Weight Watchers Weekly Allowance

ftsolk

I have recently dropped 10 pounds in less than two months on Weight Watchers, and while I love the program, I feel like some of the upcoming changes may conflict with my personal beliefs on diet/nutrition. The new, updated calculators now include a spot for things like Saturated Fat, which, I, personally, am not against. Trans fat? Sure, but I just haven't gotten on board with the whole "Saturated Fat is evil" thing (I swear if I wasn't addicted to peanut butter and bread, I might consider going paleo).

With the potential of upcoming changes with the WW program, as well as a concern that I may be eating too little on days I don't eat my weekly allowance or activity points, I'm considering transitioning from tracking on WW to tracking on here. (Sparkpeople was also a consideration, but the database here is much nicer).

I am just trying to figure out how to do this-mentally. I'm a huge fan of WW's Weekly Allowance points, and (basically, you get an extra 49 points to use as needed throughout the week) how the program seems to focus on things on a weekly basis rather than a daily one. I'm not sure how to incorporate a weekly allowance into MFP though.

Any other WW transitions here? I've tried this and failed many times, so I'm trying to figure things out so I don't undo the progress I've made.

brownels

Hi-I am a weight watchers transitioner. I have been a big fan of the program – I was even a lifetime member at one point. But I had to switch when they changed the points to allow free points for many fruits and vegetables. No points for a banana? At 110 calories? I don't think so. It became clear that I was not going to be losing any weight or maintaining with the new point system which in my view point obfuscates the calorie issue. The program seems to be designed to help educate people on how to eat in more healthy ways. That is fantastic. But i'm already an extraordinarily healthy eater. My problem is simply that I eat a little too much. So having free points for healthful foods is not going to be helping me lose weight at all. On the weight watchers system, I could never – for example – eat the allowance points. But that is just my body. I am a slow loser (aka, 'turtle'). The advantage of my fitness pal is that you can calibrate your goals depending upon how aggressive you want to be in your weight loss. For example, my goal is about 1 pound for a week. Others do 1.5; others do .5. It really depends on how much weight you have to lose and how your body works. I find with some experimentation about the amount of calories you consume each week, it's possible to figure out quite easily what works for you. These forums have been substituting for me for the old weight watchers meetings. I find that the information exchange here is excellent – very sane and healthy and knowledgeable. Hope this is helpful! Good luck.

bfanny

2 ways: save a few cals each day for an especial occasion or earn cals by working out and use those when you want/need to... Thats the closest thing I can think of to pretend that you have those 49 WP
I'm a lifetime member in WW still track but keep it simple... I also track cals from time to time but like you can see is not the same anyways best of luck!

ftsolk

I, suppose, I should also keep in mind tgat I suspect I'm not eating enough if I stick to my Weight Watchers target, and I should eat more.

I wonder how it would work for me if I set my diary to maintain my weight, and then tried to eat under thst goal every day (with a personal goal to eat at least 1,550 calories since that's my estimated bmr.

Obnoxa

I did WW a while back but left when I could eat fruit for zero points or count black coffee as water. Seriously, do you know what your body would have to do to remove the coffee from that water to utilize it? It's not worth it, so it's mostly waste, I can't support that. Not to mention I don't fare well with banked points/cheat days idea; I need to learn to eat what I like in reasonable portions, not holding off until a designated day, but that's my issue.
While presented as a much more stable and sustainable system than it's counter parts (Herbal Magic, Nutrisystem, Slimfast, et al) at the end of the day it's still a business, and I know of no successful service based business who follows a model of 'be so good at your service it will ensure the consumer never needs your business again'. Maybe it's a bit cynical but I'm not the only one I know who's bounced in and out of WW multiple times, but I digress, my opinion of WW wasn't your question

MFP works day to day more or less, but you can still tailor it yourself by the week and give yourself something akin to a banked calorie day. I'll use my own numbers as an example:
CW is 222lb, I have MFP set to 2lb/week loss, which means I'm eating at a 7000 cal/week, or 1000 cal/day, deficit. My daily cal allowance 1450/day (no exercise added). Now if I wanted to "bank" calories it would be as simple as redistributing those 7000 calories across the week. So I'd go with, let's say eating at a 1300 calories 6 days a week instead of 1450 (150 x 6= 900) which would give me an extra 900 calories on day 7 while not effecting my 2 lb/week goal.
Since I know my working number is 900 calories, if I go over I simply subtract from that. If I don't, much like the WW model, I get my cookie for rocking that 1300 cal/day deficit all week!
I'm pretty sure you can add in your calorie target manually here, and if you can't the forum police will be by any second to sanctimoniously tell you how horribly wrong I am about that...
Good luck!

*Edited because math is not my strong suit to begin with, let alone trying to multiple before having any coffee

janiep81

I "bank" exercise calories for long runs, and I'll bet you could adapt this system to create a weekly allowance. I'd burn like, say, 1500 calories for a 12 mile run. I usually wasn't terribly hungry that day (I ran in the afternoon), so I'd eat my regular calories for that day, but I'd make a "deposit" into my bank by creating a food called "exercise bank deposit." Then I would "withdrawal" from it over the next two days by creating an exercise called, "exercise bank withdrawal". I usually only used like 500 calories max.

SO... let's say you can eat 1500 cals a day and lose, but some days you eat 1200 and some days you eat 1800. Just bank the 300 remaining calories from the 1200 days and add them to your diary via a "withdrawal" the next day. I've always used them within 48 hours. I'm sure you can go a whole week like with WW but it makes me nervous so I don't do it.

There's also an option to change set up varying calorie targets on different days under the paid MFP option. I considered this. After success with WW, I was nervous about not having a weekly allowance and exercise points, but I've gotten used to eating around the same amount of calories every day, and I don't really miss it.

I hope this makes sense. Good luck to you!

myallforjcbill

I, like you, am considering a transition away from WW and am double tracking till year end so I can see the new plan and see if the etools ever get upto speed. Right now I am using MFP as my main tracker and then posting into WW to see how the points end up. I still use the healthy checks though. With MFP I use my activity calories most days on WW it comes out of my weekly points. I find this motivates me to move a bit more when calories are tight. But either way I try to take the long term view. I manage each day to the best of my ability and check to see how I did each week in total to keep me honest. The basic weight loss concepts are similar and not unique to MFP or WW. I have enough years in WW to have them be pretty well engrained.

VintageFeline

You can view weekly intake and gross and net averages on MFP, it's in the nutrition tab at the bottom of your daily diary. I work across the week, often banking calories when I know I'll be going out to eat/drink.

jgaffney86

.

Removed this - my apologies. wanted to start another Thread

ftsolk.

Congrats on your great accomplishments so far. I have been reading alot on the forums about points and what not. Like stated ....i look at my calories from a weekly perspective than a daily one. just eat less one day then you can save and indulge and have fun!

ftsolk

I did consider that I RARELY stick to my daily target, so, perhaps, a higher daily target will help make up for the loss of the weekly allowance. I'll still have my activity calories through Fitbit to use.

I definitely made a LOT of progress from where I was before. I used to have a cheat night once a week. Now, aside from a couple slip-ups, I've been doing really well. Even on the few occasions I've gone out to eat, I've had things like a salad from Panera, a flatbread sandwich and soup (also from Panera on a different occasion), and brown rice sushi. Once, I went out for a burger and fries with a couple friends. I ate half a burger, a few fries (the three of us shared an order), and we split a milkshake. It was definitely a high calorie meal, but it was worth it.

I just want the option to be able to have fun at times. If my friends and I go out again sometime in the next month or so, we'll probably get something lighter (like Panera), but there's a good chance one of our upcoming dinners will be splitting a few orders of half-priced appetizers.

minniestar55

I'm a Gold WWer, still track, have maintained under goal for several years, but noticed weight was slowly creeping up. Have been double tracking here & on WW app for a couple of weeks, I think culprit is the zero point foods...way too much fruit & veg. I've never been worried about using the 49 extra points. Interesting to see, however, how much in calories I was actually eating. All super healthy, but too much!

neohdiver

Obnoxa wrote: »

Seriously, do you know what your body would have to do to remove the coffee from that water to utilize it? It's not worth it, so it's mostly waste, I can't support that.

WW is relying on scientific research. Your perception is, unfortunately, longstanding, widely believed, junk science.

Killer and her colleagues enrolled 50 men, all moderate coffee drinkers who didn’t take diuretics or caffeine-containing medication. Women weren’t included in the study because menstrual cycles may cause fluid balance fluctuations. In the study’s first phase, investigators randomly assigned the men to drink 4 cups of black coffee or an equal amount of water daily for 3 consecutive days. After a 10-day “wash-out” period, the groups switched. Coffee drinkers changed to water and vice versa.

The investigators analyzed hydration status with several established measures—body mass, total body water, and blood and urine tests. They found the hydration effects of coffee or water did not differ significantly. The study participants lost a small but significant amount of body mass each day during both study phases, 0.2%. Several factors may explain the body mass loss, the investigators wrote. One possibility is that the men simply didn’t drink enough fluids during the study. Even so, the men weren’t near the clinical dehydration level of 1% to 3% body mass loss, the investigators noted.

“Consumption of a moderate intake of coffee, 4 cups per day, in regular coffee-drinking males caused no significant difference across a wide range of hydration indicators compared to the consumption of equal amounts of water,” Killer said.

She and her colleagues noted that public health recommendations to exclude caffeinated beverages from daily fluid needs or to drink a glass of water for every cup of coffee or tea consumed “should be updated to reflect [our] findings.”

http://newsatjama.jama.com/2014/01/09/coffee-hydrates-as-well-as-water-study-says/

The actual study: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0084154

scolaris

I've never done WW but I did try spark people & you're right, this is the superior food database.
I didn't like whipsawing thru the days, feeling bad about going over & feeling I should eat when I was under. So I created a calorie weekly budget based on my goal weight + current activity level calculated as TDEE. If I'm anywhere under that number & I fulfilled my workout goals I know I will lose weight.
I like logging for my macros every day.

ftsolk

I just like the dual weekly/daily aspect of WW. I have my activity points set up to be swapped out throughout the week, so if I go on a walk today, I can save those points for tomorrow's dinner if needed. It's a mental block switching to MFP, I know, but I'm still struggling with it.

MarcyKirkton

I did WW under a different program, but I never ate the bonus points. It slows down your weight loss. But if you tend to binge, I guess it could prevent that. Even with free foods.....veggies.....WW made it clear that overdoing it wasn't recommended.

WW is just like this program. You can eat the way you'd like to eat within their structure.

Obnoxa

neohdiver wrote: »

Obnoxa wrote: »

Seriously, do you know what your body would have to do to remove the coffee from that water to utilize it? It's not worth it, so it's mostly waste, I can't support that.

WW is relying on scientific research. Your perception is, unfortunately, longstanding, widely believed, junk science.

Killer and her colleagues enrolled 50 men, all moderate coffee drinkers who didn’t take diuretics or caffeine-containing medication. Women weren’t included in the study because menstrual cycles may cause fluid balance fluctuations. In the study’s first phase, investigators randomly assigned the men to drink 4 cups of black coffee or an equal amount of water daily for 3 consecutive days. After a 10-day “wash-out” period, the groups switched. Coffee drinkers changed to water and vice versa.

The investigators analyzed hydration status with several established measures—body mass, total body water, and blood and urine tests. They found the hydration effects of coffee or water did not differ significantly. The study participants lost a small but significant amount of body mass each day during both study phases, 0.2%. Several factors may explain the body mass loss, the investigators wrote. One possibility is that the men simply didn’t drink enough fluids during the study. Even so, the men weren’t near the clinical dehydration level of 1% to 3% body mass loss, the investigators noted.

“Consumption of a moderate intake of coffee, 4 cups per day, in regular coffee-drinking males caused no significant difference across a wide range of hydration indicators compared to the consumption of equal amounts of water,” Killer said.

She and her colleagues noted that public health recommendations to exclude caffeinated beverages from daily fluid needs or to drink a glass of water for every cup of coffee or tea consumed “should be updated to reflect [our] findings.”

http://newsatjama.jama.com/2014/01/09/coffee-hydrates-as-well-as-water-study-says/

The actual study: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0084154

It seems counter-intuitive to me. I do not claim to have scientific backing, that's just how I feel about it. It is what it is. It's not as black and white as I think water! Water! Everywhere! All the time! You want a litre of Earl Grey post workout? I am no one to tell you otherwise, but telling a room full of mostly obese people who have battled with weight problems long-term and are already on the fast track for hypertension that 4 cups of coffee a day is just as good for them as plain ol' water is not really seeing the forest for the trees when it comes to overhauling poor dietary choices in people who are paying money to look for direction in that area.

I didn't go to WW simply to be skinny; I went because I understood I needed guidance in making better choices when it came to consumption and portion, and if I'm paying good money for someone to teach me those skills I expect my old habits and pitfalls to be torn right down to the foundation and rebuilt. Telling me I can power drink coffee and fruit has the caloric density of air isn't doing that; so I don't feel that a business marketing themselves as experts in dietary changes should be promoting half-cocked guidelines for better choices out of the gate. People who are already in reasonably good health are a different story but people who are paying WW because they need help with nutrition should first learn how to walk before running straight for "reasonable substitutes for water".

Am I wrong? Possibly. Clinging like some blockhead to some archaic ideal that one must drink water to ensure hydration? Well then, blockhead I be; but that's why I said *I* can't support that, not that you shouldn't.

ftsolk

MarcyKirkton wrote: »

I did WW under a different program, but I never ate the bonus points. It slows down your weight loss. But if you tend to binge, I guess it could prevent that. Even with free foods.....veggies.....WW made it clear that overdoing it wasn't recommended.

WW is just like this program. You can eat the way you'd like to eat within their structure.

I think the weekly allowance does help with some of the mental aspect of "dieting." Even if you have a bad day and overdo it (or just indulge a little more at a social gathering), you have that extra allowance built into your goals- whereas if you didn't have that allowance, you might be prone to admitting defeat and pigging out.

bfanny

And also 26 DP (my allowance) are what? 1,200 cals more or less

bfanny

And that's why WP are meant to be used

ftsolk

Actually, even at 29 points, excluding the "free" fruits and vegetables, I am at an estimated 1,160 calories a day.

No wonder I'm hungry all the time.

Not to mention, the fat-phobia WW encourages annoys me. The difference between skim and whole milk is what? 60-70 calories? That's a two point difference- HUGE in WW world. Here? Not so much.

I'm thinking about just setting my goal to my BMR for the time being, though I'm worried that the activity calories on my dashboard may encourage me to eat more than I really want/need on a day to day basis.

Sometimes, this "grass is always greener" thing is a pain.

bfanny

Haha I had to hide my WP and give them back little by little as needed or else, they would be gone in 2 days blush:
If I see a lot "available" I want a lot!

Hornsby

Obnoxa wrote: »

neohdiver wrote: »

Obnoxa wrote: »

Seriously, do you know what your body would have to do to remove the coffee from that water to utilize it? It's not worth it, so it's mostly waste, I can't support that.

WW is relying on scientific research. Your perception is, unfortunately, longstanding, widely believed, junk science.

Killer and her colleagues enrolled 50 men, all moderate coffee drinkers who didn’t take diuretics or caffeine-containing medication. Women weren’t included in the study because menstrual cycles may cause fluid balance fluctuations. In the study’s first phase, investigators randomly assigned the men to drink 4 cups of black coffee or an equal amount of water daily for 3 consecutive days. After a 10-day “wash-out” period, the groups switched. Coffee drinkers changed to water and vice versa.

The investigators analyzed hydration status with several established measures—body mass, total body water, and blood and urine tests. They found the hydration effects of coffee or water did not differ significantly. The study participants lost a small but significant amount of body mass each day during both study phases, 0.2%. Several factors may explain the body mass loss, the investigators wrote. One possibility is that the men simply didn’t drink enough fluids during the study. Even so, the men weren’t near the clinical dehydration level of 1% to 3% body mass loss, the investigators noted.

“Consumption of a moderate intake of coffee, 4 cups per day, in regular coffee-drinking males caused no significant difference across a wide range of hydration indicators compared to the consumption of equal amounts of water,” Killer said.

She and her colleagues noted that public health recommendations to exclude caffeinated beverages from daily fluid needs or to drink a glass of water for every cup of coffee or tea consumed “should be updated to reflect [our] findings.”

http://newsatjama.jama.com/2014/01/09/coffee-hydrates-as-well-as-water-study-says/

The actual study: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0084154

It seems counter-intuitive to me. I do not claim to have scientific backing, that's just how I feel about it. It is what it is. It's not as black and white as I think water! Water! Everywhere! All the time! You want a litre of Earl Grey post workout? I am no one to tell you otherwise, but telling a room full of mostly obese people who have battled with weight problems long-term and are already on the fast track for hypertension that 4 cups of coffee a day is just as good for them as plain ol' water is not really seeing the forest for the trees when it comes to overhauling poor dietary choices in people who are paying money to look for direction in that area.

I didn't go to WW simply to be skinny; I went because I understood I needed guidance in making better choices when it came to consumption and portion, and if I'm paying good money for someone to teach me those skills I expect my old habits and pitfalls to be torn right down to the foundation and rebuilt. Telling me I can power drink coffee and fruit has the caloric density of air isn't doing that; so I don't feel that a business marketing themselves as experts in dietary changes should be promoting half-cocked guidelines for better choices out of the gate. People who are already in reasonably good health are a different story but people who are paying WW because they need help with nutrition should first learn how to walk before running straight for "reasonable substitutes for water".

Am I wrong? Possibly. Clinging like some blockhead to some archaic ideal that one must drink water to ensure hydration? Well then, blockhead I be; but that's why I said *I* can't support that, not that you shouldn't.

I agree with you on the fruits. No way they should be free, but it does encourage people to eat more nutrient dense food since they are free.

As for your coffee thoughts...yes, you are wrong. Being hydrated is the point. You can do that with 100% coffee and no plain water without ANY negs. I rarely drink plain water cause I am not a fan.

bfanny

Anyways Fitbit is a great tool keep the deficit according to your weekly goal and go from there

HASWLRS

I am not on the "Premium" version of MFP, so I can't speak to this directly. However, one poster on a different thread said that with Premium, she has one calorie goal for weekdays and a different one for weekends.

ftsolk

HASWLRS wrote: »

I am not on the "Premium" version of MFP, so I can't speak to this directly. However, one poster on a different thread said that with Premium, she has one calorie goal for weekdays and a different one for weekends.

Problem is, my schedule varies too much to have specific high and low calorie days.

earlnabby

Just do the old program that you liked and worked for you. Just because they make changes doesn't mean you need to.

afatpersonwholikesfood

Obnoxa wrote: »

You want a litre of Earl Grey post workout? I am no one to tell you otherwise, but telling a room full of mostly obese people who have battled with weight problems long-term and are already on the fast track for hypertension that 4 cups of coffee a day is just as good for them as plain ol' water is not really seeing the forest for the trees when it comes to overhauling poor dietary choices in people who are paying money to look for direction in that area.

My blood pressure was > 140/90 typically and sometimes as high as 160/100. It went down to < 120/80 after losing the first 30 or so pounds and becoming more active, and I consume at least 4 caffeinated beverages per day. I also use an electronic cigarette and keep a constant low dose of nicotine going. My resting heart rate is 55-60 despite all of this as well. I have made multiple small dietary and habit changes, but I haven't done anything fanatical. The weight and inactivity were bigger factors. Of course, I'm just one person, so your mileage may vary.

At the end of the day, WW and MFP really aren't very different. I lost oodles of weight and learned things from WW the first time I used it despite completely going off the rails after a year (and I wasn't a rabid caffeine fiend then - I felt like I had to drink water all the time or else - perhaps one example of why I said to hell with it eventually). WW costs money and gives some guidance and has meetings and trinkets for positive reinforcement. MFP is free and is more of a diary with a calculator than a program. Other than that, both are calorie counting at the core. If you want weeklies, temporarily reduce your deficit to 1/2 pound per week or maintenance for the day(s) you wish (you can change your diary settings whenever you want) or use a weekly average instead of a daily average and bank calories - apparently the phone app has a weekly view. No, it's not exactly the same, but it accomplishes the same goal.

Or continue with WW and ignore the parts of it that you don't like. It's all the same so long as you are eating less than you burn. Even the free fruit that everyone complains about really isn't such a big deal as long as people have some common sense about it. 2 legitimate servings? Fine - they do the math to include this stuff. An entire bowl of mixed fruit plus a couple of bananas each day? No.

ftsolk

afatpersonwholikesfood wrote: »

Obnoxa wrote: »

You want a litre of Earl Grey post workout? I am no one to tell you otherwise, but telling a room full of mostly obese people who have battled with weight problems long-term and are already on the fast track for hypertension that 4 cups of coffee a day is just as good for them as plain ol' water is not really seeing the forest for the trees when it comes to overhauling poor dietary choices in people who are paying money to look for direction in that area.

My blood pressure was > 140/90 typically and sometimes as high as 160/100. It went down to < 120/80 after losing the first 30 or so pounds and becoming more active, and I consume at least 4 caffeinated beverages per day. I also use an electronic cigarette and keep a constant low dose of nicotine going. My resting heart rate is 55-60 despite all of this as well. I have made multiple small dietary and habit changes, but I haven't done anything fanatical. The weight and inactivity were bigger factors. Of course, I'm just one person, so your mileage may vary.

At the end of the day, WW and MFP really aren't very different. I lost oodles of weight and learned things from WW the first time I used it despite completely going off the rails after a year (and I wasn't a rabid caffeine fiend then - I felt like I had to drink water all the time or else - perhaps one example of why I said to hell with it eventually). WW costs money and gives some guidance and has meetings and trinkets for positive reinforcement. MFP is free and is more of a diary with a calculator than a program. Other than that, both are calorie counting at the core. If you want weeklies, temporarily reduce your deficit to 1/2 pound per week or maintenance for the day(s) you wish (you can change your diary settings whenever you want) or use a weekly average instead of a daily average and bank calories - apparently the phone app has a weekly view. No, it's not exactly the same, but it accomplishes the same goal.

Or continue with WW and ignore the parts of it that you don't like. It's all the same so long as you are eating less than you burn. Even the free fruit that everyone complains about really isn't such a big deal as long as people have some common sense about it. 2 legitimate servings? Fine - they do the math to include this stuff. An entire bowl of mixed fruit plus a couple of bananas each day? No.

Maybe I'll give changing my diary around a try. I know that Mondays vary depending on whether I go to my friend's house or not (and who is preparing dinner- last week, her husband cooked a semi-modified Weight Watchers recipe). Wednesdays are also a tricky one since I never know if I'm going out or not until the last minute.

But maybe I can try setting my diary for a 1.5 to 2 pound loss per week (on a work day, that'll give me over 1,600+ calories to play with, and I'll usually aim for at least 1,500 calories). Then, if I find that I'm a little less active than usual (like on my day off) OR I go out and want to treat myself a little, I'll just go in and reduce my goal as needed. I figure even if I splurge a LOT one day and go from a 2 pound loss to maintenance, that'll still leave me at a 6,000 calorie deficit for the week (assuming I actually EAT all of my calories every day).

The whole exercise calorie bank thing mentioned by another member here also sounds intriguing. Basically, you just take the calories "remaining" at the end of the day and track them as being "eaten" that day, and then carry them over as an "exercise" the following day? My only concern is in regards to the Fitbit sync, so I'll have to play around with it. It might even work out better for me as it's more like the Activity Points in WW.

ftsolk

I just remembered an experiment I tried in the past, and it seemed to work well for me until I got lazy.

I multiplied my daily points target by 34 and set my calorie goal on MFP to that. I also set my diary to "lightly active" and made sure it was set to lose 2 pounds per week. Then, I ate those calories and didn't track my fruit and vegetable intake. I also allowed myself to earn and eat activity calories. Essentially, I turned MFP into WW and it was a nice balance between the two.

queenliz99

Okie dokie then. Whatever works for you!

cindytw

I quit WW in a quickness because it was WAY too low calorie and low fat for me. When I double-logged and logged on MFP, my calories were woefully low! I was starving all the time!! They say you can eat what you want but really that isn't true. They force you to eat low fat by the system, if you don't, I was basically able to eat 900 calories one day which was insane so I quit. I am much happier back here on MFP! I was a long time SparkPeople member, this is way better for the database, however MFP doesn't track as many nutrients if that is a concern to you.