IIFYM Not a diet?
Replies
-
lol.. great video..thanks
funny and informative and it comes down to brass tacks at 18.00
same yhing he said in his clean article
http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/the-dirt-on-clean-eating/
he didnt really tell me anything new, but, they took a dump on people who dont understand IIFYM0 -
Just noting that the advice you've argued against for so long now apparently isn't "filling your body with toxins and poison." Glad to see you've come around.
That's a great point. Coach's beginnings around here were much... different.
They really weren't. have my views evolved? yep. but I started out working with people who weren't looking to become elite, and my clients at the time lost anywhere from 30-100+ pounds and did so in a sustainable fashion. Have I eased up a bit? sure. Was I ever as whacked out as you guys like to pretend? I don't think so. But hey, you're free to have your opinions.
STahp with the elite already. Didn't you get spanked enough that time that you said you were?
why are you so sensitive to that word?0 -
Just noting that the advice you've argued against for so long now apparently isn't "filling your body with toxins and poison." Glad to see you've come around.
That's a great point. Coach's beginnings around here were much... different.
They really weren't. have my views evolved? yep. but I started out working with people who weren't looking to become elite, and my clients at the time lost anywhere from 30-100+ pounds and did so in a sustainable fashion. Have I eased up a bit? sure. Was I ever as whacked out as you guys like to pretend? I don't think so. But hey, you're free to have your opinions.
STahp with the elite already. Didn't you get spanked enough that time that you said you were?
He did that? How did I miss it? :laugh:0 -
Just noting that the advice you've argued against for so long now apparently isn't "filling your body with toxins and poison." Glad to see you've come around.
That's a great point. Coach's beginnings around here were much... different.
They really weren't. have my views evolved? yep. but I started out working with people who weren't looking to become elite, and my clients at the time lost anywhere from 30-100+ pounds and did so in a sustainable fashion. Have I eased up a bit? sure. Was I ever as whacked out as you guys like to pretend? I don't think so. But hey, you're free to have your opinions.
STahp with the elite already. Didn't you get spanked enough that time that you said you were?
why are you so sensitive to that word?
I am not - it makes you sound rather silly imo.0 -
Reddy. I have actually seen your comments on some people's walls and in some threads - it is generally good advice and encouraging people to do their best, focus on goals and not 'sweat the small stuff'.
Unfortunately, you tend yo get side-tracked in these threads by trying to make a point or another,
Making comments about vitamin deficiencies that are not relevant and you cannot point to sources, throwing out 'elite' comments etc...it's a shame as I generally agree with the comments I have seen you make in threads that do not relate to 'clean eating' and IIFYM arguments, which, at the end of the day, are pretty much the same thing when applied in practice by the majority of people.
Talking about people 'not looking to be elite' is condescending to be honest and part of the reason why you are given such a hard time on here.
OK...what was this thread about again?0 -
Just noting that the advice you've argued against for so long now apparently isn't "filling your body with toxins and poison." Glad to see you've come around.
That's a great point. Coach's beginnings around here were much... different.
They really weren't. have my views evolved? yep. but I started out working with people who weren't looking to become elite, and my clients at the time lost anywhere from 30-100+ pounds and did so in a sustainable fashion. Have I eased up a bit? sure. Was I ever as whacked out as you guys like to pretend? I don't think so. But hey, you're free to have your opinions.
I don't think anyone pretends you're whack. You're just.... not correct, and much of your advice is unsupported by evidence. Furthermore, when it comes to nitty-gritty science you often get the details and fundamental facts wrong. My problem with you isn't that you're "whacked out," it's that you give poor advice that is frequently unsupported or even contradicted by available evidence.
And you're welcomed to that opinion. I don't believe that available, universally accepted, nutritional science is up to par at this point, and many doctors and scientists agree. Many don't. You subscribe to the latter, and me the former. Simple as that.0 -
Just noting that the advice you've argued against for so long now apparently isn't "filling your body with toxins and poison." Glad to see you've come around.
That's a great point. Coach's beginnings around here were much... different.
They really weren't. have my views evolved? yep. but I started out working with people who weren't looking to become elite, and my clients at the time lost anywhere from 30-100+ pounds and did so in a sustainable fashion. Have I eased up a bit? sure. Was I ever as whacked out as you guys like to pretend? I don't think so. But hey, you're free to have your opinions.
STahp with the elite already. Didn't you get spanked enough that time that you said you were?
He did that? How did I miss it? :laugh:
I didn't. I - in fact - said the opposite. I said that I'm NOT elite but would like to be.0 -
Just noting that the advice you've argued against for so long now apparently isn't "filling your body with toxins and poison." Glad to see you've come around.
That's a great point. Coach's beginnings around here were much... different.
They really weren't. have my views evolved? yep. but I started out working with people who weren't looking to become elite, and my clients at the time lost anywhere from 30-100+ pounds and did so in a sustainable fashion. Have I eased up a bit? sure. Was I ever as whacked out as you guys like to pretend? I don't think so. But hey, you're free to have your opinions.
I don't think anyone pretends you're whack. You're just.... not correct, and much of your advice is unsupported by evidence. Furthermore, when it comes to nitty-gritty science you often get the details and fundamental facts wrong. My problem with you isn't that you're "whacked out," it's that you give poor advice that is frequently unsupported or even contradicted by available evidence.
And you're welcomed to that opinion. I don't believe that available, universally accepted, nutritional science is up to par at this point, and many doctors and scientists agree. Many don't. You subscribe to the latter, and me the former. Simple as that.
Wait... which is the latter? Are there even two things there? I'm concerned you are telling people I "subscribe to" something I don't. :laugh:0 -
i wondr how mnay people actually watched the video...0
-
Just noting that the advice you've argued against for so long now apparently isn't "filling your body with toxins and poison." Glad to see you've come around.
That's a great point. Coach's beginnings around here were much... different.
They really weren't. have my views evolved? yep. but I started out working with people who weren't looking to become elite, and my clients at the time lost anywhere from 30-100+ pounds and did so in a sustainable fashion. Have I eased up a bit? sure. Was I ever as whacked out as you guys like to pretend? I don't think so. But hey, you're free to have your opinions.
STahp with the elite already. Didn't you get spanked enough that time that you said you were?
He did that? How did I miss it? :laugh:
I didn't. I - in fact - said the opposite. I said that I'm NOT elite but would like to be.
lol....oh yes you did. It was hysterical.0 -
Just noting that the advice you've argued against for so long now apparently isn't "filling your body with toxins and poison." Glad to see you've come around.
That's a great point. Coach's beginnings around here were much... different.
They really weren't. have my views evolved? yep. but I started out working with people who weren't looking to become elite, and my clients at the time lost anywhere from 30-100+ pounds and did so in a sustainable fashion. Have I eased up a bit? sure. Was I ever as whacked out as you guys like to pretend? I don't think so. But hey, you're free to have your opinions.
I don't think anyone pretends you're whack. You're just.... not correct, and much of your advice is unsupported by evidence. Furthermore, when it comes to nitty-gritty science you often get the details and fundamental facts wrong. My problem with you isn't that you're "whacked out," it's that you give poor advice that is frequently unsupported or even contradicted by available evidence.
And you're welcomed to that opinion. I don't believe that available, universally accepted, nutritional science is up to par at this point, and many doctors and scientists agree. Many don't. You subscribe to the latter, and me the former. Simple as that.
Wait... which is the latter? Are there even two things there? I'm concerned you are telling people I "subscribe to" something I don't. :laugh:
Many agree (former) that nutritional science is not up to par
Many don't (latter) think there's a problem with currently accepted nutritional science0 -
Just noting that the advice you've argued against for so long now apparently isn't "filling your body with toxins and poison." Glad to see you've come around.
That's a great point. Coach's beginnings around here were much... different.
They really weren't. have my views evolved? yep. but I started out working with people who weren't looking to become elite, and my clients at the time lost anywhere from 30-100+ pounds and did so in a sustainable fashion. Have I eased up a bit? sure. Was I ever as whacked out as you guys like to pretend? I don't think so. But hey, you're free to have your opinions.
STahp with the elite already. Didn't you get spanked enough that time that you said you were?
He did that? How did I miss it? :laugh:
I didn't. I - in fact - said the opposite. I said that I'm NOT elite but would like to be.
lol....oh yes you did. It was hysterical.
quote?0 -
i wondr how mnay people actually watched the video...
Probably about as many people who will read that (very good) article you posted.0 -
I've never heard anyone say that IIFYM is a free pass to eat whatever you want. Didn't have time to watch the video.
^this
Well, sort of. I've heard people say that those who follow IIFYM eat nothing but "junk"/fast food, but those are people who don't understand how IIFYM works.
Thanks Jof. You saved me from having to clarify my comment from early this morning. There are many misguided people on MFP that do not interpret anything correctly - IIFYM is just one of them.0 -
Reddy. I have actually seen your comments on some people's walls and in some threads - it is generally good advice and encouraging people to do their best, focus on goals and not 'sweat the small stuff'.
Unfortunately, you tend yo get side-tracked in these threads by trying to make a point or another,
Making comments about vitamin deficiencies that are not relevant and you cannot point to sources, throwing out 'elite' comments etc...it's a shame as I generally agree with the comments I have seen you make in threads that do not relate to 'clean eating' and IIFYM arguments, which, at the end of the day, are pretty much the same thing when applied in practice by the majority of people.
Talking about people 'not looking to be elite' is condescending to be honest and part of the reason why you are given such a hard time on here.
OK...what was this thread about again?
what Reddy doesn't understand is that "clean eating" is a subset of IIFYM. to the extent that "clean eating" works, it's because under the hood, that person is really doing IIFYM without realizing it.
the problem is that "clean eating" is being given the credit for that success, and therefore Reddy assumes that it was the dietary restriction that was the important component.
IIFYM'ers see these assertions and try to correct them, not because they are anti-"clean eating" per se, but because "clean eating" can lead to all sorts of obsessive and destructive feelings about diet and food in some people, and also, that the same results can be achieved while ignoring "clean eating" altogether.
the human body truly does not care where it gets its nutrients. it's just a bunch of chemical processes involved in the digestion of food. so long as all of the macro- and micro-nutrient needs are being met, our bodies don't care if we get our nutrients from a "clean" diet, a "dirty" diet, or some combination thereof.0 -
Just noting that the advice you've argued against for so long now apparently isn't "filling your body with toxins and poison." Glad to see you've come around.
That's a great point. Coach's beginnings around here were much... different.
They really weren't. have my views evolved? yep. but I started out working with people who weren't looking to become elite, and my clients at the time lost anywhere from 30-100+ pounds and did so in a sustainable fashion. Have I eased up a bit? sure. Was I ever as whacked out as you guys like to pretend? I don't think so. But hey, you're free to have your opinions.
STahp with the elite already. Didn't you get spanked enough that time that you said you were?
He did that? How did I miss it? :laugh:
I didn't. I - in fact - said the opposite. I said that I'm NOT elite but would like to be.
lol....oh yes you did. It was hysterical.
quote?
I am not going back search for a year old thread (that has probably been deleted/locked like most of yours were) to find a thread under your old account. People can either take my word for it or not *shrugs*0 -
Just noting that the advice you've argued against for so long now apparently isn't "filling your body with toxins and poison." Glad to see you've come around.
That's a great point. Coach's beginnings around here were much... different.
They really weren't. have my views evolved? yep. but I started out working with people who weren't looking to become elite, and my clients at the time lost anywhere from 30-100+ pounds and did so in a sustainable fashion. Have I eased up a bit? sure. Was I ever as whacked out as you guys like to pretend? I don't think so. But hey, you're free to have your opinions.
I don't think anyone pretends you're whack. You're just.... not correct, and much of your advice is unsupported by evidence. Furthermore, when it comes to nitty-gritty science you often get the details and fundamental facts wrong. My problem with you isn't that you're "whacked out," it's that you give poor advice that is frequently unsupported or even contradicted by available evidence.
And you're welcomed to that opinion. I don't believe that available, universally accepted, nutritional science is up to par at this point, and many doctors and scientists agree. Many don't. You subscribe to the latter, and me the former. Simple as that.
Wait... which is the latter? Are there even two things there? I'm concerned you are telling people I "subscribe to" something I don't. :laugh:
Many agree (former) that nutritional science is not up to par
Many don't (latter) think there's a problem with currently accepted nutritional science
That doesn't even make any sense. Regardless, I wouldn't say that I "don't think that there's a problem with currently accepted nutritional science." In fact I think there is very much wrong with currently-accepted nutritional science, and you know it. You participated in the same "cholesterol and saturated fat" thread I did today.
The science is lacking in many, many areas. Many things that are commonly-accepted by the medical community are wrong. We have to work with the evidence we have and not simply make up things to fill in the gaps.0 -
Reddy. I have actually seen your comments on some people's walls and in some threads - it is generally good advice and encouraging people to do their best, focus on goals and not 'sweat the small stuff'.
Unfortunately, you tend yo get side-tracked in these threads by trying to make a point or another,
Making comments about vitamin deficiencies that are not relevant and you cannot point to sources, throwing out 'elite' comments etc...it's a shame as I generally agree with the comments I have seen you make in threads that do not relate to 'clean eating' and IIFYM arguments, which, at the end of the day, are pretty much the same thing when applied in practice by the majority of people.
Talking about people 'not looking to be elite' is condescending to be honest and part of the reason why you are given such a hard time on here.
OK...what was this thread about again?
what Reddy doesn't understand is that "clean eating" is a subset of IIFYM. to the extent that "clean eating" works, it's because under the hood, that person is really doing IIFYM without realizing it.
the problem is that "clean eating" is being given the credit for that success, and therefore Reddy assumes that it was the dietary restriction that was the important component.
IIFYM'ers see these assertions and try to correct them, not because they are anti-"clean eating" per se, but because "clean eating" can lead to all sorts of obsessive and destructive feelings about diet and food in some people, and also, that the same results can be achieved while ignoring "clean eating" altogether.
the human body truly does not care where it gets its nutrients. it's just a bunch of chemical processes involved in the digestion of food. so long as all of the macro- and micro-nutrient needs are being met, our bodies don't care if we get our nutrients from a "clean" diet, a "dirty" diet, or some combination thereof.
some great points. but as to nutrients, bioavailability says otherwise. our body does care where we get nutrients from.0 -
Just noting that the advice you've argued against for so long now apparently isn't "filling your body with toxins and poison." Glad to see you've come around.
That's a great point. Coach's beginnings around here were much... different.
They really weren't. have my views evolved? yep. but I started out working with people who weren't looking to become elite, and my clients at the time lost anywhere from 30-100+ pounds and did so in a sustainable fashion. Have I eased up a bit? sure. Was I ever as whacked out as you guys like to pretend? I don't think so. But hey, you're free to have your opinions.
STahp with the elite already. Didn't you get spanked enough that time that you said you were?
He did that? How did I miss it? :laugh:
I didn't. I - in fact - said the opposite. I said that I'm NOT elite but would like to be.
lol....oh yes you did. It was hysterical.
quote?
I am not going back search for a year old thread (that has probably been deleted/locked like most of yours were) to find a thread under your old account. People can either take my word for it or not *shrugs*
ohhhh yeah. no we're talking about today. Johnny thinks I said it today.
we're all familiar with that fateful thread0 -
Just noting that the advice you've argued against for so long now apparently isn't "filling your body with toxins and poison." Glad to see you've come around.
That's a great point. Coach's beginnings around here were much... different.
They really weren't. have my views evolved? yep. but I started out working with people who weren't looking to become elite, and my clients at the time lost anywhere from 30-100+ pounds and did so in a sustainable fashion. Have I eased up a bit? sure. Was I ever as whacked out as you guys like to pretend? I don't think so. But hey, you're free to have your opinions.
I don't think anyone pretends you're whack. You're just.... not correct, and much of your advice is unsupported by evidence. Furthermore, when it comes to nitty-gritty science you often get the details and fundamental facts wrong. My problem with you isn't that you're "whacked out," it's that you give poor advice that is frequently unsupported or even contradicted by available evidence.
And you're welcomed to that opinion. I don't believe that available, universally accepted, nutritional science is up to par at this point, and many doctors and scientists agree. Many don't. You subscribe to the latter, and me the former. Simple as that.
Wait... which is the latter? Are there even two things there? I'm concerned you are telling people I "subscribe to" something I don't. :laugh:
Many agree (former) that nutritional science is not up to par
Many don't (latter) think there's a problem with currently accepted nutritional science
That doesn't even make any sense. Regardless, I wouldn't say that I "don't think that there's a problem with currently accepted nutritional science." In fact I think there is very much wrong with currently-accepted nutritional science, and you know it. You participated in the same "cholesterol and saturated fat" thread I did today.
The science is lacking in many, many areas. Many things that are commonly-accepted by the medical community are wrong. We have to work with the evidence we have and not simply make up things to fill in the gaps.
you say it doesn't make sense, then expound upon my statement showing it makes perfect sense... lolwut?0 -
Many agree (former) that nutritional science is not up to par
Many don't (latter) think there's a problem with currently accepted nutritional science
That doesn't even make any sense. Regardless, I wouldn't say that I "don't think that there's a problem with currently accepted nutritional science." In fact I think there is very much wrong with currently-accepted nutritional science, and you know it. You participated in the same "cholesterol and saturated fat" thread I did today.
The science is lacking in many, many areas. Many things that are commonly-accepted by the medical community are wrong. We have to work with the evidence we have and not simply make up things to fill in the gaps.
you say it doesn't make sense, then expound upon my statement showing it makes perfect sense... lolwut?
It's the dichotomy you try to draw that doesn't make sense. "Science is not up to par" vs "don't think there's a problem with the science." Those are not opposite or exclusive ideas. It's possible to be both or neither.
Anyway, you say I don't think there's a problem with currently accepted nutritional science and that's flat-out wrong. It's so, so completely wrong.0 -
Reddy. I have actually seen your comments on some people's walls and in some threads - it is generally good advice and encouraging people to do their best, focus on goals and not 'sweat the small stuff'.
Unfortunately, you tend yo get side-tracked in these threads by trying to make a point or another,
Making comments about vitamin deficiencies that are not relevant and you cannot point to sources, throwing out 'elite' comments etc...it's a shame as I generally agree with the comments I have seen you make in threads that do not relate to 'clean eating' and IIFYM arguments, which, at the end of the day, are pretty much the same thing when applied in practice by the majority of people.
Talking about people 'not looking to be elite' is condescending to be honest and part of the reason why you are given such a hard time on here.
OK...what was this thread about again?
what Reddy doesn't understand is that "clean eating" is a subset of IIFYM. to the extent that "clean eating" works, it's because under the hood, that person is really doing IIFYM without realizing it.
the problem is that "clean eating" is being given the credit for that success, and therefore Reddy assumes that it was the dietary restriction that was the important component.
IIFYM'ers see these assertions and try to correct them, not because they are anti-"clean eating" per se, but because "clean eating" can lead to all sorts of obsessive and destructive feelings about diet and food in some people, and also, that the same results can be achieved while ignoring "clean eating" altogether.
the human body truly does not care where it gets its nutrients. it's just a bunch of chemical processes involved in the digestion of food. so long as all of the macro- and micro-nutrient needs are being met, our bodies don't care if we get our nutrients from a "clean" diet, a "dirty" diet, or some combination thereof.
some great points. but as to nutrients, bioavailability says otherwise. our body does care where we get nutrients from.
that may be true and i almost added a sentence about absorption of nutrients, but then realized it was implied by "so long as all of the macro- and micro-nutrient needs are being met". there could be a semantic argument to be made that the logging of macros/micros =/= the actual amount of macros/micros that the body is able to use, but i think that generally all comes out in the wash because we tend to treat our macros/micros as MINIMUMS to be met on a daily basis. thus, less than 100% bioavailability does not imply that our needs aren't being met anyway.0 -
Many agree (former) that nutritional science is not up to par
Many don't (latter) think there's a problem with currently accepted nutritional science
That doesn't even make any sense. Regardless, I wouldn't say that I "don't think that there's a problem with currently accepted nutritional science." In fact I think there is very much wrong with currently-accepted nutritional science, and you know it. You participated in the same "cholesterol and saturated fat" thread I did today.
