Why IIFYM?

tfield98

I'm sold on CICO.

But IIFYM? I know it's not MFP, but I'm having trouble understanding WHY IIFYM promotes balance of macros so strongly. I've read a lot on their site but other than saying it was initially developed by body builders, and that they have thousands of customers, I didn't find anything that explains why macros are important. http://www.iifym.com/perfect-macro-split/ discusses the issue, but other than doing more protein, there's not much more information.

I'm 66 and have don't have a goal to look like a body builder. I want to drop from 180 to 160, am 5'10, and live a sedentary life, working out 5 or 6 days a week swimming or spinning. I do a bit of weights 3 days a week, but am not pushing it hard.

I understand how important weighing my food is for CICO to work. And I understand I can eat back all (or some if I want to be conservative) of my exercise calories above what MFP tells me I can eat for my sedentary lifestyle. And I understand I should "go slow" at this stage -- that 1/2 per week is a reasonable target for my situation.

But WHY are macros thought to be so important? Because, frankly, they just add much more complexity which I'd like to avoid dealing with. And, (although I may be wrong on this) IIFYM's calorie number includes calories for the number and type of workouts I reported on their form. But, I'm not consistent in my workouts, so it seems I'd have to modify IIFYM's numbers on a daily basis to accommodate that lack of consistency.

Perhaps macros are more important to body builders or people trying to lose far more weight than me?

My apologies if this is a topic that has been discussed in the past ad nauseam. I've spent a fair amount of time reading here on the message boards but haven't come across anything that addresses this.

AnnPT77

Yeah, forget nutrition. Nutrition is totally optional and unnecessary.

Unless you want to be healthy, of course. Your call.

In a way, the "MFP way" and IIFYM are mirror images of the same thing.

MFP by default gives you a calorie goal, and some macro targets based off that as percentages of calorie goal. You eat whatever foods you choose to hit those calorie and macro targets.

IIFYM calculates some macro goals. You eat whatever foods you choose to hit those macro targets. Since each macro has an approximate characteristic calorie level, macro goals amount to a calorie goal, if you stand back and squint. (Carbs, protein = 4 calories per gram, fats = 9 calories per gram.)

Either way, you get close to the same place.

Personally, I don't loveLove MFP's default macro percents for all possible individual characteristics and calorie levels, but they're not terrible for any sensible goal, and you can tweak them if you know better.

Just my opinion, but I think entirely ignoring macros (and micros) is . . . not the best possible choice.

Either MFP or IIFYM can get you to a rational and successful weight loss and nutrition result. I use MFP.

lynn_glenmont

If you're not trying to achieve something specific that you believe depends on macro percentages, I wouldn't worry about IIFYM in the sense of trying to get your days to adhere to some specific percentages.

But I would at a minimum figure out your minimum protein goal in grams (not percentages), and make sure you hit that. If you think there's any chance you're not getting enough fat, set a minimum fat goal in grams as well, and make sure you hit that. Fill in the rest of your calories as you wish, and don't worry about getting your macro allocation above your protein and fat minimums to work out the same way every day. (Personally, I don't really worry about fat, because I know that the choices I make very rarely get me anywhere near falling below my minimum. I keep an eye on calories, protein, and fiber.)

kimny72

I would add that IIFYM has grown beyond the branded website. A lot of people say they are IIFYM because they are trying to hit specific macro numbers eating whatever they want, without ever even visiting the .com. I'm honestly not sure which came first!

Macros are not specifically about weight loss. Macros can affect satiety though. And your body needs a certain amount of those macros to function properly. If you are eating too low in one of the macros it can affect your health, energy level, and hunger.

If you find them to be too complicated start with just calories. Then once you have that down, start watching your macros. You don't have to hit them exactly, just use them as a general guide to keep in mind.

HowUdish

People like the IIFYM idea because of the flexibility it offers them. You like CICO which is very similar but IIFYM takes it a step further. It helps make sure the calories you eat aren't empty and you can eat a balanced diet. Often people are busy and eat out so using something like IIFYM helps you find foods you can eat even when on the go or in a rush. IIFYM helps give you the flexibility to continue to eat what you want, where you want, without having to worry about one single meal.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

tfield98

HowUdish wrote: »

IIFYM helps you find foods you can eat even when on the go or in a rush. IIFYM helps give you the flexibility to continue to eat what you want, where you want, without having to worry about one single meal.

How does it help in that way?

yirara

JerSchmare wrote: »

...because you can eat ice cream, iifym.

That’s why.

You can also eat ice cream with mfp. There is no difference. If you like to eat more fats set your goal in MFP as such, or completely ignore the macro information. As long as you stay within your calorie goal you lose. IIFYM makes it more complicated in my opinion as it puts more stress on macros. Yes, it's still about cico in the end, but 'omg.. I'm still 20g short of protein, but I'm over my carbs already. I'm dooooomed"

HDBKLM

Since I'm a short, older woman I don't get many calories. When I first started MFP it was useful to play around with different macros combinations to see what would keep me sated. After experimenting, I then set my goals accordingly, but just as a guideline—something to aim for but I don't adhere to them with any real strictness. In other words, I used macros as a tool to help make sure I didn't feel hungry all the time, which would in turn likely lead me to binge and ruin CICO.

At another level, I also wanted to make sure I was getting enough protein since I don't naturally tend to eat many protein-rich foods if left to my own devices.

kommodevaran

You are eating "macros" even if you don't count them. If you eat balanced and varied meals, you will get in proper nutrition. But many people today, especially people who are overweight, don't eat balanced meals, don't even know what balanced meals is. Tracking can be a good way to learn. If you already know, and know how to practically apply the knowledge, you just have to do it.