Has Weight Watchers gone insane?

cathipa wrote: »

Shoechick5 wrote: »

I'm positive on the list I have smoked fish is included as being Zero.

Here's the list
https://www.weightwatchers.com/us/sites/default/files/freestyle_zero_points_foods.pdf

So how many points are you allowed per day? 10? The majority of the foods listed are foods I eat regularly and I would have some days that are mostly zero days. This makes no sense from a weight loss standpoint because they are saying they don't count? Eggs = 0 when they are 70 calories a piece? Chicken breast = 0 when 4 oz is 120 calories? No wonder WW people don't lose weight.

sadiepie10 wrote: »

cathipa wrote: »

Shoechick5 wrote: »

I'm positive on the list I have smoked fish is included as being Zero.

Here's the list
https://www.weightwatchers.com/us/sites/default/files/freestyle_zero_points_foods.pdf

So how many points are you allowed per day? 10? The majority of the foods listed are foods I eat regularly and I would have some days that are mostly zero days. This makes no sense from a weight loss standpoint because they are saying they don't count? Eggs = 0 when they are 70 calories a piece? Chicken breast = 0 when 4 oz is 120 calories? No wonder WW people don't lose weight.

Also, I’ve been on smart points close to 4 months now and have lost and gained the same 5lbs over and over again.

cathipa wrote: »

sadiepie10 wrote: »

cathipa wrote: »

Shoechick5 wrote: »

I'm positive on the list I have smoked fish is included as being Zero.

Here's the list
https://www.weightwatchers.com/us/sites/default/files/freestyle_zero_points_foods.pdf

So how many points are you allowed per day? 10? The majority of the foods listed are foods I eat regularly and I would have some days that are mostly zero days. This makes no sense from a weight loss standpoint because they are saying they don't count? Eggs = 0 when they are 70 calories a piece? Chicken breast = 0 when 4 oz is 120 calories? No wonder WW people don't lose weight.

Also, I’ve been on smart points close to 4 months now and have lost and gained the same 5lbs over and over again.

My point exactly. Why would anyone want to pay for a program that isn't working?

corinasue1143 wrote: »

Shoechick5 wrote: »

cathipa wrote: »

Shoechick5 wrote: »

I'm positive on the list I have smoked fish is included as being Zero.

Here's the list
https://www.weightwatchers.com/us/sites/default/files/freestyle_zero_points_foods.pdf

So how many points are you allowed per day? 10? The majority of the foods listed are foods I eat regularly and I would have some days that are mostly zero days. This makes no sense from a weight loss standpoint because they are saying they don't count? Eggs = 0 when they are 70 calories a piece? Chicken breast = 0 when 4 oz is 120 calories? No wonder WW people don't lose weight.

I believe the new minimum is 23 points a day and you can carry 4 over. On Facebook yesterday, Skinnytaste posted a revised recipe under the new plan, it was around 350 calories but now only 2 smart points. and those two points were the avocado, take that out and add a chicken breast and you're looking at close to 400 calories for free. What the hell??? Just crazy.

I'm so confused. If it's a recipe, doesn't that mean it's "blended"? And if it's blended, doesn't that mean it has points? Don't you have to put everything on the plate separately for it to be 0 calories, or points, or something?

Nony_Mouse wrote: »

I originally joined WW in the late 80s, as a tubby (supposedly) teen, my meeting was one the area leader had started specifically for teens.

The plan then was based on what was essentially macros - you had a certain number of protein, 'bread' (basically any carby stuff fell under this), fats, dairy, fruits, veg. Fruit you absolutely counted, veg I think was set at 3-5 serving per day, and it was made clear which ones were higher cal and you shouldn't go crazy on. You also had an allowance of extra calories/kilojoules to 'spend' on what you wanted, which increased over the first 4-6 weeks. A serving of protein or carbs was equivalent to around 100 cals, fats would have been probably 50ish. Unfortunately I lost my cookbook that went with the programme I started on (actually I think it was the programme that came immediately after - Quick Success) in a move, or it's hiding somewhere that is not my bookshelf, and ditched all my other programme material years ago too, or I'd add up what the total daily cals were (I bet my Mum still has a set). I think I still have an original Points system book somewhere.

Anyway, that's a long-winded way of saying once upon a time, WW programmes actually used to be pretty sensible. Fat was low, b/c 80s, but it was very much emphasised that fat was important (when I was a leader I would tell my class how rats will lose their tails if they don't get enough fat, and we wouldn't want that, would we? ), and of course the three servings was added fat.

Weight Watchers is where I learned to weigh, measure, and track my food.

Nony_Mouse wrote: »

sadiepie10 wrote: »

Nony_Mouse wrote: »

I originally joined WW in the late 80s, as a tubby (supposedly) teen, my meeting was one the area leader had started specifically for teens.

The plan then was based on what was essentially macros - you had a certain number of protein, 'bread' (basically any carby stuff fell under this), fats, dairy, fruits, veg. Fruit you absolutely counted, veg I think was set at 3-5 serving per day, and it was made clear which ones were higher cal and you shouldn't go crazy on. You also had an allowance of extra calories/kilojoules to 'spend' on what you wanted, which increased over the first 4-6 weeks. A serving of protein or carbs was equivalent to around 100 cals, fats would have been probably 50ish. Unfortunately I lost my cookbook that went with the programme I started on (actually I think it was the programme that came immediately after - Quick Success) in a move, or it's hiding somewhere that is not my bookshelf, and ditched all my other programme material years ago too, or I'd add up what the total daily cals were (I bet my Mum still has a set). I think I still have an original Points system book somewhere.

Anyway, that's a long-winded way of saying once upon a time, WW programmes actually used to be pretty sensible. Fat was low, b/c 80s, but it was very much emphasised that fat was important (when I was a leader I would tell my class how rats will lose their tails if they don't get enough fat, and we wouldn't want that, would we? ), and of course the three servings was added fat.

Weight Watchers is where I learned to weigh, measure, and track my food.

This! I did weight watchers back in 2008-09 when points were still based on calories (1point=50 calories). That was when I learned the importance of measuring and tracking. Smart points is hard because I have no idea how many calories I am eating. 30 points could equal, for me, 900 calories or close to 1700.

I have no idea about freestyle because my WW app hasn’t switched over to it yet.

Yep, original Points gave a lot of flexibility, without being punitive. Though I did (do) prefer the previous 'Success' systems for their focus on macros and nutrition - protein was 4-5 servings, carbs 3-4, fats 2-3, fruit 2-3, veg 5, additional kilojoules started at 400 and worked up to 2000 (how do I remember this stuff???). Oh and I think you could add more exchanges of your choice for exercise.

Wynterbourne wrote: »

Nony_Mouse wrote: »

sadiepie10 wrote: »

Nony_Mouse wrote: »

I originally joined WW in the late 80s, as a tubby (supposedly) teen, my meeting was one the area leader had started specifically for teens.

The plan then was based on what was essentially macros - you had a certain number of protein, 'bread' (basically any carby stuff fell under this), fats, dairy, fruits, veg. Fruit you absolutely counted, veg I think was set at 3-5 serving per day, and it was made clear which ones were higher cal and you shouldn't go crazy on. You also had an allowance of extra calories/kilojoules to 'spend' on what you wanted, which increased over the first 4-6 weeks. A serving of protein or carbs was equivalent to around 100 cals, fats would have been probably 50ish. Unfortunately I lost my cookbook that went with the programme I started on (actually I think it was the programme that came immediately after - Quick Success) in a move, or it's hiding somewhere that is not my bookshelf, and ditched all my other programme material years ago too, or I'd add up what the total daily cals were (I bet my Mum still has a set). I think I still have an original Points system book somewhere.

Anyway, that's a long-winded way of saying once upon a time, WW programmes actually used to be pretty sensible. Fat was low, b/c 80s, but it was very much emphasised that fat was important (when I was a leader I would tell my class how rats will lose their tails if they don't get enough fat, and we wouldn't want that, would we? ), and of course the three servings was added fat.

Weight Watchers is where I learned to weigh, measure, and track my food.

This! I did weight watchers back in 2008-09 when points were still based on calories (1point=50 calories). That was when I learned the importance of measuring and tracking. Smart points is hard because I have no idea how many calories I am eating. 30 points could equal, for me, 900 calories or close to 1700.

I have no idea about freestyle because my WW app hasn’t switched over to it yet.

Yep, original Points gave a lot of flexibility, without being punitive. Though I did (do) prefer the previous 'Success' systems for their focus on macros and nutrition - protein was 4-5 servings, carbs 3-4, fats 2-3, fruit 2-3, veg 5, additional kilojoules started at 400 and worked up to 2000 (how do I remember this stuff???). Oh and I think you could add more exchanges of your choice for exercise.

I also did WW around 1989 when they were doing the Quick Success (I still have my cookbooks) program right before they started the Fat and Fiber program. I think that one was the last sane program based on actual true calorie calculations before they started all this 'it's worth what points we say it's worth' nonsense. Those two programs are definitely the last programs I'd give any credence to.

newheavensearth wrote: »

sadiepie10 wrote: »

Nony_Mouse wrote: »

I originally joined WW in the late 80s, as a tubby (supposedly) teen, my meeting was one the area leader had started specifically for teens.

The plan then was based on what was essentially macros - you had a certain number of protein, 'bread' (basically any carby stuff fell under this), fats, dairy, fruits, veg. Fruit you absolutely counted, veg I think was set at 3-5 serving per day, and it was made clear which ones were higher cal and you shouldn't go crazy on. You also had an allowance of extra calories/kilojoules to 'spend' on what you wanted, which increased over the first 4-6 weeks. A serving of protein or carbs was equivalent to around 100 cals, fats would have been probably 50ish. Unfortunately I lost my cookbook that went with the programme I started on (actually I think it was the programme that came immediately after - Quick Success) in a move, or it's hiding somewhere that is not my bookshelf, and ditched all my other programme material years ago too, or I'd add up what the total daily cals were (I bet my Mum still has a set). I think I still have an original Points system book somewhere.

Anyway, that's a long-winded way of saying once upon a time, WW programmes actually used to be pretty sensible. Fat was low, b/c 80s, but it was very much emphasised that fat was important (when I was a leader I would tell my class how rats will lose their tails if they don't get enough fat, and we wouldn't want that, would we? ), and of course the three servings was added fat.

Weight Watchers is where I learned to weigh, measure, and track my food.

This! I did weight watchers back in 2008-09 when points were still based on calories (1point=50 calories). That was when I learned the importance of measuring and tracking. Smart points is hard because I have no idea how many calories I am eating. 30 points could equal, for me, 900 calories or close to 1700.

I have no idea about freestyle because my WW app hasn’t switched over to it yet.

I hated Smart Points simply for the guilt trips I went on every time I chose a higher point food. That and the program and meetings became punitive toward fitness minded people. Therefore I don't attended meetings.