weight watchers and mfp
Replies
-
These points are based on the current Smart Points system that was rolled out January 2016. Prior to that was Point Plus, and prior to that is the program you are referencing. Each roll out had major changes, but this last one was the worst and their business is struggling as a result.
Yes, I know. Since I had never joined, and was only using purchased materials, I was free to stay on the plan that I used, after they rolled out new ones. This was many years ago, so yeah I am sure there are several versions since mine. Actually I think mine was the 1-2-3 program, so even older than the "winning points". It worked well for me, but I no longer have those materials.0 -
These posts are starting to make me see the light. I understand the push toward more fiber, protein and clean eating, but the side effect has been members on IG and WW Connect feature making 2 points baked goods from artificial sweeteners and protein powders. I've spent so much money on protein bars, shakes, and artificially sweetened crap its embarrassing. I have a cabinet full of PB2 I don't use because it was low point, because I wanted real peanut butter. And yesterday I wanted a small milkshake that was only 300 calories max, but cost me a days worth of points, and a boat load of guilt along with it. I can't anymore. Money isn't the issue, I'm just tired of feeling bad while my weight is stuck in neutral.
Not trying to hijack a thread, but I appreciate the advice being given here10 -
Hi! I haven't read every single post carefully, but I did want to say this. The sad truth is that if you are not losing weight, you need to eat less. I lost 25 lbs on WW (the program before Smartpoints) and when I got close to goal I had to really cut back, like not eat fruit with breakfast, even smaller portions. I ate 1350 calories a day and even then lost at a snail's pace. If you are not losing at 1100-1400, you are definitely not going to lose at 1600+.
I really don't like the Smartpoints program. In fact, I finally gave up on it after fluctuating 3 lbs for months like you. I don't have much to lose, so every calorie counts. WW incentivizes me to eat fruit, even when I could make it without eating, and it also encourages me to eat large portions of low point fish and chicken. All that adds up.2 -
Victoria42015 wrote: »Hi! I haven't read every single post carefully, but I did want to say this. The sad truth is that if you are not losing weight, you need to eat less. I lost 25 lbs on WW (the program before Smartpoints) and when I got close to goal I had to really cut back, like not eat fruit with breakfast, even smaller portions. I ate 1350 calories a day and even then lost at a snail's pace. If you are not losing at 1100-1400, you are definitely not going to lose at 1600+.
I really don't like the Smartpoints program. In fact, I finally gave up on it after fluctuating 3 lbs for months like you. I don't have much to lose, so every calorie counts. WW incentivizes me to eat fruit, even when I could make it without eating, and it also encourages me to eat large portions of low point fish and chicken. All that adds up.
I agree, but I wasnt tracking veggies and i was eating about 200-250 calories of them...so my 1400 was really 1700 or more3 -
The other thing is, you can eat less than your BMR (how much you burn at rest all day) if you want to. I just checked mine, which is sadly 1341. I am eating 1200 calories a day. You won't lose unless you eat less than you burn. (But of course you burn more than your BMR says because of exercise and movement.)0
-
-
On WW, it's a mantra that "you didn't get fat eating fruits and veggies," which is true, but eating too many can prevent weight loss.3
-
Victoria42015 wrote: »On WW, it's a mantra that "you didn't get fat eating fruits and veggies," which is true, but eating too many can prevent weight loss.
so true, and it's so hard to actually accept the veggies have calories when you are trained for years that they're free.2 -
newheavensearth wrote: »These posts are starting to make me see the light. I understand the push toward more fiber, protein and clean eating, but the side effect has been members on IG and WW Connect feature making 2 points baked goods from artificial sweeteners and protein powders. I've spent so much money on protein bars, shakes, and artificially sweetened crap its embarrassing. I have a cabinet full of PB2 I don't use because it was low point, because I wanted real peanut butter. And yesterday I wanted a small milkshake that was only 300 calories max, but cost me a days worth of points, and a boat load of guilt along with it. I can't anymore. Money isn't the issue, I'm just tired of feeling bad while my weight is stuck in neutral.
