Research that contradicts IIFYM

Actually, the findings do not surprise me. We've known for decades about some of the negative health impacts of deep-fried food.

One of the reasons why I am not an advocate of "if it fits your macros" approach is because it seems exclusively focused on weight loss without considering the health impact of the dietary regime to achieve that. In my mind, it is totally counter-productive and is pointless for one to achieve an ideal body weight/BF percentage if one is eating crap. You are potentially replacing one chronic condition with another.
My own perspective is that if you are focused on total wellbeing inc. a healthy balanced diet and increased regular physical activity then weight loss will become a welcome by-product. For me its a whole-of-life approach and one that is sustainable that I can carry on with for the rest of my life.
kind regards,

Ben

Bottom line for me is that my chance of getting a life threatening/disabling illness is raised due to being overweight (not prostate cancer, as I'm a woman, but other types of cancer, stroke, cardiovascular disease, dementia etc etc).

So any way of eating that is sustainable and brings my weight down is going to be beneficial for my health. For me, right now, that is IIFYM. I find it sustainable and easy and try to stick to about 80/20 (good 80% of the time).

I would love to have the commitment to eat clean, but right now I'm good 80% of the time, eating to my TDEE-20% and the weight is slowly coming off.

I'm always open to new ideas and ready to read new research (especially if it undoes the 20 years I spent as a heavy smoker - now quit) but I would not dismiss IIFYM completely, as it does have benefits.

And thanks for the info from the OP and the other posters - I always love a sensible and reasoned discussion! :flowerforyou:

Actually, the findings do not surprise me. We've known for decades about some of the negative health impacts of deep-fried food.

One of the reasons why I am not an advocate of "if it fits your macros" approach is because it seems exclusively focused on weight loss without considering the health impact of the dietary regime to achieve that. In my mind, it is totally counter-productive and is pointless for one to achieve an ideal body weight/BF percentage if one is eating crap. You are potentially replacing one chronic condition with another.
My own perspective is that if you are focused on total wellbeing inc. a healthy balanced diet and increased regular physical activity then weight loss will become a welcome by-product. For me its a whole-of-life approach and one that is sustainable that I can carry on with for the rest of my life.
kind regards,

Ben

First off, clean-eaters ALWAYS assume that IIFYM'ers are eating nothing but Twinkies all day. I eat lots of whole healthy foods all day long. As a clean-eater, you realize that eating lots of clean foods causes nice big calorie deficits. IIFYM'ers use those deficits to satisfy those cravings for the sake of mental health. Some say they can't treat themselves without bingeing. I get that. But just because I ate a cookie before bed, doesn't mean I negated the other 1500 calories of clean foods that I enjoyed that day.

First, congrats on losing 97 lbs!!! woot woot.

I'm guilty of assuming that some IIFYM'ers are eating crap all day, because that's the way many of the posts come off. I think it's because some IIFYM'ers seem to always attack people who post about eating clean/whole foods or who ask about low-carb or Paleo. Every so often for kicks and giggles I check the diary of someone who posts "eliminating any food is stupid" or who say it's all IIFYM and anything else is too restrictive. Most of the time, they're eating very clean, and pretty darn similar to how I eat (Primal). Every once in a while, it's the opposite extreme and they truly are eating (what I consider) crap all day. Their goal is to lose weight, not optimize their nutrition, so that's perfectly fine for them.

It's a mindset thing. For some, thinking IIFYM gives the structure and alleviates guilt about eating something that might not be nutritious. I do the same, by thinking "most of the time I eat Primal, so when I treat, it's OK". Same deal, different words.

Actually, the findings do not surprise me. We've known for decades about some of the negative health impacts of deep-fried food.

One of the reasons why I am not an advocate of "if it fits your macros" approach is because it seems exclusively focused on weight loss without considering the health impact of the dietary regime to achieve that. In my mind, it is totally counter-productive and is pointless for one to achieve an ideal body weight/BF percentage if one is eating crap. You are potentially replacing one chronic condition with another.
My own perspective is that if you are focused on total wellbeing inc. a healthy balanced diet and increased regular physical activity then weight loss will become a welcome by-product. For me its a whole-of-life approach and one that is sustainable that I can carry on with for the rest of my life.
kind regards,

Ben

First off, clean-eaters ALWAYS assume that IIFYM'ers are eating nothing but Twinkies all day. I eat lots of whole healthy foods all day long. As a clean-eater, you realize that eating lots of clean foods causes nice big calorie deficits. IIFYM'ers use those deficits to satisfy those cravings for the sake of mental health. Some say they can't treat themselves without bingeing. I get that. But just because I ate a cookie before bed, doesn't mean I negated the other 1500 calories of clean foods that I enjoyed that day.

First, congrats on losing 97 lbs!!! woot woot.

I'm guilty of assuming that some IIFYM'ers are eating crap all day, because that's the way many of the posts come off. I think it's because some IIFYM'ers seem to always attack people who post about eating clean/whole foods or who ask about low-carb or Paleo. Every so often for kicks and giggles I check the diary of someone who posts "eliminating any food is stupid" or who say it's all IIFYM and anything else is too restrictive. Most of the time, they're eating very clean, and pretty darn similar to how I eat (Primal). Every once in a while, it's the opposite extreme and they truly are eating (what I consider) crap all day. Their goal is to lose weight, not optimize their nutrition, so that's perfectly fine for them.

It's a mindset thing. For some, thinking IIFYM gives the structure and alleviates guilt about eating something that might not be nutritious. I do the same, by thinking "most of the time I eat Primal, so when I treat, it's OK". Same deal, different words.

Exactly! Sadly, the paleos and primals (not all) are usually using biased studies to support their views. This creates confusion. Most of the IIFYM'ers are just trying to combat that because beginners come here looking for the way. They see the studies and think that a super-restrictive diet is the only way. For some people, restrictive diets are just mentally too difficult to adhere to and they give up. That is why IIFYM'ers are so adamant. It is better for people to find a way that works for them and succeed than to try the extreme, fail, and walk away defeated.

Actually, the findings do not surprise me. We've known for decades about some of the negative health impacts of deep-fried food.

One of the reasons why I am not an advocate of "if it fits your macros" approach is because it seems exclusively focused on weight loss without considering the health impact of the dietary regime to achieve that. In my mind, it is totally counter-productive and is pointless for one to achieve an ideal body weight/BF percentage if one is eating crap. You are potentially replacing one chronic condition with another.
My own perspective is that if you are focused on total wellbeing inc. a healthy balanced diet and increased regular physical activity then weight loss will become a welcome by-product. For me its a whole-of-life approach and one that is sustainable that I can carry on with for the rest of my life.
kind regards,

Ben

First off, clean-eaters ALWAYS assume that IIFYM'ers are eating nothing but Twinkies all day. I eat lots of whole healthy foods all day long. As a clean-eater, you realize that eating lots of clean foods causes nice big calorie deficits. IIFYM'ers use those deficits to satisfy those cravings for the sake of mental health. Some say they can't treat themselves without bingeing. I get that. But just because I ate a cookie before bed, doesn't mean I negated the other 1500 calories of clean foods that I enjoyed that day.

First, congrats on losing 97 lbs!!! woot woot.

I'm guilty of assuming that some IIFYM'ers are eating crap all day, because that's the way many of the posts come off. I think it's because some IIFYM'ers seem to always attack people who post about eating clean/whole foods or who ask about low-carb or Paleo. Every so often for kicks and giggles I check the diary of someone who posts "eliminating any food is stupid" or who say it's all IIFYM and anything else is too restrictive. Most of the time, they're eating very clean, and pretty darn similar to how I eat (Primal). Every once in a while, it's the opposite extreme and they truly are eating (what I consider) crap all day. Their goal is to lose weight, not optimize their nutrition, so that's perfectly fine for them.

It's a mindset thing. For some, thinking IIFYM gives the structure and alleviates guilt about eating something that might not be nutritious. I do the same, by thinking "most of the time I eat Primal, so when I treat, it's OK". Same deal, different words.

Exactly! Sadly, the paleos and primals (not all) are usually using biased studies to support their views. This creates confusion. Most of the IIFYM'ers are just trying to combat that because beginners come here looking for the way. They see the studies and think that a super-restrictive diet is the only way. For some people, restrictive diets are just mentally too difficult to adhere to and they give up. That is why IIFYM'ers are so adamant. It is better for people to find a way that works for them and succeed than to try the extreme, fail, and walk away defeated.

paleo/primal/clean diets are all special cases of IIFYM.

to the extent that paleo/primal/clean diets work, it's because they are satisfying the requirements of IIFYM. that's the important part. the unimportant part is what they are eating while meeting their macros. but they see it the other way around. they think it's 100% about their food choices, which is why they frustrate me.

I personally think it's a great approach. I basically follow it, except I layer restrictions on top. I do that because I know there are some foods that trigger unhealthy eating behaviors in me, or that make me feel bloated or cause an allergic reaction, and I do better mentally to eliminate them then moderate them.

a completely reasonable and rational way to explain your restrictions and i would never argue with anyone who stated it as you have. the ones that drive me crazy are the ones who insist that their restrictions are somehow due to a deeper understanding of food than the rest of us and/or a moral superiority over the rest of us because of their food restrictions.

hmmmmm..........

IIFYM as it is discussed here is specific to weight loss.

I love all of the IIFYM love on here! IIFYM is for everyone. IT IS NOT hocus pocus or "unhealthy". It is comprised of a macro nutrient distribution to fit your caloric needs depending on your goal. (weight loss, gain, maintenance) Whether you choose to eat Burger King or an organic vegan diet IIFYM ensures that you hit your macronutrient needs. Thats it! There is no rule book that says if you follow this way of eating and you must eat "fast food" and refrain from eating foods which are of the healthier choice. It can be a way to allow FLEXIBILITY in a dieting situation which will ultimately allow a greater chance of success with people who have a hard time refraining from foods that they have been told they must cut out if they want to lose weight. As a nutritionist, having grown up and been mentored by people of the old school "6 meals a day and whole grains" method I can safely say my clients success rates have increased with the IIFYM approach. Last summer a young man I hired to work at my supplement store was prepping for his first bodybuilding competition and eating pop tarts for breakfast everyday. I was extremely skeptical until I started seeing his results and watched him eat cake and get shredded right before my eyes. After doing the research it became clear that there is a HUGE misconception between the glycemic index and lipogenesis. Eating sugar does not mean you will gain fat likewise eating brown rice doesn't mean you will get lean. In fact ...our macronutritent intake directly impacts energy expenditure. For instance, what happens when you eat sugar? I know I get hyper. This is the body's physiological reaction to a high energy intake in a short period of time which reduces the amount of energy that may be stored (fat). So it is important for us to keep everything in moderation to hit our macro and micronutrient needs and we can definitely do that without having to eat 6 meals of chicken breast, brown rice and asparagus everyday.

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....)

As usual, a very informed and well articulated commentary.