Thoughts on IIFYM

[kBrown]

A few people have asked why I don’t do IIFYM dieting. Afterall, I am new to dieting and it’s everywhere you turn, some sexy woman is eating a cupcake being like IIFYM! So why aren’t I on the IIFYM bus ?

IIFYM rests on the premise that all calories are fairly equal and that you can obtain pretty standardized muscle building / fat burning potential by eating within your Macros (proteins, carbs, fats). Thus, if you are at a 270 calorie deficit it’s perfectly okay to indulge in that Hostess Twinkie, you did, afterall, stay within the macros for the day and thus aren’t in any danger of gaining weight or harming your muscle building potential—FALSE !

To understand the drawback of IIFYM you have to understand how macros really affect you, in essence a calorie is not a calorie.
Eating 270 calories of a Twinkie is not going to yield the same muscle building or fat loss power as 270 calories from chicken, spinach, and a sweet potato. Period. In essence the concept of calories in/calories out is flawed.

Furthermore we have to look at what comprises the macros, 270 calories from different sources can drastically impact your physiological response. 270 calories from high glycemic carbs are different then low glycemic, 270 calories of fat is different than non-fats as well. To optimize your weight goals you have to take into consideration how the contents of what you are eating is going to impact you, and when to take advantage of that. A High glycemic carb post workout is a hell of a lot better for muscle building then a low glycemic, but that same high glycemic carb throughout the day can add pounds to the waistline.

That being said take a look at your IIFYM dieting and see how the foods you are eating are impacting your goals… or just look at the progress you’ve made and ask yourself… could I have done it better?

Enjoy the cupcake… and share my ****ing page

Www.facebook.com/kbrownfitness

 

[grinnell27]

With me I do a 80% clean 20% 'dirty'. I feel if your not going to compete and just want to look decent, nothing below 10-11%bf then I feel IIFYM can work.

If going into a comp I strongly feel ALL calories should be 'clean', like you say it's down to what the food is made up of which will affect body composition.

 

[Rodja]

There's a lot of misinformation spread regarding IIFYM. Most of the counter arguments all involve adding in a false premise that it's based upon eating solely "junk" foods when it's completely not true.

Your analogy regarding the Twinkie vs chicken is completely false as the macros that comprise these two foods are completely different. It's based upon macronutrients along with caloric allotments and not just calories alone. You also have to look at it from a longevity standpoint. If someone is able to hold an IIFYM philosophy for a year they'll have much better progress than someone who is able to hold a more rigid diet for 3-4 months. Also, the GI of a food is nearly completely irrelevant unless you're consuming a meal comprising solely of carbs and nobody is going to recommend that. The old premise of using them to restore glycogen is based upon science that was misapplied to lifting.

 

[kBrown]

There's a lot of misinformation spread regarding IIFYM. Most of the counter arguments all involve adding in a false premise that it's based upon eating solely "junk" foods when it's completely not true.

Your analogy regarding the Twinkie vs chicken is completely false as the macros that comprise these two foods are completely different. It's based upon macronutrients along with caloric allotments and not just calories alone. You also have to look at it from a longevity standpoint. If someone is able to hold an IIFYM philosophy for a year they'll have much better progress than someone who is able to hold a more rigid diet for 3-4 months.

Okay
Post workout Twinkie for carbs or post workout cream of rice...

Also in my opinion IIFYM, the way most employ it, does not take into consideration the physiological response of various foods especially carbs

Agree on the last point you made

 

[Rodja]

Okay Post workout Twinkie for carbs or post workout cream of rice... Also in my opinion IIFYM, the way most employ it, does not take into consideration the physiological response of various foods especially carbs Agree on the last point you made

There isn't a single diet out there that completely considers the physiological response to individual macros out there. Again, there's a different array of macros in those two foods used as an example.

 

[The Solution]

Posted this in another thread:

To define "Clean" is nearly impossible
And those that say they eat clean are still practicing IIFYM because your fitting those foods in your macros.
IIFYM is not about extreme's as many people think and eating the majority of their carbs from processed junk, or fats from butter/lard. IIFYM is about meeting micronutrients first and foremost and then with left over calories/macros after meeting protein/fiber/fat minimums then yeah you could add in some cereal, a poptart if you do have remaining calories left. or want to sub say 200g of potatoes for some chocolate chips if you have some fats left over as well and subtract an egg yolk or some peanut butter you may of used earlier in the day. Its about understanding portions and being flexible once you have reached your whole foods and nutrient dense sources first.

The Dirt on Clean Eating | Wannabebig


Applying Moderation: The 10-20% Guideline

For those hoping that I’ll tell you to have fun eating whatever you want, you’re in luck. But, like everything in life, you’ll have to moderate your indulgence, and the 10-20% guideline is the best way I’ve found to do this. There currently is no compelling evidence suggesting that a diet whose calories are 80-90% from whole & minimally processed foods is not prudent enough for maximizing health, longevity, body composition, or training performance. As a matter of fact, research I just discussed points to the possibility that it’s more psychologically sound to allow a certain amount of flexibility for indulgences rather than none at all. And just to reiterate, processed does not always mean devoid of nutritional value. Whey and whey/casein blends are prime examples of nutritional powerhouses that happen to be removed from their original food matrix.

Use the 10-20% discretionary intake rule and enjoy life a bit.

