Free fruit on Weight Watchers

Options
allycat54
allycat54 Posts: 67 Member
in Food and Nutrition
I'm wondering why fruit is free on weight watchers and we have to count the calories? I just got a yonana machine and I think I could live on it! If I was on weight watchers I wouldn't even have to count it, crazy...

Replies

  • Bigjuicyhog
    Bigjuicyhog Posts: 61 Member
    Options
    I don't get it. Fruit is generally low calorie, but if you eat 10 bananas, you are looking at 1000-1500 calories.
  • Ready2Rock206
    Ready2Rock206 Posts: 9,488 Member
    Options
    WW also gives you a much lower calorie allowance to account for the fact you'll be eating a lot of "free" fruit. MFP assumes you'll count all your calories so it gives you a higher calorie allowance.
  • eileen0515
    eileen0515 Posts: 408 Member
    Options
    WW has never said eat all the fruit you want. In the literature they tell you to eat a reasonable amount, in other words use common sense. It never ceases to amaze me how few people actually read the literature.
  • kea9f
    kea9f Posts: 27 Member
    Options
    I've been told WW doesn't count fruit because most people don't eat enough of it, and they want to encourage you to eat more. The reason I keep track of how much fruit I eat, though, is actually because it has a lot of sugar and that can cause weight gain. The South Beach Diet, which I've seen people lose a ton of weight on, doesn't actually allow fruit at all for the first 2 weeks.
  • RoadsterGirlie
    RoadsterGirlie Posts: 1,195 Member
    Options
    Use common sense. The whole purpose of the "free" fruit is to encourage you to eat an apple instead of a cookie, if both are the same amount of calories.

    It's not intended to be a gorge fest. Honestly I don't think I could ever binge on fruit, unless they are grapes. I will eat a whole bag of grapes in one sitting. And then *kitten* like a banshee afterwards...
  • iluvco3
    iluvco3 Posts: 98 Member
    Options
    Fruit is not "free" on WW. Fruit is 0 points and is to be eaten to satisfaction. Also, you need to be sure that you are getting in all GHG each day and that the amount of fruit you are eating is not standing in the way of meeting those guidelines.

    A serving of fruit is 1/2 c. Some people can eat a lot of fruit in addition to the other healthy guidelines, but many can not do that without compromising weight loss. Also, people with more weight to lose usually can consume more fruit than someone closer to their goal weight.
  • RoadsterGirlie
    RoadsterGirlie Posts: 1,195 Member
    Options
    I will also add that the free fruit, incluing the occasional "grape binge" did not hinder my weight loss efforts at all. I lost an average of 2 to 3 lbs a week on WW, right down to the bottom of my healthy BMI range.

    I know I'm not typical, but I can't think that I'm that much of an anomoly.
  • chunkydunk714
    chunkydunk714 Posts: 784 Member
    Options
    then again....who really got fat by over-eating on apples and oranges? Lets be real.

    And OP, all in moderation but as a former WW member...it was a big adjustment when I switched over to MFP
  • sugboog29
    sugboog29 Posts: 630 Member
    Options
    And it is not ALL fruit...just fresh and those without added sugars (frozen, canned in water, etc.). Plus most veggies are free too....just trying to get us to meet our daily fruit/veggies levels.
  • chargraves
    chargraves Posts: 65 Member
    Options
    I'm wondering why fruit is free on weight watchers and we have to count the calories? I just got a yonana machine and I think I could live on it! If I was on weight watchers I wouldn't even have to count it, crazy...

    With WW if you use fruit or veg to make juice or smoothies, it is no longer zero points. Not sure how it would work with the "yonana" machine. :smile:
  • mamasmaltz3
    mamasmaltz3 Posts: 1,111 Member
    Options
    I would imagine that part of the reason is because some foods burn more calories to digest than they contain. Here is some of them:


    Celery
    Oranges
    Strawberries
    Tangerines
    Grapefruit
    Carrots
    Apricots
    Lettuce
    Tomatoes
    Cucumbers
    Watermelon
    Cauliflower
    Apples
    Hot Chili Peppers
    Zucchini
  • Ready2Rock206
    Ready2Rock206 Posts: 9,488 Member
    Options
    I would imagine that part of the reason is because some foods burn more calories to digest than they contain. Here is some of them:


    Celery
    Oranges
    Strawberries
    Tangerines
    Grapefruit
    Carrots
    Apricots
    Lettuce
    Tomatoes
    Cucumbers
    Watermelon
    Cauliflower
    Apples
    Hot Chili Peppers
    Zucchini

    No. All these foods still have calories. Some of them have lots of calories. Let this myth just die already. There's no negative calorie foods.
  • allycat54
    allycat54 Posts: 67 Member
    Options
    I think telling me to use common sense is a little harsh. I was just asking a question, jeesh. Don't need to make me feel like an idiot.
  • ken_hogan
    ken_hogan Posts: 854 Member
    Options
    I would imagine that part of the reason is because some foods burn more calories to digest than they contain. Here is some of them:


    Celery
    Oranges
    Strawberries
    Tangerines
    Grapefruit
    Carrots
    Apricots
    Lettuce
    Tomatoes
    Cucumbers
    Watermelon
    Cauliflower
    Apples
    Hot Chili Peppers
    Zucchini


    I was under the impression that is just a myth...foods burning more calories to digest than they contain. The debate came up when I was active on the WW boards...no such thing as a 'negative calrorie food'
  • mamasmaltz3
    mamasmaltz3 Posts: 1,111 Member
    Options
    I have read conflicting information on it. If it is not true I apologize. However, the above mentioned foods are high fiber, good sources of vitamins and nutrients and relatively low calorie. I can't see anything wrong in eating any of them in whatever amount satisfies you. You'll find out pretty quickly if you ate too much.
  • susannamarie
    susannamarie Posts: 2,148 Member
    Options
    I think telling me to use common sense is a little harsh. I was just asking a question, jeesh. Don't need to make me feel like an idiot.

    I really don't think that's what was meant.

    I think that what was meant is: "On weight watchers, fruit is 0 points to encourage people to eat more, because most people rely too much on processed foods. However, they tell you that this needs to be tempered with common sense -- eating 20 bananas just because they are 0 points is not a good idea."

Categories