IIFYM or Clean Eating

BlueBombers wrote: »

IIFYM all the way.

+1

The problem with these types of conversations is the complete lack of context.

IIFYM is primarily about weight loss and exercise performance, with the idea being that you can eat whatever you want within the framework of your calorie and macro goals.

Clean eating is more about health concerns and people not wanting to eat processed/refined foods, artificial ingredients, etc etc etc.

If you think about it, someone who ate clean and regularly met their calorie/macro goals would be both a clean eater and an IIFYMer.


The other problem is that both camps have become somewhat militant about their cause.

cwolfman13 wrote: »

IIFYM done correctly and as intended is largely going to be "clean"...despite popular belief, IIFYM doesn't mean eat anything you want and all the junk *kitten* you want...to hit an optimal macro ratio, one is going to be eating a lot of whole foods...a lot of veg and fruit...a lot of lean proteins, and healthy fats...IIFYM just means you don't have to feel stupidly guilty because you had a bowl of ice cream for desert as part of an otherwise balanced and nutritious diet that was within your calorie and macro goals.

This^^ 100%.

auddii wrote: »

Many people who do clean eating find it restrictive, so they'll often say they do 80/20 or 90/10, where they eat "clean" 80-90% of the time. When you compare that to how IIFYM was intended, they both focus on nutrient dense food with calorie dense foods ("treats") in moderation. So, you end up with them being pretty much the same thing.

Doesn't stop the arguments though.

This.

Beyond that, clean eating doesn't really have much of a definition. I find it gets used in two main ways (both of which I find kind of annoying).

The first, and most common on MFP, is by people who until about yesterday were eating about 95% fast food or packaged meals plus lots of packaged sweets, etc., who seem to assume that everyone eats that way (the "sugar is in EVERYTHING") crowd, who do legitimately improve their diets to include a good bit of home prepared food (but still eat lots of packaged stuff like yogurt, cold cuts, plus a variety of the same stuff they used to), and then preen (IMO) about eating "clean" as if they were now eating much better than everyone else. I have no problem with what these people are doing--I'd encourage it, even, but I don't see why it needs a special name or special rules or recipes or why they then feel compelled to claim they are eating better than people who do IIFYM or simply don't like to go on about "eating clean."

The second, and not uncommon around here either, is by people who seem to think that "eating healthy" is defined by what you don't eat -- by giving up, always and forever -- perfectly harmless foods like grains or sugar or red meat or whatever it is, whether or not you actually eat a balanced diet or, say, vegetables. In particular, many of this group like to focused on "processed" vs. non-processed foods, as if that defined the health benefits. One problem with that, of course, is that most everything is processed in some sense. Another problem is that being "processed" or not is simply not a good proxy for being nutrient dense or not or helpful for a diet. Examples I like to use are greek yogurt (let's assume Fage 0% plain) or smoked salmon (although sub boneless, skinless chicken breast or baby carrots or frozen veggies, if you prefer). Those are foods that are undeniably processed, but which I eat not DESPITE their nutritional qualities, but in large part because of them (and also because they are tasty). People should definitely think about the nutritional qualities of their foods and their diet as a whole (I think it's sensible to leave room for some less nutritionally dense foods you love if you can without sacrificing anything of significance nutritionally), but to claim this is determined by whether it's processed or not is silly. There's a huge variety of processed foods; they aren't all the same.

independant2406 wrote: »

In my opinion losing weight in an unhealthy way is just as bad for your health as being overweight in the first place (by health I mean measurable markers: triglycerides, blood sugar, cholesterol, blood pressure, chance for diabetes, heart disease etc). Again just my opinion, but this is why I'm working hard at what I consider "clean eating."

This is not actually true. Being substantially overweight is unhealthy in and of itself.

But my main point is that one need not "eat clean" (however that is defined) to eat healthy, and quite often what gets called "eating clean" around here doesn't seem particularly healthy to me (i.e., no bread, but also few fruits and veggies or some such). If the point is to eat healthy, why not ditch the convoluted "eat clean" idea and just, well, focus on eating a diet that you consider healthy.

DorseyJ618 wrote: »

Hello everyone!

I've seen a lot of debate about these two options on my Facebook feed lately, and I was wondering the opinion of those who follow one or the other (or both) and why.

Thanks

IIFYM because there is no such thing as a "clean" diet.

Eat a varied diet of nutrient dense food to fill your macro and micro needs and fill in the remaining calories (depending on your goals) with whatever you like...

Agreed with the IIFYM comments - they are essentially the same as the macros are the restriction. If your at 60g of fat a day or similar then there isn't much take out or food that people describe as "bad " historically (not my words just what people use to say). That being said it does allow for something your craving along the way but it's not all Poptarts and McGangbangs.

independant2406 wrote: »

I didn't say being fat wasn't unhealthy... I said losing weight in an unhealthy way (one that makes your health markers worse or potentially worse) is just as unhealthy as being fat in the first place (in my opinion).

That's circular--of course losing weight in a way that makes your health markers worse is unhealthy. But what is this way? Usually, any weight lost when you are substantially overweight (not just a little) makes health markers better. I got fat initially while eating a diet that most "clean eaters" would claim was clean. If I lost weight eating foods that I personally avoid because I don't care for them (say Lean Cuisines and such), I think that would still be healthier than being as fat as I was. It just wouldn't be sustainable for me, because I dislike that kind of food and like homemade stuff (and good quality restaurant stuff, like where they tell you the farm it comes from but just use lots of butter, which I think is perfectly "clean").

Just like IIFYM, it depends on how that term "clean eating" is defined. What really is the difference between your definition of "focus on eating a diet you consider healthy" and "eating what you consider to be clean?" It depends on what you consider healthy (aka clean).

Of course, but that's usually my point. Why use a term that is vague in its meaning and tends to sound rude to others (my food is "clean" yours is not) or suggests that some are eating "unclean" foods, whatever that might mean, when all you really mean is "I'm trying to eat healthy." "Clean" only makes sense as a term if there is some more specific definition of "clean" eating, and it seems there is not. At least something like "paleo" has a proper meaning, even if lots of self-proclaimed paleo people don't actually eat that way.

Some people eliminate 1 bag of potato chips each week from their afternoon snacks (because it reduces sodium and calories) and replace it with carrots and celery and some low cal dressing and consider that "clean eating".

And if the term is that meaningless, why use it? It seems that the only reason is to proclaim superiority over the unclean. That's my objection.

BlueBombers wrote: »

I'm really starting to hate the term "clean eating"

No sense getting upset about a completely arbitrary, meaningless term.

cwolfman13 wrote: »

IIFYM done correctly and as intended is largely going to be "clean"...despite popular belief, IIFYM doesn't mean eat anything you want and all the junk *kitten* you want...to hit an optimal macro ratio, one is going to be eating a lot of whole foods...a lot of veg and fruit...a lot of lean proteins, and healthy fats...IIFYM just means you don't have to feel stupidly guilty because you had a bowl of ice cream for desert as part of an otherwise balanced and nutritious diet that was within your calorie and macro goals.

Unfortunately, the whole IIFYM concept has been bastardized to represent something that was never intended. The concept was born out of the fitness industry, and more specifically, the body building industry where macro goals were established as to optimize performance, not eat whatever the hell.

Thank you for this. The bastardization of IIFYM pisses me off to hell.