Home » Healthy Living » Diet & Nutrition » Weight Loss

Weight Watchers Points Plus: The Problem of 29

Ranked #14 in Healthy Living, #220 overall

Weight Watchers Points Plus - Trouble on the Horizon with PointsPlus

Is Weight Watchers' PointsPlus not working for you? The problem of so many people at 29 points

On February 9, 2011 Weight Watchers CEO David Kirchhoff took the unusual step -- unusual in that Weight Watchers finally has a CEO who is engaged in social media while the company's participation in their own online communities is virtually non-existent -- of acknowledging that perhaps not everything is working well for all members since the introduction of their newest weight loss system, PointsPlus. Kirchoff said:

"OK, here is my advice for those who lost on the old program but are having trouble getting traction on the new one... Eat exactly what you were eating on the old program and see what the new PointsPlus values come out to. Try it for a week and see what happens. Sometimes the trick is to find an eating pattern that works, and then stick with that pattern. While some people have struggled with the transition, many others are finding it to be a real boost. In any case, change is never easy, but stick with it!!! Hope that helps."

Meanwhile a group of Weight Watchers members successful on prior Points-based plans have created a SparkTeam at Sparkpeople.com where over two hundred former and current Weight Watchers participants who are finding the new PointsPlus system unhelpful have banded together for support continuing with the plans that work for them.

One common thread linking most of these participants together -- and those struggling on Weight Watchers forums as well -- is that they pretty much all have a daily target of 29 PointsPlus values and almost all are women. Given that Weight Watchers patent applications are published, we can look at the formulas and get hints to what might be going on.[FN1]

Photo credit: earl53 at morguefile. All charts and graphs on this page were created by the author, sockii.

What Do You Think of Weight Watchers PointsPlus

Tell us your success or failure with Weight Watchers

Loading poll. Please Wait...

Cautionary Note

I am not advocating any modifications to Weight Watchers' program based on this article and this article is not medical advice. It is a scientific review of Weight Watcher's approach. Given the level of confusion and frustration of many participants on PointsPlus it is useful for individuals to have the formulas underlying their diet program explained.

Weight Watchers PointsPlus Formulas

Looking closely at PointsPlus equations for women and men

The formulas for computation of the daily target are located in Equations 16-19 of the patents. In my prior article "Weight Watchers Introduces PointsPlus: A Critical Examination of the New Plan", I hand-waved at the formula as (target calories-1000)/35. But let's look more closely at the equations and specifically how a 40 year old, 5' 4" tall woman weighing between 110 to 250 pounds will have her daily target set. The image shows a graph for this woman.

PointsPlus Requirements for a 40 year old, 5'4" woman

Let's start with Equation 17, that computes the total energy expenditure (TEE) using gender (female), height (in meters), age, and weight (in kilograms): TEE = 387 - (7.31 * age) + 1.14 * (10.9 * weight + 660.7 * height).[FN2]

Next up, the adjusted total energy expenditure (ATEE) is computed with adjustments made for conversion cost of nutrients into usable form for the body (10%) and for foods treated as having zero PointsPlus value (add 200 calories): ATEE = TEE - (TEE * 0.10) + 200.
The real "magic" though happens in equation 19 where the fancy sounding "predetermined whole number benchmark data" or PWNB is computed. For the sake of sanity we will refer to this as the initial daily PointsPlus target (IDP): IDP = min(max((ATEE - 1000) / 35,29),71).[FN3]

To keep working in calories, we will look at the initial daily calorie target (IDC): IDC min(max((ATEE-1000), 1000), 2500).

The graph now highlights the first small shift, less of a calorie deficit than you would expect. But quick checks of these formulas in point terms lead to the quick revelation that Weight Watchers was sneaky, the IDP, or PWNB, does not match the targets anyone was given.

