Consumer Reports Rates WW and Slim Fast Higher than Atkins

[roadman]

I can't believe Slim Fast ranks higher than Atkins.

Shakes and bars diet ranks higher than less carbs and more protein. :o

These tests were done with clinical studies.

Atkins was rated lower because people don't stay on it long enough, too much protein and saturated fat, has some health care side effects, and not enough fruit and fiber.

The plus for Atkins was that the weight came off quicker.

I've had my blood test numerous times doing Atkins and everything is perfectly normal.

Comments.


http://www.freep.com/news/health/diet11e_20050511.htm


Consumer Reports sizes up diet plans

Weight Watchers, Slim-Fast rated tops

May 11, 2005

BY J.M. HIRSCH
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Meetings and shakes trump counting carbs when it comes to long-term weight loss, according to a recent analysis of diets by Consumer Reports magazine.

The publication, best known for rating cars and electronics, put Weight Watchers, with its support group meetings, and Slim-Fast, whose shakes let you opt out of cooking, at the top of the heap.

The ratings were based on pounds lost, nutrition, how easy the diet was to follow and dropout rates after six months and a year.

Though low-carb diets have dominated headlines, the highest marks went to Weight Watchers, which uses weekly meetings to reinforce its simple philosophy -- eat less and exercise more. After a year, its followers were far more likely to stick with the plan, the analysis found.

Weight Watchers did not, however, earn the strongest scores on weight loss, a distinction that went to second-ranked Slim-Fast, which replaces parts of two meals a day with shakes and bars.

The Atkins diet, which has led the low-carb charge, got good scores for short-term weight loss, but landed at the bottom of the ratings because of poor marks on retention and nutrition.

The report, included in the magazine's June issue, said the Atkins diet calls for too much fat and saturated fat, too few fruits and too little fiber. It also said the diet "might have a negative effect on some dieters' health."

The magazine's conclusions are based on a review of published clinical research on each diet and a nutrient and calorie analysis of a week's worth of menus.

All of the diets reviewed are low enough in calories to produce results, but success relies on sticking to the plan, said Nancy Metcalf, a senior editor at Consumer Reports.

Slim-Fast was praised for its ease and balanced nutrition. Its retention matched Weight Watchers' during the first six months, but then dropped considerably.

The high-protein Zone diet, from a book by Dr. Barry Sears, was the magazine's No. 3 program. Though its followers tended to drop out over time, the diet earned points for having considerably less fat than the Atkins approach.

The fourth-ranked ultra-low-fat, high-fiber vegetarian Ornish diet, from Dr. Dean Ornish, had the worst retention rate, though it had good long-term weight loss.

Four other programs, Internet-based eDiets, Jenny Craig, South Beach and Volumetrics, were included in the review but not ranked because not enough independent clinical studies had been done on them, the magazine said.

[mizz]

even slim fast? that is a surprise. well how long do ppl stay on slim fast? i cant see slim fast as a WOL

[acohn]

CR used the USDA food pyramid as their benchmark for nutrition. GIGO.

[diemde]

I wonder if some of the reason is because there are no "in-person" support groups for low carb eating. The power of having other people to discuss this with, as we do here in the forum, is one reason people can stick with a change in eating behavior. It would be interesting to know just how they did their survey. Did they include people like us, who have a support forum? How can you compare WW, with all their group meetings, to people doing low carb without a support system...

Also, the other programs aren't called by one of the types of nutrients. If a low carb diet was called something like "Fat Losers", would it be more successful? I think a lot of people look at this as unhealthy because they *think* we are cutting something out of our diet, as opposed to eating well rounded foods. And as we know, there are a lot of people who try low carb without reading anything to really understand it. I just wonder how many of them were included in the analysis. :rolleyes:

[Abd]

I wonder if some of the reason is because there are no "in-person" support groups for low carb eating.That is not entirely true, see below.The power of having other people to discuss this with, as we do here in the forum, is one reason people can stick with a change in eating behavior. It would be interesting to know just how they did their survey. Did they include people like us, who have a support forum?Well, they did, though not exactly in the way that the writer is thinking.How can you compare WW, with all their group meetings, to people doing low carb without a support system?You can't.

But the article did consider Overeaters Anonymous. And Overeaters Anonymous is a twelve-step group modeled after Alcoholics Anonymous, the inspiration for what I've called "Free Associations," see www.beyondpolitics.org.

One of the characteristics of these associations is that they have no institutional program or position. Rather, in the 12-step case, they are pure support groups for anyone who meets the program definition, which with OA covers any difficult relationship with food, not only overeating. Anorexics and bulemics, for example, are welcome in OA.

The basic principle of AA is that one of the best ways to stay sober is to be active in helping other people to stay sober. It's been noticed that this concept can also help with many different kinds of problems, hence OA. If you go to an individual OA meeting, you might find various kinds of opinions being presented; none of these opinions is an official OA policy. There is, I think, an official book (and there are many books by OA members giving their own histories and ideas), but what is said in that book is really only a set of opinions that were broadly accepted in the organization when the book was written.

So OA should be very open to low-carb concepts, and I'd be surprised to find that OA is not already being used for low-carb support. Just as on lowcarber.org, you'll find a wide range of opinions, up to and including the opinion that low-carb is dangerous nonsense. But as long as people are willing to respect the right of individuals to express their own opinions, the worst that should happen at an ordinary OA meeting upon a participant expressing an unpopular opinion would be a somewhat sarcastic "Thanks for sharing," and, perhaps, the expression of a contrary opinion.

Be aware that there is no mechanism whereby OA controls individual meetings, so they can deviate pretty widely from the founding principles. You might find an OA meeting where a low-carber is attacked viciously. But then, you could always go to a different meeting, or start your own.

It's been years since I've been to an OA meeting, so what I've written is based on the founding principles and the way that OA was operating when I did go a few times back in the 1980s.

I assume that some of our readers have much more recent experience and could comment. OA is typical of the "Anonymous" meetings in that nobody may publicly speak for the organization; members are free to admit that they are members, but this is generally discouraged where it is implied that the person is some kind of representative or poster child for the organizaiton. AA began this policy when some famous people were publicized as being members, and then they fell off the wagon, thus making it look like AA doesn't work. Which is always going to happen with individuals, even with a program which is generally very effective.

12-step groups typically have two kinds of meetings: open and closed. Anyone may attend an open meeting. Closed meetings are open only to those who self-define as meeting the program definition (which would, in the case of OA, include anyone with an addictive relationship with food. Addiction is defined loosely; really most people would qualify if they were honest.) What is really desired in a closed meeting is that people be there for themselves, not for someone else, such as a spouse or friend. So I would think that anyone who desires support -- or to give support -- in following a low-carb nutritional approach would be welcome at OA.

[Meow]

Every single person that I know, that has lost weight on Slim Fast (or Slim Gas as I like to call it), has gained it right back, because they can't stay on it. Slim Fast isn't a WOE, it's a quick fix. Weight Watchers is a good program, but it isn't for everyone. It sounds like Consumer Reports is jumping on the "Bash Atkins Bandwagon."

[Katy131]

Slim Fast isn't a WOE, it's a quick fix. Weight Watchers is a good program, but it isn't for everyone. It sounds like Consumer Reports is jumping on the "Bash Atkins Bandwagon."


Hey Meow - I love your avatar! :agree:

The problem about this report is that it doesn't compare apples with apples. And it takes as its benchmark for good nutrition all that flawed research done on low fat/high fat diets and CVD etc (as mentioned before). So Atkins and other low carb programs are doomed to score low due to the high fat content and the fact that few group meetings are available. Only those really desparate people like us manage to find internet support! :lol: :D

Plus - none of the "winning" diets are maintainable in the long term. WW? Hah!! Slim fast?? Double Hah!!! Just hoping one day in years to come the "powers that be" will accept that low fat eating is not healthy.

[ValerieL]

Every single person that I know, that has lost weight on Slim Fast (or Slim Gas as I like to call it), has gained it right back, because they can't stay on it. Slim Fast isn't a WOE, it's a quick fix.
Is it? Really? Don't get me wrong, low-carb is my preferred WOL too, but I don't think we issue a blanket statement saying Slimfast doesn't work as a WOL just because it isn't our WOL. We hate it when others use anecdotal evidence to say that low-carb is unsustainable in the long run, after all we know it is sustainable for us. Are you sure there aren't a fair number of people that do use Slimfast as a WOL? It's not impossible. My step-father used to eat only one meal a day as his WOL as far as weight control/diet. It's weird but he did it. I'm sure that if we went to slimfast.com or some other online community for women, we'd find forums with people that Slimfast for breakfast & lunch and consider Slimfast their WOL. Heck, I bet even here you would find people that do an Atkins or low-carb shake or bar for 1 or more meals each & every day. That's not much different in theory than the Slimfast WOL.

