var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
June 18, 2009 5:51 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

That's really funny, since 6'10 is not that unusual a height. 7'10 or something I could understand FUBARing their system but not 6'10.

Reply
12 replies
\"user-pic\"
Brain.wav
June 18, 2009 7:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81:
Wolfram Alpha to the rescue
According to WA, 6'4\" is pusing the 99% range for American adults, making over that to be less than 1% of the population.
So, yeah, 6'10\" is very rare.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Brain.wav
June 18, 2009 7:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Brain.wav:
Crap, I realized I should have been more precise.
American Male adult height
Still not far off, except that the 99% distribution is 5.1 to 6.5 feet (6'6\").

I also just realized that I parsed the first graph as feet and inches, not feet with a decimal.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
June 18, 2009 7:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Brain.wav: I just know over the course of my lifetime, I've heard of a fair number of people that are that height. I agree it is rare, but I didn't think it was so rare it would crash Weight Watchers system.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SabyneWired
June 18, 2009 7:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: Funny you ask that. I actually do have a good friend who is 6'10\". It's sad though, because there's a lot of people who think his being that tall makes it okay to ask him incredibly stupid questions. (\"How's the weather up there?\" comes to mind.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
donjumpsuit
June 18, 2009 6:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: So your 6'10\". Its time to remove \"body conscience\" from your repertoire. None of us mere mortals can determine if your overweight because we all are staring at your belly button most of the time. I think I am out of my league when suggesting to anyone over 6'5\" \"you should loose about 10 pounds\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dangermike
June 18, 2009 6:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@donjumpsuit: actually, everyone staring at his belly button is probably exactly why he wants to slim down a bit!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
June 18, 2009 6:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: You mean 5'10\" isn't that tall right? I mean even 6'4\" isn't too common.


Also. perhaps if he called they would help... You can't just try the website and give up.


Plus OP, J \"tiny\" J, 280 isn't bad at all for that height.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
June 18, 2009 6:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Lo-Pan: 6'4\" is common among us corn-fed midwesterners! In fact, 50% of the men I live with are 6'4\"!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
verdantpine
June 19, 2009 11:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): I second this!

I grew up in the Midwest... full of self-pity for being so short. Then I went to college in New England and realized that 5'5 is actually slightly above average for a woman. Plenty of the guys I met out there were the same height as me.

My brother is 5'11 and complains about being \"short\". We both went to school with plenty of folks in the 6'6 and up range.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
June 18, 2009 6:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): I hope not Mr. McGee, that baby must have been a whopper ;).


Ok, 6'4\" may be kind of common, but I think we can all agree that 6'10\" isn't. not yet at least.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
June 18, 2009 6:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Lo-Pan: Also, my husband at 6'4\" was totally used to being the tallest guy in the room, until he moved to the midwest, and he got a bit of a complex about it now that he works in a 15-lawyer office and two of them are taller than him. Then my sister started dating this guy who was 6'10\" and my husband was visibly uncomfortable because he is NEVER the shorter person in the conversation ... let alone the shorter person by six entire inches. :D

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Framling
June 18, 2009 10:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): I'm about 6'5\" myself, and it's always reeeeally weird meeting someone taller than me.


Think about it this way: if you're short, you're going to see people taller than you all the time. You're also going to see people shorter than you all the time, just by virtue of everyone starting out short, as a kid. But if you're a tall fella, odds are good you'll hardly ever run into anyone taller than you.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
June 18, 2009 8:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Heh, thats how I felt. I'm 6'3\" so im usualy the tallest. Then I went to work for a company where out of 10 guys, 5 were above 6' and 2 were 6'6\", our sister company had 2 guys over 7' we it was scary. lol

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SpruceStreetPhil - in a new Pine flavor
June 18, 2009 8:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: I'm 6'5\" and I get this problem where I not recognize my height after a while when around people I know. So when I see someone that is even a little shorter than me I go in my mind \"Man, he's pretty tall.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pagan_god
June 18, 2009 9:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

a href=\"#c13710035\">GuidedByLemons: I am 6'10\", and I was able to look this up previously-- it is in the .001% range for the US. One of the Norse countries had a greater proportion of tall people, but even there, it was still very uncommon.


That's probably where the problem kicks in-- I weigh 180-185. Once in my life, I got up to about 200, and I really didn't look all that different than I did at 170. The same 30 pound difference on a 5'10\" guy is going to be huge.


Frankly, of all the things that *don't* fit due to my height, I don't know that this is where I'd start my crusade.


I'd probably make exit row seating on airplanes be my rallying point-- it's very simple, tallest person on the flight gets first pick of seats. So sick of seeing 5' women in the exit row because the normal seats are too crowded.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
June 18, 2009 6:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Lo-Pan: Mr. McGee is 6'4\", baby McGee is 1'9\". :D (And, indeed, tall man + short woman = uncomfortably large baby. Not large on an absolute scale, but large for me!)

But yeah, I know a LOT of men over 6 feet, and a surprising number over 6'5\". I'm sure it's a combination of modern nutrition and ethnic inheritance in the midwest. I only know two who are 6'10\", though.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bibliophibian
June 18, 2009 6:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): As an almost 6' woman living in a city where the average (male) height is ~5'7\", I have to ask: Are any of them single and employed? (Help a sister out!) (c;

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
June 18, 2009 7:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bibliophibian: My sister's ex-boyfriend? :D

My sister feels your pain, she's 5'11\".

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
June 19, 2009 12:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!):

Here's a question for you...why do men over six feet always date women who are five feet tall? What are us tall (5'11\" too here) supposed to do? Short men won't date us!

That is so annoying!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mm1970
June 24, 2009 6:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HogwartsAlum:


I'm 5'2\" and I dated a guy in college who was 6'8\".


Don't worry, he married someone who was closer to 5'9\" or 5'10\", but my spouse is 6'. So...??


OTOH, our good friend the doctor is 5'6\", and his wife is taller than he is.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
June 19, 2009 1:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HogwartsAlum: LOL, I'll ask my husband.

But I know lots of short guys who date taller women (not, like, a 5-foot guy with a 6-foot woman, but a 4 inch height difference isn't uncommon).

If I were as tall as you, I'd wear nothing but 3\" heels, I swear to God. :) Grass is greener, I suppose.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
June 19, 2009 1:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!):

Send those guys here!!!!

I NEVER wear heels. They kill my back, which I hurt several years ago. I'm trying to get in better shape, so it doesn't go out so much. And I look better in my skating dresses, LOL. One thing I like about skating is it's me on a huge sheet of ice, which makes me look smaller!

I'll trade you...or at least give you some height so we even out a little bit. :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jim Topoleski
June 18, 2009 6:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Yeeeaaaahhh I'm not touching this one with a 6'10\" pole.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GuidedByLemons
June 18, 2009 6:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: Less than a hundredth of a percent of American adults are over 6'8\". I can't even find statistics for 6'10\".

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Veeber
June 18, 2009 6:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: Wow you must have lots of tall friends. I don't think I personally know anyone over 6'6

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Franklin Comes Alive!
June 18, 2009 5:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81:

Are you joking? Do you know what percentage of people are that tall? I'll admit I don't, but I'd wager it's a very, very small number.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
redskull
June 18, 2009 6:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Franklin Comes Alive!: Yeah, I'm 6' even and people are constantly asking me to reach stuff for them.

One time I was walking through a JC Penney's and a lady asked me if I could reach a sweater for her that was on a hangar a good 12 feet high. I guess in her mind \"taller than me = same height as a building.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Franklin Comes Alive!
June 18, 2009 6:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Franklin Comes Alive!:

My Google skills aren't good enough to figure out, but I have seen statistics like .02% of males are taller than 6'7\". So I'd guess something like .001% are 6'10\" or higher.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
shepd
June 18, 2009 5:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Perhaps they are being honest? I can imagine they really have tailored their offerings to squat overweight people, since that's probably their primary market.

Do you really want to be their guinea pig?

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
oneliketadow
June 18, 2009 6:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shepd: Doesn't BMI standardize the formula so that you know if someone is fat regardless of their height?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
shepd
June 18, 2009 7:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@oneliketadow:

BMI? You mean the thing that's based on mid 19th century French soldier body types, right?

[www.morris.umn.edu]

Why do doctors still take that thing seriously?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
June 18, 2009 9:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shepd: that's.... messed up! i never heard of that guy and already i don't like him. thanks for sharing

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Alys Brangwin: Future grad student
June 18, 2009 8:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shepd: Insurance companies do and they really run the show.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Ratty
June 18, 2009 6:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@oneliketadow: BMI is not an accurate measurement of if someone is fat or not.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
June 18, 2009 6:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ratty: Not at all, it doesn't take into account what kind (muscle/fat) of weight you're carrying only the numbers.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dohtem
June 18, 2009 6:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Lo-Pan: It also doesn't take a woman's badonkadonk into account.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dwb
June 18, 2009 5:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Does anyone out there know why they have a height limit?

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
June 18, 2009 6:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dwb:

Yeah, I'd guess BMI calculations don't work correctly for someone 6'10\". We already know they don't work correctly for someone that is muscular...someone of that height is going to have a LOT more musculature than someone 5'10\".

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
June 18, 2009 8:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: BMI charts also don't work if you have greater than usual bone density. i had to take corticosteroids as a kid to deal with an autoimmune blood disease and it messed with my bones.
once i hurt my leg and my tibia got chipped instead of breaking.

now every time i go to the doctor - if it's a new doctor or a new assistant/nurse, when they weigh me they put the bar where they expect my weight to be. then they look at me, and move it. and look at me and their eyes get wider and then they move it some more...
i never ever pay any attention to what the rest of the world says i 'ought' to weigh, hehe

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheWillow
June 18, 2009 6:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: They don't work for short people either - I had one that actually said \"Your height is incorrect for this age group\" then tell me I'm actually 14.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Maous
June 18, 2009 5:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dwb: Best bet is due to BMI calculations.
Thats all I can think of for this.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Spaceman Bill Leah
June 18, 2009 6:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I use fitday.com. It doesn't tell you what to eat (I don't think) but you log what you do eat and it gives you a full nutritional profile. Plus there are a bunch of other nifty tools for exercise and weight management. Also, it's free.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
June 18, 2009 6:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Spaceman Bill Leah: fitday, like every other program but the US gov't's \"My Pyramid\" won't provide data for pregnant or nursing women, despite that data being readily available from the feds (same as is used elsewhere in fitday).

My fitday is currently bitching at me for my calorie intake with the extra breastfeeding calories.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Spaceman Bill Leah
June 18, 2009 6:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Weird. I didn't even realize that. I just kind of gave up on it while knocked up. Entering in all the Second Breakfasts and Other Lunches got a little tedious after a while.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
June 18, 2009 6:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Spaceman Bill Leah: I know, it's like being a Hobbit!

But you'd think that since they just base it on the \"my pyramid\" reccommendations ANYWAY they could at least provide an adjusted calorie counter for breastfeeding. I can get why they don't want to be giving people \"diet advice\" while pregnant (although if they're just using the USDA guidelines, it's probably still fine), but during breastfeeding? Come on.

I thought about telling it I was doing 500 calories of running a day (for the breastfeeding) and then fooling with my input numbers to get the right number of input calories to support the breastfeeding, but I decided it was all just too much trouble. (And then I'd have to fool with my calcium and iron requirements, to get the right \"high\" amounts for breastfeeding, etc. etc. etc.)

But it's very frustrating. I would like to eat healthy now more than ever! Come on, internet, give me useful tools!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kaceetheconsumer
June 19, 2009 1:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): The best advice I heard when breastfeeding and feeling extra fatty-fat (in large part because nobody would let me have my much-needed metformin) was to relax and not worry about it, since your hormonal levels during breastfeeding make your body want to retain extra water and fat anyway.

Seriously, get out with the wee bub in the stroller when you can because that's good for both of you (assuming you don't live in a pollution hellzone), and don't punish yourself for anything beyond that. You are going to be tired for months and months. Rest is as important to weight management as dieting.

Baby loves Mama in any size. :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
June 19, 2009 2:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kaceetheconsumer: I'm not actually worried about losing the weight (actually, I had a difficult c-section recovery and a freaking barracuda of a baby ... I'd lost all the baby weight in 14 days. I thought I was going to DIE. We're now working on bar exam weight (and the loss has leveled out to a far more slow, healthy rate). Go baby go!). I'm worried about eating healthy, getting enough calcium and eating enough vegetables and keeping us both healthy!

(And I've still got three weeks before I'm allowed to do ANYTHING because of the C-section. I have to wait for my husband to lift the empty stroller down the stairs even!)

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Malkin
June 18, 2009 6:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

www.sparkpeople.com is free and a wonderful alternative to WW online.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Bathmat
June 18, 2009 7:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Malkin: They're nice, but a little crazy cult-ish, to be honest. Very helpful to the noobie dieter though.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
greyer
June 18, 2009 7:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Malkin: Just started this week, and it's turning out to be very useful. I like the flexibility and choices the meal planner offers, too. Lots of marketing-type email from them so far, but it might be a one-time thing.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cheepers
June 18, 2009 6:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Malkin: I love SP!!! You can actually track calories, carbs, fat, protein, sodium, etc, unlike WW which gives you \"points.\" If I'm taking the time to track things, I might as well have real numbers.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Bryan Fernandez
June 18, 2009 6:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

A 6.10 person on average, even if skinny, probably will weigh a lot compared to us normies. I'm guessing WW know that there's only so much weight a person that tall can lose without going anorexic.

Reply
1 replies
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Trickery1
June 18, 2009 6:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Maybe they do not accept people that are that tall out of fear of telling them to do something that may be unhealthy? They do tell you to contact a doctor first, so who knows!

I mean, at '6.10 you might be as rare as someone that weighs 800 pounds! Someone try to put 800 pounds on the Weight Watchers website and see if they accept you! Haha!

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Brunette Bookworm
June 19, 2009 3:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trickery1: I was assuming something along those lines. At 6'10\" you would likely be an outlier on the height of people signing up. It's annoying, but automated systems are built for the averages. When you fall outside of the three standard deviations, it's harder to account for you.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
cynicgrl
June 18, 2009 6:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I believe they have the same issues with too-short people, too.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
TheWillow
June 18, 2009 6:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@cynicgrl: Awesome, that'll be my next excuse for not using them!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
June 18, 2009 6:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't think Weight Watchers is discriminating. Very few people are that height, and it's hard to plan a system for people who fit outside the norm. Weight Watchers probably deemed it unprofitable or inefficient to spend resources designing a program for a very small population of people who may or may not use their services to begin with.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
June 18, 2009 6:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: But they took his money last year ... that's what's weird.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shadowfire
June 18, 2009 7:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): I noticed that as well... I wondered if maybe in the following year, WW realized that their guidelines for people that tall simply didn't work, or were dangerous.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
oneliketadow
June 18, 2009 6:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: So yes, that's discrimination.

discrimination (n) - the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually

What you meant is that they aren't doing it because they hate tall people.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shadowfire
June 18, 2009 6:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: et al... maybe it is simply dangerous? People that tall have different nutritional demands than the \"average\" (as do really short people). There's no ADA argument here.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
takes_so_little
June 18, 2009 6:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: You could use those exact same arguments to deny access to the disabled, were it not for the ADA.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
June 19, 2009 2:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@takes_so_little:

they probably just don't have information for BMI at that height. None of the BMI charts I can find go over 6' 4\". They use BMI to set weight goals. Previously, when you set goals at WW, they'd let you pick the weight. Now, they use BMI to help them keep anorexics and other eating disorder folks out of the mix.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Megalomania
June 18, 2009 10:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@takes_so_little: well, sure, if the ADA let you complain that your neighborhood vet couldn't take care of your tiger. They probably updated their system since the previous year and don't believe it works well enough to provide nutritional information to people who are almost a foot over the national average. \"They refuse to give me advice that they aren't qualified to give!\" is not a valid claim under the ADA.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ganmerlad
June 18, 2009 6:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It goes up to 6'8\" and down to 4'5\"
[www.weightwatchers.com]

I bet they simply aren't motivated to do calculations for tall people that are a small percentage of the general population, and as for the shortness limitation, they are doing their best to avoid catering to children (and lawsuits). Just a guess though.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
June 18, 2009 7:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ganmerlad: I tried putting information for someone who is 6'8 and it wouldn't calculate. It just spit out the same information as the OP got. I got it down to 6'6 and 279 lb. I tried 4'5 too and it wouldn't go through.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
June 18, 2009 6:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Unless he has spoken to a live person, it's a bit premature to complain. The online system obviously has parameters built in, and that's an automated message. Since Weight Watchers obviously HAS helped him in the past, it seems very likely they're still willing and able to do so. He just needs to call someone, or go see someone.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
zacwax
June 18, 2009 6:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

if you have done the program before, why bother paying for the service again. Just repeat what you learned

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
HFC
June 18, 2009 6:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@zacwax: You're assuming he actually learned something.

Of course, I'm assuming JJ is a man. Good God, I hope this is a man.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
June 18, 2009 6:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HFC: Or at least a hottie that I could climb like a drinken monkey...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
June 18, 2009 6:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HFC: If JJ is a woman, I hope she is good at basketball.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
iambeaker
June 18, 2009 6:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have found ediets.com to be very helpful.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
chiieddy
June 18, 2009 6:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Try sparkpeople.com. It's free.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
chiieddy
June 18, 2009 6:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheWillow: BMI is terribly inaccurate in the 5'0\" range as well. It doesn't at all consider body shape.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
greyer
June 18, 2009 7:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chiieddy: It's wildly off for a lot of taller people, too. I'm 6'3\" and the BMI tells me I should be 195 when my ideal weight is 230. The BMI is downright dangerously off often enough it should be scrapped.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DefineStatutory
June 18, 2009 8:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@greyer:


Just had that conversation with my doctor a week ago...I'm 6'1\" and he wants me to be at 220, so I need to lose a couple lbs, but my BMI is around 182 if I recall right.


Let's see, doctor says lose 6-9 lbs, BMI says to lose 40...yeah, that seems about right. Oh...and by the BMi chart, I'm obese. yikes.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
varro
June 18, 2009 9:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DefineStatutory: Yeah, who are you going to listen to - your doctor, or a website ad that promises you to lose 40 pounds by following \"one simple rule\"?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheWillow
June 18, 2009 6:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chiieddy: Yep. Pretty much - if you're short, it must mean you haven't hit puberty yet... or something.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
calquist
June 18, 2009 6:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Now, I don't see it on the screen saying that it is his height that is the reason for not being accepted. Maybe I am missing something, but could there be another reason for the rejection?

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
bibliophibian
June 18, 2009 6:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@calquist: Read the orange text. \"The information you have provided indicates that your height falls out of the general criteria\" etc etc.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HFC
June 18, 2009 6:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@calquist: Read the red paragraph, where the X is, in the image.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
calquist
June 18, 2009 7:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HFC: @bibliophibian: Oh man, I even read that too. My brain is functioning at Friday 4:30pm when it is not nearly close enough to that time.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Tamsen Snyder McMahon
June 18, 2009 6:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What kills me about this (as a Weight Watchers Leader) is that it's not the program that can't help someone 6'10\" (it can), it's a total failure of the online tools.

What a simple thing that should be to fix!

But, after that online \"reception,\" why would JJ ever want to go into a meeting room or try again?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Dethzilla
June 18, 2009 6:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Maybe they're saying is you're tall... and Fat, you got other issues to deal with.


I think the guy should just totally go with the 6'6 diet plan. Sure, they'll assume he's short and chunky but the plan should work in theory.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
June 18, 2009 6:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What isn't clear from the article is whether he consulted Weight Watchers online last year or actually walked into their store. If you go to one of their offices, do they usually have people who could do some evaluations? Maybe they just don't have that process set up on the website?

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
June 18, 2009 7:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Maybe they've found that their programs for very tall and very short people doesn't work so they stopped offering it rather than deal with the complaints?

Eh...

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
gglockner
June 18, 2009 7:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm lifetime with Weight Watchers. I attend meetings and also use the online tools.

The online tools have issues; this is just one of them. A quick email to customer service should fix this. Meantime, I have found that I am much more successful when I attend meetings than when I try to use the online tools alone. I think this is pretty common.

Finally, the healthy weight guidelines are based on BMI. Your doctor or a Weight Watchers leader can help you determine your healthy weight.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Nighthawke
June 18, 2009 8:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Their height/weight tables are based on the FDA tables for body mass. They reach the 6'7\" mark and do not take into consideration bone mass and frame size.
I'm 6'5\" and large framed, making me appear to be a giant. The tables have my weight at around 215-225. With my massive frame, I'd look almost emaciated. Draw your own conclusions with your own tables or look for plus height/size groups that have modified tables for us giants or near-giants.

Oh, and it would not hurt to consult a certified dietitian too.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
mistifi
June 18, 2009 8:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I despise BMI calculations. They made us do them in high school as part of health class and at the beginning and end of the year in gym. Mine always said that I was very nearly obese. I'm nothing of the sort.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
CFinWV
June 18, 2009 9:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So, did you call customer support to find out what's up or did you just immediately run here to bitch? Where's the rest of the story?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jennifer Chase De Moraes
June 18, 2009 9:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

They might have a height vs weight ratio limit to prevent people who are in an average weight for that height from going under weight with diet, and/or contributing to loosing too much weight.

It also looks like they are avoiding the liability of helping people with eating disorders such as Bulimia or Anorexia. 280 for someone who is over 6 feet tall actually seems like the average, healthy weight. TONE dont diet. Problem solved!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
aixwiz
June 18, 2009 9:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

JJ, You're not the victim of height-ism (can't believe I said that), you've run into the problem of being outside of the range that medical statistics has documented. My wife runs into the same problems because she's shorter than the lowest height on their charts (Wife: 4'3\"; chart 4'6\").

When it comes to getting on a diet or other programs that deal with human physiology, the group running the program consults charts that were originally compiled in the 1940s-60s. The researchers came up with a range of heights that fit 99% of the population and, sadly, there weren't enough people of your height to allow for a statistically significant sample.

It's unfortunate that they don't try to extrapolate to help people on the far ends of the spectrum of humanity. I'd recommend talking with your doctor and see if they can help you.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
realserendipity
June 18, 2009 9:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

A quick google search found me this info, maybe just add a point or three more for being over 5'10.


\"Considering you are inquiring about how many points allowed per day, I am assuming you plan to follow the \"Flex Plan\" (there are two options- Flex and Core).


To find your daily points allowance, give yourself the number of points listed next to the option that fits your situation best:


Your sex:
If you are female- score 2 points
If you are male- score 8
If you are nursing- score 12


Your age:
17 to 26- score 4
27 to 37- score 3
38 to 47- score 2
48 to 58- score 1
Over 58- score 0


Your current weight:
Enter the first 2 digits of your weight in pounds. If you are 175 lbs for example, you would enter \"17\".


Your height:
under 5'1\"- score 0
5'1\" to 5'10\"- score 1
Over 5'10\"- score 2


Your activity level on most days of the week, how do you spend your day?:
sitting down- score 0
occassionally sitting, but mostly standing- score 2
walking most of the time- score 4
doing physically hard work most of the time- score 6


Add up all your scored points- that is your daily points target. \"

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
PsiCop
June 18, 2009 10:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@realserendipity:

Just so you know, as of January 2009, the \"Core Plan\" is no more. They now have the \"Momentum Plan,\" which is basically the old Flex Plan, but with some items earmarked as \"filling foods\" which you can eat until you're full for a particular number of points (rather than having the points decided by portion size).

The Week 6 booklet (IIRC) explains this added distinction. Prior to that, the new \"Momentum Plan\" is all but identical to what used to be Flex.

This means that everyone in WW is counting points. They've done away with the no-point-count option. This may be because they have trademarked the word \"POINTS\" and may be getting ready to enforce that trademark in court ... they don't want to have a defense be, \"But 'points' aren't intrinsic to the WW business, you can be in it, but not count points.\"

That's just my guess, but from everything I've seen, it's the best explanation I know of for what they've done.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
PsiCop
June 18, 2009 10:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is probably due to their reliance on the BMI, which is ... well, imperfect at best, and way off the mark at worst. I'm on WW at the moment and am well on my way to my \"goal weight,\" which was set by my doctor rather than the default BMI guidelines, which are much lower than my doctor thinks is realistic or even desirable. (Her exact words were, \"There's no reason for you to look like a Holocaust survivor.\")

At 6'10\" and currently 280, the advice to consult a doctor is very good. No way should you have to strive for whatever ludicrously-low weight the BMI charts demand. That said, you don't set a goal weight upon joining WW. Your first goal is a 5% weight loss, then another 5% to reach a 10% loss, and only then is a goal weight established. So you have probably a few weeks to figure that out.

I suspect if you call their 800 number and talk to someone, they'll try to get you signed up somehow. The orange words do say that your height makes you \"ineligible to sign up online,\" ... it does not say you are \"ineligible to join WW at all.\"

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
veronykah
June 18, 2009 10:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Have any of you with issues with the BMI tried tried the army fitness calculator?
It gives you a % body fat after filling in your sex height, weight, neck, waist and hip measurements.
I'm curious if its still off. The BMI and this one are both spot on for me.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
June 19, 2009 12:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I know exactly what weight I look and feel best at (my current weight is NOT it, but I have stopped weighing myself because it's too confusing. When I started skating, I put on muscle and the scale actually went up.

So I use the Little Black Dress method. When the LBD fits again, that's my goal weight.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Gonzobot
June 19, 2009 1:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

You mean a weight loss program actually erred on the side of 'not endangering human life' and YOU ARE MAD ABOUT IT?

If you're that tall, you have special needs for healthcare (and likely, footwear). You're not going to get around it. WW is intended to make money off stupid people who don't know how to eat right and exercise - they're looking for the 'average' person. The average tall (6'6, say) person won't have the same obesity issues (or solutions!) as a 5-footer because they have a vastly different metabolism.

WW tells you that you need to talk to your doctor first - have you? Because they're not telling you that simply because your height goes above their cutoff line - its because weight loss is a medical procedure, and WEIGHT WATCHERS IS NOT A DOCTORS.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
urallnutz
June 19, 2009 1:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have a friend who has the opposite problem and couldn't sign up for ww.com. she could attend meetings with a doctors note that has an acceptable safe weight. When she spoke to someone at ww they told her that it had to do with the website and the BMI calculator and the way it figures points. They said that once you go under a certain height or over a certain height it skews the numbers and its not 100% to be safe so I guess they are playing it safe themselves. She said that meetings is not problem but apparently the technology and the BMI calculator are the problems. I use ww.com but have no issue since I am the average 5'6\"

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
seattlemaninblue
June 19, 2009 7:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's great to be able to do things online, and you should be able to get a better explanation online.

However, how about just picking up the phone and asking someone for an answer rather than posting with incomplete information here? Wouldn't that be more valuable to everybody, including you?

I for one am curious if there is a good reason for this or if it's just a shortcoming of the online tool. Guess I'll never know. (No, I'm not going to call WW myself, since I'm only 6-1 and it's not my issue.)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
June 19, 2009 10:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Spark People http://www.sparkpeople.com has all the tools you could ask for... diet and exercise programs and trackers, groups for support, goals... it's an invaluable tool, and it's free. Forget weight watchers, they've profited enough over the decades by taking advantage of heavy people's self esteem issues.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
WorldHarmony
June 23, 2009 8:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's ridiculous for WW to refuse to accept someone based on height. All WW has to do is get the client's doctor's notice advising them on the client's medically approved goal weight. That's all. I suspect that WW Online is the problem, not the WW \"face-to-face\" division. There is probably just no way to bypass the online criteria. Hopefully, WW will do something about that, perhaps by allowing a special section for what they consider \"unusual\" circumstance.

Reply
","");