WW Food and Point Issues - 26 pts less then 1000 calories??

i calculated out the number of calories i am eating and its under 1000 even though i am eating lots of fruit veggies and lean proteins and dairy. can this be healthy??

No this doesnt sound healthy.Do you go to the meetings?I would talk to your leader next time you go to a meeting.Maybe your counting the calories off?

26 points would not be less then 1000 calories unless most of the things you are eating are high in fat and low in fiber. 26 pts should be more like 1300 calories.

This is the average that W/W figured out for points:
18 points = 1050 calories
20 points = 1150 calories
22 points = 1250 calories
24 points = 1350 calories
26 points = 1450 calories
28 points = 1550 calories
30 points = 1650 calories
32 points = 1750 calories
34 points = 1850 calories
35 points = 1900 calories (Weekly Points Allowance)
36 points = 2050 calories

Remember this is not always true but a good guide and DOES NOT include the 200-250 calories a day W/W built into the program for free veggies.

Where are you getting your calorie information? It doesn't add up (no pun intended) that you would feel like you were "eating lots of fruit veggies and lean proteins and dairy" and be eating fewer than 1000 calories. 1000 calories is very little food. Also for 26 pts to be under 1000 calories, you'd pretty much have to eat all of those calories in butter or oil.

Well i do eat 1 tbsp of peanut butter, and 1 stick cheese - could this be why???


well here is how it breaks down :

382 cals from fat (41%)
331 cals from protein (35%)
227 from carbs. (24%)


guess i am eating to much fat....

No, I literally mean to get under 1000 calories, all of the food you eat would have to be pure fat. Fat is about 35 calories to a point. If there is little fat or fiber, a point tends to be around 50 calories. If there is tons of fiber and no fat, a point can be up to around 85 or 90 caloires.

For a while, I was counting both calories and points, and the 50 pt average was pretty much on the money. So, if you're eating 26 points, it should be rare that you eat less than 1200 - 1300 calories.

this is what i plan/have eaten today.
calories - fat - carb- protein - fiber
1 pk instant oatmeal


100 2 18 4 3

Egg, whole, raw


75 5 1 6 0

Blueberries, raw


41 0 10 0 2

Apple, raw


74 0 19 0 3

Carrots, baby, raw


30 0 7 1 1

shredded cheese


97 8 0 5 0

3 oz chicken strips - pre packaged (grilled)


110 2 3 19 0

Caesar dressing


39 4 0 0 0

Lettuce, cos or romaine, raw


2 0 0 0 0

Peanut butter


100 8 3 4 1

cheese stick


90 8 0 6 0

Chicken, breast, with or without bone, broiled, skin not eaten


183 4 0 34 0

Vegetables, mixed, frozen, unprepared


45 0 10 2 2
986 42 71 83 12

By my count, that's only around 19 - 20 pts, not 26.

its not 1000... its 1300 nand no i dont think its healthy which is why im so against flex

Well, it's pretty boring, if you don't mind my saying so. You could add in a lot and still be within your 26 points.

And Andrea, Flex doesn't have to mean unhealthy. I do Flex, but using Core type foods. I eat very little processed food.

that only added up to about 20 points..so eat about 6 more points and that will push it up to around 1300 calories. The lettuce probably has 0 points and you can give only 1 pt each to the rest of those fruits/veggies.

waterat,

im not saying it is.....i just think the point targets are too low thats all:)

someone mentioned pb.... i just found an awesome lowfat(3) powdered pb at bellplantation.com

Remember to follow the 8 healthy guidelines too.

Between your healthy oils that your body needs and the dairy servings you use up points.

Remember that 0 point veggies which are always 0 points add calories to your day.

Remember too for cheese to be a dairy serving you need 1 1/2 oz of hard or semi soft cheese....most serving sizes on the package and most slices and sticks are only 3/4 of an ounce.

When points first came out, I remember the leaders stressing that the point targets were not "set in stone." If someone couldn't lose at their targeted points, they were to talk to a leader after the meeting, about cutting points further. Also mentioned, but not stressed (how many people are going to complain about losing weight "too fast") was that if you were losing very fast and were feeling too hungry, you could talk to the leader to adjust your points upward.

The two most important components of losing weight (if you care about being healthy as well) is understanding basic nutrition, and understanding you body and its needs.

My leader says to figure each 50 calories at 1 point. Not exact, but pretty close! I tend to use that as a rule of thumb at the store in reading labels.

If you use the 1pt=50cal, you're at about 20-21 pts. Get to eating girl! You won't do very well if you don't eat enough. Your body will think you are starving it and slow down.

Technically my points target should be 18 but I found that was way too little food so I upped my target by 2 and I'm doing pretty good with that. So it's not against WW law or anything to adjust your target.

On another note I've done Core too and I think both programs are great and work great. :carrot:

I'm with you Colleen you can be within points but be eating all the wrong things and getting little or no nutrition. I think the points are set for portion control and the food groups are to learn healthy eating. This is my second time around on WW last time I lost 103 lbs. and am right at 30 lbs this time and have always done the points system. It works but you have to make wise selections from all of the food groups to be eating healthy. I can eat a Big Mac and super size fry and that would be it for the day. I would be within my points but surley not within the way the program was meant to be :)
Just my opinion. Good luck to all on thier journey.
Tiffanie

I think of points as a calorie counting shortcut. While the fat/fiber components of the system encourage low fat, high fiber, the calorie count is sort of the "bottom line." Still, points and calories are ways to monitor the "quantity" of food (calories), not the quality. The guidelines WW uses are quality related, but it's still up to each of us to use common sense.

Personally, I think even following the WW guidelines or Core instead of flex, are not guarantees of healthy eating. I think a basic nutrition book is very useful in helping a person understand why some choices are better than others. And I think when you understand the whys of healthy eating, it makes it easier to make healthier choices.

I mean, no one food is "healthy" or for that matter "unhealthy" by itself. An apple is healthy only in conjunction with eating other things - you can't live on apples. If a person were starving, a snickers bar would be a better choice than an apple, if they only had access to one or the other. You can't judge any one food in a vaccuum.

I disagree to an extent. W/W guidelines (8 Healthy Guidelines) and especially Core lean towards what SHOULD BE done based on nutritional research and USDA/FDA guidelines. This is where I agree with that statement, the individual has to put them in place and make the wise choices.

Maybe it depends on an individual's personality, but for me I'm not likely to follow advice just because someone tells me I "should." I need to understand the reasons for myself.

kaplods, (total teasing voice) then get out your check book and start taking nutritional classes at your local college or university. LOL! That is how I learned about nutrition. It is all based on much science and research what the FDA/USDA puts out in what the body needs but as the science gets more complex the more we find out and the reason things change.

Thus the change from eating 5-6 meals a week in liver and fish to the complex variety that is recommended for over all health now.