Any new weight watchers people? I'm considering trying it and never have
lyssa1210
Posts: 96 Member
Anyone suggest it for overall weight loss?
0
Replies
-
I am not familiar at all with the new program that they just unveiled, but have used WW in the past. Of course it works.....it's based on CICO (calories in, calories out) only you're using points instead of calories.
As to the other features of the program I personally found that the meetings are pretty useless (but that's just me; I'm not much of a "let's hug and tell each other we're awesome" kind of person). Their website is a travesty and some sections haven't been updated since they first started the website.
Whether you use MFP or WW, you're going to be weighing and logging your food, and counting calories (or points). So why not save yourself some money and do MFP?0 -
I signed up with the new trial. If you lose 10 lbs in 3 months you get 2/3 your money back. I thought this was doable so I thought I'd try it. I'd say it works but I won't renew it. MFP gives you more info about the food you are eating - especially if you are monitoring other things in foods i.e protein, carbs, sodium. I'm sure it would work if you followed it. I also do online and didn't try the meetings - also not a let's hug type of person...lol!0
-
Oprah owns 10% of WW so that's a reason enough for me not to buy into it!
Besides why pay them? Just use the free MFP, portion control the foods you like, and get moving and you'll drop some pounds.
However, only you can decide what works!0 -
I was using MFP, and switched to WW recently. It is calorie counting, but basically WW figures the calories and you just count points. You are given a certain number of daily points, and a weekly "bonus" that you can use however you like.
I like the fact that fruits and most veggies are zero points. If I'm starving between meals, I can grab a piece of fruit (zero points) without having to worry about logging calories/going over calories. The new Smart Points program also heavily penalizes sugar and saturated fats (high points), and protein is fairly low in points, which steers you towards healthier choices. If you feel that you need help kicking a sugar habit, this may be what you need.
It definitely is more expensive. The online only version (what I use) is $19.95 a month, twice the MFP premium. If you want meetings and online, that's more. I don't do meetings, but I know that many people find the public accountability very helpful.
Ultimately, you need to find what fits your personality and budget.
0 -
I just cancelled my WW subscription.
WW assigns a point value to each food based on its nutritional components. You don't have to think about carbs, fat, sugar, etc. because the lower point foods are the healthier choices, and you're nudged towards the healthier choices.
I lost a significant amount of weight last year while on WW.
The current version of the program is very low fat and very low sugar. It wasn't for me. that's why I 'm here.0 -
I did WW back in the 90s, before free tools like MFP were available. I don't need WW to help me reduce sugar and fats - I can tweak the nutrients in my diary to do that.
However, for people who like external accountability, motivation and group support, if you have a great group like I did, WW can be a wonderful thing.0 -
MFP is free and WW is expensive. that's why I never did WW. The one thing I'll say WW has over MFP is the live in person support but in all reality, you could get that for free too, likely. Overeater's Anonymous has that support, there are meetup groups for weightloss, you could start your own. The in person support may not matter to you at all, in which case there doesn't seem to be a benefit over the free MFP service. Just my thoughts.0
-
I think WW is actually pretty cheap for what you get, especially compared to say Jenny Craig, Nutrisystem, a private nutritionist or something like a weight loss med spa plan. It's got online tools (that are pretty mediocre), in-person accountability, an education component, and it's a solid plan. I think it's a great place to start, for many. I do a stint now and then to check out their new plans. Mostly I feel like I have other structured plans that suit me better these days, and I find the paying thing less motivating and more something to resent now, when their tools annoy me or a meeting is a little ridiculous, with the star stickers and applause and all.0
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »I think WW is actually pretty cheap for what you get, especially compared to say Jenny Craig, Nutrisystem, a private nutritionist or something like a weight loss med spa plan. It's got online tools (that are pretty mediocre), in-person accountability, an education component, and it's a solid plan. I think it's a great place to start, for many. I do a stint now and then to check out their new plans. Mostly I feel like I have other structured plans that suit me better these days, and I find the paying thing less motivating and more something to resent now, when their tools annoy me or a meeting is a little ridiculous, with the star stickers and applause and all.
I've been in school my whole adult life, maybe that's why it always seemed expensive to me
0 -
I'm doing Nutrisystem starting this Wednesday! They have a groupon for the first month $150! Either way I'll support you!!!0
-
It was good in the nineties. From what I understand about the new program, it penalizes "treats" even if they have the same nutritional profile as a "non-treat" food.
That's bogus.
They used to be based on science and an understanding of nutrition. Now they're based on pseudoscience and woo.
My mom's been a lifetime member and she's thinking of leaving them.
Oh, and the education and accountability? Led by volunteers who aren't educated in nutrition and just spout woo and then ask for feedback. The accountability is from people equally uneducated giving their takes on how to apply the latest woo to your lifestyle.0 -
I'm currently a member. My health insurance is covering it as part of my insurance plan. I figured I'd give it a good try. I'm also counting calories here because I do like seeing both numbers.
I actually like the new SmartPoints. I find it's really helping me with moderation of snacks and treats. I gained 40 plus pounds by eating brownies and little treats all the time. The fact that those things are high in points makes them only occasional treats and not something to reach for every day because I am bored, feeling down, or feel like I deserve it. I still have treats like this weekend I had one of my mom's homemade cinnamon rolls. I plan for them in advance when possible and I use my extra weekly points for them. If they aren't worth giving those points up then maybe they are not worth having. Mom's cinnamon rolls are always worth the points.
I also had to reduce the added sugar in my diet anyway for general health reasons. For me the new points system works.
I lucked into a good meeting group and leader so I really like going to meetings.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »It was good in the nineties. From what I understand about the new program, it penalizes "treats" even if they have the same nutritional profile as a "non-treat" food.
That's bogus.
They used to be based on science and an understanding of nutrition. Now they're based on pseudoscience and woo.
Actually, WW doesn't penalize "treats" since a treat can also be something like wine (which is pretty points friendly) but it does penalize sugar. That doesn't mean you can't eat sugary treats, but it does make you think more thoughtfully about eating it, and consider portion sizes. There's actually a whole Recipes section devoted to desserts, such as Mini Pumpkin Pecan Tartlets, Gooey Rocky Road Bars, Chocolate Dipped Macaroons, etc. All of these are made with real sugar, the trick is the portion size. WW will list the portion size for the points value, and you can then decide how much you want to eat/will fit your available points.
Additionally, if you're used to eating foods that are really sugary desserts disguised as healthy options (such as many flavored yogurts), you'll get a point hit for that. Doesn't mean you can't still eat them if you have the points, though. Whole fruit, which includes the fiber, remains zero points.
The new crackdown on sugar is actually right in line with the latest medical findings. Whether you choose to cut down on sugar on your own, or pay for a program that helps steer you to healthier choices is entirely personal.
0 -
Two foods with the same nutritional profile (if you mean macronutrients and fiber) will have the same points. Two foods with the same calories but different macros won't. Points does not equal calories.Carlos_421 wrote: »It was good in the nineties. From what I understand about the new program, it penalizes "treats" even if they have the same nutritional profile as a "non-treat" food.
That's bogus.
They used to be based on science and an understanding of nutrition. Now they're based on pseudoscience and woo.
My mom's been a lifetime member and she's thinking of leaving them.
Oh, and the education and accountability? Led by volunteers who aren't educated in nutrition and just spout woo and then ask for feedback. The accountability is from people equally uneducated giving their takes on how to apply the latest woo to your lifestyle.
They don't use volunteers. All people who work there are paid and trained. The accountability is the weigh-in.
Here is their current scientific advisory board. Hard to call it uneducated and the plans woo.
https://www.weightwatchers.com/about/his/board.aspx
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »It was good in the nineties. From what I understand about the new program, it penalizes "treats" even if they have the same nutritional profile as a "non-treat" food.
That's bogus.
They used to be based on science and an understanding of nutrition. Now they're based on pseudoscience and woo.
Actually, WW doesn't penalize "treats" since a treat can also be something like wine (which is pretty points friendly) but it does penalize sugar. That doesn't mean you can't eat sugary treats, but it does make you think more thoughtfully about eating it, and consider portion sizes. There's actually a whole Recipes section devoted to desserts, such as Mini Pumpkin Pecan Tartlets, Gooey Rocky Road Bars, Chocolate Dipped Macaroons, etc. All of these are made with real sugar, the trick is the portion size. WW will list the portion size for the points value, and you can then decide how much you want to eat/will fit your available points.
Additionally, if you're used to eating foods that are really sugary desserts disguised as healthy options (such as many flavored yogurts), you'll get a point hit for that. Doesn't mean you can't still eat them if you have the points, though. 1)Whole fruit, which includes the fiber, remains zero points.
The new crackdown on sugar is actually 2)right in line with the latest medical findings. Whether you choose to cut down on sugar on your own, or pay for a program that helps steer you to healthier choices is entirely personal.
1) This is another problem with WW. "Free" fruit can have a dramatic effect on total calorie intake. I can easily eat 300 calories just by having an apple, an orange and a banana. Not gonna count that?
2) Yeah, not so much...unless you have medical reasons for avoiding sugars (diabetes), added sugars are nothing to fear as long as total sugar intake is reasonable (as is true with all nutrients).
0 -
I was using MFP, and switched to WW recently. It is calorie counting, but basically WW figures the calories and you just count points. You are given a certain number of daily points, and a weekly "bonus" that you can use however you like.
I like the fact that fruits and most veggies are zero points. If I'm starving between meals, I can grab a piece of fruit (zero points) without having to worry about logging calories/going over calories. The new Smart Points program also heavily penalizes sugar and saturated fats (high points), and protein is fairly low in points, which steers you towards healthier choices. If you feel that you need help kicking a sugar habit, this may be what you need.
It definitely is more expensive. The online only version (what I use) is $19.95 a month, twice the MFP premium. If you want meetings and online, that's more. I don't do meetings, but I know that many people find the public accountability very helpful.
Ultimately, you need to find what fits your personality and budget.
Actually, I have no idea why they started counting fruits as 0 points. Fruit has plenty of calories, and if you're swapping out cookies for fruit, yeah, less calories but you're still getting a significant amount. I mean, a medium apple is around 100 calories. Say you have three of them during the day as snacks because they're healthier and keep you full. That's 300 extra calories you're not taking into effect for your daily calorie goal. So yeah, WW can help and many people find counting points a lot easier, but from what I've seen, it has some holes.
I personally never tried WW because I couldn't afford it. MFP being free means I can keep on it. Plus, using MFP taught me more about how I need to change my eating habits so that the weight can stay off. I would count that as more valuable than just losing the weight.0 -
I know people who have lost weight using WW. That being said, my aunt who has been successful with it, is very unhappy with the changes they have recently made.
She says they've changed it so that it's near impossible to have treats. A piece of cake is an entire day's worth of points, a piece of chocolate is like 1/2 of your day, etc.
I don't know why they would change such a successful program, but I don't use it so whatever.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
1)Two foods with the same nutritional profile (if you mean macronutrients and fiber) will have the same points. Two foods with the same calories but different macros won't. 2)Points does not equal calories.Carlos_421 wrote: »It was good in the nineties. From what I understand about the new program, it penalizes "treats" even if they have the same nutritional profile as a "non-treat" food.
That's bogus.
They used to be based on science and an understanding of nutrition. Now they're based on pseudoscience and woo.
My mom's been a lifetime member and she's thinking of leaving them.
Oh, and the education and accountability? Led by volunteers who aren't educated in nutrition and just spout woo and then ask for feedback. The accountability is from people equally uneducated giving their takes on how to apply the latest woo to your lifestyle.
3)They don't use volunteers. All people who work there are paid and trained. The accountability is the weigh-in.
Here is their current scientific advisory board. 4)Hard to call it uneducated and 5)the plans woo.
https://www.weightwatchers.com/about/his/board.aspx
1) So what I've been told about the new plan, that proportion of carbs coming from sugar affects point value, is not true?
As an example, assuming equal values for fat and protein, a food with 15 out of 20 grams of carbs coming from sugar won't cost more points than a food with 8 out of 20 grams of carbs coming from sugar?
My point is, 20 grams of carbs = 20 grams of carbs and unless your diabetic, it doesn't matter how many of those carbs are simple sugars.
2) I understand that. I've done weight watchers in the past.
3) They may be paid and they may be trained in how to facilitate group meetings but your average WW meeting facilitator is not a qualified nutritionist or dietician. All they know is the rules of the plan (in my experience) and aren't typically well versed in nutrition science.
4) I didn't say the board is uneducated. I was speaking of the average meeting attendee. For instance, the facilitator asks "What worked for you this week? Anyone?" and Phyllis from the back row speaks up "Yeah, I've learned that if I eat any dairy products I gain weight no matter how well I stick to my points so I switched to Silk and now I'm losing all kinds of weight. I've also been drinking more lemon water and that has really helped A LOT!"
The facilitator replies, "That's great, Phyllis! Thank you for those tips! Anyone else?"
In this example, two pieces of uneducated woo go completely unchallenged.
5) I don't think that the plans are entirely woo (except the version that allowed for "free" pasta). However, allowing for unlimited, untracked fruit is woo and penalizing sugar when consumed in context of healthy carb values is most certainly woo (no matter how trendy). A board of people with lots of degrees doesn't change that.0 -
Regarding the 'free fruit' thing - WW points are set assuming 200-300 calories of fruit /veg will be consumed on average. They do say you should use fruit and veg to help keep you satisfied - not that you should just eat tons of it for free. I used WW for a while and double tracked out of interest and my calorie intake following WW was in line with the MFP, fitbit recommendations.0
-
KnittingSoo wrote: »Regarding the 'free fruit' thing - WW points are set assuming 200-300 calories of fruit /veg will be consumed on average. They do say you should use fruit and veg to help keep you satisfied - not that you should just eat tons of it for free. I used WW for a while and double tracked out of interest and my calorie intake following WW was in line with the MFP, fitbit recommendations.
Thank you for clarifying, but that makes it even more confusing to me. Is WW really geared toward teaching you better eating habits, or are they banking someone to keep coming back when they stop and gain weight again? My guess is the latter, but that's based on what people have said about how it works, which may be off. If that's the case, I wouldn't want to use WW as I can't eat a lot of the 'prepped' foods, and trying to count points in what I make seems to be much harder. Does that make sense?0 -
KnittingSoo wrote: »Regarding the 'free fruit' thing - WW points are set assuming 200-300 calories of fruit /veg will be consumed on average. They do say you should use fruit and veg to help keep you satisfied - not that you should just eat tons of it for free. I used WW for a while and double tracked out of interest and my calorie intake following WW was in line with the MFP, fitbit recommendations.
Thank you for clarifying, but that makes it even more confusing to me. Is WW really geared toward teaching you better eating habits, or are they banking someone to keep coming back when they stop and gain weight again? My guess is the latter, but that's based on what people have said about how it works, which may be off. If that's the case, I wouldn't want to use WW as I can't eat a lot of the 'prepped' foods, and trying to count points in what I make seems to be much harder. Does that make sense?
0 -
KnittingSoo wrote: »Regarding the 'free fruit' thing - WW points are set assuming 200-300 calories of fruit /veg will be consumed on average. They do say you should use fruit and veg to help keep you satisfied - not that you should just eat tons of it for free. I used WW for a while and double tracked out of interest and my calorie intake following WW was in line with the MFP, fitbit recommendations.
Thank you for clarifying, but that makes it even more confusing to me. Is WW really geared toward teaching you better eating habits, or are they banking someone to keep coming back when they stop and gain weight again? My guess is the latter, but that's based on what people have said about how it works, which may be off. If that's the case, I wouldn't want to use WW as I can't eat a lot of the 'prepped' foods, and trying to count points in what I make seems to be much harder. Does that make sense?
WW members don't have to eat prepped food. I don't eat any prepped foods. I cook all my own meals. It's no harder to count points in home cooked foods than it is to count calories in the same food.0 -
I was using MFP, and switched to WW recently. It is calorie counting, but basically WW figures the calories and you just count points. You are given a certain number of daily points, and a weekly "bonus" that you can use however you like.
I like the fact that fruits and most veggies are zero points. If I'm starving between meals, I can grab a piece of fruit (zero points) without having to worry about logging calories/going over calories. The new Smart Points program also heavily penalizes sugar and saturated fats (high points), and protein is fairly low in points, which steers you towards healthier choices. If you feel that you need help kicking a sugar habit, this may be what you need.
It definitely is more expensive. The online only version (what I use) is $19.95 a month, twice the MFP premium. If you want meetings and online, that's more. I don't do meetings, but I know that many people find the public accountability very helpful.
Ultimately, you need to find what fits your personality and budget.
Actually, I have no idea why they started counting fruits as 0 points. Fruit has plenty of calories, and if you're swapping out cookies for fruit, yeah, less calories but you're still getting a significant amount. I mean, a medium apple is around 100 calories. Say you have three of them during the day as snacks because they're healthier and keep you full. That's 300 extra calories you're not taking into effect for your daily calorie goal. So yeah, WW can help and many people find counting points a lot easier, but from what I've seen, it has some holes.
Points are not calories. They don't claim they are.
Imagine you want to encourage yourself to get in your 5 servings of produce per day and you estimate that's 300 calories. So you make your eating goal those 5 servings PLUS 1200 calories of other foods, to equal your desired 1500. That's all they're doing.
They don't encourage people to eat 5 bananas a day or skip meals and have a 6-cup fruit salad. It's explained to people who care to understand. You might eat three apples as snacks in a day but you're not going to eat 6 or 12 apples, unlike cookies. The fiber and water content make it highly unlikely.
0 -
Some people benefit from the face-to-face weekly meetings.0
-
Thank you for your support and thoughts. My friend sent me the WW print outs. I am looking it over and doing MFP I just hurt my back again (it gets tweaked by just getting up from a chair too fast) so need to heal again before any big exercise . Let's be friends !?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
- 96.3K 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