Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

12357…31

Comments

  • #122
    Slaygal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 297 ✭✭Slaygal


    Hi Jessie, Theres's a dedicated Weight Watchers thread where everyone is going to WW.
    Why don't you join ? I find it a great help for motivation and encouragement.

    Congratulation on the birth of your baby and Good luck :D


  • #123
    Kimia
    Registered Users Posts: 2,897 ✭✭✭Kimia


    Hi,

    Does anyone know the points in satay sauce? I usually have prawn satay for my main, and I know prawns are ok, but I'm suspecting that satay sauce is not good. I'm thinking if I take the prawns out of the sauce and eat them with boiled rice it would be:

    Prawns - 1pt
    Half a container of boiled rice - 3pts
    Satay sauce (just coating the prawns) - 4-5pts?

    Even an estimate would help. Thanks!


  • #124
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,372 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    Kimia wrote: »
    I usually have prawn satay for my main,
    Where?

    You really have to weigh stuff, even then it is only an estimate at points per 100g. Takeaway portions are massive as I keep saying. Prawns and chicken breast are a good choice. Satay is peanut sauce, high in calories and high in fat, so very high in WW points.


  • #125
    Transform
    Registered Users Posts: 6,394 ✭✭✭Transform


    cosmilk

    For the sake of your heart, you should be minimising your intake of saturated and trans fats NOT increasing them.

    _________________________________


    thats absolutely rubbish!!!

    There are tons of studies to show that a diet low in saturated fat is less beneficial to you.

    Now i agree fried foods, trans fat, hydrogenated fats are a total waste of time but the likes of using REAL butter, coconut oil, red meat, eggs etc are all beneficial to health.

    Whats with all this counting - fat women eat like men and men just bloody eat too much so guysand girls watch your portions


  • #126
    Kimia
    Registered Users Posts: 2,897 ✭✭✭Kimia


    at my local chinese. I don't have an exact measurement because I only eat the prawns and they only have a slight coating of the satay sauce on them so I'm just wondering what that would be. I suppose the weight would be 30g maybe? very small amount of satay...


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    shellybelly08
    Registered Users Posts: 395 ✭✭shellybelly08


    The points quoted in the WW literature are based on portions nothing to do with weigh...if they were specific to weight it would be mentioned....!!!

    I have read all the threads and all you seem to be doing is putting people off... ANyone who has read the WW literature should follow this...OBVIOUSLY..As thats what they are paying for!!


  • #128
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,372 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    shellybelly08 wrote: »
    The points quoted in the WW literature are based on portions nothing to do with weigh...if they were specific to weight it would be mentioned....!!
    :confused: so what do you measure your "portions" in?

    I measure my portions in weight, in the US volumes are common too. The WW points are calculated on fat and calorie content, which has to be weighed.

    If you did read my posts you would see my main concern is that many peoples portions are FAR higher than what WW's portions were.

    I seriously doubt WW's singapore chow mein weighed 800g, probably 350g. Oh sorry I should say their "portion" was probably under half what the "portion" is in most chinese takeaways here.

    If you can't get your head around that then you are probably in the same boat as many are, no idea what portions they should be eating, or how to figure it out.

    Rather than putting people off I am pointing out how they could be fooling themselves, and that could be why WW might not work for some. And I am very strongly encouraging people to calculate and weigh their own portions.

    From the stickies
    g'em wrote: »
    With that in mind, WWers please also take note that as eating plans go, WW is pretty good, but it can be improved and the points system is easily abused. If suggestions are made as to how you can improve your point management, or flaws in the WW system are pointed out in a constructive and practical way, try not to take it as a negative.
    I expect most people end up in WW because they have no idea what a correct portion size is.


  • #129
    shellybelly08
    Registered Users Posts: 395 ✭✭shellybelly08


    Yes i understand weighing portions in relation to the points given in the literature is very important.. But the chinese is quoted points only not in relation to portion weight??

    I am doing ww 17 weeks and lost 2 and a half stone using these guidelines and Im assuming their working with these results!

    Good to you!


  • #130
    Bernso
    Closed Accounts Posts: 123 ✭✭Bernso


    Hi there,
    i was eating ww brown bread and light cheese, tomato toasted religiosuly for breakfast (2 points).
    I started eating cereal recently for a quicker different option.
    Got teh Flahavan's high 8 muesli.
    It's really nice, no added sugar and totally keeps me going until lunch
    BUT
    I am totally unsure about the actual points count.
    The back says 40gs of muesli and 125mls semi skim = 3 points.
    I put skim in it - not that much and have a small bowl but I think it's more than 3.
    Buying a scales deffo but could any expert on here hazard a guess as to a small/ medium bowl of sugar free muesli contains?
    be very grateful


  • #131
    Tootsie
    Registered Users Posts: 89 ✭✭Tootsie


    You have to get the calories & sat fat to work out the WW points,if you post them I'll work them out on my WW calculator....

    I think though 3pts sounds about right for a 30/40g serving.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    ladiee24
    Registered Users Posts: 245 ✭✭ladiee24


    rubadub wrote: »

    I expect most people end up in WW because they have no idea what a correct portion size is.

    rubadub can I ask you a question? are you in ww yourself?


  • #133
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,372 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    shellybelly08 wrote: »
    Yes i understand weighing portions in relation to the points given in the literature is very important.. But the chinese is quoted points only not in relation to portion weight??
    This is exactly what I am talking about! They have simply estimated a portion size and calculated accordingly. They say THEIR portion of Singapore noodles is 5.5points. Now look at this post A single packet of low fat koka noodles is 10 points. This is correct when using this calculator http://points.ogo.ms/ those small packs of noodles have huge amounts of calories/points.
    Now I don't know what chinese takeaways you have been to, but I get far FAR more than a single pack of koka noodles in a chow mein. And the singapore noodles in my local are definitely fried. And that is only the noodles on their own. Now half a pack of koka noodles is 5points, the singapore is 5.5points. If you got 5.5points worth of noodles in a chinese I would hope you would bring it back!
    Bernso wrote: »
    The back says 40gs of muesli and 125mls semi skim = 3 points.
    I put skim in it - not that much and have a small bowl but I think it's more than 3.
    Buying a scales deffo but could any expert on here hazard a guess as to a small/ medium bowl of sugar free muesli contains?
    be very grateful
    This is a photo of 35g of muesli.
    museli.jpg

    But on the front of the pack it might look like this!
    _38510637_museli300.jpg

    ladiee24 wrote: »
    rubadub can I ask you a question? are you in ww yourself?
    No, but I do count calories which is very similar concept. My comment was not solely directed at WW members, it think it is true for the majority of overweight people (of which I presume WW members are/were). Most peoples problem is portion sizes, simple as that. Many have no idea how much they should eat. Look at those 2 muesli bowls, it is ridiculous, people are just guessing what they think is alright. I was shocked when I first started weighing my foods. I was eating up to 1000kcal of muesli & milk in a single bowl, probably ~17points.

    I am still shocked that nobody has also agreed that chinese portions here are probably bigger than the quoted WW sizes, I really see ignorance to portion size and points calculation as the fundamental problem. And I imagine there are some who do blindly follow strict points and are the same weight or putting on weight and are truly oblivious to the fact they are still overeating. I see the exact same problems with calorie counting too, many sites give estimate of sandwiches, chips etc, and people can have the exact same problems of using estimated portion sizes.

    Maybe some WW member could do me a favour and ask the leader what weight they expect the singapore noodles 5.5point portion to be, and also mention the 10point low fat koka noodles.


  • #134
    ladiee24
    Registered Users Posts: 245 ✭✭ladiee24


    It strikes me that your comments are tinted with a lot of negativity forgive me if I am wrong the problem with non-verbal forms of communication. Yes all points in ww are calculated on the calories & sat fats per portion but in the case of eating out you can of course never know exact points in the ww eating out guide it states points only with no actual quote for a portion size it does however say it is for Chinese Take Away/Eating Out portions. Hence the guide’s name. I know I have never been able to eat a full portion of Chinese be it a curry or chow mein I think the main thought should be if you go for what’s stated in the Eating Out guide as opposed to a curry or the typical high fat content dishes you’ll keep you’re points lower!!

    I’d high recommend buying the digital point’s calculator at your next meeting as opposed to using online calculators as the formula for the ww points system is apparently top secret & for about a tenner you can’t really go wrong now can you!


  • #135
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,372 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    ladiee24 wrote: »
    It strikes me that your comments are tinted with a lot of negativity
    I am simply trying to make people think more, and to be aware of portion sizes. This is nothing specific about WW. As I said calorie counting has the same problem. If somebody started a thread and said they read on a site that a typical takeaway singapore chow mein had only 270kcal then I would give the exact same advice.
    I know I have never been able to eat a full portion of Chinese be it a curry or chow mein
    Exactly, would you have guessed it could possibly be 5.5points?
    I think the main thought should be if you go for what’s stated in the Eating Out guide as opposed to a curry or the typical high fat content dishes you’ll keep you’re points lower!!
    Yes, it is useful for that reason, perhaps they should also just give typical weights.

    The problem is that some might be oblivious to portion sizes, and take these guides as gospel. I know a guy who used to get a takeaway every single day. I would not like to think of somebody ignorantly eating 5 times the points/calories they think they are for dinner every single day, and then wondering why the "diet" is not working.


  • #136
    ladiee24
    Registered Users Posts: 245 ✭✭ladiee24


    "Exactly, would you have guessed it could possibly be 5.5points?"

    yes & most of the time i would allow 7.5 should i have this from the takeaway! yes portion size is a huge issue with people loosing weight but this is a huge factor of the WW meetings. I think you've got the right idea but weight loss is more than just calorie counting! It's about change of lifestyle & if you choose to use the WW points system it's a wise choice however having been in WW for some time & now finally being successful i think the biggest part of this has been staying for meetings. finally i don't think anyone takes the guides as gospel they are only a guide not to be taken too literally

    "Yes, it is useful for that reason, perhaps they should also just give typical weights."

    this is widely discussed within WW meetings.

    i apprecaite this is a how many points in thread & this have gone slightly off topic but it would be in my honest opinion i think the thread needs a more supportive side to it.

    p.s. for some reason i couldn't get the multi quote to work so apologies for sloppy formatting in this post!


  • #137
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,372 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    ladiee24 wrote: »
    "Exactly, would you have guessed it could possibly be 5.5points?"

    yes & most of the time i would allow 7.5 should i have this from the takeaway!
    I still find this quite shocking, a single pack of low fat supernoodles is 10points. I used to eat 2 of those packs as a snack! Now you said you could not finish a chow mein yet still think it is 5.5 (7.5 max). Or are you saying you only ate 5.5 points worth of the portion? (which itself could have been way more points).
    ladiee24 wrote: »
    yes portion size is a huge issue with people loosing weight but this is a huge factor of the WW meetings.

    "Yes, it is useful for that reason, perhaps they should also just give typical weights."

    this is widely discussed within WW meetings.
    Right, I like calorie counting and caluculating stuff, I was just VERY surprised at the lack of calculation and pure guesswork going on in this thread. People using UK sites, (e.g. the baileys which I pointed out has twice the portion here as in the UK). Maybe the maths is just over peoples heads, but it is vitally important in my mind, people should question what they are really eating. Very few seem to have weighed anything in the estimates, its spoons & a bit of this & that. That is one advantage I see with calorie counting, calories are listed on most foods per 100g these days, points require further calculation. And many cannot even manage to calculate calories correctly, let alone even weigh food.

    ladiee24 wrote: »
    I think you've got the right idea but weight loss is more than just calorie counting!
    I fully agree. But by calorie or point counting it can encourage people to make wiser choices. e.g. I now never eat noodles, why "waste" 600kcal or 10 points on a miserable bowl when I could have a big chicken stir fry instead.

    ladiee24 wrote: »
    finally i don't think anyone takes the guides as gospel they are only a guide not to be taken too literally
    Do the leaders or people in the groups ever comment on them, or give warnings, e.g. about UK alcohol measures etc, about the possible error involved in rounded figures, or the fact that restaurant portions tend to be massive (esp. chinese & indian takeaways). I am still shocked that nobody has verified/agreed that takeaway portions here are huge.

    ladiee24 wrote: »
    i apprecaite this is a how many points in thread & this have gone slightly off topic but it would be in my honest opinion i think the thread needs a more supportive side to it.
    How to calculate and estimate points is on topic IMO. I thought a lot more would be interested in how to calulate points themselves, rather than just take other peoples guesstimates after only giving vague descriptions in the first place. I am just trying to make people aware of what to watch for, and help them to calculate points (or calories) themselves, there is no need to rely on others to do it.

    I would like to see more actual figures calculated by people here for food & drink available here. e.g. I do not know the weight of a portion of rice in those standard tin foil trays.

