Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301   ^
Old Tue, Jan-09-18, 13:01
bkloots's Avatar
bkloots bkloots is offline
Posts: 8,954
 
Plan: Atkins/LCHF
Stats: 195/155/150 Female 63in
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Kansas City, MO
Default

Quote:
Wow I am surprised at how much hate for Opra and ww is on this thread
Madeyna, I think you're reading a bit too much into these comments. Nobody "hates" Oprah, let alone Weight Watchers.

Plenty of people have succeeded on WW, including Oprah. Some of us just have our doubts that WW is a "sustainable" eating plan--just as many MORE people out there in the world doubt the "sustainability" of low-carb, or any other "diet" for that matter.

We all recognize that celebrity endorsement is a powerful marketing strategy. And I personally believe that Oprah--at least from one moment to the next--sincerely believes in the products and people she endorses. As with the rest of us, sometimes it doesn't work out as well as we hoped.

This thread is in the "war zone" because we all have strong opinions about these things--in line with our dismay that people are being duped or fleeced or, worse, harmed by dieting strategies or drugs or products that don't work--or don't work forever anyway.

One criticism of WW is that it transforms itself over time, and seems to adhere to no fixed principle of weight management. "Anything that works for you, we'll help you do it--and you can pay us!!" Hmmmm. Marketing.

Let's all keep our sense of humor about ourselves and our struggles. Even celebrities are human--and tend to look just like US on their days off screen.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #302   ^
Old Tue, Jan-09-18, 15:16
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 1,052
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by madeyna
Wow I am surprised at how much hate for Opra and ww is on this thread. The program works I have used it in the past and didn,t get a huge repound regain . I did it with friends who also didn,t get fast rebound regain. Unlike atkins where almost everybody I know that goes on it sees a regain of more than they lost much faster than they lost it. Opra may not want to see but she is a carb addict just like a lot of us here. I see her justifying her carbs just like a drug or alcoholic does. Reality is if your any kind of addict that's a process you will probly spend much of your life doing over and over and you convince your self its okay. Hopefully at some point everybody will break that cycle and find something that works for them, all diets work they just don,t all work for everybody. I applaud anyone finding a plan that works for them at their current stage of life. There is nothing wrong that she will make money pushing some thing she believes in. That's what America is all about, if you don,t like it don,t buy it .Pretty simple.

Any derision (I wouldn't call it hate - that's far too strong of a word) I have for WW and Oprah's involvement in it stems purely from the way that they present it as if theirs is really the only logical and lasting way to lose weight: count an assigned number of points (based on their inconsistent way of assigning vastly different amounts of points to an equal number of calories, depending on whether the food contains fat, saturated fat, or no fat at all), then frequently change how many points you're allowed, whether any foods are point-free, and which foods are point-free, so that you're essentially constantly changing diets, even though it's still considered to be the same diet.

One of the things that gets to me is that for all intents and purposes, they're saying "last year we said this is THE BEST DIET EVER, and now we've decided it's not, so we've changed it it, and now it really is THE BEST DIET EVER!" Of course that was the message the year before when they changed the diet, and the year before that when they changed the diet again, and will be the next year, when they will (most likely) change it yet again. I have a problem with how lucrative it is for a company to admit that they were wrong so many times in as many years, simply because they've come up with something new each year, something that ends up not being the best diet ever for so many people. (To put that in perspective, I also have a problem with how meteorologists can still be paid to be wrong in their weather forecasts so much of the time.)

Being so carb sensitive, I know for sure that past versions of WW wouldn't have worked well for me, because there was far too much emphasis on carbs to fill you up, and pressure to reduce fat cals to the point where I would have felt no satiation at all (due to the way that fat cals are assigned a higher point count than carb cals). Sure, for whatever amount of time I could have white knuckled my way through it, I would have lost, but as often as I've tried to cut cals and fats in the past, I know that I always reach a breaking point, and when I do, the rebound weight gain is very fast, and usually far more than I initially lost. A lot of people are like that, and it's not a lack of willpower - it takes extreme willpower to make it through even a few months feeling like that before you reach a breaking point.

As I said before though, I think at least in this newest incarnation, it would be possible to do a LC version of WW, now that they have so many free protein sources, as long as you spent every one of your points for fats. For those who are like me (very carb sensitive), they'd still need to keep track of their carbs though, to make sure they stayed LC - the truly carb sensitive couldn't just eat freely from the entire free food list and expect it to work, because the more corn, beans, and legumes, the more insulin reaction they would have, and the more carby free foods they'd want to eat, to the point that they could end up gaining weight instead of losing.

Honestly, if LC was set up in such a way that everyone was expected to eat one specific level of carb consumption, or if my carb allowance was based purely on my weight/age/activity level, I would rebel at that too.

I've seen people do OK on WW, but the vast majority of them seem to give up on it after a couple of months (if they last that long). Those are the ones who white knuckled it through their time on the diet, mainly because with the diet being geared towards LF they were eating far more carbs than their specific body could handle, since the diet says that no food is off limits, just stay within your points... but they couldn't stay within their points, because eating the way the diet allows set off such intense cravings that they couldn't control them, so they reached a breaking point, and went off the rails. When people who don't have problems with carbs, and are doing fine with the point limits reiterate that no food is off limits, just stay within your points, then all the blame lands on you for not being able to stick to the diet. More shame, guilt and diet failure for people who don't understand that for them, it's not all about the calories - there's intense cravings and hunger set off by your body's insulin reaction to the LF diet that's higher in carbs than your body can handle.

I fully acknowledge that it's not like that for everyone, but I hate that so much of what is considered gospel in the diet and nutrition world declares that it's always all about cutting fat and calories to lose weight - it simply doesn't work like that for some of us. It just becomes a prescription for being miserable for a few months with very little weight loss to show for it, before you finally reach your breaking point, go off the rails, and regain twice what little you lost during those few months.

Of course, people who go off their diet regain, including in the LC world. No matter how you lost the weight, you can't expect to go off your diet, return to your old eating habits, and somehow magically maintain your weight loss. It isn't going to happen. If you want to maintain your losses, you need to find a diet you can stick with for life - The question is which way can you sustain eating for life? For those of us who are long time LCers, the answer is going to be LC. For those who don't have the metabolic problems related to a LFHC diet, it might be sticking to a WW style diet based purely on calories and keeping fat intake low.
Reply With Quote
  #303   ^
Old Tue, Jan-09-18, 18:24
JLx's Avatar
JLx JLx is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,832
 
Plan: IF
Stats: 207/215/257 Female 66
BF:High wt, 276, 255
Progress: 16%
Location: Michigan U.P., USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barb712

I can't stand Oprah Winfrey but must say she's the perfect Pied Piper of yo-yo dieting. I secretly wish for her to blow up like a balloon while pu$hing product. The infuriating thing is people won't care.


Don't you mean not so secretly?

There are plenty of lc-followers guilty of losing/gaining/losing.

I suspect Oprah has found something that works for her and I'm happy to see her keep the pounds off as we all know how she's struggled through the years.

Quote:
I blurted out, “she’s fatter than I am! Why is she selling a weight loss product?”


I thought she looked great at the Golden Globes. She strikes me as a person who is maybe meant to have a body type some pounds over the Hollywood ideal. I know at one time she was following the ideas of Geneen Roth about making peace with food, not necessarily being as thin as possible. I wish her all the best and for people following the SAD enough to keep gaining weight, as many do, WW is a better, healthier alternative, imo.
Reply With Quote
  #304   ^
Old Mon, Jan-29-18, 15:01
Merpig's Avatar
Merpig Merpig is offline
Posts: 6,131
 
Plan: IF/Fung IDM/Potato Hack?
Stats: 375/272.6/175 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 51%
Location: NE Florida
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLx
I thought she looked great at the Golden Globes. She strikes me as a person who is maybe meant to have a body type some pounds over the Hollywood ideal. I know at one time she was following the ideas of Geneen Roth about making peace with food, not necessarily being as thin as possible.
I didn't see the Golden Globes, nor have a seen any photos of Oprah lately. Well I think I saw a copy of O magazine in the supermarket checkout line lately and thinking that Oprah looked quite good on the cover. But of course can one trust any magazine cover with all their airbrushing and Photoshop manipulation? And don't forget that they say photos and TV/movies add pounds to how you actually look. If we happened to meet Oprah IRL she might look pretty good. And don't forget that we have our own LC "gurus" who are hardly skinny either. Can I say Jimmy Moore? Or can I say ME? Not that I'm a "guru" but despite keeping 100 pounds off for many years on LC I'm still stalled at the same heavy weight I've always stalled at over the last 25 years or more.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 17:50.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.