Talk:WW International/Archive 1

Archive 1

Outdated Plan Information

Weight Watchers (in the US and Canada at least) now follows the Momentum plan. The "Turn Around" program with the Flex and Core plan options is now defunct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.124.41 (talk) 09:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong article link in Core Plan section for South Beach

Hi, I was noticing that the South Beach and Atkins diets were "hyper linked." However, clicking on South Beach takes you to an article about South Beach, not an article about the South Beach Diet, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Beach_diet

I'd fix this myself, but I'm not sure how to set it so that the word/phrase "South Beach" would send you to the article on the diet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.245.8.2 (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

More information?

Is it possible to see a list of marketing techniques Weight Watchers employs, and which celebrity endorsers Weight Watchers has used over the years? From a marketer's point of view, Weight Watchers has been incredibly successful with this technique and a history of the company's face would be pertinent to those in the field. I could not find a list like this using any of the common search engines. Thank you for considering, and my apologies if this is posted wrong in any way. I'm still learning how to use that discussion page. Nicole.

Would it be possible to add some more information about how Weight Watchers is viewed by professional nutritionists and the like? As it is, the article seems to not really include anything about the success or efficacy of the program when compared with other dieting methods, and I think that such things would be both interesting and relevant. - Rikoshi 22:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Skinny: you left a personal comment about your weight loss, this information is unnecessary on an encyclopedia.

We need to add how they hound peop;e for publishing there points data on the web because they want to make money out of fat people.

Formula for Kilojoules - Where I live (New Zealand) the programme bases points on Kilojoules and Saturated Fat only, Fibre is not taken into account, nor is total fat. The Formula here is therefore fairly useless for finding points values. However based on a UK Patent (number 2302606) I have determined a formula that seems to work...

p = (KJ/300)+(SatFat/4.15) p is rounded to the nearest half, values from 0.25 to 0.74999 become 0.5. This formula seems to generate results that are consistant with those produced by my WeightWatchers brand points calculator. I don't know whether this would be of use to include in the article however.

The Becky Hamilton remark seems odd -- makes no sense whatsoever. It either needs a citation or needs to be deleted. Could it possibly be vandalism?

Why is Lynn Redgrave listed? A spokesperson for the parent company is not a spokesperson for the child company. Were Heinz' low-calorie products designed specifically for Weight-Watchers members? If not, then she is not a spokesperson for Weight-Watchers itself and that statement is misleading.

Sources

Although you have mentioned in the text where you have got your information from, is it passable to add references to the materials that you have used? (at the end of the document) Perskyro 01:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

External links

Today I removed a lot of links. There is some controversy on these two links Weight Watchers tips and Analysis of the Weight Watchers points formula . I don't care if the links was included last week or two years ago, but only WP:EL should be the source of what include and what not. Anyway:

• The second link as fewer information that this article. It doesn't give the reader anything news, so it should be removed.
• The first one: The information are not in the article, anyway I don't see how it is acceptable per WP:EL. Cate | _Talk 16:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the "link as fewer information than this article" is because my link was the ORIGINAL SOURCE for the information in the article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alight (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

If it is the source, put it as reference (WP:V) and not as external sources (WP:EL)! But I'm not sure it is a valid reference, what do the other contributors think about this? Cate | _Talk 20:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

...and why is it not a "valid reference"? The information in the main article was lifted right out of the page in question.Alight 21:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

per WP:V. I didn't write the wikipedia policy, but because of last scandals about reliability of wikipedia, it seems that rules about references should be stricter. Anyway I think it is a long term project. Check WP:V and eventually discuss in that page. I'm not an expert. (BTW, I expect that shortly someone will put a lot of request fact template in article (as it happens now in a lot of article). Anyway, if it is a reference, put it as reference. Cate | _Talk 08:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As to your 2nd point about ("the first one"). I honestly don't understand what you mean by "the information are not in the article." Is that not the point of an external link? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alight (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't understand why the link is usefull for the article (we are an enciclopedia, not an how-to, blog, opinions,...). The main concern I have: the links seems to personal page. No references, no assertion on why the pages are so important and nothing about correctness. So what do the links add to a wiki user more that a normal google search?. Cate | _Talk 20:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

They relate directly, explicitly and add to the information found in the article in question. Much in the same way that the web sites listed (for example) under "Other Links" in the Jeep article do. Also, it's not a personal page, it's not about me, it's not a blog, etc. It's a page about the Weight Watchers Program, which is what the Wikipedia article is about. Alight 21:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I deleted it because I cleaned the external link section, and this link seemed as the other: spam or non relevant to article. Anyway you don't give valid reason. wikipedia is NOT a collection of links about the subject. Again: check WP:EL and give us a valid reason for the link. I'm not again links per se, but you don't give us why the links are relevant to the wikipedia project. Cate | _Talk 08:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but please read my point above. The links provided relate directly, explicitly and exclusively to the subject of the Wikipedia article, and in one case even constitute the source of information found in the article. I do think it's kind of rude to lift content from my link (without attribution) and then delete the link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alight (talk • contribs) 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

