Werebear,

WW does keep up with science. They are somewhat conservative about incorporating new focus points (I suspect that exercise is going to be highlighted in the new plan) but they do change and refine their methods. This is one of their strengths. It's what makes them very popular with doctors.

One funny thing I noticed is people sue Atkins. WW sues other companies (protecting their trademarked methods and name).

The legal reason why diet companies must say that 'results not typical':

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/weig...=9668078&page=1

Atkins, if they had any kind of advertised diet they advertised, would be required to say exactly the same thing.

Moggsy, here comes a quote. It's from you:

'Companies often even figure out how much it would cost in lawsuits or fines if a product is found to be defective. If it would cost more to recall the products, they often don't have the recall even if the recall would prevent consumer injury or death. It's hard-wired into the essence of corporations. Corporations can provide great services and advances, but ignoring what they are at the core is naive.'

I find that a charming throwback to the 60s - and it's making me nostalgic. But I don't buy your view of business. Oh, come on. It's silly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/dining/03diet.html

I guess what you could learn from Atkins is that making bad business decisions AND not having the popularity and success to bounce back from large debts is a catastrophic combination.

Funny how Agatson made a better business decision and as far as I know, the South Beach brand is making him money. Any other diet doctors lined up to buy shelf space in the supermarket?

MM, I take it that you agree with the calorie hypothesis, and 'eat less, move more'? Also are you doing low carb, low fat, not low carb, high fat?

For me, I couldn't stick to a slimming club, low calorie diet for more than a couple of months. I think therefore that if you only have a small amount to lose, 10-20 lbs then success at losing on a slimming club diet is relatively easy. I also think that most of these people are unlikely to have metabolic disorders or damage that might impede weight loss, therefore maintaining will be easier for them too. But I think there's a difference between people who are losing weight for vanity and those who have to lose much more weight. I think vanity pounders can lose on most diets, and if this is the basis for a diet's success stats then its misleading.

The true test of diet should be how effective is it for weight loss for people who are morbidly obese, do they lose weight, do they maintain. This would test a diet long term. An effective weight loss program is one that can be adhered to long term by someone who has a proper weight problem, and gives good outcomes for health. It should also be based on science.

My personal experience is I can stick to low carb, high fat better than to any other diet plan, it takes away the foods that cause me cravings, and gives me fat to satiate. The times I have 'fallen off' the diet I've been able to get back on quickly and easily.

I've done a few slimming club diets including weight watchers. I never lasted more than a few months and I came off the diet each time because the cravings were so intense I ended up having a huge binge which lasted months. Each time I ended up weighing more than before I started. At each slimming group we were told the plan doesn't fail - we fail. So I felt pretty worthless each time I 'failed'.

I now believe that the plans failed me, and I believe this from the science on the subject.

Lee

Leemack,

Yes, I do believe the 'move more, eat less' mantra of WW. What I find so interesting about the 'science' of low-carbing is that more protein makes people eat less. It is my opinion that is what makes changing macronutrient ratios work for some people. I know that watching those ratios works for me. But it is not my opinion that low-carb diets = lower calorie diets. It's actually data in the studies.

I don't think low-carbing has any more 'science' to it than what has always been known.

(But if you want to pick and choose 'science,' then start here: http://www.cspinet.org/nah/11_02/bigfatlies.pdf)

My diet is - a pie chart divided into three, according to calories: protein, carbs and fat. Thank you, fitday. And watching the limit of calories - when I go below 2000, I lose weight. It's magic! It's science! Again, thank you, fitday. I weigh once a week, thank you, WW! And I track my food, thank you, fitday!

Whatever works. And makes you feel good. Knock on wood, I'm healthy.

But, you know, if I developed breast cancer, I wouldn't blame carbs. If I develop gall bladder disease, I won't blame fats - or low-fat - or WW - or that time I didn't drink enough water. If I have a heart attack, I won't say that WW 'failed me.' But that's just me.

This statement by fat fu prompted another look at the 'arbitrary' (her words) number of 5 % as a measure of 'weight loss success.'

''When weight loss failure numbers are presented (generally 80-95% failure) “success” doesn’t mean achieving “normal weight” – let alone permanently. It means the ability to keep off some very modest amount that a given researcher (usually with a vested interest in the weight loss strategy) has arbitrarily defined as ”weight loss success.” Typically 5-10% weight loss maintained anywhere from 1 to 5 years.''

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...rch&querykey=53

5% -That's the minimum required in this study of severely obese women to change their adipocyte physiology. Nothing arbitrary about it.

Well, I guess I officially "qualify" for inclusion the the NWLR, even though I am not at goal weight. But I have lost over 30 pounds and kept it off for over a year. That's because I started at 372 pounds in February 2006, and had lost 30 pounds by May of 2006 - and since then have just continued to slowly lose more and more.

I should try to sign up for them and see how they have changed over the years. I know the first time I low-carbed (back in the 1997-2001 time frame) a bunch of people on the old asdlc usenet group were saying that those of us who had lost weight should try to register with the NWLR. But the few who actually tried it said that it was *impossible* to register with the claim that low carb was the way you had lost weight, as the way the questions were worded about how you lost and what you ate, were worded impossibly for a low-carber to be able to answer. All the questions were geared totally towards a low-fat, high-carb, high-grain, way of eating. I know several who did register to the best of their ability - only to have the founders of the NWLR come out and say they next year that they had never had ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of a person who had lost weight using low carb in their registry.

I decided not to bother after that - and since I was doing LC back then strictly for weight-loss and vanity I eventually went off the diet - not because I didn't enjoy it, but because I had had a long stall at roughly the same weight I'm currently stalled at - and decided that if I could not lose any more weight I might as well just eat any old thing. So naturally I gained back well over 100 pounds! Until finally in 2006 I decided that this time it was about my health.

Having tried WW at least 10-12 times over the course of 40 years I knew it was hopeless for me to lose weight long-term on it as I found their plan too depressing and restrictive, so I turned back to low carb. I had been on low carb for 4 years in the 1997-2001 time frame, and was never even able to last four months, or even four weeks, on any other type of diet plan. So decided to go back to the one I knew I could live with.

But I don't know what questions the NWLR asks now. Maybe I should find out. I have no idea where Consumer Reports got their stats on the success rates of different diets. They certainly never asked *me*.

Merpig,

As I said, the Registry had a button in the Atkins official website to link dieters to their website and they were actively looking for successful dieters. This means they had to actually be dealing with the Atkins people to get their link there. I find it hard believe they would be discouraging rather than encouraging, after all that effort and negotiation to get in the website. It does involve a commitment from the person who participates.

You should do it! They have a good reputation - so does Consumer Reports. But the fact that Consumer Reports never contacted you is THEIR bad. The only job of consumer reports is to study and report on quality of consumer items - they want you to buy the magazine (which it seems every public library carries so you don't need to buy it...).

In their words,
'We are a non-profit organization that is supported by the subscriptions to our
web site and magazine. To maintain our independence, we do not accept any
outside advertising and any free test samples.'

Not unlike Consumerlab, which USED to have free information on their website about the actual content and safety of nutritional supplements, Consumer Reports wants you to pay, too. I'd rather go to the library.

(In my own case, I've bounced in and out of low-carb many times - I'm in until I can't stand it any more. At this point, if I had to eat just protein 3 days in a row, I'd probably not eat - which is an effective calorie-cutting strategy!)

Well we'll see. I just went to their site and filled out the form - and they say they will mail me something. They can't it online. That's a bummer as I do everything possible online, and if it comes if physical snail mail I usually never get around to it and eventually dump it in the recylcing bin.

I tied to sign-up for the NWLR a few years ago and found that my data was not acceptable to them. If I had done WW, they would have taken my data.

Mike, what exactly did they say to you that made you think your data was unacceptable? Did they say to you that if you were in WW, the data would have been acceptable? They had to negotiate with the Atkins website to be able to solicit participants from the Atkins website - it doesn't make sense that they wouldn't have just gone to the Weight Watchers website instead. Just trying to figure out what exactly was the problem...

me too...I had one here for a very long time....never did get around to it. oops!!

More information about the non-arbitrary selection of 5% or 10% weight loss. In this study, produced by the National Weight Loss Registry, the authors say, after defining weight loss and maintenance for their study of maintenance:

'Several aspects of this definition should be noted. First, the
definition requires that the weight loss be intentional. Several
recent studies indicate that unintentional weight loss occurs quite
frequently and may have different causes and consequences than
intentional weight loss (4, 5). Thus, it is important to include
intentionality in the definition. The 10% criterion was suggested
because weight losses of this magnitude can produce substantial
improvements in risk factors for diabetes and heart disease. Although
a 10% weight loss may not return an obese to a non-obese
state, the health impact of a 10% weight loss is well documented
(6). Finally, the 1-y duration criterion was proposed in keeping
with the Institute of Medicine criteria (7). Clearly, the most
successful individuals have maintained their weight loss longer
than 1 y, but selecting this criterion may stimulate research on the
factors that enable individuals who have maintained their weight
loss for 1 y to maintain it through longer intervals.
PREVALENCE OF SUCCESSFUL WEIGHT LOSS
MAINTENANCE
There are very few studies that have used this definition to
estimate the prevalence of successful weight loss maintenance.
McGuire et al (8) reported results of a random digit dialing survey
of 500 adults, 228 ofwhomwere overweight or obese [body mass
index (BMI)27 kg/m2] at their maximum nonpregnant weight.
Of these 228, 47 (20.6%) met the criteria for successful weight
loss maintenance: they had intentionally lost at least 10% of their
body weight and maintained it for at least 1 y. On average, these
47 individuals had lost 20.7  14.4 kg (45.5 lb; 19.5  10.6%
from maximum weight) and kept it off for 7.2  8.5 y; 28 of the
47 had reduced to normal weight (BMI 27 kg/m2).
Survey data such as these have the perspective of a person’s
entire lifetime and thus may include many weight loss attempts,
some which were successful and some unsuccessful. It is more
typical to assess “success” during one specific weight loss bout.
In standard behavioral weight loss programs, participants lose an
average of 7–10% (7–10 kg) of their body weight at the end of the
initial 6-mo treatment program and then maintain a weight loss of

5–6 kg (5–6%) at 1-y follow-up. Only a few studies have
followed participants for longer intervals; in these studies,
13–
20% maintain a weight loss of 5 kg or more at 5 y. In the Diabetes
Prevention Program (9),
1000 overweight individuals with
impaired glucose tolerance were randomly assigned to an intensive
lifestyle intervention. The average weight loss of these participants
was 7 kg (7%) at 6 mo; after 1 y, participants maintained
a weight loss of
6 kg (6%), and, at 3 y, they maintained a weight
loss of
4 kg (4%). At the end of the study (follow-up ranging
from 1.8 to 4.6 y; mean, 2.8 y), 37% maintained a weight loss of
7% or more.
Thus, although the data are limited and the definitions varied
across studies, it appears that
20% of overweight individuals
are successful weight losers.
THE NATIONAL WEIGHT CONTROL REGISTRY

1)Not everyone who thinks that WW is the be all and end all in dieting have ever been on a diet, let alone WW.

2)Your experience is not necessarily representative of WW as a whole. Being a participant doesn't make you an expert and definitely doesn't make you omniscient in regards to other members.

3)Just because they've tried other diets and failed doesn't mean that is why they think WW is a superior diet. There is nothing in the evidence that shows that WW is more effective than other diets so they're likely to fail at WW also. Yet WW remains to retain a positive reputation with most people despite it not working for most people.



It was for me. But even if you were right, this bears no relevance on whether or not WW has earned its reputation.



We'll focus on your statements about WW even though you've made some other certain statements of "fact" you're in no position of knowing or even making educated guesses about.

Your experiences with WW do not prove or disprove WW's overall effectiveness. Your experiences in meetings don't even mean that people are more likely to encounter what you experience than the other meeting experiences described in this thread.

Your "evidence" is much more important to you than anyone else.



The theories behind the nutritional evidence has changed. In judging the quality of the nutritional advice and the ability of people to stick to the program, you need to assess the quality of the advice given today.



Best of the Atkins structure? It seems you don't understand Atkins very well. It's interesting to see your thought process spelt out in black and white in your forum post though. It will be entertaining to see how you're going to equate Atkins with the Twinkie diet.

As for being "shown to work", one guy without any follow up to what happened to his blood serum after he stopped losing weight does not a safe diet trial make. You know that most weight loss correlates with improved lipid profiles in most people, right?

But here you are pretty much saying what I (and others) have been saying all along. WW as a diet is nothing special.



Oh, Weight Watchers isn't for me for reasons other than that, but you're right. I wouldn't be able to ignore the man behind the curtain to the extent that seems to be necessary.



Sure it is or you'd not have to go through this really convoluted argument to prove me wrong or bow out gracefully.



And advertisements...and web presence...and products/presence in grocery shops...and spokesmodels...and media fawning over it...and on and on...



This could be said about any diet.



It sometimes performs adequately in clinical trials. It doesn't perform incredibly well, and nothing in its clinical trial performance indicates that it deserves a recommendation over other diets.



Doctors aren't always the best judge of nutritional advice. This is a subject that's come up again and again in this forum with some people who went to med school explaining the brief education they get full of unsubstantiated low fat crap. There are doctors that advise their patients to try low carb when they can't succeed on their own as well. I believe that is standard practice now in the NHS to recommend low carb to people who can't lose weight using other methods. This in itself doesn't mean either methods are more healthy.

But between the word of mouth and doctors, you have to ask yourself why WW needs such a aggressive marketing. What a waste of money for them!



You're in no position to know or guess this.



More misleading vividness, but good for him.



You realise that this is one of FatFu's points, right? That said, they have enough members to provide a success rate for their obese customers. Oh, and successful results are not typical for any customers.




I've not said no one succeeds on WW. In fact, I've said the opposite *several* times. Let me rephrase this because you seem a bit stuck on things having to be either black and white: WW's success rate based on their own numbers supplied (something you have not been able to refute) does not translate into the accolades it receives.



Maybe you should stop assuming things, and we both might have a better experience discussing this..

You didn't read this.



I am going to visit this little bit, not because it is germane to the discussion, but because it's so weird, it's funny. No, I don't drive a car built by a company. I've already said. And I don't dislike WW because it's a corporation (oh, sorry, or part of a large multi-national). I dislike them (in part) because of some of their practices. Some of these practices probably wouldn't be a part of WW if they weren't a corporation, but that doesn't mean I dislike WW because it is a corporation.



.... Do you even realise the context of that quote?



Sure I did. I am not sure why you missed it, but of course this is about WW and not Atkins.



I doubt I would have strikingly different criticisms of WW's if they adopted a low carb approach. Of course, I'd have one less criticism, but the point of what I said was that if it were low carb, I'd still have most of the same criticisms.



I brought up the products because you claimed that YOU never bought any and that somehow reflected on the TYPICAL WW member. Of course it doesn't and that is my point. Not that I was condemning WW for selling products. JUST LIKE WHEN ATKINS NUTRITIONALS DOES IT, branded product sales is about making a buck, not the well being of the consumer. It's what is expected of a profit making business I don't know why you've gone off the rails with this one. Is it another bad context thing or is it easier to attack the arguments I am not making than it is to attack the ones I am?



I've not said this.





I am not basing my opinion on WW on my personal experience, and that was my point of bringing it up. Me going to WW wouldn't change the data, and it wouldn't change the tendency for people to oversell this program.




It doesn't matter how you see my comments or where you think the comments are coming from. I've asked you not to try to tell me why or what I feel, but since you are ignoring that, I will just point out that whether or not I am angry at WW doesn't have any bearing on whether I am right or wrong.



The diet fails most of the time, yet people go. Exactly what success rate is the tipping point?

Yeah that survey was notoriously slanted against LC -- there should be some old threads here about that, I remember some years ago the discussion about it, and that a number of docs/researchers were peeved about it also. Perhaps it has changed some in the time since.

PJ