For those who made the switch from calorie counting to IIFYM

wheird

show previous quotes

I don't see evidence that your macros make a difference beyond hitting some pretty low minimums for each category. There are substances like fiber, fructose and carnitine that have effects on health beyond the net calories they provide, but those don't really deal with macros.

This is another reason why eating 'clean' is important, even if you're practicing IIFYM. That way you are still getting all of the correct amounts of micronutrients inherently from eating the right amount of macronutrients. It's not always fail-proof, but the clean eating route is much healthier in the aspect of micronutrient intake.

I partially agree with you. I personally feel that a lot of your diet should be made up of various veggies and a couple fruits for their micronutrient profiles. But strict clean eating is not necessary in my book. I enjoy foods.

dopeysmelly

From a purely mental attitude, I personally have found it easier to work up to protein/fiber/fat macros and then juggle the calories using IIFYM philosophy than cut down on calories. It feels like I'm adding things to my diet rather than taking them away or depriving myself.

snikkins

I'm enjoying the "switch" from just calorie counting to IIFYM, but I'll mention, it isn't easy!

I really need to start having my "treat" at night; the treat part is easy, the macro hitting a bit less so! :laugh:

Jacwhite22

I'm debating on switching over to the iIfym style. I am lifting now as opposed to just cardio. I do cardio twice a week (Zumba). Other than that I lift four days and want to put on some muscle.

For those who made the switch or do the IIFYM, was/is it a positive experience? And do you still strictly just eat healthy foods to fit your macros? And lastly, how did you determine the macros that worked best for you? ie. Websites, etc


Thanks!

How can it FYM if you aren't calorie counting.....

SezxyStef

show previous quotes

I don't see evidence that your macros make a difference beyond hitting some pretty low minimums for each category. There are substances like fiber, fructose and carnitine that have effects on health beyond the net calories they provide, but those don't really deal with macros.

I exercise a lot, so I eat a lot of carbs because they're fuel for doing stuff.

:noway: :noway: :noway: :huh: :huh: :huh:

ok....

Yup. You can make faces, but you didn't provide evidence.

Here's something:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa0804748

"Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00072995.)"

Of course, there are various times when macros do matter.

The bigger your calorie deficit, the more it's going to seem that the macros matter.

When you're cutting:

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/19927027/reload=0;jsessionid=T7ZFb936s9Kcq68ATjtc.26

"CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that approximately 2.3 g x kg(-1) or approximately 35% protein was significantly superior to approximately 1.0 g x kg(-1) or approximately 15% energy protein for maintenance of lean body mass in young healthy athletes during short-term hypoenergetic weight loss. "

When you're an endurance athlete:

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/141/5/890.short

"In conclusion, this systematic review indicates that ingestion of CHO consistent with current recommendations at a rate of 30–80 g/h (typically from CHO-electrolyte beverages at concentrations of 6–8%) during endurance exercise of at least 1 h improves TT, TTE, submax+TT, and submax+TTE performance."

---

Anyway. For weight maintenance, macros don't seem to matter much.

Maybe I misunderstand your point.
But I am on a cut right now, and I can say that my macros matter.

I mean I am sure I could cut out a lot of protein and fat, and just fill the void with carbs....

But I still lift and workout, so I know if I do that, I will be eating into muscle....
ANd I will be honest....at this point, I don't have a lot to spare.

So hitting my macros are important to me, and I believe they do matter, for the goal I am working towards.

My point is that when you're maintaining weight or are just trying to lose weight, macros don't matter much. They only matter in specific circumstances. The OP did not describe a situation where macros would matter.

No for weight loss macros don't matter you just need a calorie deficet but the point of IIFYM is to hit macros and stay in calorie goal so that you lose "fat" not fat and muscle as you lose weight.

So it goes without saying that switching from calorie counting to IIFYM means you are concerned with body comp not just weight loss or maintaining.

MityMax96

show previous quotes

I don't see evidence that your macros make a difference beyond hitting some pretty low minimums for each category. There are substances like fiber, fructose and carnitine that have effects on health beyond the net calories they provide, but those don't really deal with macros.

I exercise a lot, so I eat a lot of carbs because they're fuel for doing stuff.

:noway: :noway: :noway: :huh: :huh: :huh:

ok....

Yup. You can make faces, but you didn't provide evidence.

Here's something:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa0804748

"Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00072995.)"

Of course, there are various times when macros do matter.

The bigger your calorie deficit, the more it's going to seem that the macros matter.

When you're cutting:

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/19927027/reload=0;jsessionid=T7ZFb936s9Kcq68ATjtc.26

"CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that approximately 2.3 g x kg(-1) or approximately 35% protein was significantly superior to approximately 1.0 g x kg(-1) or approximately 15% energy protein for maintenance of lean body mass in young healthy athletes during short-term hypoenergetic weight loss. "

When you're an endurance athlete:

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/141/5/890.short

"In conclusion, this systematic review indicates that ingestion of CHO consistent with current recommendations at a rate of 30–80 g/h (typically from CHO-electrolyte beverages at concentrations of 6–8%) during endurance exercise of at least 1 h improves TT, TTE, submax+TT, and submax+TTE performance."

---

Anyway. For weight maintenance, macros don't seem to matter much.

Maybe I misunderstand your point.
But I am on a cut right now, and I can say that my macros matter.

I mean I am sure I could cut out a lot of protein and fat, and just fill the void with carbs....

But I still lift and workout, so I know if I do that, I will be eating into muscle....
ANd I will be honest....at this point, I don't have a lot to spare.

So hitting my macros are important to me, and I believe they do matter, for the goal I am working towards.

My point is that when you're maintaining weight or are just trying to lose weight, macros don't matter much. They only matter in specific circumstances. The OP did not describe a situation where macros would matter.

So then you would tell a person who is dieting to not pay attention to their fat and protein intake??
That is just don't matter??

Sorry I disagree.
Even while maintaining or dropping weight, macros still matter.....
Yes caloric deficit is still the big thing....
But getting macros right for your needs is still very important.

wheird

show previous quotes

I don't see evidence that your macros make a difference beyond hitting some pretty low minimums for each category. There are substances like fiber, fructose and carnitine that have effects on health beyond the net calories they provide, but those don't really deal with macros.

I exercise a lot, so I eat a lot of carbs because they're fuel for doing stuff.

:noway: :noway: :noway: :huh: :huh: :huh:

ok....

Yup. You can make faces, but you didn't provide evidence.

Here's something:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa0804748

"Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00072995.)"

Of course, there are various times when macros do matter.

The bigger your calorie deficit, the more it's going to seem that the macros matter.

When you're cutting:

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/19927027/reload=0;jsessionid=T7ZFb936s9Kcq68ATjtc.26

"CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that approximately 2.3 g x kg(-1) or approximately 35% protein was significantly superior to approximately 1.0 g x kg(-1) or approximately 15% energy protein for maintenance of lean body mass in young healthy athletes during short-term hypoenergetic weight loss. "

When you're an endurance athlete:

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/141/5/890.short

"In conclusion, this systematic review indicates that ingestion of CHO consistent with current recommendations at a rate of 30–80 g/h (typically from CHO-electrolyte beverages at concentrations of 6–8%) during endurance exercise of at least 1 h improves TT, TTE, submax+TT, and submax+TTE performance."

---

Anyway. For weight maintenance, macros don't seem to matter much.

Maybe I misunderstand your point.
But I am on a cut right now, and I can say that my macros matter.

I mean I am sure I could cut out a lot of protein and fat, and just fill the void with carbs....

But I still lift and workout, so I know if I do that, I will be eating into muscle....
ANd I will be honest....at this point, I don't have a lot to spare.

So hitting my macros are important to me, and I believe they do matter, for the goal I am working towards.

My point is that when you're maintaining weight or are just trying to lose weight, macros don't matter much. They only matter in specific circumstances. The OP did not describe a situation where macros would matter.

No for weight loss macros don't matter you just need a calorie deficet but the point of IIFYM is to hit macros and stay in calorie goal so that you lose "fat" not fat and muscle as you lose weight.

So it goes without saying that switching from calorie counting to IIFYM means you are concerned with body comp not just weight loss or maintaining.

Ahhh, I think I understand your point. I agree that in terms of pure weight loss, only the deficit matters. But in terms of body comp, macros are much more important.

Morgaath

My favorite example of IIFYM eating is Kane Sumbat.
He likes to eat 6-12 Krispy Kremes a week.
www.simplyshredded.com/kane-sumabat.html

He is also 1" taller, and 15lbs lighter than me, so as a rough guess if I lose 40lbs of fat and gain 25lbs of muscle...yeah right.

MityMax96

My favorite example of IIFYM eating is Kane Sumbat.
He likes to eat 6-12 Krispy Kremes a week.
www.simplyshredded.com/kane-sumabat.html

He is also 1" taller, and 15lbs lighter than me, so as a rough guess if I lose 40lbs of fat and gain 25lbs of muscle...yeah right.

Yeah and he is like 45 yrs old.

dude is pretty damn ripped

runfatmanrun

I follow TDEE...essentially the same as IIFYM. My macros are 45c/35f/25p. I have found that it has helped me recover better after runs, especially long ones. I still play around with my macros a bit but this seems to work right now. So far a successful experience for me.

Morgaath

I follow TDEE...essentially the same as IIFYM. My macros are 45c/35f/25p. I have found that it has helped me recover better after runs, especially long ones. I still play around with my macros a bit but this seems to work right now. So far a successful experience for me.

Make sense as running is a quick burn, and carbs are the best for that.
Where as I am close to maintenance (2600cal) and trying to keep/add muscle, so 40c (260g) / 30p (195g) / 30f (87g).
I tried 40c/40p/20f ... I never came close to getting that much protein in a day.

sixpacklady

bump