IIFYM vs "a calorie is a calorie"

ndj1979

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.

eh, protein spikes insulin too ….

neanderthin

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.

IIFYM just allows some discretionary leeway, and it's not a complicated issue. What is complicated is trying to fit IIFYM into something it's not, which is what your alluding to.

vjohn04

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.

this is why we can't have nice things.

jjplato

eh, protein spikes insulin too ….

Depends on the type of protein. Whey produces roughly twice the insulin response that eggs do.

RhineDHP

I think I'm just gonna keep posting this whenever a thread topic about IIFYM comes up. From Sidesteel:

Probably one of the most amazing but misunderstood concepts circulating among bodybuilders and fitness enthusiasts in general, is IIFYM.

What started as a phrase from a user named Erik Stevens on bodybuilding.com, quickly caught on and proceeded to cause an uproar of internet stupidity everywhere.


IIFYM stands for "If It Fits Your Macros" and it was originally phrased on the bb.com forums as a fast way to respond to the overwhelming number of questions about whether or not someone could eat a particular food item without having to worry about getting fat, or not gaining muscle, or (insert other negative effect).

Here are some examples of the questions that would come up: "Hey can I eat fruit on a cut?" "Hey is it okay for me to have oatmeal?" "Hey I had a cookie but I still stayed at my calorie and macro goals, is that okay or will that hurt my progress?" (The answer being "Yes, you can eat it if it fits your macros").

IIFYM literally means to hit your calorie and macronutrient targets by end of day choosing foods that you enjoy eating. The concept is completely bastardized because idiots across the internet continually come up with scenarios that don't exist in real life, to try and blow a hole in the idea that IIFYM is a sound practice.

Here are some examples of the strawmen arguments that show up in an attempt to discredit IIFYM: "You're telling me you can just eat straight table sugar for your carbs, and drink olive oil for your fat, and use whey protein and you'll have a good physique?". "Hey have fun eating pizza and donuts all day". "Brb just eating cake, IIFYM".

Good luck with that. (You'll note that you typically can't hit your macros eating chips and donuts all day and if you CAN, your macros are probably horsesh*t to begin with and you've then got bigger problems. The point here is that IIFYM most certainly isn't a disregard for health or nutrient sufficiency, but people will often create and knock down that strawman).

What IIFYM is not:

1) It is not eating cake and chips all day.
2) It is not disregarding micronutrients and fiber and general intelligence with regards to food choice.
3) It is not a specific macro setting. There is a website out there that has the IIFYM label that includes a calorie calculation tool and unfortunately several people on MFP believe that doing "IIFYM" means eating those specific macros. This is false.

IIFYM is a philosophy about food selection with the belief that body composition changes are primarily a function of nutrient intake and energy balance rather than a function of individual food sources.


When practicing IIFYM, it is recommended that you choose mostly whole and nutrient dense foods to comprise the majority of your intake. Fresh vegetables, fruits, meats, fish, etc, and at the same time, leaving some room for a discretionary intake. A common and very reasonable recommendation would be about 80/20. That is to say, that if you've got a calorie target of 2500, you'd eat approximately 2000 calories of whole and nutrient dense foods with a calorie bank of 500 to eat whatever you would like while still hitting your calorie and macronutrient targets by end of day


Source:http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/817188-iifym

BrainyBurro

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.

this is why we can't have nice things.

anybody else feel like a shake right about now?

neanderthin

eh, protein spikes insulin too ….

Depends on the type of protein. Whey produces roughly twice the insulin response that eggs do.

Dairy does in general and butter even though it's a fat.

cwsreddy

there pages in and we already have a level two dumpster fire going ….I like where this thread is headed….lolz

the thread was actually entirely civil and pretty much everyone agreed with what cwolfman said.

cwsreddy

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.

this is why we can't have nice things.

anybody else feel like a shake right about now?

I just drank one.

Shakeology. GASP! *runs and hides*

knra_grl

I think I'm just gonna keep posting this whenever a thread topic about IIFYM comes up. From Sidesteel:

Probably one of the most amazing but misunderstood concepts circulating among bodybuilders and fitness enthusiasts in general, is IIFYM.

What started as a phrase from a user named Erik Stevens on bodybuilding.com, quickly caught on and proceeded to cause an uproar of internet stupidity everywhere.


IIFYM stands for "If It Fits Your Macros" and it was originally phrased on the bb.com forums as a fast way to respond to the overwhelming number of questions about whether or not someone could eat a particular food item without having to worry about getting fat, or not gaining muscle, or (insert other negative effect).

Here are some examples of the questions that would come up: "Hey can I eat fruit on a cut?" "Hey is it okay for me to have oatmeal?" "Hey I had a cookie but I still stayed at my calorie and macro goals, is that okay or will that hurt my progress?" (The answer being "Yes, you can eat it if it fits your macros").

IIFYM literally means to hit your calorie and macronutrient targets by end of day choosing foods that you enjoy eating. The concept is completely bastardized because idiots across the internet continually come up with scenarios that don't exist in real life, to try and blow a hole in the idea that IIFYM is a sound practice.

Here are some examples of the strawmen arguments that show up in an attempt to discredit IIFYM: "You're telling me you can just eat straight table sugar for your carbs, and drink olive oil for your fat, and use whey protein and you'll have a good physique?". "Hey have fun eating pizza and donuts all day". "Brb just eating cake, IIFYM".

Good luck with that. (You'll note that you typically can't hit your macros eating chips and donuts all day and if you CAN, your macros are probably horsesh*t to begin with and you've then got bigger problems. The point here is that IIFYM most certainly isn't a disregard for health or nutrient sufficiency, but people will often create and knock down that strawman).

What IIFYM is not:

1) It is not eating cake and chips all day.
2) It is not disregarding micronutrients and fiber and general intelligence with regards to food choice.
3) It is not a specific macro setting. There is a website out there that has the IIFYM label that includes a calorie calculation tool and unfortunately several people on MFP believe that doing "IIFYM" means eating those specific macros. This is false.

IIFYM is a philosophy about food selection with the belief that body composition changes are primarily a function of nutrient intake and energy balance rather than a function of individual food sources.


When practicing IIFYM, it is recommended that you choose mostly whole and nutrient dense foods to comprise the majority of your intake. Fresh vegetables, fruits, meats, fish, etc, and at the same time, leaving some room for a discretionary intake. A common and very reasonable recommendation would be about 80/20. That is to say, that if you've got a calorie target of 2500, you'd eat approximately 2000 calories of whole and nutrient dense foods with a calorie bank of 500 to eat whatever you would like while still hitting your calorie and macronutrient targets by end of day


Source:http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/817188-iifym

+1

BrainyBurro

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.

this is why we can't have nice things.

anybody else feel like a shake right about now?

I just drank one.

Shakeology. GASP! *runs and hides*

SpencersHeart

fascinating ....in to read more later

neanderthin

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.

this is why we can't have nice things.

anybody else feel like a shake right about now?

I just drank one.

Shakeology. GASP! *runs and hides*

Achrya

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.

this is why we can't have nice things.

anybody else feel like a shake right about now?

That won't fit my macros and thus won't fit my calories!

SunofaBeach14

:yawn:

cwsreddy

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.

this is why we can't have nice things.

anybody else feel like a shake right about now?

I just drank one.

Shakeology. GASP! *runs and hides*

That's why I ran and hid! I KNOW!

I just have boxes of this **** on my shelf :laugh:

ninerbuff

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.

Calories ARE equal. I eat whatever I feel like eating when I want to and as long as I've reached my macro/micronutrient goal for the day and have calories left over, it doesn't matter what you eat.
I eat ice cream almost daily (Ben and Jerry's Hazed and Confused is da bomb), a serving of Calbee Shrimp chips, and fast food cheeseburger once a week.
Where you are missing is that NUTRITIONAL value and density is different amongst whole food and processed foods, but a calorie is a calorie. Just like a mile is a mile, a gallon is a gallon, and an hour is an hour.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

determinedbutlazy

I came back to see what happened to this thread.

All I'm taking away with me is the warm toasty feeing of a dumpster fire and a craving for milkshake. Thanks, Obama.

jjplato

Just like a mile is a mile, a gallon is a gallon, and an hour is an hour.

I disagree -- a gallon of gas is not the same as a gallon of kerosene. Likewise, the "calorie is a calorie" school of thought disregards the thermic effect of food. The body has to expend more energy digesting some foods than others -- protein, 20-35%; carbohydrates, 5-15%; fat, 5-15%. It also disregards the fact that dietary fiber is not absorbed by the body and converted to energy.

So while it may be true that calorie is a calorie once it has been digested and absorbed, it's not true of calories that are consumed. Consuming 300 calories of protein and high-fiber carbohydrates will result in fewer of those calories being converted to energy in the body than 300 calories of chocolate, since some of the calories will be used in the digestion process itself, and some will move through the digestive tract without being absorbed at all.

neanderthin

Just like a mile is a mile, a gallon is a gallon, and an hour is an hour.

I disagree -- a gallon of gas is not the same as a gallon of kerosene. Likewise, the "calorie is a calorie" school of thought disregards the thermic effect of food. The body has to expend more energy digesting some foods than others -- protein, 20-35%; carbohydrates, 5-15%; fat, 5-15%. It also disregards the fact that dietary fiber is not absorbed by the body and converted to energy.

So while it may be true that calorie is a calorie once it has been digested and absorbed, it's not true of calories that are consumed. Consuming 300 calories of protein and high-fiber carbohydrates will result in fewer of those calories being converted to energy in the body than 300 calories of chocolate, since some of the calories will be used in the digestion process itself, and some will move through the digestive tract without being absorbed at all.

Your confusing a calorie is a calorie with not all calories are created equal. Not uncommon to happen