Why does the Nutrisystem program seem to work?

[gapwedge]

Isn't this program based upon the Glycemic Index? Is this program a farce or does it do what it claims? Just curious.

[Gaelen]

To repeat a broad generality, "Everything works for someone."
I'd add to that that pretty much anything will work as long as you stick with it...it's when you deviate from the plan or program that things go amok.

Low carb works, too--but if you do it as a temporary solution and then go back to eating as you did prior to low carbing, you will negate your improvements, and likely gain the weight back (if not immediately, eventually.)

The issue with Nutrisystem is that if people don't learn how to deal with their personal food issues (such as emotional eating); stop relying on Nutrisystem's prepackaged portion-controlled foods and go to their own choices; and try to figure out what to eat on their own without addressing those first two issues, they will also eventually negate their progress and gain their weight back.

What works is what you can stick with for life.

[laughingW]

I agree with Gaelen.

There's also quite a bit in "Good Calories, Bad Calories" about semi-starvation diets, of which Nutrisystem is one. They do work for some, and definitely not for all. And they can have severe rebound consequences after you lose the weight because they can deplete nutrients and muscle mass and who knows what else.

[bigdawg_SLC]

To Quote Gaelen
To repeat a broad generality, "Everything works for someone."
I'd add to that that pretty much anything will work as long as you stick with it...it's when you deviate from the plan or program that things go amok.

Low carb works, too--but if you do it as a temporary solution and then go back to eating as you did prior to low carbing, you will negate your improvements, and likely gain the weight back (if not immediately, eventually.)


I am living proof of this! I Lost 80 lbs in 1999-2000 I treated PPLP as a "DIET" not as a WOL! Now, 8 years later I am about 30 lbs heavier than when I started PP in 1999. You've got to pick a plan and stick with it!

As far as nutrition and overall health in general -- I've never felt better than I felt while living the PP program. That's what I hope to accomplish and maintain from here on out!

[petra65]

Mary's first commandment of dieting: The best diet for you is the one you can stick to for life. One of my issues with Nutrisystem is it's reliance on prepackaged, proprietary foods. Are you planning on eating nutrisystem food for the rest of your life?

[maxlharris]

Isn't this program based upon the Glycemic Index? Is this program a farce or does it do what it claims? Just curious.
I will let people answer the specific question about Nutrisystem. I want to address Glycemic Index.

The Index is how fast your body turns carb A into insulin response, relative to sugar (or white bread, I think they changed it). It's a measure of speed. Speed is not the major problem.

Glycemic load is the bigger issue. If we think about Index as speed, then Load is Mass. Let's take it further, metaphorically. Food is cars. Your body and it's hormonal system is a building. The cars run into your building and do damage. The index is the top speed of the car. The load is the weight. I can drive a truck (whole wheat pasta, 4 ounce serving) into your building at 25 miles per hour. Or I can drive a 50 cc Honda motorcycle at full throttle (uhm, jelly beans, 1/2 ounce serving) into your building. In all likelihood, the truck is going to do more damage to the system than the little motorcycle guy.

In practice, the jelly bean will spike you. Up high, fast, down on a curve. The pasta will not spike you. It will raise you and keep you elevated for a much longer time. If we're concerned about insulin, and it's effects on fat storage, we'd probably prefer a fast spike that has a low load than a heavy load with a low GI.

This is not a perfect analogy, but suffice to say, it's the total carbs that really matter, not the speed of absorption. If you're going to eat 150g of carbs, the speed doesn't matter. The load is what's important.

[gapwedge]

Mary's first commandment of dieting: The best diet for you is the one you can stick to for life. One of my issues with Nutrisystem is it's reliance on prepackaged, proprietary foods. Are you planning on eating nutrisystem food for the rest of your life?

No, I am not planning a Nutrisystem WOE. If you read my post it said I was just curious. Man, some of you really jump to conclusions. Maybe it was the wording of my post. But why would a person who is having success (see my ticker below) and just started PPLP change. I know this is a PP forum that is why I asked the question here. Forgive me for asking a off topic question.:confused:

[maxlharris]

There is a back question here, I don't know if it's worth asking or not:
If their food is low GI (I don't know that it is) and low GL (I doubt it, but there may be some that are), would they be workable into an LC WOE? The answer: probably, but it's also likely that it's more costly than regular PP eating anyway. You might buy some convenience. But that's about it.

[gapwedge]

The bottom line for me in all of these programs is to reprogram my way of eating. My problem has been 2 fold: (1) Over eating. In the past I tended to overeat due to all kinds of emotion; excited, sad, lonely, bored, angry or when dining out eating a larger portion (which is not hard to do these days) than I should. (2) Eating the wrong kinds of foods too often. This includes foods heavy in starches, sugars and most processed foods.
Burning more calories than we consume equals weight loss. So, to me whether it is PPLP, South Beach, Nutrisystem, Atkins, etc. one has to discipline themselves to change their WOE eventually for any of these programs to work.

[maxlharris]

So, Nutrisystem, with it's reliance on Nutrisystem food is only as sustainable a WOE as your regular ordering pattern of Nutrisystem foods is. Of the ones you mention, Gap, Nutrisystem is alone.

On the issue of emotional eating: That's more of a psych issue than a diet issue. It can be worked through on whatever diet, probably easier on LC, but learning a new WOE isn't going to magically solve the problem in and of itself. There's a post around here somewhere about how to get to work on that. I think Gaelen posted it. It's a sticky. If you use the search function for "emotional eating" and poster "Gaelen" you should be able to find it pretty quickly.

Last thing: On the margin, calories count. But it is nowhere as simple as calories in, calories out. Timing is important. Calorie type is important. Hormonal effects are important (the metabolic advantage of LC... given an LC dieter and a low fat dieter, the LC dieter will lose the same amount eating ad lib and will lose more if keeping calories equal). WHEN it's all solved, there will probably be an easy spreadsheet to chunk it all into, calories in/calories out. But at the present, we're not there yet. If you have 60 to go, you probably don't need to watch calories too closely for a while. Just eat until you're sated (not full). And drink your water. You'll do fine.

Any discussion on here is probably useful to someone else who isn't posting. So, thanks for the thread.

[gitfiddle]

One thing I notice on any of those before and after shots is a little disclaimer, "results not typical" in the corner. Nutrisystem has it and so does Jenny and, I believe, WW.


Burning more calories than we consume equals weight loss.

There's more to it than that. Dr. Mike and Gary Taubes both talk about that.

BTW, I am also an emotion-driven overeater and low carb is the perfect way of eating for me. In the early days, I would eat way more than I really needed because of my emotional needs and I STILL lost 90+ pounds. The word of the day was, "Food is not love." I still have to check my feelings when I'm tempted to overeat.

PP is a journey, a lifestyle change, an attitude change, an upheaval, if you will. The people who have instant success may not have the opportunity to explore that concept. Just keep at it and you'll succeed. Sorry to be preachy! :rolleyes:

[Tresses]

Are you planning on eating nutrisystem food for the rest of your life?


No, I am not planning a Nutrisystem WOE. If you read my post it said I was just curious. Man, some of you really jump to conclusions. Maybe it was the wording of my post. But why would a person who is having success (see my ticker below) and just started PPLP change. I know this is a PP forum that is why I asked the question here. Forgive me for asking a off topic question.:confused:

gapwedge, FWIW, I took petra's question in its context as rhetorical, not directed at you. Your original post is a good question to ask. No worries. :)

[gapwedge]

I have no arguments about restricting the amount of carbs I consume. And to be quite honest with you I will probably in some form or fashion always be conscious of that restriction as well as what kind of carbs I eat. I am training myself to make this a life long goal. I am finding out early on what my trigger foods are and breads are one of them. Actually breads are more of an issue than cookies, chips, or candies and will be avoiding eating large quanities of those items. Do I want to stay on the induction phase all the time? No. If I only lose a pound or so a week from here on out I would be happy.
One of my key thought processes is that I am doing a good job of learning WHEN I FEEL FULL stop eating. In the past I have intentionally ignored that feeling and have continued to eat because the food was readily available. I am re-setting my thermostat.
So, to me it is more than being on the PPLP or any of the programs. It is reshaping, if you pardon the pun, my way of thinking about food. I am glad at my age I am still able to read and learn. I appreciate the expertise available on this forum.;)

[maxlharris]

One of my key thought processes is that I am doing a good job of learning WHEN I FEEL FULL stop eating. In the past I have intentionally ignored that feeling and have continued to eat because the food was readily available. I am re-setting my thermostat.

Here's an interesting exercise. Try to figure what your cues are for "stop eating". There was a recent study, comparing some Parisians to some Chicagoans. The folks in Chicago eat to external cues. For instance: "My plate is clear," "My TV show is over," and "My drink isn't empty yet."

Parisians ate to internal cues. For instance: "I'm satisfied," or "I'm not hungry anymore."

Since I read the study, I realize, even though I've been doing this for a year and a half at this point, even though I have maintained a 30+ lb loss for over a year now, I am STILL a Chicagoan (and soon to be one in actuality, as well as eating habits). Now, to learn the trick. If I had read this study when I was in business school, I would have had a wealth of people to compare notes with: at varying times, between 1 and 5 people from France, an Italian, no fewer than 3 Germans, a Greek, a TON of Japanese, Chinese, Chinese Diaspora, Koreans, Indians (from India), and even a girl from Thailand (cute, but how to work a Thai name (http://www.csupomona.edu/%7Epronunciation/thai.html) in an intimate situation, I don't know... I suppose they are up from Indonesian names (http://www.csupomona.edu/%7Epronunciation/indonesian.html).). I digress. Back in 2003-2005, I had a wealth of international personages about to ask questions of, re: food cues. Like how you do that.

Now, I am trying to find the thermostat (I like that... though fuel gauge might be a better analogy). I am rarely hungry (have to eat early then sleep in). I don't really get full. I have developed a capacious stomach. (I have my picture on the wall in a restaurant in Kansas/Oklahoma border for eating a trucker sized steak in an hour when I was in college... I can't eat like that anymore, but have been a prodigy in the past). At any rate, whatever metaphor you like, it's not even about eating until full. It's about eating until satisfied. I suspect there are efficiencies to be had in eating to < capacity. In terms of how the "assembly line" of the digestive tract works, this seems reasonable to me. Doesn't mean it's right, just that's how I think on it (MBA does things to your brain).

So, when it slows down (it probably will), it might be time to set a lower mark on the thermostat (yeah, I like "fuel gauge" better) to restart. Not for calories, but for when "enough is enough" food at this sitting.

Any rate, this has been a mostly pretty good thread, so again, thanks Gap.

[gapwedge]

To add to the discussion I failed to mention the speed at which I used to eat. Like yourself I have eaten Paul Bunyan-sized steaks along with 14 cressant rolls, a large baked potato, a salad, and several brewski's to wash it all down. I have eaten a complete box of 12 ice cream sandwiches in less than 20 minutes on a bet. The key to eating that much is do it quickly. I won't tell you about my Hostess Ding Dong bet.
Before the signal of "full" registers on the gas gauge which usually takes about 20 minutes I have already consumed enough calories for 4 days. If I were an Olympic swimmer in training that might not be a bad thing. Obviously speed kills. So, I am also learning to SSSLLLOOOOOWWWW THE HECK DOWN. My wife is a slow eater so that helps me in timing the completeness of my meal. I guess going through basic training while in the military trained my WOE of eating by consuming as much food as much as you can as quickly as you can then get the heck out of the chow hall.

I am in so much more control now than I have been at any point in my life. The low carb approach does aid in this control by suppressing the actual hunger pangs from the stomach as well as the false hunger signals sent from the brain.

This discussion may have slid off course, but I appreciate the dialogue.

[petra65]

Yes, the comment was rhetorical-not aimed at you.

All diets work if you stick with them. The problem with those like nutrisystem, jenny craig, medifast, etc that rely on packaged proprietary foods is that you have to keep eating those foods forever which isn't practical. Makes a lot of money for the company that sells them but not practical.

[BlancE]

The problem with those like nutrisystem, jenny craig, medifast, etc that rely on packaged proprietary foods is that you have to keep eating those foods forever which isn't practical.

Plus they taste bad!! :D

Two years ago I tried Nutrisystem as a means to not have to worry about planning meals. Yuck. Way too much processed food and soy-based food for my taste.

[gapwedge]

Yes, the comment was rhetorical-not aimed at you.

All diets work if you stick with them. The problem with those like nutrisystem, jenny craig, medifast, etc that rely on packaged proprietary foods is that you have to keep eating those foods forever which isn't practical. Makes a lot of money for the company that sells them but not practical.

Not a problem. Yep, money for the companies for sure. At some stage you cannot use them as a crutch any longer.

[maxlharris]

To add to the discussion I failed to mention the speed at which I used to eat. Like yourself I have eaten Paul Bunyan-sized steaks along with 14 cressant rolls, a large baked potato, a salad, and several brewski's to wash it all down. I have eaten a complete box of 12 ice cream sandwiches in less than 20 minutes on a bet. The key to eating that much is do it quickly. I won't tell you about my Hostess Ding Dong bet.
Before the signal of "full" registers on the gas gauge which usually takes about 20 minutes I have already consumed enough calories for 4 days. If I were an Olympic swimmer in training that might not be a bad thing. Obviously speed kills. So, I am also learning to SSSLLLOOOOOWWWW THE HECK DOWN. My wife is a slow eater so that helps me in timing the completeness of my meal. I guess going through basic training while in the military trained my WOE of eating by consuming as much food as much as you can as quickly as you can then get the heck out of the chow hall.

I am in so much more control now than I have been at any point in my life. The low carb approach does aid in this control by suppressing the actual hunger pangs from the stomach as well as the false hunger signals sent from the brain.

This discussion may have slid off course, but I appreciate the dialogue.

There's been a lot of talk over time about eating slow being essential to weight loss. It may be that eating slow helps with portion control and the internal/external trigger thing. However, another group of mine had a discussion about a study that showed, meals and portions being equal, the speed that you bolt a meal doesn't matter. The number of chews doesn't matter. In this regard, a calorie is a calorie.

On the flip side, IF eating slow helps you move from external triggers (I forgot to mention, in the study, the people from Chicago were a LOT more likely to be obese than the people from Paris) to internal triggers, it's likely that the move is going to be useful to you in the long term.

If you want to get even Slower, check out the slow food movement and metabolize as much of that as you'd like. It helps to be a foodie (into good food, not just any food), but isn't totally necessary.

[gitfiddle]

The information I got about eating slow is that it takes about 20 minutes for your gut to tell your brain it's satisfied. I think that's true enough because I've noticed that if I'm interrupted before finishing the last food on my plate I might not want it by the time I get back to it.

Gapwedge, I did Overeaters Anonymous many years ago for compulsive eating. I had to combine those principles with PP to make it work for me. If it was just the food issues, it'd be easy! ;)

[petra65]

Gap-I actually have 5 commandments of dieting. One of them is that you have to be honest with yourself about your "addictions." I have come to the conclusion that for those of us with long term major problems (more than 50 lbs) with our weight, obesity is a substance abuse disorder. Why no one likes to talk about this except OA is a mystery to me. I guess people like to feel "superior" to alcoholics and drug addicts or something along those lines. Of course, we don't abuse all food-in fact, I've never met anyone who abuses broccoli for instance but those with real weight problems usually abuse some class of food. For me it is refined sugar, for others, salty snacks, others fast foods, etc. All of these of course are highly processed foods of low nutritional value. Here is the other piece no one likes to talk about-we do have a paradigm for treating substance abuse disorders but for whatever reason people don't want to apply it to their eating. That is probably why few people ever sucessfully beat this monster. I can tell you without question that my addiction has sabotaged EVERY attempt I have made to successfully lose and maintain weight loss. The only answer is abstinence just like it is for all other addictions. People want to believe that once they reach their goal or get close they can have an occasional "treat". Can an alcoholic have an occasional drink just because they've been sober for a year, or 5 years, or 10 years? We all know the answer to that question so why do we have such a problem with this when it comes to food?

This is actually my major issue with Weight Watchers. Overall, I think it is a great program. It promotes healthy eating and exercise in the real world but they do tell people they can work in a "treat" here and there. They don't deal with this aspect of most people's eating or the emotional aspects very well. They aren't equipped to deal with them. In case you are wondering what sort of freak I am, I'm actually a physician. I'm double boarded in internal medicine and psychiatry so I have quite a bit of experience treating substance abusers. I have some first hand knowledge of the subject I'm speaking of and have read a lot of the literature on the subject. I've also got quite interested in the treatment of obesity for personal reasons. I'm not talking out of my butt.

[Love2Smile]

Ive done NS 2 times and lost 30 pounds in 3 months. I got sick of the food and gained it back both times. Plus many of their foods have partially hydrogynated oils so I wasnt comfortable with it. It is about a 1200 calorie diet, they add alot of protien and soy to their foods so you are not as hungry for example if you ate Weight Watcher or Lean Cuisines but other than that it's the same!

[Love2Smile]

I just read the post above mine. YES I agree!!! I have a substance abuse disorder! OMG Ive never really looked at it like that! I think im having one of those "light bulb" moments!

[maxlharris]

This is actually my major issue with Weight Watchers. Overall, I think it is a great program. It promotes healthy eating and exercise in the real world but they do tell people they can work in a "treat" here and there.

It is highly debatable that Weight Watchers promotes healthy eating or exercise. It's pretty well known in these parts that a low fat diet is not healthy and that replacing fat with carbs is a recipe for disaster. It's less well known the effects of steady state cardio, but suffice to say, the early research is making it look terribly inefficient at burning calories and possibly muscle wasting, which is not good for the metabolism or general health.

I suppose we could say that WW promotes a style of eating that might be more healthful than what people are already doing and that they promote exercise that is more healthful than sitting on the couch. Beyond that, I think we're in dangerous territory with regard to truth.

[gitfiddle]

:idea: Cathy, that's an important "light bulb". It's the difference between thinking you're crazy or substandard and realizing you simply have a treatable addiction.

[laughingW]

Why no one likes to talk about this except OA is a mystery to me.
There are lots of food addiction sites. Radiant Recovery is one. Only difference is, OA is based on abstinence, and RR is based on healing imbalances. But RR is definitely assuming lessons learned from our alcohol and drug addicted friends.

[petra65]

Max-I'm not of the mind set that low carb is the only way to skin this cat. I suppose that is where you and I differ. It is what works for me but I recognize it is not what works for everyone. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

[gapwedge]

Gap-I actually have 5 commandments of dieting. One of them is that you have to be honest with yourself about your "addictions." I have come to the conclusion that for those of us with long term major problems (more than 50 lbs) with our weight, obesity is a substance abuse disorder. Why no one likes to talk about this except OA is a mystery to me. I guess people like to feel "superior" to alcoholics and drug addicts or something along those lines. Of course, we don't abuse all food-in fact, I've never met anyone who abuses broccoli for instance but those with real weight problems usually abuse some class of food. For me it is refined sugar, for others, salty snacks, others fast foods, etc. All of these of course are highly processed foods of low nutritional value. Here is the other piece no one likes to talk about-we do have a paradigm for treating substance abuse disorders but for whatever reason people don't want to apply it to their eating. That is probably why few people ever sucessfully beat this monster. I can tell you without question that my addiction has sabotaged EVERY attempt I have made to successfully lose and maintain weight loss. The only answer is abstinence just like it is for all other addictions. People want to believe that once they reach their goal or get close they can have an occasional "treat". Can an alcoholic have an occasional drink just because they've been sober for a year, or 5 years, or 10 years? We all know the answer to that question so why do we have such a problem with this when it comes to food?

This is actually my major issue with Weight Watchers. Overall, I think it is a great program. It promotes healthy eating and exercise in the real world but they do tell people they can work in a "treat" here and there. They don't deal with this aspect of most people's eating or the emotional aspects very well. They aren't equipped to deal with them. In case you are wondering what sort of freak I am, I'm actually a physician. I'm double boarded in internal medicine and psychiatry so I have quite a bit of experience treating substance abusers. I have some first hand knowledge of the subject I'm speaking of and have read a lot of the literature on the subject. I've also got quite interested in the treatment of obesity for personal reasons. I'm not talking out of my butt.

Thanks for sharing your credentials, but I never implied you were a loose cannon. Your input has been very helpful and I have enjoyed reading your other posts as well. For me I am educated well beyond my means of intelligence.:D

[laughingW]

This is actually my major issue with Weight Watchers. Overall, I think it is a great program. It promotes healthy eating and exercise in the real world but they do tell people they can work in a "treat" here and there. They don't deal with this aspect of most people's eating or the emotional aspects very well.
Rant on!

Boy, I'm with Max; I totally disrespect Weight Watchers. They "promote healthy eating and exercise in the real world," but that's by shaping their programs to the latest fad in Public Health, like the food pyramid and 90 mins of exercise a day. And there is no evidence that either of those recommendations has been tested with real people. I don't believe WW tests their diets first - they just guess. And they deny the existence of food addiction to this day. (probably because they will be the last organization, not the first, to deal with it. anyone want to wait 40 years?)

And, they make money off addictive junk snacks.

And, the original WW in 1972 was reduced carb. Why did they change?

I honestly think their moderation message and the changing their program to conform with government guidelines, made my journey and my health worse for the 3-4 times I went through it.

Rant off!

[Tresses]

For your entertainment pleasure: Weight Watchers recipe cards from 1974 (http://www.candyboots.com/wwcards.html). Enjoy. :)

[Karole]

[quote=laughingW;61905]Rant on!
And, the original WW in 1972 was reduced carb. Why did they change?

Because the Low Fat craze hit big time and they went along for the ride?

[laughingW]

For your entertainment pleasure: Weight Watchers recipe cards from 1974 (http://www.candyboots.com/wwcards.html). Enjoy. :)
I love those. Specially the commentary. Maybe I'll even print some out to decorate my office cube LOL

[laughingW]

Because the Low Fat craze hit big time and they went along for the ride?
right, but why, when they had something that really worked?

Liability? Sincerely thinking it was better, without testing to be sure? Either way, the poor consumer was not #1 or else they wouldn't have changed what worked.

[maxlharris]

Max-I'm not of the mind set that low carb is the only way to skin this cat. I suppose that is where you and I differ. It is what works for me but I recognize it is not what works for everyone. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

I don't think LC is the way to go for everyone. I do not think that Low Fat is a healthful diet. The brain is composed largely of fat. How will you repair this fat without dietary fat. The general weight watcher approach of fat is bad is a recipe for weight loss, not optimal health. And that is why I say they do not train people to eat healthfully. It may be closer to healthful than they were eating before (portion control is probably more healthful than unlimited portions of fatty carby junk) but it's not a recipe for anything like sustainable health. Your statement:

It promotes healthy eating and exercise in the real world but they do tell people they can work in a "treat" here and there.
(emphasis added)

If you want to talk about the health benefits of long distance low speed treadmilling, well, it's generally better than couch sitting, but it's not anything like real healthy activity designed for the real world. It doesn't promote much muscular developmen or any improvement in strength (studies showing strength correlated with longer healthy life).

There are many methodologies of exercise that would promote healthy life. I am of the studied opinion that walking on a treadmill for long periods at low to medium speeds is not one of them.

Many ways to skin a cat, but there are probably more wrong ways to do it than right ones. And remember, the watchword is sustainability. If you're going to live, for the rest of your life, on 18 winning points, and be happy with 1 cheat meal a week, good on you. You are one of the few, the proud, the ones who should be in WW marketing.

[maxlharris]

Boy, I'm with Max;
Stranger things have happened.

[Omlette]

Petra - I totally agree about addiction. My dad is a recovering alcholic. He and I had this discussion back in 2000 when I had gone off of PP and started gaining weight. I told him it felt as though (what I would assume), I had a drink after years of not drinking, and I would not be able to stop until I hit bottom.

He agreed. He, like me, loves carbs. So being both an alcohol and carboholic, he knew where I was coming from.

I'm still like that some days. If I have just 1 bite of something that is a trigger food, I can not stop myself until it is gone or I am just sick from it. I will literally have the thought that I am killing myself going through my head, but it does not stop the hand-to-mouth action.

BTW, my dad blames WW for his diabetes. There is no history of it in his family. He lost down to a very low weight eating lots of rice and potatoes while on WW. He was not eating as much protein and fat as he needed. This is when he started showing signs of Type 2. Needless to say, he is no longer following WW.

[Tresses]

right, but why, when they had something that really worked?

Liability? Sincerely thinking it was better, without testing to be sure? Either way, the poor consumer was not #1 or else they wouldn't have changed what worked.

The low fat/high carb diet theory gained an unfortunate foothold in the early 70s. At that time, the "experts" were excoriating low carb (and Dr. Atkins) publicly any time they could. The government was getting involved with nutrition, too (and like most things the government gets involved in, didn't do it well).

laughingW, have you read Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes yet? Excellent read, and he explains how we ended up in the nutritional mess we're in.

Glad you liked the WW cards. :)

[laughingW]

laughingW, have you read Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes yet? Excellent read, and he explains how we ended up in the nutritional mess we're in.
Yes, twice now. Occasionally he will talk about an individual scientist, or an organization, and how they changed direction with the big Ancel Keys low fat theory.

I just bet it was the board of WW being conservative and afraid to challenge the bad science of Keys with nothing but anecdotal success from their members.

[Gaelen]

omigod, those cards are too hysterical!

[Ammy]

Holy Moly...I just checked out the WW recipes!! OMG!!! I laughed so hard I was crying!!!
Gotta share that with the weight watchers in my life!! Especially my mother who lost 100lbs by following WW in the 70s!! Wonder if she tried any of these???

[Mitra]

For your entertainment pleasure: Weight Watchers recipe cards from 1974 (http://www.candyboots.com/wwcards.html). Enjoy. :)

http://forums.clubrsx.com/images/smilies/rotfl.gif I think I'm going to switch to WW :eek::jawDrop:

[Tresses]

http://forums.clubrsx.com/images/smilies/rotfl.gif I think I'm going to switch to WW :eek::jawDrop:

It's a wonder they stayed in business, isn't it? :suspicious:

:lol:

Glad you all like that. :D

I've got another good food link I'll post in Community Conversations, since it's not really "diet" related. Don't read it with someone sleeping nearby; they won't be happy. ;)

[Rhyme'n Reason]

..and I can't wait to get to the grocery store in the morning to pick up some celery to do the "chilled celery log"...can I wrap it in bacon? :lol:

[deirdra]

Mackerel Pudding ... yum!

[petra65]

Max-I wasn't aware they taught nutrition and medicine in business school. You'll have to tell me about that program.

I'm sure you all realize WW has changed a lot since 1974 and again we are all here because we have chosen a different WOE for whatever reason. Regardless of what you may personally think of their program, they have millions of followers and many, many people have been successful in losing and maintaining weight with their program.

[maxlharris]

Max-I wasn't aware they taught nutrition and medicine in business school. You'll have to tell me about that program.

They teach economics. Since it underlies everything... But seriously, I read. A lot.

Meanwhile, I wasn't aware that they taught group dynamics, economics, marketing, and corporate strategy at med school. You'll have to tell us all about that program.


I'm sure you all realize WW has changed a lot since 1974 and again we are all here because we have chosen a different WOE for whatever reason. Regardless of what you may personally think of their program, they have millions of followers and many, many people have been successful in losing and maintaining weight with their program.

http://www.healthyweightforum.org/eng/images/weight-watchers-points-form.gif
Where: P = points, C=calories, F=fat grams, and r= fiber grams

That's the formula pretty much all WW programs are based on at the present time. Back in 1974, they were just caloric reduction. Sometime later, they became fat averse. Now, they are downright phobic.

Some quick things to point to here:
Fat is 9 cal/g, protein and carb ~4/g, and alcohol 7/g. (I am unaware of whether you can or cannot have alcohol on WW... if you cannot, you are going to be in a slightly higher mortality group, since 1 drink/day drinkers live longer, in better health than teetotalers)
The p=(c/50) already penalizes you for fat and alcohol more heavily than similar volumes of protein and carb. More than double, per gram, just on p=(c/50). When you add (F/12), you are penalized more than 300% more for a gram of fat versus a gram of protein or carb. In fact, lemme share some math (taught in most MBA programs):
12g protein/carb = 1 Point (((12*4)/50) = ~1)
12g fat = 3 points. ( ((12*9)/50)+ (12/12) = 3)
If you're straight calorie restriction, 2.25 : 1 points for fat : carbs/protein makes a lot of sense. Clearly, there is a fat phobic force at work here.

Now, we know, KNOW, that not all fat is bad. DHA/EPA Omega-3's are actually really good. Omega-9's, like in Extra Virgin Olive Oil are also very good for you. Mono Unsaturated Fats, also really good for you. And Saturated fats are useful structural materials for things like cell walls and your brain. So, it's very hard to justify the (f/12) portion of the formula. From any health standard. From any "calorie in, calorie out" weight loss approach.

The fiber portion is small enough to be negligible, but fairly debatable as well. If you believe fiber to be healthy, why would you crank such a weak incentive towards it? If you believe fiber to be neutral, why any incentive at all? If you believe fiber to be bad, why not a + sign in from of the fiber space. Since it's non-caloric, it doesn't really need any additional incentive if you're going with the weight of the evidence on fiber (might be good, might be bad, might be nothing).

So, back to WW and their diet, as healthful.

How would you characterize a diet that punishes healthy fat consumption with a reduction in total food volume and doesn't penalize free sugar consumption at all?

Considering that every other diet going is urging some reduction in free sugars, I would have a hard time categorizing a WW Winning Points based diet (at any level of points, because the incentives remain the same at all levels of points) as more healthful than anything other than adlib Standard American Diet. An upper limit is more healthful than adlib sugar+fat eating.

The real value of WW is in the group meetings. Some people really thrive on that. Very few people don't get some bonus from being accountable to a group on some level. In a small enough, familiar enough group, you get actual enforcement and "do it for the team" type of behavior. It's amazing to watch. I suspect that's what fueling your search for a daily menu thread. (BTW: this is straight organizational behavior and economics... my fields of study... I understand this pretty well.) When the group sessions end, the value of weight watchers is reduced to the WP formula. Most people would be better of with a better model of health, either low carb or a med diet. Fat phobia doesn't serve too many very well.

