I follow the Weight Watchers calorie counting. No way could I ever do the points- I would be off the deep end, trying to figure it all out. No thanks, but best of luck to anyone that is doing it!
I did points after my first baby, and I was wildly successful. This time, it just did not work. I tried to work the system, and while I was very good at beating the points, I was not losing weight.
I got very sick of taking my points counter everywhere.
The thing I like best about using calorie-count.com is that I can see my composite percentage of how I ate that day. The other day, I was wicked low on fiber, and I was starving in the afternoon. I like the detail of counting calories.
Points are just short hand for calories anyway, and since I know how to add, I just could not justify paying them to do it for me.
I, too, have never understood the, well, point of Points. A point is primarily based on 50 calories (with minor variance for fat and fiber). But as long as I'm tracking my calories, fat, and fiber myself, I can tell I'm in a healthy range without translating that info into Points.
I had a bit of a debate with a girl at work one day about this. I count calories, and her diet du jour was WW Points. I asked her why she counted Points instead of calories, and she said it was easier. Her example was that she could buy Lean Cuisine meals, and they already had the Points value right on the front. I kind of laughed and said, "yeah, but EVERY product has the calories listed on the label!"
Like I said, I just don't get the point (no pun intended...well, maybe a little).
I guess I don't understand what is so annoying or confusing about different approaches being available and possibly effective. The food exchange program, calorie counting, point counting, CORE, South Beach (and every other program that has been or will be developed) has advantages and disadvantages, and while some are less logically and nutritionally sound, there are certainly going to be some people more suited to use one program over another. I don't think there's anything mysterious in that.
I can certainly understand prefering one method over another, but I don't see the point in being annoyed at the existence of a program you don't understand or like, especially when it isn't dangerous or incompatible with healthy choices. So you've determined it's not for you, big woop. If you like one way better (whether you have a "good" or logical reason for the preference or not) and it's working for you, then that's wonderful. The "best" way is what works best for you. If you don't understand why a different way works for someone else, why would this annoy you?
Well Kaplods, I've gotta ask you this - why does it annoy you, as you appear to be and if you're not then I apologize - if someone else is annoyed by the concept of counting points?
I don't think that anyone is annoyed that a particular program exisits as you said some were. We were just agreeing with the original poster in that yes, we could see where counting points could be considered annoying. Like I said in my original answer to the poster that many people like and are successful using WW. But yup, to ME and apparently to others as well, I'd find it annoying. This is after all the CALORIE COUNTERS forum so chances are you're going to find people that are , well ummm .... yeah, counting calories. Meaning that's THEIR preference.
Many people would find calorie counting annoying - and that's okay - it's their opinions and they're entitled to it. One persons annoyance is another persons preference.
Big woop. I mean, what's that all about?
Last edited by rockinrobin; 06-17-2007 at 11:35 PM.
Lol I find calorie counting annoying and I do it, because I found it harder to do the points conversions and sometimes felt the points were unfair for what I considered a healthier option (it was a while ago when i did it). To each his own I say, I am doing calorie counting even though I am not fond of it because its the best fit for me! If I could find the one thing that would work for my mom I would support her fully in it.
I wasn't annoyed or bothered, and the big woop I suppose could have been taken as nasty sarcasm, but it wasn't meant that way. Just as I may have mistaken the intended tone of some of the posts, as some word choices like irk and debate, and not getting the point seem to imply more than personal preference, but judgement upon the program itself and people who choose it. It seems a lot like saying "Estimating to the nearest tenth really irks me, it just doesn't make as much sense as rounding to the nearest thousandth". Obviously that's a gross oversimplification, but to me, the advantages and disadvantages of each seem rather obvious, being familiar with both (and if you're not, how can you compare) and my question was more literally, what is so confusing or annoying about it, beyond personal preference?
...my question was more literally, what is so confusing or annoying about it, beyond personal preference?
I'm not sure anyone here is really "annoyed" at the existence of Points. When I said my coworker and I had a little "debate," I meant just that--not a throw down screaming match or anything. We were simply discussing why we were each comfortable with something different than the other; neither of us tried to convince the other they were "wrong." Just because I personally don't "get" the idea of Points doesn't mean they don't work wonderfully for some others. It is nothing but personal preference, and that's all this thread is about. You seem more annoyed with the people who are annoyed than anyone who was annoyed in the first place
This is merely a discussion among calorie counters (here in the "Calorie Counters" section of the forum) about why we think counting calories makes more sense than counting Points. I'm sure there have been similar dicussions in the South Beach section about why South Beach is better than Atkins (and vice versa) or in the exercise section about why strength training is better than cardio (and vice versa). Again, all personal preferences, not finger pointing or condemning those who choose differently
I'm not annoyed by the existence of Points, but I personally just can't fathom why someone would want to pay to count Points rather than count calories for free. Points are just a roundabout, less accurate way of counting calories! Plus it's not as easy to see (as someone said above) the fiber intake the fat/protein/carb ratio etc. I guess I don't see Points as having any advantages.
I bought the weight watcher books and point scale off of ebay and did it for a few months last year (I have had several friends who had excellent success with WW, and I was motivated by that). It wasn't so bad at first, but then I began to misplace my sliding points counter. That's me... I'm always losing stuff! That's what did me in. I'm a calorie counter now (I use fitday), but I still keep in mind some WW principles (which are basic weight loss principles) that it's not just calories that count but fat and fiber content are important as well. So, I do try to eat clean and wholesome foods that are relatively low in fat, high in fiber, etc. etc. I know most calorie counters are also striving to eat healthfully while counting calories, but there are some who believe that 1500 calories of junk or empty calories is equal to 1500 calories of veggies, lean protein, etc.
So, while calorie counting works better for me, I do think WW is a great program. I have many, many friends who have gotten their weight problems under control using it. They will always count points even when they've reached goal, much like calorie counters will always count calories.
Others have already said it (and eloquently I might add) My original post said that counting points irks _me_. I never said I was annoyed the WW program existed. My post also said counting points works great for my DH. I’m very happy he’s on it.
I never said the WW program was confusing nor did I say I didn’t understand why the program works for some people. _In my experience_, being close to goal I find I eat a lot of high calorie foods within my points and don’t lose.
Therefore counting points _for me_ irks me because it does not accomplish what I want it to accomplish….weight loss.
I agree, counting points annoyed me for ME to do it. It doesn't annoy me that other people do it! But I would get soooo annoyed when I was trying so hard to make healthy choices but that didn't neccessarily pay off in points. Like white rice and brown rice are the same points for the same amounts. Yet, brown rice is the healthy choice. And I can't remember precisely but there were many times I chose a processed snacky item over a healthier one because it was less points or more volume for the points. That didn't make me feel good. I realize I *could* have made the healthier choices for myself, it just didn't seem like there was incentive built in to the point system.
Emotional content just doesn't come accross in a post, and there's just nothing you can do about that. Maybe I took some posts too literally, as I just couldn't get what there wasn't to get, as both plans, to me seem pretty easy to understand, fairly straight foward with most of the same advantages and disadvantages. And while there are a few distinctions, they didn't seem big enough to justify a condemnation of the point system (which I mistakenly took some of the arguments as).
I am currently counting WW points...well, actually I am counting WW points and counting calories (thus being here on the counting calories thread) at the same time as a little experiment for myself. I have seen a few different threads on here regarding counting calories as opposed to counting points and I wanted to see just where they come in, in relation to each other every day. So far (after one day...lol!) my points came in two lower than my allotted and the calories came in just about on target. Pretty close if you ask me.
I believe the main difference is that calculating the points forces you to consider the fat content as well - you need to use more points for higher fat content foods. This isn't necessary for someone who counts calories and keeps their fat content below a certain percentage. But there are plenty of people who strictly count calories without taking the other factors into consideration and WW points may just work better for them. Who knows? I'm all about experimenting and tweaking what works for ME! even if it turns out to be a combination of plans.
33tekfan, with me and countng calories it's EXACTLY the opposite of how you take it.
Since I DO count calories, I try to get the most food (volume) for my money so to speak. Well the most food for my allotment. So high fat foods is simply out of the question. I would never waste my calories on fatty, greasy foods - you get sooo much less of it. I'm also looking for the highest nutritional value at the same time. So out goes all the junk and sugary stuff.
