Patsy Kensitt and That weight watcher ad

[snapper_37]

Blimey CC's very own Bernard Manning has arrived ........

3 'howlers' in a couple of minutes. Go you!

 

[pauldavid]

Blimey CC's very own Bernard Manning has arrived ........

3 'howlers' in a couple of minutes. Go you!

Sorry, didn't mean to cause offence. Feeling a little excitable today due to my cold feeling as though it has subsided and hence me feeling a little more lively rhan of late.

 

[snapper_37]

Sorry, didn't mean to cause offence. Feeling a little excitable today due to my cold feeling as though it has subsided and hence me feeling a little more lively rhan of late.

Well if that's what Beechams does for you

 

[pauldavid]

Well if that's what Beechams does for you

I never mentioned Stephanie, but if she's working with weightwatchers as well count me in!

 

[BigonaBianchi]

Frozen peas have all kinds of uses but let's not go there

 

[Over The Hill]

I wish.......

I prefer slimming world to weight watchers. Lost nearly 3 stone on it a couple of years ago and just suits me better than WW. With all these plans, it's easier to get the weight off than keeping the weight off. Hence why there are members at 'target' weight who still attend every week.

I put most of the weight back on so have started again for 2013.

I think you can also get the SW classes paid for via NHS but could be wrong.

Sorry but i dont know your circumstances but does this not rather endorse what i am saying?

The whole problem is that you need a plan for life not a plan for a target weight over a period of time. Come the end of the time and people drop out of the imposed habit and shame of the weigh in set up within the WW system and go back to putting on weight.

It only works if it keeps working. You seem to be confirming that you were on WW and then right after you stopped you put on a couple of stone. To me that is not a great endorsement.

I was near 14 stone and am now 12st4 and have been about this weight (what I should be) for 7 years. I am actually much more careful about what i eat than my Wife (an annoying 8 stone person who eats anything she likes) so live in a house full of cake and crisps that I never eat. I maintain my weight by doing exactly as i said but I think the important thing is that it is about changing habits for life not just until a target is reached.

 

[400bhp]

I decorated her house when she was with that Kerr fella. Both very much smaller in the flesh than they look on the telly.

 

[snapper_37]

Sorry but i dont know your circumstances but does this not rather endorse what i am saying?

The whole problem is that you need a plan for life not a plan for a target weight over a period of time. Come the end of the time and people drop out of the imposed habit and shame of the weigh in set up within the WW system and go back to putting on weight.

It only works if it keeps working. You seem to be confirming that you were on WW and then right after you stopped you put on a couple of stone. To me that is not a great endorsement.

Not WW, SW, but that's beside the point. Yes, I agree with you, it needs to be a lifestyle change, not just lose the weight and then put it back on to start all over again. Typcial yo-yo dieter me!!!

 

[Over The Hill]

Weight Watchers is only £15 per month or you can get it prescribed for free.


What absolute crap. The whole thing about the Weight Watchers plan is that it is about re-educating bad eating habits. That's why it's one of the few diet programmes endorsed by the NHS.

And lots of retailer and producers provide the points on their products (e.g. Tesco, Waitrose, Sainsbury's) or you can calculate them fairly easily.

How little you know...

The price was on their website. I know no more that that.

Energy we eat is measured in calories. So why dream up a "points" system when there is already a measure available. Seems a way of getting people to buy their stuff rather than think or sort out themselves. Why else measure in a different system.

If you say to someone "eat x points" and then show them a load of processed food with the points nicely displayed on it then they will tend to eat that processed food. Then rely upon that processed food and be in the habit of eating processed food from a packet.

The plan however does not empower the dieter to take control of their food intake but to some extent keeps that control with WW.
So as clearly demonstrated above when you drop out of their control they have not armed you with the information and habits to continue for the rest of your life maintaining a weight.

Generally most people on WW are back again year after year having put weight back on.

 

[Doseone]

I used to play squash for my college and once missed a match so I could go and see 8th Wonder (Patsy Kensit's band) in concert. She has always been gorgeous in my eyes.

I thought she lost most of her weight when she did Strictly?

 

[Over The Hill]

Not WW, SW, but that's beside the point. Yes, I agree with you, it needs to be a lifestyle change, not just lose the weight and then put it back on to start all over again. Typcial yo-yo dieter me!!!

Hope you get sorted out with something that works for you. We are all different.
I aim for 3 good meals with lots of low fat carbs in them each day and just stick to fruit for in between snacks (mostly). Then I keep anything with high sugar content or high fat content (over 5% is my benchmark) to a minimum.
Hairy Bikers did a diet programme over new year and I basically do as they do. With a bit of thought you can substitute a fatty food for something else. I tried out one of their recipies and made a home made chicken and veg pie on saturday but they use a pizza base mix instead of pastry. this is 3% fat instead of about 30% in pastry. Intantly 100 cals less in a meal.
They had some other good ideas which I think are on the BBC site for the programme.
There is of course the bike too!

 

[Over The Hill]

I can tell you;re not a nutritionist. Weight control isn't simply about how much goes in and how much is expended. It's as much about the type of calories consumed as how many.
I'm afraid youre clearly talking from a position of ignorance. WW encourages you to cook rather than eat pre-prepared and is all about empowering dieters to control their food intake appropriately.
Got any evidence for these assertions? I'm assuming, of course, you know the difference between evidence and anecdote...

Firstly can you please stop turning every post into a personal attack. You just make it unpleasant.

Weight control isn't simply about how much goes in and how much is expended. It's as much about the type of calories consumed as how many.
Sorry but this is not true. Ask a doctor not WW. A calorie is a measure of energy in food and it makes no difference what food you eat. There are not bad calories and good ones. There are just calories.
Got any evidence for these assertions?
You ask me for evidence but throw the classic rubbish dieter myths at me throughout your post. Where is your evidence for your good and bad calories.
This is why you should avoid weight watchers -

This product that they are flogging says it is "reduced fat" and contains 3.5g fat with a 5% indication.
What it actually is is 20% fat. I would not touch them.
Walkers do 8% fat crisps - less than half WW,
Breadsticks are 6% fat. less than one third of the crisps from WW. It is not difficult. But keep on lapping it up if you want. Look no further than "2 points". Perhaps they are good calories that dont make you fat and breadsticks have bad calories in them?
Seem to me WW all about making you dependant on WW and their products.

 

[Primal Scream]

Firstly can you please stop turning every post into a personal attack. You just make it unpleasant.

 

[Over The Hill]

What personal attack? I was simply pointing out that you were clearly not a nutritionist.
Perhaps you''re protesting a little too much because you know you're talking rot... or perhaps you're suggesting that you know better than the NHS, doctors and the Medical Research Council?

In 2010 two clinical studies from the Medical Research Council concluded that Weight Watchers really does work, and is a cheap and effective way for the NHS to tackle Britain's huge obesity problem. The studies included evidence from Europe and Australia.

The studies concluded that the benefit of eight Watchers is that it does not just offer another variety of diet – it's about behaviour change. People with a weight problem go to a weekly class, where they get help and support, as well as advice on what to eat and a way of monitoring their food intake through a points system.
This sort of supportive, educative programme has been shown to work. In fact, the studies showed that Weight Watchers was twice as effective (both in terms of weight loss and keeping weight off) than GP-managed weight loss programmes.
But what would the MRC know...
I did ask a doctor* - he says you're talking rubbish**
I didn't use the term "bad calories and good calories". There is clear clinical evidence that different types of foods (different sources of calories) have different effects on the body and on the ability to gain or lose weight.
So the answer to my question is 'No' you don't have any evidence to support your assertions. Instead you revert to red herrings and straw men...
* My other half is a doctor.
** He used another word but I'm too polite to repeat it.

As I explained before, it becomes a personal attack when you draw some conclusion about me personally and convey that instead of dealing with the matter under discussion and my view. Attacking my view is OK, attacking me is a personal attack.
WW et al are an off the shelf package that doctors can prescribe. Just becuase it is better than them saying "lose some weight" is no great endorsement.
The good and bad calories was a reference to the book by Gary Taubes that put forward the whole idea and flogged his book on the back of it. It was flawed and has generally been dismissed I believe.
As for the failure of WW. For about 15 years I worked in an office full of women going from some silly fad diet to another and going back to WW within the cycle. I accept this is not hard evidence but seems to be a decent snapshot of the real world. As I mentioned in another post the Hairy Bikers did not start counting points but just changed a few key areas of what they ate which is what I proposed and you say is rubbish.
The support element in WW is fine and good but all I see of their food is packaged meals and junk food.
The WW crisp packet was not a straw man but summarised my concern with WW in that it sold a misleadingly labelled high fat product that should have absolutely no place in any form of diet of any description. Would your Doctor think eating high fat snacks is OK as part of a healthy food plan? I doubt it. Is it too much to say "stop eating crisps and eat something else that has not been cooked in fat". Seems reasonable to me but if you say it is rubbish then it is up to you.

 

[Archie_tect]

Mind you OTH, you did say a calorie is a calorie whatever the food source, yet you mention the fat in WW crisps, so you can't have it both ways.... but this is the cafe so chuck me another packet while you're at the counter... and a second cuppa.