Oprah spent 43 million Investing in Weight Watchers so it's no surprise to see her as a spokesperson.

you might be thinking about Jessica Simpson? Although there have been many celebrity spokespeople. Here's a list, Advertising for WW

A friend has gone to WW for years and said Oprah now owns 10% of the company....so no surprise she's the new spokesperson.

This recent article does a good job of succinctly summing up the current state of scientific thought on dieting/WW.

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/10/why-weight-watchers-doesnt-work.html#

I think WW's stock is so low because dieting per se is becoming sort of old hat and fewer people, esp. young people, will be willing to follow old-style "diets".

It seems to me that, if one wants to be permanently healthier and/or thinner, you really have to be very patient about it. I think it starts with just switching up some habits, nothing too draconian. Eat a smaller amount of the same things, and/or less often, and/or try a healthy substitute. Walk more, or for longer.

One conundrum, however, is motivation. Weight loss results motivate people to change their behavior. If you advocate slow, gentle changes, the changes are more likely to be sustainable, which is good .... but the results are going to be less motivating.

WW/Medifast are two programs that teach people how to eat normally. Diets are as a rule impossible to maintain over the long haul. They are too far removed from real life. When I met my MIL she was 60--I was 20ish...I remember thinking how awful to be 60yrs old and still fighting this battle. So here I am "over 50" still at it. When you don't have a weight issue you dont' get it. It is as simple as that. Some of are heavy some are obese. I hope for her health Oprah can get herself out of the obese category. That is just so dangerous and uncomfortable to live in that skin. For those of us like Sarah Fergeson who get labeled heavy--I wish the world would get a clue. WW is a quality company. I have to say I was disappointed they are aligned with Oprah. She has done a lot of good in the world--don't get me wrong, but all that glitters is not gold as they say.

A friend has gone to WW for years

That statement pretty much proves the point of the article mtn linked to.

The Rotation Diet, developed by Dr. martin Katahn at Vanderbilt years ago, was specifically designed to circumvent your body's metabolic response to lowered calories. This is not the rotation of different foods, it an actual rotation or calories in a three week cycle. For women, it's three days of 600 cal, followed by four days of 900 calories, followed by seven days of 1200 calories, then week one repeated (3 days @ 600, 4 days @ 900). It works. And unless you go on a binge eating spree, it's very easy to keep the pounds off. It's not as popular as zones or carbs, or no carbs, or Neanderthal eating, or vegan diets. It doesn't address the kind of calories so much as the number of them and how to maximize weight loss without lowering the metabolism.

I agree WW is a sure thing for Winfrey's pocketbook.

I hesitate to comment on weight, especially mine. I am not obese and not "much" over weight. I've always been able to eat anything I wanted. As years have gone by and my daily activities have changed dramatically, I have an extra 20# hanging around with me. It could be more than 20; I don't weigh but the jeans are tight. Several years ago in an effort to help my son loose weight we used the Michael Thurmond 6 week body makeover. That worked for us. There were enough food choices that I liked what I ate. The only thing was serving size. It was NOT large enough for me even eating every couple of hours. I did up my portion size and it didn't seem to matter. I still lost weight. Again, I didn't have to loose a lot and it went rather quickly. Now, when the jeans are really pinching I will use that menu for a week and everything seems to work out ok.

I'm a huge WW believer, and I was really bothered by that article about "why weight watchers doesn't work." For a lot of people, losing and maintaining weight is a constant battle, and that's why people stay in WW and return to it when they fall off the wagon. To me, it's the most realistic program out there.

CF, The article is somewhat tongue in cheek. WW "works" better than many other approaches, but even WW's own research indicates that the success is very, very modest. I think it was something like an average of 12lbs lost intitially, and after 2 years, an average of 6lb lost. I don't think many people join WW because they want to lose 6lbs.

I do agree it is the most realistic "diet" but that is damning with faint praise. The author of the piece estimates that across most diets people lose 10% of body weight, and 2-5 yrs later are down a mere 2lbs, on average.

KSWL, While the rotation plan probably would address the body's adaptive response to reduced intake, I don't think many people can routinely function on 600 calories a day, even a few days at a time.

