Just a question for you guys...

I'm trying to decide between weight watchers and calorie counting. Does anyone have any advice about which is easier/better? I know it's prolly a preference thing.

So I figured out that I should have about 23 points per day (I wasn't counting exercise bc I'd like to lose faster) and today I ate 40...which is baaad I know. So I was curious and added up the calories of what I ate as well...that was 1879 calories. That is still higher but didn't seem as bad to me as the 40 points, lol. I'm not really sure what calorie range I should even aim for, I've heard 1200 is the lowest to go though.

Does anyone have any advice? I'd really appreciate it

I have done both and I lose weight on ww, but I can maintain if I do calorie counting. I am more accurate when I do points, but calorie counting definitely makes me think about what I am putting in mouth at every meal. I am sure it boils down to a preference thing, but that has been my experience. Good luck!

i like ww better because it seems easier to me

I personally like calorie counting. It makes you accountable for everything you put in your mouth. Its not that difficult and it comes in handy after a while it just becomes second nature. Also anytime i go out to eat i pretty much know the calories on everything i can eat. If you choose to calorie count let me just tell you that the 2things that kept me on track were my calorie king book and a notebook to write everything down in.

I like them about the same, but leaning on the side of cal counting to be easier.

I haven't been able to understand weight watchers. My friend at work does it and has really tried to recruit me. I resisted because it cost money to participate. But I also didn't get it and thought I'd have to learn an "artificial" system to follow. I don't mean it as a criticism for folks who do use, that's just how it seemed to me. And honestly, I thought it required too much "new math". I'm horrible at math.

So, I followed calories and eventually have a large list of known calories that I rely on. I mostly want to know calories, portion size, density (how much water content such as lettuce or watermellon), and food group.

I'm not against WW, I just didn't get it for my own abilities and situation.

I have done both and lost on both. The first 19 lbs I lost on Weight Watchers. it was what I needed to get started. Once I felt confident in losing weight, I quit Weight Watchers and started counting calories. I didn't need that group support anymore. It was cheaper to count calories.

They both work.

I was calorie counting ,but was tired of writing on a notebook ..so, I digged out my weight watchers points calculator and now tracking it ...so much easier for me and knowing I will continue for life this way.

I've been doing both, seems to keep me extra-accountable!

I use fitday.com AND WW books & a journal that a friend gave me. (he had extras--Yay!)

Calorie counting works the best for me. I think that writing it all down makes it very real to me. It's super easy, too.

I've done them both and am sort of doing them both now, too. (Disclosure: I've never been to meetings -- I've done it all on my own.) I mean, ESSENTIALLY they are the same thing: you are limiting your caloric intake to a certain amount, just with WW, you use a formula to come up with your caloric limit.

The basic idea with WW is that you count most of your foods, and then you have some free foods. When I converted WW journals to calories, I saw that for me, the WW points came up to about 1200 - 1400 calories, and then if I counted the 0-point foods, it added about 150 - 200 calories a day. Which is the same as the 1400 - 1600 calorie goal I have now.

I've also calorie counted like I was doing WW, by counting calories for most things, but not bothering to weigh/count calories in "free" foods like lettuce, broccoli, zucchini, plain broth, etc. When I calorie counted like that I would set my calorie goal a little lower to account for the calories in the foods that I wasn't counting.

Both systems have things that are easier and things that are harder about them. But since they both inherently rely on attaching some sort of numerical value (points or calories) to a certain amount of a certain food, they are essentially doing the same thing. And I personally find it very easy to switch back and forth between them and combine them as I see fit!

I count WW points. I had been a member of WW in the past, still had my old books with points values and also remembered the points for some foods even after a long break. I used to have a points calculator which broke, so I got a new one last year and have been using that since then. I think both are valid ways to go.

the reason i do not advocate WW for myself is mainly one:

i have a friend who did WW and succesfully lost a lot of weight, BUT: she would have her points-chocolate muffins, and puddings, and white flower breads.. even though with points system these "goodies" are restricted, so if you follow your points you lose weight, STILL, imho, when you're back in the "real world", what have you learnt about nutrition?

she even told me one day, when she was close to reaching goal "i cannot wait till i am at goal, so i don't have to buy all those WW stuff anymore". so she'll do what? revert to previous habits, maybe slowly at first, but with a false confidence that might prove disastrous later.

so, for myself, i do good ol' CC.

disclaimer: this is my own personal view about WW, and thumbs up to whoever's losing/maintaining on WW.

xx grrrkgrrrl

I've done both. I'm currently counting calories, but I lost 110 pounds a few years ago by counting WW points (didn't go to meetings; just counted on my own). I gained the weight back with pregnancy (some of it, anyway).

A lot of people have misconceptions about WW that you have to buy certain foods or that it's complicated. If you have the WW slide, it's not complicated at all to figure out points. And honestly, I just estimated half the time that 50 calories = a point, and that worked for me. You don't have to be exact. I'm finding this time that I need to be a bit more accountable, though, so I'm counting actual calories and I'm liking that better.

You certainly don't have to buy special foods on WW, anymore than you would have to while counting calories. And you can eat absolute junk on either plan, as long as they fit within your calorie or points budget. One hopes that people will not do that and will instead fill their calorie or points budget with nutritious things, but that doesn't always happen. And bad nutrition can happen either way, points or calories. In fact, I'd say that one thing about counting points is that it does encourage better nutrition in one sense -- the points count of a food goes up if there's more fat content and down if there's more fiber. So you might have a 75-calorie item that's worth one point because it has a lot of fiber, or you might have a 75-calorie item that's worth two because it has a lot of fat.

They both work and they're both great ways to lose weight, but I'm choosing to count calories this time.