    Here are some calorie calculations I did before myself, probably ~48points in a single meal from the chinese http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055209321


  • #138
    ladiee24
    Registered Users Posts: 245 ✭✭ladiee24


    sorry rubadub i still can't get multi quote to work sorry still a newbie to boards! can you tell me what noodles you're eating at 10 points i've got a packet of super noddles & my points calcualtor in front of me & i've just pointed it at 3.5 or 5 points! yes if you're eating simple packet noodles at these points it's pure madness & there is no point in following a WW plan as that is half most peoples daily points allowance.

    I will volunteer to point any food with my WW calculator to provide as much accuracy as possible, i would need the kcal's per portion plus the sat fats.

    i think i have indirectly as such agreed with you that chinese/indian takeaway portions are very big. it depends on each leader but my leader is great at pointing out the UK differences the major one being alcohol. as the UK standard measure is 25.5ml & the Irish being 35.5ml

    unfortunatley unless you can ask for how something is cooked the full ingredients list you will never have a full pointing for a take away or restaurant meal.


  • #139
    jellie
    Registered Users Posts: 15,503 ✭✭✭✭jellie


    if youre going to be eating chinese takeaway, unless its a basic stirfry & boiled rice, theres probably very little point even attempting to calculate points cause youve probably messed up the whole day anyway.

    just use a little common sense & eat sensibly early on in the day & cut your points & do a little exercise the following day.

    i often have a "dont care" day the day after my weigh in, some weeks ill even get chippers (:eek:), but by pulling back the following day its easy to have your treat - without worrying exactly how many points youve eaten that one day - and still lose weight.

    personally i just think if youre going to eat something like a takeaway then youre wasting your time even trying to point it cause youll never get it right so just enjoy it & dont worry about it for that day.


  • #140
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,372 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    ladiee24 wrote: »
    sorry rubadub i still can't get multi quote to work sorry still a newbie to boards!
    No worries. If you want to quote just one post just click on the quote button under it. If you want to quote more than one post then on the first you want to appear click on the mulitquote option beside quote, you can do as many of these as you like, then finally click on a quote and they will all appear.

    I am guessing you want to maybe quote several bits from a single post? In which case I would just press quote once, then I would highlight and copy (CTRL+C) and paste (CTRL+V) the persons entire post several times in the reply. Then you can delete the bits you do not want from all those repeated quotes.

    you can have a go testing in the test forum http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=361 feel free to use others posts and quote them etc.

    ladiee24 wrote: »
    can you tell me what noodles you're eating at 10 points i've got a packet of super noddles & my points calcualtor in front of me & i've just pointed it at 3.5 or 5 points!
    The guy in the other thread said it was 10 points for a low fat koka one. I have done it on small packs of tesco value noodles, I will check again, I know they were small at 65g and had 420kcal per pack, and I think 11% sat fat, so that is 8 points. 65g is small, most are 85-100g. I know some are up to 600kcal per pack, koka do not show fat content on their normal packs, but they use palm oil which is high in sat fat. I was using this calculator http://points.ogo.ms/ 600kcal alone gives me 8.5points with no fat added in yet.

    What are the figures on your packet? i.e. what is the total dry weight and the kcal and fat and sat fat contents per 100g? Many packs might show a "per cooked portion" value, however this is often only half the pack. These values are often so high that many overlook it and presume it is a value for the full pack. I notice this a lot with pizzas, I would consider most thin & crispy pizzas as a single portion, but the kcal value is often for 1/2 or even 1/3.

    unfortunatley unless you can ask for how something is cooked the full ingredients list you will never have a full pointing for a take away or restaurant meal.
    What I recommend is to go to the supermarket and find the highest calorie per 100g version of the food you are ordering. This is usually the more expensive ones which are not watered down. e.g. fresh "finest" or branded microwave ready meals. Now just remember/note the kcal and fat content of this per 100g. Also have a look at most ready meals weights too, most are 300-450g, WW ready meals tend to be light weight. Now when you get your takeaway simply weigh the cartons you get, you seriously usually get 2+ times the weight you do in ready meals. Many do not spill it all out at once, but eat it and then pour some more out, this can make you not realise how much was really in there.

    Takeaway food is usually higher in sugar & fat (points) than supermarket ones, thats why it tastes so good! and that is why I recommend searching for the most calorific one in the supermarket.
    sar84 wrote: »
    personally i just think if youre going to eat something like a takeaway then youre wasting your time even trying to point it cause youll never get it right so just enjoy it & dont worry about it for that day.
    The problem is people potentially eating it everyday, thinking "this is great, only 5.5points, I am going to have it all the time". I hope most have common sense not to fall into that trap, but I expect some do, they might not even realise it is a treat. Some might not even like the taste of some high point/calorific foods but eat them thinking they are low.


  • #141
    Davei141
    Registered Users Posts: 4,541 ✭✭✭Davei141


    rubadub wrote: »
    N
    The problem is people potentially eating it everyday, thinking "this is great, only 5.5points, I am going to have it all the time". I hope most have common sense not to fall into that trap, but I expect some do, they might not even realise it is a treat. Some might not even like the taste of some high point/calorific foods but eat them thinking they are low.

    Exactly. If you are going to have a curry dont even bother trying to fool yourself into thinking its not so bad or underestimating the calories. Just know your eating a huge amount of calories and accept it. Its pretty simple, take a bag of uncle bens (400 cals roughly) imagine them 400 cals deep fried, possible doubling the amount of calories. Take a look at some frozen chips, they are about 180 calories per 100g, curry bags of chips are huge. WAY more than 100g for sure. Add in the grease they are cooked in. And then we come to the curry sauce, home made carries a hefty amount of cals god only knows what a Chinese tub carries.

    5.5 points? come on.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    jellie
    Registered Users Posts: 15,503 ✭✭✭✭jellie


    rubadub wrote: »
    The problem is people potentially eating it everyday, thinking "this is great, only 5.5points, I am going to have it all the time". I hope most have common sense not to fall into that trap, but I expect some do, they might not even realise it is a treat. Some might not even like the taste of some high point/calorific foods but eat them thinking they are low.

    anyone who follows weight watchers properly should know this is not the case. a lot of people fool themselves into thinking they are doing it properly - like you say giving 5.5 points for a takeaway. if you actually go to the meetings (the one i go to anyway) its drummed into us that takeaways are BOLD BOLD BOLD food and if you wanna have it go ahead but you have to pull back & make up for it. if its not working for someone then theyre probably just not calculating the points properly.


  • #143
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,372 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    Davei141 wrote: »
    curry bags of chips are huge. WAY more than 100g for sure.
    I weighed some before, more info here

    520g of chips on their own and then other stuff. I was saying before to go to supermarkets and pick the more expensive high calorie stuff to compare to. I looked at McCain's site and found some oven chips at 253kcal per 100g, and 7.2g saturated fat per 100g. If that was my bag it is 1315kcal, 37g of sat fat, which is a possible 28 points, for the chips alone.

    That chinese does give big portions, but that is why I used to go there! I know plenty who specifically get chinese since you get so much. I do know a mates GF who gets singapore noodles, and I am now pretty sure it is since she thinks they are low in points/calories. On the UK WW page posted earlier they had a portion of "chippy chips" as 9.5 points, about 1/3rd of my 28pt bag. it was a big portion but I have never gotten 1/3 that size in a chipper.
    sar84 wrote: »
    a lot of people fool themselves into thinking they are doing it properly - like you say giving 5.5 points for a takeaway. if you actually go to the meetings (the one i go to anyway) its drummed into us that takeaways are BOLD BOLD BOLD food
    This is what confuses me, do the speakers at the meeting tell you to ignore parts of these books/guides? you say people fooling themselves, but I thought the book clearly states 5.5pts, are they to ignore this? I thought you were assigned daily points and could take them how you like.

    How do the speakers drum in that it is "bold food" do they differentiate points somehow? or did they tell you it is usually higher than quoted, if so does nobody question why they do not adjust them to realistic figures?

    ladiee24 wrote: »
    can you tell me what noodles you're eating at 10 points i've got a packet of super noddles & my points calcualtor in front of me & i've just pointed it at 3.5 or 5 points!
    If found some batchelors supernoodles info
    This took a few hits before I got the REAL value. Seems many site might have fallen for the cheat marketing they do. Many sites listed a portion as 100g, BUT they did not realise this was 100g cooked! which is tiny!. You really have to watch for these tricks, seems even the calorie/point counting sites fall for this crap.

    It listed 100g as 175kcal, but a 1/2 pack serving as 263kcal. Some companies would just put the cooked 100g on to lead you to think they are low in calories. So the full pack is 536kcal, and 12grams sat fat. So 10.5 points in a full pack of Bacon supernoodles.


  • #144
    ladiee24
    Registered Users Posts: 245 ✭✭ladiee24


    rubadub wrote: »

    What are the figures on your packet? i.e. what is the total dry weight and the kcal and fat and sat fat contents per 100g? Many packs might show a "per cooked portion" value, however this is often only half the pack. These values are often so high that many overlook it and presume it is a value for the full pack. I notice this a lot with pizzas, I would consider most thin & crispy pizzas as a single portion, but the kcal value is often for 1/2 or even 1/3.

    I'm using McDonald's Super Noodles the Mild Curry Flavour. 175kcal & 4g of sat fat per 100g dried. that's 3.5 points or for per half pack 262kcal & 6g of sat fat is 5 points. I wouldn't eat a full pack just the half one. this is what i mentioned earlier you are not using a WW points calculator the online version you are using maybe branded as WW but clearly it's not!

    In any WW meeting takeaway foods are discoraged as they are not worth the points value yes you are allocated a daily points usage & you can spend as you see fit but being part of the programme you begin to realise healthy home cooked meals are what is best value for points/low point options if you're going to eat a take away everyday then good luck cause you're heart will need it let alone you!
    rubadub wrote: »
    What I recommend is to go to the supermarket and find the highest calorie per 100g version of the food you are ordering. This is usually the more expensive ones which are not watered down. e.g. fresh "finest" or branded microwave ready meals. Now just remember/note the kcal and fat content of this per 100g. Also have a look at most ready meals weights too, most are 300-450g, WW ready meals tend to be light weight. Now when you get your takeaway simply weigh the cartons you get, you seriously usually get 2+ times the weight you do in ready meals. Many do not spill it all out at once, but eat it and then pour some more out, this can make you not realise how much was really in there.

    I find this quite patronising I'm a WW member & know how to point my food, that's not the point of what I siad. You can not actually point a take away as you don't know 100% of what goes into it yes you can compare it to a supermarket version but even in doing that you're just guessing!


  • #145
    jellie
    Registered Users Posts: 15,503 ✭✭✭✭jellie


    rubadub wrote: »
    This is what confuses me, do the speakers at the meeting tell you to ignore parts of these books/guides? you say people fooling themselves, but I thought the book clearly states 5.5pts, are they to ignore this? I thought you were assigned daily points and could take them how you like.

    How do the speakers drum in that it is "bold food" do they differentiate points somehow? or did they tell you it is usually higher than quoted, if so does nobody question why they do not adjust them to realistic figures?
    .

    I cant comment on the noodles points because i dont know exactly where this information is from & I havent seen it myself. Theres certain literature, eg. the handbook that you get at the beginning where i would think the points value for the listed foods is reliable - as long as you take into account the weight. eg. if it says medium chicken breast 200g 3points, then dont fool yourself into thinking the 300g chicken breast you have is a medium one (this is just an example, not sure if the exact details). in most cases ive come across with WW points values they give a weight and/or a brand with the points. i find it strange that it would just say "singapore noodles 5.5 points" without giving a portion size/weight/brand.

    Theres not so much drumming it into you that its bold, more the point is made that if you want to have a treat then its up to you, but you have to allow for this, and know that you may not know how many points is in it and make up for it by either cutting back the following day or exercise or both. to be fair, any one with any sense whatsoever should be able to identify "bold" food - takeaways, chocolate, crisps, icecream, etc etc.

    Now maybe im just incredibly incredibly intelligent (:rolleyes:) but WW needs to be followed with common sense. if it seems to good to be true, it usually is.


  • #146
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,372 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    ladiee24 wrote: »
    I'm using McDonald's Super Noodles the Mild Curry Flavour. 175kcal & 4g of sat fat per 100g dried. that's 3.5 points or for per half pack 262kcal & 6g of sat fat is 5 points. I wouldn't eat a full pack just the half one. this is what i mentioned earlier you are not using a WW points calculator the online version you are using maybe branded as WW but clearly it's not!
    :confused: Read my last post again I got the same points and values as you for supernoodles...
    ladiee24 wrote: »
    In any WW meeting takeaway foods are discoraged as they are not worth the points value
    I can't understand this. How are they "not worth the points value"? what does that mean, how is this explained to you? I thought the points are in a book/guide and appear quite low, so why are they not good choice?

