Okay, can somebody explain why Weight Watchers is hailed as this

>>40493425
I mean, all in all it's not terrible.

It's more about changing how much you eat vs changing what you're eating obviously.

Obviously you can do that without weight watchers, but some people like having a group that they go to. My mom lost like 150lbs on it.

>>40493446
I just don't see it as sustainable. Once they go off of it (like my mom did once) they put weight back on, because they never learned basic rules about calories, macros, TDEE, etc.

It is an excellent tool for food reeducation, far more than it is for weight loss.

My aunt lost 30kgs there. Their program is simple and easy to follow and it helps because it doesnt overwhelm laypeople. Not everyone has the intelligence or basic knowledge to understand nutrition beyond "this makes me fat , this is healthy".

Personally I like them and their system, and the group support, it's fantastic

next time it's her birthday or some opportunity to buy her a gift, get her a fitbit, I did this to my mom because she was going on that weight watchers shit and she now understands calories...or more so than before, and for older women it encourages them to workout because it challenges them to burn a certain amount per day

Wait, you pay them money and they send donuts to your door? This sounds like a great idea.

>>40493425
because the scale doesn't lie, and they are basically a support group.

Seems like they have turned dieting into "Magic the gathering" I'll just play this broccoli card against this donut card. Whatever if it gets people to make better choices about what they eat.

>>40493531
That's not a bad idea.

>>40493425

It's not a bad weight loss system, end of the day it's cals in vs cals out. Only problem is it's based on an outdated model where fat is the only reason someone gains weight and all carbs are created equal.

not everyone has to be an autistic perfectionist like anyone who makes it in /fit/

it's a simple easy to follow program that teaches portion control and provides a supportive community.

>>40493425
It's structured in a way where they don't have to think too hard about eating well and less.

They'll lose weight, and they'll become more aware of what they eat, and that's good

However, they won't be the most healthy cunts on the planet. And will have no real idea of how to eat without that game. That's bad.

File: Screenshot_20170224-145036.png (222KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1440x2560px

>>40493425
>Fruits and vegetables are zero points, so people on Weight Watchers think calories and sugar doesn't exist
That's a gross misrepresentation. If you want to understand the program, you have to be open to understanding the reality rather than living in a fantasy where you're an expert and everyone else is a blithering idiot.

I just went to Google and looked up the nutrition facts of a banana. Pic related. Compare that to a Hershey bar of a similar weight: over 500 calories, over 50 grams of carbohydrates, and over 45 grams of sugar.

The reason fruits and vegetables don't cost any points is because people on Weight Watchers are encouraged to eat them, not penalized for it. The idea is to get people to sate their cravings with healthy alternatives.

No matter what pet diet you prefer, any program that gets people to choose fruit over candy bars and chips is a step in the right direction.

>>40493425

Many fat people aren't smart enough to handle math. Weight Watchers simplifies calorie counting to the point that it's "good enough" for most people.

Richfaggard Simmons had a similar program called "Deal a Meal" iirc.