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.
My question is is that I heard that they raised the points though of a lot of foods except fruits and vegetables of course. So really 29 points is the same as having 20 points if you are counting the points on the old food system?
It seems like it's still the same it just that they said fruits are zero which I think is awesome. I always thought that they should never count for fruit.
You are raising a different issue. Yes, a "point" now is worth about 38 to 39 points (depending on what you eat). Before it was worth about calories.
So for some people the new point level scales very closely to their old point level. But not the 29 points.
In the past the minimum point level you could have (if not on maintenance) was 18. At my current weight, I had 23 points. And people who weighed more than me had even more points. If I continue to lose weight under the old program I would have 22 points, then 21, etc. all the way down to 18.
The "bar" that was set to get the minimum of 18 was quite low so most people while losing weight consistently had their points go down.
Now, the "bar" for the minimum is quite high. For example, someone who had 18 points under the old plan...now gets 29 points. Someone who had 21 points under the old plan...now gets 29 points. I had 23 points under the old plan and get 29 points. People who weight more than me have also reported having 29 points.
I will not go down in points ever until I get back to my goal weight of 145. Now, that was how it was when I was eating exchanges back when I first got to goal. My exchanges never changed until I got to maintenance. But for people who became members more recently they are used to point going down as you lose weight. That will still happen on this plan but only at higher weight ranges than before and you will reach the minimum of 29 at higher weight.
I weigh 226 and I have an allowance of 37 per day. I find myself eating 29 anyways, mostly because I am not that hungry and everyone around me gets that many too. I don't use my weekly allowance, never really have. However, if I have to I would. So far it is working, though I have only been on the new program for a week and the nest 2 Saturdays are closed. I am going to save my money and skip meetings because they won't charge me.
When I first started Weight Watchers I was at 34 points (267lbs) and before the plan changed I was down to 26 which didn't seem like much to me. Now that I'm getting 29 it seems like a LOT of food since I'm eating 3 or 4 servings of fruit per day =D Really liking the new plan!!
I like the fact that it feels like I have options, and that it's not that hard to stay within my daily points allowance now that they allow 0 Points+ for more fruits and veggies. On the old program I would run out of points by late afternoon and not have anything left for dinner. Now I can have a fruit salad or veggies and not feel like I'm unsatisfied.
How much a point is in calories does vary as the formula is not straight calorie based. However, I track my calories daily and for me a point ends up usually working out between 37 and 39 calories. This can vary depending upon what you eat.
Makes sense. I was always in fear of only having 18 points to eat at some point on the old plan anyway...at least this new way does away with that fear!
I havent officially went back to WW so I have no experience with the new plan but I was one of those on the 18 points a day for a while when I hit goal. It was TOUGH!!!!
It's possible that your 18 points under the old plan were equal to 1800 calories. Under the new plan the 29 points are closer to 1200 calories, add 200 for fruits and veggies and the whole "I can't possibly eat 29 points!" argument sort of goes out the window.
I agree with seagirl that it has to be pretty much the same as far as your total daily limit of calories (give or take fiber and protein). They've just tricked you in way of thinking that you are getting more food by giving you more points but it equals out. A point used to be about 60 calories and your lowest limit was 18 (I'm currently at 20 and it's hard). Now the points are more like 37 - 39 calories as Kay said but you now have 29 points.
I figure I am cool with staying on the 20 point old plan but I am no longer couting fruits and vegges which is awesome, I don't feel like I am starving. The only main reason that I haven't switched to the new plan is that I cannot currently afford to go to the meetings or do the online thing.
Why minimum is 29 points
