Slimming World: can someone please explain the science behind so called food optimising?

[jasper]

I keep hearing about SW, mostly good reports from those following the plan.
I have looked into it but can't get my head around how it can work.

I know the red and green day "rules" but don't understand how it can go against what I had thought was accepted wisdom re. weight loss.

Namely you must take in fewer calories then you expend .

Following SW eating guidelines I would easily scoff more than the 1600 or so calories I KNOW I must not exceed to lose weight.

Please can someone explain.

it is a mystery, I lost 2 stone last year on SW and ate like a pig!

Do not question the science, believe it and be thankful it's a miracle

i used to be a slimming world consultant - it is calorie controlled - if you limit green food and eat red you take in fewer calories and vice versa, than if you eat both at the same meal.

for example - you cant eat a whole plate of meat (I couldn't anyway, without feeling stuffed) so you would have some veg with your meat on the same plate - which is lower in calories than having, say rice with it. It limits calorie intake in the protein and carbs without you really realising it. And it focuses mainly on low calorie foods which are free or superfree.

Does this help?

When I have done it and eaten around 1600-2100 cals a day, its enough to lose weight still, without having the head fuck of counting every single calorie.

I did check the cals, as didnt trust myself or the plan, much like you.

It certainly does work though

also, there is a huge difference in eating 2100 cals a day of good foods and 2100 cals of crap

Not really though, as a calorie is calorie, no matter where it comes from.

The new sw plan also mixs carbs and protein.

but does a calorie of fat stay as fat and a calorie as carb then processed in a different way?

thanks for your replies so far.
Red I did suspect that this is how it would work in practice but in reality I know I could quite comfortably overeat on either red or green.

In many discussions I have had with people they claimed to indeed have overeaten while sticking to either red or green, and still lost weight.

I just can't see how this could happen! (but wish it could)

surely purely in terms of weight loss, it does not matter whether you eat 2100 cals of healthy foods or 2100 0f unhealthy?

The first should make you feel better , if not thinner surely?
Ie what Divvy says

More help please!

Divvy - you are right in that a calorie is a calorie - but the difference is - 400cal of chocolate contains FAR more FAT than 400cal of veg - so thats how the plan works.

Do you understand now?

thanks again red.
But my point is does it matter whether you get , say 400 cals as pure fat , or as veg , PURELY IN TERMS OF WEIGHT LOSS

Obviously 400 cals of chocolate is not very filling , and 400 cals of veg is a heaped plateful, but in terms of weight loss the results are surely identical?

..but if you eat 400 cals of high fat food, it will be less food, than 400 cals of low fat food....but...wont you stay feeling fuller for longer?

Dont fat make you feel fuller on less?

Sorry I don't know exactly how it work but i can assure you that it does.

Here's my food diary for a typical day last week. I eat huge amounts and still lost 4 1/2lb last week. I only have half a stone to go until target and a bmi of 25.5 so i'm not massivley fat at the moment.

With this lot below I still had 2 syns left and one dairy healthy extra so I could have had 3 baby bel light cheeses as well.

Red day
Breakfast - muller light, banana, 2 weetabix with milk from 350ml skimmed allowance

Snack - apple, 2 satsumas, sugar free jelly

Lunch - 2 slice nimble bread, 3 low fat sausages, 3 rashers bacon and 2 eggs srcambled

Dinner - shepherds pie made with lean mince and topped with mashed swede instead of potato.Carrots & green beans. Another mullerlight. 2 X 175ml glasses of white wine.

Snack - frozen grapes.

Jasper...
ok....
400cals chocolate wouldn't take much chewing right? whereas 400cals veg would take some getting though. Well, chewing burns calories, as does the digestion of that food - so, as an example that I do know of, a strawberry is, say 4 calories (I don't know exactly how many it is so please don't inundate me with the exact figure), well digesting that strawberry takes more than 4cals, taking into account chewing it and the body digesting it. whereas 4cals of chocolate is so small, miniscule even, that you wont need to chew it, and the body would hardly notice it being there, so it would use very little energy in actually digesting it.

So, if we go back to our 400cals of veg = huge plateful = muchos chewing = muchos digesting = greater calorific burn
400cals chocolate = little chewing = little time in digesting = small calorific burn.

So, while you should lose weight on limiting calories if you were only eating chocolate, it would be faster by eating healthier because the body has to work harder to expell it. Also, from what I understand, fat is different to calories anyway - it was a long time since i did my training, but I always understood it, that if you didn't burn the calories - or energy, then it would be deposited as fat - wheras if you only eat fatty foods, that fat will be deposited and would have to burned off - which is harder, and far more unhealthier.

does that help some more?

Jasper - like the others, I have no idea how it works but I lost 3 stone in 2006 and stayed like that until the last few months when I was pregnant.
So - I don't know how a car works but it I drive it, I don't know how Slimming World works but I followed it and got back to a size 12. Hurrah!

^^^ I like that saying

I think another reason slimming world works is that because you can eat so much normal food, plus a few treats and you can fit your diet days in with normal life and even eating out that you are far less likely to cheat or give in than if you are following a diet which has a lot more restrictions.

Have you seen the new Extra Easy diet on slimming world where you can eat potatoes with your meat, a bit of a mixture of red and green days?

Thanks all, I really appreiate you taking time to reply.
Will give this thought(esp Red's bit about fat going on as fat ) and post later - perhaps after some chocolate...

SW never worked for me, despite sticking to it rigidly. I was told to eat less bananas , which I did.....but still didn't lose anything.

This has happened 3 times, and I have had my money back. I know other people who have had the same experience.

Interesting to be told it's about calories, SW consultant always used to say it wasn't about calories. I used to find it really annoying, that there seemed to be some sort of magic formula which everyone could access except me

interesting Fizz.
That was what was bugging me about all the discussions - they seemed to imply the SW method transcended the laws of physics!

Red, I don't think it is true that fat in foods go straight onto your body as fat and have to be burned off. Is it not the case that all foods have an energy value (calories being the units ) , it's just that fat is more energy dense than carbs or protein? and ANY excess calories in your diet get stored as fat, no matter what type of food the excess calories came from?

Any other comments/experiences would be most appreciated