The 1972 one was the one I used and it just "hit the nail on the head" for me. The later edition is as you say, a money spinner and is too influenced by the low fat/healthy eating brigade

Jo xxx

All these programs (including treatment for diabetics) seem geared toward promoting addiction to the foods that are making people fat and sick -- and keeping them enslaved to the same patterns.

One thing I like about the ketogenic diet is that it's very clear about removing sugar and grains from the diet, period. When I first read about it some years ago it seemed extreme in the amount of fat that was suggested and so many eliminations of foods. But now it seems so much easier to follow than all the halfway plans that practically seem to encourage people to eat sugar, because "you know you really don't want to give it up."

It's like if an alcoholic wanted to recover, and the treatment included continuing to consume plenty of alcohol in various forms, maybe combined with "superfoods" into "better alternatives."

That's what I like about Dr. B's approach. It's pretty much, "Do you want to eat the same food you're used to, or do you want to keep your vision, toes, kidney function, etc.?"

It's a no-brainer!

WW isn't a bad program if you are resistant to carb cravings and are disciplined enough to stick to the plan. I have been successful a couple of times on it in the past (yeah, I'm another back sliding lifer) but when I tried it after my kids were born I just couldn't get past the carb cravings. The first time I went through the plan in the late 80s it was based on food servings and the list of allowed foods was quite restricted but the plan was simple. It was a forced low carb-low fat-low calorie plan but it was easy to follow (if boring) and as the food list was small food didn't go to waste as I ate the same things day after day after day. The next time I tried it around 2004 it was points but the basis that low fat/low calorie/high fiber was good (low point values so you could eat more!) but high fiber also can lead to high calories (such as bran cereals). Again I was successful but I leaned towards low calorie foods so I could eat more. The last time I tried it the plan had just changed to the points plus version. I couldn't stay on it. I couldn't get past the carb cravings. I don't think it had as much to do with the plan itself but rather that it no longer worked for me. Now, points plus added carb and protein counts to the mix (and removed calories) and that changed everything for their WW branded food items that were based on processed high carb-low fat items with added fiber to drive the point totals down (Why on earth would a fudge pop have fiber in it except to make the point value=1?) Most of their items jumped up in point value which didn't make them as 'desirable' to the people doing their diet and sales plummeted. Now I know that WW had gotten a lot of criticism over the years as the original points plan really did let you eat whatever you wanted and didn't force you to eat more natural/less processed foods. To counter this they made fruits zero points (???) and changed how they calculated points. While they are finally learning that carbs and protein matter they totally missed the mark by making all fruit zero points. I think they would have been more sensible to make all vegetables zero points. I can't imagine anyone seriously over indulging on vegetables (even corn and potatoes) as they are so filling but you can do some real calorie damage with fruit and the resulting sugar roller coaster. WW is trying to be 'all things to all people' instead of focusing on what worked for them in the beginning: teaching people how to eat in moderation and to get away from processed foods. It's no different than Atkins Nutritionals focusing on 'net carbs' to widen the appeal of the program. One has to wonder though if the focus on net carbs isn't so much to make the plan flexible as much as a strategy to slowly expand their product line. Their entire line of products is dependent on the theory of net carbs and their bars/sweets are filled with sugar alcohols. I wouldn't be surprised to see a mail order option in the future much like Nutrisystem where you eat nothing but Atkins branded products that arrive at your door.

Both Atkins and WW would serve their members by going back to their roots and embracing the basics that built their companies in the first place.

I like the 'support group' element. God knows how things would be different for so many people I know without this forum for example. WW provides that in person for many people.

But WW and every other plan has one cult-like flaw:

If you succeed, it's because the plan works.

If you fail, it's because you failed. You didn't follow it perfectly enough, perhaps. Yes, you had a cherry last wednesday. That explains it!

It's inherently invalidating, demoralizing and destructionist to psychology to set up paradigms where success gives credit mostly to an outside source while failure gives blame mostly to the inside source.

You only have to watch conversations of people who did well vs. poorly on a diet to see how people will react to insist on blame if someone isn't doing well on a plan, but insist that the plan is The Answer(tm) if they are. This is pervasive everywhere -- in LC, in Vegan, in WW, you name it. Success validates the plan, failure invalidates the individual.

I think Weight Watchers has a great opportunity they aren't actually fulfilling. Due to their name and legend, they could in theory set up a variety of different diets and be the monitoring and support for ALL of them: a group for people watching their weight, period.

In this forum people do all kinds of stuff. At various times people in my journal have been WW, vegan, zone, Peat, Paleo, and every other imaginable eating plan. And none of us had a problem being supportive of each other and caring about the others' fate regardless of that. Many people have been through a variety of different plans.

I think WW could carve a better and bigger niche out of that actually, in the modern world, if they tried.

PJ

Well said and I think so too. Would they need to develop a program for each approach, and be prepared to legally defend it as responsible and evidence-based, I wonder.

And then would the costs of program development and legal offset the profits to be made from customers.

The super cheap way is to make a program that goes with conventional wisdom - USDA guidelines, or ADA, or AHA. Yet we know those plans are tilted toward the business needs of their sponsors - trade groups for food and medical for-profit businesses.

When WW started and was low carb, it was before those agencies got into the low-fat food guidelines business.

Wow. That hits the nail on the head. I think we fall into that trap around here sometimes. However, as you suggested, we (on the collective forum) have the knowledge and experience as a group to validate many variations on many plans to help people (not the plan) be successful. That's one of the strengths of this support group.

Askwhy, I enjoyed your recap of the changing approaches of WW. I have my lifetime pin (as of about 1979). Back then, it was essentially low-cal/low-fat with a lot of strange recipes to achieve food that tasted good. Of course, only a WW adherent would eat it. This was long before commercial WW products.

I lost weight on the old points plan years ago (48 pounds) but, the new points plus is really slow. I tried it last year because of a promotion and I gained on it and all in my hips, butt and tummy! Not what I wanted for new years eve I could hardly fit the party dress I picked out. Nope. The older plan was better but low carb is best.

I've been a WW failure several times. I attribute it to my unacknowledged compulsive overeating and my lack of real nutrition information. I had to learn their point system and their point system is based on their view of food, which is basically low fat. It never worked for me and I was a failure.

FF to 2004 when I joined this forum and started on my journey, I was able to learn about food in general and not through the lens of WW's point system. It made a huge difference for me.

The more knowledgeable people become about food in general, the harder the WW point system will be to sell. I think the whole good fat debate and current research is killing them. Yes, their support meetings are great and helpful....but the points and low fat dogma crap has got to go.

People might get a kick out of these Weight Watchers cards from 1974. The comments are hilarious.

http://www.candyboots.com/wwcards.html

Although I have tried many diets, WW was one I never did for some reason. As Judy stated, once I learned more about food and nutrition, I preferred low-carb because REAL food is emphasized. Sure you can fall for the Atkins bars and other low-carb frankenfoods but you will fail and derail yourself. The points system sounds like you can eat garbage as long as you stay within your limit.

It's hard to focus on the health aspects of a diet if all we are thinking about is weight loss.

I just laughed harder than I have in a long time -- they are SO funny! Not only the food creations and titles but the bizarre food styling props and her remarks on them, just hilarious.

But also, getting flashbacks -- I think I once made Inspiration Soup! And there was a later edition I think of recipes, we used to keep them like notecards in a box. Not as wild as these but along the same lines.

There's a link to the 70s version of WW on that same site with the guidelines, more flashbacks! I remember now the skim milk powder made into "shakes," the liver once a week (that I faithfully cooked, took a bite of then threw away), and the weird vegetable list.

http://www.dwlz.com/WWinfo/old1972ww.html

Just think, you could actually have an official WW meal of finnan haddie and ugli fruit, garnished with unlimited nasturtium leaves, and washed down with Gossip tea!

I think what saved me is my mother has always been the Butter Queen, there's no way she would cook without plenty of butter (and keeping skin on the chicken) so I'm sure it wasn't the low-fat version for me when I was 12, that must have helped.

More flashbacks: remember the Mary Tyler Moore episode "Rhoda the Beautiful"? Where Rhoda and Murray join a WW-type group called "Calorie Cutters" and Rhoda loses so much weight she wins a beauty contest at her department store (and Murray gets to be the "Grand Zaftik").

OMG! I laughed myself silly with those WW recipe cards--and the hilarious commentary. I was there, in the 70s. Trying to make it work. How desperate were we??

P.S. It's possible that my aversion to canned tuna relates directly to the "fish at least five times a week" instructions of 1972 WW.

PPS. We ate tuna salad tonight and it was delicious. Could it be the mayonnaise??

I'm dying laughing here and I haven't even got passed the ceramic mushroom family or sharing a dish with the ashes of a loved one. I need a break before I move on to the other cards...

Now my whole office is screaming laughing with me.