IIFYM vs "a calorie is a calorie"
lporter229
Posts: 4,907 Member
On the surface, these two concepts appear to be in direct opposition to one another. One says that it is important to have your nutrition coming from specific places. The other appears to say "Eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over on calories". Of course, I understand there is a big difference between general weight loss and body composition, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I have some opinions on the subject (which I will reserve, at least for now), but I was wanting to open the topic up for general discussion. I know both topics have been beat to death on the forums, but I rarely see them being compared to one another. For the record, this post was inspired by an MFP friend who just posted that she finally understands that IIFYM is more than just meeting a daily calorie goal and it got me thinking.
0
Replies
-
I lost weight using the 'a calorie is a calorie' logic, most of my weight actually because I just started with iifym (not in its entirety, a lower carb version) less than a week ago. I feel absolutely incredible now that I'm getting more protein. At least I think that's why I feel so good lately.... time will tell ;0)0
-
Bump; I'm interested in the responses.0
-
In my experience, a calorie is a calorie BUT how many calories I ingest in a day depends on the type I have eaten. I do better in eating less and feel better if my protein is high and the carbs are more moderate.0
-
IIFYM is generally more concerned with body recomposition or athletic performance. You can fine tune your macronutrients to your goals.
If your goal is simply to see the number on the scale go down, a calorie is just a calorie.0 -
What is IIFYM?0
-
Essentially the only difference is that IIFYM requires a minimum protein and fat amount. Under both "diets" the dieter should also try and focus on mico nutrients (vitamins, minerals, fiber, etc) as they are also essential to good health.
And IIFYM is really only good if you set appropriate intakes of each macro, or would not be very different than a calorie is a calories if the ratio is wrong.0 -
What is IIFYM?
If It Fits Your Macros (Fat, Carbs, Protein)0 -
On the surface, these two concepts appear to be in direct opposition to one another. One says that it is important to have your nutrition coming from specific places. The other appears to say "Eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over on calories". Of course, I understand there is a big difference between general weight loss and body composition, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I have some opinions on the subject (which I will reserve, at least for now), but I was wanting to open the topic up for general discussion. I know both topics have been beat to death on the forums, but I rarely see them being compared to one another. For the record, this post was inspired by an MFP friend who just posted that she finally understands that IIFYM is more than just meeting a daily calorie goal and it got me thinking.
I m confused by your comparison, because if you eat according to IIFYM a calorie is still a calorie. No matter how you eat for weight loss; dirty, clean, vegetarian, vegan, primal, paleo or East Cashubian modiefied caveman, or IIFYM, a calorie ( as a measurement of energy ) is always a calorie.0 -
I do sort of a combo of IIFYM and the calorie is a calorie method.
I try to hit my macros while staying around my calorie goal (I have set my calories and macros myself to meet my personal needs). Seems to be working for me!0 -
On the surface, these two concepts appear to be in direct opposition to one another. One says that it is important to have your nutrition coming from specific places. The other appears to say "Eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over on calories". Of course, I understand there is a big difference between general weight loss and body composition, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I have some opinions on the subject (which I will reserve, at least for now), but I was wanting to open the topic up for general discussion. I know both topics have been beat to death on the forums, but I rarely see them being compared to one another. For the record, this post was inspired by an MFP friend who just posted that she finally understands that IIFYM is more than just meeting a daily calorie goal and it got me thinking.
I m confused by your comparison, because if you eat according to IIFYM a calorie is still a calorie. No matter how you eat for weight loss; dirty, clean, vegetarian, vegan, primal, paleo or East Cashubian modiefied caveman, or IIFYM, a calorie ( as a measurement of energy ) is always a calorie.
As I understand it, IIFYM relies on your calories coming from a specific combination (ratio) of protein, fat and carbs, which implies that the body will treat these types of calories differently.0 -
On the surface, these two concepts appear to be in direct opposition to one another. One says that it is important to have your nutrition coming from specific places. The other appears to say "Eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over on calories". Of course, I understand there is a big difference between general weight loss and body composition, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I have some opinions on the subject (which I will reserve, at least for now), but I was wanting to open the topic up for general discussion. I know both topics have been beat to death on the forums, but I rarely see them being compared to one another. For the record, this post was inspired by an MFP friend who just posted that she finally understands that IIFYM is more than just meeting a daily calorie goal and it got me thinking.
I m confused by your comparison, because if you eat according to IIFYM a calorie is still a calorie. No matter how you eat for weight loss; dirty, clean, vegetarian, vegan, primal, paleo or East Cashubian modiefied caveman, or IIFYM, a calorie ( as a measurement of energy ) is always a calorie.
As I understand it, IIFYM relies on your calories coming from a specific combination (ratio) of protein, fat and carbs, which implies that the body will treat these types of calories differently.
The calories aren't "treated differently". 1g pro = 4 cals, 1g carbs = 4 cals, 1g fat = 9 cals. It's all calories. But you need protein for retaining lean body mass and you need fat for proper vitamin absorption.
ETA: I don't think ANYONE has ever argued these two AGAINST each other. They aren't mutually exclusive by any means. Calorie deficit is necessary for weight loss, proper macronutrition can impact what that weight loss looks like, i.e. retention of lean body mass. Proper macronutrition is also a pretty important issue when it comes to those who are training, whether it's powerlifting, endurance racing, bodybuilding, or other more traditional sports.0 -
In my experience, I have different results depending on what food sources I turn to. Also, putting weight loss aside, I know my athletic performance and my overall health improves when I get my calories from cleaner sources. I wouldn't give a crap if I lost 10lbs eating chocolate, at the end of the day I would feel like **** all the time.
Calories are not equal. Anyone who says they are doesn't practice what they preach. I would love to see a couple of the guys on here who don't agree with this logic eat the same amount of calories from burgers, chips, ice cream etc and report back to me. People like to say a calorie is a calorie but then they wouldn't dare try out the theory.0 -
I have minimum protein and fat goals and I set my own fruit, veg and grain serving goals in order to meet my vitamin and mineral requirements. Then I can eat any carb I want (wine and chocolate to be exact) up to my calorie goal. I still need to track calories, otherwise I'll gain weight. So you're correct. The two are not mutually exclusive. I guess you could say I use IIFYM as my form of eating healthy 80-90% of the time while still being able to enjoy the not-so-healthy stuff in moderation.0
-
On the surface, these two concepts appear to be in direct opposition to one another. One says that it is important to have your nutrition coming from specific places. The other appears to say "Eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over on calories". Of course, I understand there is a big difference between general weight loss and body composition, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I have some opinions on the subject (which I will reserve, at least for now), but I was wanting to open the topic up for general discussion. I know both topics have been beat to death on the forums, but I rarely see them being compared to one another. For the record, this post was inspired by an MFP friend who just posted that she finally understands that IIFYM is more than just meeting a daily calorie goal and it got me thinking.
I m confused by your comparison, because if you eat according to IIFYM a calorie is still a calorie. No matter how you eat for weight loss; dirty, clean, vegetarian, vegan, primal, paleo or East Cashubian modiefied caveman, or IIFYM, a calorie ( as a measurement of energy ) is always a calorie.
As I understand it, IIFYM relies on your calories coming from a specific combination (ratio) of protein, fat and carbs, which implies that the body will treat these types of calories differently.
The calories aren't "treated differently". 1g pro = 4 cals, 1g carbs = 4 cals, 1g fat = 9 cals. It's all calories. But you need protein for retaining lean body mass and you need fat for proper vitamin absorption.
ETA: I don't think ANYONE has ever argued these two AGAINST each other. They aren't mutually exclusive by any means. Calorie deficit is necessary for weight loss, proper macronutrition can impact what that weight loss looks like, i.e. retention of lean body mass. Proper macronutrition is also a pretty important issue when it comes to those who are training, whether it's powerlifting, endurance racing, bodybuilding, or other more traditional sports.
We are essentially saying the same thing..that the body utilizes different types of food differently.0 -
On the surface, these two concepts appear to be in direct opposition to one another. One says that it is important to have your nutrition coming from specific places. The other appears to say "Eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over on calories". Of course, I understand there is a big difference between general weight loss and body composition, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I have some opinions on the subject (which I will reserve, at least for now), but I was wanting to open the topic up for general discussion. I know both topics have been beat to death on the forums, but I rarely see them being compared to one another. For the record, this post was inspired by an MFP friend who just posted that she finally understands that IIFYM is more than just meeting a daily calorie goal and it got me thinking.
I m confused by your comparison, because if you eat according to IIFYM a calorie is still a calorie. No matter how you eat for weight loss; dirty, clean, vegetarian, vegan, primal, paleo or East Cashubian modiefied caveman, or IIFYM, a calorie ( as a measurement of energy ) is always a calorie.
As I understand it, IIFYM relies on your calories coming from a specific combination (ratio) of protein, fat and carbs, which implies that the body will treat these types of calories differently.
Both principles work, but I should think they also go beyond just what you consume (i.e. calories).
Although it is important to remember that whilst a calorie is a unit of energy not all calories consumed will be used as energy for the body.0 -
On the surface, these two concepts appear to be in direct opposition to one another. One says that it is important to have your nutrition coming from specific places. The other appears to say "Eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over on calories". Of course, I understand there is a big difference between general weight loss and body composition, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I have some opinions on the subject (which I will reserve, at least for now), but I was wanting to open the topic up for general discussion. I know both topics have been beat to death on the forums, but I rarely see them being compared to one another. For the record, this post was inspired by an MFP friend who just posted that she finally understands that IIFYM is more than just meeting a daily calorie goal and it got me thinking.
I m confused by your comparison, because if you eat according to IIFYM a calorie is still a calorie. No matter how you eat for weight loss; dirty, clean, vegetarian, vegan, primal, paleo or East Cashubian modiefied caveman, or IIFYM, a calorie ( as a measurement of energy ) is always a calorie.
As I understand it, IIFYM relies on your calories coming from a specific combination (ratio) of protein, fat and carbs, which implies that the body will treat these types of calories differently.
The calories aren't "treated differently". 1g pro = 4 cals, 1g carbs = 4 cals, 1g fat = 9 cals. It's all calories. But you need protein for retaining lean body mass and you need fat for proper vitamin absorption.
ETA: I don't think ANYONE has ever argued these two AGAINST each other. They aren't mutually exclusive by any means. Calorie deficit is necessary for weight loss, proper macronutrition can impact what that weight loss looks like, i.e. retention of lean body mass. Proper macronutrition is also a pretty important issue when it comes to those who are training, whether it's powerlifting, endurance racing, bodybuilding, or other more traditional sports.
We are essentially saying the same thing..that the body utilizes different types of food differently.
True, but calories are still calories. And roughly 3500 calories equals a pound so I don't really see why you're hoping for some educational debate to occur. Both camps say the same thing regarding WEIGHT loss.0 -
I see them as two sides of the same coin. A calorie is a calorie, a gram of carbs is a gram of carbs. The general principle is still "you can eat whatever foods you want as long as the overall calorie and macro targets are met," as opposed to "you need this many calories and this many grams of carbs, protein, and fat, but you must not get them from this list of foods."
I think you will find that most people who really believe in IIFYM also really believe that a calorie is a calorie and that these are not really two separate theories but, rather, two parts of an overarching theory.0 -
So then, that's just IIFYM. If your food fits your macros, you will automatically hit your calorie goal. If your calories are too high, you overate (at least) one of your macros and you didn't "fit" them. If your calories are too low, you underate (at least) one of your macros and you didn't fit them.I do sort of a combo of IIFYM and the calorie is a calorie method.
I try to hit my macros while staying around my calorie goal (I have set my calories and macros myself to meet my personal needs). Seems to be working for me!
Glad it's working for you!0 -
On the surface, these two concepts appear to be in direct opposition to one another. One says that it is important to have your nutrition coming from specific places. The other appears to say "Eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over on calories". Of course, I understand there is a big difference between general weight loss and body composition, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I have some opinions on the subject (which I will reserve, at least for now), but I was wanting to open the topic up for general discussion. I know both topics have been beat to death on the forums, but I rarely see them being compared to one another. For the record, this post was inspired by an MFP friend who just posted that she finally understands that IIFYM is more than just meeting a daily calorie goal and it got me thinking.
I m confused by your comparison, because if you eat according to IIFYM a calorie is still a calorie. No matter how you eat for weight loss; dirty, clean, vegetarian, vegan, primal, paleo or East Cashubian modiefied caveman, or IIFYM, a calorie ( as a measurement of energy ) is always a calorie.
