My Pizza Day Experiment - A Comparison

show previous quotes

Since when did people who follow IIFYM fill their whole ENTIRE day with junk foods?

From Layne Norton -

"I do see IIFYM followers who eat as much sugary, high fat foods as they can and wear it like a badge of honor. That is not the point. If you are following a macronutrient intake that is friendly for body composition you will be eating a lot of ‘clean’ foods by default because you will not be able to hit a protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake conducive to body composition improvement if all you eat are high sugar/fat foods. The point is it’s ok to have these foods in small amounts if you are still hitting your goal macronutrient intake."

The whole quote from Layne Norton

I find the whole idea of ‘clean eating’ pretentious. What exactly defines a food as ‘clean’? Do you spray windex on it? Rub soap on it? I find it a bit preposterous. I’ve been in debates with people promoting ‘clean eating’ but when I ask for a specific scientific definition of what makes a food ‘clean’ they are silent. I think the restrictive diets where you can only eat a half dozen or so foods are not only unhealthy because they don’t give you a diverse intake of nutrients but I believe they promote eating disorders and binging. I see people who ‘eat clean’ during most of the week and then binge on cheesecake, ice cream, and donuts because it’s a ‘cheat’ meal. Oh yea… that is way healthier than eating ‘unclean’ foods in moderation to a hit a specific macronutrient target. *rolleyes* Now that said, I do believe that many IIFYMers (I find it funny that something myself and others been promoting for years gets an acronym attached to it and is now this ‘new’ way of eating LOL) actually go too far in one direction. Most people who origionally promoted targeting macronutrient intakes instead of obsessing about food choices actually eat ‘clean’ foods 95% of the time, we just don’t agonize over having a homemade burrito with a low carb wrap or some reduced calorie ice cream. We see the value of a controlled intake in order to prevent uncontrolled binging. But I do see IIFYM followers who eat as much sugary, high fat foods as they can and wear it like a badge of honor. That is not the point. If you are following a macronutrient intake that is friendly for body composition you will be eating a lot of ‘clean’ foods by default because you will not be able to hit a protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake conducive to body composition improvement if all you eat are high sugar/fat foods. The point is it’s ok to have these foods in small amounts if you are still hitting your goal macronutrient intake.

Thanks Sarah for posting the whole quote!

what does he say in the whole quote that undermines my point?

i personally just didn't feel like using that big of a quote since it didn't pertain at all to the discussion at hand.

show previous quotes

guys i'm not talking about pizza as a food, which, just like ANYTHING ELSE has millions of variations that range from dominos and pizza hut bad to whole wheat or cauliflower crust with veggies galore - which are obviously much more nutritious. that's NOT what I'm talking about

frankly, this isn't even about PIZZA itself, simply testing the idea that you can get proper micro nutrition from fast foods. the pizza was just the easiest and cheapest way to go about doing that.

Which nutrients were missing in the end btw?

Probably some Vitamin K and other random nutrients that no one thinks about but him.

To OP:
I really have nothing valid to add but that.

You also might want to vary your fast food choices and see if it comes out the same.

Any good researcher knows that you can't only do one study and draw a conclusion on a topic.

i'm... not a researcher. it was just a one day thing that i did on a whim. lol

and ... um... you should look into that pesky vitamin K. it... ya know... might actually be really important. but what do i know? i'm not a researcher.

ok, using your methodology...

tomorrow, i will drink water with lemon in it. that's 100% clean, right?

the day after, i will drink nothing but Arby's milkshakes made with real ice cream. that's decidedly not clean and considered "unhealthy" by your standards.

on tuesday, i will check and see which day's intake gave me the most Vitamin B12 and Calcium. i will determine which intake is preferable solely on this simple comparison.

see except I kept the calories and macros consistent. guess i'm a better researcher than you!

"f you are following a macronutrient intake that is friendly for body composition you will be eating a lot of ‘clean’ foods by default because you will not be able to hit a protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake conducive to body composition improvement if all you eat are high sugar/fat foods."

I love this quote. It literally says that if you're hitting your macro goals you are automatically eating a lot of "clean foods."

Therefore, if you are hitting your macro goals, you really don't have to worry about anything else.

show previous quotes

and he's free to feel however he wants about "clean eating" - however, everything he said there about IIFYM, I agree with.

You *still* do not get it. Those people are NOT hitting their macros and therefore are not applying IIFYM.

Selective call to authority there!

"Now that said, I do believe that many IIFYMers actually go too far in one direction."

Layne refers to them as IIFYMers.

so... are they or are they not?

show previous quotes

guys i'm not talking about pizza as a food, which, just like ANYTHING ELSE has millions of variations that range from dominos and pizza hut bad to whole wheat or cauliflower crust with veggies galore - which are obviously much more nutritious. that's NOT what I'm talking about

frankly, this isn't even about PIZZA itself, simply testing the idea that you can get proper micro nutrition from fast foods. the pizza was just the easiest and cheapest way to go about doing that.

Which nutrients were missing in the end btw?

Probably some Vitamin K and other random nutrients that no one thinks about but him.

To OP:
I really have nothing valid to add but that.

You also might want to vary your fast food choices and see if it comes out the same.

Any good researcher knows that you can't only do one study and draw a conclusion on a topic.

i'm... not a researcher. it was just a one day thing that i did on a whim. lol

and ... um... you should look into that pesky vitamin K. it... ya know... might actually be really important. but what do i know? i'm not a researcher.

ok, using your methodology...

tomorrow, i will drink water with lemon in it. that's 100% clean, right?

the day after, i will drink nothing but Arby's milkshakes made with real ice cream. that's decidedly not clean and considered "unhealthy" by your standards.

on tuesday, i will check and see which day's intake gave me the most Vitamin B12 and Calcium. i will determine which intake is preferable solely on this simple comparison.

see except I kept the calories and macros consistent. guess i'm a better researcher than you!

show previous quotes

Since when did people who follow IIFYM fill their whole ENTIRE day with junk foods?

From Layne Norton -

"I do see IIFYM followers who eat as much sugary, high fat foods as they can and wear it like a badge of honor. That is not the point. If you are following a macronutrient intake that is friendly for body composition you will be eating a lot of ‘clean’ foods by default because you will not be able to hit a protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake conducive to body composition improvement if all you eat are high sugar/fat foods. The point is it’s ok to have these foods in small amounts if you are still hitting your goal macronutrient intake."

The whole quote from Layne Norton

I find the whole idea of ‘clean eating’ pretentious. What exactly defines a food as ‘clean’? Do you spray windex on it? Rub soap on it? I find it a bit preposterous. I’ve been in debates with people promoting ‘clean eating’ but when I ask for a specific scientific definition of what makes a food ‘clean’ they are silent. I think the restrictive diets where you can only eat a half dozen or so foods are not only unhealthy because they don’t give you a diverse intake of nutrients but I believe they promote eating disorders and binging. I see people who ‘eat clean’ during most of the week and then binge on cheesecake, ice cream, and donuts because it’s a ‘cheat’ meal. Oh yea… that is way healthier than eating ‘unclean’ foods in moderation to a hit a specific macronutrient target. *rolleyes* Now that said, I do believe that many IIFYMers (I find it funny that something myself and others been promoting for years gets an acronym attached to it and is now this ‘new’ way of eating LOL) actually go too far in one direction. Most people who origionally promoted targeting macronutrient intakes instead of obsessing about food choices actually eat ‘clean’ foods 95% of the time, we just don’t agonize over having a homemade burrito with a low carb wrap or some reduced calorie ice cream. We see the value of a controlled intake in order to prevent uncontrolled binging. But I do see IIFYM followers who eat as much sugary, high fat foods as they can and wear it like a badge of honor. That is not the point. If you are following a macronutrient intake that is friendly for body composition you will be eating a lot of ‘clean’ foods by default because you will not be able to hit a protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake conducive to body composition improvement if all you eat are high sugar/fat foods. The point is it’s ok to have these foods in small amounts if you are still hitting your goal macronutrient intake.

Thanks Sarah for posting the whole quote!

what does he say in the whole quote that undermines my point?

i personally just didn't feel like using that big of a quote since it didn't pertain at all to the discussion at hand.

He says that if you're hitting good macro goals, then you are eating a lot of clean foods.

let me explain this to you.

he says "Most people who origionally promoted targeting macronutrient intakes instead of obsessing about food choices actually eat ‘clean’ foods 95% of the time"

when he says "clean" foods, he's referring to what I view as clean. not what you view as clean. he's making a reference to the people like me who he thinks are obsessive, etc.

then, when he says "If you are following a macronutrient intake that is friendly for body composition you will be eating a lot of ‘clean’ foods by default"

again he uses the same word "clean". is he meaning something different this time? is he now referring to fast food as "clean"? because earlier in the quote he was referring to whole foods as clean. Why do you think he's changed it? Is it because you're inserting your own personal bias to make it apply to you when it absolutely doesn't?


but yeah, interpret it however you want.

show previous quotes

guys i'm not talking about pizza as a food, which, just like ANYTHING ELSE has millions of variations that range from dominos and pizza hut bad to whole wheat or cauliflower crust with veggies galore - which are obviously much more nutritious. that's NOT what I'm talking about

frankly, this isn't even about PIZZA itself, simply testing the idea that you can get proper micro nutrition from fast foods. the pizza was just the easiest and cheapest way to go about doing that.

Which nutrients were missing in the end btw?

potassium, fiber, sodium was way high, vit C is arguable, and the iron is from fortification, thus not very bioavailable.

and listen, i did this based on the MFP database, which is obviously not entirely accurate, but if I used the same inaccurate database for both days, the margin of error should balance out, no?

show previous quotes

Since when did people who follow IIFYM fill their whole ENTIRE day with junk foods?

From Layne Norton -

"I do see IIFYM followers who eat as much sugary, high fat foods as they can and wear it like a badge of honor. That is not the point. If you are following a macronutrient intake that is friendly for body composition you will be eating a lot of ‘clean’ foods by default because you will not be able to hit a protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake conducive to body composition improvement if all you eat are high sugar/fat foods. The point is it’s ok to have these foods in small amounts if you are still hitting your goal macronutrient intake."

The whole quote from Layne Norton

I find the whole idea of ‘clean eating’ pretentious. What exactly defines a food as ‘clean’? Do you spray windex on it? Rub soap on it? I find it a bit preposterous. I’ve been in debates with people promoting ‘clean eating’ but when I ask for a specific scientific definition of what makes a food ‘clean’ they are silent. I think the restrictive diets where you can only eat a half dozen or so foods are not only unhealthy because they don’t give you a diverse intake of nutrients but I believe they promote eating disorders and binging. I see people who ‘eat clean’ during most of the week and then binge on cheesecake, ice cream, and donuts because it’s a ‘cheat’ meal. Oh yea… that is way healthier than eating ‘unclean’ foods in moderation to a hit a specific macronutrient target. *rolleyes* Now that said, I do believe that many IIFYMers (I find it funny that something myself and others been promoting for years gets an acronym attached to it and is now this ‘new’ way of eating LOL) actually go too far in one direction. Most people who origionally promoted targeting macronutrient intakes instead of obsessing about food choices actually eat ‘clean’ foods 95% of the time, we just don’t agonize over having a homemade burrito with a low carb wrap or some reduced calorie ice cream. We see the value of a controlled intake in order to prevent uncontrolled binging. But I do see IIFYM followers who eat as much sugary, high fat foods as they can and wear it like a badge of honor. That is not the point. If you are following a macronutrient intake that is friendly for body composition you will be eating a lot of ‘clean’ foods by default because you will not be able to hit a protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake conducive to body composition improvement if all you eat are high sugar/fat foods. The point is it’s ok to have these foods in small amounts if you are still hitting your goal macronutrient intake.

and he's free to feel however he wants about "clean eating" - however, everything he said there about IIFYM, I agree with.

You *still* do not get it. Those people are NOT hitting their macros and therefore are not applying IIFYM.

Selective call to authority there!

"Now that said, I do believe that many IIFYMers actually go too far in one direction."

Layne refers to them as IIFYMers.

so... are they or are they not?

Why don't you ask Layne? IMO - if they are not at least paying some attention to micros than no, they are not applying IIFYM in the context that it evolved.

whoops, you're all starting to disagree with each other. you feel micronutrition is important, while others posting on this very page disagree.

thus. my whole. point. in posting. this.

I dunno. Seems to me that the only thing you proved here was that "pizza and nothing but pizza" is not a good diet plan :laugh:

show previous quotes

Since when did people who follow IIFYM fill their whole ENTIRE day with junk foods?

From Layne Norton -

"I do see IIFYM followers who eat as much sugary, high fat foods as they can and wear it like a badge of honor. That is not the point. If you are following a macronutrient intake that is friendly for body composition you will be eating a lot of ‘clean’ foods by default because you will not be able to hit a protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake conducive to body composition improvement if all you eat are high sugar/fat foods. The point is it’s ok to have these foods in small amounts if you are still hitting your goal macronutrient intake."

The whole quote from Layne Norton

I find the whole idea of ‘clean eating’ pretentious. What exactly defines a food as ‘clean’? Do you spray windex on it? Rub soap on it? I find it a bit preposterous. I’ve been in debates with people promoting ‘clean eating’ but when I ask for a specific scientific definition of what makes a food ‘clean’ they are silent. I think the restrictive diets where you can only eat a half dozen or so foods are not only unhealthy because they don’t give you a diverse intake of nutrients but I believe they promote eating disorders and binging. I see people who ‘eat clean’ during most of the week and then binge on cheesecake, ice cream, and donuts because it’s a ‘cheat’ meal. Oh yea… that is way healthier than eating ‘unclean’ foods in moderation to a hit a specific macronutrient target. *rolleyes* Now that said, I do believe that many IIFYMers (I find it funny that something myself and others been promoting for years gets an acronym attached to it and is now this ‘new’ way of eating LOL) actually go too far in one direction. Most people who origionally promoted targeting macronutrient intakes instead of obsessing about food choices actually eat ‘clean’ foods 95% of the time, we just don’t agonize over having a homemade burrito with a low carb wrap or some reduced calorie ice cream. We see the value of a controlled intake in order to prevent uncontrolled binging. But I do see IIFYM followers who eat as much sugary, high fat foods as they can and wear it like a badge of honor. That is not the point. If you are following a macronutrient intake that is friendly for body composition you will be eating a lot of ‘clean’ foods by default because you will not be able to hit a protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake conducive to body composition improvement if all you eat are high sugar/fat foods. The point is it’s ok to have these foods in small amounts if you are still hitting your goal macronutrient intake.

and he's free to feel however he wants about "clean eating" - however, everything he said there about IIFYM, I agree with.

You *still* do not get it. Those people are NOT hitting their macros and therefore are not applying IIFYM.

Selective call to authority there!

"Now that said, I do believe that many IIFYMers actually go too far in one direction."

Layne refers to them as IIFYMers.

so... are they or are they not?

Why don't you ask Layne? IMO - if they are not at least paying some attention to micros than no, they are not applying IIFYM in the context that it evolved.

whoops, you're all starting to disagree with each other. you feel micronutrition is important, while others posting on this very page disagree.

thus. my whole. point. in posting. this.

OMG - you are frigging ridiculous. I am done here.