tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post9072525128609517184..comments2023-10-18T05:52:24.799-07:00Comments on Weight Watcher Geek: A comparison of Weight Watcher's Points Plus Values and SmartPointsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11695483832969202754noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post-24628822646486125852018-11-28T06:00:45.025-08:002018-11-28T06:00:45.025-08:00thanks for the detailed analysis. i'm trying t...thanks for the detailed analysis. i'm trying to find a formula for points plus that is as clear as the one you have above for smartpoints. (Y x carbs) + (Z x fat).... etc. Thanks! kevin-mc22https://www.blogger.com/profile/13844868405554540539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post-32217142440576197902017-08-24T09:06:48.273-07:002017-08-24T09:06:48.273-07:00So I was playing around with your formula and the ...So I was playing around with your formula and the one on CalorieLab. For some things you two were only off by a decimal (but rounding evened it out). For others, you were off by a point. I have a spreadsheet in which I have both your formulas side by side and I'm comparing them with my WW online account (I want to write a FileMaker app to do this, eventually turning it into a recipe calculator). I tried a WaWa Sizzli, a Hershey bar, Shamrock Shake, and Wheetabix biscuit. You were generally off by only 1 point, but for the Shamrock Shake you were 2 less.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05777866431296213173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post-38822640791595003092016-12-27T12:50:46.359-08:002016-12-27T12:50:46.359-08:00I need to go back to school and become an engineer...I need to go back to school and become an engineer to figure all of this out...guess I am really stupid! Welshjeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10911944934322856885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post-29393911100089383902016-04-01T09:38:09.154-07:002016-04-01T09:38:09.154-07:00It would be great if i can calculate that goal, so...It would be great if i can calculate that goal, so i don't need to log onto the site. Great job on this. This is so nice to have.Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12527434922675961975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post-87078002349665441572016-04-01T09:34:47.789-07:002016-04-01T09:34:47.789-07:00By any chance has anyone been able to calculate th...By any chance has anyone been able to calculate the number of activity points that are required. Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12527434922675961975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post-54771279843970586232016-02-03T14:28:54.972-08:002016-02-03T14:28:54.972-08:00Wow, Thomas, your formula (0.0305*calories) - (0.0...Wow, Thomas, your formula (0.0305*calories) - (0.098*protein) + (0.12*sugar)+(0.275*sat fat)<br />has worked on every test I've tried so far when comparing with the WW online calculator. BRILLIANT! Thank you!Carole617https://www.blogger.com/profile/14880989553759053380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post-35401854585799986642016-01-05T05:22:45.905-08:002016-01-05T05:22:45.905-08:00Although I am not a geek, my thanks go out to Thom...Although I am not a geek, my thanks go out to Thomas Mills Hinkle for his formula for SmartPoints. I've put it in a spreadsheet and am using it currently. My one concern at present is the (apparent) change to the daily point calculation using Gender, Age, Height and Weight. Did it change also? If so, what would be a good formula for that.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17083857814321090737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post-50326481686922470222016-01-03T15:01:36.197-08:002016-01-03T15:01:36.197-08:00Their formula is within a few decimal points of my...Their formula is within a few decimal points of my second one if you just multiply my values by 33 ((0.0305 * calories) - (0.098*protein) + (0.12*sugar)+(0.275*sat fat)). The one that's different is sat fat, but I'm guessing that theirs will prove inaccurate if you multiply out by large amounts as I did to get my values. <br /><br />If you have found values where my formula doesn't work, please let me know what the values were -- for my test values, my numbers have held correct so far. Obviously fruits and veggies will be off -- I mean a food where you plug in the nutrient values and get a different value from the WW calculator.<br /><br />There is a slight chance WW is playing with the formula still and different people get different results. I sat at a meeting with someone who had a different value for an egg than I did on my calculator -- I don't know if that was a bug or an experiment on their side or if they're personalizing the points in some way (god help us if that's true)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11695483832969202754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post-42785537573928626382016-01-03T14:58:55.168-08:002016-01-03T14:58:55.168-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11695483832969202754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post-87447081368101923322016-01-03T14:22:01.512-08:002016-01-03T14:22:01.512-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15591910869646720869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post-76479765009778489742016-01-01T10:24:42.515-08:002016-01-01T10:24:42.515-08:00No -- I think they've done much more in terms ...No -- I think they've done much more in terms of that because they don't even give everyone the same weeklies anymore. Obviously to reverse engineer that I'd need way more data -- a huge bank of information about people's ages, genders, weights, and allowances.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11695483832969202754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post-48057958593722094532016-01-01T10:23:17.517-08:002016-01-01T10:23:17.517-08:00The old formula is available in the WW wikipedia p...The old formula is available in the WW wikipedia page if you dig through the history. Here's what I used -- taken, I believe, from that.<br /><br />Sugar Sat Fat Non-Sat Fat Non-Sugar Carb Protein Generic Calorie->Point (Alcohol's implied value?) Fiber<br />0.1086 x g. carb<br />+ 0.2571 x g. fat<br />+ 0.0914 x g. protein <br />- 0.08 x g. fiber<br />(+ 0.0271 x calories from alcohol)<br /><br />As I mention above, the old points were *much* closer to raw calorie counting, with only a slight tilt of the hand in favor of protein and away from fat.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11695483832969202754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post-65832753561727154262016-01-01T10:13:16.330-08:002016-01-01T10:13:16.330-08:00Hi Thomas, thanks so much for the incredible blog ...Hi Thomas, thanks so much for the incredible blog post. Is there any chance you have a formula for the old PointsPlus calculation? I'm excited to use my new spreadsheet, but I'm also wondering if there's a way to compare points to the old model.<br /><br />Thanks so much!Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01886434989588738855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post-11864023735226462032016-01-01T05:48:56.440-08:002016-01-01T05:48:56.440-08:00Nice work, any idea how to figure the daily/bonus ...Nice work, any idea how to figure the daily/bonus point allowance?jriddletonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06881071375965392692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post-50893815941696567882015-12-17T06:13:38.438-08:002015-12-17T06:13:38.438-08:00Thank You, Thomas , for Your work on that formulas...Thank You, Thomas , for Your work on that formulas.<br /><br />Noe I use Your nutrient-based calculation and it works very fine. (Except for Christmas-cakes. They have soooo many Points! :-)...)josefhochmayrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03722108393016436661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post-26894331558504413662015-12-16T06:11:42.917-08:002015-12-16T06:11:42.917-08:00Got it -- you're saying that 4/4/9 are inaccur...Got it -- you're saying that 4/4/9 are inaccurate and 9.3 and 4.1 are the real numbers for fat and protein? I'm having trouble finding clear documentation of anything other than the 4/4/9 rule.<br /><br />I just did a calculation for a stick of butter to see if 9.3 was a better estimate, but I actually found my calorie estimate was *high*, not low -- with a value of 9kcal/gram, I got 1664 calories but the actual nutrition label shows 1627. Using the real calorie number vs. the calculated makes a difference of 1 point (81 v 82). My nutrient-based calculation (the longer formula) gets the right value (81.4 -- round to 81) whereas my calorie-based shorter formula gets it one point off (rounds to 82 vs. 81).<br /><br />The good news is that those errors are unlikely to matter for real quantities of real foods (I used big numbers in my table to make sure I was getting the right math out of the WW calculator, but hopefully we're not eating 27 or 28 point foods often...).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11695483832969202754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post-86031606202980266802015-12-16T04:36:41.433-08:002015-12-16T04:36:41.433-08:00Hello Thomas!
If You buy Food with 100g fat per 1...Hello Thomas!<br /><br />If You buy Food with 100g fat per 100g as in Line 2 of Your Excel-sheet, the declaration is as follows:<br /><br />100 g fat, 0 g Carbohydrates, 0g Protein... BUT: 930 calories instead of 900! Using the 900 calories in a formula wil result in wrong values, except in Your table, as the formula is built for 900cal per 100g fat. the same is valid for Protein and carbohydrates (4,1 instead of 4)josefhochmayrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03722108393016436661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post-41923249291972017522015-12-16T03:51:21.153-08:002015-12-16T03:51:21.153-08:00Not sure I follow.
I originally calculated calor...Not sure I follow. <br /><br />I originally calculated calories just so I could create and test values with the new system, since it requires calories + the nutrients. I just have the standard 4*protein + 4*carbs + 9*fat for calories.<br /><br />As far as the calculated points, did you find a set of values where my formulas fail?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11695483832969202754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post-5669047939404769132015-12-15T11:30:31.672-08:002015-12-15T11:30:31.672-08:00Hello Thomas, I have tested Your numbers: Results ...Hello Thomas, I have tested Your numbers: Results ok only for values in Your spreadsheet, because calories not computed correctly in Excel spreadsheet: 4 instead of 4,1 for prot and carb as well as 9,0 instead of 9,3 for fat.josefhochmayrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03722108393016436661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post-89489597306174820982015-12-15T11:19:57.282-08:002015-12-15T11:19:57.282-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.josefhochmayrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03722108393016436661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post-87945619935950505752015-12-12T14:42:59.289-08:002015-12-12T14:42:59.289-08:00Slight correction: this one does even better.
(0.0...Slight correction: this one does even better.<br />(0.0305 * calories) - (0.098*protein) + (0.12*sugar)+(0.275*sat fat)<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11695483832969202754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post-45832668661282143622015-12-12T14:17:46.197-08:002015-12-12T14:17:46.197-08:00Ok -- calculated those values pretty well. I seem ...Ok -- calculated those values pretty well. I seem to be a little less accurate with this version of the calculation, which leaves me thinking that WW is actually treating calories from fat and carbs slightly differently. That said, you can get very close to accurate with just those four numbers as follows:<br /><br />(0.03 * Calories) + (0.122 * Sugar) + (0.28 * Sat Fat) - (0.096 * Protein)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11695483832969202754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post-41055158875296495012015-12-12T13:54:12.838-08:002015-12-12T13:54:12.838-08:00Thank you Thomas.
My Mistake: You wrote about SP p...Thank you Thomas.<br />My Mistake: You wrote about SP per 100 CALORIES, not gramms!<br />Next Time I will read your Posts more thoroughly.<br /><br />And besides discussion about numbers: If I had not found your blogpost about that Points, my wife and I had stopped dealing with WW tomorrow, lacking a tool to compute the Points for Food, that is not in printed lists of Ww. <br /><br />josefhochmayrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03722108393016436661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post-79119030882264921602015-12-12T13:33:36.677-08:002015-12-12T13:33:36.677-08:00Just looking again at my spreadsheet. If you look ...Just looking again at my spreadsheet. If you look at the per-100-cal column, you'll see that protein, non-sugar carbs and non-sat fat are all very close to 3 points per 100 calories. <br /><br />Given that, you could probably re-work the formula to be<br /><br />A*CALORIES + B*SAT-FAT + C*SUGAR - D*PROTEIN<br /><br />You'd just have to work out the values of A, B, C & D.<br /><br />I can work on that in a bit -- it was easiest to start by just giving the WW calculator numbers where all the calories coming from a given nutrient and start there, which is why my original approach to the formula was to calculate in terms of each nutrient (sugar, non-sugar carbs, sat fat, non-sat fat, protein and alcohol)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11695483832969202754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058422736730902874.post-35485277627159427292015-12-12T13:21:22.550-08:002015-12-12T13:21:22.550-08:00Josef, take a look at my spreadsheet here and make...Josef, take a look at my spreadsheet here and make a copy to play with if you like: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WfowGENyovbdZWo79w5pR3peRCy1ivr5bRAm5yKADGs/edit?usp=drive_web<br /><br />At least for the tests I've put in, my calculated values appear to line up with the WW calculators pretty well, but if you find a set of values where my calculations are broken, please let me know.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11695483832969202754noreply@blogger.com