I picked a point on the slidey PointsBooster thingy that's about a third of the way between "moderate" and high. The way I figure it, "High" would be at max heart rate, about 160+ for me. "Light" I figure would be at 115. "Moderate" I think should be at about 130. So because I average about 140 bpm on most of my rides, I'm calling most of my rides at that third-of-the-way above moderate.

If I were doing hill repeats or racing, I suppose I might credit myself a few extra points.

But with my calculations (bear in mind I flunked college algebra three times) this gives me a solid 5 activity points per hour of exercise. Because I burn 500-600 calories per hour at this biking rate, that only gives me license to eat half the calories back. And I never eat ALL the points.

Unless I'm on a long ride (4+ hours) and then my coach (yes I had to pay someone to be accountable to) wants me to be eating 250-300 calories an hour while on the bike. The first one of those for this season will be Saturday, so we'll see how I do, and whether it pays off at weigh-in on Tuesday...

But that being all said, I like Weight Watchers much more than something exclusionary, like my previous "no alcohol" or "no flour, no sugar" plans. It is much closer to what my dietitian (used her the past two major loss cycles) asked me to do, AND it's way cheaper. She cost $90 a session, so I couldn't afford to go every week like WW.

BTW, all the ladies in my WW meeting are average age 50. Being 32 in a ski/resort town where most of the residents are 22 and uber-fit, I feel caught in the middle: youngish, fit and fat. Sigh.