Kirstie Alley on Oprah on Thursday, April 30th

Kathleen · Post by **Kathleen** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 1:23 pm

I've considered this woman's story many, many times. I will be interested to see how she is doing. Valerie may be thin today, but her refrigerator is full of Jenny Craig "starvation portion" meals.

Kirstie is closer to a No S solution than Valerie is. I know. I had to get really fat before I was willing to consider something other than restrictive eating.

Kathleen

khristal23 · Post by **khristal23** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 2:03 pm

I may have to check this out, as well. I'm curious as to how she's doing.

After I had my first son, I went on Nutrisystem for a month, which is similar to Jenny Craig (I think), as in they give you the food to eat and you just eat it. Anyway, I lost 10 lbs in one month (and I allowed myself the weekend to "cheat") but after that one month I was so sick of the food I just could not bring myself to do it for another month. So I went off it, and gained the 10 lbs right back in 2 more months

Nichole · Post by **Nichole** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 2:50 pm

All I know is Valerie went down to 1200 calories a day for that bikini photo shoot for People. That's wonderful and all, but how long can she keep that up? I am also kinda curious as to how Kirstie Alley is doing.

khristal23 · Post by **khristal23** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 3:04 pm

I'm not 100 % sure, but I think 1200 calories a day is too restrictive for most people. I highly doubt she can keep it up for good. She does look great, now, though. I hope she is able to keep the weight off.

Nichole · Post by **Nichole** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 3:07 pm

Here's the article if anyone's curious:

http://www.people.com/people/archive/ar ... 22,00.html

I agree, 1200 consistently is very hard.

Kathleen · Post by **Kathleen** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 am

The title of the show is "Why She Fell off the Wagon."

Isn't that sad?

What wagon? Food isn't an addiction any more than air is.

I'm watching the show. I just feel so sad for Kirstie in part because I could have been in her shoes had I not found this diet.

Kathleen

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:31 pm

khristal23 wrote:I'm not 100 % sure, but I think 1200 calories a day is too restrictive for most people. I highly doubt she can keep it up for good. She does look great, now, though. I hope she is able to keep the weight off.

I want to see the show, too.

I've always heard that 1200 is the minumum for anyone and is only "ideal" for a rather small person who isn't extremely active. The biggest problem isn't that it's too few calories, but it's about the fewest number of calories you can eat and still get the nutrients you need.

Nichole · Post by **Nichole** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:04 pm

wosnes wrote:
khristal23 wrote:I'm not 100 % sure, but I think 1200 calories a day is too restrictive for most people. I highly doubt she can keep it up for good. She does look great, now, though. I hope she is able to keep the weight off.
I want to see the show, too.

I've always heard that 1200 is the minumum for anyone and is only "ideal" for a rather small person who isn't extremely active. The biggest problem isn't that it's too few calories, but it's about the fewest number of calories you can eat and still get the nutrients you need.

Interesting! I have heard that it is the minimum you should have. I seem to feel most comfortable myself at about 1,800 calories, I think. 1,200 is too low for me personally. I wonder if now that the photo shoot is over she'll go back up?

I feel the problem with these two women, and women like them, is the public eye. We all go up and down in weight, it happens. But to do it in the public eye, how humiliating. And can you imagine the pressure?

I think Kirstie Alley's problem might be.... I don't know, she seems kind of unhappy. Maybe if she was happier she wouldn't rely on food. Maybe, too, she's in her house too much with too much temptation. If you aren't working a lot, like she is, it's like a weekend day EVERY DAY.

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:24 pm

I'm not a calorie-counter, but I've also heard that you can calculate the amount of calories you need by taking your ideal weight an multiplying it by 10 if you're not very active; 15 if you're moderately active and 20 if you're very active. However, no one should go below 1200.

So, if you're ideal weight is 120, you should consume 1200 calories if you're sedentary, 1800 if you're moderately active, and 2400 if you're very active.

Nichole · Post by **Nichole** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:30 pm

Here is an article about Kirstie and Oprah:

http://www.people.com/people/article/0, ... 29,00.html

Thalia · Post by **Thalia** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:03 pm

I think Kirstie Alley is a stunning beauty, but she's always seemed a bit nuts to me, and I think that it plays out in her relationship with food (among other things).

bluebunny27 · Post by **bluebunny27** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:02 pm

Oprah should be on 'No S' ... imagine if that happened, awesome free publicity ! Reinhard would be there as a guest of course to promote the whole thing, explaining it to Oprah ... Shovelglovin' in her mansion, the whole thing ... lol !

Maybe *THAT* line up would be enough to get me to watch her show ...

Cheers !

Marc

Kathleen · Post by **Kathleen** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:08 pm

Yeah, well, this woman has the bully pulpit of the nation. It would be a national sensation if she did discover No S and follow it.
Kathleen

StrawberryRoan · Post by **StrawberryRoan** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:18 pm

Yeah, but if she cheated (like she obviously has on ever plan she has encountered) it would do us harm.

So stay away Oprah...

Regarding Kirstie, I have always felt that she was sad, troubled somehow - as well.

Didn't get that feeling with Valerie.

Having a weight issue because one eats too much or exercises too little is much easier to address that having a weight issue due to emotional baggage.

Or, at least, that's what Dr Phil tells me.

Post by **reinhard** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:35 pm

All I know is Valerie went down to 1200 calories a day for that bikini photo shoot for People. That's wonderful and all, but how long can she keep that up?

I think the "bikini shoot for People" is the real operative factor in her (and all celebrities) diets. I don't want to be too uncharitable, but I don't think it's a coincidence or evidence of moral superiority that celebrities tend to be so much thinner than the rest of us.

From a calorielab interview I did last year:

Taking diet and fitness advice from celebrities and athletes is also a terrible idea. People who get paid millions of dollars a year to be in top physical shape are not going to have anything relevant to say to the vast majority of us who arenâ€™t. The secret behind ALL of those Hollywood diets is six or more figures of financial incentive â€” if you had someone offering you that much money to be thin, believe me, youâ€™d figure it out too, somehow.

...

Oprah should be on 'No S' ... imagine if that happened, awesome free publicity ! Reinhard would be there as a guest of course to promote the whole thing, explaining it to Oprah ... Shovelglovin' in her mansion, the whole thing ... lol !

I imagine it frequently

Anyone have any connections?

Reinhard

StrawberryRoan · Post by **StrawberryRoan** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:43 pm

Sadly not....But if you ever get on the show reinhard, give us all on the board a shout out, okay?

I did just watch the show, tho. Kirstie seems truly manic to me. And that hair in the face thing, never could tolerate that.

I do wish her well, hope she succeeds in whatever she wants out of life, however.

Kathleen · Post by **Kathleen** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:12 pm

How sad. Kirstie's whole show was sad. I told my 8 year old that I would be in Kirstie's shoes if it hadn't been for this diet.
Kathleen

Thalia · Post by **Thalia** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:45 pm

I bet Kirstie's shoes are very expensive indeed!

~reneew · Post by **~reneew** » Fri May 01, 2009 2:57 pm

That's another cool thing about nos... even oprah could do it using annother name and we'd never know it. Maybe she is already! Ooooooo!

oliviamanda · Post by **oliviamanda** » Fri May 01, 2009 4:48 pm

Rheinhard should contact Oprah.

Kirstie Alley isn't running back to Jenny Craig, because it doesn't work. All these fad diets that make you stick to counting (1200 cal a day Valerie)... are just temporary because you cannot realistically eat this way for the rest of your life.

These stars have all the money in the world and are surrounded by the highest of temptations especially in the food department. If they can hire a personal trainer and chef like Mariah Carey who will put them in place for the rest of their lives... that's the only way. And surgery!!!

I am thankful for No S. It's simple. It helps curb the culprits: food addiction and especially sugary food addiction. Rid your diet of the processed snacks (no snacks), rid your body of excessive portions (no seconds, and death to the sweet tooth because sugar goes right to fat (no sweets)... you might as well tape that donut to your thigh. : )

Am I off topic?

Post by **reinhard** » Fri May 01, 2009 5:06 pm

Rheinhard should contact Oprah.

I think it's probably easier to contact the President

But I assume her underlings are constantly scouring the web and bookstores for new material, so if no-s continues to spread, they're bound to find it eventually, right?

This may sound like hubris, but it's really just my faith in Oprah's omniscient and infallible powers of detection.

Reinhard

drswife · Post by **drswife** » Sat May 02, 2009 6:28 am

Kirstie definitely seemed a bit crazy to me on that show. She was all over the place and making very little sense. She wants to lose weight for all the wrong reasons and therefore I don't think she can sustain her efforts for very long. On top of that she's very unrealistic about her weight loss goals SoI wish her luck. I just wish women didn't have to feel that their weight defines them.

TunaFishKid · Post by **TunaFishKid** » Sat May 02, 2009 10:38 am

I recorded the show and tried to watch last night. I had to turn it off after about 10 or 15 minutes. It was so sad. I've been there my whole adult life - hating myself for being weak, for falling off the wagon again, feeling like I don't deserve to eat food like everybody else. Poor Kirstie. (And Oprah!)

And I'm afraid Oprah won't do NoS until she gets rid of that stupid Dr. Oz, who wants her to eat like the native people of Costa Rica or some such nonsense.

vmelo · Post by **vmelo** » Sat May 02, 2009 11:28 am

TunaFishKid wrote:I recorded the show and tried to watch last night. I had to turn it off after about 10 or 15 minutes. It was so sad. I've been there my whole adult life - hating myself for being weak, for falling off the wagon again, feeling like I don't deserve to eat food like everybody else. Poor Kirstie. (And Oprah!)

And I'm afraid Oprah won't do NoS until she gets rid of that stupid Dr. Oz, who wants her to eat like the native people of Costa Rica or some such nonsense.

Yes, Dr. Oz is something else. I saw him a couple of times on the Discovery Channel coaching some people about losing weight. On one of the shows, he basically said is easier to stay thin if you get in the habit of eating the same things day after day (I'm paraphrasing). Okay--so basically I have to eat a boring diet in order to stay thin? That sounds like fun.

TunaFishKid · Post by **TunaFishKid** » Sat May 02, 2009 11:42 am

Dr. Oz was on Good Morning America recently, where he told Diane Sawyer that if she would reduce her daily calorie intake by 15%, she would extend her life by 20 years. Wide-eyed, and without a hint of skepticism, she replied, "WOW!" My husband and I just turned and looked at each other for minute, then turned off the tv.

Kathleen · Post by **Kathleen** » Sat May 02, 2009 1:41 pm

"Portion control" -- or eating 15% less -- is a recipe for feeling like you are starving all the time.
Kathleen

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Sat May 02, 2009 3:38 pm

StrawberryRoan wrote:Yeah, but if she cheated (like she obviously has on ever plan she has encountered) it would do us harm.

Well, it hasn't done Bob Greene any harm. One person's failure doesn't make a program a failure -- even if that person is very visible.

paulawylma · Post by **paulawylma** » Wed May 06, 2009 1:27 am

When I read the headlines that Kristie said, 'i want Michelle O'bama's arms," I thought, Well, that's just sick. Of course, I've been reading too many murder mysteries and was imagining something totally different from what was intended. . .

But, I still think it's really sick for that kind of comment, not only to be made, but to be accepted as normal. What's wrong with Kristie wanting her own arms? Her own arms maybe in better shape and trimer, but still her arms. Why is it OK to separate body parts from one another? How can it be acceptable in our society to hate parts of our bodies? People, they are our bodies, and they are part of our totality of being. The separation of body and soul is artifical. Your body is what you have and you need it. You need it to laugh, cry, to jump to grab and to reach, etc.

Of course, I've always been an oddball about the whole hating your body because it is fat (like my body is fat, but somehow I'm not?) I remember when I was a teenager and was still new to the whole dieting thng and still a believer. I read in this magazine where you were supposed to strip down and look at your (fat) thighs in the mirror and hit them and tell them that you hated them. I forgot why, but I've seen the same advice repeated since then. Anyway, I stripped down, stood in front of the mirror and looked at my thighs. . . and instead of seeing the 'ugly fat" that the magazine told me I would see, I saw the reflection of the overhead light moving across the dimples of my cellulite. I saw the reflected light glimered and move magically around my thighs, and I found myself saying, "that's beautiful." Anyway, I didn't finish that exercise and everytime I hear someone say they hate the way they look, I remember that beautiful magical light reflecting in and out the dimples of my thighs.. And because of that memory and experience, I don't understand how anyone can not want their bodies. Fat or thin I love my body. You just have to see it in the right light.

StrawberryRoan · Post by **StrawberryRoan** » Wed May 06, 2009 11:34 am

Love your post, paula. The right light, indeed.

I agree, self loathing has never gotten anyone anywhere they wanted to be.

I have only a few pounds to lose, love my body because it is able to get up each day and do everything that I ask it do.

I am trying to treat myself better because I think I owe my body that much.

I am sixty and want to be able to hop out of bed and hit the floor running (perhaps just a wee bit slower) when I am ninety.

Nichole · Post by **Nichole** » Wed May 06, 2009 2:03 pm

People just posted a new article. This explains it:

"When Kirstie Alley stepped on the scale for the first time in 15 months, it wasn't pretty. "I started screaming," recalls Alley, sipping homemade fruit-infused water in her Hollywood kitchen. "It said 228 lbs., which is my highest weight ever. I was so much more disgusting than I thought!"

"But looking back, Alley, 58, is hardly shocked. During her three-year stint as a Jenny Craig spokeswoman, she famously trimmed down to 145 lbs. after losing and keeping off 75 lbs. But since parting ways with company in 2007, she had not worked out and banished her gym equipment to the garage. As for her diet, her small, low-calorie portions gave way to Chinese takeout and pasta drenched with butter. "I fell off the horse," says the 5'8" star."

(http://www.people.com/people/article/0, ... 68,00.html)

Also, she's setting her goals too low. In the article she says she wants to get down to 128. What the---? How about 190 to start? Or even 180? But 128? She needs to forget what the execs at Cheers told her about her weight; she's really hanging onto it. I feel sorry for that.

Thalia · Post by **Thalia** » Wed May 06, 2009 3:37 pm

I was so much more disgusting than I thought!

This is really sad to me. That seeing a number makes you "disgusting."

And of course she fell off the wagon -- that level of effort isn't sustainable! And then you get rebound weight gain. As I know to my sorrow.

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Wed May 06, 2009 8:06 pm

Thalia wrote:And of course she fell off the wagon -- that level of effort isn't sustainable! And then you get rebound weight gain. As I know to my sorrow.

That's what bothers me about The Biggest Loser. That kind of effort isn't sustainable for most people in the real world.

Nichole wrote:
Also, she's setting her goals too low. In the article she says she wants to get down to 128. What the---? How about 190 to start? Or even 180? But 128? She needs to forget what the execs at Cheers told her about her weight; she's really hanging onto it. I feel sorry for that.

145 is probably just about right for her.

TunaFishKid wrote:And I'm afraid Oprah won't do NoS until she gets rid of that stupid Dr. Oz, who wants her to eat like the native people of Costa Rica or some such nonsense.

vmelo wrote:Yes, Dr. Oz is something else. I saw him a couple of times on the Discovery Channel coaching some people about losing weight. On one of the shows, he basically said is easier to stay thin if you get in the habit of eating the same things day after day (I'm paraphrasing). Okay--so basically I have to eat a boring diet in order to stay thin? That sounds like fun.

TunaFishKid wrote:Dr. Oz was on Good Morning America recently, where he told Diane Sawyer that if she would reduce her daily calorie intake by 15%, she would extend her life by 20 years. Wide-eyed, and without a hint of skepticism, she replied, "WOW!" My husband and I just turned and looked at each other for minute, then turned off the tv.

Kathleen wrote:"Portion control" -- or eating 15% less -- is a recipe for feeling like you are starving all the time.

Dr. Oz was on the show with Dan Buettner who is studying the eating and lifestyle habits of various indigenous peoples who are slim, long-lived and without the health issues that Westerners experience. He's not the only one doing studies like this and publishing his results in the popular press.

I've read Buettner's book and another that's similar and many articles on the subject. The thing I found that was consistent among the groups of people studied is that they eat exactly like Michael Pollan and Alice Waters encourage Americans to eat: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. And hopefully locally grown and seasonally available. Their meals tend to be rather simple. While some don't have much variety in their diets, others do, depending on what's seasonally available. But the Costa Rican's aren't using soy and olive oil and the Greeks or Okinawans aren't eating corn. They're totally unaffected by whatever researchers say is the next Super Food and the benefits of adding it to your diet. Obviously, no advertising, media, or diet books (no offense intended, Reinhard!) to guide their food choices and eating habits. They just eat the way they've always eaten.

Beyond weight and health issues, there's something to be said for limiting or restricting variety. It's cheaper and requires less pantry/cupboard, freezer and refrigerator space. Also, it's easier to decide what to have for dinner. The fewer choices you have, the easier it is to choose. The less you have to choose from, the less you eat.

Restricting calorie intake by 15% or 20% isn't a recipe for deprivation. Let's say you're currently consuming 2000 calories and cut that by 15% or 20% -- or by 300-400 calories daily. It's pretty much the same as eliminating sweets and/or snacks and/or seconds. You can cut calories without seriously cutting the amount of food you eat. It can be as simple as eating more of the less calorie dense foods and less of the more calorie dense foods as well as limiting or eliminating those foods which are high in calories but low in nutrients, junk and fast foods, for instance.

It's entirely possible that calorie restriction may lead to longer life. As Pollan said in In Defense of Food: "'Eat less' is the most unwelcome advice of all, but in fact the scientific case for eating a lot less than we presently do is compelling, whether or not you are overweight. Calorie restriction has repeatedly been shown to slow aging and prolong lifespan in animals, and some researchers believe it is the single strongest link between a change in the diet and the prevention of cancer. Put simply: Overeating promotes cell division, and promites it most dramatically in cancer cells; cutting back on calories slows cell division. It also stifles the production of free radicals, curbs inflammation, and reduces the risk of most of the Western diseases....To make the â€œeat lessâ€ message a bit more palatable, consider that quality may have a bearing on quantity: I donâ€™t know about you, but the better the quality of the food I eat, the less of it I need to feel satisfied. All tomatoes are not created equal."

Kathleen · Post by **Kathleen** » Wed May 06, 2009 8:27 pm

I just had lunch with my parents and niece. My parents leave tomorrow to return to California. My father is a restrictive eater. He foucses on not eating. I enjoyed my lunch.

The S Day overeating, in my case, was so extreme that I now enjoy moderate. I'm not restricting food. I just am enjoying less.

Kathleen

TunaFishKid · Post by **TunaFishKid** » Wed May 06, 2009 9:50 pm

wosnes wrote: Restricting calorie intake by 15% or 20% isn't a recipe for deprivation. Let's say you're currently consuming 2000 calories and cut that by 15% or 20% -- or by 300-400 calories daily. It's pretty much the same as eliminating sweets and/or snacks and/or seconds. You can cut calories without seriously cutting the amount of food you eat. It can be as simple as eating more of the less calorie dense foods and less of the more calorie dense foods as well as limiting or eliminating those foods which are high in calories but low in nutrients, junk and fast foods, for instance.

It's entirely possible that calorie restriction may lead to longer life. As Pollan said in In Defense of Food: "'Eat less' is the most unwelcome advice of all, but in fact the scientific case for eating a lot less than we presently do is compelling, whether or not you are overweight. Calorie restriction has repeatedly been shown to slow aging and prolong lifespan in animals, and some researchers believe it is the single strongest link between a change in the diet and the prevention of cancer. Put simply: Overeating promotes cell division, and promites it most dramatically in cancer cells; cutting back on calories slows cell division. It also stifles the production of free radicals, curbs inflammation, and reduces the risk of most of the Western diseases....To make the â€œeat lessâ€ message a bit more palatable, consider that quality may have a bearing on quantity: I donâ€™t know about you, but the better the quality of the food I eat, the less of it I need to feel satisfied. All tomatoes are not created equal."

Here's my problem with Dr. Oz. Diane Sawyer is not overweight. Cutting calories by 15% would be drastic for her. And he didn't say the evidence for increased lifespan was compelling, he said "you will live an additional 20 years." That's sensationalist and just plain wrong. He may sometimes give good advice, but bottom line is he's in the business of selling books. And, unbeknownst to most people, the real purpose of his website, RealAge, is to sell consumer info to drug companies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/techn ... ivacy.html

Nichole · Post by **Nichole** » Thu May 07, 2009 2:09 am

I agree with the 145 thing, wosnes, of course. My point was she should set obtainable short term goals and when she reaches, say 180, then she should make a goal of 140. But 128 is waaaay too low of an expectation.

Everyday Systems

Kirstie Alley on Oprah on Thursday, April 30th

Kirstie Alley on Oprah on Thursday, April 30th

Kristie and Oprah and Michelle's arms