As I understand it, IIFYM relies on your calories coming from a specific combination (ratio) of protein, fat and carbs, which implies that the body will treat these types of calories differently.
The calories aren't "treated differently". 1g pro = 4 cals, 1g carbs = 4 cals, 1g fat = 9 cals. It's all calories. But you need protein for retaining lean body mass and you need fat for proper vitamin absorption.
ETA: I don't think ANYONE has ever argued these two AGAINST each other. They aren't mutually exclusive by any means. Calorie deficit is necessary for weight loss, proper macronutrition can impact what that weight loss looks like, i.e. retention of lean body mass. Proper macronutrition is also a pretty important issue when it comes to those who are training, whether it's powerlifting, endurance racing, bodybuilding, or other more traditional sports.
We are essentially saying the same thing..that the body utilizes different types of food differently.
True, but calories are still calories. And roughly 3500 calories equals a pound so I don't really see why you're hoping for some educational debate to occur. Both camps say the same thing regarding WEIGHT loss.
Not really. Weight loss and body composition are not two different things. I think that the idea that a 3500 calorie deficit will lose you a pound is over simplified. If I eat at a 500 calorie a day deficit for a month but I eat nothing but carbs I will probably not end up in the same place as if I ate at the same deficit eating nothing but protein. I just don't see it. It flies in the face of IIFYM.0 -
On the surface, these two concepts appear to be in direct opposition to one another. One says that it is important to have your nutrition coming from specific places. The other appears to say "Eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over on calories". Of course, I understand there is a big difference between general weight loss and body composition, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I have some opinions on the subject (which I will reserve, at least for now), but I was wanting to open the topic up for general discussion. I know both topics have been beat to death on the forums, but I rarely see them being compared to one another. For the record, this post was inspired by an MFP friend who just posted that she finally understands that IIFYM is more than just meeting a daily calorie goal and it got me thinking.
I m confused by your comparison, because if you eat according to IIFYM a calorie is still a calorie. No matter how you eat for weight loss; dirty, clean, vegetarian, vegan, primal, paleo or East Cashubian modiefied caveman, or IIFYM, a calorie ( as a measurement of energy ) is always a calorie.
As I understand it, IIFYM relies on your calories coming from a specific combination (ratio) of protein, fat and carbs, which implies that the body will treat these types of calories differently.
The calories aren't "treated differently". 1g pro = 4 cals, 1g carbs = 4 cals, 1g fat = 9 cals. It's all calories. But you need protein for retaining lean body mass and you need fat for proper vitamin absorption.
ETA: I don't think ANYONE has ever argued these two AGAINST each other. They aren't mutually exclusive by any means. Calorie deficit is necessary for weight loss, proper macronutrition can impact what that weight loss looks like, i.e. retention of lean body mass. Proper macronutrition is also a pretty important issue when it comes to those who are training, whether it's powerlifting, endurance racing, bodybuilding, or other more traditional sports.
We are essentially saying the same thing..that the body utilizes different types of food differently.
True, but calories are still calories. And roughly 3500 calories equals a pound so I don't really see why you're hoping for some educational debate to occur. Both camps say the same thing regarding WEIGHT loss.
Not really. Weight loss and body composition are not two different things. I think that the idea that a 3500 calorie deficit will lose you a pound is over simplified. If I eat at a 500 calorie a day deficit for a month but I eat nothing but carbs I will probably not end up in the same place as if I ate at the same deficit eating nothing but protein. I just don't see it.
"End up in the same place" is a very vague reference to how what and how much are eating effects you.
And the whole "eat nothing but one macro or type of food" argument is ridiculous anyway.0 -
On the surface, these two concepts appear to be in direct opposition to one another. One says that it is important to have your nutrition coming from specific places. The other appears to say "Eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over on calories". Of course, I understand there is a big difference between general weight loss and body composition, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I have some opinions on the subject (which I will reserve, at least for now), but I was wanting to open the topic up for general discussion. I know both topics have been beat to death on the forums, but I rarely see them being compared to one another. For the record, this post was inspired by an MFP friend who just posted that she finally understands that IIFYM is more than just meeting a daily calorie goal and it got me thinking.
I m confused by your comparison, because if you eat according to IIFYM a calorie is still a calorie. No matter how you eat for weight loss; dirty, clean, vegetarian, vegan, primal, paleo or East Cashubian modiefied caveman, or IIFYM, a calorie ( as a measurement of energy ) is always a calorie.
As I understand it, IIFYM relies on your calories coming from a specific combination (ratio) of protein, fat and carbs, which implies that the body will treat these types of calories differently.
The calories aren't "treated differently". 1g pro = 4 cals, 1g carbs = 4 cals, 1g fat = 9 cals. It's all calories. But you need protein for retaining lean body mass and you need fat for proper vitamin absorption.
ETA: I don't think ANYONE has ever argued these two AGAINST each other. They aren't mutually exclusive by any means. Calorie deficit is necessary for weight loss, proper macronutrition can impact what that weight loss looks like, i.e. retention of lean body mass. Proper macronutrition is also a pretty important issue when it comes to those who are training, whether it's powerlifting, endurance racing, bodybuilding, or other more traditional sports.
We are essentially saying the same thing..that the body utilizes different types of food differently.
True, but calories are still calories. And roughly 3500 calories equals a pound so I don't really see why you're hoping for some educational debate to occur. Both camps say the same thing regarding WEIGHT loss.
Not really. Weight loss and body composition are not two different things. I think that the idea that a 3500 calorie deficit will lose you a pound is over simplified. If I eat at a 500 calorie a day deficit for a month but I eat nothing but carbs I will probably not end up in the same place as if I ate at the same deficit eating nothing but protein. I just don't see it. It flies in the face of IIFYM.
On the scale it will probably read within 1/2 lb or less different, but your body comp would be different as in gaining more would be fat on all carbs, and on a cut more of the loss would be muscle, but the scales reading (ignoring water weight) will be virtually identical.0 -
On the surface, these two concepts appear to be in direct opposition to one another. One says that it is important to have your nutrition coming from specific places. The other appears to say "Eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over on calories". Of course, I understand there is a big difference between general weight loss and body composition, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I have some opinions on the subject (which I will reserve, at least for now), but I was wanting to open the topic up for general discussion. I know both topics have been beat to death on the forums, but I rarely see them being compared to one another. For the record, this post was inspired by an MFP friend who just posted that she finally understands that IIFYM is more than just meeting a daily calorie goal and it got me thinking.
I m confused by your comparison, because if you eat according to IIFYM a calorie is still a calorie. No matter how you eat for weight loss; dirty, clean, vegetarian, vegan, primal, paleo or East Cashubian modiefied caveman, or IIFYM, a calorie ( as a measurement of energy ) is always a calorie.
As I understand it, IIFYM relies on your calories coming from a specific combination (ratio) of protein, fat and carbs, which implies that the body will treat these types of calories differently.
The calories aren't "treated differently". 1g pro = 4 cals, 1g carbs = 4 cals, 1g fat = 9 cals. It's all calories. But you need protein for retaining lean body mass and you need fat for proper vitamin absorption.
ETA: I don't think ANYONE has ever argued these two AGAINST each other. They aren't mutually exclusive by any means. Calorie deficit is necessary for weight loss, proper macronutrition can impact what that weight loss looks like, i.e. retention of lean body mass. Proper macronutrition is also a pretty important issue when it comes to those who are training, whether it's powerlifting, endurance racing, bodybuilding, or other more traditional sports.
We are essentially saying the same thing..that the body utilizes different types of food differently.
True, but calories are still calories. And roughly 3500 calories equals a pound so I don't really see why you're hoping for some educational debate to occur. Both camps say the same thing regarding WEIGHT loss.
Not really. Weight loss and body composition are not two different things. I think that the idea that a 3500 calorie deficit will lose you a pound is over simplified. If I eat at a 500 calorie a day deficit for a month but I eat nothing but carbs I will probably not end up in the same place as if I ate at the same deficit eating nothing but protein. I just don't see it.
"End up in the same place" is a very vague reference to how what and how much are eating effects you.
And the whole "eat nothing but one macro or type of food" argument is ridiculous anyway.
lol it's ridiculous to show that your body processes different types of macros differently? that's all he's saying. he's not suggesting anyone actually do that. c'mon now.0 -
When people talk about a calorie being a calorie, they are generally talking strictly about weight loss...and while it's a bit oversimplified, in the hierarchy of what is important to weight loss, calories in/out is the biggest piece of the puzzle...that's what people should be focused on first and foremost....once they get that down, they can sit down and start taking stock of the macros which would ultimately improve most people's overall nutrition. Nutrition is important to weight loss in that proper nutrition is going to help your body function properly and ensure hormones are regulated, etc. Quality of nutrients is also important if you have certain medical conditions and of course important to overall health and avoiding certain medical conditions. Quality of nutrition is also important to athletic performance, which is largely where IIFYM comes in..at least that's where it originated.
IIFYM was coined on bodybuilding.com by Erik Stevens as a stock answer to constant questions in RE to diet and muscle gains, etc. It' not really even about weight control per sei...it's more about fitness performance and whatnot. Basically it was coined to answer questions like, "can I have oatmeal and will it interfere with my gainz brah?"...answer: IIFYM. The notion would be that protein would be a priority macro if you were a weight lifter and one would then set their dietary fat and carb macros accordingly...of course, the ratio is different for different types of athletes...but the principle is the same.
In it's original form and intent, IIFYM also assumed that the vast majority of ones diet was nutrient dense food as to aid in optimal athletic performance...with the idea that if you were eating say 3000 calories to bulk and you got in a good 2400 or so calories in awesome nutrition...and you had room in your macros to do so, enjoy some ice cream or some other otherwise "junky" food with minimal nutritional value. It was never intended to be an "eat whatever the hell you want kind of thing...that is not optimal to athletic performance. Unfortunately, it's been pretty much bastardized over the years and there's even a website which unfortunately a lot of people think is the gospel, not realizing still what IIFYM really is.0 -
I'm not seeing anyone else responding with this information, so I will. It's not about a ratio with IIFYM. You have minimum targets you need to hit for fat and protein. Once those are achieved, you are free to eat the remainder of your calories in the form of whatever macros please you. It's best to get some of your carbohydrate from fruits and vegetables, as they are the easiest way to ensure that you are getting enough fiber and micronutrients.As I understand it, IIFYM relies on your calories coming from a specific combination (ratio) of protein, fat and carbs, which implies that the body will treat these types of calories differently.
I like it because sometimes you just can't face another serving of steamed broccoli or baby carrots, and this gives you the freedom to choose squash casserole or fried okra or cole slaw to help you get your vegetables in. Some people are just fine with eating lots of plain steamed veggies if it means they get to enjoy beer or a juicy steak. Once you meet your minimums, if you want to go face-first into a bowl of queso or chocolate chips, go nuts!0 -
"End up in the same place" is a very vague reference to how what and how much are eating effects you.
And the whole "eat nothing but one macro or type of food" argument is ridiculous anyway.
Seriously? Have you seen some of the food diaries of people on this site?
Regarding the "vague reference", my point is that, over the long haul, my body will look different (as will the number on the scale).0 -
Personally, I do not think 'a calorie is a calorie is true' for anything other than weight loss, regardless of what diet one follows, and even then it is sometimes not true. Nutritional quality of diet matters.
Since IIFYM begins with an overall calorie goal (TDEE - 20% for example), it would seem to agree that 'a calorie is a calorie' is true for weight loss/gain, but not for other goals.
I'm curious to read the answers though.0 -
When people talk about a calorie being a calorie, they are generally talking strictly about weight loss...and while it's a bit oversimplified, in the hierarchy of what is important to weight loss, calories in/out is the biggest piece of the puzzle...that's what people should be focused on first and foremost....once they get that down, they can sit down and start taking stock of the macros which would ultimately improve most people's overall nutrition. Nutrition is important to weight loss in that proper nutrition is going to help your body function properly and ensure hormones are regulated, etc. Quality of nutrients is also important if you have certain medical conditions and of course important to overall health and avoiding certain medical conditions.
IIFYM was coined on bodybuilding.com by Erik Stevens as a stock answer to constant questions in RE to diet and muscle gains, etc. It' not really even about weight control per sei...it's more about fitness performance and whatnot. Basically it was coined to answer questions like, "can I have oatmeal and will it interfere with my gainz brah?"...answer: IIFYM. The notion would be that protein would be a priority macro if you were a weight lifter and one would then set their dietary fat and carb macros accordingly...of course, the ratio is different for different types of athletes...but the principle is the same.
In it's original form and intent, IIFYM also assumed that the vast majority of ones diet was nutrient dense food as to aid in optimal athletic performance...with the idea that if you were eating say 3000 calories to bulk and you got in a good 2400 or so calories in awesome nutrition...and you had room in your macros to do so, enjoy some ice cream or some other otherwise "junky" food with minimal nutritional value. It was never intended to be an "eat whatever the hell you want kind of thing...that is not optimal to athletic performance. Unfortunately, it's been pretty much bastardized over the years and there's even a website which unfortunately a lot of people think is the gospel, not realizing still what IIFYM really is.
I feel like this post, along with Side Steel's, need to be in every IIFYM thread.0 -
When people talk about a calorie being a calorie, they are generally talking strictly about weight loss...and while it's a bit oversimplified, in the hierarchy of what is important to weight loss, calories in/out is the biggest piece of the puzzle...that's what people should be focused on first and foremost....once they get that down, they can sit down and start taking stock of the macros which would ultimately improve most people's overall nutrition. Nutrition is important to weight loss in that proper nutrition is going to help your body function properly and ensure hormones are regulated, etc. Quality of nutrients is also important if you have certain medical conditions and of course important to overall health and avoiding certain medical conditions. Quality of nutrition is also important to athletic performance, which is largely where IIFYM comes in..at least that's where it originated.
IIFYM was coined on bodybuilding.com by Erik Stevens as a stock answer to constant questions in RE to diet and muscle gains, etc. It' not really even about weight control per sei...it's more about fitness performance and whatnot. Basically it was coined to answer questions like, "can I have oatmeal and will it interfere with my gainz brah?"...answer: IIFYM. The notion would be that protein would be a priority macro if you were a weight lifter and one would then set their dietary fat and carb macros accordingly...of course, the ratio is different for different types of athletes...but the principle is the same.
In it's original form and intent, IIFYM also assumed that the vast majority of ones diet was nutrient dense food as to aid in optimal athletic performance...with the idea that if you were eating say 3000 calories to bulk and you got in a good 2400 or so calories in awesome nutrition...and you had room in your macros to do so, enjoy some ice cream or some other otherwise "junky" food with minimal nutritional value. It was never intended to be an "eat whatever the hell you want kind of thing...that is not optimal to athletic performance. Unfortunately, it's been pretty much bastardized over the years and there's even a website which unfortunately a lot of people think is the gospel, not realizing still what IIFYM really is.
thank you...essentially what I was looking for!0 -
"End up in the same place" is a very vague reference to how what and how much are eating effects you.
And the whole "eat nothing but one macro or type of food" argument is ridiculous anyway.
Seriously? Have you seen some of the food diaries of people on this site?
Regarding the "vague reference", my point is that, over the long haul, my body will look different (as will the number on the scale).
The number on the scale probably won't be that much different other than some water retention.
Like someone else said, strictly weight loss, we're talking about a calorie is a calorie, AGAIN WEIGHT LOSS ONLY, not body composition or health markers outside of bodyweight for that matter. When you get into things that require more detail, like body composition or athletic performance, then yes, macronutrition will affect how you look and perform. Again, I don't think that anyone has said anything different from the IIFYM and calorie is a calorie camps, they are ideas that really go hand in hand.0 -
A calorie IS a calorie. It is a measurement of energy. A mile is a mile: a measurement of distance. An ounce is an ounce, a measurement of weight. If you eat less than you need, you WILL lose weight. There is plenty of science and anecdotal evidence from MFP users that this is true.
IIFYM follows that a calorie is a calorie by eating fewer calories than the body needs as a way to lose weight BUT the body does have specific needs as far as protein, fat and carbs. People who follow IIFYM eat at a caloric deficit to lose weight, surplus to gain or what they need to maintain (because a calorie is just a unit of energy) while giving their body the proper nutrients that it needs as far as more protein if bulking, more carbs if training for a marathon, or some kind of balance of the macro nutrients.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions