Article - IIFYM: A New Vehicle for Eating Disorders
Replies
-
Right, track and be accurate when you can and when you can't, be mindful. Use tracking as a teaching tool to be used for when you can not track with an ultimate goal (if the dieter wants it to be) of not having to track at all anymore...IMO finding the right balance between being accurate when you can, and not worrying about when out and about seems to be the correct path.
0 -
I am skimming it now …a few things I noticed..
using a food scale is not unique to IIFYM.
no one is claiming to get ripped off a diet of pop tarts and ice cream. So it appears the author does not even really know what IIFYM is.
he also claims that IIFYM would restrict you in a social setting, which I have never found to be the case.
as a counter, layne norton posted this on FB the other day, which I found an interesting read:
"One of the not so obvious benefits to flexible dieting: the ability to eat mindfully. Once you understand what is actually in food and get good at tracking it's a skill you can apply permanently. I went to a wedding in Puerto Rico the last week. For those who have visited you know that the food choices there are not exactly what you would consider 'clean.' Everything is fried... Everything. And being in the wedding party I needed to participate in wedding activities and since I'm not prepping for a show I was not going to be rude and decline and I was not going to bring a food scale. So since I couldn't be perfect did I say 'screw it' and eat what I want with reckless abandon? No, I ate mindfully and estimated my intake based on portion sizes. Stepped on the scale today and did not gain a single pound. And this was eating fried food minimum 2x/day everyday. Life is going to happen. Eating 'clean' assumes perfect circumstances. Life is never perfect. LIFE happens. Much better to use a system that teaches you to eat mindfully rather than sending you into '*kitten* it' mode every time you can't control things perfectly."
I saw this as well.
I think he's making a bit of a false dilemma here only in that I could see people on IIFYM still entering "f it" mode so I don't think the system in itself is preventative of that. That's more down to the individual and not the method they choose.
I totally agree that people should also learn to eat mindfully. I think a method where you track intake could help that but I think mindful eating extends beyond estimation of calories. Plenty of people employ a mindful eating strategy that involves behaviors rather than estimating calorie and macronutrient counts.
Ha, I have gone in to "F-it" mode a few times and had some epic blowouts, so I get where you are coming from.
I am sure that I am to a point now where I could do mindful eating and hit most of my calorie/macro/micro targets; however, I continue to log everything in, because I like having access to the numbers...
I really do not find using a food scale to be too obsessive; however, when I am out and about I do not fret about having to log in every meal with 100% accuracy, which to me is the middle ground = log accurately when you can, and don't worry about it when you can't.
If whatever you are doing works for you, doesn't cause you stress or other negative features, and it's sustainable then rock on.
I have seen people go both ways with it..
Some go overboard and obsess about logging when they are at a wedding, birthday, etc..and others never use a food scale and then wonder why they are not losing any weight.
IMO finding the right balance between being accurate when you can, and not worrying about when out and about seems to be the correct path.
On the flip side of that, I think the more one logs food in the more you learn about portion sizes so it makes going out easier, in that you kind of know what is gong to be calorie laden and what is not.
I'd go beyond that and say that tracking is a method. It has pros and cons to it. Some people do really well on it and enjoy it. Some people hate it and obsess over it and it becomes a negative thing in their life.
It's not the only way to do things and it's not the definition of mindfulness.
Best bet is to match the method to the person. As a coach, finding that stuff out and helping the client choose the correct path is the tricky part -- something I'm still working on.
But I'm totally against the idea that an ultimate method exists that everyone must use.
Dogma is still dogma even when it's the trendy thing
I'm ranting a bit.
To the bolded... YES, YES and YES!
0 -
I think tracking in general can lead to a lot of disordered thinking. I see people here all of the time get really obsessive about their macros....like, if they don't get exactly 1 gram of protein per Lb of LBM, the world is going to end kind of obsessive.
I personally had a lot of these obsessive tendencies when I was tracking and I do a lot better without tracking my calories or my macros. There were some benefits that came with tracking in that I am just more generally aware and mindful about what I"m eating than I used to be...but every time I start tracking, I really get caught up in the numbers in not a good way.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I think tracking in general can lead to a lot of disordered thinking. I see people here all of the time get really obsessive about their macros....like, if they don't get exactly 1 gram of protein per Lb of LBM, the world is going to end kind of obsessive.
I personally had a lot of these obsessive tendencies when I was tracking and I do a lot better without tracking my calories or my macros. There were some benefits that came with tracking in that I am just more generally aware and mindful about what I"m eating than I used to be...but every time I start tracking, I really get caught up in the numbers in not a good way.
:drinker:
Doesn't describe me (my many faults lie elsewhere
) but yeah, MFP is full of that kind of behaviour. Important thing is to catch it when we see it in ourselves. 0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Just think for a moment what the opposite of "clean" eating would be..."dirty" eating. How is that NOT messed up?
What's messed up is thinking that's the opposite.
Oy vey...talk about projecting "morals" onto food...
Um. That's what the word "clean" implies. Either that or the RELIGIOUS TERM clean/unclean. That's what it means. Words have meaning, and meaning is important.0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Just think for a moment what the opposite of "clean" eating would be..."dirty" eating. How is that NOT messed up?
What's messed up is thinking that's the opposite.
Oy vey...talk about projecting "morals" onto food...
Um. That's what the word "clean" implies. Either that or the RELIGIOUS TERM clean/unclean. That's what it means. Words have meaning, and meaning is important.
Words do have meaning. Agreed upon meanings. Words don't inherently have meaning.
There's nothing particularly ominous or evil about the phrase clean eating, and its use, in and of itself, does not denote anything "messed up" about the folks who use it.
We have 50+ years of the phrase "JUNK FOOD" to juxtapose.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »And, sorry, but if you can't have a social life because of your fetishistic attitude toward food--THAT is disordered eating.
We see this all the time with (a minority of) calorie counters on MFP.
You may have just made the author's point...
How can you NOT do it, though? I've been to 4 restaurants in 4 weeks and ordered a full meal at all 4 and was no more than 1300 calories on any of those days.
If you're a silly person who can't figure out things or look up a chain restaurant ahead of time, this might be an issue, but if you have two brain cells to rub together to keep warm, it's not that hard.
And those who freak out get it explained to them.
A challenge for you: step back, look at your posting style and see if you can make your point without flinging insults. No, you're not necessarily insulting any one specific person, but if it's rude nonetheless. (And frankly has me thinking: "the lady doth protest too much".) Just a thought.
Protest against what? My food diary is open. I have nothing to hide. I don't stress over what I do or don't eat. I do make an attempt to eat a bit more fruit (because I don't actually like much of it), but that's pretty much as far as it goes.
I got fat by not exercising. My daily burn was averaging below 1650 calories even after I started doing 5-10k steps a day, and before that, it was below 1600 calories, and I ate like I normally did--about 1700-1900 calories. I was just very busy and very sedentary, partly because regaining muscle mass is a brutal experience with my genetic disorder and I'd lost a ton of strength and tone on months of bed rest. I've exercised off every pound I gained with my first two kids, and I'm going to do it again, same way.
All my unsuccessful friends are the ones who want to constantly talk about food as if they can just eat "good things" to lose weight. They're going to eat more veg or organic or gluten-free or more olive oil or Atkins or paleo or whatever, and suddenly, they'll lose weight. Never works. Never. They lose some, regain it. Lose, regain. One finally got tired of it and started exercising and counting calories and is down 100lbs and maintaining. But suddenly he stopped talking about eating the "right" things and said that he's MOSTLY just eating LESS things.
The only ones it "works" for are the type who have generally always been slim and went from, say, outright anorexia to orthorexia maintaining above unhealthy weights but still obsessing about food just as much. And they aren't actually my friends, just acquaintances, because they're so food-obsessed that they're unbearable to be around even if they are otherwise nice people. I have other things in the world I want to talk about than the new thing they won't eat anymore because they read on some crackpot website that it causes an unbalanced chi or inflammation of the liver.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yup. That should be the goal!Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Agreed and what does tracking calories or macros help a person to do?
Eat mindfully
You know this is going to get really boring if we keep agreeing like this right?
Have I ever told you how much I like your profile.
Bike porn.
Ain't nothing like a bit of bike porn ma'am!
On the flip side of that, I think the more one logs food in the more you learn about portion sizes so it makes going out easier, in that you kind of know what is gong to be calorie laden and what is not.
Yes, I think that is right as well (I left a similar comment on Sidesteel's blog recently.)
Focusing on the numbers / macros can drive real behavioural change as a person gets a better handle on diet composition, balanced choices, portion size and so on and then through constant repetition this behaviour gets ingrained. Do it enough times and it morphs into unconscious, automatic behaviour. That can be hit and miss though as a strategy.
I question this as an automatic process at least in some people. Quite possibly depends on how observant/objective people are when tracking and whether or not they are establishing behaviors while they are tracking intake.
Most people eat somewhat the same things from day to day. They get into food habits about snacks, lunches, and breakfasts. I'm weird because I often cook completely brand new dinners when I'm cooking for the family...but even then, I use a lot of the same ingredients.
That said, I never bothered to count calories before simply because I was way more active. "Eat a little less" and "exercise a little more" works MORE than well enough when you're fairly close to maintenance, anyway. For years, I maintained my weight between 123 and 132 this way. I lost from 162 (basically, never lost weight after the last kid for a variety of reasons) to fluctuating between 145 and 150 this way again. I needed MFP to figure out what was up now that I had hit maintenance there. And that's when I discovered that my activity level had just bottomed out. For me, the calorie-counting only speeds up weight loss and is temporary. I'll ditch it at my weight goal and then continue to count calorie burn for a while because that's where I fell down.
But someone who has a life-long habit of 2500 or 3000 or 3500 calories feeling like normal is coming from a REALLY, REALLY different place. If they need to weigh and measure for years into maintenance...is that so bad? They can ease off it in time as they learn to listen to how they look in the mirror and how their pants feel instead. Until then, it's a tool, ESPECIALLY if they're going through a tough spot in life. And it's not a bad tool at all.0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »And, sorry, but if you can't have a social life because of your fetishistic attitude toward food--THAT is disordered eating.
We see this all the time with (a minority of) calorie counters on MFP.
You may have just made the author's point...
How can you NOT do it, though? I've been to 4 restaurants in 4 weeks and ordered a full meal at all 4 and was no more than 1300 calories on any of those days.
If you're a silly person who can't figure out things or look up a chain restaurant ahead of time, this might be an issue, but if you have two brain cells to rub together to keep warm, it's not that hard.
And those who freak out get it explained to them.
A challenge for you: step back, look at your posting style and see if you can make your point without flinging insults. No, you're not necessarily insulting any one specific person, but if it's rude nonetheless. (And frankly has me thinking: "the lady doth protest too much".) Just a thought.
Protest against what? My food diary is open. I have nothing to hide. I don't stress over what I do or don't eat. I do make an attempt to eat a bit more fruit (because I don't actually like much of it), but that's pretty much as far as it goes.
I got fat by not exercising. My daily burn was averaging below 1650 calories even after I started doing 5-10k steps a day, and before that, it was below 1600 calories, and I ate like I normally did--about 1700-1900 calories. I was just very busy and very sedentary, partly because regaining muscle mass is a brutal experience with my genetic disorder and I'd lost a ton of strength and tone on months of bed rest. I've exercised off every pound I gained with my first two kids, and I'm going to do it again, same way.
All my unsuccessful friends are the ones who want to constantly talk about food as if they can just eat "good things" to lose weight. They're going to eat more veg or organic or gluten-free or more olive oil or Atkins or paleo or whatever, and suddenly, they'll lose weight. Never works. Never. They lose some, regain it. Lose, regain. One finally got tired of it and started exercising and counting calories and is down 100lbs and maintaining. But suddenly he stopped talking about eating the "right" things and said that he's MOSTLY just eating LESS things.
The only ones it "works" for are the type who have generally always been slim and went from, say, outright anorexia to orthorexia maintaining above unhealthy weights but still obsessing about food just as much. And they aren't actually my friends, just acquaintances, because they're so food-obsessed that they're unbearable to be around even if they are otherwise nice people. I have other things in the world I want to talk about than the new thing they won't eat anymore because they read on some crackpot website that it causes an unbalanced chi or inflammation of the liver.
okie dokie. Best of luck on your journey.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Just think for a moment what the opposite of "clean" eating would be..."dirty" eating. How is that NOT messed up?
What's messed up is thinking that's the opposite.
Oy vey...talk about projecting "morals" onto food...
Um. That's what the word "clean" implies. Either that or the RELIGIOUS TERM clean/unclean. That's what it means. Words have meaning, and meaning is important.
Words do have meaning. Agreed upon meanings. Words don't inherently have meaning.
There's nothing particularly ominous or evil about the phrase clean eating, and its use, in and of itself, does not denote anything "messed up" about the folks who use it.
We have 50+ years of the phrase "JUNK FOOD" to juxtapose.
Yes, I when I say I'm "cleaning up my diet" I mean I'm eating less "junk food."
0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »And, sorry, but if you can't have a social life because of your fetishistic attitude toward food--THAT is disordered eating.
We see this all the time with (a minority of) calorie counters on MFP.
You may have just made the author's point...
How can you NOT do it, though? I've been to 4 restaurants in 4 weeks and ordered a full meal at all 4 and was no more than 1300 calories on any of those days.
If you're a silly person who can't figure out things or look up a chain restaurant ahead of time, this might be an issue, but if you have two brain cells to rub together to keep warm, it's not that hard.
And those who freak out get it explained to them.
A challenge for you: step back, look at your posting style and see if you can make your point without flinging insults. No, you're not necessarily insulting any one specific person, but if it's rude nonetheless. (And frankly has me thinking: "the lady doth protest too much".) Just a thought.
Protest against what? [snip]
When Sabine_Stroehm suggest you "look at your posting style and see if you can make your point without flinging insults" she is likely referring to comments you make such as:If you're a silly person who can't figure out things or look up a chain restaurant ahead of time, this might be an issue, but if you have two brain cells to rub together to keep warm, it's not that hard.
When you stick to "I" statement like these, you're great:My food diary is open. I have nothing to hide. I don't stress over what I do or don't eat. I do make an attempt to eat a bit more fruit (because I don't actually like much of it), but that's pretty much as far as it goes.
I got fat by not exercising. My daily burn was averaging below 1650 calories even after I started doing 5-10k steps a day, and before that, it was below 1600 calories, and I ate like I normally did--about 1700-1900 calories. I was just very busy and very sedentary, partly because regaining muscle mass is a brutal experience with my genetic disorder and I'd lost a ton of strength and tone on months of bed rest. I've exercised off every pound I gained with my first two kids, and I'm going to do it again, same way.0 -
Hellokommodevaran wrote: »The clean eating/IIFYM debate is more about semantics than food. When people in the different camps compare what they are eating, it's often discovered that they are eating very similarly! What tics people off, is calling foods or a way of eating "clean", because there is no clear definition of clean, and because the opposite is easy to assume is "unclean", which has moral underones. When it comes to weight loss, only calories count, but good nutrition is important for health. Trying to clear up in the confusion is a good thing, in my opinion.
The article is full of false dilemmas, and this is even bordering strange:
I have met ONE person in here who's hungry on IIFYM.Critics of strict food intake ignored the fact that most IIFYM dieters had an issue with keeping their appetite in check. Anything more than a few hundred calories of junk per day and they failed to get in enough high satiety foods to keep their hunger in check.
But I agree with the last bit:At the end of the day, some people will do best with a meal plan, others with a flexible dieting approach like IIFYM, and others a list of foods they can and cannot eat. Assess if your method causes restriction, stress and unhappiness in your life.
make that 2.
I mostly IIFYM/Flexible diet- and I'm hungry all the time. But- I'm just always hungry- so- I'm not really upset/bothered by this information.
IIFYMs stands for If it fits your macros, and one of the criteria for the fitting, is satiety, isn't it? So if you're hungry because of the way you eat, that way of eating doesn't fit you (or your macros, or rather, your macros are off).
