Anybody do Weight watchers and MFP ??

RGRgoddess

I just rejoined the online WW yesterday and im finding it kinda hard to log into 2 places every meal...
Any tips on making this easier ?
Thanks
Michelle

WalkingAlong

I believe points are now roughly 40 calories each (except for very high fiber or high fat foods), if you want to estimate either one direction or the other. I mean, if you count points exactly and get 20 but also have 3 servings of fruit, that's probably around (20*40)+(3*100)=1100 calories. Or if you want to count calories exactly and estimate points, look at your calories minus 'free' WW stuff and divide it by 40 and log that as points. It's rough but it's easier. But if you're paying for eTools, may as well use it for real points values.

I logged both for about 8 weeks once to see. For me, 29 points a day plus 49 weekly points, with 300 or so calories a day of 'free' stuff, equaled around 1800 calories/day. A magazine article around the same time also said most people are eating around 1800 calories/day on WW now.

nm212

Why are you doing both? I've done WW before and it worked but why both? I think either counting calories or WW is a good way to go. I prefer counting calories because it makes more sense to me (as long as you eat healthy calories), rather than a mysterious point system. Also, 1800 calories a day sounds like ALOT. Are you sure that's accurate?

Francl27

They're both different. Stick to one.

redversustheblue

I do, but I don't log here. I just come here for the forum and the friends lists. Occasionally I'll log a day here just to check my breakdown of calories and macros, but not all that often. I also keep track of my weight on here as well, but honestly mostly cause I love the ticker haha.

WalkingAlong

Why are you doing both? I've done WW before and it worked but why both? I think either counting calories or WW is a good way to go. I prefer counting calories because it makes more sense to me (as long as you eat healthy calories), rather than a mysterious point system. Also, 1800 calories a day sounds like ALOT. Are you sure that's accurate?

Yes, 1800 is a lot. I think I lost 2 lbs. in that 8 weeks. If I was going to stay with it, I'd ratchet that points goal down. For me. It kind of makes sense for WW because most people there are obese and will be happy with 1800 and will lose slowly. That's win/win -- WW gets their dues longer and the client preserves LBM and gets to eat a lot. Unless you're an impatient client like me, but we can ratchet our goals down, too.

Points actually makes sense to me. A 200 calorie beer is going to 'cost' more than a 200 calorie healthy food item. So for people who might not make smart choices for satiety and health and want that built in to their program, it's handy.

Points also simplifies the math. Most people do a lot better with scenario A than B.

A: I get 29 points a day and I've used 24 and bedtime is 3 hours away. Do I want that 3-point hot chocolate?

B: I get 1600 calories a day and I've used (checks MFP) 1478. Do I want that 165 calorie drink?

FindingAmy77

honestly I was doing both when I started out but I finally decided that mfp is free and quit the weight watchers.. I am a big supporter or ww's but mfp makes counting calories so much easier and you get way more in a day than you do points.

weightwatcherjoan

I flip flop back and forth. I used to be a Weight Watcher meeting leader. After I quit my job, I fell into my old habits and gained back 24 of the 36 pounds I had lost. When I track both WW and "MFP, I find that 26 points equal between 1200 and 1400 calories;depending on how much fruit I eat that day. The current WW program encourages a low fat/high protein diet with lots of fruits and vegetables. I lost my weight on an older plan that was more calorie based. The newer plan works great until I am in a "carb mood:. It is so easy to eat 26 points and still be hungry when you are eating carbs. Sooooooooo, If you have the time and WANT to track both; do it. If not, stick to the one that helps you to be the most successful.