weight watchers and mfp

savithny

zfitgal wrote: »

that is so interesting, I don't see the difference they are both measured, oz or grams?

Grams make the math easier because if you find those "calories per 100 grams" entries you can use simple percentages. So if you eat 45 grams of something, and find the 100 gram entry in the database, you ate .45 of a serving!

Running_and_Coffee

Nikion901 wrote: »

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.

So - are you still trying to lose weight, or is this version of WW an eating program that you now use to maintain?

I just had 7 lbs to lose and then my real goal is to find a comfortable, healthy and easy way maintain, so I guess both.

Running_and_Coffee

zfitgal wrote: »

Nikion901 wrote: »

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.

So - are you still trying to lose weight, or is this version of WW an eating program that you now use to maintain?

I think this would be a fabulous maintenance program

I really hope so!! But, eating 1300-1400 calories a day on WW right now in losing mode, it's also perfectly adept as a weight loss program. People who are tweaking the program to fit in 1800 calories on 30 points probably aren't having the same luck, but unless you go out of your way to eat a 250 calorie grilled chicken breast as a "snack" rather than a yogurt or some fruit and cheese, I'm not really sure why it wouldn't work.

zfitgal

jjohnstonlni wrote: »

Honestly when I got stuck I tightened up on logging, and readjusted my calorie goals until it got me unstuck.
It sounds like you're pretty tight on logging, so go back and readjust until you find the perfect balance that gets you losing again.

after you tightened up on logging did you slightly decrease or increase your calories

Running_and_Coffee

zfitgal wrote: »

KT6377 wrote: »

storyjorie wrote: »

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.

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.

I began have an issue when a 120 calorie, fat-free strawberry Greek yogurt and a 277 calorie 6oz chicken breast have the same points value. 6 points for 2tbsp of peanut butter at 190 calories?! Not one of those foods is bad for you but they are penalized in WW. And my banana didn't instantly become more calories just because I blended it into my protein shake. Yes, it may take less work for my system to digest it than if I chewed it but it shouldn't automatically go from 0 to 2 points because I mashed it up. That's the problem with WW. You don't actually understand the true the caloric impact of the food you eat, and regardless of how you chose to go about it you still have to consume less calories than you use. Even if someone decided to eat nothing but twinkies, burgers, and beer if they are in a deficit they will lose (and feel like garbage). If you stay within your 30 pts but eat 700 calories of veggies a day because your hungry all the time, it's still 700 calories of veggies and at some point that will become a problem. My issue with the new program is that Smart Points values are not proportionately related to actual calories and have become less so with each program revision, and ultimately it all boils down to CICO. Nobody is saying don't follow WW if it works for you, but there is definitely a fundamental problem with the way they are assigning points that is not working for a lot of people.[/quote]

couldn't have said it better myself! [/quote]

Yeah, that's true, but unless you are "snacking" on a 277 calorie chicken breast, I am not sure why you'd run into that issue. I still have snacks that are 2-3 points (like a Greek yogurt or some cheese or almonds.) Sure, you can manipulate the program to try to get in as many calories per point as you can, but who wants to eat that much chicken or fish? It's not a pleasurable snack food. I remember doing WW in the past and trying crank up that slider to get as much food as I could before breaking into a higher point, but with this plan, there just isn't that need. It's the same points for 4-6 oz. of grilled chicken and 4 is plenty for me. At a certain point, you learn to eat till you're satisfied and then stop, and the foods that are lower in points are just not the kind anyone would enjoy mindlessly noshing on.

zfitgal

storyjorie wrote: »

zfitgal wrote: »

Nikion901 wrote: »

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.

So - are you still trying to lose weight, or is this version of WW an eating program that you now use to maintain?

I think this would be a fabulous maintenance program

I really hope so!! But, eating 1300-1400 calories a day on WW right now in losing mode, it's also perfectly adept as a weight loss program. People who are tweaking the program to fit in 1800 calories on 30 points probably aren't having the same luck, but unless you go out of your way to eat a 250 calorie grilled chicken breast as a "snack" rather than a yogurt or some fruit and cheese, I'm not really sure why it wouldn't work.

I believe weight watchers allowed mw to look away from things...veggies do have calories and everyone is right, they need to be counted for...i didn't have oil so i used spray pam, w second spray said 5 calories, I made it 10, but i never counted Pam either...just the small things add up

newheavensearth

storyjorie wrote: »

zfitgal wrote: »

KT6377 wrote: »

storyjorie wrote: »

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.

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.

I began have an issue when a 120 calorie, fat-free strawberry Greek yogurt and a 277 calorie 6oz chicken breast have the same points value. 6 points for 2tbsp of peanut butter at 190 calories?! Not one of those foods is bad for you but they are penalized in WW. And my banana didn't instantly become more calories just because I blended it into my protein shake. Yes, it may take less work for my system to digest it than if I chewed it but it shouldn't automatically go from 0 to 2 points because I mashed it up. That's the problem with WW. You don't actually understand the true the caloric impact of the food you eat, and regardless of how you chose to go about it you still have to consume less calories than you use. Even if someone decided to eat nothing but twinkies, burgers, and beer if they are in a deficit they will lose (and feel like garbage). If you stay within your 30 pts but eat 700 calories of veggies a day because your hungry all the time, it's still 700 calories of veggies and at some point that will become a problem. My issue with the new program is that Smart Points values are not proportionately related to actual calories and have become less so with each program revision, and ultimately it all boils down to CICO. Nobody is saying don't follow WW if it works for you, but there is definitely a fundamental problem with the way they are assigning points that is not working for a lot of people.

couldn't have said it better myself! [/quote]

Yeah, that's true, but unless you are "snacking" on a 277 calorie chicken breast, I am not sure why you'd run into that issue. I still have snacks that are 2-3 points (like a Greek yogurt or some cheese or almonds.) Sure, you can manipulate the program to try to get in as many calories per point as you can, but who wants to eat that much chicken or fish? It's not a pleasurable snack food. I remember doing WW in the past and trying crank up that slider to get as much food as I could before breaking into a higher point, but with this plan, there just isn't that need. It's the same points for 4-6 oz. of grilled chicken and 4 is plenty for me. At a certain point, you learn to eat till you're satisfied and then stop, and the foods that are lower in points are just not the kind anyone would enjoy mindlessly noshing on. [/quote]

I think that stopping the mindless noshing by making protein look like the better bargain was one of the reasons for the change. I felt miserable trying to snack on tuna and lunch meat (1 or 2 pts each) so I switched to fruits and veggies. Used to be yogurt and Fiber One bars tilthe points went up.

fitmom4lifemfp

lizery wrote: »

The author of your cited blog post is applying the data relevant to a hypocaloric state to eating less than a person was before.

What he's saying had kinda half got elements of truth ... which also means half is not.

Like anything else online, you either make a decision to believe it, or not. It makes a helluva lot of sense, to me, and that is why I posted it.

fitmom4lifemfp

storyjorie wrote: »

of grilled chicken and 4 is plenty for me. At a certain point, you learn to eat till you're satisfied and then stop, and the foods that are lower in points are just not the kind anyone would enjoy mindlessly noshing on.

All true. A very big part of being successful when trying to lose weight, is just becoming accustomed to eating LESS FOOD, and getting used to not having that "full" feeling that so many want to have. If I eat until I am "full", every time I eat, I would gain 20 pounds in a month, easy. It's the hardest part...and I know that well. I remember back when I started the WW plan, ( I had gained 50- 60 pounds over 5 years, this was after a split with ex, small child at home, stopped the gym, and just ate whatever), the first 2 weeks I felt like I was starving. I was eating so much less food, and it took that two weeks for me to adjust.

3 to 4 oz of chicken is normal for me - if I eat out somewhere, such as a grilled chicken sandwich, I know it will be more. But when making my lunches/dinners, 4 oz is usually what I have. And it really is plenty.