Inge Jones
Full Member
So, it looks like not even all the class leaders agree whether you must eat all your points or not? I think the common ground is you can no longer carry any over. So, if you only eat 20 points one day, it doesn't mean you can eat the 9 leftover points another time.
Well they obviously can't seriously make a rule that you must always eat 29 points minimum, because we all have days we're unwell, where we have to fast for a medical procedure, or when we're upset about something and lose our appetite. Or just plain are too busy to eat. So if anyone tries so say you have "failed" to stick to the plan by not eating 29 points that has to be nonsense. Especially from an organisation that has just in the last few days made some changes in favour of "real life" eating.
I think what is probably closer to the truth is that we're not meant to *try* to eat fewer than the daily points, thinking that is the way to be even more successful. If a WW'er has an appetite, they should not try deliberately to stop short of their allowance, as it won't give them any extra benefit in the long term.
Well they obviously can't seriously make a rule that you must always eat 29 points minimum, because we all have days we're unwell, where we have to fast for a medical procedure, or when we're upset about something and lose our appetite. Or just plain are too busy to eat. So if anyone tries so say you have "failed" to stick to the plan by not eating 29 points that has to be nonsense. Especially from an organisation that has just in the last few days made some changes in favour of "real life" eating.
I think what is probably closer to the truth is that we're not meant to *try* to eat fewer than the daily points, thinking that is the way to be even more successful. If a WW'er has an appetite, they should not try deliberately to stop short of their allowance, as it won't give them any extra benefit in the long term.