Weight watchers vs mfp
stargazgal
Posts: 93 Member
Hey all,
I'm no stranger to MFP and logging and seem to flip flop between MFP and WW! However, I'm getting close to renewing my WW monthly membership and recently logged back onto MFP! I can't be doing both lol!
Should I stay with WW or switch back to here?
I've lost with WW but very very slowly... 10 lbs since September and I'm ok with that... just wondering if I'm done with points?!? Anyone else done both?
I'm no stranger to MFP and logging and seem to flip flop between MFP and WW! However, I'm getting close to renewing my WW monthly membership and recently logged back onto MFP! I can't be doing both lol!
Should I stay with WW or switch back to here?
I've lost with WW but very very slowly... 10 lbs since September and I'm ok with that... just wondering if I'm done with points?!? Anyone else done both?
0
Replies
-
I once tried both at the same time to compare...and then I stopped WW because my points in WW and calories in MFP were both within the goals. So, i'drather stick with MFP for free.8
-
MFP is free and much more accurate. Why would you want to do WW?7
-
I do both Weight Watchers and MFP. Have Had good results with both.2
-
I'm not a fan of paying to eat less.15
-
This content has been removed.
-
-
both have the same formula in a not shell. they converted calories into points, and gave u a deficit of points to lose weight. MFP didn't convert calories in the points however, they give u a number in deficit to lose weight. they are both at the end of the day the same thing0
-
just search the net, its everywhere. macros are protein, fats and carbs. a certain number of each adds up to reach a calorie count. to lose weight u need to be in deficit with calories.
if you're really interested check this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyksDdsXhT8&list=PLbEgu0XFSZk4GwFcWQhpauajCf9ryxB5g
all his videos are very helpful in debunking some of the nonsense about weight loss3 -
I find it easier to track points personally and stay on track better that way. Which I'm sure sounds stupid, it does even to me, but it's what works for me. I'm back on WW and still on here too, I find if I'm within my points I'm within my calories, I'm hoping as time goes on I can drop WW and just track on here as this is free. And it's basically the same thing!2
-
Check out IIFYM.com0 -
First it's important to remember when comparing the two, whether or not you want to continue to count points to achieve further weight loss or calorie count. You'll achieve the same outcome IF you work the program. No matter which one you decide to stick with. While MFP does have a great online community base for support, it does not offer in person support that the WW meetings do. Also, if you are using the WW app, you'll have answers to any questions that you have 24/7 through the use of a personal coach or their in app chat line.... I have been a lifetime member of WW for 17 years now and have kept every pound that I lost off and even lost a few more. I've maintained here using MFP when I wasn't getting the suport that I felt I needed even though I'm 16 pounds below my lifetime goal weight. However, 2 weeks ago I went into a different WW place to do my once a month weigh in and I found a very different experience than I have at the other place. Therefore I have decided go back to using my free lifetime online eTools for maintaining and going to the new place for monthly weigh ins for now. Calorie counting is good, but I find that I like the point system better and with the WW app it is much easier and less time consuming.
I don't know if you still have a lot of weight left to lose or not, but if you don't and are close to your goal with WW, you will not have to pay for WW again. As a lifetime time WW member all meetings, and their online eTools are FREE as long as you stay within 2 pounds of the goal that you set. I've done it successfully for 17 years and haven't had to pay WW anything, except for the few times that I missed a monthly weigh in, which wasn't too often.
My advice is to do MFP for 2 weeks without counting the points to get a good feel for which one you prefer. Doing both however, can be very time consuming and in the end might or might not lead to burn out.
Good luck with whichever you decide on. Both WW and MFP are very good programs that will ultimately help you reach your goal.
2 -
courtneyfabulous wrote: »MFP is free and much more accurate. Why would you want to do WW?
As a user of both, I disagree with this post. They are both equally as accurate and both programs can lead to the same amount of weight loss provided people follow the programs correctly.0 -
lemonychild wrote: »both have the same formula in a not shell. they converted calories into points, and gave u a deficit of points to lose weight. MFP didn't convert calories in the points however, they give u a number in deficit to lose weight. they are both at the end of the day the same thing
This post is 100% correct.0 -
FitPhillygirl wrote: »courtneyfabulous wrote: »MFP is free and much more accurate. Why would you want to do WW?
