Calorie Counting vs. Point Counting (Weight Watchers). Which? and why?

[AnnaBeth]

I need to lose weight.    Thinking about joining Weight Watchers online, but to me the having to look up four values per food (carb, fat, protein, fiber) seems so much more complicated than calorie counting.     If there's some great advantage of this?     I don't get why a 105 calorie banana is 0 points.    Why not just calorie count?     What's the benefit to points over calories?    Other than the support one gets from meetings/others, why do people do that program rather than just count calories?  IN short, please shed some light on comparing calorie vs. point counting for me.

 

 

(Adding this edit to respond to initial posts....I have a calorie tracking software program that I just downloaded (free trial) and it's VERY extensive/thorough --- it's called DIETPOWER (www.dietpower.com)  so it's one of my two options -- I'm either going to use it or join Weight Watchers, but I'm trying to hear from others before I decide which one to commit to).

[PeterPan]

Not totally sure, but I'm guessing it has to do with fiber or how many calories you expend peeling it or something.  :D   (that was a joke, I don't know)  If you have some kind of smart phone or tablet, you might look for apps.  There are some really neat ones now that allow you to input your food and recipes or scan items and it will keep track of your calories eaten, calories expended with exercise, etc.  MyFitnessPal is the one I got on iTunes.  I think it was free.

 

 

[BrookValley.]

Well, the weight watchers online system has a LOT of foods in the system, so you don't have to calculate all that for most things you eat. It's usually pretty simple. Your own recipes may be a bit more complicated to track, but usually in that case I just track the ingredients that have points. So if I make a big stir-fry, I'm just going to track the rice, protein, and whatever sauce I added. I won't bother going in and tracking onion, carrot, broccoli, etc., 'cause those are all 0 points. Tracking calories makes me want to stab my eyes out. :laugh:  For some reason, I don't mind tracking points as much.

 

Fruits and vegetables are "free" to encourage eating more of them. Also, they've worked all this into their algorithm--yeah, that banana might be more calories than some other things, but if you fill up on fruits and veggies, you're eating less junk elsewhere and still coming out ahead.

 

I disagree with plenty of stuff that weight watchers considers "healthy," but in general I think the points system steers you toward foods that are high in fiber, low in fat (in general I don't agree with low-fat dieting, but fat does have a lot of calories, so if you're looking to reduce calorie consumption you also have to watch the fat), and low in empty carbs/sugar. Just counting calories doesn't take all that into account.

 

FWIW, I don't do any of the "support" stuff through weight watchers, I just track points online or on my mobile w/the app. It works very well for me.

 

 

[Ann.without.an.e]

Have you looked at my fitness pal? It is free :).

[umsami]

In my experience, Weight Watchers worked easier for me, although in theory, it should be more difficult.  The points formula (although I'm not sure of the latest incarnation) takes into account fiber, fat, and calories--in a way that gives you fewer points for more fiber so that you're choosing more filling foods.

 

With the latest version (or last year's), all fruit and veg are "free".  I remember reading a study of one of the liquid diets (well one that combined shakes with one lean/green meal), and they found letting people consumer 5 servings of fruits/veg in addition, made it easier to stick to.  What was interesting was that another article said that making that unlimited, resulted in even better weight loss.  Perhaps WW is going off of those studies?

[mamaraby]

I use MyFitnessPal because I'm cheap. I think in either case, having a support system and some accountability is helpful. WW kind of builds that in if you do the meetings or online. MFP does that with forums, groups, and a social media aspect. As far as counting calories vs points...tbh I think it's a wash. It's certainly easier in both cases if you use packaged foods with convenient labels. The MFP app has a bar code scanner in that case, but I don't know if WW does.

 

If, however, you're like me and you don't really do the package thing, counting calories is a royal pain because you have to enter in every ingredient. *sigh* I can see the positives in skipping the veg or zero point items to make it simpler.

 

Still, I'm cheap. The MFP app is robust, the community is pretty active, and I'm seriously considering simplifying meals just so entering them is quicker. Whatever you choose, I'd also pick up a heart rate monitor so you can better manage your fitness. Just make sure to get one with the fitness test (like the Polar FT40/FT60) because it tends to give more accurate results.

[gingersmom]

You don't look up carb protein fiber, etc on weight watchers. They have already done It for you.

[Ann.without.an.e]

Nm

[kwickimom]

Calorie counting works but not all calories are equal. 200 calories of fruit is not the same as 200 calories of cake. Weight Watchers takes into account other things like carbs, etc.

 

Myfitnesspal tracks all those things for free and IMO is better because  you actually see your sugar intake and carb intake and its not hidden behind "points"

 

 

[Ann.without.an.e]

I need to lose weight. Thinking about joining Weight Watchers online, but to me the having to look up four values per food (carb, fat, protein, fiber) seems so much more complicated than calorie counting. If there's some great advantage of this? I don't get why a 105 calorie banana is 0 points. Why not just calorie count? What's the benefit to points over calories? Other than the support one gets from meetings/others, why do people do that program rather than just count calories? IN short, please shed some light on comparing calorie vs. point counting for me.

 

 

(Adding this edit to respond to initial posts....I have a calorie tracking software program that I just downloaded (free trial) and it's VERY extensive/thorough --- it's called DIETPOWER (www.dietpower.com) so it's one of my two options -- I'm either going to use it or join Weight Watchers, but I'm trying to hear from others before I decide which one to commit to).

 

Also, how do you currently eat? It might be easier for you to try Whole 30. With that there isn't any calorie counting, points etc, rather just a "do not eat" and free to eat list.

[mamaraby]

I go back and forth on spending money for a HRM. So you like yours? Did you workout without one before? How has it helped?

I haven't bought mine yet. I'm in research mode and saving up. At first I thought about a fitness tracker like the Polar Loop or maybe the Garmin, but now I'm thinking HRM. I was reading up on them at MFP and I had settled on the Polar FT40 because it's the lowest model with the fitness test which is supposed to give you more accurate calorie readings, but then Heart Rate Monitors USA offers the FT60 for only $5 more and it will work with the foot pod should I ever choose to head outside (have to get to where it doesn't aggravate my feet first) so when I have the money that's what I'm going to get.

 

At this point I've mostly just used the one on the bike at the YMCA, but that's limited in utility because I don't want to hold it all the time. It does help, though, because I read while I use the bike and can tend to go easy when I get lost in the story.

[Learning fun]

I also use myfitnesspal. It's pretty good, and you can't beat the price :D

[OH_Homeschooler]

Calorie counting works but not all calories are equal. 200 calories of fruit is not the same as 200 calories of cake. Weight Watchers takes into account other things like carbs, etc.

 

This was the major impetus behind WW switching from Points to PointsPlus a few years ago. With points, a banana and a 100-calorie pack of cookies were both worth 2 (or maybe 3) points, so people would often choose the cookies over the banana. Since 100 calories of cookies doesn't really fill you up or keep you full for any length of time, it's clear that 100 calories of cookie is a poorer choice than a banana. So, they decided to change the calculations, and simple carb-heavy foods cost more. They decided to make all fruits "free" because they wanted to steer people toward fruit over candy or whatever. 

 

Because fruits and veggies don't cost anything (with some exceptions, like avacados unfortunately), it is simpler for me to count Points than calories. That and the fact that it's easier to count 26 of something (Points) versus 1400 of something (calories). Just like with counting calories, you find you have a few reliable foods you eat often and you just learn their value--you don't have to keep looking everything up. And if you don't have the time to calculate exact Points, a good rule of thumb is 40 calories=1 Point.