WW vs MFP

igotthis224

I do WW but am
always going over points, so i wanted to try this. Today I tracked on MFP and WW. Here is what happens I went over points at 31 today On MFP I am only at 1091 calories. I am so confused. So if i’m only able to eat 23 points a day on WE how low is that in calories when in fact 31 points added up to 1091 cals. I go over points atleast 3x a week. Thinking about switching to cals because it seems I am able to stay under 1200 cals but not stay under 23 points on WW. Thoughts, experience ? Also posted in WW.
- Thanks !

smcwllms

You're trying to mix two separate weight loss programs. That's confusing. Pick one or the other. It seems like MFP is easier, so maybe give that one a try. Why make it confusing?

cheryldumais

The trouble with WW is that it is inconsistent. If you eat alot of free foods you can eat too many calories. If you don't use the free foods you can end up undereating which is not sustainable. Personally I prefer MFP. I belonged to WW Online for at least ten years and never lost weight. When Freestyle came out I left and came here. I've lost 103 pounds and am on maintenance. WW works for some who eat reasonably and like the support of the meetings but for me MFP made more sense and saved me alot of money. It's up to you.

smms0714

cheryldumais wrote: »

The trouble with WW is that it is inconsistent. If you eat alot of free foods you can eat too many calories. If you don't use the free foods you can end up undereating which is not sustainable. Personally I prefer MFP. I belonged to WW Online for at least ten years and never lost weight. When Freestyle came out I left and came here. I've lost 103 pounds and am on maintenance. WW works for some who eat reasonably and like the support of the meetings but for me MFP made more sense and saved me alot of money. It's up to you.

There's a group of ladies in my office who do WW. It always worries me a bit when I hear them say things like, "I ate 2 fried eggs last night since eggs are free." Ummm.... They still have calories, and there are things like cholesterol to consider. It made me wonder just how nutritionally sound WW really is. Just me and my opinion though.

COGypsy

The thing you have to remember is that points and calories have virtually no relation to each other. WW uses the point system to guide your food choices. The system pushes you toward what it considers to be good choices by making those items free or low in points and penalizes you for what their system considers less healthful choices by assigning higher points to those items. Calories are just calories and remain a constant unit of measurement no matter what the food is. Fundamentally, WW is a behavior modification program while MFP is a calorie tracking tool.

MikePTY

In the past, WW and calories used to be pretty closely related. A point was about 50 calories. It was a system that made calorie counting easy before we had websites like MFP and online nutritional information, etc. Since the advent of these things, WW has tried to shake things up and complicate their program to keep it relevant today. So now certain foods that they deem "unhealthy" have a punitive number of points assigned to them, while other foods that are considered "healthy" are now free and free of points.

But that leads to issues like you are facing. If you only eat foods that contain points, and don't eat any of the free points, you are usually under-eating your calorie needs. On the other side, if a person eats their points and then also a ton of free foods, they can be over-eating. Just worrying about actual calories and not classifying foods as "good or "bad" seems like a much more straightforward and simple way to go about it.

rsj7799

igotthis224 wrote: »

I do WW but am
always going over points, so i wanted to try this. Today I tracked on MFP and WW. Here is what happens I went over points at 31 today On MFP I am only at 1091 calories. I am so confused. So if i’m only able to eat 23 points a day on WE how low is that in calories when in fact 31 points added up to 1091 cals. I go over points atleast 3x a week. Thinking about switching to cals because it seems I am able to stay under 1200 cals but not stay under 23 points on WW. Thoughts, experience ? Also posted in WW.
- Thanks !

They assume you are eating some zero point foods, if you are logging on MFP you need to count them as well. The actual point "penalty" the smart point system assigns for saturated fat and sugar is actually rather minimal (as is the "bonus" you get for protein content).

Most things that have a lot of points have a lot of points because they have a lot of calories. They reduced the amount of points you get when they expanded the "zero point" foods (which aren't really free they are supposed to be the building blocks of meals and snacks that you add your points food to. You are also supposed to stick to the suggested serving size).

Basically WW builds in a "fudge factor" because they figure most people aren't going to accurately weigh their foods most of the time. If you are willing to log and weigh (with a digital scale) everything MFP is going to be way more accurate.

For the record I'm a lifetime member of WW but I only use the MFP app at this point. But I weigh or measure everything with a digital scale (or measuring cups for liquids only).

lcdreams

I’ve been on mfp for awhile and consistently track my food. So I joined WW last week and I did good (lost 5.8 lbs) tracking everything and I like going to the meetings. This week I’m going to track both mfp and ww just to see that I’m not eating to many calories.

Lenpayasa

If MFD had real-world accountability meetings, I probably would go. The freestyle WW system is concerning to me.