RE: Checking the validity of a diet

[Guest guest]

Tory writes:

> 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.

I actually like the cabbage soup......just got sick of eating it

continually....I still make it (variations thereof) as a zero point soup

to enjoy when I need " tiding over "

[Guest guest]

Tory writes:

> 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.

I actually like the cabbage soup......just got sick of eating it

continually....I still make it (variations thereof) as a zero point soup

to enjoy when I need " tiding over "

[Guest guest]

I agree with this information too. Diet and money making go hand in hand bit

time! For me, I must be able to live with me eating style or it just won't

work. And cooking more than one meal won't do for me either. Seems to me if I

am eating healthy foods the rest of my family can eat and enjoy too, that is

one test for a diet one can live with.

I love WW!

Have a very good day!

Sharon

*Tom McClintock*

HeavenBoundWW

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.

[Guest guest]

I agree with this information too. Diet and money making go hand in hand bit

time! For me, I must be able to live with me eating style or it just won't

work. And cooking more than one meal won't do for me either. Seems to me if I

am eating healthy foods the rest of my family can eat and enjoy too, that is

one test for a diet one can live with.

I love WW!

Have a very good day!

Sharon

*Tom McClintock*

HeavenBoundWW

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.

[Guest guest]

I agree with this information too. Diet and money making go hand in hand bit

time! For me, I must be able to live with me eating style or it just won't

work. And cooking more than one meal won't do for me either. Seems to me if I

am eating healthy foods the rest of my family can eat and enjoy too, that is

one test for a diet one can live with.

I love WW!

Have a very good day!

Sharon

*Tom McClintock*

HeavenBoundWW

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.

[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]

This weight loss thing can be frustrating. I've noticed that now that I

have less to lose and I'm doing

things differently (lots of exercise, etc.) the losses are slower, less

consistent. Its' the perspective

I get from folks on this list that makes it easier to deal with. " Just

continue to do the right things and

the weight will come off " .

Mitch

scmoore wrote:

> Kallie,

> That's GREAT success in the past year and don't ever think that it's not.

> You have MUCH greater chances of keeping it off for good if it comes off

> slowly and surely. That gives the body a chance to adjust to the changes

> instead of that roller coaster ride that we've all taken our bodies on,

> myself included with the yo-yo thing. Sure regret that now!!

> I reached goal and didn't hold it, so that goes to show that even with WW

> you can slip--but now I've started again and am more than halfway back to

> goal (maybe next March). Some days I think that it's not moving fast

> enough

> and the scale is not going down fast enough--some weeks on my home

> scale it

> just stays the same all week. GRRRRRR!!

> BUT, I ask myself do I want that 39/40 pounds back again and I say no,

> so I

> suck it in and keep going because I know it will come off in its own time.

> How close to goal are you or are you at goal now??

>

>

>

>

> Re: Checking the validity of a diet

>

>

> 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.

>

> 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.

>

>

> 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]

This weight loss thing can be frustrating. I've noticed that now that I

have less to lose and I'm doing

things differently (lots of exercise, etc.) the losses are slower, less

consistent. Its' the perspective

I get from folks on this list that makes it easier to deal with. " Just

continue to do the right things and

the weight will come off " .

Mitch

scmoore wrote:

> Kallie,

> That's GREAT success in the past year and don't ever think that it's not.

> You have MUCH greater chances of keeping it off for good if it comes off

> slowly and surely. That gives the body a chance to adjust to the changes

> instead of that roller coaster ride that we've all taken our bodies on,

> myself included with the yo-yo thing. Sure regret that now!!

> I reached goal and didn't hold it, so that goes to show that even with WW

> you can slip--but now I've started again and am more than halfway back to

> goal (maybe next March). Some days I think that it's not moving fast

> enough

> and the scale is not going down fast enough--some weeks on my home

> scale it

> just stays the same all week. GRRRRRR!!

> BUT, I ask myself do I want that 39/40 pounds back again and I say no,

> so I

> suck it in and keep going because I know it will come off in its own time.

> How close to goal are you or are you at goal now??

>

>

>

>

> Re: Checking the validity of a diet

>

>

> 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.

>

> 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.

>

>

> 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]

This weight loss thing can be frustrating. I've noticed that now that I

have less to lose and I'm doing

things differently (lots of exercise, etc.) the losses are slower, less

consistent. Its' the perspective

I get from folks on this list that makes it easier to deal with. " Just

continue to do the right things and

the weight will come off " .

Mitch

scmoore wrote:

> Kallie,

> That's GREAT success in the past year and don't ever think that it's not.

> You have MUCH greater chances of keeping it off for good if it comes off

> slowly and surely. That gives the body a chance to adjust to the changes

> instead of that roller coaster ride that we've all taken our bodies on,

> myself included with the yo-yo thing. Sure regret that now!!

> I reached goal and didn't hold it, so that goes to show that even with WW

> you can slip--but now I've started again and am more than halfway back to

> goal (maybe next March). Some days I think that it's not moving fast

> enough

> and the scale is not going down fast enough--some weeks on my home

> scale it

> just stays the same all week. GRRRRRR!!

> BUT, I ask myself do I want that 39/40 pounds back again and I say no,

> so I

> suck it in and keep going because I know it will come off in its own time.

> How close to goal are you or are you at goal now??

>

>

>

>

> Re: Checking the validity of a diet

>

>

> 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.

>

> 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.

>

>

> 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.

>

>

>

>