As a user of both, I disagree with this post. They are both equally as accurate and both programs can lead to the same amount of weight loss provided people follow the programs correctly.
Points are less accurate than tracking actual calories and macronutrients in grams. Also don't they have "free" foods? If you had too many of these you could eliminate your deficit and not lose weight. With myfitnesspal every single calorie counts, wether it's from broccoli or a donut. CICO works for both methods, but myfitnesspal IS more accurate. And you can't argue on the cost difference- one is free, one costs hundreds of dollars.8 -
courtneyfabulous wrote: »FitPhillygirl wrote: »courtneyfabulous wrote: »MFP is free and much more accurate. Why would you want to do WW?
As a user of both, I disagree with this post. They are both equally as accurate and both programs can lead to the same amount of weight loss provided people follow the programs correctly.
Points are less accurate than tracking actual calories and macronutrients in grams. Also don't they have "free" foods? If you had too many of these you could eliminate your deficit and not lose weight. With myfitnesspal every single calorie counts, wether it's from broccoli or a donut. CICO works for both methods, but myfitnesspal IS more accurate. And you can't argue on the cost difference- one is free, one costs hundreds of dollars.
Actually, the point system is tracking macros, it's just not showing the figures the way it does here on MFP. If macro tracking is important, obviously one will either have to self track them while on WW, or use an app that shows the numbers. However, just because WW doesn't show them, doesn't mean they are not part of the whole weight loss system. Also, just because certain foods like veggies and fruits are free is not a a pass to over eat them. WW does teach portion control and while those foods don't have points, they are supposed to be eaten in moderation. Isn't that the same as MFP? How exactly do you figure one is more accurate than another? If WW wasn't accurate in its method of figuring out the percentage of calories one should have in a day to lose weight or in my case (maintain weight), they wouldn't still be in business for more than 50 years.
As far as free goes, as I said above. WW customers do pay till they reach their set goal weight. After that, everything is free provided one doesn't miss a monthly weigh in, and is not more than 2 pounds above goal. I was lucky and got to goal within a few short months and therefore probably paid less than $100 to reach my goal. Could I have done it free? Yes. However, after 17 years of staying at goal and getting all the benefits of WW free, it's absolutely been worth it for me. I don't believe WW is great for everyone, but I also don't think it should be passed over as a way of losing weight just because it's not free to start out. Also, there are discounts available to people through their health insurance for WW that one can use to offset some of the cost of the WW program.
MFP is an aide to weight loss. It doesn't work any better than WW for weight loss just because it is free and openly displays the daily macros and calories for the day.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
FitPhillygirl wrote: »courtneyfabulous wrote: »FitPhillygirl wrote: »courtneyfabulous wrote: »MFP is free and much more accurate. Why would you want to do WW?
As a user of both, I disagree with this post. They are both equally as accurate and both programs can lead to the same amount of weight loss provided people follow the programs correctly.
Points are less accurate than tracking actual calories and macronutrients in grams. Also don't they have "free" foods? If you had too many of these you could eliminate your deficit and not lose weight. With myfitnesspal every single calorie counts, wether it's from broccoli or a donut. CICO works for both methods, but myfitnesspal IS more accurate. And you can't argue on the cost difference- one is free, one costs hundreds of dollars.
Actually, the point system is tracking macros, it's just not showing the figures the way it does here on MFP. If macro tracking is important, obviously one will either have to self track them while on WW, or use an app that shows the numbers. However, just because WW doesn't show them, doesn't mean they are not part of the whole weight loss system. Also, just because certain foods like veggies and fruits are free is not a a pass to over eat them. WW does teach portion control and while those foods don't have points, they are supposed to be eaten in moderation. Isn't that the same as MFP? How exactly do you figure one is more accurate than another? If WW wasn't accurate in its method of figuring out the percentage of calories one should have in a day to lose weight or in my case (maintain weight), they wouldn't still be in business for more than 50 years.
As far as free goes, as I said above. WW customers do pay till they reach their set goal weight. After that, everything is free provided one doesn't miss a monthly weigh in, and is not more than 2 pounds above goal. I was lucky and got to goal within a few short months and therefore probably paid less than $100 to reach my goal. Could I have done it free? Yes. However, after 17 years of staying at goal and getting all the benefits of WW free, it's absolutely been worth it for me. I don't believe WW is great for everyone, but I also don't think it should be passed over as a way of losing weight just because it's not free to start out. Also, there are discounts available to people through their health insurance for WW that one can use to offset some of the cost of the WW program.
MFP is an aide to weight loss. It doesn't work any better than WW for weight loss just because it is free and openly displays the daily macros and calories for the day.
It's all nice and dandy, but in the end, macros is what counts, your body doesn't give a damn about WW points..It's all about what you intake and what you burn...mfp is a free tool, but by using IIFYM, knowing your maintenance calorie level, you can control how you gain or lose weight much more accurately than WW. Am I saying that WW doesn't work??? No, but it's a fact that with the way IIFYM is designed with the help of mfp to track your macros, it is much more precise than WW without costing you an arm and a leg.
I would be curious to find out if the scientist who did the twinkie diet (basically he applied the IIFYM way for losing weight, but by eating just junk food) would of worked under the WW points system.
Interesting, however, as stated in this article, there are many draw backs to this approach to weight loss. And while I have no intention of getting into a debate with you over this, I'll just post what I found to be more correct about the IIFYM for weight loss and leave it at that. You do what works for you, and I'll do what has successfully worked for me for the past 17 years.
"Tracking what you eat can help you lose weight, but there isn’t any evidence that tracking macros can offer you a greater weight-loss advantage than other calorie-counting diet plans.
With any eating plan, food quality matters. The ideal diet isn’t just about macros; it’s about choosing healthy, whole foods over heavily processed foods. There are healthy and less healthy types of carbs and fats. Focus on getting most of your carbs from fiber-rich vegetables, beans, fruit and whole grains over added sugars or white bread. And when you choose where to get your fat from, nuts and oily fish are better choices than fried foods."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/the-macros-diet-does-it-really-work/2016/06/07/d38a5434-2bf6-11e6-9b37-42985f6a265c_story.html?utm_term=.3141395710671 -
I think it depends really, but I prefer MFP. I did WW for a bit last year, and was losing fairly steadily for the first month or so. Then one day i found myself really hungry, had met my points for the day, but didn't feel like I had eaten that much. I plugged in what I had eaten into MFP out of curiosity, and had eaten only about 1,050 cals for the day - way too few! I think WW tries to guide you to eat certain types of foods - carbs are punished, and so is fat - so in general I feel like MFP is less restrictive and healthier overall because you can actually eat foods you want without the mental angst of going really far over your points, or dipping into your weekly points, etc.
It really stressed me out, but everyone is different - a co-worker of mine did WW all last year and lost 55 lbs, and she seems happy and looks great.0 -
I think do what works for you , just remember unless you stay WW for life sooner or later your going to need to track your intake ..
Good luck0 -
I am confused.
WW converts calories to points and assigns you a number of points based on the underlying calories they are really assigning to you.
Then they push you towards making "better" food choices by assigning relatively less or more points than their caloric value would warrant to items they consider desirable as opposed to items they consider less desirable. Veggies are "free". WW frozen food is always a good point value. Desserts are maybe an extra point than what strict calories would warrant. Or what have you when the system needs re-vamping to meet market conditions.
MFP shows you the calories and macros for everything you eat and you get to decide on the mix that satiates you with no value "distortions".
For me it is self evident which method has the potential to be more accurate.
However there is certainly a market segment that considers counting 3 points easier than logging 409 Cal for 357g of food x.
While I consider weekly public weigh ins extremely bad measurement practice, other people consider daily private weight ins at a consistent location tracked via a weight trend application to be overkill and anxiety generating.
I would rather read stuff on my own and ask questions in a forum than deal with a 1:1 group that I meet in person. Other people feel more accountable by reporting to a group leader.
I use MFP... other people use WW.2 -
This content has been removed.
-
FitPhillygirl wrote: »FitPhillygirl wrote: »courtneyfabulous wrote: »FitPhillygirl wrote: »courtneyfabulous wrote: »MFP is free and much more accurate. Why would you want to do WW?
As a user of both, I disagree with this post. They are both equally as accurate and both programs can lead to the same amount of weight loss provided people follow the programs correctly.
Points are less accurate than tracking actual calories and macronutrients in grams. Also don't they have "free" foods? If you had too many of these you could eliminate your deficit and not lose weight. With myfitnesspal every single calorie counts, wether it's from broccoli or a donut. CICO works for both methods, but myfitnesspal IS more accurate. And you can't argue on the cost difference- one is free, one costs hundreds of dollars.
Actually, the point system is tracking macros, it's just not showing the figures the way it does here on MFP. If macro tracking is important, obviously one will either have to self track them while on WW, or use an app that shows the numbers. However, just because WW doesn't show them, doesn't mean they are not part of the whole weight loss system. Also, just because certain foods like veggies and fruits are free is not a a pass to over eat them. WW does teach portion control and while those foods don't have points, they are supposed to be eaten in moderation. Isn't that the same as MFP? How exactly do you figure one is more accurate than another? If WW wasn't accurate in its method of figuring out the percentage of calories one should have in a day to lose weight or in my case (maintain weight), they wouldn't still be in business for more than 50 years.
As far as free goes, as I said above. WW customers do pay till they reach their set goal weight. After that, everything is free provided one doesn't miss a monthly weigh in, and is not more than 2 pounds above goal. I was lucky and got to goal within a few short months and therefore probably paid less than $100 to reach my goal. Could I have done it free? Yes. However, after 17 years of staying at goal and getting all the benefits of WW free, it's absolutely been worth it for me. I don't believe WW is great for everyone, but I also don't think it should be passed over as a way of losing weight just because it's not free to start out. Also, there are discounts available to people through their health insurance for WW that one can use to offset some of the cost of the WW program.
MFP is an aide to weight loss. It doesn't work any better than WW for weight loss just because it is free and openly displays the daily macros and calories for the day.
It's all nice and dandy, but in the end, macros is what counts, your body doesn't give a damn about WW points..It's all about what you intake and what you burn...mfp is a free tool, but by using IIFYM, knowing your maintenance calorie level, you can control how you gain or lose weight much more accurately than WW. Am I saying that WW doesn't work??? No, but it's a fact that with the way IIFYM is designed with the help of mfp to track your macros, it is much more precise than WW without costing you an arm and a leg.
I would be curious to find out if the scientist who did the twinkie diet (basically he applied the IIFYM way for losing weight, but by eating just junk food) would of worked under the WW points system.
Interesting, however, as stated in this article, there are many draw backs to this approach to weight loss. And while I have no intention of getting into a debate with you over this, I'll just post what I found to be more correct about the IIFYM for weight loss and leave it at that. You do what works for you, and I'll do what has successfully worked for me for the past 17 years.
"Tracking what you eat can help you lose weight, but there isn’t any evidence that tracking macros can offer you a greater weight-loss advantage than other calorie-counting diet plans.
With any eating plan, food quality matters. The ideal diet isn’t just about macros; it’s about choosing healthy, whole foods over heavily processed foods. There are healthy and less healthy types of carbs and fats. Focus on getting most of your carbs from fiber-rich vegetables, beans, fruit and whole grains over added sugars or white bread. And when you choose where to get your fat from, nuts and oily fish are better choices than fried foods."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/the-macros-diet-does-it-really-work/2016/06/07/d38a5434-2bf6-11e6-9b37-42985f6a265c_story.html?utm_term=.314139571067
I agree that eating healthy is optimal, but the reason people fail their diets is because people go back craving for foods that they enjoy that are not necessarily healthy. With flexible dieting, you can have a little bit of both without feeling guilty. With flexible dieting, moderation is key, because they still teach you in the end to eat your fruits and veggies for micro nutrients.
Very true, and I do have to say that while I do speak highly of WW as a lifetime member, I do agree that it isn't the only good diet out there that teaches healthy eating habits. There are many other free diets out there that will work just as well, "provided" that one does not slip back into the unhealthy eating habits in the first place. For some, the fact that they are required to pay and be held accountable to the scale each week at WW, with the ultimate goal of becoming a Lifetime member is what they need. Back when I joined WW 17 years ago, I only had about 20 pounds to lose from having 2 babies. I only paid for a few months and having kept all of it off since then haven't had to pay again. Most months out of the year I don't count calories or points to maintain, but simply use what I've learned and continue to eat that way each and every day. I will admit that If a free site like MFP had been available to me back then I more than likely wouldn't have joined WW. However, because of the success that I've had will continue to recommend it as a healthy weight loss program. Just as I will continue to recommend MFP as well. 1 -
Great debate 0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Stick with mfp0
-
WW is the first weight loss program I ever tried. I didn't hate it, but I did hate paying money to track my food. I liked the concept of weekly points or that the exercise points I earned on Tuesday could be used on Friday, but because of that set up I also felt like if I missed tracking one day, the whole week was ruined and I ended up starting over all the time. Then I would get frustrated with paying for something I wasn't using. They also revamped the program right after I joined the second time and made all fruit "free" that was great in theory but I also wasn't losing weight as easily as I had the first time I used it. I didn't like paying for something that was causing so much frustration.
MFP has been easier for me to maintain long term. I do still use concepts I learned from WW, like if I'm planning to eat out over the weekend I'll throw some extra cardio into my normal routine the day or two before to make up for it. I don't feel like missing tracking one day derails my whole week, and if life happens and I end up stopping tracking all together for a few weeks I don't have to worry about paying for something I'm not using.
I don't hate WW and I lost 25 lbs the first time I ever used it. I only lost 10 the second time (I keep having babies). I had 30lbs to lose both times. I've used MFP to lose weight twice now too and I find it less stressful and easier to use.0 -
Also the disadvantage for WW is that if you are like me who lifts and doesn't have any health issues, it's easier counting my macros and aiming to lose a certain amount of weight or when I am bulking, it's to know how much calories you need to gain an average of 0,5 lbs per week. With WW way, I have no clue how that can be done unless you eat the samething every day. I would like to add and I have said it before, I am not saying WW is bad, if it works, then by all means go for it. We are all different individuals and everyone should go for what works.
First, one does not join WW because they need to "gain" weight. Second, I don't have any health issues and power lift at the gym 2 to 3 days per week. I definetly have seen a big difference in muscle definition as well as an increase in my lift amounts. I am able do keep track of my macros during the few times that I do calculate points. I'm usually at 30% for protein, 50% Carbs, and 20% Fat per day. With smart points being geared towards high protein and low fat, I didn't have any issues gaining some muscle while decreasing the little fat that I had. Also, while I do tend to eat a lot of the same types of foods knowing what their macro makeup is. I also tend to switch up my foods every now and then as well which is why I count points/calories for a bit. 0 -
I do both programs. I don't have a problem logging my food into both sites either (when I log them but I'm not consistent with it). I love going to the different meetings, meeting new people and learning about healthy eating and how to be good to me. To me these are the only differences between the two. Oh yeah and paying at WW. By the way, WW tackle more than eating which is required when you want the weight to stay off. As a few stated before, it is a personal decision because what works for us may not work for you.0
-
NHS assessment of WW and Slimming World is that they can be helpful for the social support you get from group activities. However, because they don't address calories and portion sizes (think foods that are "free" on certain days), you don't learn how to live healthily for the long run. Only around 5 % of WW & Slimming World users meet their goal and maintain it over a 5 year period. This is their business model though - give you results when you buy their foods, or follow their plan, but you can't do it on your own so when you give up, you put the weight back on, and you're back at WW the following week paying their money and buying their products. Their points systems are not necessarily correlated with calories. On one occasion I compared Covent Garden soup with the WW equivalent. Very similar nutritional information, similar calories, but the Covent Garden soup was 7 points and the WW was 2!
That said, if you find the social support groups useful, and you go in open-eyed that you need to approach it as a lifestyle, there's no such thing as a "free" food, and that they want you to buy their products which are not necessarily "better" for you or lower calorie, where is the harm?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions