Tuesday, 9 November 2010

More reality points

warning; this post mentions slimming companies, but no links or puff.

I'm surprised that not much has been made of weight watchers latest wheeze it's called 'pro plus plan' (check their site if you feel to). I can't force the intricate details into my mind before my eyes glaze over.

Anyone who claims women are not naturally nerdy needs to check out the whole calorie counting whirl to know they don't know what they are talking about. Basically it deviates from its more recent points scheme, that assigned points to food-rather than caloric values and you had to fit those into your daily points allowance, they brought that in about 15 years ago.

So why the update? Well, when reality keeps piling up to a certain point, you have to reach an accommodation with at least part of it, or you get lost in silly. It's stuff that's been known before, but they've worked out a way to take it on board on their own terms. Have you noticed often its not the results, it's the being ready for them that so often counts?

So what is this 'new information'?

That calories don't quite count, straight out one for one, all the time as sure as eggs.

Get this, different foods are broken down in the body differently using up differing amounts of energy in doing so depending on a variety of variable influences and circumstance, which might make a teensy weensy difference to the enigma that is cals in/out.

Get out of town! And how long do you want to bet it will take them to catch on that enjoying what you eat can also make a difference too? I offer, not soon, after all how would they control and regulate that variable? It could not be incorporated into points-imagine trying to earn pleasure points! They stick with things they can control or appear to.

This new method is an attempt to incorporate this 'brand new information' (I'm sure someone researched it last week or something), in order to (desperately) try and squeeze more freedom for their clientele run ragged by the tyranny of their dietary regimes, to increase the sense they are people not directed by dietary restriction, for life. But free to enjoy being told what to do.

People might say "Oh, I'm never hungry on WW, it's fab/ I always feel free as a bird etc.," tell that to those who keep trying to wring a bit more room for manoeuvre from their self imposed famine allowance.

And no, they did not mention this must be the kind of thing so many fat people mention about calorie theory being a tad simplistic, that could make it seem like we actually experience reality in some way, ergo we have meaningful subjective experience that can be as accurate as anyone else's. That would spoil things.

Watching WW from this angle (from afar-like, g**gle earth far) can be amusing. If you look at it over the years, its gone from robotic rigidity to increasingly drawn to mimic normal eating, whilst trying to avoid derailing weight loss all together. Twisting and turning to try and make it's blessed hypothesis function.

Even way back I could see where this was going. It is hard not to laugh when one observes this unfolding, that as these plans become more 'normal' they become less and less effective. Which is saying something, lucky for them they have scale of numbers and unyielding hope of thinness on their side.

My feeling was, if you have normal eating at one end moving toward calorie restriction at the other, is there any point before the former crashes the latter where there is a chink of non rebound creating weight loss?

I'd venture a no (except by chance), research might be better off finding another way to use the conscious mind to monkey with metabolic function, or even not, maybe that's wrong too. Maybe the real answer is focusing elsewhere entirely. Will we ever know? Things would have to change a lot, that's what's in the way.

I have to say, bless all those WW alumni, past and present, you've been and continue to be the lab rats!

Pay to be a guinea pig? Don't tell Big Pharma!

No comments:

Post a Comment