Everyday Systems

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/nyreg ... chers.html

This is something that we will never have to deal with on No S. And man, am I glad! It must suck to have gotten to where counting points is second nature, only to have the point value for everything changed under you.

It kind of reminds me of the Weight Watchers of (very) old in which nearly all vegetables were free foods. Fruits weren't, though.

But I'm grateful not to have to use it.

My gosh they make it seem so overcomplicated and confusing. I'm glad No-S is the only diet I've been on, I can't imagine trying to worry about looking up the value of something while at a party! Yeesh people, live a little.

This is why No S is great. Nothing to look up. No gadgets or apps for calculating anything to buy or subscribe to. You don't need a calculator or an app to know if what you're eating is a snack, a sweet, or seconds, or if it is an S day or not.

Reinhard could change the whole plan tomorrow (not that I think you would do this, reinhard), and anyone who still wanted to follow the old ways would have no trouble doing so. I've never done Weight Watchers, but as I understand it, it would be hard to impossible for someone on Weight Watchers to do the old way instead of the new if the old is not supported by Weight Watchers.

Thanks for that reminder!!! Just in time for the new year when so so many are lead to believe that food accounting is the way to go. Ha!

A 31-year-old teacher from Midtown Manhattan who had barely touched a banana in six years wanted to know if she could really consume them with impunity.

A 31-year-old teacher from Midtown Manhattan who had barely touched a banana in six years wanted to know if she could really consume them with impunity.

I always have my bananas with a side order of impunity. It's delicious!

WW points system is a calorie counting system.

People I know that were on it eventually fail, even in maintenance, because keeping points' count mentally wears them out .

Jethro wrote:WW points system is a calorie counting system.

It's worse than that. At least calorie counters are not likely to wake up tomorrow and find that the calorie counts for everything have changed overnight, that their old way of calorie counting won't work any more, and that they have to buy new gadgets or apps to count calories the new way. They might choose to switch from counting calories to counting grams of fat or carbs, but at least it's their choice to do that.

No S'ers are even less likely to wake up tomorrow and find that the definition of "snacks", "sweets", or "seconds" has changed overnight. Even if the "official" definition did change, we'd still have the option of avoiding snacks, sweets, and seconds as we understand them to be, rather than using the new official definition.

I feel sorry for people who have managed to lose weight on the old Weight Watchers system. They've found something that works for them, and now it's being taken away.

Jethro wrote:WW points system is a calorie counting system.

A Totally correct statement.
The WW system attempts to DISGUISE...by complicating...calorie counting,
in order to appeal to those people who have tried calorie counting and didn't like it.

In my fat years, I joined and rejoined WW many many times.
...and I'm also a "lifetime" member of Jennie Craig...tried Nutri-system too. etc. etc. etc.
They've received hundreds..actually thousands..of dollars from me,
for their programs and their food.
I found them to have both good and bad points,
but they were not effective for me.

While selling a Diet Plan designed to restrict specific foods and specific amounts of food,
WW also operates a highly successful food business that garners major profits
from selling small portions of highly processed food to be used
either in that plan or outside that plan...

I now agree with what I once heard a wise person say:
"Don’t trust a diet program that sells food."

My WW friends told me they could "bank" points to eat more latter or "withdraw" points to eat more now.

Unfortunately, eventually they were all "overdrawn."

I thought it was interesting that oranges were 0 points and orange juice was 3 points.

Thanks for sharing this nice article.

I was a member of Weight Watchers. I really admired those who had been on the plan for 30 plus years. They found a way to make it work for them. But I couldn't make myself a disciple of this famous accounting diet for very long.

One thousand dollars, one year and a half and 8 pounds lost later, I decided it wasn't for me. Believe it or not what kept me there so long was the promise that I could go for free once I reached goal and that my health insurance would reimburse me. I later discovered that's a very effective corporate "carrot" that has been working well for years because very few people ever reach it.

After reading this article, I am exhausted for those members and leaders. It's a pretty tough learning curve. I found out about no S by googling "simple". Can you believe that? I wanted to do something about my weight but not a complicated accounting diet. I am very grateful for No S and the support found on this forum.

Who is Jennifer Hudson?

Initially she was a contestant on American Idol a few seasons back. She didn't win, but she went on to get a role in the movie version of the musical "Dreamgirls." Her character in the movie was the "Fat" singer.

I am not sure I believe that Weight Watchers' changed its points system entirely because they wanted to incorporate the latest "scientific findings about how the body processes different foods".

A couple years ago when I was on the program, there were several websites that had derived the points formula (at that time it was based strictly on a pretty simple equation with fat, fiber and calories as the variables). Then, one day they were all gone. They were replaced with messages that stated something similar to this: "To avoid claims of intellectual property infringement, at Weight Watchers request, we have removed the Points calculator."

When Weight Watchers' Points formula became public, people could now practice the program without paying Weight Watchers. Weight Watchers launched a pretty comprehensive campaign to find and remove all public access to their Points calculator to ensure that membership to their meetings and their website (their main revenue stream) didn't become unnecessary.

Nicest of the Dammed

their old way of calorie counting won't work any more, and that they have to buy new gadgets or apps to count calories the new way.

I suspect a great portion of Weight Watchers' incentive to overhaul their Points calculations is financially based.

Once again, I'm going to be the only one who says something nice about WW. I learned that eating small amounts of dense foods and large amounts of "porous" foods let me use my points to the best advantage. I actually very frequently eat N day meals very similar to the meals I used and lost weight on at WW. However, I never liked all the emphasis on "fake" foods and the fear of food promoted by the other members.

I love No S, and would never go back to WW or almost any other system. But I think No S loses some people who can't find the right mix for them and get discouraged because they never allow the system to actually get them to pay attention to the fact that they can be satisfied with less food. I don't know if WW is the answer for them, but I wish there was a way to help them more before they leave.

Well, oolala, I'm going to join you in saying nice things about WW. Not that it doesn't have it's bad points - it does - but on the whole, it's a very sane, sensible system for a lot of people.

But do I follow it anymore? Nope. Did once, and I lost a good 20 lbs or so on it. But I found that I became way too obsessed with food and what I could or couldn't eat; it wasn't healthy for me. But the basics I got drilled into my head (in a good way) about portion size and the like on WW really did stick with me and help, and I lost another 20 lbs on my own, then gradually another 15-20 after that. And there I am, stuck. I have another 40 or so to go still, and things just weren't budging for me, I think honestly because I've let myself eat too many endless little snacks and too many desserts. Can't give 'em up entirely, because I *know* that doesn't work for me. So I'm giving no-s a try. It's pretty commonsense, and stuff I already know, but the idea of having rules again for a while - but ones that won't make me obsess over food - seems like it may be advantageous.

Anyway, sorry, got off topic there - my point is that while WW certainly isn't for everyone, and it can get expensive too, it really isn't a bad program. They *do* emphazize good nutrition and the importance of exercise in their program materials, and they can be very effective at teaching people about portion sizes and the like. I know a *lot* of people who have had a lot of success through WW - and I kind of count myself in that category. Even though I eventually lost most of the weight I've lost thus far on my own, and kept it off on my own for a good 5 years or so now, WW really was the spark I needed to kick things off.

I havenever done WW. I did have a pirated copy of their point system somewhere. I am not "concrete" in my personality, so point counting (along with day planners, alarm clocks, etc...) don't work so well for me.

However, I imagine some of my grade school teachers would have thrived on WW. Strict is the word that comes to mind.

While I am cynical about their motives in this latest "improvement", I do believe Weight Watchers has its benefits. I have a friend who lost 30 pounds on Weight Watchers and has kept them off for 2 years. These days, they emphasized eating a balance of healthy foods: fresh vegetables and fruit, lean protein, fiber rich carbs, etc. So nutrition wise, I thought the plan made a lot of sense except for the fact that they require 2 servings of dairy. (And BrightAngel: If liver was required, I would have rebelled too!)

My issue was the same as many others: I was already obssessed with food. And their system made me become more obsessed what with all the counting, logging, weighing, measuring and tallying. I never felt sane around food. And so far on No S, I do. I know I am very new to No S, but even if I never lose another pound, if I can be sane around food, No S would be worth following for that reason alone.

http://www.sanctepater.com/2010/06/insa ... cards.html

http://www.thekitchn.com/thekitchn/sill ... rds-111000

I don't know if you can pull up the link or not, but search for old weight watcher recipe cards for a real laugh especially if you were on one of the old plans.

