IIFIYM and TDEE?

GC527
GC527 Posts: 272 Member
in Getting Started
I'll admit that I am a newbie. I get that eating at a deficit is what causes weight loss and I get that watching my macros is important too as well as exercise. What is IIFIYM and TDEE?
«13

Replies

  • mandamerlot
    mandamerlot Posts: 180 Member
    IIIFYIM- If it fits your macros (rubbish)
    TDEE- Total daily energy expenditure.
  • mandamerlot
    mandamerlot Posts: 180 Member
    Hit reply too soon

    Some calculators for TDEE:
    http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
    http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/womans_lean_sexy_bible.htm
    http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/

    Macro Calculator:
    http://www.healthylivingheavylifting.com/how-to-calculate-macros-for-cutting/
  • elusive_design
    elusive_design Posts: 1,095 Member
    IIIFYIM- If it fits your macros (rubbish)

    ^^This. :flowerforyou:
  • amberrenee813
    amberrenee813 Posts: 395 Member
    IIIFYIM- If it fits your macros (rubbish)

    I knew what TDEE was, but thanks for teaching me this.
  • BKNeenz
    BKNeenz Posts: 17 Member
    To add to that question, once you've found your BMR and TDEE, where does this info go? Is your TDEE on the app the net goal with exercise calories burned? Or is this the goal despite workouts?
  • mandamerlot
    mandamerlot Posts: 180 Member
    TDEE takes into account your exercise if you have set it correctly. You need to cut a percentage to lose weight- your TDEE number is maintenance.

    For example, if you look at my diary my goal is 1626. That is a 20% cut of my TDEE.
  • trogalicious
    trogalicious Posts: 4,584 Member
    IIIFYIM- If it fits your macros (rubbish)
    TDEE- Total daily energy expenditure.
    I don't follow the rubbish portion of this. Please explain.
  • BKNeenz
    BKNeenz Posts: 17 Member
    Thanks mandamerlot. I forgot to add in my post that I did calculate to reduce TDEE by 20%. I used fat2fit.com to calculate the following:

    BMR (Katch McArdle) - 1381
    Lightly Active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk) - 1902

    So... 1902 - 20% = 1522

    So 1522 should be my NET caloric goal including calories burned from exercise? 1902 net calories would be what I would eat if I wanted to maintain current weight, right?
  • trogalicious
    trogalicious Posts: 4,584 Member
    Thanks mandamerlot. I forgot to add in my post that I did calculate to reduce TDEE by 20%. I used fat2fit.com to calculate the following:

    BMR (Katch McArdle) - 1381
    Lightly Active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk) - 1902

    So... 1902 - 20% = 1522

    So 1522 should be my NET caloric goal including calories burned from exercise? 1902 net calories would be what I would eat if I wanted to maintain current weight, right?
    the 1902 should be for maintenance.

    also, depending on your goal, 20% may be too aggressive. For folks with a lot of weight to lose, the 20% is the starting percentage that is typically recommended. As you get closer to goal, shift the % downward.

    that said...

    ALL of these are estimates. Until you log accurately, 100%, for at least 6 weeks.. you aren't gonna know for sure.
  • snazzyjazzy21
    snazzyjazzy21 Posts: 1,298 Member
    IIIFYIM- If it fits your macros (rubbish)
    TDEE- Total daily energy expenditure.
    I don't follow the rubbish portion of this. Please explain.

    I'm also interested. How is meeting your macro goals a rubbish plan?
  • trogalicious
    trogalicious Posts: 4,584 Member
    IIIFYIM- If it fits your macros (rubbish)
    TDEE- Total daily energy expenditure.
    I don't follow the rubbish portion of this. Please explain.

    I'm also interested. How is meeting your macro goals a rubbish plan?
    No kidding. It would certainly explain how IIFYM hasn't worked for me at all...









    ....



    ..... or something.
  • navyrigger46
    navyrigger46 Posts: 1,301 Member
    IIIFYIM- If it fits your macros (rubbish)
    TDEE- Total daily energy expenditure.
    I don't follow the rubbish portion of this. Please explain.

    I'm also interested. How is meeting your macro goals a rubbish plan?
    No kidding. It would certainly explain how IIFYM hasn't worked for me at all...









    ....



    ..... or something.

    QFT and +1 and all that jazz.

    Rigger
  • mom2kpr
    mom2kpr Posts: 348 Member
    IIFYM does mean If it fits your macros. It is not rubbish. It simply means that you meet your macro (protein, fat. carbs) daily while staying within a deficit (assuming you are trying to lose weight). You can eat how you want as long as stay within your calorie & macro goals. You can eat as healthy or as some say "clean" or eat "junk". However to meet your goals, it is easier to eat primarily healthier & then add in the treats after your goals are met. I think it is common to follow a 80/20 or 90/10 rule. 80% or 90% healthier foods and 10% - 20% "junk". It is generally less restrictive and allows you to have room for thinks like ice cream and stuff.
  • psych101
    psych101 Posts: 1,842 Member
    IIIFYIM- If it fits your macros (rubbish)

    ^^This. :flowerforyou:

    Wait, what?

    Why is it rubbish?
  • _KitKat_
    _KitKat_ Posts: 1,066 Member
    In because I have been wondering about IIIFYIM, I have no opinion on it and would like to hear pros and cons.

    Posted when others did. if that ^^^^up above a few^^^ is what it means then why not, I thought that's what your suppose to do, at least when I was always thin I ate in moderation anything I wanted. Ice cream is great why would I deprive myself, i am just not into pain (well that kind :blushing: )
  • Rogiefreida
    Rogiefreida Posts: 567 Member
    I am also interested to hear how IIFYM is rubbish.

    It works great for me...
  • Mischievous_Rascal
    Mischievous_Rascal Posts: 1,791 Member
    IIIFYIM- If it fits your macros (rubbish)

    ^^This. :flowerforyou:

    Wait, what?

    Why is it rubbish?

    I would like to know why it's rubbish, as well. I'm assuming it has worked for the woman I'm quoting here just as well as it's worked for me, since she asked first.
  • BKNeenz
    BKNeenz Posts: 17 Member
    Thanks mandamerlot. I forgot to add in my post that I did calculate to reduce TDEE by 20%. I used fat2fit.com to calculate the following:

    BMR (Katch McArdle) - 1381
    Lightly Active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk) - 1902

    So... 1902 - 20% = 1522

    So 1522 should be my NET caloric goal including calories burned from exercise? 1902 net calories would be what I would eat if I wanted to maintain current weight, right?
    the 1902 should be for maintenance.

    also, depending on your goal, 20% may be too aggressive. For folks with a lot of weight to lose, the 20% is the starting percentage that is typically recommended. As you get closer to goal, shift the % downward.

    that said...

    ALL of these are estimates. Until you log accurately, 100%, for at least 6 weeks.. you aren't gonna know for sure.

    Understood about the estimates. I just need a starting point and targets to try to get on track. My current goal is 30lb so I'm not sure if that's considered aggressive?

    So as long as my NET calories are say between 1500-1600/day to establish a pattern, I should be ok. I think I understand that correctly. lol.
  • trogalicious
    trogalicious Posts: 4,584 Member
    In because I have been wondering about IIIFYIM, I have no opinion on it and would like to hear pros and cons.
    pro? you eat to fit your macro goals with a lot of tasty foods.
    con? a lot of people don't understand it and immediately start bashing the concept. since they think it's some magical buzzword or something. it doesn't stand for "If I Ingest Frozen Yogurt, I Melt"

    c'mon Merlot, tell us about this rubbish business. I can wait.
  • trogalicious
    trogalicious Posts: 4,584 Member
    Thanks mandamerlot. I forgot to add in my post that I did calculate to reduce TDEE by 20%. I used fat2fit.com to calculate the following:

    BMR (Katch McArdle) - 1381
    Lightly Active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk) - 1902

    So... 1902 - 20% = 1522

    So 1522 should be my NET caloric goal including calories burned from exercise? 1902 net calories would be what I would eat if I wanted to maintain current weight, right?
    the 1902 should be for maintenance.

    also, depending on your goal, 20% may be too aggressive. For folks with a lot of weight to lose, the 20% is the starting percentage that is typically recommended. As you get closer to goal, shift the % downward.

    that said...

    ALL of these are estimates. Until you log accurately, 100%, for at least 6 weeks.. you aren't gonna know for sure.

    Understood about the estimates. I just need a starting point and targets to try to get on track. My current goal is 30lb so I'm not sure if that's considered aggressive?

    So as long as my NET calories are say between 1500-1600/day to establish a pattern, I should be ok. I think I understand that correctly. lol.

    with a 30 lb goal, you could cut to 10-15%, still lose gradually, and have more calories to work with. I wouldn't jump immediately to the 20% cut.
  • _KitKat_
    _KitKat_ Posts: 1,066 Member
    In because I have been wondering about IIIFYIM, I have no opinion on it and would like to hear pros and cons.
    pro? you eat to fit your macro goals with a lot of tasty foods.
    con? a lot of people don't understand it and immediately start bashing the concept.

    I thought that is what everyone did, well except for people with health issues or the people who think some foods are just naughty or dirty. Personally I prefer things Naughty and dirty. I also do not give my food powers such as evil so maybe i just don't understand.
  • psych101
    psych101 Posts: 1,842 Member
    IIIFYIM- If it fits your macros (rubbish)

    ^^This. :flowerforyou:

    Wait, what?

    Why is it rubbish?

    I would like to know why it's rubbish, as well. I'm assuming it has worked for the woman I'm quoting here just as well as it's worked for me, since she asked first.

    Haha yep and given that we've lost over 200lbs between us and trog has lost over 150lbs as well, I'd say it works quite well :)
  • PhearlessPhreaks
    PhearlessPhreaks Posts: 890 Member
    IIIFYIM- If it fits your macros (rubbish)

    Yeah, I'm curious about the rubbish part too.
  • mandamerlot
    mandamerlot Posts: 180 Member
    I'm not speaking from a weight loss standpoint, more so a body recomp/cutting perspective.
  • _Resolve_
    _Resolve_ Posts: 735 Member
    I'm not speaking from a weight loss standpoint, more so a body recomp/cutting perspective.

    Care to elaborate a little? 'cause there are a few of us here that eat with macros in mind that have had success with body recomp/cutting.
  • trogalicious
    trogalicious Posts: 4,584 Member
    I'm not speaking from a weight loss standpoint, more so a body recomp/cutting perspective.

    Care to elaborate a little? 'cause there are a few of us here that eat with macros in mind that have had success with body recomp/cutting.
    yes, please. do elaborate.
  • mandamerlot
    mandamerlot Posts: 180 Member
    I'm not speaking from a weight loss standpoint, more so a body recomp/cutting perspective.

    Care to elaborate a little? 'cause there are a few of us here that eat with macros in mind that have had success with body recomp/cutting.

    I am not discrediting macros, I just don't agree with the IIFYM justification that I have seen commonly used- eating 500 calories of chocolate cake and 500 calories of lean chicken is not the same thing.
  • trogalicious
    trogalicious Posts: 4,584 Member
    I'm not speaking from a weight loss standpoint, more so a body recomp/cutting perspective.

    Care to elaborate a little? 'cause there are a few of us here that eat with macros in mind that have had success with body recomp/cutting.

    I am not discrediting macros, I just don't agree with the IIFYM justification that I have seen commonly used- eating 500 calories of chocolate cake and 500 calories of lean chicken is not the same thing.
    sounds like someone doesn't understand IIFYM...
  • navyrigger46
    navyrigger46 Posts: 1,301 Member
    I'm not speaking from a weight loss standpoint, more so a body recomp/cutting perspective.

    Care to elaborate a little? 'cause there are a few of us here that eat with macros in mind that have had success with body recomp/cutting.

    I am not discrediting macros, I just don't agree with the IIFYM justification that I have seen commonly used- eating 500 calories of chocolate cake and 500 calories of lean chicken is not the same thing.

    I think you're confused, do you honestly think we sit around advocating people eat cake and ice cream and not lean proteins and veggies?

    Rigger
  • MityMax96
    MityMax96 Posts: 5,778 Member
    Yeah I really don't see IIFYM being rubbish at this point.

    I basically have my Intermittent Fasting program set up along the lines of IIFYM....
    And it works for me.

    So curious to see if we get a follow-up as to why it is rubbish.

Categories