Research that contradicts IIFYM

Oishii

Firstly, I'll put my cards on the table: I would much rather work towards IIFYM than clean eating. So far I've only worked to If It Fits My Calories, but IIFYM seems the best, mentally healthy option to me.

However, some research seems to directly oppose IIFYM, including the research below linking fried food once a week to an increased risk of prostate cancer, compared to once a month.

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/interactive/news/fried-foods-linked-to-prostate-cancer-id801543313-t116.html

For those of you who support IIFYM, how do you process new information like this? Dismiss it, try to incorporate it into IIFYM or something else?

SergeiKay

Sorry, but how is this "directly opposes" IIFYM? Same can be said about IIFM Calories.

To answer your question, i dismiss it personally. I would also add that i do keep an eye on fiber, not just the macros.

KarenJanine

I dismiss the information.

Most people who go by IIFYM tend to eat a whole range of foods - some 'clean' some not so much. Most people would not eat fried chicken every day but maybe incoporate it once in a while as part of a varied and balanced diet.

EvgeniZyntx

Firstly, I'll put my cards on the table: I would much rather work towards IIFYM than clean eating. So far I've only worked to If It Fits My Calories, but IIFYM seems the best, mentally healthy option to me.

However, some research seems to directly oppose IIFYM, including the research below linking fried food once a week to an increased risk of prostate cancer, compared to once a month.

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/interactive/news/fried-foods-linked-to-prostate-cancer-id801543313-t116.html

For those of you who support IIFYM, how do you process new information like this? Dismiss it, try to incorporate it into IIFYM or something else?

I look at these studies and consider a bit of relevance.
- prostate cancer occurs in a very high frequency in the elderly however without being a major threat of death vs other causes. Since it is prevalent in 70%+ of eighty year olds I do not consider a 20-30% increase in individual risk to be personally significant. Really depends more on the evolution of the disease.
- i'll put it on a back boiler and wait for additional info, as I can tell that by the type of study it is likely to be a correlation result without a MOA (mechanism of action) From here I expect some studies will try to elucidate an MOA on animal models.
- I consider if this impacts my lifestyle or not - In this case I personally eat little fried food so I'm not that concerned. However, there might be an associated factor that has affected me - cooking at high temps does increase the risk of cancers - and I do have a greater tendency to pay attention to that (and that comes with a clearer MOA) - slower cooking, rawer food are my preferences, slightly influenced by what I read. More by culture, you know the French like rawer meat, etc
- Finally, a high variety of foods and preparations, very IIFYM, will likely keep you from eating deep fried more than a few types a month. (and it's too calorie rich for me....)

KenosFeoh

I think around here that IIFYM solely refers to weight loss, not to other consequences of poor nutrition. Most of us are aware of that (aren't we?).

etoiles_argentees

Firstly, I'll put my cards on the table: I would much rather work towards IIFYM than clean eating. So far I've only worked to If It Fits My Calories, but IIFYM seems the best, mentally healthy option to me.

However, some research seems to directly oppose IIFYM, including the research below linking fried food once a week to an increased risk of prostate cancer, compared to once a month.

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/interactive/news/fried-foods-linked-to-prostate-cancer-id801543313-t116.html

For those of you who support IIFYM, how do you process new information like this? Dismiss it, try to incorporate it into IIFYM or something else?

I look at these studies and consider a bit of relevance.
- prostate cancer occurs in a very high frequency in the elderly however without being a major threat of death vs other causes. Since it is prevalent in 70%+ of eighty year olds I do not consider a 20-30% increase in individual risk to be personally significant. Really depends more on the evolution of the disease.
- i'll put it on a back boiler and wait for additional info, as I can tell that by the type of study it is likely to be a correlation result without a MOA (mechanism of action) From here I expect some studies will try to elucidate an MOA on animal models.
- I consider if this impacts my lifestyle or not - In this case I personally eat little fried food so I'm not that concerned. However, there might be an associated factor that has affected me - cooking at high temps does increase the risk of cancers - and I do have a greater tendency to pay attention to that (and that comes with a clearer MOA) - slower cooking, rawer food are my preferences, slightly influenced by what I read. More by culture, you know the French like rawer meat, etc
- Finally, a high variety of foods and preparations, very IIFYM, will likely keep you from eating deep fried more than a few types a month. (and it's too calorie rich for me....)

pretty much my opinion too.

SideSteel

Firstly, I'll put my cards on the table: I would much rather work towards IIFYM than clean eating. So far I've only worked to If It Fits My Calories, but IIFYM seems the best, mentally healthy option to me.

However, some research seems to directly oppose IIFYM, including the research below linking fried food once a week to an increased risk of prostate cancer, compared to once a month.

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/interactive/news/fried-foods-linked-to-prostate-cancer-id801543313-t116.html

For those of you who support IIFYM, how do you process new information like this? Dismiss it, try to incorporate it into IIFYM or something else?

I look at these studies and consider a bit of relevance.
- prostate cancer occurs in a very high frequency in the elderly however without being a major threat of death vs other causes. Since it is prevalent in 70%+ of eighty year olds I do not consider a 20-30% increase in individual risk to be personally significant. Really depends more on the evolution of the disease.
- i'll put it on a back boiler and wait for additional info, as I can tell that by the type of study it is likely to be a correlation result without a MOA (mechanism of action) From here I expect some studies will try to elucidate an MOA on animal models.
- I consider if this impacts my lifestyle or not - In this case I personally eat little fried food so I'm not that concerned. However, there might be an associated factor that has affected me - cooking at high temps does increase the risk of cancers - and I do have a greater tendency to pay attention to that (and that comes with a clearer MOA) - slower cooking, rawer food are my preferences, slightly influenced by what I read. More by culture, you know the French like rawer meat, etc
- Finally, a high variety of foods and preparations, very IIFYM, will likely keep you from eating deep fried more than a few types a month. (and it's too calorie rich for me....)

^ Good stuff.

SideSteel

Also, if it were called "If It Fits Your Macros And You Are Immune To Carcinogens" then I would agree that this contradicts it.

Not saying that to be an asswallet, it's just that IIFYM really has zero to do with potentially harmful food products.

sofielein

Eating a bunch of death caps would probably also fit your macros in terms of protein in carbs and fiber...

UsedToBeHusky

One study does not a fact make. And to be honest, fried anything rarely fits my macros anyway!

UsedToBeHusky

I dismiss the information.

Most people who go by IIFYM tend to eat a whole range of foods - some 'clean' some not so much. Most people would not eat fried chicken every day but maybe incoporate it once in a while as part of a varied and balanced diet.

This. I only eat fried when I really really really have a craving! And even then it's a hard sell!

caribougal

Interesting. The original article says nothing, really, and I wouldn't base any decisions on it (especially since I'm not at risk for prostate cancer). But the actual study says something interesting, and if I did have elevated PCa I would take note, macros and cals be damned.

Here's the abstract: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pros.22643/abstract

"Potential mechanisms include the formation of potentially carcinogenic agents such as aldehydes, acrolein, heterocyclic amines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and acrylamide."

Since the study showed a correlation between increased risk for prostate cancer with deep fried foods, but not snack chips, it seems the issue is not the just the oil (usually canola, which I personally avoid as much as possible), but heating it at high temperatures.

"Whether this risk is specific to deep-fried foods, or whether it represents risk associated with regular intake of foods exposed to high heat and/or other aspects of the Western lifestyle, such as fast food consumption, remains to be determined."

This line basically says what I think it probably more likely, is that eating deep fried foods more than once a week is indicative of eating other unhealthy foods regularly (e.g. fast foods, processed foods). I think it's a safe bet that these men are not eating within their macros or cals.

wickedwendy6

Eating a bunch of death caps would probably also fit your macros in terms of protein in carbs and fiber...

Lol! Thanks for the giggle. :bigsmile:

_noob_

what oil was used? what temperature was the food fried at? what type of food was fried? What batter was added to the food? What was used to season food before or after cooking? what were the meals typically consumed with if anything?

jenn26point2

what oil was used? what temperature was the food fried at? what type of food was fried? What batter was added to the food? What was used to season food before or after cooking? what were the meals typically consumed with if anything?

^This.

I think it depends on the oil used. Crappy seed oils that are rancid by nature and are full of free radicals (soybean, vegetable, etc) have been linked to cancer. Using oils that hold up and don't go rancid or break into radicals (like coconut oil) will be less dangerous.

haroon_awan

Firstly, I'll put my cards on the table: I would much rather work towards IIFYM than clean eating. So far I've only worked to If It Fits My Calories, but IIFYM seems the best, mentally healthy option to me.

However, some research seems to directly oppose IIFYM, including the research below linking fried food once a week to an increased risk of prostate cancer, compared to once a month.

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/interactive/news/fried-foods-linked-to-prostate-cancer-id801543313-t116.html

For those of you who support IIFYM, how do you process new information like this? Dismiss it, try to incorporate it into IIFYM or something else?

I look at these studies and consider a bit of relevance.
- prostate cancer occurs in a very high frequency in the elderly however without being a major threat of death vs other causes. Since it is prevalent in 70%+ of eighty year olds I do not consider a 20-30% increase in individual risk to be personally significant. Really depends more on the evolution of the disease.
- i'll put it on a back boiler and wait for additional info, as I can tell that by the type of study it is likely to be a correlation result without a MOA (mechanism of action) From here I expect some studies will try to elucidate an MOA on animal models.
- I consider if this impacts my lifestyle or not - In this case I personally eat little fried food so I'm not that concerned. However, there might be an associated factor that has affected me - cooking at high temps does increase the risk of cancers - and I do have a greater tendency to pay attention to that (and that comes with a clearer MOA) - slower cooking, rawer food are my preferences, slightly influenced by what I read. More by culture, you know the French like rawer meat, etc
- Finally, a high variety of foods and preparations, very IIFYM, will likely keep you from eating deep fried more than a few types a month. (and it's too calorie rich for me....)

QFT.

mustgetmuscles1

I would have to see the actual survey to put anything behind this. This was a survey more than what I would consider a controlled study. There could be many other unhealthy factors between the two groups other than just fried foods. Or a combination of things that led to an increased risk of prostate cancer.

UsedToBeHusky

I would have to see the actual survey to put anything behind this. This was a survey more than what I would consider a controlled study. There could be many other unhealthy factors between the two groups other than just fried foods. Or a combination of things that led to an increased risk of prostate cancer.

Definitely this. People often fail to understand the difference between a coorelative and controlled study. Studies involving humans are almost never controlled which means other external factors could have impacted the outcome. Take 'em with a grain of salt. Now if you have a collection of coorelative studies that all deliver the same results, then a controlled study should be performed to confirm those results.... THEN we can say that eating fried foods once a week causes cancer.

ApexLeader

Firstly, I'll put my cards on the table: I would much rather work towards IIFYM than clean eating. So far I've only worked to If It Fits My Calories, but IIFYM seems the best, mentally healthy option to me.

However, some research seems to directly oppose IIFYM, including the research below linking fried food once a week to an increased risk of prostate cancer, compared to once a month.

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/interactive/news/fried-foods-linked-to-prostate-cancer-id801543313-t116.html

For those of you who support IIFYM, how do you process new information like this? Dismiss it, try to incorporate it into IIFYM or something else?

I look at these studies and consider a bit of relevance.
- prostate cancer occurs in a very high frequency in the elderly however without being a major threat of death vs other causes. Since it is prevalent in 70%+ of eighty year olds I do not consider a 20-30% increase in individual risk to be personally significant. Really depends more on the evolution of the disease.
- i'll put it on a back boiler and wait for additional info, as I can tell that by the type of study it is likely to be a correlation result without a MOA (mechanism of action) From here I expect some studies will try to elucidate an MOA on animal models.
- I consider if this impacts my lifestyle or not - In this case I personally eat little fried food so I'm not that concerned. However, there might be an associated factor that has affected me - cooking at high temps does increase the risk of cancers - and I do have a greater tendency to pay attention to that (and that comes with a clearer MOA) - slower cooking, rawer food are my preferences, slightly influenced by what I read. More by culture, you know the French like rawer meat, etc
- Finally, a high variety of foods and preparations, very IIFYM, will likely keep you from eating deep fried more than a few types a month. (and it's too calorie rich for me....)

jesus christ. your post is rife with common sense and even handed wisdom. you probably shouldn't be on these boards.

cwolfman13

I follow IIFYM...that doesn't mean I just eat junk all of the time because it fits my macros...on a whole, I eat primarily nutrient dense and whole foods...lean proteins and heart healthy fats...but I'm not going to scoff at a piece of cake or some fried chicken once in awhile either. NTM, a lot of junk and fried food and the like simply doesn't fit my macros without having to make some major adjustments elsewhere throughout the day. I think that most people who do IIFYM do roughly the same.

Also, diet for weight loss does not always equal diet for nutrition.

csuhar

"Whether this risk is specific to deep-fried foods, or whether it represents risk associated with regular intake of foods exposed to high heat and/or other aspects of the Western lifestyle, such as fast food consumption, remains to be determined."

This line basically says what I think it probably more likely, is that eating deep fried foods more than once a week is indicative of eating other unhealthy foods regularly (e.g. fast foods, processed foods). I think it's a safe bet that these men are not eating within their macros or cals.

I generally follow this kind of logic. As they say, "correlation does not imply causation". Right now, the indication is that people who eat a lot of deep fried foods also show higher odds of prostate cancer. They aren't saying the fried foods flip a switch that makes a man's prostate turn against him.

And it applies in the "healthy" direction, too. I think there was a commercial that promoted its product by saying "Studies show that people who eat a diet rich in whole grains have X, Y, Z benefits". They don't mention that, if someone is health conscious enough to care about eating whole grains versus processed grains, they might be more health conscious in other areas of their lives.


So I don't ignore it, but I do filter it with many of the thoughts others have put up here, particularly through the filter that I don't eat a lot of deep fried foods.