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

Making food eliminations in situations that they aren't necessary or even beneficial is detrimental. Even if it doesn't feel like a chore, the individual should try to keep dietary adherence high. Arbitrarily eliminating white rice for example, when it can be EASILY included into a nutrient dense diet without detriment, is simply a silly practice that doesn't do anything productive.

Rewording this so the anti-moderation crew doesn't get their jimmies rustled: If you don't enjoy white rice, obviously don't eat it. Same with pancakes. Same with anything. I'm not arguing that you SHOULD include every possible enjoyable food into your diet. I'm simply trying to convey that it's important to understand that individual food items in isolation are not inherently lipogenic, and you don't have to view certain foods as bad or off limits if you are able to fit them into a diet that is otherwise nutrient dense and of the appropriate total intake.

Well said. My point is that I could arbitrarily eliminate those things from my diet, but why should I? I like sushi. I like Chinese food on an occasional basis. If they fit into my macros in the context of whole nutrition, why should I wring my hands because somebody with an axe to grind has classified them as "bad" foods? They're not "bad" to me - I'm in good health, my body fat percentage is going down, my workouts are going well and I don't feel a need to gloat (to myself or anybody else) about what a "clean" eater I am. I'd rather be satisfied and enjoy my meals as much as possible within the overall context of a well-rounded, nutritious, healthy diet. Food is not my enemy.

No one said anything about gloating, and obviously if what you're doing is working for you, then keep doing it. I am not an advocate of 100% clean eating, either, because that IS an unhealthy extreme. However, I feel like the IIFYM ideology can mislead people who are new to dieting, and reinforce their bad habits rather than help to eliminate them. Rather than reworking your diet (over a period of time, not overnight) into something that is healthy AND you enjoy, it still has a "cheat" or "reward" aspect to it-- that you can eat whatever you want so long as it fits your macros. So, instead of developing a true taste for healthier foods, and developing the habit to WANT to choose those foods over unhealthier ones, you end up planning your entire days' eating around your window of whatever. Do you see the point I'm making, here? Obviously we all have different foods that we enjoy despite their nutritional content. But just because I really love McDonald's french fries right now doesn't mean I should just settle for loving McDonald's french fries all my life. Eventually, I'd like to reach a point where when I think of a food that makes me drool and want it immediately, it WON'T be something I can get in a drive-through or something from the bakery section of a chain grocery store. It will be something much healthier!

Are you implying that frozen foods do nothing for your body? What about fast food?

Perhaps I am still misunderstanding you.

Frozen foods encompass a large number of things, a lot of which are perfectly healthy as the fresh counterpart. I meant whole frozen meals specifically, which usually contain more preservatives and are more processed than simply flash-frozen vegetables or meats. Yes, it differs from brand to brand, and there are organic frozen meals, but I was making a generalization. And as for fast food, that is also a generalization since many restaurants are including healthier options into their menus. Still, though, the salads you get at McDonald's or the Market Fresh sandwiches from Arby's often contain just as much, if not more, fat and calories than the "bad" sandwiches. This applies to all restaurants, not just fast food, but it's easier to get the nutritional information for the large chains than the small diners and such. All that rambling aside-- yes, a Big Mac will still give you protein and other essential nutrients, and yes, you need to consume fat as part of your daily intake in order to be healthy. But it's pretty noticeable that foods like burgers, fries and pizza leave you feeling bloated and lethargic afterwards, especially if you couple it with a soda-- diet or not. I would rather choose something that would give me energy, not take it away. Plus, these foods are so calorie-dense that in order to fit them into your relatively small IIFYM window, you'd either have to downsize your portions (half a Big Mac and a third of a small order of fries) or only pick one item. This doesn't seem all that satisfying to me. I would rather wean myself off of fast food entirely than only get a few mouthfuls and be left craving more.

Going back to your question about the random foods I used as examples, no, I don't feel like eliminating those foods would make a huge impact, because I already rarely eat them. I made the switch from white to wheat bread a few years ago when my roommates got on a health kick, and have since begun to prefer it. That is my point-- that rather than feel like you are limiting yourself or eliminating a bunch of tasty foods from your diet, that you instead try to get yourself a new perspective on the foods that you enjoy. That you try to realize that there are healthier options out there that are just as satisfying. No, there is no true substitute for a bacon cheeseburger, but rather than tell yourself that you can happily include one into your daily routine and stay addicted to the taste of it, why would you not instead try to re-route your body into craving healthier things instead? That's all I'm trying to say here. The problem isn't what foods are "bad" and what foods are "good", it's the foods that we overindulge on, or the foods that we go to as comforts, or the foods we are familiar with. Even eating the same cereal every day isn't going to be good in the long run, whether it's Cocoa Puffs or Mueslix. So rather than think of it as "eliminating", why not think of it as expanding our horizons to include foods that we never ate before? Why let ourselves be held back by the foods we love now, rather than find new ones that can do better for us in the long run? How is that orthorexic?

Err what about your micros?

I see IIFYM as more geared towards weight loss than overall health, but I suppose it is possible to get macros and micros right when you are eating at maintenance or a surplus. When your goals are 2lb/loss per week, you won't be able to get both on a IIFYM diet without proper supplementation, and you will also likely be fighting hunger and cravings because you gave in to a high cal treat and can't eat for a few hours or you'll go over your macros.

There's an easy way round this. Track fibre as well.

In reality if you are tracking carbs, protein, fat and fibre then by default you will be eating mostly nutrient but not calorie dense food as well as covering your micronutrient needs. There will be a little room left over for a little of what you fancy but not huge amounts.

Mental health is important also...

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 knew there was a reason you and I are friends. I despise lettuce because it is utterly useless to me.

However, I feel like the IIFYM ideology can mislead people who are new to dieting, and reinforce their bad habits rather than help to eliminate them. Rather than reworking your diet (over a period of time, not overnight) into something that is healthy AND you enjoy, it still has a "cheat" or "reward" aspect to it-- that you can eat whatever you want so long as it fits your macros.

No. It is simply a way of achieving a balanced diet (particularly if you are tracking fibre as well as I previously said). The logistics of a properly executed IIFYM eating plan means it's simply not possible to eat large amounts of junk. It guides the individual to consider and prefer nutrient dense options over calorie dense one but gives them the flexibility to include something classed traditionally as "non diet" food as long as their nutritional goals have been meet first.

I think the problem is that lots of people have made rampant assumptions about what it entails or it has been poorly explained to them. I don't use it myself but before commenting upon it I researched it properly. It's a good way to structure your eating if applied correctly.

I read that "Excluding the Middle" article, by the way, and I don't really see how that ties in to any of what I'm saying. I don't think that people should eat 100% clean 100% of the time. I certainly don't plan on doing that myself, and I wouldn't preach it to anyone else. But just because I believe in moderation of MOST foods doesn't mean I have to advocate eating ALL foods. Out of every food under the sun, at least half of which is probably considered "clean" by most standards, there is probably only 5-10% that I would say, "No, I don't think I'll ever eat that again." I don't find that to be "excluding the middle".

I'm trying to figure out what point you are making in this thread. You seem intent on arguing with everyone, but all they are saying is that IIFYM is a tool to keep you on track when you need a treat. They aren't telling people to eat "ALL foods" as you have stated, they are showing the justification of how something a person is craving can be consumed while still losing weight. You've been on here since May 2011 and have lost 16 pounds. Some of the people you are arguing with have lost significant weight and are shredded. Not trying to be mean, but seems as though they are on the right track with having treats and not fretting.

Mental health is important also...

And beyond that - variation in food has a likelier probability of hitting micronutrients because the body tends to have specific transport and absorption processes.

Variety is not only the spice of life in terms of mental health but also a good way to provide the palate of needed micronutrients.

I'll take a realistic scenario - consider Bob that eats "clean" - He's cut out salt (he wrongly thinks "bad for you"), he's cut out eggs ("bad for you, too") and he doesn't eat fish ("for the mercury" but he really doesn't like the taste. And he lives in the red zone...



His "clean" eating puts Bob at risk of having an iodine deficiency with the resulting possible issues of goiter, cretinism, etc.
Is iodine deficiency an issue in the US? Yep, change Bob to Jane, try to get her pregnant and in the clean eating camp there is a non-negligeable risk of iodine deficiency in the northern states? Yep - 15% of child bearing aged women?

http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/83/10/3401.full

Eat the salt. Eat the eggs. IIFYM.

This is very well said!!! Thanks for writing this out so thoughtfully and sharing.

Also what people enjoy eating is going to be different per person. Some people like things that other people don't like. Sometimes it seems like people don't know that.

Also, not everyone here thinks about food in terms of weight loss. Whenever people on here talk about food people always want to know how that relates to weight loss or metabolism. Just a reminder that not everyone here is trying to lose weight or makes food choices based on that.

This is very well said!!! Thanks for writing this out so thoughtfully and sharing.

Also what people enjoy eating is going to be different per person. Some people like things that other people don't like. Sometimes it seems like people don't know that.

Also, not everyone here thinks about food in terms of weight loss. Whenever people on here talk about food people always want to know how that relates to weight loss or metabolism. Just a reminder that not everyone here is trying to lose weight or makes food choices based on that.

He did not actually write it, he plagiarized it without giving proper credit to the person who did.

This is very well said!!! Thanks for writing this out so thoughtfully and sharing.

Also what people enjoy eating is going to be different per person. Some people like things that other people don't like. Sometimes it seems like people don't know that.

Also, not everyone here thinks about food in terms of weight loss. Whenever people on here talk about food people always want to know how that relates to weight loss or metabolism. Just a reminder that not everyone here is trying to lose weight or makes food choices based on that.

He did not actually write it, he plagiarized it without giving proper credit to the person who did.

Oh no!! I didn't read the comments. Maybe someone already said that. Who wrote it?

He copy pasted it from here:

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

I can't believe I am saying this, but this is the first tread in the forums I have actually enjoyed reading in a long time!

Further evidence that nothing good comes of the MFP forums...since this was a blatantly plagiarized post.

Bump