'Several people have already chimed in and said that there was no level of calories that caused them to lose weight, or that there was such a level but that it was a starvation level that caused other problems like fainting. '
Then WW is the wrong place for them to be. Any time, not eating causes you to faint, eat something. Any time, NO LEVEL of calories causes you to lose weight, you are ready to be studied and enshrined in the annals of medical history, highlighted on the pages of NEJM as a walking medical miracle.
'Long term calorie restriction seems to be associated with worsening fat problems, not improving'
Actually, long-term calorie restriction prolongs life and improves health. And is associated with alleviating fat problems, not worsening them. Long-term calorie restriction is a way of life for a group of people who wish to live into their nineties or even reach a hundred. The benefits of long-term calorie restriction are matched by Intermittent Fasting. I Intermittent Fast and I can attest that it pulled my blood chemistry results into line. My doctor has really no problem with Intermittent Fasting for this reason - although the standard recommendation is to eat a good breakfast, blah, blah, blah!
'If people keep "losing focus" on WW, don't you think that may have something to do with their bodies fighting the diet they are forcing on it? LC diets have better compliance than low fat or low calorie because our bodies are actually getting what they need.'
People lose focus low-carbing. They lose focus on any diet. I can tell you that I lose focus low-carbing myself. I lose focus when I do the WW diet. The strength of WW is in the accountability and the support; otherwise, it's just a common-sense diet that tells you to watch what you put in your mouth and realize its consequences - like any other diet, including low-carbing.
I eagerly await the day when somebody thinks to organize low-carbing the way WW has organized its support and guidance. Go every week to weigh-in while you are low-carbing. Listen to other people and share experiences. Discuss obstacles. Celebrate accomplishment. The environment is RIPE for such an organization to specialize in low-carb dieting.
'MM, you have said that when you tried a VLC diet you craved carbohydrates too much.'
I was one of the people who dieted with Atkins when his book first came out years ago. Since then, I've gone VLC several times, including when I first joined this board and didn't really try incorporating carbs into a low-carb diet. This made my diet VLC. I always have had the same experience of not feeliing well when I VLC. And I think my craving for carbohydrates may be psychological as well as physical: I simply can't imagine a life in which there is no ratatouille, no Muscle Milk (it has carbs), no deep-fried oysters, ... I could go on and on.
So, incorporate those things into your diet (I do, by the way), just make sure it's a tiny portion of what you eat and make the rest overwhelmingly No-carb.... there, you have a diet, and it's basic idea is the same as WW. Watch what you eat and be accountable for the consequences of what you eat.
The difference is - I have not had any conflicts with WW because I low-carb, as far as what WW requires of me: I weigh in on a scale I trust, I listen to basic behavioral strategies for dealing with temptations (I have 'em) and the talks could apply to any habit and its management. The only thing that WW does not do is tell me to go to the Y and work out. They do tell people to get up and move, as in walking. It's healthy to move your body... that's about as radical as it gets for WW.
'I resent your statement that people with restrictive diets lose weight because they are sick of their food and don't eat. It's counter to my experience and that of others I know.'
I'm sorry you have that resentment. It is exactly my experience and what I observe in others, and what I observe in diets. I often quote an obscure little book from years ago, called 'The Dieter's Dilemma' by William Bennet. After studying dieting and diets, starvation and calorie restriction, he came up with a few points about diets and that was one of them. I believe it. You don't have to.
'My diet is successful because I finally have control of carbohydrates, not because I'm unwilling to eat on the plan I set for myself.'
I'm glad your diet is successful and I'll take your word for WHY you think it is successful.
'OTOH, when my carb allowance was higher, it kept my cravings alive and I would keep "losing focus", as it were.'
As I've said, there are certain carbs I will never be able to eat, the way an alcoholic can't just have one drink - pizza is one. It's been a long, long time that I have not had a plate of pasta. I won't go to Chinese restaurants, or Japanese restaurants (a cuisine that I do love) or to Italian restaurants if I can possibly have a choice in the matter. No Indian restaurants, no Mexican restaurants. In that respect, WW wins hands down in the flexibility category; you can eat any where you want and any food you want. In that sense, the successful WW dieter has much more freedom and much less restriciton.
WW allows me to focus on my weight in a supportive atmosphere. I don't weigh myself every day; I trust the scale at WW and take what it gives me once a week. So, as far as 'losing focus' goes, WW keeps me on track.
When I go to weigh-in, by the way, the person at the scale asks me, 'Are you going to be staying for the meeting?' She's gettting a number for the size of the meeting because the leaders have that data for their work (it is work). I don't have to go to the meeting, no one encourages you or tries to sell you on the meeting. You can simply weigh in if you want and even talk to the leader privately and not go to the meeting. I always choose to go to the meeting. I never regret attending.
|