Re: 5 Wowmen shot to death at Lane Bryant store

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:29:38 +0000, The Master
<tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote:

>On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Robin King wrote:
>
>>> Because at Weight Watchers they are trying to do something about it,
>>
>> Yeah, they're trying to increase business. They have the
>> ideal product/service - it usually winds up doing the opposite of what
>> it's supposed to, and if it doesn't work, you can always blame the
>> client.
>
>At the bottom of the Weight Watchers TV adds, they ALWAYS say "results ont
>typical", meaning that most people fail at the diet. Only a small
>fraction of those that try the program actually lose weight. Nutrasystems
>has the same think on their TV adds, as does Hydroxycut.

Where do you get your information? Do you have a source on the
statistics for weight watchers or was that just your speculation about
the disclaimer?

Logical interpretation of that disclaimer would indicate to me that
"results not typical" would mean most people do not lose the 50 or
100lbs they always give you as examples in those commercials.

It only makes sense that they would show the top weight losers in
their commercials to attract customers. There is probably a huge range
of weight loss, depending on individuals metabolism and how well they
stick to the plan. So all we know from the disclaimer is that the
average weight loss people experience is somewhere bleow the atypical
results they are showing in the commercials. That is hardly evidence
that most people fail, as you stated.

I have known half a dozen relatives and friends who have joined Weight
Watchers or Nutrisystem at one time and all of them have lost weight.
That does not indicate that most people fail at the diet.

I think Weight Watchers does indeed help people lose weight. I think
Weight Watchers is a failure because they don't help people change
thier lifestyle and sets them up to fail when they leave the program
and try to keep weight off.

Jade

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Daedalus wrote:

> Logical interpretation of that disclaimer would indicate to me that
> "results not typical" would mean most people do not lose the 50 or
> 100lbs they always give you as examples in those commercials.

There are also examples in the commercials of people losing 12 lbs... At
least on the Nutrasystems TV spots... I tried Nutrasystems myself. The
food, if you can even call it food, tasted terible.

Even 12 pounds is "not typical" weight loss.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:25:38 +0000, The Master
<tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote:

>On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Daedalus wrote:
>
>> Logical interpretation of that disclaimer would indicate to me that
>> "results not typical" would mean most people do not lose the 50 or
>> 100lbs they always give you as examples in those commercials.
>
>There are also examples in the commercials of people losing 12 lbs... At
>least on the Nutrasystems TV spots... I tried Nutrasystems myself. The
>food, if you can even call it food, tasted terible.

So how long did you try it for? Did you eat other food while you were
eating Nutrisystem food?

>
>Even 12 pounds is "not typical" weight loss.

Snipping my entire argument and just saying "you're wrong" isn't
really accomplishing a whole lot. You're single experience doesn't
translate into a whole lot.

Jade

"The Master" <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.64.0802051717170.2327@sdf.lonestar .org...
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Daedalus wrote:
>
>> Logical interpretation of that disclaimer would indicate to me that
>> "results not typical" would mean most people do not lose the 50 or
>> 100lbs they always give you as examples in those commercials.
>
> There are also examples in the commercials of people losing 12 lbs... At
> least on the Nutrasystems TV spots... I tried Nutrasystems myself. The
> food, if you can even call it food, tasted terible.
>
> Even 12 pounds is "not typical" weight loss.

Over the course of the last 4 years, I've hundreds of members losing weight,
getting to goal and staying there.

The reason why they put "result not typical" is to avoid lawsuits from
people who half try the plan and then come back to whine "You said I'd lose
50 lbs and I haven't lost anything"...

Or people like that lady who came to me one night saying "I pay you 10$ per
week I should be losing weight, I'm not.."

I can't speak to any other plan, cause they don't interest me.. but I've
been doing Weight Watchers for 5 years, lost 70 lbs and have been
maintaining for 4 of those 5 years..

Will~

"Willow Herself" <willowkinda@somethingkikeseamountains.net> wrote in
message newsM1qj.3759$uE.2422@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net ...
>
> "The Master" <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote in message
> news:Pine.NEB.4.64.0802051717170.2327@sdf.lonestar .org...
> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Daedalus wrote:
> >
> >> Logical interpretation of that disclaimer would indicate to me that
> >> "results not typical" would mean most people do not lose the 50 or
> >> 100lbs they always give you as examples in those commercials.
> >
> > There are also examples in the commercials of people losing 12 lbs...
At
> > least on the Nutrasystems TV spots... I tried Nutrasystems myself. The
> > food, if you can even call it food, tasted terible.
> >
> > Even 12 pounds is "not typical" weight loss.
>
> Over the course of the last 4 years, I've hundreds of members losing
weight,
> getting to goal and staying there.

Hundreds? Out of how many thousands who tried?
If hundreds lost weight out of 100,000's, thats only one percent.
Random chance would have predicted higher.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:38:51 -0800, "Michael Snyder"
<msnyder@socmen.org> wrote:

>
>"Willow Herself" <willowkinda@somethingkikeseamountains.net> wrote in
>message newsM1qj.3759$uE.2422@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net ...
>>
>> "The Master" <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.NEB.4.64.0802051717170.2327@sdf.lonestar .org...
>> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Daedalus wrote:
>> >
>> >> Logical interpretation of that disclaimer would indicate to me that
>> >> "results not typical" would mean most people do not lose the 50 or
>> >> 100lbs they always give you as examples in those commercials.
>> >
>> > There are also examples in the commercials of people losing 12 lbs...
>At
>> > least on the Nutrasystems TV spots... I tried Nutrasystems myself. The
>> > food, if you can even call it food, tasted terible.
>> >
>> > Even 12 pounds is "not typical" weight loss.
>>
>> Over the course of the last 4 years, I've hundreds of members losing
>weight,
>> getting to goal and staying there.
>
>Hundreds? Out of how many thousands who tried?
>If hundreds lost weight out of 100,000's, thats only one percent.
>Random chance would have predicted higher.
>
Like I said to the Master. Just because it didn't work for you doesn't
mean it doesn't work for some people. Just try something else and stop
bashing Weight Watchers when you don't know the success rate of anyone
besides yourself.

Jade

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Daedalus wrote:

> Like I said to the Master. Just because it didn't work for you doesn't
> mean it doesn't work for some people.

I never said it didn't work at all... My main argument, however, is that
it is therefore NOT the end-all cure to obesity. Failure on such a plan
is quite common, and for people to present it as a simple solution only
encourages the use of similar fad diets.

> Just try something else and stop
> bashing Weight Watchers when you don't know the success rate of anyone
> besides yourself.

I will when people stop saying how fantastic it is and everyone needs to
do it because of how great it works.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Willow Herself wrote:

> Or people like that lady who came to me one night saying "I pay you 10$ per
> week I should be losing weight, I'm not.."

And you follow her around all day long, and know she is only half trying,
correct?

> I can't speak to any other plan, cause they don't interest me.. but I've
> been doing Weight Watchers for 5 years, lost 70 lbs and have been
> maintaining for 4 of those 5 years..

While many other people lose weight on Weight Watchers, only to see it
come back when they stop buying the special food. Constantly on the
"diet", giving Weight Watchers their money for overpriced dinners, is the
only way to maintain the weight.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Daedalus wrote:

> Snipping my entire argument and just saying "you're wrong" isn't
> really accomplishing a whole lot. You're single experience doesn't
> translate into a whole lot.

And yet, my "single experience" is far from unique. That's the point. To
make a blanket statement that Weight Watchers or Nutrasystems works is
false. I didn't say they NEVER work, because for the hand full of people
on the TV adds it did. But "not typical" means just that, not typical.

No matter how you want to fluff it up, make it sound better, or otherwise
maintain the view that diet programs are the end-all cure, the fact of the
matter is that they work for only a fraction of the people who try them.
Of those people, some cannot maintain the weight unless they continue on
the program for life.

"The Master" <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.64.0802051911030.25044@sdf.lonesta r.org...
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Willow Herself wrote:
>
>> Or people like that lady who came to me one night saying "I pay you 10$
>> per
>> week I should be losing weight, I'm not.."
>
> And you follow her around all day long, and know she is only half trying,
> correct?
>
>> I can't speak to any other plan, cause they don't interest me.. but I've
>> been doing Weight Watchers for 5 years, lost 70 lbs and have been
>> maintaining for 4 of those 5 years..
>
> While many other people lose weight on Weight Watchers, only to see it
> come back when they stop buying the special food. Constantly on the
> "diet", giving Weight Watchers their money for overpriced dinners, is the
> only way to maintain the weight.
>
>
I've never understood where people get this inaccurate information on the
Weight Watchers program. You don't need to eat the food to lose weight on
the program. I've been a WW lifetime member since 1984 and I can guarantee
you I very seldom buy their dinners and I've maintained my weight loss all
these years.

The program teaches you to eat in restaurants, eat regular food, etc. I
don't think you'll find any of their guidelines to indicate you must eat
"their" food to lose weight. You must have it confused with another program

"The Master" <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.64.0802052041360.8085@sdf.lonestar .org...
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Daedalus wrote:
>
>> Like I said to the Master. Just because it didn't work for you doesn't
>> mean it doesn't work for some people.
>
> I never said it didn't work at all... My main argument, however, is that
> it is therefore NOT the end-all cure to obesity. Failure on such a plan
> is quite common, and for people to present it as a simple solution only
> encourages the use of similar fad diets.
>
I don't think you can something that's been around for over 40 years a fad
diet

>> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:20:16 -0500, The Master wrote
(in article <Pine.NEB.4.64.0802051911030.25044@sdf.lonestar.or g>):

> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Willow Herself wrote:
>
>> Or people like that lady who came to me one night saying "I pay you 10$ per
>> week I should be losing weight, I'm not.."
>
> And you follow her around all day long, and know she is only half trying,
> correct?
>
>> I can't speak to any other plan, cause they don't interest me.. but I've
>> been doing Weight Watchers for 5 years, lost 70 lbs and have been
>> maintaining for 4 of those 5 years..
>
> While many other people lose weight on Weight Watchers, only to see it
> come back when they stop buying the special food. Constantly on the
> "diet", giving Weight Watchers their money for overpriced dinners, is the
> only way to maintain the weight.<<

Nope. Weight Watchers isn't one of those diets where you buy the food. It's
a diet plan, with a book, and they advise you how to eat, exercise, etc.
You're thinking of plans that are prepared meal-based like NutriSystem and
Jenny Craig.

Amy
--
"In my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over
again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda." - George
W. Bush, May 24, 2005

>> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 20:21:50 -0500, Beverly wrote
(in article <47a90bae$0$30693$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>):
>
> "The Master" <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote in message
> news:Pine.NEB.4.64.0802051911030.25044@sdf.lonesta r.org...
>> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Willow Herself wrote:
>>
>>> Or people like that lady who came to me one night saying "I pay you 10$
>>> per
>>> week I should be losing weight, I'm not.."
>>
>> And you follow her around all day long, and know she is only half trying,
>> correct?
>>
>>> I can't speak to any other plan, cause they don't interest me.. but I've
>>> been doing Weight Watchers for 5 years, lost 70 lbs and have been
>>> maintaining for 4 of those 5 years..
>>
>> While many other people lose weight on Weight Watchers, only to see it
>> come back when they stop buying the special food. Constantly on the
>> "diet", giving Weight Watchers their money for overpriced dinners, is the
>> only way to maintain the weight.
>>
>>
> I've never understood where people get this inaccurate information on the
> Weight Watchers program. You don't need to eat the food to lose weight on
> the program. I've been a WW lifetime member since 1984 and I can guarantee
> you I very seldom buy their dinners and I've maintained my weight loss all
> these years. <<

Wow, they sell their own meals now? It's been so many years since I've been
on the program, I didn't even know that. Elsewhere in this thread, I
corrected someone who seemed to think it was a pre-made meals program,
thinking they were confusing it with Jenny Craig or NutriSystems. So, I
guess I was wrong on that point, but definitely not wrong on the point that
it's mainly a _plan_, a program that teaches you how to eat and change your
lifestyle. A very good program, too. I've always thought it made so much
more sense than the pre-made meal programs, because really, the only way
you're going to lose weight is if you eat less and exercise more. So you
_have_ to learn to change your lifestyle, and WW helps you do that.

Amy
--
"In my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over
again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda." - George
W. Bush, May 24, 2005

"Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C3CE888605D6D645F0182648@news.verizon. net...
>>> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 20:21:50 -0500, Beverly wrote
> (in article <47a90bae$0$30693$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>):
>>
>> "The Master" <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.NEB.4.64.0802051911030.25044@sdf.lonesta r.org...
>>> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Willow Herself wrote:
>>>
>>>> Or people like that lady who came to me one night saying "I pay you 10$
>>>> per
>>>> week I should be losing weight, I'm not.."
>>>
>>> And you follow her around all day long, and know she is only half
>>> trying,
>>> correct?
>>>
>>>> I can't speak to any other plan, cause they don't interest me.. but
>>>> I've
>>>> been doing Weight Watchers for 5 years, lost 70 lbs and have been
>>>> maintaining for 4 of those 5 years..
>>>
>>> While many other people lose weight on Weight Watchers, only to see it
>>> come back when they stop buying the special food. Constantly on the
>>> "diet", giving Weight Watchers their money for overpriced dinners, is
>>> the
>>> only way to maintain the weight.
>>>
>>>
>> I've never understood where people get this inaccurate information on the
>> Weight Watchers program. You don't need to eat the food to lose weight
>> on
>> the program. I've been a WW lifetime member since 1984 and I can
>> guarantee
>> you I very seldom buy their dinners and I've maintained my weight loss
>> all
>> these years. <<
>
> Wow, they sell their own meals now? It's been so many years since I've
> been
> on the program, I didn't even know that. Elsewhere in this thread, I
> corrected someone who seemed to think it was a pre-made meals program,
> thinking they were confusing it with Jenny Craig or NutriSystems. So, I
> guess I was wrong on that point, but definitely not wrong on the point
> that
> it's mainly a _plan_, a program that teaches you how to eat and change
> your
> lifestyle. A very good program, too. I've always thought it made so much
> more sense than the pre-made meal programs, because really, the only way
> you're going to lose weight is if you eat less and exercise more. So you
> _have_ to learn to change your lifestyle, and WW helps you do that.
>
> Amy
> --
> "In my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over
> again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda." -
> George
> W. Bush, May 24, 2005
>

Sorry, I didn't mean to give the idea WW was a pre-made meal program. I was
referring to the frozen entrees and other items you can purchase in the
grocery stores. They don't require that you purchase any of their food
items like the Jenny Craig or NutriSystems programs.

I happen to like some of their frozen entrees for those days when I'm rushed
for time or just don't feel like cooking. I love their veggie lasagna. I
would never make a large batch of lasagna for myself.

Beverly

"Daedalus" <jade@newtko0ouks.biz> wrote in message
newsffhq3hvgrrjm2gv8amvinict99fi19usi@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:38:51 -0800, "Michael Snyder"
> <msnyder@socmen.org> wrote:
>

> >Hundreds? Out of how many thousands who tried?
> >If hundreds lost weight out of 100,000's, thats only one percent.
> >Random chance would have predicted higher.
> >
> Like I said to the Master. Just because it didn't work for you doesn't
> mean it doesn't work for some people.

No one is talking about me. And like I said to you Jade,
just because it works for a FEW people does not mean
that it works for MANY people. A FEW people will
ALWAYS lose weight, no matter what crap diet you
put them on.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 19:30:57 +0000, The Master
<tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote:

>On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Daedalus wrote:
>
>> Snipping my entire argument and just saying "you're wrong" isn't
>> really accomplishing a whole lot. You're single experience doesn't
>> translate into a whole lot.
>
>And yet, my "single experience" is far from unique.

I don't necessarily disagree. But you said a small fraction of people
lose weight and I asked if you had any official source or study that
you could point me to. You did not. That is a big claim to make
without having any proof.

> That's the point. To
>make a blanket statement that Weight Watchers or Nutrasystems works is
>false.

Just like you making a blanket statement it doesn't work.

> I didn't say they NEVER work, because for the hand full of people
>on the TV adds it did. But "not typical" means just that, not typical.
>

The point is, you don't know what is typical. So why keep acting like
you do?

>No matter how you want to fluff it up, make it sound better, or otherwise
>maintain the view that diet programs are the end-all cure,

I did no such thing. Did you actually read the post of mine you
snipped so conveniently? I ultimately said I didn't believe in Weight
Watchers.

> the fact of the
>matter is that they work for only a fraction of the people who try them.

If that is a fact, you should have no trouble pointing me to some
proof. C'mon man. You were so high and mighty about denamding proof
Bobbi's statements were racist. I actually tried to giv eyou proof.
Tit for Tat.

>Of those people, some cannot maintain the weight unless they continue on
>the program for life.

Exactly the point I made int he post you snipped, which it has now
become obvious you didn't read.

Jade

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 19:20:16 +0000, The Master
<tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote:

>On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Willow Herself wrote:
>
>> Or people like that lady who came to me one night saying "I pay you 10$ per
>> week I should be losing weight, I'm not.."
>
>And you follow her around all day long, and know she is only half trying,
>correct?
>
>> I can't speak to any other plan, cause they don't interest me.. but I've
>> been doing Weight Watchers for 5 years, lost 70 lbs and have been
>> maintaining for 4 of those 5 years..
>
>While many other people lose weight on Weight Watchers,

WHOA! What happend to "Only a small
fraction of those that try the program actually lose weight."

> only to see it
>come back when they stop buying the special food. Constantly on the
>"diet", giving Weight Watchers their money for overpriced dinners, is the
>only way to maintain the weight.

This is the part I agree with.

Jade

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Amy Guskin wrote:

> Nope. Weight Watchers isn't one of those diets where you buy the food. It's
> a diet plan, with a book, and they advise you how to eat, exercise, etc.

Buy the book, buy the food (yes, they DO sell food, look at the freezer
section of your local grocery store), attend the meetings, blah blah
blah... And the moment you stop following their rules, it comes back.
Like I said, it's A DIET THAT YOU STAY ON FOR LIFE.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Beverly wrote:

> I've been a WW lifetime member since 1984 and I can guarantee
> you I very seldom buy their dinners and I've maintained my weight loss all
> these years.

Well that is fantastic for you. But you are in the minority of their
members.

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Daedalus wrote:

>> While many other people lose weight on Weight Watchers,
>
> WHOA! What happend to "Only a small
> fraction of those that try the program actually lose weight."

They show 10 people losing weight. 10 is some, yes that's true. How many
thousands try the program? Let's see, 10 people they mention, 1,000 tried
it... Hmmm, that's like 1%... Now, I admit that it's been a long time
since I took diffEQ, and even longer since basic math... But, isn't 1/100
a rather small fraction? I realize the success rate is much better then
this, I'm only giving an example here.

I was calling a "small fraction" any number less then 1/2. If a program
works for 1/2 or more of the people, then weight loss IS typical but there
is a wide range of results. If weight loss is NOT typical, then the
success rate is less then 1/2.

>> Constantly on the
>> "diet", giving Weight Watchers their money for overpriced dinners, is the
>> only way to maintain the weight.
>
> This is the part I agree with.

Yes. As for the people who try the diet, less then 1/2 will see weight
loss. Of those, many need to stay on the diet for life. Tell me again
how this is improves the QUALITY of life?

I see how it increases the QUANTITY, but I fail to see how constantly
dieting is a better QUALITY.

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Daedalus wrote:

>> And yet, my "single experience" is far from unique.
>
> I don't necessarily disagree. But you said a small fraction of people
> lose weight

That would be less then half, thus the "results not typical" disclamer on
the TV adds.

>> That's the point. To
>> make a blanket statement that Weight Watchers or Nutrasystems works is
>> false.
>
> Just like you making a blanket statement it doesn't work.

I NEVER said it NEVER works. What I did say is that it fails to work MORE
times then it does work.

> I did no such thing. Did you actually read the post of mine you
> snipped so conveniently? I ultimately said I didn't believe in Weight
> Watchers.

Then we agree. Thanks...

> Exactly the point I made int he post you snipped, which it has now
> become obvious you didn't read.

Jade jade jade...

When I start rambling in my notes, I honestly don't expect anyone to read
it... So when you go off into left field, why do you think I would
continue glopping through the post to find the pearl? I skip to the next
paragraph, hoping you clear your mind and move to the next topic...

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:49:50 +0000, The Master
<tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote:

>On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Daedalus wrote:
>
>>> While many other people lose weight on Weight Watchers,
>>
>> WHOA! What happend to "Only a small
>> fraction of those that try the program actually lose weight."
>
>They show 10 people losing weight.

So?

> 10 is some, yes that's true. How many
>thousands try the program?

You don't know. That's what makes your claims about numbers so stupid
when you don't know any of them.

> Let's see, 10 people they mention, 1,000 tried
>it... Hmmm, that's like 1%... Now, I admit that it's been a long time
>since I took diffEQ, and even longer since basic math... But, isn't 1/100
>a rather small fraction? I realize the success rate is much better then
>this, I'm only giving an example here.

Another one of your famous "examples" LOL. Admit you're trolling now
and we'll have a good laugh.

You can't possibly believe the ass backwards logic that comes out of
your head.

lol. You've got a pretty convincing schtick going there.

>
>I was calling a "small fraction" any number less then 1/2.

Well that's stupid, because anything less than 50% is not a small
fraction.

> If a program
>works for 1/2 or more of the people, then weight loss IS typical but there
>is a wide range of results. If weight loss is NOT typical, then the
>success rate is less then 1/2.

More floundering about numbers you don't even know and using logic
that makes no sense. The correct way to prove or disprove your
original statement is to figure out the average weightloss across the
entire range to determine what the typical weight loss is. You never
specified "weght lost and kept off for all eternity" or "fat people
made skinny and happy" We've been discussing typical weight loss
experienced on the program, which you claim is none for most people.

It's a simple question: what weight, if any, on average do people lose
using Weight Watchers and how does this compare to the results
represented in the advertisements? Your wonky math doesn't even
approach this question logically.

>
>>> Constantly on the
>>> "diet", giving Weight Watchers their money for overpriced dinners, is the
>>> only way to maintain the weight.
>>
>> This is the part I agree with.
>
>Yes. As for the people who try the diet, less then 1/2 will see weight
>loss.

Once again, where is your proof?

> Of those, many need to stay on the diet for life. Tell me again
>how this is improves the QUALITY of life?

I didn't say it does. I said you don't know what percentage of people
lose weight on Weight Watchers and your assumptions about it don't
have any logical basis That's all I said. I continue to be right about
that.

>
>I see how it increases the QUANTITY, but I fail to see how constantly
>dieting is a better QUALITY.

It's funny how certain people see "constant dieting" as what most
other people just consider a "normal diet."



Jade

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Daedalus wrote:

>> Let's see, 10 people they mention, 1,000 tried
>> it... Hmmm, that's like 1%... Now, I admit that it's been a long time
>> since I took diffEQ, and even longer since basic math... But, isn't 1/100
>> a rather small fraction? I realize the success rate is much better then
>> this, I'm only giving an example here.
>
> Another one of your famous "examples" LOL. Admit you're trolling now
> and we'll have a good laugh.

Naturally hon... Right there I was being a smart @$$. It's one of my
better personality flaws.

>> If a program
>> works for 1/2 or more of the people, then weight loss IS typical but there
>> is a wide range of results. If weight loss is NOT typical, then the
>> success rate is less then 1/2.
>
> More floundering about numbers you don't even know and using logic
> that makes no sense.

Well, according to the only reference I can find that my secure web
proxy could take me to before I reached my limit said that the success
rate for diets in general, defined by keeping 5% off for 3 years, is 11%.
Well, actually 11.04%. You tell me, is that a large, or a small fraction?

I couldn't find information on Weight Watchers specifically, but I'll keep
looking.

> The correct way to prove or disprove your
> original statement is to figure out the average weightloss across the
> entire range to determine what the typical weight loss is

Well then, it looks like my reference IS good enough afterall. Correct?

Of the 23% of the people could stick with it, 48% of those actually did
it... That's only 11% of the people who started the diet could keep 5%
off for 3 years. Isn't that a small fraction by your definition? It sure
is by mine.

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:07:29 +0000, The Master
<tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote:

>On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Daedalus wrote:
>
>>> And yet, my "single experience" is far from unique.
>>
>> I don't necessarily disagree. But you said a small fraction of people
>> lose weight

No. 40%, 30% even 25% is not considered a "small fraction" by anybody.

>
>That would be less then half, thus the "results not typical" disclamer on
>the TV adds.
>
>>> That's the point. To
>>> make a blanket statement that Weight Watchers or Nutrasystems works is
>>> false.
>>
>> Just like you making a blanket statement it doesn't work.
>
>I NEVER said it NEVER works. What I did say is that it fails to work MORE
>times then it does work.
>
>> I did no such thing. Did you actually read the post of mine you
>> snipped so conveniently? I ultimately said I didn't believe in Weight
>> Watchers.
>
>Then we agree. Thanks...
>
>> Exactly the point I made int he post you snipped, which it has now
>> become obvious you didn't read.
>
>Jade jade jade...
>
>When I start rambling in my notes, I honestly don't expect anyone to read
>it... So when you go off into left field, why do you think I would
>continue glopping through the post to find the pearl? I skip to the next
>paragraph, hoping you clear your mind and move to the next topic...

Heh. Dude. If you're into trolling, I've got a lot better groups than
this to put you on to.

Jade

>> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 10:24:16 -0500, The Master wrote
(in article <Pine.NEB.4.64.0802061522310.24234@sdf.lonestar.or g>):

> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Amy Guskin wrote:
>
>> Nope. Weight Watchers isn't one of those diets where you buy the food.
>> It's
>> a diet plan, with a book, and they advise you how to eat, exercise, etc.
>
> Buy the book, buy the food (yes, they DO sell food, look at the freezer
> section of your local grocery store), attend the meetings, blah blah
> blah... And the moment you stop following their rules, it comes back.
> Like I said, it's A DIET THAT YOU STAY ON FOR LIFE. <<

1) It is _not_ a buy-our-prepackaged-meals plan, like Jenny Craig or
NutriSystems. You can be _on_ Weight Watchers with all of your own food,
food at restaurants, etc.. Buying their supermarket meals aren't required.

2) ANYONE with a weight problem very likely needs to watch their weight for
their entire life! If Twiggy or Kate Moss started eating tons of crap,
they'd be overweight, too! So why is it a surprise that people who have had
a weight problem would _also_ gain back weight if they start eating tons of
crap, too? Weight Watchers tries to teach you to incorporate good eating
habits into a normal life -- it's not an"eat our prepared food or you'll gain
weight" situation.

Amy
--
"In my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over
again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda." - George
W. Bush, May 24, 2005

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:53:06 +0000, The Master
<tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote:

>On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Daedalus wrote:
>
>>> Let's see, 10 people they mention, 1,000 tried
>>> it... Hmmm, that's like 1%... Now, I admit that it's been a long time
>>> since I took diffEQ, and even longer since basic math... But, isn't 1/100
>>> a rather small fraction? I realize the success rate is much better then
>>> this, I'm only giving an example here.
>>
>> Another one of your famous "examples" LOL. Admit you're trolling now
>> and we'll have a good laugh.
>
>Naturally hon... Right there I was being a smart @$$. It's one of my
>better personality flaws.

Hope it doesn't get taken out of context

>
>>> If a program
>>> works for 1/2 or more of the people, then weight loss IS typical but there
>>> is a wide range of results. If weight loss is NOT typical, then the
>>> success rate is less then 1/2.
>>
>> More floundering about numbers you don't even know and using logic
>> that makes no sense.
>
>Well, according to the only reference I can find that my secure web
>proxy could take me to before I reached my limit said that the success
>rate for diets in general, defined by keeping 5% off for 3 years, is 11%.
>Well, actually 11.04%. You tell me, is that a large, or a small fraction?
>
>I couldn't find information on Weight Watchers specifically, but I'll keep
>looking.
>

Well you kind of need to, since we're talking about Weight Watchers
specifically. Broadening the parameters to include all diets from a
source you still didn't name is tantamount to using colon cancer
statistics to prove smoking causes lung cancer.

>> The correct way to prove or disprove your
>> original statement is to figure out the average weightloss across the
>> entire range to determine what the typical weight loss is
>
>Well then, it looks like my reference IS good enough afterall. Correct?

nope. But keep trollin, babe. The snippage is pretty funny. You do
know a LOT about taking things out of context. I should not have
doubted you. Are you in the media?

>
>Of the 23% of the people could stick with it, 48% of those actually did
>it... That's only 11% of the people who started the diet could keep 5%
>off for 3 years. Isn't that a small fraction by your definition? It sure
>is by mine.

It's completely meaningless to our discussion.

A side question though. Why do you get so upset about the claims of
Weight Watchers and similar diet programs?

Do you get equally upset about the penis enlargement products they
hock on TV that have robbed you and millions of other men?

I'm curious to know if you have a particular vendetta against Weight
Watchers or if it is just commercialism in general you hate.

Jade

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:40:01 GMT, Amy Guskin wrote:

>>> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 10:24:16 -0500, The Master wrote
> (in article <Pine.NEB.4.64.0802061522310.24234@sdf.lonestar.or g>):
>
>> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Amy Guskin wrote:
>>
>>> Nope. Weight Watchers isn't one of those diets where you buy the food.
>>> It's
>>> a diet plan, with a book, and they advise you how to eat, exercise, etc.
>>
>> Buy the book, buy the food (yes, they DO sell food, look at the freezer
>> section of your local grocery store), attend the meetings, blah blah
>> blah... And the moment you stop following their rules, it comes back.
>> Like I said, it's A DIET THAT YOU STAY ON FOR LIFE. <<
>
> 1) It is _not_ a buy-our-prepackaged-meals plan, like Jenny Craig or
> NutriSystems. You can be _on_ Weight Watchers with all of your own food,
> food at restaurants, etc.. Buying their supermarket meals aren't required.
>
> 2) ANYONE with a weight problem very likely needs to watch their weight for
> their entire life! If Twiggy or Kate Moss started eating tons of crap,
> they'd be overweight, too! So why is it a surprise that people who have had
> a weight problem would _also_ gain back weight if they start eating tons of
> crap, too? Weight Watchers tries to teach you to incorporate good eating
> habits into a normal life -- it's not an"eat our prepared food or you'll gain
> weight" situation.
>
> Amy


No kidding.

BTW, my mother lost weight with Weight Watchers and kept it off the
rest of her life as well. I didn't like the plan or the meetings
myself, but it worked for my mother.

--
Cynthia
262/230/152
http://www.garbagethatgoo.com (my weight loss blog)

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Daedalus wrote:

> No. 40%, 30% even 25% is not considered a "small fraction" by anybody.

I DO consider 25% a small fraction. But it turns out, the figure is
11%... Is that small by YOUR definition?

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 17:59:42 +0000, The Master
<tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote:

>On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Daedalus wrote:
>
>> No. 40%, 30% even 25% is not considered a "small fraction" by anybody.
>
>I DO consider 25% a small fraction. But it turns out, the figure is
>11%... Is that small by YOUR definition?

The figure for Weight Watchers is not 11%. We are talking about Weight
Watchers.

Nice try though.

Jade

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Daedalus wrote:

> A side question though. Why do you get so upset about the claims of
> Weight Watchers and similar diet programs?

Because they are lies, pure and simple. They bombard us with images of
people losing weight, and keeping it off, simply by following an insanely
easy program that anyone can follow.

I'll admit it, I've been suckered into programs like Nutrasystems,
Metabolife, the "Great North Slimdown", Atkins, South Beach, Slimfast, the
list continues. I spend my money, and get the stuff (food, pills,
whatever), and try the diet.

But what do I get? Pills that don't stop my hunger or food that tastes
like garbage. Then comes the feelings of failure, I didn't want it
enough... THOSE people did good, why didn't I?

I'm fed up with bull shit dreams that never work. Now I'm at the point
where if it's going to require ANY effort, it's not worth it since it will
fail anyhow. Am I looking for a magic pill now? Damn right I am, because
anything more complicated is "results not typical" crap that only works
for 11% of the people who try it!

THEN I have to deal with shitheads who say I'm fat because I'm a lazy
puke, and all I need to do is try a diet program.

> Do you get equally upset about the penis enlargement products they
> hock on TV that have robbed you and millions of other men?

Not really, since I never had to try them... However, I'm sure there are
people who have tried those products, and seen no improvement. They
probably ARE equally upset.

> I'm curious to know if you have a particular vendetta against Weight
> Watchers or if it is just commercialism in general you hate.

Not Weight Watchers specifically, it's the diet industry in general.

"Daedalus" <jade@newtko0ouks.biz> wrote in message
news:23njq3pugg3s50i8ahcuntfcjr6ildu8n8@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:49:50 +0000, The Master
> <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Daedalus wrote:
>>
>>>> While many other people lose weight on Weight Watchers,
>>>
>>> WHOA! What happend to "Only a small
>>> fraction of those that try the program actually lose weight."
>>
>>They show 10 people losing weight.
>
> So?
>
>> 10 is some, yes that's true. How many
>>thousands try the program?
>
> You don't know. That's what makes your claims about numbers so stupid
> when you don't know any of them.
>
>> Let's see, 10 people they mention, 1,000 tried
>>it... Hmmm, that's like 1%... Now, I admit that it's been a long time
>>since I took diffEQ, and even longer since basic math... But, isn't 1/100
>>a rather small fraction? I realize the success rate is much better then
>>this, I'm only giving an example here.
>
> Another one of your famous "examples" LOL. Admit you're trolling now
> and we'll have a good laugh.
>
> You can't possibly believe the ass backwards logic that comes out of
> your head.
>
> lol. You've got a pretty convincing schtick going there.
>
>>
>>I was calling a "small fraction" any number less then 1/2.
>
> Well that's stupid, because anything less than 50% is not a small
> fraction.
>
>> If a program
>>works for 1/2 or more of the people, then weight loss IS typical but there
>>is a wide range of results. If weight loss is NOT typical, then the
>>success rate is less then 1/2.
>
> More floundering about numbers you don't even know and using logic
> that makes no sense. The correct way to prove or disprove your
> original statement is to figure out the average weightloss across the
> entire range to determine what the typical weight loss is. You never
> specified "weght lost and kept off for all eternity" or "fat people
> made skinny and happy" We've been discussing typical weight loss
> experienced on the program, which you claim is none for most people.
>
> It's a simple question: what weight, if any, on average do people lose
> using Weight Watchers and how does this compare to the results
> represented in the advertisements? Your wonky math doesn't even
> approach this question logically.
>
>>
>>>> Constantly on the
>>>> "diet", giving Weight Watchers their money for overpriced dinners, is
>>>> the
>>>> only way to maintain the weight.
>>>
>>> This is the part I agree with.
>>
>>Yes. As for the people who try the diet, less then 1/2 will see weight
>>loss.
>
> Once again, where is your proof?
>


Here's some proof: 47,000 employees
$1.2 billion - that's billion, with a "b" - in sales
Over $200 million annual profit
Carried in every supermarket I've ever been in

Obviously, they have customers. Millions of customers. For more than two
decades, with pretty steady revenue growth. Must be doing *something*
right.


Bo Raxo