Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Weight Watchers is not a "diet" and I have repeatedly stated on this thread and others that WW doesn't count ANY calories from most fruits and vegetables.
Don't be silly, of course weight watchers is a diet. Their point system is just a simplified calorie counting system, geared primarily towards selling their weight loss products. As you demonstrated yourself, you are consuming 1,400 calories a day using their point system. That isn't a lifestyle change, you can't consume 1,400 calories a day long-term without getting sick.....that is a diet no different than the many other calorie restricting diets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
I am losing 1 - 2.5 pounds a week. This is a healthy weight loss rate.
Absolutely not.... The body can only lose around .5~1 pounds a week without going into "starvation mode" which results in metabolic changes that will negatively impact your ability to lose weight long-term.
The body doesn't understand "diets", when you routinely restrict food intake your body interprets that as starvation and starts to change the way it operations. Successful weight lose occurs when your body loses weight on its dime, not when its forced to lose weight by starvation.
As for your lifestyle changes, given that you're now having to turn to a calorie restricting diet to lose weight perhaps, just perhaps, those lifestyle changes aren't as positive as you think they are? Perhaps, you're not understanding something? But.....you're obviously not ready to address this...so that's that.
It appears to be an optimal diet for most in so many ways. I don't know if it was in this thread, but I recently posted a study about IBDs (crohn's et al) and how a semi-veg diet resulted in high remission rates for these people.
It seems optimal in the abstract, but its really not...in practice. Both vegetables and fruit are low-density foods, for example you'd have to consume around 70 green peppers to get your daily 2,000 calories. Fruits are a bit higher density, so you can get by with consuming 20~30 a day to get your daily calories.
Anyhow, people always associate vegetarian diets with fruits and vegetables, but in reality a healthful vegetarian diet (which is going to be closer to vegan...) is a starch based diet. And the reason is simple, the only way people get enough calories from vegetables is by covering them in oils. For example, take a junk food most people think is healthy: salads. It contains perhaps 50~100 calories of vegetables and then 300+ calories from fat via dressing. Its mostly fat, and without the fat its just a low calorie snack.
Healthy vegetarian meal: brown rice, black beans, salsa, sauteed green papers (with < 2 teaspoons of oil).
Unhealthy vegetarian meal: Romain lettuce, 2 tablespoons of corn, 2 tablespoons of beans, tomatoes, avocado covered with a santa fe dressing.
Anyhow, its about all about grains, legumes, and other starchy foods. That is the only way to consume sufficient calories without loading your food up with oil, furthermore its the only way to consume sufficient protein (no protein in fat, its just empty calories). The first meal provides a good amount of high quality protein, the latter just a little.
Regardless, Americans associate "fruits and vegetables" with "healthy", but this is dangerous because they ignore what is added to them. 3 green peppers sauteed with just 2 teaspoons of oil is a high fat food, its over 50% fat! But people usually use far more oil than that and they aren't eating these vegetables with plain brown rice and beans either which brings down the total fat content of the meal down.
The body can only lose around .5~1 pounds a week without going into "starvation mode" which results in metabolic changes that will negatively impact your ability to lose weight long-term.
This is not even true. Depending on a person's starting weight, height, gender, activity level, etc a person can safely lose two pounds or so per week without negatively impacting their health or metabolism.
Not only that, as several of the above links discuss, it is safe and effective to restrict caloric intake to 1400 calories a day. Though, as stated repeatedly, I am eating more than that most days.
And, as I have stated repeatedly - I only lost 3 pounds a week for the first few weeks of WW. Now I am settled into about 2 pounds a week, though I lost no weight this past week (but lost 3 inches - WOOHOO, ME!).
Quote:
Don't be silly, of course weight watchers is a diet. Their point system is just a simplified calorie counting system, geared primarily towards selling their weight loss products.
Considering that implementing the training they've offered is WORKING for me, it's a modest amount of money well spent. I don't mind paying a company for something that works. It's a win-win. By the way, I don't buy their foods - much too processed for my taste.
Quote:
As you demonstrated yourself, you are consuming 1,400 calories a day using their point system. That isn't a lifestyle change, you can't consume 1,400 calories a day long-term without getting sick.....that is a diet no different than the many other calorie restricting diets.
I'm not sure how many more times I have the patience to explain this to you. Apparently you're not ready to comprehend it yet. Here it goes one more time:
WW guidelines for someone my age, weight, and gender is about 1400 daily calories PLUS as many non-starchy veggies and most fruits desired, PLUS up to 2450 "discretionary" calories per week PLUS as many calories/points as I burn in exercise per week - so this is not simply a 1400 calorie per day "diet"). 1400 calories per day is the WW MINIMUM - not the maximum.
My doctor has assured me that I can safely lose weight on this program. My own research bears this out as well. So - no - I'm not going to "accept" your advice, which differs. It has nothing to do with not being READY to accept it - it has to do with disagreeing with your personal opinion on my health and lifestyle, an opinion which is not in sync with the advice of health care professionals who also are familiar with me and my body.
Since I consistently make very healthy food choices, and track my fats/carbs/proteins/sugars/salt intake closely, and since I am losing weight at a rate that my doctor has assured me is healthy, and since I feel GREAT and look better and better each week, and have ZERO sense of deprivation, don't feel hungry, sleep well, and enjoy preparing and eating delicious meals throughout the day - I'm not only "ready to address this" - I already have addressed it and am actively engaged in improving my lifestyle each day, each week, each month, and each year. I've been working on my family's diet choices and lifestyle for over a year and have been able to maintain the changes, and slowly tweak and incorporate more improvements over time.
But thanks ever so for your concern.
Last edited by KathrynAragon; 09-03-2012 at 01:33 PM..
This is not even true. Depending on a person's starting weight, height, gender, activity level, etc a person can safely lose two pounds or so per week without negatively impacting their health or metabolism.
You're just fishing for anything that appears to conflict with what I said, I didn't say anything about "safety" and the information you are pulling up doesn't address the metabolic issues. Metabolic changes aren't "unsafe", they are your bodies natural response to starvation, but they have consequences as for as long-term weight loss goes. Indeed, the fact that you lose weight on a calorie restricting diet has everything to do with metabolic changes!
You are also changing your word choice, you said "healthy" now you're saying "safe". Two very different things. Drinking a soda is "safe", but it isn't "healthy". Losing 2~3 pounds a week is "safe", but its not "healthy".
Also, taking nutritional and diet advice from a general doctor is never a good idea, they aren't trained for that sort of thing. You should be talking to someone that specializes in nutrition and weight loss....
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
WW guidelines for someone my age, weight, and gender is about 1400 daily calories PLUS as many non-starchy veggies and most fruits desired, PLUS up to 2450 "discretionary" calories per week PLUS as many calories/points as I burn in exercise per week
Yep...and this creates a calorie restricting diet. The folks at WW know that Americans won't consume much plain veggies and fruit....so not counting them makes sense. Weight watchers is just a fancy calorie restricting diet, there is nothing special about it. Perhaps, its easier for people to follow than doing the calorie counting themselves? I don't know....but nonetheless its just a calorie restricting diet....aka a starvation diet.
Regardless, caloric restriction doesn't result in long-term weight loss, if it did Americans wouldn't keep gaining weight. The weight loss industry is huge and there are few overweight women that haven't tried some sort of program.... Its not working and for good reasons....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By the way, I don't buy their foods - much too processed for my taste.
