Research that contradicts IIFYM
Replies
-
The biggest reason "most" people dislike IIFYM is because they don't understand it. I'd dislike it too if the strawmen were true.
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.
This weekend was a perfect example. Sports bar... hubby orders big plate of fries. Normally, I think "Nope. I don't eat fries." But this weekend, I think, "Ok, I don't eat fries, they're off-plan, but sure, a few won't hurt, I'll adjust at dinner". But I literally could not. stop. eating. the. fries. After the fries, I attacked the chips. What's worse, they didn't even taste good. The fries were clearly cooked in the same oil as onion rings, and I hate onion rings. But I ate them anyway. And, to make matters worse, I always get an allergic reaction to anything fried in a restaurant... I think it's the canola oil they use. Like clockwork, within a few minutes of finishing the meal, I got really congested (worse than usual) and it lasted about an hour.
And the whole binge behavior is not a result of my restrictive Primal diet... I did the same thing when I let myself eat whatever I wanted which was most of my adult life. Fries just can not be part of my diet if I want to eat at a deficit and feel good.
So... IIFYM only works for me if I layer restrictions on top, which I know seems counter-intuitive. And low-carb works because I find I can avoid the shakes between meals and reduce sugar cravings if I eat low carb.
If I could do IIFYM without restrictions, I would.0 -
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.0 -
seems like as good a place as any to re-post this...
I love this very much and have seen it many times on mfp. Thanks for showing it again. This is one reason I wondered how many IIFYM supporters reacted to such information, as most of them seem to avoid knee-jerk reactions to anything in the media.
Thank you all for satisfying my curiosity. :flowerforyou:0 -
hmmmmm..........0
-
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.
LOL. Cue the sentimental music, maybe Stevie Wonder singing Ebony and Ivory... might there ever be a way that IIFYM'ers and Paleo'ers can get along?
It's true that many Paleo/Primal people can get evangelical about how what they eat makes such a difference. It's because for many (most, even) they feel such a big physical difference. Sometimes, that's because what they were eating before truly was making them sick and they didn't realize it. So when they eat Paleo and eliminate whatever was causing the problem, they feel amazing and want to shout it from the roof tops. For others, it's the first "diet" that works, and that is very exciting. For me, it's a combination of the two. I like the idea of the science and rationale behind Paleo. I get that the data is still debatable... actually, most data related to nutrition is debatable. But it still makes sense intuitively, and works practically. As I said in my other post, elimination diets can work well for some people. I don't know of any Paleo people who say it's the only way (ok, I can think of one) ... just it's a way that works for them.
On the other side, I think the drum beating on IIFYM can be dangerous to newbies here as well. Many are obese suffering from metabolic syndrome, pre-diabetes, diabetes. That changes the game, and makes IIFYM more challenging to figure out. It's frustrating to look at profile pics of gorgeous pecs and abs proclaiming IIFYM, and struggle because the rules seem not to apply to them. Of course, the rules are the same, it's just that they're playing with a handicap that needs to be considered.
Peace!0 -
IIFYM as it is discussed here is specific to weight loss.0
-
I agree with her ^.0
-
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.0
-
ackkk, sorry. Weight loss, I don't know why I'm even replying here. There is only so much you can do, it's genetic.0
-
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.0 -
IIFYM as it is discussed here is specific to weight loss.
By 'here' you mean MFP? It also applies to weight gain and maintenance.0 -
You know, I used to like the idea of 'eating clean' until I discovered, as ever, on the internet some f*cktards have got hold of the concept and overthought it to the nth degree.
Try and eat a healthy, balanced diet, that fist into your macros for general good health and weight loss. That is all. Its not hard.0 -
seems like as good a place as any to re-post this...
QFT
Used to field reserach science. and write papers to be published in scientific journals.
this is SO TRUE.0 -
I find that fried or "unhealthy" food doesn't usually fit my macros. Like, occasionally I'll have a burger or go out for fast food, but quite often it is at the expense of my macros, or if it is not, it's because I didn't eat very much the rest of the day. So if I stick to IIFYM, I don't usually have room for the stuff they say is harmful in large quantities.
That's the beauty of IIFYM.... it has moderation built into it.0 -
Going back to your OP Oishii, to me, if I find something that I believe to be bad for me, in the context of my overall diet, I would consider eliminating or restricting that thing. It does not change the basic tenets of IIFYM, as far as I am concerned. I restrict a whole food group by being a vegetarian, and still apply IIFYM, just like someone who is allergic to peanuts or allergic to shellfish would need to eliminate those from their diet. I really see no difference.
Edited for typo.0 -
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?).
I think you would be mistaken.
There are a great many people who follow IIFYM and who are concerned about their health and fitness performance. We're not stuffing our faces with Twinkies and KFC all day, every day.
You would benefit from reading these:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/817188-iifym
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/822501-halp-my-sandwich-isn-t-clean0 -
Going back to your OP Oishii, to me, if I find something that I believe to be bad for me, in the context of my overall diet, I would consider eliminating or restricting that thing. It does not change the basic tenets of IIFYM, as far as I am concerned. I restrict a whole food group by being a vegetarian, and still apply IIFYM, just like someone who is allergic to peanuts or allergic to shellfish would need to eliminate those from their diet. I really see no difference.
Edited for typo.
Of course you would, but you are clearly sane.0 -
IIFYM as it is discussed here is specific to weight loss.
By 'here' you mean MFP? It also applies to weight gain and maintenance.
True, I was being too closed in my definition. I meant it specifically applies to *weight.*
Not to prevention of disease, etc.0 -
i'm just going to say here that I think i was unneccessarily snooty in my first comment in this thread.
Sorry, OP.
I just think that there's some folks on here (not ALL) who are pro-clean eating who get my panties in a bunch. I reacted to you as if you were them, and you are not. In fact you are my friend and wasn't I just saying I am super loyaL??
I would like to think i look this cute with my foot in my mouth:
0 -
IIFYM as it is discussed here is specific to weight loss.
By 'here' you mean MFP? It also applies to weight gain and maintenance.
True, I was being too closed in my definition. I meant it specifically applies to *weight.*
Not to prevention of disease, etc.
Got it!
I suppose it goes back to your interpretation and application of it. To me, one of the best methods of disease control is to eat a balanced diet that includes a good amount of nutrient dense foods from a variety of sources. I don't see IIFYM necessarily contradicting this, depending again on your interpretation of it.
Regarding specific risks - I addressed that type if thing, at least the way I see it, in my prior post.0 -
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?
The same way that any other information is processed. Duh!
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions