IIFYM vs "a calorie is a calorie"
Replies
-
IIFYM is generally more concerned with body recomposition or athletic performance. You can fine tune your macronutrients to your goals.
If your goal is simply to see the number on the scale go down, a calorie is just a calorie.
I agree with this. I lost all my weight using "calories are calories". And in reality, one could probably follow that concept and still perform relatively well on all levels. But people who start paying attention to the macros are typically more concerned with performance, be it cardio or strength. I know to get more of my calories from carbs just before a race so I lower my protein. Calroies are still calories; some people just need them to come from different sources.0 -
In my experience, I have different results depending on what food sources I turn to. Also, putting weight loss aside, I know my athletic performance and my overall health improves when I get my calories from cleaner sources. I wouldn't give a crap if I lost 10lbs eating chocolate, at the end of the day I would feel like **** all the time.
Calories are not equal. Anyone who says they are doesn't practice what they preach. I would love to see a couple of the guys on here who don't agree with this logic eat the same amount of calories from burgers, chips, ice cream etc and report back to me. People like to say a calorie is a calorie but then they wouldn't dare try out the theory.
The differed between consuming your calories in avocado instead of chips is the micronutrients. The calories are the same. Your body uses the calories the same. It's only part of a balanced diet.0 -
In my experience, I have different results depending on what food sources I turn to. Also, putting weight loss aside, I know my athletic performance and my overall health improves when I get my calories from cleaner sources. I wouldn't give a crap if I lost 10lbs eating chocolate, at the end of the day I would feel like **** all the time.
Calories are not equal. Anyone who says they are doesn't practice what they preach. I would love to see a couple of the guys on here who don't agree with this logic eat the same amount of calories from burgers, chips, ice cream etc and report back to me. People like to say a calorie is a calorie but then they wouldn't dare try out the theory.
The differed between consuming your calories in avocado instead of chips is the micronutrients. The calories are the same. Your body uses the calories the same. It's only part of a balanced diet.
which is the point. over time eating just the nutrient-dense foods would leave you healthier, while eating the same number of cals from nutrient-deficient foods could leave you with health problems, bad skin/nails/hair/etc.
health =/= weight0 -
In my experience, I have different results depending on what food sources I turn to. Also, putting weight loss aside, I know my athletic performance and my overall health improves when I get my calories from cleaner sources. I wouldn't give a crap if I lost 10lbs eating chocolate, at the end of the day I would feel like **** all the time.
Calories are not equal. Anyone who says they are doesn't practice what they preach. I would love to see a couple of the guys on here who don't agree with this logic eat the same amount of calories from burgers, chips, ice cream etc and report back to me. People like to say a calorie is a calorie but then they wouldn't dare try out the theory.
Exactly.
I eat more calories than this site or any other site recommends I eat and I am losing weight without doing any exercise at the moment.
The QUALITY of the foods we eat trumps the QUANTITY of some arbitrary number of calories.0 -
On the surface, these two concepts appear to be in direct opposition to one another. One says that it is important to have your nutrition coming from specific places. The other appears to say "Eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over on calories". Of course, I understand there is a big difference between general weight loss and body composition, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I have some opinions on the subject (which I will reserve, at least for now), but I was wanting to open the topic up for general discussion. I know both topics have been beat to death on the forums, but I rarely see them being compared to one another. For the record, this post was inspired by an MFP friend who just posted that she finally understands that IIFYM is more than just meeting a daily calorie goal and it got me thinking.
I haven't read all the other responses, but I will just say that IIFYM is not eating whatever the hell you want as long as you hit macro targets and not going over calories.
Flexible Dieting(IIFYM) means that you get most of your diet from whole, nutritious foods. If you've hit your protein and fat targets, throw fiber in there too if you want, and have calories to spare, then you can have some discretionary foods to fill out the rest. That will usually come out to be about 10-15% of your overall daily intake for most people.0 -
In my experience, I have different results depending on what food sources I turn to. Also, putting weight loss aside, I know my athletic performance and my overall health improves when I get my calories from cleaner sources. I wouldn't give a crap if I lost 10lbs eating chocolate, at the end of the day I would feel like **** all the time.
Calories are not equal. Anyone who says they are doesn't practice what they preach. I would love to see a couple of the guys on here who don't agree with this logic eat the same amount of calories from burgers, chips, ice cream etc and report back to me. People like to say a calorie is a calorie but then they wouldn't dare try out the theory.
Exactly.
I eat more calories than this site or any other site recommends I eat and I am losing weight without doing any exercise at the moment.
The QUALITY of the foods we eat trumps the QUANTITY of some arbitrary number of calories.
Weren't you just defending IIFYM yesterday in another thread?0 -
A calorie is a calorie regarding weight loss. Now, whether you will have your calories on a daily diet of only fried bacon and candy, or balanced meals, this will affect more your chances of surviving that your final weight. I am pretty sure if you only eat deep fried bacon for a month, and have a 500 calorie daily deficit, you will still lose. The question is if you will survive. For the average person, I doubt that going to extremes, be it 90% of fat or 0.1% of fat will end well.0
-
The differed between consuming your calories in avocado instead of chips is the micronutrients. The calories are the same. Your body uses the calories the same. It's only part of a balanced diet.
^^agreed.In my experience, I have different results depending on what food sources I turn to. Also, putting weight loss aside, I know my athletic performance and my overall health improves when I get my calories from cleaner sources. I wouldn't give a crap if I lost 10lbs eating chocolate, at the end of the day I would feel like **** all the time.
Calories are not equal. Anyone who says they are doesn't practice what they preach. I would love to see a couple of the guys on here who don't agree with this logic eat the same amount of calories from burgers, chips, ice cream etc and report back to me. People like to say a calorie is a calorie but then they wouldn't dare try out the theory.
If I lost 10 pounds eating nothing but chocolate, I would feel like crap too, BUT I would lose the same amount of weight if I ate the same amount of calories in only broccoli and would probably feel just as awful. The body needs variety, BUT if you eat at a caloric deficit you WILL lose weight. I have never seen anybody suggest that somebody eats only super fatty, greasy or sweet foods. The fact that people try to point out is that eating chocolate or a burger or chips will NOT make you gain weight or prevent you from losing IF you are still in a deficit. That is what people are referring to by a calorie is a calorie. Nobody has ever implied (that I've seen) that it is just as good for you to eat only chocolate as it is to eat a well-balanced, variety of foods in the same amount of calories.0 -
In my experience, I have different results depending on what food sources I turn to. Also, putting weight loss aside, I know my athletic performance and my overall health improves when I get my calories from cleaner sources. I wouldn't give a crap if I lost 10lbs eating chocolate, at the end of the day I would feel like **** all the time.
Calories are not equal. Anyone who says they are doesn't practice what they preach. I would love to see a couple of the guys on here who don't agree with this logic eat the same amount of calories from burgers, chips, ice cream etc and report back to me. People like to say a calorie is a calorie but then they wouldn't dare try out the theory.
Exactly.
I eat more calories than this site or any other site recommends I eat and I am losing weight without doing any exercise at the moment.
The QUALITY of the foods we eat trumps the QUANTITY of some arbitrary number of calories.
Unless you're trying to lose weight. And then, after you meet protein and fat needs, total calorie count is critical.0 -
When people talk about a calorie being a calorie, they are generally talking strictly about weight loss...and while it's a bit oversimplified, in the hierarchy of what is important to weight loss, calories in/out is the biggest piece of the puzzle...that's what people should be focused on first and foremost....once they get that down, they can sit down and start taking stock of the macros which would ultimately improve most people's overall nutrition. Nutrition is important to weight loss in that proper nutrition is going to help your body function properly and ensure hormones are regulated, etc. Quality of nutrients is also important if you have certain medical conditions and of course important to overall health and avoiding certain medical conditions.
IIFYM was coined on bodybuilding.com by Erik Stevens as a stock answer to constant questions in RE to diet and muscle gains, etc. It' not really even about weight control per sei...it's more about fitness performance and whatnot. Basically it was coined to answer questions like, "can I have oatmeal and will it interfere with my gainz brah?"...answer: IIFYM. The notion would be that protein would be a priority macro if you were a weight lifter and one would then set their dietary fat and carb macros accordingly...of course, the ratio is different for different types of athletes...but the principle is the same.
In it's original form and intent, IIFYM also assumed that the vast majority of ones diet was nutrient dense food as to aid in optimal athletic performance...with the idea that if you were eating say 3000 calories to bulk and you got in a good 2400 or so calories in awesome nutrition...and you had room in your macros to do so, enjoy some ice cream or some other otherwise "junky" food with minimal nutritional value. It was never intended to be an "eat whatever the hell you want kind of thing...that is not optimal to athletic performance. Unfortunately, it's been pretty much bastardized over the years and there's even a website which unfortunately a lot of people think is the gospel, not realizing still what IIFYM really is.
I feel like this post, along with Side Steel's, need to be in every IIFYM thread.
+1
Also, welcome back Reddy!0 -
I don't think people should attribute inherent goals to IIFYM that may vary from person to person.
And if I've taken this out of context, feel free to say so, but these statements came from the same person.Of course, I understand there is a big difference between general weight loss and body composition, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive.Weight loss and body composition are not two different things.
I guess I don't know why we're comparing two things (IIFYM and Calories is a calorie) that exist on different axes.0 -
In my experience, I have different results depending on what food sources I turn to. Also, putting weight loss aside, I know my athletic performance and my overall health improves when I get my calories from cleaner sources. I wouldn't give a crap if I lost 10lbs eating chocolate, at the end of the day I would feel like **** all the time.
Calories are not equal. Anyone who says they are doesn't practice what they preach. I would love to see a couple of the guys on here who don't agree with this logic eat the same amount of calories from burgers, chips, ice cream etc and report back to me. People like to say a calorie is a calorie but then they wouldn't dare try out the theory.
Exactly.
I eat more calories than this site or any other site recommends I eat and I am losing weight without doing any exercise at the moment.
The QUALITY of the foods we eat trumps the QUANTITY of some arbitrary number of calories.
So what happens if you eat whatever you consider high quality foods but in a surplus?0 -
In my experience, I have different results depending on what food sources I turn to. Also, putting weight loss aside, I know my athletic performance and my overall health improves when I get my calories from cleaner sources. I wouldn't give a crap if I lost 10lbs eating chocolate, at the end of the day I would feel like **** all the time.
Calories are not equal. Anyone who says they are doesn't practice what they preach. I would love to see a couple of the guys on here who don't agree with this logic eat the same amount of calories from burgers, chips, ice cream etc and report back to me. People like to say a calorie is a calorie but then they wouldn't dare try out the theory.
The differed between consuming your calories in avocado instead of chips is the micronutrients. The calories are the same. Your body uses the calories the same. It's only part of a balanced diet.
Not quite sure that's true. There are more simple carbs in chips, so I would assume you would lose a great number of the calories from the simple carbs post digestion (and therefore they will not be used by the body for energy)?
The stomach generally is much more efficient at digesting the calories from protein and fat. More bang for your buck with those macros.0 -
I don't see anything about whole, nutritious foods in IIFYM. I have a separate goal to eat 5 servings of fruits/vegetables a day in addition to IIFYM, but that's not part of IIFYM, and I don't even think most of my diet is "whole, nutritious foods." That sounds suspiciously like "clean eating" to me.On the surface, these two concepts appear to be in direct opposition to one another. One says that it is important to have your nutrition coming from specific places. The other appears to say "Eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over on calories". Of course, I understand there is a big difference between general weight loss and body composition, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I have some opinions on the subject (which I will reserve, at least for now), but I was wanting to open the topic up for general discussion. I know both topics have been beat to death on the forums, but I rarely see them being compared to one another. For the record, this post was inspired by an MFP friend who just posted that she finally understands that IIFYM is more than just meeting a daily calorie goal and it got me thinking.
I haven't read all the other responses, but I will just say that IIFYM is not eating whatever the hell you want as long as you hit macro targets and not going over calories.
Flexible Dieting(IIFYM) means that you get most of your diet from whole, nutritious foods. If you've hit your protein and fat targets, throw fiber in there too if you want, and have calories to spare, then you can have some discretionary foods to fill out the rest. That will usually come out to be about 10-15% of your overall daily intake for most people.
0 -
Eh...
A calorie is not a calorie. The metabolic pathways for calories from fructose, glucose, and ethanol (alcohol) are different. You will store more fat from 100 calories from fructose than you will 100 calories from glucose. If you are on a cut, you will lose more weight if you eliminate fructose and alcohol from your diet than if you didn't, even keeping the same calories. Protein also doesn't follow "a calorie is a calorie". 30% of the calories you ingest from protein is burned off from simply digesting it. meaning less calories hit the liver for the kreb cycle, which means less fat storage.
However, 100 calories from a fructose free brownie, and 100 calories from a salad are comparable. So in this instance a clean calorie is the same as a junk food calorie.
So I follow my macros for health, and generally follow a calorie is a calorie for weight loss/maintenance. The only exception being the elimination of most fructose from my diet.0 -
Nope.The stomach generally is much more efficient at digesting the calories from protein and fat. More bang for your buck with those macros.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermic_effect_of_food
More energy is required to digest and absorb protein than is required for carbs.0 -
In my experience, I have different results depending on what food sources I turn to. Also, putting weight loss aside, I know my athletic performance and my overall health improves when I get my calories from cleaner sources. I wouldn't give a crap if I lost 10lbs eating chocolate, at the end of the day I would feel like **** all the time.
Calories are not equal. Anyone who says they are doesn't practice what they preach. I would love to see a couple of the guys on here who don't agree with this logic eat the same amount of calories from burgers, chips, ice cream etc and report back to me. People like to say a calorie is a calorie but then they wouldn't dare try out the theory.
The differed between consuming your calories in avocado instead of chips is the micronutrients. The calories are the same. Your body uses the calories the same. It's only part of a balanced diet.
Not quite sure that's true. There are more simple carbs in chips, so I would assume you would lose a great number of the calories from the simple carbs post digestion (and therefore they will not be used by the body for energy)?
The stomach generally is much more efficient at digesting the calories from protein and fat. More bang for your buck with those macros.
Not going to touch issues of efficiency or bio availability, but I suspect there may be a difference in EFAs between avocados and chips. It does seem like an apples to oranges comparison.0 -
It's funny how in these discussions, the "calories are the only thing that matter" people always neglect the calories out part of the equation and assume that what you eat has no impact on caloric expenditure.
Your metabolism plays a big part in the caloric equation and the types of food you eat and exercise you do have a big impact on your caloric expenditure.
Those who think calories in are the only thing that matter are in for a surprise when their metabolism slows down and their weight loss stalls (assuming they just eat junk and make them fit their calories) . They have no energy, and as soon as they give up (not losing weight and hungry all the time, you're bound to give up) and start listening to their body the weight piles right back on. Generally if you're feeling hungry, your body is telling you that you should be eating.
By focusing on eating the right macros and higher quality foods, you're body will stay satiated and your body will expend more calories.
Here's a pretty good article that is somewhat relevant:
http://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/a-calorie-is-sometimes-not-a-calorie0 -
In my experience, I have different results depending on what food sources I turn to. Also, putting weight loss aside, I know my athletic performance and my overall health improves when I get my calories from cleaner sources. I wouldn't give a crap if I lost 10lbs eating chocolate, at the end of the day I would feel like **** all the time.
Calories are not equal. Anyone who says they are doesn't practice what they preach. I would love to see a couple of the guys on here who don't agree with this logic eat the same amount of calories from burgers, chips, ice cream etc and report back to me. People like to say a calorie is a calorie but then they wouldn't dare try out the theory.
The differed between consuming your calories in avocado instead of chips is the micronutrients. The calories are the same. Your body uses the calories the same. It's only part of a balanced diet.
Not quite sure that's true. There are more simple carbs in chips, so I would assume you would lose a great number of the calories from the simple carbs post digestion (and therefore they will not be used by the body for energy)?
The stomach generally is much more efficient at digesting the calories from protein and fat. More bang for your buck with those macros.
Not going to touch issues of efficiency or bio availability, but I suspect there may be a difference in EFAs between avocados and chips. It does seem like an apples to oranges comparison.
No it's just a not all calories do the same thing comment.0 -
I don't see anything about whole, nutritious foods in IIFYM. I have a separate goal to eat 5 servings of fruits/vegetables a day in addition to IIFYM, but that's not part of IIFYM, and I don't even think most of my diet is "whole, nutritious foods." That sounds suspiciously like "clean eating" to me.On the surface, these two concepts appear to be in direct opposition to one another. One says that it is important to have your nutrition coming from specific places. The other appears to say "Eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over on calories". Of course, I understand there is a big difference between general weight loss and body composition, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I have some opinions on the subject (which I will reserve, at least for now), but I was wanting to open the topic up for general discussion. I know both topics have been beat to death on the forums, but I rarely see them being compared to one another. For the record, this post was inspired by an MFP friend who just posted that she finally understands that IIFYM is more than just meeting a daily calorie goal and it got me thinking.
I haven't read all the other responses, but I will just say that IIFYM is not eating whatever the hell you want as long as you hit macro targets and not going over calories.
Flexible Dieting(IIFYM) means that you get most of your diet from whole, nutritious foods. If you've hit your protein and fat targets, throw fiber in there too if you want, and have calories to spare, then you can have some discretionary foods to fill out the rest. That will usually come out to be about 10-15% of your overall daily intake for most people.
"Whole foods", which generally refer to grains, are healthier. It has considerably more fiber and micro nutrients. But in the end, the calories are generally the same.0 -
I don't see anything about whole, nutritious foods in IIFYM. I have a separate goal to eat 5 servings of fruits/vegetables a day in addition to IIFYM, but that's not part of IIFYM, and I don't even think most of my diet is "whole, nutritious foods." That sounds suspiciously like "clean eating" to me.On the surface, these two concepts appear to be in direct opposition to one another. One says that it is important to have your nutrition coming from specific places. The other appears to say "Eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over on calories". Of course, I understand there is a big difference between general weight loss and body composition, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I have some opinions on the subject (which I will reserve, at least for now), but I was wanting to open the topic up for general discussion. I know both topics have been beat to death on the forums, but I rarely see them being compared to one another. For the record, this post was inspired by an MFP friend who just posted that she finally understands that IIFYM is more than just meeting a daily calorie goal and it got me thinking.
I haven't read all the other responses, but I will just say that IIFYM is not eating whatever the hell you want as long as you hit macro targets and not going over calories.
Flexible Dieting(IIFYM) means that you get most of your diet from whole, nutritious foods. If you've hit your protein and fat targets, throw fiber in there too if you want, and have calories to spare, then you can have some discretionary foods to fill out the rest. That will usually come out to be about 10-15% of your overall daily intake for most people.
"Whole foods", which generally refer to grains, are healthier. It has considerably more fiber and micro nutrients. But in the end, the calories are generally the same.
:noway:0 -
In my experience, I have different results depending on what food sources I turn to. Also, putting weight loss aside, I know my athletic performance and my overall health improves when I get my calories from cleaner sources. I wouldn't give a crap if I lost 10lbs eating chocolate, at the end of the day I would feel like **** all the time.
Calories are not equal. Anyone who says they are doesn't practice what they preach. I would love to see a couple of the guys on here who don't agree with this logic eat the same amount of calories from burgers, chips, ice cream etc and report back to me. People like to say a calorie is a calorie but then they wouldn't dare try out the theory.
The differed between consuming your calories in avocado instead of chips is the micronutrients. The calories are the same. Your body uses the calories the same. It's only part of a balanced diet.
Not quite sure that's true. There are more simple carbs in chips, so I would assume you would lose a great number of the calories from the simple carbs post digestion (and therefore they will not be used by the body for energy)?
The stomach generally is much more efficient at digesting the calories from protein and fat. More bang for your buck with those macros.
Not going to touch issues of efficiency or bio availability, but I suspect there may be a difference in EFAs between avocados and chips. It does seem like an apples to oranges comparison.
No it's just a not all calories do the same thing comment.
I suppose that would depend on the scope of conversation. I would tend to agree that I have a better workout if I watch the timing of different nutrients relative to my exercise. But at the end of the day, if I have a net loss and I'm mobilizing fat stores, then I'm still losing; the difference is whether or not I have a miserable workout.
EDIT: I won't discount that different macros have different TEFs, I just think the difference is relatively minor compared to controlling my deficit through monitoring my intake.0 -
I don't see anything about whole, nutritious foods in IIFYM. I have a separate goal to eat 5 servings of fruits/vegetables a day in addition to IIFYM, but that's not part of IIFYM, and I don't even think most of my diet is "whole, nutritious foods." That sounds suspiciously like "clean eating" to me.On the surface, these two concepts appear to be in direct opposition to one another. One says that it is important to have your nutrition coming from specific places. The other appears to say "Eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over on calories". Of course, I understand there is a big difference between general weight loss and body composition, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I have some opinions on the subject (which I will reserve, at least for now), but I was wanting to open the topic up for general discussion. I know both topics have been beat to death on the forums, but I rarely see them being compared to one another. For the record, this post was inspired by an MFP friend who just posted that she finally understands that IIFYM is more than just meeting a daily calorie goal and it got me thinking.
I haven't read all the other responses, but I will just say that IIFYM is not eating whatever the hell you want as long as you hit macro targets and not going over calories.
Flexible Dieting(IIFYM) means that you get most of your diet from whole, nutritious foods. If you've hit your protein and fat targets, throw fiber in there too if you want, and have calories to spare, then you can have some discretionary foods to fill out the rest. That will usually come out to be about 10-15% of your overall daily intake for most people.
HUH!?
ETA: How about we change "whole, nutritious" to "nutrient dense"? Would that work for you?
How dare I use words that would be misunderstood to be "clean" since there is no true definition of "clean" eating.0 -
I think you will find that most people who really believe in IIFYM also really believe that a calorie is a calorie and that these are not really two separate theories but, rather, two parts of an overarching theory.
Calories are no more a theory than evolution is.
The only reason they aren't laws is because of very vocal naysayers who have their own agenda, whose beliefs are threatened by ending debate on the "theory".0 -
On the surface, these two concepts appear to be in direct opposition to one another. One says that it is important to have your nutrition coming from specific places. The other appears to say "Eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over on calories". Of course, I understand there is a big difference between general weight loss and body composition, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I have some opinions on the subject (which I will reserve, at least for now), but I was wanting to open the topic up for general discussion. I know both topics have been beat to death on the forums, but I rarely see them being compared to one another. For the record, this post was inspired by an MFP friend who just posted that she finally understands that IIFYM is more than just meeting a daily calorie goal and it got me thinking.
I m confused by your comparison, because if you eat according to IIFYM a calorie is still a calorie. No matter how you eat for weight loss; dirty, clean, vegetarian, vegan, primal, paleo or East Cashubian modiefied caveman, or IIFYM, a calorie ( as a measurement of energy ) is always a calorie.
As I understand it, IIFYM relies on your calories coming from a specific combination (ratio) of protein, fat and carbs, which implies that the body will treat these types of calories differently.
OK....but a calorie is still a calorie no matter how the body treats it....0 -
On the surface, these two concepts appear to be in direct opposition to one another. One says that it is important to have your nutrition coming from specific places. The other appears to say "Eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over on calories". Of course, I understand there is a big difference between general weight loss and body composition, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I have some opinions on the subject (which I will reserve, at least for now), but I was wanting to open the topic up for general discussion. I know both topics have been beat to death on the forums, but I rarely see them being compared to one another. For the record, this post was inspired by an MFP friend who just posted that she finally understands that IIFYM is more than just meeting a daily calorie goal and it got me thinking.
I m confused by your comparison, because if you eat according to IIFYM a calorie is still a calorie. No matter how you eat for weight loss; dirty, clean, vegetarian, vegan, primal, paleo or East Cashubian modiefied caveman, or IIFYM, a calorie ( as a measurement of energy ) is always a calorie.
As I understand it, IIFYM relies on your calories coming from a specific combination (ratio) of protein, fat and carbs, which implies that the body will treat these types of calories differently.
OK....but a calorie is still a calorie no matter how the body treats it....
Agreed - but only until you eat it. Lol
0 -
On the surface, these two concepts appear to be in direct opposition to one another. One says that it is important to have your nutrition coming from specific places. The other appears to say "Eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over on calories". Of course, I understand there is a big difference between general weight loss and body composition, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I have some opinions on the subject (which I will reserve, at least for now), but I was wanting to open the topic up for general discussion. I know both topics have been beat to death on the forums, but I rarely see them being compared to one another. For the record, this post was inspired by an MFP friend who just posted that she finally understands that IIFYM is more than just meeting a daily calorie goal and it got me thinking.
I m confused by your comparison, because if you eat according to IIFYM a calorie is still a calorie. No matter how you eat for weight loss; dirty, clean, vegetarian, vegan, primal, paleo or East Cashubian modiefied caveman, or IIFYM, a calorie ( as a measurement of energy ) is always a calorie.
I agree- the topic title made me turn my head and go "huh"
even if you are still doing "a calorie is a calorie" you still have to have a balanced system that works for you- eating all fat calories isn't going to do it for you.0 -
IIFYM is generally more concerned with body recomposition or athletic performance. You can fine tune your macronutrients to your goals.
If your goal is simply to see the number on the scale go down, a calorie is just a calorie.
^ Agree.0 -
On the surface, these two concepts appear to be in direct opposition to one another. One says that it is important to have your nutrition coming from specific places. The other appears to say "Eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over on calories". Of course, I understand there is a big difference between general weight loss and body composition, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I have some opinions on the subject (which I will reserve, at least for now), but I was wanting to open the topic up for general discussion. I know both topics have been beat to death on the forums, but I rarely see them being compared to one another. For the record, this post was inspired by an MFP friend who just posted that she finally understands that IIFYM is more than just meeting a daily calorie goal and it got me thinking.
I m confused by your comparison, because if you eat according to IIFYM a calorie is still a calorie. No matter how you eat for weight loss; dirty, clean, vegetarian, vegan, primal, paleo or East Cashubian modiefied caveman, or IIFYM, a calorie ( as a measurement of energy ) is always a calorie.
I agree- the topic title made me turn my head and go "huh"
even if you are still doing "a calorie is a calorie" you still have to have a balanced system that works for you- eating all fat calories isn't going to do it for you.
Then what exactly do people mean by "a calorie is a calorie (aside from the fact that it is a unit of energy...we all get that)?" And why is there so much hate against things like the Paleo diet using the "calorie is a calorie" argument? Your statement above seems contradictory to me. Instead of saying "a calorie is a calorie", should we be saying "a carbohydrate is a carbohydrate, a protein is a protein, a fat is a fat?"
I guess I am struggling to see weight loss and body composition as two independent things, which appears to be at the core of this discussion.0 -
Huh? Chips are made from potatoes. Potatoes are complex carbs, not simple carbs. Also, more efficient at digesting what? What exactly do you mean by calories "lost?" Where do you think they go?In my experience, I have different results depending on what food sources I turn to. Also, putting weight loss aside, I know my athletic performance and my overall health improves when I get my calories from cleaner sources. I wouldn't give a crap if I lost 10lbs eating chocolate, at the end of the day I would feel like **** all the time.
Calories are not equal. Anyone who says they are doesn't practice what they preach. I would love to see a couple of the guys on here who don't agree with this logic eat the same amount of calories from burgers, chips, ice cream etc and report back to me. People like to say a calorie is a calorie but then they wouldn't dare try out the theory.
The differed between consuming your calories in avocado instead of chips is the micronutrients. The calories are the same. Your body uses the calories the same. It's only part of a balanced diet.
Not quite sure that's true. There are more simple carbs in chips, so I would assume you would lose a great number of the calories from the simple carbs post digestion (and therefore they will not be used by the body for energy)?
The stomach generally is much more efficient at digesting the calories from protein and fat. More bang for your buck with those macros.
As far as energy needs go, carbs are actually the most efficient macro, because they break down directly to glucose and are utilized quickly and efficiently by every cell in the human body. Protein and fat would both need to be converted to glucose through gluconeogenesis before they could be utilized as cellular energy, which is a much longer, slower process.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions