Joined Weight Watchers now regretting it

I use both and have had a lot of success (almost 100 pounds). I track religiously with MFP. I track on the weight watchers app as well, but only when I hit a tough point in my weight loss. For me, the double tracking helps me stay focused. I mainly use weight watchers for the weekly meetings and weigh in. I've found an AMAZING leader (who has lost 150 pounds and kept it off almost years) and meetings full of terrific people who are willing to give you what you need, whether it's support, a hug, motivation or a kick in the pants.

I was one of those that wasn't a fan of the new change. This last week, I gave the new "smart points" a try. It wasn't really that much different for most of the foods I eat on a regular basis. The ones that changed were the unhealthier ones... ones with lots of refined sugar and saturated fat. Those foods went up in points, which didn't make me a happy camper.

But, if I'm going to be really honest with myself, I'm trying to not just lose weight. I am trying to teach myself to eat healthier and make better food choices. So maybe, for me, if a treat food now more expensive point wise than it was before, I'll think twice before eating it. After all, I can still eat what ever I want, I just have to fit it into my budget.

gooz71 wrote: »

The new program is called "smart points" and IMO it's now "low carb" which isn't sustainable to me. They lowered the points allowed each day and have raised the points on most foods unless it's lean protein and/or very low in sugar. For example, a bowl of oatmeal that used to be 4 points, is now 7. I totally get that they are trying to get people to eat healthier, but what I liked about WW before was you could have what you want and still lose weight. Now they are pretty much forcing you to eat low carb so it's much harder to adhere to (for me).

So the way my leader explained it -

Under the old system points plus system - you had a daily budget of points, plus activity points you could earn, plus a weekly bank of 49 points.

Under the new smart points system - you have a daily budget of points, plus activity points you can earn plus a weekly bank of points. The points you get depend on your gender, age and weight. Which, once I thought about it, make sense. I am a 5'2" mid 40's woman. I don't need the same number of bonus points that say a 6 foot 20 year old man needs.

The reality is, it doesn't matter what program you follow. To lose weight, you have to reduce your caloric intake by 3500 calories/pound. So to lose a pound a week, you have to eat 500 calories less than you burn. (Create a deficit.) Some people find counting calories easier, some people find counting points easier.

SLLRunner wrote: »

RodaRose wrote: »

Apparently, low points will be assigned to low fat meat to encourage folks to eat less fatty meat. Sugar and Saturated fat are more points. More emphasis on fitness and motivation.

I don't understand changing points around for things that are supposed to be healthier. A calorie is a calorie no matter where it comes from, and CICO is a requirement for weight loss, so if they lower the points they need to decrease the serving size too. If this is this case, then what's the point of trying to get people to eat less fattier meats? If you're paying attention to macros, it's all about how they round out at the end of the day.

They make the "bad" foods more expensive points-wise and the "good" foods less expensive or free to steer people toward what they feel is a healthy overall way to eat. The actual point value is arbitrary. If they feel too many people can work the "bad" foods into what they eat, they just bump up how many points need to be spent for them.

Like all diets, it has to have an overall calorie deficit in order to lose weight.

Weight Watchers is hoping to steer people away from the calorie-dense "treat" foods and encourage lean protein and fruits/veggies to fill people up so that they end up with a calorie deficit.

This year lost 50 lbs within 6-7 months and not a single penny on WW. All I did was log what I ate and stayed within 1800=2000 cals. For 5 of those months I didn't even have a food scale. I guessed and I guessed right.

I was always baffled about how these companies were generating billions in revenue. Still am.

I like the new Smart Points. My daily food is more like what my doctor recommended. It's not low carb though. I suppose it depends on what type of food you choose to eat and the amounts.
I don't eat cake with frosting on a daily basis so that fact that it is now 24 points means it stays in the special occasion area. Not only that but I wont bother with the bakery cakes that have terrible frosting; I'd rather have a cake with real buttercream frosting.

I count points on paper and calories on here because I like seeing both numbers. My health insurance is helping pay for 6 months of weight watchers meetings. I don't get the online tools but I can attend meetings, weigh in, and get all the paper documentation.

I've taken the best of both systems and it seems to be working. I set MFP to give me a daily calorie goal of 1000kcals (my recommended was 1450) but I don't track fruit and veg. I find it helps psychologically to know I can always eat, even if it is only carrot sticks or veg soup and if I don't fancy either of those then I know it isn't real hunger, just a craving.

rabbitjb wrote: »

Merkavar wrote: »

RodaRose wrote: »

Apparently, low points will be assigned to low fat meat to encourage folks to eat less fatty meat. Sugar and Saturated fat are more points. More emphasis on fitness and motivation.

why dont they just count calories. seems stuffing about with points over complicate things.

cos you can't sell that as a product

WW points were developed when calorie counting involved notepads and little look-up books - it was designed to simplify - now it just complicates IMO

Definitely! I think WW have had their day now that it's so much easier to track your intake just by scanning a barcode with your phone.

However, if you get a good group with a decent leader the support side of it can really help people be more successful at losing weight and keeping it off longer term. If you've got a couple of encouraging, likeminded friends or relatives and get involved in the forums here then that's your support network and you don't need WW.

I read something about WW being a brilliant business model, because people give WW credit when they lose weight, and blame themselves when they gain it back.

I've seen that over & over with my MIL. She goes down & up & down & up & down & up and the points calculator is also dizzying. Personally I couldn't do that points-system. Ever.

I had a lot of success with WW PointsPlus program. Lost a bunch of weight and had a lot of support from the meetings. I think the weigh-ins also help me stay accountable, knowing that I can't fudge the number when someone else is entering it in.

However, I started using their new SmartPoints program last week and I think it's designed specifically with meat eaters in mind. I don't eat any meat, including poultry and fish, and that was never a problem with PointsPlus. I had plenty of protein from beans, occasionally soy, diary and eggs. Now the vegetarian sources of protein have either gone up in points or stayed the same, whereas lean animal protein is so low in points now.

I tracked my food yesterday on WW and on MFP and found that even though I ate very healthy, I went over 2 or 3 points for the day. When I calculated calories I ate, it was less than 1100. This just isn't going to work for me. I think I'm going to cancel and maybe use my old PP calculator if I feel the need. Like most people on here are saying, it really boils down to CICO, while trying to keep a good balance of your macros.

Yes, one of the reasons I dropped WW about 8 years ago, I went through three different points 'cycles.' This was before smart phone apps, too, so every time they changed their system you had to buy their new Points books and calculators. Counting calories is universal and just makes more sense to me.