If you're a lurker on boards kashmir you'll know that that kind of attitude isn't regarded very highly here. rubadub is merely pointing out some potential flaws within the WW system, and while he could probably do with being a little less forceful in his views, signing up to the board with the specific intention of personally attacking another poster isn't on.

Please be more courteous in future, and attack the post, not the poster.

kashmir Registered User

God no, I am not "attacking" at all. I signed up because I was interested in the thread on WW points. I was just making the point that some people were looking for genuine advise from other more experienced people following the weightwatchers programme and people who don't really know all the facts shouldn't be making statements that are not true. That kind of thing shouldn't be very highly regarded here either.


Good stuff, and I hope you continue to post - a supportive community is exactly what boads is here to host!

You have a very good point though in that this is a thread about WW points so can we keep discussions OT? Thanks all.

seaner Registered User

I did WW's a year or so ago. And I was really focused and lost the weight. But like anything if you don't keep it up it won't last. I slipped back into my old ways....and slowly regained SOME of the weight. I did enjoy WW's I have to say. Even though our leader was a bit OTT sometimes.
But one thing I don't like about it is that even though you're 'advised' to eat healthily you can easily continue with the WW's points plan, eat crap and lose weight. I don't think this is a good plan for anyone.

So its really easy not to think of it as a lifestyle change, when losing weight really should be. And there were plenty of weeks (it took me about 3 months to lose the weight) when I stayed to my points religiously, exercised and didn't lose anything. The leader would always say the same thing to me 'oh you're probably retaining water at the moment' cuz she had so good reason why I didn't lose.

Anyway I'm not saying WW's is bad, actually I think its a great starting point for anyone wanting to lose weight.

I have to say though I really loathed the WW's foods. They are really so horrible, so full of sugar that when the leader would harp on about the latest frozen meal and how yummy it was , it really dawned on me that WW's is a business. And I guess that aspect of it left a bad taste in my mouth.

Suzywuzy Registered User

angeldelight said:
Anyway this thread has been a bit hijacked, back to actual WW points values and stuff... is there anything in particular anyone finds a good filling snack that's low in points? I love home made 0 point soup with 5 Carrs water biscuits for 1pt, yummy and really filling lunch

Yeah, I made a lovely Low Point home made soup last Monday evening ... 3 tinned tomatos, 1 red pepper, 1 green pepper, 2 onions, 2 cloves of garlic and a dash of Tabasco sauce ... was mainly experimenting and didn't honestly think it was gonna turn out overly nice ... not that I know what it turned out like !!! My Dad (who's on a diet too but not following the WW programme and is always making fun of it !!!) decided to help himself to it while I was at work the past few days (he works shift work) and said it was "a quare mean soup !!!" Haha. Must make it again, only took 10 minutes and it looked nice !!!

rubadub Registered User

kashmir said:
All I'd like to say is - what is your problem Rubadub? have you been gravely wounded by the WW organisation or someone who promotes it?

No, I have just seen people attempt to loosely follow it, without going to meetings. I expect some lurkers might have read this thread and not know there was so many points systems, UK, US, German, French. Some lurkers might be loosely following the points system oblivious to these differences.

Seaner HAD gone to meetings, seems to have a few WW books and had never heard of this difference. All I am saying is watch out when calculating portions, this thread could have been "how many calories in?" and I would have given the same advice.

I have some other issues with WW that might interest some, Seaner mentioned a few, but some of the other posters already showed up a few issues, probably oblivious to them being an actual thing to be careful of. I think it should be another thread, and not just about WW, I have pointed out the flaws in calorie counting in other threads.

kashmir said:
people who don't really know all the facts shouldn't be making statements that are not true.

Such as? Are you only referring to me quoting a big mac in US points, or something else?

kashmir Registered User

Ok, Rubadub, I kinda understand a bit more were you are coming from. It's just that I was presuming that most people joining a thread on WW points were following the WW programme and realise that points have to be calculated out properly taking into account the calories and saturated fat per 100g or whatever and then pro-rata it to the size of the portion they are going to eat. (The way points are calculated is actually a scientific formula that has been patented by the WW organisation.) The only time you have to get advice on approx values is on items that don't outline this info and obviously when eating out. As someone else pointed out its only a guide so that we can all live in the real world and do "normal" things and not be tied to the calculator, scales & kitchen. My advice to anyone starting out on the Programme is not to go out to eat for a couple of weeks until they get used to portion sizes lower fat foods etc.

I'll not presume in future. Thanks.

robdcu Guest

Just wondering what aree the points like for Alcohol??

Some i would be interested in is

Red Bull(mixer)


rubadub Registered User

Redbull will have the calories on the can, easy to calculate. Alcohols are a different story, many online guides showing calories are wrong. I would guess many WW points estimates could be based on these incorrect figures.

From Bulmers own site

Calorie Content of Bulmers / Magners

37 100ML
122 330 ML
210 PINT

Calorie Content of Bulmers Light

28 100ML
86 330 ML
130 PINT

The bulmers light calories are all different, none of the figures agree so it is impossible to tell which is right, i.e. it is not like 2 figures are right with one typo. A pint is 568ml. The normal bulmers adds up, I would have guessed it was higher though, due to the high sugar content. Guinness is one of the lowest in calories/points per unit alcohol for a beer.

Faith Mary Berry is my idol

Merged with the big thread.

seaner Registered User

from what I remember, light beers are 1 point.
Normal beers are 1.5 points (and I'm talking 330ml).
But when I was on the WW's I switched to drinking spirits with a diet mixer rather than beers. Cuz I don't like the taste of bulmers light (1PT) and Bud Light is just muck.
So if I'd continued drinking my favourite drink (miller) I could have maybe 6 drinks during the night.....that 9Pts total. Whereas with the vodka diet coke, that was 6 points!
Made a difference to me anyway.

But I was always confused on the alchohol situation, cuz one leader told me a bottle of Coors light was 1 point, and another told me it wasn't lighter in calories at all and was 1.5 pts.

I never knew that about Guinness!

rubadub Registered User

if you are going to use the WW points for booze then it is best to get the calories from the bottle if available. A normal pint of beer is usually 200kcal, a guinness is around 180kcal and a stronger beer is 220kcal. There will be no fat in most alcohol (expect weird liquers or cocktails with cream). Your calories and hence points come from 3 main sources, the alcohol, the sugar, the proteins. The alcohol is the big one, a 80% unsweetened vodka will have twice the calories as a 40% one. BUT a 8% beer could have less than twice the caloires as a lite beer of 4%. The proteins and other stuff are pretty minimal.

Alcohol is made by fermenting sugars, if you ferment them all out then it is left with no sugar so is not sweet, it is dry. Pilsner beers are usually brewed to completion and strong in alcohol and low in sugar. Lite beers are also brewed to completion but quite low in alcohol. So if you goal is to drink 6 beers no matter what, stick with lites, if you goal is to get to a certain tipsiness, then you might be better with the strong pilsner beers, they often have less calories per
% alcohol. Also being stronger they hit you more so you get drunk faster, even though you could have drank the same units of alcohol.

Also diet mixers have sweetners and studies show these increase absorption rate. So the most low cal/point method to fail a breathalyzer test would be to drink vodka & diet coke on an empty stomach really quick.

The rounding of WW points causes confusion, as Seaner showed.
Using this calculator for pints http://www.sublogic.com/points/uk/
Guinness, say 180kcal is 2.57 rounded to 3
Heineken, say 200kcal is 2.86 rounded to 3
A strong german beer, say 240kcal is 3.43 rounded to 3

Rounding to halves solves some of this obvious problem. But you should really go to 1 or 2 decimals, especially if you are going to be drinking loads. If you KNOW guinness is 180kcal and you are going to drink 8 pints, then multiply it up and put it in the calculator.

Coors light is 4.2% miller draught is 4.7%, there would only be a slight bit more calories/points in the miller, but by rounding 1 and 1.5 you have essentially said there is 50% more points in the miller, which is not true.

For a variety of everyday foods/drinks these rounded points will hopefully balance themselves out, it is when you go drinking 10 bottles or eating 10 portions of an item that it adds up.

If I went for a 2500kcal (~36 points) per day diet but stuff I ate happened to be estimated or rounded in such a way that I ate on average 5% too much, then I can expect to put on about 1 stone (14lb) of fat per year.

I would reckon I drink 50+ points worth of booze per week, so if I went by seaners 1.5 vs 1 point estimates in choosing my beer I could easily get that 5% difference.

Alcohol calories are overestimated for human consumption anyway, but thats a whole other thread!

angeldelight Registered User

If you're following WW, trust them and believe them when they tell you the points rather than second guessing and trying to disprove the system then a single vodka is 1pt, red bull for the can is 1.5, the sugar-free one is 0 points though. A bottle of bulmers light is 1pt, small bottle bulmers is 1pt and a pint is 3. Again these are the values I've always used for the past 6 months and have only had 3 weeks in that time where I haven't had a loss so I trust them

rubadub Registered User

angeldelight said:
If you're following WW, trust them and believe them when they tell you the points rather than second guessing and trying to disprove the system

What is wrong with double checking their calculations? And knowing where the points come from. Seaner was genuinely confused about the points in the beer, you say trust WW, well 2 WW leaders told him 2 different things, what is wrong with figuring out which is correct? If you ate 10 fish fingers would you want the points of 1 and multiply it by 10, or do you thing it would be better to get the points of 10?

angeldelight said:
Again these are the values I've always used for the past 6 months and have only had 3 weeks in that time where I haven't had a loss so I trust them

And I gave the reason why this would be in my post.

I dunno what sort of vested interest you think I have, as I said before I would give the exact same advice if people were calorie counting.

angeldelight said:
A bottle of bulmers light is 1pt, small bottle bulmers is 1pt and a pint is 3.
I would drink 8 pints in a night, so if I drink pint of bulmers that is 24 points (3x8). 8 pints is 8x568ml=4544ml, a small bottle is 330ml, so 13.77 bottles in 8 pints. But you say a bottle is only 1 points, so that is 14points in bottles vs 24 points in pints.

My sister loosely follows points, she would drink 16 baileys over the weekend over 2 nights, do you know how many points are in that?

angeldelight Registered User

The reason I said
"If you're following WW, trust them and believe them when they tell you the points rather than second guessing and trying to disprove the system"
is becuase that's what I do, hence I was qualifying my answer so if someone chose to believe me they'll know where I'm coming from.
Same as "Again these are the values I've always used for the past 6 months and have only had 3 weeks in that time where I haven't had a loss so I trust them"

I was giving the answers from the WW site, not biased by any leaders' misunderstandings or mistake. This thread is supposed to be a helpful resource for people on WW... fair enough answer with the calories and unofficial points calculations if you like but can we stop pulling it off topic with personal disagreements?? I don't know/care what agenda you do/don't have. I'm answering peoples questions with the official answer and if they don't want to read that but instead choose to do it your way, great whatever works for that person.

And yes 1 baileys is 2 points, 16 is 28 points... I can change all the portion sizes

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!