What drives you nuts on the main forums?
Replies
-
Or hell, simply because the standard American diet, IIFYM style, is the unsustainable path, and you've read that fat is more satiating, so you want to try it for yourself.
Again, it's about context (and, in some cases, reading comprehension). Put yourself in the other person's shoes - they've tried the IIFYM way and it's not working for them, so they need to do something different. They've determined that switching to LCHF will help them adhere to their calorie count, and maybe eventually that Paleo helps them adhere to their macros and that they feel better not eating grains. If it works for them and doesn't inherently deprives them of various vital nutrients, why bash it?
The standard American diet is not IIFYM.
You do realize that people are IIFYM'ing of they low carb much of the time?
I didn't think that I was saying IIFYM was necessarily SAD. I apologize if it came off that way. And yes, I understand that, technically speaking, anyone on MFP or any other site that's trying to stay within more than just their calorie goals is doing it in an IIFYM way, regardless of whether they're using another system (or no system) to guide their food choices. That's why I worded it as "the standard American diet, IIFYM style."
The standard American diet, at least as I've always understood it, comes out with a macro spread of something like 250-300g of carbs, 50-70g of fat, and 50-75g of protein (based on the USDA food guides of a 55/30/15 ratio on the "good" end, and stats of 50/35/15 at the "bad" end). Even the stereotypical diet of McDonald's and Twinkies averages not far off from the USDA recommended ratios (the aforementioned "bad" end).
Even on a good day, that's extraordinarily carb-heavy. I know I personally wasn't able to adhere to IIFYM eating that spread. I wanted to gnaw my arm off eating barely under maintenance. I also couldn't really break into LCHF until I dropped grains, forcing me to use other things as meal bases, even on lazy days. It was just too easy for me to blow my carb number out of the water from just eating a sandwich and a banana.
That's what I was trying to refer to in the part you quoted - "just eating the way the USDA recommends (55/30/15) and staying within macros isn't working for me, so I'm going to try LCHF....LCHF isn't working, because I don't really have any other guideline, but I've found this framework that makes sense, doesn't deprive me of micronutrients, and can easily be adapted to LCHF, let's try it."
If the above person has chosen to not eat McDonald's anymore, for whatever reason, does that really warrant people posting pictures of Big Macs, or telling them "don't bother, you'll just fail," and "everything in moderation," on a thread that only tangentially relates to their decision to use a certain framework for eating?0 -
Even on a good day, that's extraordinarily carb-heavy. I know I personally wasn't able to adhere to IIFYM eating that spread
Just as a point of clarification, that has to do with your macro targets and not IIFYM.0 -
Or hell, simply because the standard American diet, IIFYM style, is the unsustainable path, and you've read that fat is more satiating, so you want to try it for yourself.
Again, it's about context (and, in some cases, reading comprehension). Put yourself in the other person's shoes - they've tried the IIFYM way and it's not working for them, so they need to do something different. They've determined that switching to LCHF will help them adhere to their calorie count, and maybe eventually that Paleo helps them adhere to their macros and that they feel better not eating grains. If it works for them and doesn't inherently deprives them of various vital nutrients, why bash it?
The standard American diet is not IIFYM.
You do realize that people are IIFYM'ing of they low carb much of the time?
I didn't think that I was saying IIFYM was necessarily SAD. I apologize if it came off that way. And yes, I understand that, technically speaking, anyone on MFP or any other site that's trying to stay within more than just their calorie goals is doing it in an IIFYM way, regardless of whether they're using another system (or no system) to guide their food choices. That's why I worded it as "the standard American diet, IIFYM style."
The standard American diet, at least as I've always understood it, comes out with a macro spread of something like 250-300g of carbs, 50-70g of fat, and 50-75g of protein (based on the USDA food guides of a 55/30/15 ratio on the "good" end, and stats of 50/35/15 at the "bad" end). Even the stereotypical diet of McDonald's and Twinkies averages not far off from the USDA recommended ratios (the aforementioned "bad" end).
Even on a good day, that's extraordinarily carb-heavy. I know I personally wasn't able to adhere to IIFYM eating that spread. I wanted to gnaw my arm off eating barely under maintenance. I also couldn't really break into LCHF until I dropped grains, forcing me to use other things as meal bases, even on lazy days. It was just too easy for me to blow my carb number out of the water from just eating a sandwich and a banana.
That's what I was trying to refer to in the part you quoted - "just eating the way the USDA recommends (55/30/15) and staying within macros isn't working for me, so I'm going to try LCHF....LCHF isn't working, because I don't really have any other guideline, but I've found this framework that makes sense, doesn't deprive me of micronutrients, and can easily be adapted to LCHF, let's try it."
If the above person has chosen to not eat McDonald's anymore, for whatever reason, does that really warrant people posting pictures of Big Macs, or telling them "don't bother, you'll just fail," and "everything in moderation," on a thread that only tangentially relates to their decision to use a certain framework for eating?
Why are you assuming that the macros in a SAD are anything like IIFYM, or that the USDA recommendations are appropriate? I do not use them and I apply IIFYM. For IIFYM, you set your own macros based on your stats and goals and specific circumstances.0 -
Oh! I have another one. People who complain about others debating fitness and nutrition on a fitness and nutrition website!
Or, how about people complaining about fit and healthy people on a fitness and nutrition website.
If only I was sick, seriously overweight, female and/or unhealthy my opinions would be much more valid. Then I would know everything, and be able to tell all the fit and healthy people what they are doing wrong.
Debating, respectfully, is one thing. This (which I've seen on numerous occasions, and most of the responses are from guys) is a completely different one:
OP: I've been having trouble losing weight due to my PCOS, so I figured I'd give LCHF/Paleo/gluten free a try. Where can I start? Does anyone have any good recipes?
P1: You're just eating too much/lying about what you're tracking. You don't need to cut anything out. Everything in moderation.
P2: Eat less, move more.
P3: *Posts giant pic of donut*
P4: *Posts pic of body builder eating 20 donuts*
P5: It's not healthy to cut food groups out. You need carbs.
P6: Don't do that. It's not sustainable, or healthy. If you don't have Celiac or a medical condition requiring you to do it, you're just going to fail.
P7: I've lost 100lbs eating a donut every morning for breakfast! You don't need to cut out foods!
*More pics of donuts and other heavily-refined simple carbs.*
*More unsubstantiated claims that the OP is embarking on an unsustainable path, doomed to failure.*
Pro tip - PCOS and hypothyroidism are two of the top most misdiagnosed disorders in women, and Celiac is one of the most misdiagnosed disorders in general, and it's a fight to get the right tests done to get a diagnosis in most cases. Not having a medical diagnosis in hand does not equate to not having a medical reason for doing something. In some cases, eliminating one or more food group is the way to figure out what's wrong, or further prove your case to your doctors. Or hell, simply because the standard American diet, IIFYM style, is the unsustainable path, and you've read that fat is more satiating, so you want to try it for yourself.
Again, it's about context (and, in some cases, reading comprehension). Put yourself in the other person's shoes - they've tried the IIFYM way and it's not working for them, so they need to do something different. They've determined that switching to LCHF will help them adhere to their calorie count, and maybe eventually that Paleo helps them adhere to their macros and that they feel better not eating grains. If it works for them and doesn't inherently deprives them of various vital nutrients, why bash it?
Please read the discussion above. Rather than reintroducing the discussion of which group is being the bigger *kitten* hat, be it males or females, it would be much more productive to focus on nutrition and fitness. I was truly hoping that we had already moved on to that.
As for IIFYM, I don't think most people have a very good idea what it is and is not. And it certainly is not the "standard American diet." Yes, there are people saying that they eat at McDonald's every day (hint that really doesn't fit the description so well), and yes some people post pics of donuts (some light heartedly and perhaps some not so light heartedly, and often in response to statements that one should "NEVER" eat sweets, etc.), but in any serious discussion of IIFYM there is ALWAYS the caveat for specific medical conditions when discussing not cutting out food groups. Keep in mind, that gifs such as that are often used to illustrate the absurdity of saying that "you have to eat clean to have visible abs" or that "serious competitors don't eat donuts." The truth is that a "perfect" diet, however you want to define that, isn't necessary. There are plenty of good descriptions out there of what IIFYM is and they have been posted and linked to in these discussions numerous times. I'm happy to provide some if you would like me to, but in general, the idea is to eat a balanced diet with sufficient protein, fats, and fiber while using nutrient dense foods as around 80% of one's total diet and allowing a few calories (around 20%) for "treats." I tend to identify with the diet and the term because it describes quite well what I do. I have never been a potato chip or fast food type of guy but I do like beer, pizza and ice cream. I'm not going to judge another person's treat choices. The more I've gotten into it and studied some of the scientific backings for the approach, the more it has freed my mind to relax and enjoy my food and still enjoy objective success.
Now, where I personally take issue with cutting out food groups is when it is advised that everyone try it out and "see how it works." It's as if to say that someone doesn't have any food issues but let's start restricting someone's diet anyway to see if we can find something wrong to "diagnose" that isn't really there. If you cut out any food for a while, then you're very likely going to have some gastric distress when you re-introduce it. I went through this before when I tried a low fat diet and started reintroducing more fat in my diet. It doesn't mean that I'm normally sensitive to fats. And frankly, some of the diets such as Paleo that I do take issue with, seem incredibly well suited for someone with a gluten sensitivity, for example. What I have argued, and will continue to argue, is that the anthropological framework for the Paleo diet, and the claim that "humans are meant to eat this way" are not valid. So I guess you could say that my "bashing" (if you wish to call it that) is context specific.
Let me say one last thing in regard to gifs etc. from IIFYM folks. What any specific person says or does is not necessarily representative of the group. This goes as much for being male or female, as it does for following Paleo, IIFYM or "clean eating." I highly doubt that anyone in this thread wants to claim for themselves statements such as "You deserved to get cancer because your lifestyle choices" that my wife has received from certain MFP members. Interestingly enough, my first strike on MFP came because I tore into one of those *kitten* hats in a clean eating thread. Apparently, MFP allows people to be as cruel as they like in PMs but calling someone an "*kitten* hat" in the forums is a big no no.
I wasn't trying to bring up the discussion again of "who's the bigger asshat." It comes down to the polar opposite of the OP posting something rude or unhelpful, because the OP is doing something the responder doesn't agree with. It happens in all groups, and it's rarely actually productive.
That said, the post I quoted struck a nerve, because it was being snarky to a discussion that wasn't about whether a genuine response that considered the poster's own issues and was trying to help, but rather was about the asshats who have a "I lost weight easily, so weight loss is easy for everyone. If it's not easy for you, then you're just being lazy" attitude and don't even take the time to consider the person's specific issues. If a particular way of eating works for you, great. Just keep in mind that what works for you doesn't work for everyone, and that changing weight isn't the only success marker (maintaining good health, or even simply adherence and ability to eat within the calorie allotment are important markers of success).
I think the biggest issue with just about any eating framework is that the realities of it are often clouded by the people using their chosen one as a bat to beat people over the head with. The sane end of "clean eating" isn't that far off from any of the other whole-foods based frameworks, but its goal is lost because of the people like the one you encountered. Likewise, the realities of using Paleo as a framework is lost because of people who keep repeating the fallacy that the framework is supposed to exactly recreate our ancestors, and the sane IIFYM realities are lost because of the jerks using it as a bat and mocking the people who legitimately only have 1200-1400 calorie allotments, or who immediately attack the OP of a thread because they mentioned "eating clean" (which, to be honest, I see more than clean crusaders in an IIFYM post, and usually under the banner of "well, they do it to us!").
That's one of the things that bugs me - people using things like IIFYM, "everything in moderation," and "it's all just math" (and Veg*nism, Paleo, or any other framework) as bats with which to beat other people over the head. If the thread is a discussion on the merits of the different concepts, then discuss it, but if it simply mentions a particular framework to provide context ("hey guys, know any good vegan substitutes for meat in lasagna?"), there's no need to start a debate or go on a "my way is better" tirade in that discussion.0 -
What is IIFYM? I get that it means "If it Fits Your Macros". I'm sensing that there's more to it though.
Is it just that you are hitting the macros that you define? For example, I target 70F - 25P - 5C; for carbs that's about 20g Carb a day. As long as I am selecting items that allow me to hit those targets, am I meeting IIFYM? Or does true IIFYM actually prescribe the macro targets? Is this an actual diet plan? (I'm seeing an IIFYM website).
I just assumed it meant that you can eat whatever you want, provided it fits within your macro targets. So if I target 20 g carbs a day, a banana with 31 g carbs, wouldn't be a good "IIFYM" choice for my diet. But it would be fine for someone doing low fat - high carb diet, who targets 250 g carb per day.0 -
What is IIFYM? I get that it means "If it Fits Your Macros". I'm sensing that there's more to it though.
Is it just that you are hitting the macros that you define? For example, I target 70F - 25P - 5C; for carbs that's about 20g Carb a day. As long as I am selecting items that allow me to hit those targets, am I meeting IIFYM? Or does true IIFYM actually prescribe the macro targets? Is this an actual diet plan? (I'm seeing an IIFYM website).
I just assumed it meant that you can eat whatever you want, provided it fits within your macro targets. So if I target 20 g carbs a day, a banana with 31 g carbs, wouldn't be a good "IIFYM" choice for my diet. But it would be fine for someone doing low fat - high carb diet, who targets 250 g carb per day.
IIFYM - is IF It Fits Your Macros. The IIFYM website has suggested macros but it is not IIFYM per se. You pick your own macros.
The point is that you can eat whatever food you wish to, assuming you get appropriate nutrients and fiber.
Your 70/25/5 (yours is percentages), so that would probably be 124/100/20 in grams example is the same as my current 50/160/130 (mine is in grams) in that we both try to hit them and try to hit them in a way that is satiating and presumably relatively nutrient dense.
My macros allow me ice cream. Yours do not. It does not change the fact that we are both IIFYM'ing.
Edited for typo and to clarify that I look at my macros in grams not percentages0 -
I didn't think that I was saying IIFYM was necessarily SAD. I apologize if it came off that way. And yes, I understand that, technically speaking, anyone on MFP or any other site that's trying to stay within more than just their calorie goals is doing it in an IIFYM way, regardless of whether they're using another system (or no system) to guide their food choices. That's why I worded it as "the standard American diet, IIFYM style."
The standard American diet, at least as I've always understood it, comes out with a macro spread of something like 250-300g of carbs, 50-70g of fat, and 50-75g of protein (based on the USDA food guides of a 55/30/15 ratio on the "good" end, and stats of 50/35/15 at the "bad" end). Even the stereotypical diet of McDonald's and Twinkies averages not far off from the USDA recommended ratios (the aforementioned "bad" end).
Even on a good day, that's extraordinarily carb-heavy. I know I personally wasn't able to adhere to IIFYM eating that spread. I wanted to gnaw my arm off eating barely under maintenance. I also couldn't really break into LCHF until I dropped grains, forcing me to use other things as meal bases, even on lazy days. It was just too easy for me to blow my carb number out of the water from just eating a sandwich and a banana.
That's what I was trying to refer to in the part you quoted - "just eating the way the USDA recommends (55/30/15) and staying within macros isn't working for me, so I'm going to try LCHF....LCHF isn't working, because I don't really have any other guideline, but I've found this framework that makes sense, doesn't deprive me of micronutrients, and can easily be adapted to LCHF, let's try it."
If the above person has chosen to not eat McDonald's anymore, for whatever reason, does that really warrant people posting pictures of Big Macs, or telling them "don't bother, you'll just fail," and "everything in moderation," on a thread that only tangentially relates to their decision to use a certain framework for eating?
Why are you assuming that the macros in a SAD are anything like IIFYM, or that the USDA recommendations are appropriate? I do not use them and I apply IIFYM. For IIFYM, you set your own macros based on your stats and goals and specific circumstances.
I'm not, that's kind of my point.
My understanding of IIFYM is along the lines of what this post says ( http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/817188-iifym )IIFYM literally means to hit your calorie and macronutrient targets by end of day choosing foods that you enjoy eating.
[...]
It is not a specific macro setting. There is a website out there that has the IIFYM label that includes a calorie calculation tool and unfortunately several people on MFP believe that doing "IIFYM" means eating those specific macros. This is false. IIFYM is a philosophy about food selection and and how body composition changes are a function of nutrient intake and energy balance rather than a function of individual food sources.
As for what the macronutrient ratios should be depends on who you ask. The USDA, which most people will likely start with (in the form of the food pyramid or MyPlate) will end up with the spread I mentioned before, at first. Or something similar, such as MFP's numbers. A person then may change their macros based on the information they have acquired at the time. IIFYM, as done at iifym.com uses the Xg/pound of body mass method of determining protein and fat, which could be argued is a more appropriate spread for a person (and I wouldn't necessarily disagree). Some frameworks recommend a certain number of carbs, the Xg/lb for protein, and the rest as fat, and still adhere to the nature of IIFYM.
Unless there's some other definition of IIFYM that I'm unaware of? If there is, then it further highlights my other point about the people that use a concept as a beating stick muddying the waters of the concept they claim to support.0 -
I didn't think that I was saying IIFYM was necessarily SAD. I apologize if it came off that way. And yes, I understand that, technically speaking, anyone on MFP or any other site that's trying to stay within more than just their calorie goals is doing it in an IIFYM way, regardless of whether they're using another system (or no system) to guide their food choices. That's why I worded it as "the standard American diet, IIFYM style."
The standard American diet, at least as I've always understood it, comes out with a macro spread of something like 250-300g of carbs, 50-70g of fat, and 50-75g of protein (based on the USDA food guides of a 55/30/15 ratio on the "good" end, and stats of 50/35/15 at the "bad" end). Even the stereotypical diet of McDonald's and Twinkies averages not far off from the USDA recommended ratios (the aforementioned "bad" end).
Even on a good day, that's extraordinarily carb-heavy. I know I personally wasn't able to adhere to IIFYM eating that spread. I wanted to gnaw my arm off eating barely under maintenance. I also couldn't really break into LCHF until I dropped grains, forcing me to use other things as meal bases, even on lazy days. It was just too easy for me to blow my carb number out of the water from just eating a sandwich and a banana.
That's what I was trying to refer to in the part you quoted - "just eating the way the USDA recommends (55/30/15) and staying within macros isn't working for me, so I'm going to try LCHF....LCHF isn't working, because I don't really have any other guideline, but I've found this framework that makes sense, doesn't deprive me of micronutrients, and can easily be adapted to LCHF, let's try it."
If the above person has chosen to not eat McDonald's anymore, for whatever reason, does that really warrant people posting pictures of Big Macs, or telling them "don't bother, you'll just fail," and "everything in moderation," on a thread that only tangentially relates to their decision to use a certain framework for eating?
Why are you assuming that the macros in a SAD are anything like IIFYM, or that the USDA recommendations are appropriate? I do not use them and I apply IIFYM. For IIFYM, you set your own macros based on your stats and goals and specific circumstances.
I'm not, that's kind of my point.
My understanding of IIFYM is along the lines of what this post says ( http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/817188-iifym )IIFYM literally means to hit your calorie and macronutrient targets by end of day choosing foods that you enjoy eating.
[...]
It is not a specific macro setting. There is a website out there that has the IIFYM label that includes a calorie calculation tool and unfortunately several people on MFP believe that doing "IIFYM" means eating those specific macros. This is false. IIFYM is a philosophy about food selection and and how body composition changes are a function of nutrient intake and energy balance rather than a function of individual food sources.
As for what the macronutrient ratios should be depends on who you ask. The USDA, which most people will likely start with (in the form of the food pyramid or MyPlate) will end up with the spread I mentioned before, at first. Or something similar, such as MFP's numbers. A person then may change their macros based on the information they have acquired at the time. IIFYM, as done at iifym.com uses the Xg/pound of body mass method of determining protein and fat, which could be argued is a more appropriate spread for a person (and I wouldn't necessarily disagree). Some frameworks recommend a certain number of carbs, the Xg/lb for protein, and the rest as fat, and still adhere to the nature of IIFYM.
Unless there's some other definition of IIFYM that I'm unaware of? If there is, then it further highlights my other point about the people that use a concept as a beating stick muddying the waters of the concept they claim to support.
Honestly, I am lost as to what you were trying to say. Not being *****y here, but I really am confused as to the point you were making - I probably need more coffee.
ETA: It seems as though you jumped from USDA to LCHF without the middle ground. I suppose that I would question whether the middle ground (more protein and fats and lower carbs but not low carb/high fats) would not be something for many people to try first.0 -
Honestly, I am lost as to what you were trying to say. Not being *****y here, but I really am confused as to the point you were making - I probably need more coffee.
ETA: It seems as though you jumped from USDA to LCHF without the middle ground. I suppose that I would question whether the middle ground (more protein and fats and lower carbs but not low carb/high fats) would not be something for many people to try first.
You keep insisting that I'm saying the IIFYM == SAD. I'm trying to explain that I'm not saying that, but rather that someone can use IIFYM principles while still eating a diet based off the USDA recommendations (which is a 55/30/15 macro ratio) or even the stereotypical SAD diet (which comes out to 50/35/15).
To be honest, I was about to give up, myself, if you mentioned again that I'm saying "IIFYM == SAD", because I'm not, and I've run out of ways to say such. =/
:drinker: <-- virtual coffee
ETA: The actual path that a person takes through dietary frameworks doesn't matter much. Some may be gradual, some may not be (I personally went from doing "healthy USDA" based to Primal, which is lower carb by nature, and lowered my carbs <100g from there), some may go from USDA to vegetarian (which generally isn't low carb without some effort). My point was "method A isn't working for me, let's try method B."0 -
Honestly, I am lost as to what you were trying to say. Not being *****y here, but I really am confused as to the point you were making - I probably need more coffee.
You keep insisting that I'm saying the IIFYM == SAD. I'm trying to explain that I'm not saying that, but rather that someone can use IIFYM principles while still eating a diet based off the USDA recommendations (which is a 55/30/15 macro ratio) or even the stereotypical SAD diet (which comes out to 50/35/15).
To be honest, I was about to give up, myself, if you mentioned again that I'm saying "IIFYM == SAD", because I'm not, and I've run out of ways to say such. =/
:drinker: <-- virtual coffee
I do not keep insisting that at all. I made a clarifying post. Sorry if you are getting so frustrated trying to get your point across. I though that having people clarify and understand what people are actually trying to say was a good thing rather than having all these rampant misunderstandings.
And...yes they can use the USDA recommendations. I have no idea why they would personally, other than the fact that they are the USDA recommendations.0 -
Oh! I have another one. People who complain about others debating fitness and nutrition on a fitness and nutrition website!
Or, how about people complaining about fit and healthy people on a fitness and nutrition website.
If only I was sick, seriously overweight, female and/or unhealthy my opinions would be much more valid. Then I would know everything, and be able to tell all the fit and healthy people what they are doing wrong.
Debating, respectfully, is one thing. This (which I've seen on numerous occasions, and most of the responses are from guys) is a completely different one:
OP: I've been having trouble losing weight due to my PCOS, so I figured I'd give LCHF/Paleo/gluten free a try. Where can I start? Does anyone have any good recipes?
P1: You're just eating too much/lying about what you're tracking. You don't need to cut anything out. Everything in moderation.
P2: Eat less, move more.
P3: *Posts giant pic of donut*
P4: *Posts pic of body builder eating 20 donuts*
P5: It's not healthy to cut food groups out. You need carbs.
P6: Don't do that. It's not sustainable, or healthy. If you don't have Celiac or a medical condition requiring you to do it, you're just going to fail.
P7: I've lost 100lbs eating a donut every morning for breakfast! You don't need to cut out foods!
*More pics of donuts and other heavily-refined simple carbs.*
*More unsubstantiated claims that the OP is embarking on an unsustainable path, doomed to failure.*
Pro tip - PCOS and hypothyroidism are two of the top most misdiagnosed disorders in women, and Celiac is one of the most misdiagnosed disorders in general, and it's a fight to get the right tests done to get a diagnosis in most cases. Not having a medical diagnosis in hand does not equate to not having a medical reason for doing something. In some cases, eliminating one or more food group is the way to figure out what's wrong, or further prove your case to your doctors. Or hell, simply because the standard American diet, IIFYM style, is the unsustainable path, and you've read that fat is more satiating, so you want to try it for yourself.
Again, it's about context (and, in some cases, reading comprehension). Put yourself in the other person's shoes - they've tried the IIFYM way and it's not working for them, so they need to do something different. They've determined that switching to LCHF will help them adhere to their calorie count, and maybe eventually that Paleo helps them adhere to their macros and that they feel better not eating grains. If it works for them and doesn't inherently deprives them of various vital nutrients, why bash it?
Please read the discussion above. Rather than reintroducing the discussion of which group is being the bigger *kitten* hat, be it males or females, it would be much more productive to focus on nutrition and fitness. I was truly hoping that we had already moved on to that.
As for IIFYM, I don't think most people have a very good idea what it is and is not. And it certainly is not the "standard American diet." Yes, there are people saying that they eat at McDonald's every day (hint that really doesn't fit the description so well), and yes some people post pics of donuts (some light heartedly and perhaps some not so light heartedly, and often in response to statements that one should "NEVER" eat sweets, etc.), but in any serious discussion of IIFYM there is ALWAYS the caveat for specific medical conditions when discussing not cutting out food groups. Keep in mind, that gifs such as that are often used to illustrate the absurdity of saying that "you have to eat clean to have visible abs" or that "serious competitors don't eat donuts." The truth is that a "perfect" diet, however you want to define that, isn't necessary. There are plenty of good descriptions out there of what IIFYM is and they have been posted and linked to in these discussions numerous times. I'm happy to provide some if you would like me to, but in general, the idea is to eat a balanced diet with sufficient protein, fats, and fiber while using nutrient dense foods as around 80% of one's total diet and allowing a few calories (around 20%) for "treats." I tend to identify with the diet and the term because it describes quite well what I do. I have never been a potato chip or fast food type of guy but I do like beer, pizza and ice cream. I'm not going to judge another person's treat choices. The more I've gotten into it and studied some of the scientific backings for the approach, the more it has freed my mind to relax and enjoy my food and still enjoy objective success.
Now, where I personally take issue with cutting out food groups is when it is advised that everyone try it out and "see how it works." It's as if to say that someone doesn't have any food issues but let's start restricting someone's diet anyway to see if we can find something wrong to "diagnose" that isn't really there. If you cut out any food for a while, then you're very likely going to have some gastric distress when you re-introduce it. I went through this before when I tried a low fat diet and started reintroducing more fat in my diet. It doesn't mean that I'm normally sensitive to fats. And frankly, some of the diets such as Paleo that I do take issue with, seem incredibly well suited for someone with a gluten sensitivity, for example. What I have argued, and will continue to argue, is that the anthropological framework for the Paleo diet, and the claim that "humans are meant to eat this way" are not valid. So I guess you could say that my "bashing" (if you wish to call it that) is context specific.
Let me say one last thing in regard to gifs etc. from IIFYM folks. What any specific person says or does is not necessarily representative of the group. This goes as much for being male or female, as it does for following Paleo, IIFYM or "clean eating." I highly doubt that anyone in this thread wants to claim for themselves statements such as "You deserved to get cancer because your lifestyle choices" that my wife has received from certain MFP members. Interestingly enough, my first strike on MFP came because I tore into one of those *kitten* hats in a clean eating thread. Apparently, MFP allows people to be as cruel as they like in PMs but calling someone an "*kitten* hat" in the forums is a big no no.
I wasn't trying to bring up the discussion again of "who's the bigger asshat." It comes down to the polar opposite of the OP posting something rude or unhelpful, because the OP is doing something the responder doesn't agree with. It happens in all groups, and it's rarely actually productive.
That said, the post I quoted struck a nerve, because it was being snarky to a discussion that wasn't about whether a genuine response that considered the poster's own issues and was trying to help, but rather was about the asshats who have a "I lost weight easily, so weight loss is easy for everyone. If it's not easy for you, then you're just being lazy" attitude and don't even take the time to consider the person's specific issues. If a particular way of eating works for you, great. Just keep in mind that what works for you doesn't work for everyone, and that changing weight isn't the only success marker (maintaining good health, or even simply adherence and ability to eat within the calorie allotment are important markers of success).
I think the biggest issue with just about any eating framework is that the realities of it are often clouded by the people using their chosen one as a bat to beat people over the head with. The sane end of "clean eating" isn't that far off from any of the other whole-foods based frameworks, but its goal is lost because of the people like the one you encountered. Likewise, the realities of using Paleo as a framework is lost because of people who keep repeating the fallacy that the framework is supposed to exactly recreate our ancestors, and the sane IIFYM realities are lost because of the jerks using it as a bat and mocking the people who legitimately only have 1200-1400 calorie allotments, or who immediately attack the OP of a thread because they mentioned "eating clean" (which, to be honest, I see more than clean crusaders in an IIFYM post, and usually under the banner of "well, they do it to us!").
That's one of the things that bugs me - people using things like IIFYM, "everything in moderation," and "it's all just math" (and Veg*nism, Paleo, or any other framework) as bats with which to beat other people over the head. If the thread is a discussion on the merits of the different concepts, then discuss it, but if it simply mentions a particular framework to provide context ("hey guys, know any good vegan substitutes for meat in lasagna?"), there's no need to start a debate or go on a "my way is better" tirade in that discussion.
That's a fair point. Please just remember that it does go both ways, which was really my primary point from the beginning.
I will say that "it is easy" is not the same as saying "it is simple." I find losing weight incredibly simple, i.e. I cut my calories and follow IIFYM so that I stay healthy and maintain lean body mass in the process. That is not to say that I don't crave more ice cream, or that I wouldn't love to eat an entire bucket of fried chicken. And for me, it also takes me hitting the weights 4 days a week for 70-90 minutes at a time, bag work, and running. There is nothing complicated about any of that, but I would never claim it is "easy."
And as for discretionary calories, yes, someone eating 1200-1400 a day isn't going to have a lot of room for treats, which is one of the reasons (other than hunger) that many people have trouble with lower calorie diets, which is why you will see many questions regarding intake when someone starts talking about their 1200 calorie or less diet. To some people they are necessary. My wife has had to drop that low at the bottom of a cut because she has had a battle with her metabolism since chemo. Fortunately, she can lose weight at around 1800 these days but it took a long time for her to get there. And for very small people, it can be hard to lose weight at anything above 1200. The issue comes in when we are speaking about GENERAL points in the forums and we are not talking about a chemo patient, or someone who is 4'11"-5'0" tall, or doesn't have PCOS, etc. We all make better points when we are specific in what we say, and we understand those points when we carefully read what someone has written.
So yes. I do generally agree with you.0 -
Oh yes... And don't forget, the "A CALORIE IS A CALORIE". Idiots. What you eat impacts your hormones, and that changes how your body stores and releases fat.
THANK YOU. So glad I found this thread and this group.0 -
How did I ever miss this thread!?0
