T Nation

Conept of IIFYM

IIFYM stand for if it fits your macros. the idea being you can eat basicly whatever foods you want as long as you hit your macronutrient intake for the day. also while making sure you get all you micronutrient needs.

i would like to here some compelling arguement as to why people are for or against this concept, and please keep it civil (your dumb isnt a good arguement)

Finally someone who agree’s with me on justifying my reasons to eat twinkies! Stupidest concept ever. Doesn’t even need a valid arguement to prove otherwise. A calorie is not a calorie, end of thread.

The problem is I eat real food and it doesn’t come with a label that tells me how much macros it is.

Why do you guys after repeated…ad nauseum explanations…OVER and OVER and OVER in regards to this topic STILL cannot grasp the concept of IIFYM or better known as FLEXIBLE DIETING.

All it means is…MODERATION…okay, again…ALL IT MEANS IS MODERATION. Did we get it that time?

So…this is my last post on the topic. I’m explaining this ONE MORE TIME for anyone who still cannot grasp it:

IIFYM is better to be called FLEXIBLE DIETING…it does NOT…again, it does NOT mean eat whatever you want every day as long as it fits your numbers. That is not responsible behavior.

Here is what it DOES mean: 1. Make sure your Calories are in line for your goal.
2. Account for your protein needs within those calories… i.e. 1g/lb of BW seems minimum acceptable.
3. Account for fat needs and EFAs within those calories…for optimal hormonal and overal health. I.e…good starting point is 0.45g per lb of bodyweight.
4. Now you fill up the rest of your Calorie allotment for your given goal with one or a combination of the macros…carbs, more fats, more protein etc. This is preferential depending upon taste, goals, how much you feel you need carbohydrates etc.
5. Out of all this you MUST attain proper micronutrients…i.e. you must hit your vitamins and minerals in adequate form.
6. You should aim to get in a good amount of fiber…the least being around 25g per day.

Okay…now…after reading the above rules…and these are RULES…how would one simply eat twinkies and whey protein powder all day and be following IIFYM/Flexible dieting properly? THEY WOULDN’T BE. It is not possible to adhere to those basic nutritional rules by eating only twinkies, kids cereal and protein. Therefore, the whole point is…a VAST majority of your intake is going to come from whole food sources in order to properly hit your micronutrient needs, hit your EFA needs, hit your fiber needs etc.

What the fuck are you guys arguing about? It just allows for someone to fit in some cookies or a couple poptarts or some kids cereal within their numbers IF they are practicing nutritional responsibility and adhering to the basic concepts outlined above…That’s all it means… IN ORDER WORDS: MODERATION.

If you guys think that still does not make sense…keep thinking certain foods eaten in moderation kill you or immediately become body fat…and eliminate (unnecessarily) those foods from your diet…eat only chicken, brown rice, and vegetables (fruit seems to be questionable to some of your crazies as well so I dunno about that one) and then…go into binge mode every so often (and justify it) because you’ve unnecessarily deprived yourself of certain food groups due to emotional elimination…unjustified at that.

There is my argument. And during my contest prep so far…it has not created any negatives…I’ve lost fat at just the proper rate, maintained strength and LBM as best as possible and my blood work is great.

Again…this is because I adhere to the RULES outlined about …it’s called responsibility… moderation… I think you should see a pattern here.

[quote]facko wrote:
Why do you guys after repeated…ad nauseum explanations…OVER and OVER and OVER in regards to this topic STILL cannot grasp the concept of IIFYM or better known as FLEXIBLE DIETING.

All it means is…MODERATION…okay, again…ALL IT MEANS IS MODERATION. Did we get it that time?

So…this is my last post on the topic. I’m explaining this ONE MORE TIME for anyone who still cannot grasp it:

IIFYM is better to be called FLEXIBLE DIETING…it does NOT…again, it does NOT mean eat whatever you want every day as long as it fits your numbers. That is not responsible behavior.

Here is what it DOES mean: 1. Make sure your Calories are in line for your goal.
2. Account for your protein needs within those calories… i.e. 1g/lb of BW seems minimum acceptable.
3. Account for fat needs and EFAs within those calories…for optimal hormonal and overal health. I.e…good starting point is 0.45g per lb of bodyweight.
4. Now you fill up the rest of your Calorie allotment for your given goal with one or a combination of the macros…carbs, more fats, more protein etc. This is preferential depending upon taste, goals, how much you feel you need carbohydrates etc.
5. Out of all this you MUST attain proper micronutrients…i.e. you must hit your vitamins and minerals in adequate form.
6. You should aim to get in a good amount of fiber…the least being around 25g per day.

Okay…now…after reading the above rules…and these are RULES…how would one simply eat twinkies and whey protein powder all day and be following IIFYM/Flexible dieting properly? THEY WOULDN’T BE. It is not possible to adhere to those basic nutritional rules by eating only twinkies, kids cereal and protein. Therefore, the whole point is…a VAST majority of your intake is going to come from whole food sources in order to properly hit your micronutrient needs, hit your EFA needs, hit your fiber needs etc.

What the fuck are you guys arguing about? It just allows for someone to fit in some cookies or a couple poptarts or some kids cereal within their numbers IF they are practicing nutritional responsibility and adhering to the basic concepts outlined above…That’s all it means… IN ORDER WORDS: MODERATION.

If you guys think that still does not make sense…keep thinking certain foods eaten in moderation kill you or immediately become body fat…and eliminate (unnecessarily) those foods from your diet…eat only chicken, brown rice, and vegetables (fruit seems to be questionable to some of your crazies as well so I dunno about that one) and then…go into binge mode every so often (and justify it) because you’ve unnecessarily deprived yourself of certain food groups due to emotional elimination…unjustified at that.

There is my argument. And during my contest prep so far…it has not created any negatives…I’ve lost fat at just the proper rate, maintained strength and LBM as best as possible and my blood work is great.

Again…this is because I adhere to the RULES outlined about …it’s called responsibility… moderation… I think you should see a pattern here.[/quote]

i am for IIFYM i follow it. im sick of arguing with people who say ice-cream makes you fat and bodybuilders cant eat it, bull shit. if i fit some chocoalte into my overall macro intake for the day what is wrong with that?

The bottom line is will power is exhaustable, why even set people(and yourself) up for failure by allowing you to practice moderation. There are some who do modertaion extremely well, but most people don’t. This whole concept hinges on the fact that you can sneak in your favourite foods while consciously exterting effort to telling yourself “just a little”. It’s almost the equivalent of tossing a willingly naked woman in your bed and telling you that you can only put the tip in. It’s just an ass-backwards concept to me.

There is defiantely nothing wrong with Ice cream, only wrong times to eat it. Nutrtional timing doesn’t matter to someone who isn’t engaging in physical exertion (more so weight-lifting) then someone who is.

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

i am for IIFYM i follow it. im sick of arguing with people who say ice-cream makes you fat and bodybuilders cant eat it, bull shit. if i fit some chocoalte into my overall macro intake for the day what is wrong with that?[/quote]

Dude, your argument was such that someone who has been struggling with weight for years should be allowed pop tarts and ice cream if it fits macro calculations as if hormone response, probably already on the verge of piss poor bloodwork, and insulin sensitivity don’t matter for long term results.

We have a guy above with a good starting point about moderation BUT…he is still an advanced athlete (bodybuilder) with the appropriate machinery (fuc tons of lean muscle mass) to make it an apple and oranges discussion.

Further to be allowed “favorite” foods when your overweight is just crack for some people and sets off an addiction time bomb. That in moderation shit ends up several times a week for the weight challenged.

Stop comparing seasoned bodybuilders and natural mesomorphs to endo’s and overweight people.

Thanks.

[quote]giograves wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

i am for IIFYM i follow it. im sick of arguing with people who say ice-cream makes you fat and bodybuilders cant eat it, bull shit. if i fit some chocoalte into my overall macro intake for the day what is wrong with that?[/quote]

Dude, your argument was such that someone who has been struggling with weight for years should be allowed pop tarts and ice cream if it fits macro calculations as if hormone response, probably already on the verge of piss poor bloodwork, and insulin sensitivity don’t matter for long term results.

We have a guy above with a good starting point about moderation BUT…he is still an advanced athlete (bodybuilder) with the appropriate machinery (fuc tons of lean muscle mass) to make it an apple and oranges discussion.

Further to be allowed “favorite” foods when your overweight is just crack for some people and sets off an addiction time bomb. That in moderation shit ends up several times a week for the weight challenged.

Stop comparing seasoned bodybuilders and natural mesomorphs to endo’s and overweight people.

Thanks.[/quote]

I agree with this. I think IIFYM is a good excuse to eat shitty food. I’m not saying to NEVER eat shitty food, but I think many people use IIFYM as an excuse. I don’t follow IIFYM. If I’m not eating what I’m supposed to (which I do 95% of the time), then I’m gonna eat a lot of whatever(quality food) for a cheat meal and saying “fuck it” to my macros for the day.

[quote]facko wrote:
Why do you guys after repeated…ad nauseum explanations…OVER and OVER and OVER in regards to this topic STILL cannot grasp the concept of IIFYM or better known as FLEXIBLE DIETING.

All it means is…MODERATION…okay, again…ALL IT MEANS IS MODERATION. Did we get it that time?

So…this is my last post on the topic. I’m explaining this ONE MORE TIME for anyone who still cannot grasp it:

IIFYM is better to be called FLEXIBLE DIETING…it does NOT…again, it does NOT mean eat whatever you want every day as long as it fits your numbers. That is not responsible behavior.

Here is what it DOES mean: 1. Make sure your Calories are in line for your goal.
2. Account for your protein needs within those calories… i.e. 1g/lb of BW seems minimum acceptable.
3. Account for fat needs and EFAs within those calories…for optimal hormonal and overal health. I.e…good starting point is 0.45g per lb of bodyweight.
4. Now you fill up the rest of your Calorie allotment for your given goal with one or a combination of the macros…carbs, more fats, more protein etc. This is preferential depending upon taste, goals, how much you feel you need carbohydrates etc.
5. Out of all this you MUST attain proper micronutrients…i.e. you must hit your vitamins and minerals in adequate form.
6. You should aim to get in a good amount of fiber…the least being around 25g per day.

Okay…now…after reading the above rules…and these are RULES…how would one simply eat twinkies and whey protein powder all day and be following IIFYM/Flexible dieting properly? THEY WOULDN’T BE. It is not possible to adhere to those basic nutritional rules by eating only twinkies, kids cereal and protein. Therefore, the whole point is…a VAST majority of your intake is going to come from whole food sources in order to properly hit your micronutrient needs, hit your EFA needs, hit your fiber needs etc.

What the fuck are you guys arguing about? It just allows for someone to fit in some cookies or a couple poptarts or some kids cereal within their numbers IF they are practicing nutritional responsibility and adhering to the basic concepts outlined above…That’s all it means… IN ORDER WORDS: MODERATION.

If you guys think that still does not make sense…keep thinking certain foods eaten in moderation kill you or immediately become body fat…and eliminate (unnecessarily) those foods from your diet…eat only chicken, brown rice, and vegetables (fruit seems to be questionable to some of your crazies as well so I dunno about that one) and then…go into binge mode every so often (and justify it) because you’ve unnecessarily deprived yourself of certain food groups due to emotional elimination…unjustified at that.

There is my argument. And during my contest prep so far…it has not created any negatives…I’ve lost fat at just the proper rate, maintained strength and LBM as best as possible and my blood work is great.

Again…this is because I adhere to the RULES outlined about …it’s called responsibility… moderation… I think you should see a pattern here.[/quote]

U mad?

I think that IIFYM became popular based on people believing that as long as you stick to the concept of energy balance and keep calories in less than calories out, then you’ll lose weight. There are obviously many flaws to this logic and many examples to help to demonstrate that there are much better ways to approach weight loss.

  • BMR calculators do tend to work fairly well, but unless you are undergoing more sophisticated testing of your metabolic rate, there is a chance that your metabolic rate could be quite different from what the calculator tells you. The most dramatic examples come from studies of obese individual who if I recall correctly can have a metabolic rate up to 40% lower than what would be estimated based on their body weight. This is due to a genetic difference from the general population, but obviously these individuals would not want to follow IIFYM.

-Another issue that should be taken into consideration is that insulin resistance will create a metabolic cascade that will result in a slower metabolic rate, so once again BMR calculators wouldn’t be reliable for somebody who ate themselves into insulin resistance. Insulin resistance can also have such a profound effect on promoting fat storage that even at a caloric deficit, someone with insulin resistance could still be storing fat when following IIFYM and eating nothing but twinkies. Even someone who is not so prone to insulin resistance and obesity would still become more insulin resistant if they ate nothing but twinkies, so eventually IIFYM would be working against them as well.

-Adequate Protein is necessary to consume in order to maintain muscle mass during a caloric deficit. If you are eating nothing but twinkies you may be losing more muscle than fat.

-If calories were created equally then someone following a food guide style diet should lose as much weight as possible in a given time frame, but even groups of individuals eating MORE than their daily caloric intake of high fat, high protein, very low carb diets lose more weight than the more conventional group.

I guess that most examples do stem from study of the general population, but if something doesn’t work for them, why would it work much better for us? Or if something does work for them, then it should work even better for us! Even amongst fitness enthusiasts, the best diet results come from much more sensible approaches than IIFYM.

[quote]Chiron01 wrote:
I think that IIFYM became popular based on people believing that as long as you stick to the concept of energy balance and keep calories in less than calories out, then you’ll lose weight. There are obviously many flaws to this logic and many examples to help to demonstrate that there are much better ways to approach weight loss.

  • BMR calculators do tend to work fairly well, but unless you are undergoing more sophisticated testing of your metabolic rate, there is a chance that your metabolic rate could be quite different from what the calculator tells you. The most dramatic examples come from studies of obese individual who if I recall correctly can have a metabolic rate up to 40% lower than what would be estimated based on their body weight. This is due to a genetic difference from the general population, but obviously these individuals would not want to follow IIFYM.

-Another issue that should be taken into consideration is that insulin resistance will create a metabolic cascade that will result in a slower metabolic rate, so once again BMR calculators wouldn’t be reliable for somebody who ate themselves into insulin resistance. Insulin resistance can also have such a profound effect on promoting fat storage that even at a caloric deficit, someone with insulin resistance could still be storing fat when following IIFYM and eating nothing but twinkies. Even someone who is not so prone to insulin resistance and obesity would still become more insulin resistant if they ate nothing but twinkies, so eventually IIFYM would be working against them as well.

-Adequate Protein is necessary to consume in order to maintain muscle mass during a caloric deficit. If you are eating nothing but twinkies you may be losing more muscle than fat.

-If calories were created equally then someone following a food guide style diet should lose as much weight as possible in a given time frame, but even groups of individuals eating MORE than their daily caloric intake of high fat, high protein, very low carb diets lose more weight than the more conventional group.

I guess that most examples do stem from study of the general population, but if something doesn’t work for them, why would it work much better for us? Or if something does work for them, then it should work even better for us! Even amongst fitness enthusiasts, the best diet results come from much more sensible approaches than IIFYM.

[/quote]

IIFYM probably works for a large portion of the population. After you hit a certain point physically, you can’t just wing it as much as IIFYM. Then you need to get into nutrient timing and the effects of insulin response from certain foods.

This post was, literally, so full of misinformation and misunderstanding that I stopped trying to reply point by point. Not just about the concept of IIFYM, but even on the level of basic physiology.

The broscience on this board can be so ridonk, at times.

[quote]anonym wrote:

This post was, literally, so full of misinformation and misunderstanding that I stopped trying to reply point by point. Not just about the concept of IIFYM, but even on the level of basic physiology.

The broscience on this board can be so ridonk, at times.[/quote]

Exactly…I don’t understand why I do this to myself to be honest… I make a long, concise, valid reasoning and make sure to cover any possible conceived bases that may be questioned, then someone somehow finds something to question or disagree with…

Then I realize that it’s futile for me to make scientific arguments because broscience allows them to still refute whatever I had to say. This cycle goes on and on until I just give up typing page long scientific responses…because they simply do not register if you’re main source of information is broscience.

[quote]facko wrote:
Exactly…I don’t understand why I do this to myself to be honest… I make a long, concise, valid reasoning and make sure to cover any possible conceived bases that may be questioned, then someone somehow finds something to question or disagree with…

Then I realize that it’s futile for me to make scientific arguments because broscience allows them to still refute whatever I had to say. This cycle goes on and on until I just give up typing page long scientific responses…because they simply do not register if you’re main source of information is broscience.[/quote]

It’s completely insane. How does IIFYM translate into “you need protein to maintain muscle on a caloric deficit, which you won’t be getting if you eat nothing but Twinkies”?

Actually, how does ANYTHING in your post translate into “eating nothing but Twinkies”?

Didn’t you expressly write that it is NOT POSSIBLE to follow all of those rules eating nothing but Twinkies?

How does not having your metabolic rate line up with a calculator’s ESTIMATE equate to IIFYM not working?

How the hell did that drivel get followed up with a ‘Good Post’?

As far as the broscience goes, if there’s one thing I’ve learned on this board, it’s that very few people have basic concepts about weight regulation more confidently ass-backwards than those who parrot Gary Taubes (the exceptions have already left this forum). Even fewer still can actually back their assertions up with something more substantial than a blog post or youtube lecture, and even then it’s likely just whatever they happened to glean from a pubmed abstract.

IFFYM might be great for a lay person, but for us on T-Nation I like to think where a little more advanced then this. Espeically since a lot of us pay attentiont to finer details like Para-workout nutrtion!

Well, I think the thing to focus on here is the ‘if it fits your macros’ and exactly how important the second caveat of ‘if it fits your micros’ actually is.

Anyone who has spent a bit of time tracking their diet may have also tracked most of the 50 or so micronutrients that the USDA publishes RDIs for (it’s not a big deal if you are using some of the better diet softwares out there that can work it out for you automagically). People who have done this will know that there’s in fact very little or even zero room for ‘junk’ food in a maintenance and especially a weight loss diet IF you are also trying to get the USDA levels of vitamins or minerals from food alone (is this important? I dont know).

Personally I’ve done my own math on this a while back when I was trying to lose weight and improve my own eating habits. I found it interesting to track micros for a while and I think I liked the way chasing all these numbers seemed to guide me into consistently really nice, fresh, healthy meals that seemed to make me feel pretty damn good. With this said, it’s actually not super easy to meet these requirements, it requires a lot of ‘healthy’ food to reach. This is great when you are losing weight but it makes eating a calorie surplus difficult because all those veges are pretty damned filling.

On the question of whether people can develop great physiques with a questionable (by USDA RDI standards) diet, the answer is yes. There are a plenty of people walking around looking great and even performing well on a sports field, but also eating extremely ‘crappy’ diets. It would be reasonable to think that the whole thing just doesnt matter that much if you looked at this group. The existence of such people leading seemingly pretty good lives without worrying too much about what they eat seems to fly in the face of what a lot of granola munching health experts might be telling you about the vitamin deficiency boogieman.

In the end I couldnt give much a of shit what people eat and what people dont eat. Individual results are what matter in the end. Personally I reckon ‘junk food’ should be kept to a minimum, I’m probably going to be on this earth until I’m 100 and I don’t want to take the risk of assuming that a sub-par diet is going to be ‘good enough’.

Anyway, a man’s religion, politics and diet are going to be three of the most sensitive areas of discussion people can have, so it’s no surprise discussions about food choices often degrade into some pretty vain and stupid bickering matches.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The problem is I eat real food and it doesn’t come with a label that tells me how much macros it is.[/quote]

The big gorilla is right.

DO NOT ARGUE with big gorilla you will loose ! ! !

Getting big and or strong without longevity is only impressive to yourself and maybe some …

They have the right to lie on labels.

Guess what, they do.

[quote]facko wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

This post was, literally, so full of misinformation and misunderstanding that I stopped trying to reply point by point. Not just about the concept of IIFYM, but even on the level of basic physiology.

The broscience on this board can be so ridonk, at times.[/quote]

Exactly…I don’t understand why I do this to myself to be honest… I make a long, concise, valid reasoning and make sure to cover any possible conceived bases that may be questioned, then someone somehow finds something to question or disagree with…

Then I realize that it’s futile for me to make scientific arguments because broscience allows them to still refute whatever I had to say. This cycle goes on and on until I just give up typing page long scientific responses…because they simply do not register if you’re main source of information is broscience.[/quote]

You’re doing a contest prep, intersted do tell make a new thread if you want.

[quote]paulieserafini wrote:

[quote]facko wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

This post was, literally, so full of misinformation and misunderstanding that I stopped trying to reply point by point. Not just about the concept of IIFYM, but even on the level of basic physiology.

The broscience on this board can be so ridonk, at times.[/quote]

Exactly…I don’t understand why I do this to myself to be honest… I make a long, concise, valid reasoning and make sure to cover any possible conceived bases that may be questioned, then someone somehow finds something to question or disagree with…

Then I realize that it’s futile for me to make scientific arguments because broscience allows them to still refute whatever I had to say. This cycle goes on and on until I just give up typing page long scientific responses…because they simply do not register if you’re main source of information is broscience.[/quote]

You’re doing a contest prep, intersted do tell make a new thread if you want.[/quote]

I cannot decipher if you’re being facetious…

I don’t think he is, and even if he is I would be interested in hearing about your contest prep if you have the time to post it.