Wednesday, 14 January 2009

Zero Points & the arguments that follow it.

Why is it that when people see zero points they go mental? Is it some kind of secret code that when read, activates a lost prehistoric synapse in the brain, triggering neurons to fire a signal that says 'WARNING! Don't trust.. '

Okay, maybe I have made more questions for myself with why prehistoric man had a synapse that warned them of zero points.. You never know; Pterodactyl may have been lower in points than Tyrannosaurus Rex. Water was free back then too, not sure about diet coke though. (Before anyone feels free to comment, yes I know they were all in 3 different epochs, nice try x)

I don't know why I go off subject so easily.. It's like 'yes the possibility of badgers rising up from their burrow & becoming our lords thus enslaving the human race is..oooh something shiny'. See? Done it again.

Back to the point.. & this is my opinion by the way, no research or owt, just my thoughts.

Zero points, just to clarify, does not mean zero calories. But you find a lot of people who think this & it gets confusing for the new members (& the old members). Every foodstuff has calories in.

What zero points means is that the calorific content is so negligible to be rendered free.. Therefore, the calories inside it don't affect you.

Take Robinsons No Added Sugar drink (No Added Sugar is a bit of a misnomer as the fruit juice in it will have some kind of sugar fom the fruit, say fructose, but in all honesty I only wrote that in to defend the comments I may get saying it's false x), this has caused unbelievable amount of confusion, distress etc on the boards.. 'It isn't free!' 'Don't drink it!' 'Warning!' ad infinitum.

But if you look on the parts of the bottle it says: 20 servings per bottle, 8 calories per 100 ml concentrate, no sats fat.. So for 100ml of concentrate (not dilute) is 8 cals.

Right, to dilute it you add 1 part concentrate to 4 parts water, so just say 50ml equals a concentrate (you see, 20 servings in a 1000ml bottle = 50ml per serving) & you make up a 250 ml drink.. 50ml equals 4 calories. So in essence you are drinking 4 calories, you burn more calories in a day blinking.

But that is a bit of maths, the fun part is the confusion & arguments that lead from actually pointing free stuff..

Why are we attempting to rubbish WeightWatchers by contradicting a list they gave us? Free foods & drinks is a saviour, we get pleasure from knowing that this is 'free', & zero points means we can drink something other than water & not get bored. We can eat vegetables until we turn into one.. So why are people so desperate to not have free stuff? Why are we trying to eek out a half a point from something that is so negligible that it MUST count? That that half a point is the scourge of not losing weight 'it must be the No Added Sugar drink.. It lied!!'

I have an idea, when attempting to point a 'free item', how about eating a little more healthier.. so instead of having a Big Mac, have a Subway. Or instead of treating yourself to chips, have a baked potato or new potatoes? Or try to reduce your meals by half a point to see if that makes a difference? Instead of stopping eating or drinking something as it has calories in. That way you reduce your points by the stuff that counts, not the stuff you shouldn't count.

If Weight Watchers turn around & say 'okay, you have to point EVERYTHING, nothing is free' there would be a riot. But people seem to be wanting to point stuff that a scientifically approached evidence based company have said are free.

I wish I could answer it to be honest, because if I could, I would get a Nobel Prize.

No comments:

Post a Comment