Just an opinion: Clean-eating vs IIFYM

1235»

Replies

  • blaiseastra
    blaiseastra Posts: 17
    What website gave you this chart?

    iifym.com.

    I got my TDEE first from this calculator: http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/

    And then I used this one for the chart you saw: http://iifym.com/iifym-calculator/
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    junk food is for fat people. if you don't wanna be fat, don't eat junk food. arguing won't change that.
    How many pushups can you do? How far can you ride a bicycle in 2 hours?
  • med2017
    med2017 Posts: 192 Member
    cortisol gets released wether the monsters are in your room, or in your head :glasses:





    people get so butthurt when they hear about someone elses eating habits. no one is better then anyone. just eat what you think is good for you and makes you happy and do it, clean or not clean.

    this website is starting to really bother me, so much support on here.:noway: :noway:
  • LavenderBouquet
    LavenderBouquet Posts: 736 Member
    I'm starting to find the distinction, while an amusing intellectual debate that often isn't very intellectual, to be functionally meaningless, as I've never seen anyone eat clean continuously for life. If you cheat then you are basically saying it's okay sometimes which seems to be the fundamental basis for IIFYM arguments. Perhaps it's in the extent of cheating. Maybe for some 20% cheat is too much and they practice 5%, but the very idea that any amount of junk food is going to kill you is preposterous.

    That's like saying no one can ever say they eat healthy if they EVER eat something even remotely unhealthy. I don't think it's an "all in" or "not at all" idea.

    That is exactly the point though. If you agree that SOME unhealthy food is not going to harm you, then the debate really is about dosage, and the well reasoned IIFYM arguments that I have seen are exactly about dosage - usually 10% to 20% of total daily calories. Also, most of the arguments I've seen for clean eating also eventually develop into an admission that SOME junk food is okay. It really is about dosage then, and the clean vs. IIFYM distinction seems to just add fuel to a back and forth that continually misses the point.

    I'm just of the opinion that IIFYM can include people who eat garbage all of the time, as long as it fits into their macros. When someone says, "I'm eating clean" it implies much more then that, such as eating predominantly whole, unprocessed natural foods. Having a "cheat" food in moderation doesn't impose they can't claim to be eating clean overall. It's just a way of describing to others how you are eating, just like IIFYM, but IIFYM being a much more generalized and vague term.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    In my opinion, clean eating is not limiting any foods. Its not depriving yourself from anything. It's eating healthily about 80% of the time, and letting yourself indulge about 20% of the time. Thats what woks for me, and I'm going to continue doing it that way. Im a happy person, and i eat clean. But i let my self indulge. Thats the key, moderation.

    What you've described it actually much closer to IIFYM than "clean eating."
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    I'm starting to find the distinction, while an amusing intellectual debate that often isn't very intellectual, to be functionally meaningless, as I've never seen anyone eat clean continuously for life. If you cheat then you are basically saying it's okay sometimes which seems to be the fundamental basis for IIFYM arguments. Perhaps it's in the extent of cheating. Maybe for some 20% cheat is too much and they practice 5%, but the very idea that any amount of junk food is going to kill you is preposterous.

    That's like saying no one can ever say they eat healthy if they EVER eat something even remotely unhealthy. I don't think it's an "all in" or "not at all" idea.

    That is exactly the point though. If you agree that SOME unhealthy food is not going to harm you, then the debate really is about dosage, and the well reasoned IIFYM arguments that I have seen are exactly about dosage - usually 10% to 20% of total daily calories. Also, most of the arguments I've seen for clean eating also eventually develop into an admission that SOME junk food is okay. It really is about dosage then, and the clean vs. IIFYM distinction seems to just add fuel to a back and forth that continually misses the point.

    I'm just of the opinion that IIFYM can include people who eat garbage all of the time, as long as it fits into their macros. When someone says, "I'm eating clean" it implies much more then that, such as eating predominantly whole, unprocessed natural foods. Having a "cheat" food in moderation doesn't impose they can't claim to be eating clean overall. It's just a way of describing to others how you are eating, just like IIFYM, but IIFYM being a much more generalized and vague term.

    Only homeless people eat garbage. And cheating involves lying and/or fraud. Again, you can't "cheat" by simply eating food.

    Most people who actively try to hit their macros do eat predominately whole foods because that's the easiest way to hit your macros! When you eat food out of a box or package, you are subjecting yourself to extras that you wouldn't normally add to your own cooking. Most IIFYM folks do eat what the "clean eaters" would call "clean" *MOST* of the time. We also eat ice cream too!
  • WinnerVictorious
    WinnerVictorious Posts: 4,733 Member
    I'm starting to find the distinction, while an amusing intellectual debate that often isn't very intellectual, to be functionally meaningless, as I've never seen anyone eat clean continuously for life. If you cheat then you are basically saying it's okay sometimes which seems to be the fundamental basis for IIFYM arguments. Perhaps it's in the extent of cheating. Maybe for some 20% cheat is too much and they practice 5%, but the very idea that any amount of junk food is going to kill you is preposterous.

    That's like saying no one can ever say they eat healthy if they EVER eat something even remotely unhealthy. I don't think it's an "all in" or "not at all" idea.

    That is exactly the point though. If you agree that SOME unhealthy food is not going to harm you, then the debate really is about dosage, and the well reasoned IIFYM arguments that I have seen are exactly about dosage - usually 10% to 20% of total daily calories. Also, most of the arguments I've seen for clean eating also eventually develop into an admission that SOME junk food is okay. It really is about dosage then, and the clean vs. IIFYM distinction seems to just add fuel to a back and forth that continually misses the point.

    I'm just of the opinion that IIFYM can include people who eat garbage all of the time, as long as it fits into their macros. When someone says, "I'm eating clean" it implies much more then that, such as eating predominantly whole, unprocessed natural foods. Having a "cheat" food in moderation doesn't impose they can't claim to be eating clean overall. It's just a way of describing to others how you are eating, just like IIFYM, but IIFYM being a much more generalized and vague term.

    so in other words, food snobbery.

    if the person following IIFYM meets their macros with Pop Tarts and the "clean" eater meets their macros eating only lentils and tree bark, why is there any difference between the two approaches in your mind? unless you think that somehow the one eating lentils and tree bark has staked out a morally superior position in doing so.

    that brings me back to food snobbery. that's the only difference i can see.

    it also annoys me that a bunch of cultists are basically trying to steal a word from our vocabularies and give it a new meaning. instead of using "clean", why can't they invent their own word or use more appropriate existing words? how about "finicky" eaters or "food phobic" eaters? i, for one, refuse to let the actual meaning of the word "clean" become bastardized. in this context, it means to wash your food. period.
  • sunsnstatheart
    sunsnstatheart Posts: 2,544 Member
    I'm starting to find the distinction, while an amusing intellectual debate that often isn't very intellectual, to be functionally meaningless, as I've never seen anyone eat clean continuously for life. If you cheat then you are basically saying it's okay sometimes which seems to be the fundamental basis for IIFYM arguments. Perhaps it's in the extent of cheating. Maybe for some 20% cheat is too much and they practice 5%, but the very idea that any amount of junk food is going to kill you is preposterous.

    That's like saying no one can ever say they eat healthy if they EVER eat something even remotely unhealthy. I don't think it's an "all in" or "not at all" idea.

    That is exactly the point though. If you agree that SOME unhealthy food is not going to harm you, then the debate really is about dosage, and the well reasoned IIFYM arguments that I have seen are exactly about dosage - usually 10% to 20% of total daily calories. Also, most of the arguments I've seen for clean eating also eventually develop into an admission that SOME junk food is okay. It really is about dosage then, and the clean vs. IIFYM distinction seems to just add fuel to a back and forth that continually misses the point.

    I'm just of the opinion that IIFYM can include people who eat garbage all of the time, as long as it fits into their macros. When someone says, "I'm eating clean" it implies much more then that, such as eating predominantly whole, unprocessed natural foods. Having a "cheat" food in moderation doesn't impose they can't claim to be eating clean overall. It's just a way of describing to others how you are eating, just like IIFYM, but IIFYM being a much more generalized and vague term.

    You are completely missing the point if you think IIFYM is about eating garbage all the time.

Categories