Weight Watchers to MFP. Lots of points left.

Options
lfrazier2482
lfrazier2482 Posts: 82 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I have been doing Weight Watchers for three months now. Between that and walking 4 miles a day six days a week I have lost 35 lbs. I decided to try out MFP because I am more comfortable with math than magical points. I have a lot of weight to lose so weight watchers current assignment is 56 points for my daily allowance. I haven't quit weight watchers yet so I have been double tracking. When I set my account up here I chose two pounds a week for weight loss and sedentary job. My MFP calorie goal was set at 1780 per day. I have been leaving an average of 100-200 calories on the board every day to account for possible portioning errors. When I compare the two plans I get confused. On average weight watchers says that I still have between 25-28 points left at the end of the day. That seems like a lot. I am not starving but I do notice that I am eating a bit less. I am just wondering if I did something wrong when I set it up or if anyone has had a similar experience.
«13

Replies

  • PotentiallyCrazy
    PotentiallyCrazy Posts: 69 Member
    Options
    I was in WW for a few months, 3 years ago. I lost 24 pounds while I was in but didn't like their point system either. After I quit, someone once told me that 1 WW point is about equal to 50 calories. I don't think WW takes into consideration one's activity level -- they just assign a certain number of points somehow?
  • Weightwatcher72
    Weightwatcher72 Posts: 95 Member
    Options
    I'm on WW and MFP together, I've manually reset my daily points to 26 ( it lets you), and weeklies from 49 to 10 - but try not to touch them! They're there as an overdraft feature if you like for me.

    I had approx 7 stone to lose right at the beginning, I lost 8lbs on my own then entered MFP and WW, my initial WW points was something like 32/33 I think, but 56 seems very high are you sure you calculated everything in there correctly? I was nearly 16 stone at the beginning and my goal is 9stone 6lb
  • lemonlionheart
    lemonlionheart Posts: 580 Member
    edited October 2014
    Options
    PotentiallyCrazy wrote: »
    I was in WW for a few months, 3 years ago. I lost 24 pounds while I was in but didn't like their point system either. After I quit, someone once told me that 1 WW point is about equal to 50 calories. I don't think WW takes into consideration one's activity level -- they just assign a certain number of points somehow?

    I remember this, I think it might have been the old system.The new one is much more complicated so you have to actually sign up to use it rather than just learn the formula and buy a calculator.

    Do you eat a lot of fruit and veg, OP? I know these are 'free' foods with WW, if you're not counting them under the points system that could account for the discrepancy.
  • eldamiano
    eldamiano Posts: 2,667 Member
    Options
    Ditch WW. It's a con. MFP will do just fine.
  • p4ulmiller
    p4ulmiller Posts: 588 Member
    Options
    Don't worry about WW points. Your body doesn't.
  • RodaRose
    RodaRose Posts: 9,562 Member
    Options
    WW is less precise and that is why you can leave points on the table. I tried doing them both at the same time for a little while and decided to stick with MFP because I like counting the calories.
  • 13bbird13
    13bbird13 Posts: 425 Member
    Options
    I did WW for a year or so a while back, and it worked (unless you count the fact that I gained it all back again which is my own fault and not WW). I understand the PointsPlus system they were using at the time, but I can't imagine trying to do that and MFP simultaneously. I agree that WW is far less precise as RodaRose writes... no macros at all, which is okay for some but not enough info for others. I'd say pick one and stay with it. If you're currently paying for WW, if I were you I'd go with MFP.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    I've double tracked before and points and calories just don't 'track' well together. I mean, sometimes you're out of calories but have points left and vice versa. A lot. It depends on your food choices because macros do affect points.

    There is a script you can install that makes MFP do points in your food diary, if that helps. The thread is the last link in my profile, I think.
  • lfrazier2482
    lfrazier2482 Posts: 82 Member
    Options
    Weightwatcher72 wrote: »
    I'm on WW and MFP together, I've manually reset my daily points to 26 ( it lets you), and weeklies from 49 to 10 - but try not to touch them! They're there as an overdraft feature if you like for me.

    I had approx 7 stone to lose right at the beginning, I lost 8lbs on my own then entered MFP and WW, my initial WW points was something like 32/33 I think, but 56 seems very high are you sure you calculated everything in there correctly? I was nearly 16 stone at the beginning and my goal is 9stone 6lb
    This isn't my first time on weight watchers. I did it a couple of years back. I don't remember my exact point total. It was significantly lower I think. They have revamped how they do points since I restarted. Currently I am 5'8 and 302 lbs. When I started I had 59 points and am now down to 56. I agree that it is a lot of points.

  • lfrazier2482
    lfrazier2482 Posts: 82 Member
    Options
    [quote="Do you eat a lot of fruit and veg, OP? I know these are 'free' foods with WW, if you're not counting them under the points system that could account for the discrepancy.[/quote]
    Those free foods do add up quite a bit in my diet. It always struck me as wrong. According to weight watchers I could eat two cups of strawberries for zero points. If you go by calories it's 98. I think that is significant.

  • 13bbird13
    13bbird13 Posts: 425 Member
    Options
    There was a woman in my group when I was doing WW who actually had to cut way back on her "free" fruit because she was eating way too much of it and just about halting her weight loss. With all the sugars that are in some fruits, I'm not surprised. That's one way MFP improves over WW... but then again, hers was an extreme situation and most people might be just fine with their "free" fruit.
  • brightsideofpink
    brightsideofpink Posts: 1,018 Member
    Options
    I think you're probably spot on with the 'free' fruits. Just a few servings of those could add up to several hundred calories easily. I also made the transition from one to the other. I was losing weight fine with WW, but like you enjoy the clear science and predictability with MFP and basic calorie counting.
  • Lorleee
    Lorleee Posts: 369 Member
    Options
    WW takes the "work" out of calorie counting for you. I think it's a good program, I was just too cheap to keep it up. I think "free" fruit is a big mistake, though.
  • lfrazier2482
    lfrazier2482 Posts: 82 Member
    Options
    Not trying to pile on weight watchers here but another thing I noticed was I was averaging about 25% less protein than my RDA. When trying to ramp up my physical activity I think that is important. That wasn't obvious on weight watchers.
  • rivka_m
    rivka_m Posts: 1,007 Member
    Options
    Lorleee wrote: »
    WW takes the "work" out of calorie counting for you. I think it's a good program, I was just too cheap to keep it up. I think "free" fruit is a big mistake, though.

    Agreed, WW makes it easier and I think is especially good for people who haven't tried losing weight before. I'm no longer on it because I can't afford it, but I liked it.

    I think free veggies are great (since they don't include all veggies and it does promote vegetable consumption) but they need to tighten up on the free fruit.
  • carbacon
    carbacon Posts: 12
    Options
    What is MFP? I'm clueless
  • m_tommiss
    m_tommiss Posts: 7
    Options
    I was double tracking and found it confusing as well. I like MFP better because I can also track my sodium, sugar, protein, etc...I wanted to eat healthier not just lose weight so I chose MFP.
    MFP= My Fitness Pal
  • TrainerLB
    TrainerLB Posts: 42 Member
    Options
    Your ratio of carbs, fats and protein (macros) is going to be different on MFP than WW. WW doesn't take into account macronutrients and goes for calories overall. You could eat exactly the same amount of cals on WW and on MFP, but if you're adhering to the MFP ratio of macros you might be taking in less carbs, but equal calories -- thus leaving you feeling hungrier.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    I would say it's the opposite. WW assigns points based on macros. MFP is (for the vast majority) a calorie counting site. A calorie is a calorie. A point varies based on the macros in the food.
  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,150 Member
    Options
    MFP is free, why not just use it?

Categories