Weight Loss
Moderators: coach_k, spoiled_candy, Mollybygolly, devilish_patsy, nycgirl

# LOCKED TOPIC WW points = approx how many calories

I have followed WW for a long time without success. I did hear that 1 point = 70 calories, if that is so, I have been eating much to much. Here they say I should eat 1230 calories, approx. 17 pts, WW said I should eat 24 pts. I am trying to calorie count right now, but wanted to compare. Does anybody have any idea about this?

Edited Jul 08 2014 10:21 by coach_k
Reason: locked to prevent unnecessary zombie and/or spam bumps
19 Replies (last)
I think that it's more complicated than points for calories. The points in WW take into account fiber, fat and calories. Why don't you eat within your 24 point range and log your food on here at the same time for a 1 week period to see how things compare?

Good luck!
Oh, also, you may start at 24 points with WW but as you know as you lose weight your points decrease.
Thanks for the info. I'll keep plodding along and try to count calories and compare them with points.
The point formula is easily accesible on google, I think this was the third link down:

One point = (calories/50) + (fat grams/12) - (min{r, 4}/5)

I'm way too lazy for algebra this morning (r being fiber up to a value of 4 grams), but fat and fiber determine points as much as calories.
Weight watchers if totally working for me, I love the points because I don't think just looking at calories is going to help much, but on ww you look at saturated fat too. But because points take both of these things into account, you can't really say for sure how many calories are per point, because it changes with the amount of fat.
It equals about 50 kcals. I asked a weightwatcher director.
Well, the weight watchers director may have said that, but when I finally had the courage to abandon weight watchers, I figured out how many calories were in the foods I was eating to stay within my 18-23 point range.  Some days I was only eating 900 calories, but it was working out to be at least 20 points because of the fat content.  There were also days that I was eating WAY over my upper limit of 1750 calories because I was eating such high fiber foods and using the old 1-2-3 points where you can count up to 10 grams of fiber.  No wonder my body went crazy and my digestive system stopped working!

I personally believe that WW is a good plan for people who weigh more than 150 pouns to learn how to evaluate the healthiness of foods.  (I still try to eat low fat and high fiber.  However, I now know that I wasn't eating enough fat and was eating too much fiber and ended up with lesions in my colon.)  Even if they eat the lowest points in their range (is that 22?) , there is still a good chance they could stay about 1200 calories.  For people who weigh less than 150 and are limited to 18-23 points, it isn't enough, since a food's point values increase directly with increases in fat grams.

Another WW consideration, it doesn't account for good fat (e.g., olive oil) and bad fat (bacon grease).

Since you have to know calories to calculate points, even with a slide rule from WW, to me, it seems better to count calories and not points.
When I did WW they recommended taking flaxseed oil or some other oil everyday in order to get the good fats in
Weightwatchers has changed their plan to accommodate healthy oils.  A point is somewhere around 50 calories, and would go up or down from 50 depending on fiber and fat content, but now they have "good health habits" that you are supposed to do in addition to your points.  So with your daily points allowance, you should be eating at least 5 servings of fruits & veggies, 2-3 servings milk (depending on age), and 2 tsp of healthy oil in addition to 6 glasses of water.

I was in WW before these "good health habits," and I did well for a while only to plateau because I was using my points for non-nutritious food.  I would just spend them on whatever and think I was fine because I was within my points range.  I am back now and it's going much better when I use my points for healthier foods.  I like calorie counting also, but WW gives me a bit more structure, so it's easier for me to stick to.
They have "free foods" too, so you get more calories in that way... Like a lot of non-starchy vegetables are 0 points up to a certain amount.
A 100 calorie food that is high fiber might be 1 pt but if it doesn't have alot of fiber it might be 2 pts.  It does depend alot on the fat and fiber content of a food.  That is why WW adds fiber to its frozen dinners so they will be less point value.  They also give you 1 pt of activity pt you can eat extra for every 100 calories burned in a workout  and their "35 pts" a week bonus you got to figure is 3500 cals or that elusive 1 lb weight loss a week we srive for.

here is the difference with regard to food points.  (I teach nutrition at the college level and have 6 years of research in the field of cancer prevention)...fiber, a starch has calories, but the *effective* calories for the fiber portion are basically zero...so although food energy in the form of calories is present, our bodies do not absorb fiber well and so nutritionists sometimes count those calories as zero (on our tests in fact to my students, we do not count them as effective calories)...so weight watchers is correct in reducing calorie/point number by removing fiber calories...

Try to keep in mind a balanced diet will help you achieve long-term weight goals and issues of degenerative diseases.  But our psychology is equally important in weight loss (I know this from my personal experience) and weight management.  Good for you for asking this important question!!!

Hi there.  I have spent sometime researching this as I measure my calories during exercise and add the points to my Weight Watchers app.

I found the assumed calculation (unconfirmed by weight watchers) on Wikipedia (a fairly reliable source of information).  If you search for the Weight Watchers article it is under the formulas section.

So, if you take a common food, 100g of Wholewheat pasta (a favourite part of my diet) which is 14.4g Protein, 63.4g Carbohydrate, 2.3g Fat and 7.2g Fibre the calculation (without the Round) returns 8.22 WW Points.  I know that there are 346 calories in 100g of this pasta, so I divide 346 calories by the 8.22 WW Points to get 42.1 Calories per WW Point.

If you type this information into the latest version of the app then it seems to round up to 9 WW Points, so based on the 346 Calories this would be 38.5 Calories per WW Point.

I used this method to test a range of other foods, including rice, cooking sauces, etc using the calculated points and the calories for that amount on the packet and it was around the 40 Calories Per WW Point mark (give or take 2 to 3 calories either way) for each of the food types tested.

Phew, so in summary I put 1 WW Point for every 40 Calories that I burn into the app and this seems to work well

thhq
May 09 2013 22:19
Member posts
Send message
I started losing weight using ADA's old carb exchange system. This was complicated. You were really counting to control your carbs, and calorie counting was incidental, since the objective was blood sugar control for diabetes.

After doing this for a few weeks I got my blood glucose under control, but had started losing weight. At this point I was used to counting exchanges, so I decided to modify it into calorie exchanges by averaging the carb exchange calories over all the food groups. I came up with a standard exchange of about 70 calories. I then adapted my exercise to the same method and count it by 70 calorie exchanges as well.

I've been logging calories in a notebook for the last 6 years. The use of 70 calorie exchanges makes it very easy to count within the framework of weeks, because summing up the all the exchanges for a week and multiplying by 10 gives the average calories per day for that week. I control my maintenance by these weekly averages for both exercise and eating.

It seems weird to me that this is nearly identical to the concept of Weight Watchers. I allow myself a base of 22 eating exchanges per day (1540 calories). I add my exercise exchanges to this, and typically arrive at 30-35 exchanges per day that I can eat without regaining weight. Since my counting is imprecise and usually undercounted I have to stay at 2-3 exchanges of deficit to maintain.

This system of counting calories via exchanges still works after six years.

I do not know how many calories there are in the weight watchers points. However, the OLD POINTS SYSTEM works better.

I gained weight  with the new Weight Watchers Point Plus when it came out.

Therefore, in my case, I have to stick to 21 points per day of the old system in order to lose weight.

The new Points Plus system setting my daily allowance at 26 is way too high.

My doctor always told me that 1000 calories a day is too high in my case to lose weight.  Thus, if I lose weight with 21 of the old system weight watchers points, I must consume below 1000 calories.

Anyways.  I guess it depends of each individual.  Good luck and be persistent !

Unless you're the size of my mother-in-law or have some sort of "real" medical issue, you shouldn't be eating 1000 calories or less.

And: Braaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiinz

Original Post by nebichan:And: Braaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiinz

True. But it's low-quality brains... The thread has already been resurrected last year ;)

From what i know it's ww points=calories/60+fats/9 for the foods you don't have in the table. I found one in a magazine and it set me at 18 points. For me this was around 900-1000cals, i think it's little because i don't eat much vegetables(which usually have zero points) and too many fats...so they take much points and i have to stay with less calories...or eat vegs, ofc The points depend on weight also..
Original Post by _c_a_t_:

From what i know it's ww points=calories/60+fats/9 for the foods you don't have in the table. I found one in a magazine and it set me at 18 points. For me this was around 900-1000cals, i think it's little because i don't eat much vegetables(which usually have zero points) and too many fats...so they take much points and i have to stay with less calories...or eat vegs, ofc The points depend on weight also..

This is way too little for an 18 year old girl. The minimum for weight loss at your age would be 1,500 if you sat on your behind all day... I'm guessing you are eating at starvation level because you are close to underweight already.

Trying to starve yourself down to 99lbs - a BMI of 17.2 - will cause you great harm. Don't do it.

[Yes, i know this is a zombie thread, but I felt it worth replying to _c_a_t_ - feline to feline, ya know? ]

19 Replies