[Gaelen]

Mackerel Pudding ... yum!

For what it's worth, our work site's WW leader works next door to me.

I sent her the link; she thinks the WW recipe cards from 1974 are hilarious. :lol:

I learned a lot of good things about examining my relationship with food from following WW in its old 'exchange plan' format, and prior to that a Johns Hopkins Diabetic Diet type 'exchange plan' format. I even did WW with points for a year or so prior to PP. Kept losing the same 5 lbs over and over again...total loss, around 15 lbs. For the record, I was told in all of the plans to stay around 1400 calories, I think that comes out to around 22 points.

If I have a choice between staying at 22 points for the rest of my life or staying at an average of 40-55g ECC, I'll pick the ECC. Which moves us back to my first reply in this thread--what works for each individual is the way of eating you can stick with for life.

One thing WW, OA, and other group approaches to managing food do (because of the nature of their group regulated program) is focus on helping people examine their relationships with food. They don't all succeed, they don't all do it well. But there are things to be learned from that approach that can easily be applied to changing a way of eating, whether to low carb or to something else, and making that change long-term and successful.

YMMV.

[gapwedge]

A simple question about Nutrisystem has really taken a life of its own. The threads are enjoyable.:D

[Gaelen]

A simple question about Nutrisystem has really taken a life of its own. The threads are enjoyable.:D

Yeah...life in a straight line is sooo boring.
But we've no shortage of wanderings, ramblings and scenic routes in these parts.
Enjoy the ride. ;)

[maxlharris]

I spent lunch thinking about this a little more.

I do not want to say that WW is not an effective weight loss regime. From a pure loss standpoint, it's suboptimal (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/9/969), but still effective. It works. It works well. It is more difficult to comply with (the LEARN diet is an acceptable proxy for WW, only without support group), and that would speak to sustainability. If you consider (as many do) that yoyo dieting is worse than just staying overweight, then sustainability would be a key factor in evaluating how healthful a diet program actually is.

I do not believe I will ever really understand the +(f/12) fat penalty. It makes fat inherently worse, beyond the calories. It probably makes sense with diet logic, circa 1985, but I was 12 then, a very skinny kid, and not really paying attention to why they believed as they believed. With more reading, it becomes a little clearer, but not really explicable. Cholesterol as a danger, the lipid theory of heart disease, the discard of healthy weight loss plans that had been effective from the 1800's (Banting's Letters on Corpulence) through the 1950's. I understand the chronology, I understand the things behind the things, but it's still hard to wrap your head around.

IF you wanted to reduce calories to points, in an effort to pursue a calorie reduction strategy, the P = (C/50) works fairly acceptably. Figure what you're currently eating, then reduce your allowable points by 10%. I don't think this is a viable long term strategy, as it doesn't address the hormonal activity underlying lipid mobilization or muscular development, but if you wanted to, you could do it.

IF I were really slick, I could develop a points formula for protein power, which would optimize protein intake, penalize carb activity, and encourage caloric restriction. But, when it's as simple as Protein > X, Carbs < Y, eat until you are sated, not full, a formula is a little superfluous.

[gapwedge]

But, when it's as simple as Protein > X, Carbs < Y, eat until you are sated, not full, a formula is a little superfluous.

The old KISS formula works everytime.:)

[petra65]

I'm not sure I really want to discuss WW anymore but they now have a Core program which emphasizes low GI foods and healthy fats. Yes, they change with the science.

Max-my point exactly was that if you and I were discussing economics I might disagree with you but I wouldn't have the arrogance to tell you that you were wrong. I recognize you know a lot more about that than I do. I was wondering.... are you ever wrong?

I also didn't realize economics underlies everything.....here I thought it was physics?:D

[Missy]

You know the main thing that erks me most with ALL of these corporate plans....WW and Nutrisystem advertisements. How often do they, when they 'feature' the foods you can choose...they say things like "and you can have THIS and THIS and THAT"...and it's a pizza, dessert or something else that is a 'goodie' to a customer that's already got issues with THOSE foods. Baiting them. I hate it. :mad:

I loved WW's when I did it eons ago...but it wasn't for 'the plan' of the time...it was for the comradery of the meeting, especially when I had a great leader. Now, I get that here.:D all the time, anytime. Only here I get so much more.

[petra65]

Yeah, I liked the social aspect too. In fact, that is initially why I joined WW. One of my friends suggested it as a way to meet new people in PA when I first moved there.

[maxlharris]

I'm not sure I really want to discuss WW anymore but they now have a Core program which emphasizes low GI foods and healthy fats. Yes, they change with the science.

Max-my point exactly was that if you and I were discussing economics I might disagree with you but I wouldn't have the arrogance to tell you that you were wrong. I recognize you know a lot more about that than I do. I was wondering.... are you ever wrong?

I also didn't realize economics underlies everything.....here I thought it was physics?:D

Fine. We also are pretty sure that low GI foods aren't the solution because a carb is a carb is a carb (and GI doesn't mean anything without GL) and besides, that core program still uses the points formula that is irrationally, unscientifically fat phobic. I'd be curious if you, Petra, have an actual content based answer to why the Points system is so biased against fat, beyond the calorie issue. Or perhaps you don't understand how it is so biased against fat, beyond the caloric density issue.

Your point was that since I don't have a degree in nutrition or medicine, I should shut up and bow to you. I wouldn't give that argument if you wanted to talk economics or the farm bill. It's a crap attitude. There, I said it. It doesn't take a long set of courses to be able to read, think critically, and analyze research. These are basic skills. IF you think I should shut up and be quiet, point the flaws and shut me up. With as much or as little attitude as you feel like giving. The board can always use a little content based discussion, even on something so foreign as Nutrisystem or WW. Other than having lost weight (and regained it on WW) do you have substance to add, or should I just shut up because my substance is lay person substance? That type or argument is inherently weak. Inherently pessimistic. Inherently counterproductive to actual understanding.

I can think of at least one place where I was wrong today. This is probably mistake #2. But perhaps it will dawn on you that someone else might be right. "Stop the cognitive dissonance now... it hurts too badly."

[Mitra]

I also didn't realize economics underlies everything.....here I thought it was physics?:D

I knew there was a good reason why I'm always right :D ;)

[gapwedge]

You guys want to take this discussion to the engineering and physics level count me in. I confidently will hold my own in that conversation.:lol:

Seriously, both of you need to take a deep breath. Neither of you are helping anyone else with your educational background baiting. I have learned to respect both of your points of view and enjoy reading your other posts and replies. But this 2 man pissing contest is not helping anyone learn anything.

[petra65]

Here's my point Max. I'm a clinician. I take care of sick people for a living including attending to their nutritional needs. That means I have to factor in their renal function, hepatic function, comorbid medical conditions like diabetes, heart failure, hypertension, etc and decide what is going to be the best diet for them while they are in the hospital or the nursing home and make recommendations for when they go home. At points in my career I've even had to order tube feedings and TPN. What is a healthy diet for one of my patients can make another one very ill. Your concept that ONE diet is the healthy diet for all people seems extraordinarily narrow from my view. I understand that you don't think about nutrition clinically and you were talking about what you believe to be best for John and Jane Q. Public. What I have learned from my cliniical experience is that diet and nutrition are very individualized things and one size does not fit all.

BTW, my real name is Mary

I'm not saying you should bow out and shut up but I think you do need to recognize that there are a few things in the world that some people may know a little more about than you do. I welcome open, honest, respectful scientific debate. In fact it was one of the things I enjoyed most about the old protein power board but someone who insists that their way is the only RIGHT way of viewing things does not promote open discussion. There are plenty of people on this board who have known me from before and they can attest to the fact that I am not an opinionated pig.

[Missy]

I don't want either of you two to shut up. I appreciate ALL sides. We all have things of value to share from our perspective and experiences. I wouldn't be on the verge of the new discoveries I'm learning about for myself if it hadn't been for MANY opposing viewpoints from various members of this board for me to have and open mind and consider. I don't want anyone to fliter their points of view. I WANT IT ALL! :D

[petra65]

I was thinking about this a little more while I was out walking my doggies. It's a beautiful day here-need I rub it in. Anyway. The other issue is that there is not yet consensus in the mainstream medical community on what constitutes a healthy diet for all individuals. Increasingly, low carb is being recommended for people with insulin resistance. Part of the problem is a lack of good clincal research-meaning controlled studies with adequate numbers of participants so that you get meaninful results (adequate power). The closest thing we probably have at this point would be the Mediterranean diet which would probably be considered low GI but not low carb. There is a fair amount of good clinical data about the health benefits of this diet and lifestyle. There is good evidence that low carb is effective for reducing weight and maintaing weight and that it does not promote heart disease but there is not yet evidence that it reduces heart disease to the best of my knowledge. I'll be honest, I'm not reading the New England Journal anymore and a lot of cutting edge stuff gets published there but this would be pretty big news. I'll be happy to do a search and look for articles though. If you have some, please share. I know a lot of people here like to trash the "mainstream" medical community and sometimes that is deserved. I will say, in general, we need good data to change our minds about something and when you show us the data we will follow. I'll give you a really concrete example. When I was in med school, we thought giving HRT to all postmenopausal women was a good idea and it was widely recommended. We now have good studies showing that for most women, the risks outweight the benefits and we don't do that anymore. That's a major change in the way medicine is routinely practiced in a relatively short period of time because there was good data to back it up.

If you want me to talk about why I think we don't have good studies about the health benefits of low carb it would involve me getting on a soap box and I doubt you want to hear that.

[Missy]

Soap Box away Mary! :o:D We tend to like that kinda thing!

[laughingW]

I know a lot of people here like to trash the "mainstream" medical community and sometimes that is deserved. I will say, in general, we need good data to change our minds about something and when you show us the data we will follow.
Petra, thank you for being so open and speaking from the medical point of view.

I am one who does not trust the mainstream medical community and it's because, from my experience, docs may need good data to change their minds, slowly, but it doesn't seem like they need good data to make up their minds in the first place. So there is inherent unevenness. Docs take up defensive positions on flimsy evidence and then insist on such high quality evidence to change their minds, that doesn't happen.

Like the diets that the AHA and ADA suggest. Were they ever clinically tested, after being guessed at?

Did you read Good Calories, Bad Calories? The way the obesity research community trashed 100 years of obesity research and jumped onto the lipid hypothesis is one example. This leads to MDs handing out reduced calorie low-fat diets with very poor evidence that they work.

This filters down to ignorant-slash-harmful medical care for me personally over many years. All the good results I've had are literally on my own. And, I don't have the professional pressures that doctors have to treat other people besides myself.

This is why I don't think MDs are the go-to people for weight control.

[maxlharris]

Here's my point Max. I'm a clinician. I take care of sick people for a living including attending to their nutritional needs. That means I have to factor in their renal function, hepatic function, comorbid medical conditions like diabetes, heart failure, hypertension, etc and decide what is going to be the best diet for them while they are in the hospital or the nursing home and make recommendations for when they go home. At points in my career I've even had to order tube feedings and TPN. What is a healthy diet for one of my patients can make another one very ill. Your concept that ONE diet is the healthy diet for all people seems extraordinarily narrow from my view. I understand that you don't think about nutrition clinically and you were talking about what you believe to be best for John and Jane Q. Public. What I have learned from my cliniical experience is that diet and nutrition are very individualized things and one size does not fit all.

BTW, my real name is Mary

I'm not saying you should bow out and shut up but I think you do need to recognize that there are a few things in the world that some people may know a little more about than you do. I welcome open, honest, respectful scientific debate. In fact it was one of the things I enjoyed most about the old protein power board but someone who insists that their way is the only RIGHT way of viewing things does not promote open discussion. There are plenty of people on this board who have known me from before and they can attest to the fact that I am not an opinionated pig.

Mary,

One size does not fit all. Clearly. In fact, in this thread, at multiple spaces, I have pointed to cal reduced Med style diet as a viable healthy diet for some. I've even noted that WW's lipid phobic diet schemes are probably better than no diet scheme for people.

Here, you are dismissive. If you want open, honest or respectful discourse with give and take, you will receive as soon as you begin. Till then, perhaps not. It takes good people to build a good board. I would ask whether you believe you are contributing to that endeavor right now or whether your complaints about the way things are versus how they used to be is actually productive and useful. Build the change you want. It's WAY more constructive.

You are a clinician. That's great. Can you explain to me why Weight Watchers currently places heavy negative incentives on fat consumption. Heavier than simple caloric density, by a full 33%. I know economics. It's partially a study of incentives. If you sign up for WW, without even understanding anything other than points, you will wind up eating either very low fat or even lower calories. That's the incentive and by complying to either Winning Points (Flex Plan) or a Volumetrics (Core Plan) approach.

I have not said that this incentive system is completely bankrupt. I am not in a space where I could say that. I have repeatedly said it's probably better than just sitting on the couch and eating an ad lib Standard American Diet.

But, compared to other options, is it anywhere near optimal? That's really a question where your years as a clinician could add some value. I hate to call you out like this, Mary, but I do not see how you can hold the high position of professional knowledge over others while simultaneously just dismiss others for lack of professional knowledge out of hand. I would not seek to hold that type of position in my fields of expertise.

[Missy]

This filters down to ignorant-slash-harmful medical care for me personally over many years. All the good results I've had are literally on my own.


Laughing...I wholeheartedly agree with that. Thankfully, I have a pretty spectacular Dr.~ but the main reason why I like him so well is that he is never defensive towards me or my ideas or questions. He, unlike any other Dr I've ever gone to is sincerely interested in how I feel and appreciates the fact that although I'm just a lay person, he sees that I have a genuine interest in my issues and never puts my ideas/suggestions down. He listens and either gives me an explaination that rationalizes my suggestion differently, OR we give my suggestion a 'try'. Can't ask for more then that, in my opinion.

oh....am I even ON the subject???....:o sorry. lol

[petra65]

Max-unless I am misreading your question, it appears that you are asking me if I know why WW makes up it's program the way it does? I'm not on the board of WW. I don't know how they make those decisions except from what was explained in meetings. Do I personally, as a clinician based on what I know about diet think that low fat diet is best for the vast majority of people-no. If you take the Med diet as probably the closest thing we have as "ideal" from a medical perspective (and again that is a matter still open to debate), that diet is 30-40% fat.

I think you have gotten fixated on some very minute details and maybe missed the entire concept I was trying to make. I'm not being dismissive. I wasn't the one who told you, that you were wrong (there is no anger in that. You can't hear intonation in written word.) I'm trying to make peace here. I'm asking for a little respect. I don't dismiss people out of hand-that's not my style.

I'm in the process of reading Good Calories, Bad Calories. You are right, sometimes we see what we want to see. In general, I try to create a collaborative relationship with patients when that is possible. With some of my patient's that's not possible due to mental/cognitive issues but when I can, I prefer to come to some sort of agreement or compromise we can both live with.

[maxlharris]

Max-unless I am misreading your question, it appears that you are asking me if I know why WW makes up it's program the way it does? I'm not on the board of WW. I don't know how they make those decisions except from what was explained in meetings. Do I personally, as a clinician based on what I know about diet think that low fat diet is best for the vast majority of people-no. If you take the Med diet as probably the closest thing we have as "ideal" from a medical perspective (and again that is a matter still open to debate), that diet is 30-40% fat.

