MFP vs IPOARM vs Level Obstacles

I just wanted to drop my .02 cents and answer the OP...

The MFP method did not work for me. Actually, at first it did when I had close to 33% body fat, but when I got down to 26% body fat and lower, I stalled, and no amount of tweaking the thing seemed to work. I did not put myself at sedentary, but rather I used lightly active (at work, 90% of my day is driving, when I am not working, I am a couch potato, but I make myself walk at least an hour day anyway) and I set my goal at either half a pound or 1 pound per week loss. The calorie amount it spit out for me was still too low. Even with exercise calories, I was only getting 1600 or so on most days.

A couple of years ago, I purchased Tom Venuto's Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle book and have been using those principles to guide my dietary goals. On his website, there is a nifty calculator that estimates TDEE and then follows up by showing you approximations for TDEE-10%, TDEE-20%, and TDEE-30% for different exercise levels. When I stalled with MFP but still had about 26% body fat, I used his calculators at the TDEE-30% for people who workout about 5 days a week. I started losing again. When I got down to 22% body fat, I stalled again. I turned to the people of MFP for advice---

1. The first set of advice I received was from IPOARM people telling me to eat more calories. They showed me their calculators, and when I used them, I was undereating about 300 calories.
2. The second set of advice I received was from Obstacles people telling me to eat more calories. I was also undereating by about 300 calories according to them.
3. And the third set of advice told me to lower calories to about 100 less that what I was eating. I chose not to do this.

Now, going back to Tom Venuto's website, I entered in my current statistics and exercise level and according to that website, I was undereating by about 300 calories a day since my TDEE had raised and I was working out more than before. I hadn't taken weight loss and more activity into account as in, I didn't change my goals after I had changed. That was my real issue. I just didn't know it.

So, I upped my calorie goal to around 1800 calories and I am getting leaner and leaner each week. So basically, the calculators for IPOARM and Obstacles were pretty darn close to the BFFM calculators as they spit out very similar numbers for me. MFP still tells me to eat 1260 calories plus exercise which is way too freakin' low for me.

As for the macros, I set those according to what I have learned from Tom Venuto's and Lyle McDonald's websites and articles on nutrition. IPOARM describes this well, neither Obstacles nor MFP does (in fact, I believe MFP to be all jacked up/wrong when it comes to macro goals).

For me, a rule of thumb to follow is that if you are obese or have a lot to lose, TDEE-30% will work well. For most others, TDEE-20% is sufficient. For the lean trying to get leaner, TDEE-10 or 15% is better since you don't want to lose LBM at an excessive rate.

If I had simply re-entered my numbers into the BFFM calculator instead of using the old numbers when I was about 10% more body fat than I am now, I would not have stalled out recently. I think that it is important for people to recalculate things with every 10 or so pounds or 5 or so % of body fat change, because your calorie needs will change with those numbers. Of course, this is something that Pu was trying to hit at with those threads that kept being deleted...

I'm with you on this BMR calc. So, what are your thoughts on averaging the BMR. I used http://1percentedge.com where I could select an average of several BMR's. Its a IMF calc. which looks complex but after playing with it quite a bit, I found it useful.

I liked that one too, but wasn't as quick and dirty as a spreadsheet.

I know the Katch is based off analyzing other studies, and it slightly underestimates calorie burn for obese, since fat is somewhat metabolically active, and the formula has a built in assumption of ratio of fat to LBM that doesn't apply when obese.

But I think it with Mifflin is good combo. Katch by itself if you have valid bodyfat test, or many different bodyfat calcs that are all within 5%. 5% spread doesn't change the BMR that much.

At least that under estimate for obese might balance out eating more than logging unintentionally. Or at obese, doesn't matter as much.

When I joined mfp, it set me way too low. So, I upped to maintenance, and it was still too low. I upped to the highest activity level, and it was still too low. I did not like the exercise calorie way because then on days that I didn't exercise, the calories were set too low, and I also needed to try and add my exercise before I did it, in order to eat enough that day (particularly if I exercised in the evening). So, basically whichever method you choose and however you do it, calculating a specific deficit from your TDEE is generally much better, in my opinion. That's what works for me and what I need. I did not have a lot of weight to lose and realized I just needed to be at maintenance, while working on my fitness (I did not need to eat at a deficit). My situation is different from most people on here, but I would always choose to calculate based off of my TDEE (and for me I will always eat more than what most of the calculators claim my TDEE is).

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.

hmmmmm... so watch should I weigh? 5'2 , 100 pounds. Healthy. I really don't care for formulas and predictions. I go my my ability to move my body. Why are all of you fighting over formulas?


*i'm so over pop up docs.

Didn't seem like fighting....more like discussing the pros/cons whats working / what's not how to improve etc.... If your healthy, happy and content with yourself then I guess you should weigh 100 lbs and stay at 5'2.

I am. Thank you.

I have lost the bulk of my weight following MFP, its easy and works.

Me too. It is also perfect for maintenance. I've been consistently 1-2 pounds up or down from goal for over two years now (depending on TOM). That's pretty darn precise.

I used the old IPOARM (before other contributors) as it is fairly easy to follow. I found the fat2fitradio.com calculators useful to guestimate my bodyfat.

Now I think level obstacles is the best if you are just starting out and don't want to be intimidated by calculations. But it wasn't around when I started MFP.

ETA: MFP settings only work if you eat back all your calories even if it's walking. Although this is motivational for some people, I found it tedious. Also, IMO the macros settings are way out, especially if you are doing cardio and/or weightlifting.

I started on MFP settings - got 1200 cals (of course, female 5'2) starved for a week.

Read IPOARM (several times) upped my cals felt happier lost 10lbs.

Started NROL4W and used their calculations upped cals again - lost 8".

Read Level Obstacles and saw that this was a much simplified explanation for noobs and wished I'd had this when I started.

I now recommend Level Obstacles to noobs as I think it is easier to understand when you are starting out, IPOARM has just become far too complicated - most people don't know their body fat starting out and the wall of text can be so intimidating, plus there are how many versions and spin offs?

If people put reasonable information/targets into any of the methods, they all will work, or all may not work. None take into account metabolic issues and all use online calculators that may or may not approximate an individuals' personal circumstances.

This lady gets it...

Obsessing over your exact TDEE figure is simply pointless. There is little way to establish it with any degree to accuracy unless you check yourself into a metabolic ward. In addition TDEE is highly variable for the individual not only on any given day but also weekly and monthly and yearly (given changes in lifestyle and so on.)

In addition IIRC the Harris Benedict activity multipliers are based on data for 1920s population (I will have to double check that though as this is from memory.) It is hard to know if they are even truly applicable with any accuracy to modern lifestyles.

All of them are simply estimates. Pick the method, any method, and apply it. Reassess results periodically. Tweak. Profit.

I started out with mfp. I asked to lose 2lb because the NHS says that you should try to lose 1-2lb a week, so that seemed reasonable. It gave me 1200kcal and I ate all my exercise calories (i even logged washing up!) and I lost over 3lb a week, which wasn't what I wanted as I only had 10lb to lose. I reduced the 2lb to 1.5 lb and it still gave me 1200kcal. It finally upped them slightly if I asked for 1lb loss. I continued to lose too fast, really. When I reached goal and switched to maintenance, I still lost, so I upped my activity level, until there were none left to add, then I added calories manually, until I got to 2450kcal + exercise.

When I got a fitbit I found it thought my burn was almost always higher than my burn at the highest mfp level, but still lower than reality. Basically, some factor somewhere means calculators don't work for me. This may be poor logging, or something metabolic, but really it doesn't matter as long as I know what works for me.

Just prior to getting pregnant, I was trying to lose a little weight and found 2400kcal gross was my sweet spot. Any less and I'd end up eating 2700kcal plus every few days because I was hungry! :laugh:

So, I'm pro reality rather than calculators. My advice to a newbie would be to try out mfp maintenance calories first and see what happens. If you lose (I would have!) stick there, if you gain, try sticking there for a few weeks before gradually reducing. I know this doesn't fulfill people's lust for immediate results, but I think it would be both sane and simple.