IIFYM. If you don't know what this means, GIH

Good post! Forget the lettuce and broccoli and eat some food!

You can actually eat all the lettuce and broccoli that you want as long as it fits your macros.

Theory is sound, I tend to fill in extra calories with tasty foods, but my macros and deficit pretty much make me stay on a more normal diet path. Good luck getting all the needed macro/micro nutrients on 1k defecit a day, while eating enough low cal foods so you aren't plagued by hunger all day. If you can do it eating junk, more power to you, but I do prefer to fill my day in with foods that are more beneficial to my overall health.

I agree...i would rather worry about eating foods that are good for me than worrying how i can fit a big mac into my macros.

Next time you decide to steal someone else's blog post be a doll and give them credit!!!!!!!

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=133160853&highlight=Iifym.+don't+means

HAH!

now THAT'S amazing.

Next time you decide to steal someone else's blog post be a doll and give them credit!!!!!!!

:flowerforyou: ..no more flower for you :devil:

Awesome, post! Everything in moderation! :flowerforyou:

awesome...now lets all make bacon burgers minus the buns!!!!

I use lettuce in place of the buns.. it's filing but yummy too

Lettuce is filling?

IMHO, there is no more worthless "vegetable" than lettuce.

I am decidedly anti-lettuce....so much so that I consider this site to be MyFitnessPAL, where PAL = People Against Lettuce.

I've only looked at the first page but I can't help but notice all the in shape people replying to this thread...Perhaps it's a sign :P

I don't want to spoil it for you, but there's an interesting twist on page two. I hope you keep reading.

I've only looked at the first page but I can't help but notice all the in shape people replying to this thread...Perhaps it's a sign :P

I don't want to spoil it for you, but there's an interesting twist on page two. I hope you keep reading.

Well, at least he plagiarized/stole something that makes good sense. :bigsmile:

Why would you WANT me to read that, now I'm full of disappointment

And yes, at least he plagiarized good advice, not like those other ones lol.

It's worked for me..

My two cents to this thread: Whether it was plagiarized or not, thank you for explaining IIFYM. A lot of people throw that acronym around and it was nice to read a (mostly) non-condescending explanation.

However, the whole point of IIFYM is "if". That one word means this-- IF someone chooses NOT to follow the IIFYM lifestyle, that does not make them a health snob. That doesn't mean they don't believe in "everything in moderation". And in fact, that phrase alone does not mean that you should eat some of -every- food available to you, just because it is. I have no issue with eventually cutting fast food out of my life completely, except on very rare occasions (less than once a month at most), because that food is like limp, iceberg lettuce-- worthless for your body. And so are a lot of processed foods, including donuts, TV dinners, and Kraft Mac 'n Cheese. I enjoy eating those foods on occasion, but looking back, the times in my life that I felt crappiest were the times where I ate whatever I wanted and didn't give a damn about nutritional content. (That doesn't mean I was always binging, by the way, which is my other beef with IIFYMers always assuming that a binge is imminent for someone attempting to have a truly healthy diet, and never is imminent for someone following IIFYM. That logic makes no sense to me whatsoever.)

The wonderful curse of our current age is that so many foods are made for convenience rather than health. And those foods may be tasty, and you may feel satisfied eating them, but why would you settle for eating those for the rest of your life? Wouldn't the ultimate goal be to reach a food diet that not only is healthy for you and gives you lots of nutrients and energy (and also doing things like reducing your risk for various diseases and strengthening your immune system), but is ALSO satisfying to your tastebuds? Produce is delicious. There are so many more fruits and vegetables available to us than are in most "regular" foods. And yes, they may be more expensive and harder to find than your basic apples and carrots, but when a sandwich at a fast food place is approaching $4 a la carte, you can work it in. And yes, it does require a lot more effort to cook a meal with few processed items than to go through the drive-through, but guess what? Being healthy takes work!!

