I don't think I'll ever give up the mastercook program,
enjoy it way too much and use it almost daily. I like the
ideas you came up with as far as incorporating points into
the mastercook program ... but I know nothing when it comes
to programming issues. This is better left to the experts
... and I highly doubt that ww would ever consider joining
forces with the developers, regardless as to the amount of
money to be made moving into that field. Don't know why, but
so far they seem very uninterested in doing anything other
than revamping their program every year or so.
Joyce
Fred said:Well, using a fresh method also probably infuses a fresh
outlook which is positive.I can see not wanting to pay for the online service.
I can see where MasterCook could also help since it figures
nutritional info and that could be plugged in as points. As
I wrote in some thread, it would be great if someone could
do some macro/screen capture stuff from MC and then plug it
into a calc that figured points. I know that there are some
such scripting programs that can find open windows and data
within those windows.but my patience to try and define
stuff like that is limited (G)Joyce said:I don't think one program is any better than the other -
just different ways of looking at things. WW is fantastic,
I loved the simplified way of counting calories. It
obviously worked for me, and I would not hesitate to go
back to it if I start struggling. But I do want to move
away from having to pay for their web service, so thought
I would give this other program a try. It seems to have
spurred me in the right direction during the struggle I've
been fighting the past few weeks. Don't know if it's the
different way of looking at things, or just more
determination on my part. Probably a bit of both. I still
find myself using the good things I have learned on ww
though .. choosing and eating higher fiber, more
nutritious foods instead of filling up on empty calorie
laden junk. And I haven't moved totally away from the
point system, only away from officially counting them.
Buried in my head there is always that tally going on. <G>Joyce
Fred said:Interesting results using that program. I would have to
guess that as you say, WW rounds. Now whether one system
is better or worse or just uses different nutrient values
is hard to say. But I would guess that unless someone
never varies their diet, it all eventually works out.
Sweet potato may be high and something else low. After
all the entire points concept is not based entirely on
calories.On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:10:14 -0600, Joyce
<[email hidden]> wrote:>Yup, that's what the book shows. I weighed my sweet
>potato last nite ... 10 oz raw, barely over 8 oz cooked
>... logged it into the dietpower program and it gave me
>290 calories and 8 grams of fiber ... equivalent to 5
>points. Calorieking.com gave me 234 calories when I
>rescaled sweet potato baked to 8 oz, 293 when I rescaled
>to 10 ... so maybe they are using raw form ... or I used
>the wrong weight when logging in diet power. So I redid
>my calc in dietpower - assumed the weight they are
>giving is based on cooked weight (I used raw weight, but
>the description does say baked), came up with 233 cal/6g
>fiber and it calculates to 3.86 points. THIS is where I
>notice the biggest discrepencies in ww ... sometimes
>they round the points up, sometimes down - but there is
>no consistency or logic at all.
>
>I've still very seldom seen a single chicken breast at
>the store that weighs in at 3-4 ounces. Maybe my stores
>just cut everything larger? I do know that my daughter
>and I split one breast on most occassions and is plenty
>for both of us.
>
>Joyce
>
>On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:42:23 -0800, Fred
><[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>Actually, the WW food book shows a baked potato (8oz
>>cooked, 10 oz raw) is 3 points.
>>
>>Same values for sweet's.
>>
>>The chicken breast varies from 3.5 to 4 oz depending on
>>whether cooked with skin and/or bone. 3-5 points.
>>
>>On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 02:30:00 -0600, Joyce
>><[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>>That has been one of my biggest gripes when looking at
>>>the ww point booklets or using their website ... too
>>>easy to do things incorrectly. Why give the choice of
>>>*1 chicken breast* and then assign it a number such as
>>>4 points. Not every darned chicken breast is that
>>>size, in fact, very few are. Yet I bet many people on
>>>the program never think about it, figure that if ww
>>>says 1 breast is 4 points, then it must be so ...
>>>regardless. You really do have to be careful reading
>>>those nutritional labels. The package does give you
>>>the correct information, then will say that this
>>>package contains *various* in the number of servings
>>>it contains. You also have to remember that on raw
>>>meats, that information is for uncooked portions. When
>>>you cook it and eat 4 ounces ... it is no longer the
>>>same caloric values. 4 ounces of cooked chicken is
>>>probably more like being equivalent to 5.5 or 6 ounces
>>>raw. I usually figure 25% in shrinkage factor, on most
>>>all meats and seafoods. I buy boneless chicken
>>>breasts, get them in bulk when they are on sale and
>>>repackage and freeze. The boneless breasts tend to run
>>>close to 5 and 6 ounces each - they are huge!