The science is lacking in many, many areas. Many things that are commonly-accepted by the medical community are wrong. We have to work with the evidence we have and not simply make up things to fill in the gaps.
you say it doesn't make sense, then expound upon my statement showing it makes perfect sense... lolwut?
It's the dichotomy you try to draw that doesn't make sense. "Science is not up to par" vs "don't think there's a problem with the science." Those are not opposite or exclusive ideas. It's possible to be both or neither.
Anyway, you say I don't think there's a problem with currently accepted nutritional science and that's flat-out wrong. It's so, so completely wrong.
so then why is nothing valid in your eyes unless it's supported by a scientific study if you think nutritional science is so flawed?
ok but this is getting really really gritty and semantic-y, and not even remotely related to the topic. we can move on and let this go if you wish.
0 -
i wondr how mnay people actually watched the video...
Yeah, I didn't. :laugh: :blushing:0 -
Reddy. I have actually seen your comments on some people's walls and in some threads - it is generally good advice and encouraging people to do their best, focus on goals and not 'sweat the small stuff'.
Unfortunately, you tend yo get side-tracked in these threads by trying to make a point or another,
Making comments about vitamin deficiencies that are not relevant and you cannot point to sources, throwing out 'elite' comments etc...it's a shame as I generally agree with the comments I have seen you make in threads that do not relate to 'clean eating' and IIFYM arguments, which, at the end of the day, are pretty much the same thing when applied in practice by the majority of people.
Talking about people 'not looking to be elite' is condescending to be honest and part of the reason why you are given such a hard time on here.
OK...what was this thread about again?
what Reddy doesn't understand is that "clean eating" is a subset of IIFYM. to the extent that "clean eating" works, it's because under the hood, that person is really doing IIFYM without realizing it.
the problem is that "clean eating" is being given the credit for that success, and therefore Reddy assumes that it was the dietary restriction that was the important component.
IIFYM'ers see these assertions and try to correct them, not because they are anti-"clean eating" per se, but because "clean eating" can lead to all sorts of obsessive and destructive feelings about diet and food in some people, and also, that the same results can be achieved while ignoring "clean eating" altogether.
the human body truly does not care where it gets its nutrients. it's just a bunch of chemical processes involved in the digestion of food. so long as all of the macro- and micro-nutrient needs are being met, our bodies don't care if we get our nutrients from a "clean" diet, a "dirty" diet, or some combination thereof.
some great points. but as to nutrients, bioavailability says otherwise. our body does care where we get nutrients from.
that may be true and i almost added a sentence about absorption of nutrients, but then realized it was implied by "so long as all of the macro- and micro-nutrient needs are being met". there could be a semantic argument to be made that the logging of macros/micros =/= the actual amount of macros/micros that the body is able to use, but i think that generally all comes out in the wash because we tend to treat our macros/micros as MINIMUMS to be met on a daily basis. thus, less than 100% bioavailability does not imply that our needs aren't being met anyway.
Yep. Good stuff. And I think - to bring this back full circle - this is where my hang up comes in with IIFYM.
I don't actually have ANY problem with IIFYM as the gurus like McDonald and Norton lay it out. They're dead on. As are Sara and many others on this board.
I just wish that the EMPHASIS of IIFYM was more on the whole food, eat-your-veggies aspect of it than on the pop tarts, ice cream and chocolate cake part. I mean you get food porn threads here every day, and to the average lurker who doesn't follow links and doesn't read the nitty gritty laid out by Norton, they'll associate IIFYM with all the "junk" foods they so desperately love, and I think therein lies a problem.
But that's just me.0 -
Reddy. I have actually seen your comments on some people's walls and in some threads - it is generally good advice and encouraging people to do their best, focus on goals and not 'sweat the small stuff'.
Unfortunately, you tend yo get side-tracked in these threads by trying to make a point or another,
Making comments about vitamin deficiencies that are not relevant and you cannot point to sources, throwing out 'elite' comments etc...it's a shame as I generally agree with the comments I have seen you make in threads that do not relate to 'clean eating' and IIFYM arguments, which, at the end of the day, are pretty much the same thing when applied in practice by the majority of people.
Talking about people 'not looking to be elite' is condescending to be honest and part of the reason why you are given such a hard time on here.
OK...what was this thread about again?
what Reddy doesn't understand is that "clean eating" is a subset of IIFYM. to the extent that "clean eating" works, it's because under the hood, that person is really doing IIFYM without realizing it.
the problem is that "clean eating" is being given the credit for that success, and therefore Reddy assumes that it was the dietary restriction that was the important component.
IIFYM'ers see these assertions and try to correct them, not because they are anti-"clean eating" per se, but because "clean eating" can lead to all sorts of obsessive and destructive feelings about diet and food in some people, and also, that the same results can be achieved while ignoring "clean eating" altogether.
the human body truly does not care where it gets its nutrients. it's just a bunch of chemical processes involved in the digestion of food. so long as all of the macro- and micro-nutrient needs are being met, our bodies don't care if we get our nutrients from a "clean" diet, a "dirty" diet, or some combination thereof.
some great points. but as to nutrients, bioavailability says otherwise. our body does care where we get nutrients from.
that may be true and i almost added a sentence about absorption of nutrients, but then realized it was implied by "so long as all of the macro- and micro-nutrient needs are being met". there could be a semantic argument to be made that the logging of macros/micros =/= the actual amount of macros/micros that the body is able to use, but i think that generally all comes out in the wash because we tend to treat our macros/micros as MINIMUMS to be met on a daily basis. thus, less than 100% bioavailability does not imply that our needs aren't being met anyway.
Yep. Good stuff. And I think - to bring this back full circle - this is where my hang up comes in with IIFYM.
I don't actually have ANY problem with IIFYM as the gurus like McDonald and Norton lay it out. They're dead on. As are Sara and many others on this board.
I just wish that the EMPHASIS of IIFYM was more on the whole food, eat-your-veggies aspect of it than on the pop tarts, ice cream and chocolate cake part. I mean you get food porn threads here every day, and to the average lurker who doesn't follow links and doesn't read the nitty gritty laid out by Norton, they'll associate IIFYM with all the "junk" foods they so desperately love, and I think therein lies a problem.
But that's just me.
Don't feint, but I do agree that there is some merit to this concern. Which is probably the reason why people think that IIFYM'ers eat pop tarts all day. However, the reasoning that many do it is to try to show that you can have that kind of food and still be successful. Maybe that message goes too far, but things tend to go to the extremes...there are so many 'you have to eat clean to get abs' type posts, it is expected that you also have things on the other extreme to counter-act it. Context is also important and often gets missed. MacDonalds does not only serve burgers. Burgers have nutrients. A larger and/or more active person can eat more and therefore has more wiggle room, and so on.
It does not help that people assume processed = bad or has no nutritional benefit - as it does, just to varying degrees. Also, it does not help that people think clean = automatically getting your micros. You can miss them doing both.
At the end of the day, eat a wide variety of foods that comprise a good portion of nutrient dense foods, and you should be golden.0 -
Reddy. I have actually seen your comments on some people's walls and in some threads - it is generally good advice and encouraging people to do their best, focus on goals and not 'sweat the small stuff'.
Unfortunately, you tend yo get side-tracked in these threads by trying to make a point or another,
Making comments about vitamin deficiencies that are not relevant and you cannot point to sources, throwing out 'elite' comments etc...it's a shame as I generally agree with the comments I have seen you make in threads that do not relate to 'clean eating' and IIFYM arguments, which, at the end of the day, are pretty much the same thing when applied in practice by the majority of people.
Talking about people 'not looking to be elite' is condescending to be honest and part of the reason why you are given such a hard time on here.
OK...what was this thread about again?
what Reddy doesn't understand is that "clean eating" is a subset of IIFYM. to the extent that "clean eating" works, it's because under the hood, that person is really doing IIFYM without realizing it.
the problem is that "clean eating" is being given the credit for that success, and therefore Reddy assumes that it was the dietary restriction that was the important component.
IIFYM'ers see these assertions and try to correct them, not because they are anti-"clean eating" per se, but because "clean eating" can lead to all sorts of obsessive and destructive feelings about diet and food in some people, and also, that the same results can be achieved while ignoring "clean eating" altogether.
the human body truly does not care where it gets its nutrients. it's just a bunch of chemical processes involved in the digestion of food. so long as all of the macro- and micro-nutrient needs are being met, our bodies don't care if we get our nutrients from a "clean" diet, a "dirty" diet, or some combination thereof.
some great points. but as to nutrients, bioavailability says otherwise. our body does care where we get nutrients from.
that may be true and i almost added a sentence about absorption of nutrients, but then realized it was implied by "so long as all of the macro- and micro-nutrient needs are being met". there could be a semantic argument to be made that the logging of macros/micros =/= the actual amount of macros/micros that the body is able to use, but i think that generally all comes out in the wash because we tend to treat our macros/micros as MINIMUMS to be met on a daily basis. thus, less than 100% bioavailability does not imply that our needs aren't being met anyway.
Yep. Good stuff. And I think - to bring this back full circle - this is where my hang up comes in with IIFYM.
I don't actually have ANY problem with IIFYM as the gurus like McDonald and Norton lay it out. They're dead on. As are Sara and many others on this board.
I just wish that the EMPHASIS of IIFYM was more on the whole food, eat-your-veggies aspect of it than on the pop tarts, ice cream and chocolate cake part. I mean you get food porn threads here every day, and to the average lurker who doesn't follow links and doesn't read the nitty gritty laid out by Norton, they'll associate IIFYM with all the "junk" foods they so desperately love, and I think therein lies a problem.
But that's just me.
Don't feint, but I do agree that there is some merit to this concern. Which is probably the reason why people think that IIFYM'ers eat pop tarts all day. However, the reasoning that many do it is to try to show that you can have that kind of food and still be successful. Maybe that message goes too far, but things tend to go to the extremes...there are so many 'you have to eat clean to get abs' type posts, it is expected that you also have things on the other extreme to counter-act it. Context is also important and often gets missed. MacDonalds does not only serve burgers. Burgers have nutrients. A larger and/or more active person can eat more and therefore has more wiggle room, and so on.
It does not help that people assume processed = bad or has no nutritional benefit - as it does, just to varying degrees. Also, it does not help that people think clean = automatically getting your micros. You can miss them doing both.
At the end of the day, eat a wide variety of foods that comprise a good portion of nutrient dense foods, and you should be golden.
This.
People have a tendency to grasp on to the part of the concept that they love. The part that says its okay to eat the foods that they like. As a result, perhaps too much emphasis gets placed on that. But, hopefully, intelligent people will dig a little deeper, and not just take what they see at face value. Hopefully, they say "how exactly does this work" and not "YAY! I can eat whatever I want!"0 -
Interesting interview arguing that IIFYM was spun out of control and doesnt actually mean IIFYM eat whatever you want. Thoughts?
For sedentary folks, it pretty much is "eat anything that fits".
The more active you are, the more attention needs to be paid to the actual content of the food.0 -
Interesting interview arguing that IIFYM was spun out of control and doesnt actually mean IIFYM eat whatever you want. Thoughts?
For sedentary folks, it pretty much is "eat anything that fits".
The more elite you are, the more attention needs to be paid to the actual content of the food.
fixed. 0 -
also don't look now, but Husky, Sara and Coach all just found common ground. :flowerforyou:0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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