Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:All of these extreme diets where you totally eliminate foods or eat something that you wouldn't ordinarily eat may initially lead you to lose weight but you are much more likely to put it back on because they don't train you to make changes in your diet that you can sustain. Weight Watchers is much more effective over the long run because it is sustainable. Also, it incorporates incentives to exercise. I used WW ten years ago and I didn't put the weight back on.
So far posters have suggested moderating portion sizes and cutting processed foods and white carbs. That's not extreme.
Giving up all of anything is difficult to sustain.
You shouldn't have hunger pangs. You shouldn't be hungry. Thats a recipe for failure. WW does not lead to hunger pangs.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:All of these extreme diets where you totally eliminate foods or eat something that you wouldn't ordinarily eat may initially lead you to lose weight but you are much more likely to put it back on because they don't train you to make changes in your diet that you can sustain. Weight Watchers is much more effective over the long run because it is sustainable. Also, it incorporates incentives to exercise. I used WW ten years ago and I didn't put the weight back on.
So far posters have suggested moderating portion sizes and cutting processed foods and white carbs. That's not extreme.
Anonymous wrote:All of these extreme diets where you totally eliminate foods or eat something that you wouldn't ordinarily eat may initially lead you to lose weight but you are much more likely to put it back on because they don't train you to make changes in your diet that you can sustain. Weight Watchers is much more effective over the long run because it is sustainable. Also, it incorporates incentives to exercise. I used WW ten years ago and I didn't put the weight back on.