IIFYM vs "a calorie is a calorie"

ScarlettDuchess

All calories are the same in a lab. They aren't the same in the human body. That is easily proven in studies with same calorie diets showing different results.

likitisplit

All calories are the same in a lab. They aren't the same in the human body. That is easily proven in studies with same calorie diets showing different results.

All the studies I have read have shown that a low carb vs. low fat vs. balanced low calorie diet have extremely similar results as long as protein/fat needs are met.

SezxyStef

I don't see an actual "versus" here...

If I want to lose weight I create a calorie deficet...
If I want to lose mainly fat I create a calorie deficet while ensuring I meet my macros (protine...fat...carbs in that order)

If I have 700 calories left in at dinner time and I need 40g of protien to meet my goal..

I can either eat some chicken breast and steamed veggies at home and have calories left for chocolate later...

or I can go to a fast food joint get some meat and a salad and not have calories left for later...

How is one different, I met my macros, I am still in a deficet so I will lose weight.

Where is the versus????

agidavis

I think `calorie is a calorie` idea only works for people that has at least 25lbs+ to loose.
When you get down to a certain weight you will have to start watching the quality of your food to help your body get a hormonal balance to lose more weight.
I believe this is the reason why this topic is so 50-50. For heavier people `calorie is a calorie` idea works because just by reducing their intake they can loose weight…

IronPlayground

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.

Protein and fat do more than provide energy.

Really? Never would've guessed that.

I have no problem with milkshakes. In fact, I'd like one now since we are talking about it. However, it really doesn't matter what food item you use to try to make a point here. Someone is going to find fault with it.

Bottom line: Eat whatever the hell you want. Make sure to hit protein and fat targets. Get in enough fiber so you can take a nice dump.

likitisplit

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.

Protein and fat do more than provide energy.

Really? Never would've guessed that.

I have no problem with milkshakes. In fact, I'd like one now since we are talking about it. However, it really doesn't matter what food item you use to try to make a point here. Someone is going to find fault with it.

Bottom line: Eat whatever the hell you want. Make sure to hit protein and fat targets. Get in enough fiber so you can take a nice dump.

I actively chose an item that was high in fat/carbs/protein but could also seen as "unhealthy" in order to illustrate the point about how various people define "nutrient dense."

lporter229

I don't see an actual "versus" here...

If I want to lose weight I create a calorie deficet...
If I want to lose mainly fat I create a calorie deficet while ensuring I meet my macros (protine...fat...carbs in that order)

Exactly! Who doesn't want to lose mainly fat? That's the point. Why is the concept of protein vs. fat vs. carb calories only reserved for "body builders"? It's a little misleading to those new to weight loss to suggest that the type of calories do not matter, don't you think? Yes, I get that when you have a great deal of weight to lose, you are going to lose mostly fat and the impact of the macros is less significant. But the principles of macros should still be understood by those trying to lose weight, because it does matter eventually. The advice to eat whatever you want as long as you are in a deficit is thrown around so casually. The notion that " I need to worry about what I eat because I am more concerned with my body composition, but you don't need to worry about it because you are not there yet" kind of annoys me. This is why some people end up so misinformed.

mschicagocubs

I think `calorie is a calorie` idea only works for people that has at least 25lbs+ to loose.
When you get down to a certain weight you will have to start watching the quality of your food to help your body get a hormonal balance to lose more weight.
I believe this is the reason why this topic is so 50-50. For heavier people `calorie is a calorie` idea works because just by reducing their intake they can loose weight…

I started with a normal range BMI ( on the heavy side but nonetheless "average") and I only wanted to lose 20 lbs. I've lost 11 so far...doing the calorie is a calorie idea. EXCEPT I make sure I reach my protein goal so that I am not losing as much muscle.

I don't think it matters necessarily what you are putting in your mouth unless you are trying to accomplish a very low body fat %.

J72FIT

I just started with iifym (not in its entirety, a lower carb version)

There are no versions. IIFYM is not a diet. It was a shorthand, created to not have to say "if it fits your macros" every single time someone asked, "can I eat (insert food) on a cut?

ndj1979

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 ...

Sure you can lose weight and not care about body composition, but that doesn't mean that your body composition isn't changing as you lose weight. During weight loss, most people don't lose only fat, they also lose muscle. Don't the same physiological processes that drive body recomposition also drive weight loss? Are they really that different? I completely understand that a calorie deficit is essential to weight loss. And that you will lose weight if you eat at a deficit, regardless of the kinds of calories you consume. But is it really that straight forward? If someone trying to achieve a body recomp should care about the source of their calories, why shouldn't somebody simply trying to lose weight? How can the quality of the calories make a difference to one person and not the other?

I think now you are just referring to a personal choice that people make.

Person A - I want to lose weight and eat in a calorie deficit but I do not want to strength train and do not care about muscle loss...< have heard this before..

Person B - I want to lose weight, maintain muscle mass, and work out/lift heavy ..

person A will just lose weight and not care if it is muscle loss = personal choice

Person B will lose weight and maintain muscle = personal choice...

At least I think that is what you are referring to ...

SezxyStef

I don't see an actual "versus" here...

If I want to lose weight I create a calorie deficet...
If I want to lose mainly fat I create a calorie deficet while ensuring I meet my macros (protine...fat...carbs in that order)

Exactly! Who doesn't want to lose mainly fat? That's the point. Why is the concept of protein vs. fat vs. carb calories only reserved for "body builders"? It's a little misleading to those new to weight loss to suggest that the type of calories do not matter, don't you think? Yes, I get that when you have a great deal of weight to lose, you are going to lose mostly fat and the impact of the macros is less significant. But the principles of macros should still be understood by those trying to lose weight, because it does matter eventually. The advice to eat whatever you want as long as you are in a deficit is thrown around so casually. The notion that " I need to worry about what I eat because I am more concerned with my body composition, but you don't need to worry about it because you are not there yet" kind of annoys me. This is why some people end up so misinformed.

You would be surprised at how many people don't care....they just want the number on the scale to go down period.

Do macros matter eventually only if you want them to....

I can almost guarantee you ask a random sampling of people on this site...what do you want to lose weight or fat...they say fat...but when told how to do that....nope not gonna happen...they just want the weight gone...be at the scale weight/clothing size...whatever

That is why a lot of the time in the General forum when asked "why am I not losing weight" the answer is you need to be in a calorie deficet is the answer...

Or you see I am cutting out all "bad foods" that calorie is a calorie statement is used...baby steps for education...

If after they hear these things they are interested in more the start looking...

I know because that's what I did...I had no idea about Macros prior to being here...all I cared about was the number on the scale...I got educated.

likitisplit

The point that "only bodybuilders need to pay attention to macros" being bad advice is a good point.

Body builders who are eating 4000 calories + a day are probably fulfilling their macro and micro needs and then adding bunches of calories on top of that. Even when they are cutting, simply being aware of what they are eating will get them 80% there.

The people who really have to maximize the nutrition they get from each meal and make hard trade-offs between protein and other foods are the people who are close to 1200 calories a day.

ninerbuff

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.

If one had a gallon of milk and a gallon of gas, it's still a gallon. If someone walked a mile or ran a mile or biked a mile, it's still a mile.
A calorie is a calorie. Does macronutrient content of that calorie make a difference in the body? Sure, but let's not confuse a STANDARD OF MEASUREMENT vs how metabolism deals with intake. Like examples above, the standards of measurement don't change because the substances/approaches are different.

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

lporter229

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.

If one had a gallon of milk and a gallon of gas, it's still a gallon. If someone walked a mile or ran a mile or biked a mile, it's still a mile.
A calorie is a calorie. Does macronutrient content of that calorie make a difference in the body? Sure, but let's not confuse a STANDARD OF MEASUREMENT vs how metabolism deals with intake. Like examples above, the standards of measurement don't change because the substances/approaches are different.

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

Of course the standard of measurement is the same. I don't think anyone is debating that. I think we all know that when people say "a calorie is a calorie" , they ARE referring to how metabolism deals with intake and how it pertains to weightloss. And from everything I have read, the opinions vary, even among experts, because research is inconclusive.

tigersword

Where did you get those numbers? Every study I've read shows TEF as 23% for protein, 10% for carbs, and 3% for fat.

Also, in a typical diet, TEF is completely irrelevant. In fact, due to the much lower TEF of fat, low carb high fat diets usually produce a lower TEF than a higher carb, lower fat diet, even if the LCHF diet has slightly higher protein. In the real world, you're talking about a difference of 10-30 calories at most.

With respect to point #1, it's a range. Complex carbs have a higher TEF than sugar, for example. Regarding the second point, can you show how you got to 10-30 calories? I think that's incorrect. You're also only comparing high-carb vs. high-fat diets. The mix of carbohydrates is significant (lots of fruits and vegetables vs. lots of refined carbs). This study found a significant difference in the thermic effect of processed foods vs. whole foods: http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144

"The goal was to determine if a particular PF meal has a greater thermodynamic efficiency than a comparable WF meal, thereby conferring a greater net-energy intake.... Conclusion: Ingestion of the particular PF meal tested in this study decreases postprandial energy expenditure by nearly 50% compared with the isoenergetic WF meal. This reduction in daily energy expenditure has potential implications for diets comprised heavily of PFs and their associations with obesity."

Just out of curiosity, did you read this actual study, or just pick the quote from the abstract? I mean, I'll admit they did a clever job of writing the abstract, but the flaws in this study are pretty major, IMO. For one, the macros are significantly different for the "whole food meal" compared to the "processed food meal." Then the stated macronutrient and calorie contents given for the various meals don't add up, either. This means there's really no way to make any kind of comparison or conclusion, as the data is flawed from the outset.

jjplato

Sure, but let's not confuse a STANDARD OF MEASUREMENT vs how metabolism deals with intake.

Yes, I get the whole unit of measure thing. You said a calorie is a calorie just as a gallon is a gallon, and I'm saying that it's a false analogy. A calorie as a unit of energy that has been digested and converted for use by the body is a calorie just like any other -- it doesn't matter where it came from. But sitting on a plate ready to be eaten, 100 calories of protein and leafy greens is not the same thing - from a weight loss perspective - as 100 calories of cake frosting. The cake frosting will deliver more net energy to the body, because the body will use more energy to digest the protein and complex carbs, and some of it will pass through the digestive tract unabsorbed.

But if you were just pointing out that a gallon is a gallon from a unit-of-measure standpoint, then I guess I have to concede the point.

jjplato

For one, the macros are significantly different for the "whole food meal" compared to the "processed food meal."

That supports my point, because the calories were equivalent. My point is that a calorie is not a calorie, so seeing different results from different macro compositions - calories being equal - is what I would expect to see.

Then the stated macronutrient and calorie contents given for the various meals don't add up, either.

Don't add up to what? The "600 calorie" WF meal was 594 calories and the correpsonding PF meal was 586. The difference is 1.3%, which they must have judged to be an acceptable margin of error.

heybales

For one, the macros are significantly different for the "whole food meal" compared to the "processed food meal."

That supports my point, because the calories were equivalent. My point is that a calorie is not a calorie, so seeing different results from different macro compositions - calories being equal - is what I would expect to see.

But they are dealing with 2 variable then - whole vs processed foods, and different macro amounts, despite calories being the same.

The study is claiming something regarding processed vs whole foods - but how would they know the pure difference in results didn't come solely from the macro differences.

Macros should have been kept the same if desire was to test what they claimed.

If you want to test macro differences, provide shakes with as natural as they care to make it.
And keep lifestyle the same between the groups.

You can also use the common TEF amounts for macros and do back of the napkin math for realistic extremes, say 50 g carbs and whatever low-carb groups decide protein should be at with fat as rest of calories, compared to say someone following RDA req's. Keeping fiber in there, because indeed as pointed out that's not calories of carbs that counts.

jjplato

But they are dealing with 2 variable then - whole vs processed foods, and different macro amounts, despite calories being the same.

I think that's a valid criticism of their method. Their study seems to support a conclusion that there is a difference between meals with different macro compositions more so than a difference between "processed" and "whole" per se.

tigersword

Also, their "whole foods" meal consisted of prepackaged bread and prepackaged cheese. And all of their nutritional information was derived from the individual food packages.

The study really was about as anti-rigorous as it could possibly be.