It's bullshit. It's just another way to severely restrict caloric intake, and is totally unlike gaming. I'm a gamer. I tried WW. And Jesus god, is WW ever restrictive. You barely get to eat anything except raw vegetables; of course you lose. While you dream about what the couch cushions would taste like with ketchup. >:P
I see the comparison. I'm back on WW now, using the online tool, and while I never would've thought of it as an RPG, it has occurred to me that it is a game to figure out ways around the points system...i.e., what food will fill me up the most while sacrificing the least points. Or, if I have a generic cookie, which brand of cookie comes up in the list as 6 points rather than 7. Little things like that.
There are problems inherent in the WW system. It does not actually TEACH anything about good nutrition. You sort of learn it by accident. Example: I can have a burger for dinner if I stick to very low-point breakfast and lunch. So, by default, either I starve during the day, or I figure out ways to eat things that won't take up a lot of points (such as no-sugar-added jam [1 point] on my whole wheat toast [1 point, for a total of 2] instead of regular jam [3 points] on my white bread [3 points, for a total of 6). But the problem is, I'm still eating that burger -- and I'm rewarding myself with a burger, which is the wrong mindset. But, for a lot of users, it's that mindset that gets them to stick to the plan...so whatever works, I guess.
South Beach, IMHO, is a much better overall, as it's more nutritionally sound. I'm glad I tried South Beach first, and learned about the glycemic index and how to listen to my body's needs, before doing WW. I would've been confused on WW -- and probably pretty darn hungry.
But it's precisely because I understand the value of fiber and "good" fats and proper portion sizes that I do well on WW (when I actually do it). I don't find it limiting, just sometimes kind of boring, because I tend to keep the same foods around that I know are filling and low in points.
And yeah...keeping an online tally all the freaking time gets really tiresome. That's why I fell off the wagon so often. Maybe if I think of it as a game -- and maybe if there were cute little Neopets cheering me on or something -- I might stick with it longer.
Sorry, this got wordy. Sometimes I'm a WW cheerleader; sometimes I'm a hater. You caught me on a cheerleading day. :)
Those are some really good points. It does sound like the cycle that I've seen in MMORPGs over and over again: 1) Challenge seems insurmountable; 2) Players figure out a solution; 3) Former challenge seems boring and routine.
I think he's on the money. I was laughing in recognition as I read the article.
And I disagree with Hawkward about the outcome. The habits that I have been developing are that healthful food gets me through the day better than crappy, high fat stuff. Veggies good, burgers bad. Seems pretty straight forward, And it does allow me to have things I like, if I plan on them.
What I recall of South Beach was that it looked like a modified Atkins. And I think Atkins is unhealthy. Intentionally inducing ketosis just seems like a bad idea to me.
But I also know that everybody has a different way of taking care of their body and just because something seems like a bad idea to me doesn't mean it won't work beautifully for someone else.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-08-21 09:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-21 09:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-21 09:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-21 10:17 pm (UTC)There are problems inherent in the WW system. It does not actually TEACH anything about good nutrition. You sort of learn it by accident. Example: I can have a burger for dinner if I stick to very low-point breakfast and lunch. So, by default, either I starve during the day, or I figure out ways to eat things that won't take up a lot of points (such as no-sugar-added jam [1 point] on my whole wheat toast [1 point, for a total of 2] instead of regular jam [3 points] on my white bread [3 points, for a total of 6). But the problem is, I'm still eating that burger -- and I'm rewarding myself with a burger, which is the wrong mindset. But, for a lot of users, it's that mindset that gets them to stick to the plan...so whatever works, I guess.
South Beach, IMHO, is a much better overall, as it's more nutritionally sound. I'm glad I tried South Beach first, and learned about the glycemic index and how to listen to my body's needs, before doing WW. I would've been confused on WW -- and probably pretty darn hungry.
But it's precisely because I understand the value of fiber and "good" fats and proper portion sizes that I do well on WW (when I actually do it). I don't find it limiting, just sometimes kind of boring, because I tend to keep the same foods around that I know are filling and low in points.
And yeah...keeping an online tally all the freaking time gets really tiresome. That's why I fell off the wagon so often. Maybe if I think of it as a game -- and maybe if there were cute little Neopets cheering me on or something -- I might stick with it longer.
Sorry, this got wordy. Sometimes I'm a WW cheerleader; sometimes I'm a hater. You caught me on a cheerleading day. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-08-22 01:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-22 02:01 am (UTC)And I disagree with Hawkward about the outcome. The habits that I have been developing are that healthful food gets me through the day better than crappy, high fat stuff. Veggies good, burgers bad. Seems pretty straight forward, And it does allow me to have things I like, if I plan on them.
What I recall of South Beach was that it looked like a modified Atkins. And I think Atkins is unhealthy. Intentionally inducing ketosis just seems like a bad idea to me.
But I also know that everybody has a different way of taking care of their body and just because something seems like a bad idea to me doesn't mean it won't work beautifully for someone else.