Diet, Nutrition and SupplementationPost here for supplement reviews or nutritional advice. If you're trying to get "ripped abz" THIS is where you should be.
Question about WW and NWOLFW. Currently, Im a lifetime member of about 3 years and am about 10 lbs under goal. I was trying to follow both plans of counting points and Macros, but I noticed that for me its kind of hard to do both. If I follow WW flex plan, I only come up to maybe 1200 calories a day. If I follow NROLFW, Im about 10-13 points over. I only get 23 points as I am 5'9 and about 165 lbs more or less. Even with activity points, I could never make this up. How do you keep the balance? Mind you, I would still like to lose about 5-10 lbs, although I would mostly just like to be mroe defined and stronger. Is there a way to do both?
I have done both WW and NROL4W but never at the same time and don't really see how one could do so without eventually burning out or really cutting back on the frequency and intesnity of the NROL4W workouts. Some people can do hard workouts in a big calorie deficit but personally I burn out. So I guess the bottom line is if it works for you great, but if you find yourself feeling tired, injured, or overtrained you will need to eat more.
Are you factoring in your activity points to that? 23 points while lifting weights and working out sounds pretty low to me. It's been a while since I've done WW, but I seem to recall that you do get to add more points as you workout more.
You do earn activity points but they are based on calories burned so unless you are out there donig long, endurance activities you really don't get more than a few activity points.
I just restarted WW a week ago. Basically, I would eat all your AP and bonus points. You get 35 extra points per week. They have me on 19 points, so with activity and 5 bonus points pe day, I can have 24-30 points per day. Taht comes to close to 2000 calories for me.
I just restarted WW a week ago. Basically, I would eat all your AP and bonus points. You get 35 extra points per week. They have me on 19 points, so with activity and 5 bonus points pe day, I can have 24-30 points per day. Taht comes to close to 2000 calories for me.
Mandy have you tracked the calories? I did WW for a while and also counted calories and usually one point averages 60 calories (but can be anwyhwere from 30 -100 calories depending on fat/fiber) I calculated this over and over and 60 cals is really a good average for 1 pt. With that said, 24-30 pts would be more like 1400-1800 cals.
To the OP: I'm trying to do both, but it's a dance. Remember that WW was developed for the average overweight, mostly sedentary, middle-aged person. The APs were designed, I believe, to incent people to move more, not necessarily for the hardcore exerciser. Also remember that WW is designed to keep things simple - hence the Points system. It works BECAUSE it's easy.
__________________
ACE-Certified Personal Trainer Since 2002
Lifetime Member of WeightWatchers
Mandy have you tracked the calories? I did WW for a while and also counted calories and usually one point averages 60 calories (but can be anwyhwere from 30 -100 calories depending on fat/fiber) I calculated this over and over and 60 cals is really a good average for 1 pt. With that said, 24-30 pts would be more like 1400-1800 cals.
No havent actually tracked, but I eat lots and lots of veggies which are counted as free, and Im pretty sure I am eating 300 calories alone in just veggies......., so that is why I ballparked high.
ooopss...didn't finish my post - this is a continuation...
What I'm trying to say is that I think that the AP system of crediting exercise ASSUMES mostly steady-state cardio-type workouts, NOT the HIIT and strength-building workouts in NROLW.
So, if HIIT and weight training actually INCREASE your metabolism over the following 24 hours (22% more fat oxidized when compared with the steady-state cardio exercisers - I forget which page this is on in Schuler's book, but it's there somewhere), then it follow that you will NEED to eat more than just the APs recommended by WW.
So, here's my suggestion: Choose a target somewhat higher for your APs than WW uses. If you think the plan in NROLW is recommending 10-14 Points more than WW calculates, why not choose 5-7 more Points to add in on the days you do your NROLW workouts (and I am including days when you do ONLY HIIT). See what the scale does, and adjust accordingly.
One more thought, though. If you do the NROLW workouts and push hard for strength gains, you probably WILL see weight gains on the scale. But it will be because you are building lean tissue, NOT fat. If you focus TOO much on the number on the scale, you probably WON'T be eating enough to build muscle.
One thing I've tried lately is to use whey-protein shakes post-workout. So I'm basically consuming my APs as extra protein.
- Jennifer
__________________
ACE-Certified Personal Trainer Since 2002
Lifetime Member of WeightWatchers
Im actually not new to lifting weights, but I haven't lifted this heavy for short reps. Or I've done isolations exercises so they've been an hour +.
I completely agree with the whole thing on WW. I know its not made for hardcore training. Its been useful to me since I usually do longer endurance exercises like spinning, which Im still doing in stage 1 (yes I have read the book). But I usually exercise 6-7 days a week for about 14 hours a week. I've cut back considerably due to time and trying to understand this whole recovery aspect of it (I get it but it stil feels weird since I love hard cardio).
Anyways, Im going to try the 1700 cal thing for 1 week and see what happens which would be higher than WW recommends even if I ate ALL the activity points and weekly allowance points. I would run out of both, and as some of you said, WW doesn't factor in weight training = more points. Since Im only in stage 1, it would only come out to about 2 points since Im only doing a 1/2 an hour and even that would be debatable since its not a consistent 1/2 hour like walking (though I sweat like HELL!!). So I might just eat the 1700 as a higher amount in general and eat for spinning classes which would be HIIT technically but more drawn out (which the book states does count as HIIT, but Schuler just finds them to be too long) but not eat for lifting, since I would already be going over.
Not sure, I guess I just developed a dependence on WW since I lost 125 on the flex plan but got into cardio as a result. Weight training came second. Honestly, I haven't done the both of either in the last 3 weeks because they just haven't made sense 2gether and there's no way I can get the amount of protein needed on WW. I'd only get about 1/2 and would have to have an all beef diet in order to do it and STILL go over.
One more thought on this subject. You said you couldn't possibly get all the protein you need to do NROLW while following WW. That would definitely NOT be true if you followed the CORE program - which, by the way, would sync well with many of the guidelines in NROLW.
So, what I'm saying is, try CORE to eat as much protein as you need, but don't worry so much about losing the weight while doing NROLW.
Or, like Lou and ALwyn suggest, take a one week break, BETWEEN stages, from weight-lifting and use that week to focus on fat-loss.
Either way, sounds like you have a good plan and lifestyle going.
- Jennifer
__________________
ACE-Certified Personal Trainer Since 2002
Lifetime Member of WeightWatchers
One more thought on this subject. You said you couldn't possibly get all the protein you need to do NROLW while following WW. That would definitely NOT be true if you followed the CORE program - which, by the way, would sync well with many of the guidelines in NROLW.
So, what I'm saying is, try CORE to eat as much protein as you need, but don't worry so much about losing the weight while doing NROLW.
Or, like Lou and ALwyn suggest, take a one week break, BETWEEN stages, from weight-lifting and use that week to focus on fat-loss.
Either way, sounds like you have a good plan and lifestyle going.
- Jennifer
Yes, Core is an excellent way to do WW. I have done both flex and Core and would recommend Core over flex hands down, especially if you are someone who likes to EAT. I lost 18 lbs on Core two years ago without counting/measuring any of the Core foods (only need to track the non-core foods) and it was so liberating.
Yes, Core is an excellent way to do WW. I have done both flex and Core and would recommend Core over flex hands down, especially if you are someone who likes to EAT. I lost 18 lbs on Core two years ago without counting/measuring any of the Core foods (only need to track the non-core foods) and it was so liberating.
I thinking about being all about core right now, @ least until the Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years suicide mission of eating. But Im thinking Core would be best since like I said flex just doesn't have a chance on this program. I do count my macros now, however and my calories which isn't too bad. But the healthier foods in Core are always a plus for a guide
Question for Weight Watchers Members
, so that is why I ballparked high.
Linear Mode
