• by Larry Dobrow , Featured Columnist, August 2, 2005

I went in for my semi-annual physical last week. After the usual poking and prodding (not to mention a cold, cold stethoscope on a hot summer afternoon), the doctor noted that I'd gained a few pounds since we'd last made each other's acquaintance. He said, "Usually people blame this on having eaten a big lunch before coming in"; I responded, "No, I've just been mainlining soft-serve ice cream over the last few months." I pledged to lay off the hard stuff and promptly left the office in much the same light mood that I entered.

I was taken somewhat aback, then, when the first publication I encountered upon entering Barnes & Noble for my "Magazine Rack" fix was WeightWatchers. I'm not sure I even knew that such a publication existed, to be frank. But I took it as a cosmic sign, as if somebody up there was taking an interest in my ever-dainty frame. I slapped down $3.95 and mentally steeled myself for an avalanche of steamed cauliflower.

Needless to say, you know what you're going to get whenever you pick up a mag with a loaded title like WeightWatchers: a bunch of recipes, some fitness tips, and an unrealistic - excuse me, "aspirational" - you'll-look-just-this-trim-if-you-follow-every-word-we-say cover image. Within that narrow framework, the July/August issue does just fine for itself. It does nothing exceptionally well or especially interestingly, but mostly it delivers on its titular promise.

Still, one might make the argument that by snazzing up its design with the usual mix of sidebars and font-defying flips and dips, WeightWatchers undermines this central mission ever so slightly. Take "Front Page," a compilation of quick facts and quotes. While all the presented material is on point and diverting, the unbalanced, image-deprived layout made me wonder if some additional content had been lost on the way to the printer. On the plus side, the bright photography that accompanies the mag's recipes manages to make even "fish-potato croquetas" look vaguely edible.

WeightWatchers does much better when it sticks to words. "Sleep It Off" explores the link between a healthy night's rest and weight loss, while "Focus on Health" offers timely tips on summer sweat control. I'll admit to being a bit cowed by the "Did You Know" blurb ("The die-hard myth that deodorants and antiperspirants cause breast cancer has no merit, according to health experts") that accompanies the latter item. Uh, say what? If a throwaway item prompts a reader to practically dive onto the Internet for additional information, you've chosen the wrong material.

While I'm not especially keen on the "Success Stories" that populate the issue's midsection, they offer the testimonials that likely help WeightWatchers connect with its readers - and, as such, are best left alone. Slightly more effective is the "Get Out of Town" guide to the best vacation destinations for dieters. I'd suggest merging these two elements, actually: maybe a first-person feature in which readers relate how they kept off the pounds during their out-of-town summer sojourns?

Finally, not to harp on the obvious... but etched below before/after photos of WeightWatchers Group Leader Krista Norman, who writes the "Ask Me" column, is the credibility-killing caveat "results not typical" (this note also accompanies a host of other photos). So wait - if the results aren't typical, why show the pix? Or are we suggesting that readers shouldn't relent until they're as proudly and intimidatingly slender as sweet Krista?

I'd argue that they should be institutionalized if they do and that WeightWatchers would be better served by dropping the prom-queen images that belie its underlying health-first thrust. The magazine serves its purpose and all that, but there's little here that jumps off the page.