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
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Tue, Nov-02-10, 12:38
Ilikemice's Avatar
Ilikemice Ilikemice is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 730
 
Plan: Paleo-ish general LC
Stats: 151/119/118 Female 64 in
BF:
Progress: 97%
Location: Middle Tennessee
Default Weight Watchers Point System revamped

Article from UK grocery trade mag, I think. The system will be called something else in the US. Reason for the change is "science has moved on". From the framework/little bit of info given, however, it does not seem to acknowledge LC science - Fruit to have 0 points?!

http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/articles...icles&ID=213573
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Tue, Nov-02-10, 19:45
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
science has moved on

Yeah hum, you remember everything we said about diet and weight? Well we were wrong. Sorry. But now we're telling the truth so you should trust us this time. Please disregard the fact that we still use the same old system. After all, it works: You're back.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Wed, Nov-03-10, 05:31
gwynne2's Avatar
gwynne2 gwynne2 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,700
 
Plan: Lowcarb/IF
Stats: 215/173.9/150 Female 5.5"
BF:
Progress: 63%
Default

Article is confusing. The article spin seems to be talking up the inclusion of junk food and alcohol in the points accounting system (not shocking, nice way to sell a diet), and they say some mumbo jumbo about calories but don't really explain why the new system will work better.

Meanwhile, a serving of bacon now costs fewer points, but a chicken breast costs more.

You can eat unlimited bananas, apparently.

Yeah, this should work well.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Wed, Nov-03-10, 06:10
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Every moment is NOW.
Posts: 23,064
 
Plan: LC (ketogenic)
Stats: 520/381/280 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 58%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

I LIKE the 'science has moved on' theory and I wish the various medical associations in the US would use that excuse and join the modern science world as a result.

Unfortunately, adding junk food and making meats cost more and fruits cost less in a daily budget of food hardly seems like an improvement.

PJ
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Wed, Nov-03-10, 06:58
renegadiab renegadiab is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 475
 
Plan: Schwarzbein/Bernstein
Stats: 355/240/200 Male 69 inches
BF:
Progress: 74%
Default

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



The best nutritional pseudo-science, that is.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Wed, Nov-03-10, 07:31
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Every moment is NOW.
Posts: 23,064
 
Plan: LC (ketogenic)
Stats: 520/381/280 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 58%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

This is probably why fruits are good and meats are bad: it appears to be geared against calories and fats. Their "new" formula may replace this of course but it sounds like it is more extreme not less.

Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Wed, Nov-03-10, 08:04
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rightnow
This is probably why fruits are good and meats are bad: it appears to be geared against calories and fats. Their "new" formula may replace this of course but it sounds like it is more extreme not less.


ROTFLMFAO!

My formula is much more simpler than that. It goes like this: Eat when hungry, get a life.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Wed, Nov-03-10, 08:06
bobiam bobiam is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 886
 
Plan: NANY
Stats: 503/405/175 Male 72 inches
BF:plenty :)
Progress: 30%
Location: Northern Illinois
Default

There are a lot of people that WW works pretty well for. If they have found a tweak that improves their system, who am I to criticize it?
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Wed, Nov-03-10, 10:45
mathmaniac mathmaniac is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 6,639
 
Plan: Wingin' it.
Stats: 257/240.0/130 Female 65 inches
BF:yes!
Progress: 13%
Location: U.S.A.
Smile

WW will continue to do well, as they have done in the past.

They've changed and 'tweaked' the plan many times over the years.

I look forward to this week's meeting because there will probably be information about this latest 'tweak'!
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Wed, Nov-03-10, 23:01
Wifezilla's Avatar
Wifezilla Wifezilla is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,367
 
Plan: I'm a Barry Girl
Stats: 250/208/190 Female 72
BF:
Progress: 70%
Location: Colorado
Default

WW led to my mom ending up with gall bladder disease. I despise and loath WW. Mom used to go to meetings and then make the family follow the crap she learned at her meetings.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Thu, Nov-04-10, 00:09
GlendaRC's Avatar
GlendaRC GlendaRC is offline
Posts: 8,787
 
Plan: Atkins maintenance
Stats: 170/120/130 Female 65 inches & shrinking
BF:
Progress: 125%
Location: Victoria, BC Canada
Default

Wife, I'm sorry your mom had a bad result from following WW. I have a few friends who have been very successful, so if that's what people want to follow, I don't argue with them...I just wish them luck. Having said that, it's certainly not for me. I couldn't follow any WOE that won't let me eat to hunger, especially after knowing this way!
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Thu, Nov-04-10, 11:57
Wifezilla's Avatar
Wifezilla Wifezilla is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,367
 
Plan: I'm a Barry Girl
Stats: 250/208/190 Female 72
BF:
Progress: 70%
Location: Colorado
Default

I don't have a "whatever works for you" attitude. If it isn't based on sound science and health, it's crap. The fact that some people do not show damage as quickly as others, or can heal faster, does NOT make a weightloss method OK. I know someone who lost weight taking a lot of speed. People lost weight on Kimkins too. Doesn't make it smart or healthy.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Sat, Nov-06-10, 02:48
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,664
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default

From today's edition of the Daily Telegraph:

Quote:
November 6, 2010

Weightwatchers: they're fat – not fat-headed

Being fat does not mean having mayonnaise for brains. Yet WeightWatchers clearly thinks this is the case.