In the past when she has lost a lot of weight, Oprah would come out to show off the new figure and declare how she was so glad to be normal weight and how shed never gain it back. Remember when she pull the little red wagon full of fat out? But she always gained it back.

I was often up to 20lbs overweight, and I never lost weight on a diet. I only ever lost weight and/or got fit when my lifestyle changed: my work schedule, type of work, walking, classes on the 4th floor of walk-up buildings, walking the kids to school, treating my high cholesterol with diet (lost 20 lbs and looked swell but cholesterol still over 200) etc. Of course, the flip side is that my lifestyle can change to where I gain weight and lose fitness. That's where I am right now, and my more sedentary lifestyle is accompanied by menopause and hypothyroidism.

I don't follow a self-imposed regimen very well, I need a collateral lifestyle change! I remember my overweight uncle showing me a prescription his doctor wrote for him: "JR must get a dog...and walk it!"

If we're talking diets, it's worth taking a look at the omniheart diet. This version is for health, not weight loss at 2000 cal/day.

Any diet will work while you're doing it. As soon as you stop paying attention to what you're eating, the pounds will inevitably come back. Hence my friend's perpetual WW attendance. She stays with it then will fall off the wagon when stressed, etc......like most people. In the last 15 months she's lost over 40 lbs....doing WW and upping her exercise. Since April she logs at least 10,000 steps on her Fitbit most days. She's always lost weight slowly so she is happy. The points system at WW is basically their version of counting calories.

The bottom line is it's calories in/calories burned whether it's WW, Nutrisystem, Jenny Craig, South Beach, Paleo, Pritikin, Mediterranen, low fat, low carb, etc..

Years ago I was seeing a dr for weight loss. He graduated from Harvard medical school and also had a PhD in biochemistry. I asked him about low fat vs low carb strictly in terms of weight loss, not what's healthier. He said " a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. A thousand calories of lettuce is the same as a thousand calories of Snicker bars. You can lose weight on an all candy bar or pizza or ice cream diet if you burn more calories than you consume." My brother has a PhD in physiology and has always said the same thing.....calories in/calories out.

The people who are successful at keeping the weight off are ever vigilant about what they eat. Most people can't sustain that level of discipline, hence the yo-yo dieting.

Kitty.....I was referring strictly to the "physics" of weight loss (cals in/cals out) not the health part.

Another component not mentioned is emotional eating, which plagues Oprah and many, and has nothing to do with physical cravings or satiety.

Kittymoonbeam.

that leptin diet sounds interesting . Have you followed it or do you know people who followed it and if so what were the results.

maybe I should order the book, and see what it is all about...

Mtn, I think a drastic calorie reduction for a few days is infinitely preferable to months of restricted calorie counting. Some people function better on restricted calories, and there is a good body of evidence that people with severely restricted, long term diets actually live longer and in better shape.

There is a current popular diet called the 5:2, in which people eat "normally" for five days and eat 500 calories for two days each week. This is promoted as a long term lifestyle, not a short term diet. The basic principle behind this is probably similar.

Yes, true, we'd all be healthier on much fewer calories and lower body weights that are considered the norm today. But the point is trying to find things that are doable for people and sustainable, not raising the bar even higher.

The diet you mentioned isn't 600 cal for a few days, but for a few days at regular intervals, presumably indefinitely for weight loss and maintenance. Even with careful planning it's pretty hard to be full on 600 cal.s so it seems punitive which is not usually sustainable. Plus there is a fair amount of new evidence showing that metabolism doesn't really slow down until you have been practically starved to the point of very low body fat. It seems to indicate that people blame a slowing metabolism for a Plateau when, upon closer inspection the fact is is that they are not as vigilant as they once were.

Of course all of the studies have their shortcomings and there's nothing entirely conclusive. Short of incarcerating people it's very hard to know with any accuracy what people are eating or how much they're exercising. They notoriously lie. Not to mention when they follow up with people they"re usually lucky to be able to find half of the original participants in any diet… And guess which half they find? The half that was relatively successful. And sometimes people are reporting their own weight rather than going to a lab, where again they notoriously misrepresent their success.

I agree with you about the lack of success of severely restricted diets that go on indefinitely… That's why I think the more successful approach is for people to find things that don't feel really restrictive but move the dial. The focus should be on changing preferences and habits and psychology.

My belief is that people's bodies react differently to different foods, and hunger symptoms are experienced differently. Maybe it is calorie in/calorie out but I don't think we fully understand what drives some people to eat more than they need and others not to.

My DH, for example, can eat sugar/carbs all day long and never feel hungry. He regularly eats a breakfast of a sugary cereal with fat free milk, lunch of a small sandwich like PB&J and maybe a fruit and a coke, and then comes home and can go til 8 pm before feeling "hungry". And he's got a 32" waist. He's of Asian ancestry, people whose diet historically includes a lot of rice, etc., and not super high in protein, so maybe that effects thing? IDK.

I've never been overweight in BMI, but always feel "skinny fat" and almost always feel like I have 5-10 lbs to lose. If I ate DH's diet, I'd be ravenous and in pain from hunger like 2 hours later. The way that I maintain my weight best is by concentrating on eating foods high in protein and fiber. Eggs with spinach for breakfast. Legumes. Fatty fish. We try to limit meat, but I do have to admit that it works best for me to eat more of it. I feel full longer and consequently eat less. I am also "blessed" with the capacity to eat really a lot of food without feeling uncomfortably full. I try not to test it too often.

I have a mentor who is a figurative giant in his field. Brilliant guy, extremely hard worker, dedicated, and nice to boot. And obese. He is honest that he has been on every diet known and has lost weight, only to gain it back. I've seen pictures of him when he was 8 years old and he was already obese. You can't say that a wildly successful man is lazy and lacks in willpower and that's why he is fat. Same thing with Oprah. Whether you like her or not, you can't honestly say she's a lazy person. Something else going on that we don't understand, IMO.

I don't disagree with much of what,you've said above, :-)

However, I do want to reiterate that the the Katahn diet is one specific, three week cycle in which the 600 calories/ 3 days block is done twice (a week apart)---- not at regular intervals and it need never be repeated. Since it doesn't re-set the metabolism you can lose 15 or 20 pounds and return to a maintenance calorie level (somewhere around 1800-2000 calories for women but dependent of course on activity) without ever doing it again.

The 5:2 diet is promoted as a regular way of eating to maintain weight loss from what I understand. It doesn't appeal to me personally but I have friends who very successfully maintain their weight using this method. It has the benefit of allowing drinks and desserts on the "5" days, which many people either eschew resignedly long term or until they start bingeing again!

I know it isn't popular nowadays to mention the "w" word in relation to diet, because the current thinking is that telling people willpower is necessary is somehow making it their "fault" that they don't lose weight. All the reasons, explanations and justifications aside, if a person can't or won't eat less than s/he takes in, it doesn't matter what the diet or food or calorie counts are. People can, and do, become obese on repeated overdoses of healthy food....ultimately it does come down to willpower.

What interests me is why some people need so much willpower to overcome overeating and others, such as my DH, need none. There are ridiculously successful people who are fat and ridiculously lazy people who are quite thin and never need worry about their weight. I don't think that's been well understood yet.

Kittymoonbeam, your last paragraph is spot on and has been my own experience as well. It's astounding what our brains can be trained or tricked into when it comes to taste. Chemical additives are so dangerous in that regard.

I eliminated sugar - especially high fructose corn syrup - and wheat and have maintained an 80 pound loss for 5 years. It definitely takes a life style change and awareness.

i think i have heard that some people who are on wt watchers 'for years' use it almost as a support group for maintaining their loss, as a 12 stepper might...

oprah's struggle with her wt shows how much of an addiction food can be for some people... here she is, wealthy enough to hire the best of personal trainers, see as many nutritionists as she needs, hire cooks and have the best and most expensive of foods made for her- at home and wherever she might travel to- and she still struggles mightily with her wt-- very 'humbling' for her i would imagine...

"I eliminated sugar - especially high fructose corn syrup"

That has been the key for me as well. No sugar, no high fructose corn syrup and no white flour has worked like a charm for years.

I heard an NPR story about the processed food industry and the thing that struck me is that manufacturers can't significantly reduce salt or sugar or fat because when they do the food tastes terrible. Foods are so filled with chemicals and preservatives that they need heavy doses of sugar and salt to cover up the taste. Yuck.

The other disturbing issue is the experimentation with fat, sugar and salt ratios to come up with the most addictive combination. They truly want you to not "eat just one".

For me, the key to maintaining my weight is heavy protein and constant evaluation of food choices. I don't deprive myself but if I am having a margarita I probably will pass on the brownie and eat it the next day.

I lost 42 pounds 6 years ago and have kept it all off. How - by counting calories.

Asking people to count grams of sugar, or grams of carbs or grams of fat or whatever doesn't work because most people don't know the difference between added sugars and natural sugars, or good carbs and bad carbs or saturated fats and unsaturated fats. It gets complicated.

Most people don't know how to read ingredient lists on packages, they don't know how to read the nutrition labels on packages. Eating healthy, never mind trying to lose weight is a complicated and trying process.

The other complication is that people, when they are trying to lose weight and get healthy, are told to eat better AND exercise. Trying to change two components in your life like that is a huge task and a lot to ask of anyone. My advice to someone is to change one of them first - the one that is easier, the one that you think you will be more successful at and then add the other component.

I have a friend who jumps on the latest band wagon diet, it seems every month she's trying something new, and of course never loses a pound but rather has a steady increase over the years.

I started to lose weight because my blood pressure was high but I already had a well established work-out routine - running three days a week and a conditioning program 3 days a week with a trainer and walking on those three days. (I love to work out and have been a runner for 40 years) I only had to change one component - that of eating.

The best piece of information that I gleaned when researching weight loss was that one pound is 3500 calories and I set a goal of losing a pound a week and so over the course of a week I had to analyze my food intake and find 500 calories a day that I didn't need - starting with that muffin at 10 am that I used to reward myself for having gone for a run or to the gym. I wasn't hungry but rather it was a reward - what a crock.

Anyway 9 months later and 42 pounds and I was done. I still count calories (1600-1700 a day) - it isn't a struggle for me. I might be off base here but I figure if you count calories then the grams of fat and the grams of sugar take care of themselves. Food high in sugar or fat is going to be high in calories per serving so to keep within the calorie count you will eat less of that product or find something healthier to eat.

I never used Weight Watchers or jenny craig and although I recognize that many people feel the need to do so, to me they are a crutch. You're told what and when to eat rather than taking responsibility for yourself. So you reach your goal and then it seems you're cut lose. I'm prepared to be wrong on my interpretation of those programs.

Whoa, got a little carried away. Sorry.

Busybee, that's what I meant about WW. You stay "on WW" for the support-- not for the strict "dieting" aspect of it. For anyone who has ever done WW, you know that once you reach your goal weight, you no longer count point (calories) anymore as long as you stay within a certain weight range. You can then go to the meetings for the emotional support for free. The hope is that you have modified your behavior while losing weight and can now eat and exercise on your own.

Anyway, no weight loss plan is perfect. I just feel like I owe a lot to WW :)

WW is different than Jenny Craig. (My mom has done WW on and off for years). In WW, you count "points" which are roughly comparable to calories. It's either more confusing or less confusing than counting calories, depending on your perspective, IMO. Jenny Craig I think you are supposed to buy and eat their foods. Yuck.

I did try calorie counting a few years ago after my first son was born. It's not right for me. I get a little obsessive. "Is this apple medium or large? Maybe I should cut out the core and weigh it so I know exactly how many grams of apples I am eating. Oh my brand of peanut butter is not listed in the database? Let me find time to enter 15 diff nutrition values from my brand so I get the right numbers." For me, that was not a sustainable attitude towards food. I think that's probably why people like WW more than straight calorie counting, plus the camaraderie.

I don't have personal experience with WW, but I know many doctors suggest it to their patients. Seems like it is more of a lifestyle change, which is key. Also, don't people become lifetime members after they reach goal, but still have to weigh in ever so often? If so, of course people would go for years. And from those I know who have attended, the group support can be very beneficial.

As others have mentioned, what works best for me is limiting the white stuff, eating plenty of veggies and fruits, whole grains, a bit less of meat, cheese and dairy, but I don't not eat those. Moderation is key for me. But it has to be a lifestyle, "diet" is a dirty word.

Butternut - when I first started I was the same way, measuring out a tablespoon of peanut butter or butter, checking out the apple. But in time, figured out that a scoop of peanut butter on my knife was about a tablespoon and more than enough for two pieces of toast, I always count bread as having 100 calories, bananas are always 100 calories, meat is always 200 calories - so over the course of a day I will be high on some things and low on others and so evens out. But yes, some people also find calorie counting restrictive.

For me also, weight loss was a personal journey and I didn't share it with anyone.

C F - I agree, no weight loss plan is perfect and even the one you choose, that works best for you, won't be perfect. What ever leads us to a healthy lifestyle is the best choice.

Now I want to eat the apple and peanut butter I was saving for my snack later this afternoon :)

I did calorie counting for 3 months. I don't know if it was the product of the times (postpartum) or the incessant hunger from nursing or what, but I never got over the perceived need to quantify everything quite exactly. I also cook from scratch a lot and not necessarily a recipe, and so if I made chili with ground turkey, diced tomatoes, onions, garlic, and canned beans (a very simple and common type of recipe for me, but not something I ever do the same way twice), I needed to add all those ingredients up and then measure how many cups of chili I ended up with and how many cups I ate. Very tedious. This may have been ok if I had not then felt like a failure if I was tired and didn't do this calculation one night. I'm sure you behaved more normally and visually estimated the amount of chili you made and how much you ate, or figured that last week's chili was 350 cals so tonight's is probably close even though you used chick peas instead of black beans or whatever.

It did work better for me to just concentrate on eating normal portions of healthy foods and try to maximize protein, fiber, and veggies and eat very small portions of carbs and cheese, and also understanding that I wasn't going to be perfect and was going to eat ice cream and wine and General Tso's chicken with white rice every once in a while.

Then again I never lost those last 7 ish pounds of baby weight in 4.5 years now, so maybe I should go back to it. My apple is probably too big :)

Butternut - you're funny.

And yes, eating normal sized portions was a big part of it for me as well - no more seconds for me!

However, my appetite for dark chocolate and wine definitely keeps me from being "perfect" and for that I am eternally grateful. :)

My daughter is a juvenile diabetic so we are somewhat carb obsessed in this family. What has been a bit eye opening to me is, no matter what carbs she eats, brown rice or white rice, her body still needs the same amount of insulin. The difference of course is that brown rice has nutrients with it. What I had read so very often about glycemic index also seemed to go out the window, as she still needed to take insulin, no matter what. Things got even more interesting the last time we met with the diabetes educator as she noted that even meat can eventually turn into glucose and need insulin so for her to just load up on meat would not be effective for controlling blood sugars. The best I can come up with is health is a very dynamic, complex relationship and what we think we know now will likely change in the future but the more veggies one eats, the better. My wish for the future though is that we could somehow dissociate the concepts of health, weight, beauty, success, character, etc.

tishtoshnm said:

"My wish for the future though is that we could somehow dissociate the concepts of health, weight, beauty, success, character, etc."

If only, tish, if only.

This morning while I was doing my cardio, during that one hour, there were commercials for WW, Jenny Craig, plastic surgery, exercise equipment (ok...for exercise equipment I will cut some slack :-)). The emphasis is on how good we "should" look. We are nobody if we don't look perfect. I think the message is very sad.

"All the advertising to get us to eat the things that make us overweight
and unhealthy and then the advertising for drugs to manage the problems
brought on by those same foods"

Maybe they're owned by the same company.

I'm a lifetime WW member. With about twelve pounds to lose (I am short and small framed, so twelve pounds is a lot extra for me to carry) I joined WW fifteen years ago and reached my goal within six months.

I weigh in monthly. This has kept me honest. I do the basics, but no longer track my points. I can go to as many meetings as I want, free of charge once you hit lifetime.

For me, it's the accountability. I promised myself I would never pay the penalty for going over. And I haven't.

The meetings are a good place to share ideas and struggles with other like minded people. Everyone is perhaps at a different place in the journey, but we are all traveling on the same road. It's encouraging.

Today, at WW they rolled out yet another revision. People were complaining about it! They keep trying to reinvent themselves to attract more clients.

With all the online diets people have so much to choose from. It can be confusing.

For me, it is being mindful of portion control. Adding exercise is a plus and WW does encourage it, but you do not have to exercise at all to lose weight. And, now there are studies that show this.

I still want to know why I can gain a pound over night and it takes me a week to lose it;)

I lost 120lbs in a year (also 6 years ago!). I did WW and exercised like crazy. I haven't kept it all off - it's a constant struggle. But the one thing that struck me the most, was that when I DECIDED to lose weight, it was like a switch had been flipped, like a synapse was connected. I've dieted my whole life (lose 20 gain 40) and never felt the same kind of commitment or motivation as I did when I lost the 120.

I went on a two week vacation to celebrate my success and lost my mojo. I've continued to (on most days) eat healthy and fitness will always be a part of my life but I'm always on the hunt for my brain to "click" again.

Diets don't work because they don't take into account the physiological reasons for why we gain weight. Our brains secretly manage our bodies and all the calorie counting in the world won't change that fact.

Calories in - calories out is still the base line but what happens to the body when you are overweight for many years? Your brain sets a "weight thermostat" that's turned up to it's highest setting and studies have found that it's impossible to turn it back down. So if you lose a bunch of weight, your brain is doing everything it can to pack on the pounds. Scientist have figured out that people who lose a significant amount of weight (50lbs or more) will have to be in maintenance mode forever, taking in a minimum of 500 calories less per day than "normal" people. So basically, I will be that fat girl or have her lurking in the shadows for the rest of my life.

With all that said, I'm back to doing WW. It's a solid program, or at least more successful than most. They changed how the points are calculated - foods with protein have less points while saturated fat and sugar have higher points to encourage more healthy choices. I think it's a great idea.

Kitty,

What do you mean "It's true that it takes a year for your body to remove damaged fat cells that are likely to expand again."?

Everything I have ever read says that fat cells are permanent.

"Once fat cells form, they might shrink during weight loss, but they do not disappear, a fact that has derailed many a diet. Yale researchers in the March 2 issue of the journal Nature Cell Biology describe how — and just how quickly — those fat cells are created in the first place." - 3/2/15

Fat cells are permanent unless they are surgically removed. Science is not a matter of opinion.

I think there is a dieter's "high" that one gets while being successful at weight loss that you just don't experience during maintenance, and that may be part of why it's easier to take off than keep off.

Annie, I think you have something there. The incentive high.

I wish just once I could experience that dieter's "high". Seriously. I just recently came off a 3.5 year quest for weight loss and extreme fitness. During this time, I trained for and completed a 5-day bicycle trip averaging 100 miles per day, a half-marathon (I don't like running so not doing a marathon), and a summit attempt on Mt. Rainier. OK, didn't summit, long story, but made it a good way up. All of these activities required a LOT of exercise including both strength (heavy free weights), aerobic fitness, a strong core, etc. A typical week included a minimum of 15 hours of exercising to a maximum of about 30 hours, depending on how long my hikes/bikes were.

I also had 70# to lose. Less weight is certainly easier to carry both on a bike and up steep mountains. Especially when you're also hauling gear. I did Weight Watchers and, after 4 months of diligence, including weighing everything and inputting it into MyFitnessPal so I was tracking calories, nutrients and points, and lost a total of 4#. I then tried a series of other plans averaging about 3 months on each plan to give it a fair go prior to switching it up. These plans including the Fuhrman Eat to Live, The Leptin, 5:2, Durkan, just plain eating low-fat vegetarian/sometimes vegan meals, green smoothie fasts, low carb. You name it, I think I tried it.

I felt great and could have probably done an Iron Woman competition at the fitness level I had attained. Oh, I would have been in last place but I think I could have completed one. And my attention to my diet's nutritional components also made me feel great.

At the end of these 3.5 years of extreme effort and meticulousness, I lost a grand total of 15#. Before you say that I built a lot of muscle which weighs more so I must have lost a lot of inches. Well, I went down a pant size. So, no, not a big inch loss.

I took a break and am having a hard time getting back on track. I miss being as fit as I was and I feel myself getting weaker and losing endurance and that bugs me a lot but that much exercise just isn't sustainable for me right now. I have too many other obligations that I was neglecting in order to work out that much. And since I worked that hard and didn't achieve my weight loss goal, I just don't know what I can do to lose the weight I still need to lose. I really don't. And it's difficult to muster the commitment to try again when nothing worked before.

And, yes, I have had medical tests run. While my thyroid is on the slow side of normal, it's still in normal ranges. Consequently, everybody seems to think I'm lying about what I'm eating. Heck, I went to weighing food with a digital scale because it's more accurate than measuring spoons/cups. I'm not fudging my intake. And I don't even understand how some people can eat so much. When I eat in restaurants, a fairly rare event, I typically take half of it home for another meal later because I'm stuffed just eating the first half. Even when I was gaining, it was thus.

Frustrating.

Those of you who have had success, great. But don't presume that what you did works for everybody.

"While my thyroid is on the slow side of normal, it's still in normal ranges."

This is a red flag. Have you gone to an endocrinologist or a general physician? There's a big difference. I have Hashimotos and, with medication, I'm within range but can still be symptomatic. I went through two general docs and two endos before I found someone who would listen to me. She was more concerned about my symptoms than my TSH level. Once my symptoms abated and I felt good, my TSH level was on the lower end of the normal range. So that's the level we shoot for.

Oh, and by the way, each laboratory uses a different unit of measurement and reference range when testing for TSH levels. So the number is barely useful.

This isn't something to mess around with, do some research on thyroid disease and find a GOOD Endo.

google michael thurmond diet plan. Read about it. IF you would want to try it, contact me and I will give you the plan for your body. The whole box is on a shelf but I have two scanners so it wouldn't take all that long to scan everything.

oh funkycamper - I feel so bad for you. Been there, done that as well. I don't know why or what happened when I lost my weight but it was almost like, at some point of weight loss, my metabolism kicked back into gear. I was trying to lose leftover baby weight from the baby that was, at the time of my weight loss, 20 years old so it had been around for a long time. I would never suggest counting calories as i did - too many people poo-poo it!

I hear you on the half-marathon vs marathon. I too have run half-marathons but honestly, I'd be looking for a Starbucks out of sheer boredom if I ran a marathon.

I struggled with weight loss after menopause. Suddenly it was just so hard to lose even a pound. But when I needed my gall bladder out, I had to eat as close to no fat as I could get and my weight was dropping like mad. And I felt great. I lost close to 10# and since then have been keeping it off. Not sure if it was toxins pouring into my system from the gb itself or if it was there was simply too much fat in my diet, but I'm pleased.

I second the bit about thyroid issues...it helps to understand what bloodwork is being done, understand the symptoms and understand dosing and have a doctor who pays attention to how you feel.

Funkycamper, I was diagnosed with Hashimoto's 20 years ago. All of my endocrinologists have treated my thyroid issues (and a few goiters along the way) but not the fact that Hashimoto's is an autoimmune disease. Unfortunately in my area, the endos focus more on diabetes and don't seem to know anything about Hashimoto's disease--they're treating my hypo, but not the disease.

While I do not have a big problem with weight (or, not much) I do have other symptoms that are troublesome. They have increased in recent years which coincided with worsening thyroid levels. I used to dismiss some of the radical "thyroid madness" stuff out there but am starting to pay more attention because my current doctor is pretty much useless. I'm searching for someone new, and would encourage you to, also.

One resource I've come across insists the "normal" ranges are so varied from person to person. Your being on the low side of normal may not be what your "normal" should be. I second MagdalenaLee's suggestions. Talk with your endo about your symptoms in addition to your levels. If he/she doesn't listen, find someone new.

I've never read that fat cells are replaced after liposuction. I had lipo done several years ago and have had no changes.

The body adds more fat cells when you gain weight. Extra fat cells aren't needed if there's nothing to store.

The article from NY Times "Study shows fat cells die and are replaced " was my source for some of my information . I found it searching 'do fat cells die?' Most of the articles I found were from 2008 based on Swedish research. I never found a source for fat cells growing fewer in number which I heard years before.

After trying to find answers, I just don't have the scientific background to read most of the research. It's very complicated and after reading other discussions on it, I didn't find a simple answer. I deleted my previous comments as what other people said was accurate. Thanks everyone for clearing it up.

Sorry for the confusion.