Quote:
The weight watcher example is a bit misleading. To the best of my knowledge the foods promoted and sold by weight watchers have been measured and hence there is no need for discussion.
I think that the point was that the Weight Watchers diet is built on a specific system, and it makes no sense (unless you're just trying to be contrary) to walk into a meeting and argue their base rules. It's not a question of the measurement of each specific food item, but rather the actual system -- i.e. the points. Like arguing that X food item should be worth 4 points instead of 5. You say you're just trying to follow the diet with more precision -- but why? Seriously, what need do you have to know exactly how much SF/IF is in each food? By arguing exactly how much IF rice contains, what's the point here? If you're arguing that it's not a good SF base after all, you're arguing against basic diet principles; if you're not arguing that, then, um, why bring it up?
Sure, it would be nice to find reliable information on actual SF/IF percentages -- but as long as all the info out there contradicts each other, you'll never know what's reliable and what isn't. It also is completely unnecessary in order to follow the diet, and can be completely counter-productive by just producing more anxiety.
No one's asking you to leave -- but given that Heather's given her own reasons for not wanting this continually rehashed, I think it would be only respectful to refrain from discussing it. Certainly no one's stopping you from researching it on your own if it's important to you.
--------------------
jen
"It's one of the most serious things that can possibly happen to one in a battle -- to get one's head cut off." -- LC
Print
Remind Me
Notify Moderator
|
Posts
Re: Thank you
