|
Post by borntexan on Aug 19, 2018 1:49:39 GMT
I have heard of the 5% success rate of maintaining your weight loss before and it sounds daunting but I also think it depends on the person and how badly they want to keep the weight off.When I got so far below my goal weight I think it was partly due to the fact that: 1)I was determined that I would never weigh over 300 lbs again and 2)I was scared I would start gaining and wouldn't be able to maintain.
I haven't maintained near as long as a lot of the life timers here but I find maintaining much harder than it ever was to lose it.I still sometimes think I'm overweight b/c I was obese for so many years.It's hard to balance the maintaining and fear of gaining some of the weight back.One thing I have learned along the way is I know I will never gain all of it back b/c I worked too hard to get where I am.I did it doing Points Plus and Smart Points.I lost more on PP but I had more to lose then.However I made goal on SP and I know a lot of people didn't like SP either but it got me to goal so it was good for me.
|
|
|
Post by zazzles on Aug 19, 2018 2:18:12 GMT
fullmahina , a talewell told! Simply can't find that kick in the butt that I need so badly but I have realized that WW is not the answer.
|
|
|
Post by alias123 on Aug 19, 2018 2:44:17 GMT
This last week I started tracking on MFP based upon the comments of many others on this board. In my first week, I've lost 2.2 pounds. Well done !
|
|
|
Post by alias123 on Aug 19, 2018 2:47:19 GMT
fullmahina , You are the first person who has stated that your cholesterol levels are great after eating lots of eggs. I've been wondering if people's lipid profiles have improved on FS. I believe the current thinking is that you can have a few eggs. The culprit is saturated fat. And since WW dings you for saturated fat, I can see why ones cholesterol blood panel would improve.
|
|
|
Post by fullmahina on Aug 19, 2018 11:50:59 GMT
fullmahina , You are the first person who has stated that your cholesterol levels are great after eating lots of eggs. I've been wondering if people's lipid profiles have improved on FS. I believe the current thinking is that you can have a few eggs. The culprit is saturated fat. And since WW dings you for saturated fat, I can see why ones cholesterol blood panel would improve. Years ago, cholesterol was the villain and all efforts were made to reduce total cholesterol. Turns out it's a lot more complicated than that. We make our own cholesterol and some people are really good at making excessive amounts. Ideally, your body should adjust to your dietary intake of cholesterol and put out less of its own when you take in more via food. Some of us do that well but others may not---it's genetic. It's tough to fight what we were born with. My lipid profile hasn't varied much in years, no matter what my diet has been. Just lucky genetically, I guess, because my diet has been totally horrendous at times.
|
|
squid
Transcendent Member
Posts: 976
|
Post by squid on Aug 19, 2018 15:32:24 GMT
“My issue (and I realize it's mine alone) is marrying FS with my cardiologist's recommendations. It's very difficult to stay within my FS points and eat the heart healthy foods he wants me to consume.” Hi squid. I’m interested in what foods your cardiologist recommended since my cholesterol is starting to go up. It seemed to me that the fs foods were actually part of a healthy heart diet, unless he wants you to go Ornish which is carb heavier and thus pointier. The dings for saturated fats, the emphasis on fruits, vegetables, lean fish and poultry and Greek plain yogurt....those are the standard heart foods, leaving room for avocados, olive oil, and nuts which require some points. He isn't recommending anything extreme at all. Whole grains such as oatmeal, brown rice, Dave's Killer Bread, etc. use up a lot of points on top of the points for healthy oils that have gone up in points. I can't hack large quantities of Greek yogurt, so I rely on fat free milk to get in my dairy. More points. I also like to eat out once a week, and a piece of salmon and a side salad is getting old. If I want a potato then I can't have wine and vice versa. No matter which way I slice or dice it, I get fewer calories on FS than PP, unless I want to eat a lot more of the "free" foods. I don't know if anyone else feels this way or understands it, but if I'm in the mood for a baked potato and eat a 12 oz. portion of fish instead because I don't have the points for the potato, it just doesn't satisfy me. Roz
|
|
|
Post by diva49 on Aug 19, 2018 15:33:07 GMT
We make our own cholesterol and some people are really good at making excessive amounts. Ideally, your body should adjust to your dietary intake of cholesterol and put out less of its own when you take in more via food. Some of us do that well but others may not---it's genetic. It's tough to fight what we were born with. My lipid profile hasn't varied much in years, no matter what my diet has been. Just lucky genetically, I guess, because my diet has been totally horrendous at times. Yes, indeed - I have been an overachiever in making cholesterol for over 30 years.
|
|
|
Post by linda72 on Aug 19, 2018 15:54:44 GMT
I also blame my genetics. After losing 50+ pounds and getting to a healthy BMI, my cholesterol levels did drop. However, it didn't get to the optimal level my cardiologist wanted. He said I should probably always take a statin although he did drop me to the lowest dose available. Same with my blood pressure. Everyone in my family has high blood pressure so I will probably always take something for that too.
|
|
|
Post by debsback on Aug 19, 2018 17:59:52 GMT
Seriously thinking of going the Simply Filling plan for a while. The freestyle zero foods were always on there...along with potato, oil, skim milk, etc. I feel like I’m on maintenance with FStyle....gaining and losing the same two pounds all summer.
|
|
ladymajky
Transcendent Member
220/169/150
Posts: 871
|
Post by ladymajky on Aug 19, 2018 18:30:07 GMT
Seriously thinking of going the Simply Filling plan for a while. The freestyle zero foods were always on there...along with potato, oil, skim milk, etc. I feel like I’m on maintenance with FStyle....gaining and losing the same two pounds all summer. debsback, For the last 3 or 4 months I have been flipping back and forth between Simply Filling and Freestyle. For the most part Simply Filling was a better match for the kinds of food I wanted to eat and guided me to better choices. Every once in a while I had a day where Freestyle would work better for me (used fewer weeklies) and I was glad that the rules for Simply Filling said you could switch back and forth. I had to be careful, however, that I wasn't gaming the points count just to make questionable choices at the expense of the GHGs.
|
|
|
Post by zazzles on Aug 19, 2018 18:47:54 GMT
I don't know if anyone else feels this way or understands it, but if I'm in the mood for a baked potato and eat a 12 oz. portion of fish instead because I don't have the points for the potato, it just doesn't satisfy me. That's exactly what I see as a problem—and some don't. With SP and then Freestyle SP, WW decided that they need to use numeric manipulation to be nannies for their members. Maybe they should rename the plan the "Nanny Plan." And nanny always says NO. Can I have some cookies? NO—you can have ONE. Can I have a big baked potato? NO—you can have 3 oz. For a company that speaks no guilt/shame/punishment out of one side of it's mouth, they silently speak those same things out of the other side by way of the restrictions that the points formula imposes. Seriously thinking of going the Simply Filling plan for a while. The freestyle zero foods were always on there...along with potato, oil, skim milk, etc. I feel like I’m on maintenance with FStyle....gaining and losing the same two pounds all summer. The BIG difference between Freestyle zero-point foods and Simply Filling foods is that SFT includes lean cuts of beef, pork, etc. Those foods expand the menu possibilities greatly. And WW's all-purpose catch phrase if asked why something isn't on the zero points list is, "There is to great a chance that members will overeat that food." Bah!
|
|
|
Post by amster on Aug 20, 2018 2:17:02 GMT
The BIG difference between Freestyle zero-point foods and Simply Filling foods is that SFT includes lean cuts of beef, pork, etc. Those foods expand the menu possibilities greatly. And WW's all-purpose catch phrase if asked why something isn't on the zero points list is, "There is to great a chance that members will overeat that food." Bah! The BIG difference between Freestyle zero-point foods and Simply Filling foods is that SFT includes lean cuts of beef, pork, etc. Those foods expand the menu possibilities greatly. And WW's all-purpose catch phrase if asked why something isn't on the zero points list is, "There is to great a chance that members will overeat that food." Bah! I've thought that was weird since I started FS. Lean beef doesn't have more calories or fat than chicken or turkey. But with FS, it's a few points versus 0. And why would someone be more likely to overeat beef than poultry??
|
|
Kitty
Transcendent Member
Posts: 1,448
|
Post by Kitty on Aug 21, 2018 1:21:24 GMT
Yes, Zazzles, I think dieting and keeping weight off has a 5% success rate. Maybe the secret is to reduce calories only slightly....enough to lose no more than 1/2 a pound a week. Even a loss of 1/4 lb. a week would mean 13 lbs. gone after a year. How many times have I calculated...."Let's see, if I lose 2 pounds a week, I will have all my weight off by such and such a date." I never stuck it out. If 2 years ago I decided to take it slow and easy, 8 ounces a week, I'd be sitting pretty right now. Or 4 years ago, or 6, or 8, or 50. Thanks for listening. When I got back to goal in 2015, I had an average weight loss over 4 1/2 years of about a quarter pound of week. Of course, some weeks I lost more. There was about a year there where I gained weight. But over the entire period it averaged a quarter of a pound. So, yes, the losing slowly worked for me. As far as the success of weight loss efforts -- overall most people don't succeed long term with a significant weight loss. There are a lot of reasons for it. I recently read the Hungry Brain which detailed the way our brain impacts things like appetite and satiety. So, yes, it is hard. And, I don't think it is any harder for WW members. WW doesn't work for everyone. It works for a lot of people. It worked for me. Although for a time perhaps it looked like it didn't and maybe one can argue it hasn't. I first joined WW in 1988. I weighed 168 then. I set a goal weight of 125 for no good reason except it sounded thin. Under today's BMI standards the top of my range is 146. Back then, for someone in my 30s, my max goal weight was (I think) 135. I chose 125. I got to it using Exchanges and didn't maintain it. I regained a lot of my weight -- but not all of it -- until I became pregnant in 1993. After the baby was born I was at 180. Over the next 15 years or I slowly gained weight -- and lost it. I got down to the mid 150s one time just through diet and exercise. But in 2011 I was at 207. So from that standpoint, I guess WW didn't work. But, I really started following the program (PP) and coupled it with calorie counting and exercise and got to my new goal of 146. No, I didn't go for 125 at that time. I was 25 years older and I felt it was better to focus on just being normal weight. And I maintained it for 2 1/2 years until a few months ago when I regained mostly as a consequence of selling our house, moving, buying a new house and my mom dying. And now? I'm above goal weight again. So you could maybe say I've only lost 12 pounds or so since I first joined WW. On the other hand, I wonder where I would have been without WW.... As I've said in this thread FS hasn't worked for me. But I know it works for a lot of people. I still enjoy WW meetings though. I can't help but think that FS works better for those whose dietary habits are totally horrendous pre-FS. Being guided towards "healthy" proteins and reducing carbs and sugars would work wonders with those people. Newbie dieters who thought nothing of chugging down a couple of liters of full-sugar Coke daily. But for those of us who have already cut down carbs and sugars I don't think it works all that well. For me, it worked nicely at first and I raved about it. I loved not counting eggs and turkey and chicken and fish---all foods that I had already been eating in good amounts during weight loss attempts. The addition of beans and CORN (OMG I truly LOVE corn, especially at this time of the year!) had me smiling. And yes, because I was off the rails pre-FS, it worked for me in the beginning. Then...it didn't. So I went with measuring and weighing and double-tracking and thinking....WTH. Why am I doing this when the absolute best success I ever had with weight loss was combining calorie counting with exercise? MANY years ago, with the WW exchange program, I had pretty good success too (yes, even with the liver and making my own ketchup). None of the points programs had me losing all that much weight. This -- so much. I really do think FS works best for newer members of WW who haven't been eating in a very healthy manner. People who eat a lot of sugar in particular. Cutting that out really does cut their calories in a major way. But for those already eating a lot of zero point or lower point foods it is just cutting calories without anything to replace them if we want to stay within our calories. I think that what WW overlooks is that there are a LOT of foods that are healthy but which are relatively high points. It is easy to say don't drink a high sugar soft drink. That is a food that should be replaced by and large. But, I find it very difficult to simply get rid of nuts which I've eaten on a daily basis for many, many years and which I know is healthy. And there are a lot of other foods like that.
|
|