Think of it this way, people who are going to flame me: You're a parent. You do your best to prepare your child and support them through school, but despite your best promptings, they barely pass through their classes with C's and D's. "But that's average," they say, "That's all I want to be. I want to enjoy my childhood, and stressing out over grades simply isn't going to cut it for me." Would you just sit back and be okay with that reasoning, if you knew in your heart that they could easily do better?

Every time IIFYM comes up, there are people who enter the discussion with this type of polarized "all or nothing" thinking. Lyle McDonald wrote a piece titled "Excluding the Middle" which sums it up perfectly. Basically, it says that people who engage in this thinking can only fathom two extremes - you either are completely obsessive about your food choices 100% of the time and never let anything "bad" pass your lips, or you wallow in fast foods and junk all day, every day. There's plenty of middle ground between the two extremes and it's entirely possible to have a healthy, wholesome diet without resorting to orthorexia.

^ Excellent.

Said article is here and many would benefit by reading it: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html

...but looking back, the times in my life that I felt crappiest were the times where I ate whatever I wanted and didn't give a damn about nutritional content...

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of IIFYM. It does not mean "eat whatever and don't give a damn about nutritional content". SideSteel sums it up nicely in his IIFYM thread/discussion:

...When practicing IIFYM, it is recommended that you choose mostly whole and nutrient dense foods to comprise the majority of your intake. Fresh vegetables, fruits, meats, fish, etc, and at the same time, leaving some room for a discretionary intake. A common and very reasonable recommendation would be about 80/20. That is to say, that if you've got a calorie target of 2500, you'd eat approximately 2000 calories of whole and nutrient dense foods with a calorie bank of 500 to eat whatever you would like while still hitting your calorie and macronutrient targets by end of day.

I don't see how this advocates "eat what I want and don't give a damn about nutritional content".

The wonderful curse of our current age is that so many foods are made for convenience rather than health. And those foods may be tasty, and you may feel satisfied eating them, but why would you settle for eating those for the rest of your life? Wouldn't the ultimate goal be to reach a food diet that not only is healthy for you and gives you lots of nutrients and energy (and also doing things like reducing your risk for various diseases and strengthening your immune system), but is ALSO satisfying to your tastebuds? Produce is delicious. There are so many more fruits and vegetables available to us than are in most "regular" foods. And yes, they may be more expensive and harder to find than your basic apples and carrots, but when a sandwich at a fast food place is approaching $4 a la carte, you can work it in. And yes, it does require a lot more effort to cook a meal with few processed items than to go through the drive-through, but guess what? Being healthy takes work!!

Think of it this way, people who are going to flame me: You're a parent. You do your best to prepare your child and support them through school, but despite your best promptings, they barely pass through their classes with C's and D's. "But that's average," they say, "That's all I want to be. I want to enjoy my childhood, and stressing out over grades simply isn't going to cut it for me." Would you just sit back and be okay with that reasoning, if you knew in your heart that they could easily do better?

Which again totally misstates the concept of IIFYM. The idea isn't to cram as much junk as possible down your hole while meeting absolute minimal nutrition standards. The idea is to have a healthy diet comprised of mostly whole, nutritious foods while not being orthorexic and obsessive about the occasional splurge. To use your schoolkid analogy, it's like being happy about your kid getting A's the vast majority of the time without flying into a screaming rage and beating them within an inch of their life when they occasionally come home with a C or D.

Every time IIFYM comes up, there are people who enter the discussion with this type of polarized "all or nothing" thinking. Lyle McDonald wrote a piece titled "Excluding the Middle" which sums it up perfectly. Basically, it says that people who engage in this thinking can only fathom two extremes - you either are completely obsessive about your food choices 100% of the time and never let anything "bad" pass your lips, or you wallow in fast foods and junk all day, every day. There's plenty of middle ground between the two extremes and it's entirely possible to have a healthy, wholesome diet without resorting to orthorexia.

Everything here.

Very good response.

...but looking back, the times in my life that I felt crappiest were the times where I ate whatever I wanted and didn't give a damn about nutritional content...

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of IIFYM. It does not mean "eat whatever and don't give a damn about nutritional content". SideSteel sums it up nicely in his IIFYM thread/discussion:

...When practicing IIFYM, it is recommended that you choose mostly whole and nutrient dense foods to comprise the majority of your intake. Fresh vegetables, fruits, meats, fish, etc, and at the same time, leaving some room for a discretionary intake. A common and very reasonable recommendation would be about 80/20. That is to say, that if you've got a calorie target of 2500, you'd eat approximately 2000 calories of whole and nutrient dense foods with a calorie bank of 500 to eat whatever you would like while still hitting your calorie and macronutrient targets by end of day.

I don't see how this advocates "eat what I want and don't give a damn about nutritional content".

The wonderful curse of our current age is that so many foods are made for convenience rather than health. And those foods may be tasty, and you may feel satisfied eating them, but why would you settle for eating those for the rest of your life? Wouldn't the ultimate goal be to reach a food diet that not only is healthy for you and gives you lots of nutrients and energy (and also doing things like reducing your risk for various diseases and strengthening your immune system), but is ALSO satisfying to your tastebuds? Produce is delicious. There are so many more fruits and vegetables available to us than are in most "regular" foods. And yes, they may be more expensive and harder to find than your basic apples and carrots, but when a sandwich at a fast food place is approaching $4 a la carte, you can work it in. And yes, it does require a lot more effort to cook a meal with few processed items than to go through the drive-through, but guess what? Being healthy takes work!!

Think of it this way, people who are going to flame me: You're a parent. You do your best to prepare your child and support them through school, but despite your best promptings, they barely pass through their classes with C's and D's. "But that's average," they say, "That's all I want to be. I want to enjoy my childhood, and stressing out over grades simply isn't going to cut it for me." Would you just sit back and be okay with that reasoning, if you knew in your heart that they could easily do better?

Which again totally misstates the concept of IIFYM. The idea isn't to cram as much junk as possible down your hole while meeting absolute minimal nutrition standards. The idea is to have a healthy diet comprised of mostly whole, nutritious foods while not being orthorexic and obsessive about the occasional splurge. To use your schoolkid analogy, it's like being happy about your kid getting A's the vast majority of the time without flying into a screaming rage and beating them within an inch of their life when they occasionally come home with a C or D.

Every time IIFYM comes up, there are people who enter the discussion with this type of polarized "all or nothing" thinking. Lyle McDonald wrote a piece titled "Excluding the Middle" which sums it up perfectly. Basically, it says that people who engage in this thinking can only fathom two extremes - you either are completely obsessive about your food choices 100% of the time and never let anything "bad" pass your lips, or you wallow in fast foods and junk all day, every day. There's plenty of middle ground between the two extremes and it's entirely possible to have a healthy, wholesome diet without resorting to orthorexia.

Okay, perhaps I didn't explain the point I actually wanted to explain properly. My main beef with the IIFYM ideology is that it argues for including any and every food in your day to day diet, so long as the rest of what you're eating is nutritious. I don't see anything wrong with allowing yourself to eat foods that are "junky" once in a while, such as chips, ice cream, etc. I myself still am at a point where I overindulge on the "bad" stuff, and it will be a process to get to the point where I'm satisfied with my diet. But there ARE certain overprocessed foods that I think I could happily live without, and yet I don't think that makes me orthorexic. I think that you can eliminate certain foods from your scope of culinary enjoyment (white rice/bread, pancakes, hash browns, just to name a few) without going to "extremes" and without limiting your diet so much that it feels like a chore. After all, there are literally billions of foods to be made and tried. And yet try to say that fast food or frozen meals should be avoided and you get your *kitten* scorched from being flamed so hard. It just doesn't make sense to me that on a site where we are all (supposedly) trying to improve our health, that we continue to argue for the right to eat foods that do nothing for our bodies...?