Has Weight Watchers gone insane?
Replies
-
corinasue1143 wrote: »Shoechick5 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?
I thought it was just fruit that couldn't be blended...ie a smoothy, not an actual recipe. Here's the recipe I was referring to.
https://www.skinnytaste.com/lentil-bowls-with-avocado-eggs-and-cholula/
3 -
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.11 -
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.
2 -
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.0 -
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.4 -
if you want to go on ww..just eat 1200 calories a day.. that's basiclaly the plan..they just switch it up to make it new so people keep joining. i dislike ww2
-
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.
I'm quite sad about losing that book, just from a nostalgia perspective. It was a birthday present from my mother
0 -
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.0 -
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.
Yes! The guilt with smart points is strong. When I feel guilty about food choices it usually leads to a binge. Which is why I’ve just been maintaining for the last four months. I would also feel guilty about dipping into my fitpoints because they tell you not to eat them if you can help it.
0 -
I am off work the first week of January. I know I'll be feeling like getting over some of the overindulgences from Christmas, and I'm tempted to do a week of nothing but foods from that list, and reporting back.
and the Aussie "no smoked fish" thing is stupid - I smoke my own fish, it's no different to baking it. What's the issue. And I agree with Kriss on the pork v chicken question, lean pork is barely more calories than chicken.
And holy hell, the price! I thought that $35 a month for online was actually pretty reasonable and better than I remembered, then I realised it was a one-month-only 50% off deal - $70 a month for online and an app? I can get a gym membership for that...
And just to be clear, I'm a WWer from way back, through every incarnation - Classic, Fat n Fibre, Points, Smart Points, Simply Filling... it just gets further and further from the nice simple program it was.1 -
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.
Me too. I did WW in the 90s and it was the 1-2-3 Success program. As far as I can remember the points were based on calories and fat, and only fruit and veg were zero points. I've still got some of the recipe books and the little cardboard points calculator. You were given extra points for exercise (I used all mine on beer). Looking at my progress during the time I was doing it, the weight came off very, very slowly. Too much beer and 'free' foods I guess.1 -
Skinnytaste just put out a new recipe. A 414 calorie dish is 2 points.
If I were still on weight watchers and trying to lose weight, I would have failed this week just reading that.2 -
Skinnytaste just put out a new recipe. A 414 calorie dish is 2 points.
If I were still on weight watchers and trying to lose weight, I would have failed this week just reading that.
Wow... with skinnytaste being such a widely used site.. i feel like we are going to be seeing a lot of people struggling with their weight soon..3 -
Skinnytaste just put out a new recipe. A 414 calorie dish is 2 points.
If I were still on weight watchers and trying to lose weight, I would have failed this week just reading that.
I use WW plan for structure. That idea of moderate calorie equals 2 pts I vastly disagree with. I lost 2.8 lbs this week on the new plan. But then again I also weighed and measured everything.
0 -
Oops, 3 points. But same!0
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »I am off work the first week of January. I know I'll be feeling like getting over some of the overindulgences from Christmas, and I'm tempted to do a week of nothing but foods from that list, and reporting back.
and the Aussie "no smoked fish" thing is stupid - I smoke my own fish, it's no different to baking it. What's the issue. And I agree with Kriss on the pork v chicken question, lean pork is barely more calories than chicken.
And holy hell, the price! I thought that $35 a month for online was actually pretty reasonable and better than I remembered, then I realised it was a one-month-only 50% off deal - $70 a month for online and an app? I can get a gym membership for that...
And just to be clear, I'm a WWer from way back, through every incarnation - Classic, Fat n Fibre, Points, Smart Points, Simply Filling... it just gets further and further from the nice simple program it was.
That would be a very interesting experiment.
And as far as the cost, my family gym membership is only $68/mo so that really sounds like a lot for what you get.0 -
I tried WW once but would always go over on points. Zero point foods are a joke, I pretty much hate all fruit and everything is without sauce/dressing
https://www.weightwatchers.com/us/sites/default/files/freestyle_zero_points_foods.pdf0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »I am on WW, I'm finding the new program very flexible. I ate TONS of 0 point foods, including: 2 eggs, grapes, apple, celery, lettuce, chicken breast. Within REASON you can eat these things, WW does not tell you to gorge yourself on 0 point foods. They make them 0 points because they know that people will not overdo them. I get 23 points a day, I dipped into my weeklies by 4. I calculated my calories to be around 1,450. I'm in a deficit by at least 500. Feeling good! They do demonize SATURATED FAT (not all Fat), and sugar but they are not off limits, you just have to ask yourself, is it really worth 15 points for a slice of cake...
im confused by this... does WW really think people only over do certain foods? No one over eats chicken? no one over eats eggs? All it takes for most people to be a little hungry at dinner time to add a second chicken breast to their plate or make a big plate of scrambled eggs..
Grapes.. if you sat down on the couch watching tv with the bag, i am pretty sure people would eat them the same as they would a bag of chips..
To think that only certain foods are over indulged on just proves to me how weight watchers is using that to further set people up for failure to keep the money rolling in.
From their site:
"Why have these foods been chosen to be zero Points® foods?
These foods form the basis of a healthy eating pattern. They are nutrient dense foods that can be enjoyed as part of a healthy eating plan. Our research shows that they do not pose a risk for overconsumption."
I can't access the list, but apparently salmon is on it. I'm in. I could eat salmon all day every day.
I ate close to a pound of chicken last night because I underate protein all day...and i could have eaten more...this plan would be bad for me1 -
I love Skinnytaste and will continue to use it, but I agree this new WW plan sounds nuts. I lost 50 pounds on Points PIus in 2012, but came over to MFP because free > not free. Once I adjusted from points to calories, I've never looked back. (I do remember having to track fruit and veggies pissing me off initially! ) I remember many frustrating times trying to calculate points from nutrition values and just how much work that added if something happened not to be in their database or was a recipe I had cooked forever and was trying to track. MFP was always easier in that regard and has only gotten better. 6
-
songbird13291 wrote: »I plan to try the new program, but also continue to track here as a way to make sure I’m not overdoing the ‘free” foods. I think of it as a way to direct me towards healthier choices.
This is what I'm doing too. It has been very helpful in keeping me accountable while pushing me toward healthier food.1 -
duskyjewel wrote: »I love Skinnytaste and will continue to use it, but I agree this new WW plan sounds nuts. I lost 50 pounds on Points PIus in 2012, but came over to MFP because free > not free. Once I adjusted from points to calories, I've never looked back. (I do remember having to track fruit and veggies pissing me off initially! ) I remember many frustrating times trying to calculate points from nutrition values and just how much work that added if something happened not to be in their database or was a recipe I had cooked forever and was trying to track. MFP was always easier in that regard and has only gotten better.
i like skinnytaste but never paid any attention to her weightwatchers point (I think she also includes zone diet info too - or at least did at one stage)0 -
I do WW at work because I like the accountability of having someone weigh me, but I usually use MFP to track my food. Yesterday I decided to track in MFP and WW to compare. Granted, yesterday I was sick, so I ate pretty carb heavy and minimal protein, but it should give you an idea of how many calories you would be eating without the free proteins, veggies, and fruits. With MFP it shows that I consumed 745 calories (I was sick. I don't normally eat so little). With WW I used all of my daily points, plus 10 weekly points. So, yes, I do think it is possible that it could hinder some people if you eat a ton of the free foods, but I also think they account for it. I personally rarely track in WW, because, in general, I would get too few calories if I stuck to their points plan. Different things work for different people though. To me, the new plan seems kind of similar to Whole30, without the extreme restrictions. They want you to put more focus on lean proteins, eggs, beans, fruits, and non-starchy veggies. You get more bang for your points buck that way.3
-
luckygirl134 wrote: »I do WW at work because I like the accountability of having someone weigh me, but I usually use MFP to track my food. Yesterday I decided to track in MFP and WW to compare. Granted, yesterday I was sick, so I ate pretty carb heavy and minimal protein, but it should give you an idea of how many calories you would be eating without the free proteins, veggies, and fruits. With MFP it shows that I consumed 745 calories (I was sick. I don't normally eat so little). With WW I used all of my daily points, plus 10 weekly points. So, yes, I do think it is possible that it could hinder some people if you eat a ton of the free foods, but I also think they account for it. I personally rarely track in WW, because, in general, I would get too few calories if I stuck to their points plan. Different things work for different people though. To me, the new plan seems kind of similar to Whole30, without the extreme restrictions. They want you to put more focus on lean proteins, eggs, beans, fruits, and non-starchy veggies. You get more bang for your points buck that way.
I guess for people who don't eat a lot of those foods it may 'even out', but I could easily eat my maintenance cals just from that free foods list.... Use the "points" on stuff to make it all extra tasty...
Half dozen eggs, a few bananas, bada boom there goes any chance at my having a calorie deficit.3 -
not_a_runner wrote: »luckygirl134 wrote: »I do WW at work because I like the accountability of having someone weigh me, but I usually use MFP to track my food. Yesterday I decided to track in MFP and WW to compare. Granted, yesterday I was sick, so I ate pretty carb heavy and minimal protein, but it should give you an idea of how many calories you would be eating without the free proteins, veggies, and fruits. With MFP it shows that I consumed 745 calories (I was sick. I don't normally eat so little). With WW I used all of my daily points, plus 10 weekly points. So, yes, I do think it is possible that it could hinder some people if you eat a ton of the free foods, but I also think they account for it. I personally rarely track in WW, because, in general, I would get too few calories if I stuck to their points plan. Different things work for different people though. To me, the new plan seems kind of similar to Whole30, without the extreme restrictions. They want you to put more focus on lean proteins, eggs, beans, fruits, and non-starchy veggies. You get more bang for your points buck that way.
I guess for people who don't eat a lot of those foods it may 'even out', but I could easily eat my maintenance cals just from that free foods list.... Use the "points" on stuff to make it all extra tasty...
Half dozen eggs, a few bananas, bada boom there goes any chance at my having a calorie deficit.
I'm still sure I could eat my maintenance cals just in fruit. It is cherry season here, anyone want to chip in for 2.5 kg of cherries to see if I can do it?5 -
not_a_runner wrote: »luckygirl134 wrote: »I do WW at work because I like the accountability of having someone weigh me, but I usually use MFP to track my food. Yesterday I decided to track in MFP and WW to compare. Granted, yesterday I was sick, so I ate pretty carb heavy and minimal protein, but it should give you an idea of how many calories you would be eating without the free proteins, veggies, and fruits. With MFP it shows that I consumed 745 calories (I was sick. I don't normally eat so little). With WW I used all of my daily points, plus 10 weekly points. So, yes, I do think it is possible that it could hinder some people if you eat a ton of the free foods, but I also think they account for it. I personally rarely track in WW, because, in general, I would get too few calories if I stuck to their points plan. Different things work for different people though. To me, the new plan seems kind of similar to Whole30, without the extreme restrictions. They want you to put more focus on lean proteins, eggs, beans, fruits, and non-starchy veggies. You get more bang for your points buck that way.
I guess for people who don't eat a lot of those foods it may 'even out', but I could easily eat my maintenance cals just from that free foods list.... Use the "points" on stuff to make it all extra tasty...
Half dozen eggs, a few bananas, bada boom there goes any chance at my having a calorie deficit.
Yes. Pretty much. It all depends on the person. I can see it not working for people who usually eat a majority of the zero point foods. I love fruits and veggies, but I've never had a problem with over-consuming them. Same with protein. I love eggs, but I usually eat 2 a day max. My problem was always with carbs and sweets, which both have high points values in WW. It's personal preference. I still prefer MFP to WW. I just find it easier to track calories rather than converting things to points.1 -
luckygirl134 wrote: »not_a_runner wrote: »luckygirl134 wrote: »I do WW at work because I like the accountability of having someone weigh me, but I usually use MFP to track my food. Yesterday I decided to track in MFP and WW to compare. Granted, yesterday I was sick, so I ate pretty carb heavy and minimal protein, but it should give you an idea of how many calories you would be eating without the free proteins, veggies, and fruits. With MFP it shows that I consumed 745 calories (I was sick. I don't normally eat so little). With WW I used all of my daily points, plus 10 weekly points. So, yes, I do think it is possible that it could hinder some people if you eat a ton of the free foods, but I also think they account for it. I personally rarely track in WW, because, in general, I would get too few calories if I stuck to their points plan. Different things work for different people though. To me, the new plan seems kind of similar to Whole30, without the extreme restrictions. They want you to put more focus on lean proteins, eggs, beans, fruits, and non-starchy veggies. You get more bang for your points buck that way.
I guess for people who don't eat a lot of those foods it may 'even out', but I could easily eat my maintenance cals just from that free foods list.... Use the "points" on stuff to make it all extra tasty...
Half dozen eggs, a few bananas, bada boom there goes any chance at my having a calorie deficit.
Yes. Pretty much. It all depends on the person. I can see it not working for people who usually eat a majority of the zero point foods. I love fruits and veggies, but I've never had a problem with over-consuming them. Same with protein. I love eggs, but I usually eat 2 a day max. My problem was always with carbs and sweets, which both have high points values in WW. It's personal preference. I still prefer MFP to WW. I just find it easier to track calories rather than converting things to points.
It always makes me laugh when people say counting points is easier than counting calories. Mayyyyyyybe when one point was roughly 50 calories but c'mon! It's all getting logged on the computer anyway.
1 -
I joined WW on December 10th after about a year of mixed Jenny Craig and MFP calorie counting.
As of last week I have lost 11 pounds. This was with a few Holiday slips.
In the beginning I was double tracking with the WW tools and MFP. My calorie count was coming in at around 1200, perfect for me. After awhile I was confident that this WW thing was working and I gave it all up to Freestyle.
Yes, you do have to be aware and mindful but it is an absolute joy having a big bowl of zero-point turkey, bean and vegetable chili and not agonizing over calories or points. Cooking is wonderful---start with zero point foods and build from there, tracking only the foods that have points.
As always, fats and carbs are point-heavy.
I am the happiest that I have ever been with a food plan since I started Freestyle. I am not weighing and measuring and tracking every single stinking bit of food that I put in my mouth and it is immensely liberating.
Best thing---it's working!!3 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »not_a_runner wrote: »luckygirl134 wrote: »I do WW at work because I like the accountability of having someone weigh me, but I usually use MFP to track my food. Yesterday I decided to track in MFP and WW to compare. Granted, yesterday I was sick, so I ate pretty carb heavy and minimal protein, but it should give you an idea of how many calories you would be eating without the free proteins, veggies, and fruits. With MFP it shows that I consumed 745 calories (I was sick. I don't normally eat so little). With WW I used all of my daily points, plus 10 weekly points. So, yes, I do think it is possible that it could hinder some people if you eat a ton of the free foods, but I also think they account for it. I personally rarely track in WW, because, in general, I would get too few calories if I stuck to their points plan. Different things work for different people though. To me, the new plan seems kind of similar to Whole30, without the extreme restrictions. They want you to put more focus on lean proteins, eggs, beans, fruits, and non-starchy veggies. You get more bang for your points buck that way.
I guess for people who don't eat a lot of those foods it may 'even out', but I could easily eat my maintenance cals just from that free foods list.... Use the "points" on stuff to make it all extra tasty...
Half dozen eggs, a few bananas, bada boom there goes any chance at my having a calorie deficit.
I'm still sure I could eat my maintenance cals just in fruit. It is cherry season here, anyone want to chip in for 2.5 kg of cherries to see if I can do it?
I have a friend who did just this! He was texting me from the bathroom soon after...
4 -
quiltingjaine wrote: »Free fruit derailed me when they started that and my leader constantly drilled into our heads that “no one ever got fat from eating bananas!” Fresh pineapple and watermelon sure did me in!! I’ve been struggling since. Finally happened upon Keto this summer and am losing slowly and fairly steadily. It’s sort of the anti-WW. Going to the meeting to say goodbye and good luck to my friends.
I too left WW when fruits became free. And we wouldn't let us keep the program which was working great for us. A lot of members quit on that program back then in my meeting. And also on the message boards. Free foods of any sort is the making of a flawed diet.
MFP is brilliant and makes sense scientifically. And best of all, it is free and individualized for each member.1 -
I joined WW on December 10th after about a year of mixed Jenny Craig and MFP calorie counting.
As of last week I have lost 11 pounds. This was with a few Holiday slips.
In the beginning I was double tracking with the WW tools and MFP. My calorie count was coming in at around 1200, perfect for me. After awhile I was confident that this WW thing was working and I gave it all up to Freestyle.
Yes, you do have to be aware and mindful but it is an absolute joy having a big bowl of zero-point turkey, bean and vegetable chili and not agonizing over calories or points. Cooking is wonderful---start with zero point foods and build from there, tracking only the foods that have points.
As always, fats and carbs are point-heavy.
I am the happiest that I have ever been with a food plan since I started Freestyle. I am not weighing and measuring and tracking every single stinking bit of food that I put in my mouth and it is immensely liberating.
Best thing---it's working!!
Not all carbs are point heavy though, as all free fruits are mostly simple carbs.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions