Weight Watchers demonisation of bread
One of the things that really gets my goat is how Weight Watchers demonises bread. Participants are discouraged from eating bread and a slice of bread is rated a ludicrous number of "points", also with the aim to discourage people from eating it. In the meantime, people are told they can eat equivalent portions of rice, pasta, potatoes and other starchy foods.
This is absurd. My family are eating sourdough bread, and because it's tasty we tend to, well, overindulge a little bit and maybe have the odd extra slice. Just because it's yum. Right? And yet, here we are. If we don't eat other processed rubbish, eating sourdough bread seems to have no ill effect and we are in fact all losing weight. Happy days.
Of course it's understandable why WW may be doing this. Just look at a slice of commercial, mass produced bread. Made with inferior ingredients the lack of genuine flavour is compensated for by liberal additions of sugar, fats and other bread "enhancers". No wonder a slice of "wonderbread" should be rated a gazillion points. But why can't WW make that distinction, then? They're happy enough to make distinctions between "plain" and "wholewheat" pasta, or "white" and "brown" rice, so why not make a similar distinction between a slice of crappy mass produced "bread" and one of sourdough goodness, and encourage people to learn to bake and produce the latter so they don't have to rely on the former?
Here. Rant over. I feel better now.