So I am signed up for the E-tools for WW and was browsing their forums today.

Someone mentioned that the giant fudge bar is listed as a 1pt. food. HOWEVER once you calculate out the nutritional values on the box, it is in reality a 2 pt. food. That's a BIG difference.

Same goes for the Smart Ones Micro Meals.

I've been taking these point values as gospel.

Does anyone know about this??? I emailed WW, but haven't gotten a response yet.

I think some diet products are mislabeled on purpose to boost sales. I found that when measuring points on a lot of labeled diet foods many things that said 1-point really had 1.9 points and many things that said 2 points really had 2.9 points. Now this is accurate under their system because the point slider/finder is based not on rounding, but on a step function. Everthing between 1 and 1.999 is considered 1 point. Everything between 2 and 2.99 is called 2 points. It is how the scale is set. However, if you are eating mostly 2.9 point food and calling them 2, then over the course of a 24 point day, you are having closer to 36 points. I would just watch how often you eat them and remember that a 36 point day is still only about 1800 calories - enough for most women to lose weight on.

I noticed sometime there is a difference and my leader said it is because some foods were figured using winning points not flex points so I usually double check.It's a pain but I would rather be safer than sorry.

Sometimes it is just old packaging from old stock because of the old way of calculating points.

It is always best to double check but I for one don't think they do it on purpose.

I always double check the points just to be on the safe side.

I always always double check too

Formulations change over time and also the ingredients. Using the nutritional information on the box is always the most accurate way.

Morrigan I think you are wrong - they did not intentionally mislabel the products and you should be careful about liable issues.

I don't know, I wouldn't be surprised if they intentionally mislabeled items to boost sales. But, like everyone else has said I always double check just in case.


(It's only liability if she specifically named a corporation or person which she didn't)

I would merely suggest that most diet products fall at the high end of the point range. It isn't mislabeling because the point scale is a step function (mathematically), but it is misleading when something that has 148 calories calculates at 2 points on the slider because it is less then 1 mm below the 3.

It is sad we live in such a litigious society ~ never even crossed my mind to worry.