Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Thu, Feb-19-15, 13:46
Whofan's Avatar
Whofan Whofan is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,550
 
Plan: Low Carb Primal
Stats: 170/135/135 Female 5ft.6in.
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: New York Metro area
Default Weight Watchers in financial trouble

Maybe this belongs in Research/Media but somehow the War Zone felt like the right place. Mods please move if necessary.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/articl...ign=Newsletters

There is not a single word about low carb but I thought the article was interesting nonetheless, at least from the p.o.v. of how the weight loss industry thinks and how much money they make from people who are overweight and obese.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Thu, Feb-19-15, 15:01
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
When Janet Holwell first joined Weight Watchers seven years ago, she lost 43 pounds in one year and considered the popular commercial weight-loss plan “miraculous.”

“I felt like I had found the magic key, the secret that eluded me all of these years,” said Ms. Holwell, who has maintained most of her weight loss by continuing to adhere to the program.

But the magic disappeared when Weight Watchers overhauled its weight-loss plan little over a year ago. Under the new system, called Points Plus, Ms. Holwell, has not been able to lose the five pounds she recently gained.

“It just doesn’t work for me,” said Ms. Holwell, 61, a research consultant who attends weekly Weight Watchers meetings in Middle Village and Glendale, Queens.

Millions of people around the world belong to Weight Watchers International, ranked best commercial diet plan by U.S. News & World Report last year, and even nonmembers look to it for guidance and recommendations. It is best known for its points system, which assigns specific values to different foods and permits each member a daily allotment. At its weekly group meetings, healthy eating and exercise are emphasized over rapid-fire results.

The latest iteration of the weight-loss plan, called Points Plus, was intended to steer people toward more healthy food choices, encouraging people to eat more fresh fruits by giving them zero points, as most vegetables already were. But many longtime members who were familiar with the earlier plan, like Ms. Holwell, have been grumbling about slow weight loss under the revised plan.




Quote:
Your questions about fruit, answered
Why does fruit count in recipes? Are there other times I need to count it? And how much is too much? Don’t worry — we’ve got some answers for you.


http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/...1&art_id=108831

Quote:
When I add fruit to the recipes I create in the Recipe Builder, it counts PointsPlus values for it! I thought fruit was zero?
Just as we've always done with 0 PointsPlus value vegetables, 0 PointsPlus value fresh fruits contribute toward the total PointsPlus values of a recipe, whether it's a Weight Watchers recipe or one you build yourself in the Recipe Builder.

The technical explanation is that because recipes are calculated based on the total grams of fat, fiber, protein and carbs for all their ingredients. As one poster on the Message Boards, DANI_THE_GECKO, sagely points out: “The recipe builder only knows that you input nutritional information. It does not know if it's fruit, green beans or heavy cream."

But why do we do it this way? There are a couple of very good reasons why we count fruits and veggies in our recipes:

Our recipes often appear in articles and magazines nationally, so we need to provide the calories and nutrient content, as many recipes published elsewhere do.
Once vegetables and fruit are elements in a prepared recipe, the experience of eating them changes. Few people overeat carrots — but they might overeat carrot cake.


This is dismally stupid in a plan that depends on white-knuckled calorie-counting to achieve weight loss. It's easy to overeat fruit. Especially after your appetite has been stimulated by a 100 calorie sliver of carrot cake.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Fri, Mar-13-15, 06:59
bkloots's Avatar
bkloots bkloots is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 10,152
 
Plan: LC--Atkins
Stats: 195/160/150 Female 62in
BF:
Progress: 78%
Location: Kansas City, MO
Default

Weight Watchers is among the many diets I've successfully pursued. Got my Lifetime pin (somewhere). But that was in the olden days, when it was a basic low-cal/low-fat diet with lots of icky recipes to achieve it. From what I've read, they've taken the concept of "a calorie is a calorie" to heights of ridiculous. I always thought the point system had to be punitive: the less you weigh, the fewer points you get. On Atkins, the less you weigh, the more food choices you get. Which is better??

Yet it seems as though all commercial weight loss schemes, including Atkins, go to prepared foods to meet the demands of casual, lose-a-few dieters. It's good marketing, because those people always fail, come back, fail, come back, etc. Fresh food just isn't profitable. And apparently, neither are those skimpy frozen dinners, cardboard snack bars, and preplanned menus on demand.

One of the big secrets to successful weight loss is accountability--especially having a great support group. Guess what? This is it! And it's free (unless you choose to kick in a bit for website maintenance, which I recommend). This site makes me want to succeed, and provides lots of tools to help.

RIP Weight Watchers.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Fri, Mar-13-15, 08:48
Whofan's Avatar
Whofan Whofan is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,550
 
Plan: Low Carb Primal
Stats: 170/135/135 Female 5ft.6in.
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: New York Metro area
Default

I lost weight on Weight Watchers too, maybe 12 years ago. They came to our place of work to sign us up and ran the weekly meetings right there for us, so no excuse not to go. I lost 12lbs, found it wasn't sustainable, gained most of it back and was bitterly disappointed in myself yet again. I signed up for another session, but my heart wasn't in it because I knew I couldn't sustain, and that time I didn't really lose anything, maybe a couple of lbs.

I think WW might have painted themselves into the same corner as the government, nutritionists, diabetic doctors, and most healthcare providers: fat is bad, wholegrains are good. The mounting evidence to the contrary makes the whole lot of them look like idiots, so their dilemma is how to change their recommendations and thereby admit that the advice and processed foods they took money for were completely wrong, even harmful to some people, without being sued up the wazoo.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Fri, Mar-13-15, 09:44
bkloots's Avatar
bkloots bkloots is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 10,152
 
Plan: LC--Atkins
Stats: 195/160/150 Female 62in
BF:
Progress: 78%
Location: Kansas City, MO
Default

Quote:
their dilemma is how to change their recommendations
I haven't followed this closely, but my perception is that WW regularly changes its recommendations to follow the trends, offering multiple options to members. I understand there is a "low-carb" version. However, I fear that the prevailing "calorie" model is tough for WW to break away from, especially when mainstream media keep insisting that calorie-reduction is the "real reason" low-carb eating works.

I never liked the "shaming" activity--stepping on a scale publicly for applause or reproof. NOT encouraging. Also, if you are motivated by money to get your weight management act together, you can do that on your own: put five bucks (or twelve or fifteen--whatever the WW meetings cost these days) in the kitty for every pound you lose. Or for every week you stay on your plan. But keep the kitty for yourself! Now THAT would be motivating.

Motivation must come from within. Until it does, you're stuck with second-best schemes that often if not always result in yo-yo behavior. I've been at a normal-looking weight for almost twenty years. But that doesn't mean I haven't been a serious yo-yo. I just don't get the benefit of "OMG!! You've lost a TON of weight!" I have, but not all at once.

WW isn't for me.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Fri, Mar-13-15, 11:05
Whofan's Avatar
Whofan Whofan is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,550
 
Plan: Low Carb Primal
Stats: 170/135/135 Female 5ft.6in.
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: New York Metro area
Default

Yes, I also thought they might have a low carb option by now, but they still advertise that "everything is allowed". Their nod to low carb is to give 2 points for a chocolate chip cookie but 0 points for an apple. Hmmmmm. Peter Attia has an interesting take on it. He makes the point that most people eat over 400 carbs a day, so if they cut back to 200 on WW, or some other plan, then that is indeed lower carb and hence they can lose weight, at least for a while. Here's his article. I really like him.

http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/...a-low-carb-diet

If I was on a points system instead of reaping the benefits of the info here and elsewhere about the science of it, I would definitely leave room in my points allotment for a couple (at least) chocolate chip cookies each day. Now, I know how well that would work out for me.

I know I appear to be picking on WW but my disgust is with any organization that purposely "misinforms" either to make money or to cover their a$$es. I do hope WW goes out of business because it might give the other snake oil salesmen pause for thought. For the same reason, I hope they come back fully loaded with a real low carb/natural food business model and make a ton more money.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Fri, Mar-13-15, 12:32
Whirrlly's Avatar
Whirrlly Whirrlly is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,648
 
Plan: Zero Carb!
Stats: 234/182/170 Female 68
BF:
Progress: 81%
Location: Southeast
Default

the lady said she couldn't lose 5 on Points Plus.

no different than original atkins 1972 and the ''new NET atkins''
I could not lose on the NET 20 carbs.

I went original atkins near 0 total carbs and am flying down the scale.

all plans are based on money and abiity to sell the plan.

atkins 20 was revamped to include processed atkins bars, junk frozen dinners and 'net' carbs so you truly eat more carbs--just are taking out that 'fiber' and 'sugar alcohol' allowance which effects alot of people. all to make the plan easier, simpler, include more foods and sell their products. more palatable to the masses.

WW is eat your dessert--yes you can have it, just count it
probem is people who have portion control issues like me sure aren't happy with that 100 cal. snack pack. pfft

WW said people need to take back their control of food portions. yea if it was that simple right?? no one would be on a diet ever

I lost 70 on low fat/low calorie my way and starved. gained back 60 and now I am on original atkins with total carbs and am succeeding now.

WW and Jenny and all that are going to vanish like the 8 track someday

Last edited by Whirrlly : Fri, Mar-13-15 at 12:38.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Fri, Mar-13-15, 18:12
s-piper s-piper is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 694
 
Plan: LC Primal
Stats: 290/270/160 Female 5'7
BF:
Progress: 15%
Default

Not surprised. Weight Watchers was the first weight-loss plan I ever tried. I subsequently tried it on 3 more occasions after that, and lost maybe a grand total of 5 lbs (if I'm being generous!).
As far as I'm concerned it's useless.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Fri, Mar-13-15, 19:17
pazia pazia is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 374
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 00/00/00 Female 00
BF:
Progress:
Default

I haven't followed their changes over the years, but wasn't it originally based on a low-carb plan?

I'm somewhat hazy recalling the details, but when I was a very overweight pre-adolescent I started going to Weight Watchers on my own. I remember stopping all sugar, including cereals, chips, and bread (or maybe 1 slice per day allowed?). I began to prepare a lot of my own meals; some of these things seem yucky now but at the time I enjoyed them: salad with plain tuna and dressing made with cider vinegar; broiled mushrooms for an after-school snack; blueberries and cottage cheese for breakfast.

I lost a great deal of weight and kept it off through my teen years; admittedly it coincided with a growth spurt in height, but I really got off a lot of carby foods and took pride in eating "special" things so I could be different from everyone else in the family! I didn't dread the weigh-ins since I was actually losing weight, and it was a boost to get applauded for consistent loss each week.

OK, this worked for a 12-year-old girl! I wouldn't dig any any of that now even if it was a low-carb plan. But I've often heard (though not recently) of friends who went on Weight Watchers and lost weight and kept it off, especially women who wanted to lose weight post-pregnancy.

It seems to me that for a lot of people who sort of live in the mainstream way, Weight Watchers has been an "official" way to lose weight and condoned by parents, employers, etc. It's too bad they messed with the concept so much, it seems like it's just a moneymaking scheme more or less. But is there any other Atkins-style low-carb plan that people can "join"? Especially with so much bewildering diet news and promotions, it seems that a "classic" Weight Watchers-style plan based on no sugar/low carb could be a good option for people who need that kind of reinforcement.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Fri, Mar-13-15, 19:43
KDH's Avatar
KDH KDH is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,247
 
Plan: Atkins/Taubes
Stats: 270/168/160 Female 5'7"
BF:
Progress: 93%
Location: Dallas, TX
Default

"When Janet Holwell first joined Weight Watchers seven years ago, she lost 43 pounds in one year and considered the popular commercial weight-loss plan “miraculous.”

“I felt like I had found the magic key, the secret that eluded me all of these years,” said Ms. Holwell, who has maintained most of her weight loss by continuing to adhere to the program.

But the magic disappeared when Weight Watchers overhauled its weight-loss plan little over a year ago. Under the new system, called Points Plus, Ms. Holwell, has not been able to lose the five pounds she recently gained.

“It just doesn’t work for me,” said Ms. Holwell, 61, a research consultant who attends weekly Weight Watchers meetings in Middle Village and Glendale, Queens."

Wow.

