IIFYM vs "a calorie is a calorie"
Replies
-
Uh, no. In science, theories are above laws. Several laws can combine to support theories. Scientific theories don't become laws, and scientific laws don't become theories.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.
Calories are no more a theory than evolution is.
The only reason they aren't laws is because of very vocal naysayers who have their own agenda, whose beliefs are threatened by ending debate on the "theory".
A scientific theory is the most rigorous form of scientific knowledge.0 -
HUH!?
ETA: How about we change "whole, nutritious" to "nutrient dense"? Would that work for you?
That would also be incorrect.
Most foods touted as being nutrient dense are anything but, usually quite the opposite.
Micronutrients are just that, micronutrients. Relatively unimportant, especially in the western diet, where deficiencies are rare.
Nutrients; macronutrients, the important nutrients, are almost always in short supply in supposed "nutrient dense" foods.0 -
HUH!?
ETA: How about we change "whole, nutritious" to "nutrient dense"? Would that work for you?
That would also be incorrect.
Most foods touted as being nutrient dense are anything but, usually quite the opposite.
Micronutrients are just that, micronutrients. Relatively unimportant, especially in the western diet, where deficiencies are rare.
Nutrients; macronutrients, the important nutrients, are almost always in short supply in supposed "nutrient dense" foods.
I really don't understand the point of your comment.
With regards to flexible dieting, which it appears is a way you prefer to eat, would you not agree that protein would be first choice in macro goals, then fat, then carbs? And, wouldn't you agree that it's preferable from "nutrient dense" foods and not junk. However, I have no problem with junk food. It's the part of the diet that comes after other targets are met.0 -
HUH!?
ETA: How about we change "whole, nutritious" to "nutrient dense"? Would that work for you?
That would also be incorrect.
Most foods touted as being nutrient dense are anything but, usually quite the opposite.
Micronutrients are just that, micronutrients. Relatively unimportant, especially in the western diet, where deficiencies are rare.
Nutrients; macronutrients, the important nutrients, are almost always in short supply in supposed "nutrient dense" foods.
For example, a milkshake is VERY nutrient dense.0 -
HUH!?
ETA: How about we change "whole, nutritious" to "nutrient dense"? Would that work for you?
That would also be incorrect.
Most foods touted as being nutrient dense are anything but, usually quite the opposite.
Micronutrients are just that, micronutrients. Relatively unimportant, especially in the western diet, where deficiencies are rare.
Nutrients; macronutrients, the important nutrients, are almost always in short supply in supposed "nutrient dense" foods.
For example, a milkshake is VERY nutrient dense.
Wouldn't a milkshake be "energy dense"? High calories with minimal nutrients.0 -
HUH!?
ETA: How about we change "whole, nutritious" to "nutrient dense"? Would that work for you?
That would also be incorrect.
Most foods touted as being nutrient dense are anything but, usually quite the opposite.
Micronutrients are just that, micronutrients. Relatively unimportant, especially in the western diet, where deficiencies are rare.
Nutrients; macronutrients, the important nutrients, are almost always in short supply in supposed "nutrient dense" foods.
For example, a milkshake is VERY nutrient dense.
Wouldn't a milkshake be "energy dense"? High calories with minimal nutrients.
^0 -
How exactly is it minimal nutrients? Lots of fats, lots of carbs, and even a decent amount of protein. Plus various vitamins and minerals. Are you forgetting that "macros" is an abbreviation for "macronutrients?"HUH!?
ETA: How about we change "whole, nutritious" to "nutrient dense"? Would that work for you?
That would also be incorrect.
Most foods touted as being nutrient dense are anything but, usually quite the opposite.
Micronutrients are just that, micronutrients. Relatively unimportant, especially in the western diet, where deficiencies are rare.
Nutrients; macronutrients, the important nutrients, are almost always in short supply in supposed "nutrient dense" foods.
For example, a milkshake is VERY nutrient dense.
Wouldn't a milkshake be "energy dense"? High calories with minimal nutrients.0 -
How exactly is it minimal nutrients? Lots of fats, lots of carbs, and even a decent amount of protein. Plus various vitamins and minerals. Are you forgetting that "macros" is an abbreviation for "macronutrients?"HUH!?
ETA: How about we change "whole, nutritious" to "nutrient dense"? Would that work for you?
That would also be incorrect.
Most foods touted as being nutrient dense are anything but, usually quite the opposite.
Micronutrients are just that, micronutrients. Relatively unimportant, especially in the western diet, where deficiencies are rare.
Nutrients; macronutrients, the important nutrients, are almost always in short supply in supposed "nutrient dense" foods.
For example, a milkshake is VERY nutrient dense.
Wouldn't a milkshake be "energy dense"? High calories with minimal nutrients.
can we not postulate about the ingredients and macro ratios of a mythical milkshake of which we know nothing about? use a real example and we can talk. lol0 -
Why, because you just agreed that the mythical milkshake was energy dense with minimal nutrients.......too funny really.
How exactly is it minimal nutrients? Lots of fats, lots of carbs, and even a decent amount of protein. Plus various vitamins and minerals. Are you forgetting that "macros" is an abbreviation for "macronutrients?"HUH!?
ETA: How about we change "whole, nutritious" to "nutrient dense"? Would that work for you?
That would also be incorrect.
Most foods touted as being nutrient dense are anything but, usually quite the opposite.
Micronutrients are just that, micronutrients. Relatively unimportant, especially in the western diet, where deficiencies are rare.
Nutrients; macronutrients, the important nutrients, are almost always in short supply in supposed "nutrient dense" foods.
For example, a milkshake is VERY nutrient dense.
Wouldn't a milkshake be "energy dense"? High calories with minimal nutrients.
can we not postulate about the ingredients and macro ratios of a mythical milkshake of which we know nothing about? use a real example and we can talk. lol0 -
Why, because you just agreed that the mythical milkshake was energy dense with minimal nutrients.......too funny really.
How exactly is it minimal nutrients? Lots of fats, lots of carbs, and even a decent amount of protein. Plus various vitamins and minerals. Are you forgetting that "macros" is an abbreviation for "macronutrients?"HUH!?
ETA: How about we change "whole, nutritious" to "nutrient dense"? Would that work for you?
That would also be incorrect.
Most foods touted as being nutrient dense are anything but, usually quite the opposite.
Micronutrients are just that, micronutrients. Relatively unimportant, especially in the western diet, where deficiencies are rare.
Nutrients; macronutrients, the important nutrients, are almost always in short supply in supposed "nutrient dense" foods.
For example, a milkshake is VERY nutrient dense.
Wouldn't a milkshake be "energy dense"? High calories with minimal nutrients.
can we not postulate about the ingredients and macro ratios of a mythical milkshake of which we know nothing about? use a real example and we can talk. lol
Yep, but there's no point going down the rabbit hole of arguing about said mythical milk shake. Nothing wrong about asking for specifics before having the discussion.0 -
Really? Imagine the worst milkshake nutrient wise then build a case around that, then you would be right and you'd be able to argue your case for another 10 or 20 posts.....sounds like a win for you.
Why, because you just agreed that the mythical milkshake was energy dense with minimal nutrients.......too funny really.
How exactly is it minimal nutrients? Lots of fats, lots of carbs, and even a decent amount of protein. Plus various vitamins and minerals. Are you forgetting that "macros" is an abbreviation for "macronutrients?"HUH!?
ETA: How about we change "whole, nutritious" to "nutrient dense"? Would that work for you?
That would also be incorrect.
Most foods touted as being nutrient dense are anything but, usually quite the opposite.
Micronutrients are just that, micronutrients. Relatively unimportant, especially in the western diet, where deficiencies are rare.
Nutrients; macronutrients, the important nutrients, are almost always in short supply in supposed "nutrient dense" foods.
For example, a milkshake is VERY nutrient dense.
Wouldn't a milkshake be "energy dense"? High calories with minimal nutrients.
can we not postulate about the ingredients and macro ratios of a mythical milkshake of which we know nothing about? use a real example and we can talk. lol
Yep, but there's no point going down the rabbit hole of arguing about said mythical milk shake. Nothing wrong about asking for specifics before having the discussion.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.
yes, they are two different things..
you can lose weight and not care about body composition, see skinny fat..
where as, you can care about losing weight, maintaining muscle mass, and then transiting to a body recomp, i.e. body composition…
So they are not the same ...0 -
Really? Imagine the worst milkshake nutrient wise then build a case around that, then you would be right and you'd be able to argue your case for another 10 or 20 posts.....sounds like a win for you.
Why, because you just agreed that the mythical milkshake was energy dense with minimal nutrients.......too funny really.
How exactly is it minimal nutrients? Lots of fats, lots of carbs, and even a decent amount of protein. Plus various vitamins and minerals. Are you forgetting that "macros" is an abbreviation for "macronutrients?"HUH!?
ETA: How about we change "whole, nutritious" to "nutrient dense"? Would that work for you?
That would also be incorrect.
Most foods touted as being nutrient dense are anything but, usually quite the opposite.
Micronutrients are just that, micronutrients. Relatively unimportant, especially in the western diet, where deficiencies are rare.
Nutrients; macronutrients, the important nutrients, are almost always in short supply in supposed "nutrient dense" foods.
For example, a milkshake is VERY nutrient dense.
Wouldn't a milkshake be "energy dense"? High calories with minimal nutrients.
can we not postulate about the ingredients and macro ratios of a mythical milkshake of which we know nothing about? use a real example and we can talk. lol
Yep, but there's no point going down the rabbit hole of arguing about said mythical milk shake. Nothing wrong about asking for specifics before having the discussion.
meh0 -
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.
so I can eat 1000 calories over maintenance and as long as they are quality foods, I will not gain?0 -
there pages in and we already have a level two dumpster fire going ….I like where this thread is headed….lolz0
-
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.
^Exactly this! People take the eat whatever you want and just count calories thing way too literally when we all know that the above statement is the actual philosophy. Yes, you do need proper nutrition to lose weight healthily and happily. Yes you can still enjoy the foods you love in moderation and remain in a deficit. Can you technically lose weight by eating pure junk and remaining in a deficit? Yes. Should you do that? No, it is not recommended.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 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.
That is pretty much how I understood it as well. :drinker:0 -
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.
[/quote]
The problem is with people using too general terms. A calorie is always a calorie as a measurement of energy. However if you would tell me that a given body deals with a 1000 calories of processed junk differently than with 1000 calories of " healthy " food, I would absolutely agree with you. By " a calorie is a calorie " one refers to the quantity of straight forward energy, while a calorie of junk or of healthy food also refers to the quality. They are not the same.0 -
I've seen some extremely heated arguments on this topic on MFP, and it seems that everyone can produce a study that supports their position. I happen to believe that a calorie is not a calorie, and that glycemic load is an important factor, and this has been borne out by research (see - I have my own studies that show I'm right!). Foods with a high glycemic index lead to spikes in insulin, and that triggers the storage of fat. Some people may claim that eating 2200 calories of protein and complex carbohydrates is no different than eating 2200 calories of cake frosting, from a weight-gain perspective. I disagree.0
-
I didn't realize they were vastly different concepts. I always thought I subscribed to IIFYM while believing a Calorie is a Calorie but now I'm confused
Thanks obama.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions