just returned

perkymommy

I lost 25 lbs and got to goal about two years ago and felt great. Then I regained it all plus a little more. I'm back to try again. I also use WW along with MFP. WW is becoming a joke so I may be canceling soon. They have so many foods "with" calories that are zero points and it really slows down the process. I am given 1200 cals per day here at MFP but on WW 23 points and right now I have my food entered in to both and I have 3 points (about 50 cals per point which should be around 1,150 cals on WW per day) on WW left for today and 610 calories here on MFP. Makes no sense. That is a huge difference. The fact they have eggs and chicken as zero point foods when they clearly have calories is crazy to me. Makes no sense in how they figure it. It's like they did that to set people up to fail. They also increased the amount of points per day whereas it used to be 19 when I last did it two years ago. Now it's 23. But add on all those zero "calorie filled" foods and there again, doesn't make sense.

L1zardQueen

Isn’t just counting calories easier? Everything is so straight forward here.

JeromeBarry1

WW could make more money if they'd charge an extra $5/month for a hyperlink to mfp.

L1zardQueen

JeromeBarry1 wrote: »

WW could make more money if they'd charge an extra $5/month for a hyperlink to mfp.

Seriously!

GottaBurnEmAll

I got confused just reading about points. I think calorie counting is more straight forward, but that's me. Someone else might find it too nitpicky.

Welcome back!

countcurt

perkymommy wrote: »

I lost 25 lbs and got to goal about two years ago and felt great. Then I regained it all plus a little more. I'm back to try again. I also use WW along with MFP. WW is becoming a joke so I may be canceling soon. They have so many foods "with" calories that are zero points and it really slows down the process. I am given 1200 cals per day here at MFP but on WW 23 points and right now I have my food entered in to both and I have 3 points (about 50 cals per point which should be around 1,150 cals on WW per day) on WW left for today and 610 calories here on MFP. Makes no sense. That is a huge difference. The fact they have eggs and chicken as zero point foods when they clearly have calories is crazy to me. Makes no sense in how they figure it. It's like they did that to set people up to fail. They also increased the amount of points per day whereas it used to be 19 when I last did it two years ago. Now it's 23. But add on all those zero "calorie filled" foods and there again, doesn't make sense.

The concept is that if you eat these lean, filling foods to satiety then counting/weighing/tracking those foods becomes unnecessary. It's a different philosophical approach that works for some people and may work particularly well for very heavy people who have large base caloric needs. My point of view is if that I really understood (before having lost the weight) what a portion was and how to stop at satiety, I wouldn't have needed any of these programs in the first place.

I used a prior iteration of WW that was much easier (IMO) to count points and that provided much less draconian incentives and disincentives for better or not so better food choices. The current program is just punishing for 'unhealthy' choices. In some ways, it returns dieting to the diet-y world of boneless chicken breasts and celery sticks.

Having said all that, the current program values a point at anywhere from 16-50 calories. The typical food that's not zero points averages 35-38 calories per point. So if you're just dividing calories by 50 to get points, you will definitely be off.

One can argue the pros and cons of points versus calories. One can also agree or disagree with weighting of points or not. Overall, though, some people are just able to get their heads around the points more easily. Some aren't.