Anyone compared MFP/Calorie counting to Weight Watchers?

I started WW in January of 2011. I found it...okay. I was hungry a lot of the time and thought it was something I would just have to deal with. I was on 26 points the entire time I was doing the program.

I reached my goal weight (which in my opinion was too low for me, regardless of what WW or "the charts" told me) but was only able to actually maintain it for six weeks. Since then, I have gained back twenty pounds. Which is problematic in terms of WW, because even if you are a lifetime member (which I am) you still have to pay if you weigh in and are more than two pounds over your goal weight. So it gets expensive (nearly a hundred dollars a month). I also realized that I really don't like the fact that the ONLY indication of success, at least in terms of WW weigh-ins, is the number on the scale. So once I started a weight training program, my weight stalled even though I was losing inches. So, at my meetings it didn't look like I was making any progress whatsoever. I also found that -- at least in my WW group -- using any Activity Points you earned through exercise was highly discouraged. I don't even want to know how few calories I was netting some days, because I'm pretty sure I'd be shocked (considering the fact that I was only eating about 1300 calories to begin with and sometimes earning 7-8 activity points a day, which corresponds to about 700-800 calories...and I wasn't eating those back.)

I've now officially given up WW and am counting calories. I feel that, although WW was good for me when I had a lot of weight to lose, it ultimately did me more harm than good, as I was eating well below my BMR for the entire time I was in the program, and it did leave me with some issues (low energy, vitamin deficiencies, and episodes of hypoglycemia.) Since I started using MFP and doing calorie counting, I feel a lot more energized and the hypoglycemia has gone away (I used to have attacks at least every couple of days.)

WW is a great program when you have a lot of weight to lose and if you're not very active....but for me personally, once I became more active (a LOT more active) the amount of food I was getting just wasn't doing it for me. (When I found out my BMR and realized how far below it I had been eating for that year and a half, I was gobsmacked.)

WW has its place and it's a great program....but it does have its drawbacks, and I don't think it's for everyone.

I've done both and prefer MFP. 1. It's free. 2. "Calories" don't require a new language. 3. I can double-check the MFP calorie counter if something seems off. 4. It's free.

Both have good message boards, both have users across the whole range of needs and commitment, both emphasize tracking and exercise, both have mobile aps, both have progress reports.

If you need the face-to-face group support of WW, I think it's better than the other storefront operations.

If the cost is prohibitive (though it's usually like $50/month for unlimited meetings and etools, so I'm not sure where the 'nearly $100' above is from)...

I was paying $23.85 a week. $23.85 x 4 = $95.40. And, I might add, that was *just* to weigh in. No etools. I couldn't get eTools because I don't have a credit card, therefore Monthly Pass wasn't an option for me. So yes, the cost *can* be prohibitive for some people. Especially if you're like me and have absolutely no intention of dropping to the weight that WW thinks I "should" be.

I've also done both. Weight Watchers is expensive and if you don't keep up with the membership and they change something it's hard to continue counting points. I prefer MFP. It's free and a calorie will always be a calorie and there is no secret way to calculate how many you should be eating. The forums here are a lot more helpful and friendly and the tracker is easier and more user friendly. Can I also repeat it's FREE. I wish I had found this a long time ago and not wasted the time and money on WW memberships, books and calculators and other products.

Hiya,
this thread is old, but there were quite a few answers added the last few days
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/530482-weight-watchers-whats-your-experiences?page=2
I have been doing both for the last 10 or so weeks (ww two weeks longer than MFP)
put a bit of detail into my other reply.
ta
Q

If the cost is prohibitive (though it's usually like $50/month for unlimited meetings and etools, so I'm not sure where the 'nearly $100' above is from)...

I was paying $23.85 a week. $23.85 x 4 = $95.40. And, I might add, that was *just* to weigh in. No etools. I couldn't get eTools because I don't have a credit card, therefore Monthly Pass wasn't an option for me. So yes, the cost *can* be prohibitive for some people. Especially if you're like me and have absolutely no intention of dropping to the weight that WW thinks I "should" be.

Youch. I used to pay $12/week and even that was steep.

For the record, their goal weights run off BMI charts, I'm pretty sure. If you think BMI charts are not the best indicator for you and want a higher goal weight, you can bring a note from your doctor and WW will honor that goal weight, I believe.

Yes, I did get a note stating that, after consultation, my doctor and I had decided that WW's goal weight for me was too low and that, in the doctor's opinion (based on my waist-to-hip ratio and body fat percentage) my goal weight would be at a higher number.

I'm not planning to go back to WW anytime soon; the goal weight thing was just one thing I became disillusioned with -- another major issue for me was the scant two-pound buffer. I can easily fluctuate four to five pounds during any given day, and I kept finding that, even if I was at my goal weight in the morning, I could end up being three pounds over by the time my weigh-in time rolled around (in the evening.) I would have loved to be able to have a morning weigh-in, but what can I say....WW in a small town with only one meeting time a week really sucks.

I don’t think that either one is better than the other but one will be a better fit for your current needs. You will want to search out the many past threads on this topic. Usually when comparing the 2 methods most people prefer whatever they are doing now and have nothing good to say about the other. If you are fairly disciplined and just need a method of tracking calories and already have a firm idea of food choices that will let you take the weight off in a healthy way then I would not pay for WW. I have been happily enrolled in WW since February and attend meetings every week. Monthly pass + activelink subscription is about $48/ month. Initially I needed food guidelines and the accountability of having to go in every week to weigh in. I kept attending and staying for the meetings because of the amount of info that I received each week.

On MFP I found that I had to sometimes wade through a lot of dicey “science” and program prejudices (Paleo, low carb, 5:2, 1200, Atkins, etc.) for guidance. I am fortunate to be in an area that has a lot of meeting location choices and found one that has a good leader and a lot of lifetime members. I still parallel track in MFP a few times a month so that I have an idea of calories and nutritional info outside of points. The in-person dynamic led me to choose WW but not everyone needs that.

I also thing both have their benefits - I lost 25lbs on WW about 3 years ago (over 5 or 6 months) and kept it off as I had retrained my brain around what I was eating.

I now use MFP - not because I need to lose a lot of weight but because it helps me control my calorie intake and monitor my exercise. I've seend people have great success with both. Good luck!