Forum account registration has been disabled for now due to large spammer volume. Please email me if you would like an account on the forum to chat with others or to set up a sync subscription.
Point calculation formulas
  • ddumontddumont
    @Owejo entering in all nutritional information ( as of the points plus update ) won't break anything. The formula does not use calories, so it will ignore them.
  • After speaking with Dan about the algorithm being used in the updated version of WWDiary he suggested I share what I think is a better algorithm so that others can test it out. The current algorithm doesn't seem to work correctly for the following entry 10 Fat, 10 Carbs, 10 Protein, and 100 Fiber. In my WW points calculator this turns out to be zero, in WWDiary it comes out as 12 points. The algorithm below doesn't seem to have this issue.

    (Fat * .257) + (Carbs * .109) + (Protein *.091)- (Fiber*.08)

    Round up if result has a remainder >= .5
    Round down if result has a remainder < .5
    If result is less then zero, points is zero. (Edit)

    Please let me know if this has any problems.
  • ddumontddumont
    Hey @christopher

    Thanks for posting it here. I'm going to modify it so that it will work when people try to put it in their app to test it out:
    round((Fat * 0.257) + (Carbs * 0.109) + (Protein * 0.091) - (Fiber * 0.08))
  • hmmm, I'm not your quickest study but I put this latest formula in and I get a '-3' when using christopher's example.
    Also I got a 12 as well but it was because I just fatfingered 10, 10, 10, 100. I mistakenly put the 100 in Protein....
  • Stanman, you are correct. I also fat fingered it. Dan it looks like your algorithm is valid. Ill let you know if I break it here, if I can.
  • I added 'max{round....' and it defaults to 0 now.
  • ddumontddumont
    @stanman @christopher Thanks for the checking. Hopefully the one in the app is accurate. :) I haven't gotten complaints yet. I do need to figure out how they calculate your WPA and DPA though.
  • Dan, I was using the formula from Wikipedia to calculate using only 40 carbs. When I put the formula into Excel, I came up with .2 using one decimal point. The only explanation is that I did something wrong. I was trying to create a spreadsheet. I do have a question, is there a way for the calculator to calculate to decimals? I hope I am making sense. I am not very literate in this kind of thing.
  • I am using the formula (Protein/175)+(Carbs/175)+(Fat/35)-(Fiber/25). I come up with 0.228571. I entered 0 protein, 40 carbs, 0 fat, and 0 fiber.
  • The formula I'm seeing on Wikipedia is ((16/175) * protein) + ((19/175) * carbs) + ((9/35) * fat) - ((2/25) * fiber)
  • So to use these I put them in the point calc formula? Exactly as written? Does anyone know the new way to calculate the points we get?
  • WW's calc calculates 4 points for the #'s you provided. Using the formula from Wikipedia I get 4.3429 rounded to 4 decimal places.
  • Thank you, bizcomputing, I appreciate the clarification! I'm just not very good with formulas.
  • Princess if you have the latest WWDiary, the points formula should already be set. As for calculating the daily allowance Dan has specified on a couple of the threads here that this calculation as yet remains a mystery. The recommendation is to turn off auto-update and manually enter your points allowance (that's assuming you have access to WW material to do the calculation). My meeting is tomorrow where we will be officially introduced to the new program and I can see from there how the daily points allowance is determined. For now it was automagically calculated via WW e-tools.
  • Eckley, if you enter the formula with the parenthesis as is into excel I think you should get the expected calculation.
  • Thank you!!
  • @bizcomputing, I got the formula to work. Now I don't know how to calculate the points for more than one serving.
  • ddumontddumont
    @Eckley60 I imagine that the serving multiplier in the app will take care of that for you.

    Are you seeing different results from the online calc when doing multiple servings? Or do they not have that option anymore?
  • The calculator appears to be working correctly. I would just like to see decimals. I'm trying to put an Excel spreadsheet together, also, so I can type my foods/points in if I don't have my phone with me. I know that WW rounds the points up but I've got this mindset that if I can eat more points, I want to eat more, but if I need to eat less, I don't want to overeat. I know that sounds silly but I'm so used to doing that now that I'm afraid to change it. I've been doing the old WW program since April and I've lost 70 pounds but I used the tenth of a point thing.

    BTW, I really, really appreciate everything that you have done with WWDiary!
  • @bizcomputing At my meeting, they did not disclose how to calculate PointsPlus. You need to use etools, purchase a calculator (currently $6, will be $11), and/or purchase their books and starter sets. The first meeting is more trying to address everyone's fear about the change. They didn't really go into detail. At my meeting there was sort of an uproar about the lack of a slider or easy tool. My leader started pushing products at this point. The etools has a widget that will allow you to calculate PPs using Nutritional Data. The website also has a search function. Beyond that they suggest you guestimate. I could be wrong, since I haven't read all the literature they gave yet.

    @ddumont When we weighed in at the meeting the print out assigned the daily points target. There is a range of targets but they did not say how they determined who received what. They say it's based similarly to the Points system before the change (gender, height, age, etc.) I haven't been able to find how that range is determined from the WW website. Maybe someone who has WW@home will be able to disclose how the points are determined.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Login with Facebook Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

In this Discussion