Why I parted ways with Weight Watchers
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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.
Let's just leave it that we have different opinions.
0 -
If you chose to go with low fat unhealthy foods. The choice was yours. Personally, I've never heard or read about a medical condition that was directly caused by following the WW program. But I guess there is a first time for everything.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.
Let's just leave it that we have different opinions. I ate a whole variety of foods on WW and ended up ill for over a year (and I was only on WW for 4 months, so it took a long time for my doctor and I to fix the problem it caused) - because not enough fat. And probably, it wasn't enough fat because it simply wasn't enough calories. You didn't. Good, great - your body is fine with it. Doesn't change my opinion. Do you really think I never ate almonds or varied my foods for different options?
0 -
If you chose to go with low fat unhealthy foods. The choice was yours. Personally, I've never heard or read about a medical condition that was directly caused by following the WW program. But I guess there is a first time for everything.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.
Let's just leave it that we have different opinions. I ate a whole variety of foods on WW and ended up ill for over a year (and I was only on WW for 4 months, so it took a long time for my doctor and I to fix the problem it caused) - because not enough fat. And probably, it wasn't enough fat because it simply wasn't enough calories. You didn't. Good, great - your body is fine with it. Doesn't change my opinion. Do you really think I never ate almonds or varied my foods for different options?
Do you really believe that the only thing I ate was low fat yogurt or something? That I didn't have a varied diet which included red and white meat, dairy, vegetables and fruits, grains, and *almonds*?
*sigh*
I also doubt you talked to everyone who has ever done WW to find out that I'm the only person WW didn't work for.
And to be clear: I am NOT saying this would have happened ONLY on the WW program. It could have happened on any program that doesn't provide the resources (on it's own) to fully educate people about nutrition.
The only reason MFP taught me these things is because the active forums opens discussions and lead me down paths of research I can do myself. Even the MFP Hello Healthy blog isn't enough. I didn't find WW encouraged research outside it's boundaries.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.
Who set your goal weight, WW or you? Since you're under your goal weight (I am under the assumption, that it's still a healthy weight; for you to be). If I was able to set my own goal weight, I'd set it to be the highest healthy weight spectrum; for my height. Even though I aim to become the lowest healthy weight spectrum, for my height; so that I (like you) I won't have to pay after I attain & continue to decrease beyond my WW goal, so that it gives me a buffer of more than just +/- 2 pounds. Especially because with my TOM, I average a +/- ratio of approximately 5 pounds. That isn't when I'd desire to be weighed & penalized, for a natural shift in weight gain/loss.0 -
If you chose to go with low fat unhealthy foods. The choice was yours. Personally, I've never heard or read about a medical condition that was directly caused by following the WW program. But I guess there is a first time for everything.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.
Let's just leave it that we have different opinions. I ate a whole variety of foods on WW and ended up ill for over a year (and I was only on WW for 4 months, so it took a long time for my doctor and I to fix the problem it caused) - because not enough fat. And probably, it wasn't enough fat because it simply wasn't enough calories. You didn't. Good, great - your body is fine with it. Doesn't change my opinion. Do you really think I never ate almonds or varied my foods for different options?
Do you really believe that the only thing I ate was low fat yogurt or something? That I didn't have a varied diet which included red and white meat, dairy, vegetables and fruits, grains, and *almonds*?
*sigh*
I also doubt you talked to everyone who has ever done WW to find out that I'm the only person WW didn't work for.
You are the one who brought up the yogurt. I simply used a higher fat alternative since you wrongly say that WW punishes people who go with high fat foods. The Almonds were used as an example only. I'm not sure why I have to state this when I did so in my post. If you ate all those foods that you say you did and followed the WW program as it was intended, it definitely was not the cause of whatever so called health issue that you had, period! If WW was causing people to have health issues they would not have as many Doctors, Hospitals, and other sources recommending the program. There is more than enough clinical studies that were done that prove that WW works well. Btw, I never said WW works for everyone. Read what I wrote. I said I never heard or read about WW "causing someone to have a medical condition". Stop putting words in my posts that aren't there.0 -
If you chose to go with low fat unhealthy foods. The choice was yours. Personally, I've never heard or read about a medical condition that was directly caused by following the WW program. But I guess there is a first time for everything.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.
Let's just leave it that we have different opinions. I ate a whole variety of foods on WW and ended up ill for over a year (and I was only on WW for 4 months, so it took a long time for my doctor and I to fix the problem it caused) - because not enough fat. And probably, it wasn't enough fat because it simply wasn't enough calories. You didn't. Good, great - your body is fine with it. Doesn't change my opinion. Do you really think I never ate almonds or varied my foods for different options?
Do you really believe that the only thing I ate was low fat yogurt or something? That I didn't have a varied diet which included red and white meat, dairy, vegetables and fruits, grains, and *almonds*?
*sigh*
I also doubt you talked to everyone who has ever done WW to find out that I'm the only person WW didn't work for.
You are the one who brought up the yogurt. I simply used a higher fat alternative since you wrongly say that WW punishes people who go with high fat foods. The Almonds were used as an example only. I'm not sure why I have to state this when I did so in my post. If you ate all those foods that you say you did and followed the WW program as it was intended, it definitely was not the cause of whatever so called health issue that you had, period! If WW was causing people to have health issues they would not have as many Doctors, Hospitals, and other sources recommending the program. There is more than enough clinical studies that were done that prove that WW works well.
By that logic, I would have to assume you only eat almonds. The yogurt was used as an example only.
I've also said before a secondary cause was it assigned me too low a point value.
I've also said it could happen on other programs.
You CANNOT possibly know the second bolded part. I followed the program as it was intended. The problem lies in my body's compatibility with the program combined with the information that the WW site made available at the time I was using it.
If you were to ask those doctors, there is not one of them who would ever say the program works for 100% of people on Earth. And IF they did then they are risking their professional career.
Plenty of doctors recommend other programs (and many recommend poor programs). And again, I am not saying WW is a bad program but I AM saying it didn't work for me. PERIOD.0 -
If you chose to go with low fat unhealthy foods. The choice was yours. Personally, I've never heard or read about a medical condition that was directly caused by following the WW program. But I guess there is a first time for everything.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.
Let's just leave it that we have different opinions. I ate a whole variety of foods on WW and ended up ill for over a year (and I was only on WW for 4 months, so it took a long time for my doctor and I to fix the problem it caused) - because not enough fat. And probably, it wasn't enough fat because it simply wasn't enough calories. You didn't. Good, great - your body is fine with it. Doesn't change my opinion. Do you really think I never ate almonds or varied my foods for different options?
Do you really believe that the only thing I ate was low fat yogurt or something? That I didn't have a varied diet which included red and white meat, dairy, vegetables and fruits, grains, and *almonds*?
*sigh*
I also doubt you talked to everyone who has ever done WW to find out that I'm the only person WW didn't work for.
You are the one who brought up the yogurt. I simply used a higher fat alternative since you wrongly say that WW punishes people who go with high fat foods. The Almonds were used as an example only. I'm not sure why I have to state this when I did so in my post. If you ate all those foods that you say you did and followed the WW program as it was intended, it definitely was not the cause of whatever so called health issue that you had, period! If WW was causing people to have health issues they would not have as many Doctors, Hospitals, and other sources recommending the program. There is more than enough clinical studies that were done that prove that WW works well.
By that logic, I would have to assume you only eat almonds. The yogurt was used as an example only.
I've also said before a secondary cause was it assigned me too low a point value.
I've also said it could happen on other programs.
You CANNOT possibly know the second bolded part. I followed the program as it was intended. The problem lies in my body's compatibility with the program combined with the information that the WW site made available at the time I was using it.
If you were to ask those doctors, there is not one of them who would ever say the program works for 100% of people on Earth. And IF they did then they are risking their professional career.
Plenty of doctors recommend other programs (and many recommend poor programs). And again, I am not saying WW is a bad program but I AM saying it didn't work for me. PERIOD.
Lol, this post proves to me that you are only looking for an argument. I will have no further discussion with you on this topic....0 -
If you chose to go with low fat unhealthy foods. The choice was yours. Personally, I've never heard or read about a medical condition that was directly caused by following the WW program. But I guess there is a first time for everything.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.
Let's just leave it that we have different opinions. I ate a whole variety of foods on WW and ended up ill for over a year (and I was only on WW for 4 months, so it took a long time for my doctor and I to fix the problem it caused) - because not enough fat. And probably, it wasn't enough fat because it simply wasn't enough calories. You didn't. Good, great - your body is fine with it. Doesn't change my opinion. Do you really think I never ate almonds or varied my foods for different options?
Do you really believe that the only thing I ate was low fat yogurt or something? That I didn't have a varied diet which included red and white meat, dairy, vegetables and fruits, grains, and *almonds*?
*sigh*
I also doubt you talked to everyone who has ever done WW to find out that I'm the only person WW didn't work for.
You are the one who brought up the yogurt. I simply used a higher fat alternative since you wrongly say that WW punishes people who go with high fat foods. The Almonds were used as an example only. I'm not sure why I have to state this when I did so in my post. If you ate all those foods that you say you did and followed the WW program as it was intended, it definitely was not the cause of whatever so called health issue that you had, period! If WW was causing people to have health issues they would not have as many Doctors, Hospitals, and other sources recommending the program. There is more than enough clinical studies that were done that prove that WW works well.
By that logic, I would have to assume you only eat almonds. The yogurt was used as an example only.
I've also said before a secondary cause was it assigned me too low a point value.
I've also said it could happen on other programs.
You CANNOT possibly know the second bolded part. I followed the program as it was intended. The problem lies in my body's compatibility with the program combined with the information that the WW site made available at the time I was using it.
If you were to ask those doctors, there is not one of them who would ever say the program works for 100% of people on Earth. And IF they did then they are risking their professional career.
Plenty of doctors recommend other programs (and many recommend poor programs). And again, I am not saying WW is a bad program but I AM saying it didn't work for me. PERIOD.
Lol, this post proves to me that you are only looking for an argument. I will have no further discussion with you on this topic....
See and that proves to me that you weren't comprehending my words as I meant them. Defending one's opinion is not the same as look for an argument for the sake of argument. I agree that no further discussion is needed. My doctor and I can choose to disagree with you.0 -
MondayJune22nd2015 wrote: »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.
Who set your goal weight, WW or you? Since you're under your goal weight (I am under the assumption, that it's still a healthy weight; for you to be). If I was able to set my own goal weight, I'd set it to be the highest healthy weight spectrum; for my height. Even though I aim to become the lowest healthy weight spectrum, for my height; so that I (like you) I won't have to pay after I attain & continue to decrease beyond my WW goal, so that it gives me a buffer of more than just +/- 2 pounds. Especially because with my TOM, I average a +/- ratio of approximately 5 pounds. That isn't when I'd desire to be weighed & penalized, for a natural shift in weight gain/loss.
The leader set my goal after a certain point. She never asked me what I thought it should be. They have my goaI weight BMI set to 24 and my current BMI is about 20.8 which is very healthy I think. The reason why I'm that far under is because I have a very active job and I exercise a lot too. When I first joined WW I was only working part time and not as active. I'm ok with being 17 pounds below my goal weight because as you said, it is still a healthy weight for my height. I think I just need to eat more than the 32 to 39 points that I'm curently eating....0 -
If you chose to go with low fat unhealthy foods. The choice was yours. Personally, I've never heard or read about a medical condition that was directly caused by following the WW program. But I guess there is a first time for everything.
From what I read, VeryKatie was talking about eating avocados! Hardly low-fat unhealthy food!! Sheesh.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 967 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions