Thoughts on IIFYM (If It Fits Your Macros)
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
FWIW, if people are using a site that doesn't track all but 4 micros to begin with, they probably aren't all that concerned about them, whether they use IIFYM or not.
I've wondered about this-do you track micros somewhere else? I'm interested in fine tuning mine (though recent blood work didn't come back deficient on anything except D), but MFP's isn't really micro tracking friendly.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »FWIW, if people are using a site that doesn't track all but 4 micros to begin with, they probably aren't all that concerned about them, whether they use IIFYM or not.
I've wondered about this-do you track micros somewhere else? I'm interested in fine tuning mine (though recent blood work didn't come back deficient on anything except D), but MFP's isn't really micro tracking friendly.
Personally, I do. I use another site that offers a lot more options, like full micros, plus letting you add entries for things like blood sugar readings, bp readings, etc. It's still not perfect, because it can't show things that aren't on the label to track, but their default entries are more complete, and they don't round any numbers. Since the update, I've been leaning more towards only tracking there and just posting here, especially since they broke the refined macros script. I haven't been able to adjust my goals for about 18lbs now on this site, so they're only correct on the other one.0 -
Nope. Simply an observation that micros likely aren't being attended to, truly, nor being met.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »galgenstrick wrote: »My gripe with IIFYM is a lot of people completely disregard their micros and therefor their health. If you do it in such a way where you eat the majority of your foods from nutrient dense sources, and fit in the things you like in small amounts, then that's probably a great and sustainable plan for most people.
People who do that aren't really doing IIFYM. It's pretty hard to hit your macros without also hitting your micros, and most people here stress that micros are part of it. IIFYM doesn't translate to 'just eat pizza/twinkies/ice cream so long as you stick to your calories'.
#TeamModeration
And/or folks are emphasizing the low quality foods in their posts, and not emphasizing the nutrient dense ones. If it's this, it's problematic from an educational standpoint but nothing more, if it's the former, then it's more problematic.
I think it's the latter, though one of the biggest IIFYM supporters here eats virtually no plant foods (except the occasional potato), as evidenced by his diary.
But yes, micros are essential to health, and we need to be sure we aren't suggesting otherwise (or that protein is the only thing that matters) to new users.
diary shaming?0 -
I use MFP to keep a general idea as to where my macros are so that I don't get too off track, but I'm not nearly as strict as I am with calories. For me it becomes too restrictive, and not how I want to relate to food long term. If I try to hit specific macro targets each day it starts feeling more like an elimination diet, and all the emotions which made those impossible to stick to come back.
In general I think that most on here find that in order to feel sated and strong you can't eat too many empty calories anyhow, so we tend to eat a lot of leaner proteins and vegetables.0 -
FWIW, if people are using a site that doesn't track all but 4 micros to begin with, they probably aren't all that concerned about them, whether they use IIFYM or not.
You really can't know that. I'd bet a lot of people take a multi-vitamin, and possibly other supplements, that they don't log, for example.
0 -
coltonweisbrod wrote: »galgenstrick wrote: »My gripe with IIFYM is a lot of people completely disregard their micros and therefor their health. If you do it in such a way where you eat the majority of your foods from nutrient dense sources, and fit in the things you like in small amounts, then that's probably a great and sustainable plan for most people.
Well those people aren't serious about being healthy if they truly use it as an excuse to over eat on the foods high in calories. Know what I mean?
These two statements are generalizations, and neither of you really know the intent of the people who are following a certain diet.
0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »FWIW, if people are using a site that doesn't track all but 4 micros to begin with, they probably aren't all that concerned about them, whether they use IIFYM or not.
I've wondered about this-do you track micros somewhere else? I'm interested in fine tuning mine (though recent blood work didn't come back deficient on anything except D), but MFP's isn't really micro tracking friendly.
Personally, I do. I use another site that offers a lot more options, like full micros, plus letting you add entries for things like blood sugar readings, bp readings, etc. It's still not perfect, because it can't show things that aren't on the label to track, but their default entries are more complete, and they don't round any numbers. Since the update, I've been leaning more towards only tracking there and just posting here, especially since they broke the refined macros script. I haven't been able to adjust my goals for about 18lbs now on this site, so they're only correct on the other one.
