IIFYM vs "a calorie is a calorie"

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.

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.

The stomach generally is much more efficient at digesting the calories from protein and fat. More bang for your buck with those macros.

Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermic_effect_of_food

More energy is required to digest and absorb protein than is required for carbs.

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-calorie

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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?

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.