Success? You call this success? - WeightWatchers - Forums and Community

Jump to content


About MPA

MPA is a site dedicated to the support or recovery of those suffering from eating disorders or body dysmorphic disorders. Please be sensitive to this fact when creating an account and contributing to the board.


Success? You call this success?


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_FearlessKatie_*

Guest_FearlessKatie_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 January 2014 - 05:48 PM

As some of you know, I started losing weight by following Weight Watchers Points Plus.

 

It didn't take me very long to figure out that my weight loss would stall if I used all the "point" that were permitted for me (about 2000 calories).  So I quit using weekly "indulgence" points and exercise-based "activity" points, though I still continued to exercise.  Then I chose to use the minimum points acceptable to the Weight Watchers organization (about 1000 calories, not counting fruit and vegetables), and to make a long story short, I settled upon a 900-ish calorie daily intake as best for longterm weight loss AND live-ability.  

 

My goal was to adjust the Weight Watchers plan so that I could stay on it forever without being tempted to binge, and strangely enough, the more precisely I designed my pseudo-WW plan, the easier it became to follow it.  "Indulging" myself with sugar and flour, even within my daily calorie allowance, was instantly trigger-y for me, as were fried foods, processed foods, regular dairy or meats (I need skim milk, lowfat cheese, 96% or leaner meat), crunchy snacks, etc.  I need to pre-plan my meals, fast between an early dinner and a late breakfast, focus on lean protein and fresh fruit/veg, exercise 10 hours per week, and so on.

 

So in the end, my diet doesn't look much like Weight Watchers anymore.  My husband still wants me to attend the meetings, so I go to the meeting room, get weighed in, then hang out in the Humane Society cat adoption room at Petco.  Because it's hard for me to keep my mouth shut when asked how I've lost 53 pounds since April, though I've been reprimanded from one side of WW to the other (in person and online) for telling the truth.

 

Recent Weight Watchers ads have been touting a double-blind scientific study which shows that Weight Watchers members lose twice as much as other dieters.  I wondered how this was possible, since I wasn't seeing many successful people at meetings (okay, I wasn't seeing ANY, except for hobby dieters who wanted to lose 5 pounds), and the calorie numbers weren't adding up.  Remember that at 246 pounds, I was given points that were the equivalent of 2000 calories, and could earn more by not-really-exercise "activities" like standing up during TV commercials.

 

So I just read the study report, and wouldn't you know it!  Here's the truth beneath that "lose twice as much weight" headline:

 

[For everyone who joined Weight Watchers, whether they stuck with it or not...], "the average weight loss at 12 months was 11.2 pounds (5.1 kilograms) for those using Weight Watchers versus 4.8 pounds (2.2 kg) for those on standard care. For those who completed the full 12 months, average weight loss was 14.4 pounds (6.7 kg) on Weight Watchers versus 7.2 pounds (3.3 kg) on standard care."

 

Keep in mind that the experimental subjects weren't diet hobbyists with 10 or 15 pounds to lose.  They were people who were rated as "obese" or "extremely obese" on the BMI chart.

 

So if someone like me goes to WW and stays for a year -- presumably adhering reasonably well to the diet plan, or they wouldn't keep showing up to get weighed in -- they will lose 14.4 pounds in 52 weeks?  And also, since the experimental subjects had their WW dues paid for them to participate, wouldn't even fewer people last for the full year if they were paying an average of $12 per week to NOT lose very much weight?

 

It's the New Year's resolution season again, and all of last year's failures (many of whom have been coming back every January for years) will pick up the diet again, buy all the "new" products, and spend an average of over $300 on dues, products, and WW-branded foods before leaving again by the end of March.  

 

And when they stand on the meeting-room scale to be weighed in, the weigher will insinuate that any lack of weight loss was due to the members' failure to follow the plan precisely.  And because there is such a culture of self-indulgence in Weight Watchers (from "indulgence" extra points to WW-branded ice cream and candy), even those who follow the plan exactly as written are getting too many calories, while shouldering all of the blame for poor results which are really the fault of the food plan itself.

 

I happened to be weighing in at the local store at the same time as a WW meeting on the Monday after New Years.  The week before, there had been only 4 attendees.  Now there were almost 50 people there, and when the leader asked how many were newcomers who'd never been to Weight Watchers before, I saw only 5 hands raised.  But the storefront (most WW meetings now happen in malls or shopping districts, at WW-brand stores which sell everything from scales and cookbooks to candy and soft-serve ice cream) was stocked with "brand-new and improved" stuff which is "soooo much better than last year" (though in fact the diet plan hasn't changed at all since 2010).

 

As I said earlier, I only go to Weight Watchers to weigh in because it keeps my husband off my back.  (He'd be appalled if he knew that I eat less than half of the recommended points, even though my personal method is still not really a "pro-ana" diet -- it's a high-protein CRON plan with moderate caloric restriction.)  I feel guilty sometimes because I don't want vulnerable newcomers to think that I lost my weight by "doing Weight Watchers" as the plan is written.  When I used to attend the meetings, I tried to get this point across during the discussions, though I got busted for it constantly, and have even been asked to not attend certain leaders' groups and forbidden to write on the Weight Watchers online forums.

 

So this is why I'm so glad to be right here on MPA, where hardcore dieting (which, now that I've experienced Weight Watchers, I know is the same as "actually dieting consistently, and well enough to lose weight") is understood and appreciated.  I love you guys!  <3


  • Silencieuse, Marecon, Reddon and 3 others like this

#2 Marecon

Marecon

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts
  • LocationSuburban, Illinios

Posted 14 January 2014 - 08:33 PM

I'm doing the same thing as you are. You aren't alone at manipulating their system. You are very correct that, their points, plus the weekly extra, is way too much food!
You have a partner in crime! Ha ha
  • InnerMadness, alexange, Belindaconfusia and 5 others like this

#3 Guest_strawberrysweetiex_*

Guest_strawberrysweetiex_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 January 2014 - 03:59 AM

Oh... just fyi...

Source 0% fat yogurt is 35 calories and is apparently approved by Weight Watchers as 1 point.


  • Emaciator likes this

#4 Natashalou

Natashalou

    Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts
  • LocationEngland

Posted 17 January 2014 - 07:05 AM

I find all the commercial type diets allow far too many calories for me to successfully lose weight, even at the "sensible" levels of one to two pounds a week. I do use them as a basis, for example slimfast, and just drink maybe three or four shakes a day simply because it saves counting the calories .


  • ethereal, OKaP, starving.princess and 3 others like this

Tomorrow I aim to be less than I am today


#5 looseleaftea

looseleaftea

    Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 149 posts

Posted 30 January 2014 - 04:11 AM

"I feel guilty sometimes because I don't want vulnerable newcomers to think that I lost my weight by "doing Weight Watchers" as the plan is written.  When I used to attend the meetings, I tried to get this point across during the discussions, though I got busted for it constantly, and have even been asked to not attend certain leaders' groups and forbidden to write on the Weight Watchers online forums."

 

Exactly. Nobody wants to hear the truth - that if you want to lose major weight, you have to do major work.


  • Ailurophile, dovetears, takenosprisoner and 21 others like this

162.25 | 157.00 | 151.75 | 146.50 | 141.25 | 136.00 | 130.75 | 125.50 | 120.25 | 115.00

 

gw1: 145

gw2: 130

gw3: 115

 

 

 


#6 oetryikan

oetryikan

    Advanced Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1951 posts

Posted 04 February 2014 - 06:47 AM

Nobody wants to hear the truth - that if you want to lose major weight, you have to do major work.

 

Woah that is a perfect sentence, I am totally stealing that.


  • ethereal, CopingWithMyAbyss, 2dogsuhoh and 4 others like this

#7 Xme

Xme

    Advanced Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1491 posts
  • LocationHolland

Posted 04 February 2014 - 12:24 PM

Thaaaank you! I knew WW was stupid !


  • L'appel.du.vide likes this

#8 T1ckT0ck

T1ckT0ck

    Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1181 posts

Posted 04 February 2014 - 12:54 PM

Years ago while I was pregnant, I went to visit/check out "Curves" and they measured my very pregnant (8 months) belly so they could use it as a "loss" after I gave birth.

 

Couldn't believe it.


  • Ailurophile, SereneClairity, Teia and 5 others like this
 
 
candle_zps7687094f.jpg
 
 5'6
CW: 117
LW:104  (It gets ugly under 110)
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 


#9 SereneClairity

SereneClairity

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 01:25 PM

Years ago while I was pregnant, I went to visit/check out "Curves" and they measured my very pregnant (8 months) belly so they could use it as a "loss" after I gave birth.

 

Couldn't believe it.

 

Oh my gosh. Hahah.


  • Emaciator and L'appel.du.vide like this

240  235  230  225  220  215  210  205  200 195 190  185  180  175  170  165  160  155 150  145  140  135 130 125 120 115 110

<_< What I ate today:: <_<

Breakfast:  Green Smoothie 121

Snack: Rice Cake w; PB 62 Cal
Lunch: Green Smoothie 121
Snack: Rice Cake w; PB 62 Cal
Supper: N/A
Snack: Banana 90Cal

 




weight.png

 


#10 Think-Im-starving

Think-Im-starving

    Omniscient

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5199 posts
  • LocationUS

Posted 17 February 2014 - 11:49 AM

I tried weight watchers to support my friend. I was at my higher end of weight at 142. My daily points was about the equivalent of 2100 calories per day. My weekly flexible points were another 2100 calories. Needless to say I gained weight as I have a restrictive personality and went from my normal 600 or less calories a day to trying Very hard to get to my points goal.
WW is a lying bitch. I quit after my first month and went back to my normal eating and the weight fell off.
  • OKaP and vaporlight like this

As of May 9, 2017

Age 28. Height 5'9"

HW 158

LW 91
UGW 105

CW 104.4

Current BMI 15.4



I'm trying to stay skinny without dying...I call that maintaining.


#11 bbyblueyes

bbyblueyes

    Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 231 posts

Posted 17 February 2014 - 06:54 PM

Yea, of course these people want the calorie limits to be so high because then people will be like, "oh, I can eat all of this and still lose weight??" even though it really isn't possible. Just another company squeezing money out of people with well-told lies. By the time you realize it isn't possible, you've already filled their pockets so what do they care if it doesn't actually work? There are always millions of people wanting to lose weight, they have no lack of customers.


  • 2big4u, vaporlight and L'appel.du.vide like this

height 5'5.5'' age 23


#12 Sophrosyne

Sophrosyne

    Advanced Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 271 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 18 February 2014 - 01:50 AM

Thank you for this post!  It is very enlightening.

 

My mom tried weight watchers years ago, and I tried to follow it too (I was 11-12, I think) and we both found it so bizarre we ditched it.  She bought deal-a-meal from online and I lost 35 pounds with that.  Richard Simmons has abandoned deal-a-meal for the new food mover program, but it starts dieters off at a higher calorie limit.

 

With Deal-A-Meal, EVERYONE started off at 1000 calories, then depending on your sex and weight, your calories increased after the first week.  But nowhere near 2,000 calories a day for women.  I kind of miss the old deal-a-meal system (I may buy it from ebay) but at least both of those can be customized without weighing in anywhere.

 

I understand that people want to be able to lose eating a lot of food - magazine covers have been advertising articles and products since forever claiming "eat forever and lose weight!!!" even though it's physically impossible.  No matter what way of eating you choose, there HAS to be a significant caloric deficit to make any progress.

 

What bothers me the most about your story is that the reprimanded you for losing weight by taking a detour from their plan which wasn't working for you.  So if you stay on their plan, you're at fault if you gain.  If you go off their plan and lose, they reprimand you.  They've made a no-win situation that nobody should ever have to be in.


  • sunny0811, Summerlovely91, vaporlight and 1 other like this

Female, 36 years old fat married lady, 5'5

 

HW: 268.5

CW: 237.2

GW: 170

UGW: to be decided

 

WOE: the ketogenic diet

 

Personal Progress Thread

One ticket to One-Derland - Under 200lbs ongoing challenge

My Blog

 

Week 1     Week 2     Week 3     Week 4     Week 5     Week 6     Week 7     Week 8     Week 9     Week 10     Week 11   Week 12   Week 13   Week 14   Week 15   Week 16   Week 17   Week 18   Week 19   Week 20


#13 takenosprisoner

takenosprisoner

    Advanced Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 407 posts

Posted 23 February 2014 - 01:07 PM

Omg It's so interesting because I had an awful experience with Weight Watchers Online but it was a bit different.

 

I started in around 140 which got me the minimum amount of points per day. Just the whole way the system was set up for me, Weight Watchers ended up being the biggest trigger of all attempts at healthy weight loss I've ever tried!

First of all, my warped mindset has always been that to lose weight, I have to be eating less than people eating healthily. When WW gave me points for a day, I thought, "Ok, I need to eat less than these. I can't hit the limit and I certainly can't eat the extra!" If I did end up passing my limit or, God forbid, using my extra cheat points, the guilt was IMMENSE. I then felt like i had to eat even less the next day. 

 

On top of that, I don't know how they calculate points but a real fruit smoothie from mcdonalds (I know it's only fruit puree. I worked there) that was a little over 100 calories would be worth like 11 out of my 26 allotted points but an egg was 1 point. I ate a 6 inch from subway one day and that ended up being almost all my points in and of itself. The issue here wasn't so much that I was then out of points but WW was starting to sound like my ed, "You ate a WHOLE 6 INCH! Well, guess who's done eating for the day!" or "a 100 calorie smoothie! WOW, ya fatty!" So needless to say, supposedly healthy things, once again, freaked me out.

This diet was the first time I entered a b/p cycle in my life.

 

The worst part, online WW doesn't know you're being unhealthy. I didn't realize if you paid for online, you couldn't go to meetings. When I lost 7 pounds in the first week and 5 the next, the online tracker congratulated me and encouraged me to lose even more. I understand after reading all this here that WW just wants the numbers....which pisses me off anymore.

 

Needless to say, I got off that diet..I could lose even more weight for free AND manage my guilt without WW exasperating it


  • Chouronymous and ash~doll like this

CW: 131 129

HW: 150

LW: 110

 

GW1: 125

GW2: 120

GW3: 116

GW4: 110

 

UGW: 100

 

 


#14 skinnyjeans00

skinnyjeans00

    Advanced Warrior

  • Accountability access
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 319 posts

Posted 24 February 2014 - 10:51 PM

I lost about 20 lbs following the program to a tee, eating my dailys & weekly points BUT it was the OLD program, momentum, which stopped being supported when this new one came out about 4 years ago-ish. I counted calories & points for a while just to see & many days I was eating 900 to 1100 calories.
  • Topoli likes this

#15 Sophrosyne

Sophrosyne

    Advanced Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 271 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 25 February 2014 - 03:05 AM

On top of that, I don't know how they calculate points but a real fruit smoothie from mcdonalds (I know it's only fruit puree. I worked there) that was a little over 100 calories would be worth like 11 out of my 26 allotted points but an egg was 1 point. I ate a 6 inch from subway one day and that ended up being almost all my points in and of itself. The issue here wasn't so much that I was then out of points but WW was starting to sound like my ed, "You ate a WHOLE 6 INCH! Well, guess who's done eating for the day!" or "a 100 calorie smoothie! WOW, ya fatty!" So needless to say, supposedly healthy things, once again, freaked me out.

This diet was the first time I entered a b/p cycle in my life.

 

I think these diets do a lot more harm than good, too.

 

I had similar issues with deal a meal, although sometimes I miss that way of eating because the system itself made managing calories super easy.  

 

When my mom would go to taco bell, I ended up using almost all my cards on one meal (three taco supremes).  Then I felt guilty for wasting my food allotment.

 

I never did understand the whole points system in WW.  The deal a meal cards made it virtually idiot proof! 


Female, 36 years old fat married lady, 5'5

 

HW: 268.5

CW: 237.2

GW: 170

UGW: to be decided

 

WOE: the ketogenic diet

 

Personal Progress Thread

One ticket to One-Derland - Under 200lbs ongoing challenge

My Blog

 

Week 1     Week 2     Week 3     Week 4     Week 5     Week 6     Week 7     Week 8     Week 9     Week 10     Week 11   Week 12   Week 13   Week 14   Week 15   Week 16   Week 17   Week 18   Week 19   Week 20


#16 Faina

Faina

    Advanced Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 703 posts
  • Locationdoing time on planet earth

Posted 25 February 2014 - 03:36 AM

WW used to be, (past tense) a sound program.  i used it for about six months, trying to learn how to eat (this has been my problem all my life--i don't know how to eat so i starve myself.  then i don't "really" binge, but i stop eating right because i feel deprived) and lost weight.  BUT--that was never at more than 1200 calories a day plus a lot of exercise.

 

what you said about the extras and indulgences is exactly what happens to me.  i can't eat some piddly little amount of fake ice cream without wanting to eat a pint of Ben & Jerry's.  having little bits of certain foods is just teasing me.  i honestly don't believe i am addicted to food itself, but i do believe that there are certain foods i can never eat without having a disaster.  i also notice that the longer i go without them, the less i want them.

 

i have a really old Jenny Craig book (like 1997 i think) and it works--AS LONG AS I STAY UNDER 1200 calories, and me being me, have settled between 800 and 1000 a day and never over 1000.  there are online places that have weekly weigh-ins and they're free, if you want to start using one of those to keep your husband happy.  or  you can just pretend to go, whatever you want, but i think they're ripping you off for the membership fees.

 

WW is in huge competition with Nutrisystem or whichever one has Marie Osmond, and Slimgenics¬© (which has to be THE king of sucking $$ out of people, $1200 to lose 20 lbs?  i haven't ever done it, but i looked up online reviews just because the commercials were so vague) and Medifast, so of course they're going to want to keep people coming every week, sell their food in the grocery store, and use a high-calorie plan to attract people.  if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.  but it sounds insane now.

 

if you do not know how to eat properly because you never really learned (like me), then the only type of sustainable diet is one where you make permanent changes and acknowledge the specific foods that lead to your downfall.  and i honestly believe that there are no such programs any more that actually do that, they're just in it to make money.  too bad something that causes as much grief for so many people has become merely another soulless, money-grubbing industry.


  • .:BabyJane:., ThinIsIn120 and UnseelieDreams like this

#17 .:BabyJane:.

.:BabyJane:.

    Guru

  • Supporter
  • 488 posts
  • LocationSweden

Posted 25 February 2014 - 07:32 AM

WW used to be, (past tense) a sound program.  i used it for about six months, trying to learn how to eat (this has been my problem all my life--i don't know how to eat so i starve myself.  then i don't "really" binge, but i stop eating right because i feel deprived) and lost weight.  BUT--that was never at more than 1200 calories a day plus a lot of exercise.

 

So true. Back in the days my aunt-in-law lost a tremendous amount of weight with WW and even became that year's WW in Sweden. I was basically enrolled against my will (this was in upper secondary, so I was about 17, oh God, I'm so old) and my mum dragged me with her to the meetings. I lost a little weight the three or four first weeks and then plateaued. For five weeks. Then I told my mother that I would never set my foot there again, for the shaming you were put through at the weigh-in was CRUSHING.

 

People couldn't understand why I didn't lose weight when my aunt obviously had. Now I know it was because the point system wasn't severe enough. My aunt is tall and big boned. I am five feet nothing. If I eat 1200 calories I won't lose any weight. I very easily retain water so carbs have to be closely calculated. Jeez, almost all my points were used for bread and candy! A point is a point, right?

 

So, yes, WW can be a good start, to learn about nutrition and portions size and whatever, but in the end it's about calories and yes, restricting.



X9yCbbw.png


Spoiler

#18 Marecon

Marecon

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts
  • LocationSuburban, Illinios

Posted 25 February 2014 - 11:18 PM

I have followed the program too. I have never used my bonus points and have lost 25 lbs in 4 months. I don't even use my 26 points per day. My problem is that during my once a month female time ( ha ha being P.C. Here), I gain an extra lb or 2 or 4, of water weight. Weight watchers will never acknowledge that. They told me that I gained weight because I didn't eat all of my points. That I don't eat enough. Hmmmm, really. The whole place is filled with women that starve themselves then gain weight? I think not! The following week I'm back to normal, but that isn't acknowledged at all.
Maybe this is just a rant, but the program could work for someone who needs to learn how to eat right, but for someone with an Ed, it's just a trigger.
  • .:BabyJane:. likes this

#19 thesmexiipanda

thesmexiipanda

    Omniscient

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5192 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 11:39 AM

As some of you know, I started losing weight by following Weight Watchers Points Plus.

 

It didn't take me very long to figure out that my weight loss would stall if I used all the "point" that were permitted for me (about 2000 calories).  So I quit using weekly "indulgence" points and exercise-based "activity" points, though I still continued to exercise.  Then I chose to use the minimum points acceptable to the Weight Watchers organization (about 1000 calories, not counting fruit and vegetables), and to make a long story short, I settled upon a 900-ish calorie daily intake as best for longterm weight loss AND live-ability.  

 

My goal was to adjust the Weight Watchers plan so that I could stay on it forever without being tempted to binge, and strangely enough, the more precisely I designed my pseudo-WW plan, the easier it became to follow it.  "Indulging" myself with sugar and flour, even within my daily calorie allowance, was instantly trigger-y for me, as were fried foods, processed foods, regular dairy or meats (I need skim milk, lowfat cheese, 96% or leaner meat), crunchy snacks, etc.  I need to pre-plan my meals, fast between an early dinner and a late breakfast, focus on lean protein and fresh fruit/veg, exercise 10 hours per week, and so on.

 

So in the end, my diet doesn't look much like Weight Watchers anymore.  My husband still wants me to attend the meetings, so I go to the meeting room, get weighed in, then hang out in the Humane Society cat adoption room at Petco.  Because it's hard for me to keep my mouth shut when asked how I've lost 53 pounds since April, though I've been reprimanded from one side of WW to the other (in person and online) for telling the truth.

 

Recent Weight Watchers ads have been touting a double-blind scientific study which shows that Weight Watchers members lose twice as much as other dieters.  I wondered how this was possible, since I wasn't seeing many successful people at meetings (okay, I wasn't seeing ANY, except for hobby dieters who wanted to lose 5 pounds), and the calorie numbers weren't adding up.  Remember that at 246 pounds, I was given points that were the equivalent of 2000 calories, and could earn more by not-really-exercise "activities" like standing up during TV commercials.

 

So I just read the study report, and wouldn't you know it!  Here's the truth beneath that "lose twice as much weight" headline:

 

[For everyone who joined Weight Watchers, whether they stuck with it or not...], "the average weight loss at 12 months was 11.2 pounds (5.1 kilograms) for those using Weight Watchers versus 4.8 pounds (2.2 kg) for those on standard care. For those who completed the full 12 months, average weight loss was 14.4 pounds (6.7 kg) on Weight Watchers versus 7.2 pounds (3.3 kg) on standard care."

 

Keep in mind that the experimental subjects weren't diet hobbyists with 10 or 15 pounds to lose.  They were people who were rated as "obese" or "extremely obese" on the BMI chart.

 

So if someone like me goes to WW and stays for a year -- presumably adhering reasonably well to the diet plan, or they wouldn't keep showing up to get weighed in -- they will lose 14.4 pounds in 52 weeks?  And also, since the experimental subjects had their WW dues paid for them to participate, wouldn't even fewer people last for the full year if they were paying an average of $12 per week to NOT lose very much weight?

 

It's the New Year's resolution season again, and all of last year's failures (many of whom have been coming back every January for years) will pick up the diet again, buy all the "new" products, and spend an average of over $300 on dues, products, and WW-branded foods before leaving again by the end of March.  

 

And when they stand on the meeting-room scale to be weighed in, the weigher will insinuate that any lack of weight loss was due to the members' failure to follow the plan precisely.  And because there is such a culture of self-indulgence in Weight Watchers (from "indulgence" extra points to WW-branded ice cream and candy), even those who follow the plan exactly as written are getting too many calories, while shouldering all of the blame for poor results which are really the fault of the food plan itself.

 

I happened to be weighing in at the local store at the same time as a WW meeting on the Monday after New Years.  The week before, there had been only 4 attendees.  Now there were almost 50 people there, and when the leader asked how many were newcomers who'd never been to Weight Watchers before, I saw only 5 hands raised.  But the storefront (most WW meetings now happen in malls or shopping districts, at WW-brand stores which sell everything from scales and cookbooks to candy and soft-serve ice cream) was stocked with "brand-new and improved" stuff which is "soooo much better than last year" (though in fact the diet plan hasn't changed at all since 2010).

 

As I said earlier, I only go to Weight Watchers to weigh in because it keeps my husband off my back.  (He'd be appalled if he knew that I eat less than half of the recommended points, even though my personal method is still not really a "pro-ana" diet -- it's a high-protein CRON plan with moderate caloric restriction.)  I feel guilty sometimes because I don't want vulnerable newcomers to think that I lost my weight by "doing Weight Watchers" as the plan is written.  When I used to attend the meetings, I tried to get this point across during the discussions, though I got busted for it constantly, and have even been asked to not attend certain leaders' groups and forbidden to write on the Weight Watchers online forums.

 

So this is why I'm so glad to be right here on MPA, where hardcore dieting (which, now that I've experienced Weight Watchers, I know is the same as "actually dieting consistently, and well enough to lose weight") is understood and appreciated.  I love you guys!  <3

My mom used to do weight watchers when I was a little kid. I would eat all of her brownies and stuff.


5'5

116


#20 Freshman 40

Freshman 40

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 25 March 2014 - 07:12 PM

I've been on the normal WW plan for a month...haven't lost a pound. This is so helpful, thank you!
Age 23, 5'9"

HW: 185
GW: 140




Recent blog entries on this topic

Photo

From: Success? You call this success?

By MercurialVenus in Isafeye's Blog, on 09 October 2014 - 09:22 PM

Source: Success? You call this success?

Read Full Entry →

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users