|
Post by bbbearsmom on Aug 3, 2017 23:42:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by finreporter on Aug 4, 2017 0:00:32 GMT
i'm better at the exercising than i am at the eating part. it wouldn't ring true today because i've put on 13 lbs over the holidays last year and still haven't lost it, but before the 13 lb gain, despite having a BMI that put me in the overweight category, the strength training i was doing put me in the range of having an acceptable body fat % when i was tested during a health metrics test.
the sucky thing is that i definitely carry much of my weight in my middle. which is concerning to me.
|
|
|
Post by alias123 on Aug 4, 2017 0:13:49 GMT
'm better at the exercising than i am at the eating part. it wouldn't ring true today because i've put on 13 lbs over the holidays last year and still haven't lost it, but before the 13 lb gain, despite having a BMI that put me in the overweight category, the strength training i was doing put me in the range of having an acceptable body fat % when i was tested during a health metrics test. I'm not sure why this double quoted you. I really only wanted the second quote. Sorry ! If I recall correctly, Fin, you were working out with a trainer and doing really well. I wish I could afford a trainer. But I do well with classes at the Y and the occasional dance classes elsewhere. I also put my extra weight on in my middle. Fin, I saw on the news very bad flooding in Cal. I hope you and yours are well.
|
|
|
Post by jamescat1 on Aug 4, 2017 0:43:29 GMT
'm better at the exercising than i am at the eating part. it wouldn't ring true today because i've put on 13 lbs over the holidays last year and still haven't lost it, but before the 13 lb gain, despite having a BMI that put me in the overweight category, the strength training i was doing put me in the range of having an acceptable body fat % when i was tested during a health metrics test. I'm not sure why this double quoted you. I really only wanted the second quote. Sorry ! If I recall correctly, Fin, you were working out with a trainer and doing really well. I wish I could afford a trainer. But I do well with classes at the Y and the occasional dance classes elsewhere. I also put my extra weight on in my middle. Fin, I saw on the news very bad flooding in Cal. I hope you and yours are well. Floods are in the desert and far inland valleys. One area is 29 Palms where two hikers were missing in extremely hot weTher earlier in the week.
|
|
|
Post by zazzles on Aug 4, 2017 1:55:46 GMT
Wow, that's one heck of a long, in-depth article. It covers so much territory.
I chortled at the comment: She is tan and very blond, with pink lipstick; she looks like the second coming of Jean Nidetch in relation to Mindy Grossman. I had to Google her to find a photo. I know what Jean looked like and Mindy bears absolutely NO resemblance.
Overall, I'm left perplexed as to future direction. Should I just accept myself as is and throw in the towel? Should I quit WW and save my $$$ because making meaningful progress towards goal weight isn't going to happen? Should I keep plodding along? I guess, as for me, the article raised more questions than it answered.
And one thing that has always struck me as strange: if this is about BEYOND THE SCALE, and if we don't assign goal weights to new members, then why the hell are members weighing in each and every meeting? Why are members told to focus on eating to their points limits and learning to love themselves and to ask to be weighed in whenever they feel they want to be weighed.
|
|
|
Post by zazzles on Aug 4, 2017 2:07:34 GMT
On the BMI I wonder why WW has the bottom of their normal/healthy range be 20 instead of 18.5? I think the answer to that lies in standards. In their patents, WW cites a standards book from which they draw their formulas for determining members' daily caloric intakes. I actually ordered up that book of standards from my library and checked it out. What I found is that there different formulas and tables for people who are "normal" (and always have been) vs. people who are "overweight". The formulas and tables applied to people above normal seem to be written with an expectation that one who is/has battled obesity cannot thrive on the same caloric formula as those who never have. Hence a bottom BMI of 20 vs 18.5 makes sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by linda72 on Aug 4, 2017 2:30:06 GMT
And one thing that has always struck me as strange: if this is about BEYOND THE SCALE, and if we don't assign goal weights to new members, then why the hell are members weighing in each and every meeting? Why are members told to focus on eating to their points limits and learning to love themselves and to ask to be weighed in whenever they feel they want to be weighed. THIS!!! And why do Life timers worry every month that they stay below the magic top number so they get free etools and meetings?
|
|
|
Post by finreporter on Aug 4, 2017 3:17:11 GMT
exactly. if beyond the scale is about looking at other things besides the scale, maybe get rid of the +/- 2 lb range and make it a bit wider. since they don't make money off lifetimers anyway, according to that one person's leader!
WW really needs to just find some other way to make money rather than the method they employ now. it's old school and someday they won't have the "your mom's diet plan" people to pay for such things. but they are doing little to change their image. i liked how the article mentioned that part of their problem is their name. it is definitely old school but also iconic for some. it works for now because it speaks to baby boomers and reminds them of going with their moms, or getting on the program when they were teens and such, but someday very few people are going to find it to be an appealing brand. it's already happening now as we've all seen and as the writer has pointed out.
very thought-provoking article.
|
|
|
Post by finreporter on Aug 4, 2017 3:19:06 GMT
'm better at the exercising than i am at the eating part. it wouldn't ring true today because i've put on 13 lbs over the holidays last year and still haven't lost it, but before the 13 lb gain, despite having a BMI that put me in the overweight category, the strength training i was doing put me in the range of having an acceptable body fat % when i was tested during a health metrics test. I'm not sure why this double quoted you. I really only wanted the second quote. Sorry ! If I recall correctly, Fin, you were working out with a trainer and doing really well. I wish I could afford a trainer. But I do well with classes at the Y and the occasional dance classes elsewhere. I also put my extra weight on in my middle. Fin, I saw on the news very bad flooding in Cal. I hope you and yours are well. yeah i was working with a trainer for about a year and a half. in fact i'm still paid up for about 8 prepaid sessions that i never used because the gym we were using had closed! i need to text him again about meeting up at my house or something. or at a park.
|
|
pbnj
Transcendent Member
184.4--xxx--140
Posts: 1,361
|
Post by pbnj on Aug 4, 2017 10:36:33 GMT
And one thing that has always struck me as strange: if this is about BEYOND THE SCALE, and if we don't assign goal weights to new members, then why the hell are members weighing in each and every meeting? Why are members told to focus on eating to their points limits and learning to love themselves and to ask to be weighed in whenever they feel they want to be weighed.
Exactly!! Weight Watchers (think they will ever change the name?) has become a box of contradictions . The whole purpose of joining really is to lose weight; do you really join weight watchers and pay xxx $$$'s to FEEL better about yourself? or even to gain better health? Real goal is weight loss and if paying for it/ or group talk/ or structure/ or accountability/ or paying for it/ is what works for us --then that's why we go. People born with the "thin gene" never need WW or any weight loss program. Many never need a program until they reach a "certain age"-- but there are many who need a program like this "for ever". Hope it doesn't go away and can morph itself into a program for the future.
|
|
wildcat
Transcendent Member
Posts: 952
|
Post by wildcat on Aug 4, 2017 12:41:15 GMT
I think you can go "beyond the scale" and still weigh in. From what I can tell, I don't think WW is saying weight doesn't matter, just that it's not the only thing, or even the most important thing. And you can want to lose weight without hating the body you have right now. I don't find these concepts mutually exclusive.
Regardless, it seems like the path WW is on is a pretty good one given the uptick in membership.
|
|
|
Post by ksbruns on Aug 4, 2017 14:03:56 GMT
People may feel more accepting of their obesity but I also wonder about accepting the hard truth that less weight can mean better health. This. Eventually the excess weight will take its toll on your joints. While I had intermittent problems with my knees and back in my 30's and early 40's from being morbidly obese, I really noticed at age 50 how just an extra 40 pounds caused my knee to hurt enough that it was impairing my ability to do my job. While many chronic diseases can remain unnoticed for a long time, joint issues that affect your mobility and in turn your independence certainly get your attention. Always glad to see you!! gadgetgirlil!
|
|
|
Post by DebDoesWW on Aug 4, 2017 14:21:59 GMT
Finally finished. Great article WC thanks for sharing it.
|
|
|
Post by zazzles on Aug 4, 2017 15:04:04 GMT
exactly. if beyond the scale is about looking at other things besides the scale, maybe get rid of the +/- 2 lb range and make it a bit wider. since they don't make money off lifetimers anyway, according to that one person's leader! Despite what that one staff member told a LT member, they make plenty off of LT members who are way beyond goal. I have two friends in my meeting who got back to goal after something like 15 or 20 years...and they did it because they gave up on the various WW points programs and started counting calories. I have another two friends in my meeting who go over/under goal regularly and pay for the weeks they are over. Then there are a number of us who are so far over goal we're paying for a monthly pass. If all of us LT members in my meeting decided to quit, the remaining non-LT member count would be insufficient to keep the meeting open. I think our leader prays nightly that we don't abandon WW—she's a full-time leader and her livelihood depends on keeping her meetings open!
i liked how the article mentioned that part of their problem is their name. it is definitely old school but also iconic for some. Yep ^^^ that.
I think you can go "beyond the scale" and still weigh in. From what I can tell, I don't think WW is saying weight doesn't matter, just that it's not the only thing, or even the most important thing. And you can want to lose weight without hating the body you have right now. I don't find these concepts mutually exclusive.
Regardless, it seems like the path WW is on is a pretty good one given the uptick in membership. Being the cynic that I am, what I think it is all about is convincing people who join and are not losing weight that it's okay to not lose weight and that there is value in being a member and paying fees even if you aren't losing weight. But that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by Jennifer on Aug 4, 2017 16:08:32 GMT
I wish that weight loss and maintenence were as easy as the sentence, calories in, calories out.. or the infamous... eat less, move more. Ugh, it is SO much more complex than that.
I feel with beyond the scale WW is digging into this complexity..
Beck says... what you think determines what you feel and then determines what you do. (Not the exact words) WW has a poster in their meeting room that says that.
If WW is just about the scale and stops there, it's just a diet. The direction seems obvious to me, they are getting into our thoughts, bringing them to the surface... so we can hopefully help ourselves learn what drives us to over eat
|
|