https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...00123095850.htm




So they took people on Weight Watchers who were successfully maintaining, compared them to weight stable obese people not on Weight Watchers--and found that the strategies that differentiated the two sound suspiciously like Weight Watchers.

I'm not surprised if a Weight Watchers type strategy works for those it works for.





Blatant crapulence.

For years I DID all that, and it didn't give me ONE bit of progress. It was a constant round of thinking about food, trying not to think about food, wishing I didn't have think about food, hoping I would stop thinking about food...

And then get told that constant vigilance is the price of slimness. What a load of bull byproducts.

Former WW member here. Joined/rejoined countless times starting in junior high. I never reached and maintained goal weight. I did sometimes loose weight and maintain the loss as long as I weighed and measured every single day. Like WereBear, it was constant thinking about food all the time and always being hungry. So yeah, it will work if you can always be hyper vigilant. Most of us can't do that.

On LC/Keto, if I pay no attention to what or how much I'm eating other than eating only low carb foods, I will eat maintenance level naturally. No weighing or measuring, just no high carb.

Being close to goal, I do have to be more conscious of how much if I want to keep losing, but easy to do when I'm not fighting hunger all the time.

I attempted Weight Watchers several times - I refuse to say "WW" (like they are trying to hide the fact that it is a weight loss group!)

Anyway, it was never successful for me, in fact the last time I tried it I followed the diet exactly, and gained 2 pounds at my first weigh in. So depressing....

Low carb has been the most successful way of eating for me. I saw immediate results and it was easy to do. Weight watchers was always difficult for me to follow.....it was so complicated with the measuring and counting and the meetings and the weigh ins. . Grocery shopping was a nightmare.

I understand that some folks have been successful with it, but it just did not suit my body like this diet does.

Its such a BIG industry and money pit that I am not surprised that the survey was slanted

I never did Weight Watcher's, but the constant weighing, measuring, and being hungry, oh so hungry all the freakin' time is like stretching a rubber band - you can only stretch it so far, and for so long before it snaps, and that's what happens on that type of diet - something just snaps in me, and I just can't go on like that.

vLC/Keto and avoiding foods that for me trigger cravings and intolerances, and therefore hunger, is the only approach that works for me. It also helps if I see something like a donut in the break room or M&Ms on sale, to think about how I would feel in an hour if I ate it - near comatose with fatigue and retaining water so that I'd feel and move like the Michelin man. I do weigh & measure & record what I eat some of the time, but as long as I stick with foods that work for me, I'm fine when I don't.

I don't really see what that study was trying to prove.

It was rigged to give a positive news story, in hopes that nobody would really be paying attention. I don't see a way to look at it as an honest attempt at science at all. This is about as blatant as it gets.

I agree. It's essentially telling people that being obsessed and deprived is HOW TO DO IT.

You mean, if I eat healthy food, with an awareness of what and how much, and feel good about what I'm eating, I'll be able to keep up the good work? Silly me. I never would have thought!

And by the way, there are FIFTY-ONE--count 'em--51 other things to do!

I'll admit that participating in LC (and all its associated offspring) since Dr. Atkins's original Diet Revolution has been quite an obsession. WW never gained my loyalty in that same time span, even though they've been trying so, so hard to make me give them money to tell me what to do.

Love y'all

The other day I was at the deli counter and the two guys behind it were talking about the Super Bowl. One of them said he wasn't going to watch it because the Eagles weren't in it and the other guy said, "Well, all the sports is fixed anyway. The people who run the sports betting already know who's going to win." And the first guy agreed with him. And darned if the customer standing next to me didn't pipe up in agreement too!

I really think there is a major distrust of authority in our country. I think it's why the head of the American Diabetes Association has found low carb despite her role. The woman bad mouthed fruits and rice! And then went on to say she could eat fries because their fat content makes them metabolize slower.

This distrust of authority is why low carb eating will eventually be considered healthy by most people.

I'm schizoaffective bipolar. My first big psychotic break had me worrying I was infested with demons, thinking every song on the radio was a message from God to me, checking for video devices when I went to take a bath. I have a manager at work who sometimes goes on about the government having cameras everywhere, Big Brother etc. I tell her I can't afford to let my paranoia get out of hand. Not being able to trust my own senses, I tend to doubt myself, my intuition is wrong all the time. I need evidence, I need to double-check to be certain that I have good reason for my suspicion.

We live in a world where most people seem to think a high fat diet is bad for you, and a higher carb, healthywholegrainlowfatdiet is good for you. Are there vested interests that push this? Sure. A good example is the glycemic index--Kellogg's Australia funded most of the research done by Jenny Brand Miller looking at the glycemic index of various foods. Putting the emphasis for problematic carbohydrate intake on the "quality" of the carbohydrates rather than their mere presence or absence, pushing the idea that "fast" carbs are good for sports and "slow" carbs are good for health--it's obvious why a cereal company would push this. Or Coca Cola pushing the idea that exercise matters more than diet, and "calories" rather than food quality is what matters. It's gotten silly enough that I've seen the idea that bread has a higher glycemic index than a Mars bar used to criticize bread--I think there are reasons to criticize bread, but that's not a reason to criticize bread, it's a reason to doubt the usefulness of the glycemic index. Bread sucks, but it's not worse than a Mars Bar. I also see the idea that higher fat ice cream is better for you, based on glycemic index. Nope. Fat isn't a good addition to a sugary treat--it can be a good alternative.

If most people go in honestly thinking high fat must somehow be bad for you--I don't think the big problem is really some conspiracy, we're fighting what's become a social norm here, "common sense."

In fairness to her, she was talking about eating the occasional fry, not making it a staple of her diet. But the reason she stated she can eat the occasional fry, and not rice, is that fries don't spike her blood sugar the way rice does. Since she's a type 2 diabetic, fries really are a better choice for her than rice, if she were being forced to choose between the two, which of course she isn't.

Anyway, it won't matter - it won't be long before Big Ag will threaten to pull their funding from the American Diabetes Association unless the CEO is given the axe (or is forced to shut up about low carb).

And attempts to silence this woman will result in even more mistrust of authority.

p.s. Not sure if you're implying the three men at the deli counter were suffering from paranoia or schizophrenia. Who knows? Maybe they are. But I took their conversation as an indicator that regular, every day Americans have seized onto a "fake news" mentality and are viewing with suspicion everything that comes from supposedly authoritative sources.

Yes, I know it happens.

But nobody's going to steal any glory from the Kansas City Chiefs!! They won the Super Bowl with teamwork, persistence, and, yes, love--love for each other, their coach Andy Reid, their fans, and (yes) the adorable Patrick Mahomes.

I wonder what the Chiefs training table looks like?? I'll have to ask.

Apparently I'm schizo enough today to post that in the wrong thread. That I was on topic at all was sheer coincidence. That's not really what schizo means, but I think I'm schizo enough to be allowed to make the joke.

Even so--I'll stand by the comment, at least in general. The immediate glycemic response--yes, and that can be useful if applied well. But--at the same time, a lot of what's wrong with today's diet is the combination of fat and carbs, not just the fat or the carbs. The short-term glucose response is one thing--the long term effect of weight gain, threat of exceeding the personal fat threshold etc. is another. I'm hard-line keto in my personal diet, but I don't think french fries are a good idea versus say a baked potato--personally, I'm likely to eat much more in the way of potato/carb if I allowed potato chips and french fries in my diet than if I just ate plain potatoes.