But if you are hungry no matter what, you just have to disregard that. I hope it's not too unpleasant.
Hunger is interesting. I used to be very hungry when I overate. I think that was part of the reason why I overate, to try to feel full. Now I eat well (as in getting more nutrients, not clean, hahaha) and rarely feel hungry. In fact, I often have to force myself to eat, even though I still love food; I think I love food more now. Some hunger is psychological, due to boredom or anxiety or the habit of grazing, or misinterpretation of the body's signals, but there is still hunger because of malnutrition, yes, in the Western world, today.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Meh, all he is doing is giving undue attention on the outliers.0
-
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yup. That should be the goal!Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Agreed and what does tracking calories or macros help a person to do?
Eat mindfully
You know this is going to get really boring if we keep agreeing like this right?
Have I ever told you how much I like your profile.
Bike porn.
Ain't nothing like a bit of bike porn ma'am!
On the flip side of that, I think the more one logs food in the more you learn about portion sizes so it makes going out easier, in that you kind of know what is gong to be calorie laden and what is not.
Yes, I think that is right as well (I left a similar comment on Sidesteel's blog recently.)
Focusing on the numbers / macros can drive real behavioural change as a person gets a better handle on diet composition, balanced choices, portion size and so on and then through constant repetition this behaviour gets ingrained. Do it enough times and it morphs into unconscious, automatic behaviour. That can be hit and miss though as a strategy.
I question this as an automatic process at least in some people. Quite possibly depends on how observant/objective people are when tracking and whether or not they are establishing behaviors while they are tracking intake.
Sure, that is a valid observation I think. It can become automatic but that is not necessarily a given. However, I am sure that many people who have tracked for some time could regulate their weight just fine with a few strategies to keep in mind (although of course they may prefer not to - there is a real security in being able to see some concrete numbers which rather than cause psychological distress alleviates it. If it ain't broke...)
Yep, definitely agree. There's typically fewer things to establish in people who habitually track intake.
I've had clients go cold turkey from logging to not logging and they are able to maintain weight just fine without any major adjustments. But these were people with established habits outside of tracking intake. I've also had people who really didn't establish those habits, but it wasn't all that difficult to focus on those behaviors and since they were already tracking, the implementation of those behaviors was done while they continued tracking, then the tracking was gradually pulled away.
That's interesting and I can imagine that tracking can act as a useful focal point to draw certain strands of behaviour together.
I'm not a coach as you are (and I agree with Sabine that your clients are lucky to have someone who appreciates a nuanced and individualised approach is a good thing) but part of my job involves driving organisational / cultural change in business. It can be tremendously difficult to move people from behaviour they have grown accustomed to over time and feel comfort in (although it may be hugely inefficient and counter productive both on a personal level and to the business.) We become what we think about and practice over time - it doesn't seem to matter if that is actually in a person's interest or not.
Incidentally many businesses have introduced mindfulness training as a way to improve productivity and it seems to be showing some real potential.
Good stuff.
I'd be curious what resources you recommend regarding behavior change. Currently working through motivational interviewing and power of habit, both are excellent.
My undergrad/grad school training and subsequent career can basically be summed up as 'health behavior change', though I don't work specifically with weight loss (except in my own case, lol). But if you don't mind taking your reading a bit outside of the realm of fitness/nutrition, you might find some of the literature on harm reduction helpful. Harm reduction is a strategy originally developed for people who are addicted to alcohol/drugs. It involves helping those who are unwilling/unable to commit to eliminating drug use to learn how to modify their use patterns and choices in ways that are (a) healthier and (b) can gradually move them toward better choices if they become open to that.
I find it really useful and applicable to a lot of health behavior changes in general, but don't want to derail this thread with a discussion about it. Google it or shoot me a message if you want some reading suggestions.
And yes - you sound like a really excellent coach.
Thanks, I've never actually heard of the topic of "harm reduction". I'd be happy to send you a message, but would you be willing to post a couple of book recommendations here?
There could be other people reading this thread that might find value in that.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions