Weight watches vs counting calories

lin7604

that's excatually my point! how can you loose weight eating so many items with calories?

Maybe you're not eating ENOUGH if you're not seeing the results you want. There's such a thing as eating too little. With only 5# to your goal, your body doesn't have enough excess fat to support a large calorie deficit. You shouldn't be trying to lose any more than a half pound a week.

Check this link: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/395881-people-who-lost-weight-eating-more

When set to lose a half pound a week, I got about 1500 calories. After exercising, I'd have about 1800-2000 calories. Now that I"m maintaining, I start at 1700 calories and typically eat about 2000-2200.

You don't need to starve yourself and eat very little to lose weight.

i'm not starving myself at all, i eat every 3 hrs and feel good. I am nowhere as hungry as i used to be and ALOT of my cravings have gone away... so some days i do tend to struggle to get my calories met but most days I'm good at what i have, if i had more i don't know if i could keep up..... I have well more then 5lbs to loose( not sure where the 5lbs to my goal came from?) to start i set my goal on a higher side of 10 lbs but really need to loose 15-20. If i can do the 10 lbs, i'll be happy and then hopefully motivated to loose the rest. I'm at the max for my bmi and weight for my height and age, even my dr suggested me to loose.

Theresa0577

I have done weight watchers and have done calorie counting...I can honestly say counting calories is way easier for Me. i found I was eating LESS doing ww then I am with calorie counting and that led to me not only being startving but also being SO CRANKY!!!! It's overall a great program, but my deciding factor is thinking "I burn and eat calories not points" so I can really be more accountable to calorie counting. I do know a lot of people who lose weight on WW, but they give up easily or do amazingly well...either way at the end of the day - it's what will work for you -- everyone is different. I must say MFP works for me, I am understanding calorie counting MUCH better being on this forum, and for that I'm grateful

chevy88grl

I did WW a long time ago. I did lose a little weight, but I was ALWAYS starving. I remember eating a tuna sandwich and being so dismayed when I realized it had something like 16 points in it. For a tuna (with light mayo) sandwich? WTH?

I couldn't do it. I was just too dang hungry all the time. For me, calorie counting is way easier and I'm not starving.

LorinaLynn

( not sure where the 5lbs to my goal came from?)

From your profile. Your ticker says you want to lose 7#, and that you'd lost 2#.

I personally believe most people do better on more than 1200 calories, which is probably why the your friends on WW are doing well even when they don't count the calories from fruits & vegetables. I know myself, while I wasn't necessarily hungry on 1200, I did feel limited, even with exercise calories. But on just a little bit more, I had more energy, more options, and better results. All around, win-win-win!

glo_79

I started ww pp in April and lost 25lbs between April and Nov when I quit and started here. The plan does work its just expensive. It does teach to watch portion and eat in moderation.....and at the same time not having to deprive yourself of everything you love.

lin7604

( not sure where the 5lbs to my goal came from?)

From your profile. Your ticker says you want to lose 7#, and that you'd lost 2#.

I personally believe most people do better on more than 1200 calories, which is probably why the your friends on WW are doing well even when they don't count the calories from fruits & vegetables. I know myself, while I wasn't necessarily hungry on 1200, I did feel limited, even with exercise calories. But on just a little bit more, I had more energy, more options, and better results. All around, win-win-win!

yes true but i did mention earlier that i am doing small losses at a time.... so i lost 2 lbs in a month and a half! that's it ;( I had 7 more to hit goal number one and then it's onto goal number 2 another 5.... and so on. I changed my setting to only lose 1 lb a week instead of 2 and it stayed the same, no changes... still 1200 cals a day.

I am just kinda stuck on knowing what to do b/c before i joined this site i was still doing cardio 45 min 5 days a week plus i cut out pop, etc I was eating healthier in general and every 3 hrs. I wasn't loosing anything at all, after 1 month i found this site and joined. When i logged in one days worth i realized how much calories i was eating even thought it was healthy food ... ie) FRUIT! wow i was surprised, so that is why i am now confused b/c on ww you can eat unlimited fruit and veggies right now and for me it put me way over the top in calories a day.......

lin7604

that's excatually my point! how can you loose weight eating so many items with calories?

Maybe you're not eating ENOUGH if you're not seeing the results you want. There's such a thing as eating too little. With only 5# to your goal, your body doesn't have enough excess fat to support a large calorie deficit. You shouldn't be trying to lose any more than a half pound a week.

Check this link: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/395881-people-who-lost-weight-eating-more

When set to lose a half pound a week, I got about 1500 calories. After exercising, I'd have about 1800-2000 calories. Now that I"m maintaining, I start at 1700 calories and typically eat about 2000-2200.

You don't need to starve yourself and eat very little to lose weight.

oh i have another Q... when i logged on just to see how many calories i should eat a day it was just over 1700-1800max. so if i want to lose weight and i not suppose to subtract 500 a day? so that would still bring me down to around 1200, correct.... sorry if i sound like a idiot, i am so new to losing weight and i am getting so confused.... am i correct in thinking this?

LorinaLynn

You mean it's 1700-1800 to maintain your weight? If so, then, yes, to lose 1# a week, you'd eat 500 calories less than that. For a half pound a week, 250 less calories. And to lose 2# a week, you'd need to eat 1000 less calories a day, but that would only leave you with 700-800 calories, and that's not enough for your body to function properly. When you plug in how much you want to lose per week, MFP automatically deducts the appropriate amount of calories from that, but won't go below 1200. When you exercise and burn extra calories, MFP adds those to your daily goal, so you maintain the same deficit as you would if you didn't exercise.

Keep in mind that your body is constantly burning calories, when your sitting down, sleeping, all the time. The number of calories your body needs when completely at rest is your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate - http://www.myfitnesspal.com/tools/bmr-calculator ). That's just keeping your organs functioning, lungs breathing, heart beating, etc. As soon as you get out of bed in the morning, your burning more calories than that.

I don't understand the science of it all, but I know there are many who believe that you should never eat less than your BMR, or it could jeopardize your metabolism. I don't know if that's true or not, but it's a pretty good rule of thumb to go by.

lin7604

thx. now which bmr do i go by? as i mentioned before there was 3 that i got from different sites,lol....my bmr says 1290 on this site, then another says 1387, and another says 1485? once again, i am confused.. why so many different number ? my height, age and weight all stays the same....lol

meggonkgonk

An important aspect of this question is whether or not YOU are eating enough calories. There's an important balance in healthy weightloss between "too much" food and "not enough". Weight Watchers is, in essence, just like counting calories only with different value assignments- like shopping for clothes/shoes in the UK. Possibly by following WW your friends are getting the nutrition their bodies need to safely and steadily lose where as you, seeing the full calorie count and such inadvertantly err too low?

Other aspects that could contribute to this- are they significantly more over weight than you? Are you all relatively the same age? Are your daily activity levels all similar? These are all key factors to weight loss.

HonkyTonks

I always assumed that weight watchers points was basically just another way of representing calories. Simplified down so people didn't have to deal with all those big numbers :P Personally it's way easier to find the calorie content of basically any food than go and find points for various foods (which aren't all going to be available). Plus I like to see the method behind the madness so to speak, for my own peace of mind. I don't think after "learning" how to count calories I could ever switch to any point system.

lin7604

we are all in the same age range, maybe a year or two different. same height but not weight as you said. I am the slimmest. We all move around the same amount. So what do you thin i should so? when i started MFP i logged all my foods in and i was eating healthy and around 1700-1800 cals in the end b/c of all the fruit etc i was eating and didn't lose a lbs in over a month. SO i figured i was still eating too much, and as they say you need to reduce your intake by 500 cals to lose weight, so that is right in the ball park...am i wrong to think this?

flnative

I have tired WW old and new. I never found success with them. I see others losing weight on it but it just never worked for me. I like MFP because I Iike tracking my caloric intake and my nutrional values. I also like to see how many calories I burn compared to my food intake. WW uses a point system for calories burned based on how you feel during the exercise. I didn't like that either. It is just not for me.

Crystal_Pistol

that's excatually my point! how can you loose weight eating so many items with calories?

As long as you eat at a deficit, doesn't matter what you eat. Your deficit is from your maintenance cals. You can eat a lot more than you think and still lose weight. The higer the deficit, the quicker the loss.

jcr85

At the end of the day, Weight Watchers has a 97% long term failure rate, so I wouldn't take your friends results as typical or long term.

Strong facts.

Crystal_Pistol

I tried weight watchers once. I didn't lose anything, but in retrospect, I question my honesty with the system. I did it with the points before it became points plus. I had NO loss, but I'm losing counting calories on MFP.

I see a difference in my own level of readiness and honesty with logging- I feel like that has been the difference.

karenhs2

I did WW a year and I did lose weight. In the end, however, the weekly meetings were not enough support, I didn't really like the online portion (some of it, yes, but very complicated in parts) and it was expensive to keep going. To me, when I found MFP, it was like getting all the best parts of WW PLUS a wonderfully supportive online community available 24/7 AND it was FREEEEEE.

To the OP - have you considered adding resistance training to your strategy? I am not an expert but I know that I have read that as something that many have to do to either get those last few lbs off OR change their body so that they are happy with it (muscle weighs more than fat but takes up less room so a really toned body looks better and fits into clothes better but can weigh more).

If you are hungry all the time, you probably need to examine your food choices closely. I have to eat protein with just about every meal to keep from going hungry. And I also need a good proportion of vegetables to fill me up. I often keep a lo calorie but veggie dense soup on hand for when I am especially hungry. And I try to exercise more in order to be able to eat more.

_VoV

To me Weight Watchers is the same thing as Calorie Counting, just with a point system assigned instead of actual calorie numbers. At the end of the day, Weight Watchers has a 97% long term failure rate, so I wouldn't take your friends results as typical or long term.

For an off color and funny take on Weight Watchers, read this: http://www.cracked.com/article_18965_5-weight-loss-tips-cynical-*kitten*.html

That was funny!

cxxviii

It may just seem that way. The grass is always greener you know....

I did WW and I've counted calories and I find that the points add up to just about the same amount of calories I'm allowed to eat in a day.

Also, WW people might be adding points by exercise, or you see them using banked points (you're allowed to do that).

You can also "bank" if you zig zag your calories. So I find it to be about the same.

Bottom line is

Calories Count!

Best to you.

Alexdur85

I did weight watchers in short spurts and would lose 10lbs each time but then I would gain it back because I just got SO TIRED of trying to figure out those darn points! Calories is simple, one number to look at.. easy.. points not so much.. you have to have a calculator and you would have to have it FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE!. It's just a system that is trying to get you to buy their stuff. That's why they have a "lifetime membership". I don't need MFP to count calories.. it's alot of fun and I enjoy it but I don't NEED it.

And now can fruit and veggies not have any points value? A banana has 100 calories at least in it! How can they give it 0 points? How is it teaching people how to eat? I can have this slice of cake, and this lasagna and for the rest of the day I will just eat apples and bananas??? uh.. not how it works!

lindalou4850

did weight watcher years ago and lost a ton of weight..I think it is the combination of food at each meal that has a lot to do with it.. I think MFP is much easier.. But to each their own !!