HELP NEEDED! new to IIFYM

Not sure where you came up with that number but yes absolutely, I'd say female 5'2",126 lbs. at 1.8k that seems high if you're looking to slowly cut weight. Especially if you're eating "dirty" as they say. I'd suggest lowering your starting point at around 1600 calories and evaluate after 14 days. You're quite young which is HUGE but 1825 seems too high especially when doing IIFYM.

Thats my personal opinion.

Not sure where you came up with that number but yes absolutely, I'd say female 5'2",126 lbs. at 1.8k that seems high if you're looking to slowly cut weight. Especially if you're eating "dirty" as they say. I'd suggest lowering your starting point at around 1600 calories and evaluate after 14 days. You're quite young which is HUGE but 1825 seems too high especially when doing IIFYM.

Thats my personal opinion.

First, I disagree. She is very active and doesn't have much to lose. I agree with ILiftHeavyAcrylics - why not try out the higher number that the calculator came up with for a while, and adjust up or down from there? It's always preferable to consume the maximum number of calories possible while maintaining a reasonable rate of loss. No sense in starting from a low point unnecessarily.

Second, you seem to misunderstand what IIFYM means. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with determining one's caloric intake goal. It's simply an approach to selecting foods that help you MEET your intake goal; it doesn't dictate the number itself.

Not sure where you came up with that number but yes absolutely, I'd say female 5'2",126 lbs. at 1.8k that seems high if you're looking to slowly cut weight. Especially if you're eating "dirty" as they say. I'd suggest lowering your starting point at around 1600 calories and evaluate after 14 days. You're quite young which is HUGE but 1825 seems too high especially when doing IIFYM.

Thats my personal opinion.

First, I disagree. She is very active and doesn't have much to lose. I agree with ILiftHeavyAcrylics - why not try out the higher number that the calculator came up with for a while, and adjust up or down from there? It's always preferable to consume the maximum number of calories possible while maintaining a reasonable rate of loss. No sense in starting from a low point unnecessarily.

Second, you seem to misunderstand what IIFYM means. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with determining one's caloric intake goal. It's simply an approach to selecting foods that help you MEET your intake goal; it doesn't dictate the number itself.

Fantastic! Disagree to all your little hearts content. From my experience with training the few females i have her stats seem closer to maintenance.

Are you actually telling me I "misunderstand" IIFYM? I actually loled and could have woke up the person sleeping beside me, stop it. Don't be silly. Its not me who misunderstands anything its you who clearly misunderstands my post.

@op You have 2 options here. You can follow the coded built in JavaScript math calculator @ 1825 for 10-14 days and re-evaluate or you can lower the number and again see where that takes you in 10-14 days, adjust accordingly. Entirely up to you but I personally would set a starting point of 1600 for your stats and activity. Although clearly I somehow misunderstand "If it fits your macros" then eat it, it seems its super complicated.

I agree with cme. I'm 5'5, 132 and have a simliar activity level and I am slowly losing with 2400 cals/day, which is aboout a 5% deficit from my TDEE. I'm also more than twice your age. LOL I hit my fat and protein macros (80 g and 150 g), make sure I get my friut and veg servings and fill in the rest of my carbs (225 g) with what looks good when I'm hungry. I tried that calculator and it came up with about 450 cals/day less than my goal, so I would suggest starting at the higher level and adjusting from there. best of luck, OP.

Not sure where you came up with that number but yes absolutely, I'd say female 5'2",126 lbs. at 1.8k that seems high if you're looking to slowly cut weight. Especially if you're eating "dirty" as they say. I'd suggest lowering your starting point at around 1600 calories and evaluate after 14 days. You're quite young which is HUGE but 1825 seems too high especially when doing IIFYM.

Thats my personal opinion.

First, I disagree. She is very active and doesn't have much to lose. I agree with ILiftHeavyAcrylics - why not try out the higher number that the calculator came up with for a while, and adjust up or down from there? It's always preferable to consume the maximum number of calories possible while maintaining a reasonable rate of loss. No sense in starting from a low point unnecessarily.

Second, you seem to misunderstand what IIFYM means. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with determining one's caloric intake goal. It's simply an approach to selecting foods that help you MEET your intake goal; it doesn't dictate the number itself.

Fantastic! Disagree to all your little hearts content. From my experience with training the few females i have her stats seem closer to maintenance.

Are you actually telling me I "misunderstand" IIFYM? I actually loled and could have woke up the person sleeping beside me, stop it. Don't be silly. Its not me who misunderstands anything its you who clearly misunderstands my post.

@op You have 2 options here. You can follow the coded built in JavaScript math calculator @ 1825 for 10-14 days and re-evaluate or you can lower the number and again see where that takes you in 10-14 days, adjust accordingly. Entirely up to you but I personally would set a starting point of 1600 for your stats and activity. Although clearly I somehow misunderstand "If it fits your macros" then eat it, it seems its super complicated.

Why on earth would you recommend someone lower their calories if they don't need to? That's just asking for their TDEE to lower in response to the lowered intake.

If she can eat 1800 calories a day and lose weight at 5'2", by all means she should do so! I have to eat around 1800 to lose and I'm almost 5'8" thanks to adaptive thermogenesis.

If she drops down to 1600 now, where's she going to go when she plateaus? 1400? That's insane. Should she just keep eating less and less?

Why on earth would you recommend someone lower their calories if they don't need to? That's just asking for their TDEE to lower in response to the lowered intake.

If she can eat 1800 calories a day and lose weight at 5'2", by all means she should do so! I have to eat around 1800 to lose and I'm almost 5'8" thanks to adaptive thermogenesis.

If she drops down to 1600 now, where's she going to go when she plateaus? 1400? That's insane. Should she just keep eating less and less?

Man there is some decent people on these forums but I cannot stand the parroting garbage here. Why are you asking silly questions? You're literally asking me straight up "Why on earth would you recommend someone lose weight faster??"

Uhhh, because it doesn't take as long? Why would you go around the block when you could drive in a straight line?? Why would you walk when you can drive? Why would you drive when you can fly?? Why are we asking silly questions?? Are you actually legitimately trying to tell me that the 200 calories a day makes zero difference in the speed at which she would lose weight? 1600 calories is lots for her stats and regimen is plenty. It's enough to feel full and satiated, especially from the example of nutrient dense foods she's eating.

If she plateaus? Up cardio intensity? Try different types of cardio? (ie, HIIT etc.) Up cardio duration? Try low carb? Wait am I losing you here.. Keep up.. Try carb cycling? Try intermittent fasting? Try anything before lowering calories from diet. Since when did I ever mention lowering calories when she hits a plateau? That's you from your limited knowledge coming into play. I never said anything like that. Yes, you're right. Your suggestion to lower calories right off the bat when hitting a plateau is INSANE. I'm glad we both agree.

There is no clean or dirty, only food...You don't have to eat "clean" to lose weight if you are being honest in your measuring. That's the point of IIFYM, eat whatever you want to meet those macro goals. Some seem to think that means eating a bunch of junk, but you would never hit your macros if you did. I eat pretty healthy during the day, but I still have cookies or ice cream daily.

I half agree with this at least, but again you're parroting from the "There is no dirty food, only food.." which I don't believe is true.

Who in a group of people knows better than ANY other group of people on how to perfect a human physique? Nutritionists who read some stuff in books? Dietitians? Doctors who read some stuff in books? Nope! Bodybuilder's who have been actually been hands-on perfecting the human physique for 75+ years. They don't read it in books, they legitimately DO it and they've perfected it to an art.

I'd say clean/dirty comes out to the old 80/20 rule. I think you could get away with losing weight for the *majority* of people successfully following the IIFYM and eating foods that are processed, manufactured garbage foods yes. Is it ideal and could it be done more efficiently? Faster? Yup which is why you see bodybuilders prepping 10.. 12.. 14 weeks out from a contest eating a very few specific foods ONLY. No ice cream, no burgers. Go search for a bodybuilders "contest prep diet". Google it. Keep in mind, these guys are on fat burners, thyroid meds, stims, growth hormone, AAS (hormones), insulin, peptides (IGF-1), etc. that entirely change what is even possible biologically and physiologically possible with the human body. Even yet, they eat chicken/fish, rice/potatoes and the odd green veggies. There is almost ZERO room for error when prepping for a contest. If there was no such thing as "dirty" foods to get as lean as possible, then why? Why don't they just eat Mexican? Italian? Home cooked meals? "As long as they're hitting their macros!" Nope. Because there IS such thing as a more efficient way to cut down to very lean states and it's by eating certain "clean" foods. White rice for example, while nutrient void is the cleanest carb source available. It's literally pure starch, no bloat from it at all. It's the #1 go-to carb source in the bodybuilding community.

Keep in mind I'm talking about when they're cutting down 4 - 6% body fat for contests but this is an example of why your "There is no such thing as dirty foods" is wrong.

A couple of points. OP....not a body builder. Nothing perfect about body building, just different. Most people arent willing to go to those lengths to achieve what they do. ( most dont really want that type of body) As far as the other wall of text......I am not really sure. What I do know is, IIFYM means If It Fits Your Macros you can eat it. So as far as IIFYM is concerned, which was the OP's original question by the way, there are no clean nor dirty foods. You have done an outstanding job with your transformation, everyone doesnt have the same goal as you.

Well, I wasn't specifically saying op has to follow a body building diet but the poster was saying "There is no such thing as dirty foods" which is untrue because there are foods that allow for you to get the leanest possible body in the fastest time. That is our goal as well, not just a bodybuilding goal. I was using bodybuilders contest prep diets as an example of why I don't agree with the sentiment that "Food is food is food" and it doesn't matter what you eat as long as it fits in your macros.

Let me just rephrase this question to challenge you and the poster and simplify things.

If there is no such thing as "Dirty" or "Clean" foods, then why do bodybuilders (who have perfected the art of forming the human physique) eat only fish/poultry and rice/potato to get the leanest possible body in the shortest amount of time when prepping for a contest?

Edit: Took it off thread, pm'd said poster as requested, no reply to the question in thread and no reply to the PM. Ask a hard question? Receive avoidance. :laugh:

Note to OP: Apologies for pooping a little on your thread. I feel like there's a ton of parroting from members here at MFP who have "heard" or "read" something on a blog or these forums. Once it's ingrained in them it's the ONLY way to do something. There's literally no other opinion that matters, they're so close minded to any other opinion or peoples own experiences. I would still stick to my original caloric goal number for a starting number, but again, entirely up to you, it's not going to make a huge difference in the overall result, would just take a little longer is all.

Good luck!