MFP vs IPOARM vs Level Obstacles

Crankstr

i think we need a new name for IPOARM so that we can make a distinction between the version created by Dan and the one edited by Pu.

i suggest... Dan's Edited Roadmap by Pu

in this way, we can more easily tell which version we are referring to.

I like it...short and to the point:flowerforyou:

WDEvy

I'm winging it.
MFP is giving me some ludicrous number around 1300 cals which is not feasible for me.

Road map is way too complicated and even just the BMR calculation are way different depending of the formula I'm using so it screws up the TDEE calculation.

Level obstacle doesn't take into consideration macros, which are important to me. ( I'm trying to be a healthier person with a much more balanced diet more than just losing weight for the sake of it)

So I have my macros set at 40/30/30 and my cals set at 1500 ( which is the lowest I eat) and I go up to 1900 on days with a lot of workouts. I might be slowing down my weight loss process by doing so but it's constant. Haven't plateaued in 8 months.

BeachIron

I would like to point out he's squatting 405 lbs in his ticker. That is all, carry on.

Thank you, I was trying to add that up too, but the smaller weights on the left fooled me.

that's the weight rack! everyone notices that tho. I may have to use a different shot for my ticker.

till I change the ticker i'll just leave this here.

Nah, just let me and others think your left side is so much stronger you got some 25's added on that side.

I may have said this before, but dayumm!!!

quirkytizzy

What is worse is when you do something that can help a many many people, and people come and troll and derail your topic. They ruin it for everyone... I made a topic yesterday, some of my friends weren't able to read it, they left comments "can't wait to read it." But trolls ruined it and we had to delete the topic. To bad people miss out cause of petty people who just want to argue.

Dan's Edited Road Map by Pu is complicated. Pages of text, graphs, several links, and multiple sites to page through to get to an appropriate calorie goal.

People wishing for something simpler are hardly trolls. And you're being silly by bringing that up again. You're not a child who got hauled off the playground yesterday.

Don't act like one.

Vailara

To be honest, I think the easiest thing is the calculators at Scooby's Workshop.

http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/

Just put your stats in, use Katch-McArdle if you know your body fat %, and Mifflin St-Jeor if you don't. Activity level descriptions are simple. Choose your deficit, and it does the calculation for you.

Of course, it doesn't give all the background information, doesn't give precise calorie burns, doesn't tell you what deficit to go for, etc., but it's great to use alongside IPOARM, or for trying things out. I think it would be fine to use it and just go into more detail if it's not working.

Scooby estimate way too high, IMO. Your results will vary. But it was telling me to eat like 3600 cals a day. Yeah, right. I don't want to be a cow.

It SHOULD be the same as the Fat2Fit radio one if it's the Katch-McArdle number on both. I'll have to try testing it out to see if it actually is! I find that for me, Katch-McArdle BMR (calculated at Scooby or Fat2fit) gives me the lowest figure for TDEE - 20%. Then it's the Mifflin St-Jeor at Scooby. Then there's quite a big gap and the one linked to in the level obstacles post, or the Harris-Benedict BMR (at Scooby or Fat2fit) are quite close together. There's a difference of almost 200 between all the calculations. I aim for the lowest figure or a bit above.

I don't think the problem is with the Scooby website in particular, as the calculations to seem to come out much the same for me as they do at other websites. The reason I go to Scooby is that it does the sums and gives you the TDEE minus whatever, so it's a little quicker and simpler.

WinnerVictorious

In my opinion, all of these really overcomplicate things. It's a little crazy.

We all want a plan though, with something behind it that we can believe in. That's all it's about.

If you're an extreme pragmatic, this is all silly. But, many folks need something to believe in and need to feel that it's harder than it really is.

People are strange. Lol

I mean if it's really that simple, we should all eat 500 calories a day, you know? What's the problem, it's a deficit and it's simple... Obviously things are a bit more complex.

"Eat 500 calories a day" would be dumb, not simple.

There's a vast gulf between that and the 5,000-word essay full of charts and graphs that is IPOARM.

