I believe that IIFYM is a cult
Options
Replies
-
The oldest living IIFYM'er is 89, the oldest living clean eater is 91, so lets wait for the verdict, shall we?
Who said that a vegan/vegetarian diet is healthy? So by default, that means that other processed junk food (probably eaten in moderation by that celebrity or she would not be where she is) is healthy because a vegan diet is not? NO.
Edit: but I would agree that Nigella's diet is healthier if it includes animal products and adequate amounts of fat.
There are healthy ways for vegans/vegetarians to hit macros. I am not either, but I have no problem with that lifestyle if that's what they choose. I see several vegetarians on MFP that hit macros consistently and make great progress with lowering body fat and increasing strength.
Is Nigella healthier than the other lady? Who really knows? At face value, she would appear so.0 -
If they had a flag it would be a poptart.
^^ now that's funny !0 -
definition of "Cult" from Merriam Webster.
1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5: a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b: the object of such devotion
c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
Adherents are very devoted to the idea that as long as you are getting enough protein, fat, and carbohydrates, but not too much, you are eating a sufficient diet. Also they argue against any opposition.
Not trolling just curious how people feel about the IIFYM crowd. Let's ensure the community doesn't allow subjective responses, so the topic as a hole doesn't become divided.
With love,
Burt
Yeah, cuz the macro defaults on MFP are the healthiest ratio and it would be a waste of time to use our own brain, monitor our own health and discover a more appropriate health promoting lifestyle.
OP: thanks for this thread. I am so sick of the one sided bashing of a certain lifestyle. Why does MFP play favourites (must be they don't like that some of us think their macro defaults SUCK)?
I may be misreading this... but from what I know... most of the IIFYM cult members I know do NOT accept the MFP defaults. In fact, I don't know if any I know do...
My experience is exactly the opposite. IIFYM people are usually refering to the defaults because they assume that the recommended high carb/low fat MFP plan is THE healthy way to eat and that eating junk is just fine IIFYM.
I think you are making many assumptions that are incorrect regardin IIFYM.0 -
My experience is exactly the opposite. IIFYM people are usually refering to the defaults because they assume that the recommended high carb/low fat MFP plan is THE healthy way to eat and that eating junk is just fine IIFYM.
Actually, no. Let's refer to IIFYM as flexible dieting instead. Eating junk all the time isn't going to work for anyone. All it's basically stating is that if you are eating nutritious foods 80-90% of the time, then you can leave room for treats as long as you can fit those treats into your calorie and macro limits. It's not complicated and it isn't some hard fast diet regimen.
ETA: Most flexible dieters adjust their macros.0 -
Sacrilegious !!!!! The truest pizza cults only worship meat-lovers pizzas.0 -
That makes sense. Sugar, however, is measured in grams... and it's true that at least in processed form, as the food pyramid says, there is no daily 'recommended' amount. Still, I'm curious to see if any IIFYMers set a cap or minimum on their sugar intake as well, or whether they just don't care about it or pay attention at all.
True - and as far as I'm aware, sugar is a component of carbohydrates. Based on my understanding, IIFYM logic would argue that limitless sugar is fine - - as long as you don't exceed your overall carbs.
Don't know what to tell you about the default MFP Macro split except for some reason it is crazy high in carbs by default.
Crazy high in carbs and crazy low in fat but it's supposedly the epitomy of health for everyone. For those it works for, great, but if I had a dime for every thread titled "help me, I can lose weight, I can't stop craving, I just binged, I'm depressed, I keep failing, I'm losing my hair, I've got diabetes, etc" I'd be rich. For some reason, the logic that food affects health is just lost on most people. When the evidence challenges one's "beliefs", the beliefs usually win and the evidence is ignored/ridiculed and quickly disregarded.
Yes, and these people are not losing weight because they are eating too much and excercising too little, not because they aren't "doing paleo".
Did I say that? It's funny how a "balanced" diet often can't resolve cravings and binging and many other health problems. Funny thing that some lifestyles can resolve these problems just by changing what one eats. And it's wrong to share experiences with people who aren't having success on a "balanced" diet... because no one has the guts to let them know that there is a different way that may work for them?
But nah, just let them fail and struggle with hunger, and feel like losers; they're just lazy pigs who don't get enough exercise.0 -
The oldest living IIFYM'er is 89, the oldest living clean eater is 91, so lets wait for the verdict, shall we?
And the oldest living smoker died when she was 115.....
of lung cancer!!!
^^^ does it matter what you die of at 115?0 -
definition of "Cult" from Merriam Webster.
1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5: a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b: the object of such devotion
c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
Adherents are very devoted to the idea that as long as you are getting enough protein, fat, and carbohydrates, but not too much, you are eating a sufficient diet. Also they argue against any opposition.
Not trolling just curious how people feel about the IIFYM crowd. Let's ensure the community doesn't allow subjective responses, so the topic as a hole doesn't become divided.
With love,
Burt
Yeah, cuz the macro defaults on MFP are the healthiest ratio and it would be a waste of time to use our own brain, monitor our own health and discover a more appropriate health promoting lifestyle.
OP: thanks for this thread. I am so sick of the one sided bashing of a certain lifestyle. Why does MFP play favourites (must be they don't like that some of us think their macro defaults SUCK)?
I may be misreading this... but from what I know... most of the IIFYM cult members I know do NOT accept the MFP defaults. In fact, I don't know if any I know do...
My experience is exactly the opposite. IIFYM people are usually refering to the defaults because they assume that the recommended high carb/low fat MFP plan is THE healthy way to eat and that eating junk is just fine IIFYM.
I'm IIFYM and I don't do the MFP defaults I do my own split 40/30/30.. that's MY thing.. MY body seems to be more responsive to that.. too low of fat makes me crabby. I think there are plenty of IIFYM'ers who adjust theres to meet specific goals for nutrition and physique
I also am not an extremist in any regard.0 -
definition of "Cult" from Merriam Webster.
1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5: a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b: the object of such devotion
c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
Adherents are very devoted to the idea that as long as you are getting enough protein, fat, and carbohydrates, but not too much, you are eating a sufficient diet. Also they argue against any opposition.
Not trolling just curious how people feel about the IIFYM crowd. Let's ensure the community doesn't allow subjective responses, so the topic as a hole doesn't become divided.
With love,
Burt
Yeah, cuz the macro defaults on MFP are the healthiest ratio and it would be a waste of time to use our own brain, monitor our own health and discover a more appropriate health promoting lifestyle.
OP: thanks for this thread. I am so sick of the one sided bashing of a certain lifestyle. Why does MFP play favourites (must be they don't like that some of us think their macro defaults SUCK)?
I may be misreading this... but from what I know... most of the IIFYM cult members I know do NOT accept the MFP defaults. In fact, I don't know if any I know do...
My experience is exactly the opposite. IIFYM people are usually refering to the defaults because they assume that the recommended high carb/low fat MFP plan is THE healthy way to eat and that eating junk is just fine IIFYM.
The IIFYMers I know do 1 gram of protein per pound of LBM, .35 grams of fat per pound of body weight, and the rest carbs. That's how I have mine set.
ETA: or 40/30/30, or something similar0 -
My experience is exactly the opposite. IIFYM people are usually refering to the defaults because they assume that the recommended high carb/low fat MFP plan is THE healthy way to eat and that eating junk is just fine IIFYM.
Then you've been checking the wrong food diaries.
Most of the IIFYM folks that I know aim for 1g of protein minimum per pound of lean body mass, .35g fat minimum per pound of total body weight, and fill the rest with carbs as it fits your calories.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets
For me, that means a minimum of 110g protein and 47g fat . I have my macro settings at 50% carbs, 30% fat and 20% protein, which gives me 288c - 56f - 115p with my TDEE of 2300 calories.
To avoid confusion when giving advice, personally, I often suggest if you're going by the MFP defaults, to treat protein and fat as minimums to go pass and carbs as a maximum to stay under.0 -
In for pizza, cheeseburgers and poptarts. Oh -and French fries - those are my weakness.
This0 -
IIFYM is not related to MFP in any way shape or form.0
-
0 -
That makes sense. Sugar, however, is measured in grams... and it's true that at least in processed form, as the food pyramid says, there is no daily 'recommended' amount. Still, I'm curious to see if any IIFYMers set a cap or minimum on their sugar intake as well, or whether they just don't care about it or pay attention at all.
True - and as far as I'm aware, sugar is a component of carbohydrates. Based on my understanding, IIFYM logic would argue that limitless sugar is fine - - as long as you don't exceed your overall carbs.
Don't know what to tell you about the default MFP Macro split except for some reason it is crazy high in carbs by default.
Crazy high in carbs and crazy low in fat but it's supposedly the epitomy of health for everyone. For those it works for, great, but if I had a dime for every thread titled "help me, I can lose weight, I can't stop craving, I just binged, I'm depressed, I keep failing, I'm losing my hair, I've got diabetes, etc" I'd be rich. For some reason, the logic that food affects health is just lost on most people. When the evidence challenges one's "beliefs", the beliefs usually win and the evidence is ignored/ridiculed and quickly disregarded.
Yes, and these people are not losing weight because they are eating too much and excercising too little, not because they aren't "doing paleo".
Did I say that? It's funny how a "balanced" diet often can't resolve cravings and binging and many other health problems. Funny thing that some lifestyles can resolve these problems just by changing what one eats. And it's wrong to share experiences with people who aren't having success on a "balanced" diet... because no one has the guts to let them know that there is a different way that may work for them?
But nah, just let them fail and struggle with hunger, and feel like losers; they're just lazy pigs who don't get enough exercise.
Don't think I said any of that. I don't have a problem with someone doing a lower carb diet, if they can sustain it (i did a low carb diet <50 grams of carbs per day for several years). I'm also glad after looking at your profile you are having success. Most people can't, and become prone to binge eating because they are either "on" or "off" the diet. Your posts are the ones mocking people that eat carbs and attributing several illnesses to a type of diet with no substantiation.
ETA: And bottom line is, that person if they are overreating with Paleo foods (unlike you, where in your diary it seems you are in the 1500-1700 calorie range) they are going to continue to struggle to drop the weight.0 -
Did I say that? It's funny how a "balanced" diet often can't resolve cravings and binging and many other health problems. Funny thing that some lifestyles can resolve these problems just by changing what one eats. And it's wrong to share experiences with people who aren't having success on a "balanced" diet... because no one has the guts to let them know that there is a different way that may work for them?
But nah, just let them fail and struggle with hunger, and feel like losers; they're just lazy pigs who don't get enough exercise.
Actually it often can and does.
http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/the-dirt-on-clean-eating/All-or-Nothing Dieting & Eating Disorder Risk
In 1997, a general physician named Steven Bratman coined the term orthorexia nervosa [21], which he defines as, “an unhealthy obsession with eating healthy food.” It reminds me of the counterproductive dietary perfectionism I’ve seen among many athletes, trainers, and coaches. One of the fundamental pitfalls of dichotomizing foods as good or bad, or clean or dirty, is that it can form a destructive relationship with food. This isn’t just an empty claim; it’s been seen in research. Smith and colleagues found that flexible dieting was associated with the absence of overeating, lower bodyweight, and the absence of depression and anxiety [22]. They also found that a strict all-or-nothing approach to dieting was associated with overeating and increased bodyweight. Similarly, Stewart and colleagues found that rigid dieting was associated with symptoms of an eating disorder, mood disturbances, and anxiety [23]. Flexible dieting was not highly correlated with these qualities. Although these are observational study designs with self-reported data, anyone who spends enough time among fitness buffs knows that these findings are not off the mark.0 -
I agree with the "IIFYM" ideology though I tend to go with clean eating myself. While you can eat whatever you want as long as it reaches your macros in terms of weight ans muscle gain/loss, the long term health effects are not taken into account and I'm trying to be healthy for both now and in the future so I see no reason not to eat clean.0
-
Today I hit my carb, fat and protein targets EXACTLY (see my diary) while consuming two theater sized boxes of candy. Can I join the cult? Where should I send my application?0
-
Anyone have a strawman gif?0
-
Did I say that? It's funny how a "balanced" diet often can't resolve cravings and binging and many other health problems. Funny thing that some lifestyles can resolve these problems just by changing what one eats. And it's wrong to share experiences with people who aren't having success on a "balanced" diet... because no one has the guts to let them know that there is a different way that may work for them?
But nah, just let them fail and struggle with hunger, and feel like losers; they're just lazy pigs who don't get enough exercise.
Actually it often can and does.
http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/the-dirt-on-clean-eating/All-or-Nothing Dieting & Eating Disorder Risk
In 1997, a general physician named Steven Bratman coined the term orthorexia nervosa [21], which he defines as, “an unhealthy obsession with eating healthy food.” It reminds me of the counterproductive dietary perfectionism I’ve seen among many athletes, trainers, and coaches. One of the fundamental pitfalls of dichotomizing foods as good or bad, or clean or dirty, is that it can form a destructive relationship with food. This isn’t just an empty claim; it’s been seen in research. Smith and colleagues found that flexible dieting was associated with the absence of overeating, lower bodyweight, and the absence of depression and anxiety [22]. They also found that a strict all-or-nothing approach to dieting was associated with overeating and increased bodyweight. Similarly, Stewart and colleagues found that rigid dieting was associated with symptoms of an eating disorder, mood disturbances, and anxiety [23]. Flexible dieting was not highly correlated with these qualities. Although these are observational study designs with self-reported data, anyone who spends enough time among fitness buffs knows that these findings are not off the mark.
I won't comment on the validity of the research as I haven't read it but I would say it's spot on for me. The rise in the anxiety I felt towards food and binge eating coincided with me starting low carb dieting. I was either doing the diet or I wasn't, and when I wasn't, I was binge eating and feeling depressed afterward.0 -
My experience is exactly the opposite. IIFYM people are usually refering to the defaults because they assume that the recommended high carb/low fat MFP plan is THE healthy way to eat and that eating junk is just fine IIFYM.
Then you've been checking the wrong food diaries.
Most of the IIFYM folks that I know aim for 1g of protein minimum per pound of lean body mass, .35g fat minimum per pound of total body weight, and fill the rest with carbs as it fits your calories.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets
For me, that means a minimum of 110g protein and 47g fat . I have my macro settings at 50% carbs, 30% fat and 20% protein, which gives me 288c - 56f - 115p with my TDEE of 2300 calories.
To avoid confusion when giving advice, personally, I often suggest if you're going by the MFP defaults, to treat protein and fat as minimums to go pass and carbs as a maximum to stay under.
QFT0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions