Weight Watchers Points roundings?

[Pammy3112]

Today for lunch, I had Weight Watchers from Heinz hearty vegetable broth. On the label, it is marked up as three ProPoints per can. However, when I enter two cans of broth into the Weight Watchers point Tracker online, it calculates to count as seven!

If I was writing down what I was eating, I would record that as two cans at six points. Because I'm using the online tracker, it is calculating it as one point more! I feel like I'm losing out on points because I'm using the online journal!

I guess there must be some issues with point rounding, but does anybody else know why the points don't add up in the way you'd expect?

 

[CLH_X3]

If you were pointing it on paper then you should also point it as 7 so your not losing out..

The reason why it rounds up or down when you have more then one of anything is because there's no half points Anymore....

So for example say bread which is 2pp but really it's 2.4pp (gets rounded to 2 as no half pp) and you have two slices 2.4x2=4.8 so it rounds up to 5pp for the 2 slices ....


Its like this with practically everything you have ...

 

[Pammy3112]

Thank you for the reply, and I completely appreciate the thing about rounding up/down decimal points.

If you were doing Weight Watchers and didn't have access to the online tools, you wouldn't know of this issue. My Mum, for example, is doing it using the books and the points values on food labels. If she has two tins of soup, she wouldn't know any better than to record it as 2x3=6.

It's a bit flawed isn't it? I feel like I should double check points values in labels to see if there are any hidden point-something of a point...and it shouldn't be like that, should it?

 

[sarah88]

Thank you for the reply, and I completely appreciate the thing about rounding up/down decimal points.

If you were doing Weight Watchers and didn't have access to the online tools, you wouldn't know of this issue. My Mum, for example, is doing it using the books and the points values on food labels. If she has two tins of soup, she wouldn't know any better than to record it as 2x3=6.

It's a bit flawed isn't it? I feel like I should double check points values in labels to see if there are any hidden point-something of a point...and it shouldn't be like that, should it?

If u have a ww calculator or use the free one on the internet, through Google u put the amount of things u have in and it will tell u the pp so maybe ur mum should do this! If she has 2 tins of soup in a day she needs to work out the pp for the 2 soups rather than one and just double it! Hope this helps

Sent from my GT-I9300 using MiniMins

 

[bolero982]

Really I think we could do with half points being brought back to avoid these unfortunate rounding situations. If something that we're currently rounding down got put down as 2.5pp instead of 2pp, then there's be less "errors" creeping in imo.

 

[moonwatcher]

Really I think we could do with half points being brought back to avoid these unfortunate rounding situations. If something that we're currently rounding down got put down as 2.5pp instead of 2pp, then there's be less "errors" creeping in imo.

I sometimes 'use' half points tbh. For example, if I have LF or VLF Mayo and also a BBQ/HP or Jerk sauce on the same plate, often the amount of each I have is technically zero points, but I feel if I'm doing that often then those calories/points are getting lost in the system, so I often count them as a PP together. I realise that WW may have accounted for this kind of thing in their pointing process, but then again they may not! I feel happier being accountable to me, and not falling into the trap of allowing myself 'just enough' to be under a PP amount too regularly!

 

[Pammy3112]

Yeah I think halfs would be sensible not everyone uses the internet or the Ww calc they rely on the books and there is no way of telling what is to be rounded up and what is not!