WOW. That is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. And I read a lot. Did I understand this correctly? They had a plan that was the 'magic key' for this woman. Then they changed the plan, which apparently means she CANNOT continue the old plan, or rather, to eat the way she has been for the past SEVEN YEARS??
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Fri, Mar-13-15, 19:46
KDH's Avatar
KDH KDH is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,247
 
Plan: Atkins/Taubes
Stats: 270/168/160 Female 5'7"
BF:
Progress: 93%
Location: Dallas, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pazia
I haven't followed their changes over the years, but wasn't it originally based on a low-carb plan?


Yes, if you can find old weight watchers cookbooks it was pretty LC. Bizarre and repulsive at times (the crazy things they would do with a gelatin mold, wow) but LC. They had screwed it all up by the 80s.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Sat, Mar-14-15, 05:11
Marieshops's Avatar
Marieshops Marieshops is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,666
 
Plan: Atkins (DANDR)
Stats: 250/140/140 Female 5' 7
BF:?/28%/?
Progress: 100%
Location: Charleston, SC
Default

Another plan that appears to be mirroring exactly what Weight Watchers is doing with the changes to you can "eat anything" - Atkins Nutritionals. If you watch the commercials or look at the list of foods that are ok to eat on the new Atkins 20 or 40, it includes pizza, ice cream, bars, shakes, and lots of candy choices too (endulge line even has their own version of M&Ms).

Many weight loss programs are based on buying LOTS of products made by that company or paying weekly/monthly fees. Weight Watchers, NutriSystem, Atkins Nutritionals, there isn't much difference anymore. The main goal for these companies appears to be to sell as many products as possible, not to help people actually lose weight and maintain it with a healthy whole foods approach.

When asked about my woe, I don't like to say Atkins anymore because to new people Atkins means ice cream and pizza or whatever junk they are pushing that week. How much longer will people go back to read and follow the original plan by Dr. Atkins? When the newest version is DANDR from 2002? It's no wonder so many people try various plans and walk away saying that it just didn't work for them.

Sad.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Sat, Mar-14-15, 05:24
Whirrlly's Avatar
Whirrlly Whirrlly is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,648
 
Plan: Zero Carb!
Stats: 234/182/170 Female 68
BF:
Progress: 81%
Location: Southeast
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marieshops

When asked about my woe, I don't like to say Atkins anymore because to new people Atkins means ice cream and pizza or whatever junk they are pushing that week. How much longer will people go back to read and follow the original plan by Dr. Atkins? When the newest version is DANDR from 2002? It's no wonder so many people try various plans and walk away saying that it just didn't work for them.

Sad.


Yup, this is me. I say I am OLD atkins. but I notice more and more I am saying just "I am very low carb."

I hate the way the NEW atkins has evolved.

I don't want people thinking, she is on atkins, she eats frozen junk, and fake candy etc. I don't do it and don't want that associated at all with me.

the OLD book one can still find on the internet but I think many are just forgetting it and it has mostly disappeared. warped away by the NEW one.
SAD
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Sat, Mar-14-15, 05:25
ojoj's Avatar
ojoj ojoj is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,184
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 210/126/127 Female 5ft 7in
BF:
Progress: 101%
Location: South of England
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirrlly
Yup, this is me. I say I am OLD atkins. but I notice more and more I am saying just "I am very low carb."

I hate the way the NEW atkins has evolved.

the OLD book one can still find on the internet but I think many are just forgetting it and it has mostly disappeared. warped away by the NEW one.



I started on the "old" Atkins. Nowadays, I've no idea what Atkins reccomends. I just say I follow a ketogenic diet

Jo xxx
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Sat, Mar-14-15, 05:29
Whirrlly's Avatar
Whirrlly Whirrlly is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,648
 
Plan: Zero Carb!
Stats: 234/182/170 Female 68
BF:
Progress: 81%
Location: Southeast
Default

ojoj---my Dad has the 1972 book.

I started with the NEW atkins and realized real fast this wasn't the OLD atkins that I read before when Dad let me borrow his book.

So the NET carbs and junk in the NEW atkins didn't let me lose and kept my carb cravings very high.

I then followed 1972 version and am doing extremely well. Dr A sure has his info correct in that first book....since then it is warped into a big money profit from atkins.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 17:31.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.