I don't think you could speak for the WW people. But, perhaps you might explain why you believe that WW could be a good solution, beyond the group support. You were the one who said, "Overall, I think it is a great program. It promotes healthy eating and exercise in the real world..." I disagree. I would love to have someone who believes it's a great program explain why. No one has. Beyond the group aspect. Which I believe is the real guts of WW. The two plans, Flex (Winning Points) and Core (Volumetrics), are both very low fat with fairly high penalties for fat consumption. They are both fairly high carb, with no penalty for high carb consumption beyond their calories. I can understand suggesting a straight caloric reduction and working a formula without the F/12 piece, but, a little light on that piece would be nice. I am sorry if you take this as a challenge to your bona fides. I'm sure you're a great clinician with the best interests of your patients in mind. But one would have to wonder what part of this fat avoidance diet actually promotes healthful eating.


I think you have gotten fixated on some very minute details and maybe missed the entire concept I was trying to make. I'm not being dismissive. I wasn't the one who told you, that you were wrong (there is no anger in that. You can't hear intonation in written word.) I'm trying to make peace here. I'm asking for a little respect. I don't dismiss people out of hand-that's not my style.
Please explain: "Max-I wasn't aware they taught nutrition and medicine in business school. You'll have to tell me about that program." in the context of the above. Don't bother. It's forgiven and over. You're okay. But really, WW is a great program? I guess I'll have to agree to disagree on that idea. Winning Points is a recipe for a real tough loss. Volumetrics (the Core Plan) is really the same thing, just a different presentation.


I'm in the process of reading Good Calories, Bad Calories. You are right, sometimes we see what we want to see. In general, I try to create a collaborative relationship with patients when that is possible. With some of my patient's that's not possible due to mental/cognitive issues but when I can, I prefer to come to some sort of agreement or compromise we can both live with.

Cool. Sometimes you have to be the change you want. That goes with respect. That goes with the vision of the optimum online community. That goes with most things in life. We call it "modeling the way".

[petra65]

Okay, calling it a healthy diet seems to be your sticking point. That is probably not accurate.

I WAS WRONG!!

Do you feel better now?
What I should have said is that is a program that has helped a lot of people achieve and maintain a healthy weight by eating foods readily available at their local grocery store and engaging in modest exercise-very user friendly. I was trying to make a comparison to Nutrisystem which relies on prepackaged, proprietary food. Very unuser friendly. That is where this thread started. Is that something we can both agree on? That was my point!

[Missy]

You know Petra....in your situation of having to deal with patients and with their ability to comphrend...OH!!! I can so imagine! :eek: I can easily see why it'd just be easier to suggest WW as an ALTERNATIVE to NOTHING...and be able to at least think that your doing SOMETHING in regard to helping them help themselves. My mother would be a case in point. I've TRIED to explain PP to her (many times!)..SHE who is a diabetic...and she continues to remain (conveniently) confused as to just what a "carbohydrate" is. :cool: sigh. Yet if my least best chance of getting her to 'try' something ~ if I suggested WW, she'd instantly 'get it'.

My brother on the other hand thinks that his best deal is to just do that Nutrisystem thing....:eek: that way he doesn't have to think.

Yeah. that's bright. lol

WW taught ME the value of group therapy. LOL

[maxlharris]

That wasn't really necessary. I imagine a lot of people think that WW is a healthy diet (whatever that is). It's just that if we're going to change the paradigm away from fat phobia, into a more rational, science based world, the two current WW plans as healthful diets just don't really work. They may help people lose weight (Hell, if I could do a volumetrics plan like the WW Core Plan, I could probably drop weight efficiently, even though a calorie light approach is the exact opposite of the nutrient dense diet most research is pushing towards, regardless of carb level). But is it a healthful way to lose? I think we can both agree that it's far from optimal but probably better than what a lot of people would do otherwise.

Last thing: It's not important who is right or wrong. What is important is that the information is clear so people can make good choices. I don't think anyone here is liable to ditch PP for WW. Or NS for that matter. But, if anyone wanted to know why PP is more healthful than WW, it's as simple as:
1- P = ... +(f/12)-...
2- volumetric nutrient density
against WW and
1- Insulin-glucagon fat burning engine
2- nutrient density
for PP(LP)

As to NS, IFF they gave people the tools to thrive on their plan independent of their foods, it might be a lot closer to a very useful plan for people. But, that's not within their business model (which is a very effective, network/external (AKA drug dealer marketing model)), so it's unlikely to happen. But if I had to eat NS or WW packaged foods from now until the end of time, I think I'd go with NS. I'd see about hacking them into LC, but that's beyond the scope of the question.

[Ananya]

WOW ~ What a thread!

Being a health care provider myself (with a health care degree) and working on my Health Care MBA, I can easily see everyone's perspective here ... I feel like saying "Can't we all just get along" but that would be exceedingly trite. I have enjoyed this thread ... just wish it was minus the personal issues.

[laughingW]

I feel like saying "Can't we all just get along"
Oh you made me laugh. Lively discussion IS how we get along.

If you want a career in "Health Care," better grow a thick skin! The shoutin is not over yet.

[Missy]

lol...your so right Laughing! LOL :lol::D I wouldn't trade a one of ya! :D

[Gaelen]

Oh you made me laugh. Lively discussion IS how we get along.

If you want a career in "Health Care," better grow a thick skin! The shoutin is not over yet.

Oh yeah!
I just spent 27 days (yeah, DAYS) in a hospital. Part of my day job, from which I am currently on leave, is to train docs, vets, scientists in technical procedures, quality issues, good lab practices and software use. During my 27 days in care, I had the pleasure of assisting in the training of the residents/fellows/student nurses assigned to my very complicated case.

I teach gently but directly when I'm at the top of my game. However, for most of the 27 days, I was by turns in pain, heavily medicated, and 'teaching up' -- having to give feedback on a performance to someone in front of his/her boss, or in front of his/her students. So I taught as best I could, under difficult conditions, and didn't apologize. It was what it was--business, not pleasure. I was actually hospitalized for an entire resident/fellow rotation, and said goodbye to one crew of them two days before my latest discharge. By the time I left, I think all of them learned that patient feedback isn't always gentle or pleasant, but like removing an old dressing, it's far less painful overall if you just get it done quickly and don't try to slowly ease into it. Feedback also isn't always about 'getting along,' and even my surgeons have learned that lively and direct conversation is not only something I value, but something I respect.

They also learned that I can smell fear, and I eat the tentative for lunch ('cause it's way better than hospital food... ;) )

oops...back to topic. What was the topic?
Oh yeah, that's another 'feature' of our discussions. You never know quite what twists they'll take, but they're always interesting.

[Benay]

Petra, I think you have hit the nail on the head. Just as OA has always said, there are distinct parallels between carb addiction and alcoholism. After all, alcoholic drinks are made from carbs (potato, grain,fruit, honey and even the lactose in milk). I have been thinking about this a lot lately and see the same excuses, the same mindlessness, the same desire for an "easy way" to lose weight that demands no effort just like gaining weight and on and on. We all have to "hit bottom" before we take weight loss seriously. We all have to realize we have "triggers" that create over indulgence in our selected foods whether chips or ice cream or chocolate. After all remember alcoholics also have their drink of choice whether it is Scotch or Beer. Both are alcoholics. So we choose the carb (grain or fruit) we prefer. We have "magical thinking" that once we achieve our weight loss we will keep it off with no effort when it took great effort to lose. The parallels go on and on. Thanks for bringing it up. Good to hear someone else is thinking along the same lines.

