Ww and mfp

karld70

Hi, I'm currently running weightwatchers and mfp alongside each other for a month to see how ww points compare to calories.
Im intrigued by 2 things that WW do.
1. the extra weekly points that are more than a whole day's allowance.
2. Not counting fruit and vegatable.
Looking at points used and remaining each day as a ratio compared with my calories they seem pretty similar.
That leads me to wonder if I can apply the same tactics to calories on mfp.
Has anyone tried this?
One thing I do disagree with on WW is bananas being 0 points, especially when I noted this morning that 80g blueberries is an exception to the 0 points fruit incurring a 1 point cost.
Interested in people's thoughts

janejellyroll

One thing to keep in mind if you try to combine methods is that your "base" goal with WW is intentionally lower than what it would be on MFP, specifically due to zero point foods. If you ate your base calories on MFP and then stacked zero point foods on top of that, it's very possible that you would cancel out your deficit.

Looking at the zero point list, I could easily eat what I needed for an entire day without technically counting any of it. If I ate more on top of that, I'd gain weight.

karld70

Sorry you'll have to excuse my ignoranc base goal? Are you reffering to the minimum I should eat or the maximum? I'm not aware of a minimum setting on mfp (although their ought to be one)
If it's the maximum there seem very little between points and calories, but you could be right.

Annelies11

I found that for me, I was eating too few calories on WW. The way it’s set up - for me - resulted in a low-fat more processed foods diet. And I was always hungry, even with all the 0 point foods I could eat. The crazy points allocated to certain healthier foods like avocado didn’t work well for me. But I know others who love it!

janejellyroll

karld70 wrote: »

Sorry you'll have to excuse my ignoranc base goal? Are you reffering to the minimum I should eat or the maximum? I'm not aware of a minimum setting on mfp (although their ought to be one)
If it's the maximum there seem very little between points and calories, but you could be right.

I'm referring to the calorie goal generated by MFP. There is a base that MFP won't go below (1,200 for women and 1,500 for men). I'm not sure how you determined what the maximum WW calorie goal is, as there is no real maximum when you factor in zero point foods. I could eat my maximum "point" value and then add several hundred calories of zero point foods.

jaymijones

The WW program version I originally was introduced to treated most veggies as free. Calorie dense veggies (corn, potatoes, etc) and all fruit still had point value. I liked that version, I haven’t been impressed with the three versions that have come and gone since then.

I still don’t always count my high volume/low calorie veggies on MFP. Spinach, lettuce, green beans, and so on. I always count fruit and starchy vegetables though.

lorrpb

You can’t really overlay ww on top of mfp because they’re two very different systems with nothing in common except the goal. I assume ww hasn’t been too successful for you or you probably wouldn’t be on mfp. I suggest you pick the system that’s easiest to follow and focus on that. Good luck!

cmriverside

...or the free one. The easy one. The one with no "rules" about food. :flowerforyou:

NovusDies

I am only aware of the previous WW plans that had far less zero point foods.

However from what I gather there is room for abuse in the current WW system. The same is true of MFP though. You can look for the least calorie option for all the food you eat and have a diary that is around your calorie goal while actually wiping out your deficit or even eating in a surplus.

In other words I believe with the right mindset you can make both work. With the wrong mindset you would be spinning your wheels.

WW, even the older version, would not have worked for me early in my weight loss. I had a fairly bad relationship with the bathroom scale and the murkiness of points would have not allowed me to overcome it. I needed numbers that repeatedly showed me that it was impossible for me to gain 2 pounds of fat (as an example) overnight based on what I was eating.

poshpiggy

I was on and off WW for years have recently switched to mfp. Psychologically zero foods help to feel like you can eat more but there was always one person who would eat 3 bananas as a snack & 3chivken breasts for dinner and wonder why they were not losing weight. Now I’ve figured out how to be in a Calorie deficit after some trial and error I wouldn’t go back to WW . I like how things are straightforward with mfp no gimmicks or new plans. CAlories in calories out!

New_Heavens_Earth

janejellyroll wrote: »

karld70 wrote: »

Sorry you'll have to excuse my ignoranc base goal? Are you reffering to the minimum I should eat or the maximum? I'm not aware of a minimum setting on mfp (although their ought to be one)
If it's the maximum there seem very little between points and calories, but you could be right.

I'm referring to the calorie goal generated by MFP. There is a base that MFP won't go below (1,200 for women and 1,500 for men). I'm not sure how you determined what the maximum WW calorie goal is, as there is no real maximum when you factor in zero point foods. I could eat my maximum "point" value and then add several hundred calories of zero point foods.

The points assigned ate supposedly according to height, weight, and gender. The lowest depends on what plan you're on (too much to explain here) 16 with hundreds of zero point food, 23 with a few less, 30 with only fruit and veggies zero. Still no parallel to anything like a calorie count.

Mokikki

I’m doing WW Blue Plan and posting in Parallel to MFP. Am tracking those “zero” point foods in MFP. Just curious the calorie/carb/protein in both plans

Also the WW food database stinks so I use MFP them enter in WW

With COVID and I recently broke my leg, I figure I’d satisfy my curiosity!

ChickenKillerPuppy

It’s also hard to think of them as comparable because WW artificially inflates points of certain food groups to steer you away from them. I hated how carbs and sugars were super high points, but not high calorie. I had success on WW for many years, but MFP has actually educated me about what I need to eat to be in a deficit, and what I need to eat to maintain. I’ve been maintaining for a few months now and learning more every day. But everything is transparent - calories in, calories out makes sense to me.

janejellyroll

New_Heavens_Earth wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

karld70 wrote: »

Sorry you'll have to excuse my ignoranc base goal? Are you reffering to the minimum I should eat or the maximum? I'm not aware of a minimum setting on mfp (although their ought to be one)
If it's the maximum there seem very little between points and calories, but you could be right.

I'm referring to the calorie goal generated by MFP. There is a base that MFP won't go below (1,200 for women and 1,500 for men). I'm not sure how you determined what the maximum WW calorie goal is, as there is no real maximum when you factor in zero point foods. I could eat my maximum "point" value and then add several hundred calories of zero point foods.

The points assigned ate supposedly according to height, weight, and gender. The lowest depends on what plan you're on (too much to explain here) 16 with hundreds of zero point food, 23 with a few less, 30 with only fruit and veggies zero. Still no parallel to anything like a calorie count.

I'm not arguing that there is. Did you read my statement "I'm referring to the calorie goal generated by MFP"?

Zborni4

I have been doing WW and not enjoying it. Out of curiosity, I logged my food in both apps and found that while I am out of WW points for the day, I have only consumed 936 calories according to MFP. I might drop WW soon. It's just frustrating because I have avocado toast for breakfast and almost half my points are shot on something that is not unhealthy.