Where they got the determination may be less about evidence and more about "conventional wisdom":



The information they got from the NWCR was on the habits of weight loss maintainers, not where they lost the weight, but again, NWCR wouldn't be representative of the population as a whole, but for those who register and have their stats accepted.


Sort of telling:




The nutritional rating is not based in any scientific evidence. I wonder how much of that went into their determination of what was a diet with a good long term success prospects.





That isn't a study of success rate of dieting. It's a record of successful dieters and their methods. It's not even a study of successful dieters. It's a record. I am not sure why I have to explain this to a mathematician.

Hmm, what makes data "not acceptable"?

From my early days LC, I understand it to be because most people who do low carb don't have a clinical record of their weight loss or any proof that they used that plan to lose weight. Of course now more people might be more open with their health care providers about the weight loss method they are using. I think I mentioned this pro-structured plan bias (where a company records the progress of a dieter) in my first post in this thread. I wonder if they took data for those clinical low carb plans that have been around forever. I can't remember the name of the franchises, but most of them tended to be very low calorie, lowish in fat, and very low in carbs.

It would be interesting to hear how you progress with it.

Really? I'm sure it's not the first for everyone, but it hardly seems like a huge stretch to think it's the first for many. WW was certainly MY first dieting experience (as a teenager when my mom made me go). It was probably my my 2nd and 3rd too. Maybe not my 4th. That was probably when I went off to college and lost 60 pounds on my own weight loss plain (which NEVER would have passed muster with WW!) and went from 210 pounds down to 160. For the next dozen years - until I hit age 30 - my weight ranged in the 150-165 range, bouncing up and down in that range. I did join WW probably 5-6 times during that time as I really wanted to get down into the 130s. But I was never able to lose any weight on WW no matter how strict I tried to be. And as I've said, I could never stick with their plan for longer than about two weeks.

But I kept going back to WW over and over again as, until I discovered low carb, it was really the only diet plan I'd ever heard of!

Well, I suppose there is sort of a "clinical" record if I had access to my medical records where my weight is recorded. But if I have to go to my *doctor* to get copies of that to submit to the NWLR then I'll say upfront right now I'll never do it. And the doctor's office has no idea *how* I lost the weight.

As I wasn't around in the 1960s, my views are not a throwback to them. Although I will admit to have been reared on a diet of left-leaning politics from my father and have read my share of Chomsky, I don't see how my view of business is more "silly" than one that has no basis in reality (psst...by that I mean yours).

Success and failure in the corporate world are not based on whether or not a company can deliver a product or service that is of top quality. They merely have to deliver something someone will pay for. It's more complicated than that, but I am not sure how Walmart would have stayed in business if business success was always correlated to delivering things that actually worked or a quality product.

BTW, Walmart is an example of the perception thing. Walmart sells a load of crap in part because people think they are saving money by shopping there. Whether they actually save money buying shoes that fall apart in a week or food that goes off before its due date is debatable. I bet most people who regularly shop there out of choice would consider it a place to save money, even if they actually lose more money shopping there through impulse buys and shoddy products.

I am a bit afraid to make this recommendation to you, as you might take it as evidence that I HATE WW and I only HATE WW because it's a corporation, but you should really watch The Corporation.. It's won lots of awards, so I am sure you will agree they must have deserved them.



And an example of how corporate success has nothing to do with the quality of the dietary advice given by that corporation.

Merpig- I don't know if things have changed. I hope so. It would be good to see more LC success stories recorded. If they insist on a clinical weight still, they might miss out on the stories of the super morbidly obese. I know a lot are like me and truly don't know their start weight. I had been calorie,restricting for a while before low carb. I was on low carb for nearly 2 months before my home scales could register me at 333. I remember that day like it was yesterday. I always put 350 as my start weight, but that is a conservative estimate. I suppose if I were to register I could always dig out the photos that make me cry as evidence.

If Weight Watchers works for anyone, good for them.

However, I believe "eat less and move more" does not work for a lot of people; and, in fact, can make the weight problem worse. I mean, I did that successfully for ten years, but not without increasing effort.

It didn't teach me how to eat for my health, and it didn't teach me how to eat right when I was sidelined with an injury.

And then, as I hit forty, it simply stopped working all together. On the whole, not an approach I would recommend.

Moggsy, I'm not sure what your problem is with the NWLR. You do understand, since you can see this from their website, that they do produce studies. The advantage is that they have longitudinal diet studies which others have not been able to afford to do.

I'm not a mathematician. I like mathematics, I keep active with math activities, and I haven't even gotten far into fat fu's blog - which will be math - I'm simply stunned that she thinks there isn't long-term data out there about weight loss maintenance. Did you understand that?

WW also has data. Because they computerize their member's information.

What you think are just records are input to someone's study. Without the records (data) to use, it's impossible to produce a longitudinal study. The NWLR did look at the relatively few Atkins dieters who lost and maintained. The good news, and the bad news, is that there was little difference in their success. For people who claim low-carb is a superior method of weight loss, this doesn't sound as good as they would like. For people who think that low-carb is a poor risk for long-term maintenance of weight loss, this refutes that assumption. Since low-carbers identified themselves as such to the NWLR, and the studies were produced from years of data, this is actually a good opportunity to see what poses great difficulty for other researchers.

The Consumer Reports assessments came from examining the studies. If low-carb is effective, short-term, according to them, all the better for people who think that low-carbing is bound to fail. But, if it's not effective, long-term, people may rightly be discouraged about that kind of diet. The NWLR data came from people who were motivated and committed to the low-carb diet but more importantly, they were committed to the longitudinal tracking by the NWLR.

What is NWCR? You refer to that several times. What is it?

You also write:
'The nutritional rating is not based in any scientific evidence.'

Can you tell me where you got that information?

You wrote (here comes a quote):
'Where they got the determination may be less about evidence and more about "conventional wisdom":'

I take this to mean that you ACTUALLY think they didn't look at studies. They read a booklet from health class and came up with the 'conventional wisdom' and spit it out as results. I really hope that isn't what you meant but you clearly think that other people don't know what evidence is. That's too bad.

Yes, I've had positive experiences with WW. I've had bad experiences in the past, as when I tried to stay in a group whose leader's style did not appeal to me - for some reason, that group was diabetic-heavy, too, and all they wanted to talk about was their problems with sugar. The flexibility of WW allows me to go to the group I choose - and change if I want, without notice, anytime. And if I don't want to go to group, I can do WW online (their website).

So how is my explanation of the current WW environment and style any different from anyone else reporting a positive experience with their diet here? To start with, I'm not saying WW is great and your diet sucks. That's the attitude I'm getting if I say that WW is flexible - or anything else positive. Someone will tell me that it is not. YOU will tell me that because I go to WW and say that, doesn't mean it's true. First hand experience as of every Thursday for the past 12+ months doesn't mean anything to you. To me, it means I can comment on various criticisms of the program, especially when they come from people reciting their experience from memory.

Reading that the NLWR may require you to actually specify more than just 'I low-carb and I lost this much weight' makes perfect sense to me.

You say, 'most people who do low carb don't have a clinical record of their weight loss or any proof that they used that plan to lose weight. Of course now more people might be more open with their health care providers about the weight loss method they are using.;

Well, duh - let's get scientific here. Not having a record of weight loss and any proof, such as food diaries, etc. - at the very least - makes for crap science, don't you think? I can get 10 people I know to SAY they've lost weight low-carbing. Access the WW computer data from members and you'll actually see weight that changed and can be counted. Since WW doesn't tie you to a tree and make you spit out your point values, you could lose weight any way you want to, conceivably, at WW, and have it count. Because WW is that flexible.

You write:
'That isn't a study of success rate of dieting. It's a record of successful dieters and their methods. It's not even a study of successful dieters. It's a record. I am not sure why I have to explain this to a mathematician.'

(Drop the condescending tone, please. Or don't. Something tells me you can't.)

Go back and look at NWLR again. I've already read one book about the result of their weight loss studies. It was, as diet books go, very good.

Since I provided a link to their site, you probably already read this, but here goes:

'The National Weight Control Registry

The National Weight Control Registry (NWCR), established in 1994 by
Rena Wing, Ph.D. from Brown Medical School, and James O. Hill, Ph.D. from the University of Colorado, is the largest prospective investigation of long-term successful weight loss maintenance. Given the prevailing belief that few individuals succeed at long-term weight loss, the NWCR was developed to identify and investigate the characteristics of individuals who have succeeded at long-term weight loss. The NWCR is tracking over 5,000 individuals who have lost significant amounts of weight and kept it off for long periods of time. Detailed questionnaires and annual follow-up surveys are used to examine the behavioral and psychological characteristics of weight maintainers, as well as the strategies they use to maintaining their weight losses.
Research findings from the National Weight Control Registry have been featured in many national newspapers, magazines, and television broadcasts, including USA Today, Oprah magazine, The Washington Post, and Good Morning America.'

Since I'm sure you visited the website, you have looked at these 30 studies from their data?

http://www.nwcr.ws/Research/published%20research.htm

Because the weight loss participants share certain habits that allow them to lose and maintain, the diets are not as important - since they all end up being 'energy-balance.' I'm sorry. It is what it is. You lose weight when you take in fewer calories and you expend more calories. NWLR isn't going to tell you any different. But it will identify diet plans because NWLR does produce studies. And they will tell you that successful dieters have certain things in common. It's not magic. It's not smoke and mirrors.

You write:

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

Go back and read again what you used the quote button for. My impression that people at WW have done Atkins before is from anecdotes told by the dieters themselves, that I have heard in a group. When they don't like that diet and they don't feel that they lose weight on that diet - or for whatever reason, they don't feel well eating the food, they are not going to do it. True of all diets.

Rightnow wrote: 'Yeah that survey was notoriously slanted against LC -- there should be some old threads here about that.' Since NWLR is not a survey, it's a database that produces studies, I'd like to see the thread. It's not like NLWR didn't solicit Atkins people from the Atkins website - I guess that's the third time I've mentioned THAT. I'd also like to see how 'notorious' the bias was. If it was a bunch of bloggers whining, then Fuggedaboutit.

Moggsy, you write:

'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.'

No, they think WW is a superior diet when and if it works for them - just like you seem to be motivated to makes claims about low-carbing for the same reasons.

Also, I don't think they always think it's a superior diet. They think it's effective. I think they know the common element here is calorie reduction and WW tells them 'eat less and move more' and doesn't pretend to have a magic power. I've never heard WW brag about weight loss. I've only heard people say, 'How did you lose that weight?' and congratulate them. This is a refreshing truth about the WW dieter - the several hundred that have been in my groups - that only strikes me now as being distinctive.


Is this that same old 'It's so UNFAIR that WW is so successful because it is SO undeserved!' song you've been singing? Aren't you tired of that? I know I'M getting there. You actually think that motives are whatever you'd like them to be - and it STILL remains that WW is successful. I think that what you are looking for is something more along the lines of a business study, not anything to do with nutrition.


(WW not being the first dieting experience)'this bears no relevance on whether or not WW has earned its reputation.'

No, it doesn't. It's one way that WW benefits from other diets. I mentioned it in the context of talking about how WW does get people who have tried other diets and failed to lose weight with them (or enough weight, or consistently, or maintained the loss). WW was my daughter's first dieting experience because I took her. I told her she didnt have to lose weight but she did have to know how to deal with food when she was away from home at school. It was one thing I'm very happy to have her - because I went with her and lost 12 pounds. (Yeah. Thanks.)

'The information they got from the NWCR was on the habits of weight loss maintainers, not where they lost the weight, but again, NWCR wouldn't be representative of the population as a whole, but for those who register and have their stats accepted.'

I'm guessing you don't realize you're not typing NWLR. Condescension alert.

You don't think NWLR would be representative of the population as a whole, but only represent those who register and have their stats accepted. Since these are longitudinal studies that come out of years of data, and there are new participants joining and being tracked, at some point, it's could be a lot more representative than the smaller studies that begin and end in a shorter time frame. For example, as time passes, people do develop diabetes, heart disease, gall bladder disease, kidney disease. If you wanted a representative population available to provide data over a long time, you will end up having it. You couldn't hand pick that kind of mix, with a large number of participants, to stay committed to a longitudinal study. You might not even get that mixture of health concerns and various ages if you tried to find a good random sample. Pre-menopausal, post-menopausal, pre-diabetic, etc. I don't see a problem.

'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.'

Since WW continues to draw people to meetings and they go and PAY to be there, I'm guessing that the meetings 'work.' And pretty much as I've described my positive feelings there, that is what keeps people going. Success is the people who go to the meetings.

If no one goes, they can't have a meeting. As a business, that would be like not having customers buy your product. A few years ago, they made a rule that you had to have a quorum to have a regular WW meeting. Our devoted little band at the time begged them to make an exception because we were 5 people short. WW holds meetings at companies and they have no problem making the relatively small quorum but in our case, we were meeting during our kids' activities at the Y. We just couldn't find more people for 1 hour between gym activities. We had no dropouts - it was just a new WW rule about meeting size. It was really upsetting! When we all dispersed to the well-attended meetings held around our town and neighboring towns, it wasn't bad but we missed our leader at the time, the convenience at the Y, and each other.

Moggsy, you write:
'Your "evidence" is much more important to you than anyone else.'
I'm sorry you found that nasty tone. I'm not exactly sure what 'evidence' you're referring to except my recounting positive experiences that have also been experienced by many, many others. WW is successful. And its success rests on the success of its members. WW is never unclear about that and the members know it.

'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. '

They do assess. And re-assess. You may have an opinion about the results that they use to modify some things, but really, most stays the same. Calories (or 'points') are important, that hasn't changed. I really like how they are paying more attention to the value of exercise, which is something I've noticed in the past couple of years.

'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.'

I did the Atkins diet, remember? Several times. I do understand the Atkins diet. It's as structured as any other diet that has phases. But it doesn't count anything and you can forget calories. If Atkins - or any other low-carb diet - tells you that you should stay within a certain limit and you should count what you put in your mouth, I'd be very surprised. 'Eat fewer than X amount of carbs is a limit' However, eat as much of protein and fat is not. WW does give you free foods - so you'd rightly say that WW does tell you that you can eat freely of certain foods. They just tend to be foods that probably wouldn't impact your weight if you ate a lot of them. Example: a piece of deli turkey meat wrapped around a pickle is zero points. I don't think anyone is going to overeat that. If you don't eat a whole lot of protein and fat on Atkins, it's probably because you're sick to death of meat. You will eat less of it. But you won't fill up on the carbs you've been missing, either - they are still off-limits. Skip that pasta.

And the Twinkie Diet? Works great! Did you see those HDL and triglycerides? I'll bet that guy was really tired of eating Twinkies. He did eat fewer calories. How did that happen!

No magic. He got sick of a narrow range of food. But don't you think he could LIVE with that narrow range of food? Think how skinny he would get. All he has to do is turn down the other stuff (it's off-limits) and yummm,. Twinkies do taste good.

I think I understand the Twinkie diet really well.

'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?'

You do know that people stop losing weight on Atkins, too, right? And you know that there are plenty of studies about how and why people plateau on diets. But that's nothing compared to the failure to adhere to a diet. I'm guessing that the Twinkie diet may find people who want to adhere to it. Or just get into their wedding dress for the big day. More power to them.

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

Maybe you missed my remarks that Atkins is nothing special. I think it tastes good, sometimes, but I have a low tolerance for such a monotonous diet. It does beat the Cabbage Soup Diet (I have seen other people succeed with that - the old 'gotta get into that wedding dress' drive). WW leaders will tell you that the diet's success is purely your efforts, not magic, not great combinations of anything that did it for you. Hence all the pats on the back and applause.

You wrote: (about the WW success not being hidden)
'Sure it is or you'd not have to go through this really convoluted argument to prove me wrong or bow out gracefully.'

Actually, I'm getting a perverse pleasure when I talk about the success of WW. You know, it's so fricking UNDESERVED. MWAHHHHHAAAHHHAHHHA! LOL! What a hoot to see a large company so vilified. I'm not trying to 'prove you wrong,' Moggsy. You can't be. You wouldn't know it if you were. It makes you condescending, it makes all of your griping just sound like sour grapes. It's the world that's so damned wrong to give this UNDESERVED success to this big bad organization. MWAHHHHHAHAHA!

You wrote:
'I wouldn't be able to ignore the man behind the curtain '
There's a certain kind of person who needs to think there's a man behind the curtain.

(I said that word of mouth brings people to WW.)
'And advertisements...and web presence...and products/presence in grocery shops...and spokesmodels...and media fawning over it...and on and on...'
That 'big business stinks' song again, huh?

(about dramatic successes in WW
'This could be said about any diet.'
Absolutely true. Couldn't agree more. Is very true with WW.

(About WW performance in studies
'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.'
It always performs well. People in studies tend to perform well on a diet, better than in real life. The controls even lose weight sometimes - and they don't diet. They just become conscious of their eating. Atkins doesn't perform incredibly well - it performs in a way that surprises people who expect otherwise. Doctors feel confident recommending WW because it has a very long track record. When Atkins becomes so accepted and patients succeed on it and maintain on it for years, doctors will probably recommend it, too. My doctor has no problem telling me that low-carbing is fine to lose the weight, short-term - but then, he knows I know how many calories I eat, that I go to WW, and with the carbs I eat, I'm fine. Whatever works, he says. He thinks it's more dangerous to be obese. He also believes that in our lifetime, dieting will be prescribed for the individual based on genetic tests. WW can handle that!

'Doctors aren't always the best judge of nutritional advice.'
Yeah, I'm starting to appreciate how very much smarter they are. I'd take nutritional advice from a blogger or anyone piecing together scientific facts on the internet if I had a death wish.
'...with some people who went to med school explaining the brief education they get full of unsubstantiated low fat crap.'
I don't know these people. My doctor might have gotten a sketchy introduction to nutrition when he was in med school but most doctors continue their educations with conferences and seminars and just sharpen their skills by seeing tons of patients. This 'I didn't learn much in med school about nutrition' is a cliche and it makes me lose respect for the person - I don't care if he or she is a doctor (if in fact, they are). By the time you've been in the working world for a decade or so, you should have grown out of that habit of saying, 'No one taught me right!'

'But between the word of mouth and doctors, you have to ask yourself why WW needs such a aggressive marketing'

Answer: Because they're a huge international organization now and they employ a lot of people. And they understand a balance sheet. And they borrow money from banks and fund pensions. And because they're 'KING OF THE WORLD' (MWAHHHAHHAHHHHA!) Take a class about business and bring a notebook. Take notes.

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

I don't have to prove every single statement. But - hey, nice try. Next time I say, 'But WW has sold products to members who appreciate the convenience of getting them on sale at meetings,' you can tell me, 'You're in no position to know or guess this.' I think you'd make your point better if you shouted it, 'YOU'RE IN NO POSITION TO KNOW OR GUESS THIS.' It would be more effective than just repeating it when you're at a loss.

(About my gynecologist going to WW
'More misleading vividness, but good for him.'
I don't think his going to WW is 'vivid' but I'll pass on your good wishes.

Moggsy, you do realize that I gave you link that explains why any diet advertisement or commercial has come to include 'results not typical' caveat came from legal cases - I believe it was a Jenny Craig lawsuit. And weight loss not being typical: I think I'd have to see the data - which WW has. There is no 'typical' for diet organizations that don't maintain records.

(About assuming your gripe with WW is that it's a corporation
'Maybe you should stop assuming things,'
Definitely, in that case - assuming wasn't necessary because you claimed it outright!)

(About your not liking things about corporations...)
You didn't read this.

Actually, I read something you wrote that was a pretty good description of the unethical evil corporation and some specific practices and how that is what is bad about corporations - it was eerily scary. Kinda generalizing, too.

'And I don't dislike WW because it's a corporation (oh, sorry, or part of a large multi-national).'
I am sure I read those words, posted by you. Go back and look. You are a poor judge of corporations if you're going to take WW's business practices and try to evaluate them. You are way out of your league, then, I'm afraid. I knew that when I read AGAIN how WW advertises and has spokespeople.... blah, blah, blah ... and you challenged me to explain why that was necessary. Business is not your forte.

(Your description of how companies 'unethically', making me label them the Evil Empire for you

Do you even realise the context of that quote?

If you describe how companies that are large and successful do something that you think is 'not nice', that is:

'If they can do that in a way that means they actually don't need to provide cars (or as many or as high of quality) and could likely never have any liability if it were found out they were ineffective as a car manufacturer, they sure would do that if it meant increased profits'

And you'd like to make an analogy to a Weight Loss company - good luck. As I said, take a business class. And take a notebook with you. You do realize the context of that suggestion....

'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.'

Well, since you SAID you don't like WW because it's a corporation, that ship has sailed.... But really, give us the skinny on the unethical practices of WW and the proof. Not your interpretation of their motives and not something you've read in BigBusinessIsEvil.com.

WW is a well-run organization. As I've said before, if this were a discussion about business, it would not be THIS discussion, this thread.

You wrote (about criticism of the WW diet
'Sure I did. I am not sure why you missed it, but of course this is about WW and not Atkins.'

Actually, when you said the reason you didn't like WW because it is a big business, that kind of eclipsed all the criticism about how they aren't as knowledgeable about nutrition and all the other niggling little digs at what you don't like about the diet. Which just all ends up being hot air, when the ultimate question is: 'Does this help me lose weight or not?' Enough people answer yes to that to keep the reputation (SO UNDESERVED!) good and the business thriving.

(About criticizing the diet because it's not a low-carb diet
'point of what I said was that if it were low carb, I'd still have most of the same criticisms.' No, actually, you said, if it were low-carb, then you'd revisit - for just another look to reconsider - the meaning of 'revisit.' This would have to take into consideration that absolutely nothing changed but the diet rules. Which you're not happy with, I guess. So, revisiting because it would be low-carb. That's enough to suck you in - jeeze, you're easy. Now, you have to redefine 'revisit' - so just do it. 'Reconsider' isn't going to work anymore in your dictionary.

You wrote:
'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.'
I'm not impressed that you'll shove Atkins Nutritional in front of the train to make a point. Your ideas about business and motives and what the consumer wants are just silly beyond belief. I think I last thought that way before I got my first bra.

(I have a sneaking suspicion that you'd like to tell the consumer what to want but that's beside the point.)

(About WW being a big business and that is bad
Of course you said that. It was given as the reason you don't like WW. And that weird stuff about all the bad things that business can do - scary. Caveat Emptor - that always works for me.


(About your bringing up the fact that you once went to WW
'it wouldn't change the tendency for people to oversell this program.'

Gah! It's the tainted business person 'overselling' that's got you by the throat, now? Business... fooey.

You wrote:
'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.'
Well, your tone belies these words and I'm pointing it out to you. You're welcome.

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

I don't know - you tell me. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. Does it really surprise you that WW is so damned successful (IT'S SO UNDESERVED!!) because, trying to do something difficult, like lose weight in this case, all you need is for the competition to be weak. There are some lame diets out there and yet they work anyway. The Twinkie Diet rules! So if a company is well-run, enjoys a good reputation, has a long track-record, offers flexibility, and makes some things very convenient (frozen dinners), yay for WW!

Whew. That was lot of stuff to respond to.

Werebear wrote:

'And then, as I hit forty, it simply stopped working all together. On the whole, not an approach I would recommend.'

As you hit fifty, then sixty, ... and God willing, keep hitting those milestones, there are going to be some more things that don't work like you thought they did or should. I have a friend who's over 80 and she can make a list of those things...

(Aging affects people.)

Moggsy, your post beginning:

'As I wasn't around in the 1960s, my views are not a throwback to them.'

You don't have to have lived in the 60s to have naive views. My kids have them and they are 90s kids. But they are kids. And those views you have about success in business and what it is based on - well, good luck with that. You don't have a business, I'm safe in saying. Anyone who is in the business world can recognize what the strengths of Walmart are. You're so off-base with your explanation that I just have to say - peace, power to the people and Free Bobby Seale!

Merpig, it really IS a stretch to think that someone would not diet before going to WW the first time. Not for any other reason than the cost. And the fact that you have to get there. And the fact that you have to stay there if you're going to get the benefit of the support, which WW is prized for. Anyone who's going to visit WW just to get weighed and pay to have someone weigh them and not stay for the meeting is paying for what they could do at home for nothing.

The weigh-in IS worth it to me because I know their scales are accurate. My doctor takes their weight over the office scale weight for that reason.

'(as a teenager when my mom made me go)'
I took my daughter, to give her the tools to lose weight if she got into problems with her weight, eating away at school. Just this summer, I ran into a friend at the meeting who was there with her daughter - who's going away to college - so maybe this is some kind of sacred ritual that I've never seen reported anywhere! My friend had the same reasons for bringing her daughter that I did. Needless to say, both girls lose weight effortlessly. Not fair.

I don't have any problem agreeing with the fact that WW has successfully marketed themselves as a business. I think most things that survive in a capitalist society do so by, one way or the other, becoming a business. (It's like the argument about cows. If we didn't eat them, they'd be nearly extinct. The same goes for a lot of good causes and ideals.)

WW has -- in part because they were the organized option that existed when this first came about -- been adopted by gov't medical as a representative org for weight loss. I would agree that it doesn't necessarily, for weight loss reasons, deserve it more than other weight loss approaches or groups of today.

I also agree that super walmart is not always cheaper (at all) and that many of their products are not real high quality.

However, SWM has everything in one place, which is vastly helpful, especially if you have no car or gas is expensive or 'time is money'. And, their products are not any lower quality than anything else in my small city (except their injected meats which is about the same elsewhere, sigh).

WW is like many other things in history, and nearly everything with official approval and fame (several celebrities meet this criteria...): sometimes, being successful is less because of the pristine proof of talent/skill/best-est, than it is other mitigating or redeeming factors. The highly organized, nationally distributed, multi-media nature of WW, combined with the small personal groups for it, are IMO the primary driver of its recognition both for the public and for the gov't.

I agree it's not any 'better' an option for weight loss than anything else, but then, while the organization as a whole may be mercenary (all corporations are), and may be focused on weight loss (all marketing drivers in this genre are), there is more to the org than just those elements.

Just like there is more to SWM than low prices. And more to belonging to a church than just God. And more to belonging to a family than just being related to them.

In this case it would be useful if there were a low-carb national organization with small local group meetings, to compare. For reasons probably already covered in this thread, while possibly helpful especially at first, it would not be nearly as self-serving of repeat-customers as the low-fat/low-cal/high-carb approach to dieting would be. Still, that doesn't mean that WW hasn't been and isn't helpful to a lot of people. Probably not most people here or they wouldn't be here. But I'm sure there are many other forums where people would wax on about their glory and how it helped them lose weight, and mean it.

PJ

'In this case it would be useful if there were a low-carb national organization with small local group meetings, to compare. For reasons probably already covered in this thread, while possibly helpful especially at first, it would not be nearly as self-serving of repeat-customers as the low-fat/low-cal/high-carb approach to dieting would be.'

I have made this suggestion. It gets people really pissed off, for some reason. One guy asked me why I even went to WW when I had lowcarb.ca. I thought that was so weird.

One thing about business: it puts you 'out there,' it makes your vulnerable. It makes you take a risk and it makes you a target. If Atkins simply is a website and a book and a few carefully formulated products that aren't going to kill anyone's kidneys, that's probably all they can handle at the moment and they like that. It's profitable. I don't think an Atkins diet company would be better than 'self-serving of repeat-customers' because I am a low-carber who's done low-carb a couple of times already. I would be a repeat customer and if I had to do Atkins and follow the low-carb diet, counting carbs, I know I'd be a repeat customer about 4 more times before quitting for good. I like flexibility and if Atkins wanted to succeed in that business, they'd offer flexibility, too.

Now, if they didn't want to be flexible, that's a risk to take, too. It could work. Sort of a boot-camp style diet. I did a 700-cal-a-day diet years ago and loved it, after the initial 'burn.'

If 'all corporations are mercenary' means they care about money, then that's kind of a harsh way of stating the obvious, that all corporations want to stay in business.

But about Walmart: that's my Thursday night run, after WW. I found out that there are 3 SWMs in my area. I can always find the best price there. It's just a given. My elderly friends need land-line phones and I tell them, 'Walmart.' It is $5 for a slim-line (princess) phone. It's $1.49 for a loaf of bread when it's close to $2 and over everywhere else. Thank God for Walmart. And the 3 stores: 1 is chaotic and messy - and busy. Another is messy but has the best personal help for shoppers of any place I've shopped. The third SWM is upscale as Walmarts go. So I try not to think that one Walmart is all Walmarts.

I do not have a problem with NWLR other than their data does not accurately reflect every dieter in the US because it collects a biased sample. I will elaborate further below.



Obviously I understand. You're just wrong. Sure there's data. The quality of the data pool from which they draw their data from is flawed. It is weighted towards people who lose weight in clinical settings or with commercial programs like WW. It is weighted towards people willing and able to submit their information. It is has an inbuilt bias towards older weight loss programs. Of course it is going to show more people succeeding at clinical settings based diets because those sort of people are more likely to be accepted into the register.



Err. I never said they didn't.



Provide link to the studies THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT LOW CARB, please. Do not paste them here. Provide a link to the studies.



Wouldn't that be the opposite?




citation needed



What you're referring to as "NWLR":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...ontrol_Registry
http://www.nwcr.ws/




Because there is no scientific basis in the repeated assertion that low carb is dangerous or that eating saturated fat will lead to disease. I can't prove a negative. Go ahead and provide the proof that either is true. We'll wait for you.




Any point to this other than being patronisingly ad feminam?

They didn't base it on studies, because there are no studies that show low carb is dangerous. There are no studies that show that saturated fat is dangerous. Sure, there are papers written on the assumption that it is a fact. People say "it's common knowledge that eating saturated fat is bad for you" without even having a clue from where that "common knowledge" came.

Read "Good Calories, Bad Calories". And please do not claim that you have because even someone who disagrees with Taubes on his dismissal of the of the theories that fats, saturated and animal fats in particular cause both obesity and ill health would not have been shocked by what I wrote.

Once you've read it, even if you still struggle under the mistake of assuming that low carb is dangerous or eating fat will lead to obesity or health risk, at least you will better understand where many people in this forum are coming from. Or at least we can hope you will.



You are not explaining the current environment. You're describing your experience which is just that.



Sure it does. It means that you experienced things like you described. It doesn't mean you have special insight into the workings of WW, into the motives thoughts and experiences of other members, you are in any authority to say that WW works better than other programs for anyone but YOU and to a lesser extent those around you. WW isn't a Borg hive mind dealio.



You can, but all you're saying is "that's not my experience", which is okay to do. You can't expect people to give your experience special weight (no pun intended).



I don't think that is what I was saying in this thread at all. "Reading" the "NLWR" would probably give me insight into a biased sample. I look forward to you providing links to those studies specifically dealing with low carb.




I think she's slowly getting it! Of course it wouldn't make NWCR more scientific to include it, but it definitely would be somewhat more representative. Not entirely, because there are other biases in the sample.



So how can we access this information?




You: People who think WW is better have tried other diets, including Atkins and failed.
Me: Not everyone who thinks WW is a better diet goes to WW or has ever dieted, period..
You: Yes. They do. I know this because I go to WW and all those people have tried other diets and gone to WW.

....

This is probably where keeping a good flow of context helps.



Atkins is not the only low carb diet and not everyone on Atkins uses their website. We don't know what percentage of successful Atkins (or other low carb plan) submitted results and out of those how many were accepted. Again, because of the bias towards structured programs, the NWCR cannot accurately speak about the success of unstructured programs in comparison. It would always show a more favourable rate for structured programs even if the success rate for unstructured programs was much higher. This is why it cannot replace a scientific study when we're trying to assess what works in terms of weight loss plans and what doesn't.




Don't assume you know what my reasons for choosing low carb are.





WW is a successful business, and no I am not looking for a business study. I am looking for you to show that WW is a better diet through reliable data. Since you are so sure of it, it seems it shouldn't be so hard.



Uhm, what?

If you think that I have the name wrong, you should check your own links!



It very well may be a good way to record the development of diseases in people who have lost weight and maintained that weight loss (although it would always contain that bias against certain weight loss methods), IT IS NOT A RELIABLE MEASURE OF HOW PEOPLE LOSE AND MAINTAIN WEIGHT IF THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO ACCEPT ONE SORT OF WEIGHT LOSS PROGRAM OVER ANOTHER. Allowing people to self-submit stats might not make it more SCIENTIFIC but would make it more REPRESENTATIVE (and it raises the question of accountability of business supplied data as in the case of businesses like WW, their reputation depends on it).

Making it more REPRESENTATIVE might not make it more scientific, but might give us good insight. As it stands now, it isn't that we can't learn things from the NWCR, it is that it isn't SCIENTIFIC in regards to accurately determining what is working for people in weight loss. It does not replace a study like FatFu was talking about.




Oh dear.



It's not a nasty tone. It's that your anecdotal information seems more important to you than it actually is in this discussion.




Not everyone who "does Atkins" understands the diet or does it right.



Yes it does.



Surprise!



But it is counting. Just because it's not counting the same way as WW doesn't mean it's not counting. And there are LC diets that limit fat and/or calories. Some low carb diets even require a minimum of fat/protein/or even carbs. And nowhere did Atkins say you can eat all you want of anything, at least not in in his books. With Atkins you are supposed to eat foods composed of fat and protein to satiety. Not as much as you want. Those are two different things.



My quote had nothing to do with whether or not weight was regained or not or diet adherence.

You'd think that it would be fairly obvious that you cannot determine a diet's weight loss success and failure rate by studying the success of one dieter, but then again, I forgot how important anecdotal information is to you.



We're not talking about whether or not Atkins is special or not (and I am not even ON Atkins so your repeated comparisons a la some sort "anything your diet can do, mine can do better, so there" is really puzzling).




Stop with "the big business stinks strawman", please. I mentioned all the various OTHER ways WW attracts customers to counter your REPEATED assertion that WW attracts the bulk of their business through word of mouth and doctors' recommendations (apparently, especially from doctors who do WW themselves...)



Then I am not sure why we're having this discussion. I am not saying that WW isn't something that some people use to lose weight. It's nothing exceptional.



Ah well, we must be reading different studies.



Again, you're asserting something that you have no way of knowing. But even if it were true, this is not saying that WW deserves their reputation; just that it has it.



Yeah, because that is what I am saying. Take diet advice from bloggers and the internet. Totally. But according to you, we should all be fine on the Twinkie diet.




Most doctors don't specialise in weight loss medicine or endocrinology. Doing the wrong thing repeatedly for decades doesn't mean that you're better at it for doing it for a long time. If the low fat hypothesis had any basis in science, I doubt we'd see so many medical professionals coming around to low carb.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mathmaniac Answer: Because they're a huge international organization now and they employ a lot of people. And they understand a balance sheet. And they borrow money from banks and fund pensions. And because they're 'KING OF THE WORLD' (MWAHHHAHHAHHHHA!) Take a class about business and bring a notebook. Take notes.

But I thought that WW's success was based on word of mouth and doctors' recommendations? I thought WW was successful commercially because it works. Are you saying that there might be more to its success than that now?



You're in no position to know or guess why doctors recommend WW when they do. No, you don't have to prove every statement, but you aren't some all knowing being either.



Your anecdotes are what is vivid. To you. Not to anyone else. It seems more important to you because you experience it. It means nothing in terms of WW efficacy as a weight loss program.



Where?



Mom only serves pancakes at breakfast. I don't like pancakes, but I only can get them at breakfast. It would be fallacious reasoning to think that I don't like breakfast because I don't like pancakes (and to then inverse the logic to say that I don't like pancakes because of my hatred of breakfast). It wouldn't matter how often I went on about how gross I thought pancakes are, it would never mean that I hated breakfast. I could even be critical of other traditional breakfast foods, and it would be faulty reasoning to assume that indicated I must have a hatred of breakfast.

Additionally, whether or not I like pancakes (or breakfast) would not mean I was wrong or right when I told someone how many times my mother served pancakes that month.

This whole "Moggsy hates big business" (WHICH I DON'T!) foray is not really proving anything about your assertion that WW's reputation is not artificially inflated.




So you're saying that a weight loss corporation somehow operates differently than other multinationals because it involves weight loss?



No I didn't.




I never said that.



Then why does it need to advertise and have such an aggressive presence? Why do you think they aren't as aggressive in pursuing their reputation in statistical studies?



What I said doesn't mean what you think it means. Try reading the entire context, including my criticisms of Atkins. Arguing semantics (and being fast and loose with the English language ensuring what I said fits what you'd like it to say) isn't going to change that I'd probably have most of the same criticisms of WW if it were low carb. But we'll see if they change! We can have a nice little discussion about it, and we can laugh, and you can say, "Wow, it wasn't just about it being a low fat diet." Which was what I meant. I hope I cleared things up!



Oh FFS. First you say I won't criticise the Atkins corp and that's wrong. When I point out I did, I am "shoving Atkins Nutritional" in front of a train and this confirms some idea you've constructed about my beliefs about business.



Nope. But I will tell you who does tell the consumer what to want....



You repeatedly claiming I said it doesn't magically mean that I said it.



You're the one claiming that attendance and the corporate success of WW somehow proves that the diet works. Why should I have to prove your points for you?