Now, I'm not saying it's a good WOL in my opinion, but I don't think we can write them off completely because it's not something we could do long term. After all, don't we hate it when the anti-lowcarbers do that to us?

Val

[mcsblues]

So I would think that anyone who desires support -- or to give support -- in following a low-carb nutritional approach would be welcome at OA.

From the OA web site;

The Twelve Steps of Overeaters Anonymous

1. We admitted we were powerless over food — that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to compulsive overeaters and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

I'm assuming that "support" is not being offered to us atheists then?

Cheers,

Malcolm

[Abd]

From the OA web site [quote of original 12 steps for OA]

I'm assuming that "support" is not being offered to us atheists then?


Just goes to show the danger of assumptions.

The OA 12 steps were adapted from the AA 12 Steps, and AA was an outgrowth of a Christian revival movement. However, from the beginning, the intention was in AA to be as open and inclusive as possible. At the time, the references to a very non-specific God were considered widely inclusive. Times have changed and so has AA and its imitators. But the steps have generally not been reworded in organizational publications, perhaps for historical or sentimental reasons.

Meetings are thoroughly independent. When I was active in a number of 12-step programs, the majority of meetings in the area I lived had, for example, dropped the "Lord's Prayer" at the end of meetings. Some had substituted a closing affirmation which originated with OA, and which makes no reference to God but rather to the fact that "together we can do what we could never do alone." From early on, the AA 12 steps were quite widely interpreted, and, from the beginning, the "God" of AA was understood to refer simply to a "Higher Power," and Higher Power for many quite simply meant the power of the group, not some supernatural force.

If one thinks that the group is not, at least potentially, greater or wiser than the individual, then presumably one does not need support from a group. In practice, atheists and people of every faith I can think of are active members of the various 12-step programs. The program does not impose a dogma from above, and, as I said, because of this, meetings can vary, but they do share on common thread: they are informed by the experience of those who came before, and they are free to follow it, modify it, or discard it. And if any of these work, they are free to advocate these actions within the program. I heard many people tell meetings that they were full of ****, and there was no hostile response. Much to the chagrin of some of those people....

12-step meetings are the most dogma-free environments I've ever encountered, a few meetings excepted. Yes, you will hear various dogmas advocated there. But the only way to prevent that would be to impose another dogma.

From the same web site, one might also read the Twelve Traditions, which outline the operating principles. Yes, those traditions also mention God, but place God into a very specific context:

"For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority — a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience."

This makes clear that the authority for the group is not some outside oir religious authority, but the active consensus democracy of the members. 12-step programs generally avoid making unnecessary or controversial decisions; for this reason, some of the traditional materials remain even though a simple majority might want to change them; but because the program does not impose the traditions on individuals or groups, these remain thoroughly autonomous, the only harm from this is that some people who don't know what the program is actually like make assumptions about it. When I was active, this remained very controversial. And where there is controversy, there really is no official position.

Just to make it clear, I'm not a member of OA and I don't speak for it. My own issues were elsewhere; but I made a point of studying the traditions (and another document from AA, the 12 Concepts for World Servicer, which is a bit more arcane), and I had the opportunity to apply them as national conference chair for one program. And, even then, I've got no special authority to speak for the programs. Any member is free to disagree with me, and, indeed, some members would claim, for example, that God is very important in the program and that those who think of God only as the group are seriously mistaken and astray. But the proof is in the pudding. If you go to a meeting, you will meet people with all kinds of ideas. Some of those people have programs that are clearly working for them. As they say in the programs "Take what you like and leave the rest."

If someone says that the only way to lose weight is to do XXX and YYY, you can actually see the person and get a sense of their life. Are they happy? Or are they really angry and trying to cover up their own problems by pretending to know the answers for everyone else?

