Weight Watchers has overhauled its points system. And not everyone is happy about it.

The new system's 'PointsPlus' values has stunned the many devoted members who have sworn by the old points method for weight loss since it was introduced 13 year ago.

For the 750,000 Americans on Weight Watchers, the new program will require some adjustment in how they choose their foods.

One reason people adored the program was because it allowed room for sweets and alcohol. Just budget the points for it out of your daily allowance and you were able to keep your weight down.

Using the old 'Points', an apple had the same Points value as a small bag of pretzels. Even though the program leaders urged dieters to eat a healthy balance of fruits and vegetables, there was little incentive to choose the apple.

"Before, we considered a calorie as a calorie," Stephanie Rost, Weight Watchers' corporate program development director told the News. "You are automatically guided toward foods that have a higher satiety value, that will help you keep fuller longer."


Weight Watchers' Idol: Actress and singer Jennifer Hudson reportedly used the new PointsPlus system to transform her body.
Vegetables and fruits are now zero "Points Plus" but processed foods as well as alcohol and sugar are higher. That two-point glass of wine is now four points.

While many are praising the new plan, many are wishing Weight Watchers would bury it.

"I love my carbs and have lost 121 lbs on the old system," one member wrote on the company's Facebook page. "I don't wanna change what I am doing and I feel that Weight Watchers should have given us a choice whether or not we wanted to try the new Points Plus."

"All the Points values in my cookbook are wrong now," one member moaned. "I guess I'll just have to get new ones for my computer."

Members were also irritated that the new ontime tools and products to measure the Points Plus were not given to them for free since the old ones that they paid for are now worthless.

Weight Watchers' move away from processed foods and putting more emphasis on fruits and vegetables is more in line with the trends of today. Nutritionists have long dismissed low-fat, high-sugar foods as a bad way to lose weight. People are paying more attention to the chemicals and additives in packaged foods than ever before.

Under the new system, the 40,000 foods in the Weight Watchers database (it includes both branded foods and generic foods) have been recalculated, taking into account not just how many calories they contain, but what else they contain. All the packaged foods will be recalculated and relabeled, and should be available in the new version within a month, Rost says.

So is the plan better for consumers?

Having a higher point allotment could potentially slow weight loss in some people, says Roberta Anding, RD, a spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association. "As you increase points, you increase total calories, maybe by 100 or 200 calories a day," she says. "But calories or points always count. That subtle increase in points may make a difference in weight loss."

But, she adds, "This is the first time there has been an emphasis on whole foods from Weight Watchers, the first time they recognized that a 100 calorie apple and a 100 calorie cookie aren't metabolized the same way. The concept of getting away from processed foods is a good one."

While members are fretting over the changes and added costs to the new program, others are already disovering free versions of the online tools and sharing new tricks and tips with the skeptics.

"I think it will be fun when all the naysayers who quit come back 50 lbs heavier while the rest of us are healthier and thinner," a member wrote on Facebook. "Love the health-ified new plan."

nydailynews.com

-->Read more...

Small wonder that kids are getting larger.

Preschoolers now see three fast-food commercials each day, according to research reported on Msnbc.com.

The TV commercials push the fat-laden cheeseburgers and fries, rather than singing the praises of healthier side dishes like apples.

A third of American kids eat an actual fast-food meal each day -- some clocking in at 1,000 calories each.

The default side dish: French fries.

Healthier side dishes and drinks should be the default options for children when they eat fast food, and fast-food ads should regulated, says Marlene Schwartz, deputy director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity at Yale University, told Msnbc.com.

Fast-food is "a huge source of meals for kids, and that's why we feel they need to be really looked at more carefully," she says.

The Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity’s list of "worst" and "best" kids' meal combinations at fast-food restaurants lists Taco Bell, Dairy Queen and KFC among the worst nutritionally.

Taco Bell's bean burrito, served with cinnamon twists and a soft drink, has 760 calories, 284 of which come from sugar. KFC's extra crispy chicken drumstick, served with potato wedges, a soft drink and string cheese, contains 680 calories, while Dairy Queen's "original" cheeseburger, served with fries, Mountain Dew and a chocolate dilly bar, comes in at 973 calories, according to the Rudd Center.

nydailynews.com
The researchers who visited 250 restaurants found that French fries were automatically served with kids' meals 86% of the time and soft drinks were served 55% of the time. And when the researchers tallied up calories, sugar, sodium and fat in thousands of kids' meal combinations, only 12 met the nutrition standards for preschoolers' school lunches established by the Institute of Medicine.

Wondering where to take your child for a healthy fast-food meal? The Rudd Center's top picks are Subway and Burger King. At Subway, for instance, a Veggie Delite sandwich served with apple juice and apple slices has just 285 calories and 295 milligrams of sodium

One of the worst bets when you’re ordering for your child: KFC's popcorn chicken, with 840 calories and 1,610 milligrams of sodium.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/health/2010/11/09/2010-11-09_the_worst_fastfood_meals_for_kids_can_weigh_in_with_close_to_1000_fatladen_calor.html#ixzz15FHFMEHF

-->Read more...

The biggest loser? An obese British mom who has had her eight-year-old daughter on a severely restricted diet - starting at age two.

Aly Gilardoni, a single mom, allows little Corleigh to eat just 700 calories a day (1,000 calories too little, medical experts say). On a typical day, Corleigh gets cereal for breakfast, salad and half a roll for lunch, and a baked potato for dinner, reports the Daily Mail.

While she claims she doesn't want her daughter to turn out like her, tipping the scales at 238 pounds and eating a 3,000 calorie diet of junk food and carbs, experts are appalled by her tactics.

Children of normal weight should never have their calories restricted, Dr. Stephen Turner, chairman of the department of pediatrics at Long Island College Hospital told the News.

"It's clear in this case that it it not the child who has issues, but the mother," Turner says. "It's neglect to restrict calories in a child like this."

Even in an overweight child, Turner says, it's usually not necessary to trim calories out of the meal plan. Instead, he says, he recommends simply omitting fruit juices and offering skim milk instead of whole milk.

"The idea is for an overweight child to not gain weight," Turner explains. "However, the child should not be losing weight."

He also says that when kids are overweight, they should be offered healthy food choices even when these contain the same number of calories as an unhealthier choice. For instance, he says, giving the child a peanut butter sandwich makes more sense than offering a candy bar since it will make him feel full longer.

As for exercise, it's not necessary to put a two-year-old on an exercise regime. (Most parents get out of breath running after their toddler, Turner points out.)

However, he says, a parent should check to see if the environment affords enough opportunities for kids to run around and play. "If there is a baby in the house, a parent may be putting that child in front of the TV since the parent is busy," he explains. "And that will definitely have consequences in terms of weight gain."

Little Corleigh so far is just five pounds underweight, but otherwise healthy. Yet, her mother told the Daily Mail, the little girl is now afraid of being fat.

"She's always looking in mirrors," Gilardoni said. "I feel guilty - but it's how I want her to be."

nydailynews.com

-->Read more...

Helen Mirren claims that her secret to looking young is holding in her stomach and wearing platform high heels.

But now that she's shilling for Nintendo's Wii Fit, she's got another fitness trick up her sleeve.

"The Wii is fun, and it's infinitely varied. You can hula, jog, yoga, step, all in one session, she said, according to the Daily Mail. "You need never get bored as every day you can tailor a new workout.

"It challenges you, and you do it at home, so nobody need see you in those old yoga pants and torn T-shirt."

Helen Mirren looking sleek and chic at the 2010 Toronto International Film Festival.

The 65-year-old Oscar winner, who famously posed nude in New York magazine this year, has claimed to be as body-conscious as the next woman.

"Holding your tummy in is another trick for making you look and feel good," Mirren said. "I don’t know why, but I do, by nature, hold my tummy in."

Bits of my body are all right, but bits of me are horrible," she told Woman and Home last month. "To be honest, anything from the waist down I don't really like."

Mirren recently gave 24-year-old actress Megan Fox a run for her money, nearly beating her out for Esquire magazine's 2010 Sexiest Woman Alive. She told the magazine that she was "gobsmacked" by the honor.

nydailynews.com

-->Read more...

You may assume that if your weight is in the healthy range, you have a low risk of heart disease, diabetes, and other conditions linked to obesity. But new research suggests that waist size could play as important a role as body weight in determining how long you live. After examining a database of more than 100,000 men and women ages 50 and older participating in a cancer prevention study, researchers found that those with the largest waistlines had about twice the risk of dying over a nine-year period as those with the smallest waistlines. (Nearly 20 percent of the men and 10 percent of the women died over the duration of the study, mainly from heart disease, cancer, and respiratory conditions.)
Click here to find out more!

What's especially troubling, though, is that even big-waisted folks who had a healthy body mass index—a measurement of weight to height—had a higher risk of dying. Every 4-inch increase in waist size was associated with a 25 percent greater risk of death, says Eric Jacobs, an epidemiologist at the American Cancer Society who led the study, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine . What is an ideal waist size? Less than 35 inches for men and 30 inches for women, according to the study. These measurements are considerably smaller than what the American Heart Association defines as optimal: below 35 inches for women and 40 inches for men.

[Here's how to measure your waist size.]

Why is a big waist so dangerous? Previous research indicates that those who carry more fat around their abdomen also have higher amounts of fat around vital organs like the kidneys, liver, and pancreas; this so-called visceral fat is more "metabolically active" than fat that lies just below the skin and is thought to promote chronic inflammation, which has been linked to heart disease, diabetes, and certain cancers. Jacobs believes that action should be taken the moment you notice your pants getting too tight. "The take-home message is that it's important to watch your waist, not just your weight," he says, "and to start eating better and exercising more if you see your waist size starting to increase."

While eating fewer calories or burning off more through exercise can help reduce abdominal fat, a spate of recent studies also suggest that reducing stress and getting enough sleep—seven to eight hours a night for most people—can lower levels of stress hormones; that's a good thing since some of these hormones trigger the body to produce visceral fat. Researchers are also studying mindful eating, where you eat slowly and pay attention to the taste, smell, and texture of your food, to see whether the practice helps redistribute body fat from the waist to the hips.

usnews.com

-->Read more...