MFP vs IPOARM vs Level Obstacles

DavPul

IN for bike rides. As soon as I finish up from this relaxing day in Long Beach with my girls.

Gotta love the forums. Some people don't know how to quit when they're behind

jonnythan

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.

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...

Your "slope" is a complet fabrication based on what you imagine might be the case. You present it as something optimal and optimized and exact, but it's just a big guess.

That's the problem. You're taking IPOARM, which is well-researched and well-reasoned, and ruining it by trying to extend it using graphs and formulas that were just made up.

BurtHuttz

Your "slope" is a complet fabrication based on what you imagine might be the case. You present it as something optimal and optimized and exact, but it's just a big guess.

That's the problem. You're taking IPOARM, which is well-researched and well-reasoned, and ruining it by trying to extend it using graphs and formulas that were just made up.

I thought the slope was just a visual representation of how one would scale caloric deficit in proportion to one's body fat though?

PikaKnight

I still follow basic TDEE guidelines, macros 40/30/30

This. I'm a simpleton. If there are too many things to factor in/worry about, I get confused and lose interest.

TDEE - 20%, macros 40/30/30. My focus right now is maintaining lean mass while I lose body fat. This works for me.

ETA - If it weren't for all the work that HelloitsDan, Heybales, and everyone else has put in to help people for free, I'd still be doing it the MFP way, using food as a reward ("earning" food/bev through exercise, which NO), and worrying about "going over" on rest days.

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.

Isn't there a group you can post this in so that your friends can still read it? Just saying.

I think you need to step back and take a page from Dan's book. You complicated something that was already a bit much for some people to take in right away. Period. That's why Levels got created. But as Dan said...whichever works for you is the best to go with. No need to justify your formulas or try to get in a measuring contest of egos. Let. It. Go.

Edited to correct typos

whierd

I have a measuring tape to solve this.

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

Still waiting for you to post some research paper...

I haven't posted any threads stating facts - there is no burden of proof on me.

Crankstr

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!!!

I want to ride my bicycle, I want to ride my bikeeeee.

PikaKnight

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!!!

I want to ride my bicycle, I want to ride my bikeeeee.

I don't have a bike :sad:

just_fur_luck

You know what's even more b!tchin than battle of Titans that is Dan's Explanation Revised by Pew and Leveling Obstacles to Get Skinny?

This badmofo right here:


I don't even know the guy but I just have to say

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, DAVE!!!!!! You're a King among Giants!

just_fur_luck

ha, what would i get out of that?? One guy, on MFP, who just joined this month... i mean seriously... what's in it for me??? not even worth the time or energy.

Speaking of time or energy: 191 pounds lost is really amazing. Stellar progress, man.

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

Still waiting for you to post some research paper...

I haven't posted any threads stating facts - there is no burden of proof on me.

Oh, please show me where i stated facts...

Sady I can't as the thread was deleted.

just_fur_luck

Seriously, how many reps has this guy done? He's a machine. I've watched him do at least 50 reps and he makes it look easy

Crankstr

Seriously, how many reps has this guy done? He's a machine. I've watched him do at least 50 reps and he makes it look easy

mmhmmm

jofjltncb6

Seriously, how many reps has this guy done? He's a machine. I've watched him do at least 50 reps and he makes it look easy

I like how the guy in red gets back to the same "starting position" at the end of the rep. Makes it all very seamless.


Edit: "seemless" Bah.

jofjltncb6

Speaking of weight loss...this thread seems to have lost some weight recently.

nannukka

Obviously there is some history and relationship dynamics between some of the posters there hat I am not aware of. But let me just say, that I'm not quite understanding all the hostility (or what comes of like that). It has been stated that all the systems have their pros and cons and their fans. And like somebody way wiser than me stated, it is the consistency that is the king here. Pick up one system that fits your personality and stick with it (just make sure that if you use MFP you tweek it so that you get enough calories).

I personally would like to thank PU239 and heybales for their help. For me this is working. It was lots of reading but I like to know things and I took it as an education. Then I applied all that info into heybales' spreadsheet that I love (plug the numbers and go). In my opinion both of these guys know what they are talking about. It is one system among many, but I like theirs. It is perfect - probably not but neither will any other system be. Is it "scientific, well referenced, verified with control groups". Yes and no. Like all these systems and all weight loss stuff, some is science and hard core research, some is recommendations and opinions. But if I would be believing anybody it would be these guys. They have put lots of time, work and energy into this and I - among many I'm sure - am truly grateful for them. Cheers guys!:drinker:

SkimFlatWhite68

In my case, I've tried IPOARM and the spreadsheet, I thought that Level Obstacles was the same thing, but just trying to put it simply. HeyBales crunched the spreadsheet numbers for me and that gave me about 1550 to eat per day.

For the next 2 weeks I've decided to use the MFP method of base + exercise calories, just to see if there is a difference. Based on what I've looked at so far, I think it's going to work out the same as the spreadsheet (on average over the week).

For me, I think it's good to experiment, try it for a month and see what happens. I'm not so worried about the day to day stuff, but look at the average over the week/month.

Really it comes to a few simple things. Eat good healthy nutritious food. Move more, incorporate some weight training and try to be more active in general. At the end of the week, have a calorie deficit. Enjoy life!

DebbieLyn63

Didn't read all 6 pages of this, but I agree that weight loss has become entirely too complicated on here.

I started back last august at 228. I am 49 and 5'6". MFP calculated my BMR at 1675, and my sedentary TDEE at around 2000. Since I had been maintaining my weight around 1700-1800 cals up to that point, I knew right away that number was way off. Then when I rode my bike, light effort, 10-12 mph, for an hour, it told me I had burned 600 calories, and I was supposed to 'eat back' those calories. So when I chose 2 pounds a week, since I had over 70 pounds to lose at the time, I received the minimum 1200 calories. If I had eaten back the exercise cals, that would have put me up to 1800 cals per day, to lose 2 pounds a week. Math did not add up.

After some searching around the forums, and getting into some debates over the whole 1200 cal starvation thing, I discovered that if you have a higher Body Fat %, your BMR is considerably lower than someone with an average or low BF%. Found out the Katch Mcardle BMR calculator gave a much more accurate number for those at the very high and very low ends of the BF scale.

At the time, my BF% was 55%. This gave me a BMR of only 1375 and a sedentary TDEE of only 1650, instead of the 2010 that the standard calculator gave me. That is a 360 calorie difference.

Then, I started using a heart rate monitor and found that on my bike rides, I only burned 300 calories in an hour rather than the 600 that MFP said I burned. So there is ANOTHER 300 calorie difference. Then, since your TDEE is already factored into your exercise burn for the day, you really need to deduct the hourly rate of your TDEE from your exercise total, to get your NET calorie burn. Mine is around 70 cals per hour, so that brought my actual net calorie burn to only 230.

This created a total difference of 730 calories on an exercise day.

No WONDER I wasn't losing as fast as MFP said I should be.

To add insult to injury, there were throngs of people yelling at me on the forums, saying that I was starving myself, and I was an idiot for eating 1200 and not eating back my exercise calories.

All the endless posts about BMR and TDEE and road maps and 20% or 10%, and starvation mode, yadda yadda yadda. Was just exhausting.

So I kept it simple. I stuck with the calorie level that felt comfortable to me. If I was really hungry, I ate a bit more. If I wasn't hungry at the end of the day and I had calories left over, I didn't worry about leaving them on the table. I figured it would all even out in the end.

I make sure I get enough protein and healthy fats in, and don't worry too much about getting empty cals in just for the sake of reaching a number. I exercise when I can, and don't worry about eating back the calories. For me, it doesn't make that drastic of a difference, and can help cover any inaccuracies in my logging, or an unplanned slice of cake at a party.

As you can see by my ticker, it has worked fairly well so far. I still have about 30 pounds to go, and the weight loss has slowed down a bit now that I am much lighter, but I still get a pretty steady 3-4 pounds a month, and have yet to hit a true plateau at any point. I still have my hair and my muscles and am stronger and healthier than I have been in 12 years since a back injury left me in a wheelchair for a while. (and caused the weight gain).

It just really doesn't have to be all that complicated. If you aren't losing any weight over an extended amount of time, then you pretty much found your maintenance level. If you are starving and find yourself binging and tired all the time, then you probably need to eat more, and/or change the foods you are eating.

Figure out a rough estimate of how many calories you actually maintain on, and subtract 500 from that number and see how you do. Adjust as necessary. And be patient.