The question of my headline was posed to Ed Ugel, author of "I'm With Fatty," by Bev Sklar, a writer at AOL-constituent thatsfit.com: If you only had the money for one which would you choose, a personal trainer or a nutritionist? [link to interview] Ed's answer:

"Absolutely, unequivocally, trainer. But if Weight Watchers was an option, I'd choose Weight Watchers. ..."

To me, it's good question, a bad question, a provocative question. (Hey it provoked me, right?)

Even though I ask questions like it in my interviewing, it's a false choice, and the answer for many people ought be "Both. Unequivocally." If that seems churlish of me, unwilling to play along, I concede that at least a little. But when we're talking about one's health, IMHO, the only outlook oughta be, "whatever it takes."

Another problem I have is that the answer could be "neither"! Either could be a great guide, but only if the subject is willing to be guided, and if you're is willing, you already have the most important component. I will allow, however, that in my experience, physical activity has a capacity to create mental/emotional change in a way that a nutritionist might not be able to. "It's vastly easier to act my way into 'right' thinking than it is to think my way into 'right' acting."

Then there's the whole Weight Watchers thing. Ugel's answer expounds onward on his admiration, and though my charitable answer is "God bless him for finding what works for him," it apparently comes with an undertone of "they've been in business for decades, which IDs it as a successful business model, but Americans aren't getting any thinner or any healthier, and so far as I know, Weight Watchers doesn't stand out for its far-better record than others in its product category, so how good could they be?"

I wasn't aware of Ugel's book until I saw this interview, but from the context of the interview, I infer that we had similar pasts that led us both to write books, but we had different conclusions. I'm getting a copy to learn more.