If you are an atheist, you might choose to associate with other atheists in the program. You could even start an OA meeting for atheists, I'd be surprised if there were not such meetings in large metropolitican areas. But you will probably do better if you do not restrict yourself to what fits your preconceptions. Maybe "God" means something different than what you have always imagined.

As a Muslim, I've spoken to many classes which were studying Islam. I remember one angry atheist who said something like "This is all nonsense, I don't believe in God." I asked him what it was that he did not believe in. I don't think he had ever been asked the question before, because he had no ready answer (other atheists would have one). So I said, "The God you don't believe in, I don't believe in either."

To me, "God" is just another name for Truth. Yes, we might argue about details. And it is not at all my purpose here to begin a discussion of religion; my concern at the moment is for the psychology of "belief." If you don't accept that there is a common Truth, that there are instead only many truths, you will have trouble finding support from a group, since the experience of others will not be of universal import. However, even then, if you can accept that at least occasionally someone else's "truth" might apply to you, to the extent that you might "try it on for size," then you might benefit.

[mcsblues]

I am delighted to hear that OA can be a genuine support group without religious dogma. It is also a relief to be assured that groups can make up their own rules which presumably might exclude the necessity for an admission of insanity (see step 2).
To me, "God" is just another name for Truth. Yes, we might argue about details. And it is not at all my purpose here to begin a discussion of religion; my concern at the moment is for the psychology of "belief." If you don't accept that there is a common Truth, that there are instead only many truths, you will have trouble finding support from a group, since the experience of others will not be of universal import. However, even then, if you can accept that at least occasionally someone else's "truth" might apply to you, to the extent that you might "try it on for size," then you might benefit.
Like anyone (atheist or not) I would not have any difficulty explaining why our versions of "the Truth" might differ more than a little. But that would (and should) have no impact on my offering or receiving support and advice to/from others who share similar health challenges and experiences.

Cheers,

Malcolm

[Abd]

I am delighted to hear that OA can be a genuine support group without religious dogma. It is also a relief to be assured that groups can make up their own rules which presumably might exclude the necessity for an admission of insanity (see step 2).

Nobody is forced to make that admission in 12-step programs. The steps are a suggested process that have been found to be effective. Note that the "admission" is personal and private, as described in the step. The word is "came to believe."

The OA steps were adapted (almost verbatim) from Alcoholics Anonymous, for dealing with addictive/compulsive behavior around food. I'd define "addictive/compulsive behavior" as any behavior where one repeatedly does what one considers harmful.

I must acknowledge that I don't know the present climate in OA. OA was founded to address food compulsions and was good at dealing with them. Atkins' concepts came in out of left field, and I can imagine that many in OA worried about part of the appeal of Atkins: eat as much as you want of everything except carbs. (That is not a fair description of Atkins, but it is how Atkins would be seen by many.)

The implication of Atkins was that at least part of the problem is not addiction or compulsion; rather, we had been educated to make food choices that were harmful, while we were being told -- and believed -- that they were good and healthy. It seems entirely possible that the difficulty we may have had following a low-fat diet was not that we were addicted to fat, but that we craved it *because it is a necessary nutrient.*

I'll admit that my own curiosity is piqued; I have an impossible schedule, but I now hope that I can find time to look up a local OA meeting and go. What I've described would be the organizational theory of OA, the actual practice could be different. I'm quite sure that atheists are welcome; less sure about how popular low-carb concepts would be. Still, OA claims to be open to any and all diet theories. The OA suggestion is to have a food plan developed in consultation with another, preferably a health professional; "sobriety" is considered to be following the food plan.

[mcsblues]

I'll admit that my own curiosity is piqued; I have an impossible schedule, but I now hope that I can find time to look up a local OA meeting and go. What I've described would be the organizational theory of OA, the actual practice could be different. I'm quite sure that atheists are welcome; less sure about how popular low-carb concepts would be.

Well I am interested too. If you go, ask them about a person like me coming to join, looking for and offering support, but who would not even consider taking 9 of their 12 steps as currently described (steps 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12).

Then tell them I am a low carber.

I would like to know which would cause them more difficulty!

Cheers,

Malcolm

[kyrasdad]

I don't mean to step on toes here, but I always thought the conventional 12 steps didn't fit my vision for managing a weight problem.

I know people who have managed years of sobriety on AA. They have really turned their lives around, so I don't argue that these programs are effective. I'm grateful that such programs exist for the sake of one person in particular. (He's a very nonreligious person, and has no issues with the spirtual aspect of it, so I don't know why that has to be a point of contention).

At any rate, in looking at most of these programs, I believe that the critical difference is that most are attempting to entirely halt a behavior. You stop drinking - entirely. You don't have a beer after work. You don't have an occasional glass of wine with dinner. You stop drinking. Same with drug addiction - you don't shoot up once in a while. You don't gamble responsibly; you stop gambling.

But with food, you can't stop entirely - you have to eat. In my case the admission of powerlessness would have never worked. For me, it's been the taking of control and responsibility that has worked.

That flies in the face of step number one; the sense of powerlessness is what got me to 350 pounds.

I can see this methodology working to end a behavior. But to modify one?

I really haven't harmed too many people directly with my weight as an alcoholic or drug addict does with his behavior. Fat people rarely do; we don't tend to lash out, to steal to support a habit, to have very much to make amends for that we couldn't or wouldn't have thin.

Like I said, I respect the 12-step methodology. It's done far too many people far too much good to dismiss. But I can't say that I believe it's a very good method of weight control.

I do think that fellowship in the sense of the dialogue we have here would do good. The discussions that cameraderie would be great. The rest of it, I don't need.

[Josiemk]

Funny...I've known many people who've tried the Slimfast diet. But I have never met even one person who actually lost more then 10 pounds & kept it off more then a couple of months. I think it's like the name says you lose a few pounds fast but you gain it back just as fast. Not only that, but recently Slimfast has joined the low carb bandwagon. So I have no idea where they are getting their info from but from here it just doesn't seem to be adding up.

[Abd]

Well I am interested too. If you go, ask them about a person like me coming to join, looking for and offering support, but who would not even consider taking 9 of their 12 steps as currently described (steps 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12).

Then tell them I am a low carber.

I would like to know which would cause them more difficulty!

Cheers,

Malcolm

I'm pretty sure that neither of these would be a problem in themselves. The 12 steps are only a general recommendation; yes, many members will refer to them, and if you put a lot of energy into attacking the steps, it might cause a little bit of a problem. But not much of a problem. They've seen it all before.

As to low-carb, again, if you don't barge in as a missionary, it won't faze them at all.

If you've never been to a 12-step meeting, you probably have no idea what goes on. There are two kinds of meetings, in general: speaker meetings and general sharing meetings. In a speaker meeting, there is, lucky guess, a speaker, usually a member with some experience, but not necessarily. Sometimes it is simply somone who has agreed to speak. An outsider, someone not a member, such as an "expert," would be quite unusual. (I've seen experts speak at some meetings, but they were also members for themselves...)

In a general sharing meeting, people simply tell what's on their mind, usually for a few minutes each. It's pretty informal. It is generally consider bad form to comment on what others have said, though simple affirmations like "great story" are not a big deal. Basically, the unspoken rule (sometimes made explicit) is "Talk about and for yourself."

(and, of course, listen....)

And many meetings are a bit of both, i.e., a short talk by a member, then general sharing. Nobody is obligated to say anything, not even to introduce themselves, though it is traditional to go around the room and introduce yourself by your first name (last names are discouraged). And, only if you accept the idea, you might add a description of yourself as a "qualified" member, i.e., I'm Joe and I'm an overeater. (I'm not sure of the common forms in OA; in AA it would be "alcoholic.") If you go to an open meeting, obviously, nobody is going to get exercised about your not identifying as a "qualified members." In a closed meeting, maybe, though the general idea is that if you are there for yourself, for support with your own issues with food, it should be fine.

You don't have to resemble some stereotype of the compulsive overeater, and, as I mentioned before, many members aren't overeaters at all, whatever that is. The name OA is simply what it was called when it started.... hard to change it after that.

And then there is what happens after the meetings. Often people go out together; if you are interested in meeting people and having actual conversations about food issues (or pretty much anything), you might be aware of this. Newcomers are very often welcome; some people at meetings will go out of their way to make a place for newcomers at after-meeting get-togethers; but it wouldn't hurt to ask someone if people are getting together after the meeting, and would it be okay if I join the group?

(these descriptions are from other programs than OA; as they say, your mileage may vary. In the few times I went to OA meetings, I didn't see anything particularly different.)

[Abd]

At any rate, in looking at most of these programs, I believe that the critical difference is that most are attempting to entirely halt a behavior. You stop drinking - entirely. You don't have a beer after work. You don't have an occasional glass of wine with dinner. You stop drinking. Same with drug addiction - you don't shoot up once in a while. You don't gamble responsibly; you stop gambling.
Actually, the secret -- don't tell anyone -- is that there are alcoholics who manage to become controlled drinkers. But the large majority of alcholics can't get away with that, even though they've tried many times... But alcohol is not a nutritional necessity.

Gambling, however, is an essential human behavior, if you think about it more widely than mere games of chance.

And many people have found the steps useful for problems around essential things, perhaps where a good thing becomes too much of a good thing. Debtors Anonymous does not think that members should never borrow money. Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous does not think that members should never have sex or love anyone. Emotions Anonymous does not think that people should never have emotions.

*But* these programs do think (insomuch as an abstraction like a program "thinks") that dealing with things like debt, food, sex, love, can bring up addictive behaviors, and that people may need support to return to "sanity." But the real core of the program is that one of the most effective ways to maintain one's own sanity, so to speak, is to be active helping others do the same. This was the AA discovery.

But with food, you can't stop entirely - you have to eat.

You need nutrition. But you don't need carbs.
There is a huge difference between addictive behavior with an object and sane behavior with the same object. You can see it in people (if they let you watch them, which they usually won't), and you can see it in yourself. The two *feel* very differently.

In my case the admission of powerlessness would have never worked. For me, it's been the taking of control and responsibility that has worked.

The new information coming from Atkins et al didn't help? Without that information, countless people were told that they should just buck up, control their cravings, and eat right. Did it work?

There is an idea here that there is a conflict between admitting powerlessness and taking responsibility. That's a common misconception about the 12-step programs. But I will say this: if you think you are in full control of your life, if you have solved your food problems by will power, I wish there were a way I could have a conversation with you about it twenty years from now....

One thing that happens when you go to 12-step meetings. Sooner or later, you pretty much hear it all. That is part of how it works.... One of the more ... interesting ... aspects of the program experience, some find, is hearing a story from someone else which is, in fact, one's own story. Only perhaps a few more years, or a lot of years, further down the line.

But this is a huge topic, and it is my intention here only to make it clear that I expect all people with food issues, who need support in staying with a food program -- which is exactly what OA says it is about if you read the literature, a food program chosen by the member, not imposed by OA -- will find some measure of welcome and support in OA. And there is no cost involved except your time to go to a meeting, and if you feel like it, a dollar or two in the pot to pay for room rent....

[Klodo2]

The problem with this discussion is that the article posted doesn't contain all the information. Here are the points each diet scored:

RATING DIETS
Consumer Reports' review of popular diets examined nutrition, weight loss and dropout levels. CR used icons to illustrate its findings. The AP converted that to a 1-5 rating system with 5 being best and 1 the worst. The time shown here is over one year; findings for six months varied slightly:
Weight Watchers: Nutrition, 5; weight loss, 3; dropout rate, 4.
Slim-Fast: Nutrition, 5; weight loss, 4; dropout rate, 1.
Zone: Nutrition, 5; weight loss, 3; dropout rate, 2.
Ornish: Nutrition, 3; weight loss, 4; dropout rate, 1.
Atkins: Nutrition, 1; weight loss, 3; dropout rate, 2.

As you can see, Slim-Fast has a terrible drop-out rate, and Atkins isn't too good in that area either, which I believe is totally accurate. So many people try Atkins for a short while but find it too restrictive, so they either give it up, do "modified Atkins" (which spells failure for a lot of people because they don't quite understand what makes the diet work), or find something easier to maintain, such as the South Beach Diet.

So if you leave out the nutrition score, which is debatable, you're left with some very specific scores that can be measured objectively. And the fact remains that WW is much easier to maintain than Atkins, and with similar weight loss success. Slim-Fast and Ornish give better weight loss results, but are almost impossible to maintain in the long run.

In the end, though, it's a matter of what works for you. But I think it is very unfair to scoff at WW because many people have lasting success with it, whether you like it or not.

[mcsblues]

As you can see, Slim-Fast has a terrible drop-out rate, and Atkins isn't too good in that area either, which I believe is totally accurate. So many people try Atkins for a short while but find it too restrictive, so they either give it up, do "modified Atkins" (which spells failure for a lot of people because they don't quite understand what makes the diet work), or find something easier to maintain, such as the South Beach Diet.

So if you leave out the nutrition score, which is debatable, you're left with some very specific scores that can be measured objectively. And the fact remains that WW is much easier to maintain than Atkins, and with similar weight loss success. Slim-Fast and Ornish give better weight loss results, but are almost impossible to maintain in the long run.

In the end, though, it's a matter of what works for you. But I think it is very unfair to scoff at WW because many people have lasting success with it, whether you like it or not.

OK, lets just ignore that they base their nutrition analysis on an agricultural industry lobby group generated pyramid.

Where are the "independent clinical studies" that these supposedly independant reports are based on? I have yet to read a published clinical trial which doesn't show a higher drop out rate for low fat dieters. Do WW allow independant analysis of their success/failure/drop out rate? Of course not. So where does this "fact" that WW is easier to maintain on than low carb come from? Setting aside my personal experience of the unsustainability of a low fat diet, and the low carb science which explains why this is so - I would need to see some real evidence of these studies (surely they would be published?) and their scientific statistical analysis before I gave this report any credibility whatsoever.

Cheers,

Malcolm

[KimNWI]

Just have a comment to make. I am a life dieter person lol I have been attempting them for years so i have tried ALOT of different kinds. Slim Fast was odd and I have tried it a few times. I always lost like 10 pounds in the first week. Then second week I was STARVING so much even though I ate the bars, drank the shakes and everything I was sooo hungry that I wasnt able to stick long term. Weight Watchers I have also along with Healty Choice type stuff I loved the support groups that went along with WW but after the first elation of losing the water I was SOOO HUNGRY all the time.

Cheers to everyone who can stick to those programs but I struggled like a mad woman and there is no way I could do them long term.

With Atkins I am not hungry and it will be week 3 for me starting tommorrow :) thats the whole reason I think it can be my WOL cause I dont feel the urge to keep eating. I went through a couple days when I started my exercise plan of being more hungry but I just gave myself a bigger portion of meat and now I am satisfied again.

I think I was addicted to bread. I still think about it sometimes especially when I am making my son a sandwich but the temptation is waning.

That and the expense of those plans. Slim-Fast and WW almost killed me money wise cause I live on a tight budget there is no way I could keep affording all that stuff long term.

I know this plan is the one for me and this forum is here 24/7 alot more encouraging than my meetings with WW. At least for me.

just my 35 cents worth.

KimNWI

[wirlwind]

One of the reasons why the LC WOL is the only thing that I have ever had success with is that I am addicted to carbs. If I eat one chip- I will eat the whole bag. I panic at the thought of not doing it. I will even wake up in the middle of the night and eat them. And then it is a bag of potato or tortilla chips every day. I lose very little even on LC, but if I don't stick to it, I just keep on gaining. It is better for me just to leave them alone. With carbs, I can't moderate. My whole life has been one of living in excess- excess carbs, jewelry, perfume, shoes, clothes etc.,etc. I have got to learn to live in moderation in everything, and maybe then I can moderate food intake.

[catfishghj]

How can they give slim fast a nutritional rating of 5?

[Fhyreworks]

How can they give slim fast a nutritional rating of 5?

Probably because it's "fortified" with all sorts of vitamins (just a guess, I don't know for sure).

Debbie

[Abd]

How can they give slim fast a nutritional rating of 5? My guess is that Slimfast is constructed so that its nutritional analysis exactly matches the relevant guidelines. Even if the guidelines don't take into account all real nutritional needs. So of course it is seen as nutritious: it has x% carb, y% protein, z% fat, and so much of this and that vitamin. Easy to do that, not so easy to construct a truly healthy quick food. Quite probably impossible, and certainly impossible with the present state of nutritional knowledge.