Jumping into the age-old debate... MFP vs WW

blytheny
blytheny Posts: 63 Member
in Food and Nutrition
So, I've chosen to join WW and do it with MFP for the 3 month trial period I have with WW... why, after reading that so many prefer MFP to WW??

Because for me, I don't feel that the calorie-counting is working just right, and I want to figure out why.

Already, in the two days I've been on WW, I've found myself eating differently... last night, MFP said I had 480 calories left to eat, but WW said I only had 2 points. That is a huge difference, and I want to see if that difference makes something change for me.

I've been religiously tracking calories and exercising ...I lost for awhile, but then hit a plateau and gained... and haven't budged. I can chalk a bit up to gaining muscle, as I began strenght training more seriously, but I just feel I need more accountability for awhile.

I think once I figure out what "my number" is daily I will be able to use MFP better... I know that one point is roughly equivalent to 50 calories, so WW's 26 points adds very closely to MFP's number of calories for me. (1280 vs 1300) But it seems the food is the big difference... maybe I was eating too much? Too little?

I'm hoping that by doing both, I will get a clearer picture of what my body needs... I also am starting to use BodyMedia, so we'll see if that gives me some insight, as well.

I'm open to comments, just please don't knock me TOO badly for doing both... :wink: I've seen that most here prefer MFP, and I totally understand why, especially the $$$ part. But I have to give this a shot... I'm a researcher, and once I figure things out, I do far better than just trusting a computer to throw numbers or points at me. So, we'll see!!

Anyone done something similar??

Replies

  • mamadon
    mamadon Posts: 1,422 Member
    We all have to do whatever works best for us. It all comes down to calorie counting anyway, the points are just another way of doing it. I personally tried WW twice and found the points tedious, plus I hate meetings lol. There is nothing wrong with doing both, if thats what works for you.
  • gypsy_spirit
    gypsy_spirit Posts: 2,107 Member
    Not sure what you mean by "food is the big difference" between WW & MFP. Both use a system to count your daily calories to keep you in a calorie deficit.

    This link really helped me understand a lot about losing fat and making my plan sustainable for life. Good luck.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1175494-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants
  • rivka_m
    rivka_m Posts: 1,007 Member
    Are you eating back exercise calories? My understanding is that activity points give you ~40 cal of food (I think 1 point is roughly 40, not 50) to eat but take more than 40 cal of activity to earn, so by design on WW you're not eating back all your exercise calories. That could be some of the discrepancy. Another is that it's designed to allow for the "free" fruits and vegetables - when I calculate what my calorie allowance would work out to it's ~1040/day. I eat enough bananas and frozen fruit to make up the difference to MFP's 1260 most days.

    If you feel WW is working for you and you eat better on it, there's no reason not to use it, with or without other tools. I personally prefer WW. Points vs cals is just easier for me, plus I do feel like it nudges me to eat more fruits/veg which I badly need to do. But there are good tools at MFP and I've learned helpful things in the forums.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,267 Member
    my question is how many calories do you have a day....per MFP to WW.

    I have done WW before and found that the amount given was small...their goal is weight loss regardless of weather it's fat or muscle they don't care.

    As for the "free" foods...it all has calories.

    I lost weight with WW...but it led to some odd habits...

    like not eating on the day of weigh in and then binging afterwards...that was normal for the entire group...

    I prefer eating a reasonable deficit and logging food with calories vs points. BTW I have stuck with this longer than I ever did with WW...
  • gaelicstorm26
    gaelicstorm26 Posts: 589 Member
    I did WW two years ago and it did work for me. Now I'm doing MFP and it is working for me.

    The reason I prefer MFP to WW is that when using MFP, I pay really close attention to those macros. I didn't do that on WW. I also like that MFP is free and syncs with my Fitbit.

    You should do what works for you. You have to decide which method is more sustainable.
  • RUNNING_AMOK_1958
    RUNNING_AMOK_1958 Posts: 268 Member
    Weight Watchers is great. I lost a massive amount of weight on their program, and it's inexpensive. There is no harm in trying other things and gaining more knowledge. Even though I'm a member of MFP, I don't follow it's program. All of my settings are custom. I only use it as a tool. Good luck! Hope WW jumpstarts your weight loss.
  • leodru
    leodru Posts: 321 Member
    I think in MFP most people just use it as a calorie counter and that isn't correct. You need to hit your macros as well which normally pushes you to a lower fat diet with plenty of carbs and protein. WW really lacks on pushing protein - but does a great job on pushing fruits and veg. Both will work ultimately if followed the way the plans are. I am using MFP with a bi-weekly visit to a dietitian who reviews my diary and gives me solid feedback of how I can improve and it gives me good accountability. She charges me $25 bi-weekly and its one on one which is cheaper than WW. (maybe an option if you can find a dietitian who does similar plans). When I did WW I got tired of the push of all their product like their granola bars, the bread and all the candy. In the end I found although the program is about good eating then pollute it by pushing the crappy carb products....... one other thing - I don't eat my exercise. I do workout regularly but don't eat back. I'm well above my bmr at 2100 calories a day and I'm finding it very livable.
  • ItsJordanNicole
    ItsJordanNicole Posts: 110 Member
    WW does not take calories into consideration at all when calculating points. So depending on what you are eating, some days MFP will allow you to eat more than WW and vice versa. I tried weight watchers last year and it works as long as you work it. The same goes for MFP. I find that MFP is just easier for me to track so I've chosen this for now. It's also a lot easier to track exercise, I had a very hard time with WW and activity points. It also helps that MFP is free.
  • tryett
    tryett Posts: 530 Member
    I have done WW twice before and lost 25-30 both times. Unfortunately I found it again after I missed two meetings and stopped going. I was going to do it again but my Dr recommended a dietician so I started tracking here. I like tracking the macros also especially the protein to make I get enough. But I could have done WW as long as I went to the meetings.
  • cwoyto123
    cwoyto123 Posts: 308
    What is WW, lol.
  • sfbaumgarten
    sfbaumgarten Posts: 912 Member
    I lost with WW, used both for a little while in maintenance, then switched to just MFP when I felt comfortable enough. I've been successful with both programs, but MFP is what fits me best now. It all boils down to what works for you and your own personal preferences.

    ETA: I was an WW online only member- no meetings.
  • TuesdayMomma6
    TuesdayMomma6 Posts: 4
    I hate paying for it when their online database and scanner has so many errors. Sure you can create the food yourself but considering the money you pay for it, there should be a way to contact them to correct.

    On the positive note, I do like how Weight Watchers encourages fruits and vegetable eating by making them zero points.
  • blytheny
    blytheny Posts: 63 Member
    Thanks for all the comments!

    So... 6 days in, and I've lost 2.5 lbs... definitely a change in dietary habits d/t having to count points, not calories. For me, I don't think I was as careful with my calories here on MFP... I made healthy choices, but because I exercise, I would choose higher calorie, higher protein foods on my gym days b/c MFP wants you to "eat back" your calories. (I never ate all of them, but if I had 600 exercise calories, maybe I would eat 300 of them)

    With WW, I'm choosing different foods - still healthy, but lower in points, and it's definitely reflected in my weight loss, and the fact that I'm not retaining water now.

    That, and I bought a BodyMedia Link armband... so I can see just how many calories I'm really burning (lower than what MFP or my gym machines say) and I can see my true calorie adjustment.

    So regardless of all MFP's warnings about "eating too little will cause you to stop losing" - I have had a definite calorie deficit every day - a healthy one - and it's worked! I broke my plateau, and am thrilled. :smile:
  • _Terrapin_
    _Terrapin_ Posts: 4,301 Member
    26 points and 1300 calories; interesting---> 1 serving of Peanut butter is 5 points(approximately 20% of your points if using 26 points), but calories of 190 not really 260(20% of 1300). Seems WW promotes things long term most would want to avoid, not embrace. At 1300 calories what is the goal? Is it to eat below your BMR? I just do not understand the low calorie number.My 2 cents.
  • blytheny
    blytheny Posts: 63 Member
    I thought the same thing... I often have 2 tbsp pb on a multi-grain sandwich thin as my "go to" after a workout. Definitely a crazy number of points.

    But - I went to see my MD b/c I was struggling so much - and as much as I've joked about having "no metabolism", it seems I really don't have much of one at all.

    My BP runs extremely low, my resting pulse rate (and I'm not an athlete, just active exerciser) is 56 & my base body temp is low. My BMR runs very low based off labs, numbers and tests... so for me, at least until I can get the extra weight off, lower calories and exercise is the answer.

    Once I hit my target weight and have had 6 months or more of steady exercising, I ought to have upped my metabolism naturally and will be able to handle a higher calorie count without gaining - but as it stands, for me to eat 1500 - 1800 calories puts me at a standstill, even while exercising.

    (and my understanding of WW points vs calories is that 1 pt = approx 50 cal... so 200 cal for 2 tbsp peanut butter is pretty close to the points - a bit high but close)
  • brooksshaver
    brooksshaver Posts: 1
    .
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    26 points and 1300 calories; interesting---> 1 serving of Peanut butter is 5 points(approximately 20% of your points if using 26 points), but calories of 190 not really 260(20% of 1300). Seems WW promotes things long term most would want to avoid, not embrace. At 1300 calories what is the goal? Is it to eat below your BMR? I just do not understand the low calorie number.My 2 cents.
    It favors low fat foods, high fiber foods. So PB is costly, points-wise. It also heavily favors eating fruit and vegetables over other foods. A lot of us do embrace a high fiber, high plant diet.

    The calories per point wind up closer to 40 each now, not 50, which was the 'old points'. 40*26 = 1040 'base' calories per day. But you also get fruit and vegetables so for most that's going to be 300+ calories a day, so we're up to 1340+. Then you also get 49 'weekly points' to use as you choose (or not), so average 7 per day adds another 280 so we're up to 1340+280= 1620 calories. Plus you can eat up to half of what you burn in exercise (or not), so figure 1620 plus half your exercise calories, if you want. So smaller people like the OP and me should be eating in the range of 1200-1800 or more, depending on our activity levels and choices and how much produce we eat.

    I just had a banana smeared with TJ's cookie butter and it was 2 points. If you eat PB off a spoon or on a bagel, it's going to cost you. If you use it as a dip for apples it's not a bad deal.

    TuesdayMomma- I agree, the software they sell isn't great.

    Before anyone assumes everyone starts at 26 points, they don't. Depending on your size and gender, I think the base point level goes as high as somewhere in the 70s. 26 is just the lowest.
  • _Terrapin_
    _Terrapin_ Posts: 4,301 Member
    I thought the same thing... I often have 2 tbsp pb on a multi-grain sandwich thin as my "go to" after a workout. Definitely a crazy number of points.

    But - I went to see my MD b/c I was struggling so much - and as much as I've joked about having "no metabolism", it seems I really don't have much of one at all.

    My BP runs extremely low, my resting pulse rate (and I'm not an athlete, just active exerciser) is 56 & my base body temp is low. My BMR runs very low based off labs, numbers and tests... so for me, at least until I can get the extra weight off, lower calories and exercise is the answer.

    Once I hit my target weight and have had 6 months or more of steady exercising, I ought to have upped my metabolism naturally and will be able to handle a higher calorie count without gaining - but as it stands, for me to eat 1500 - 1800 calories puts me at a standstill, even while exercising.

    (and my understanding of WW points vs calories is that 1 pt = approx 50 cal... so 200 cal for 2 tbsp peanut butter is pretty close to the points - a bit high but close)

    I need to find a link for you to understand what I think you are saying and how it applies to you potentially. Short answer: metabolic damage is caused by too little intake and too aggressive exercise, among other things. You BMR is height, weight, BF, age, and gender. Labs have nothing to do with it, but, you may have a lower then "ideal" BMR so maybe this is what you are speaking of.

    Upping your calories will take 6 weeks to see any change in body weight. Most people(not saying this is you) do not allow sufficient time to see the change. I would politely recommend you meet with a registered dietician and provide your MFP numbers to them. It is a great jumping off point for improved longer term metabolic change and efficiency. Link is coming up.
  • _Terrapin_
    _Terrapin_ Posts: 4,301 Member
    http:\\www.metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage-symptoms/


    Best of luck.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    (and my understanding of WW points vs calories is that 1 pt = approx 50 cal... so 200 cal for 2 tbsp peanut butter is pretty close to the points - a bit high but close)

    Since you're counting both, I think you'll see that if you consider only non-zero-point calories and your points, the relationship is closer to 40:1 now than 50:1. Some days it might be a lot lower and some higher but it should oscillate around 38-40 for most.
  • blytheny
    blytheny Posts: 63 Member
    Thanks for the tips! No worries, I don't think I have any kind of "metabolic damage" - I am a nurse, and am therefore overly aware (often too much) of my body and it's intake/output & effect on my weight loss. Too many calories? I gain weight. Too few? I plateau.

    What I needed to figure out, and have been with WW and BodyMedia, is what MY perfect number is, not what MFP tells me it is. And so far, with BodyMedia telling me to eat around 1400 to have a net calorie deficit per day of 1000 calories, and being able to track that more efficiently (for ME) on the WW point system (which is forcing me to pick more fruits/vegetables to stay within my points, not just count calories of any variety - something we all know to do but find it hard to do) I have broken two plateaus of mine and am watching my fat %'s drop.

    Don't get me wrong - I love tracking here - I just needed to mix multiple avenues to figure out where I am at - your 40's are NOT something easy to figure out, esp when you're a woman! :wink: :laugh:

Categories