    Or do you mean "not worth the points value", really means are far higher points than the guide says? in which case, again, does nobody query why the guide is not adjusted to the reality.
    ladiee24 wrote: »
    I find this quite patronising I'm a WW member & know how to point my food
    Well you made a very important mistake in your post about the noodles, can you spot what it is? I have already warned about it. Also you did not even realise I did come up with the same points as you did.
    ladiee24 wrote: »
    You can not actually point a take away as you don't know 100% of what goes into it yes you can compare it to a supermarket version but even in doing that you're just guessing!
    And what is wrong with estimating and comparing similar products? thats what everybody else is doing! At least I am using a weighing scale. All of the spoons and measures others are using here are guesses too, should they be ignored? At least I am trying to actually calculate real life points & calories here, nobody else seems even bothered to try. The other poster just gave up and was saying "personally i just think if youre going to eat something like a takeaway then youre wasting your time even trying to point it" well I think there is a point if you have it frequently, and it is not too hard to get an estimate.

    As I said before the singapore noodles in my local was 800g, this is a standard size you get in most chinese takeaways. Now are you really going to stick with your 5.5pt guideline, and ignore this fact? do you honestly think this 800g tray is only slightly more than a half pack of supernoodles which is 5pts?

    You say people do not take the guides as gospel, but it does seem like people will not face the truth of the matter, it is like I am saying "what they believe in is wrong", it is like I am calling them liars or something. I do not know why so many have been so negative about me trying to honestly calculate points.



    And from first post in the Sticked WW thread...
    g'em wrote: »
    WWers please also take note that as eating plans go, WW is pretty good, but it can be improved and the points system is easily abused. If suggestions are made as to how you can improve your point management, or flaws in the WW system are pointed out in a constructive and practical way, try not to take it as a negative.


  • #147
    g'em
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,819 ✭✭✭✭g'em


    ladiee24, I think you and rubadub are actually singing from the same hymn sheet, you're just expressing the songs in different languages ;)

    rubadub is our very own math/ logistics whiz and you'll quickly see that he likes to be very exact in what he does - a fantastic trait to have by any means but it probably flies very much in the face of a lot of the fundamental basis of the WW points system i.e. taking the complication out of eating healthily!

    I assure you he is not at all trying to be patronising, just trying to point out the inherent flaws in the points system where a lot of foods are concerned.

    At the end of the day, does it really matter whether noodles are 7 points or 17 points? I think what's most relevant is that noodles are less food and more artificially flavoured cardboard :o I know when I used to do WW I used to rely quite heavily on Supernoodles as snacks without realising they were only making my task harder.

    I suspect there's just some crossed wires going on here - afair rubadub is an engineer by trade, that might explain things a bit :D


  • #148
    ladiee24
    Registered Users Posts: 245 ✭✭ladiee24


    thanks g'em! yes i can see where rubadub is coming from & do understand that he is very technical about it. i have never said that WW is perfect it takes bloody hard work & determination to get there alongside whichever path you choose to maintain or loose weight be it WW or plain calorie counting

    i think what i am trying to point out is the ethos of the WW meetings & that there is no exact science. take away & restaurant food simply cannot be pointed because you dont' know exactly what is in them. never ming the supernoodle example. yes i have realised it is 10 points for a full packet of noodle but because i would never eat a full pack my mind has change it's way of thinking on that!:D i must say this time around with WW i have taken to cooking most of my food & only use prepacked as a back up should nothing else be available.

    i'd like to call a truce as such with rubadub :) i think we do have similar thoughts on the points system just a different understanding to how it works. the ww leaders do not have all the answers nor do i or rubadub the ww literature is a guide line & they probably should adjust the literature to say this.


  • #149
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,372 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    g'em wrote: »
    rubadub is our very own math/ logistics whiz and you'll quickly see that he likes to be very exact in what he does - a fantastic trait to have by any means but it probably flies very much in the face of a lot of the fundamental basis of the WW points system i.e. taking the complication out of eating healthily!
    - afair rubadub is an engineer by trade, that might explain things a bit :D
    Yep, engineer, guilty as charged ;). I have been known to cause some sore heads with my mathematical posts!

    The WW system does try and simplify things, but it is good to have the basic fundamentals in mind when trying to estimate any points, or calories. As I said before calorie counting, WW, or any type of diet has got to have portion control as a key point. I am not singling out WW, my comments can be applied to most diet plans.
    g'em wrote: »
    does it really matter whether noodles are 7 points or 17 points? I think what's most relevant is that noodles are less food and more artificially flavoured cardboard I know when I used to do WW I used to rely quite heavily on Supernoodles as snacks without realising they were only making my task harder.
    I also used to eat them thinking they were "OK". My sister had a healthy eating plan in mind and I discovered loads of noodles in her kitchen, she had just figured they were a pretty low calorie snack. People follow the logic, if it tastes good it must be "bad" (high in calories), and if food is fairly bland it must be "good" (low in cals). Many people do, I know I did, this is the point I was making when I said "Some might not even like the taste of some high point/calorific foods but eat them thinking they are low."

    Somebody might not like prawns, but see they are apparently low on some guideline calorie/points, and could in all sincerity actually end up eating some high calorie/point dish thinking they are doing great.

    A guy in work told me he was going to start eating better, yet was sitting down to 1000kcal+ lunches, the dreaded noodles included as a part of it.
    ladiee24 wrote: »
    i think what i am trying to point out is the ethos of the WW meetings & that there is no exact science.
    There is a science/formula behind the points system though, I am just trying to be as accurate as possible and calculate to the best of my ability. People will end up estimating again, but it can end up like chinese whispers, errors multiplying over and over and getting greater and greater. Now hopefully a lot of these errors would cancel each other out, i.e. for every big portion you get a small portion somewhere else. But in my experience people are more likely to over portion their food than under portion it. Same with restaurants.

    I have no reason/motive to mislead people with my figures, but marketing people certainly do! Just see the big bowl of museli in the photo on the packet, but weigh out the portion listed on the side and it is tiny!

    ladiee24 wrote: »
    yes i have realised it is 10 points for a full packet of noodle but because i would never eat a full pack
    Right, I used to eat one or 2 packs at a time:pac:, and mixing bowls full of museli:o . The thing to watch for is these tiny quoted portions. I said there was a mistake or typo in your post, this was when you siad 175kcal per 100g dry. This was infact the cooked weight (as served) so had water included. This is one of the common tricks to watch out for. The packs happen to be 100g which further confuses things. Many might only have one listing on them, and people could easily be tricked into thinking the full 100g pack was only 175kcal if just glancing. A full pack at ~520kcal is the around the same calories as a big mac, I bet the average person would not think that, and so could easily believe a full pack is only 175kcal, before 520kcal.
    ladiee24 wrote: »
    i'd like to call a truce as such with rubadub.
    I would be very happy to :) and I apologise if I came across as patronising.


  • #150
    ladiee24
    Registered Users Posts: 245 ✭✭ladiee24


    rubadub wrote: »
    I would be very happy to :) and I apologise if I came across as patronising.


    no probs :D i do think you're a wee bit too technical but given your occupation & the subject of this thread that's a forgiven!

    you mentioned in a previous post that a couple of people have taken you up wrong on this thread i'd say the main reason behind that is the lack of emotion in your posts! from what i can see you are simply calorie counting? not what alot of WWer's are doing. they've got a huge emotional side to their weight loss & you don't seem to have that it may just be as simple as you've got a strong character but for most WWers (apologies for generalising) the weight loss journey is an emotional one.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,372 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    ladiee24 wrote: »
    no probs :D i do think you're a wee bit too technical but given your occupation & the subject of this thread that's a forgiven!
    Yep, this thread was "how many WW points", with no real call for discussion on WW's other aspects. I was really hoping to see a lot of real life calculations going on which I could use myself. I saw a UK page with guideline points which did not add up to what I see myself. I have been reading nutritional info on packs since I was about 10, and have a habit of totting up stuff and have a good memory for it.
    ladiee24 wrote: »
    you mentioned in a previous post that a couple of people have taken you up wrong on this thread i'd say the main reason behind that is the lack of emotion in your posts!
    Possibly, I think earlier on it was that I was challenging how points were calculated, i.e. the UK page had a few things I disagreed with, or would be wrong if used in Ireland (e.g. baileys possibly being double the portion here). People saw this as being negative towards WW, as the were defending saying things akin to "everybody who goes to WW knows how to count points". As I have said, it is nothing personal or particular to WW, anybody trying to figure out portions can make mistakes, many times tripped up by unscrupulous marketing techniques. The first sites on google here are listing 100g of cooked noodles as the "serving size", misreading the pack.
    ladiee24 wrote: »
    from what i can see you are simply calorie counting? not what alot of WWer's are doing. they've got a huge emotional side to their weight loss & you don't seem to have that it may just be as simple as you've got a strong character but for most WWers (apologies for generalising) the weight loss journey is an emotional one.
    That is true, I am very logical and calculating in my approach to fat loss, I do have willpower to find it easy to simply not eat a lot. The last place on earth I could imagine myself would be in a WW meeting discussing my progress! Typical bloke ;)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement