Talk:WW International

Outdated Plan Information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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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 tripple didgets. 63.230.167.170 (talk)