Not trying to hijack a thread, but I appreciate the advice being given here
Actually I would say that the reverse was true for me. I learned to eat FAR healthier when I learned the (old) WW plan. Again, that was many many years ago. And I do have some PB Fit powder, but I only bought that after reading about it here, on MFP.
I never used protein bars, shakes, or any of that stuff on WW. I do use them now, but that's just personal preference. I enjoy them and they are convenient for me. 0 -
I think WW is good for teaching really unhealthy people about how to eat healthier. Some people know nothing about nutrition.1
-
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »newheavensearth wrote: »These posts are starting to make me see the light. I understand the push toward more fiber, protein and clean eating, but the side effect has been members on IG and WW Connect feature making 2 points baked goods from artificial sweeteners and protein powders. I've spent so much money on protein bars, shakes, and artificially sweetened crap its embarrassing. I have a cabinet full of PB2 I don't use because it was low point, because I wanted real peanut butter. And yesterday I wanted a small milkshake that was only 300 calories max, but cost me a days worth of points, and a boat load of guilt along with it. I can't anymore. Money isn't the issue, I'm just tired of feeling bad while my weight is stuck in neutral.
Not trying to hijack a thread, but I appreciate the advice being given here
Actually I would say that the reverse was true for me. I learned to eat FAR healthier when I learned the (old) WW plan. Again, that was many many years ago. And I do have some PB Fit powder, but I only bought that after reading about it here, on MFP. I never used protein bars, shakes, or any of that stuff on WW. I do use them now, but that's just personal preference. I enjoy them and they are convenient for me.
Yup, and as you have said, you were following the old plan. WW's new plan is very, very different. SmartPoints are no longer calculated on whole macros (fat, carbs, protein - like they used to be) but are now calculated on protein, saturated fat and sugar. It's a subjective 'health' judgment, rather than a macro/calorie judgment.
So while you (and I) learned good habits on old WW, it's no use bringing those takeaways to a conversation about the flaws of the new plan, which is very, very different.5 -
I'm not sure I agree with much here. I'm hitting MFP's suggested macro breakdown on the nose pretty much every day on the new WW SmartPoints, am not hungry, not craving anything, and feel pretty good...I'm just following the plan online without any WW branded foods. My calorie count is 1300-1400 and I don't eat back what I burn (with the exception of this weekend--had a half marathon and obviously needed to load up for that.) I get that everyone has their own solution and if CICO works for you, that's wonderful, but also not really understanding this disdain for WW. I did the program in various versions throughout my adult life and while I did have an episode of fiber overload in the early 2000s that was quite epic, I can't say I have many complaints.0
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »So while you (and I) learned good habits on old WW, it's no use bringing those takeaways to a conversation about the flaws of the new plan, which is very, very different.
It's of use if only to verify that WW was a very useful and successful program, for many people.
That is why I mentioned it. It IS a shame that they screwed it up with the new changes. It seems that they would have figured this out by now, and gone back to the more successful format. 3 -
But they say people are losing better on Smartpoints than Points Plus, so maybe it works well for some and not others. I haven't been successful with it but there could be other problems, like not being strict enough with myself.
0 -
Victoria42015 wrote: »But they say people are losing better on Smartpoints than Points Plus, so maybe it works well for some and not others. I haven't been successful with it but there could be other problems, like not being strict enough with myself.
it's funny that "they" aka weight watchers says that, and their leaders, but everyone I seem to speak to had the same issues....
3 -
storyjorie wrote: »I'm not sure I agree with much here. I'm hitting MFP's suggested macro breakdown on the nose pretty much every day on the new WW SmartPoints, am not hungry, not craving anything, and feel pretty good...I'm just following the plan online without any WW branded foods. My calorie count is 1300-1400 and I don't eat back what I burn (with the exception of this weekend--had a half marathon and obviously needed to load up for that.) I get that everyone has their own solution and if CICO works for you, that's wonderful, but also not really understanding this disdain for WW. I did the program in various versions throughout my adult life and while I did have an episode of fiber overload in the early 2000s that was quite epic, I can't say I have many complaints.
I don't have experience on Weight Watchers, so my comment isn't specifically related to that program... I just wanted to say that whether you are using MFP, counting calories, tracking macros, eating intuitively, following WW, eating LCHF, eathing LFHC, or any other approach - if you are losing weight, then CICO is in play and it is working for you.
CICO isn't a diet, and it isn't synonymous with counting calories. It is a mathematical equation that describes a fundamental energy balance, and if a person wants to lose weight, their CI needs to be less than their CO. How they achieve that deficit is up to the individual - but CICO is always the governing principle.3 -
Victoria42015 wrote: »Hi! I haven't read every single post carefully, but I did want to say this. The sad truth is that if you are not losing weight, you need to eat less. I lost 25 lbs on WW (the program before Smartpoints) and when I got close to goal I had to really cut back, like not eat fruit with breakfast, even smaller portions. I ate 1350 calories a day and even then lost at a snail's pace. If you are not losing at 1100-1400, you are definitely not going to lose at 1600+.
I really don't like the Smartpoints program. In fact, I finally gave up on it after fluctuating 3 lbs for months like you. I don't have much to lose, so every calorie counts. WW incentivizes me to eat fruit, even when I could make it without eating, and it also encourages me to eat large portions of low point fish and chicken. All that adds up.
I lost over 60 lbs on the older WW plans. I made goal. As soon as I switched to Smart Points my weight was bouncing back and forth by the same 5 to 7 lbs. When I track calories it comes out to 1400 to 2000. I either maintain or gain there. I want to lose another 20 lbs below where I set my initial goal (still wasn't happy) and I need 1380 calories to lose .5 lbs a week. No room to play there. To keep points low I've been relying on fake foods or high protein stuff because the Points are lower there. This is counterintuitive to the healthy eating habits that I initially learned from WW and kept me there. Seems this program is best for those with a lot to lose, because the more petite women in my group had their Points lowered to below minimum or else they gain. I couldn't even increase my Points to maintenance level because I gained. How do I live like that? Every week I'm begged to come back and it's another lose/gain yo yo. At some point you get sick of it, plus the list of food I can't have unless I plan on eating tuna and salad all day: cereal, soup, real chocolate, desserts, fast foods, certain dairies. Guess who's binging now? Need I go on? I know I can't have it all, all the time, but this is making me feel bad.
0 -
Victoria42015 wrote: »But they say people are losing better on Smartpoints than Points Plus, so maybe it works well for some and not others. I haven't been successful with it but there could be other problems, like not being strict enough with myself.
Honestly I have read nothing but complaints about the newer programs. But yeah if people were not having any success, it doesn't make sense that they would continue with it.0 -
newheavensearth wrote: »Victoria42015 wrote: »Hi! I haven't read every single post carefully, but I did want to say this. The sad truth is that if you are not losing weight, you need to eat less. I lost 25 lbs on WW (the program before Smartpoints) and when I got close to goal I had to really cut back, like not eat fruit with breakfast, even smaller portions. I ate 1350 calories a day and even then lost at a snail's pace. If you are not losing at 1100-1400, you are definitely not going to lose at 1600+.
I really don't like the Smartpoints program. In fact, I finally gave up on it after fluctuating 3 lbs for months like you. I don't have much to lose, so every calorie counts. WW incentivizes me to eat fruit, even when I could make it without eating, and it also encourages me to eat large portions of low point fish and chicken. All that adds up.
I lost over 60 lbs on the older WW plans. I made goal. As soon as I switched to Smart Points my weight was bouncing back and forth by the same 5 to 7 lbs. When I track calories it comes out to 1400 to 2000. I either maintain or gain there. I want to lose another 20 lbs below where I set my initial goal (still wasn't happy) and I need 1380 calories to lose .5 lbs a week. No room to play there. To keep points low I've been relying on fake foods or high protein stuff because the Points are lower there. This is counterintuitive to the healthy eating habits that I initially learned from WW and kept me there. Seems this program is best for those with a lot to lose, because the more petite women in my group had their Points lowered to below minimum or else they gain. I couldn't even increase my Points to maintenance level because I gained. How do I live like that? Every week I'm begged to come back and it's another lose/gain yo yo. At some point you get sick of it, plus the list of food I can't have unless I plan on eating tuna and salad all day: cereal, soup, real chocolate, desserts, fast foods, certain dairies. Guess who's binging now? Need I go on? I know I can't have it all, all the time, but this is making me feel bad.
When you say 1380 to lose all pound does that include exercise? I'd not are you able to add some on to eat more?0 -
newheavensearth wrote: »Victoria42015 wrote: »Hi! I haven't read every single post carefully, but I did want to say this. The sad truth is that if you are not losing weight, you need to eat less. I lost 25 lbs on WW (the program before Smartpoints) and when I got close to goal I had to really cut back, like not eat fruit with breakfast, even smaller portions. I ate 1350 calories a day and even then lost at a snail's pace. If you are not losing at 1100-1400, you are definitely not going to lose at 1600+.
I really don't like the Smartpoints program. In fact, I finally gave up on it after fluctuating 3 lbs for months like you. I don't have much to lose, so every calorie counts. WW incentivizes me to eat fruit, even when I could make it without eating, and it also encourages me to eat large portions of low point fish and chicken. All that adds up.
I lost over 60 lbs on the older WW plans. I made goal. As soon as I switched to Smart Points my weight was bouncing back and forth by the same 5 to 7 lbs. When I track calories it comes out to 1400 to 2000. I either maintain or gain there. I want to lose another 20 lbs below where I set my initial goal (still wasn't happy) and I need 1380 calories to lose .5 lbs a week. No room to play there. To keep points low I've been relying on fake foods or high protein stuff because the Points are lower there. This is counterintuitive to the healthy eating habits that I initially learned from WW and kept me there. Seems this program is best for those with a lot to lose, because the more petite women in my group had their Points lowered to below minimum or else they gain. I couldn't even increase my Points to maintenance level because I gained. How do I live like that? Every week I'm begged to come back and it's another lose/gain yo yo. At some point you get sick of it, plus the list of food I can't have unless I plan on eating tuna and salad all day: cereal, soup, real chocolate, desserts, fast foods, certain dairies. Guess who's binging now? Need I go on? I know I can't have it all, all the time, but this is making me feel bad.
When you say 1380 to lose all pound does that include exercise? I'd not are you able to add some on to eat more?
when you were tracking your calories the 1400-2000 was on weight watchers?0 -
[/quote] CICO isn't a diet, and it isn't synonymous with counting calories. It is a mathematical equation that describes a fundamental energy balance, and if a person wants to lose weight, their CI needs to be less than their CO. How they achieve that deficit is up to the individual - but CICO is always the governing principle.[/quote]
I guess I was seeing the philosophy (not science) of CICO as "eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over your caloric guard rails and don't even think about limiting a food group!" Because I see these passionate defenses of Twinkies (or whatever is high in points but the same calorie count as a mango) that seem to suggest WW is doing something terrible by "shaming" people who don't eat high protein and lots of fruit. For me, having a little structure in terms of what I should be eating/not eating helps because non-Twinkie foods fill me up better and seem to result in fewer cravings.
yes, in the end, it's all CICO, but just having a calorie ceiling cap has not worked from ME from a practicality standpoint. I have no personal qualms with Twinkies, fries, candy, whatever, and think it's great if someone has been able to lose weight eating whatever they want, within caloric limits--but for me, the structure of WW is a better fit, and I'm not really understanding all of this criticism of the new program as some sort of rip off or marketing scam. I see it as a tool, just like my food scale is a tool. I've bought several of those over the years--my kids keep destroying them--and have never begrudged the expense, and feel the same way about my $15 WW subscription.0 -
newheavensearth wrote: »Victoria42015 wrote: »Hi! I haven't read every single post carefully, but I did want to say this. The sad truth is that if you are not losing weight, you need to eat less. I lost 25 lbs on WW (the program before Smartpoints) and when I got close to goal I had to really cut back, like not eat fruit with breakfast, even smaller portions. I ate 1350 calories a day and even then lost at a snail's pace. If you are not losing at 1100-1400, you are definitely not going to lose at 1600+.
I really don't like the Smartpoints program. In fact, I finally gave up on it after fluctuating 3 lbs for months like you. I don't have much to lose, so every calorie counts. WW incentivizes me to eat fruit, even when I could make it without eating, and it also encourages me to eat large portions of low point fish and chicken. All that adds up.
I lost over 60 lbs on the older WW plans. I made goal. As soon as I switched to Smart Points my weight was bouncing back and forth by the same 5 to 7 lbs. When I track calories it comes out to 1400 to 2000. I either maintain or gain there. I want to lose another 20 lbs below where I set my initial goal (still wasn't happy) and I need 1380 calories to lose .5 lbs a week. No room to play there. To keep points low I've been relying on fake foods or high protein stuff because the Points are lower there. This is counterintuitive to the healthy eating habits that I initially learned from WW and kept me there. Seems this program is best for those with a lot to lose, because the more petite women in my group had their Points lowered to below minimum or else they gain. I couldn't even increase my Points to maintenance level because I gained. How do I live like that? Every week I'm begged to come back and it's another lose/gain yo yo. At some point you get sick of it, plus the list of food I can't have unless I plan on eating tuna and salad all day: cereal, soup, real chocolate, desserts, fast foods, certain dairies. Guess who's binging now? Need I go on? I know I can't have it all, all the time, but this is making me feel bad.
When you say 1380 to lose all pound does that include exercise? I'd not are you able to add some on to eat more?
when you were tracking your calories the 1400-2000 was on weight watchers?
What everyone else eats is completely irrelevant. Take the advice you've gotten on this thread and the other one. Pick a goal. Track here accurately. Include your veggies. Do it for 6-8 weeks. Reassess.3 -
newheavensearth wrote: »Victoria42015 wrote: »Hi! I haven't read every single post carefully, but I did want to say this. The sad truth is that if you are not losing weight, you need to eat less. I lost 25 lbs on WW (the program before Smartpoints) and when I got close to goal I had to really cut back, like not eat fruit with breakfast, even smaller portions. I ate 1350 calories a day and even then lost at a snail's pace. If you are not losing at 1100-1400, you are definitely not going to lose at 1600+.
I really don't like the Smartpoints program. In fact, I finally gave up on it after fluctuating 3 lbs for months like you. I don't have much to lose, so every calorie counts. WW incentivizes me to eat fruit, even when I could make it without eating, and it also encourages me to eat large portions of low point fish and chicken. All that adds up.
I lost over 60 lbs on the older WW plans. I made goal. As soon as I switched to Smart Points my weight was bouncing back and forth by the same 5 to 7 lbs. When I track calories it comes out to 1400 to 2000. I either maintain or gain there. I want to lose another 20 lbs below where I set my initial goal (still wasn't happy) and I need 1380 calories to lose .5 lbs a week. No room to play there. To keep points low I've been relying on fake foods or high protein stuff because the Points are lower there. This is counterintuitive to the healthy eating habits that I initially learned from WW and kept me there. Seems this program is best for those with a lot to lose, because the more petite women in my group had their Points lowered to below minimum or else they gain. I couldn't even increase my Points to maintenance level because I gained. How do I live like that? Every week I'm begged to come back and it's another lose/gain yo yo. At some point you get sick of it, plus the list of food I can't have unless I plan on eating tuna and salad all day: cereal, soup, real chocolate, desserts, fast foods, certain dairies. Guess who's binging now? Need I go on? I know I can't have it all, all the time, but this is making me feel bad.
When you say 1380 to lose all pound does that include exercise? I'd not are you able to add some on to eat more?
when you were tracking your calories the 1400-2000 was on weight watchers?
Yes my 30 points translated to 1400 to 2000 calorie depending on food choices. I need 1380 before exercise to lose half of a pound a week. I can't use too many exercise calories- I'm on the small side 5'3"and size 4, but want to get to 125.0 -
CICO isn't a diet, and it isn't synonymous with counting calories. It is a mathematical equation that describes a fundamental energy balance, and if a person wants to lose weight, their CI needs to be less than their CO. How they achieve that deficit is up to the individual - but CICO is always the governing principle.[/quote]storyjorie wrote: »
I guess I was seeing the philosophy (not science) of CICO as "eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over your caloric guard rails and don't even think about limiting a food group!" Because I see these passionate defenses of Twinkies (or whatever is high in points but the same calorie count as a mango) that seem to suggest WW is doing something terrible by "shaming" people who don't eat high protein and lots of fruit. For me, having a little structure in terms of what I should be eating/not eating helps because non-Twinkie foods fill me up better and seem to result in fewer cravings.
yes, in the end, it's all CICO, but just having a calorie ceiling cap has not worked from ME from a practicality standpoint. I have no personal qualms with Twinkies, fries, candy, whatever, and think it's great if someone has been able to lose weight eating whatever they want, within caloric limits--but for me, the structure of WW is a better fit, and I'm not really understanding all of this criticism of the new program as some sort of rip off or marketing scam. I see it as a tool, just like my food scale is a tool. I've bought several of those over the years--my kids keep destroying them--and have never begrudged the expense, and feel the same way about my $15 WW subscription.[/quote]
I can't really comment as it pertains to the philosophies of WW compared to MFP. We do see that misunderstanding quite often here - when someone asks if they can eat a particular food and still lose weight - and people say, "yep, it's all about CICO", they are not saying that a person should ignore nutrition. They are saying that from a weight loss perspective, calorie deficit is the requirement, and you can achieve that calorie deficit eating a variety of different ways, and one of those ways is to include foods that you love in moderation.
I have yet to see a person here who says 'eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over your calories" who means that nutrition and overall health isn't important. I think the vast majority of people know that eating a balanced diet is important, but they are confused by the diet industry who tells them that in order to be successful, that they have to cut out foods they enjoy, that sugar is evil or one must eat clean in order to lose weight. The comments that a calorie deficit is all that is required for weight loss is just an attempt to refute that misinformation that is so prevalent in today's world.
I don't personally care for twinkies, but I've lost the weight I set out to lose, and am currently maintaining, by eating whatever I wanted as long as I didn't go over. What I wanted to eat was a variety of foods including protein, grains, vegetables, dairy, healthy fats, and some treats in moderation. Some people need more structure, and that's fine, and some people like to have a more simple way of adding things up - I think WW can provide that to those who want it. I personally would rather have a more universally understood method of tracking - calories and basic nutritional levels provide that for me - I know what my TDEE is and what I need to eat in order to maintain my weight. If I decide to lose again, I know just what I need to do in order to do that as well.
It sounds like what you are doing is working well for you. I'm not seeing any "hate" for WW here, just frustration at a changing system, but I get that.5 -
VintageFeline wrote: »newheavensearth wrote: »Victoria42015 wrote: »Hi! I haven't read every single post carefully, but I did want to say this. The sad truth is that if you are not losing weight, you need to eat less. I lost 25 lbs on WW (the program before Smartpoints) and when I got close to goal I had to really cut back, like not eat fruit with breakfast, even smaller portions. I ate 1350 calories a day and even then lost at a snail's pace. If you are not losing at 1100-1400, you are definitely not going to lose at 1600+.
I really don't like the Smartpoints program. In fact, I finally gave up on it after fluctuating 3 lbs for months like you. I don't have much to lose, so every calorie counts. WW incentivizes me to eat fruit, even when I could make it without eating, and it also encourages me to eat large portions of low point fish and chicken. All that adds up.
I lost over 60 lbs on the older WW plans. I made goal. As soon as I switched to Smart Points my weight was bouncing back and forth by the same 5 to 7 lbs. When I track calories it comes out to 1400 to 2000. I either maintain or gain there. I want to lose another 20 lbs below where I set my initial goal (still wasn't happy) and I need 1380 calories to lose .5 lbs a week. No room to play there. To keep points low I've been relying on fake foods or high protein stuff because the Points are lower there. This is counterintuitive to the healthy eating habits that I initially learned from WW and kept me there. Seems this program is best for those with a lot to lose, because the more petite women in my group had their Points lowered to below minimum or else they gain. I couldn't even increase my Points to maintenance level because I gained. How do I live like that? Every week I'm begged to come back and it's another lose/gain yo yo. At some point you get sick of it, plus the list of food I can't have unless I plan on eating tuna and salad all day: cereal, soup, real chocolate, desserts, fast foods, certain dairies. Guess who's binging now? Need I go on? I know I can't have it all, all the time, but this is making me feel bad.
When you say 1380 to lose all pound does that include exercise? I'd not are you able to add some on to eat more?
when you were tracking your calories the 1400-2000 was on weight watchers?
What everyone else eats is completely irrelevant. Take the advice you've gotten on this thread and the other one. Pick a goal. Track here accurately. Include your veggies. Do it for 6-8 weeks. Reassess.
I'm questioning her about her experience, please don't continue to post here, I find you rude @vintagefeline0 -
newheavensearth wrote: »newheavensearth wrote: »Victoria42015 wrote: »Hi! I haven't read every single post carefully, but I did want to say this. The sad truth is that if you are not losing weight, you need to eat less. I lost 25 lbs on WW (the program before Smartpoints) and when I got close to goal I had to really cut back, like not eat fruit with breakfast, even smaller portions. I ate 1350 calories a day and even then lost at a snail's pace. If you are not losing at 1100-1400, you are definitely not going to lose at 1600+.
I really don't like the Smartpoints program. In fact, I finally gave up on it after fluctuating 3 lbs for months like you. I don't have much to lose, so every calorie counts. WW incentivizes me to eat fruit, even when I could make it without eating, and it also encourages me to eat large portions of low point fish and chicken. All that adds up.
I lost over 60 lbs on the older WW plans. I made goal. As soon as I switched to Smart Points my weight was bouncing back and forth by the same 5 to 7 lbs. When I track calories it comes out to 1400 to 2000. I either maintain or gain there. I want to lose another 20 lbs below where I set my initial goal (still wasn't happy) and I need 1380 calories to lose .5 lbs a week. No room to play there. To keep points low I've been relying on fake foods or high protein stuff because the Points are lower there. This is counterintuitive to the healthy eating habits that I initially learned from WW and kept me there. Seems this program is best for those with a lot to lose, because the more petite women in my group had their Points lowered to below minimum or else they gain. I couldn't even increase my Points to maintenance level because I gained. How do I live like that? Every week I'm begged to come back and it's another lose/gain yo yo. At some point you get sick of it, plus the list of food I can't have unless I plan on eating tuna and salad all day: cereal, soup, real chocolate, desserts, fast foods, certain dairies. Guess who's binging now? Need I go on? I know I can't have it all, all the time, but this is making me feel bad.
When you say 1380 to lose all pound does that include exercise? I'd not are you able to add some on to eat more?
when you were tracking your calories the 1400-2000 was on weight watchers?
Yes my 30 points translated to 1400 to 2000 calorie depending on food choices. I need 1380 before exercise to lose half of a pound a week. I can't use too many exercise calories- I'm on the small side 5'3"and size 4, but want to get to 125.
wow, thats a very wide gap in calories!I'm glad you came here too nd I'm not the only one...how is MFP going for you?
0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »newheavensearth wrote: »Victoria42015 wrote: »Hi! I haven't read every single post carefully, but I did want to say this. The sad truth is that if you are not losing weight, you need to eat less. I lost 25 lbs on WW (the program before Smartpoints) and when I got close to goal I had to really cut back, like not eat fruit with breakfast, even smaller portions. I ate 1350 calories a day and even then lost at a snail's pace. If you are not losing at 1100-1400, you are definitely not going to lose at 1600+.
I really don't like the Smartpoints program. In fact, I finally gave up on it after fluctuating 3 lbs for months like you. I don't have much to lose, so every calorie counts. WW incentivizes me to eat fruit, even when I could make it without eating, and it also encourages me to eat large portions of low point fish and chicken. All that adds up.
I lost over 60 lbs on the older WW plans. I made goal. As soon as I switched to Smart Points my weight was bouncing back and forth by the same 5 to 7 lbs. When I track calories it comes out to 1400 to 2000. I either maintain or gain there. I want to lose another 20 lbs below where I set my initial goal (still wasn't happy) and I need 1380 calories to lose .5 lbs a week. No room to play there. To keep points low I've been relying on fake foods or high protein stuff because the Points are lower there. This is counterintuitive to the healthy eating habits that I initially learned from WW and kept me there. Seems this program is best for those with a lot to lose, because the more petite women in my group had their Points lowered to below minimum or else they gain. I couldn't even increase my Points to maintenance level because I gained. How do I live like that? Every week I'm begged to come back and it's another lose/gain yo yo. At some point you get sick of it, plus the list of food I can't have unless I plan on eating tuna and salad all day: cereal, soup, real chocolate, desserts, fast foods, certain dairies. Guess who's binging now? Need I go on? I know I can't have it all, all the time, but this is making me feel bad.
When you say 1380 to lose all pound does that include exercise? I'd not are you able to add some on to eat more?
when you were tracking your calories the 1400-2000 was on weight watchers?
What everyone else eats is completely irrelevant. Take the advice you've gotten on this thread and the other one. Pick a goal. Track here accurately. Include your veggies. Do it for 6-8 weeks. Reassess.
I'm questioning her about her experience, please don't continue to post here, I find you rude @vintagefeline
It's an open forum, I can post if I like.
You appear to be focusing on all the wrong things. How many calories other people eat isn't the issue. How accurately they track and what rate they lose if following mfp is a little more relevant.
But this is 5 pages of advice and you're still focusing on what other people are doing. WW isn't working for you. You don't count vegetables. There's the issue.
I'm just giving you the easy potted version as you seem to continue to not understand how weight loss works.3 -
i got everything I need from everyone's fabulous knowledge, Im relating to other ppl here and sharing it0
-
storyjorie wrote: »yes, in the end, it's all CICO, but just having a calorie ceiling cap has not worked from ME from a practicality standpoint. I have no personal qualms with Twinkies, fries, candy, whatever, and think it's great if someone has been able to lose weight eating whatever they want, within caloric limits--but for me, the structure of WW is a better fit, and I'm not really understanding all of this criticism of the new program as some sort of rip off or marketing scam. I see it as a tool, just like my food scale is a tool. I've bought several of those over the years--my kids keep destroying them--and have never begrudged the expense, and feel the same way about my $15 WW subscription.
Very well stated, and that is exactly how I feel (at least with my experience of the *old* program).0 -
CafeRacer808 wrote: »i weigh and measure everything down to 4thw tbsp nd oz...ill put all my info on again and see what comes up
What are you using your tablespoons for? Because if it's for anything other than a pure liquid, you should be weighing those things. Also, since there are 28 grams per ounce, grams are more accurate.
So much this.
Use a food scale for everything that you cannot pour. No more cups/spoons for solid/semi solid food.
Weigh and log fruit and vegetables, too.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions