harr wrote: » I know where you are coming from but people need to start some where and its there own fault if they don't use ww as a stepping stone to learning more about nutrition and what food they put into there body's,i stopped counting points because i did not need to count any more as i knew what foods were good and bad for me.
I was a year counting points while i was tending ww,but i still managed to stay slim and healthy for nearly 3 years without counting points.The main reason i put on weight on was me acting stupid with food and not been able to use the gym.
Davei141 wrote: » Its very irritating also knowing the abysmal success rate they always jump out of the WW megathread to recruit in droves yet are never seen on any thread with proper advice.
Tremelo wrote: » With the greatest of respect, I think this is where you and misslt are dead wrong. You will learn next to nothing from WW about nutrition. If you're using it as a first step, it's a step to ruin. Take the first step elsewhere. Millions have taken the WW path and it has failed 90% of them.
Gracie2112 wrote: » the programme works if you follow it and you really must follow it if you want results! as my leader always says it all comes down to "how badly do you wanna lose the weight?" i joined 11weeks ago, and i've lost a stone so far! some weeks are really hard - like easter, christmas, birthdays and going on holidays (the hardest!) get out and walk if no time for gym or exercise ive found that it really helps, just have to commit to it really! (by the way... if you have books and stuff from the old programme throw them away!!pro points is the new and IMPROVED programme, you just have to follow it!) - also, fruit veg and salad are all ZERO points
Frogdog wrote: » Can I ask a question on this? If I eat 3,000 calories of fruit, veg and salad every day, but only burn 2,500 calories every day, I'm guessing that because they're all "ZERO points", that I'll still lose weight? Is that what Weight Watchers teaches?
Monife wrote: » No. WW says you should stop eating fruit (and any other type of food) when you are satisfied. They say you should and can eat the recommended 5-8 portions of fruit and veg a day. They say if you go over that amount of fruit in a day you should then count in your points allowance.
Frogdog wrote: » Thanks for your answer Monife. but what I'm getting at is this: What if I ate 5-8 bananas (which are quite calorie dense for fruit and for their size) for example, that could be quite a lot of calories (at least 500+ to 800+), but 0 points??? I don't understand their logic that some foods are the same number of points cost as others (in this case 0 points), despite there being huge differences in the calorie content. And at the end of the day, the person is trying to lose weight so calories should be the primary consideration, in my opinion.
Frogdog wrote: » I don't understand their logic that some foods are the same number of points cost as others (in this case 0 points), despite there being huge differences in the calorie content. And at the end of the day, the person is trying to lose weight so calories should be the primary consideration, in my opinion.
time42play wrote: » It took me decades to figure it out, but I *finally* learned that calories are more important than some arbitrary "points" formula. I've lost to my goal weight FIVE times on WW over the last 30 years. Obviously put back everything I'd lost plus more every single time. They have a sort-of maintenance where you add points week by week and stop when your weight stabilises, and that is your maintenance points. BUT it assumes you're counting points for the rest of your life!! The last couple of times I got to goal, I wasn't even given the literature to work out the maintenance points, which I thought was incredibly mean considering the points had changed. Once upon a time I was even a WW leader, and that was the longest stretch of time I ever maintained at my goal (a little over 3 years). It was a huge struggle and I was constantly hungry. We preached high carb, low fat and while I know it works for some people I've finally learned that I'm not one of them. Apparently it's now slightly different but I've given them way too much money over the years to fall for it again. The last time I did WW, I started to calculate points using ONLY the calorie value of a food and ignoring the fat. It was only their mechanism to force you to eat low-fat, or penalise you for choosing something that wasn't, and made no difference to losing weight. It was a short step from there to ignoring WW points and using calories alone. I love my Atkins/paleo sort-of diet, and feel like I can easily eat this way forever. I am never hungry, though I don't eat a lot of calories, and am not obsessed with food like I was on WW. I can still remember spending most of my days looking at food and calculating what else I could have that day - I never think about food until doing groceries or when it's time to eat now. WW can help you lose weight, in the end it does restrict calories if you do it properly, and if you get a good leader they can be very motivating (unlike one woman in Raheny years ago who was a miserable bitch and put me off ever going back there). But as so many others have pointed out, maintaining is really the name of the game and based on my past experiences I don't think WW is much help in that.
Tremelo wrote: » That sounds like a plan Just remember, the body can typically only metabolise 30g of protein per meal. So eating more than this per meal is ineffectual. The key thing is fat. Fat + protein is a great combination. You'll get both from beef, chicken, pork, lamb, oily fish, nuts, flax, butter, and seeds. Once you avoid processed food and low fat food*, and once you derive your carbs from lots of fruit and veg, you're well on the road to long-term success and well-being. *low fat food is just full of sugar which creates an insulin spike in your body causing you store fat and crave even more sugar.
shadowcomplex wrote: » This is not true, you say the body as if every persons body is the same, a 14 stone man will be able to metabolise more protein per meal then say a 9 stone women
aspie mum wrote: » The new pro points system is based on new research in diet and nutrition and is based on how the body breaks down food and procees it..
Tremelo wrote: » Does WW reward low fat eating out of curiosity?
Monife wrote: » Anyone with a bit of common sense would know to read the labels on foods and know that one with a long, dodgy looking ingredient list is not going to be good for you.
Tremelo wrote: » It is sometimes necessary to speak in generalisations (which is why the RDA is 2,500 calories, though of course this varies wildly). Regardless, the vast majority of people would struggle to metabolise much more than 30g per sitting. If you consume 100g of protein in one sitting for muscle growth purposes, most of it gets wasted or is used for purposes other than muscle growth.
donegalgirl28 wrote: » You can still have a ready meal, chocolates using your daily "syn" aka sins allowance.
donegalgirl28 wrote: » I can eat 4 packets of Snax a day on this plan and still lose weight.
donegalgirl28 wrote: » I can eat 4 packets of Snax a day on this plan and still lose weight. SW has been around for 40 plus years and is used by the NHS in England.
El_Dangeroso wrote: » This is the problem with weight watchers and slimming world summed up in one sentence.
pecker1992 wrote: » The fact that you just said ''i can eat 4 packets of snax a day'' is shocking.....if you dont eat nutritious food and think some gimmick like sw or ww is going to help you in the long run you are very much mistaken..how do you think these companies make money???? because there plans dont work!!!! all their foods are packed with carbs & marketed as ''low fat'' when in fact there even worse than their full fat counterparts........