IIFYM vs Carb Cycling

docbrox87

Hey folks,

Just wondered what your opinions/experiences are with IIFYM and carb cycling? I'm carb cycling at the moment but wondering if I might be hindering my progress by not eating enough carbs? Do you think its better to eat same amount of carbs/protein/fat everyday or do you think it's better to cycle high/lo carb and adjust fats and protein accordingly?

Also, I'm hittin 150-200g protein on a lot of days - is this too much? Is it better to lower that an go a little more high carb? I'm at 25% BF and looking to build a bit more muscle but also get down to 20-22% BF.
Thanks for reading!!!!!

TiberiusClaudis

I was struggling to lose my weight as well. Went on a low carb diet first. Usually less than 100 a day. Didn't see that much of an impact so switch over to IIFYM but also kept Carb low and had great results.

Protein amounts are one of the most debated subject on this and about any health and fitness site. I strive to get atleast 160 g min per day, I'm at 170 lbs. Most days I well surpassed that. And it seemed to work, I had min muscle loss during my cut.

Never had a problem with energy either.

Your mileage may vary, but perhaps a combo of the two would work for you like it did me.

Good Luck,
TC

Unknown

This content has been removed.

cajuntank

Neither one of them are magical "hacks" to the body for weight-loss. Both are just a ways to an end to ultimately create a caloric deficit. IIFYM just has you eating more of a balanced macronutrient spread each day where carb cycling has you eating that particular macro at specified times. Whichever one you can better adhere to from your own personal standpoint is all that matters, but don't delude yourself thinking one is better than the other because you are thinking you are "hacking" your body into doing something that a simple caloric deficit won't do.

docbrox87

Thanks for all the replies folks, I'm thinking I may just stick to what I'm doing at the moment which is a kind of hybrid of the two lol I eat high carb low fat on workout days and low carb higher fat on rest days, with protein staying consistent. I've lost 4% BF in 7 weeks so I guess I'll keep going with this until it plateaus out - I just wondered what people's opinions were on the matter and if anyone has had good/bad experiences with either program

neandermagnon

you can do IIFYM and carb cycling togther.... just raise your carb and calorie goal on the refeed days. You can do this on MFP by making a custom food entry that's got minus numbers of calories and carbs (make sure you get the maths right... it's 4 cals for each gram of carb). log it on your refeed days and it adjusts your goals accordingly.

MityMax96

Hey folks,

Just wondered what your opinions/experiences are with IIFYM and carb cycling? I'm carb cycling at the moment but wondering if I might be hindering my progress by not eating enough carbs? Do you think its better to eat same amount of carbs/protein/fat everyday or do you think it's better to cycle high/lo carb and adjust fats and protein accordingly?

Also, I'm hittin 150-200g protein on a lot of days - is this too much? Is it better to lower that an go a little more high carb? I'm at 25% BF and looking to build a bit more muscle but also get down to 20-22% BF.
Thanks for reading!!!!!

Depends on what your goals are....
And also what your stats are....

You can do protein at 0.8 gr / pound of body weight.....
If you are in the process of losing weight, so in a caloric deficit, then lift weights, and try to shoot for around 1gr of protein / pound of body weight.

Carb cycling is always an option if it works for you....

But to lose weight it is gonna be calories in, vs. calories out....
And cutting carbs back is one place in which you can cut calories

waldo56

I've never seen any scientific literature to establish either IIFYM or carb cycling as a means of effective weight loss.

Are you kidding me. If anything IIFYM is the most scientifically proven diet, so much so that it could also be called the "what has science actually proven" diet (Whasap???). That is pretty much the basis for it, what has actually been proven by science.

Calorie balance determines weight change => proven
Higher protein intake (up to ~ 1g/lb LBW) when cutting to spare muscle, and when bulking to promote muscle growth => proven
Minimum dietary fat level (~0.4g/lb LBW) needed for nutrient absorption and overall health => proven
Hit about the RDA of micronutrients on average => proven
Carbs are a better fuel for high intensity exercise => proven

Unknown

This content has been removed.

MityMax96

Wow....what a bunch of bunk.

Do yourself a favor and google "Twinkie Diet"

then rethink what u just posted

NRBreit

Based on my my own, non-scientific experience, I wouldn't overcomplicate things with carb cycling until you get very lean and start to plateau. At that point, I think there's some value to it.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

MityMax96

Wow....what a bunch of bunk.

Do yourself a favor and google "Twinkie Diet"

then rethink what u just posted

Actually I've personally discussed Mark Haub's diet with him and analyzed his results and food logs. The whole "Twinkie Diet" is a media given name and misnomer. His diet looked more like the average American diet. He took supplements to include vitamins, protein powders, and caffeine. Less than 30% of his intake came from desserts and sweets. He ate a variety of fruits and vegetables every day - more than the average American. It was far from a "Twinkie Diet".

So why say this:

Except IIFYM ignores food type and there's nothing more documented being linked to obesity and chronic illness than sugar consumption. Additionally IIFYM doesn't have a specific target macronutrient ratio making it a completely arbitrary recommendation.

Sorry I really don't understand your logic.....

I mean for what I am doing it is pretty much IIFYM
And my health markers have gotten A LOT better since I started doing it back in Aug. 2013

laurenawolf

Wow....what a bunch of bunk.

Do yourself a favor and google "Twinkie Diet"

then rethink what u just posted

Actually I've personally discussed Mark Haub's diet with him and analyzed his results and food logs. The whole "Twinkie Diet" is a media given name and misnomer. His diet looked more like the average American diet. He took supplements to include vitamins, protein powders, and caffeine. Less than 30% of his intake came from desserts and sweets. He ate a variety of fruits and vegetables every day - more than the average American. It was far from a "Twinkie Diet".

So why say this:

Except IIFYM ignores food type and there's nothing more documented being linked to obesity and chronic illness than sugar consumption. Additionally IIFYM doesn't have a specific target macronutrient ratio making it a completely arbitrary recommendation.

Sorry I really don't understand your logic.....

I mean for what I am doing it is pretty much IIFYM
And my health markers have gotten A LOT better since I started doing it back in Aug. 2013

I don't understand his logic either. I love IIFYM, and will always be an IIFYMer now. My health has greatly improved as well since I started. I eat poptarts every single day and if I die from poptarts, then I lived a damn good life.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

laurenawolf

I know IIFYM has gained a lot of popularity lately, but most the people I know using it are gym rats that want to be lazy dieters.

And I am not a "lazy dieter". 90% of the foods I eat daily are "clean" and then I treat myself with junk for the other 10%. I lift heavy weights and I am at the gym everyday, because I enjoy it. There is nothing lazy about that.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

MityMax96

In Prof. Haub's case he lost weight because he was already very overweight and he cut his caloric intake down by 1,000 calories. He doesn't even recommend that diet to anyone he was just illustrating a point that calories are the main drive to weight loss regardless of food choices. He actually failed to get blood work and the end of his diet, but all he was testing was weight loss.

I'm not saying they can't, but IIFYM leaves a lot of room for dirty eating. You could still consume a lot of sugar, for example, and for every sugary soda you drink your risk of diabetes goes up (Source: EPIC-Interact Consortium).

Technically IIFYM overlaps many diets because it's arbitrary. If you pick a macronutrient ratio and eat clean it could be IIFYM as well as vegan, omnivore, vegetarian, Atkins, ketogenic, South Beach, etc.

What is dirty eating??

Well his fault for not getting blood work done...

But I did....in Aug, and just a month ago.
And I am doing better since Aug.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

MityMax96

I don't understand his logic either. I love IIFYM, and will always be an IIFYMer now. My health has greatly improved as well since I started. I eat poptarts every single day and if I die from poptarts, then I lived a damn good life.

And that's your choice. And for those who are also choosing to eat responsibly the majority of time and exercise often it's usually not a big deal, but IIFYM is a really poor concept for those who aren't responsible dieters. IIFYM also doesn't have any scientifically demonstrated advantages over any other weight loss regime.

You do realize the point of IIFYM is to hit your macros....
So if you were to eat crap, you wouldn't be hitting your macros.....
ere go, you would not be doing IIFYM

I mean I don't think you could hit your macros, and not have a well balanced diet....just wouldn't be possible.

