I'm in WW and have always been confused about why activity points as calculated by WW don't seem to equal the number of calories actually burned. I am 5'3", weigh about 215 and just worked out very hard for 1 hour. According to WW, that's 11 Points. According to the elliptical and treadmill, I burned about 300 calories, which would translate to 6 Points.

Anyone know what gives?

I'm not really knowledgeable with the ins and outs of Weight Watchers, but I can speculate.

It could be a difference between 300 calories total and one hour total - 300 calories could be burned throughout the day and wouldn't be quite as beneficial as 300 calories steadily burned over the course of one hour.

Does that make sense?

Well for starters, I'd always err on the low side, unless you are absolutely genuinely ravenous and really feel you need to eat more of your APs. (You do not have to eat them, of course.) Second, neither measure is totally accurate. The WW points thingy is an estimation of your exertion, and I hear treadmills and such aren't terribly accurate either for whatever reason. Also, did you work out very hard for the WHOLE hour, or was some of that time warm-up and cool down? I'm always tempted to say I worked out hard the whole time when I know I take at least 5 if not 10 at the start and finish to wind up/down. If that's the case you do need to use the 'low' area of the tracker to figure out what you earn for the warm up/cool down parts.

In your case, I'd stick with the 6 points unless, like I said, you really feel the need to eat more than that.

That's because they really aren't based on calories burned. It's hard to judge intensity. I try to use the rule:

Low - I can talk and sing
Mod - I can talk but not sing
High - I need a deep breath to speak 1-3 syllables.

Machines are regularly not accurate in the number of calories burned. And 300 calories burned WOULDN'T be 6 points. The rule of thumb when using calories burned is 1 point for every 100 calories burned.