Do you mind naming the site? I'm always curious as to how my micros stack up, and if I could get a better overall picture, I think I could make adjustments in the right direction.0 -
The way I look at it - before, I used to go through junk phases and NOT keep within my calories, which is why I gained weight. If my food offends you now, imagine how dreadful it would be if you double or triple the quantities!
I am happy to win the main war (the weight war) while losing the occasional battle (eating perfectly all the time).
Plenty of wisdom here. Progress not perfection.
0 -
FWIW, if people are using a site that doesn't track all but 4 micros to begin with, they probably aren't all that concerned about them, whether they use IIFYM or not.
Tracking micros is a pain, but I don't think that means that people don't care about them.
After briefly considering and rejecting whether it would be possible to comprehensively track micros, I decided it made more sense to just try to eat in a way that is likely to cover them, by trying to eat a somewhat diverse diet with lots of plant foods, as well as a variety of meat/fish options. Perhaps it's just an excuse because I would find tracking to that degree, creating the correct entries and so on, terribly burdensome, but I'm convinced myself that it's actually better not to focus on specific micros for the most part as there are likely reasons that foods that have traditionally been eaten as part of healthy diets are good for us that we haven't specifically isolated.
But beyond that I do think that humans are pretty robust and can get along well on many different diets, so not obsessing and being able to enjoy food is a high priority for me. Since this tends to help me focus on food quality and be picky about not wasting calories on something subpar, it actually helps a lot with weight loss too.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »galgenstrick wrote: »My gripe with IIFYM is a lot of people completely disregard their micros and therefor their health. If you do it in such a way where you eat the majority of your foods from nutrient dense sources, and fit in the things you like in small amounts, then that's probably a great and sustainable plan for most people.
People who do that aren't really doing IIFYM. It's pretty hard to hit your macros without also hitting your micros, and most people here stress that micros are part of it. IIFYM doesn't translate to 'just eat pizza/twinkies/ice cream so long as you stick to your calories'.
#TeamModeration
And/or folks are emphasizing the low quality foods in their posts, and not emphasizing the nutrient dense ones. If it's this, it's problematic from an educational standpoint but nothing more, if it's the former, then it's more problematic.
I think it's the latter, though one of the biggest IIFYM supporters here eats virtually no plant foods (except the occasional potato), as evidenced by his diary.
But yes, micros are essential to health, and we need to be sure we aren't suggesting otherwise (or that protein is the only thing that matters) to new users.
Mmmmm......I would agree nutrition is important, but that does sound like you are trying to shame "him".
0 -
FWIW, if people are using a site that doesn't track all but 4 micros to begin with, they probably aren't all that concerned about them, whether they use IIFYM or not.
You can generally hit micros without tracking if you keep deficits small, high nutrient density, variety and ... ,gasp, supplement.
Also, the database here with 4-40 micros is useless as most entries doesn't have them.
0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »galgenstrick wrote: »My gripe with IIFYM is a lot of people completely disregard their micros and therefor their health. If you do it in such a way where you eat the majority of your foods from nutrient dense sources, and fit in the things you like in small amounts, then that's probably a great and sustainable plan for most people.
People who do that aren't really doing IIFYM. It's pretty hard to hit your macros without also hitting your micros, and most people here stress that micros are part of it. IIFYM doesn't translate to 'just eat pizza/twinkies/ice cream so long as you stick to your calories'.
#TeamModeration
I agree with this, although I probably shouldn't speak to what IIFYM is, because my dislike of named diets extends to IIFYM too. If anything, I'd say I try to follow a flexible dieting plan with a focus on eating balanced, nutritious, and delicious meals. Often homecooked, with local in-season produce when possible, but I live in a big city with lots of great restaurants of a wide variety of types, and I am not cutting those out of my diet.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »FWIW, if people are using a site that doesn't track all but 4 micros to begin with, they probably aren't all that concerned about them, whether they use IIFYM or not.
I've wondered about this-do you track micros somewhere else? I'm interested in fine tuning mine (though recent blood work didn't come back deficient on anything except D), but MFP's isn't really micro tracking friendly.
Personally, I do. I use another site that offers a lot more options, like full micros, plus letting you add entries for things like blood sugar readings, bp readings, etc. It's still not perfect, because it can't show things that aren't on the label to track, but their default entries are more complete, and they don't round any numbers. Since the update, I've been leaning more towards only tracking there and just posting here, especially since they broke the refined macros script. I haven't been able to adjust my goals for about 18lbs now on this site, so they're only correct on the other one.
Hmmm... what's their data base like?
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »FWIW, if people are using a site that doesn't track all but 4 micros to begin with, they probably aren't all that concerned about them, whether they use IIFYM or not.
You really can't know that. I'd bet a lot of people take a multi-vitamin, and possibly other supplements, that they don't log, for example.
I log my vitamins (multi and Vitamin D). One of the main reasons I started my weight-loss program was reading the results of blood work done in December. *So* much was off! Getting those numbers back in gear was at least as important as getting rid of the extra poundage, and for me, it's hard to consider calories in without also considering where they're going while they're in.
0 -
jennyonthespot wrote: »I'm a big fan. I feel like it provides a framework for a balanced diet. I also like the emphasis on strength training and body composition that seems to go hand in hand with the IIFYM lifestyle.
I do agree with this. I think that if someone really doesn't know what a balanced diet is, thinking about macros is probably an easy way to start (although I tend to think that most people do know if they think about it--certainly they know they should eat their veggies, even if they don't).
Also, I find the focus on body composition and strength training really inspiring and like how it provides a reason to keep going and monitoring your diet (however you do it) after reaching goal, as there's always room for improvement. When I hit goal before (the one other time I lost substantial weight), I was fine with my body, but just kind of figured that's how I looked when not fat and that was that. I didn't really want to lose more weight, although I was doing lots of cardio and figured I might, but I didn't feel like the fundamentals of my body were in my control.
Somehow without becoming obsessed about it or anything I feel like there are a broader range of things I can do to improve fitness now, other than simply not eating too much (and in a healthy way) and running and biking a lot.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »FWIW, if people are using a site that doesn't track all but 4 micros to begin with, they probably aren't all that concerned about them, whether they use IIFYM or not.
I've wondered about this-do you track micros somewhere else? I'm interested in fine tuning mine (though recent blood work didn't come back deficient on anything except D), but MFP's isn't really micro tracking friendly.
Personally, I do. I use another site that offers a lot more options, like full micros, plus letting you add entries for things like blood sugar readings, bp readings, etc. It's still not perfect, because it can't show things that aren't on the label to track, but their default entries are more complete, and they don't round any numbers. Since the update, I've been leaning more towards only tracking there and just posting here, especially since they broke the refined macros script. I haven't been able to adjust my goals for about 18lbs now on this site, so they're only correct on the other one.
Hmmm... what's their data base like?
Figured out the site and I think it's actually pretty solid. I have a friend who's using it and has been very successful I wish MFP did focus more on micros, maybe that's something that could be addressed with the premium option? 0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »FWIW, if people are using a site that doesn't track all but 4 micros to begin with, they probably aren't all that concerned about them, whether they use IIFYM or not.
You really can't know that. I'd bet a lot of people take a multi-vitamin, and possibly other supplements, that they don't log, for example.
I log my vitamins (multi and Vitamin D). One of the main reasons I started my weight-loss program was reading the results of blood work done in December. *So* much was off! Getting those numbers back in gear was at least as important as getting rid of the extra poundage, and for me, it's hard to consider calories in without also considering where they're going while they're in.
I log mine too, but the site doesn't track many micros as has been pointed out. The only dodgy reading on a micro I ever had was minorly low sodium, though. I tend to drink a lot of water, so we weren't surprised by that one. I drink a zero-calorie sports drink a day to try to counteract that.
Chronic thirst/dry mouth issues thanks to medication.
0 -
galgenstrick wrote: »My gripe with IIFYM is a lot of people completely disregard their micros and therefor their health. If you do it in such a way where you eat the majority of your foods from nutrient dense sources, and fit in the things you like in small amounts, then that's probably a great and sustainable plan for most people.
I don't think this is true at all. If you have a legit macro ratio, you're going to be hard pressed to just eat a bunch of *kitten* and hit your macros. Everyone I know who follows this concept gets a *kitten* load of nutritious, whole foods...if they didn't, they'd be really hard pressed to hit on their macros. I have a hard time believing that the people who are mostly eating "junk" foods are actually hitting their macros...and if they're not hitting their macros, they're not following the concept.FWIW, if people are using a site that doesn't track all but 4 micros to begin with, they probably aren't all that concerned about them, whether they use IIFYM or not.
IIFYM isn't a website...it's a concept that existed long before that website and the concept was born out of the fitness industry, not so much the diet industry...in particular the bodybuilding industry. That website is just a calculator that is capitalizing on the concept and doesn't even really discuss the concept in any meaningful way.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »FWIW, if people are using a site that doesn't track all but 4 micros to begin with, they probably aren't all that concerned about them, whether they use IIFYM or not.
I've wondered about this-do you track micros somewhere else? I'm interested in fine tuning mine (though recent blood work didn't come back deficient on anything except D), but MFP's isn't really micro tracking friendly.
Personally, I do. I use another site that offers a lot more options, like full micros, plus letting you add entries for things like blood sugar readings, bp readings, etc. It's still not perfect, because it can't show things that aren't on the label to track, but their default entries are more complete, and they don't round any numbers. Since the update, I've been leaning more towards only tracking there and just posting here, especially since they broke the refined macros script. I haven't been able to adjust my goals for about 18lbs now on this site, so they're only correct on the other one.
Hmmm... what's their data base like?
User entries are just as screwed up as here. Default entries list everything and let you choose your unit of measurement.
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »galgenstrick wrote: »My gripe with IIFYM is a lot of people completely disregard their micros and therefor their health. If you do it in such a way where you eat the majority of your foods from nutrient dense sources, and fit in the things you like in small amounts, then that's probably a great and sustainable plan for most people.
I don't think this is true at all. If you have a legit macro ratio, you're going to be hard pressed to just eat a bunch of *kitten* and hit your macros. Everyone I know who follows this concept gets a *kitten* load of nutritious, whole foods...if they didn't, they'd be really hard pressed to hit on their macros. I have a hard time believing that the people who are mostly eating "junk" foods are actually hitting their macros...and if they're not hitting their macros, they're not following the concept.FWIW, if people are using a site that doesn't track all but 4 micros to begin with, they probably aren't all that concerned about them, whether they use IIFYM or not.
IIFYM isn't a website...it's a concept that existed long before that website and the concept was born out of the fitness industry, not so much the diet industry...in particular the bodybuilding industry. That website is just a calculator that is capitalizing on the concept and doesn't even really discuss the concept in any meaningful way.
Not sure where you get the idea that I thought it was. My point was MFP doesn't track micros, so whether or not someone uses IIFYM, if they're only tracking on MFP, they're not tracking micros.0 -
I'll leave this one here, from the much respected Alan Aragon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNcsHKOQX1E 0 -
galgenstrick wrote: »My gripe with IIFYM is a lot of people completely disregard their micros and therefor their health. If you do it in such a way where you eat the majority of your foods from nutrient dense sources, and fit in the things you like in small amounts, then that's probably a great and sustainable plan for most people.
I don't see how you can get your macros within your calories and not hit your micros. I just flicked back through my diary and when I was PMSing a few days ago, I didn't hit all of my micros and was way off on my macros and over my calories. Every day that I get my carb/protein targets and eat a reasonable number of calories, I am over on all of my micros. Maybe it's possible to do IIFYM the way you describe, but I don't see how I could do it.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »FWIW, if people are using a site that doesn't track all but 4 micros to begin with, they probably aren't all that concerned about them, whether they use IIFYM or not.
I've wondered about this-do you track micros somewhere else? I'm interested in fine tuning mine (though recent blood work didn't come back deficient on anything except D), but MFP's isn't really micro tracking friendly.
I keep 3 online food diaries and one of them will show micros (22, including VA, VC, calcium, iron, and water) under a Nutrition tab in the food diary.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Yeah I'd actually have to put some thought and effort into leaving an unhealthy gap in my micros if I'm hitting my macros. It can be done, of course, but I'd really have to be trying to make it happen.
It seems like maybe some people overestimate their ability to determine what's healthy for everyone else.0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »To me it seems like another label that is as pointless as many others and a way to avoid looking at the big picture and health as a whole. I've seen people obsess over getting the last gram of protein to hit there macros under the delusion that they have to hit these goals. In reality I probably eat this way as I keep an eye on my Macros but I don't obsess over them and try and look at my lifestyle goals as a whole. If your happy to have that label on your eating that's fine but health is far more than a catchy trendy anacronym.
I just go for a varied diet based in wholefoods and keep an overall view on my Macros but there is far more than just hitting your macros to overall health.
Too many people like to overcomplicate things
I also agree with this...I don't log so obviously I don't track my macros down to the gram or anything...when I did log I used them as a baseline and given that I logged for 9 months I know roughly where I stand...but I'm not some elite athlete or body builder that really needs whatever advantage there is to getting my macros bang on so I don't worry about it much. People really tend to get overly obsessed about things that don't matter a whole bunch to the average Joe/Jane.
I basically eat a well balanced diet that is rich in whole food nutrition and I have pizza night every couple of weeks with the family and eat some little desert most nights (usually some kind of dark chocolate)...and enjoy craft beers, bourbon, and cigars on the weekends.0 -
barbecuesauce wrote: »galgenstrick wrote: »My gripe with IIFYM is a lot of people completely disregard their micros and therefor their health. If you do it in such a way where you eat the majority of your foods from nutrient dense sources, and fit in the things you like in small amounts, then that's probably a great and sustainable plan for most people.
I don't see how you can get your macros within your calories and not hit your micros. I just flicked back through my diary and when I was PMSing a few days ago, I didn't hit all of my micros and was way off on my macros and over my calories. Every day that I get my carb/protein targets and eat a reasonable number of calories, I am over on all of my micros. Maybe it's possible to do IIFYM the way you describe, but I don't see how I could do it.
The issue is there are a bunch of people that don't think food quality matters at all and that anything goes. Some go to extremes
Maybe. I don't know whose diary is being shamed or I'd go see what that looks like, but I know I probably can't do it.0 -
barbecuesauce wrote: »galgenstrick wrote: »My gripe with IIFYM is a lot of people completely disregard their micros and therefor their health. If you do it in such a way where you eat the majority of your foods from nutrient dense sources, and fit in the things you like in small amounts, then that's probably a great and sustainable plan for most people.
I don't see how you can get your macros within your calories and not hit your micros. I just flicked back through my diary and when I was PMSing a few days ago, I didn't hit all of my micros and was way off on my macros and over my calories. Every day that I get my carb/protein targets and eat a reasonable number of calories, I am over on all of my micros. Maybe it's possible to do IIFYM the way you describe, but I don't see how I could do it.
People talk about doing it all the time, inadvertently, where you'll see someone posting how they just had to give in and eat the cupcakes/cookies/birthday cake someone brought in to work, and now they only have X calories left for dinner. While the carbs in those things may quite easily be within their macros, especially if they use a carb-heavy split, it's not likely the frosting had all the nutrients that would've been in the dinner they planned, but they didn't eat.
Just because it's possible to get all micros while eating within macros doesn't mean everyone automatically or intentionally goes out of their way to do it, especially when they don't actually understand what their macros or micros really are to begin with.0 -
barbecuesauce wrote: »galgenstrick wrote: »My gripe with IIFYM is a lot of people completely disregard their micros and therefor their health. If you do it in such a way where you eat the majority of your foods from nutrient dense sources, and fit in the things you like in small amounts, then that's probably a great and sustainable plan for most people.
I don't see how you can get your macros within your calories and not hit your micros. I just flicked back through my diary and when I was PMSing a few days ago, I didn't hit all of my micros and was way off on my macros and over my calories. Every day that I get my carb/protein targets and eat a reasonable number of calories, I am over on all of my micros. Maybe it's possible to do IIFYM the way you describe, but I don't see how I could do it.
People talk about doing it all the time, inadvertently, where you'll see someone posting how they just had to give in and eat the cupcakes/cookies/birthday cake someone brought in to work, and now they only have X calories left for dinner. While the carbs in those things may quite easily be within their macros, especially if they use a carb-heavy split, it's not likely the frosting had all the nutrients that would've been in the dinner they planned, but they didn't eat.
Just because it's possible to get all micros while eating within macros doesn't mean everyone automatically or intentionally goes out of their way to do it, especially when they don't actually understand what their macros or micros really are to begin with.
That's true. And I didn't take into consideration that the default macro split on here has 50% carbs. And I do have days where I am likely lower on potassium, even considering that it isn't listed on every label.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions