The more I read, the more I think. The more I think, the less I know. The less I know, the more I read. This has been the cycle. Read, think, ponder, question, read.... Slowly, out of the background, a thought has been forming, peeking through the questions and the research, until it finally came to a head and just kind of hit me today.
Yet another friend of mine posted something on facebook about a new low-calorie treat and how excited she was about it, but it's filled with naughty ingredients. I realized how focused our society is on calories. I know I've alluded to this many times, especially in my most noted Weight Watchers article (see this also), but today it just really struck me - when did it become all about calories? I'm using calories here, but for the point of the argument I also mean carbs, fat, protein, fiber, etc. The term calorie was first defined in 1824 by Nicolas Clement, so for 5,800+ years, people got along just fine without worrying about how many calories they were consuming. The obesity epidemic didn't start to become a big issue until the mid 20th century, so clearly the lack of importance on caloric intake didn't cause problems with being overweight. Shouldn't we follow history's lead here?
Our society today spends so much time focusing on how many calories were consuming, how many grams of fat and which kinds of fat, how many grams of protein, how many grams of fiber vs. how many carbohydrates, and the list goes on and on, and yet we're the most obese culture in the world (and I might go so far as to say here: we're the most obese culture in the history of the world). Is this system really working for us? If we do manage to figure out the magic formula for all the right proportions, how much of our time will be spent looking at the side of the box, adding and subtracting, tallying up our totals for this and that? To be honest, that sounds time consuming, mind-numbingly boring, and rather stressful.
The main thing our society overlooks is ingredients. There has been some push toward this mindset recently, which has led to an increase in organic and all-natural products on the shelves. But for the most part, our society still completely misses the point. We have completely over-complicated something I believe was originally intended to be quite simple.
The Creator of the Universe was extremely intentional in every last detail that went in to His Creation. With that in mind, it is clear that He had a specific plan for nutrition. That is why He filled the earth with healthy foods for His people to eat. God has stocked our pantry full of the foods that He knows are best for our bodies. And if anyone knows what's best for our bodies, it's the One who created them and understands their anatomy and physiology better than anyone.
What then did He put in The Pantry? He supplied us with fruits and veggies, grains, nuts and seeds, and animals which supply both meat and dairy. Foods that have been created in a laboratory or genetically modified are not supplied by God, they are man's attempt to do something better then God. That idea will never work. We cannot be better than God. It's no wonder that the foods man created have made man fat and unhealthy.
I've worked through a lot of questions I've had about how this concept works. For instance, marijuana comes from a plant. Is that part of The Pantry? Honestly, I think that might be part of The Medicine Cabinet. Or how about how much processing did God intend for us to do to His supply? To this, I've looked to history. I'm not sure what the diet was like thousands of years ago, but I do know that they didn't go to the supermarket to buy their food. And the first establishment that resembles our modern day restaurant didn't show up until the 11th century, so for 5,000+ years, people got along without supermarkets or restaurants. This tells me if it's something that you can conceivably garner from The Pantry and process yourself, then it's probably ok. For example, butter is simply milk that has been churned for quite a while. I have made butter before. I could conceivably go milk a cow or a goat, churn the milk, and eventually get butter. Obviously, we don't live in a society where we can spend all day making butter, but if I'm going to look at the store for it, I'm going to find the one that's only ingredient is milk. Any other ingredients in butter (save for salt which isn't necessary and salted butter should be avoided) are man-made and not from The Pantry.
So that's it, that's my philosophy that has been burgeoning for quite some time now. Whole, fresh foods from The Pantry God stocked for us, buying processed only when necessary and only for something in which you could conceivably make yourself if you had the time. No need to worry about the biochemistry of the foods found in The Pantry - the calories, fat, protein, etc. - because the Creator supplied foods that are good for our bodies (I will not say they are foods that will automatically make us skinny, because no where in the Bible do I find a call to be skinny, only a call to take care of our bodies as they are a temple for the Lord). And He gave us a body that, when we get in tune with it, tells us when to eat and when to stop. I have completely stopped looking at the Nutritional Information table and only look at the ingredient list. That tells me all I need to know.
Showing posts with label Common Sense Approach. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Common Sense Approach. Show all posts
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Venting Some Frustrations...
I've not been sure of what to write lately. This week I became paralyzed by the overwhelming amounts of information that's out there and from trying to decipher what is true and what is to make a profit. The desire to keep trying to wade my way through the masses and get to the bottom of the health mystery and the desire to throw my hands in the air and give up duked it out, and unfortunately, this week the desire to get healthy was on the losing side. Because of my knee injury, I haven't been able to do a lot of exercising the past few weeks, and that led to a backward slide in my nutrition as well. My sweets intake skyrocketed this week and I had an insatiable craving for "snacks" all week long. And, as expected, I didn't feel well for much of the week - sluggish, weak, headaches, bloated, stomachaches, etc.
In the Introduction to his book, Food Rules, Michael Pollan voices nicely what I find so frustrating. In talking about the Western diet, and the Diet and Nutrition Industry's desire to pinpoint the exact problem in the Western diet (carbs? sugar? salt? calories? etc.) while ignoring the entire diet as a whole, he says: "There's a lot of money in the Western diet. The more you process any food, the more profitable it becomes. The healthcare industry makes more money treating chronic diseases than preventing them. So we ignore the elephant in the room and focus instead on the good and evil nutrients, the identities of which seem to change with every new study. But for the Nutritional Industrial Complex, this uncertainty is not necessarily a problem, because confusion is a good business." (Emphasis mine.) He goes on to say that every time the industry discovers the "real problem," the food manufacturers can go back and tweak their products to reflect these findings, and then everyone across the board can make another round of profit without caring if they actually improve anyone's health - in fact, they may even aim NOT to improve health so that they can continue to "fix" the problem. This perfectly articulates the problem which I find so MADDENING when I try to do any research - why it all contradicts itself, why there is no clear answer, why you can try a lot of different things and still not lose weight or improve health conditions.
One obvious point that jumps out after changing how I think about food: what we eat isn't actually food. Pollan uses the term edible foodlike substances. Every time they tweak something to fit the new fad, it becomes less food and more product. There are a lot of things I loved about his book and I'm sure to reference it again, but in the meanwhile, I highly recommend you buy a copy for yourself. It's very short and consists of straightforward, common sense rules.
So I guess the point of this article was just to vent some frustrations... I'm ready to dive back into the mire and will continue to use my common sense approach to try and decipher what is actually helpful and what is not. Stay tuned... (hopefully) exciting stuff to come...
In the Introduction to his book, Food Rules, Michael Pollan voices nicely what I find so frustrating. In talking about the Western diet, and the Diet and Nutrition Industry's desire to pinpoint the exact problem in the Western diet (carbs? sugar? salt? calories? etc.) while ignoring the entire diet as a whole, he says: "There's a lot of money in the Western diet. The more you process any food, the more profitable it becomes. The healthcare industry makes more money treating chronic diseases than preventing them. So we ignore the elephant in the room and focus instead on the good and evil nutrients, the identities of which seem to change with every new study. But for the Nutritional Industrial Complex, this uncertainty is not necessarily a problem, because confusion is a good business." (Emphasis mine.) He goes on to say that every time the industry discovers the "real problem," the food manufacturers can go back and tweak their products to reflect these findings, and then everyone across the board can make another round of profit without caring if they actually improve anyone's health - in fact, they may even aim NOT to improve health so that they can continue to "fix" the problem. This perfectly articulates the problem which I find so MADDENING when I try to do any research - why it all contradicts itself, why there is no clear answer, why you can try a lot of different things and still not lose weight or improve health conditions.
One obvious point that jumps out after changing how I think about food: what we eat isn't actually food. Pollan uses the term edible foodlike substances. Every time they tweak something to fit the new fad, it becomes less food and more product. There are a lot of things I loved about his book and I'm sure to reference it again, but in the meanwhile, I highly recommend you buy a copy for yourself. It's very short and consists of straightforward, common sense rules.
So I guess the point of this article was just to vent some frustrations... I'm ready to dive back into the mire and will continue to use my common sense approach to try and decipher what is actually helpful and what is not. Stay tuned... (hopefully) exciting stuff to come...
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Using a Common Sense Approach
As I mentioned when I started this blog, I'm not an expert, but through research and my God-given common sense, I'm searching for the answers to a healthy life. The main advantage to using common sense is that no one is profiting from it. As much as I'm able, I research various issues first, but as anyone who has tried to find a straight-forward answer about anything health related will probably tell you, they've most likely found it to be incredibly difficult. I'm sure there are many reasons for all the contradicting information available, but I have a feeling it all boils down to money.
The pharmaceutical companies are billion dollar corporations; the diet/fitness/exercise industry is a billion dollar industry; medicine and health are billion dollar industries. The government is a billion (er, trillion, eek!) dollar industry. If it was easy to figure out what was healthy and how to become and stay healthy, there would be very little need for all of these - well, I suppose we might still need the government. None of them want that because that would hurt their profits, and money is power. Many scientists probably have a price - that amount when they're willing to alter, suspend, or outright lie about their findings. So these scientists publish information that is wrong or misleading, often with the backing of their money-men - the very people we're supposed to trust, like the FDA.
I'm sure not all scientists are like this however, and they publish their findings with legitimate results but also with little fanfare. It takes a while before the general population starts to give these studies any attention or consideration, and when they do, it starts with not knowing what to believe. (For me, the best starting point is going against what the big companies or government are supporting until I have a valid reason to believe them.)
So after reading all the contradicting "facts," I'm left with my common sense to help me figure out what to do. This is where I'm coming from when I write, which compels me to remind you that common sense can be very subjective and what makes sense to me, might not make sense to you. I'm ok with that if you are ;)
This article is mostly a prelude to the next few articles I have in mind, but for now, I encourage you to implement this one small action: Before making a decision, ask yourself, "Who is profiting from this? Do they really care about me? Or do they just care about making money?" And then use your common sense - just because someone is making a profit from it doesn't make it bad, but just because "science" is supporting it doesn't make it good.
The pharmaceutical companies are billion dollar corporations; the diet/fitness/exercise industry is a billion dollar industry; medicine and health are billion dollar industries. The government is a billion (er, trillion, eek!) dollar industry. If it was easy to figure out what was healthy and how to become and stay healthy, there would be very little need for all of these - well, I suppose we might still need the government. None of them want that because that would hurt their profits, and money is power. Many scientists probably have a price - that amount when they're willing to alter, suspend, or outright lie about their findings. So these scientists publish information that is wrong or misleading, often with the backing of their money-men - the very people we're supposed to trust, like the FDA.
I'm sure not all scientists are like this however, and they publish their findings with legitimate results but also with little fanfare. It takes a while before the general population starts to give these studies any attention or consideration, and when they do, it starts with not knowing what to believe. (For me, the best starting point is going against what the big companies or government are supporting until I have a valid reason to believe them.)
So after reading all the contradicting "facts," I'm left with my common sense to help me figure out what to do. This is where I'm coming from when I write, which compels me to remind you that common sense can be very subjective and what makes sense to me, might not make sense to you. I'm ok with that if you are ;)
This article is mostly a prelude to the next few articles I have in mind, but for now, I encourage you to implement this one small action: Before making a decision, ask yourself, "Who is profiting from this? Do they really care about me? Or do they just care about making money?" And then use your common sense - just because someone is making a profit from it doesn't make it bad, but just because "science" is supporting it doesn't make it good.
Monday, January 16, 2012
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:
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.
A Fat Free Twinkie is Still a Twinkie
When I was in fifth grade, I was friends with a girl who was rather large - as in, she was probably already well into the obese category at that tender age. At one point she decided she was going to lose weight and so she started eating fat-free twinkies at lunch time. She was convinced this would help her because they were fat-free!
I was reminded of this story today when I almost got in a debate with a good friend. She stated she was hoping to get a full 6-8 servings of fruits and veggies each day and I suggested the Machine drinks by Naked (Blue Machine, Green Machine, Red Machine.) These particular drinks are full of fruits and vegetables, some in juice form and some pureed from the whole fruit/veggie. They easily have 6-8 servings of fruits and veggies in them and have no naughty ingredients. Other than being high in sugar (from the natural fructose found in the fruits), they are extremely good for you. However, this friend is on Weight Watchers and these drinks are worth 4 points each (probably due in part to the juices added which aren't as good for you as the whole fruit or veggie), and so she said she couldn't drink them.
This thought greatly confused me as some other women in our same circle had been discussing just the day before how great it was that a boxed cake mix mixed with a can of Diet Coke or Sprite made a dessert that was barely any points. It struck me that this summed up my problem with points systems quite nicely - they encourage you to eat things that may not be good for you (as I assure you a boxed cake mix most certainly isn't!) because they are low in points but discourage you to eat anything that is high in points even if they are really good for you.
In all fairness, I hadn't ever looked into what exactly Weight Watchers stands for, so before I made up my mind too firmly, I decided to research it some. My first problem with the program is that there was very little I could find out from their own website without signing up for the program. I also have a problem with paying to get healthy, but I do recognize that it can be a motivator for weight loss for some people.
I decided to do their free assessment which brings me to my next problem with the program: they claim
****UPDATE 3****
Instead of posting a new update, I decided to completely re-do the whole article in an attempt to better clarify what I'm trying to say, as well as give the program credit for what I like and some statistics about the program. View it here.
I was reminded of this story today when I almost got in a debate with a good friend. She stated she was hoping to get a full 6-8 servings of fruits and veggies each day and I suggested the Machine drinks by Naked (Blue Machine, Green Machine, Red Machine.) These particular drinks are full of fruits and vegetables, some in juice form and some pureed from the whole fruit/veggie. They easily have 6-8 servings of fruits and veggies in them and have no naughty ingredients. Other than being high in sugar (from the natural fructose found in the fruits), they are extremely good for you. However, this friend is on Weight Watchers and these drinks are worth 4 points each (probably due in part to the juices added which aren't as good for you as the whole fruit or veggie), and so she said she couldn't drink them.
This thought greatly confused me as some other women in our same circle had been discussing just the day before how great it was that a boxed cake mix mixed with a can of Diet Coke or Sprite made a dessert that was barely any points. It struck me that this summed up my problem with points systems quite nicely - they encourage you to eat things that may not be good for you (as I assure you a boxed cake mix most certainly isn't!) because they are low in points but discourage you to eat anything that is high in points even if they are really good for you.
In all fairness, I hadn't ever looked into what exactly Weight Watchers stands for, so before I made up my mind too firmly, I decided to research it some. My first problem with the program is that there was very little I could find out from their own website without signing up for the program. I also have a problem with paying to get healthy, but I do recognize that it can be a motivator for weight loss for some people.
I decided to do their free assessment which brings me to my next problem with the program: they claim
You don't have to give up any of your favorite foods to lose weight!
I actually have two issues with this statement. First, what if my favorite foods are McDonald's, pizza, ice cream, chips, and cookies. Really? I don't have to give up ANY of those to lose weight? And second, the goal shouldn't be to lose weight, the goal should be to be healthy. In order to become healthy, you have to give up unhealthy foods, many of which top most people's list of favorite foods.
Finally, I have a problem with the accountability of the program. They say they encourage healthy options, but unless you regularly attend their meetings, the only accountability is in the Points system. They use this picture to show how you can eat more if you eat better things (sounds suspiciously like trading in your "favorite" things):
But when I look at this picture, my only question is what's to stop you from eating the meal on the left? They're both worth 11 points, so why should I eat the rather disgusting-sounding pasta salad and soup when I can enjoy the childhood favorite of PB&J with chips? What if the meal on the left was 10 points? Would that make it a better option than the meal on the right? Unless there is a goal for how many fruits and veggies to eat each day, how much meat and dairy and grains (remember the Food Plate from last week?), people could stay within their points range every single day and still gain weight. Because I'm sorry, but if you're struggling with your weight, I can almost guarantee you that you'll have to give up at least something in order to see any success. A 2-point chocolate cupcake with Diet Coke is not better for you than a 4-point organic fruit and veggie drink. A fat-free Twinkie is still a Twinkie.
One thing I think they do have right, they incorporate exercise into the program, although, to what extent I'm not sure.
To be fair, there may be more that I have missed, but as I stated, this was the most I could learn from their own webpage without signing up for the program. To their credit, I do think they have really delicious recipes, but as it turns out, you can make them even if you're not on the program.
****UPDATE****
Due to some of the immediate response I got, let me clarify a few things:
1. I don't want to discount anyone who follows this program the way it is designed to be done and sees results. I'm sure if you follow it exactly as recommended, you can see results if your goal is weight loss. However, my goal is Whole Health, and for that, there are things I have to give up. For example, is it ok for me to eat carcinogenic ingredients as long as I only do it every once in a while as a treat? I really don't think so. This program may teach you about fat, protein, carbs, portions, etc. but does it teach you about healthy ingredients? Personally, I feel that things with poisonous - I refer to these as naughty - ingredients should not be allowed, not just take up more points. My point with this article is that unless you're going to their meetings, the accountability relies on the Points. The accountability to follow their recommendations and guidelines depends entirely on your will power, making it no different than than just watching your portions and eating a well balanced meal. That you can do on your own, you shouldn't have to pay for that. Having someone tell us what we should and shouldn't eat in order to lose weight is not what the problem is for most of us. The majority of people are probably aware that an Oreo is worse than an apple. We - or at least I - don't have to pay for that.
2. If I had gone in and met with one of their specialists, I may very well have learned more about their program, but I feel if they're going to offer an online option, then you should be able to learn everything you need to know online before signing up.
3. I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that I recommended cutting out entire groups of food - I am not saying to cut out carbs or dairy or anything like the sort. And I do think that total deprivation of something you like, on the path to weight loss, will lead to binge eating and mess up your "diet" even more. Let me make this perfectly clear: I AM NOT ON A DIET. I am on an adventure to find Whole Health. So yes, allow yourself a treat, just make sure it doesn't have naughty ingredients in it that may kill you no matter how thin you are.
4. I suppose I should not have started with a program called WEIGHT watchers, but as far as I'm aware, there is no program called HEALTH watchers. If weight loss is your goal, and you have the will power to make the right choices on your own, then I'm sure you will succeed with this diet and that it will be sustainable over the long run, in part because of their incorporating indulgences into the program. If you have seen results using Weight Watchers, congratulations!
****UPDATE 2****
Please read Janis' comment to this post. She is a Weight Watchers success story but is still able to help clarify what I'm trying to say. Maybe it will seem less offensive or judgmental if it's coming from someone who has not only done the program, but seen a lot of success with it. I'm not trying to say you can't lose weight with this program, all I'm saying is that you can lose a lot of weight with it without necessarily getting any healthier.
I do know, from my own mother who is currently on the Weight Watchers program (as is my grandma - I'm not against people on the program!!), you can apply a point value to anything using only the fat, carbs, protein and fiber. The actual ingredients do not matter. So when they encourage you to indulge every once in a while so as not to feel deprived, you can turn to Oreos or Chips Ahoy. By not discouraging these foods, they in a way do encourage them as an option for your indulgences. It'd be far better to indulge in a homemade cookie than a prepackaged cookie. What's worse, they do encourage low-fat or sugar-free or low-calorie alternatives, which as Janis very clearly stated have a much naughtier ingredient list than their slightly more fattening counterpart. Points are a good guideline, but should not be the determining factor. No one should look at a healthy fruit drink and think of it as "wasting points." Follow the points, but also look at the ingredients and know what you're eating.
****UPDATE****
Due to some of the immediate response I got, let me clarify a few things:
1. I don't want to discount anyone who follows this program the way it is designed to be done and sees results. I'm sure if you follow it exactly as recommended, you can see results if your goal is weight loss. However, my goal is Whole Health, and for that, there are things I have to give up. For example, is it ok for me to eat carcinogenic ingredients as long as I only do it every once in a while as a treat? I really don't think so. This program may teach you about fat, protein, carbs, portions, etc. but does it teach you about healthy ingredients? Personally, I feel that things with poisonous - I refer to these as naughty - ingredients should not be allowed, not just take up more points. My point with this article is that unless you're going to their meetings, the accountability relies on the Points. The accountability to follow their recommendations and guidelines depends entirely on your will power, making it no different than than just watching your portions and eating a well balanced meal. That you can do on your own, you shouldn't have to pay for that. Having someone tell us what we should and shouldn't eat in order to lose weight is not what the problem is for most of us. The majority of people are probably aware that an Oreo is worse than an apple. We - or at least I - don't have to pay for that.
2. If I had gone in and met with one of their specialists, I may very well have learned more about their program, but I feel if they're going to offer an online option, then you should be able to learn everything you need to know online before signing up.
3. I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that I recommended cutting out entire groups of food - I am not saying to cut out carbs or dairy or anything like the sort. And I do think that total deprivation of something you like, on the path to weight loss, will lead to binge eating and mess up your "diet" even more. Let me make this perfectly clear: I AM NOT ON A DIET. I am on an adventure to find Whole Health. So yes, allow yourself a treat, just make sure it doesn't have naughty ingredients in it that may kill you no matter how thin you are.
4. I suppose I should not have started with a program called WEIGHT watchers, but as far as I'm aware, there is no program called HEALTH watchers. If weight loss is your goal, and you have the will power to make the right choices on your own, then I'm sure you will succeed with this diet and that it will be sustainable over the long run, in part because of their incorporating indulgences into the program. If you have seen results using Weight Watchers, congratulations!
****UPDATE 2****
Please read Janis' comment to this post. She is a Weight Watchers success story but is still able to help clarify what I'm trying to say. Maybe it will seem less offensive or judgmental if it's coming from someone who has not only done the program, but seen a lot of success with it. I'm not trying to say you can't lose weight with this program, all I'm saying is that you can lose a lot of weight with it without necessarily getting any healthier.
I do know, from my own mother who is currently on the Weight Watchers program (as is my grandma - I'm not against people on the program!!), you can apply a point value to anything using only the fat, carbs, protein and fiber. The actual ingredients do not matter. So when they encourage you to indulge every once in a while so as not to feel deprived, you can turn to Oreos or Chips Ahoy. By not discouraging these foods, they in a way do encourage them as an option for your indulgences. It'd be far better to indulge in a homemade cookie than a prepackaged cookie. What's worse, they do encourage low-fat or sugar-free or low-calorie alternatives, which as Janis very clearly stated have a much naughtier ingredient list than their slightly more fattening counterpart. Points are a good guideline, but should not be the determining factor. No one should look at a healthy fruit drink and think of it as "wasting points." Follow the points, but also look at the ingredients and know what you're eating.
****UPDATE 3****
Instead of posting a new update, I decided to completely re-do the whole article in an attempt to better clarify what I'm trying to say, as well as give the program credit for what I like and some statistics about the program. View it here.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)