such how you can claim that's the mentality on the average ww goer?? You have to prove it to make a claim like that

I think everyone who is strongly against WW knows somebody who does WW and thats pretty much a recurring theme with them all in my experience.

They relapse because they have issues with food ie they eat when they're angry/upset/happy/frustrated. What they need to do to deal with the emotions through a different outlet that's not food related and to only eat when they're hungry.

I strongly disagree the majority IMO eat bad food because they don't know anything else, they keep snacking away on things that will make them crave it everyday so is it any wonder they end up binging? Thats what they know, they wouldn't have the first idea about getting that under control.

They promote all types of exercise but because alot of the women attending these meetings have families/are very busy/recession times, they tend to promote exercise that is free and easy to fit into your day which in the most case is going for a brisk walk or a jog. Not everyone can afford gym membership.

Easy being the operative word. Not everyone can afford a gym membership thats right but even those that do head straight for the exercise bike for a light peddle or the treadmill for a saunter about.

You keep saying they promote balanced diets and all types of exercises, it sounds more like buzzwords because they never seem to push it. Its always hey if you can't not eat chocolate try this small bar of choc, if your going to have a curry get a chow mein, if you can't exercise try walking a bit more. Tiny differences that teach people nothing in the long run.

who.dunnit

Red Cortina wrote: »

When they can no longer stand being hungry, cause being hungry is so absolutely and utterly miserable and totally unsustainable, they return to eating the same amount of calories as before and end up putting back on more fat plus interest.

I am speaking largely from experience here, not to mind the many many women at work who follow the WW plan and end up back where they started and worse.

And I would disagree with that because in all the ww books they say about not going hungry?? They say have some zero point soup, or a banana or something small as a snack. Also to lose weight you have to cut down on calories, plain and simple. If you were eating right you wouldn't have weight to lose. If people plan to starve themselves by going hungry then fine but that's not what ww promotes. Look at the starter pack with the graph about staying satisfied and that if you get too hungry you tend to overeat.Maybe you just had a very bad Leader or didn't actually understand the plan or something?

As for all the women who put back on the weight, they went back to their old eating habits because they didn't resolve their issues with food. As I said before, ww isn't there for that. You have to consume 3500 extra calories to put on a pound, people have to take some responsibility for the food they decide to put in their body.

who.dunnit

Davei141 wrote: »

I strongly disagree the majority IMO eat bad food because they don't know anything else, they keep snacking away on things that will make them crave it everyday so is it any wonder they end up binging? Thats what they know, they wouldn't have the first idea about getting that under control.

Easy being the operative word. Not everyone can afford a gym membership thats right but even those that do head straight for the exercise bike for a light peddle or the treadmill for a saunter about.

You keep saying they promote balanced diets and all types of exercises, it sounds more like buzzwords because they never seem to push it. Its always hey if you can't not eat chocolate try this small bar of choc, if your going to have a curry get a chow mein, if you can't exercise try walking a bit more. Tiny differences that teach people nothing in the long run.

All they can do is food and exercise promotion, they don't follow people home and make sure they stick to it. Are they going to yell at people if they don't follow it? Of course they're not. People have to take some responsibility themselves, ww is there an aid to help people. You have to do the hard work yourself. Are ww going to follow you into the gym to make sure you're doing exercises every week? You're paying ten euro for the service, of course they're not. If a doctor prescribes you tablets is it their responsibility you take them? No it's yours. Irish Heart Foundation promote healthy heart weeks, do they check if you're walking to work...No it's your responsibilty.

Sure some of ww is about if you really want to eat junk food at least limit it somewhat. But the majority is about eating the right combination of food and discussing ways to make your meals more healthy. People are at weight watchers to lose weight because they were taking in too many calories.

Davei141

who.dunnit wrote: »

And I would disagree with that because in all the ww books they say about not going hungry?? They say have some zero point soup, or a banana or something small as a snack. Also to lose weight you have to cut down on calories, plain and simple. If you were eating right you wouldn't have weight to lose. If people plan to starve themselves by going hungry then fine but that's not what ww promotes. Look at the starter pack with the graph about staying satisfied and that if you get too hungry you tend to overeat.Maybe you just had a very bad Leader or didn't actually understand the plan or something?

What company is going to advertise about being hungry?? A banana as a snack if your hungry and sedentary is a total waste IMO. Zero point soup without some decent form of protein will fill you for how long? And the cycle continues.

As for all the women who put back on the weight, they went back to their old eating habits because they didn't resolve their issues with food. As I said before, ww isn't there for that. You have to consume 3500 extra calories to put on a pound, people have to take some responsibility for the food they decide to put in their body.

Bad leaders, didn't understand the plan, its everyones fault except WW. It seems to always happen with WW, funny that? They never stood a chance in the first place, they went there not knowing what nutrition is and came out with a worse understanding of it.

who.dunnit

It will fill you up until you have a chance to have a meal. You're looking at people who have to lose weight, they need to decrease their calorie intake.

It's not ww fault because if you follow the plan they have in place you will lose weight and be satisfied.

Davei141

who.dunnit wrote: »

All they can do is food and exercise promotion, they don't follow people home and make sure they stick to it. Are they going to yell at people if they don't follow it? Of course they're not. People have to take some responsibility themselves, ww is there an aid to help people. You have to do the hard work yourself. Are ww going to follow you into the gym to make sure you're doing exercises every week? You're paying ten euro for the service, of course they're not. If a doctor prescribes you tablets is it their responsibility you take them? No it's yours. Irish Heart Foundation promote healthy heart weeks, do they check if you're walking to work...No it's your responsibilty.

Maybe if they pushed it a bit harder instead of everything being met with a fake smile and false enthusiasm no matter how good or bad people do? They are a money making business, people failing = more money.

Sure some of ww is about if you really want to eat junk food at least limit it somewhat. But the majority is about eating the right combination of food and discussing ways to make your meals more healthy. People are at weight watchers to lose weight because they were taking in too many calories.

Would you give me an example of an ideal combination of food and what sort of ratio of carbs/protein/fats you or they would recommend? You keep trotting out the party line but it has no substance.

It will fill you up until you have a chance to have a meal. You're looking at people who have to lose weight, they need to decrease their calorie intake.

It's not ww fault because if you follow the plan they have in place you will lose weight and be satisfied.

Why is every WW idea for a snack carb based? Eating about 70% of your daily intake perhaps more from carbs while on a decent deficit is most definitly NOT going to leave you satisfied

Frogdog

Who Dunnit, you seem to know a lot about WW, so I'm wondering if you could help explain/answer a couple of things that I don't quite understand? Thanks.

1. Why do WW give foods with a high fat content more points than food with a high simple/sugary carbohydrate content? Surely they know that fat in a diet helps a person's metabolism and that simple carbohydrates cause insulin spikes, thereby causing a person to want more sugar?

2. Why do they promote a diet low in saturated fat when it has no negatives and is perfectly healthy?

Dixie Chick

Frogdog wrote: »

Who Dunnit, you seem to know a lot about WW, so I'm wondering if you could help explain/answer a couple of things that I don't quite understand? Thanks.

1. Why do WW give foods with a high fat content more points than food with a high simple/sugary carbohydrate content? Surely they know that fat in a diet helps a person's metabolism and that simple carbohydrates cause insulin spikes, thereby causing a person to want more sugar?

2. Why do they promote a diet low in saturated fat when it has no negatives and is perfectly healthy?

Im guessing the answer to this will be "that people have to live and fat makes you fat"

Personally, for me when i did ww in the past, i used to sing its praises cos i would basically eat about 18 different low point things a day not looking a nutritional values. So to be ww allows you to stuff your face with bad low cal food and allows you lose weight (till you fall off the wagon).
Like my diet woud have been

B-Rice krispies 30g and skim milk
Sn- special k bar and tea and ......skim milk
L- two slices of ww brown bread with relish and ham (only 1.5 points!!!) and tayto snax and two pink and whites and tea with SKIM MILK
S- Maltesers
D- WW meal or cuppa soup with two slices ww brown bread and maybe the odd day some veg for the craic.
After all this i'd have plenty of points left for pink and whites, diet lilt (cue vomit smiley), go ahead marshmallows, cafe noir and maybe another bowl of cereal.
Fill in my tracker 20/20 WELL DONE ME:rolleyes:

joanofarc

who.dunnit i admire your stance on ww and your patients in answering the posters who obviously never had to struggle with weight issues in their lives! i agree with almost everything you say and i will add that it must be heavenly for the posters that are such experts on nutrition that they know so much and are immune from any weight fluctuations. must be lovely to be so perfect. WOULD YOU ALL JUST COP ON AND GET REAL!
millions of people ( including nutritionists , gp's and tons of the medical proffession) have attended ww meetings to get SUPPORT in trying to improve their health/ loss weight. if it was as easy as ye suggest ( just eat non-processed/ healthy food) etc then the world and its mother would be all perfectly slim and healthy.....get off ye'r high horses for god sake.
ww offers a service and one that i applaud. ever hear the expression "until you've stood in my shoes"?

Blatter

joanofarc wrote: »

who.dunnit i admire your stance on ww and your patients in answering the posters who obviously never had to struggle with weight issues in their lives!

I don't know where to begin with this one, that is just a startling comment.
The people posting here who are anti WW, have either 1. Had weight issues themselves, which were successfully resolved or 2. Have a strong interest or backround in health and nutrition, and may or may not have had weight issues themselves at some point.

joanofarc wrote: »

i agree with almost everything you say and i will add that it must be heavenly for the posters that are such experts on nutrition that they know so much and are immune from any weight fluctuations.

Weight fluctuation occurs due to binge eating and dieting. What is the main cause of binge eating? Unstable blood sugar levels, insulin levels out of control. What causes this? A diet high in carbs and low in fat. What is the diet of 90%+ of WW goers? That's right, a diet high in carbs and low in fat.

joanofarc wrote: »

must be lovely to be so perfect.

While nobody is perfect, I must admit it's great knowing exactly what foods are good for your general well being, enjoying them and being at a healthy weight. It's also great knowing which foods cause poor health/weight gain and more importantly, understanding why these foods are so bad for us.

joanofarc wrote: »

WOULD YOU ALL JUST COP ON AND GET REAL!

We are in the real world. It's those 90%+ people who go to WW, adhere by their diet, lose weight and put it back on almost immediately after losing it, need to 'cop on' and 'get real'.

joanofarc wrote: »

millions of people ( including nutritionists , gp's and tons of the medical proffession) have attended ww meetings to get SUPPORT in trying to improve their health/ loss weight.

A nutritionist going to WW? Never heard of this before.

Many medical professions have no/little training of diet and nutrition. My own GP told me this, btw. Just because they are of a high academic order doest not mean they are immune from being sucked in to WW.

joanofarc wrote: »

if it was as easy as ye suggest ( just eat non-processed/ healthy food) etc then the world and its mother would be all perfectly slim and healthy.....get off ye'r high horses for god sake.

The world was a hell of alot more perfectly slim/healthy before the introduction of processed food, the steep increase in production of bad carbs/junk and the promoting of low fat diets.