RE: Checking the validity of a diet

[Guest guest]

Tory,

You are so right....I have tried all the " fad diets " , pills and gimmicks

out there, and never had the good long lasting results that I have had

with Weight Watchers.

The difference between WW and the others is that WW teaches sensible,

healthy, balanced living.....the others don't....nor do they allow for

the occasional splurge.

I've never looked or felt better!

[Guest guest]

Tory,

You are so right....I have tried all the " fad diets " , pills and gimmicks

out there, and never had the good long lasting results that I have had

with Weight Watchers.

The difference between WW and the others is that WW teaches sensible,

healthy, balanced living.....the others don't....nor do they allow for

the occasional splurge.

I've never looked or felt better!

[Guest guest]

Tory,

You are so right....I have tried all the " fad diets " , pills and gimmicks

out there, and never had the good long lasting results that I have had

with Weight Watchers.

The difference between WW and the others is that WW teaches sensible,

healthy, balanced living.....the others don't....nor do they allow for

the occasional splurge.

I've never looked or felt better!

[Guest guest]

I so believe this. I do think that some people need more of this or more of

that. And that is particular to their make up. If one has diabetes then of

course the sugar is going to be a problem. I also think that eating all the

simple sugars and the lack of fiber in most peoples eating habits is huge

proponent. A manage of health and weight is exactly what weight watchers

preaches and thats what I see it as. I so happen to be loosing weight right now

to get to a healthy state. At that point I will manage my weight. I am not

loosing 10 pounds in one week cause I ate nothing but Cabbage soup (remember

that one lol). If I did I would gain it all back again once I stop eating the

soup. I do believe that what ever it takes to make you work and stay healthy is

good. If the Weight watchers plan of eating isn't for you then by all means

follow another plan. But I think the key word is DIET. I love the fact you

guys cheer people on with a .5 loss! you didn't gain it all in one week and

therefore you cant loose it all in one week.

Checking the validity of a diet

I'm going to try to be careful wording this because I do not to offend

anyone. I have seen a number of people discussing, on this an other

boards, different " diets " not related to Wwers (which is not a diet, but

a way to manage food intake). Some of the stuff I'm reading about how a

specific component of a diet does " this " to the body or does " that " to

the body is patently untrue, but because it was read in a book we

believe it. Most of these diets are based on anecdotal evidence. No

scientific studies have been done to prove (or to disprove) the

hypotheses in the books.

For example, many books out would have you believe that sugar is the

basis for most disease. Science shows that when simple sugars are

ingested the body uses them readily as energy unless too much is

ingested. If too much is taken in (ie more calories eaten than expended)

it does get stored as energy (or fat) for future use. If we don't use it

in the future, it stays on our hips, thighs, and bellies. The only thing

science has found that sugar is routinely guilty of in the average

person's diet (barring people with insulin issues) is tooth decay. A

small amount of sugar in the diet has been shown, time and again, to be

perfectly harmless.

There is nothing " wrong " with cutting sugars out of the diet, but one

does need to take every " diet book " and give it a scientific " litmus

test. " Very few of them pass. Most are based on anecdotal evidence which

sounds very compelling, but don't necessarily hold any scientific

validity. I can say, for example, that I cut all pizza out of my diet

and I lost weight, my skin cleared up, my marriage repaired itself, and

my car in running better than it has in years, therefore it follows that

pizza causes weight gain, bad skin, marital discord, and engine ping.

Obviously that's ridiculous, but that's as valid as other anecdotal

evidence.

People say these diets work. They " work " because you can eat no more

than 1200 calories a day if you follow their plan. Yes they often " say "

you can eat whatever you want and lose weight but their eating plan is

800-1200 calories a day.

Now please, don't take this as an attack. Don't take my word either. I

just implore everyone before starting ANY kind of eating plan that was

not given to you directly by your doctor, a doctor you know well, that

you look into the validity of the plan. Most are going to be harmless

and ineffective at best, or effective for a little while. But some are

downright dangerous. Most don't have long term longitudinal studies

(studies taken over a series of years, repeated by other scientists,

using a large randomly selected group of people, with a control group).

This is your body you're talking about it. What you put into it should

not be taken lightly.

A scientific study should be:

1. Long term: It should have taken place over years, not months. There

should be scientific proof, not stories.

2. Longitudinal: long term using a random sampling of a large number of

people.

3. Have a control group: one group who does not change their eating

habits during the time of the study. Of course with people this is

almost impossible. In a drug study a control group would get a placebo

and not know they're getting a placebo.

4. Be completely repeatable. That means another scientist should be able

to run the exact same study and get the same, or very very similar

results in their group.

So what is the " sign " that a diet may not stand up? (These can also be

applied supplements.) This does not mean the diet is bad, it just means

it may not be scientific.

1. Uses " stories " to support claims. Testemonials are a HUGE giveway.

2. Makes grandiose claims (lose 10 pounds in one week).

3. Is supported by a group with questionable accreditation. (You can

easily start a " group " that sounds really good on paper, but has no

actual meat behind it. Example: American Association of Science and

Nutrition sounds really good, doesn't it? I just made that up.)

4. Before and after pictures that don't ring true (I always love the

diet pills where the before person is sad, pudgy, and washed out and the

after person is strong, happy, and is so " cut " they could join a

bodybuilding competition...um, pills do not build muscles.)

5. When talking about nutrients, they only tell part of the story or the

complete nutrition picture isn't addressed. (Concentrating only on the

bad things carbs, without addressing the benefits of complex

carbohydrates in the diet is common with current diet trends.)

6. Claims that most diseases are caused by certain foods or food

components.

7. Overblown claims of " danger " in regular foods.

8. Promises of quick and dramatic results of weight loss.

10. Warnings not to trust your doctor or proven accredited institutions.

11. Is the latest trend or fad.

There's actually a really good website that you can use to check things

like this at www.quackwatch.com.

Again, this isn't meant to say that anything anyone is doing is " wrong "

or " bad " but just to give you some food for thought before you try the

latest greatest thing that might actually do harm to your body.

[Guest guest]

I so believe this. I do think that some people need more of this or more of

that. And that is particular to their make up. If one has diabetes then of

course the sugar is going to be a problem. I also think that eating all the

simple sugars and the lack of fiber in most peoples eating habits is huge

proponent. A manage of health and weight is exactly what weight watchers

preaches and thats what I see it as. I so happen to be loosing weight right now

to get to a healthy state. At that point I will manage my weight. I am not

loosing 10 pounds in one week cause I ate nothing but Cabbage soup (remember

that one lol). If I did I would gain it all back again once I stop eating the

soup. I do believe that what ever it takes to make you work and stay healthy is

good. If the Weight watchers plan of eating isn't for you then by all means

follow another plan. But I think the key word is DIET. I love the fact you

guys cheer people on with a .5 loss! you didn't gain it all in one week and

therefore you cant loose it all in one week.

Checking the validity of a diet

I'm going to try to be careful wording this because I do not to offend

anyone. I have seen a number of people discussing, on this an other

boards, different " diets " not related to Wwers (which is not a diet, but

a way to manage food intake). Some of the stuff I'm reading about how a

specific component of a diet does " this " to the body or does " that " to

the body is patently untrue, but because it was read in a book we

believe it. Most of these diets are based on anecdotal evidence. No

scientific studies have been done to prove (or to disprove) the

hypotheses in the books.

For example, many books out would have you believe that sugar is the

basis for most disease. Science shows that when simple sugars are

ingested the body uses them readily as energy unless too much is

ingested. If too much is taken in (ie more calories eaten than expended)

it does get stored as energy (or fat) for future use. If we don't use it

in the future, it stays on our hips, thighs, and bellies. The only thing

science has found that sugar is routinely guilty of in the average

person's diet (barring people with insulin issues) is tooth decay. A

small amount of sugar in the diet has been shown, time and again, to be

perfectly harmless.

There is nothing " wrong " with cutting sugars out of the diet, but one

does need to take every " diet book " and give it a scientific " litmus

test. " Very few of them pass. Most are based on anecdotal evidence which

sounds very compelling, but don't necessarily hold any scientific

validity. I can say, for example, that I cut all pizza out of my diet

and I lost weight, my skin cleared up, my marriage repaired itself, and

my car in running better than it has in years, therefore it follows that

pizza causes weight gain, bad skin, marital discord, and engine ping.

Obviously that's ridiculous, but that's as valid as other anecdotal

evidence.

People say these diets work. They " work " because you can eat no more

than 1200 calories a day if you follow their plan. Yes they often " say "

you can eat whatever you want and lose weight but their eating plan is

800-1200 calories a day.

Now please, don't take this as an attack. Don't take my word either. I

just implore everyone before starting ANY kind of eating plan that was

not given to you directly by your doctor, a doctor you know well, that

you look into the validity of the plan. Most are going to be harmless

and ineffective at best, or effective for a little while. But some are

downright dangerous. Most don't have long term longitudinal studies

(studies taken over a series of years, repeated by other scientists,

using a large randomly selected group of people, with a control group).

This is your body you're talking about it. What you put into it should

not be taken lightly.

A scientific study should be:

1. Long term: It should have taken place over years, not months. There

should be scientific proof, not stories.

2. Longitudinal: long term using a random sampling of a large number of

people.

3. Have a control group: one group who does not change their eating

habits during the time of the study. Of course with people this is

almost impossible. In a drug study a control group would get a placebo

and not know they're getting a placebo.

4. Be completely repeatable. That means another scientist should be able

to run the exact same study and get the same, or very very similar

results in their group.

So what is the " sign " that a diet may not stand up? (These can also be

applied supplements.) This does not mean the diet is bad, it just means

it may not be scientific.

1. Uses " stories " to support claims. Testemonials are a HUGE giveway.

2. Makes grandiose claims (lose 10 pounds in one week).

3. Is supported by a group with questionable accreditation. (You can

easily start a " group " that sounds really good on paper, but has no

actual meat behind it. Example: American Association of Science and

Nutrition sounds really good, doesn't it? I just made that up.)

4. Before and after pictures that don't ring true (I always love the

diet pills where the before person is sad, pudgy, and washed out and the

after person is strong, happy, and is so " cut " they could join a

bodybuilding competition...um, pills do not build muscles.)

5. When talking about nutrients, they only tell part of the story or the

complete nutrition picture isn't addressed. (Concentrating only on the

bad things carbs, without addressing the benefits of complex

carbohydrates in the diet is common with current diet trends.)

6. Claims that most diseases are caused by certain foods or food

components.

7. Overblown claims of " danger " in regular foods.

8. Promises of quick and dramatic results of weight loss.

10. Warnings not to trust your doctor or proven accredited institutions.

11. Is the latest trend or fad.

There's actually a really good website that you can use to check things

like this at www.quackwatch.com.

Again, this isn't meant to say that anything anyone is doing is " wrong "

or " bad " but just to give you some food for thought before you try the

latest greatest thing that might actually do harm to your body.

[Guest guest]

I so believe this. I do think that some people need more of this or more of

that. And that is particular to their make up. If one has diabetes then of

course the sugar is going to be a problem. I also think that eating all the

simple sugars and the lack of fiber in most peoples eating habits is huge

proponent. A manage of health and weight is exactly what weight watchers

preaches and thats what I see it as. I so happen to be loosing weight right now

to get to a healthy state. At that point I will manage my weight. I am not

loosing 10 pounds in one week cause I ate nothing but Cabbage soup (remember

that one lol). If I did I would gain it all back again once I stop eating the

soup. I do believe that what ever it takes to make you work and stay healthy is

good. If the Weight watchers plan of eating isn't for you then by all means

follow another plan. But I think the key word is DIET. I love the fact you

guys cheer people on with a .5 loss! you didn't gain it all in one week and

therefore you cant loose it all in one week.

Checking the validity of a diet

I'm going to try to be careful wording this because I do not to offend

anyone. I have seen a number of people discussing, on this an other

boards, different " diets " not related to Wwers (which is not a diet, but

a way to manage food intake). Some of the stuff I'm reading about how a

specific component of a diet does " this " to the body or does " that " to

the body is patently untrue, but because it was read in a book we

believe it. Most of these diets are based on anecdotal evidence. No

scientific studies have been done to prove (or to disprove) the

hypotheses in the books.

For example, many books out would have you believe that sugar is the

basis for most disease. Science shows that when simple sugars are

ingested the body uses them readily as energy unless too much is

ingested. If too much is taken in (ie more calories eaten than expended)

it does get stored as energy (or fat) for future use. If we don't use it

in the future, it stays on our hips, thighs, and bellies. The only thing

science has found that sugar is routinely guilty of in the average

person's diet (barring people with insulin issues) is tooth decay. A

small amount of sugar in the diet has been shown, time and again, to be

perfectly harmless.

There is nothing " wrong " with cutting sugars out of the diet, but one

does need to take every " diet book " and give it a scientific " litmus

test. " Very few of them pass. Most are based on anecdotal evidence which

sounds very compelling, but don't necessarily hold any scientific

validity. I can say, for example, that I cut all pizza out of my diet

and I lost weight, my skin cleared up, my marriage repaired itself, and

my car in running better than it has in years, therefore it follows that

pizza causes weight gain, bad skin, marital discord, and engine ping.

Obviously that's ridiculous, but that's as valid as other anecdotal

evidence.

People say these diets work. They " work " because you can eat no more

than 1200 calories a day if you follow their plan. Yes they often " say "

you can eat whatever you want and lose weight but their eating plan is

800-1200 calories a day.

Now please, don't take this as an attack. Don't take my word either. I

just implore everyone before starting ANY kind of eating plan that was

not given to you directly by your doctor, a doctor you know well, that

you look into the validity of the plan. Most are going to be harmless

and ineffective at best, or effective for a little while. But some are

downright dangerous. Most don't have long term longitudinal studies

(studies taken over a series of years, repeated by other scientists,

using a large randomly selected group of people, with a control group).

This is your body you're talking about it. What you put into it should

not be taken lightly.

A scientific study should be:

1. Long term: It should have taken place over years, not months. There

should be scientific proof, not stories.

2. Longitudinal: long term using a random sampling of a large number of

people.

3. Have a control group: one group who does not change their eating

habits during the time of the study. Of course with people this is

almost impossible. In a drug study a control group would get a placebo

and not know they're getting a placebo.

4. Be completely repeatable. That means another scientist should be able

to run the exact same study and get the same, or very very similar

results in their group.

So what is the " sign " that a diet may not stand up? (These can also be

applied supplements.) This does not mean the diet is bad, it just means

it may not be scientific.

1. Uses " stories " to support claims. Testemonials are a HUGE giveway.

2. Makes grandiose claims (lose 10 pounds in one week).

3. Is supported by a group with questionable accreditation. (You can

easily start a " group " that sounds really good on paper, but has no

actual meat behind it. Example: American Association of Science and

Nutrition sounds really good, doesn't it? I just made that up.)

4. Before and after pictures that don't ring true (I always love the

diet pills where the before person is sad, pudgy, and washed out and the

after person is strong, happy, and is so " cut " they could join a

bodybuilding competition...um, pills do not build muscles.)

5. When talking about nutrients, they only tell part of the story or the

complete nutrition picture isn't addressed. (Concentrating only on the

bad things carbs, without addressing the benefits of complex

carbohydrates in the diet is common with current diet trends.)

6. Claims that most diseases are caused by certain foods or food

components.

7. Overblown claims of " danger " in regular foods.

8. Promises of quick and dramatic results of weight loss.

10. Warnings not to trust your doctor or proven accredited institutions.

11. Is the latest trend or fad.

There's actually a really good website that you can use to check things

like this at www.quackwatch.com.

Again, this isn't meant to say that anything anyone is doing is " wrong "

or " bad " but just to give you some food for thought before you try the

latest greatest thing that might actually do harm to your body.

[Guest guest]

the thing is that a " splurge " isn't even that. Its allowing and fitting in the

extra goodies. you have to give and take. and even when you don't give back

and only take you can always jump back on the very next day. No waiting till

the next Monday comes around or with the next meal but where ever you are you

can get back in stride.

Re: Checking the validity of a diet

Tory,

You are so right....I have tried all the " fad diets " , pills and gimmicks

out there, and never had the good long lasting results that I have had

with Weight Watchers.

The difference between WW and the others is that WW teaches sensible,

healthy, balanced living.....the others don't....nor do they allow for

the occasional splurge.

I've never looked or felt better!

[Guest guest]

the thing is that a " splurge " isn't even that. Its allowing and fitting in the

extra goodies. you have to give and take. and even when you don't give back

and only take you can always jump back on the very next day. No waiting till

the next Monday comes around or with the next meal but where ever you are you

can get back in stride.

Re: Checking the validity of a diet

Tory,

You are so right....I have tried all the " fad diets " , pills and gimmicks

out there, and never had the good long lasting results that I have had

with Weight Watchers.

The difference between WW and the others is that WW teaches sensible,

healthy, balanced living.....the others don't....nor do they allow for

the occasional splurge.

I've never looked or felt better!

[Guest guest]

the thing is that a " splurge " isn't even that. Its allowing and fitting in the

extra goodies. you have to give and take. and even when you don't give back

and only take you can always jump back on the very next day. No waiting till

the next Monday comes around or with the next meal but where ever you are you

can get back in stride.

Re: Checking the validity of a diet

Tory,

You are so right....I have tried all the " fad diets " , pills and gimmicks

out there, and never had the good long lasting results that I have had

with Weight Watchers.

The difference between WW and the others is that WW teaches sensible,

healthy, balanced living.....the others don't....nor do they allow for

the occasional splurge.

I've never looked or felt better!

[Guest guest]

I am one of the guilty ones here. I have done some really off the

wall things in the past to keep my weight off, only to have it return

and with more weight than when I started, after I had quit one.

And I never ever checked out a diet, just did it, whether it was good

or bad for me. If it was out there and said you could lose x number

of lbs in a hurry, I tried it. Then when I got the weight off , I

would quit it too, because most just did not have the staying power

to keep me living on it, and then off to the next one.

I yo-yo-ed like this for years until I just got so tired of it all

and stopped. Thus the biggest gain ever.

Which brings me to WW, my first time on it. It will be a year on the

23rd of Oct and I have just under 50 lbs off. Now on any of the

*diets* I did in the past, I would never had stayed with one this

long. This would just not have been a fast enough of a weight loss.

So for me it just goes to show that getting into WW was the best

thing I have done for myself weight wise, ever. I am still doing it

after all this time and I feel it in my gut that I can always do it.

It seems so natural.

I know that there are some other plans out there that are truly good

also, and maybe if I had tried WW yrs ago, I would not of stuck it

out then either. But I am glad I finally have found something I can

live with and enjoy as well.

~~~Kallie~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> I'm going to try to be careful wording this because I do not to

offend

> anyone. I have seen a number of people discussing, on this an other

> boards, different " diets " not related to Wwers (which is not a

diet, but

> a way to manage food intake). Some of the stuff I'm reading about

how a

> specific component of a diet does " this " to the body or does " that "

to

> the body is patently untrue, but because it was read in a book we

> believe it. Most of these diets are based on anecdotal evidence. No

> scientific studies have been done to prove (or to disprove) the

> hypotheses in the books.

>

> For example, many books out would have you believe that sugar is the

> basis for most disease. Science shows that when simple sugars are

> ingested the body uses them readily as energy unless too much is

> ingested. If too much is taken in (ie more calories eaten than

expended)

> it does get stored as energy (or fat) for future use. If we don't

use it

> in the future, it stays on our hips, thighs, and bellies. The only

thing

> science has found that sugar is routinely guilty of in the average

> person's diet (barring people with insulin issues) is tooth decay. A

> small amount of sugar in the diet has been shown, time and again,

to be

> perfectly harmless.

>

> There is nothing " wrong " with cutting sugars out of the diet, but

one

> does need to take every " diet book " and give it a scientific " litmus

> test. " Very few of them pass. Most are based on anecdotal evidence

which

> sounds very compelling, but don't necessarily hold any scientific

> validity. I can say, for example, that I cut all pizza out of my

diet

> and I lost weight, my skin cleared up, my marriage repaired itself,

and

> my car in running better than it has in years, therefore it follows

that

> pizza causes weight gain, bad skin, marital discord, and engine

ping.

> Obviously that's ridiculous, but that's as valid as other anecdotal

> evidence.

>

> People say these diets work. They " work " because you can eat no more

> than 1200 calories a day if you follow their plan. Yes they

often " say "

> you can eat whatever you want and lose weight but their eating plan

is

> 800-1200 calories a day.

>

> Now please, don't take this as an attack. Don't take my word

either. I

> just implore everyone before starting ANY kind of eating plan that

was

> not given to you directly by your doctor, a doctor you know well,

that

> you look into the validity of the plan. Most are going to be

harmless

> and ineffective at best, or effective for a little while. But some

are

> downright dangerous. Most don't have long term longitudinal studies

> (studies taken over a series of years, repeated by other scientists,

> using a large randomly selected group of people, with a control

group).

> This is your body you're talking about it. What you put into it

should

> not be taken lightly.

>

> A scientific study should be:

>

> 1. Long term: It should have taken place over years, not months.

There

> should be scientific proof, not stories.

>

> 2. Longitudinal: long term using a random sampling of a large

number of

> people.

>

> 3. Have a control group: one group who does not change their eating

> habits during the time of the study. Of course with people this is

> almost impossible. In a drug study a control group would get a

placebo

> and not know they're getting a placebo.

>

> 4. Be completely repeatable. That means another scientist should be

able

> to run the exact same study and get the same, or very very similar

> results in their group.

>

> So what is the " sign " that a diet may not stand up? (These can also

be

> applied supplements.) This does not mean the diet is bad, it just

means

> it may not be scientific.

>

> 1. Uses " stories " to support claims. Testemonials are a HUGE

giveway.

> 2. Makes grandiose claims (lose 10 pounds in one week).

> 3. Is supported by a group with questionable accreditation. (You can

> easily start a " group " that sounds really good on paper, but has no

> actual meat behind it. Example: American Association of Science and

> Nutrition sounds really good, doesn't it? I just made that up.)

> 4. Before and after pictures that don't ring true (I always love the

> diet pills where the before person is sad, pudgy, and washed out

and the

> after person is strong, happy, and is so " cut " they could join a

> bodybuilding competition...um, pills do not build muscles.)

> 5. When talking about nutrients, they only tell part of the story

or the

> complete nutrition picture isn't addressed. (Concentrating only on

the

> bad things carbs, without addressing the benefits of complex

> carbohydrates in the diet is common with current diet trends.)

> 6. Claims that most diseases are caused by certain foods or food

> components.

> 7. Overblown claims of " danger " in regular foods.

> 8. Promises of quick and dramatic results of weight loss.

> 10. Warnings not to trust your doctor or proven accredited

institutions.

> 11. Is the latest trend or fad.

>

> There's actually a really good website that you can use to check

things

> like this at www.quackwatch.com.

>

> Again, this isn't meant to say that anything anyone is doing

is " wrong "

> or " bad " but just to give you some food for thought before you try

the

> latest greatest thing that might actually do harm to your body.

[Guest guest]

I am one of the guilty ones here. I have done some really off the

wall things in the past to keep my weight off, only to have it return

and with more weight than when I started, after I had quit one.

And I never ever checked out a diet, just did it, whether it was good

or bad for me. If it was out there and said you could lose x number

of lbs in a hurry, I tried it. Then when I got the weight off , I

would quit it too, because most just did not have the staying power

to keep me living on it, and then off to the next one.

I yo-yo-ed like this for years until I just got so tired of it all

and stopped. Thus the biggest gain ever.

Which brings me to WW, my first time on it. It will be a year on the

23rd of Oct and I have just under 50 lbs off. Now on any of the

*diets* I did in the past, I would never had stayed with one this

long. This would just not have been a fast enough of a weight loss.

So for me it just goes to show that getting into WW was the best

thing I have done for myself weight wise, ever. I am still doing it

after all this time and I feel it in my gut that I can always do it.

It seems so natural.

I know that there are some other plans out there that are truly good

also, and maybe if I had tried WW yrs ago, I would not of stuck it

out then either. But I am glad I finally have found something I can

live with and enjoy as well.

~~~Kallie~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> I'm going to try to be careful wording this because I do not to

offend

> anyone. I have seen a number of people discussing, on this an other

> boards, different " diets " not related to Wwers (which is not a

diet, but

> a way to manage food intake). Some of the stuff I'm reading about

how a

> specific component of a diet does " this " to the body or does " that "

to

> the body is patently untrue, but because it was read in a book we

> believe it. Most of these diets are based on anecdotal evidence. No

> scientific studies have been done to prove (or to disprove) the

> hypotheses in the books.

>

> For example, many books out would have you believe that sugar is the

> basis for most disease. Science shows that when simple sugars are

> ingested the body uses them readily as energy unless too much is

> ingested. If too much is taken in (ie more calories eaten than

expended)

> it does get stored as energy (or fat) for future use. If we don't

use it

> in the future, it stays on our hips, thighs, and bellies. The only

thing

> science has found that sugar is routinely guilty of in the average

> person's diet (barring people with insulin issues) is tooth decay. A

> small amount of sugar in the diet has been shown, time and again,

to be

> perfectly harmless.

>

> There is nothing " wrong " with cutting sugars out of the diet, but

one

> does need to take every " diet book " and give it a scientific " litmus

> test. " Very few of them pass. Most are based on anecdotal evidence

which

> sounds very compelling, but don't necessarily hold any scientific

> validity. I can say, for example, that I cut all pizza out of my

diet

> and I lost weight, my skin cleared up, my marriage repaired itself,

and

> my car in running better than it has in years, therefore it follows

that

> pizza causes weight gain, bad skin, marital discord, and engine

ping.

> Obviously that's ridiculous, but that's as valid as other anecdotal

> evidence.

>

> People say these diets work. They " work " because you can eat no more

> than 1200 calories a day if you follow their plan. Yes they

often " say "

> you can eat whatever you want and lose weight but their eating plan

is

> 800-1200 calories a day.

>

> Now please, don't take this as an attack. Don't take my word

either. I

> just implore everyone before starting ANY kind of eating plan that

was

> not given to you directly by your doctor, a doctor you know well,

that

> you look into the validity of the plan. Most are going to be

harmless

> and ineffective at best, or effective for a little while. But some

are

> downright dangerous. Most don't have long term longitudinal studies

> (studies taken over a series of years, repeated by other scientists,

> using a large randomly selected group of people, with a control

group).

> This is your body you're talking about it. What you put into it

should

> not be taken lightly.

>

> A scientific study should be:

>

> 1. Long term: It should have taken place over years, not months.

There

> should be scientific proof, not stories.

>

> 2. Longitudinal: long term using a random sampling of a large

number of

> people.

>

> 3. Have a control group: one group who does not change their eating

> habits during the time of the study. Of course with people this is

> almost impossible. In a drug study a control group would get a

placebo

> and not know they're getting a placebo.

>

> 4. Be completely repeatable. That means another scientist should be

able

> to run the exact same study and get the same, or very very similar

> results in their group.

>

> So what is the " sign " that a diet may not stand up? (These can also

be

> applied supplements.) This does not mean the diet is bad, it just

means

> it may not be scientific.

>

> 1. Uses " stories " to support claims. Testemonials are a HUGE

giveway.

> 2. Makes grandiose claims (lose 10 pounds in one week).

> 3. Is supported by a group with questionable accreditation. (You can

> easily start a " group " that sounds really good on paper, but has no

> actual meat behind it. Example: American Association of Science and

> Nutrition sounds really good, doesn't it? I just made that up.)

> 4. Before and after pictures that don't ring true (I always love the

> diet pills where the before person is sad, pudgy, and washed out

and the

> after person is strong, happy, and is so " cut " they could join a

> bodybuilding competition...um, pills do not build muscles.)

> 5. When talking about nutrients, they only tell part of the story

or the

> complete nutrition picture isn't addressed. (Concentrating only on

the

> bad things carbs, without addressing the benefits of complex

> carbohydrates in the diet is common with current diet trends.)

> 6. Claims that most diseases are caused by certain foods or food

> components.

> 7. Overblown claims of " danger " in regular foods.

> 8. Promises of quick and dramatic results of weight loss.

> 10. Warnings not to trust your doctor or proven accredited

institutions.

> 11. Is the latest trend or fad.

>

> There's actually a really good website that you can use to check

things

> like this at www.quackwatch.com.

>

> Again, this isn't meant to say that anything anyone is doing

is " wrong "

> or " bad " but just to give you some food for thought before you try

the

> latest greatest thing that might actually do harm to your body.

[Guest guest]

I am one of the guilty ones here. I have done some really off the

wall things in the past to keep my weight off, only to have it return

and with more weight than when I started, after I had quit one.

And I never ever checked out a diet, just did it, whether it was good

or bad for me. If it was out there and said you could lose x number

of lbs in a hurry, I tried it. Then when I got the weight off , I

would quit it too, because most just did not have the staying power

to keep me living on it, and then off to the next one.

I yo-yo-ed like this for years until I just got so tired of it all

and stopped. Thus the biggest gain ever.

Which brings me to WW, my first time on it. It will be a year on the

23rd of Oct and I have just under 50 lbs off. Now on any of the

*diets* I did in the past, I would never had stayed with one this

long. This would just not have been a fast enough of a weight loss.

So for me it just goes to show that getting into WW was the best

thing I have done for myself weight wise, ever. I am still doing it

after all this time and I feel it in my gut that I can always do it.

It seems so natural.

I know that there are some other plans out there that are truly good

also, and maybe if I had tried WW yrs ago, I would not of stuck it

out then either. But I am glad I finally have found something I can

live with and enjoy as well.

~~~Kallie~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> I'm going to try to be careful wording this because I do not to

offend

> anyone. I have seen a number of people discussing, on this an other

> boards, different " diets " not related to Wwers (which is not a

diet, but

> a way to manage food intake). Some of the stuff I'm reading about

how a

> specific component of a diet does " this " to the body or does " that "

to

> the body is patently untrue, but because it was read in a book we

> believe it. Most of these diets are based on anecdotal evidence. No

> scientific studies have been done to prove (or to disprove) the

> hypotheses in the books.

>

> For example, many books out would have you believe that sugar is the

> basis for most disease. Science shows that when simple sugars are

> ingested the body uses them readily as energy unless too much is

> ingested. If too much is taken in (ie more calories eaten than

expended)

> it does get stored as energy (or fat) for future use. If we don't

use it

> in the future, it stays on our hips, thighs, and bellies. The only

thing

> science has found that sugar is routinely guilty of in the average

> person's diet (barring people with insulin issues) is tooth decay. A

> small amount of sugar in the diet has been shown, time and again,

to be

> perfectly harmless.

>

> There is nothing " wrong " with cutting sugars out of the diet, but

one

> does need to take every " diet book " and give it a scientific " litmus

> test. " Very few of them pass. Most are based on anecdotal evidence

which

> sounds very compelling, but don't necessarily hold any scientific

> validity. I can say, for example, that I cut all pizza out of my

diet

> and I lost weight, my skin cleared up, my marriage repaired itself,

and

> my car in running better than it has in years, therefore it follows

that

> pizza causes weight gain, bad skin, marital discord, and engine

ping.

> Obviously that's ridiculous, but that's as valid as other anecdotal

> evidence.

>

> People say these diets work. They " work " because you can eat no more

> than 1200 calories a day if you follow their plan. Yes they

often " say "

> you can eat whatever you want and lose weight but their eating plan

is

> 800-1200 calories a day.

>

> Now please, don't take this as an attack. Don't take my word

either. I

> just implore everyone before starting ANY kind of eating plan that

was

> not given to you directly by your doctor, a doctor you know well,

that

> you look into the validity of the plan. Most are going to be

harmless

> and ineffective at best, or effective for a little while. But some

are

> downright dangerous. Most don't have long term longitudinal studies

> (studies taken over a series of years, repeated by other scientists,

> using a large randomly selected group of people, with a control

group).

> This is your body you're talking about it. What you put into it

should

> not be taken lightly.

>

> A scientific study should be:

>

> 1. Long term: It should have taken place over years, not months.

There

> should be scientific proof, not stories.

>

> 2. Longitudinal: long term using a random sampling of a large

number of

> people.

>

> 3. Have a control group: one group who does not change their eating

> habits during the time of the study. Of course with people this is

> almost impossible. In a drug study a control group would get a

placebo

> and not know they're getting a placebo.

>

> 4. Be completely repeatable. That means another scientist should be

able

> to run the exact same study and get the same, or very very similar

> results in their group.

>

> So what is the " sign " that a diet may not stand up? (These can also

be

> applied supplements.) This does not mean the diet is bad, it just

means

> it may not be scientific.

>

> 1. Uses " stories " to support claims. Testemonials are a HUGE

giveway.

> 2. Makes grandiose claims (lose 10 pounds in one week).

> 3. Is supported by a group with questionable accreditation. (You can

> easily start a " group " that sounds really good on paper, but has no

> actual meat behind it. Example: American Association of Science and

> Nutrition sounds really good, doesn't it? I just made that up.)

> 4. Before and after pictures that don't ring true (I always love the

> diet pills where the before person is sad, pudgy, and washed out

and the

> after person is strong, happy, and is so " cut " they could join a

> bodybuilding competition...um, pills do not build muscles.)

> 5. When talking about nutrients, they only tell part of the story

or the

> complete nutrition picture isn't addressed. (Concentrating only on

the

> bad things carbs, without addressing the benefits of complex

> carbohydrates in the diet is common with current diet trends.)

> 6. Claims that most diseases are caused by certain foods or food

> components.

> 7. Overblown claims of " danger " in regular foods.

> 8. Promises of quick and dramatic results of weight loss.

> 10. Warnings not to trust your doctor or proven accredited

institutions.

> 11. Is the latest trend or fad.

>

> There's actually a really good website that you can use to check

things

> like this at www.quackwatch.com.

>

> Again, this isn't meant to say that anything anyone is doing

is " wrong "

> or " bad " but just to give you some food for thought before you try

the

> latest greatest thing that might actually do harm to your body.

[Guest guest]

Hi Tory,

First I want to say no offense taken :0)

I suspect that this is in regard to the Sugar Busters comment that I

made. I will explain a bit - it was designed for diabetics to manage

blood sugar by 4 doctors, but they found that when people who were not

diabetic (mostly the spouses of the diabetics who out of ease of food

preparation - like my mom - lol/not having to make 2 meals all the time)

lessened their intake of white flour by moving to whole grain choices

and by eliminating a large amount refined sugar in cereals and candy

that they lost weight by changing their choices. I actually read and

studied this book in depth that was recommended to my step dad by his

doctor (he is a type ll) to really see what they were telling him. I

like to find these things out for myself - I am a voracious reader.

Either way ww does not promote a high intake of sugar and wants you to

eat healthy and make sound nutritional choices which means cakes, pies,

etc are limited anyway. Sugar Busters is not a diet at all but a

lifestyle. I did a lot of research mostly because of my dad since he is

in DENIAL about being a type ll - LOL.

It is much different than Atkins. It promotes many of the same things

as ww - healthy " whole " (not processed) foods, limited refined sugar,

etc. It also encompasses fruit and starchy veggies and whole grain

breads and cereals where Atkins does not. Atkins also is OK with mass

quantities of eggs, bacon, etc, where Sugar Busters does not promote a

high fat or high cholesterol lifestyle. I am losing at an average rate

for ww and that is just fine with me, but I feel much better knowing

that the things I eat will be used really efficiently by my body and

that I am not adding to my fat storage - who needs that? I did notice

that I had a fudgesicle and garbage food habit, that even while staying

in points I did stop losing completely and was starving all the time

because I was not making healthy choices. I also really like whole

grain bread and whole foods in general. I have never been a white bread

fan because it has no nutritional value whatsoever. Now tell my DH that

he can not have Wonder Bread and I think he would go lay in traffic, but

I would never impose any bread rules on him.

They do not make any claims or have any wild testimonials. Sugar will

not kill you, but refined sugar not the kind in fruit is harder to

process into energy. They DO want you to exercise to improve your

health and I do not recall any supplements being discussed. I would

never take supplements so if they did mention them and I am mistaken I

must have blown it off. Since the book really is for people who have

blood sugar issues and not those who go on " diets " , they don't have any

weirdo eating patterns or anything. I tried that style of eating in

conjunction with my ww points just to see what it was like and found

that I truly enjoyed it! It is great to find a lifestyle that you can

do forever and not perpetually starve. That is why I like ww.

My step dad has made these changes and has done very well. He does not

feel deprived and does not in any way count points - that will NEVER

happen - haha. But he is doing great. My mom has gone along with him

mostly because it is a pain making 2 dinners (but she hates triscuits

and loves Ritz crackers so she is not a psycho about it) and has

actually lost without trying.

Just my .02

Jenn

Checking the validity of a diet

I'm going to try to be careful wording this because I do not to offend

anyone. I have seen a number of people discussing, on this an other

boards, different " diets " not related to Wwers (which is not a diet, but

a way to manage food intake). Some of the stuff I'm reading about how a

specific component of a diet does " this " to the body or does " that " to

the body is patently untrue, but because it was read in a book we

believe it. Most of these diets are based on anecdotal evidence. No

scientific studies have been done to prove (or to disprove) the

hypotheses in the books.

For example, many books out would have you believe that sugar is the

basis for most disease. Science shows that when simple sugars are

ingested the body uses them readily as energy unless too much is

ingested. If too much is taken in (ie more calories eaten than expended)

it does get stored as energy (or fat) for future use. If we don't use it

in the future, it stays on our hips, thighs, and bellies. The only thing

science has found that sugar is routinely guilty of in the average

person's diet (barring people with insulin issues) is tooth decay. A

small amount of sugar in the diet has been shown, time and again, to be

perfectly harmless.

There is nothing " wrong " with cutting sugars out of the diet, but one

does need to take every " diet book " and give it a scientific " litmus

test. " Very few of them pass. Most are based on anecdotal evidence which

sounds very compelling, but don't necessarily hold any scientific

validity. I can say, for example, that I cut all pizza out of my diet

and I lost weight, my skin cleared up, my marriage repaired itself, and

my car in running better than it has in years, therefore it follows that

pizza causes weight gain, bad skin, marital discord, and engine ping.

Obviously that's ridiculous, but that's as valid as other anecdotal

evidence.

People say these diets work. They " work " because you can eat no more

than 1200 calories a day if you follow their plan. Yes they often " say "

you can eat whatever you want and lose weight but their eating plan is

800-1200 calories a day.

Now please, don't take this as an attack. Don't take my word either. I

just implore everyone before starting ANY kind of eating plan that was

not given to you directly by your doctor, a doctor you know well, that

you look into the validity of the plan. Most are going to be harmless

and ineffective at best, or effective for a little while. But some are

downright dangerous. Most don't have long term longitudinal studies

(studies taken over a series of years, repeated by other scientists,

using a large randomly selected group of people, with a control group).

This is your body you're talking about it. What you put into it should

not be taken lightly.

A scientific study should be:

1. Long term: It should have taken place over years, not months. There

should be scientific proof, not stories.

2. Longitudinal: long term using a random sampling of a large number of

people.

3. Have a control group: one group who does not change their eating

habits during the time of the study. Of course with people this is

almost impossible. In a drug study a control group would get a placebo

and not know they're getting a placebo.

4. Be completely repeatable. That means another scientist should be able

to run the exact same study and get the same, or very very similar

results in their group.

So what is the " sign " that a diet may not stand up? (These can also be

applied supplements.) This does not mean the diet is bad, it just means

it may not be scientific.

1. Uses " stories " to support claims. Testemonials are a HUGE giveway.

2. Makes grandiose claims (lose 10 pounds in one week).

3. Is supported by a group with questionable accreditation. (You can

easily start a " group " that sounds really good on paper, but has no

actual meat behind it. Example: American Association of Science and

Nutrition sounds really good, doesn't it? I just made that up.)

4. Before and after pictures that don't ring true (I always love the

diet pills where the before person is sad, pudgy, and washed out and the

after person is strong, happy, and is so " cut " they could join a

bodybuilding competition...um, pills do not build muscles.)

5. When talking about nutrients, they only tell part of the story or the

complete nutrition picture isn't addressed. (Concentrating only on the

bad things carbs, without addressing the benefits of complex

carbohydrates in the diet is common with current diet trends.)

6. Claims that most diseases are caused by certain foods or food

components.

7. Overblown claims of " danger " in regular foods.

8. Promises of quick and dramatic results of weight loss.

10. Warnings not to trust your doctor or proven accredited institutions.

11. Is the latest trend or fad.

There's actually a really good website that you can use to check things

like this at www.quackwatch.com.

Again, this isn't meant to say that anything anyone is doing is " wrong "

or " bad " but just to give you some food for thought before you try the

latest greatest thing that might actually do harm to your body.

[Guest guest]

Hi Tory,

First I want to say no offense taken :0)

I suspect that this is in regard to the Sugar Busters comment that I

made. I will explain a bit - it was designed for diabetics to manage

blood sugar by 4 doctors, but they found that when people who were not

diabetic (mostly the spouses of the diabetics who out of ease of food

preparation - like my mom - lol/not having to make 2 meals all the time)

lessened their intake of white flour by moving to whole grain choices

and by eliminating a large amount refined sugar in cereals and candy

that they lost weight by changing their choices. I actually read and

studied this book in depth that was recommended to my step dad by his

doctor (he is a type ll) to really see what they were telling him. I

like to find these things out for myself - I am a voracious reader.

Either way ww does not promote a high intake of sugar and wants you to

eat healthy and make sound nutritional choices which means cakes, pies,

etc are limited anyway. Sugar Busters is not a diet at all but a

lifestyle. I did a lot of research mostly because of my dad since he is

in DENIAL about being a type ll - LOL.

It is much different than Atkins. It promotes many of the same things

as ww - healthy " whole " (not processed) foods, limited refined sugar,

etc. It also encompasses fruit and starchy veggies and whole grain

breads and cereals where Atkins does not. Atkins also is OK with mass

quantities of eggs, bacon, etc, where Sugar Busters does not promote a

high fat or high cholesterol lifestyle. I am losing at an average rate

for ww and that is just fine with me, but I feel much better knowing

that the things I eat will be used really efficiently by my body and

that I am not adding to my fat storage - who needs that? I did notice

that I had a fudgesicle and garbage food habit, that even while staying

in points I did stop losing completely and was starving all the time

because I was not making healthy choices. I also really like whole

grain bread and whole foods in general. I have never been a white bread

fan because it has no nutritional value whatsoever. Now tell my DH that

he can not have Wonder Bread and I think he would go lay in traffic, but

I would never impose any bread rules on him.

They do not make any claims or have any wild testimonials. Sugar will

not kill you, but refined sugar not the kind in fruit is harder to

process into energy. They DO want you to exercise to improve your

health and I do not recall any supplements being discussed. I would

never take supplements so if they did mention them and I am mistaken I

must have blown it off. Since the book really is for people who have

blood sugar issues and not those who go on " diets " , they don't have any

weirdo eating patterns or anything. I tried that style of eating in

conjunction with my ww points just to see what it was like and found

that I truly enjoyed it! It is great to find a lifestyle that you can

do forever and not perpetually starve. That is why I like ww.

My step dad has made these changes and has done very well. He does not

feel deprived and does not in any way count points - that will NEVER

happen - haha. But he is doing great. My mom has gone along with him

mostly because it is a pain making 2 dinners (but she hates triscuits

and loves Ritz crackers so she is not a psycho about it) and has

actually lost without trying.

Just my .02

Jenn

Checking the validity of a diet

I'm going to try to be careful wording this because I do not to offend

anyone. I have seen a number of people discussing, on this an other

boards, different " diets " not related to Wwers (which is not a diet, but

a way to manage food intake). Some of the stuff I'm reading about how a

specific component of a diet does " this " to the body or does " that " to

the body is patently untrue, but because it was read in a book we

believe it. Most of these diets are based on anecdotal evidence. No

scientific studies have been done to prove (or to disprove) the

hypotheses in the books.

For example, many books out would have you believe that sugar is the

basis for most disease. Science shows that when simple sugars are

ingested the body uses them readily as energy unless too much is

ingested. If too much is taken in (ie more calories eaten than expended)

it does get stored as energy (or fat) for future use. If we don't use it

in the future, it stays on our hips, thighs, and bellies. The only thing

science has found that sugar is routinely guilty of in the average

person's diet (barring people with insulin issues) is tooth decay. A

small amount of sugar in the diet has been shown, time and again, to be

perfectly harmless.

There is nothing " wrong " with cutting sugars out of the diet, but one

does need to take every " diet book " and give it a scientific " litmus

test. " Very few of them pass. Most are based on anecdotal evidence which

sounds very compelling, but don't necessarily hold any scientific

validity. I can say, for example, that I cut all pizza out of my diet

and I lost weight, my skin cleared up, my marriage repaired itself, and

my car in running better than it has in years, therefore it follows that

pizza causes weight gain, bad skin, marital discord, and engine ping.

Obviously that's ridiculous, but that's as valid as other anecdotal

evidence.

People say these diets work. They " work " because you can eat no more

than 1200 calories a day if you follow their plan. Yes they often " say "

you can eat whatever you want and lose weight but their eating plan is

800-1200 calories a day.

Now please, don't take this as an attack. Don't take my word either. I

just implore everyone before starting ANY kind of eating plan that was

not given to you directly by your doctor, a doctor you know well, that

you look into the validity of the plan. Most are going to be harmless

and ineffective at best, or effective for a little while. But some are

downright dangerous. Most don't have long term longitudinal studies

(studies taken over a series of years, repeated by other scientists,

using a large randomly selected group of people, with a control group).

This is your body you're talking about it. What you put into it should

not be taken lightly.

A scientific study should be:

1. Long term: It should have taken place over years, not months. There

should be scientific proof, not stories.

2. Longitudinal: long term using a random sampling of a large number of

people.

3. Have a control group: one group who does not change their eating

habits during the time of the study. Of course with people this is

almost impossible. In a drug study a control group would get a placebo

and not know they're getting a placebo.

4. Be completely repeatable. That means another scientist should be able

to run the exact same study and get the same, or very very similar

results in their group.

So what is the " sign " that a diet may not stand up? (These can also be

applied supplements.) This does not mean the diet is bad, it just means

it may not be scientific.

1. Uses " stories " to support claims. Testemonials are a HUGE giveway.

2. Makes grandiose claims (lose 10 pounds in one week).

3. Is supported by a group with questionable accreditation. (You can

easily start a " group " that sounds really good on paper, but has no

actual meat behind it. Example: American Association of Science and

Nutrition sounds really good, doesn't it? I just made that up.)

4. Before and after pictures that don't ring true (I always love the

diet pills where the before person is sad, pudgy, and washed out and the

after person is strong, happy, and is so " cut " they could join a

bodybuilding competition...um, pills do not build muscles.)

5. When talking about nutrients, they only tell part of the story or the

complete nutrition picture isn't addressed. (Concentrating only on the

bad things carbs, without addressing the benefits of complex

carbohydrates in the diet is common with current diet trends.)

6. Claims that most diseases are caused by certain foods or food

components.

7. Overblown claims of " danger " in regular foods.

8. Promises of quick and dramatic results of weight loss.

10. Warnings not to trust your doctor or proven accredited institutions.

11. Is the latest trend or fad.

There's actually a really good website that you can use to check things

like this at www.quackwatch.com.

Again, this isn't meant to say that anything anyone is doing is " wrong "

or " bad " but just to give you some food for thought before you try the

latest greatest thing that might actually do harm to your body.

[Guest guest]

I think alot of us are following Sugar Busters in one way or another by

default...clearly, whole foods and grains are better than refined

varieties...and speaking for myself, I feel much better when I eat those

types of foods as opposed to the weeks where my schedule is hectic and I

am forced to eat frozen dinners and such.

That being said.....I still feel that WW is the only way to go!

[Guest guest]

I think alot of us are following Sugar Busters in one way or another by

default...clearly, whole foods and grains are better than refined

varieties...and speaking for myself, I feel much better when I eat those

types of foods as opposed to the weeks where my schedule is hectic and I

am forced to eat frozen dinners and such.

That being said.....I still feel that WW is the only way to go!

[Guest guest]

I think alot of us are following Sugar Busters in one way or another by

default...clearly, whole foods and grains are better than refined

varieties...and speaking for myself, I feel much better when I eat those

types of foods as opposed to the weeks where my schedule is hectic and I

am forced to eat frozen dinners and such.

That being said.....I still feel that WW is the only way to go!

[Guest guest]

> You are so right....I have tried all the " fad diets " , pills

> and gimmicks

> out there, and never had the good long lasting results that I

> have had

> with Weight Watchers.

I did this only two times. Both times I lost and both times I regained

so quickly that it wasn't even funny, adding 20 pounds each time. The

first time I was about 20 years old and was eating 800 calories a day. I

literally shook and was so weak I couldn't do anything! Forget working

out. The second time was a three-day stint on a no-carb diet. I knew

better. I was a health education major in college. I have a friend who

is a biologist who about died when I made the suggestion, warning me of

the dangers of no carbs and high protein (damage to kidneys and liver

being the main things she harped on). I was shakey, crabby, and so tired

I'd come home and pass out in my chair by 5:00 every night. (I rarely

get to bed before midnight and get up at 5:30, so I'm not one of those

who needs even 8 hours a night, much less 12 or 13.) It was horrible!

> The difference between WW and the others is that WW teaches sensible,

> healthy, balanced living.....the others don't....nor do they

> allow for

> the occasional splurge.

Exactly. It just makes perfect sense. I always wonder at people who say

they were perfectly on program and gained on WW. I'm sure it's possible

that someone has messed up their metabolism so badly by going on fad

diets that are too restrictive that they'd need to eat at a lower point

level to lose. Of course maybe that's not something someone would

consider just starting, going down a few points to see if that works,

but it seems like a no brainer to me.

> I've never looked or felt better!

Me neither!

Do you have a website with pics?

Tory

[Guest guest]

> You are so right....I have tried all the " fad diets " , pills

> and gimmicks

> out there, and never had the good long lasting results that I

> have had

> with Weight Watchers.

I did this only two times. Both times I lost and both times I regained

so quickly that it wasn't even funny, adding 20 pounds each time. The

first time I was about 20 years old and was eating 800 calories a day. I

literally shook and was so weak I couldn't do anything! Forget working

out. The second time was a three-day stint on a no-carb diet. I knew

better. I was a health education major in college. I have a friend who

is a biologist who about died when I made the suggestion, warning me of

the dangers of no carbs and high protein (damage to kidneys and liver

being the main things she harped on). I was shakey, crabby, and so tired

I'd come home and pass out in my chair by 5:00 every night. (I rarely

get to bed before midnight and get up at 5:30, so I'm not one of those

who needs even 8 hours a night, much less 12 or 13.) It was horrible!

> The difference between WW and the others is that WW teaches sensible,

> healthy, balanced living.....the others don't....nor do they

> allow for

> the occasional splurge.

Exactly. It just makes perfect sense. I always wonder at people who say

they were perfectly on program and gained on WW. I'm sure it's possible

that someone has messed up their metabolism so badly by going on fad

diets that are too restrictive that they'd need to eat at a lower point

level to lose. Of course maybe that's not something someone would

consider just starting, going down a few points to see if that works,

but it seems like a no brainer to me.

> I've never looked or felt better!

Me neither!

Do you have a website with pics?

Tory

[Guest guest]

> I so believe this. I do think that some people need more of

> this or more of that. And that is particular to their make

> up. If one has diabetes then of course the sugar is going to

> be a problem. I also think that eating all the simple sugars

> and the lack of fiber in most peoples eating habits is huge

I agree. I love simple sugars...don't get me wrong. I have a HORRIBLE

sweet tooth, but I've learned to enjoy some but try to work in complex

carbs in addition to my simple sugars so it's a very very small part of

my diet. The food pyramid is pretty right on when it comes to this.

Fats, simple sugars should be no more than 10% of a healthy diet.

> proponent. A manage of health and weight is exactly what

> weight watchers preaches and thats what I see it as. I so

> happen to be loosing weight right now to get to a healthy

> state. At that point I will manage my weight. I am not

I actually found an online journal program that evaluated the nutrition

content of your food for a day. I journaled a few WW days. Not special

days or days I was " being good " just regular days where I ate my points.

Every day fell right in with what the USDA recommends in the areas of

most vitamins, fat, carbohydrates, protein, and even most trace

minerals. I was really impressed.

> loosing 10 pounds in one week cause I ate nothing but Cabbage

> soup (remember that one lol). If I did I would gain it all

> back again once I stop eating the soup. I do believe that

> what ever it takes to make you work and stay healthy is good.

Oh good LORD! My nose will never forget THAT one! My mother-in-law went

on it one time. During that period we had a family get together. It was

the stuff that nightmares are made of.

> If the Weight watchers plan of eating isn't for you then by

> all means follow another plan. But I think the key word is

> DIET. I love the fact you guys cheer people on with a .5

> loss! you didn't gain it all in one week and therefore you

> cant loose it all in one week.

Yup! Besides that, we all need to remember that every day we're on

program, eating right, and exercising we are doing great things for our

bodies. Sometimes that doesn't show up on the scales.

[Guest guest]

Kallie

I think we've ALL done fad diets without thinking, so don't feel bad for

one minute. It's a learning experience. I even did it one time when I

KNEW better, but my low self esteem and sense of desperation led me to

be stupid. I knew better, but I did it anyhow.

Tory

[Guest guest]

Kallie

I think we've ALL done fad diets without thinking, so don't feel bad for

one minute. It's a learning experience. I even did it one time when I

KNEW better, but my low self esteem and sense of desperation led me to

be stupid. I knew better, but I did it anyhow.

Tory

[Guest guest]

Tory,

I don't have a web site yet, but yours has inspired me to do

so......unfortunately, things are nutty in my business right now *I'm a

hairdresser*...so time is a valuable commodity.

I will keep you all apprised of my progress on that project

Liz

[Guest guest]

Tory,

I don't have a web site yet, but yours has inspired me to do

so......unfortunately, things are nutty in my business right now *I'm a

hairdresser*...so time is a valuable commodity.

I will keep you all apprised of my progress on that project

Liz

[Guest guest]

Tory,

I don't have a web site yet, but yours has inspired me to do

so......unfortunately, things are nutty in my business right now *I'm a

hairdresser*...so time is a valuable commodity.

I will keep you all apprised of my progress on that project

Liz