Weight Watchers is Not Evil.

After reviewing the original article and all the feedback from the last post, and retracting my claws - I'm admittedly really bad at "agreeing to disagree" - two things have stuck out at me. 1) From a writing standpoint, my thoughts did not come out nearly as cohesively as my brain presented them, and by the end, it started to resemble a jumbled up mess. The writer in me is deeply horrified. 2) In my excitement for my topic, I inadvertently hopped up on an imaginary soapbox that I don't even necessarily stand by and didn't do the program justice. For that I apologize and I intend to do better in the future. I do not want to alienate any readers, I just want to present information in a way that will make you think. No one said anything that made me want to retract any of my statements from yesterday - I still stand by everything that I wrote - but it did make me want to clarify my position and add to what I wrote by giving credit where credit is due.

Here is what I think Weight Watchers has going for it:

• I think it is a valid starting point. If you know absolutely nothing about nutrition, this program can teach you about fat, calories, carbs, etc. You can then use this information to begin to make good choices.
• If you attend their meetings, they have good accountability and more opportunities for learning about what you should and shouldn't eat.
• They do not encourage deprivation. Contrary to what some people believe, I do not encourage deprivation either. I agree that it will lead to binge eating because it will make you focus on what you're going without. This is especially true if you're going without in order to lose weight; while this effect is still present, for me at least, it's significantly smaller now that I've switched my focus to whole health.
• My friend, Leann, did inform me that if you do the online option, you have access to an online coach who can help you choose healthier options and teach you what to stay away from. (I went back to their website to make sure I didn't miss something, but even on the second try, I still do not see online coaches listed anywhere.)
• They do have access to good recipes and workouts on their website and you have the option of choosing which you like and which you don't. You don't have to follow an exact eating and workout plan. 

Here is where I think Weight Watchers misses the point:

• Many of the Weight Watchers' food products are not very healthy for you. You can view information on specific items here. This site, Good Guides, ranks items on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being bad and 10 being good. They rank more than just health, they also rank the product's effect on the environment and society, but for our purposes, just look at the health scale. Admittedly, some of their products are in the green range, but as you move through the pages, orange and red become more and more prominent (green=good, orange/red=bad). This is partly because they have ingredients in them, that while lowering the calories or fat or whatever, are still really bad for you. They are chemicals designed to make the "healthy" (ie. low-fat, sugar-free, etc.) option taste like the original. It is a far healthier option to eat the product with the fewest chemical modifications even if it is a little more fattening, or for Weight Watchers, costs more points. 
• While they encourage physical activity with activity points, it appears that they seem to use it as a way to either eat more, or eat worse. Friends of mine on the program have told me that there is no daily or weekly activity points goal as there are daily food point limits. This is not a healthy way to look at eating and exercise. Exercise should not be used as a punishment for eating poorly earlier, nor should it be used as an excuse to eat poorly later. Consider this: if, in addition to your regular diet and exercise, you decide to eat a candy bar that has 100 calories in it and you then burn an additional 100 calories for the day, does it cancel out the candy bar? How do you know it doesn't cancel out the banana you had with breakfast? Does canceling out the calories of the candy bar automatically mean you've canceled out the effect of the fat, sugar, etc. that came with it? 
• Weight Watchers focuses entirely on weight. Shocker, I know. Going back to my Weight is Just a Number post, weight is not the whole story. If you're building muscle and losing inches, your body fat composition has dropped even if your weight hasn't. In the past 3 weeks, I have lost .1 pound. One-tenth. That's next to nothing. That's so minuscule that many scales wouldn't even register it. But I have lost an inch on my bust, 2 inches on my waist, an inch on my hips, 2.25 inches on my thighs, and half an inch on my arms. I am definitely in better shape now than I was three weeks ago even though the scale doesn't reflect it. 
• Weight Watchers focuses entirely on weight. Do I sound like a broken record? Let me remind you of what blog you're on - this is a blog about the adventure to Whole Health. This is not a blog about losing weight. With that in mind, while I think the points are a good guideline, I do not recommend for them to be used as a hard and fast rule. To the point of the whole article yesterday, I have come to agree with my friend who did not want to "waste" her points on the super-healthy fruit drink, but ONLY IF she was hitting her fruits and veggies goal for the day. Then I could see not wanting to spend points on fruits and veggies. But if she's struggling to hit that goal, I think she should definitely use a few points to reach it before she uses points on indulgences. 
• Anything can be assigned a point value, and the point value is based solely on fat, carbs, protein, and fiber. It does not take ingredients in to account (of course, the user has the option to do that, but the points program does not factor it in). Therefore, by not discouraging unhealthy options, it essentially says they are ok. Several people have tried to use this as their defense for indulging. As I mentioned, I definitely support the indulgence method as long as it's done smartly. Homemade cookies are a better option than an Oreo. (If you're craving an Oreo and that craving was made worse by me mentioning it just now, search Pinterest or Google it, I'm sure there are homemade Oreo recipes in which you can control the ingredients.) Chocolate Covered Kate is a blog full of chocolate recipes that she herself has created using natural ingredients. That is the best way to indulge. I'm not saying cut out chocolate or cut out ice cream (even though I have cut out ice cream for this year, I'm not saying everyone should do that); I'm just saying be smarter about how you consume it. Kate eats her chocolate creations at least once, usually twice a day but her health (nor her weight) is being effected by it. 

Remember that processed foods are full of additives designed and utilized by companies to make you addicted to their products in order to increase their profits. The foods you love (which Weight Watchers claims you will not have to give up) are likely to be full of these additives which is why you don't want to give them up in the first place. When you look at it this way, it is easy to see that our addiction to the additives is every bit as powerful as a smoker's addiction to cigarettes, or an alcoholic's addiction to beer. My friend Mike gave me this analogy which I just love: If you were to help a drug addict with their addiction, would you recommend for them to only do drugs every once in a while as an indulgence for being so good the rest of the time, or so their deprivation doesn't send diving headfirst back into drugs? Would you recommend that they try a different drug that's not as bad for them? Or would you help them get off all drugs for good? Food is not the enemy, the additives in processed foods are. I do not believe it is healthy to indulge in these naughty ingredients even if it's just every once in a while. 

Finally, I think it is worth noting a few things: 

• The very first Weight Watchers' Spokeswoman was Lynn Redgrave. Sarah Ferguson was one of her successors. Both of these women gained some of the weight back after going off the program and Lynn ultimately died from breast cancer. (Not to start another controversy, and I'm certainly not trying to say that Lynn contracted breast cancer as a result of what she ate, but if you don't think what you eat has an effect on cancer, please keep reading my blog. This topic will be covered in detail.) 
• In the British Journal of Nutrition, Michael Lowe reports his findings after following 699 participants for 5 years after Weight Watchers. 95.3% of these participants were women. After 1 year, 79.8% of participants had succeeded in keeping at least 5% off their weight loss off. (This could also read as 21.2% of participants had gained back more than 95% of the weight after only 1 year). After 2 years, 71% of participants maintained at least 5% of their weight loss, and by year 5, 50%, only HALF of the participants, had maintained at least 5% of their weight loss. And that is only 5%!!! It doesn't even mention those that maintained 100% of their weight loss, although it does give results for those that maintained a weight below their goal weight: By year 1, that was only 26.5%, at year 2, it was down to 20.5%, and by year 3, it hit 16.2%. As much as people have tried to argue otherwise based on their own personal success, statistically this program does not show encouraging long-term results if 1 out of every 2 people on the program will not see success 5 years later. View the entire report here.
• Finally, of my friends who read and commented on the article, the ones who agreed with what I said are easily the healthiest, and maybe not coincidentally, skinniest people I know. They are the people I turn to when trying to make healthy decisions, which makes me feel that I might not have been as far off the mark as many people would like to believe.