>>>
>>>If you really want to have some fun, weight your
>>>pieces of fruit (apples, pears, oranges, etc.), weigh
>>>that baked potato before you eat it. It can really
>>>open your eyes - even though the items are better than
>>>eating half a dozen cookies. I had a pear last week,
>>>that actually weighed in at 3 servings after being
>>>cored and sliced! I baked what I thought was a normal
>>>size potato, on a whim I threw it on the scale ...
>>>think it came out to about 8 ounces - definitely more
>>>than ww considers 1 serving. I've gotten pretty good
>>>at being able to eyeball things now, but have been
>>>doing this for over 2 years.
>>>
>>>Joyce
>>>
>>>On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:15:30 GMT, "Laura"
>>><[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I never realised how important weighing everything is
>>>>until this thread. I frequently buy already cooked
>>>>chicken breasts. The package says 4oz 150 cal without
>>>>skin. When I defrosted it and pulled all of the meat
>>>>off of the bone it was more like 6oz. I don't carry a
>>>>purse very often but I might buy a small scale to
>>>>keep in my purse for those times I eat out. I've seen
>>>>one at the supermarket in their kitchen supply
>>>>section that is only about 5" high. Small enough to
>>>>stash in my purse or briefcase.
>>>>
>>>>"Miss Violette" <[email hidden]> wrote in
>>>>message -"]news:[email hidden]-
>>>>berlin.de... I am 5'2" and I lose slowly but pretty
>>>>steady, My biggest issue I think is that my body was
>>>>in starvation mode. I didn't have the big first week
>>>>loss that many do either. I have been doing this for
>>>>73 weeks and have lost 70 since on WW. I don't care
>>>>as I was gaining about two pounds a month so if I
>>>>figure that out I am pleased, good luck, and oh yeah,
>>>>I was just talking to DH about taking my scale as I
>>>>ate a piece of polish sausage that I figured would be
>>>>one point and it was three. He laughed and said
>>>>whatever you want but I think the world will end if
>>>>you start carrying a purse, Lee
>>>>
>>>> LuvDaVols <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>>> "]news:[email hidden]... So, if
>>>> I'm reading this right, you are consuming MAYBE 8
>>>> or 9 points throughout the day - then the balance
>>>> for dinner and evening snacks? I think you need to
>>>> balance those points out a bit better to make sure
>>>> you are eating enough. Maybe you could post a few
>>>> journals here and let us have a go at them. Just
>>>> make sure you have everything accounted for when
>>>> posting! You might also be falling into the serving
>>>> size trap ... such as *one chicken breast* for
>>>> dinner ... yet all chicken breasts are not the same
>>>> size. 3 oz breasts are very difficult to find, I've
>>>> discovered that's usually about half a piece of
>>>> what I purchase in the stores. The same with a
>>>> small potato. Resaurant potatoes are not small -
>>>> usually about 8 ounces or more - which is going to
>>>> be more than one standard serving size (unless you
>>>> only eat half of it). I am ashamed to admit it, but
>>>> I take my SCALE with me to the restaurant. I have
>>>> this huge tote, so I carry my scale, my butter
>>>> spray, and my salad dressing. Now y'all will think
>>>> I'm crazy. Isn't my husband wonderful not to be
>>>> embarrassed by that?
>>>>
>>>> The same goes for exercise ... make sure you aren't
>>>> over estimating those activity points (a trap many
>>>> people fall into). Exercise does burn off calories,
>>>> but they don't fall off in large quantities. I've
>>>> been working on the treadmill twice daily lately
>>>> (don't ask, I'm humoring hubby - lol) ... 35
>>>> minutes in the morning, 25 in the evening - all at
>>>> 4MPH or a tad over. Yet I figure it only gets me 4
>>>> or 5 activity points (100 calories burned = 1 AP).
>>>>
>>>> I don't use activity points. I just stick to my 26-
>>>> 31. I don't use Flex Points either.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Other than that, you are losing .. and that is
>>>> good. It appears you are just under 1 pound per
>>>> week, might appear to be slow but it still is a
>>>> loss. It could take your system quite some time to
>>>> get back into the swing of losing if you have done
>>>> a lot of yoyoing in the past ... it does screw up
>>>> your metabolism.
>>>>
>>>> Hang in there Nell, you ARE doing great.
>>>>
>>>> I appreciate your taking time to help me, and I
>>>> swear I am NOT quitting!! I just figured that
>>>> someone who is only 5' tall and weighs 228 pounds
>>>> would lose more to start with. But, like you said,
>>>> it's 8 pounds I didn't gain, so I should be happy.
>>>>
>>