Quote:
|
And as for the comparison of Core and Atkins/SBD, they are not the same. Core does not restrict carbs; it encourages you to eat the healthier carbs. You can have white bread, bagels, etc. but you have to use your weekly points to have them. You can eat whole wheat pasta, polenta, quinoa, etc to satisfaction. Core is NOT low-carb.
|
Whoa. . .let's calm down. . .we are all just talking here.
Thanks for the information. . .back during the Atkins craze before he died from head injury, I know Weight Watchers had defectors in droves. . .I am sure their numbers are going back up since the reintroduction of Core.
Yes, that's a huge difference.
The theory in Atkins isn't so much that a "banana" is bad for you. . .it's just that fruit can throw you quickly out of ketosis. . .even a big bowl of oatmeal can. For the dieter, it can mean a return to ravenous hunger.
In fact, science backs this up to a certain extent. They did a study on children where they fed one group 2 eggs and the other group a bowl of oatmeal at breakfast. The oatmeal group (I think it was oatmeal. . .maybe it was cereal) consumed 1/3rd more calories at lunch.
I have found this to be true with myself, no matter how "good" the carb is.
Atkins takes on a more "metabolic angle" whereas WW seems to take on a "calorie counting" angle.
I think both have their pluses and minuses. My criticism of WW again is the reliance on carbs for satiety, which they just don't produce.
Nutritional science is still evolving and you can get strong opinions on either side.
Now. . .personal trainers. . .exercise science is much more developed than nutritional science. Exercise is a weird mediator in weight loss. Strictly speaking. . .calorie-wise. . .exercise isn't going to make you lose weight. I was listening to the John Tesh radio show where they give you little cute blurbs of information. . .they said one big hamburger and fries at Ruby Tuesdays would be the equivalent to 4 5K runs (maybe it was more - it was a ridiculous amount of exercise).
So. . .calorie for calorie, nutrition gives you the biggest bang for your effort. You can't "make it up" with exercise.
That being said. . .I have found my success comes from producing a zero sum game with nutrition. . .let's say 2000 calories in for 2000 calories out day. . .then. . .exercising for that 250-400 calorie deficit.
This works much better and is much more comfortable than doing it the WW way and trying to eat 1600 calories and not exercising. See what I mean?
What I am trying to say is "diet
and exercise" seem to be important, for whatever reason.
And let's face it - WW seems to contain older fat chicks who are all in ruts with exercise. In fact, perhaps none of them ever really vigorously exercised in their life (sports in childhood). So many of them, at the 6 meetings I went to. . .seem to be frustrated because they are stuck. They only achieve "zero sum".
And I have found, unless you have some background from high school athletics, at least some consultations with a personal trainer would be valuable. You don't have to have one yelling and screaming at you every day like an army sarge but they could give you strategic input on Fartlek training, interval training, anaerobic exercise. . .instead of just doing "junk miles" (which admittedly am guilty of. . .I did a Fartlek work-out yesterday as this got me thinking about it - I am sure within 2 days, my aerobic capacity will be expanded).
OK. . .that's my little plug for personal trainers. I hope I didn't offend any WW groupies as an Atkins groupie
