Ww vs MFP

christy_d87

So I’ve been back and forth between WW and MFP for a long time here. A long time ago I lost 90 lbs on Ww then again lost 10 more on top of it.

The new programs don’t seem to be working for me at all. I don’t know if just tracking CICO is what I need now that I’m down to this point (gained about 15 back in the last few years)...

Anyone else who doesn’t have a lot to lose having trouble with the new Ww?

Thoughts?

bpetrosky

I haven't tried WW, and can't speak to their revised program. To be clear, calorie counting and CICO are not interchangeable terms. All diet plans work due to energy balance (CICO), calorie counting is just a method of doing it.

Calorie counting is an effective method, but since you don't have much to lose you can't expect fast progress. You can set a rate of loss of 0.5 lb/wk, and track as accurately as possible.

If you don't have one, getting a food scale is very useful tool. With a small deficit, it is easy to underestimate what you eat if you use measuring cups or rely on package info without verifying if the serving matches the package.

cmriverside

Yep. I'm with bpetrosky.

That last 15 pounds took me nine months, and I had to be really vigilant. I was hungry for that whole time and had quite a difficult time sticking to a calorie goal.

I used a food scale. I logged my food.
I prepared 13 out of 14 meals per week on most weeks.
I set a small deficit. About 250 calories per day.
I exercised 4-5 times per week so I could eat enough, and always ate the calories earned.

It was a slog. I made it and I've been maintaining for years, but I still make most of my meals and I still use a food scale and I weigh myself AND I still get some purposeful exercise 4-5 days per week.

kshama2001

I thought WW was great back in the 90s but now that there are free tools like MFP I don't see the point in paying for WW, plus I don't like the way WW goes through cycles of demonizing types of foods / macros.