Decided to join WW
Options
Replies
-
I've read a few posts in the past of posters having WW memberships as well as counting calories. If I had the time to track both points/calories (and attend meetings) I might check out their info. Are meetings available online?
I don't know. I don't do meetings. I know they were doing Zoom meetings last year but they may have gone back to in person by now.1 -
I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.1
-
snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume!
I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.5 -
Good luck! One size does NOT fit all when it comes to weight loss, so if it works for you, that's all that matters! Obviously people who are on MFP are probably a little biased towards using MFP, but that doesn't mean it works for everyone trying to lose and maintain weight.
I think whatever weight loss method someone chooses, the most important things are having the right mindset about it and that the habits learned are something someone can keep up for life. I've done WW in the past and had some success, but honestly I think it was my mindset at the time--I wasn't ready to fully commit and felt that restricting would lead to bingeing (which it sometimes did). That was something I did with any weight loss attempt, though, so that wasn't specific to WW.2 -
I think WW can teach you to make healthier choices that work better.
I just don't think WW is necessary for that.
People who are here for any length of time or do any reading at all know what foods are encouraged when trying to improve diet, and has heard that protein is important and more likely to be satiating. 95% of the population could tell you what the bulk of WW free foods are going to be. Why does being on WW make you more inclined to eat the eggs and veg than being on MFP? What about MFP makes you chose the lower volume, lower protein, option?
That isn't criticism or sarcasm. I'm glad it's working for you. I am just sincerely curious about what part of joining WW made you make that change instead of thinking 'this breakfast has no protein and is very small for that many calories. Why not try more protein and veg?"
(Again, whatever works. I'm all there for. I can see lots of reasons WW would work for someone. I just don't understand the why of THIS particular change/example being one brought about by WW. And, while none of my business, I'm curious)6 -
snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.2 -
snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
6 -
Not sure why you got 9 disagrees - if it works for you that's great. I used it years ago and lost 37 lbs so it worked for me too. That was back when you had to track points for everything, I only tracked for like 3 weeks and it basically showed me how much I could eat in a day, then I didn't have to track anymore and kept losing until my goal.
(Gained it back many years later over menopause fwiw)[/quote]
I don't know why I got 9 (now 10) disagrees either. This is working for me. Maybe they link I am lying? Who knows! It is their opinion and they have a right to have on and to politely express it.
Really, I know there are people here who believe it is purely about CICO and having the willpower to maintain enough of a calorie deficit each day. Plain and simple and that if you aren't losing weight, you are eating too much and that's that. While I agree that you need a calorie deficit to lose weight, I argue that doing that isn't as simple as that. I have learned that what I choose to eat matters big time. It isn't just about quantity of food. That's part of it but is also satiety and nutrients. We have all seen those pictures of what 100 calories of cheese looks like compared to 100 calories of grapes. Our choices effect how our body reacts.
For example, this morning, I had 3 scrambled eggs with some veggies sautee'd in. I am very comfortable right now. For the same amount of fat and number of calories, I could have had a bagel spread with cream cheese. Trust me, if I had had that bagel with cream cheese, I would already be counting the hours until lunch and negotiating with myself what snack to have before lunch. See, the eggs and veggies provide much needed protein and other nutrients. The bagel and cream cheese are largely empty calories but for a small amount calcium in the cheese.
I also think some feel they have to defend MFP over anything and everything else. I don't see why MFP and WW have to be mutually exclusive. I am enjoying using both and finding the data interesting.
I don't like MFP when my newsfeed is nothing but adverts!
[/quote]
I didn't click disagree on either of your posts (in fact, I posted what I thought was, and surely did intend as, a supportive comment).
The bolded, though, does seem like potential disagree fodder, to me. (That, and the similar thought that was more implied than explicit in your OP.)
Over and over, IME, in the MFP Community, there are comments about finding what foods satiate a person as an individual, suggesting that for different people it can be protein/fats/volume or even specific foods, occasionally comments that people should eat more whole unprocessed foods for better satiation, talk about the role of fiber in satiation, mentions of sub-par nutrition as a possible cause for unusual cravings, discussions about carbs being an appetite trigger for some but satiating for others, etc.
I've quite literally typed those things myself, probably hundreds of times, maybe thousands, given my post count over the nearly 6 years I've been here.
"Official" MFP - the blogs and newsletters - also talk about those things, IME.
I grant that in the Community, those discussions most often occur in detail when someone posts about having difficulty with cravings, feeling hungry or sub-par, struggling not to exceed their calorie goal, etc. But they occur every day, over and over. I also grant there are lots of threads where people say one need not eat *entirely* diet foods, low calorie foods, superfoods, less processed foods, etc., because trying to do that - trying never to consume *anything* perceived as "bad" - is another way people fail at weight loss, via feeling entirely deprived of foods they really enjoy that may not be the most nutrient dense foods.
But I'm flummoxed at the idea that this is a place where where the mainstream, common narrative is that you can eat "whatever", regardless of nutrition or satiation, and that if hunger/cravings result from doing that within calorie goal, you should just white-knuckle through any those feelings. IMO, that would be really nutty advice, and if I saw that advocated, I'd argue with it (and have).
That MFP doesn't suit you, that the advice or common culture here doesn't suit you, I have no quibble. We're all different in what works best, what feels supportive. But the MFP you seem to be reading, and the one I feel like I've been reading, seem like two completely different places.
And yes, there's no reason not to use both MFP & WW IMO. Either has strengths and weakness, as a total system. My impression is that there are other people here who use WW and MFP together, though I think it's a small contingent.
Best wishes, sincerely, finding and running with what works for you, to achieve and remain at a healthy weight!5 -
snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
I guess - but whenever someone on here insists that they got obese eating only healthy foods I just kind of go "hmmmm". I guess it's possible but I would think the more common scenario is that those food that are much harder to moderate and low in satiety are the main contributors to weight gain - not chicken and brocolli. And those hard to moderate foods are what you would spend points on. I imagine that is why the program is set up that way.
Back when I lost weight on it every food had points and you had to count everything - so it was basically simplified calorie counting.2 -
snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
I guess - but whenever someone on here insists that they got obese eating only healthy foods I just kind of go "hmmmm". I guess it's possible but I would think the more common scenario is that those food that are much harder to moderate and low in satiety are the main contributors to weight gain - not chicken and brocolli. And those hard to moderate foods are what you would spend points on. I imagine that is why the program is set up that way.
Back when I lost weight on it every food had points and you had to count everything - so it was basically simplified calorie counting.
While I won't claim "only healthy foods", I for sure got obese eating what most people would call healthy foods as the majority of my diet: Veggies, whole grains, etc. Honestly, it's pretty easy to creep those portions up over a period of years, and to add *lots* of calories via "healthy" add ons (olive oil, full fat dairy, nuts, etc.). We're all different. I feel like sometimes people who got fat eating mostly more processed, less nutrient dense foods, and found nutrient-dense foods super helpful for satiation, are biased in their own kind of way by that experience.
It's hard for me to say which foods were the "main contributors to weight gain" for me, but I will say that it was easy, and still is, for me to eat an entire large roasted cabbage or big head of broccoli in one meal, by myself. Add a generous side of whole wheat pasta, a reasonably calorie-efficient cheese, fruit and nuts for dessert, and that gets to a reasonably high calorie level, without necessarily drenching anything in buckets of oil/fat or something.
I 100% know and acknowledge that it's not true for every other person on the planet, but I absolutely could blow my calorie goal on the WW plans that have the larger lists of free foods, if I treated those as entirely free/unlimited. Those plans would not work for me, but they do work great for some others.6 -
snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
I guess - but whenever someone on here insists that they got obese eating only healthy foods I just kind of go "hmmmm". I guess it's possible but I would think the more common scenario is that those food that are much harder to moderate and low in satiety are the main contributors to weight gain - not chicken and brocolli. And those hard to moderate foods are what you would spend points on. I imagine that is why the program is set up that way.
Back when I lost weight on it every food had points and you had to count everything - so it was basically simplified calorie counting.
LOL yeah. When I was on it, we took their bmr test, got a range of points, and had 35 extra weekly plus any exercise points to play with. And it was easier to get all that info free on the internet. 😀
I've definitely seen a few people's accounts of eating healthy but still being overweight...because they ate to much of it.0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
I guess - but whenever someone on here insists that they got obese eating only healthy foods I just kind of go "hmmmm". I guess it's possible but I would think the more common scenario is that those food that are much harder to moderate and low in satiety are the main contributors to weight gain - not chicken and brocolli. And those hard to moderate foods are what you would spend points on. I imagine that is why the program is set up that way.
Back when I lost weight on it every food had points and you had to count everything - so it was basically simplified calorie counting.
While I won't claim "only healthy foods", I for sure got obese eating what most people would call healthy foods as the majority of my diet: Veggies, whole grains, etc. Honestly, it's pretty easy to creep those portions up over a period of years, and to add *lots* of calories via "healthy" add ons (olive oil, full fat dairy, nuts, etc.). We're all different. I feel like sometimes people who got fat eating mostly more processed, less nutrient dense foods, and found nutrient-dense foods super helpful for satiation, are biased in their own kind of way by that experience.
It's hard for me to say which foods were the "main contributors to weight gain" for me, but I will say that it was easy, and still is, for me to eat an entire large roasted cabbage or big head of broccoli in one meal, by myself. Add a generous side of whole wheat pasta, a reasonably calorie-efficient cheese, fruit and nuts for dessert, and that gets to a reasonably high calorie level, without necessarily drenching anything in buckets of oil/fat or something.
I 100% know and acknowledge that it's not true for every other person on the planet, but I absolutely could blow my calorie goal on the WW plans that have the larger lists of free foods, if I treated those as entirely free/unlimited. Those plans would not work for me, but they do work great for some others.
Same. I mean I like and liked cake and ice cream and my MAJOR issues were assorted fats in condiments, but I can absolutely put down a days worth of calories and then some on whole wheat pasta with chicken and broccoli with tomato sauce - with or without the cheese, just MORE over calorie budget with the cheese. And that's just the one meal. Give me freedom to make my own oatmeal + skim milk + dried fruit I would add another 800 calories to my day.1 -
snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
I guess - but whenever someone on here insists that they got obese eating only healthy foods I just kind of go "hmmmm". I guess it's possible but I would think the more common scenario is that those food that are much harder to moderate and low in satiety are the main contributors to weight gain - not chicken and brocolli. And those hard to moderate foods are what you would spend points on. I imagine that is why the program is set up that way.
Back when I lost weight on it every food had points and you had to count everything - so it was basically simplified calorie counting.
Oatmeal. Whole grain bread. Brown Rice. Whole grain pasta. Nuts/nut butters. Avocados. Those are all healthy. They're also high calorie and not particularly high volume. They are not the free foods on WW, no, but people here speaking generally about healthy diets that they got obese on, it's not ww specific.
And WW is not all free points. So you can get your satiating thing and have a whole lot left for other things if you're not also watching those.1 -
wunderkindking wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
I guess - but whenever someone on here insists that they got obese eating only healthy foods I just kind of go "hmmmm". I guess it's possible but I would think the more common scenario is that those food that are much harder to moderate and low in satiety are the main contributors to weight gain - not chicken and brocolli. And those hard to moderate foods are what you would spend points on. I imagine that is why the program is set up that way.
Back when I lost weight on it every food had points and you had to count everything - so it was basically simplified calorie counting.
Oatmeal. Whole grain bread. Brown Rice. Whole grain pasta. Nuts/nut butters. Avocados. Those are all healthy. They're also high calorie and not particularly high volume. They are not the free foods on WW, no, but people here speaking generally about healthy diets that they got obese on, it's not ww specific.
And WW is not all free points. So you can get your satiating thing and have a whole lot left for other things if you're not also watching those.
But they are also super filling/satiating. Idk I have never heard of anyone binge eating oatmeal, whole grain bread and brown rice, I wouldn't consider those foods generally that difficult to moderate, but I could be wrong.
My point was that in general on WW those foods that are free aren't particularly "binge worthy" - I guess there will always be outliers - so yeah that program wouldn't work for them.
Like I said I have never done the "free food" version, when I did it you had to count everything so it was just simplified calorie counting.1 -
wunderkindking wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
I guess - but whenever someone on here insists that they got obese eating only healthy foods I just kind of go "hmmmm". I guess it's possible but I would think the more common scenario is that those food that are much harder to moderate and low in satiety are the main contributors to weight gain - not chicken and brocolli. And those hard to moderate foods are what you would spend points on. I imagine that is why the program is set up that way.
Back when I lost weight on it every food had points and you had to count everything - so it was basically simplified calorie counting.
Oatmeal. Whole grain bread. Brown Rice. Whole grain pasta. Nuts/nut butters. Avocados. Those are all healthy. They're also high calorie and not particularly high volume. They are not the free foods on WW, no, but people here speaking generally about healthy diets that they got obese on, it's not ww specific.
And WW is not all free points. So you can get your satiating thing and have a whole lot left for other things if you're not also watching those.
But they are also super filling/satiating. Idk I have never heard of anyone binge eating oatmeal, whole grain bread and brown rice, I wouldn't consider those foods generally that difficult to moderate, but I could be wrong.
My point was that in general on WW those foods that are free aren't particularly "binge worthy" - I guess there will always be outliers - so yeah that program wouldn't work for them.
Like I said I have never done the "free food" version, when I did it you had to count everything so it was just simplified calorie counting.
They're binge worthy if you're desperate enough for food.
All of those are carbs and I would binge (and have in the loosest sense of the word) on all of them. "Healthy" oatmeal just as easily as "unhealthy" oreo cookies. In fact, *sigh* damn those S'moreos that have come back for a while. Best oreos ever.
The free foods list *are* more satiating foods but it's also sorta counting on intuitive eating now that I think about it. It's gonna work for some but not for others. There's no way in hell I would do as well on that plan as I did on the all points/5 free foods version.
But some have and can and do.
1 -
wunderkindking wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
I guess - but whenever someone on here insists that they got obese eating only healthy foods I just kind of go "hmmmm". I guess it's possible but I would think the more common scenario is that those food that are much harder to moderate and low in satiety are the main contributors to weight gain - not chicken and brocolli. And those hard to moderate foods are what you would spend points on. I imagine that is why the program is set up that way.
Back when I lost weight on it every food had points and you had to count everything - so it was basically simplified calorie counting.
Oatmeal. Whole grain bread. Brown Rice. Whole grain pasta. Nuts/nut butters. Avocados. Those are all healthy. They're also high calorie and not particularly high volume. They are not the free foods on WW, no, but people here speaking generally about healthy diets that they got obese on, it's not ww specific.
And WW is not all free points. So you can get your satiating thing and have a whole lot left for other things if you're not also watching those.
But they are also super filling/satiating. Idk I have never heard of anyone binge eating oatmeal, whole grain bread and brown rice, I wouldn't consider those foods generally that difficult to moderate, but I could be wrong.
My point was that in general on WW those foods that are free aren't particularly "binge worthy" - I guess there will always be outliers - so yeah that program wouldn't work for them.
Like I said I have never done the "free food" version, when I did it you had to count everything so it was just simplified calorie counting.
Also nuts/nut butter?
A cup of walnuts is 800 calories. A CUP. You don't have to binge those to blow through a reasonable calorie amount of them, just go 'they're nuts, they're healthy' and eat.
A tablespoon of PB is a hundred. I absolutely promise you that you combine that PB with some bread I could easily put down 4 sandwiches, each one conservative 600 calories (200 cals on whole grain bread, 4 tbsp of pb) :P Is that a healthy meal. No. Is it crazy? I don't know not me.
PB and an apple? Well the apple is 100. The 8 tablespoons of PB I ate with an apple 'spoon' sure adds up though, and that's a healthy snack WITH DIFFERENT PROPORTIONS.
Avocado? Man, even now I eat a whole one for lunch most days. It's a calorie bomb but it's a decently healthy food and worth it to me (mostly since most of my other fat has been cut as 'eh' to me). You turn it into a tub of guac with other healthy food (it's all veg) and throw it on some toast and yeah I could binge that.
It's all healthy FOOD though.
Also fat+Carbs are clearly my thing, whether it's cake or peanut butter or avocado on toast.4 -
wunderkindking wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
I guess - but whenever someone on here insists that they got obese eating only healthy foods I just kind of go "hmmmm". I guess it's possible but I would think the more common scenario is that those food that are much harder to moderate and low in satiety are the main contributors to weight gain - not chicken and brocolli. And those hard to moderate foods are what you would spend points on. I imagine that is why the program is set up that way.
Back when I lost weight on it every food had points and you had to count everything - so it was basically simplified calorie counting.
Oatmeal. Whole grain bread. Brown Rice. Whole grain pasta. Nuts/nut butters. Avocados. Those are all healthy. They're also high calorie and not particularly high volume. They are not the free foods on WW, no, but people here speaking generally about healthy diets that they got obese on, it's not ww specific.
And WW is not all free points. So you can get your satiating thing and have a whole lot left for other things if you're not also watching those.
But they are also super filling/satiating. Idk I have never heard of anyone binge eating oatmeal, whole grain bread and brown rice, I wouldn't consider those foods generally that difficult to moderate, but I could be wrong.
My point was that in general on WW those foods that are free aren't particularly "binge worthy" - I guess there will always be outliers - so yeah that program wouldn't work for them.
Like I said I have never done the "free food" version, when I did it you had to count everything so it was just simplified calorie counting.
They're binge worthy if you're desperate enough for food.
All of those are carbs and I would binge (and have in the loosest sense of the word) on all of them. "Healthy" oatmeal just as easily as "unhealthy" oreo cookies. In fact, *sigh* damn those S'moreos that have come back for a while. Best oreos ever.
The free foods list *are* more satiating foods but it's also sorta counting on intuitive eating now that I think about it. It's gonna work for some but not for others. There's no way in hell I would do as well on that plan as I did on the all points/5 free foods version.
But some have and can and do.
Off topic but ... I honestly don't get oreos: what is so great about them? People think I am nuts when I say I don't like them. They don't even seem like food to me.
I do admit that I have and sometimes still do eat peanut butter right out of the jar. And those types of items are difficult to manage in a calorie deficit situation - I just can't imagine a healthy weight person eating enough of them on a daily basis to cause obesity to begin with - without the addition of high calorie snacks, desserts, fast food etc.
But again - that is just me there are lots of people who insist that it happens so who am I to argue about it.2 -
wunderkindking wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
I guess - but whenever someone on here insists that they got obese eating only healthy foods I just kind of go "hmmmm". I guess it's possible but I would think the more common scenario is that those food that are much harder to moderate and low in satiety are the main contributors to weight gain - not chicken and brocolli. And those hard to moderate foods are what you would spend points on. I imagine that is why the program is set up that way.
Back when I lost weight on it every food had points and you had to count everything - so it was basically simplified calorie counting.
Oatmeal. Whole grain bread. Brown Rice. Whole grain pasta. Nuts/nut butters. Avocados. Those are all healthy. They're also high calorie and not particularly high volume. They are not the free foods on WW, no, but people here speaking generally about healthy diets that they got obese on, it's not ww specific.
And WW is not all free points. So you can get your satiating thing and have a whole lot left for other things if you're not also watching those.
But they are also super filling/satiating. Idk I have never heard of anyone binge eating oatmeal, whole grain bread and brown rice, I wouldn't consider those foods generally that difficult to moderate, but I could be wrong.
My point was that in general on WW those foods that are free aren't particularly "binge worthy" - I guess there will always be outliers - so yeah that program wouldn't work for them.
Like I said I have never done the "free food" version, when I did it you had to count everything so it was just simplified calorie counting.
Another one who was obese eating mostly healthy food, just too much of it.
I also got to my highest weight without binging. When my binging was at its worst, related to post-partum depression, I was actually a little bit lighter than I am right now. I went to therapy and that helped loads, but I still overate. Not a lot, but enough to keep gaining. But it wasn't binging behavior. I was just eating too much, without really knowing it. And once I started actually measuring how much I ate instead of eyeballing what I thought was reasonable, ta-da! The weight started coming off. It's not always easy - sometimes I want more, because darn it food just tastes really good - but yeah, you can definitely overeat healthy foods, not just "junk."6 -
I recently joined WW and am getting the hang of the concept behind the free foods, I tracked my points against the calories on here and they were actually very close most of the time.
I didnt join for the diet though as I prefer to do CICO, I joined for the accountability at the scales, my motivation comes from standing in front of someone and the desire to lose, not gain.
The face to face meetings haven't started again yet but there are lots and lots of zoom groups and tutorials.
3 -
I think it's important to remember that like losing weight, gaining takes time and can happen with a moderate calorie surplus. Not that I'm arguing with you, I just think people just think it's harder than it is.
You need 500 calories extra a day to gain a pound a week. I took probably a decade to get from healthy weight to obese - and just barely into the category of obesity at that (3lbs into it, in fact).
That's 520 weeks.
The space between just barely healthy weight to obese for my height is 36 lbs.
36*3500 (pound of fat) is 126,000
126000/520 (weeks in 10 years) is 243 (rounded up).
243 is the amount of calorie surplus I needed in a given day to gain weight to obese. Now, my calories to maintain went up too, meaning I was in fact eating steadily more calories -every 10lbs adds 100 calories to maintain, but again, the difference between healthy and obese for a 5'5" woman is 36lbs.
So from healthy weight to obese weight to maintain I added 360 calories total. Since it took ten years that's adding an additional 36 calories a year to maintain.
TL:DR? Probably an extra 300 calories a day. That's basically toast with butter. Or an apple and actually reasonable amount of PB. a quarter cup of walnuts and an apple.
Or, well, in my case a lifestyle change from lots of walking (lightly active/maybe more) to a desk job (sedentary) and busy with little kids.
I absolutely am sure some people gain more and more quickly but again - that isn't always the case. Sometimes the problem is a sustained small overage and a steady, but not alarming, gain. In truth I probably didn't tip into obese until covid when my activity dropped MORE. I'm also not going to pretend I didn't have a problem with dietary fat and a weird relationship with 'junk' food. Mostly though I just had a long time with a slight calorie surplus that stayed a slight calorie surplus long enough to add up.8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions