Counting calories or WW?

allgirlcrew949902

I can't decide. I think I eat healthier on WW, but I like seeing my macros at a glance with MFP. I feel uneasy if I don't know how many carbs I have had, sodium intake, etc. I was pre-diabetic a few years ago so I am especially conscious about my carb intake. Yet I see so many people successfully working *both* programs. Thoughts?

asthesoapturns

Programs will be successful if you stick to them, and stay on them for the rest of your life. I'd rather cook, something I enjoy well enough.

PAV8888

Why would you eat healthier on WW than MFP?

I mean, are you cutting down on veggies because you're counting their calories?

And if you COULD eat veggies on WW without knowing how many carbs they head and that was healthier for you, then why would you cut down on them when you know the carbs? (in other words if the carbs were a problem how was eating them on WW more healthy, and if they are not a problem why would you not eat them?)

This is giving me a bit of a headache? <-- healthy depends on the person's needs, right?

De-couple your way of eating from your way of accounting for the Calories.

Both WW and MFP account for your Calories. WW by restricting higher Calorie / deemed lower satiation foods by assigning them points (and leaving deemed higher satiation for less calories or commercially profitable foods as freebies) and MFP by showing you the exact number of calories you're consuming.

The MIX of what you eat is up to you! And i don't understand why you would have trouble, if you're willing to put in the work, of working both programs? It is an accounting and restriction exercise. Though personally I prefer to think of it as an accounting and "Tetris" exercise where I get to cram the most* I can into my allotment while not going over most of the time!

*most: a variable term that can apply to satiation, hedonism, nutritional goals, explorations as the mood may strike in pursuit of one's goals.

Maxxitt

Either can work - I've done both over the years. The current WW designations do help some folks focus on more whole-food products, which can be both more satiating and contain a wider array of essential nutrients, and less on hyper-palatable calorie-dense food, but won't necessarily be helpful with "carb management" because of their formula for "points." Other folks do better just counting the calories. Since MFP is free (if you don't fall for "premium") you can just start there and see how it goes. If you find that you're getting to bogged down with calorie content in a bad way, then do a short WW membership. Sometimes switching the lens through which you evaluate what your body needs in the way of food can be helpful.

allgirlcrew949902

PAV8888 wrote: »

Why would you eat healthier on WW than MFP?

I mean, are you cutting down on veggies because you're counting their calories?

And if you COULD eat veggies on WW without knowing how many carbs they head and that was healthier for you, then why would you cut down on them when you know the carbs? (in other words if the carbs were a problem how was eating them on WW more healthy, and if they are not a problem why would you not eat them?)

This is giving me a bit of a headache? <-- healthy depends on the person's needs, right?

De-couple your way of eating from your way of accounting for the Calories.

Both WW and MFP account for your Calories. WW by restricting higher Calorie / deemed lower satiation foods by assigning them points (and leaving deemed higher satiation for less calories or commercially profitable foods as freebies) and MFP by showing you the exact number of calories you're consuming.

The MIX of what you eat is up to you! And i don't understand why you would have trouble, if you're willing to put in the work, of working both programs? It is an accounting and restriction exercise. Though personally I prefer to think of it as an accounting and "Tetris" exercise where I get to cram the most* I can into my allotment while not going over most of the time!

*most: a variable term that can apply to satiation, hedonism, nutritional goals, explorations as the mood may strike in pursuit of one's goals.

Why is this giving you a headache, lol...thanks for your input.

allgirlcrew949902

Maxxitt wrote: »

Either can work - I've done both over the years. The current WW designations do help some folks focus on more whole-food products, which can be both more satiating and contain a wider array of essential nutrients, and less on hyper-palatable calorie-dense food, but won't necessarily be helpful with "carb management" because of their formula for "points." Other folks do better just counting the calories. Since MFP is free (if you don't fall for "premium") you can just start there and see how it goes. If you find that you're getting to bogged down with calorie content in a bad way, then do a short WW membership. Sometimes switching the lens through which you evaluate what your body needs in the way of food can be helpful.

Thank you.

allgirlcrew949902

asthesoapturns wrote: »

Programs will be successful if you stick to them, and stay on them for the rest of your life. I'd rather cook, something I enjoy well enough.

So are you more for counting calories then?

earlnabby

Why not both? Make your choices based on the WW points system but log them in MFP to see the macros.

cmriverside

Keep it simple.

If you eat it log it.

Eat food, mostly plants. Pay attention to get enough protein and fat. Ta da. :drinker:

nighthawk584

why pay into some program when you can lose weight for free?

asthesoapturns

allgirlcrew949902 wrote: »

asthesoapturns wrote: »

Programs will be successful if you stick to them, and stay on them for the rest of your life. I'd rather cook, something I enjoy well enough.

So are you more for counting calories then?

I am for myself. I would rather have the power to choose 100% what's in my food. I feel it is more sustainable, overall to know how to prepare healthy foods, and to eat sensibly. That way you can go to a restaurant and make an educated decision and you are not bound by only what WW sells.

glassyo

asthesoapturns wrote: »

allgirlcrew949902 wrote: »

asthesoapturns wrote: »

Programs will be successful if you stick to them, and stay on them for the rest of your life. I'd rather cook, something I enjoy well enough.

So are you more for counting calories then?

I am for myself. I would rather have the power to choose 100% what's in my food. I feel it is more sustainable, overall to know how to prepare healthy foods, and to eat sensibly. That way you can go to a restaurant and make an educated decision and you are not bound by only what WW sells.

NOBODY is bound by what WW sells. You eat food you prepare or buy from a restaurant or find on the side of the street. You just have to stay within your points or whatever the plan is these days.

OP, if you're finding success with WW and you get other benefits out of it and don't mind paying, there's no reason not to stick with it. I would definitely double log for a while to make sure you're hitting the macros you want to hit and not eating too little. I mean, I would go with the free option but I never paid for WW so....

I lost bulk of my weight on WW but wish I'd thought about/knew about logging calories as well. I was definitely undereating for a long time and it screwed me up (I believe) when I went to strictly calorie counting.