So if I wanted to lose weight, as you just pointed out above....eating less calories then you need will achieve this.
I don't need IIFYM for that.

But if I wish to be healthy and balanced.....then IIFYM is the way to go....while also building in a caloric deficit, if weight loss is a desire.

NRBreit

Anyone eating clean (and clean is subjective as well) 90% of the time is doing great, but IIFYM allows you to eat dirty 100% of the time.

Anyone who practices IIFYM will tell you it's nearly impossible to hit your macros eating 'dirty' all the time. You really have to keep a pretty clean diet to do it right, especially when running a deficit.

EvanKeel

, but IIFYM allows you to eat dirty 100% of the time.

Uhhh...You'll probably get some argument there and suggestions that your understanding of IIFYM is incomplete or flat out incorrect.

Not that it matters. Your assertions that food type (e.g. sugar) mean more to weight loss than CICO have been debunked into oblivion on these forums. Repeatedly.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

OtakuMusician

I will most definitely start a work out regimen once I'm a bit smaller but I'm currently doing IIFYM, and it works for me.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

EvanKeel

Not that it matters. Your assertions that food type (e.g. sugar) mean more to weight loss than CICO have been debunked into oblivion on these forums. Repeatedly.

Debunked in a health forum isn't exactly scientific. Sugar does not matter in the short term but it does in the long term. Increasing refined sugar intake (again distinguishing from natural) is associated with increased risk of diabetes. Diabetes impacts energy utilization and weight loss as well as being tightly correlated with obesity.

Do you disagree eating refined sugar increases your risk of developing diabetes?

Do you disagree that diabetes impacts energy utilization and weight loss?

I imagine that would depend on the individual. The generalized questions you present are near-useless. A person who isn't already insulin resistant, of a healthy weight, and isn't in a caloric surplus should have no problems consuming sugars, refined or otherwise. The same is true for an obese person who is losing weight. If your body doesn't have a problem metabolizing sugar, and you're aware of how much you're eating, don't worry about it.

More interestingly, you're bringing up issues of health that are impacted by weight loss rather than weight loss itself. You should be asking me if I believe that eating sugars (refined or otherwise) impacts weight loss in a caloric deficit. And no, I don't .

Unknown

This content has been removed.

beastmode_kitty

I know IIFYM has gained a lot of popularity lately, but most the people I know using it are gym rats that want to be lazy dieters.

And I am not a "lazy dieter". 90% of the foods I eat daily are "clean" and then I treat myself with junk for the other 10%. I lift heavy weights and I am at the gym everyday, because I enjoy it. There is nothing lazy about that.

^^this

I do this as well! I had a really crap weekend of eating last weekend and I ended up losing 2 pounds this week. IIFYM seems to work just fine! Tried carb cycling, didnt do much for me.

EvanKeel

Do you disagree eating refined sugar increases your risk of developing diabetes?

Do you disagree that diabetes impacts energy utilization and weight loss?

I imagine that would depend on the individual. The generalized questions you present are near-useless. A person who isn't already insulin resistant, of a healthy weight, and isn't in a caloric surplus should have no problems consuming sugars, refined or otherwise. The same is true for an obese person who is losing weight. If your body doesn't have a problem metabolizing sugar, and you're aware of how much you're eating, don't worry about it.

More interestingly, you're bringing up issues of health that are impacted by weight loss rather than weight loss itself. You should be asking me if I believe that eating sugars (refined or otherwise) impacts weight loss in a caloric deficit. And no, I don't .

You completely dodged the questions and turned it into another short term argument.

The questions are pertinent, and a bit rhetorical because there is a wealth of scientific evidence establishing it, but that means that sugar consumption over long term can cause diabetes eventually causing excess weight. So long term sugar consumption does matter.

One could also say that I avoided your questions because they're irrelevant to weight loss. You have no evidence that sugar causes weight gain in a caloric deficit. Diabetes is it's own issue and shouldn't be conflated into an argument just because you think you can vaguely reference research that points to a connection. Obesity can be linked to diabetes. And if you've gained weight because your excess calories were from sugar, then that's a flimsy connection at best.

But have fun with this: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

I believe you'll find his citations linked within the article.