Hi everyone,

I was wondering if there was any real difference between counting calories and doing weight watchers. Is it just easier to count points?

I personally find it easier to count points, even though it includes looking at calories. The points system also takes fat and fibre into consideration, which encourages eating less fat and more fibre.

I used to count calories, and I found myself getting frustrated with that, because the numbers were high and not easy to add up quickly. Also, it was a little hard to be "accurate". With points, there is a range of calories that you can have for one point, so you don't have to be so picky about measuring an *exact* number of grams of food. I think this is more realistic, as it better prepares you to think about how much food you are eating when you go on maintenance.

simplicity in the numbers is one reason that points are easier it is easier to count in the 'tens' (20, 22, 24 etc points a day)

and the fact that fat and fiber (we want a lower fat diet adn a higher fiber one -- fat is a penalty <ie, higher points> and fiber is a benefit <ie, lower points> are needed to have a healthy diet.

As long as you stick to healthy foods, I think counting calories would work ok. That being said, let me also say I used to count calories and was never successful long-term. With WW, I have lost and kept off 85 pounds. I truly believe it is because of my mind-set, though. It couldn't have been the meetings since I was unable to go to those.

Imho, if you find a healthy way to lose, and can do it for the rest of your life, go for it!

As long as you eat a low fat, high fiber, balanced diet, I don't see why counting calories wouldn't work. I like the points better though. It's easier for me to look at my cappucino and say "3 pts" instead of 157 calories. Add that to 318 calories for such and such plus 421 calories for that. 3+6+8 is much easier for a daily on-going basis. And with WW, you get free veggies that have no points!