Weight Watchers / Half Marathon / FRUSTRATION
karen5689
Posts: 17 Member
Hi everyone! Curious to hear your thoughts and responses.
On Weight Watchers, I have lost over 40 lbs (32 since January) with about 25 more to go to get me into the 130's comfortably. And while I have long loved WW and sworn by their methods... once I took up running, and once I started training for a half marathon, I began to feel as though WW, and its members, and its often not-that-knowledgable leaders, to be practically hostile to vigorous exercise.
If I run at a pace above 5MPH, WW gives me the same AP (activity points -- WW's vague unit of rewarding exercise) per minute when I run 5 miles in an hour or 8. There is a HUGE caloric difference there -- but it's not reflected in WW's APs. Ask a WW discussion group and they'll tell you to "find what works for you," aka the members and leaders both have NO idea how to respond to someone whose exercise level exceeds running two miles a few times a week. Better still, I'll get responses that are like "Oh, I earn 6 AP a day from walking my dog and like, I always gain when I eat them! Just don't eat them!" THE ACTIVITY INCURRED RUNNING TEN MILES OR MORE MULTIPLE TIMES A WEEK IS NOT THE SAME AS WALKING YOUR DOG. Even with AP values differing, the advice becomes mangled through gray haze...
It's gotten increasingly frustrating -- I eat only 26 PP a day and half my activity but I'm stalling on weight loss! HOW?! So I turned to MFP and started counting calories and paying attention to macros and the weight has fallen off. Like, slipping off my body like the lingerie of a cheap stripper. Just falling right off. HALLELUJAH.
All of this is to say: WW is an AMAZING program for people learning to take control of their health and depending on how much weight one has to lose, you are SO right that if one is disciplined and follows the program it ABSOLUTELY works. But for those really close to a genuinely low goal (for me, 130) the amount of points I received to lose weight at 160 pounds (26) simply can't still have the same caloric deficit now that I'm close to 150 pounds, nor will it at 140, 135.... And in that respect, I think WW runs out of steam for me. Add to that my qualms about athletics and ways to safely nourish a body that NEEDS simple carbs for going on 10 mile runs and, well... I have been frustrated.
And so here I am, om MFP, checking out while still tracking over at WW. Like you, I seek to find a plan that's sustainable for life. I think MFP might be my best tool in doing so!
Has anyone had similar experiences?
On Weight Watchers, I have lost over 40 lbs (32 since January) with about 25 more to go to get me into the 130's comfortably. And while I have long loved WW and sworn by their methods... once I took up running, and once I started training for a half marathon, I began to feel as though WW, and its members, and its often not-that-knowledgable leaders, to be practically hostile to vigorous exercise.
If I run at a pace above 5MPH, WW gives me the same AP (activity points -- WW's vague unit of rewarding exercise) per minute when I run 5 miles in an hour or 8. There is a HUGE caloric difference there -- but it's not reflected in WW's APs. Ask a WW discussion group and they'll tell you to "find what works for you," aka the members and leaders both have NO idea how to respond to someone whose exercise level exceeds running two miles a few times a week. Better still, I'll get responses that are like "Oh, I earn 6 AP a day from walking my dog and like, I always gain when I eat them! Just don't eat them!" THE ACTIVITY INCURRED RUNNING TEN MILES OR MORE MULTIPLE TIMES A WEEK IS NOT THE SAME AS WALKING YOUR DOG. Even with AP values differing, the advice becomes mangled through gray haze...
It's gotten increasingly frustrating -- I eat only 26 PP a day and half my activity but I'm stalling on weight loss! HOW?! So I turned to MFP and started counting calories and paying attention to macros and the weight has fallen off. Like, slipping off my body like the lingerie of a cheap stripper. Just falling right off. HALLELUJAH.
All of this is to say: WW is an AMAZING program for people learning to take control of their health and depending on how much weight one has to lose, you are SO right that if one is disciplined and follows the program it ABSOLUTELY works. But for those really close to a genuinely low goal (for me, 130) the amount of points I received to lose weight at 160 pounds (26) simply can't still have the same caloric deficit now that I'm close to 150 pounds, nor will it at 140, 135.... And in that respect, I think WW runs out of steam for me. Add to that my qualms about athletics and ways to safely nourish a body that NEEDS simple carbs for going on 10 mile runs and, well... I have been frustrated.
And so here I am, om MFP, checking out while still tracking over at WW. Like you, I seek to find a plan that's sustainable for life. I think MFP might be my best tool in doing so!
Has anyone had similar experiences?
0
Replies
-
Yes, I could have written this myself, with only slight modifications. WW helped me lose the first big chunk of weight, but in my opinion the closer I get to goal, the more I have to change things here and there to keep losing. When I finally stalled on WW (and for me, nothing had changed like extra activity or anything like that), the counselors were of absolutely no help whatsoever. One told me I need to make sure I have milk at least once a day, that will get me out of the stall. Wow.
So I left and came here, and while I was overwhelmed at first, I am empowered by the control I have over my diet (lifestyle change, journey, whatever). I agree with you that in the beginning when someone is very overweight and has no clue where to begin, WW is a great first step to get you going. But as you get closer to goal, you need to take charge of your own nutrition and forget the arbitrary points and all the rest.
Congrats on your progress so far.0 -
I think 26 points can be a low calorie value or a high one, depending on your choices. It's very roughly 40 calories a point so figure 1040 calories base per day. Which isn't enough for a runner. But you also have 35 points a week to shift around, so that's 200 more calories per day on average, Plus all your produce is free, virtually. Plus half your exercise calories, if you choose.
So figuring 1040 (base) + 200 (WPs) + 400 (produce) + 200 (APs for a 3-4 mile run), you're up to 1840 calories a day for someone trying to lose weight.
I need to be below 1600 so I think it's actually too generous if you eat all you're allowed to.
I would calc your APs so that 80 calories burned = one AP. Then your speed matters. That is how it used to work, at least. In general, all they're trying to have you do is eat back up to half your calories burned from workouts, if you choose to. If you preferred to eat them all back, you could just calc an AP as 40 calories burned.0 -
After my first 20lbs gone, I stopped WW, it just wasn't working for me anymore. While I think it's a great program, it just doesn't work for everyone.0
-
While I appreciate your working through the math, I think what it becomes for me is a whole bunch of hokus pokus. The weekly points, the banking of AP... there's certainly ways to game the system and work it through so I get enough food and lose weight -- but it's all so much guesswork and the program doesn't guide me! I'm sad about it since I had no issues until I dropped into 26 PP territory, but am now seeking out something with less mumbo jumbo and a more straightforward approach.
You're like a math genie, though! Color me impressed!0 -
There are so many WW tools out there I'd suggest the following: (For points plus)
log your day to see how many calories you're getting out of your points. It's easy to log those calories and figure out the points from there. Also are you eating more points when you work out? I know you gain points per how intense you work out. There are a ton of calculators out there to find out how many points you should gain back. You can compare that to how many calories you are burning. This will at least give you a chance to see where things aren't matching up and can show you what you need to change, wether that includes continuing WW or not that's your choice.
I tend to do the WW system for free here and there when I really need to straighten out my eating. I do that on MFP so I can still keep and eye on my calories/macros/calories burned.0 -
I think 26 points can be a low calorie value or a high one, depending on your choices. It's very roughly 40 calories a point so figure 1040 calories base per day. Which isn't enough for a runner. But you also have 35 points a week to shift around, so that's 200 more calories per day on average, Plus all your produce is free, virtually. Plus half your exercise calories, if you choose.
So figuring 1040 (base) + 200 (WPs) + 400 (produce) + 200 (APs for a 3-4 mile run), you're up to 1840 calories a day for someone trying to lose weight.
I need to be below 1600 so I think it's actually too generous if you eat all you're allowed to.
I would calc your APs so that 80 calories burned = one AP. Then your speed matters. That is how it used to work, at least. In general, all they're trying to have you do is eat back up to half your calories burned from workouts, if you choose to. If you preferred to eat them all back, you could just calc an AP as 40 calories burned.
While I appreciate your working through the math, I think what it becomes for me is a whole bunch of hokus pokus. The weekly points, the banking of AP... there's certainly ways to game the system and work it through so I get enough food and lose weight -- but it's all so much guesswork and the program doesn't guide me! I'm sad about it since I had no issues until I dropped into 26 PP territory, but am now seeking out something with less mumbo jumbo and a more straightforward approach.
You're like a math genie, though! Color me impressed!0 -
I'm not negative towards WW, I have joined them hundreds of times in my life. But I find what you all are saying to be true, and I wonder how they stay so strong because in reality, they cost too much. And right the "speakers" are not knowledgeable. When they first came out, it was mandatory to eat liver.:sick:
Yes - it became too much mumbo jumbo. The best plan they ever had was the CORE PLAN - You didnt count a darn thing, just eat within that list and the list was HUGE. They discontinued that plan - they are always changing.0 -
After my first 20lbs gone, I stopped WW, it just wasn't working for me anymore. While I think it's a great program, it just doesn't work for everyone.
This. The program may work at first, but you are exactly right, it isn't modeled for people who are interested in vigorous exercise. It's almost like they don't understand it. I never understood how a 10 mile run gives so little points back. after my weight stalled, I moved on. It works to a point, but honestly, despite the existence of their lifetime members, I don't think one can do their plan forever (and keep your sanity).0 -
I think 26 points can be a low calorie value or a high one, depending on your choices. It's very roughly 40 calories a point so figure 1040 calories base per day. Which isn't enough for a runner. But you also have 35 points a week to shift around, so that's 200 more calories per day on average, Plus all your produce is free, virtually. Plus half your exercise calories, if you choose.
So figuring 1040 (base) + 200 (WPs) + 400 (produce) + 200 (APs for a 3-4 mile run), you're up to 1840 calories a day for someone trying to lose weight.
I need to be below 1600 so I think it's actually too generous if you eat all you're allowed to.
I would calc your APs so that 80 calories burned = one AP. Then your speed matters. That is how it used to work, at least. In general, all they're trying to have you do is eat back up to half your calories burned from workouts, if you choose to. If you preferred to eat them all back, you could just calc an AP as 40 calories burned.
I would lose 1/2lb a week on WW given that math.
When I did WW they lowered your points as you lost weight...but I found it to be...well a weight loss tool not for health.
If it was for health they would be teaching about macros/micros and counting those as well...0 -
There are so many WW tools out there I'd suggest the following: (For points plus)
log your day to see how many calories you're getting out of your points. It's easy to log those calories and figure out the points from there. Also are you eating more points when you work out? I know you gain points per how intense you work out. There are a ton of calculators out there to find out how many points you should gain back. You can compare that to how many calories you are burning. This will at least give you a chance to see where things aren't matching up and can show you what you need to change, wether that includes continuing WW or not that's your choice.
I tend to do the WW system for free here and there when I really need to straighten out my eating. I do that on MFP so I can still keep and eye on my calories/macros/calories burned.
As per my nutritionist, no calculators are accurate except a heart-rate monitor, which I do wear, so I've sussed out my calories from there! And Weight Watchers does not distinguish intensity with all types of exercise. As described above, ANY running above a speed of 12 minute miles will net the same points per minute of activity. So 2 twelve minute miles or 3 8 minute miles net you the same AP. And that, methinks, is some unsavory bull****.
Nutritionist declared also that many "how much to eat back" calculators are wrong. SADNESS. Nutritionist says "Eat back less than that!"
And though I may eventually sing a different tune, for now I am putting my faith in her.
Also, my eating has been immaculate but too low in fat for too long. WW punishes foods with high fat (even healthy fat like avocado or nut) or simple carbs, regardless of their calories. I'm finding that while as an overweight person limiting those types of consumption worked well, but as an athlete who's honing in on those last 15 lbs and burning thousands and thousands of calories per week, it's just ridiculous to hide from some of these raw unprocessed nutrient rich foods!0 -
Hi everyone! Curious to hear your thoughts and responses.
On Weight Watchers, I have lost over 40 lbs (32 since January) with about 25 more to go to get me into the 130's comfortably. And while I have long loved WW and sworn by their methods... once I took up running, and once I started training for a half marathon, I began to feel as though WW, and its members, and its often not-that-knowledgable leaders, to be practically hostile to vigorous exercise.
If I run at a pace above 5MPH, WW gives me the same AP (activity points -- WW's vague unit of rewarding exercise) per minute when I run 5 miles in an hour or 8. There is a HUGE caloric difference there -- but it's not reflected in WW's APs. Ask a WW discussion group and they'll tell you to "find what works for you," aka the members and leaders both have NO idea how to respond to someone whose exercise level exceeds running two miles a few times a week. Better still, I'll get responses that are like "Oh, I earn 6 AP a day from walking my dog and like, I always gain when I eat them! Just don't eat them!" THE ACTIVITY INCURRED RUNNING TEN MILES OR MORE MULTIPLE TIMES A WEEK IS NOT THE SAME AS WALKING YOUR DOG. Even with AP values differing, the advice becomes mangled through gray haze...
It's gotten increasingly frustrating -- I eat only 26 PP a day and half my activity but I'm stalling on weight loss! HOW?! So I turned to MFP and started counting calories and paying attention to macros and the weight has fallen off. Like, slipping off my body like the lingerie of a cheap stripper. Just falling right off. HALLELUJAH.
All of this is to say: WW is an AMAZING program for people learning to take control of their health and depending on how much weight one has to lose, you are SO right that if one is disciplined and follows the program it ABSOLUTELY works. But for those really close to a genuinely low goal (for me, 130) the amount of points I received to lose weight at 160 pounds (26) simply can't still have the same caloric deficit now that I'm close to 150 pounds, nor will it at 140, 135.... And in that respect, I think WW runs out of steam for me. Add to that my qualms about athletics and ways to safely nourish a body that NEEDS simple carbs for going on 10 mile runs and, well... I have been frustrated.
And so here I am, om MFP, checking out while still tracking over at WW. Like you, I seek to find a plan that's sustainable for life. I think MFP might be my best tool in doing so!
Has anyone had similar experiences?
You know what you need to know, just leave it behind.0 -
I find that it's way off too - I'm just stating that comparing WW to hard numbers with calories counting and a HRM could benefit you in seeing exactly where the difference is.0
-
You know a long time ago I did WW and noticed the same as you. WW points are all based on a distance ran, but a distance ran at a 12 minute mile. What I did to get around that was built a table in excel where I converted how far I ran in miles to how long it would have taken me had I run at a 12 minute mile. For example, I ran 2 miles, well then I recorded I ran for 24 minutes. Who cares how long I REALLY ran, because there really isn't a HUGE difference in calories burned whether you do it in 12 minutes or 24 minutes. What matters more than anything is you ran 2 miles vs walking 2 miles. Besides, if anything you're underestimating how much you burned anyway being it's easier to run at a 12 minute mile vs a 6 minute mile. But this method worked pretty well to shoehorn in what was actually being done into the way WW calculates it.0
-
I agree, WW has its problems for sure. I also liked the Core plan. I lost 50 lbs. on it and made 'lifetime' status on it. They actually do have a variation of that plan still. I think it's called Simply Filling.I'm not negative towards WW, I have joined them hundreds of times in my life. But I find what you all are saying to be true, and I wonder how they stay so strong because in reality, they cost too much. And right the "speakers" are not knowledgeable. When they first came out, it was mandatory to eat liver.:sick:
Yes - it became too much mumbo jumbo. The best plan they ever had was the CORE PLAN - You didnt count a darn thing, just eat within that list and the list was HUGE. They discontinued that plan - they are always changing.
Sezxy Stef- They still lower your points as you lose, 26 is just the lowest level. It was 29 when this plan first came out but they changed it after lukewarm reception and results in the first year.
They make an attempt at encouraging food choices with better macros by the nature of the points calc. Higher protein, higher fiber foods are fewer points, and of course produce is free. If you ascribe to the common protein recs, most people do get enough by their own choices, especially if there's an incentive like they're 'cheaper' on their plan and more filling.
WW does penalize fats and in the new plan REALLY penalizes alcohol calories.0 -
I'm not negative towards WW, I have joined them hundreds of times in my life. But I find what you all are saying to be true, and I wonder how they stay so strong because in reality, they cost too much. And right the "speakers" are not knowledgeable. When they first came out, it was mandatory to eat liver.:sick:
Yes - it became too much mumbo jumbo. The best plan they ever had was the CORE PLAN - You didnt count a darn thing, just eat within that list and the list was HUGE. They discontinued that plan - they are always changing.
Just going to point out that they actually *do* have that core plan, it's just called simply filling now. Same concepts.
I was in weight watchers and I loved my leader, she was pretty knowledgeable and I lost my first 35 lbs with them. But yes, I agree with OP, I don't think its really for people who are super active and into things like weight lifting, long distance running, etc. But I do think it can help many people who may just be way too overwhelmed to start something on their own, as I was when I first joined several years ago.0 -
Here is a link to adding (old version) of WW points to your MFP tracker. If you want to do that...
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/822197-how-to-track-weight-watchers-points-on-mfp0 -
There is actually a switch in there now so you can track Points Plus instead, too. It does calc produce points, though. I sometimes put produce in a seperate group (after Dinner) to keep those points segregated, when I want to look at points and calories both.Here is a link to adding (old version) of WW points to your MFP tracker. If you want to do that...
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/822197-how-to-track-weight-watchers-points-on-mfp
I transitioned from WW to MFP around June, just planning to use the tracker here to continue WW but I kind of flopped to MFP's plan instead. I do eat less produce on MFP's plan so I might consider some blend of the two.0 -
Yes I had the same issue - I lost 60 pounds, and then stalled out. I was told I was exercising too much and that is why I wasn't losing. After several months of paying for WW and not losing a single pound I quit, gained 18 pounds back, and ended up here - I have managed to lose 13 pounds but have stalled out again. I don't know what to do except keep trying and hope that it will start up again.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions