Thoughts on IIFYM (If It Fits Your Macros)
Options
Replies
-
Nony_Mouse wrote: »galgenstrick wrote: »My gripe with IIFYM is a lot of people completely disregard their micros and therefor their health. If you do it in such a way where you eat the majority of your foods from nutrient dense sources, and fit in the things you like in small amounts, then that's probably a great and sustainable plan for most people.
People who do that aren't really doing IIFYM. It's pretty hard to hit your macros without also hitting your micros, and most people here stress that micros are part of it. IIFYM doesn't translate to 'just eat pizza/twinkies/ice cream so long as you stick to your calories'.
#TeamModeration
And/or folks are emphasizing the low quality foods in their posts, and not emphasizing the nutrient dense ones. If it's this, it's problematic from an educational standpoint but nothing more, if it's the former, then it's more problematic.
I think it's the latter, though one of the biggest IIFYM supporters here eats virtually no plant foods (except the occasional potato), as evidenced by his diary.
But yes, micros are essential to health, and we need to be sure we aren't suggesting otherwise (or that protein is the only thing that matters) to new users.0 -
galgenstrick wrote: »My gripe with IIFYM is a lot of people completely disregard their micros and therefor their health. If you do it in such a way where you eat the majority of your foods from nutrient dense sources, and fit in the things you like in small amounts, then that's probably a great and sustainable plan for most people.
I can't understand how someone can think they are eating healthy WITHOUT attempting to hit macro goals. Isn't that what a "balanced" diet is? True, the actual macro portions required will vary from person to person, but someone losing weight and only counting calories has a better chance of being deficient in something than those who aim for specific amounts of protein, fat, and carbs.
I know this is the easiest time I have ever had losing weight and it is because I actually feel better and stronger and less hungry than other times. I also have not had issues with things like shedding hair and dry, crepey skin and I really believe it is because I aim each day for a balance of nutrients.
0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »I've just started following IIFYM loosely a few days ago, because I'm working towards new fitness/body composition goals for the summer months and I'm curious to see if certain macros ratios will help. I'm pretty neutral on the whole thing so far, though it's a lot more work than I thought it would be. Before I just tracked calories and could plan out my day in a couple minutes. Now I'm spending half my morning trying to get those darn macros numbers to fit together
Everyone says it gets easier, we shall see!
I'm having trouble with this, too. I'm going through a phase where I'm questioning everything I'm doing nutrition and exercise-wise, so I decided to try and pay more attention to my macros. I find I'm not getting enough protein, but because I have a small calorie budget, I end up sacrificing other nutritious foods I like more (such as oatmeal or fruit) to increase protein. It's both time consuming to work out my food plan for the day as well as it's making me less happy with my food choices.
As with other things I've been questioning lately, I'm coming around to not worrying about it too much. I have to eat pretty nutritiously to get enough volume of food within my calorie goal, and I don't have athletic or body comp ambitions, so it probably doesn't matter a whole lot for me.
0 -
lthames0810 wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »I've just started following IIFYM loosely a few days ago, because I'm working towards new fitness/body composition goals for the summer months and I'm curious to see if certain macros ratios will help. I'm pretty neutral on the whole thing so far, though it's a lot more work than I thought it would be. Before I just tracked calories and could plan out my day in a couple minutes. Now I'm spending half my morning trying to get those darn macros numbers to fit together Everyone says it gets easier, we shall see!
I'm having trouble with this, too. I'm going through a phase where I'm questioning everything I'm doing nutrition and exercise-wise, so I decided to try and pay more attention to my macros. I find I'm not getting enough protein, but because I have a small calorie budget, I end up sacrificing other nutritious foods I like more (such as oatmeal or fruit) to increase protein. It's both time consuming to work out my food plan for the day as well as it's making me less happy with my food choices.
As with other things I've been questioning lately, I'm coming around to not worrying about it too much. I have to eat pretty nutritiously to get enough volume of food within my calorie goal, and I don't have athletic or body comp ambitions, so it probably doesn't matter a whole lot for me.
Yeah this morning I wanted to throw the whole thing out the window grrrr Finally did get it sorted out so I hit my protein and fat goals (the two that I'm focusing on right now), but it seriously took almost 45 minutes to get it to work sigh.....
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »galgenstrick wrote: »My gripe with IIFYM is a lot of people completely disregard their micros and therefor their health. If you do it in such a way where you eat the majority of your foods from nutrient dense sources, and fit in the things you like in small amounts, then that's probably a great and sustainable plan for most people.
People who do that aren't really doing IIFYM. It's pretty hard to hit your macros without also hitting your micros, and most people here stress that micros are part of it. IIFYM doesn't translate to 'just eat pizza/twinkies/ice cream so long as you stick to your calories'.
#TeamModeration
And/or folks are emphasizing the low quality foods in their posts, and not emphasizing the nutrient dense ones. If it's this, it's problematic from an educational standpoint but nothing more, if it's the former, then it's more problematic.
I think it's the latter, though one of the biggest IIFYM supporters here eats virtually no plant foods (except the occasional potato), as evidenced by his diary.
But yes, micros are essential to health, and we need to be sure we aren't suggesting otherwise (or that protein is the only thing that matters) to new users.
diary shaming?
0 -
Yea exactly mate to much bs out there diets don't work life style changes docoltonweisbrod wrote: »
0 -
Yeah. I like whole Snickers.isulo_kura wrote: »I just go for a varied diet based in wholefoods and keep an overall view on my Macros but there is far more than just hitting your macros to overall health.
Too many people like to overcomplicate things
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »^^ works for me.
#TeamEatWell
#Variety
#LotsofVeggiesFruitsandStuff
I prefer my IIFYMM (Macros and Micros) to be low convenience, high local and regional produce with the added dose of daily whatevers ...
(Edit: I don't eat Oreos and pizza is rare - well, I was in Italy last week... but my "bro" foods are chocolate, ice cream, wine and sugar cookies)
I like that! That is how I do it too, aim to hit my macros and micros, then fill in some treats.
Ps. You were in Italy last week.. so so so jealous
0 -
FWIW, if people are using a site that doesn't track all but 4 micros to begin with, they probably aren't all that concerned about them, whether they use IIFYM or not.0
-
I'm a big fan. I feel like it provides a framework for a balanced diet. I also like the emphasis on strength training and body composition that seems to go hand in hand with the IIFYM lifestyle.
I don't really feel like IIFYM drives anyone to eat any worse than calorie counting does. Its actually easier to eat less nutritionally dense food if you're not tracking macros. With IIFYM, you have to eat an awful lot of chicken breast and protein shakes to fit that donut in.
For anyone who's having a hard time with it, it helps to aim to hit your proteins first. Then, your other macro numbers are much more manageable. I only meal planned for the first month or two. Now I pretty much know what's in the food I eat regularly and I can hit my numbers without too much effort.0 -
FWIW, if people are using a site that doesn't track all but 4 micros to begin with, they probably aren't all that concerned about them, whether they use IIFYM or not.
I've wondered about this-do you track micros somewhere else? I'm interested in fine tuning mine (though recent blood work didn't come back deficient on anything except D), but MFP's isn't really micro tracking friendly.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »FWIW, if people are using a site that doesn't track all but 4 micros to begin with, they probably aren't all that concerned about them, whether they use IIFYM or not.
I've wondered about this-do you track micros somewhere else? I'm interested in fine tuning mine (though recent blood work didn't come back deficient on anything except D), but MFP's isn't really micro tracking friendly.
Personally, I do. I use another site that offers a lot more options, like full micros, plus letting you add entries for things like blood sugar readings, bp readings, etc. It's still not perfect, because it can't show things that aren't on the label to track, but their default entries are more complete, and they don't round any numbers. Since the update, I've been leaning more towards only tracking there and just posting here, especially since they broke the refined macros script. I haven't been able to adjust my goals for about 18lbs now on this site, so they're only correct on the other one.0 -
Nope. Simply an observation that micros likely aren't being attended to, truly, nor being met.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »galgenstrick wrote: »My gripe with IIFYM is a lot of people completely disregard their micros and therefor their health. If you do it in such a way where you eat the majority of your foods from nutrient dense sources, and fit in the things you like in small amounts, then that's probably a great and sustainable plan for most people.
People who do that aren't really doing IIFYM. It's pretty hard to hit your macros without also hitting your micros, and most people here stress that micros are part of it. IIFYM doesn't translate to 'just eat pizza/twinkies/ice cream so long as you stick to your calories'.
#TeamModeration
And/or folks are emphasizing the low quality foods in their posts, and not emphasizing the nutrient dense ones. If it's this, it's problematic from an educational standpoint but nothing more, if it's the former, then it's more problematic.
I think it's the latter, though one of the biggest IIFYM supporters here eats virtually no plant foods (except the occasional potato), as evidenced by his diary.
But yes, micros are essential to health, and we need to be sure we aren't suggesting otherwise (or that protein is the only thing that matters) to new users.
diary shaming?0 -
I use MFP to keep a general idea as to where my macros are so that I don't get too off track, but I'm not nearly as strict as I am with calories. For me it becomes too restrictive, and not how I want to relate to food long term. If I try to hit specific macro targets each day it starts feeling more like an elimination diet, and all the emotions which made those impossible to stick to come back.
In general I think that most on here find that in order to feel sated and strong you can't eat too many empty calories anyhow, so we tend to eat a lot of leaner proteins and vegetables.0 -
FWIW, if people are using a site that doesn't track all but 4 micros to begin with, they probably aren't all that concerned about them, whether they use IIFYM or not.
You really can't know that. I'd bet a lot of people take a multi-vitamin, and possibly other supplements, that they don't log, for example.
0 -
coltonweisbrod wrote: »galgenstrick wrote: »My gripe with IIFYM is a lot of people completely disregard their micros and therefor their health. If you do it in such a way where you eat the majority of your foods from nutrient dense sources, and fit in the things you like in small amounts, then that's probably a great and sustainable plan for most people.
Well those people aren't serious about being healthy if they truly use it as an excuse to over eat on the foods high in calories. Know what I mean?
These two statements are generalizations, and neither of you really know the intent of the people who are following a certain diet.
0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »FWIW, if people are using a site that doesn't track all but 4 micros to begin with, they probably aren't all that concerned about them, whether they use IIFYM or not.
I've wondered about this-do you track micros somewhere else? I'm interested in fine tuning mine (though recent blood work didn't come back deficient on anything except D), but MFP's isn't really micro tracking friendly.
Personally, I do. I use another site that offers a lot more options, like full micros, plus letting you add entries for things like blood sugar readings, bp readings, etc. It's still not perfect, because it can't show things that aren't on the label to track, but their default entries are more complete, and they don't round any numbers. Since the update, I've been leaning more towards only tracking there and just posting here, especially since they broke the refined macros script. I haven't been able to adjust my goals for about 18lbs now on this site, so they're only correct on the other one.
Do you mind naming the site? I'm always curious as to how my micros stack up, and if I could get a better overall picture, I think I could make adjustments in the right direction.0 -
The way I look at it - before, I used to go through junk phases and NOT keep within my calories, which is why I gained weight. If my food offends you now, imagine how dreadful it would be if you double or triple the quantities!
I am happy to win the main war (the weight war) while losing the occasional battle (eating perfectly all the time).
Plenty of wisdom here. Progress not perfection.
0 -
FWIW, if people are using a site that doesn't track all but 4 micros to begin with, they probably aren't all that concerned about them, whether they use IIFYM or not.
Tracking micros is a pain, but I don't think that means that people don't care about them.
After briefly considering and rejecting whether it would be possible to comprehensively track micros, I decided it made more sense to just try to eat in a way that is likely to cover them, by trying to eat a somewhat diverse diet with lots of plant foods, as well as a variety of meat/fish options. Perhaps it's just an excuse because I would find tracking to that degree, creating the correct entries and so on, terribly burdensome, but I'm convinced myself that it's actually better not to focus on specific micros for the most part as there are likely reasons that foods that have traditionally been eaten as part of healthy diets are good for us that we haven't specifically isolated.
But beyond that I do think that humans are pretty robust and can get along well on many different diets, so not obsessing and being able to enjoy food is a high priority for me. Since this tends to help me focus on food quality and be picky about not wasting calories on something subpar, it actually helps a lot with weight loss too.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 968 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions