Weight watchers points and MFP calories don't watch
adcook1981
Posts: 27 Member
Ok, I have a question for those who have ever done weight watchers. I did WW before and lost a lot of weight. Now I'm doing MFP calories. Well today I tracked both to see what a difference it would make. I ate 25 WW points and it was only 975 calories. Do I need to stick with the points or calories?
0
Replies
-
did you eat any fruit and did you count it?
0 -
I did eat fruit. I had apples and pears. On WW fruits and vegetables are usually 0 points. I may be wrong thodebsdoingthis wrote: »did you eat any fruit and did you count it?0 -
No, fruits and veggies (up to 5 servings I think) are "free" on weight watchers but they still have calories so you need to count the calories. That's probably a big reason why it's so off.0
-
But you'd have to count the veggies and fruit calories on MFP.0
-
No, fruits and veggies (up to 5 servings I think) are "free" on weight watchers but they still have calories so you need to count the calories. That's probably a big reason why it's so off.
I did not know that. Thank you! I haven't been to the meeting in a while. I was just using an app that does the points and I've never seen it add points for fruits and vegetables. Maybe I'm not eating enough.0 -
WW used to have the points as roughly equivalent to calories.
SmartPoints try to steer you toward "better" food choices by giving things with (for example) saturated fat and sugars more points even if they have the same calories as other foods.0 -
adcook1981 wrote: »Ok, I have a question for those who have ever done weight watchers. I did WW before and lost a lot of weight. Now I'm doing MFP calories. Well today I tracked both to see what a difference it would make. I ate 25 WW points and it was only 975 calories. Do I need to stick with the points or calories?
The new points roughly average 38 calories so that sounds about right. In addition to your daily points (which are probably not 25 if you're in the US because the minimum is 26, I believe), you should be eating up to 5 servings of free fruit and vegetables and you should be spreading your 49 weekly points over the week, so there's another 270ish per day.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »adcook1981 wrote: »Ok, I have a question for those who have ever done weight watchers. I did WW before and lost a lot of weight. Now I'm doing MFP calories. Well today I tracked both to see what a difference it would make. I ate 25 WW points and it was only 975 calories. Do I need to stick with the points or calories?
The new points roughly average 38 calories so that sounds about right. In addition to your daily points (which are probably not 25 if you're in the US because the minimum is 26, I believe), you should be eating up to 5 servings of free fruit and vegetables and you should be spreading your 49 weekly points over the week, so there's another 270ish per day.
My points were 20 on the old program and 23 (weight loss boost on app) now on the points plus. Maybe I need to go to a meeting to catch up on the new program. I thought I didn't have to use the extra 49 points every week?0 -
You're right, you don't need to use the extra 49. I just see a lot of people here who say that WW had them eating 1000 calories a day or less and so I wanted to make sure you knew it's not really a requirement to eat that little.
23, really? I haven't done it since 2014 but I thought the minimum was 26 then, though my book doesn't show goals under 29. I think my sister who weighs around 160 is on 28 or 29.
The old points were worth more, like average 50 calories each.0 -
theyre totally different systems......0
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »You're right, you don't need to use the extra 49. I just see a lot of people here who say that WW had them eating 1000 calories a day or less and so I wanted to make sure you knew it's not really a requirement to eat that little.
23, really? I haven't done it since 2014 but I thought the minimum was 26 then, though my book doesn't show goals under 29. I think my sister who weighs around 160 is on 28 or 29.
The old points were worth more, like average 50 calories each.
Yeah. It started out 26 but had a place to do extra weight loss boost (of course I pressed it!) and it changed the points to 23. I did really good on the old plan. I'm struggling with this one. I didn't have to log my food for a couple years. I maintained (I'm very active during the day at work) Now my hormones are crazy I've gained 20 pounds. I've never had this much trouble losing weight. It's harder now! Thank you for responding. Any help is appreciated!0 -
WW will also count a lot of points for even lean proteins, so if you don't eat fruits and veggies and eat a higher protein diet the calories eaten can be quite low (which make it work, but still).0
-
adcook1981 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »You're right, you don't need to use the extra 49. I just see a lot of people here who say that WW had them eating 1000 calories a day or less and so I wanted to make sure you knew it's not really a requirement to eat that little.
23, really? I haven't done it since 2014 but I thought the minimum was 26 then, though my book doesn't show goals under 29. I think my sister who weighs around 160 is on 28 or 29.
The old points were worth more, like average 50 calories each.
Yeah. It started out 26 but had a place to do extra weight loss boost (of course I pressed it!) and it changed the points to 23. I did really good on the old plan. I'm struggling with this one. I didn't have to log my food for a couple years. I maintained (I'm very active during the day at work) Now my hormones are crazy I've gained 20 pounds. I've never had this much trouble losing weight. It's harder now! Thank you for responding. Any help is appreciated!
My hormones are crazy too so I totally hear you. The only way I maintain my weight is to eat much less on the 'easy' days to make up for the bad ones.0 -
WW made up a points system for simplicity when calorie tracking was really different and involved look up books and pen and paper
Within the points they have built in the calories for foods they deem free
There is no such thing as free of calories food in reality
So they won't match up0 -
adcook1981 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »You're right, you don't need to use the extra 49. I just see a lot of people here who say that WW had them eating 1000 calories a day or less and so I wanted to make sure you knew it's not really a requirement to eat that little.
23, really? I haven't done it since 2014 but I thought the minimum was 26 then, though my book doesn't show goals under 29. I think my sister who weighs around 160 is on 28 or 29.
The old points were worth more, like average 50 calories each.
Yeah. It started out 26 but had a place to do extra weight loss boost (of course I pressed it!) and it changed the points to 23. I did really good on the old plan. I'm struggling with this one. I didn't have to log my food for a couple years. I maintained (I'm very active during the day at work) Now my hormones are crazy I've gained 20 pounds. I've never had this much trouble losing weight. It's harder now! Thank you for responding. Any help is appreciated!
Oh, I haven't seen that boost thing. I lost about 50 lbs. on their old Core plan about 12 years ago and maintained it for years. I never did get that big again. But when I go back it's always harder. I don't know if it's less activity as we age or adaptive thermogenesis or just less motivation, or a combo. I feel ya. Be patient!
My sister seems to be doing well on the new plan. I think she joined back in mid-Dec. and is down like 16 lbs.0 -
WW made up a points system for simplicity when calorie tracking was really different and involved look up books and pen and paper
Besides simplifying tracking, points was designed to steer people to more nutritious, filling food. A 200 calorie beer costs a lot more in points than a 200 calorie chicken breast.0 -
I would just ditch WW. They just charge you more for the privilege of providing you with smaller portions.....0
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »adcook1981 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »You're right, you don't need to use the extra 49. I just see a lot of people here who say that WW had them eating 1000 calories a day or less and so I wanted to make sure you knew it's not really a requirement to eat that little.
23, really? I haven't done it since 2014 but I thought the minimum was 26 then, though my book doesn't show goals under 29. I think my sister who weighs around 160 is on 28 or 29.
The old points were worth more, like average 50 calories each.
Yeah. It started out 26 but had a place to do extra weight loss boost (of course I pressed it!) and it changed the points to 23. I did really good on the old plan. I'm struggling with this one. I didn't have to log my food for a couple years. I maintained (I'm very active during the day at work) Now my hormones are crazy I've gained 20 pounds. I've never had this much trouble losing weight. It's harder now! Thank you for responding. Any help is appreciated!
Oh, I haven't seen that boost thing. I lost about 50 lbs. on their old Core plan about 12 years ago and maintained it for years. I never did get that big again. But when I go back it's always harder. I don't know if it's less activity as we age or adaptive thermogenesis or just less motivation, or a combo. I feel ya. Be patient!
My sister seems to be doing well on the new plan. I think she joined back in mid-Dec. and is down like 16 lbs.
I lost 80 pounds 6 years ago after I had my girls. I've done good to keep it off til the last year. I'm actually more active now bc of work bc I was a stay at home mom then. That's why I don't understand why I'm not losing. I use the Fitbit and I average 12-15k steps a day during the week and then exercise 2-3 times a week when I have time.
Congrats to your sister!
I'm using Daily Value Diary. It's in the advanced setting (I think). It just seems like I'm having to learn again how to lose weight and it seems harder than it use to be! Lol0 -
adcook1981 wrote: »Ok, I have a question for those who have ever done weight watchers. I did WW before and lost a lot of weight. Now I'm doing MFP calories. Well today I tracked both to see what a difference it would make. I ate 25 WW points and it was only 975 calories. Do I need to stick with the points or calories?
Stick with what works, but don't try to mix. As was pointed out, fruits/veggies are "free" up to a certain quantity on WW because the points assigned to other foods bake in to their values that you'll eat your veggies, but with MFP, every calorie counts. I've never tried WW, but the flexibility of MFP works for me.
It's like metric/imperial wrenches. A 3/4 inch wrench is close enough to a 19 mm that you can use them interchangeably, but a 1/2 inch is nowhere near either 12 or 13 mm, so you can't. Pick what works for you and stick with it!0 -
Weightwatchers lets you eat fruit and veggies (within reason) for free, because allowing them to not be counted encourages people to eat them and make better food choices.
What bothers me about WW is that they can't seem to make up their mind about their points calculations. They've had at least 3 different points systems based on varied macronutrients. And also the fact that I gets most of my nutrition info off the internet and I can't stand having to look up one thing so i can plug that into into another calculator to get a points value. I prefer to just count my calories on MFP. My sister prefers WW. We've both had success and both gained the weight back when we went back to bad habits.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions