At my meeting today, someone raised the issue I've seen raised a lot. She pointed out she still had quite a bit to lose and wondered why she was now at the minimum of 29 rather than it going down as she lost weight.
The leader made 2 points to respond to this.
First, she said that in developing the new program WW determined that it was giving too few points to some people. The amount of food they were allowed to eat just wasn't enough.
Second, she did point out that WW has not always adjusted points according to weight. Back when WW did exchanges all women got the same number of exchanges each day and all men got the same number, regardless of weight, age, height, activity level, etc. And, she pointed out that people did indeed lose weight then.
I can see her points. I became a lifetime member on exchanges and at one point was near the bottom of my weight range. And my exchanges never changed during the entire time I lost weight. And neither did those of anyone else and plenty of people still got to goal.
I can also see why they would make 29 points a minimum. 29 points a day works out to roughly 1100 calories plus zero point foods. (I think WW assumes an average of about 200 calories a day for zero point foods). If you cut a couple of hundred calories from all that by having less than 29 points you get to a point where it is really not possible to consistently eat nutritionally without being required to use weekly points and weekly points are supposed to be optional.
