You say Macros Macros Macros. I hear Marsha Marsha Marsha.

The "steak and poptarts" version of IIFYM does not disregard micros.

some folks here do. I've had people proclaim there is nothing to consider other than macros.
That said, most successful folks here aim for a nutrient sense diet with some fun discretionary calories.

I have never seen this advocated by anyone and if I do I will make sure to correct them.

Did they actually say micros don't matter or did they say 'Micros aren't worth tracking because being deficient in important micros isn't as common as people seem to think' OR 'Meeting ones macros usually involves meeting ones micros by default so there's no reason to be hung up on them' or something like that? Because those are distinctly different from 'disregarding' micros.

:flowerforyou:

This is why I think the emphasis on Pop Tarts and fast food in the forum discussions of IIFYM is misplaced. *ducks and rolls out of thread*

I can see your point, for sure. I mean, I do get a bit of delight over being able to hit McDonalds and Wendy's on the same day then following that with some ice cream and cookies and still rocking my macros and micros, but by the same token the vast majority of my time is spent at home watching vegetables simmer in chicken broth.

Jump in. Tell me why you think I am right, wrong or somewhat confused, or what your experience has been. And yes, a cat was mentioned, so gifs are appropriate.

You're my kind of gal.:laugh: cat gifs are almost always appropriate!

All this talk about micros I think stems from the macro focus (macro... micro.. sounds kinda the same.. let's spotlight both!). What about all those other diets mentioned (Atkins, anti-Atkins.. w/e) that MOST DEFINITLY have no attention paid to micro nutrients? No one is all like "ERMAGERD MICROS" whenever they get brought up.

BTW everyone is getting their back all raised but no one is really pointing any fingers here? Yes- it's common that people diss IIFYM because people get to eat junk in moderation and they get jealous so they try and call it out. But who cares.

*Goes back to eating sushi and korean bbq lunch*

'Micros aren't worth tracking because being deficient in important micros isn't as common as people seem to think' OR 'Meeting ones macros usually involves meeting ones micros by default so there's no reason to be hung up on them' or something like that?

Meeting one's micros isn't as easy as meeting macros.

I dunnnno about that actually. I think people overate micronutrient deficiency.

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/04/16/jn.112.172858.full.pdf+html

Since the release of the Second Nutrition Report, we assessed
the prevalence of multiple low biomarker concentrations in
NHANES 2005–2006 to better estimate the burden of risk
for deficiencies in the U.S. population. Nearly 8 of every 10
Americans (78%) were not at risk of deficiencies in
any of the 7 vitamins (vitamins A, B-6, B-12, C, D, and E and
folate) studied in the Second Nutrition Report (Table 2). Sixteen
percent of the population was at risk of deficiency in 1 vitamin
and 6% had 2 or more vitamin concentrations low enough to be at risk
of deficiencies.


Obviously those 7 vitamins aren't the full scope of micro needs - but I was quite surprised to read that blurb.

'Micros aren't worth tracking because being deficient in important micros isn't as common as people seem to think' OR 'Meeting ones macros usually involves meeting ones micros by default so there's no reason to be hung up on them' or something like that?

Meeting one's micros isn't as easy as meeting macros.

I dunnnno about that actually. I think people overate micronutrient deficiency.

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/04/16/jn.112.172858.full.pdf+html

Since the release of the Second Nutrition Report, we assessed
the prevalence of multiple low biomarker concentrations in
NHANES 2005–2006 to better estimate the burden of risk
for deficiencies in the U.S. population. Nearly 8 of every 10
Americans (78%) were not at risk of deficiencies in
any of the 7 vitamins (vitamins A, B-6, B-12, C, D, and E and
folate) studied in the Second Nutrition Report (Table 2). Sixteen
percent of the population was at risk of deficiency in 1 vitamin
and 6% had 2 or more vitamin concentrations low enough to be at risk
of deficiencies.


Obviously those 7 vitamins aren't the full scope of micro needs - but I was quite surprised to read that blurb.

Keep reading.

In for confusion and Brady Bunch references.

The "steak and poptarts" version of IIFYM does not disregard micros.

some folks here do. I've had people proclaim there is nothing to consider other than macros.
That said, most successful folks here aim for a nutrient sense diet with some fun discretionary calories.

Skeptical.

Did they actually say micros don't matter or did they say 'Micros aren't worth tracking because being deficient in important micros isn't as common as people seem to think' OR 'Meeting ones macros usually involves meeting ones micros by default so there's no reason to be hung up on them' or something like that? Because those are distinctly different from 'disregarding' micros.

I've had big proponents DISREGARD micros. They've declared the only thing to consider is macros.
Again, some are here simply to lose weight. Some are here to get fit. Some are here to do competitive sports...How each interprets their own diet, even with IIFYM, will vary. I'm not knocking IIFYM. Simply saying that as with most things,there's much about it that folks interpret as they will...

As for "fortified" pop tarts, there's much doubt as to the benefits of fortification, relative to getting nutrients from food the old fashioned way (for lack of a better term).

ETA: I disagree with the other poster who suggests micros will take care of themselves if macros are met. Not true. Not true. One can easily meet a 40/30/30 and miss several, if not many important micros.

My main thought is, "why were you feeding your cat carbohydrates?".

many commercial cat foods are high in carbs (over 10%) and this is true for wet foods, not just dry.

(i did a lot of research on the subject last year when i found out one of my kitties was diabetic. he has been in remission for many months after switching him cat food that is under 10% carbs)

The problem comes from pet food producers using the same basic formulations for both cats and dogs. They did quite a bit of research on dietary necessities of dogs and figured it would work just as well for cats. Um, no. Cats in the wild are hyper-carnivores, subsisting on a diet almost exclusively composed of meat and fat, while dogs are much more omnivorous, so most cat systems do not handle the higher carbohydrate content found in most standard dry foods. Switching to wet food does help as these usually have a higher protein and fat content, but again, even there, carbohydrates are an issue. Ideally you want a food that is as low in carbohydrates as possible, luckily several of the pet food makers have figured out this mistake and begun to change up their cat food formulas.