Points v Calories

I did WW in the past. It was fine but I prefer counting calories. WW used to use an easy formula to determine points so I could do it in my head if I didn't have a points slider or calculator. But then they changed the formula and doing the math in my head was too confusing. Either way, though, I prefer counting calories.

I think they are similar if you pay attention to what type of foods you are getting your calories from. I am familiar with weight watchers and my mom has lost 50 lb. since January by counting points.

I've personally never done WW, but I feel like in a way points are calories. Think about it - foods which are higher in points are probably also higher in calories.

WW has recently (started with the Jennifer Hudson advertising campaign I believe) stated you can have anything you want, as long as it fits into your points. And for calories (and weight loss) you can eat any and all types of food, but if you want to lose weight then your total consumed has to be less than you're total expenditure, or CI < CO. If you're looking for a nutrition component too, then it becomes a different story but if you're mostly concerned with weight loss it can be as simple as CI < CO.

A friend of mine signed up for WW about a year ago. At that time she was very large and so her points limit was set pretty high. But someone else who joined only had about 20lbs to lose and her points limit was much lower. With this in mind, it seems to me like the points system is simplifying calorie counting for you. Maybe it is more complex than this - again I've never done it - but from what I've heard and understood from how this program works is that it is counting calories but just in a way that doesn't seem like it.

You're only allowed so many points in a day - and how you fill those points is totally your call. You're really only allowed so many calories in a day before you will start to have a surplus - leading eventually to weight gain if it's continued over a substantial period of time. If you eat more points than you're allowed, you will also gain weight if it's continued over time. Now I'm sure the points you're allowed accounts for some kind of deficit so you're not eating at maintenance necessarily, but the thinking seems to be relatively the same from how I look at it.

Again, maybe it is more complex than I'm making it out to be so if that's the case then my apologies but I just feel like you will be doing the same thing as you did on WW just at a more granular level.

ETA: Although with MFP you're not paying to sit there and have someone tell you how to eat. If you feel it's easier for you to have someone design the program then by all means. But for me, going to meetings to talk about what I ate, how I feel, what my struggles were, etc etc is not the right path and it would not benefit me very much. I feel like MFP is freer in that you can understand what it is you're eating rather than equating foods with points.

I have had so many women look at what I eat for lunch and say do you have any idea how many points that is? I personally don't want to look at food at see 5 points, 7 points, 105473738 points. I want to look at food, understand it's nutritional (or lack there of) value and then make an informed decision on whether I want to eat it. I work out 5-6 days/week, so my nutritional needs are not the same as those who do not work out. Further, I am a runner and recently started cross fit. My nutritional needs are neither the same as someone who is solely a runner or someone who is solely a cross-fit athlete.

For me, there's been so much more value in understanding what I put into my body rather than entering some information into WW and them spitting out a points value to me. So I think it will come down to what is the right path for you, what is best for you.

On MFP, most people will say that calorie counting is better. On WW, most will say that WW is better.

What's really better is the thing you like more. There are many ways to lose weight, so just pick the one you like best and go with that.

If you want to know what you're eating, tracking your food - including the micros! - will help you learn that. You learn a lot about your diet when you track your micros!

I lost 106 pounds on WW and I know several others who lost more than 100 on it so it certainly works if you follow the plan, the same as MFP. I had to quit WW before reaching my goal because of financial reasons even though I was so very close to my goal. I recently found a really awesome app called Ultimate Food Diary and it's WW only this app it better than the WW app. I tend to switch back and forth between WW and MFP. I find I eat way more healthy when I am doing WW. But sometimes it's easier to count calories and other times I want to count points. Again, follow the plan on either program and you will get results!

I've done both and prefer MFP, but like Tex says, you're not going to get a random sample of responses here on MFP.

My WW group was at my work, a liberal arts college, and I did enjoy the social and accountability aspect of it, but found the nutritional beliefs lame and/or lacking.

1shauna1 wrote: »

I have done both. The thing a lot of people like about WW is the banking of points, so you can have a really high day. I dunno, I prefer the calorie counting here. I love how when I exercise, it gives me more calories for the day. And the database is huge, plus I love to import recipes from Pinterest and other sites. The MFP mobile app is really good too (I have it on my phone and my tablet).

Many people do the same thing with MFP. There is no reason you can't bank calories the same as points.

I have done both more than once and have been more successful with MFP this time around.

WW points were originally designed as a way to make it easier to manage portions without direct calorie counting back when large food databases were not easily available. The databases that did exist were pay-to-use and very limited, and the food logging abilities were crude.

That system replaced the older exchange based system but they're fundamentally similar. It simply relies on the idea that certain categories of foods are going to fall in a certain range of calories (starches, proteins, etc). It works ok as far as that goes, and a lot of people can lose weight that way.

Somewhere along the line WW decided to encourage their users to eat more fruits and vegetables by categorizing those as 'zero points'. It's not well communicated that there is a limit of 'zero point' servings one should have, however. WW has also been slow to evolve from the old 'fat is bad' advice.

Now that online food databases like MFP are easier (and free) to access and use to calorie count, WW doesn't have much advantage. I think there's a place for it for people who just aren't inclined to count calories, but that's about it.

WW is calorie counting in the end. I did it for a couple months and believe I calculated each point to be 40-50 calories. It's fine if you have quite a bit to lose. It won't work too well if you're already at a healthy weigh trying to get leaner. Exact numbers are better than general estimations in the latter case.