Why I parted ways with Weight Watchers
Replies
-
I was a WW member and lost 50 lbs without much trouble. I liked tracking my food intake. At times they focused to much on treats and snacks that they made and promoted. I thought these foods did not have very good nutritional values, but were aimed to pacify peoples sweet tooth. I never bought them. The leaders at my WW meetings have an odd need to promote olive oil even suggesting putting it in oatmeal so you get your "good" fats in for the day, they also states that avocados and nuts did not count as a good fat. The support was fine.
I did not like driving to meetings so much however they have made it so you don't have to go to meeting util you get to your goal weight.
I suppose I changed to MFP because I don't have to pay for it and MFP provides food and exercise tracking (the things that helped me most in WW). I like being able to see the calorie breakdown. My phone automatically tracks my steps which is awesome. I had no idea how much sodium I was eating and with MFP I have bought that under control. I've been enjoying new recipes, and enjoyed tweaking them to suit me.0 -
i became a lifetime member of WW twice. once in myn20's and once in my 30's... I honestly think the old school weekly meetings and weigh ins and sharing were instrumental in my weight loss with WW. But as I have posted several times, the aha moment and being dedicated to good health was key to wanting to obtain a healthy weight and stay within a healthy weight range (up or down 2%). It wouldn't matter what I tracked my calories in , be it a big chief tablet with pencil or a phone ap, as long as I tracked and weighed in once a week at least. MFP just makes it no excuses for me not to track.
0 -
kyrannosaurus wrote: »I quit a few weeks after logging on MFP. I was losing weight just fine with WW so that wasn't the issue. I just found the app to be very frustrating to use (the barcode scanner was pretty much useless) and the meeting topics were getting to be more and more gimmicky each month. It didn't make sense to me to pay for it when MFP is free, easier to use, and I get more information than just a points value.
I can tell you from using both that the WW App is 100 X better than the MFP Premium version. There are so many bugs within the MFP App that I don't even know where to begin. I can't tell you how much I regret going Premium. At least the WW App works as it should. Don't know what your issue was with the WW barcode scanner. Since they moved the scanner to within the WW App itself it has been much better. The only items that it won't scan for me are the bulk items that I purchace at BJ's warehouse. Which is not a problem since I was able to find them anyway while doing a search.
Well the Australian version of the WW app pretty much never works. When I first joined they made an update which had a bug meaning you couldn't use decimal points in the app. When they fixed that, the points calculator stop working so that no matter what you entered the points were always zero. It took them two months to fix it. Then with the next update fitness trackers stopped syncing to the app. They still haven't fixed that issue. The Australia iphone version of the app doesn't even have a barcode scanner, only the android version has it. And the database it terrible and only has WW branded food, foods manufactured my affiliated companies and pantry staples.
I have none of these issues with MFP and this app is free. Admittedly there are bugs but none of them seriously effect it's functionality.
The WW U.S. App works perfectly. Points never disappear or revert back to WW default settings as they do with MFP. When I put my exercise in there is no deduction in the WW app as there is in MFP premium version. I'm glad MFP works for you. In the end that's all that matters.0 -
I did WW off and on for YEARS...and I always lost weight, but never got close to goal.
Trying to figure points before the app phase required keeping that PointsFinder Card Slider always handy or counting how many exchanges I had left... What a pain. Especially if you got the Slider wet or spilled food on it.
My last set of meetings was a negative experience. Nicest way to say it is, the leader had an agenda bent toward a certain people group(of which she was one) and if you didn't identify to that people group, then you weren't really a part of that interaction. Bummer as it was close to the house and she was a good leader, but had her focus elsewhere.
Two key areas that WW has made an impact on me are:
1. Cookbooks. They have a slew of cookbooks for varying foods, easy food, quick foods, and desserts. I use these regularly. Not a fan of the frozen box and ever so often, I dig for something different. Never can recall a recipe that was an epic FAIL.
2. Lifestyle Mindsets. I've gleaned the best of what WW teaches in order to change my mind about eating/food/thoughts/responses/how-to's.
If Weight Watchers would offer an alternative plan that was simply calorie based..no points, no sliders, no special formula to figure out how much I could eat...I would join again...but at a different location.
You must have quit WW years ago because they haven't used a slider in years. They use a calculator, or those who have a smartphone can use that with the WW app to calculate points.0 -
I don't think WW and MFP are really that different, it's just tracking in one format or another. I lost most of my weight on WW (online, not meetings) but switched to MFP a few months ago because the app is much better and it's free. I don't think one program is inherently better than the other, and both give you some flexibility with how much you're eating. If your daily points aren't enough on WW then eat some weeklies. It's mostly common sense.
Now that I'm used to tracking calories and macros on MFP, I prefer it. The WW app is literally the worst attempt at technology I've ever encountered, so that and the fact that they charge for it when you can do the same thing for free elsewhere is enough to make me stay with MFP. But I don't think MFP is a better system.. tracking is tracking, it's really up to the individual to make good choices with those points/calories.0 -
Honestly, for me, I liked WW and I lost 20 lbs on it. BUT I was always hungry even when eating back exercise and all my weekly points. Fiber DOES NOT KEEP ME FULL. Protein and fat does. But WW punished me for eating fat and protein (1 avocado is 9 points/26, are they kidding!? Calorie wise, an avocado is nowhere near 35% of my daily allowable calories - that would be 415.2 based on 1200 calories!). In the end, while it worked for me, and was simple, it was not sustainable for what my body needs. Not to mention that eating all that low fat food totally screwed up my hormones to the point where I thought I would never be able to have children.0
-
For those of us that did get to goal with WW the App is FREE. I haven't paid anything to use it in years. I love the WW app. I haven't had any issues at all with the WW app and I've been able to stay 17 pounds below goal with it. Also, I like how the WW app now works in the Notification Center in the iOS version of the app. So I never have to turn my phone on to see how many points I have left as I can see everything right on my lock screen.0
-
I lost tons of weight using WW online. I paid for 3 months (back in 2012 or 2013, I'm forgetting) to "learn", then transitioned to using an Android app called "Value Diary" that does the exact same thing. It is a one-time purchase for $4, I think. It works better than the actual WW app in terms of functionality.
I liked it, but do think the 2 pound window for maintenance is crazy. For me, +/- 5 pounds is more realistic. But I never became a "lifetime member" even though I hit goal because I only ever paid for the first couple of months and never went to a meeting. It's a good program, but I'd point anyone interested in trying it toward the [WAY CHEAPER] Value Diary app. And I use MFP more for maintenance these days anyway. As others have said, it's not that different but I think WW can be an easier place to start for beginners but both are absolutely fine. Like ald783 said, tracking is tracking. And Free is always great (although $4 is pretty good too if that's a system you prefer).0 -
Honestly, for me, I liked WW and I lost 20 lbs on it. BUT I was always hungry even when eating back exercise and all my weekly points. Fiber DOES NOT KEEP ME FULL. Protein and fat does. But WW punishes you for eating fat and protein (1 avocado is 9 points/26, are they kidding!? Calorie wise, an avocado is nowhere near 35% of my daily allowable calories - that would be 415.2 based on 1200 calories!). In the end, while it worked for me, and was simple, it was not sustainable for what my body needs. Not to mention that eating all that low fat food totally screwed up my hormones to the point where I thought I would never be able to have children.
WW does not punish you for eating Fats and Proteins. I laughed when reading this because I always get at least 110 to 130 grams of protein and 30 to 40+ grams of fat everyday with WW and still manage to stay with 32 to 39 points a day. As a mater of fact, you can have 3 tbsp. of liquid egg whites and it equals out to 0 points. There are other sources of high protein foods as well that are easily under 2 points that are perfectly filling.0 -
Honestly, for me, I liked WW and I lost 20 lbs on it. BUT I was always hungry even when eating back exercise and all my weekly points. Fiber DOES NOT KEEP ME FULL. Protein and fat does. But WW punishes you for eating fat and protein (1 avocado is 9 points/26, are they kidding!? Calorie wise, an avocado is nowhere near 35% of my daily allowable calories - that would be 415.2 based on 1200 calories!). In the end, while it worked for me, and was simple, it was not sustainable for what my body needs. Not to mention that eating all that low fat food totally screwed up my hormones to the point where I thought I would never be able to have children.
WW does not punish you for eating Fats and Proteins. I laughed when reading this because I always get at least 110 to 130 grams of protein and 30 to 40+ grams of fat everyday with WW and still manage to stay with 32 to 39 points a day. As a mater of fact, you can have 3 tbsp. of liquid egg whites and it equals out to 0 points. There are other sources of high protein foods as well that are easily under 2 points that are perfectly filling.
I found that it did. 9 points for one 200 calorie avocado was no way not a punishment. Your experience is different than mine, but that doesn't make mine invalid. I suppose I should have said it punishes you for fat and fatty proteins. If you want to eat chicken breast and fish all day long for months on end, no problem. But like I said, my body clearly needs fats based on the medical problems that eating lower fat caused. Therefore, I have concluded that WW was not the right program for me.
And... I can tell I must have used the calculator differently than you because no way would egg whites ever be 0.
I'm always curious why people on WW who love it are on MFP at all.
0 -
Honestly, for me, I liked WW and I lost 20 lbs on it. BUT I was always hungry even when eating back exercise and all my weekly points. Fiber DOES NOT KEEP ME FULL. Protein and fat does. But WW punishes you for eating fat and protein (1 avocado is 9 points/26, are they kidding!? Calorie wise, an avocado is nowhere near 35% of my daily allowable calories - that would be 415.2 based on 1200 calories!). In the end, while it worked for me, and was simple, it was not sustainable for what my body needs. Not to mention that eating all that low fat food totally screwed up my hormones to the point where I thought I would never be able to have children.
WW does not punish you for eating Fats and Proteins. I laughed when reading this because I always get at least 110 to 130 grams of protein and 30 to 40+ grams of fat everyday with WW and still manage to stay with 32 to 39 points a day. As a mater of fact, you can have 3 tbsp. of liquid egg whites and it equals out to 0 points. There are other sources of high protein foods as well that are easily under 2 points that are perfectly filling.
I found that it did. 9 points for one 200 calorie avocado was no way not a punishment. Your experience is different than mine, but that doesn't make mine invalid. I suppose I should have said it punishes you for fat and fatty proteins. If you want to eat chicken breast and fish all day long for months on end, no problem. But like I said, my body clearly needs fats based on the medical problems that eating lower fat caused. Therefore, I have concluded that WW was not the right program for me.
And... I can tell I must have used the calculator differently than you because no way would egg whites ever be 0.
I'm always curious why people on WW who love it are on MFP at all.
Sorry, but I'm in the WW app now and don't see the avocado that you speak of being 9 points. Also, no where in my post did I say your point was invalid. I simply pointed out true facts.
0 -
Without getting into whether or not WW "punishes" certain foods, it should be noted those values are for a quarter of an avocado. So a whole avocado would be ~8 points (probably + or - 1 depending on how it rounds as you add up four quarters). I'd say 9 pts is within that ballpark.0
-
Honestly, for me, I liked WW and I lost 20 lbs on it. BUT I was always hungry even when eating back exercise and all my weekly points. Fiber DOES NOT KEEP ME FULL. Protein and fat does. But WW punishes you for eating fat and protein (1 avocado is 9 points/26, are they kidding!? Calorie wise, an avocado is nowhere near 35% of my daily allowable calories - that would be 415.2 based on 1200 calories!). In the end, while it worked for me, and was simple, it was not sustainable for what my body needs. Not to mention that eating all that low fat food totally screwed up my hormones to the point where I thought I would never be able to have children.
WW does not punish you for eating Fats and Proteins. I laughed when reading this because I always get at least 110 to 130 grams of protein and 30 to 40+ grams of fat everyday with WW and still manage to stay with 32 to 39 points a day. As a mater of fact, you can have 3 tbsp. of liquid egg whites and it equals out to 0 points. There are other sources of high protein foods as well that are easily under 2 points that are perfectly filling.
I found that it did. 9 points for one 200 calorie avocado was no way not a punishment. Your experience is different than mine, but that doesn't make mine invalid. I suppose I should have said it punishes you for fat and fatty proteins. If you want to eat chicken breast and fish all day long for months on end, no problem. But like I said, my body clearly needs fats based on the medical problems that eating lower fat caused. Therefore, I have concluded that WW was not the right program for me.
And... I can tell I must have used the calculator differently than you because no way would egg whites ever be 0.
I'm always curious why people on WW who love it are on MFP at all.
Sorry, but I'm in the WW app now and don't see the avocado that you speak of being 9 points. Also, no where in my post did I say your point was invalid. I simply pointed out true facts.
... and if you eat the whole avocado I bet that rounds up to 9 points... because 2.something x 4 = at least 8 if not more.
And that California Hass avocado that's 3 points for 1/4 of an avo? 12 points if you eat the whole thing. Because 3x4 is 12.
I love math.0 -
-
KisaraKaiba wrote: »
That's true. Looks like the 1/4 cup is about 7 more grams than the 1/4 avo.0 -
KisaraKaiba wrote: »Without getting into whether or not WW "punishes" certain foods, it should be noted those values are for a quarter of an avocado. So a whole avocado would be ~8 points (probably + or - 1 depending on how it rounds as you add up four quarters). I'd say 9 pts is within that ballpark.
By that same logic, I don't think a person who is on a 1200 calorie limited diet on MFP would be eating a whole avocado at 200 calories. Much the same as a person on WW with a 26 point limit wouldn't eat a whole one worth "8" points. WW is no different than MFP. They simply have a different way of tracking. Oh, and I'm glad you don't want to get into WW "pushing" certain foods as that one would not go well for you, lol.0 -
KisaraKaiba wrote: »Without getting into whether or not WW "punishes" certain foods, it should be noted those values are for a quarter of an avocado. So a whole avocado would be ~8 points (probably + or - 1 depending on how it rounds as you add up four quarters). I'd say 9 pts is within that ballpark.
By that same logic, I don't think a person who is on a 1200 calorie limited diet on MFP would be eating a whole avocado at 200 calories. Much the same as a person on WW with a 26 point limit wouldn't eat a whole one worth "8" points. WW is no different than MFP. They simply have a different way of tracking.
See that was my other problem with it for me. At the end of my WW stint, I ate following WW and then at the end of the day would repeat the entries in MFP. WW had me on 1100 a day equivalent calories (admittedly fruit isn't my favourite so I stopped at 2 servings a day). Even if I include the 49 weekly points, that would be about an extra 300 calories a day for a total of 1400. I'm 5'6" and lose weight on 1800 calories a day. WW put my body on way too low a point value. I also have a hate on for avocados unless they're fresh cut, so personal preference there too. What I have a problem with is that in MFP, when I put in the whole avocado it was at the most 250. Which is only 22% (250/1100), not 31% (8/26 consivatively saying that it's only 8 points not 9 like it was every time I entered it in with total grams) of my daily intake.0 -
KisaraKaiba wrote: »Without getting into whether or not WW "punishes" certain foods, it should be noted those values are for a quarter of an avocado. So a whole avocado would be ~8 points (probably + or - 1 depending on how it rounds as you add up four quarters). I'd say 9 pts is within that ballpark.
By that same logic, I don't think a person who is on a 1200 calorie limited diet on MFP would be eating a whole avocado at 200 calories. Much the same as a person on WW with a 26 point limit wouldn't eat a whole one worth "8" points. WW is no different than MFP. They simply have a different way of tracking.
See that was my other problem with it for me. At the end of my WW stint, I ate following WW and then at the end of the day would repeat the entries in MFP. WW had me on 1100 a day equivalent calories (admittedly fruit isn't my favourite so I stopped at 2 servings a day). Even if I include the 49 weekly points, that would be about an extra 300 calories a day for a total of 1400. I'm 5'6" and lose weight on 1800 calories a day. WW put my body on way too low a point value. I also have a hate on for avocados unless they're fresh cut, so personal preference there too.
