Tracking Points vs. Calories

[KimDW]

I'm tracking my food on FitDay by Cals/Carb/Fat/Protein and also writing it down as Weight Watchers Points (lifetime member for 5 years). FitDay says I've eaten 863 calories so far but my Weight Watcher log says I've only got 1 point left for afternoon snack and my dinner ( I get 20 points per day plus activity points). Wow what a difference. Anyone else here ever found this big of a difference. One WW point is suppossed to be equal to 50 calories. Not sure if that is true or not. I'm shooting for about 1600 to 1700 cals a day (according to BFFM). So if I went by FitDay I've only eaten half my cals for the day.
Any ideas?

Kimbra

 

[kelley111]

I've tried WW and counting calories also. My WW point is also 20 and the only way I can stay within my points is if I eats lots and lots of salad. Plus, I never lose weight on WW. My doctor told me that WW doesn't allow me enough points for my activity level. I have, however, staggered my WW points from a plan made up by someone else, and that seemed to work for me at first, but I didn't stick to it. I just hate counting anything.

 

[andtckrtoo]

If you think about it, it almost makes sense. If each point is 50 calories (give or take) then 20 points is only 1000 calories. If you've eaten 863, you should have 2 points left over - if you haven't counted activities yet.

I think it all depends on what you want. I finally gave up on WW only because I had to double with FitDay anyway because I could not keep track of protein or fiber. When I was on WW I made sure I ate all of my activity points and my 35 extras every week. I think WW is a good program, but it may be that your dietary needs are more specific than WW can provide at this point.