I loathe WW and the worst is, I blame myself for buying into it. I first went when they were low carb (two starches a day) and then 4 times more during the low fat era, when I credit that program with depleting lean body mass, shifting my shape from hourglass to apple, and starting mood disorders - from low fat.

However, why on earth was I expecting a for-profit commercial program to be scientific, or to do these things (and I really did!)

- test the program on real people before massively rolling it out (they don't, they do best guess from epidemiological studies)

- find out who it helps, and who it doesn't (they just say it's for everyone)

- keep an eagle eye on quality research (instead they play conservative and wait years after the dust settles and the science is agreed on, even if wrong - they still say food is not addictive for example)

If I had known how low-level commercial the program was when I started, I wouldn't have. I honestly assumed they had good science behind it.

Or one way WW ensures increased profit without actually improving the service they offer.

When I was double checking the diet studies they did early in the naughties to make sure I wasn't mis-remembering the fact that WW fared no better (and sometimes worse) than other weight loss methods, I found this gem:

http://fatfu.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/weight-watchers/

I think it might be a anti-diet blog, and I haven't had time to double check his or her analysis of the data, but if it is, that is utter brilliance on WW part to not discriminate in data from people who needed to lose 10 pounds and those who needed to lose 100. It's all the same, right?

Anyway, what would the dietary advice given by WW in the 60s and 70s or the 80s or 90s have any bearing on the quality of the advice given today? The only thing that remains a part of WW from the early eras that is the same today are the meetings. I can see the appeal of meetings for some people, but I don't think it's something that only WW can provide, especially when we're talking about people attending upon the advice of their doctors. In fact, I bet many people who go to WW would do better going to something like OA and at least they wouldn't be spending money on meetings, counselling (which is more the focus of other diet plans), products, and gimmicks.

I'm a lifetime member. I gained all my weight back when I moved away and stopped doing the program, of course. There are many pluses and minuses to the program. The accountability and group support can't be beat. They actually had a program for awhile that was very much like South Beach. Not sure why that's not around anymore.

Not sure where the hostility toward the program is coming from. If it doesn't work for you, fine. Don't do it. Low carb isn't the only way. I hate how cultish food dogma is. Don't be like the vegans, people!

SeeJay, WW has been testing their new program for the last year on people in Europe and the U.S. All the people who work at Weight Watchers follow the WW plan and are lifetime members. They are all on the new plan now and have been losing weight on it for awhile. I don't know where you got the idea they guess from epidemiological studies.

Since WW is a very flexible program, I don't know how they get in trouble thinking it works for people who have specific problems that their doctors would address more effectively - because they don't. There are diabetics at the meetings, and 'former diabetics' and people who have had their doctors take them off medications because their health has improved since they were at WW and lost the weight. They would have had that same experience if they lost the weight through other means and WW doesn't say otherwise.

I low-carb and I go to WW and there is no conflict whatsoever in their message to me at meetings. I'm responsible for what I put in my mouth.

Come to think of it, that is kind of the essence of the WW message: YOU are responsible for your success or failure. If you find success elsewhere, even with surgery, even with the Cabbage Soup diet, it is your life and your choices. They don't condemn people who are not on the WW diet or don't choose that particular path. People don't stand up at a WW meeting and say 'This is what I had to eat today (or yesterday) and what's the deal, why do I weigh a pound more today?' No one actually CARES to hear you describe your menu! We do swap recipes at meetings, though.

'In fact, I bet many people who go to WW would do better going to something like OA and at least they wouldn't be spending money on meetings, counselling (which is more the focus of other diet plans), products, and gimmicks.'

There are OA members who switch to WW - after they have tried Atkins. There are WW members who switch to OA. I don't 'BET' they would do better doing X when they are doing Y because I don't know them.

And the money, OMG. There's no gimmick to WW. I bought their frozen meals years ago when I wasn't even going to WW, and haven't bought any products of theirs because I've gotten away from 'products' in general. My big 'product' treat from time to time is a Fiber One bar.

If I were being dogmatic, I'd go over to WW support forums and preach about the dangers of low fat, being protein deprived, etc. It would be pretty crappy of me though, and I am not sure why it's any less crappy when someone does it here.





*these anecdotal results and experiences not typical

I've been trying to stay out of this one...but no such luck!!

I too, am another WW failure, at least 5-6 times that I can recall. Did I learn from my mistakes there? Nope, because I never actually learned about the food itself and was only trying to learn their point system. Very frustrating for me.

Moggsy made a very good point a few pages back about the fact that it'd be more beneficial for many who go there to learn about their issues around food and food addictions in general. This is what happened to me when I went to OA and FAA at the same time. OA has no food plan, FAA does...both operate on the premise that compulsive overeating is at the cause of it all....this began my education. Now I could see why I was making mistakes and what they were..I was learning about which foods I had trouble with: sugar, all flour, wheat.

It seems to me that every few years, probably when their numbers/profits are sagging a bit, they revamp their point sysytem.....and it becomes a thing to know what they are doing with it now.
People who don't go, stopped going, or are the verge of wanting to try to lose weight one more time, are pulled in by this 'new point system'.

I have a huge problem with their stupid point system as it based in how they see any particular food. 0 pts for fruit? That means that I could binge on fruit and stay within my points for the day....now what does that teach anyone? It teaches me how to beat their point system. But not how to eat to lose and or maintain my weight.
Yeah, I know that some do well there....too many regain, I think because their point system doesn't really teach about the foods themselves, not like low carb eating does.
South Beach taught me about the foods...perhaps I was ready for these lessons and wasn't when I went to WW....I dunno, but WW always left me with a very bad taste in my mouth, no pun intended.

The 'recent' article referred to by Fat Fu in her blog is readily available in its entirety. All you have to do (and all she had to do) is click on PDF when she is in the Cambridge Journals Online site, which is exactly where her link takes you.

The Cambridge Journals Online site rarely - if ever - asks for payment for studies articles. I spend a lot of time in NCBI and whenever I see that I'm in Cambrige Journals Online, I pretty much know I have that article to save in a PDF.

She's a blogger. She's not even really a good blogger if I'm spending more time reading an article she didn't think was there for her but she's going to go ahead anyway and expand on her reasons for thinking WW is crap.

Here's the recent study she was referring to:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18042306

Click on the upper right hand corner icon which takes you to Cambridge Journals Online and then click on the PDF tab within the page.

NCBI is my favorite site and bloggers aren't even in the running when it comes to evaluating what is the 'science' behind dieting. I recently read a study by the guy who wrote the recent Atkins book and I had to smile when he reported the success rate for a low-carb group vs. the success rate for a low-fat diet, when both groups were compared during the maintenance phase of dieting.

Now, you have to understand that this guy Westman is a bit biased. Yeah, really! I was led to look him up in NCBI because Dr. Eades, who CAN be a flake sometimes, was on his own rant about the way an article appeared to be biased on a website used by cardiologists.

Westman actually stated this in the study, reporting the facts about the VLED - very low energy diet:

'Weight loss during the VLED was significant. Participants
assigned to the RC diet lost ~20% of their body
weight and the participants in the RF group lost ~19% of
their body weight. Change in weight during the VLED
was not different between groups (p > 0.05). Number of
shakes during the VLED for all participants was 34.8 ± 2.8
equaling approximately 2092 kJ per day.
During weight maintenance, the RC group non-significantly
increased body weight by ~2.8%. Likewise, the RF
group showed a non-significant change of ~3.0% in body
weight across weight maintenance; however, change in
body weight across the study was not different between
groups (p > 0.05). Similar trends were observed for BMI.'

Did you find your eyes starting to cross while reading that? It's the stuff of studies and why most people don't bother to read them much. What's interesting is that the low-carb dieters lost 20 percent of their body weight and the low-fat dieters lost 19 percent of their body weight - almost making you forget the fact that both groups ate exactly the same measured shakes at the beginning of the diet. There was absolutely no difference in what their intake was, dude. Umm, your point about making that distinction in weight loss was - what?

If Eades hadn't complained about the 'choice of words' that conveys bias, I wouldn't have been even paying attention to the difference between the low-carb and the low-fat dieters on the same exact liquid diet.

They lost the initial weight drinking liquid food supplements! All of them were the same. Guess how many calories these people drank each day for 3 months?

'During weight loss (months 1-3), a liquid VLED was utilized.
Liquid supplements (Health Management
Resources, Boston, MA) were taken at five different intervals
daily totaling ~2092 kJ/day. A vitamin and mineral
supplement was taken twice per day along with the liquid
supplements. As this was a weight-loss maintenance
study, a minimum weight loss of 10% of initial body
weight was required during VLED to progress to the
weight maintenance stage (months 4-12). Participants
reported their weekly liquid supplement total at each
group meeting. In addition, the VLED period was medically
managed by the study physician during its entire
duration.'

How many calories is that kJ (kiloJoules)? 500 calories a day for 3 months. OMG. They divided 500 calories into 5 feedings a day for 3 months and lived normal lives? I want THAT diet, thank you. Forget WW. Forget Atkins.

Gimme that diet but first take out my taste buds, please.

I love reading these studies.

Here's the study Westman worked on:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20515484

There are lots of such studies about diets. WW doesn't do so bad; it has been picked apart by various researchers who analyzed, along with other diets, every little bit. So if you come up with one study, there's always another. And so it goes.

JudyNYC, what is FAA?

I don't think that WW revamp their program because their numbers are sagging. I think they revamp their program because they've been around forever, it seems, and not unlike Yahoo! revamping their email interface (I just tried the new beta version and I like it), they can change and stay the same.

I'm a person who lost weight on WW and regained it. I'm a person who lost weight on Atkins and regained it. I low-carb and I go to WW. I don't see a lot of difference among the diets - when successful, all diets reduce your caloric intake. WW happens to be more flexible but the principle stays the same, whether they ever mention the word 'calorie' (they don't) or not.

More anecdotal stuff: what I overhear people say is the reason for them going to WW is that they know someone who lost weight on it. It seems a good portion of the membership at my meetings come with a friend who's been losing weight successfully on WW. Or they just come together to carpool and share the competition of losing weight together. Men who come seem to come with their wives or girlfriends.

So in my experience, from what I hear, word of mouth is the best draw to WW and the best advertisement is the person who lost weight and co-workers noticed and asked, 'How did you lose your weight?'

Emphasis added for clarity. I will get around to it in the next day or so.

This reminds me of a story I heard told by a WW leader one time. Vegetables are 0 points also, and this woman joined WW, but week after week she lost not an ounce, in fact she may even have GAINED weight.

But she was*adamant* that she did not have a single cheat and stayed well within her point limits every day, in fact many days she was *under* her point limit. The leader didn't know what to do, and reported the problem up the WW chain of command - as it was upsetting to them to have someone who claimed to be following their diet to a T, and not having any success.

Finally they came down and did what to me seems like an obvious thing to have done right from the start - asked the woman to keep a food log of every single bite she put in her mouth for several days.

Well vegges are 0, right? And it didn't matter if they were fresh or frozen or canned. It turned out that she was buying these enormous big cans of green beans - cans that were about 24 oz. in size. And she was eating *ten cans a day* of these green beans! Giant enormous cans.

But she said she was constantly hungry, so she was gorging on these beans to try to keep her stomach feeling full, and figured it was fine since they were "free food" - 0 points. But the moral seems to be that you can overdo even 0-point foods.

Yet the woman was right - she was following the WW plan perfectly, right within the letter of the law.

So looking over the studies FatFu was talking about, I cannot see where she is wrong. The maintenance group had a lower start weight and were average in the overweight category rather than obese. Her points that studies like these might have little light to shed on the prospects of obese (or greater) are valid ones whether or not she was a blogger (and whether she is a good or bad blogger) or whether she was a head of bariatric medicine. But studies like this help make WW appear to be a better program than it is.

Reading the rest of the blog, her conclusions seem logical and well thought out. I can see a few holes (like classifying those who don't reach goal in a year as failure when it could be an ongoing, long term weight loss). Is there any other rebuttal that anyone can offer other than her being a blogger and her anti-diet bias? Both of which mean nothing unless you can show how either caused her argument to be incorrect.

I've said repeatedly that WW fares no better than other diets in studies, but usually not worse in compliance, weight loss, maintenance, and health markers. What you posted really doesn't address my point which is that WW has an undeserved reputation for being superior. It might be what works for you, and your friends who go to the meetings, but that's not exactly a representative sample, just like these forums wouldn't be a representative sample of low carb success and failures.

Merpig, that's one weird story. In fact, what makes it even weirder is that WW has always stressed the use of tracking your food. This is one thing that, as far as I can tell, has never changed: they give you a little pamphlet for a week's worth of food when you weigh in because they want you to be ABLE to keep all your food in something that is easy to carry around and has all the areas for breakfast, lunch, dinner, snacks, water (water!), etc., and you can put 'points' in now or later - or never. I've seen the pamphlet change from when I first started going to WW years ago but it hasn't changed much! And it has never been absent from the WW personal responsibility theme.

The point is, tracking is that 'responsibility' thing - that actions, like putting something in your mouth has a consequence.

(fitday is my online food diary - I don't use the WW tracker and they give it to me anyway!)

Which makes me think that the story may be one of those urban myths and you happened to hear the story from a leader who, for whatever reason, thought it was entertaining or maybe even believed it.

Years ago, I took a class with nutritionist Johanna Dwyer. She told a story about a person who came to her clinic and was orange from top to toe - and NOT because of a bad spray tanning job. The woman had eaten a ton of carrots and wasn't on a WW diet - I think it was because she thought that her eyesight would improve or something. Anyhow, her skin did go back to its normal tone when they figured out what she was doing.

I don't think I could eat that many green beans. It takes a whole lot of green beans and more important, a HUGE lack of imagination, to eat just that one thing and gain weight. I can think of better things to overeat and God knows, WW gives you a ton of choices and always has, even in its most restrictive days (which were the low-carb days of old when you could choose your starches, that little itty bitty bit of starch you were allowed).

Moggsy, I haven't quite gotten the point of your problem with WW's success. It's been around a long time. If you think its success is undeserved because you don't like something about it, that's no different than not liking anything else that you think should fail because you don't like it. Jeeze, good luck with that.

No one goes to WW against their will. No one does any diet against their will. When they succeed, at least at WW, the group and leader clap and say, 'Way to go!' because dieting is difficult, past the first successful stages (I've lost 4 pounds in a week on WW without trying very hard) any way you slice it. I'll bet when you're around people who have lost weight with WW, you don't get very far with a negative, disparaging attitude about their weight loss! But, hey, if it's your personal mission to 'correct' people who have succeeded, fine.

(Actually, my problem with the blogger was that she couldn't be bothered to actually click on the PDF tab to read the actual study. There are a zillion studies out there - literally, NCBI goes all the way back to the 20's for the studies in their database. Her assessment of one doesn't mean much to me when I go to WW myself and low-carb myself and read studies about both myself...)

Food Addicts Anonymous


That is your opinion, I stated mine.


And how are you doing now?... being that you never seem to update your stats.