It all depends on the foods that you eat with WW. I love fruits and vegetables and usually eat about their recommended 5 to 8 servings a day. I had 36 points the other day and it equaled out to 1835 calories.0 -
KisaraKaiba wrote: »Without getting into whether or not WW "punishes" certain foods, it should be noted those values are for a quarter of an avocado. So a whole avocado would be ~8 points (probably + or - 1 depending on how it rounds as you add up four quarters). I'd say 9 pts is within that ballpark.
By that same logic, I don't think a person who is on a 1200 calorie limited diet on MFP would be eating a whole avocado at 200 calories. Much the same as a person on WW with a 26 point limit wouldn't eat a whole one worth "8" points. WW is no different than MFP. They simply have a different way of tracking.
See that was my other problem with it for me. At the end of my WW stint, I ate following WW and then at the end of the day would repeat the entries in MFP. WW had me on 1100 a day equivalent calories (admittedly fruit isn't my favourite so I stopped at 2 servings a day). Even if I include the 49 weekly points, that would be about an extra 300 calories a day for a total of 1400. I'm 5'6" and lose weight on 1800 calories a day. WW put my body on way too low a point value. I also have a hate on for avocados unless they're fresh cut, so personal preference there too.
It all depends on the foods that you eat with WW. I love fruits and vegetables and usually eat about their recommended 5 to 8 servings a day. I had 36 points the other day and it equaled out to 1835 calories.
I honestly think our differences here are because we use the system differently. I was conservative with my food estimates in that if I cooked with veggies in a recipe, they went into the recipe builder, at which point the system actually does apply points to something that if I had left them out of the recipe would have been 0 points. And I could see it being better if I liked fruit better.
But again, I'm totally tainted since I had medical issues for a year because I felt that WW wanted me to eat fiber instead of fat. Even based on reading their articles, I found they were pro low fat and pro fiber.0 -
KisaraKaiba wrote: »Without getting into whether or not WW "punishes" certain foods, it should be noted those values are for a quarter of an avocado. So a whole avocado would be ~8 points (probably + or - 1 depending on how it rounds as you add up four quarters). I'd say 9 pts is within that ballpark.
By that same logic, I don't think a person who is on a 1200 calorie limited diet on MFP would be eating a whole avocado at 200 calories. Much the same as a person on WW with a 26 point limit wouldn't eat a whole one worth "8" points. WW is no different than MFP. They simply have a different way of tracking.
See that was my other problem with it for me. At the end of my WW stint, I ate following WW and then at the end of the day would repeat the entries in MFP. WW had me on 1100 a day equivalent calories (admittedly fruit isn't my favourite so I stopped at 2 servings a day). Even if I include the 49 weekly points, that would be about an extra 300 calories a day for a total of 1400. I'm 5'6" and lose weight on 1800 calories a day. WW put my body on way too low a point value. I also have a hate on for avocados unless they're fresh cut, so personal preference there too.
It all depends on the foods that you eat with WW. I love fruits and vegetables and usually eat about their recommended 5 to 8 servings a day. I had 36 points the other day and it equaled out to 1835 calories.
I honestly think our differences here are because we use the system differently. I was conservative with my food estimates in that if I cooked with veggies in a recipe, they went into the recipe builder, at which point the system actually does apply points to something that if I had left them out of the recipe would have been 0 points. And I could see it being better if I liked fruit better.
But again, I'm totally tainted since I had medical issues for a year because I felt that WW wanted me to eat fiber instead of fat. Even based on reading their articles, I found they were pro low fat and pro fiber.
having Ciliacs disease, I have to watch everything that I eat, so I do see how you come to certain high fat foods being higher points. My Gluten free pizza is 8 points. For me this doesn't matter because I exercise a lot and can easily get 8 points extra everyday. That same Gluten free pizza is about 600 calories, though.KisaraKaiba wrote: »Without getting into whether or not WW "punishes" certain foods, it should be noted those values are for a quarter of an avocado. So a whole avocado would be ~8 points (probably + or - 1 depending on how it rounds as you add up four quarters). I'd say 9 pts is within that ballpark.
By that same logic, I don't think a person who is on a 1200 calorie limited diet on MFP would be eating a whole avocado at 200 calories. Much the same as a person on WW with a 26 point limit wouldn't eat a whole one worth "8" points. WW is no different than MFP. They simply have a different way of tracking.
See that was my other problem with it for me. At the end of my WW stint, I ate following WW and then at the end of the day would repeat the entries in MFP. WW had me on 1100 a day equivalent calories (admittedly fruit isn't my favourite so I stopped at 2 servings a day). Even if I include the 49 weekly points, that would be about an extra 300 calories a day for a total of 1400. I'm 5'6" and lose weight on 1800 calories a day. WW put my body on way too low a point value. I also have a hate on for avocados unless they're fresh cut, so personal preference there too.
It all depends on the foods that you eat with WW. I love fruits and vegetables and usually eat about their recommended 5 to 8 servings a day. I had 36 points the other day and it equaled out to 1835 calories.
I honestly think our differences here are because we use the system differently. I was conservative with my food estimates in that if I cooked with veggies in a recipe, they went into the recipe builder, at which point the system actually does apply points to something that if I had left them out of the recipe would have been 0 points. And I could see it being better if I liked fruit better.
But again, I'm totally tainted since I had medical issues for a year because I felt that WW wanted me to eat fiber instead of fat. Even based on reading their articles, I found they were pro low fat and pro fiber.0 -
Isn't an avocado more like 300 (or more) calories anyway? 200 seems really low for a whole one...
I think with either plan, you can ballpark a calorie/points range that gives you the best results. Some people probably need to stay closer to the daily points or a lower calorie range while others can eat all of their daily, weekly, and activity points and then some. It's not like WW electrocutes you if you go over their target, you're free to eat whatever works best for you. It's just providing the mechanism to track.
Personal preference is fine.. I now prefer MFP over WW. But I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that one program just doesn't work and the other does. They're not vastly different.0 -
Isn't an avocado more like 300 (or more) calories anyway? 200 seems really low for a whole one...
I think with either plan, you can ballpark a calorie/points range that gives you the best results. Some people probably need to stay closer to the daily points or a lower calorie range while others can eat all of their daily, weekly, and activity points and then some. It's not like WW electrocutes you if you go over their target, you're free to eat whatever works best for you. It's just providing the mechanism to track.
Personal preference is fine.. I now prefer MFP over WW. But I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that one program just doesn't work and the other does. They're not vastly different.
I agree 100% with this. I think they are both good at what they do. They just use a different method of tracking in the end.0 -
I lost 44 pounds with online weight watchers 6 years ago. I put about 12 pounds back on because I was no longer following the system. I left weightwatchers just 2 weeks ago when I discovered a free means of tracking my food. I discovered all the free apps when I became determined to drop the 10/12 pounds after struggling with it for almost 2 years.
There was a lot of support within the Weightwatchers online groups back then. We had a lot of challenge groups. I joined few challenge groups a week before leaving and discovered that the groups have become a shadow of what they use to be, activities and participations were extremely low. I can now understand why activities and participations have dwindled after joining MFP, guess most people are going for the cheaper option. Why pay for a service if I can get a close alternative free. I can definitely say WW worked for me when I followed the system religiously.
0 -
My problem with WW is that they treat bodyfat and muscle the same way - all that matters is the weight on the scale. When my WW leader suggested that I stop lifting weights in order to lose muscle and therefore bring down my scale weight - I was outta there!!!0
-
Isn't an avocado more like 300 (or more) calories anyway? 200 seems really low for a whole one...
I think with either plan, you can ballpark a calorie/points range that gives you the best results. Some people probably need to stay closer to the daily points or a lower calorie range while others can eat all of their daily, weekly, and activity points and then some. It's not like WW electrocutes you if you go over their target, you're free to eat whatever works best for you. It's just providing the mechanism to track.
Personal preference is fine.. I now prefer MFP over WW. But I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that one program just doesn't work and the other does. They're not vastly different.
I agree 100% with this. I think they are both good at what they do. They just use a different method of tracking in the end.
@ald783 yes you're right, I punched it in now and got about 300. But I feel I have more control over my goals with MFP.
And I point out again that if you read all the articles on WW, they are very pro low fat. A snack article would suggest low-fat yogurt. Where as people on MFP would suggest full-fat yogurt.
I do think WW can work for people. It made me lose weight. But for me, did not keep me healthy. At all.
0 -
Free life timers, how much did you pay WW total?
RE: Fat grams. A common recommendation I've seen on here is .35g per lb of body weight as a minimum, I think0 -
It's great that WW works for so many. Personally, witnessing my MIL's experience with WW over the past several decades hasn't given it a ringing endorsement for me. She is OBSESSED with the points and writes them on every food item in her kitchen. She stresses endlessly about weigh-ins and not going over (so that she won't have to pay.) She buys the most godawful no-fat foods that I don't think even a dog would want to eat.
I know, a lot of that is her personality. However, from what I've seen, I wouldn't ever be interested!0 -
Free life timers, how much did you pay WW total?
RE: Fat grams. A common recommendation I've seen on here is .35g per lb of body weight as a minimum, I think
This is a tough one for me as I've been a life time member for almost 16 years. It only took me about 3 months to get to goal, which I believe was $130. I've only paid for about 2 missed weigh ins. I've had more than a few missed monthly weigh ins but some of the leaders didn't charge me because I've always been 15+ pounds below my set goal weight. The WW app is now $14.95/month which I've been getting free for years since I found out about it. All meetings are free as well. There are other benefits as well that more than make up for the $130 that I paid out years ago. Tthose people who can't maintain their weight won't be able to take advantage of these free benefits so something like MFP might work out better for them.0 -
Isn't an avocado more like 300 (or more) calories anyway? 200 seems really low for a whole one...
I think with either plan, you can ballpark a calorie/points range that gives you the best results. Some people probably need to stay closer to the daily points or a lower calorie range while others can eat all of their daily, weekly, and activity points and then some. It's not like WW electrocutes you if you go over their target, you're free to eat whatever works best for you. It's just providing the mechanism to track.
Personal preference is fine.. I now prefer MFP over WW. But I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that one program just doesn't work and the other does. They're not vastly different.
I agree 100% with this. I think they are both good at what they do. They just use a different method of tracking in the end.
@ald783 yes you're right, I punched it in now and got about 300. But I feel I have more control over my goals with MFP.
And I point out again that if you read all the articles on WW, they are very pro low fat. A snack article would suggest low-fat yogurt. Where as people on MFP would suggest full-fat yogurt.
I do think WW can work for people. It made me lose weight. But for me, did not keep me healthy. At all.
Again, Its all a matter of understanding their point system. There are better higher fat choices that have almost the same amount of points so a person doesn't have to settle for these low/non fat foods. For example; One no fat Dannon yogurt comes out to 2 points. I don't eat that. Instead I go with one 100 calorie snack pack of Blue Diamond Almonds which has 9g fat, 2g fiber, and 4g protein. The Almonds only have 3 points per pack. See what I mean? There is only one point difference between those two. I don't know about you but For me the Almonds are way more filling than the no fat yougurt and well worth the extra point.0 -
vivmom2014 wrote: »It's great that WW works for so many. Personally, witnessing my MIL's experience with WW over the past several decades hasn't given it a ringing endorsement for me. She is OBSESSED with the points and writes them on every food item in her kitchen. She stresses endlessly about weigh-ins and not going over (so that she won't have to pay.) She buys the most godawful no-fat foods that I don't think even a dog would want to eat.
I know, a lot of that is her personality. However, from what I've seen, I wouldn't ever be interested!
This is very sad and it sounds like she needs help. But again, it's no different than some of the posts that I read on here where people obsess over their calories and macros to the point where they have an ED.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions