Weight Watchers points vs calorie counting

Taking an informal poll: which form of counting do you prefer from your first-hand experience - weight watchers points or plain-old calories?

Seems to me that weight watchers points gives you less calories to work with overall. For example, I started with a 1600-calorie diet, but then tried weight watchers points system today. I have used up all my weight watchers points but am only at 1300 calories. I followed the weight watchers system religiously 9 years ago and lost 20 lbs. Today reminded me just how wisely you have to pick your foods. I think I might stick with the weight watchers points, but I don't want to slow down my metabolism too much.

I've done both with similar results. I preferred WW.

Its the same.The points r calories.

Not really the same though. For example, a pear is one WW pt and around 100 calories. So someone like me who can have 23 pts under ww could eat 23 pears in a day (would never do that but for example's sake), but that would be 2300 calories, way over limit. Reversely, a Big Mac is 550 calories and 14 pts. So if I had two big macs, that would put me way over my ww limit at 28 pts, but only 1100 calories for the day. So there is a difference. It just encourages you to eat more healthful, lower fat foods and less high-fat, carbo-dense foods.

I had tried WW two years ago for three months, I lost 20 lbs. Now I'm counting calories and learning on my own I have lost almost 39 lbs but gained this week, I have stayed to this better lifestyle over 5 months now. I prefer the old way, I don't want a program or be a diet because those come to and end. I want a healthier lifestyle that I can live with the rest of my life.