IIFYM vs "a calorie is a calorie"

erickirb

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.

cwsreddy

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.

cwolfman13

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.

Fullsterkur_woman

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'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.

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!

lporter229

"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).

bcattoes

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.

cwsreddy

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.

lporter229

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!

a_stronger_me13

"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.

F00LofaT00K

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.

runfatmanrun

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.

I agree with this. I lost all my weight using "calories are calories". And in reality, one could probably follow that concept and still perform relatively well on all levels. But people who start paying attention to the macros are typically more concerned with performance, be it cardio or strength. I know to get more of my calories from carbs just before a race so I lower my protein. Calroies are still calories; some people just need them to come from different sources.

likitisplit

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.

The differed between consuming your calories in avocado instead of chips is the micronutrients. The calories are the same. Your body uses the calories the same. It's only part of a balanced diet.

cwsreddy

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.

The differed between consuming your calories in avocado instead of chips is the micronutrients. The calories are the same. Your body uses the calories the same. It's only part of a balanced diet.

which is the point. over time eating just the nutrient-dense foods would leave you healthier, while eating the same number of cals from nutrient-deficient foods could leave you with health problems, bad skin/nails/hair/etc.

health =/= weight

PaleoPath4Lyfe

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.

Exactly.

I eat more calories than this site or any other site recommends I eat and I am losing weight without doing any exercise at the moment.

The QUALITY of the foods we eat trumps the QUANTITY of some arbitrary number of calories.

IronPlayground

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 haven't read all the other responses, but I will just say that IIFYM is not eating whatever the hell you want as long as you hit macro targets and not going over calories.

Flexible Dieting(IIFYM) means that you get most of your diet from whole, nutritious foods. If you've hit your protein and fat targets, throw fiber in there too if you want, and have calories to spare, then you can have some discretionary foods to fill out the rest. That will usually come out to be about 10-15% of your overall daily intake for most people.

a_stronger_me13

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.

Exactly.

I eat more calories than this site or any other site recommends I eat and I am losing weight without doing any exercise at the moment.

The QUALITY of the foods we eat trumps the QUANTITY of some arbitrary number of calories.

Weren't you just defending IIFYM yesterday in another thread?

LKArgh

A calorie is a calorie regarding weight loss. Now, whether you will have your calories on a daily diet of only fried bacon and candy, or balanced meals, this will affect more your chances of surviving that your final weight. I am pretty sure if you only eat deep fried bacon for a month, and have a 500 calorie daily deficit, you will still lose. The question is if you will survive. For the average person, I doubt that going to extremes, be it 90% of fat or 0.1% of fat will end well.

F00LofaT00K

The differed between consuming your calories in avocado instead of chips is the micronutrients. The calories are the same. Your body uses the calories the same. It's only part of a balanced diet.

^^agreed.

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.

If I lost 10 pounds eating nothing but chocolate, I would feel like crap too, BUT I would lose the same amount of weight if I ate the same amount of calories in only broccoli and would probably feel just as awful. The body needs variety, BUT if you eat at a caloric deficit you WILL lose weight. I have never seen anybody suggest that somebody eats only super fatty, greasy or sweet foods. The fact that people try to point out is that eating chocolate or a burger or chips will NOT make you gain weight or prevent you from losing IF you are still in a deficit. That is what people are referring to by a calorie is a calorie. Nobody has ever implied (that I've seen) that it is just as good for you to eat only chocolate as it is to eat a well-balanced, variety of foods in the same amount of calories.

likitisplit

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.

Exactly.

I eat more calories than this site or any other site recommends I eat and I am losing weight without doing any exercise at the moment.

The QUALITY of the foods we eat trumps the QUANTITY of some arbitrary number of calories.

Unless you're trying to lose weight. And then, after you meet protein and fat needs, total calorie count is critical.

yo_andi

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.

+1

Also, welcome back Reddy!