IIFYM

kgarcia1990_
kgarcia1990_ Posts: 28 Member
edited December 4 in Health and Weight Loss
Does If It Fits Your Macros work. I have heard of it.
«1

Replies

  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Yes
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Yes
  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    What do you mean by work? Make you lose weight? You lose weight when you have a sustained calorie deficit. Any diet that creates a calorie deficit works for weight loss, when you stick to it.
  • trigden1991
    trigden1991 Posts: 4,658 Member
    If you create a calorie deficit, any "diet" will work. IIFYM is good as it allows flexibility to eat the foods you prefer.
  • Dano74
    Dano74 Posts: 503 Member
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Yes

    Concurred.
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    i dont consider IIFYM a diet. By following IIFYM you are essentially calorie counting, hitting your macros, it's all good. You arent eating specific foods or limiting specific foods, etc.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    kgarcia1990_ wrote: »
    Does If It Fits Your Macros work. I have heard of it.

    What do you mean by work? IIFYM is just a concept that doesn't demonize certain foods or macro nutrients and allows for a flexible diet (noun)...it's not a diet (verb)...people lose weight, maintain weight, and gain weight...that has nothing to do with the concept and everything to do with the calories they are eating.

    Note that IIFYM isn't that website or calculator...that's just generically capitalizing on the concept...the concept itself came out of the body building community, and in particular bodybuilding.com as what was basically a canned response by one of the users to questions like..."hey, will this cookie stop my gainz brah?"...to which the response was, "IIFYM"...
  • peaceout_aly
    peaceout_aly Posts: 2,018 Member
    kgarcia1990_ wrote: »
    Does If It Fits Your Macros work. I have heard of it.

    YES. So much yes. It's a lifestyle, not a diet.
  • leggup
    leggup Posts: 2,942 Member
    Yes.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    It's pretty much what MFP is.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    kgarcia1990_ wrote: »
    Does If It Fits Your Macros work. I have heard of it.

    What do you mean by work? IIFYM is just a concept that doesn't demonize certain foods or macro nutrients and allows for a flexible diet (noun)...it's not a diet (verb)...people lose weight, maintain weight, and gain weight...that has nothing to do with the concept and everything to do with the calories they are eating.

    Note that IIFYM isn't that website or calculator...that's just generically capitalizing on the concept...the concept itself came out of the body building community, and in particular bodybuilding.com as what was basically a canned response by one of the users to questions like..."hey, will this cookie stop my gainz brah?"...to which the response was, "IIFYM"...

    That's pretty much it but it was actually a little more specific to bro foods. The person who coined the term used to get a lot of questions about if their diet said "apple" could they use a pear instead and he would say IIFYM. It works for all foods but a lot of people misinterpret it to mean that those who follow the IIFYM thinking aren't interested in general nutrition and would sit around all day eating pizza and donuts. Ok, some would but most people are more cognizant of micros and fibre etc than that.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    Francl27 wrote: »
    It's pretty much what MFP is.

    I wouldn't say that exactly, that's kind of like saying a bus is pretty much a sports car. MFP is a calorie counter and activity tracker attached to a database but IIFYM is just a toolset to tell you what you should be aiming for. MFP has far more functionality in many respects but isn't as sophisticated when it comes to calculating TDEE etc.

  • T0M_K
    T0M_K Posts: 7,526 Member
    so then...you have to calculate all the nutrients in your food to determine if you can eat it today...where as CICO is just looking at calorie content in the food.

    CICO seems easier...IIFYM seems like a lot of work. set me straight please.
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    Tomk652015 wrote: »
    so then...you have to calculate all the nutrients in your food to determine if you can eat it today...where as CICO is just looking at calorie content in the food.

    CICO seems easier...IIFYM seems like a lot of work. set me straight please.

    they are the same amount of work, assuming you already hit a protein and/or fat goal while tracking calories.

    I don't know, considering even when i first began tracking food i tried to hit my set protein and fat goals (as well as micronutrient goals). Carbs i let fall into wherever.
  • T0M_K
    T0M_K Posts: 7,526 Member
    so i really don't see the difference.
  • Sara1791
    Sara1791 Posts: 760 Member
    I'm doing CICO and not worrying about macros much at all. (I just usually try to get all 3 in every meal because yum.) So, while IIFYM might "work" it's not the same thing as CICO. Of course, if you hit your macros, you'll automatically hit your calories, so there is that.
  • T0M_K
    T0M_K Posts: 7,526 Member
    ok so you don't even worry about a calorie goal. you set a protein, carb, fat goal and track food the same and instead of maybe eating an apple you grab beef jerky cuz you need more protein..kinda thinking
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    rainbowbow wrote: »
    Tomk652015 wrote: »
    so then...you have to calculate all the nutrients in your food to determine if you can eat it today...where as CICO is just looking at calorie content in the food.

    CICO seems easier...IIFYM seems like a lot of work. set me straight please.

    they are the same amount of work, assuming you already hit a protein and/or fat goal while tracking calories.

    I don't know, considering even when i first began tracking food i tried to hit my set protein and fat goals (as well as micronutrient goals). Carbs i let fall into wherever.

    Same then I added in a fibre goal but carbs can do what carbs are going to do in my diet. Usually they fluxtuate between 40-50%.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    Tomk652015 wrote: »
    so i really don't see the difference.

    The difference is how you build out your diet plan. If you strictly use CICO but with protein and fat goals then you actually have a lot of room to play. If I want to have 40/20/30 one day then 50/20/20 the next then there is no issue for me. I could also have a 30/30/40 plan or 10/30/60 as long as I'm meeting my minimum protein, fat and micros I'm ok with that -- full disclosure I'm not going to do these last two but I have done 35/30/35 a few times depending on what I feel like and what I'm doing that day.

    Now, if I was under IIFYM I might build a diet out around the macro break down of 40/20/30 or 45/20/25 but I would need to plan my food through out the day in advance and really try to stick as close as possible to the macros. For some people this has actually triggered disordered eating. CICO is much more flexible than IIFYM unless you allow a floating range on your macro plan.
  • T0M_K
    T0M_K Posts: 7,526 Member
    IIFYM sounds utterly complicated and labor intensive
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    Tomk652015 wrote: »
    IIFYM sounds utterly complicated and labor intensive

    Can be but once you get familiar with the concepts it's pretty much second nature, however, there are a lot of diets that require a lot of planning to really pull off right and IIFYM can be one of those.
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    Tomk652015 wrote: »
    IIFYM sounds utterly complicated and labor intensive

    it's absolutely not. It's still CICO.
  • T0M_K
    T0M_K Posts: 7,526 Member
    is it better for weightloss than just plain ole cico? if so why? convince me. and by the way, i'm a high protein eater right off the start..lots of grilled chicken.
  • leggup
    leggup Posts: 2,942 Member
    Tomk652015 wrote: »
    IIFYM sounds utterly complicated and labor intensive

    Nope. I have 1500 calories a day. I count my calories using a food scale and then check the macro %s. If it looks like my breakfast/lunch are wayyyy too heavy in one macro, I will just pick something else for dinner that will even out the %s. So if, come dinnertime, I'm at 80% Carb, 10% fat, 10% protein... I will have something that is higher in protein and fat for dinner so that it gets close to 50% carb, 30% protein, 20% protein.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    rainbowbow wrote: »
    Tomk652015 wrote: »
    IIFYM sounds utterly complicated and labor intensive

    it's absolutely not. It's still CICO.

    It depends on how much work you want to put into it. Some people put a lot of effort into their meal planning while most probably just work around their requirements as they go along.
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    Tomk652015 wrote: »
    is it better for weightloss than just plain ole cico? if so why? convince me. and by the way, i'm a high protein eater right off the start..lots of grilled chicken.

    macronutrients are important for both health and body composition.

    Calories are important for overall body weight.

    So, both are equally as important for me.
  • T0M_K
    T0M_K Posts: 7,526 Member
    leggup wrote: »
    Tomk652015 wrote: »
    IIFYM sounds utterly complicated and labor intensive

    Nope. I have 1500 calories a day. I count my calories using a food scale and then check the macro %s. If it looks like my breakfast/lunch are wayyyy too heavy in one macro, I will just pick something else for dinner that will even out the %s. So if, come dinnertime, I'm at 80% Carb, 10% fat, 10% protein... I will have something that is higher in protein and fat for dinner so that it gets close to 50% carb, 30% protein, 20% protein.

    ya but there is 3 of us eating dinner...i'm not really free to just eat anything...per say. kinda but not totally.
  • AliceDark
    AliceDark Posts: 3,886 Member
    Tomk652015 wrote: »
    so then...you have to calculate all the nutrients in your food to determine if you can eat it today...where as CICO is just looking at calorie content in the food.

    CICO seems easier...IIFYM seems like a lot of work. set me straight please.

    They're not mutually exclusive concepts. CICO says that your calorie intake must be less than your calorie output in order to lose weight. "CICO" is shorthand for a math concept.

    IIFYM is a way of looking at what goes into the "CI" portion of CICO. It's a way of structuring your calorie intake so that you can eat whatever you want as long as you are meeting general ballpark targets for proteins, fats and carbohydrates. (When your mom told you that you had to eat some meat, some broccoli and not just the mashed potatoes, she was teaching you about the general IIFYM concept).

    Strictly speaking, CICO says that the Twinkie Diet would make you lose weight, but IIFYM says that you'd probably be healthier if you ate some other things as well.
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    edited September 2016
    rainbowbow wrote: »
    Tomk652015 wrote: »
    so then...you have to calculate all the nutrients in your food to determine if you can eat it today...where as CICO is just looking at calorie content in the food.

    CICO seems easier...IIFYM seems like a lot of work. set me straight please.

    they are the same amount of work, assuming you already hit a protein and/or fat goal while tracking calories.

    I don't know, considering even when i first began tracking food i tried to hit my set protein and fat goals (as well as micronutrient goals). Carbs i let fall into wherever.

    This is more or less how I do it.

    It was a bit more work I guess at first because my goal for protein is somewhere in the 100g range, and fat is about 80g, so I had to play with the percentages when I set up my profile until it gave me the protein and fat goals I wanted.

    I then just basically look at protein and fat as minimums and don't worry about the rest as long as I hit those goals. It really isn't much more work than straight CICO, in my opinion.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories