I also agree. I know too many people IRL who are having trouble losing weight on WW because of the fruits and veggies thing. I know, personally that while I'm not precise with my calorie counts, I still count just about everything. Not counting fruit or veggies would easily cause me to gain. When you get down closer to goal or at goal you have less wiggle room!

I can see making certain veggies 0 points, but not fruit. I understand the reasoning behind it (making real foods more attractive to eat) but I think it's a little misguided.

im still eating the same amount of fruits and veggies and my weight has come off. I think it was my body getting used to the med. im just glad it wasnt permanent. Im sure when I get smaller it will be a bigger factor.

Interesting thread since I've been all over the map with weight loss this last decade and look for any and all WWers threads here...I've come back to the new Weight Watchers plan and am steadily losing weight...finally.

Re the "free" fruits and veg: Weight Watchers actually takes into account a certain amount of calories for the freebies when determining your individual points allotment for the day (even though you don't count the points for them). Also, every epidemiological study out there shows that cultures who eat the most fruits and veg are the slimmest. They are a low caloric density food with the least calories jammed into a serving of any food group.

For me personally, replacing the higher calorie junk I used to eat with more fruits and veggies is working so well, I'm shocked. Of course WW will be the first to tell you "free" F and V are not a free-for-all-stuff-yourself silly thing. They're there to eat to satisfaction, not Thanksgiving stuffed.

Everyone's mileage varies, but for me, I'm very grateful I've come back to WW (kicking and screaming, but I did it), and I've found a way of eating that works for me.

This thread really interested me, because even in the WW community, it's a HUGE topic of conversation.

If you don't mind, I'm just going to chime in on the "zero point veggies and fruits" discussion. I don't do Weight Watchers nor any other pre-structured plan, but I make fruits and veggies the basis of my diet and make no attempt to limit them (barring a few exceptions, most notably: bananas, dried fruit, corn, and white potatoes, which are all included but portion-controlled). I do loosely estimate the calories, but if I'm too high on calories, they're the last to go. For example, yesterday I didn't have a lot of calories left for dinner, so I ate a ginormous serving of watermelon and a large english cucumber with a few tablespoons of garlic hummus. Sure, some people would be starving on that dinner - yes, I'm hearing the gasps of "where's the protein and fat?!" (it is there, for those curious) - but that's what works for me, and I still lose weight consistently.
I can see WW's logic. I dare you to eat 500 calories of raw, preferably non-starchy veggies in one sitting. Or even 500 calories of melon. If you can even do it, it'll most likely leave you feeling uncomfortably overstuffed (I've done it before). I think that it is a great move to get people to eat more veggies and fruits, given their many healthful properties. But I agree that there should be limitations when it comes to losing weight, whether that involves counting calories/points of the fruits/vegs, limiting portions of certain fruits/vegs, or both. The problem comes when people think "oh, this junk food is [x] points and that apple is [x] points...I'll take the junk, thanks." Perhaps a suitable compromise would be a separate point allocation for fruits and veggies? I don't know enough about the system to say.

I know several people who WW used to work for but did not lose weight with the new plan. I think it's because fruits and veggies shouldn't be counted the same. Unlimited veggies is fine. But it is very easy to overeat fruit and they have natural sugar in them. I think fruit should be counted like other foods.