Weight Watchers vs Calorie Counting?

xjessicaxrx
xjessicaxrx Posts: 144 Member
edited November 19 in Health and Weight Loss
I have joined Weight watchers today to try to encourage myself to make better food choices, I would like to know if anyone on here has used Weight watchers successfully before and what are your thoughts on this idea?

I have been using MyFitnessPal for the last 18 months and lost just over 3 stone so far, I have another 16lb to get rid of to reach my ideal weight. I have been struggling to stay motivated and keep on track recently, My current mind set isn't really working for me. I enjoy cooking and I make most of my meals at home from scratch. I like the idea of WW because most Fruit and Veg are zero points- where as on here weighing and entering the calories for every single thing gets complicated and gets on my nerves. Basically I feel like I just need a change!

Can anyone share any similar personal experiences? Any advice is welcome :)

Replies

  • MissMaggieMuffin
    MissMaggieMuffin Posts: 444 Member
    The concept of most fruits and vegetables having zero points is exactly the thing that 'got' me with WW. Granted, it was a few years ago that I was on their program, but I quickly learned to eat a lot of fruits/vegetables on the program, telling myself that it was all free food. The problem is, as @snickerscharlie says, those fruits and vegetables do have calories and they add up just the same way as food with points.

    I've done much better with MFP and straightforward calorie counting. (I) can't play any mind games that way. :#

    For people that benefit from group support, the WW meetings are definitely a positive.
  • jacquih2981
    jacquih2981 Posts: 120 Member
    I too have joined Weight Watchers recently but I did it so I can have access to the online recipes. By having the recipes I can get inspiration and more ideas on the types of things I can eat to get more variety in my diet (need to put it into practice now). The whole 'free food' just doesn't work for me and the app drove me nuts. For me WW doesn't work well but MFP does, that said we are all different and need to find what works for us. I think the closer you get to goal the more challenging WW is likely to be because all food will have a calorific value and 'free' won't take account of that
  • xjessicaxrx
    xjessicaxrx Posts: 144 Member
    Thanks everyone :) A bit more behind my way of thinking... The reason I chose WW over Slimming world is because I feel they are more realistic with the Zero point methodology (for fruit and veg) as oppose to SW where fruit, veg, potato, pasta, rice, meat, fish etc. are ALL "free" foods which seems ridiculous and very misleading to me. I am under no illusions about what I am trying, I just feel like it will make me choose more wisely. For example; Eating a banana instead of a cereal bar- even though they have the same amount of calories, the banana is more filling. Also eating more vegetables with my meals instead of the usual pasta / rice / potatoes which in turn will be more filling and nutritious for less calories (if that makes any sense?).
  • snickerscharlie
    snickerscharlie Posts: 8,578 Member
    xjessicaxrx wrote: »
    Thanks everyone :) A bit more behind my way of thinking... The reason I chose WW over Slimming world is because I feel they are more realistic with the Zero point methodology (for fruit and veg) as oppose to SW where fruit, veg, potato, pasta, rice, meat, fish etc. are ALL "free" foods which seems ridiculous and very misleading to me. I am under no illusions about what I am trying, I just feel like it will make me choose more wisely. For example; Eating a banana instead of a cereal bar- even though they have the same amount of calories, the banana is more filling. Also eating more vegetables with my meals instead of the usual pasta / rice / potatoes which in turn will be more filling and nutritious for less calories (if that makes any sense?).

    You'll have to figure out what works best for you as an individual. For example, *for me* if the calories were equal, I'd definitely choose the cereal bar over the banana because that would be more satiating to me. :)
  • xjessicaxrx
    xjessicaxrx Posts: 144 Member
    Well ill give it a go and see what happens, im stuck where I am at the moment so it cant do any harm to have a change once in a while.
  • choppie70
    choppie70 Posts: 544 Member
    I used MFP successfully to lose 45 lbs, but gained some of that back after a surgery. I was having trouble getting back in the swing so I signed up for WW thinking that if I was actually paying for it, I would stick to it.

    I lost about 5 lbs the first week on weight watchers, but then gained it all back, plus 3 more pounds the following three weeks. I stayed in my daily points and used only about 3 weekly points a week, never touching my 100+ exercise calories a week.

    I was eating way more fruits and vegetables than I was before, heck yeah, free points! But when I finally decided to plug my calories into MFP along with WW, I found that I was eating a ton of calories still!

    Plus, the point system did not sit well with me. My cereal bar was about 7 pts. and was 130 calories. A banana was 0 points and about 100 calories. That just did not compute with me, and it was giving me a bad relationship with food and making me miserable.

    Finally, because I ate SO much fruit, I had a not so pleasant experience at work. Thankfully I had a dress with tights on, but leaving work naked from the waist down and having to profusely apologize to the custodian repeatedly still gives me nightmares!
  • xjessicaxrx
    xjessicaxrx Posts: 144 Member
    choppie70 wrote: »
    I used MFP successfully to lose 45 lbs, but gained some of that back after a surgery. I was having trouble getting back in the swing so I signed up for WW thinking that if I was actually paying for it, I would stick to it.

    I lost about 5 lbs the first week on weight watchers, but then gained it all back, plus 3 more pounds the following three weeks. I stayed in my daily points and used only about 3 weekly points a week, never touching my 100+ exercise calories a week.

    I was eating way more fruits and vegetables than I was before, heck yeah, free points! But when I finally decided to plug my calories into MFP along with WW, I found that I was eating a ton of calories still!

    Plus, the point system did not sit well with me. My cereal bar was about 7 pts. and was 130 calories. A banana was 0 points and about 100 calories. That just did not compute with me, and it was giving me a bad relationship with food and making me miserable.

    Finally, because I ate SO much fruit, I had a not so pleasant experience at work. Thankfully I had a dress with tights on, but leaving work naked from the waist down and having to profusely apologize to the custodian repeatedly still gives me nightmares!

    Oh dear haha sorry that made me laugh :blush:
    I hardly eat any fruit at the moment but I do like/ enjoy it. Id like to eat more without worrying about the numbers, ill give it a month and see what happens- call it an experiment on myself!
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    CiaIgle wrote: »
    I can understand WW in the old times, when access to calorie databases was complex. WW did an important job in simplifying the counting process.

    Nowadays with the info and apps available, WW keeps its position as one good alternative, but in my opinion, not the best one.

    This^

    Especially since points are no longer tied to calorie counts. OP - get ready to be penalized for making "bad" food choices. The commercials say you can eat bread everyday, and that people are losing faster than before. These 2 things go hand-in-hand. Bread will cost you dearly in points...so under eating must me okay.

    But if weekly meetings and weigh-ins help....then you got something out of it.
  • Sp1tfire
    Sp1tfire Posts: 1,120 Member
    My mother did fantastic on weight watchers. It was convenient and the group meetings and friends she did it with were very motivating. But in the end, it got expensive when it was no longer a work perk for her. If she were to try something to lose weight again, i'd probably suggest calorie counting on MFP over weight watchers again.
  • laurabadams
    laurabadams Posts: 201 Member
    I lost 55# on WW last year...started May 1, 2016, hit goal August 20, made lifetime October 1. I've kept it all off.

    I think WW is great for weight loss, not so great for weight maintenance, imo, particularly if you're very active. I found it difficult to adjust my points to meet my needs. I switched to MFP on March 1, 2017 so I could monitor my macros & I like it much better. I like working with calories & macros because they're the units used in all nutritional information charts. I can look at them & know what I need to know without converting through some strange smart point algorithm.

    I still weigh in weekly & attend meetings for accountability & socializing (free at Lifetime), but I don't track with smart points or the WW app anymore.

    My 68 year old mother has lost almost 50# in the last year on WW & she loves it. She tried MFP & didn't like calorie counting. Just gotta find what works best for you.
  • mikesnyder757
    mikesnyder757 Posts: 3 Member
    I just recently was on WW and actually went to a couple of meetings...I can see why people would like the program and it DOES work.. However, I got tired of having to change calories into points all the time and also, the data base for their app was not nearly as inclusive as MFP.....Both programs will work if you work the program...Try WW for a few months and see what YOU think...Change is sometimes good!
  • kyrannosaurus
    kyrannosaurus Posts: 350 Member
    I spent a year attending WW meetings. I liked having the face-to-face accountability of attending a group in person weekly.

    Except I absolutely HATE the Weight Watchers points system. Through double tracking both on the WW app and here on MFP, most of the time if I stuck to my WW points I would only be eating about 1000 calories a day. If I ate my WW points I would be under eating and starving hungry.

    Also I find tracking the points to be overly complicated and less accurate. The formula to calculate the points is much more complicated than just tracking calories here.