The "Essay" explains "why" simple things are sometimes dumb. It is a dumb, Why not just eat 1,000 calories a day? not as dumb, but still dumb. You where in the topic of the formula i made. Some of you where criticizing because i didn't "explain" where i got the data from. Now you're saying, explaining is too much to read. IPOARM is meant to be through.

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.

umm. no.

we were pointing out that you made it up. there's a big distinction between not disclosing the source of your data and not having any data at all.

Okay, so what deficits do you recommend?

i don't. i don't fancy myself some sort of guru for others. i have been asked by people on my friends list for help and i have provided it, but always by showing them how to do the calculations themselves and explaining to them the tradeoffs involved in the decision making process.

you want to create a formula that takes all thought out of the process. if you can do that, then more power to you. but it needs to be correct and it needs to be based on ACTUAL DATA AND RESULTS. it can't be based on anecdotal evidence. that's all you have to back up your suggestions. that's fine so long as it comes with a big disclaimer to that effect. but don't try passing it off as more than that. until somebody has the volume of data necessary to draw the conclusions you are trying to draw, any attempt to create a simple formula that fits everyone (or almost everyone) is premature.

magerum

Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.

WinnerVictorious

In my opinion, all of these really overcomplicate things. It's a little crazy.

We all want a plan though, with something behind it that we can believe in. That's all it's about.

If you're an extreme pragmatic, this is all silly. But, many folks need something to believe in and need to feel that it's harder than it really is.

People are strange. Lol

I mean if it's really that simple, we should all eat 500 calories a day, you know? What's the problem, it's a deficit and it's simple... Obviously things are a bit more complex.

"Eat 500 calories a day" would be dumb, not simple.

There's a vast gulf between that and the 5,000-word essay full of charts and graphs that is IPOARM.

The "Essay" explains "why" simple things are sometimes dumb. It is a dumb, Why not just eat 1,000 calories a day? not as dumb, but still dumb. You where in the topic of the formula i made. Some of you where criticizing because i didn't "explain" where i got the data from. Now you're saying, explaining is too much to read. IPOARM is meant to be through.

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.

umm. no.

we were pointing out that you made it up. there's a big distinction between not disclosing the source of your data and not having any data at all.

Okay, so what deficits do you recommend?

i don't. i don't fancy myself some sort of guru for others. i have been asked by people on my friends list for help and i have provided it, but always by showing them how to do the calculations themselves and explaining to them the tradeoffs involved in the decision making process.

you want to create a formula that takes all thought out of the process. if you can do that, then more power to you. but it needs to be correct and it needs to be based on ACTUAL DATA AND RESULTS. it can't be based on anecdotal evidence. that's all you have to back up your suggestions. that's fine so long as it comes with a big disclaimer to that effect. but don't try passing it off as more than that. until somebody has the volume of data necessary to draw the conclusions you are trying to draw, any attempt to create a simple formula that fits everyone (or almost everyone) is premature.

The problem is, you guys think i am presenting it as a fact. I am not, i am presenting it as "this is what i recommend." That's it.

Can you or anyone else provide any ACTUAL DATA AND RESULTS, that says when to have a 1lbs loss a week, or 1.5, or 2.0 weight loss a week? What about for carb in take?, protein intake?, fat intake?, exercise calorie burn???

Can anyone??? It's all just "recommendations" that's all.

i am flabbergasted that you still don't understand. here it is as simple as i can say it...

this site is full of people who have no clue how to go about losing weight but desperately need/want to do so.

if you're going to set yourself us some sort of authority and pass along advice, then you need to have some credibility. Dan's IPOARM was reasonably credible. it's all based on research from others and although there might be tiny details to quibble about, i don't think he wrote anything that was fundamentally flawed or could be challenged.

you then edited it. that's fine. i don't know exactly what edits you made, but i assume they were for readability and to add in the spreadsheet aspect. that's all fine. so long as nothing new was introduced and you were simply trying to make the tool more useful, more power to you.

then you tried to add something new which was not based on any research and which you couldn't defend. it was only THAT which people were discussing yesterday. because you couldn't/wouldn't defend your data and then complained to the mods to delete all of the posts that you didn't like, it escalated. instead of learning from that, you continue to mis-characterize what happened there. nobody was trolling. we were simply driving home the point that your graphs had no validity because they were based on only 2 data points, which you later admitted that you made up. if you had 50 or 60 data points taken from real, actual tracking of people and drew a graph based on that and offered it as a supplemental appendix for IPOARM, people would be patting you on the back for a job well done.

can you see the issue now? it's not about what you were trying to do. it's all about how you went about it.

Helloitsdan

Oh boy.

Heres the deal with the 3 methods:

Do what works for you.

MFP if followed correctly will work just as well as IPOARM and the other one.
The true winner is the person who is most consistent using whatever method they want.
Put down your guns and lets all have a drink.

;D

etoiles_argentees

To be honest, I think the easiest thing is the calculators at Scooby's Workshop.

http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/

Just put your stats in, use Katch-McArdle if you know your body fat %, and Mifflin St-Jeor if you don't. Activity level descriptions are simple. Choose your deficit, and it does the calculation for you.

Of course, it doesn't give all the background information, doesn't give precise calorie burns, doesn't tell you what deficit to go for, etc., but it's great to use alongside IPOARM, or for trying things out. I think it would be fine to use it and just go into more detail if it's not working.

Scooby estimate way too high, IMO. Your results will vary. But it was telling me to eat like 3600 cals a day. Yeah, right. I don't want to be a cow.

It SHOULD be the same as the Fat2Fit radio one if it's the Katch-McArdle number on both. I'll have to try testing it out to see if it actually is! I find that for me, Katch-McArdle BMR (calculated at Scooby or Fat2fit) gives me the lowest figure for TDEE - 20%. Then it's the Mifflin St-Jeor at Scooby. Then there's quite a big gap and the one linked to in the level obstacles post, or the Harris-Benedict BMR (at Scooby or Fat2fit) are quite close together. There's a difference of almost 200 between all the calculations. I aim for the lowest figure or a bit above.

I don't think the problem is with the Scooby website in particular, as the calculations to seem to come out much the same for me as they do at other websites. The reason I go to Scooby is that it does the sums and gives you the TDEE minus whatever, so it's a little quicker and simpler.

Scooby says my TDEE is 1345. Wrong! and... I'm sedentary. My weight stayed at 97 -99 eating 1970 calories for 6 months, went up to 2500+ and I gained 1 pound per month. No exercise.

etoiles_argentees

Oh boy.

Heres the deal with the 3 methods:

Do what works for you.

MFP if followed correctly will work just as well as IPOARM and the other one.
The true winner is the person who is most consistent using whatever method they want.
Put down your guns and lets all have a drink.

;D

Cheers! :drinker:

magerum

Oh boy.

Heres the deal with the 3 methods:

Do what works for you.

MFP if followed correctly will work just as well as IPOARM and the other one.
The true winner is the person who is most consistent using whatever method they want.
Put down your guns and lets all have a drink.

;D

Truth be told I didn't use any predescribed method, just consistancy.

cmcollins001

Personally, at this point, I'm using MFP as a guideline for the most part. I read, calculated, and looked into the other methods, and in reality, they're not that much different than what I'm already doing. Not enough for me to make the change.

I'm losing fat, working on maintaining as much LBM as I can, and it's working. I know the more I lose I will need to make some tweaks. For that matter, I've already made tweaks. I've upped my cals from what MFP gives me outta the box. I will tweak my exercise routines from time to time, adding more cardio or dropping the amount of cardio vs. lifting.

I'm a stick with what works until it stops working type of person...especially when it comes to something like this. If we're talking electronics...then I lean towards latest and greatest. And just because my weight loss stops progressing for a day or a week, doesn't mean I need to make a change, it just means that my body is making changes and adjustments. I've been fat most of my life so all this is kinda new for it. I will give it a month or two and as long as my scale isn't consistently trending up, then I'll just ride it out for a while and make changes when I deem it necessary.

If I'm going to listen to others, I'm going to listen to those who, in my mind, have succeeded. I have an awesome friends list here, and if I need advice or suggestions, I can just listen to them. It's all been said before so I don't even have to ask, I just have to do a little research and...here's the kicker...listen.

Sarauk2sf

In my mind, the more complicated something is, especially with a bunch of stats and bells and whistles, the more it gives the illusion of being accurate, None are. There is no point getting caught up in a bunch of calculations that have estimates upon estimates upon estimates upon randomness as their basis.

None of the online calculators take into account the natural metabolic slowdown you have when on calorie restriction, none take into account metabolic issues, none take into account the exact level of activity or the intensity of that activity, none take into account someone's actual circumstances.

Pick a method that you understand and suits you, stick with it, monitor results and tweak accordingly to get a reasonable loss based on your circumstances...simple as that.

BeachIron

Oh boy.

Heres the deal with the 3 methods:

Do what works for you.

MFP if followed correctly will work just as well as IPOARM and the other one.
The true winner is the person who is most consistent using whatever method they want.
Put down your guns and lets all have a drink.

;D

^^ This.

Vailara

To be honest, I think the easiest thing is the calculators at Scooby's Workshop.

http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/

Just put your stats in, use Katch-McArdle if you know your body fat %, and Mifflin St-Jeor if you don't. Activity level descriptions are simple. Choose your deficit, and it does the calculation for you.

Of course, it doesn't give all the background information, doesn't give precise calorie burns, doesn't tell you what deficit to go for, etc., but it's great to use alongside IPOARM, or for trying things out. I think it would be fine to use it and just go into more detail if it's not working.

Scooby estimate way too high, IMO. Your results will vary. But it was telling me to eat like 3600 cals a day. Yeah, right. I don't want to be a cow.

It SHOULD be the same as the Fat2Fit radio one if it's the Katch-McArdle number on both. I'll have to try testing it out to see if it actually is! I find that for me, Katch-McArdle BMR (calculated at Scooby or Fat2fit) gives me the lowest figure for TDEE - 20%. Then it's the Mifflin St-Jeor at Scooby. Then there's quite a big gap and the one linked to in the level obstacles post, or the Harris-Benedict BMR (at Scooby or Fat2fit) are quite close together. There's a difference of almost 200 between all the calculations. I aim for the lowest figure or a bit above.

I don't think the problem is with the Scooby website in particular, as the calculations to seem to come out much the same for me as they do at other websites. The reason I go to Scooby is that it does the sums and gives you the TDEE minus whatever, so it's a little quicker and simpler.

Scooby says my TDEE is 1345. Wrong! and... I'm sedentary. My weight stayed at 97 -99 eating 1970 calories for 6 months, went up to 2500+ and I gained 1 pound per month. No exercise.

As I say, I haven't tested it out much against the other calculators (only for my own stats), but I imagine that if you are small, light and sedentary, you would come out with a lowish TDEE on all the calculators (Scooby, Fat2Fit, the level one, and MFP's one), not just Scooby. I suppose it's just that all these things are estimates and guidelines. They give you a starting point which should be roughly right if you're average. If you're not gaining weight when you should, I suppose you assume that your TDEE is higher than average for the stats you entered. (Incidentally, did you watch the BBC documentary which was discussed here recently, which followed a group of thin people trying to gain weight for the programme? It was interesting how they responded differently).

Is there a better way to get an initial estimate? I don't know - I've just been looking at the 3 methods in this thread. I know it's possible to get various tests which I imagine could be more accurate than online calculators - but I think the calculators have a place for people who haven't been tested.

bluelena

Oh boy.

Heres the deal with the 3 methods:

Do what works for you.

MFP if followed correctly will work just as well as IPOARM and the other one.
The true winner is the person who is most consistent using whatever method they want.
Put down your guns and lets all have a drink.

;D

Yep!

:drinker:

jonnythan

i am flabbergasted that you still don't understand. here it is as simple as i can say it...

this site is full of people who have no clue how to go about losing weight but desperately need/want to do so.

if you're going to set yourself us some sort of authority and pass along advice, then you need to have some credibility. Dan's IPOARM was reasonably credible. it's all based on research from others and although there might be tiny details to quibble about, i don't think he wrote anything that was fundamentally flawed or could be challenged.

you then edited it. that's fine. i don't know exactly what edits you made, but i assume they were for readability and to add in the spreadsheet aspect. that's all fine. so long as nothing new was introduced and you were simply trying to make the tool more useful, more power to you.

then you tried to add something new which was not based on any research and which you couldn't defend. it was only THAT which people were discussing yesterday. because you couldn't/wouldn't defend your data and then complained to the mods to delete all of the posts that you didn't like, it escalated. instead of learning from that, you continue to mis-characterize what happened there. nobody was trolling. we were simply driving home the point that your graphs had no validity because they were based on only 2 data points, which you later admitted that you made up. if you had 50 or 60 data points taken from real, actual tracking of people and drew a graph based on that and offered it as a supplemental appendix for IPOARM, people would be patting you on the back for a job well done.

can you see the issue now? it's not about what you were trying to do. it's all about how you went about it.

In my mind, the more complicated something is, especially with a bunch of stats and bells and whistles, the more it gives the illusion of being accurate, None are. There is no point getting caught up in a bunch of calculations that have estimates upon estimates upon estimates upon randomness as their basis.

Both brilliant posts.

Iron_Feline

i am flabbergasted that you still don't understand. here it is as simple as i can say it...

this site is full of people who have no clue how to go about losing weight but desperately need/want to do so.

if you're going to set yourself us some sort of authority and pass along advice, then you need to have some credibility. Dan's IPOARM was reasonably credible. it's all based on research from others and although there might be tiny details to quibble about, i don't think he wrote anything that was fundamentally flawed or could be challenged.

you then edited it. that's fine. i don't know exactly what edits you made, but i assume they were for readability and to add in the spreadsheet aspect. that's all fine. so long as nothing new was introduced and you were simply trying to make the tool more useful, more power to you.

then you tried to add something new which was not based on any research and which you couldn't defend. it was only THAT which people were discussing yesterday. because you couldn't/wouldn't defend your data and then complained to the mods to delete all of the posts that you didn't like, it escalated. instead of learning from that, you continue to mis-characterize what happened there. nobody was trolling. we were simply driving home the point that your graphs had no validity because they were based on only 2 data points, which you later admitted that you made up. if you had 50 or 60 data points taken from real, actual tracking of people and drew a graph based on that and offered it as a supplemental appendix for IPOARM, people would be patting you on the back for a job well done.

can you see the issue now? it's not about what you were trying to do. it's all about how you went about it.

That's what you guys don't understand, there is not 2 data points. Those data points didn't mean anything at all. They where just there to "SHOW THE SLOPE" that's all. why you guys keep on mentioning research? I just don't get it. As I said the chart is just "this is our recommendation" that's all... nothing more, nothing less... that's it. You guys think i am writing a paper or something, i am not. Writing a paper that way doesn't even make sense.

I could have easily just showed the formulas... and say, "this is the formula we recommend." With out showing a graph. There are many many formulas online for weight loss, how many are backed by science? If you can name one I'll shut up. The graph shows the correlation between the 3 categories and the 0-20% cut, that's it. You guys keep on saying "it's not backed on science" then PLEASE POST the paper that says 20% cut is the one to do..., or a paper that says remove 500 calories a day to lose 1lbs a week, or 1000 to lose 2lbs a week... those are all recommendations. Just like my formula...

Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html

BurtHuttz

Hi everyone! I ran a 5k this morning, am feeling great, and am having a beer right now! It's a beautiful glorious day outside. Lets ride bikes!!!