What I object to here is the implication that restricting calories to some level is just going to work for anyone.

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.

Long term calorie restriction seems to be associated with worsening fat problems, not improving, and moreover, we now know that fat loss is under hormonal control, which is in part effected by carbohydrate intake, so just lowering calories may not help at all.

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.

MM, you have said that when you tried a VLC diet you craved carbohydrates too much. How long did you try? Did you remove artificial sweeteners, which can also cause cravings? I have heard some people say they did not like VLC, but never heard anyone say they continued to crave carbohydrates after a couple of weeks. I'm not saying I don't believe your experience, but wondering if something else is going on.
ETA: Actually, I *have* heard people say this, and I'm even one of them. But I've never heard someone who cut *all* carbohydrates to continue to crave. Maybe you haven't tried low enough carbs?

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 can eat thousands of calories of just fatty meat and lose weight, and so can others. 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. OTOH, when my carb allowance was higher, it kept my cravings alive and I would keep "losing focus", as it were.

'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.

Mathmaniac, I think many of us have been where you are - really evangelical about a woe or slimming club. I'm sure that many here are evangelical about lc and get people arguing with them.

You have to learn what works for you, and if WW is working for you, and you don't mind spending money then that's your choice, at the moment we're not going to convince you otherwise, and as we've been there and done that, you're not going to convince us WW is good and altruistic.

A few points, I purchased dandr soon after it came out and I was happy to pay £5, its a bit strange that you would attack that when you spend a similar amount weekly for WW - you spend your money the way you want, I'll spend mine the way I want.

The person weighing you in doesn't mind if you stay or not you've already paid. I doubt Weight Watchers executives sit around in meetings working out more effective weight loss strategies as their primary goal, they work out strategies to increase profits.

On this site people share experience, thoughts, opinions in order to assist others in working out their own woe. I know if someone shares their own experiences with me, it can help inform me as multiple perspectives gives more information than one perspective, even if all it leads me to say is, thanks, but that won't work for me.

I've shared some of my experience and thoughts of slimming groups with you. You have shared your experience with me - thank you for sharing your positive experience. Slimming groups aren't for me, I believe they don't have my best interests at heart, the group setting for me wasn't supportive, I resented the excessive fee and the diet they promote does not work for me.

Lee

'I doubt Weight Watchers executives sit around in meetings working out more effective weight loss strategies as their primary goal, they work out strategies to increase profits.'

I think they do both. I'd be disappointed if they didn't do both. Weight Watchers is a publicly owned (traded) company: WTW on the NY Stock Exchange! If I was a shareholder, I would absolutely demand it. I own stock in a fast food company.

'you're not going to convince us WW is good and altruistic.'
I think WW is good. I have never even used the word 'altruistic' to describe the organization. None of the low-carb plans or diets I've encountered have been that - they gained popularity as their authors sold their books. I have 'The Hamptons Diet' sitting in my book pile right now. The author's twist on low-carbing: macadamia nut oil. Well, if it works for his patients, good on them!

My point about buying a low-carb diet book is that there are so many of them, varying not a whole lot, and you can buy them very inexpensively at a used book sale. I paid full price for my Atkins diet book, it was that long ago.


'Slimming groups aren't for me, I believe they don't have my best interests at heart, the group setting for me wasn't supportive, I resented the excessive fee and the diet they promote does not work for me.'

And no one would argue that what works for you isn't fine for you. What doesn't work for you does not work for you. You have resentment, sure, but I don't think you would actively discourage people or criticize the diet that they feel comfortable with. Right?

I low-carb (it ends up being *not* VLC but more like lower-carb, low-glycemic carb in my case). And I go to WW. For some reason, although I say those two things are compatible and in my experience have not conflicted at all, I have ended up having to defend that. It's just silly to have to do so. At some point, I have to wonder why people attack WW and the defense of WW (truly surprising because it IS so successful for so many people, just not every single person).

You wouldn't want the same to be done to you about a diet or WOE or even your membership in any organization!

People attack ww and other such groups because of their own personal experience. My experience was negative. Yours is positive. As I said before its important to find support where you can - you've found a group that you find supportive.

Just remember, I'm not criticising you, I'm criticising ww. Just the same as I may say that I didn't like a film you were going to see or a dvd you purchased, I wouldn't be criticising you or your choice just giving my opinion on the film. You may love the film that I hated. You get something out of ww, I don't. Everyone is different, what works for one, doesn't work for another.

I don't mind people questionning or criticising any woe or group or belief that I have. I welcome debate. I have an open mind and respect other people's right to hold an opinion in opposition to my own, whatever the subject even if I disagree. I have had spirited debates with vegetarian friends, about LC woe ( and many other things) we still don't agree, but that's ok.

Good luck on your lc/ww journey.

Lee

Leemack,

Thanks for not criticizing me! I don't regard WW as evil. I do low carb (and I Intermittent Fast) and I HAVE quit WW in the past. I've also gained and lost and gained and lost with WW, as I have with low-carbing.

I guess that I'm developing a reputation - if anyone has a beef with WW, I'm your go-to person. You tell me what you hated about your experience and I'll tell you that it's different for me. Because I go to it now and my experience has been different.

However, I do remember the old days of public weigh-ins. The meetings are all about the leader and the group; I don't like sitting in a meeting where people talk about how to change a dessert recipe. There is a leader at my location who is very popular but I don't enjoy her style. The good thing is that there's choice about groups and leaders.

So, I'll keep going, thanks. I have no trouble combining WW and LC.

I had hoped that by posting a link to the Medscape article readers here and here those who are successfully using a low carbohydrate strategy to achieve and maintain weight loss, would make the effort to make constructive replies at Medscape to help the doctors reading the Medscape editorial see there is a viable alternative to the Just Stop Eating message which the experience of those doctors recommending it shows doesn't work in practice.

Rather than simply blaming the patients I believe we should examine the evidence and consider whether it is consumption of excess refined carbohydrate in combination with excess inflammatory omega 6 by people with low anti inflammatory status that is causing the problem.

If we look at the per capita increase in principle foods we should be able to identify the major suspects.

It's reasonable to question whether the increase in the amount of chicken consumed is a contributory factor?

What is there about the way modern poultry is raised that makes modern poultry inflammatory?

Perhaps Stephan has the answer

We also can see that consumption of flour and cereal products, Caloric Sweeteners and Salad and cooking oils have increased significantly.

Is the underlying reason for the increase in consumption of these foods driven by the fact they are heavily subsidized and therefore very cheap.

The doctors at Medscape are right to suggest excessive calorie intake is contributing to obesity.

Back in 1961 daily USA calorie consumption was 2,882.5 calories daily by 2003 it was USA, 3754

The question is WHY do people now feel the need to eat more?

Is it possible that high omega 6 intake by displacing omega 3 from it's place in the human brain is reducing our ability to control our intake of substances we know to be harmful to our health?

We would not suggest to alcoholics the way to stop addiction is JUST DRINK LESS but doctors advise diabetics and those with heart disease to just eat less of the very substances that promote and sustain the addiction and inflammation.

I'm disappointed in both threads the discussion has concentrated on matters that are not strictly related to the value of low carbohydrate eating as a way to control weight gain. I would welcome some constructive on topic replies at medscape that support the approach I've been suggesting. I don't believe however good WW may be for some, that care home provides should be simply providing a weekly WW meeting.

I think improving the quality of the food provided so it is less inflammatory and containing fewer refined carbs or caloric sweeteners may be more successful.

'We would not suggest to alcoholics the way to stop addiction is JUST DRINK LESS but doctors advise diabetics and those with heart disease to just eat less'

Ahhh. If eating were only like drinking alcohol. Then you could say, 'Just stop eating' ! But people have to eat! People don't HAVE to drink alcohol.

But do we have to eat those foods that sustain addiction and are inflammatory?

Some of us are able to eat low carb AND not require weekly brainwashing or counselling to continue to avoid those foods we know cause fat storage and unnecessary inflammation. I don't count carbs and I don't count calories. I just avoid wheat, refined carbs and omega 6 seed oils but the reason I find that easy is because I have a high anti inflammatory status. High omega 3, High vitamin D, high magnesium.

'But do we have to eat those foods that sustain addiction and are inflammatory?'

No, we don't HAVE to. But that's what freedom of choice is all about.

'Some of us are able to eat low carb AND not require weekly brainwashing or counselling to continue to avoid those foods we know cause fat storage and unnecessary inflammation.'

Motivational talks aren't 'brainwashing', necessarily. For me, they are just motivational talks and have never interfered with my low-carbing. I also like the supportive atmosphere of the group and I really like the leader.

I eat more fish, take fish oil capsules, cod liver oil, vitamin D, calcium and magnesium. That doesn't interfere with the other things I do - low-carbing and WW.

But if you were a patient in one of Dr Beene's residential facilities would you have that choice?
If All the foods provided in those residential care facilities are high carb high omega 6 is it not reasonable to expect that the residents will eat them? and unreasonable to put the onus on them to refuse seconds when offered?

My point is that the blame for the existence of seconds lies with the institution. The blame for the high omega 6 status of the foods provided lies with the institution. The blame for the high preponderance of refined carbs lies with Dr Beene.
It is wrong to blame the patients for eating the only food Dr Beene provides.

You are free to make whatever choices you think appropriate. I think the ideal education for an individual should enable them to make food choices that do NOT require weekly additional support or guidance.

But do you think the residents of most residential care homes also have the chance to do the same?

Whose responsibility is it, given these are mainly ex patients from psychiatric units, to ensure they are not vitamin D3, Omega 3 and magnesium deficient?

My view is that the health care providers like Dr Beene, should be aware that 25(OH)D levels in residential care homes are always deficient, omega 3 and magnesium status is generally also below the recommended daily amounts.

The answer isn't IMO to require the patients to attend a weekly WW session., IMO the responsibility lies with Dr Beene to ensure the food served in the adult residential facilities she is responsible for is not pro inflammatory, is not provided in excessive quantities and does not cause those who consume it to become addicted to it.

If you know the food you serve is going to lead to excessive acidity is it not your responsibility to provide an alkaline source of mineral water to counter the acidic nature of the food you have provided?

Telling the patients to stop eating the very food you've provided is simply outrageous as would be requiring them to attend WW weekly. The answer to excess acidity is more alkalinity the answer to more inflammation is more anti inflammatory agents. Pretending you can ignore or talk you way to resolving excess inflammation or excess acidity is not going to be effective in the long run.

I guess I'm missing something here: Who is Beene and what are her facilities?

My FIL was in an assisted living facility that served residents what probably could be judged a high omega-6 diet. The residents had Alzheimer's, didn't eat much on the best of days, being elderly, and really wouldn't eat something that didn't remind them of what they liked in their 'previous lives.'

I've also volunteered at my kids' school lunch rooms and I've seen that kids will pick and choose exactly what they want to eat. In that sense, they are like the elderly. The rest goes in the trash.

Any kind of institution serving food is a special case - people will walk out or just not eat.

'I think the ideal education for an individual should enable them to make food choices that do NOT require weekly additional support or guidance.'
'Ideal' is not the word I would use. WW doesn't require weekly attendance at meetings. But, because humans are social beings, WW serves a need.

'the responsibility lies with Dr Beene to ensure the food served in the adult residential facilities she is responsible for is not pro inflammatory, is not provided in excessive quantities and does not cause those who consume it to become addicted to it.'

I'm sure there are residential facilities that serve the diet YOU would like. All you have to do is find them. If they don't exist, there may be a reason worth investigating.

Perhaps if you went back to the first post in this thread and read that and the comments that have been posted to the editorial at medscape it's possible you will see how off topic your contributions to this thread have been..

LOL... exactly.

The whole issue is that "just eat less" is a lie. Just eat less and you will lose weight, just eat less and your heart will stay healthy, just eat less and you wont get cancer, etc...etc...etc...

The truth is "the foods you have been told to eat in by the government, in newspapers, in magazines and on the news are making you fat and sick".

So if you know the truth, the logical answer is to not eat the foods that make you sick. The logical answer is NOT sign up for a support group (and pay for the privilege) to help you figure out how to continue to eat things that make you fat and sick without showing it on the outside while it still ravages your insides.

Hutchinson, you prompted me to go back to the beginning of this thread.

I read, again, the editorial by Dr. Lundberg.

The quote, on this thread, starting with 'We all know...' and ending with 'That's my opinion. I'm Dr. George Lundberg....' is the editorial, all of it, that appears on Medpagetoday.com.

My discussion of WW has consisted of responding to statements about WW that don't match my experience in the organization today. I stated what I think is the underlying idea behind WW; it happens to jibe with Dr. Lundberg's idea.

Your comment - that you related here to Dr. Jackie Beene's comment - is interesting (you have to read the comments to know who Dr. Beene is). But it is not the editorial.

If I am 'off-topic, ' then that is due to my response to the editorial being about the editorial. I did not respond to your reference to a Science Daily article about omega-6s and your relating it to Dr. Jackie Beene and her work.

Was the topic supposed to be about you and your opinion of Dr. Jackie Beene? I didn't get that memo, sorry!