I, too, did the original with the 5 fish meals, liver, 1 bread at breakfast, 1 bread at lunch, none after that, etc. etc. I even made lifetime. Of course when I started I was already at their goal weight and lost 20 lbs under. And I even went through the lecture training! Any one who has done this can remember all the weird recipes you would have to put together because you couldn't use flour or some other ingredient--the web link shows some people came up with as substitutes. They were all nasty. The rules were complicated and controlled your entire day. The chart with all the little squares on the refrigerator ruled your life. Women were carrying tuna fish to dinner parties in order to stay legal. And the weigh ins were hilarious...the lightest possible clothing even in the dead of winter.

Callie302 wrote: These days, they emphasized eating a balance of healthy foods: fresh vegetables and fruit, lean protein, fiber rich carbs, etc. So nutrition wise, I thought the plan made a lot of sense ...

My issue was the same as many others: I was already obssessed with food. And their system made me become more obsessed what with all the counting, logging, weighing, measuring and tallying. I never felt sane around food.

Beautifully sums up my own experience.

My opinion of WW is that it's a sensible plan wrapped in a lot of hype and high-priced faux food. Despite their changing "systems," the core of it is basic nutrition - mostly calorie restriction. It also is educational....For people who didn't KNOW what portion sizes looked like, or what foods were high-calorie, it was particularly useful. Some of the other tips were good, and I still use a few recipes (though not, not, NOT at ALL like the ones TexArk linked to, lol!).

And it worked. I made lifetime.

Twice.

I could lose on it when I made the plan the center of my world. But I couldn't maintain on it, because I couldn't keep that level of attention. And it really did raise my levels of food obsession beyond what was bearable.

Thank goodness for No-S.

(But I still think, for people who want to follow a diet plan, WW is one of the better ones around.)

TexArk wrote: http://www.sanctepater.com/2010/06/insa ... cards.html

http://www.thekitchn.com/thekitchn/sill ... rds-111000

These are fantastic. I imagine that their chief contribution to weight loss is to put you off food. Forever.

Am I the only one on these boards who actually likes liver, then?

ThomsonsPier wrote:Am I the only one on these boards who actually likes liver, then?

I certainly can't say you aren't. I concluded that there was a God when, in the mid-eighties, my parents decided liver was unhealthy because it has too much cholesterol. I have kind of high cholesterol now, and that's my excuse for not eating liver or any other organ meat. "I'd love to try that liver dish you cooked, but sorry, I can't have it". (I know current research says that eating foods with cholesterol doesn't actually affect blood cholesterol that much, but I will hate you if you say this when I'm trying to get out of eating liver)

TexArk wrote:Any one who has done this can remember all the weird recipes you would have to put together because you couldn't use flour or some other ingredient--the web link shows some people came up with as substitutes. They were all nasty.

I heard that they came up with coq au cola- like coq au vin, but made with diet cola instead of wine. Just yuck.

ThomsonsPier wrote:
Am I the only one on these boards who actually likes liver, then?

No, but I don't eat it often. In fact, it's very hard to find these days.

Why did 1970's Weight Watchers mandate one meal of liver per week? Did they think it was super-healthy, or something like that?

They required the weekly liver treat mainly because of its iron content. They used to try to make sure all nutritional requirements were fulfilled with the 1200 or so calories allowed. You had to eat fish twice a week too.

The recipe cards are great. I seem to recall trying to make chicken in a diet cherry cola sauce. These days a lot of their recipes are pretty good.

I agree that on paper WW is a perfectly fine plan if you can handle an accounting diet. On paper, it pushes vegetables, fiber. etc. I found that in practice, the leaders would show up every week with a new way to stretch the plan to its limits with another low-point snack, usually something sweet. It tended to feed the crazy diet mentality.

Miyabi wrote:They required the weekly liver treat mainly because of its iron content. They used to try to make sure all nutritional requirements were fulfilled with the 1200 or so calories allowed.

Thank God for iron supplements.

You had to eat fish twice a week too.

Now, this one seems reasonable. I'm trying to eat more fish (because of my cholesterol), and twice a week might be a reasonable goal to shoot for.

I could see it being a problem for someone like my father-in-law, though, who likes very few kinds of fish.

Ahhh, the wonders of No S, where no food is forbidden all the time, and no food is required.

Actually you had to have 5 fish meals a week. For those of us who did not live near freshwater fish that meant lots and lots of tuna. No one was worried about mercury then.

Tuna chili was a popular dish. I did learn about Williams Chili Seasoning at this time. It has no salt, msg or sugar and now I use it for beef chili. It is our favorite. Vegetables were considered free (not the starchy ones) so I did learn to enjoy many new vegetables. And you had 3 fruits a day. None of this was optional. You had to eat 3 fruits a day and have all your protein and your alloted dairy, etc.

It was also a fairly high protein diet with limited beef, eggs, and cheese. This meant lots of chicken and fish. Women had 4 oz. protein at lunch and 6 oz. at supper. Men had 2 oz more each meal. It was very low in carbs and fats and no processed foods. Actually it was very healthy. It is just that it was so restrictive that people came up with all those strange recipes to try to have some semblance of former meals.

ThomsonsPier wrote: Am I the only one on these boards who actually likes liver, then?

I swoon for foie gras (I'm probably going straight to PETA purgatory for that statement). But other than that, you would have no competition from me if there were only one package left in the grocery store.

I love chicken livers. Beef, not so much.

That site is soooo funny. I love the frankfurter spectacular. I too did WW once. Can't remember when exactly - I suspect in the late 80s or 90s. I learned a lot from it - though, like everyone else here, I couldn't sustain it. I joined when they had points and the two things I really liked were: that vegetables were free, and, that when you shopped in a supermarket, you should try to only shop around the outside edges as all the processed stuff is in the middle aisles. I found the weigh-ins pretty weird though. And the lectures - I still remember one lecturer practically swooning over the fact that oyster sauce was point-free.
Anyway, I did okay on it but not for long - they changed their program while I was there and that lost me. I'm not too good at having to rejig and relearn things mid-stream. They also changed all their recipes on their weekly plans to ones that didn't really appeal to me - that was apparently to appeal to a more multicultural audience. I love food - of every kind - but these recipes were awful. And they got really complicated at that stage for some reason. I have kept some of the simple ones they had when I first joined (for things like vegetable omelette) and some of those are great.
The points made me absolutely obsessed. I kept a diary for recording points. It taught me about eating fairly healthily, (though with a lot of dairy, I agree), but it made me obsessed in a way I didn't like. It didn't get me out of a diet mentality - just dug me further into it. Ah those were the days.
Thanks for the laugh - I loved those websites.

I hate to say it, but I've decided to change No-s as well.

From now on, in addition to the original rules, you can only eat foods that start with the letter of the current day of the week. So meatballs, matzah balls, mangos, etc. on Mondays, tomatoes, tuna fish, turkey burgers, etc., on Tuesdays. S-days are "wildcards:" you may eat foods starting with any letter.

The only exceptions to this are that any foods purchased through my amazon.com links are considered non-foods for the purposes of No-s and you can eat (and more importantly, buy) as much of these as you want. Also liver. You can eat unlimited liver.

The results produced by this new version of No-s are nothing short of preposterous. See the following testimonial from an advance beta-tester (German language, but the pictures should make it clear):

http://www.dl.ket.org/german1_pilot/les ... kaspar.fwx

I'm sorry to change the system so suddenly, but you know, rapid advances in nutritional science and so on and so forth, and besides, how else could I get you all to buy the next version of my book?

Reinhard

LOL

Go Reinhard!

Hahahahah Reinhard!!!
Debs x

Good one.

I'll reserve an advance copy of your new book right away. The unlimited liver is what sold me. I'm sure to get skinny on that.

I just quit WW. The new system is overly complicated and cumbersome. I join the No-S community with great joy!

Am I the only one on these boards who actually likes liver, then?

I actually do like liver, too -- although not without appreciating its comic potential. Calf liver with carmelized onions can be very nice, and don't even get me started on liverwurst/pate (if you get tired of eating it plain or with mustard, try a thin slice of apple on top).

And what nutritional density! According wikkipedia, "If eaten in one meal, 30 to 90 grams of polar bear liver [contains enough vitamin a] to kill a human being," and ordinary non-polar bear liver is no slouch either.

Reinhard

Reinhard, have you considered the alphabet diet, as followed by a character in one of Marion Keyes' books (I think)?
Day 1 would be apples, artichokes, asparagus
Day 26 would be zucchini.
(This is one diet where being being bi-/multilingual would be a bonus)

I remember a good liver dish my Iranian boyfriend's sister made when I lived there. It was pretty basic, with flour-dredged thin slices browned in butter with garlic and parsley. In the last ten minutes of cooking, she added about a half cup of vinegar, but I don't remember what kind. I'm sure it was not exotic. Sounds weird, but it was surprisingly good! Don't ask me how many points it had... The recipe for 6 calls for 3-4 T. of butter.