By Rose Prince

This week it launched its ''revolutionary'' ProPoints plan and its representatives took to the airwaves to proclaim it a breakthrough based on recent research. Even Little Britain's Marjorie Dawes, the doyenne of Fatfighters, couldn't have drawn in gullible dieters more effectively.

But what exactly is new about it? It seems to me that WW has simply refried and repackaged the tried and tested GI (glycaemic index) regime, that was developed by Dr David Jenkins and colleagues at the University of Toronto in 1980 in the course of research into diabetes. They calculated that slow-burning low GI foods release glucose into the body slowly and steadily, staving off hunger.

Let me say that the GI diet certainly works, but it is the least commercial of regimes – and by far the most sensible. It eschews refined carbohydrate, the larder's most addictive ingredient, and advocates eating the wholefoods that human beings were designed to take their energy from.

Cutting out bad carbs and eating good, slow-burning ones (pulses, fruit, vegetables) along with lean protein quells the hunger pangs, and that's – er – about it. But no. WeightWatchers wants to enslave you to its membership so it can repeat this, week in week out, and bait you into buying special ''Points'' calculators, a "filling foods highlighter pen" at £1.50 (enlighten me, please?) pedometers, low-fat fish and chips – OK I made the last one up…

I am a WeightWatchers fugitive, escaping its clutches after a four-month membership. I had joined about five years after my children were born, having ballooned on eating teatime leftovers in conjunction with a job that involved frequent food and wine forays.

Our weekly meetings in a primary school hall were unintentionally comic, due mostly to the size of the chairs – you needed two, one for each cheek, so to speak. At the end of the weighing session and a lecture about the blessed Points, we sat spread across our many chairs to 'fess up the previous days' tumbles from the wagon. Trouble is that even in the most earnest solemnities, people are very funny.

Our catastrophes ranged from inexplicable failures of self-navigation such as walking into bakeries and chip shops, not past them; and choosing foie gras off a menu, although we couldn't find it in the Points calculator, to remembering, half way through a pain au chocolat, that we were on a diet.

This was the human side of being in a diet club – and our helpless church giggling only served as a reminder of the misery of our enforced deprivation. And that's the point. Unless we feel full – which I never did on the low-calorie philosophy of the previous WW plan – we are unhappy. And what do most of us want when we are unhappy? For me, it's straight to the trough.

It wasn't until three years after giving up my membership, that I saw the light and changed the way I ate after hearing about the GI diet and adapting it to suit.

I consumed a seed-packed muesli each morning, ate lots of good carbs such as lentils, and potatoes only with their skins on. I had meat, fish, eggs, and toast once a week, and I drank less wine. But I put butter on my vegetables, drank full-fat milk and yoghurt. I learnt the simple lesson that sugar is an addictive drug, but when it is not in your system, the cravings for it are not physical and therefore easier to bat away. I lost 2½ stone and it has mostly stayed off. Regular exercise, of course, plays its part.

Yet 30 years after the GI diet was introduced to the world, we have WeightWatchers talking about innovation, and discovery.

Come off it. I would argue that WeightWatchers have come to this conclusion having witnessed tens of thousands of people losing weight through the GI philosophy.

There is nothing fundamentally new about this latest plan, it's just an overprocessed salad dressing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodandd...fat-headed.html
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Sat, Nov-06-10, 10:19
mathmaniac mathmaniac is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 6,639
 
Plan: Wingin' it.
Stats: 257/240.0/130 Female 65 inches
BF:yes!
Progress: 13%
Location: U.S.A.
Smile

Is this U.K. WW the same new plan as the one being introduced in the U.S.?

I went to WW this week and heard that we will get all the information about the new plan after Thanksgiving. In the meantime, we are discussing topics that will make the new plan easier to appreciate - and the topics we've discussed have to do with metabolism.

Exercise, for instance. About 5 years ago, WW started talking about exercise a lot and they eventually incorporated it into their program. I was happy because I thought it was WAY overdue. I'm wondering how they can change the emphasis on exercise when the emphasis has been there for the last 5 years. WW took simple exercises people can do at home and put them on a DVD, encouraged walking, helped get members interested in local walk-for-'whatever' fundraising efforts, etc. Since a lot of people don't like to exercise alone, this has been all good. In fact, every meeting I go to has someone reporting a positive change in their life because of increased walking or exercise.

If they make fruits and vegetables free, I will be thrilled. Sure, there will be low-glycemic selections that are free, and that is fine with me. There has NEVER been anything new about WW, which is why I find the tone of the article from the Telegraph so puzzling. WW has always been conservative but constantly reinforcing the idea that a diet is effective if you follow it. If you don't, it's not effective.

I am not surprised they will emphasize protein; it's always been there. Fiber - it was highlighted in the diet a few years ago. So they change. Life changes, people change - there was an intimation at the last meeting that the new plan will take into account a person's sex and age. It does make a difference if you are over a certain age and post-menopausal, or if you are 20-30 years old and female, as so many at my meetings are. There are men there but they all seem to be over 30. The new plan will take these things into account, I just don't know how.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Sat, Nov-06-10, 10:21
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Every moment is NOW.
Posts: 23,064
 
Plan: LC (ketogenic)
Stats: 520/381/280 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 58%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

Quote:
Our weekly meetings in a primary school hall were unintentionally comic, due mostly to the size of the chairs – you needed two, one for each cheek, so to speak.


Now that's a hilarious 'marketing strategy' LOL!!

PJ
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 06:44.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.