Jenny Craig Review #7 by Carol A. Price on July 26th, 2007 at 10:20 AM CDT

Name

JC food is not lactose free and it contains too much sugar...e.g., the sweet sticky strawberry breakfast bar which repeated on me. I got a refund on on the sign-up fee, but not on the food. I was able to lose slowly by counting calories, eating healthy food, eliminating sugars and fats, and writing down everything I ate. (1200 calories per day) We need to watch out for that sugary food provided in the JC diet -- there's too much sugar in the American diet already. That's why so many people have Type II diabetes. I found the counselor completely inadequate at the JC place I went to. She had no empathy and no expertise.

JC food is not lactose free and it contains too much sugar...e.g., the sweet sticky strawberry breakfast bar which repeated on me. I got a refund on on the sign-up fee, but not on the food. I was able to lose slowly by counting calories, eating healthy food, eliminating sugars and fats, and writing down everything I ate. (1200 calories per day) We need to watch out for that sugary food provided in the JC diet -- there's too much sugar in the American diet already. That's why so many people have Type II diabetes. I found the counselor completely inadequate at the JC place I went to. She had no empathy and no expertise.

Jenny Craig Review #6 by debbie hume on July 26th, 2007 at 9:34 AM CDT

Name

I just wanted to give you feedback about my experience with Jenny Craig. HORRIBLE! I don't know how anyone with taste buds stays on this diet. And MOST annoying is, things you THINK you'll like (i.e. I love tuna) that turn out to be NASTY cannot be returned if you buy MULTIPLES of this cat-food like substance. Your website caught my eye because of someone's comment about Jenny and I wanted to add my two cents.

I just wanted to give you feedback about my experience with Jenny Craig. HORRIBLE! I don't know how anyone with taste buds stays on this diet. And MOST annoying is, things you THINK you'll like (i.e. I love tuna) that turn out to be NASTY cannot be returned if you buy MULTIPLES of this cat-food like substance. Your website caught my eye because of someone's comment about Jenny and I wanted to add my two cents.

Jenny Craig Review #5 by Kay on July 20th, 2007 at 4:04 PM CDT

Name

I think a lot of emphasis seems to be on the fact that Kirstie lied about her starting weight...don't tell me that none of you overweight people have ever taken a few pounds, a stone or maybe even more off when you tell people your weight? No one wants to admit how big they are (as we all know fat people are despised by ignorant society). Who cares what she started at - what's important surely is that she's lost that 70lbs or whatever it is? It's just as hard to lose weight whatever your starting weight whether you're famous or supported or paid to do it or not! And yes, ok she may still be too large to be healthy or fashionable (I haven't seen photos myself or the adverts)but she's still lost that weight. She should be applauded - I know how she's yo-yo dieted for many years and suffered with her weight problem. I keep reading everywhere that 'Kirstie lied!', that she's a bad role model/influence on dieters and is misleading the public; all I have to say is get over yourselves; the public aren't stupid and dieters though desperate to try ANYTHING are not going to flock like sheep to try this diet just because 'Kirstie Alley' says it worked for her. People will try any diet/pill/machine even if Hitler had suggested it, bacause they want to lose weight! The fact that Kirstie is saying it is immaterial!I mean, most people aren't complete gormless idiots! Also, I think the fact that she's still overweight is a much more realistic representation of weight loss than if a tiny skinny person was standing there afterwards - people would be suspicious. If someone had told me when I was at my very biggest (15.5 stone)that I would be paid 5 million to lose 14lbs it would not have made dieting with an eating disorder (which Kirstie obviously has) any easier! And keeping it off afterwards is even harder, it's no reflection on the diet, just the dieter! Also although I have never seen pictures of Kirstie at her largest, in the ones I have seen (before weight-loss pics)there's no way she was EVER 500lbs (that's about 35 stone!)or even 322lbs (er 23 stone?). So I think some people need to brush up on sizes vs weights! I'd say she was probably about 18 or 19 stone, so after 75lbs she'd now be about 12.5/13.5 stone...? Which is roughly a UK size 16/18. Ok, not magazine perfect but pretty acceptable. Let's get things into perspective here! Yeah, she's not that 'Cheers' girl anymore but she's older, with an eating disorder! Of course, if anybody has a 35 stone Kirstie-at-her-biggest picture let me see it and I'll retract my ramblings and get off my soapbox, but I doubt it somehow.

I think a lot of emphasis seems to be on the fact that Kirstie lied about her starting weight...don't tell me that none of you overweight people have ever taken a few pounds, a stone or maybe even more off when you tell people your weight? No one wants to admit how big they are (as we all know fat people are despised by ignorant society). Who cares what she started at - what's important surely is that she's lost that 70lbs or whatever it is? It's just as hard to lose weight whatever your starting weight whether you're famous or supported or paid to do it or not! And yes, ok she may still be too large to be healthy or fashionable (I haven't seen photos myself or the adverts)but she's still lost that weight. She should be applauded - I know how she's yo-yo dieted for many years and suffered with her weight problem. I keep reading everywhere that 'Kirstie lied!', that she's a bad role model/influence on dieters and is misleading the public; all I have to say is get over yourselves; the public aren't stupid and dieters though desperate to try ANYTHING are not going to flock like sheep to try this diet just because 'Kirstie Alley' says it worked for her. People will try any diet/pill/machine even if Hitler had suggested it, bacause they want to lose weight! The fact that Kirstie is saying it is immaterial!I mean, most people aren't complete gormless idiots! Also, I think the fact that she's still overweight is a much more realistic representation of weight loss than if a tiny skinny person was standing there afterwards - people would be suspicious. If someone had told me when I was at my very biggest (15.5 stone)that I would be paid 5 million to lose 14lbs it would not have made dieting with an eating disorder (which Kirstie obviously has) any easier! And keeping it off afterwards is even harder, it's no reflection on the diet, just the dieter!

Also although I have never seen pictures of Kirstie at her largest, in the ones I have seen (before weight-loss pics)there's no way she was EVER 500lbs (that's about 35 stone!)or even 322lbs (er 23 stone?). So I think some people need to brush up on sizes vs weights! I'd say she was probably about 18 or 19 stone, so after 75lbs she'd now be about 12.5/13.5 stone...? Which is roughly a UK size 16/18. Ok, not magazine perfect but pretty acceptable. Let's get things into perspective here! Yeah, she's not that 'Cheers' girl anymore but she's older, with an eating disorder! Of course, if anybody has a 35 stone Kirstie-at-her-biggest picture let me see it and I'll retract my ramblings and get off my soapbox, but I doubt it somehow.