[Ammy]

I couldn't agree with you more Benay!

I'm often trying to explain to people that OA is not "harder" than AA...it's the same problem, with different triggers.

Alcoholics must stop their "drink of choice" (beer, wine, liquor)...but they still have to drink (water, tea, coffee, etc).
Compulsive overeaters must stop their "food of choice" (for me it's fries, chocolate, pizza)...but we still have to eat (meat, veggies, etc).
It is the same. Finding your "trigger" and learning to live without it!

BUT, what I hadn't realized is that alcohol is made from grains...I mean, I KNEW that it was, I just hadn't made the coorelation between carbs and alcohol and how your body reacts to them...Hmmmm

VERY good...thank you for pointing that out!

[gitfiddle]

Very interesting, Benay. I agree with Amy in that I never thought of the connection between alcohol and grans/starches/fruits.

[majordude]

It works because it is portion controlled. The "glycemic index" is just marketing crap.

[Gabriel Guzman]

Maybe a little late jumping into this discussion. I don't agree with all the wonders of the GI because it's too broad a stick to keep any control on carbohydrates. The Eades wrote extensively on this in Protein Power LifePlan. I would suggest re-read that part again to better understand why the GI, while a good 'broad' measuring stick, is not all that great when it comes to certain foods that are low GI but pretty bad to the body (best example of this: fructose).

We know a couple friend of ours that tried the Nutrysistem and it worked for a while but they just couldn't keep up with being hungry all the time. I'm not sure the system addresses the issue of how important a minimum protien intake is that we all have a different setting for that because it does depend on our own lean body weight and level of physical activity.

Finally, it's interesting that all these products must show the disclaimer that results will vary. Too many liabilities perhaps should something happen and people don't get the promised results? I don't know... but having seen the results brought by following Protein Power really close (not as a diet to lose X pounds but truly as a Life Plan), I would not hesitate in saying 'results won't vary':)

[bigdawg_SLC]

Finally, it's interesting that all these products must show the disclaimer that results will vary. Too many liabilities perhaps should something happen and people don't get the promised results? I don't know... but having seen the results brought by following Protein Power really close (not as a diet to lose X pounds but truly as a Life Plan), I would not hesitate in saying 'results won't vary':)

I can attest to that! DW tried WW for months ... with really crappy results, she was ALWAYS hungry ... now that I've converted her to LC'ing ... she's never hungry, get's enough protein, is going to the gym regularly .... and best of all seeing results. The only disclaimer that I would make is ... results vary with varied participation.

[deirdra]

You know the main thing that irks me most with ALL of these corporate plans....WW and Nutrisystem advertisements. How often do they, when they 'feature' the foods you can choose...they say things like "and you can have THIS and THIS and THAT"...and it's a pizza, dessert or something else that is a 'goodie' to a customer that's already got issues with THOSE foods. Baiting them. I hate it. :mad:That's what always gets me - they are promoting a short-term diet that focuses on the junk, not healthly food. What people need is a WOL, not a diet. Does anyone know anyone who lost weight on Nutrisystem, Jenny Craig, etc. who has NOT gained it all back?

WW is not entirely supportive. My sister did it as a teenager and people dissed her when she didn't lose weight while starving on their low-fat diet and not cheating (as they claimed she must be). She didn't go back. She lost weight on her own, figuring what worked for her.

[maxlharris]

That's what always gets me - they are promoting a short-term diet that focuses on the junk, not healthly food. What people need is a WOL, not a diet. Does anyone know anyone who lost weight on Nutrisystem, Jenny Craig, etc. who has NOT gained it all back?

WW is not entirely supportive. My sister did it as a teenager and people dissed her when she didn't lose weight while starving on their low-fat diet and not cheating (as they claimed she must be). She didn't go back. She lost weight on her own, figuring what worked for her.
When is support not supporting? I guess when the elastic is shot. I think the elastic is shot on most low fat diets in general, since they don't work in the long term (even Weight Watchers claims that diets don't work, which makes it interesting that they hock two low fat diets plus a support system).

Mary's not here to keep from being kicked, but I still maintain just about everything said about her up this thread. Including that her being a doctor doesn't mean she knows what she's talking about when she endorses WW and their goofy point formula as healthy eating.

[Gaelen]

When is support not supporting? I guess when the elastic is shot. I think the elastic is shot on most low fat diets in general, since they don't work in the long term (even Weight Watchers claims that diets don't work, which makes it interesting that they hock two low fat diets plus a support system).

Wow--love the 'elastic is shot' way of evaluating a support system, Max. You do manage a nice turn of phrase. ;) But to be fair to WW, their *primary* product IS the support system; they were founded on the weekly meeting, the face-to-face with fellow travelers and the 'counselor.' Mileage varied, but it varies here, too. And while/when I did WW, ages ago, I did learn some very important things about how to successfully approach diet (meaning choice of menu) and exercise that have stuck with me today--re: diet, that for me there can be no 'bad' foods (although there can be bad ingredients, like transfats, HFCS, and artificial sweeteners), and re: exercise, that the one(s) you will do, consistently, make the best starting points/foundation.


Mary's not here to keep from being kicked

yeah--based on her location, I suspect Gustav and the rest of the upheaval in the Gulf is keeping her pretty busy. Or, like most folks in her area, she's out of electricity and other services and completely offline...so expecting a response from her may be moot for at least a couple weeks.

[Omlette]

Petra, I think you have hit the nail on the head. Just as OA has always said, there are distinct parallels between carb addiction and alcoholism. After all, alcoholic drinks are made from carbs (potato, grain,fruit, honey and even the lactose in milk). I have been thinking about this a lot lately and see the same excuses, the same mindlessness, the same desire for an "easy way" to lose weight that demands no effort just like gaining weight and on and on. We all have to "hit bottom" before we take weight loss seriously. We all have to realize we have "triggers" that create over indulgence in our selected foods whether chips or ice cream or chocolate. After all remember alcoholics also have their drink of choice whether it is Scotch or Beer. Both are alcoholics. So we choose the carb (grain or fruit) we prefer. We have "magical thinking" that once we achieve our weight loss we will keep it off with no effort when it took great effort to lose. The parallels go on and on. Thanks for bringing it up. Good to hear someone else is thinking along the same lines.

I totally agree. My dad is a recovering alcoholic. When he quit drinking he turned to popcorn and ice cream.

He and I had a conversation one time about sugar and alcohol being equivalent. I told him that sugar was/is evil for me. I feel like i have to reach absolute rock bottom to get over it, just like he had to reach rock bottom with drinking. Now, he is battling sugar addiction.

[maxlharris]

yeah--based on her location, I suspect Gustav and the rest of the upheaval in the Gulf is keeping her pretty busy. Or, like most folks in her area, she's out of electricity and other services and completely offline...so expecting a response from her may be moot for at least a couple weeks.
She hasn't been around for before Gustav, cept maybe in OD@AT. I think with her attempts at Zone dieting, maybe she doesn't feel like she belongs. I dunno that that rules her out, but like IF, I personally find people's discussion of what they're trying to do with non-ketogenic style diets to be kind of weird and out of place. The IF-Junk food people (The Eades up until a few months ago) included. LC-IF, not so much.

[steflou]

Speaking of off topic, has anyone tried that quick weight loss center? I joined a few weeks ago and could not stick to it-the prep phase for 3 days made me very weak. It is also around $700 to join-they promise a specific amount of weight in so many weeks. Plus, you have to buy their expensive bars/drinks and herbal supplements-they try to get you to buy them in bulk spending $300 and up at a time!! Has anyone tried it and had negative experiences or know anyone who has?

[maxlharris]

$700 to join? Hrm, I could spend that or buy PPLP for $15 brand new. I think I know the answer on that one.