We will leave potential issues of patent invalidity due to failure to disclose the best mode to the side and focus on how the actual daily PointsPlus target is computed. The 49-weekly PointsPlus values, or 7 a day, is one missing piece. The other is another 4 that many believe relates to the foods with calories treated as having 0 PointsPlus value, e.g. fruit. But just subtracting 11 will not give the right results either. Weight Watchers still keeps the formula bounded below by 1000 calories, or 29 daiy PointsPlus values.

So appropriately modifying equation 19 in the patent for the actual daily PointsPlus target (ADP): ADP = min(max((max(ATEE-1000,1000) / 35) - 7 - 4, 29), 71).

Or keeping with calories, actual daily calorie target (ADC): ADC = min(max(max(ATEE-1000,1000) - 245 - 140, 1000),2500).

Interlude - An Analogy

Comparing Losing Weight on Weight Watchers PointsPlus to a Game Show

A friend came up with this analogy to explain where things came off the rails. Pretend you are going on an odd game show where the producers are giving you money each day based on a complex formula. You will be given between $1,000 and $2,500 a day. If the formula says you will get less than $1,000, the producers give you $1,000 anyhow. That's smaller calorie deficit than expected, number one.

Now, the producers want you to be able to splurge now and again and also not have to worry about using the money for certain daily necessities. So they decide to put some of your daily money into a "weekly splurge and necessities fund" to the tune of about $400. However, these producers really do not want to hand out less than $1,000 a day to anyone, so the people who would go under $1,000 get that and the $400 also. Smaller calorie deficit than expected, number two.

Image: penywise at morguefile.

Quick Comparison - Male Participants on Weight Watchers PointsPlus

For quick comparison, similar graphs have been generated for a 40 year old, 5' 10" tall male at weights from 130 lbs to 260.[FN4]

Using the game show analogy, the man is never getting extra money at stage one, lower limit of $1000 and all of the "weekly splurge and necessities fund" is removed from his calorie target, ADC.

Conclusion on Weight Watchers PointsPlus and the 29 Point Daily Target

So let's go back to the 40 year old, 5' 4" woman and stop double-limiting her targets at 1000 calories. What would her targets look like?

That's right, smaller women would get targets based around roughly 600-800 calories (before weeklies and 0 PointsPlus value foods) or more like 17-23.

Remember: I do not advocate that anyone modify their Weight Watchers daily PointsPlus target to hit such a calorie range.

Some Thoughts in Weight Watchers' Defense:

Losing Weight on PointsPlus versus Points

  • If Weight Watchers actually recommended a sub-1000 calorie a day diet they would likely be called out as irresponsible in the press for the decision. The lowest level generally considered safe/acceptable is 1200 calories a day. However, previously daily targets were as low as 18 points a day, roughly 900 calories. But if a person consumed 1/7th of their 35 weekly Flex Points per day, that would bring the bottom daily consumption close to 1,150 calories.
  • On paper, the calorie target at the bottom of the new system and old systems are within 100 calories of each other: New = (29+7)*35 = 1260 versus Old = (18+5)*50 = 1,150. If you add in 0 PointPlus fruit, the New system is at 1260 + calories for the fruit.
  • Theoretically anyone consuming below the ATEE line should lose weight. Even for the women whose actual daily target is adjusted, they should lose weight as long as they are below the ATEE and they are unequivocally below the theoretical ATEE.

What's Changed in Points Plus for 2012?

Check out my new article on Weight Watchers PointsPlus

See what's new - and what hasn't changed - in PointsPlus for 2012.
Loading

Footnotes

  • [FN1] Mathematical formulas are not, in and of themselves, patentable. See the US Supreme Court case of Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972). The terms Points and PointsPlus are trademarks of Weight Watchers; their use in discussing the patents is a nominative use to provide clarity to the article and to link the discussion to the patents. These calculations have not been verified or endorsed by Weight Watchers.
  • [FN2] Equation 16 is fairly similar and should be used for men.
  • [FN3] The actual boundaries in the patents are 1000 at the low end and 2500 at the high end, those line up with 29 and 71 PointsPlus values respectively.
  • [FN4] Weights under 130 would put the male at an underweight BMI and thus make the male ineligible for participation in Weight Watchers.

Sources for "Weight Watchers PointsPlus: The Problem of 29"

References utilized for this article

What Others Are Saying about Weight Watchers and Points Plus

The Latest Blog Posts and News Articles

Weight Watchers change stirs debate
The latest iteration of the weight-loss plan, called Points Plus, is intended to steer people toward more healthy food choices, encouraging people to eat more fresh fruits by giving them zero points, as most vegetables already were.
Weight Watchers change stirs debate
The latest iteration of the weight-loss plan, called Points Plus, is intended to steer people toward more healthy food choices, encouraging people to eat more fresh fruits by giving them zero points, as most vegetables already had.
In new Weight Watchers math, some say subtracting is harder
But the magic disappeared when Weight Watchers overhauled its weight-loss plan a little more than a year ago. Under the new system, called Points Plus, Holwell, has not been able to lose the 5 pounds she recently gained. ?It just doesn't work for me,? ...
Bet Big On New Targeted Male Market And Programs From Weight Watchers
Weight Watchers has been successful at targeting women with its weight loss Points Plus program, but recently has launched a massive advertising program aimed at men who want to lose weight. This targeted market along with a new smartphone application ...
Powered by Google

Weight Watchers Kits and Tools on Ebay

Get the Tools You Need to Try Weight Watchers for Yourself

Loading

Weight Watchers Cookbooks and More on Amazon

Loading

Your Thoughts on Weight Watchers PointsPlus

Are you losing weight, or struggling with the new system?

Are you a veteran Weight Watchers member or someone new to the plan on PointsPlus? Is it working for you, or are you having a hard time reaching goal on the new system? Leave your comments here and let me know what you think. Thank you for reading!

submit
  • Reply
    top_10 Feb 13, 2012 @ 10:58 pm | delete
    very interesting lens!
  • Reply
    LindaWhite Feb 11, 2012 @ 7:24 am | delete
    No one diet works for all. I tired the Atkins and it wad a no go for me. The basis of the Weighht Watcher system is working for me. I average 2 lbs weight loss or more a week. I eat a balanced diet and never feel deprived. Even with a slow thyroid, I am losing weight. The basis of the program is portion control. Just my opinion
  • Reply
    Cordy Feb 7, 2012 @ 1:31 pm | delete
    What's missing from the points allotment is the individual's actual energy expenditure which can vary markedly from that calculated by formula. My basal metabolic rate is 1430 kcal/day and my resting energy expenditure as measured is 1690. The calculations say I should be burning 2254 calories based on my height, gender, and weight. Thus when I was on weight watchers I lost 47 pounds and then while eating my points allotment for two more years I did not lose anymore but maintained my 47 lb lost. It is now clear why. I was eating about 1690 calories based on the points I was told to eat and it was not enough for me to lose because I did not have the average resting energy expenditure.

    Studies have shown that there are differences in BMR even when comparing two subjects with the same lean body mass. The top 5% of people are metabolizing energy 28-32% faster than individuals with the lowest 5% BMR. For instance, one study reported an extreme case where two individuals with the same lean body mass of 43 kg had BMRs of 1075 kcal/day (4.5 MJ) and 1790 kcal/day (7.5 MJ). This difference of 715 kcal (67%) is equivalent to one of the individuals completing a 10 kilometer run every day. If these two people are given the same points allotment because they will lose at different rates and the one with the lowest metabolism may stop losing or not be able to lose.

    there are differences in BMR even when comparing two subjects with the same lean body mass. The top 5% of people are metabolizing energy 28-32% faster than individuals with the lowest 5% BMR.[7] For instance, one study reported an extreme case where two individuals with the same lean body mass of 43 kg had BMRs of 1075 kcal/day (4.5 MJ) and 1790 kcal/day (7.5 MJ). This difference of 715 kcal (67%) is equivalent to one of the individuals completing a 10 kilometer run every day.[7]
  • Reply
    KathyMcGraw Feb 5, 2012 @ 5:29 am | delete
    Fascinating read....so many have a better handle on this than I do, and I liked reading all the comments.
  • Reply
    Tipi Feb 3, 2012 @ 6:28 pm | delete
    Wow, what an interesting lens on weight watchers, and the guestbook comments are too. I'm one of those people that can't gain weight and keep it on, but still this is interesting.
  • Reply
    Barbara H Feb 1, 2012 @ 10:04 pm | delete
    (Sarah) You have made more sense than anyone else (including my own comments) on this Blog. I am one of those people that felt things only worked if I kept my calories down less than 1000 a day, which is REALLY HARD TO DO. Even though I'm a WW lifetime member I struggle to keep my weight where I want it. It feels like if I eat anything extra I immediately go up and it's harder and harder to get back down without REALLY cutting back on calories, thus trying to stick around 900-1000. The calories in those free fruits and veggies still add up not leaving enough extra for the basics sometimes. I virtually never get in those two daily fats simply because I don't want to waste points (calories) on them. I must admit it will take a lot to get my head around the concept of upping the calories and fat intake in order to actually stay at the weight I want.

    I hope Sarah continues to leave posts because hers was more informative than most as far as what I needed to hear.
  • Reply
    sheila Feb 1, 2012 @ 4:51 pm | delete
    love it! Losing weight can be easy if you REAlly know what to do, my site http://www.helphere.biz is about that too! Love your stuff!
    Sheila
  • Reply
    Sarah Feb 1, 2012 @ 1:02 pm | delete
    The main problem with WW now and in the past is that it has always been about reducing calories mostly by cutting fat. At least with the new program it respects protein more now, but it still very anti-fat (2 teaspoons a day) which is just behind scientific research. Research has show that if you eat fat, and exercise, along with having a balanced diet that looks similar to the South Beach you will lose weight consistently. The key is to daily keep carbs (all carbs, not just the "bad" ones) at or below 100 grams, eat 100 grams of protein, and ensure you are taking in about 300 calories of dietary fat. Athletes have known for years this bio-chem formula works (100 g protein/100 g carbs/300 calories fat) for a while, but the diet gets little coverag because most people just do not want to exercise and the marketing scheme for companies like WW know this. People just want to stop eating and lose weight and this just does not work. Though WW highly encourages exercise it is not mandatory, and that leads to starvation mode at a certain weight pre-determined by your genetics. Your body perceives you are starving when you do not eat enough fat so then it slows your metabolism down. We are physically designed to survive during times of famine and that is what the body perceives when food/fat intake goes below 1000 calories, the brain begins to tell the body to conserve. It is also the main reason one gains so fast when more calories are added back in, because the body wants that fat back.

    Instead of just eating 1000 calories and not being active, a better plan is to eat 1500-1600 calories and burn 500 calories in exercise. You will not only feel less deprived, you will reduce your stalls because you are forcing the body to work the way it was designed. Live by eating, moving and breathing (which includes adequate sleep), and you will lose weight. But if you eat and sit and stress you will stall. You have to move to burn calories period. That is why people stall at 29 pts, it is more than just a calorie reduction issue, because loads of people also stalled on the old plan, as well. I know because I was one of them and nothing worked until I changed what I ate and how I moved.
  • Reply
    Barbara H Feb 1, 2012 @ 10:07 pm | delete
    (Sarah) You have made more sense than anyone else (including my own comments) on this Blog. I am one of those people that felt things only worked if I kept my calories down less than 1000 a day, which is REALLY HARD TO DO. Even though I'm a WW lifetime member I struggle to keep my weight where I want it. It feels like if I eat anything extra I immediately go up and it's harder and harder to get back down without REALLY cutting back on calories, thus trying to stick around 900-1000. The calories in those free fruits and veggies still add up not leaving enough extra for the basics sometimes. I virtually never get in those two daily fats simply because I don't want to waste points (calories) on them. I must admit it will take a lot to get my head around the concept of upping the calories and fat intake in order to actually stay at the weight I want.

    I hope Sarah continues to leave posts because hers was more informative than most as far as what I needed to hear.
  • Reply
    guest Feb 17, 2012 @ 10:15 pm | delete
    Yes, Sarah, thank you for explaining it!
    And thank you to the OP; but formulas just make me wish I had paid more attention in algebra.
  • Reply
    KathyT Jan 31, 2012 @ 12:17 pm | delete
    I was curious about this "points" information I'd been hearing about, so I'm glad I stumbled onto your lens. For me, I'm not sure the whole idea of points really resonates with my own style. But I do like the idea that you can do this online without having to go check into a meeting somewhere in a town where you actually know people and they know you... I'd feel far too exposed! :)
  • Reply
    DJ Jan 27, 2012 @ 2:06 pm | delete
    I have been on the new Points Plus program for over 12 weeks now, and i seem to be going back and forth - losing a pound or two and then gaining a half of pound. I have talked to a few people and it seems that if you exercise a lot on the plan, it does not seem to be working as well. Also, the fact that the point plus actually went down automatically for certain people did not seem to help. I think when you exercise you need more points - did anyone take that into consideration when they lowered the points???? Is anyone else having the issues or have any recommendations it is very frustrating?
  • Reply
    Heather Feb 7, 2012 @ 6:36 pm | delete
    Hi DJ,
    from my understanding, you 'earn' points for exercise, which you can use that day or any other time during the week (like weekly flex points). Does this not address your concern?
    I have been working out 4 or 5 days a week (cardio 3x and weight training 2x per week) since I started WW PP Jan 1st (I know, I know, lol) and I have lost 10 pounds. My mother, who started with me, similar food and exercise schedule has lost the same.
    I would say to your -2 +.5 scenario that its the trend that important and it sounds like you are going in the right direction. Don't give up! The plan works :)
  • Reply
    DessertLover Jan 26, 2012 @ 10:23 am | delete
    Very interesting. I know a few people who are doing Weight watchers. This was helpful to understand it.
  • Reply
    gonzalezdenise Jan 25, 2012 @ 3:06 pm | delete
    Thanks, I always wondered how it works.
  • Reply
    mary_lighthouse15 Jan 22, 2012 @ 1:56 pm | delete
    Great lens! Thanks for sharing, im on south beach diet though...
  • Reply
    TopMovieOST Jan 11, 2012 @ 2:23 am | delete
    Great lens!
  • Reply
    Dennis Deaton Jan 6, 2012 @ 2:21 am | delete
    Works for me when I follow it. Lost 75 pounds on the old program and another 50 on the points plus. The trick is getting enough exercise and following the program. It also helps to be male as we burn the fat easier due to more muscle mass.
  • Reply
    Dennis Deaton Jan 6, 2012 @ 2:21 am | delete
    Works for me when I follow it. Lost 75 pounds on the old program and another 50 on the points plus. The trick is getting enough exercise and following the program. It also helps to be male as we burn the fat easier due to more muscle mass.
  • Reply
    gottaloveit Jan 4, 2012 @ 8:26 am | delete
    I'm pretty happy being able to grab a piece of fruit instead of a bag of fritos. I know, I know, I could always have made that choice on the old plan but I'm actually doing it now. I also love the apps for the iPhone with the online WW!
  • Load More
Show All

About the Author

Loading

by

sockii

sockii is a long-time warrior in the weight-loss battles. I've spent most of my life working to maintain a healthy weight - sometimes succeeding, some... more »

Feeling creative? Create a Lens!

Explore related pages

Man Meets Scale 

Latest Blog Entries by Weight Watchers CEO David Kirchhoff

Loading Fetching RSS feed... please stand by

Healthy Cooking and Recipes 

Loading

More About Food and Living 

Loading

Related Tags