Weight watchers vs slimming world

Options
imjustagirlwithagoal
imjustagirlwithagoal Posts: 31 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
So is there much difference between the two?

Replies

  • Taz6o5
    Taz6o5 Posts: 3,441 Member
    Options
    I never heard of slimming world.
  • vetvicki
    vetvicki Posts: 62 Member
    Options
    I've done both but it was many years ago and the programmes have changed since then. I felt that SW made you eat healthier. It involved less measuring/tracking. WW obviously has lots of convenience food options whereas SW doesn't at all so that was a struggle for me. Personally I'm preferring just tracking my calories on MFP and making my own choices.
  • Taz6o5
    Taz6o5 Posts: 3,441 Member
    Options
    concordancia wrote: »
    Taz6o5 wrote: »
    I never heard of slimming world.

    Basically, British Weight Watchers, before WW started selling snacks.

    Ok. Thanks
  • jenring3
    jenring3 Posts: 44 Member
    Options
    vetvicki wrote: »
    I've done both but it was many years ago and the programmes have changed since then. I felt that SW made you eat healthier. It involved less measuring/tracking. WW obviously has lots of convenience food options whereas SW doesn't at all so that was a struggle for me. Personally I'm preferring just tracking my calories on MFP and making my own choices.

    As more people respond I just want to clear something up - WW's current program called Freestyle is based around a LOT less weighing, measuring and tracking. The foods you weigh, measure and track are those foods that should be portioned and paid attention to. There's a giant list of foods (real foods, not packaged) that can be eaten without doing those things. Just eating to satisfaction. WW encourages a more healthy eating pattern overall without the minutia of the tracking. Things like seafood, chicken, eggs, fruits and veggies, beans/legumes - are all 'zero' points. Also, though WW does sell packaged 'snacks' it is not a part of the food program. Nobody is required to eat them and if you look at sample menus from WW they don't even promote them. I have no idea what Slimming World is so can't compare, but can offer the WW perspective. I'm actually a WW Coach and Lifetime Member of 14 years :)
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    Options
    siobhanaoife wrote: »

    There's a giant list of foods (real foods, not packaged) that can be eaten without doing those things. Just eating to satisfaction. WW encourages a more healthy eating pattern overall without the minutia of the tracking. Things like seafood, chicken, eggs, fruits and veggies, beans/legumes - are all 'zero' points.

    Wait, whoa, what?

    I could so eat more than my entire day's calories eating nothing but this list - and I'd still have all my "points" left?

    Weight Watchers emphasizes "reasonable portions" of these free foods. If your main problem is over eating baked goods or fried food, reasonable portions of free foods might be a very good match for you. If you struggle with portion size it probably isnt the best plan for you.
  • carbos101
    carbos101 Posts: 48 Member
    Options
    WW's Freestyle reminds me of the previous 'Simply Filling' plan that was beloved by many seasoned, successful, slim, WWs - or so I was told -- but did know of 2 slim members. The list looked very healthy - low fat/low sugar with (I think) a specified amount of points allowed per week for foods not listed. I liked it but assumed I'd be using all the weekly extras in order to have nuts/seeds while trying to eliminate meats. I was thinking about joining online (presently) just for the healthy recipes and ideas but not much of a cook anymore.
  • Raysie1
    Raysie1 Posts: 53 Member
    Options
    WW may not count certain foods but your body does. I say you're in the right place right here OP.
  • carbos101
    carbos101 Posts: 48 Member
    Options
    I say you're right! Love your comment/LOL! I'd still count calories -- which hasn't been the easiest thing in my life but I'm improving. Math is quite a science thus calorie counting is clearly more accurate.
  • zeejane03
    zeejane03 Posts: 993 Member
    edited January 2019
    Options
    jenring3 wrote: »
    vetvicki wrote: »
    I've done both but it was many years ago and the programmes have changed since then. I felt that SW made you eat healthier. It involved less measuring/tracking. WW obviously has lots of convenience food options whereas SW doesn't at all so that was a struggle for me. Personally I'm preferring just tracking my calories on MFP and making my own choices.

    As more people respond I just want to clear something up - WW's current program called Freestyle is based around a LOT less weighing, measuring and tracking. The foods you weigh, measure and track are those foods that should be portioned and paid attention to. There's a giant list of foods (real foods, not packaged) that can be eaten without doing those things. Just eating to satisfaction. WW encourages a more healthy eating pattern overall without the minutia of the tracking. Things like seafood, chicken, eggs, fruits and veggies, beans/legumes - are all 'zero' points. Also, though WW does sell packaged 'snacks' it is not a part of the food program. Nobody is required to eat them and if you look at sample menus from WW they don't even promote them. I have no idea what Slimming World is so can't compare, but can offer the WW perspective. I'm actually a WW Coach and Lifetime Member of 14 years :)

    That's the part that confuses me about the new plan-many people who are overweight don't have the ability/intuition to know how to eat till 'satisfaction'/feel 'pleasantly' full and then step away from the table, hence why they're overweight. I've been at this whole thing for years now and I still have to be very intentional about how many calories I'm eating, even of whole foods. It's ridiculously easy to overeat on things like fruit etc. It's also very easy to overestimate serving sizes of things like beans and chicken.

Categories