Thoughts on IIFYM (If It Fits Your Macros)
Replies
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »I did mention micros to someone else (not you two ladies) regarding no carb, and the reply I got was that offal had vitamins.
I just didn't know what to say to that.
My memory's shot, I don't even remember the context of the conversation at this point.
On my way out the door, so someone else may have mentioned it and I haven't read yet - the LCD group did a Meat Only challenge for May. If you want to go see how it went, they had ongoing check in threads through the month - it was only a dozen or so that participated afaik.
I love meat...all kinds...but nothing but meat for an entire month is too much even for me. Doing that might be the only thing in the world that could actually make me crave lettuce.0 -
What you just said makes no sense, not what that person said.tedboosalis7 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
Actually I do it. I have no idea why it wouldn't work. This post doesn't make sense, sorry. See diary.
Why doesn't it make sense?
It means can hit your macros whilst being totally unaware of whether your micros are correct or not. I would imagine that's what most people here do as you can't track micros accurately on MFP.
0 -
You're wrong. The are 3 groups. The ones that know what they are talking about, the ones that don't know what they are talking about and lastly the group that thinks they know what they are talking about but they really don't.
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »lemurcat12 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
I agree with this, although I probably shouldn't speak to what IIFYM is, because my dislike of named diets extends to IIFYM too. If anything, I'd say I try to follow a flexible dieting plan with a focus on eating balanced, nutritious, and delicious meals. Often homecooked, with local in-season produce when possible, but I live in a big city with lots of great restaurants of a wide variety of types, and I am not cutting those out of my diet.
Yep, me too! I was just going with the IIFYM thing because that was the tread title. My (limited) reading of IIFYM is that that is what they are meaning. They just stuck a label on it cos apparently that's the thing to do!
IIFYM was actually a canned response on bodybuilding.com...it's not a diet...it's a concept. Basically, "hey bro...if I eat this oatmeal will it destroy my gainz?" Response, "IIFYM". Since then it has been completely bastardized by other websites claiming to be IIFYM and people who have no idea what the original intent of the concept was.
It was born out of the bodybuilding and fitness community...it was never intended to mean eat all the poo. IIFYM is basically a flexible dieting plan with a focus on eating balanced, nutritious, and delicious meals...but that doesn't roll of the tongue when you're responding to a bunch of bros on bodybuilding.com.
While I'm not disagreeing with the post above, there is something that many people don't realize, including what is probably the majority of people on this site about bodybuilding.com, and that's that the term IIFYM amongst a large portion and many of the "bros" in the nutrition section is not respected. There are well respected threads about nutrition that go into nutrition on a level that is rarely reached on here where saying IIFYM is not allowed and can result in you being banned for saying it
Where is the petition for "Shakeology, HerbalLife, and Detox" being a bannable offense on here?
I wish.
The nice that over there is that it's not the mods that ban you, it's the high rep members getting rid of the nonsense.
I will third that ….0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
What you just said makes no sense, not what that person said.tedboosalis7 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
Actually I do it. I have no idea why it wouldn't work. This post doesn't make sense, sorry. See diary.
Why doesn't it make sense?
It means can hit your macros whilst being totally unaware of whether your micros are correct or not. I would imagine that's what most people here do as you can't track micros accurately on MFP.
What statement means that? Ted seems to have misunderstood Nony's comment, and thus his comment made no sense.
Also, you don't need to track micros to be concerned with them or aware of them, as several people explained.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
What you just said makes no sense, not what that person said.tedboosalis7 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
Actually I do it. I have no idea why it wouldn't work. This post doesn't make sense, sorry. See diary.
Why doesn't it make sense?
It means can hit your macros whilst being totally unaware of whether your micros are correct or not. I would imagine that's what most people here do as you can't track micros accurately on MFP.
What statement means that? Ted seems to have misunderstood Nony's comment, and thus his comment made no sense.
Also, you don't need to track micros to be concerned with them or aware of them, as several people explained.
This one - "People who do that [disregard their micros] aren't really doing IIFYM. It's pretty hard to hit your macros without also hitting your micros..."
I usually hit my macros but I have no idea whether I'm hitting my micros or not. Some things, such as potassium, aren't even listed on most food packaging and some things are wildly variable, e.g. one carrot might have twice as many vitamins or whatever as the carrot sitting beside it in the bag.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
What you just said makes no sense, not what that person said.tedboosalis7 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
Actually I do it. I have no idea why it wouldn't work. This post doesn't make sense, sorry. See diary.
Why doesn't it make sense?
It means can hit your macros whilst being totally unaware of whether your micros are correct or not. I would imagine that's what most people here do as you can't track micros accurately on MFP.
What statement means that? Ted seems to have misunderstood Nony's comment, and thus his comment made no sense.
Also, you don't need to track micros to be concerned with them or aware of them, as several people explained.
This one - "People who do that [disregard their micros] aren't really doing IIFYM. It's pretty hard to hit your macros without also hitting your micros..."
I usually hit my macros but I have no idea whether I'm hitting my micros or not. Some things, such as potassium, aren't even listed on most food packaging and some things are wildly variable, e.g. one carrot might have twice as many vitamins or whatever as the carrot sitting beside it in the bag.
It's super easy to know if you are meeting your potassium if you mostly use the good non-asterisk entries (which are available for whole foods). But I agree that it's hard to track a lot of them at all precisely--the best way to do it, IMO, is to simply focus on eating an overall nutrient-rich and balanced (and somewhat varied, IMO) diet.
I don't think it's that hard to know if you are hitting micros generally or not, as you should understand your own diet. I think people who are thoughtful enough about what they are eating to bother with macros generally are aware of how well they are eating overall, even if they don't personally worry much about the same nutrition goals that I do (for example, some care more about getting minimum protein or, I suppose, staying under a particular carb limit).
You kind of do have to go out of your way to hit a reasonable macro set up with "all junk food" as people like to pretend is common.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
What you just said makes no sense, not what that person said.tedboosalis7 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
Actually I do it. I have no idea why it wouldn't work. This post doesn't make sense, sorry. See diary.
Why doesn't it make sense?
It means can hit your macros whilst being totally unaware of whether your micros are correct or not. I would imagine that's what most people here do as you can't track micros accurately on MFP.
Please don't come in speaking for someone else assuming you know what they are saying. Useles......Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
You're wrong. The are 3 groups. The ones that know what they are talking about, the ones that don't know what they are talking about and lastly the group that thinks they know what they are talking about but they really don't.
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.
The irony is ironic.
deeply ironic0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
What you just said makes no sense, not what that person said.tedboosalis7 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
Actually I do it. I have no idea why it wouldn't work. This post doesn't make sense, sorry. See diary.
Why doesn't it make sense?
It means can hit your macros whilst being totally unaware of whether your micros are correct or not. I would imagine that's what most people here do as you can't track micros accurately on MFP.
What statement means that? Ted seems to have misunderstood Nony's comment, and thus his comment made no sense.
Also, you don't need to track micros to be concerned with them or aware of them, as several people explained.
This one - "People who do that [disregard their micros] aren't really doing IIFYM. It's pretty hard to hit your macros without also hitting your micros..."
I usually hit my macros but I have no idea whether I'm hitting my micros or not. Some things, such as potassium, aren't even listed on most food packaging and some things are wildly variable, e.g. one carrot might have twice as many vitamins or whatever as the carrot sitting beside it in the bag.
It's super easy to know if you are meeting your potassium if you mostly use the good non-asterisk entries (which are available for whole foods). But I agree that it's hard to track a lot of them at all precisely--the best way to do it, IMO, is to simply focus on eating an overall nutrient-rich and balanced (and somewhat varied, IMO) diet.
I don't think it's that hard to know if you are hitting micros generally or not, as you should understand your own diet. I think people who are thoughtful enough about what they are eating to bother with macros generally are aware of how well they are eating overall, even if they don't personally worry much about the same nutrition goals that I do (for example, some care more about getting minimum protein or, I suppose, staying under a particular carb limit).
You kind of do have to go out of your way to hit a reasonable macro set up with "all junk food" as people like to pretend is common.
^^This.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
What you just said makes no sense, not what that person said.tedboosalis7 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
Actually I do it. I have no idea why it wouldn't work. This post doesn't make sense, sorry. See diary.
Why doesn't it make sense?
It means can hit your macros whilst being totally unaware of whether your micros are correct or not. I would imagine that's what most people here do as you can't track micros accurately on MFP.
Please don't come in speaking for someone else assuming you know what they are saying. Useles......
^^And this.
0 -
-
Nony_Mouse wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
What you just said makes no sense, not what that person said.tedboosalis7 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
Actually I do it. I have no idea why it wouldn't work. This post doesn't make sense, sorry. See diary.
Why doesn't it make sense?
It means can hit your macros whilst being totally unaware of whether your micros are correct or not. I would imagine that's what most people here do as you can't track micros accurately on MFP.
What statement means that? Ted seems to have misunderstood Nony's comment, and thus his comment made no sense.
Also, you don't need to track micros to be concerned with them or aware of them, as several people explained.
This one - "People who do that [disregard their micros] aren't really doing IIFYM. It's pretty hard to hit your macros without also hitting your micros..."
I usually hit my macros but I have no idea whether I'm hitting my micros or not. Some things, such as potassium, aren't even listed on most food packaging and some things are wildly variable, e.g. one carrot might have twice as many vitamins or whatever as the carrot sitting beside it in the bag.
It's super easy to know if you are meeting your potassium if you mostly use the good non-asterisk entries (which are available for whole foods). But I agree that it's hard to track a lot of them at all precisely--the best way to do it, IMO, is to simply focus on eating an overall nutrient-rich and balanced (and somewhat varied, IMO) diet.
I don't think it's that hard to know if you are hitting micros generally or not, as you should understand your own diet. I think people who are thoughtful enough about what they are eating to bother with macros generally are aware of how well they are eating overall, even if they don't personally worry much about the same nutrition goals that I do (for example, some care more about getting minimum protein or, I suppose, staying under a particular carb limit).
You kind of do have to go out of your way to hit a reasonable macro set up with "all junk food" as people like to pretend is common.
^^This.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
What you just said makes no sense, not what that person said.tedboosalis7 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
Actually I do it. I have no idea why it wouldn't work. This post doesn't make sense, sorry. See diary.
Why doesn't it make sense?
It means can hit your macros whilst being totally unaware of whether your micros are correct or not. I would imagine that's what most people here do as you can't track micros accurately on MFP.
Please don't come in speaking for someone else assuming you know what they are saying. Useles......
^^And this.
Oh, but I was merely trying to be helpful.... As you both took the trouble to post that you didn't understand something that was (to me) quite obvious.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
What you just said makes no sense, not what that person said.tedboosalis7 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
Actually I do it. I have no idea why it wouldn't work. This post doesn't make sense, sorry. See diary.
Why doesn't it make sense?
It means can hit your macros whilst being totally unaware of whether your micros are correct or not. I would imagine that's what most people here do as you can't track micros accurately on MFP.
What statement means that? Ted seems to have misunderstood Nony's comment, and thus his comment made no sense.
Also, you don't need to track micros to be concerned with them or aware of them, as several people explained.
This one - "People who do that [disregard their micros] aren't really doing IIFYM. It's pretty hard to hit your macros without also hitting your micros..."
I usually hit my macros but I have no idea whether I'm hitting my micros or not. Some things, such as potassium, aren't even listed on most food packaging and some things are wildly variable, e.g. one carrot might have twice as many vitamins or whatever as the carrot sitting beside it in the bag.
It's super easy to know if you are meeting your potassium if you mostly use the good non-asterisk entries (which are available for whole foods). But I agree that it's hard to track a lot of them at all precisely--the best way to do it, IMO, is to simply focus on eating an overall nutrient-rich and balanced (and somewhat varied, IMO) diet.
I don't think it's that hard to know if you are hitting micros generally or not, as you should understand your own diet. I think people who are thoughtful enough about what they are eating to bother with macros generally are aware of how well they are eating overall, even if they don't personally worry much about the same nutrition goals that I do (for example, some care more about getting minimum protein or, I suppose, staying under a particular carb limit).
You kind of do have to go out of your way to hit a reasonable macro set up with "all junk food" as people like to pretend is common.
Eh... depends. A good bit of my potassium comes from yogurt. Fage doesn't list the content on the packaging. Any packaged food someone eats might not have it listed, because it's one of those not required things.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
What you just said makes no sense, not what that person said.tedboosalis7 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
Actually I do it. I have no idea why it wouldn't work. This post doesn't make sense, sorry. See diary.
Why doesn't it make sense?
It means can hit your macros whilst being totally unaware of whether your micros are correct or not. I would imagine that's what most people here do as you can't track micros accurately on MFP.
What statement means that? Ted seems to have misunderstood Nony's comment, and thus his comment made no sense.
Also, you don't need to track micros to be concerned with them or aware of them, as several people explained.
This one - "People who do that [disregard their micros] aren't really doing IIFYM. It's pretty hard to hit your macros without also hitting your micros..."
I usually hit my macros but I have no idea whether I'm hitting my micros or not. Some things, such as potassium, aren't even listed on most food packaging and some things are wildly variable, e.g. one carrot might have twice as many vitamins or whatever as the carrot sitting beside it in the bag.
It's super easy to know if you are meeting your potassium if you mostly use the good non-asterisk entries (which are available for whole foods). But I agree that it's hard to track a lot of them at all precisely--the best way to do it, IMO, is to simply focus on eating an overall nutrient-rich and balanced (and somewhat varied, IMO) diet.
I don't think it's that hard to know if you are hitting micros generally or not, as you should understand your own diet. I think people who are thoughtful enough about what they are eating to bother with macros generally are aware of how well they are eating overall, even if they don't personally worry much about the same nutrition goals that I do (for example, some care more about getting minimum protein or, I suppose, staying under a particular carb limit).
You kind of do have to go out of your way to hit a reasonable macro set up with "all junk food" as people like to pretend is common.
^^This.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
What you just said makes no sense, not what that person said.tedboosalis7 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
Actually I do it. I have no idea why it wouldn't work. This post doesn't make sense, sorry. See diary.
Why doesn't it make sense?
It means can hit your macros whilst being totally unaware of whether your micros are correct or not. I would imagine that's what most people here do as you can't track micros accurately on MFP.
Please don't come in speaking for someone else assuming you know what they are saying. Useles......
^^And this.
Oh, but I was merely trying to be helpful.... As you both took the trouble to post that you didn't understand something that was (to me) quite obvious.
shocking, you and Ted speak the same language…..no wonder you decided to wk him ...0 -
This content has been removed.
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
What you just said makes no sense, not what that person said.tedboosalis7 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
Actually I do it. I have no idea why it wouldn't work. This post doesn't make sense, sorry. See diary.
Why doesn't it make sense?
It means can hit your macros whilst being totally unaware of whether your micros are correct or not. I would imagine that's what most people here do as you can't track micros accurately on MFP.
What statement means that? Ted seems to have misunderstood Nony's comment, and thus his comment made no sense.
Also, you don't need to track micros to be concerned with them or aware of them, as several people explained.
This one - "People who do that [disregard their micros] aren't really doing IIFYM. It's pretty hard to hit your macros without also hitting your micros..."
I usually hit my macros but I have no idea whether I'm hitting my micros or not. Some things, such as potassium, aren't even listed on most food packaging and some things are wildly variable, e.g. one carrot might have twice as many vitamins or whatever as the carrot sitting beside it in the bag.
It's super easy to know if you are meeting your potassium if you mostly use the good non-asterisk entries (which are available for whole foods). But I agree that it's hard to track a lot of them at all precisely--the best way to do it, IMO, is to simply focus on eating an overall nutrient-rich and balanced (and somewhat varied, IMO) diet.
I don't think it's that hard to know if you are hitting micros generally or not, as you should understand your own diet. I think people who are thoughtful enough about what they are eating to bother with macros generally are aware of how well they are eating overall, even if they don't personally worry much about the same nutrition goals that I do (for example, some care more about getting minimum protein or, I suppose, staying under a particular carb limit).
You kind of do have to go out of your way to hit a reasonable macro set up with "all junk food" as people like to pretend is common.
Eh... depends. A good bit of my potassium comes from yogurt. Fage doesn't list the content on the packaging. Any packaged food someone eats might not have it listed, because it's one of those not required things.
Yeah, you can miss a lot of the potassium, but so much stuff has potassium that if you use the non asterisked entries for as much stuff as possible I think you can feel comfortable that you are good, especially if you know what else has it. (I'm always way over, but I do use a lot of those entries.)
Similarly, I'm often under on iron according to MFP, but I can see that some stuff I eat with iron doesn't have the information, and I know what I eat, so I'm good.
Thank goodness, since I hate Cheerios! ;-)0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
What you just said makes no sense, not what that person said.tedboosalis7 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
Actually I do it. I have no idea why it wouldn't work. This post doesn't make sense, sorry. See diary.
Why doesn't it make sense?
It means can hit your macros whilst being totally unaware of whether your micros are correct or not. I would imagine that's what most people here do as you can't track micros accurately on MFP.
What statement means that? Ted seems to have misunderstood Nony's comment, and thus his comment made no sense.
Also, you don't need to track micros to be concerned with them or aware of them, as several people explained.
This one - "People who do that [disregard their micros] aren't really doing IIFYM. It's pretty hard to hit your macros without also hitting your micros..."
I usually hit my macros but I have no idea whether I'm hitting my micros or not. Some things, such as potassium, aren't even listed on most food packaging and some things are wildly variable, e.g. one carrot might have twice as many vitamins or whatever as the carrot sitting beside it in the bag.
It's super easy to know if you are meeting your potassium if you mostly use the good non-asterisk entries (which are available for whole foods). But I agree that it's hard to track a lot of them at all precisely--the best way to do it, IMO, is to simply focus on eating an overall nutrient-rich and balanced (and somewhat varied, IMO) diet.
I don't think it's that hard to know if you are hitting micros generally or not, as you should understand your own diet. I think people who are thoughtful enough about what they are eating to bother with macros generally are aware of how well they are eating overall, even if they don't personally worry much about the same nutrition goals that I do (for example, some care more about getting minimum protein or, I suppose, staying under a particular carb limit).
You kind of do have to go out of your way to hit a reasonable macro set up with "all junk food" as people like to pretend is common.
^^This.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
What you just said makes no sense, not what that person said.tedboosalis7 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
Actually I do it. I have no idea why it wouldn't work. This post doesn't make sense, sorry. See diary.
Why doesn't it make sense?
It means can hit your macros whilst being totally unaware of whether your micros are correct or not. I would imagine that's what most people here do as you can't track micros accurately on MFP.
Please don't come in speaking for someone else assuming you know what they are saying. Useles......
^^And this.
Oh, but I was merely trying to be helpful.... As you both took the trouble to post that you didn't understand something that was (to me) quite obvious.
I wonder why more people here don't just nicely ask for clarification when they don't understand something. Like on that thread where the OP said she'd eaten 90 calories and felt full. People posted on the thread for pages wondering if she meant 900 calories. I wrote to her and asked her to come back to the thread and clarify, which she did.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
What you just said makes no sense, not what that person said.tedboosalis7 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
Actually I do it. I have no idea why it wouldn't work. This post doesn't make sense, sorry. See diary.
Why doesn't it make sense?
It means can hit your macros whilst being totally unaware of whether your micros are correct or not. I would imagine that's what most people here do as you can't track micros accurately on MFP.
What statement means that? Ted seems to have misunderstood Nony's comment, and thus his comment made no sense.
Also, you don't need to track micros to be concerned with them or aware of them, as several people explained.
This one - "People who do that [disregard their micros] aren't really doing IIFYM. It's pretty hard to hit your macros without also hitting your micros..."
I usually hit my macros but I have no idea whether I'm hitting my micros or not. Some things, such as potassium, aren't even listed on most food packaging and some things are wildly variable, e.g. one carrot might have twice as many vitamins or whatever as the carrot sitting beside it in the bag.
It's super easy to know if you are meeting your potassium if you mostly use the good non-asterisk entries (which are available for whole foods). But I agree that it's hard to track a lot of them at all precisely--the best way to do it, IMO, is to simply focus on eating an overall nutrient-rich and balanced (and somewhat varied, IMO) diet.
I don't think it's that hard to know if you are hitting micros generally or not, as you should understand your own diet. I think people who are thoughtful enough about what they are eating to bother with macros generally are aware of how well they are eating overall, even if they don't personally worry much about the same nutrition goals that I do (for example, some care more about getting minimum protein or, I suppose, staying under a particular carb limit).
You kind of do have to go out of your way to hit a reasonable macro set up with "all junk food" as people like to pretend is common.
^^This.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
What you just said makes no sense, not what that person said.tedboosalis7 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
Actually I do it. I have no idea why it wouldn't work. This post doesn't make sense, sorry. See diary.
Why doesn't it make sense?
It means can hit your macros whilst being totally unaware of whether your micros are correct or not. I would imagine that's what most people here do as you can't track micros accurately on MFP.
Please don't come in speaking for someone else assuming you know what they are saying. Useles......
^^And this.
Oh, but I was merely trying to be helpful.... As you both took the trouble to post that you didn't understand something that was (to me) quite obvious.
I wonder why more people here don't just nicely ask for clarification when they don't understand something. Like on that thread where the OP said she'd eaten 90 calories and felt full. People posted on the thread for pages wondering if she meant 900 calories. I wrote to her and asked her to come back to the thread and clarify, which she did.
because that poster has a history of making ridiculous claims that make zero sense..so there is no need for clarification, as the clarification will just further muddy the waters.0 -
So far the macro thing has been working for me. I'm still new to it and working my way through planning my days so it does take a little effort. It does allow me to make better more conscious decisions, especially when it comes to eating more veg, so I like it for that. Also feel like I have more energy when I'm lifting so that's a plus. I'm looking forward to seeing where I'm at in a few months with planning meals, finding new recipes to make and foods to eat.
I'm looking for some friends who do the macro thing as well, maybe to give some input on my food log or so I can get ideas for foods I hadn't though of from theirs. Add me if you like.
Thanks0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions