This article seems to make sense. Thoughts?

GottaBurnEmAll

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

VintageFeline wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

amusedmonkey wrote: »

This reads like an army of strawmen, regardless of the athleticism of the writer. The vocal minority is not representative of the majority, and even then it's a case of "do what I do not what I say". The vocal people are vocal about their junk food consumption as contrast to the "clean eating" crowd. They definitely don't live on twinkies unless they're trying to prove a point or get youtube views.

TEF does not make that much of a difference within normal intake, unless you were eating miniscule amounts then raised your protein intake 10 fold. I have yet to see anyone who follows IFFYM and replaces fish with jelly beans. That would, by definition, break their macro balance.

The way he paints a calorie counting individual made me roll my eyes several times. Some can get obsessive, but it's not always the bad kind of obsession. There is a difference between being obsessed out of interest and being obsessed out of anxiety. Athletes are the last to say anything about obsession.

Side note:

Have you ever met a person who said they just couldn't stop eating plain baked potatoes, broccoli, oats, beans, or even rice? Most likely not.

Then you might not have met enough people. I'm someone who used to eat 3 cups of rice in one meal and then sneak in a few extra spoonfuls every time I passed by the kitchen until the pot was empty. All the items mentioned above I have to consciously moderate because I love them and I could overeat them just like any other items I love. In fact, plain baked potatoes with just a bit of salt are pepper have always been one of my favorite ways to eat potatoes (though it's not 5 large at a time now like it used to be).

I could make a valiant attempt at eating my weight in potatoes if given the chance. I don't even need salt on them. Bake the suckers and I'd just eat them out of hand like you do an apple.

Have done this. Baked, cooled to warm, eaten like a sammich straight from my hand.

It's actually how I do my night before carbloads for days when I lift at 2:00am. Red potatoes and sweet potatoes are my drugs of choice, and I eat both exactly the way quoted.

ETA: he did go too far by mentioning starches. One of his original quotes on the matter from his personal blog was something like "I've never met an obese person who got that way because their broccoli and cauliflower portions were out of control".

Rice and potatoes on the other hand...yeah, I know a few.

I could make a solid effort with steamed broccoli. My husband might divorce me and I'd probably become airborne at some point afterwards, though.

Gallowmere1984

You're missing the point. I'm willing to bet that in the grand scheme of your diet, that broccoli accounted for less than 5% of your caloric intake. In a diet involving whole packs of hotdogs and bottles of salad dressings, 135 kcals from a pound of cauliflower isn't exactly your biggest problem.

Gallowmere1984

Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »

No, i never said it was, i was saying that my biggest problem was calorie surplus from EVERYTHING.. but i cant just point the finger at one food over the other just because one has a different calorie density.. if i still had an eating disorder and lived on an island made of cauliflower, i would of probably still ate myself into obesity with it.

It's possible, but I honestly believe you'd end up physically damaging yourself internally, or inadvertently becoming bulimic first.

I'm actually considering taking this as a personal challenge on the last week of my bulk. Since my current caloric requirements for gaining are north of 4500 kcals on a really active day, it would be an interesting experiment in self-induced food misery. Granted, I'd still feel compelled to supplement with protein powders, because screw single source veg proteins.

It'll probably also make me look forward to my cut that starts the following week, even more.

amusedmonkey

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

You're missing the point. I'm willing to bet that in the grand scheme of your diet, that broccoli accounted for less than 5% of your caloric intake. In a diet involving whole packs of hotdogs and bottles of salad dressings, 135 kcals from a pound of cauliflower isn't exactly your biggest problem.

You made me curious, so I calculated my vegetable calories today and it's 261, nearly twice that when I was morbidly obese. 500 calories has a footprint, but admittedly not as big of a footprint as the other 2500 or more I used to consume from other sources.

That's not the article's point though. It seems to imply the usual clean eating claim where it states you don't overeat "healthy foods". Like hell you don't! Otherwise I wouldn't have become obese. My diet today is very representative of my diet before except for the quantities and fat content and could be considered 94% clean (I had 2 oreos), and ironically, ice cream and chips were some of the few things I actually had in single servings both then and now.

Gallowmere1984

amusedmonkey wrote: »

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

You're missing the point. I'm willing to bet that in the grand scheme of your diet, that broccoli accounted for less than 5% of your caloric intake. In a diet involving whole packs of hotdogs and bottles of salad dressings, 135 kcals from a pound of cauliflower isn't exactly your biggest problem.

You made me curious, so I calculated my vegetable calories today and it's 261, nearly twice that when I was morbidly obese. 500 calories has a footprint, but admittedly not as big of a footprint as the other 2500 or more I used to consume from other sources.

That's not the article's point though. It seems to imply the usual clean eating claim where it states you don't overeat "healthy foods". Like hell you don't! Otherwise I wouldn't have become obese. My diet today is very representative of my diet before except for the quantities and fat content and could be considered 94% clean (I had 2 oreos), and ironically, ice cream and chips were some of the few things I actually had in single servings both then and now.

Oh, absolutely. I wasn't a "got fat from candy and cookies" guy either. I quite simply overate everything that I did eat. These things included steak, potatoes, ground beef, chicken breast, pasta, bagels, fruit, etc.

As I admitted, Paul strayed a bit from his original points in his blog with this article.

However, keep in mind, once again, this is aimed at strength athletes and bodybuilders; people who generally have much higher caloric requirements than sedentary or even somewhat active people. That seems clearly stated from the outset, given his wording in the IIFYM origins section.

Also, a man getting to 12-15% BF using IIFYM is trivially easy, assuming that the person has self-control and some nutritional knowledge. However, a bodybuilder getting into contest shape trying to use it is pissing in the wind. You show me someone who cut to 4-5% eating ice cream, and I'll show you a liar, or someone with the best drug response ever. The wiggle room just isn't there in that phase. The further below 10% you get, the more ridiculous the restrictions have to become in order to keep making progress.

sardelsa

I think IIFYM can always get taken to the extreme end where it is all Twinkies, Pop-tarts sprinkled with protein powder to hit the macros. Not the way it was intended to be at all. It was meant to have a bit of flexibility in the world of strict macro and food sources, a way to make fat loss less miserable and more adaptable for everyday life. Have a Birthday coming up? You can fit a slice of cake into your macros without the guilt of feeling like you ruined your progress, etc.

For me, my bulking diet looks a lot different than my cutting diet. Right now I have over 3000 cals to play with.. you better believe I am fitting some treats in there. However, I am not a pro-bodybuilder.. I do not compete. I would imagine though, if I was cutting at really low levels, my nutrition would be very volume and nutrient dense.. treats would be highly moderated (depending on how I was feeling and cal goals as well). I would try to get the most bang for my buck as to not feel worn down or starving the whole time.. this isn't so bad considering it would only be temporary and I would go back to eating more flexible after the competition ends.

stevencloser

JeromeBarry1 wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

zyxst wrote: »

Firstly, colored font on black background is hell on my eyes, so I had a lot of difficulty reading the article.

Secondly, the writer repeated confuses the unit of energy calorie with food calorie.

"Roughly 80% of your immune system is contained in the digestive tract and efficient nutrient absorption starts in the gut too. But if that's not exciting enough for you, realize that the microbes in your gut play a big role when it comes to cravings. If you eat healthier food, you feed the bacteria that makes you crave healthier food, which will make it easier to stick to a diet.

But keep the junk in your diet and you feed the bad gut bacteria that increases cravings. Gut bacteria doesn't give a *kitten* if it fits your macros."



Okay, dude, whatever.

While he is painting with too broad a brush, this is a thing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4303825/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4228144/

I'm not too up on the whole gut biome thing, but just throwing this out there... won't the diet as a whole make up the biome? It seems to me that some junk food in an otherwise nutritious diet won't matter on balance, even reading through those studies.

The biome both responds to the food you eat and influences the food choices you make. It's worth your time to study up on the complex interactions between your mind and your biome.

It's interesting and all but it reminds me of the whole "protein burns more calories than carbs!" thing.
Technically correct, in reality completely useless because of the tiny impact it has.
There's this one poster on the forums who keeps talking about excreting calories, so I once looked up how much those differ. A 5% difference in calorie absorption between the median and the most extreme cases in both directions, caused by gut bacteria.

mumblemagic

So, the science around food seems spot on although I can't fact check all of it. His initial premise though is b*ll*cks - he plays into the "clean eater" rhetoric that IIFYM is an excuse to live off twinkies, and uses this to justify an article on what IIFYM isn't. There isn't a person in the IIFYM community who really believes the twinkie diet is acceptable, and as for the "can't think for themselves" thing, that's just insulting.

zyxst

sardelsa wrote: »

I think IIFYM can always get taken to the extreme end where it is all Twinkies, Pop-tarts sprinkled with protein powder to hit the macros. Not the way it was intended to be at all. It was meant to have a bit of flexibility in the world of strict macro and food sources, a way to make fat loss less miserable and more adaptable for everyday life. Have a Birthday coming up? You can fit a slice of cake into your macros without the guilt of feeling like you ruined your progress, etc.

I don't have the links to it, but wasn't IIFYM created as a joke response to someone on a BB forum? IIRC, it was a thread about "Is it okay if I eat *insert food here* while on a cut?" and someone replied with "IIFYM".

Gallowmere1984

zyxst wrote: »

sardelsa wrote: »

I think IIFYM can always get taken to the extreme end where it is all Twinkies, Pop-tarts sprinkled with protein powder to hit the macros. Not the way it was intended to be at all. It was meant to have a bit of flexibility in the world of strict macro and food sources, a way to make fat loss less miserable and more adaptable for everyday life. Have a Birthday coming up? You can fit a slice of cake into your macros without the guilt of feeling like you ruined your progress, etc.

I don't have the links to it, but wasn't IIFYM created as a joke response to someone on a BB forum? IIRC, it was a thread about "Is it okay if I eat *insert food here* while on a cut?" and someone replied with "IIFYM".

It wasn't a joke. It came into being because the guys got sick of responding to "can I replace rice with potatoes or will it wreck my gainz?" threads. At least, that's where the acronym came from. Obviously, the concept has existed for as long as man has understood nutrition, even slightly.