WW POINTS not accurate

nyc197620

Has anyone else noticed that wwifnt watchers does not work because it does not compute accurately actual calories ? It’s more of a maintenance plan than weight loss? My fitness pal is so much better?

AnnPT77

Weight Watchers points are not designed simply to equate to calories. They're pretty much designed to reward what they presume to be healthier and theoretically more filling foods, and penalize treat foods that are theoretically too easy to overeat. There's some attention to calorie content in the design, but it's also about trying to change food habits in ways that are supposed to support health and appetite management therefore lead to weight loss among other benefits.

I think we're smart enough to make our own personally suitable choices and tradeoffs, if we apply ourselves.

trixsterjl31

I think if you did ww point and logged them here you would be fairly successful. Zero point foods do not have zero calories. I don't think they advocate having an unlimited amount of them. They are a lot harder to overeat though. Eggs are 70 calories each. Try eating 12 of them at once some time. 840 Calories. I'm pretty sure you'll be done eating for a long while if you tried that. I know when I make a 3 egg omelet it is quite large. I can make a 400 calorie omelet that would probably list as only a few ww points but i'd definitely be full. I do not and have never done ww other than the old shake for breakfast/lunch and sensible dinner plan in the 90s, but their plan has evolved into a way to encourage healthier eating.

Alatariel75

I walked away from WW the day I had a 3x eggs and veggie omelette for breakfast, a chicken, kidney bean, veg (including corn), salsa mexi-style salad with low fat yogurt salad for lunch, and a big hunk of skin on salmon with veggies for dinner, and WW told me I needed to eat 18 more points to get my "good job" blue dot because basically none of those things have points. I logged it here at around 1500 calories.