Is weight watchers worth the money?

[rduell]

Great comparison, Zetta! Exactly why I believe it is worth the money.

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.

[InDebtInDC]

irrelevant

[InDebtInDC]

irrelevant

[maat55]

I've went from 193 to 170 by eliminating chips, pastries, reg. pop and since dropping my golf membership, I drink no beer. Also, don't eat two platefulls anymore.

Basically, just eating less.

[ScrimpAndSave]

Yikes! I didn't mean to open a can of worms.

I'm not an idiot - and I do understand weight loss (you don't have to be a personal trainer to understand that). I've just had some friends that have had great success on the program both losing and maintaining their weight. I wanted to see if it was worth the money to follow the program the way it is structured. Free Diet Plans at SparkPeople has a fantastic database for people that want to regulate their nutrient and caloric intake as well as notate their fitness regimens....wanted to see if a membership to weight watchers would offer a better program.

It was just a simple question - and I really didn't need to be interrogated by questions that were completely irrelevant.


That being said, I'm glad I'm not "in debt" in Pa.

[BillsGirl]

Originally Posted by ScrimpAndSave

Yikes! I didn't mean to open a can of worms.

I'm not an idiot - and I do understand weight loss (you don't have to be a personal trainer to understand that). I've just had some friends that have had great success on the program both losing and maintaining their weight. I wanted to see if it was worth the money to follow the program the way it is structured. Free Diet Plans at SparkPeople has a fantastic database for people that want to regulate their nutrient and caloric intake as well as notate their fitness regimens....wanted to see if a membership to weight watchers would offer a better program.

It was just a simple question - and I really didn't need to be interrogated by questions that were completely irrelevant.


That being said, I'm glad I'm not "in debt" in Pa.

what an AWESOME site!!!! Thank you soooo much for posting it!

I just have to say whats with the fiestiness! Who cares WHEN you work out... You can do it in the am or pm whatever floats your friggen boat!!!

In the am people could stretch wow who woulda thunk you can stretch before going for a walk! hmm what a concept? Yeah you can eat and an hour or 2 later go for a walk!

[ScrimpAndSave]

Heck yeah! I love that site.

[InDebtInDC]

Originally Posted by ScrimpAndSave

Yikes! I didn't mean to open a can of worms.

I'm not an idiot - and I do understand weight loss (you don't have to be a personal trainer to understand that). I've just had some friends that have had great success on the program both losing and maintaining their weight. I wanted to see if it was worth the money to follow the program the way it is structured. Free Diet Plans at SparkPeople has a fantastic database for people that want to regulate their nutrient and caloric intake as well as notate their fitness regimens....wanted to see if a membership to weight watchers would offer a better program.

It was just a simple question - and I really didn't need to be interrogated by questions that were completely irrelevant.


That being said, I'm glad I'm not "in debt" in Pa.

There is absolutely no need to resort to insults. It doesn't cost anything to ask a question. You get what you paid for. If you don't like something somebody posted, simply ignore and move on.

Please understand that your original question does not control the scope of the thread, and we are free to move the thread in different directions at the forum's discretion.

If the questions are not relevant to you, they may be relevant to someone else who is reading this.

[Scanner]

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

[InDebtInDC]

Scanner, I appreciate your comments.

By the way, this thread is no longer about the OP's original question since it has gone on multiple tangents. I feel that the original question has been adequately addressed. If not, then the OP please speak out.

The premise of this thread that nobody brought up is that weight loss = good.

What I want to know is why is losing weight important to you? Do you want to look a certain way? Are you worried about health effects? Do you want to feel better? What is the reason for wanting to lose weight?

As in everything I do, I don't question people's motives unless the motives are destructive. Based on what the person wants to do, losing weight may or may not be appropriate.

Why do you want to lose weight, and will losing the weight get you the happiness you want?


The reason I ask this is because there are actually better alternatives to pure weight loss for most people. You can actually gain weight via muscle mass, feel better, look better, and be healthier than if you just lost weight alone.

I am very very against weight loss per se because most people don't know that weight loss:

a) will not get the goals they want, and
b) is not the only alternative to attain their goals.


The only time I would prescribe weight loss is for athletes trying to make a weight class. For most people I would prescribe weight control as a small part of a complete fitness program.

Most people struggle with weight, and making this your primary concern doesn't help the problem. Please realize that weight is only one small part of a very large and complex puzzle.

[rduell]

I just wanted to clarify that my weight loss with WW did include exercise. I do a LOT of walking for exercise and also yoga 3 times a week. It wasn't just a matter of counting points or calories. And now that I switched from the Flex plan to the Core plan I feel that I'm learning a healthy lifestyle, not just a diet.

[InDebtInDC]

Originally Posted by rduell

I just wanted to clarify that my weight loss with WW did include exercise. I do a LOT of walking for exercise and also yoga 3 times a week. It wasn't just a matter of counting points or calories. And now that I switched from the Flex plan to the Core plan I feel that I'm learning a healthy lifestyle, not just a diet.

Thank you for the clarification. While I myself have not examined WW in details, can you answer some questions for me?

How much do they educate you about fitness in the program? How much of the program is centered around weight? What other metrics does WW use to gauge fitness?

Thanks.

[geojen]

Originally Posted by InDebtInDC

Thank you for the clarification. While I myself have not examined WW in details, can you answer some questions for me?

How much do they educate you about fitness in the program? How much of the program is centered around weight? What other metrics does WW use to gauge fitness?

Thanks.

Fitness is a huge part of WW. Starting on week 3 of the program you are encouraged to begin working out. This may be starting small for the very over weight people who have not exercised in a long time, if ever. You can actually earn activity points, which you can then eat or not to boost your weight loss. For example, my walking briskly for 30 minutes (at my current weight, assuming a moderate level of exertion) would earn me 2 activity points. I could then eat those points if I wanted to that day, because I actually burned 4 points during the activity.

Every week has new fitness routines and things you are encouraged to try. The also produce aerobic videos that I really enjoy, as well as sponser miles-walked/ran clubs and other fitness things.

[InDebtInDC]

What types of metrics do they use to measure how well you're doing? Do they just use weight or are there some other metrics they use?

[Scanner]

I agree that BMI is the more appropriate measurement. . .that being said. . .weight is just a good, very simplistic indicator.

It also probably sound better to go to your weekly "weigh-in" vs. "I'm going for my weekly Body Mass Indicator calculation."

[InDebtInDC]

Originally Posted by Scanner

I agree that BMI is the more appropriate measurement. . .that being said. . .weight is just a good, very simplistic indicator.

It also probably sound better to go to your weekly "weigh-in" vs. "I'm going for my weekly Body Mass Indicator calculation."

While I disgree with how the BMI is calculated, I think it's better to use BMI and weight together than just weight per se.

[geojen]

At the meetings they use strictly weight, but you are encouraged to keep track of your own measurements, especially if you are going through a plateau where you are not losing weight but you may be losing inches.

[InDebtInDC]

Originally Posted by geojen

At the meetings they use strictly weight, but you are encouraged to keep track of your own measurements, especially if you are going through a plateau where you are not losing weight but you may be losing inches.

While this is not completely there yet, I think this is great to move away from looking at just weight alone. At least looking at inches lets you know how your body composition is changing.

[rduell]

Originally Posted by InDebtInDC

Thank you for the clarification. While I myself have not examined WW in details, can you answer some questions for me?

How much do they educate you about fitness in the program? How much of the program is centered around weight? What other metrics does WW use to gauge fitness?

Thanks.

Each meeting is centered around a different topic. I'd say in the 9 months I've been going we've talked about fitness at least once a month, whether it's the topic of the night or not. The leader almost always asks if anyone did anything this week to move more. She encourages each member to begin a fitness program and brings new fitness ideas to our attention.

I'd say that the major goal with WW is weight. I also take my measurements each month, but that's something I've done for years now. I keep track on a site I belong to so I know how many inches I've lost.

I've also kept track of my BMI on my own. I do wish that was something that they regularly encouraged you to do. My BMI has gone from 34.0 to 26.3 since last July. Almost to the healthy zone!

[FrugalIII]

I don't get the whole BMI thing. And don't really agree with the figures. I'm a 5'10 man of med/large frame. In my youth I was an active, although not competitive body builder so I have a good bit of muscile mass compared to the "average" person even now. When I started WW I weighted 254. Agreeably I was fat. Now I'm down to 190. I feel very good and went from a 42" waist to a 34". Physically I'm the same dimensions I was when I lifted weights a few years ago and the same weight. But according to the BMI chart, the most I should weigh is 174. If I lost another 16 pounds, I'd look like a starving, sick man. Why doesn't the BMI take into consideration muscle mass and bone mass? Or am I just not seeing the picture clearly?