Dieting discoveries

j_alexandra

Well-Known Member
I was thinking about this last night and had to wonder out loud. Were the complaints about the program itself or about the fact that all the WW-related goodies (point calculators, recipe books, etc) all had to be re-purchased? I know that, if I were a purveyor of packaged foods that partners with WW (like whoever makes Progresso soups or Smart Ones frozen entrees,) all of that extremely expensive re-packaging and re-labeling would not have made me a happy camper.

I know that, in my WW days, I had a heap of paraphernalia. Having to re-buy everything would not have made me happy. And I bet the people at dottisweightlosszone** are exploding right about now.



** A website that provides nutrition info for hundreds of chain restaurants and give you the WW points for many dishes.
Many complaints about slow weight loss. Who in America complains about getting to buy new stuff?

My complaints were slow weight loss, lack of flexibility, and social engineering.
 

pygmalion

Well-Known Member
Social engineering. That is intriguing. :cool: I never did Points Plus, but my biggest complaint with WW since around 2006 or 2007 has been the activity points. My impression is that the activity points were derived either assuming that you were morbidly obese and/or that you were totally sedentary. IMO, there's no way an already moderately active person who needed a small weight loss would EVER lose, if they chose to count activity points. Also IMO, you really have to be aware of your body, not just blindly follow the WW guidelines. IOW, I should NOT be given activity points for doing housework. Housework. Seriously!?!?

The other thing I find intriguing, when you talk about diet in general, not just WW, is how emotional people can get about their food choices. Just a top of the head example is the several ladies I work with who are all gluten intolerant. Oh my gosh! To hear them tell it, gluten is the cause of all evils in the world. Spawn of the devil. The source of all war and economic collapse. They make me want to say, "Not really. You're gluten intolerant. Not everybody is. I respect your dietary needs, but it doesn't mean that I should disavow any future contact with grains or else wear a scarlet letter."

At the end of the day, it's food, so it is important. But you can only work with what you know and what you have at any given point in time. Trying to be aware and doing the best you can is USUALLY better than not. *shrug*
 

toothlesstiger

Well-Known Member
http://thepaleodiet.com/ A friend recommended this to me, I have yet to start reading.
I'm at 150 lb currently. I kind of love my curves (I used to be 115), and am almost hesitant to change my diet because I know they will all go away. :(
Basically, hunter-gatherer diet. Real foods (i.e., minimally processed), eliminate dairy, grains, legumes, and potatoes. Only foods you could eat raw (not that you have to eat them raw.) And include organ meats. Those are the delicacies for hunter-gatherers, as they are very nutrient dense. No "franken-fats" as one writer puts it, i.e., no canola, corn, or soybean oils.
 

wonderwoman

Well-Known Member
I like it. I would miss cheese, beans and sweet potatoes, but it does give you a 85/15 margin, so you can eat three meals a week that don't follow the Paleo diet. I could have my one sweet potato or regular potato a week, and a greek yogurt or a couple pieces of cheese. I could give up desserts, sugar in my coffee and even bread, but I will want my cheese!
 

samina

Well-Known Member
Basically, hunter-gatherer diet. Real foods (i.e., minimally processed), eliminate dairy, grains, legumes, and potatoes. Only foods you could eat raw (not that you have to eat them raw.) And include organ meats. Those are the delicacies for hunter-gatherers, as they are very nutrient dense. No "franken-fats" as one writer puts it, i.e., no canola, corn, or soybean oils.
I find I strive for 100% Raw Vegan but gravitate toward High-Raw Paleo...that is what feels best in my body, regardless of any theoretical arguments for either approach. When I diverge from either path... not good.
 

pygmalion

Well-Known Member
I have tried going mostly raw a few times and find that the more raw, the better I feel and look. If that old cliche "You are what you eat,' is true, then, based on my own unscientifically gathered, anecdotal evidence, raw is the way to go. :)
 

samina

Well-Known Member
I can be high-raw vegan for a good length of time, but I don't feel right in body permanently removing animal protein. Have experimented with that for 30 years. Whatever scientific evidence may be gathered by others, that's my truth. For now, anyway. :)
 

pygmalion

Well-Known Member
Exactly. That's why mostly raw. I find mostly raw pretty easy, if I do the proper grocery shopping and plan ahead a bit. (Big ifs, but still ...) Raw all day. Lean animal protein along with dinner. It's easy and a great way to lose weight. :)
 

Peaches

Well-Known Member
See, and I've found that I feel best overall if I go with vegetable-skewed moderation, both in terms of how I feel physically as well as satiety. Plenty of fruits and veggies (some raw, some not), a little dairy, a little meat, and a little whole grains. Shrug. Once I start eliminating things, even if I tell myself that I'm expanding what other things I can discover to eat, I become kind of fixated and cravings start. And for me, the mental side is as important as the physical side. To each their own.
 

Peaches

Well-Known Member
TT, I was thinking of you just now. (I think it was you who mentioned not eating things with more than three ingredients.) I know you said you bake your own bread; I do as well, sometimes. But I was looking online at some of the offerings from our local creamery and one of the breads they were selling had this monster list of ingredients--and it was about a dozen different varieties of seeds. ! Take out the seeds and you had simple whole wheat bread--flour, honey, salt, yeast--but holy crap the amount of other stuff that was added was amazing. It looked pretty good. (But I won't get it, because I'm pretty sure I'd eat it all in one sitting.)
 

toothlesstiger

Well-Known Member
I don't think I said not to eat things with more than three ingredients (that would wipe out a lot of my cooking). Rather, don't buy such things, and I was really thinking more along the lines of processed foods. It's an easier rule of thumb than avoiding things like HFCS, hydrogenated vegetable oil, artificial sweeteners, and various chemical preservatives and color and flavor agents.
 

Peaches

Well-Known Member
Yeah, I figured that's what you meant. I was just sort of amused by the ingredient list on this. I found myself thinking "Heh. How's that for way more than three ingredients!"...despite the fact that they were all helthy.
 

pygmalion

Well-Known Member
Huh? Read my first post. Sound sure? lol
No, you don't sound sure. It just would have sounded condescending and intrusive to me, if I'd said, "It doesn't sound to me like you're sure you want to lose weight." None of my biz.

I will said that, over the years, the times I've really wanted to lose weight, I found it pretty easy. When I didn't really WANT to lose weight, I was "on a diet" for months with no results.

My take on your dilemma (Not that you asked. Just saying.) is that maybe somewhere between 115 and 150 would be a good goal -- to lose SOME weight without losing all of your curves. *shrug* Your call.

It's good to see you, btw. :)
 

pygmalion

Well-Known Member
See, and I've found that I feel best overall if I go with vegetable-skewed moderation, both in terms of how I feel physically as well as satiety. Plenty of fruits and veggies (some raw, some not), a little dairy, a little meat, and a little whole grains. Shrug. Once I start eliminating things, even if I tell myself that I'm expanding what other things I can discover to eat, I become kind of fixated and cravings start. And for me, the mental side is as important as the physical side. To each their own.

This sounds like a reasonable approach as well, P. I used this approach to weight loss a couple of times when I was on WW -- a little bit of everything but heaviest on veg. (Steamed frozen green veg = zero points, cheap, quick and easy. Uhh... win win.) It worked and I was rarely hungry as long as I remembered to include some whole grains and NOT to skimp on fat too much.

But ... I find that pumping up the raw keeps me better hydrated, makes my skin clearer, and keeps my *ahem* digestive system more active. The more raw "roughage" the better I feel, within reason, of course.
 

davedove

Well-Known Member
Agreed. If my family had been asked to eat only greens, there'd have been a revolt. WRT the farm diet that my family ate, I didn't say only greens nor did I say anything about how the greens were prepared or served, as in with a "healthy" dose of fat for seasoning and in large supply -- calcium, fiber, all sorts of nutrients and filling. People did work in the fields all day and believe me when I tell you they didn't do it hungry.
The problem is that too many people these days still eat as if they were going to work the fields all day, but in reality are only sitting at a desk. When you burn the calories, you can eat the calories.:cool:
 

toothlesstiger

Well-Known Member
The problem is that too many people these days still eat as if they were going to work the fields all day, but in reality are only sitting at a desk. When you burn the calories, you can eat the calories.:cool:
Sort of. The point of Taubes' books, that have been mentioned in this thread, is that not all calories are created equal. The balance sheet is a lot more complicated than just "calories in/calories burned".
 

Dance Ads