Weight Watchers?

2»

Replies

  • nadinestrother
    nadinestrother Posts: 11 Member
    alvinlau316 wrote: »
    I'm not sure how that correlates. By its very nature the points system will be less accurate than logging calories by weight directly. I'd just choose one and stick with it. Adherence is more important than accuracy I suppose.

    I agree with this comment. I have 4 children and did WW in the past (after the 1st 3) and successfully lost and kept off the weight until I had my 4th in Nov. At that point, I didn't need WW anymore because I already learned the skill of healthy food choices, portion control, and exercise. This time around I stuck with MFP and I'm already down about 30lbs. You will get results from both, but stick with 1 to keep your tracking accurate. Also, you may notice as you get closer to your goal weight or if you start any kind of weight training, WW will less accurately reflect your progress since the only measure is the scale (weight loss), not fat loss (body fat %). Feel free to add me if I can help in any way.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    DoreenaV1975 wrote: »
    I heard they consider fruits and veggies "free".... um those have calories so how can one lose weight w/out accounting for those calories.

    By starting with a lower overall calorie goal. WW wants to encourage members to eat fruits & veggies, so they are "free" (but not really). They used to give points back for fiber consumption too......games.
  • starjam25
    starjam25 Posts: 4,834 Member
    I do both WW and this. I love MFP for tracking food as I have to pay attention to my carbs and sodium (and WW can't do that) but what helps me the most is the weekly weigh-ins and group support! My leader is great and sets up lots of walks for the group, so we get to know each other and connect face to face. I know each leader is different and I'm really lucky to have this one, but I think the face to face contact really helps me.
  • Nikion901
    Nikion901 Posts: 2,467 Member
    edited April 2016
    Someone said they though it was 50 calories per point ... that's what I had figured out way back when, but it's not the same today.

    I've done WW several times over the past 45 years and at one time had it figured out but then they changed how they assign points ... still ... the higher the fat, sugar, starch in the food, the more the points are for that food.

    They are trying to condition you into making better food choices by skipping or reducing the amount of potato, pasta, rice, barley, bread, cookies, candy, ice cream, chips. pretzels, rolls, muffins, high fat meat you eat. You can eat a huge bowl of lettuce and cucumber or a whole pot of cabbage soup to fill up, but watch out for that artisan crusty bread you want to dip into flavored olive oil or spread butter over. And, you can eat a 4 ounce piece of skinless chicken breast, but have 2 thighs and you've just used up a huge chunk of your allotment.
  • alyssa0061
    alyssa0061 Posts: 652 Member
    ylfxz0zjdcsq.png

    aihij8tdpuph.png

    w3405ilfydap.png


This discussion has been closed.

Categories