    So I continued to attend WW meetings just for the accountability. And reached my goal weight counting calories here. In that year I was the only person in my group to actually get to goal. Which spoke volumes to me about how useless the points program is. No one in my meeting who actually followed their Points program actually had much success. Most people gave up after a few week - probably because they were either under eating and starving, or not losing weight because they overate the "free" fruit.
  • Neurotic22
    Neurotic22 Posts: 22 Member
    edited July 2017
    OP I have never tried WW, but I did join SW when I wanted that first boost of motivation to eat better. Not the same, but similar, I guess especially because I am gluten intolerant and pretty much never bother with pasta or rice even if it's free.

    I think it can be great as an encouragement to eat more healthy food choices (veg being free) and personally I suffer from "knowing I have calories left" hunger, where I honestly used to gobble every calorie I had... then when on SW I would only know rough ideas of the calories so I was more mindful: I was aware of a banana being about 100kcal, but also knew that banana might be 120kcal so, not knowing how many calories I had consumed by the end of the day, I would consider whether I was hungry more intently than when I knew exactly whether or not mfp said I had enough calories for an extra kit kat.

    I do think it could fail to work for some, but for me it really helped when I was struggling to put down the snack foods.
  • macchiatto
    macchiatto Posts: 2,890 Member
    I did WW (online) to lose 20 lbs before we TTC. That was way back in 2007 so I know the system has changed since then. It worked well for me. After having twins, I used it again to lose some of the post-pregnancy weight. I plateaued after a while and ended up having success with another method. Points Plus didn't seem to be as effective for me for whatever reason. I've never tried their current system but I know people who have had success with each version of their program. I think it's definitely worth a shot if the Points idea appeals to you. Some people find the IRL meetings great for accountability.
  • xjessicaxrx
    xjessicaxrx Posts: 144 Member
    Its encouraging to hear that it does work for some, thats for your input everyone :)
  • DrifterBear
    DrifterBear Posts: 265 Member
    edited July 2017
    My wife had a baby 2 months ago and wanted to do WW to have the accountability. A 'date' with the scale every Saturday morning is a powerful motivator. I'm doing it with her for support. Recently I've been logging in WW instead of MFP. I hate double tracking and wish they would share, but I understand why WW only wants to accept step data from FitBit instead of food.

    Points are just something they made up, but I'm a big fan of it. At the end of the day, you will gain or lose weight based on calories in vs calories out. But points represent calories, or more importantly, the macro nutrient makeup of food. In WW, not all calories are equal (something that is very touch on MFP). But the idea is teaching you how to successfully make trade offs. A 12 oz coke has 140 calories but that's 9 points on WW. Meanwhile, 4 oz raw chicken breast is 134 calories but only 2 points on WW. While these have the same calories, you will have to cut back on soda much more quickly on WW than counting calories. Even if your body sees 140 calories as the same. I think that's good because the chicken will keep you full longer and beyond weight loss, I'd argue it's a 'healthier' choice (I understand healthy is a bad word on MFP). Fruit and veggies are 'free' because they NEVER want you feeling bad about choosing fruit or veggies.

    I double entered today and my 40 points in WW appears to be about 1500 calories. Adding in some fruit and veggies, that's 1800-2000 which is around where MFP tells me to be. Plus some activity points / calories and it's all more or less the same. WW has a theory about the kinds of foods you should eat during the day to be full and lose weight. The points are designed to shift your behavior to get you making 'healthier' choices that are sustainable long-term. I don't see that as a crutch at all, at least not for people who really don't understand nutrition and need some help learning about how to maximize use of the calories they need to stick with to lose weight.
  • chelllsea124
    chelllsea124 Posts: 336 Member
    I was on WW a few years back. I don't like how they say that fruits and veggies are basically "zero points". Especially fruit... because there are definitely calories in fruit! Also, in the long run, I didn't learn how to eat because I didn't feel like tracking points was a good way to count. Counting calories gives me a better idea of what is what.
  • xjessicaxrx
    xjessicaxrx Posts: 144 Member
    DrifterBear wrote: »
    My wife had a baby 2 months ago and wanted to do WW to have the accountability. A 'date' with the scale every Saturday morning is a powerful motivator. I'm doing it with her for support. Recently I've been logging in WW instead of MFP. I hate double tracking and with they would share, but I understand why WW only wants to accept step data from FitBit instead of food.

    Points are just something they made up, but I'm a big fan of it. At the end of the day, you will gain or lose weight based on calories in vs calories out. But points represent calories, or more importantly, the macro nutrient makeup of food. In WW, not all calories are equal (something that is very touch on MFP). But the idea is teaching you how to successfully make trade offs. A 12 oz coke has 140 calories but that's 9 points on WW. Meanwhile, 4 oz raw chicken breast is 134 calories but only 2 points on WW. While these have the same calories, you will have to cut back on soda much more quickly on WW than counting calories. Even if your body sees 140 calories as the same. I think that's good because the chicken will keep you full longer and beyond weight loss, I'd argue it's a 'healthier' choice (I understand healthy is a bad word on MFP). Fruit and veggies are 'free' because they NEVER want you feeling bad about choosing fruit or veggies.

    I double entered today and my 40 points in WW appears to be about 1500 calories. Adding in some fruit and veggies, that's 1800-2000 which is around where MFP tells me to be. Plus some activity points / calories and it's all more or less the same. WW has a theory about the kinds of foods you should eat during the day to be full and lose weight. The points are designed to shift your behavior to get you making 'healthier' choices that are sustainable long-term. I don't see that as a crutch at all, at least not for people who really don't understand nutrition and need some help learning about how to maximize use of the calories they need to stick with to lose weight.

    This is brilliant I agree with everything you have said! All i seem to see on MFP is "a calorie is a calorie" but to me it just doesnt sit right. You obviously digest all different foods differently and use nutrients from the food in different ways. I dont think anybody (even the scientists) really knows the exact amount of energy each individual uses from from food, my guess is that everybody is different?
  • DrifterBear
    DrifterBear Posts: 265 Member
    edited July 2017
    xjessicaxrx wrote: »
    DrifterBear wrote: »
    My wife had a baby 2 months ago and wanted to do WW to have the accountability. A 'date' with the scale every Saturday morning is a powerful motivator. I'm doing it with her for support. Recently I've been logging in WW instead of MFP. I hate double tracking and with they would share, but I understand why WW only wants to accept step data from FitBit instead of food.

    Points are just something they made up, but I'm a big fan of it. At the end of the day, you will gain or lose weight based on calories in vs calories out. But points represent calories, or more importantly, the macro nutrient makeup of food. In WW, not all calories are equal (something that is very touch on MFP). But the idea is teaching you how to successfully make trade offs. A 12 oz coke has 140 calories but that's 9 points on WW. Meanwhile, 4 oz raw chicken breast is 134 calories but only 2 points on WW. While these have the same calories, you will have to cut back on soda much more quickly on WW than counting calories. Even if your body sees 140 calories as the same. I think that's good because the chicken will keep you full longer and beyond weight loss, I'd argue it's a 'healthier' choice (I understand healthy is a bad word on MFP). Fruit and veggies are 'free' because they NEVER want you feeling bad about choosing fruit or veggies.

    I double entered today and my 40 points in WW appears to be about 1500 calories. Adding in some fruit and veggies, that's 1800-2000 which is around where MFP tells me to be. Plus some activity points / calories and it's all more or less the same. WW has a theory about the kinds of foods you should eat during the day to be full and lose weight. The points are designed to shift your behavior to get you making 'healthier' choices that are sustainable long-term. I don't see that as a crutch at all, at least not for people who really don't understand nutrition and need some help learning about how to maximize use of the calories they need to stick with to lose weight.

    This is brilliant I agree with everything you have said! All i seem to see on MFP is "a calorie is a calorie" but to me it just doesnt sit right. You obviously digest all different foods differently and use nutrients from the food in different ways. I dont think anybody (even the scientists) really knows the exact amount of energy each individual uses from from food, my guess is that everybody is different?

    I do agree with the science that you need to be at a certain calorie level to lose, gain, or maintain. And you could consume total 'junk' food below your calorie level and lose weight. But the calories you consume do matter for keeping you full, helping you recover from workouts, etc. A coke may only be 140 calories, but it's completely empty and have no benefit other than to the extent it makes you happy, like a piece of cake or some ice cream. You should make room for those things, but ultimately you need to eat foods that keep you full and provide good nutrition. You can experiment on your own, but the points system helps guide you to what WW believes to be better choices.
  • infinitynevermore
    infinitynevermore Posts: 98 Member
    My mother lost about 30 lbs using WW back in 2012. Came back to it last year, but since they made all fruits and veggies "free" she didn't lose like before. Came here and has lost weight. She got me to join here seeing her success.
  • Sandcastles61
    Sandcastles61 Posts: 506 Member
    Okay, I admit I'm old LOL .... I did WW back in the day (late 1980's) when it was a food exchange program rather than the point system they do now. You were allotted x daily servings of fruit (2), vegetable (3 at least)), fat (2-3), protein (4-5), bread (2-3) and milk (2), with some floating calories each day and weekly limits of things like eggs, hard cheese, red meats, etc. There were acceptable (restrictive) food lists you could choose from which new foods were added to as you progressed through each week. One serving of banana would be 1/2 of a banana so if you ate a whole banana that was your 2 fruit allotments for the day. 1/2 of a bagel or 1/2 english muffin or 1/2 cup rice was one bread, so if you ate the whole thing that was again your 2 bread totals for the day. Their idea of a hamburger was 2 oz cooked ground meat on a 2 oz hamburger bun so yes you did have to weigh and measure out your food in order to check the appropriate number of boxes each day. Each oz of protein was one of your 4-5 allowed for the day. Lost 20 post baby pounds because essentially it was a calorie counting guide made easy, while trying to install an overall balance in your daily food plan. I can't see how their new system is going to work that well for most people, but then I haven't actually looked at it closely because weighing and measuring my food to check a box or entering it to keep my macros and calories in balance really aren't all that different in my mind. It never hurts to shake things up a bit for yourself though and there's certainly no harm in giving it a trial run if you are tired of logging in your (free) MFP diary. (Okay, I'm also a cheapskate, LOL)
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,242 Member
    DrifterBear wrote: »
    My wife had a baby 2 months ago and wanted to do WW to have the accountability. A 'date' with the scale every Saturday morning is a powerful motivator. I'm doing it with her for support. Recently I've been logging in WW instead of MFP. I hate double tracking and wish they would share, but I understand why WW only wants to accept step data from FitBit instead of food.

    Points are just something they made up, but I'm a big fan of it. At the end of the day, you will gain or lose weight based on calories in vs calories out. But points represent calories, or more importantly, the macro nutrient makeup of food. In WW, not all calories are equal (something that is very touch on MFP). But the idea is teaching you how to successfully make trade offs. A 12 oz coke has 140 calories but that's 9 points on WW. Meanwhile, 4 oz raw chicken breast is 134 calories but only 2 points on WW. While these have the same calories, you will have to cut back on soda much more quickly on WW than counting calories. Even if your body sees 140 calories as the same. I think that's good because the chicken will keep you full longer and beyond weight loss, I'd argue it's a 'healthier' choice (I understand healthy is a bad word on MFP). Fruit and veggies are 'free' because they NEVER want you feeling bad about choosing fruit or veggies.

    I double entered today and my 40 points in WW appears to be about 1500 calories. Adding in some fruit and veggies, that's 1800-2000 which is around where MFP tells me to be. Plus some activity points / calories and it's all more or less the same. WW has a theory about the kinds of foods you should eat during the day to be full and lose weight. The points are designed to shift your behavior to get you making 'healthier' choices that are sustainable long-term. I don't see that as a crutch at all, at least not for people who really don't understand nutrition and need some help learning about how to maximize use of the calories they need to stick with to lose weight.

    And this proves that different people see things differently.

    Because what you describe as a benefit of weight watchers (being forced to make healthier trade offs because of how the points system is valued) IS the main benefit of MFP!

    If you want to stick to your calories you will soon be substituting more sustainable choices for other more fleeting ones.

    As to never discouraging people from eating fruits and vegetables? I have friends on MFP who eat more than 1600g of fruits and vegetables a day. You sure these should be free for them when trying to achieve a caloric deficit?
  • angelica_lisa
    angelica_lisa Posts: 23 Member
    The WW formula takes into account that people will eat x amount of fruits and veggies in a day.
    You are not supposed to eat excessively, even with food that are meant to be "free". When I was on WW, our leader told us how she actually gained 5lbs cause she would eat several pounds of grapes a day while she was at work.

    They made fruits and veggies 0 points so that people would eat more of them and not turn to low point processed food if given a choice (even though with the way they are penalizing processed foods nowadays, I doubt there is such a thing anymore).

    It's a good program, but I realized I didn't want to count points for the rest of my life. And MFP's food database is so much better than WW.

  • LadyLilion
    LadyLilion Posts: 276 Member
    I lost 100 lbs on WW about 10 years ago. I did gain it back, but in fairness to WW, that was because I went back to my old, bad, habits of overeating and eating junk instead of paying attention to my diet and exercise. I think it IS a good program and yes, it does work as well as calorie counting does.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories