Weight watchers vs mfp

Options
2»

Replies

  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,660 Member
    edited February 2017
    Options
    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.
  • FitPhillygirl
    FitPhillygirl Posts: 7,124 Member
    Options
    filbo132 wrote: »
    FitPhillygirl wrote: »
    filbo132 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. :)
  • MrsKila
    MrsKila Posts: 320 Member
    Options
    Great debate ;)
  • Therealobi1
    Therealobi1 Posts: 3,261 Member
    Options
    Stick with mfp
  • jaymijones
    jaymijones Posts: 171 Member
    Options
    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.
  • FitPhillygirl
    FitPhillygirl Posts: 7,124 Member
    edited February 2017
    Options
    filbo132 wrote: »
    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.
  • anita7164
    anita7164 Posts: 142 Member
    Options
    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.
  • mumblemagic
    mumblemagic Posts: 1,090 Member
    Options
    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?

  • mumblemagic
    mumblemagic Posts: 1,090 Member
    Options
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    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.

    In theory, yes. In practise they do not assign a set number of calories a points value. They give their products lower points value per calorie than other products, and there are "free" foods that "you can eat as much of as you want" which nevertheless have calories.

    "Accuracy" is about being able to measure something with a degree of confidence. The most accurate way of measuring something is directly, i.e. by counting calories, rather than indirectly, i.e. by using WW points which are only loosely correlated to calories.

    "Precision" is being about to measure something on a very granular level. Again, calorie counting wins.

    Most people here asking about "accuracy" are really asking what is "effective", to which the answer is both to a greater or lesser degree, depending on how well a person sticks to the method, how much that person abuses loop holes such as free foods (although I can't think of a loop hole in IIFYM), and how much they are able to continue to stick to the programme in the long term.



Categories