I read your comment. If your site is a reference, add in the references list. External links is not a list of references. (personally I didn't edit the article, so I could not add the references, but if you are sure that the pages was the references, please add it). Yes it was rude, but the previous external links section was horrible, and I followe the rule be bold on edits. Anyway you don't read the policy links I wrote. The links provided relate directly, explicitly and exclusively to the subject is absolutely not a valid reason for a link. If it is a reference, put it as reference, if it is useful per over WP:EL rules, add again the link. Cate | _Talk 14:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Open office formula, calling formula complex edit

[1] I removed the open office formula, because I feel that if you include one properity formula, you should include all forms of other formula types. I also removed the statement that formula is complex, because I don't think that we should assume what the math level of the reader is. To me the formula looks about grade 5 level (Its adding/subtracting fractions for crying out loud). I also removed the word US, as, although suprising as this is, other countries (At the very least canada) in the world label their foods with how many calories, how much fibre etc. Bawolff 03:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What you removed is not a proprietary formula. Instead, it appears to be the implementation of the stated formula expressed in OpenOffice.org Calc syntax. Nonetheless, it is not exactly algorithmic, and it is therefore probably better that it was removed. --Amit (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Make it more international?

Hi, After reading through this article it seems very US centric with little said on the other countries. I realise this is a US based company, but as it has an international presence maybe this could be made more applicable to non-Americans aswell. IT focuses a lot on the American poitns and plans, with very little in the way of other countries plan differences, formula differences and slogan differences. What do you think? 81.79.73.71 21:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

There are some spelling inconsistencies in this article. The one that stood out for me was 'fiber' vs 'fibre'. I'd prefer to see 'fibre', but either way is fine, so long as it's consistent.--58.104.5.251 (talk) 08:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Any studies been done?

Has there ever been any study seeing whether people who go through Weight Watchers can keep weight off for five-and-up years? If so, we should probably have some note of it. And if not... well, probably saying "no studies have been made" isn't helpful, I guess. Nedlum (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Success of Weight Watcher lifetime members

I'd like to see information entered on the success of maintenance on this program. I see how member's weight loss success is compared to other weight loss programs. However, I do not see any studies or data on how many people actualy maintain their weight for an extended perid of time. Mnjecc (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)mnjecc

From WW, "Welcome to Your Meeting": "Our Lifetime Members report that they have maintained an average of 87% of their weight loss two years after completing the maintenance phase of the Program. Adjusting for the difference between reported weight and measured weight, 72% of Lifetime Members maintained a 5% or greater weight loss after two years." The citation is for "MR Lowe, J Thaw, K Miller-Kovach. Long-Term Follow-Up Assessment of Successful Dieters in a Commercial Weight-Loss Program. International Journal of Obesity 2004; 28 (Suppl 1): S29" 68.46.43.198 (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect formula

According to the points slider I got yesterday at my first meeting, the caloric threshold is now 25 calories. With zero grams of fat and zero grams of fiber, the calories have to be set to 25 to make it come out to a point. It looks like the fat grams are still calculated at f/12 (the hash mark for 12 grams is right on the line between one point and two points), but I have no idea how to determine if the fiber grams are still f/5 or not. 68.46.43.198 (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Current Formula

Is there actually a source anywhere to justify the claim that the formula is not the current one? If so, why do we not have the current formula? I don't think the claim that the formula is "only available to weightwatchers members" holds sway, as:

• Formulae are uncopyrightable, so posting the formula can't infringe copyright.
• If the formula is patented, it's perfectly legal to publish the formula, just not to use the formula in a competing product (patents cover implementations of an idea, not the idea itself).

The only other possibilities I can see are that no-one knows the formula, no-one's willing to reproduce the formula here, or the formula is covered by a non-disclosure agreement. If anyone can shed light on this, it'd be much appreciated. James pic (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The claim that the formula is not the current one is completely unverifiable, and from my calculations using the formula and weight watchers website's calculator, there is no apparent difference in the resulting POINTS values. I am going to remove the unverified claim. Please undo my revision if this claim can actually be verified. Supertunaman (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just checked using WeightWatchers.co.uk and it looks like k1=70, k2=4 (not 4.05) i.e. p(0,400) = 100 and p(7000,0) = 100 and p(7000,400) = 200 19:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.167.199 (talk)

Critiscism?

WHy is their not a part for critisism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.193.128 (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

true,this reads more like a copipasta job than an article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.0.47 (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Points per Day?

There is a strong emphasis in this article on the calculation of points for a given food, but no information on calculating how many points are allowed per day. I found this information on the web, but it is clearly in error.

Partial list of Target Values: Body weight, Target value

Under 150 lbs,  20 
150-174, 22 
175-199, 24
200-224, 26
225-249, 28 
250-274, 30 
275-299, 31

plus you can eat as much as 35 more Flex-Points per week.

I'm a weight watchers member and I weigh 220. My points allowed per day is 32 based on the online calculator. In addition, I know that this number peaks at 35, not 31. So does anyone have this information available to them? I guess I could calculate it by trying various different weights and activity levels, but I might piss off the weight watchers people a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.12.210.148 (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I just joined WW, and they have a new way of calculating your points:

2 points for females

8 points for males

12 points for nursing mothers

PLUS

4 points if you're between 17-26 years old

3 points if you're between 27-37 years old

2 points if you're between 38-47 years old

1 point if you're between 48-58 years old

0 points if you're over 58

PLUS

10% of your weight

PLUS

0 points if you're under 5' 1"

1 point if you're between 5' 1" and 5' 10"

2 points if you're over 5' 10"

PLUS

0 points if you spend most of your day sitting down

1 point if you spend most of your day standing

2 points if you are walking most of the time

3 points if you are doing physically hard work

Your total is your Points target, plus the extra 35 points each week. If your total is under 18, your target is 18, and if you're over 44, your target is 44. Anyone under 17 has a different points target. 68.46.43.198 (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

For 2010 PointsPlus, the formulas in Equations 16-19 of their Patent Applications shows it is more complex now. WW newer patent applications published in March of this year give some insights into the thinking underlying the new program. (Pub # WO2010/025422A2; Serial # PCT/US2009/055445; Or go to uspto.gov and use the “Check Status” to find patents related to 61/092,981.) math is in Equations 16-19. I will focus on guys, but the formula for gals is available too, this is for men:

Total energy expenditure (Male, age 19+) (TEE) = 864 – (9.72*age) + PA*(14.2*weight kg +503*height meters)

YOWSERS, no wonder it is not a simple table anymore. PA = activity level = 1.12 (male, age 19+).

Then they adjust for the “free” or 0 point foods by 200 calories.

Adjusted Total Energy Expenditure (ATEE) = 0.9*TEE+200

And with the magic of 35 (FAC below) and trying to create a 1000 calorie deficit we get Equation 19:

Predetermined whole number benchmark (PWNB) = (ATEE -1000)/FAC

And ATEE-1000 is held between the range of 1000 to 2500. So lower/higher numbers are substituted in the formula above. The PWNB - 7 for (49 weekly points) and -4 (for "free" fruits") gives you the target they seem to be computing now. They also adjust for nursing mothers and other conditions probably at a raw caloric level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.141.52.18 (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Replacement of spreadsheet formula with plainer English

I've returned the formula to the page in more generic terms, since I think it is highly useful information. The page generally reads like a WW promo page with comments like "Part of the success of Weight Watchers members keeping weight off is the continued free support of their weekly meetings." so I felt that the removal of the formula - put in a spreadsheet-ready way looks like an attempt by WW to keep the whole thing looking a bit more complex than it is. I agree with removing the word "Complex" but as someone capable of reading the math formated formula, it was just much easier to read a formula in a format I use day to day - ie spreadsheet ready. But so as to not favor one spreadsheet over another, I've just spelled it out in a more generic way.

Not sure what this refers too any more. Marking this with a time stamp to get archived. Wikiarthurb (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

PointsPlus / ProPoints

I added some new material covering the new PointsPlus system that was rolled out today in the US. I seem to recall that earlier versions of this article mentioned the new ProPoints in use in Europe, but that material seems to have been excised. --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 14:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The new formula posted is incorrect. If you do some testing, it quickly breaks down. I posted a more accurate one from my own testing.--Jwink3101 (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• For the record, I didn't post the formula. I was the one who initially wrote that the fiber content of a food item added to the PP instead of lowering it, and that does appear to have been incorrect, so thank you. The second formula does seem to generate values that match those provided by the calculator on the WW site. Nevertheless, it should probably be made clear that the formula has not been provided by WW and is based on conjectural data - in fact, we might be in WP:NOR territory. --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 15:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• I cleaned up the wording and removed the other formula. I also added a note that this is empirical and not (necessarily) exact. The WP:NOR point is a good one and I really do not know the answer. In my opinion, it is noted as not being exact, it does the reader a lot of good with no harm, and it works in every situation. Since it is not really research, I would argue that it should remain. However, I certainly see the other side of the argument and I would be interested in hearing/seeing more discussion. As with most things in life, this falls into a gray area and the best way to resolve it is to discuss --Jwink3101 (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• There's a Coral-cached copy of a Flash applet that was publicly available (modulo URL obscurity) from the Weight Watchers site at http://aka.weightwatchers.com.nyud.net/flash/1033/nav/us_points_calc.swf for those who'd like to verify the formula. Sylvar (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jwink, thanks for all your work. The missing piece seems to be that alcohol has its own calorie source: 7 calories per gram. In the same way it gives a fat penalty, it also seems to be giving an alcohol penalty. The algorithm you are running and that WW is describing don't mention that, but my friends who have access to the new plan are telling me alcohol had really gone up in points.

Maybe if you dropped in that variable you might get closer to the actual formula?

• So far this hasn't broken down in testing against the WW site: Protein/10.94 + Carbs/9.17 + Fat/3.89 - Fiber/12.49 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.37.91 (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wwnerd (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• I do not know about alcohol, but full nutritional information for it isn't provided anyway. My goal was to come up with a formula that matched their online calculator. They do say in the material that their calculations may be different for some things but that is besides the point. If you get a hold of the full information for an alcoholic drink and put it in their calculator and the posted formula, you should get the same thing. Their own calculator will not match what they are saying. And, to the above comment, while that formula may work, it does not use whole numbers in its fractions. Not that it will ever matter in real life, but just for curiosity's sake, put in some really, really big numbers (on the order of 100,000 grams) and it will (probably) break down. --Jwink3101 (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jwink. FYI I looked up whiskey and 1 jigger (1.4 fl oz) is 103 calories but 0 fat, 0 carb, 0 fiber and 0 protein. Using that formula, whiskey would be 0 points! YAY! Wine, at 120 calories and 5.5 grams carbs would be 1/2 point. So I don't think WW is talking about how they factor in alcohol calories... obviously they are, somehow.

Fat is 9 calories per gram, alcohol is 7, carbs and protein are 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwnerd (talk • contribs) 21:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Wwnerd (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The printed material I picked up at a meeting says that 1.5 fl.oz. of whiskey is 4 PointsPlus.--71.54.235.29 (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on this, the formula would be something like:

$PointsPlus=\max \left\{{\mathrm {round} \left({\frac {16\cdot protein+19\cdot carbs+45\cdot fat-14\cdot fiber+50\cdot alcohol}{175}}\right),0}\right\}$

where $alcohol$ is measured in grams as well.--71.54.235.29 (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the fiber credit is too low. On the old plan something with 4 grams of fiber (9 on the really old plan) would lower the points value by 1 (or 2). So based on some input from other WW folks I know, instead of fiber * -14, it would need to be something between around -75 or -105.

Wwnerd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC).

Do you think that the formula given differs from the formula that the WW calculators use, or do you think that the formula differs too much from the old points?--71.54.228.63 (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on some digging, it looks like the new method doesn't give you as much "fiber credit" as the old one did. WW members are working around the alcohol thing by putting alcohol grams in with the fat grams and they say it's pretty close.

So far, the above formula seems to be be the closest.Wwnerd (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• I removed the "Alert" note someone added. To everyone reading this and the main page, please not that this is the formula that matches the online calculator. There are exceptions such as fruit which is zero. That does not mean something is wrong with the formula. Take the nutritional information for a banana, plug it into Weight Watcher's calculators without telling it that it is a banana and you will get the same result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwink3101 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of correcting the first formula so it is mathmaticaly correct, the way it was written made the points end up in the triple digets. 63.230.167.170 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

• While the rewrite is fine and it looks better, it makes no difference. If you follow Order of operations then the old way was fine.--Jwink3101 (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Thank you Jwink, my decade out of school is showing. 63.230.167.170 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC).

Their pending international patent application provides a good sense of the formula and given the 35 is a "magic" divisor they use in some of the formulas, it lends credence to the 175 (5*35) which places each protein g as being counted as 3.2 , carbs as 3.8, and fat as 9, fiber as 2.8. relative to the Wnutrient in their patent that is the right set of ranges. The international publication # is WO2010/025422A2 and the serial # is PCT/US2009/055445. You can also find the US publications as well if you search USPTO for the original provisional application 61/092,981. Formulas in 0059-0110. Also discusses alcohol and sugar alcohols. And the preferred values to use (2.4 for sugar alcohols) and begins to set up how to compute pp targets for individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.141.52.18 (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Aside from tiny differences in the small decimal places, isn't the ProPoints formula exactly the same as the PointsPlus formula, except that instead of using the total carbohydrates (starch + sugar + fiber) for the carbs term, ProPoints uses net carbohydrates (just starch + sugar), adjusting the fiber coefficient appropriately? Given that, the ProPoints formula could be more neatly expressed as round((16*protein) + (19*carbs) + (45*fat) + (5*fiber) / 175), to match the PointsPlus one, with a note that the only difference between them is whether you use net carbohydrates or total carbohydrates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.38.137 (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Presentation of Formula

Could issues relating to WP:NOR be better addressed by building the formula using Equation 10 of WO2010/025422:

$FED=(Wpro\cdot 4\cdot protein)+(Wcho\cdot 4\cdot (totalcarbs-fiber)+(Wfat\cdot 9\cdot fat)+(Wdf\cdot 4\cdot fiber)$

And $Wpro=4/5$, $Wcho=19/20=4.75/5$, $Wfat=1=5/5$, and $Wdf=1/4={\frac {5/4}{5}}$.

$PointsPlus=\mathrm {round} \left({\frac {FED}{35}}\right)$

Which using some basic math (distributive law and adjusting all weights to be in 5ths) can be represented as:

$FED={\frac {4\cdot 4\cdot protein}{5}}+{\frac {4.75\cdot 4\cdot (totalcarbs-fiber)}{5}}+{\frac {5\cdot 9\cdot fat}{5}}+{\frac {5/4\cdot 4\cdot fiber}{5}}$

Further simplifying (distributive law and multiplying numbers):

$FED={\frac {16\cdot protein}{5}}+{\frac {19\cdot totalcarbs}{5}}-{\frac {19\cdot fiber}{5}}+{\frac {45\cdot fat}{5}}+{\frac {5\cdot fiber}{5}}$

Continuing to simplify:

$FED={\frac {16\cdot protein}{5}}+{\frac {19\cdot totalcarbs}{5}}+{\frac {45\cdot fat}{5}}-{\frac {14\cdot fiber}{5}}$

Now we pull out the 5 and divide by 35 (note $5\cdot 35=175$) to express the value as PointsPlus and get:

$PointsPlus={\frac {(16\cdot protein)+(19\cdot totalcarbs)+(45\cdot fat)-(14\cdot fiber)}{175}}$

Note that recipe labels in the UK do not double-count fiber in the "Carbohydrates" number shown on the Nutrition Facts label so the ProPoints formula is similar but the $-{\frac {19\cdot fiber}{5}}$ term would be absent and so fiber is added to the formula.

Both of the above 100% match the "empirical" values and the formulas given. They also make it easier to see how PointsPlus and ProPoints do not really differ.

67.188.132.236 (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The patent treats 1 alcohol g as having 9 calories, based on metabolic pathway and 1.29 as the weighting. This is even more expensive that fat which is only weighted at 1. But if you figure out alcohol grams using the usual 7 calories/gram plugging it in as fat should come close. 67.188.132.236 (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Using the above approach and expressing 1.29 in 5ths is 6.45/5, so we would get ${\frac {6.45\cdot 9\cdot alcohol}{5}}$ or ${\frac {58.05\cdot alcohol}{175}}$ or ${\frac {alcohol}{3.0147}}$ if I haven't messed up my math at this hour. 67.188.132.236 (talk)

And to finish up, sugar alcohol is treated as having 2.4 calories/gram (sorbitol, malitol, etc.) and weighted at 19/20. So, ${\frac {4.75\cdot 2.4\cdot sugaralcohol}{175}}$ or ${\frac {sugaralcohol}{15.3509}}$

67.188.132.236 (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sugar Alcohols and PointsPlus

Given the difference between US/UK labels causes Fiber to be a subtraction for US (but an addition for UK), shouldn't the sugar alcohols actually be subtracted? See, e.g.

http://www.weightwatchers.com/community/mbd/post.aspx?page_size=25&rownum=42&threadpage_no=2&sincedate=1/22/2011+12:00:00+AM&thread_id=149098610&board_id=360&forum_id=1&thread_name=sugar+alcohol&mod_no=&daterange=2days&viewchange=OPENDATEDESC

Where it is pointed out that if a label for an item shows 10 g (Total) Carbohydrates and 4 g Sugar alcohols, then really we should not be double-counting the sugar alcohols.

${\text{PointsPlus}}=\max \left\{\mathrm {round} \left({\frac {(16\cdot {\text{protein}})+(19\cdot {\text{carbohydrates}}-{\text{sugar alcohol}})+(45\cdot {\text{fat}})-(14\cdot {\text{fiber}})+(58.05\cdot {\text{alcohol}})+(11.4\cdot {\text{sugar alcohol}})}{175}}\right),0\right\}$

or

${\text{PointsPlus}}=\max \left\{\mathrm {round} \left({\frac {\text{protein}}{10.9375}}+{\frac {\text{carbohydrates}}{9.2105}}+{\frac {\text{fat}}{3.8889}}-{\frac {\text{fiber}}{12.5}}+{\frac {\text{alcohol}}{3.0147}}-{\frac {\text{sugar alcohol}}{23.0263}}\right),0\right\}$

Thoughts? Wikiarthurb (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that the prior formula doesn't make sense given nutrition labels I'm implementing the change on the main page Wikiarthurb (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Activity Points Under New PointsPlus System

Just collecting evidence/discussions on the 70 vs. 80 issue:

http://www.weightwatchers.com/community/mbd/post.aspx?threadpage_no=1&page_size=25&rownum=1&board_name=On+the+%3Cb%3E%3Ci%3EPointsPlus%E2%84%A2%3C/i%3E%3C/b%3E+Plan&thread_id=149291560&board_id=360&forum_name=message+boards&forum_id=1&thread_name=Calories+burned+%3d+AP's&mod_no=&sincedate=12/31/2010+12:00:00+AM&viewchange=DATECREATEDDESC

Wikiarthurb (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.weightwatchers.com/community/mbd/post.aspx?page_size=25&rownum=13&threadpage_no=1&sincedate=3%2f23%2f2011+12%3a00%3a00+AM&thread_id=150858930&board_id=15&forum_id=1&thread_name=Activity+Tracker+Frustration&mod_no=&daterange=2days&viewchange=OPENDATEDESC.

Wikiarthurb (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Further analysis, this one in a blog post which focused on the older Points-system, but points to 70 as the number:

http://b.feli.me/post/5248716882/old-weight-watchers-activity-points-formula

Wikiarthurb (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Still more discussion again 70 vs 80 with 100 thrown in:

http://www.weightwatchers.com/community/mbd/post.aspx?page_size=25&rownum=7&threadpage_no=1&sincedate=6%2f22%2f2011+12%3a00%3a00+AM&thread_id=152981650&board_id=15&forum_id=1&thread_name=APs+-+Calorie+Counting%3f&mod_no=&daterange=2days&viewchange=OPENDATEDESC

67.188.132.236 (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Claim that WW leaders were told 70:

http://www.weightwatchers.com/community/mbd/post.aspx?page_size=25&rownum=5&threadpage_no=1&sincedate=7%2f7%2f2011+12%3a00%3a00+AM&thread_id=153277880&board_id=15&forum_id=1&thread_name=Activity+points+and+calories&mod_no=&daterange=2days&viewchange=OPENDATEDESC

38.99.32.254 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC).

A user winrwinrchkndinr added a number of formulas, without any citations to the P+ activity point area, repasted below:

Low ActivityPoints={round((weight*time*0.000331),0)}

Moderate ActivityPoints={round((weight*time*0.000462),0)}

High ActivityPoints={round((weight*time*0.001158),0)}

where weight is in pounds and time is in minutes.

These do not appear to correspond to any known weight watcher patent or other information source for PointsPlus so I've moved them here to the talk section to understand the origin.

Wikiarthurb (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Source for article expansion

O'Brien, Jeffrey M. (Jan 2012), "How to Count a Calorie", Wired, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 90–95, 110.

Has an overview of the company's history, its recent change in its PointsPlus plan, and a bio of its current CEO. postdlf (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Other Issues Worthy of Discussion

I'm a Weight Watchers member and current participant. There are other issues not mentioned in this article and too-seldom discussed. I don't know how to find citations, but maybe someone else does. Most of these arise ultimately from the fact that WW is a for-profit corporation. For that reasons, it serves two masters and has an inherent conflict of interest. On one hand, it's committed to helping members lose weight. If entirely unsuccessful, it will lose membership and money. On the other hand, the Company makes money from dues, from selling WW-brand food, and, possibly, from licensing fees from other manufacturers in exchange for WW endorsements and permission to advertise WW "Points-Plus" nutrition values.

The points I think worthy of further discussion are:

--WW meetings rarely discuss or encourage exercise. I don't know why. Presumably, the Company fears that too many fee-paying customers will flee if they are made to feel uncomfortable or guilty. Yet people who diet without exercise usually lose muscle mass and accordingly increase their risk of gaining weight back. The omission of exercise-related discussion is not in the best interest of the participants, but may be in the interest of corporate profits.

--WW meetings constantly promote WW brand food, much of it snack or convenience food. These are probably not the best food choices for members. This food is notoriously high in sodium, a risk factor for hypertension. Why so high in sodium? Maybe consumer acceptance. Or, it may be that high sodium food is more satiating.

--WW meetings constantly promote WW-branded manufactured calorie-reduced food containing artificial fat and sweeteners. Members are not advised that WW is a for-profit corporation and that the corporation makes profits from sales of WW brand foods. Recently published scientific research suggests that fake fat and artificial sweeteners cause weight gain by disturbing the brain's normal calculations of caloric intake.

--It is possible that WW makes more profit from sale of WW branded (or endorsed) food products than from member dues. The food products are very expensive per portion and likely very profitable. It may be that former WW members, no longer paying dues, continue to purchase WW branded foods, out of guilt, remorse or habit, possibly without any corresponding weight loss. It seems possible that the whole WW enterprise is a loss-leader for WW branded foods. Wikipedia readers would like to know. Given the prominence of WW and the seriousness of obesity in re public health, this is a very important question. This information might be hard to obtain, however.

--WW members are supposed to record all food intake (on paper or on the website, or with a WW brand calculator), calculate "Points-Plus" (PP) values, and meet daily PP goal. This is the heart of the WW program. If you don't do this, you will very likely fail to lose weight. However, at the weekly weigh-in and at the weekly meetings, neither clerks nor leaders ever inquire whether I am recording my eating, calculate my points, or meeting my PP goals. They do not ask permission to look at my food records. The leaders never ask the group about this topic, even as a general question. As far as I know, this is true of most leaders and clerks, and most locations, perhaps all. This peculiarity probably arises from corporate policy, possibly recorded in manuals and training for leaders. This seems like a significant omission, and not likely and accident or oversight. What is the reason? It may be that proprietary research shows that too much emphasis on compliance reduces membership and therefore reduces revenue. If a primary but covert purpose of WW meetings is to advertise and promote WW brand food, then reduced membership might also reduce corporate revenue from sales of WW-brand foods.

--WW program compliance is largely a psychological question. That does not mean that leaders should be mental health professionals. That probably isn't necessary. But it's reasonable to suppose that WW meetings ought to emphasize reassurance, problem-solving, mutual support and encouragement, strategies for coping with occasional hunger or irrational urges to eat, and perhaps bonding among participants. That's not what WW meetings are like, though. The leaders talk a great deal, don't encourage much participation, and discourage critical thinking. The most common topic of discussion is food -- particularly, all the foods the program allows the members to eat -- many of them reduced-calorie foods, manufactured foods, and WW branded foods. (In fairness, consumption of fruits and vegetables is also encouraged.) One gets the impression that WW wants to promote the idea that the WW program is "not a diet" and "you can eat as much as you want." This is misleading at best. Anyone who follows the WW program will be somewhat hungry at times. WW leaders seem to have taken some kind of a pledge never to admit that. Once again, this policy might be self-serving, arising from corporate policy and enforced by it, intended to keep enrollment and dues up, and perhaps to keep WW brand food selling, perhaps at the detriment of participants' health.

--Other sources allege that WW is a perpetual motion machine, specifically the lawsuit in the UK by Susie Orbach -- that was in 2007. Maybe it's been resolved. Many members have lost weight, gained it back, and re-enrolled. This is not good for the health of the subscribers, but might be good for the health of the corporation.

--As far as I know, the one published controlled trial was published in 2003 and follow-up was for only one year. The program has changed since then.

--As far as I know, training manuals and protocols for leaders is proprietary. It really should be disclosed to the public.

In spite of these reservations, I continue to participate. There is some value in the meetings. Weekly weigh-ins and being acquainted with other members does help me stay focused.

I hope other Wikipedia authors will take an interest and investigate further.

68.127.230.78 (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Attempting to do some thoughts inline here on this one, but there is a criticism section for the entry.

"I'm a Weight Watchers member and current participant. There are other issues not mentioned in this article and too-seldom discussed. I don't know how to find citations, but maybe someone else does. Most of these arise ultimately from the fact that WW is a for-profit corporation. For that reasons, it serves two masters and has an inherent conflict of interest. On one hand, it's committed to helping members lose weight. If entirely unsuccessful, it will lose membership and money. On the other hand, the Company makes money from dues, from selling WW-brand food, and, possibly, from licensing fees from other manufacturers in exchange for WW endorsements and permission to advertise WW "Points-Plus" nutrition values."

To the extent you can find sources that have discussed the issues you are concerned with you can certainly add those issues to the criticism section. Also, while I am trying to provide you counterpoints below, I do not always agree w/ WW and I find some of the conflict issues you raise troubling as well.

"The points I think worthy of further discussion are: --WW meetings rarely discuss or encourage exercise. I don't know why. Presumably, the Company fears that too many fee-paying customers will flee if they are made to feel uncomfortable or guilty. Yet people who diet without exercise usually lose muscle mass and accordingly increase their risk of gaining weight back. The omission of exercise-related discussion is not in the best interest of the participants, but may be in the interest of corporate profits."

I suspect that is very meeting leader and group specific. Given that there are activity points for doing exercise plus the fact that this Spring there was the 5K walking challenge and that a few weeks ago earning and using activity points was the topic of the week, I think that this may just be your personal experience.

"--WW meetings constantly promote WW brand food, much of it snack or convenience food. These are probably not the best food choices for members. This food is notoriously high in sodium, a risk factor for hypertension. Why so high in sodium? Maybe consumer acceptance. Or, it may be that high sodium food is more satiating."

My sample size of n=2, is that the meeting leaders will do the bare minimum amount of promotion of the WW food. I tend to dislike the conflict myself and many of the items, that said you should be clear there are differences between the co-branded products like the SmartOnes in supermarkets (not made by WW) vs. the WW meeting room products which are WW produced. The WW produced snacks while carby, sugar bombs, aren't as artificial as some non-diet products. If you were going to eat "junk" anyhow, the WW meeting room "junk" seems on label inspection to sometimes be better than the general store "junk".

"--WW meetings constantly promote WW-branded manufactured calorie-reduced food containing artificial fat and sweeteners. Members are not advised that WW is a for-profit corporation and that the corporation makes profits from sales of WW brand foods. Recently published scientific research suggests that fake fat and artificial sweeteners cause weight gain by disturbing the brain's normal calculations of caloric intake."

See above, for 2 of 2 meeting leaders I've seen they have very explicitly been like, "I've been told to tell you about this..." and had a pained expression on their face and moved on as quickly as possible. As for "not advised that WW is a for-profit corporation" - really? Come on. Anyhow, if you can find articles discussing these concerns these are certainly legitimate criticisms to add to the criticism section.

"--It is possible that WW makes more profit from sale of WW branded (or endorsed) food products than from member dues. The food products are very expensive per portion and likely very profitable. It may be that former WW members, no longer paying dues, continue to purchase WW branded foods, out of guilt, remorse or habit, possibly without any corresponding weight loss. It seems possible that the whole WW enterprise is a loss-leader for WW branded foods. Wikipedia readers would like to know. Given the prominence of WW and the seriousness of obesity in re public health, this is a very important question. This information might be hard to obtain, however."

No. Check their 10-K/10-Q. It's really trivial to find out that is not the case.

"--WW members are supposed to record all food intake (on paper or on the website, or with a WW brand calculator), calculate "Points-Plus" (PP) values, and meet daily PP goal. This is the heart of the WW program. If you don't do this, you will very likely fail to lose weight. However, at the weekly weigh-in and at the weekly meetings, neither clerks nor leaders ever inquire whether I am recording my eating, calculate my points, or meeting my PP goals. They do not ask permission to look at my food records. The leaders never ask the group about this topic, even as a general question. As far as I know, this is true of most leaders and clerks, and most locations, perhaps all. This peculiarity probably arises from corporate policy, possibly recorded in manuals and training for leaders. This seems like a significant omission, and not likely and accident or oversight. What is the reason? It may be that proprietary research shows that too much emphasis on compliance reduces membership and therefore reduces revenue. If a primary but covert purpose of WW meetings is to advertise and promote WW brand food, then reduced membership might also reduce corporate revenue from sales of WW-brand foods."

"Never"? Really? There have been meeting topics of the week recently that have been about tracking. The first thing any meeting leader will do if you complain about not losing weight is ask to look at your tracker or discuss it with you.

"--WW program compliance is largely a psychological question. That does not mean that leaders should be mental health professionals. That probably isn't necessary. But it's reasonable to suppose that WW meetings ought to emphasize reassurance, problem-solving, mutual support and encouragement, strategies for coping with occasional hunger or irrational urges to eat, and perhaps bonding among participants. That's not what WW meetings are like, though. The leaders talk a great deal, don't encourage much participation, and discourage critical thinking. The most common topic of discussion is food -- particularly, all the foods the program allows the members to eat -- many of them reduced-calorie foods, manufactured foods, and WW branded foods. (In fairness, consumption of fruits and vegetables is also encouraged.) One gets the impression that WW wants to promote the idea that the WW program is "not a diet" and "you can eat as much as you want." This is misleading at best. Anyone who follows the WW program will be somewhat hungry at times. WW leaders seem to have taken some kind of a pledge never to admit that. Once again, this policy might be self-serving, arising from corporate policy and enforced by it, intended to keep enrollment and dues up, and perhaps to keep WW brand food selling, perhaps at the detriment of participants' health."

Most weeks have a topic of the week that has cognitive behavioral elements of helping participants work on reframing their thinking. How much discussion there is of the Trader Joe's low P+ find of the week is going to be group and meeting leader dependent. But to characterize thousands of meetings occurring each week as you do just is not reflective. As for "somewhat hungry at times", I think most people felt that was true under Points (e.g. Momentum, 1-2-3 success, etc.) but under PointsPlus that does not seem to be coming up as much. Overall, I agree that the corporate line is all shiny, but the actuality of the meeting rooms is varied and there is a lot of candor on all sides.

"--Other sources allege that WW is a perpetual motion machine, specifically the lawsuit in the UK by Susie Orbach -- that was in 2007. Maybe it's been resolved. Many members have lost weight, gained it back, and re-enrolled. This is not good for the health of the subscribers, but might be good for the health of the corporation."

And many members have lost weight, kept it off, and don't pay as lifetime. The reality is people make these choices themselves. I know why I gained my weight back. It wasn't some failure of WW it was a failure by me to watch what i was eating.

"--As far as I know, the one published controlled trial was published in 2003 and follow-up was for only one year. The program has changed since then."

There have been other studies. Check the science section of the website. I am not claiming they show cause-and-effect, they do show good correlations to outcomes.

"--As far as I know, training manuals and protocols for leaders is proprietary. It really should be disclosed to the public. "

Some of them are in the google cache, just do a search. Anyhow, this is just your personal opinion. What would the benefit be? Are you concerned there is some smoking gun about pushing foods? The ones I've seen are pretty boring.

"In spite of these reservations, I continue to participate. There is some value in the meetings. Weekly weigh-ins and being acquainted with other members does help me stay focused."

Glad to hear you find value. I only recently started doing meetings, I lost most my weight online only.

"I hope other Wikipedia authors will take an interest and investigate further."

Actually, to be clear that is NOT the job of Wikipedia authors. The job is to write neutral articles that report available information, not do investigations. the WP:NOR policy means that authors here should NOT do investigations. If there are reliable materials critiques on this point then authors may cite to those.

Wikiarthurb (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I am a random nobody but out of curiosity I read this article. It reads to me, the average man on the street, as a PR piece for Weight Watchers, there is nothing even slightly negative about the corporation in it. Any large entity has negative aspects to it, I am left with the assumption that the company wrote the article or paid people to keep negative material out of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.140.98.143 (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Formulas

"Weight Watchers has not provided official confirmation of the Points or PointsPlus formulas and has aggressively sent cease and desist letters to websites and a number of third party tools that claimed to provide Points, or PointsPlus, calculations" Given that why are the formulas included in the article? Tomsv 98 (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I think they should be deleted as well, especially since they are not reilably sourced and are not, in fact, accurate. I am a current Weight Watchers member and tested the calculations with my own daily PointsPlus target. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.166.255.112 (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

yes, you are correct, and i removed it all. none of the sources cited are reliable, most arent even accessible, and the question still remains whether such calculations, even if sourced, are even notable. they have a system, it exists. thats all we need to know. until the FDA publishes an analysis of their system, nothing else is relevant.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Weight Watchers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101202030004/http://www.weightwatchers.com:80/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=105421 to http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=105421

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Oprah is not the "owner" or even the majority owner; she owns 10%; Invus owns 52%

I don't understand why she is shown as Owner. She is a shareholder as are thousands of others. She owns a total of 10% of the company. I deleted that once and somebody added it again. I will revise it to show the two major shareholders.

Oct 19, 2015 - Media mogul Oprah Winfrey will buy a 10 percent stake in Weight Watchers ... Winfrey was regarded as America's most influential celebrity for years thanks to her ... will become the second-largest shareholder in the company, after investment firm Invus Public Equities Advisors LLC, which which owned a 51.5 percent stake as of June 30, 2015. http://www.bnn.ca/News/2015/10/19/Oprah-Winfrey-to-buy-10-stake-in-Weight-Watchers-join-board.aspx Peter K Burian (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have a problem. I tried to edit it to show major shareholders but that info is not showing up in the article.

Here's what I had added (after removing the Owner section); if someone can fix the formatting that would be useful. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

|major_shareholders = Invus Public Equities Advisors LLC and Oprah Winfrey Then I added the citation: Reuters (February 26, 2014). "Weight Watchers shares soar after Oprah investment". BNN. Business News Network, Bell Media. Retrieved January 24, 2016. she will become the second-largest shareholder, after investment firm Invus Public Equities Advisors LLC, which owned a 51.5 percent stake as of June 30. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)

No MEDRS?

Is it normal that for a diet claiming health effects, including weight loss, the medical information consists of... 1 sentence and 1 WP:MEDRS source? For starters, here are two others, comparing WW with other (free) diets, with no evidence of additional benefits: [2][3]. --Signimu (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I WP:SPLIT the relevant info and added more WP:MEDRS infos into a dedicated entry: Weight Watchers (diet) --Signimu (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)