For faster progress, should I just count calories, or use Weight Watchers?

maea5040

Im not expecting to lose everything within the first couple months, but just wondering which option ill have better success with. Paying for weight watchers isnt a problem, i just want faster progress.

tryasimighty

Slow and steady with careful calorie counting is the very best way! Understanding your actual needs for the day is a life change and will be successful for life. Good luck, its very inspirational on here!

Dana_E

You would waste less time counting calories rather than trying to convert everything into points (which is a different type of calorie counting). As far as faster progress, I don't think it matters.

haugentimo

I have never been on weight watchers but, don't they use a lot of processed food?

Ready2Rock206

haugentimo wrote: »

I have never been on weight watchers but, don't they use a lot of processed food?

With the new smart points any processed food or treats or pretty much anything other than whole foods are really too many points to use often. All their frozen meals and sweet treats increased significantly in points with the new plan.

xtina315

i would just do calorie counting on here. I did weight watchers and never ate enough calories throughout the day-its the same concept but with points.

not_a_runner

tryasimighty wrote: »

Slow and steady with careful calorie counting is the very best way! Understanding your actual needs for the day is a life change and will be successful for life. Good luck, its very inspirational on here!

Totally agree with this.
Calorie counting is very effective. It can be very fast if you decide to go with a more aggressive deficit. If you feel that you will be able to stick with weight watchers better for some reason, then do that. (However I think most people would agree that calorie counting is very simple yet effective.)
I lost weight very quickly in the past, but I didn't learn anything and I gained it all back very quickly. Find what is sustainable and will lead you to better results down the road, not just in a week, month, etc.

cap3737

Weight watchers change there program all the time. About four years ago they had a great program it works so well and people were losing weight so fast that they had to change it so people would slow down and weight loss because they were losing money. When they change the program after losing 100 pounds I started gaining weight on their new program. They said I could stick with the old program but when you went to the meetings it was never about the old program it was only about the new one. It was messing me up.now I incorporate exercise with calorie count and it is worked for me very well I've lost about close to 160 pounds and except for the holiday when I went up two poundsi've been on the constant downhill in a good way. I hope this helps you out.

haugentimo

Ready2Rock206 wrote: »

haugentimo wrote: »

I have never been on weight watchers but, don't they use a lot of processed food?

With the new smart points any processed food or treats or pretty much anything other than whole foods are really too many points to use often. All their frozen meals and sweet treats increased significantly in points with the new plan.

Ahh, that is good because it is difficult to loose weight and get the right food on the frozen processed food.

Kettle_Belle14

Calorie counting is free, WW isn't. I'll always go with the free choice

PaulaWallaDingDong

What's the rush? Do it your way at a comfortable pace, weight watchers or not.

DrifterBear

I did WW for a while and think it's a great program. They encourage you to eat anything, but instead of counting calories, you're counting points. Points are derived from a proprietary formula they use that turns macros into points. I honestly think it's better for a beginner than just counting calories. Their formula may assigned two different point values to two different foods that are both 200 calories. So 200 calories of chocolate may be 5 points, but 200 calories of yogurt might be 4. The reason is the composition of the 200 calories. Chocolate will have most calories from fat and sugar while yogurt will have more balance of all macros and the higher protein content will count for less and ultimately save you a point. This is a good way to start out because you're still eating whatever you want but learning to make healthier choices. They also don't 'charge' you for whole fruits and veggies. Yes, there are calories in them but they don't want you to feel penalized for having an apple. If you're not loosing weight, you will be asked about fruits and veggies and if you're eating 10 apples a day, they'll encourage you to cut back a little.

I actually feel WW is more of a long-term plan that a quick fix. If you just count calories, you'll eventually have to consider your macro mix. WW kind of works in reverse by helping you tune your macro mix while focusing on a single number, points. I no longer do WW, but it worked for me while I did by helping my change my diet. When I just counted calories in the past, I didn't pay as much attention to what I ate and had less success. If all you do is eat 1200 calories, you'll loose weight, regardless of what plan you follow.

SolotoCEO

Either way works. If you eat the same amount of calories (regardless if you call them calories or points) you will have the same results. Some people like WW meetings because they feel they are more accountable. If you are going to do WW online - why? Use this app for free.

RWClary

maea5040 wrote: »

Im not expecting to lose everything within the first couple months, but just wondering which option ill have better success with. Paying for weight watchers isnt a problem, i just want faster progress.

Which is faster?
Fast weight loss is usually the kind that piles back on after the "diet".

MFP encourages slow, steady weight loss that's lasting. If you want fast, you've come to the wrong place.
Fast is what is sold to the people herd, and again, it's usually fleeting.

ReaderGirl3

tryasimighty wrote: »

Slow and steady with careful calorie counting is the very best way! Understanding your actual needs for the day is a life change and will be successful for life. Good luck, its very inspirational on here!

This. Part of the weight loss process is learning the tools that you'll need to succeed with the very, very long period of maintenance that follows.

ReaderGirl3

DrifterBear wrote: »

I did WW for a while and think it's a great program. They encourage you to eat anything, but instead of counting calories, you're counting points. Points are derived from a proprietary formula they use that turns macros into points. I honestly think it's better for a beginner than just counting calories. Their formula may assigned two different point values to two different foods that are both 200 calories. So 200 calories of chocolate may be 5 points, but 200 calories of yogurt might be 4. The reason is the composition of the 200 calories. Chocolate will have most calories from fat and sugar while yogurt will have more balance of all macros and the higher protein content will count for less and ultimately save you a point. This is a good way to start out because you're still eating whatever you want but learning to make healthier choices. They also don't 'charge' you for whole fruits and veggies. Yes, there are calories in them but they don't want you to feel penalized for having an apple. If you're not loosing weight, you will be asked about fruits and veggies and if you're eating 10 apples a day, they'll encourage you to cut back a little.

I actually feel WW is more of a long-term plan that a quick fix. If you just count calories, you'll eventually have to consider your macro mix. WW kind of works in reverse by helping you tune your macro mix while focusing on a single number, points. I no longer do WW, but it worked for me while I did by helping my change my diet. When I just counted calories in the past, I didn't pay as much attention to what I ate and had less success. If all you do is eat 1200 calories, you'll loose weight, regardless of what plan you follow.

How so? I'm 3 years into maintenance and I don't track macros at all. I don't understand your statement?

Also, if you think it's such a great program with a better success rate than straight calorie counting, why aren't you still doing it (genuinely curious)?

DrifterBear

ReaderGirl3 wrote: »

DrifterBear wrote: »

I did WW for a while and think it's a great program. They encourage you to eat anything, but instead of counting calories, you're counting points. Points are derived from a proprietary formula they use that turns macros into points. I honestly think it's better for a beginner than just counting calories. Their formula may assigned two different point values to two different foods that are both 200 calories. So 200 calories of chocolate may be 5 points, but 200 calories of yogurt might be 4. The reason is the composition of the 200 calories. Chocolate will have most calories from fat and sugar while yogurt will have more balance of all macros and the higher protein content will count for less and ultimately save you a point. This is a good way to start out because you're still eating whatever you want but learning to make healthier choices. They also don't 'charge' you for whole fruits and veggies. Yes, there are calories in them but they don't want you to feel penalized for having an apple. If you're not loosing weight, you will be asked about fruits and veggies and if you're eating 10 apples a day, they'll encourage you to cut back a little.

I actually feel WW is more of a long-term plan that a quick fix. If you just count calories, you'll eventually have to consider your macro mix. WW kind of works in reverse by helping you tune your macro mix while focusing on a single number, points. I no longer do WW, but it worked for me while I did by helping my change my diet. When I just counted calories in the past, I didn't pay as much attention to what I ate and had less success. If all you do is eat 1200 calories, you'll loose weight, regardless of what plan you follow.

How so? I'm 3 years into maintenance and I don't track macros at all. I don't understand your statement?

Also, if you think it's such a great program with a better success rate than straight calorie counting, why aren't you still doing it (genuinely curious)?

I think I explained it fairly well, but here's more explanation.

I think macros matter. My fiance was eating rice cakes and other low cal foods but they were not filling her up and she was miserable. I helped her sub out more nuts and things with higher fat/protein and she's way happier. No change in total calories, just the composition. I feel like once you find what works for you, macros don't matter. However, I needed to learn more about the composition of my food, not just calories to figure out what would keep me full and satisfied. I don't pay attention to it much anymore but it helped me achieve a balanced and satisfying diet.

I quit WW because I felt I got all the value out of it. Early on, my fiance and I would compare all kinds of things. How many points for this vs that. Even though they had similar calories, you could eat much more/less of certain foods. I lost about 25lb on it and wasn't finding a lot of value in their tools anymore. I was only paying for accountability at that point and no longer needed to pay. I still feel way better off for having done WW.

As a side note, I would never recommend Nutrisystem, Jenny Craig, etc. Pre-packaged meals don't teach you anything. They simply control how much you eat.