I looked into it ready for when I finished Cambridge. There were a few things I agreed with, but enough that I disagreed with to put me off.
I liked the fact that you learn not to make desire = action (great believer in that), and that it isn't just another diet, but really works on the head stuff. I also like that they say self-esteem comes from inside ourselves and not from others. I agree that our body signals are out of whack, but they are encouraged to never listen to them, rather than learn to tune into them.
I didn't like the fact that you had to admit that you were powerless. You couldn't do it yourself. You were useless and needed someone to answer to over everything you put in your mouth. I felt that I needed something that gave me confidence in my own abilities, not something that makes me feel I'm incapable of controlling my actions.
The higher power bit doesn't have to be a god, but can be anything 'spiritual'. As a Humanist, that wouldn't suit me unless I consider myself a higher power...which wouldn't work if I have to consider that I'm hopeless.
I don't like the idea that I would have to stick to a food plan and have to ask permission from my sponsor to deviate. In other words, if I wasn't hungry I would have to eat regardless or phone them up and ask for permission to forego brekkie.
If I did succeed, I would have to be thankful to my higher power. After all, I'm helpless. I wouldn't be able to do it myself, so anything 'good' that I appear to manage is nothing to do with me at all
Also the fact that they consider that we are addicts as so cannot control our actions. Okay, I believe I'm an addict, but I also believe that what I do and what I am are different. I cannot accept that I have to make the wrong choices because I am fundamentally flawed as a human being.
I also didn't like that you had to promise never to touch your trigger foods again. I preferred to learn how to control them.
So it wasn't for me.