Calories or points plus weight watchers

daisygirl1550 · January 2022

I'm debating which one to do. Weight watcher points plus counts carbs, fiber, protein but not calories & don't track fruit or veggie

SuzySunshine99 · January 2022

Because you're posting this on a calorie-counting community site, I think your poll results might be a bit skewed.

Counting calories is free. Logging on MFP also allows you to count carbs, fiber, protein, etc...for free.

Calories are an actual unit of measurement, not a "point" that means nothing outside the world of WW.

"Points" penalize you for eating things like carbs and sugar...calories, again, are just a unit of measurement. A 200 calorie cookie takes the same dent out of your daily budget as a 200 calorie banana.

Counting calories teaches you that ALL foods have calories, even fruits and vegetables. Whether you count them or not, your body certainly does.

Understanding that weight management is all about calories is important for long-term success. If you can learn to balance the foods you like to eat, while staying within a calorie limit, then you win the game.

sbelletti · January 2022

Calories

Choose the plan you are most likely to stick with and that provides results.

Personally, I wouldn't pay for something I can get for free. And I wouldn't choose a plan that doesn't require me to know how many calories I'm eating if creating a calorie deficit is important.

daisygirl1550 · January 2022

That's why I'm pondering. Because they are basically saying calories don't count an apple isn't equal to a candy bar even if same calories.

My friends on low carb prove this as well. They eat well over their calories they should be eating a day but since low carb they consistently lose weight. I also listening to a Dr who discusses fasting and it not how much you eat but when and eating less calories lowers metabolism.

So I'm trying to make right decision but everyone is contradicting each other.

yirara · January 2022

daisygirl1550 wrote: »

That's why I'm pondering. Because they are basically saying calories don't count an apple isn't equal to a candy bar even if same calories.

My friends on low carb prove this as well. They eat well over their calories they should be eating a day but since low carb they consistently lose weight. I also listening to a Dr who discusses fasting and it not how much you eat but when and eating less calories lowers metabolism.

So I'm trying to make right decision but everyone is contradicting each other.

I'm sorry, your friend is either not counting calories correctly or is not telling the whole truth. There is no food at all that results in magic weight loss. Yes, eating less carbs leads to a reduction in water weight as glycogen attracts water. But this is only temporary and initial. Eat more carbs and the water weight is back. Continue doing this and you won't be losing more water. You can lose weight eating nothing but candy, as long as it's less calories than your body burns. Likewise, if you eat nothing but apples (or meat) but more calories than your body needs you will gain weight. Btw, an apple is largely carbs.

It depends a lot also on how you eat. I could eat nothing but free foods as it's naturally how I eat. I would gain weight on weight watchers but never reach my points for the day.

jdafoe80 · January 2022

So I am using calories and a backup to WW. I LOVE the community in WW and the weekly topics help keep me engaged in my weight loss journey. Also it helps me with my relationship with food. That is why I think paying for WW is worth it. That being said.....I am more successful at weight loss when I count calories and ensure I am in a calorie deficit for the week.

I think no matter the approach you use, points, calorie counting, fasting, beachbody portion fix, etc. You need to be in calorie deficit to lose weight.

sijomial · January 2022

" Because they are basically saying calories don't count an apple isn't equal to a candy bar even if same calories. "
Nutritionally they aren't equal but calories are simply a uniform unit of measurement like an inch or a mile. People who conflate food and calories as though the terms are interchangable are at best confused.

"My friends on low carb prove this as well. They eat well over their calories they should be eating a day but since low carb they consistently lose weight."
Your friends must be a medical and scientific marvel. Unless they are in a metabolic chamber having controlled measured calorie intake their anecdote proves nothing but wishful thinking is common.
You probably remember from school science that energy can neither be created or destroyed. Beware people using miraculous changes in metabolism or hormones (without actually presenting any evidence or measurement) to explain energy gaps.

"I also listening to a Dr who discusses fasting and it not how much you eat but when and eating less calories lowers metabolism. "
Beware there are loads of con artists who have decided to make a lot of money by convincing overweight people it's not their fault or responsibility they got fat and they don't have to reduce their food intake to get slim again.
Some of those con artists are indeed Doctors (but not specialists in diet). There's even a high profile one who calls himself "Dr" but is in fact a chiropractor.
If these methods that false prophets who claim to uncover some diet secret result in a prolonged calorie deficit you will lose fat. But that no more validates their sales pitch than rubbing your stomach and patting your head (while eating in a deficit) works, or baying at the moon (while eating in a calorie deficit) works.
If something appears to be too good to be true it normally is.
if someone tells you a secret it really isn't.

"So I'm trying to make right decision but everyone is contradicting each other."
It is worth checking out some of these weird and wonderful sources - if someone says they have discovered a new or secret method do look for the science and also opposing views. Check their qualifications - relevant to the subject or indicating a strange career move?
You will notice quite a few of these prophets churning out loads of content to get more traffic to their sites, often talking very convincingly (with a whiteboard and using vaguely sciency sounding terms) about things they have no real knowledge or experience of.

As for the WW vs MFP choice.
I think WW can have some benefit for people who need or want help improving the quality of their diet but personally I don't see why that can't happen while actually counting calories as well. I'm sure that there are many people who will lose weight simply because thinking about their food choices (or timing of eating / not eating) results in a drop in their intake. I happened to get fat eating almost exclusively good home-cooked food, didn't eat badly - just too much. (Got slim again eating the same foods, just less of them for a time.)
The social aspect of WW and accountability also appeals to some.

springlering62 · January 2022

Speaking for myself, which is the only thing I can do, early on WW might have worked for me. I seldom ate fruit and veg, so being penalized for not doing so might have encouraged me to eat more.

However, nowadays I eat a shedload of fruit and veg- many hundred calories per day (this week notwithstanding- I’m out of state but still have ample fruit and veg in my diary, just less than usual). Most days I eat a mixing bowl sized salad that is easily 150 calories of veg before I start adding meat and roasted edamame. And that’s just lunch.

I can easily eat my weight in fruit every day. Fruit is lower cal and nutritionally better for me, but in quantity it would kill me on WW.

So your initial and follow up choices might depend on your eating style.

I do think, though, that feeling “penalized” for eating foods other than “free” foods might have made my pigheadedness kick in and caused me to specifically eat those foods. Having the option to eat them or not while still counting calories was very liberating for me and made me begin thinking “I can have two cookies or I can have a giant bowl of cottage cheese and fruit for the same calories”. That alone caused me to start making better choices from the get-go.

I am very much a quantity nosher and CICO lends itself to that, imho.

AnnPT77 · January 2022

Calories

Ooops, duplicate post - network problem.

AnnPT77 · January 2022

Calories

daisygirl1550 wrote: »

That's why I'm pondering. Because they are basically saying calories don't count an apple isn't equal to a candy bar even if same calories.

My friends on low carb prove this as well. They eat well over their calories they should be eating a day but since low carb they consistently lose weight. I also listening to a Dr who discusses fasting and it not how much you eat but when and eating less calories lowers metabolism.

So I'm trying to make right decision but everyone is contradicting each other.

An apple and a candy bar aren't the same food, so of course they have different characteristics. Calories are just one characteristic, nutritional content is another, along with some things that might be relevant in food choice like cost, practicality of buying/cooking, and some that are mostly irrelevant like color.

It's just confused to say calories don't count because foods differ on other characteristics. It's like saying that a meters or yards don't mean anything because walking through 50 yards of muddy swampland is different from walking over 50 yards of nice paved sidewalk.

Calories are the energy content of food: That's all. Calories are what determines weight gain/loss/maintenance.

Nutrition is important. Satiation is important. Those things aren't calories.

In most situations, we'd say an apple is more nutritious than a candy bar of the same calories. (However, if an athlete is running a marathon, and running out of energy, a candy bar would be much the much choice in that moment for that person! Context matters.) In most cases, an apple is also more filling (sating). When limiting calories, apples may be a better choice than a candy bar in most cases (not always).

The thing your friends think they've proven about carbs has been tested time and again under strict research conditions, and found untrue, as long as protein content of both the high and low carb diets is constant.

Yes, low carb eaters will tend to drop some water weight at first when reducing carbs. It's not fat, so who cares, really? Some people find that foods they call "carbs"** aren't filling, cause them to crave more food: Those people may get better results when reducing carbs. I lost fine, eating lots of carbs, close to half my daily calories most days, most of them from veggies/fruits/grain/dairy.

** (Some people define "carbs" inaccurately. An apple is mostly carbs. A candy bar is often a combination of carbs and fats, as are cookies, donuts, etc. For many people, it's that carbs/fat combination that's extra enticing.)

Same deal with fasting: Various diet gurus claim it has amazing benefits. Strictly controlled research doesn't see those benefits. Some regular humans find that fasting makes it easier for them personally to limit calories, so it makes sense for those people to use reasonable fasting techniques as part of their weight-management approach. Fasting is not universally necessary or even helpful for everyone, in order to lose weight.

(The only time I fasted during weight loss was during colonoscopy prep, or before fasting blood tests. That was only a few days, here and there, during loss. The rest of the time I ate from soon after getting out of bed to shortly before going to bed again. I lost weight just fine, have maintained a healthy weight fine, no fasting.)

Use whichever of WW or MFP better helps you lose weight. (Some people use both.)

If reducing carbs helps you lose weight (past that initial meaningless water weight drop), such as by reducing your appetite/cravings, then reduce carbs. If it doesn't help you, it's a pointless additional restriction to struggle with.

If fasting helps you lose weight, by limiting when you eat or maybe because you personally do better with bigger but fewer meals, then fast (within reason). If it doesn't help you, it's a pointless additional restriction to struggle with.

You don't have to count calories to lose weight. But you do have to reduce your calorie intake below your calorie expenditure. Counting the calories just makes that process explicit. (I like that.)

And counting the calories doesn't stop you from working on eating more nutritiously, eating more veggies, etc., if you want to do that. I'd rather balance calories and nutrition, than juggle points and red/green/yellow food categories, or however WW is judging foods these days. But that's just me.

SModa61 · January 2022

Full disclosure, I did not read the other responses prior to starting to type this, so here I go:

Obviously I am on MFP, but I began my serious WW journey a week before 911, so early september 2001. After getting to my, then, goal, I became staff for WW and worked in the meeting rooms for 12 year. Those last years I was working up to 10 meetings a week, with some meetings have 100 members. I've been around WW a bit.

Anyhow, I loved when WW first came out with the point system. It became a simple way to keep track of your intake, and it did encourage making healthier choices. Then came the next system, and the next and the next. As staff, I had trouble continuing to represent the program and support the members. What were my issues? For me it was becoming too limiting and punitive. On the earlier plans, I had no problem taking care of myself WHILE feeding my family the same. In the later plans, WW called itself more "freeing" because of all the zero point foods, beans, chicken breast, eggs, etc. But everything else that was not part of the new free items, had a greater cost. So I could eat a pound of chicken breast but having skinless chicken thighs instead ate up a disproportionate percentage of my daily points. I would then get told to make the rest of my day contain free items so I can have the chicken breasts. Well before they changed the program, my weight was great (I was at maintenance) and I ate chicken thighs healthfully. i am married to a man that does not eat chicken breast, and hates beans. If I used 100 calories of butter, than "cost" more than the 100 calories of olive oil. The day that put me over the edge was the day that I ate one 210 calorie cookie, and it used up half my daily points because of the sugar and butter in it. In what system should 210 calories represent half my food for the day. Anyhow, they must have gotten blowback because last I saw you can "choose" your plan out of three options.

Anyhow, IMM by using a system like MFP (I'm sure there are other similar options) I think you also get the opportunity to learn and be informed about your choices and you can make it your own.

Even though I was still going to meeting (free since I was at goal) to maintain friendships, I was not following the program. COVID was my opportunity to sever ties without guilt. I am never going back.

I am confident, others will have given differing advice, and none is wrong. Hopefully from all our insights you will be able to determine what works best for you.

PS I also found hypocritical when we were told we could not refer to zero point foods as "free". WW's position were that they were not "free" and one was to eat only until satiety and count that as zero. If I had a satiety off switch, I personally would not need WW or MFP. I need the equivalent of a checkbook where I can see the impact my dietary choices make on my nutritional "budget".

callsitlikeiseeit · January 2022

Calories

daisygirl1550 wrote: »

That's why I'm pondering. Because they are basically saying calories don't count an apple isn't equal to a candy bar even if same calories.

My friends on low carb prove this as well. They eat well over their calories they should be eating a day but since low carb they consistently lose weight. I also listening to a Dr who discusses fasting and it not how much you eat but when and eating less calories lowers metabolism.

So I'm trying to make right decision but everyone is contradicting each other.

thats not how any of this works. i dont care if you are eating carrots and grass, if you are eating more calories than your body needs, you will gain weight. doesn't matter if its a candy bar, apples, or lettuce, or steak.

if WHEN you ate affected weight loss, I never would have lost the 200+ pounds I did, as I tend to eat my dinner immediately before bed. And then i get in bed and have my bedtime cookies. I sleep better on a full stomach. And what about people who work swing shifts and their meal timing varies WIDELY on a week to week or even day to day basis? Plenty of them on here who have lost weigh successfully as well.

Stop trying to follow a fad and try good, old fashioned calorie counting. Learn how to weigh and log your food ACCURATELY. on a food scale. ALL your food. Fruits and veg, too. Be honest in your logging. Don't overestimate your exercise calories or activity level. THAT is how you lose weight AND learn to keep it off, which is what is important.

amfmmama · January 2022

Calories

Hi! I have spent way too much time on this very question. I have been down the rabbit hole and back on youtube. I did WW years ago, and I have done MFP. I had success on both. However, the WW I did was very different than the one today. At the end of the day, I am going with MFP. 1. It's free 2. It's less restrictive. 3. It is where I have see success for myself most recently.

Another big plus with WW used to be the community. There thousands of sites you could get recipes with point information, now it is different for everyone, that perk is out the window, but you can find tons of great sites that will give you your calories, or even your macros if that is what you want. I also have always relied heavily on the information that I get from this community board.

Either way you go, I do suggest you check out Skinnytaste.com She is awesome and provides information for both.

I recently did Keto, while doing macros, and I lost weight, but I was hungry. You may lose weight, but it is restrictive. Personally, did not see my self maintaining. I finished my 6 week challenge, and decided it was not for me.

Good Luck! I am starting all over again... but I am back and looking forward to feeling better. Feel free to add me if you decide to go MFP.

springlering62 · January 2022

amfmmama wrote: »

I recently did Keto, while doing macros, and I lost weight, but I was hungry. You may lose weight, but it is restrictive. Personally, did not see my self maintaining. I finished my 6 week challenge, and decided it was not for me.

How refreshing for someone to admit they tried something -particularly keto - for the whole plan term, decided it didn’t work for them, and to carry on with something else that may.

You didn’t quit. You just evaluated, shrugged, and kept on keeping on.

Good for you!

I will now don hard hat for the keto fans to throw stones.

And btw @AnnPT77 often states she became Class 1 obese while having been vegan for forty years.

Overeating anything causes gain. I

could happily eat fruit and roasted edamame alllll day long and ya’d think because it’s classified by so many as “good” I’d never gain weight. Nah. Sadly, untrue.

cwolfman13 · January 2022

I'm not sure how you can track carbs and fiber and not track fruits or vegetables...they are carbs and fiber.

Your friends aren't eating well over their calorie needs with low carb and losing weight...because that is biologically impossible. If they're eating a lot of veg and fruit, it is likely they are eating a high volume of food, which doesn't necessarily mean a high number of calories.

WW points have no correlation to calorie content. They inflate points on some foods and deflate other foods and have free foods. The inflated points on "bad" foods make up for the deflation elsewhere. There is zero correlation to actual calories in something. A calorie is just a uniform measurement like an inch or a mile or a watt or whatever.

springlering62 · February 2022

You might be interested in the Volume Eating thread. It made me totally rethink some things.

I now eat massive salads for lunch three or four days a week, and look for foods that don’t punch a lot of calorie weight in large quantities - chicken breast, sirloin tip steak, roasted vegetables, a sack of crunchy finger-vegetables for my front desk volunteer gig, I even bought a case of Oreo candy canes. At 45 calories a pop, they can be volume if I need them to be. 😂 but one is usually enough.

This is the thread I found my beloved yogurt pudding on. Best of all worlds: delicious, protein packed, low cal, rings the dessert bells…..

I suggest going back to page 1 (I can’t get there easily via the app)

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10563959/volume-eaters-thread

lo2lu2a · March 2022

yirara wrote: »

daisygirl1550 wrote: »

That's why I'm pondering. Because they are basically saying calories don't count an apple isn't equal to a candy bar even if same calories.

My friends on low carb prove this as well. They eat well over their calories they should be eating a day but since low carb they consistently lose weight. I also listening to a Dr who discusses fasting and it not how much you eat but when and eating less calories lowers metabolism.

So I'm trying to make right decision but everyone is contradicting each other.

I'm sorry, your friend is either not counting calories correctly or is not telling the whole truth. There is no food at all that results in magic weight loss. Yes, eating less carbs leads to a reduction in water weight as glycogen attracts water. But this is only temporary and initial. Eat more carbs and the water weight is back. Continue doing this and you won't be losing more water. You can lose weight eating nothing but candy, as long as it's less calories than your body burns. Likewise, if you eat nothing but apples (or meat) but more calories than your body needs you will gain weight. Btw, an apple is largely carbs.

It depends a lot also on how you eat. I could eat nothing but free foods as it's naturally how I eat. I would gain weight on weight watchers but never reach my points for the day.

I was comparing WW to MFP and loved your reply. I feel the same way... WW's commercialization is intended to keep people dependent on their latest 'model'. MFP is the real deal - calories & macros ... no over-complication needed

Calories or points plus weight watchers

Calories or points plus weight watchers 28 votes

Replies

Categories