How many Weight Watchers points in ... ?-PLEASE USE MAIN STICKY THREAD

Depression.... I have been SO good this week foodwise and was carrying a lot of extra points but I only lost 1 point... So disappointed. I didnt do much exercise though.. Had lost 5 lbs the week before.

Hi

How did you get on tonight?? 6lbs in 2 weeks...

Hope it went well for you.

SS

DizzyDieter wrote: »

Kung Po as it is a tomato based sauce with chicken and veg!

In my local chinese I used to get Kung Po because of the cashews in it. I would guess there were 50g of cashews in each portion, so about 300kcal from them alone. Dunno if this calculator is accurate, but that comes out at 8 points for the nuts in the meal alone. Then comes the massive portion of rice and chicken and oil it is all fryed in. A 5 1/2 point estimate for my Kung Po is way off, from that calculator I would be guessing it would be close to 30.

Here is a thread about other takeaways food calories

Next time you get a chinese just weigh out the tubs before eating, then weigh the empties. My meal in that thread was over 1070g which is over 3 times the wieght of a typical WW ready meal. The chicken balls, curry sauce & chips I used to get looks to be around 60 WW points, yes sixty, maybe 70.

Another calculator here seems in agreement too. http://www.weight-watcher-recipe.com/latest/weight-watchers-point-calculator.html

angeldelight wrote: »

This site is a godsend for anyone doing WW and eating out - it's a UK based thing though so some of the stuff doesn't translate.
http://www.freewebs.com/noreenblackett

The best ones you can look at should be fixed stuff, like branded products or places with fixed portions, like a big mac. On that site a big mac is 9.5, a quick search on google shows many list a big mac as 13 or 14 though. This is why I do not like points too- room for human error in calculating them, most calories shown on packs tend to be correct.

Mc Donalds give all the info.
The second calculator I gave is better as it doesnt round automatically. From McDonalds own info a big mac is 12.6 points.

If mcdonalds chips have the same nutritional value as the ones in my chinese, then a single portion of chips in my chinese has over 40 points. The UK site had a portion of chipper chips as 9.5points, dunno if she is weighing stuff at all, it is essential, maybe she does get small portions.

angeldelight wrote: »

If you go to the Mcdonalds UK site (sticking with the Big Mac example) the calories are 495 and the sat fat is 9g... I am a WW online user and so have an online points calculator.. I just plugged in those values and got 9.5 points - calculated by the WW site.

Have you a link to that calculator or do you have to pay?

I went onto the UK site and got 495 kcal and 24g total fat, 9g of which saturates. Seems the big macs are bigger in the US, I always thought they made a point of having equal sized burgers, especially the big mac, as some other people use it as a guide to pricing in various countries, the Big Mac Index.

The first calulcator I posted just has "fat" so I presumed all fat. The second specifically states total fat.

So I get 11.1 points.

If my chips (which were sodden with grease BTW) were mccain oven chips it would have been 20.7points per portion, or 18.3points if you are only supposed to enter sat fats. I am not so certain about the McDs having less than most chipper chips, they are usually different from ones you make yourself,- double fried, first in low temp oil which does make them absorb a lot. I accept the nutritional values might be different I will try and get a better estimate, that is why I did mention "if they did have"

So it seems the either both my calculators are wrong, and should have asked for saturated fat. Or you should have entered in the total fat into yours. The point is human error easily happened somewhere, both of us thought we were right, which just further illustrates my issue with the points.

EDIT: I see now it is sat fat in the EU NZ and australia!, and total fat outside there!, leading to even more confusion if you are checking stuff online. So I presume if you are in the US on holidays you will have to recalculated all your points, and Irish people should have a lower points allowance the US? do they?

Found a UK calculator http://points.ogo.ms/ and a UK big mac is 9.5 alright

I have studied mathematics to degree level, and am using formulas all day long in work, but that stuff wrecks my head! don't know how you guys deal with that stuff. Bizarre that they only focus on sat fats, when some would say it is better to fry in some sat fats, than veg oil, and that frying in sat fat can lead to more fat loss than low sat fat oil.

Moonbaby wrote: »

Rubadub you can make mistakes and be lazy with any method.
Anyone who has ever been to ww or read the literature knows that they mean saturated fat.
Its great that you like calorie counting so much but there is more than one way to skin a flea.

Did you know points in the US were different? I expect a few WW followers went to the US at some stage and saw packets with the points value on them and didn't realise they were different. People could be buying US books online, or buy a US calculator online or something.

This is not just about WW, calorie counting would have the EXACT same problems, there are many sites quoting calories of chinese meals too, which could be way off what is served in a typical Irish chinese takeway. If you need ONE tool to help you, let it please be a digital scale. Protion sizes are most peoples problem.

angeldelight wrote: »

If you don't do WW and don't agree with it, why are you posting in the thread?

A kung po was said to have 5.5points, some take this as fact. That is my problem, whether it be WW points, calories whatever unit you want to measure things in.

I have gotten Kung Po with boiled rice in numerous takeaways, it is one of my favourite dishes. If I do my UK calcuations with ZERO sat fat, my points would be over 20 every time.

I have seen friends fool themselves like this in the past, most here seem to know what they are on about. Just dont want people to legitimately make mistakes, and then be left wondering what went wrong.

angeldelight wrote: »

you have already shown your calculations not to be accurate in fairness.

Mine were correct for US points. I expect many people follow WW "guidelines" without ever going to a meeting. My mother and sister have never gone to a WW meeting, yet speak in "points" all the time, so does a male friend whos wife went to WW, I dunno how clued up he is. Maybe some of my posts have proven beneficial to some people like this, who might have been ignorant of the variety in the points system. People might be more wary of checking online estimates, i.e. make sure it is not a US site, most probably are.

Anyway this thread has been a bit hijacked, back to actual WW points values and stuff...

Right, presuming 0 sat fat in my chicken balls, curry sauce and chips, I would estimate it had a minimum of 36 UK points. That was the Jumbo takeaway in stillorgan, and I always find there portion sizes very consistent.

Hi All,

Am still getting used to counting the points so maybe you can help me... Was out for dinner tonight and had the following

• Grilled fillet steak - max 8 oz - no sauce
• Roast root veg with some basil oil on them - prob 1/2 a carrot and 1/4 parsnip
• 1/2 bottle of wine
• 1.5 glass of prosecco - sparking wine
• 1.5 scoops of sorbet

Im thinking 19 points - is that realistic?

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.

kashmir wrote: »

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 wrote: »

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?

Just wondering what aree the points like for Alcohol??

Some i would be interested in is

Vodka
Red Bull(mixer)
Bulmers

Cheers

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 wrote: »

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 wrote: »

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 wrote: »

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 wrote: »

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 am only telling people to be careful. Some people are completely ignorant as to how the points are worked out, and could unconciously be using tricks. e.g. equating a 14% bottle of wine with a 9% one. They might have no idea one has more points than another. There is no harm in having a basic knowledge in how to calculate points.

Most inaccuracies will balance out, e.g. for every 1 point you eat which is 1.2 points, another should be 0.8. It is when people ingest large amounts of underestimate points that problems happen.

I had edited my previous point, I think you might have made a typo about the bulmers points. I had said

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.

I am a big drinker and know a fair bit about alcohol, and it is the one thing that causes most confusion, regarding putting on weight and calories.

In your previous posts you said the importance of portion sizes. It is essential, just like the bulmers thing showed.

angeldelight wrote: »

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

From baileys site

Energy (Kcal/100ml) 327 ( kJ/100ml) 1361
Protein 3g
Total Carbohydrate 25g
Fat 13g
Saturated Fat 8g
Cholesterol 0.04g
Sodium 0.08g
Dietary Fibre Nil Sucrose 20g
Alcohol 13.5g

Now a meaure of baileys in Ireland is 50ml. So 16 will have 2616kcal and 64g saturated fat. My 2 UK calculators show this as 53 points.

Errors might come from the presumption that UK portions are the same as here (just like I presumed a US big mac is same as a UK in size). In the UK a "measure" of spirits is usually 25ml, while here it is 35.5ml. Baileys is a weird one at 50ml, some others here are automatically doubles too. I am not sure of the baileys measures in the UK. The site you showed mentions that many UK pubs now serve 35ml http://www.freewebs.com/noreenblackett/alcoholpoints.htm
On her site she has the tia-lusso as 70ml, this is a baileys type drink.
I would guess the baileys you calculated was 25ml, I checked one site and a UK bar does serve it as 50ml, with other shots at 25ml, sherrys and others are 50ml too.
Also vodka 25ml is 1pt while smirnoff vodka 25mils 0.5 points on her site.

Now with a burger it is fairly obvious that a portion is double its normal size, but people pouring spirits at home will usually pour a lot more in.

Just be careful. If a large proportion of your caloire/points are coming from one particular brand/product there is no harm in double checking the calculations, and portion sizes.