Atkins or WW??

[Gretel]

Has anyone done either of these plans and which one worked better for you?

 

[bicker]

I've done both, and WW worked better for me (though it wasn't what worked best for me). However, that was the old WW, the "exchanges" system, not the new "points" system. From what I've read, I feel that the new system wouldn't have been as supportive of my weight management efforts as the old system was. With Atkins, I was in that 10% minority that actually react negatively to Atkins, and had my cholesterol shoot up on it. As long as you take all the recommended vitamins and supplements, and get a few blood tests over your first six months, Atkins is worth looking into: If you're not willing to pay for all that extra supplementation and periodic testing, then perhaps WW is a better approach for you.

In the end, neither approach will work for you if you're not able to completely change your lifestyle, permanently, to match that needed for the approach you choose. For Atkins, it means substantially reducing or eliminating bread, pasta, potatoes, corn, fruits, and sugar from your diet. For WW, it means substantially reducing or eliminating butter/margarine, oil used in cooking (even when eating out), big steaks, hamburgers with all the trimmings, etc.

 

[wovenwonder]

Weight Watchers did not work for me -- but it was only because of the 'weigh' I did it. The lowest point foods were carbs and fruits/veggies. With the higher point foods being meats/fats. To get the most bang for my buck I ate lots of carbs a very little meats/fats BUT I did not take advantage of the low/no point veggies to make it healthier for me. If I would have been sensible and tried not to eat so much refined carbs while on the plan -- I think that I would have done fine.

Right now I am eating low carb (not necessarily Atkins though). If I would figure out the number of points I eat during the day it would probably be right around what I should be eating if on WW. But I don't feel the need to calculate what I am putting in my mouth. I know that I am eating very healthy foods, I feel good, and I am rarely hungry. It doesn't take near the amount of food to satisfy me since I began this WOE.

WW works for MANY people! But, I think it is just a trial and error (like any other WOE) to see what food combinations work best for your body.

Good Luck!

 

[nancyL]

Ive done both and WW was much more successful than Atkins, altho' Atkins is alot of fun (where else can you justify bacon and eggs for breakfast and a huge juicy steak for lunch?). I missed my bread too much on Atkins tho- Im going back on WW after my Disney trip in 2 weeks. There's a great website for WW called www.dwlz.com
its an 'unofficial' site, but gives alot of info.
NancyL

 

[dizneegirl]

Apples or oranges?

Two completely different ways of eating... it would depend on what and how you like to eat.

I tend to think the whole foods approach of low-carb is healthier in the long run than WW, but that's just one opinion.

Either way, you're going to have to change your thinking about dieting and eating for whichever you choose to work. And on either, you should plan on eating a TON of fresh foods... veggies, fruits, whole grains... not prepackaged or convenience foods.

Low-carbing can scientifically change your body, your appetite and your metabolism... it's based on blood sugar/insulin levels in your body. High blood sugar levels lead to fat storage, and lead to cravings. It's not as restrictive as the low-calorie, low-fat diet you'd probably experience with Weight Watchers. And, it burns FAT off, leaving lean muscle mass (even helping to build that lean muscle), where a low-fat, low-calorie diet can burn both fat AND lean muscle mass... NOT a good thing.

Apples and oranges.

 

[bicker]

dizneegirl makes a very important point: The main difference between the approach I used to lose weight two years ago (HMR), and the approach I used ten years ago (WW), is the attention paid to where the calories are coming from. On WW, there was a lot of focus on cutting fat and meat. On HMR, the focus was on getting enough protein and fiber. Even though both rely on calorie control (and so does Atkins, to some extent, though the linkage isn't as direct), the focus HMR places on protein and fiber is a critical difference IMHO.

Operationally, this meant that, on HMR, I ensured that I got enough protein every day to ensure that I didn't lose much LBM. I got at least 100 gm of protein per day (that's over 400 calories from protein alone).

Back when I was on WW, I was limited to 7 oz of meat per day. That's only 60 gm of protein, no where near enough to spare muscle mass for someone my size. Does anyone know if WW has any safeguards in place to ensure folks are getting at least 100 gm of protein per day?

 

[DixieDreamer]

All good points so far. I am on Low Carb now after using Nutrisystem, Weight Watchers, and a variety of other low fat, low calorie diets. I could lose on the other plans... but I could not eat like that forever. I was STARVING all the time. Without exception, I got to a point where I just had to EAT - and returned to my previous eating and regained the weight... plus some more.


By breaking the sugar and starch habit, and eating adequate amounts of protein, lots of good veggies, and reasonable portions of fat... I am no longer out of control hungry, I have lost 27 lbs (and still losing), my cholesterol has improved signicantly... but... MOST IMPORTANTLY.... I can easily eat this way for the rest of my life. Which is exactly what I intend to do.

I could never say that with my previous low cal, low fat diets. I couldn't wait to get the weight off... so I could eat "normally" again. Of course, as soon as you go back to what you did before (on any diet) you will gain the weight again... so that was NOT a good long term solution for me.

Whatever you choose... it needs to be something you can live with always. Not a diet - but a new way of eating.

 

[FergieTCat]

I have been way more successful cutting out carbs than I was on Weight Watchers. I found the WW plan to be too lenient, such as I could eat 25 points worth of carbs if it made me happy. My leader had no idea about how I should balance my points. I might try going on WW again, and adjusting my points for proteins and carbs accordingly, but I haven't done so yet.

On my own, I was able to lose 25 pounds last year and keep it off. I was never able to maintain a weight loss on WW.

 

[bicker]

This was exactly the concern I expressed with the points system. The exchanges system was far superior on that account. When I raised that issue earlier in several online forums, some folks claimed that it wasn't the case: That WW does still have separate requirements for protein, vegetables, fruits, etc. Sounds like my original suspicion was correct, that that is not the case.

 

[FergieTCat]

Bicker --

I think WW suggests a points spread for each food group, but my leader said I could do whatever I wanted, it didn't matter as long as I stayed within the required points. Ultimately, points are just an easy way to count calories (1 point equal about 50 calories). I wasn't familiar enough with protein vs. carbs then to argue with her, but have done my own research since then.