The 10-20% guideline isn’t only something I’ve used successfully with clients; it’s also within the bounds of research. Aside from field observations, there are three lines of evidence that happen to concur with this guideline. I’ll start with the most liberal one and work my way down. The current Dietary Reference Intakes report by Food & Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine lists the upper limit of added sugars as 25% of total calories [24]. Similarly, an exhaustive literature review by Gibson and colleagues found that 20% of total calories from added sugars is roughly the maximum amount that won’t adversely dilute the diet’s concentration of essential micronutrition [25]. Keep in mind that both of these figures are in reference to refined, extrinsic sugars, not naturally occurring sugars within whole foods like fruit or milk. Finally, the USDA has attempted to teach moderation with their concept of the discretionary calorie allotment, defined as follows [26]:

“…the difference between total energy requirements and the energy consumed to meet recommended nutrient intakes.”
Basically, discretionary calories comprise the margin of leftover calories that can be used flexibly once essential nutrient needs are met. Coincidentally, the USDA’s discretionary calorie allotment averages at approximately 10-20% of total calories [27]. Take note that discretionary calories are not just confined to added sugars. Any food or beverage is fair game. The USDA’s system is still far from perfect, since it includes naturally-occurring fats in certain foods as part of the discretionary calorie allotment. This is an obvious holdover from the fat-phobic era that the USDA clings to, despite substantial evidence to the contrary [28].

It’s important to keep in mind that protein and fat intake should not be compromised for the sake of fitting discretionary foods into the diet. In other words, make sure discretionary intake doesn’t consistently displace essential micro- & macronutrient needs, and this includes minimum daily protein and fat targets, which vary individually. This may be tough to accept, but alcohol is not an essential nutrient. Its risks can swiftly trump its benefits if it’s consumed in excess, so it falls into the discretionary category.

10% Versus 20%

Another legitimate question is why I’ve listed the discretionary range as 10-20% rather than just listing it as a maximum of 20%. This is because energy balance matters. In bulking scenarios, maintaining a 20% limit could potentially pose health risks that are already elevated by the process of weight gain, which in some cases involves a certain amount of fat gain. Conversely, weight loss tends to be an inherently cardioprotective process, independent of diet composition [29]. So, the 20% limit is more appropriate for those either losing or maintaining weight. Those who are gaining weight but want to play it safe should hover towards the lower & middle of the range (10-15%). Another factor that can influence the upper safe threshold is physical activity level. I’ll quote Johnson & Murray in a recent review [30]:

“Obesity and metabolic syndrome are rare among athletes, even though dietary fructose intake is often high, underscoring the robust protective role of regular exercise.”

In the above quote, you can substitute any controversial food or nutrient in place of the word fructose, and the same principle would apply. A greater range of dietary flexibility is one of the luxuries of regular training. Sedentary individuals do not have the same level of safeguarding from the potentially adverse effects of a higher proportion of indulgence foods. And just in case it wasn’t made clear enough, 10-20% indicates the maximum, not minimum discretionary allotment. If someone strives to consume 0% of calories from any food that’s been processed or refined from its original state, then that’s perfectly fine – as long as this is the person’s genuine preference, and not a painful battle of will. I’d also like to make it clear that there is still plenty of grey area in the study of dietary effects on health. As such, the nature and extent of the miscellaneous or rule-free food allotment is a delicate judgment call. In this case, it’s wise to keep scientific research at the head of the judging panel, but don’t ignore personal experience & individual feedback.

Final Note: Linear Versus Nonlinear Distribution

A legitimate question is, what’s the best way to distribute discretionary calories? Should they be confined to a daily limit, or can it be a weekly limit? The best answer is to let personal preference decide. If we use a 2000 kcal diet as an example, a flat/linear approach would mean that 200-400 kcal per day can come from whatever you want, while meeting essential needs otherwise in the diet. Weekly, this translates to 1400-2800 kcal, depending on the factors I previously discussed. One nonlinear option would be to break the weekly allotment in half, where 2 days per week you indulge in 700-1400 kcal of whatever you want, keeping the remaining 5 days relatively Spartan. Again, there is no universally superior method of distributing the discretionary allotment. The same principle applies to the choice of foods to fulfill it. Honoring personal preference is one of the most powerful yet underrated tactics for achieving optimal health and body composition. And that’s the nitty-gritty as I see it.

 

[AntM1564]

I really hate these IIFYM posts.

If anyone counts macros, no matter the food choices; "clean" or "dirty", one is still following IIFYM. This term just became a fashion trend for people that follow a flexible dieting approach, like the link posted by Bob above. However, there are people who take IIFYM to the extreme and people think those that follow IIFYM just eat ice cream, pop tarts, etc.

 

[Tabascoonall]

I really hate these IIFYM posts.

If anyone counts macros, no matter the food choices; "clean" or "dirty", one is still following IIFYM. This term just became a fashion trend for people that follow a flexible dieting approach, like the link posted by Bob above. However, there are people who take IIFYM to the extreme and people think those that follow IIFYM just eat ice cream, pop tarts, etc.

Couldn't agree more, i am not going to go further into this b/c we all know how this will end.

 

[keithgeiling]

Iifym gets you in the same back and forth as politics and religion. Lol

 

[MARK_]

I confess, I ate 2 pop tarts this morning at 5:40am and I liked it.

 

[Tabascoonall]

I confess, I ate 2 pop tarts this morning at 5:40am and I liked it.

Shame on you hahaha what kind that's the big question

 

[MARK_]

Shame on you hahaha what kind that's the big question

Lol! Strawberry. I couldn't hold back anymore. It was dark and nobody saw me, but I felt the need to confess of my IIFYM moment

 

[Jiigzz]

A few people have asked why I don’t do IIFYM dieting. Afterall, I am new to dieting and it’s everywhere you turn, some sexy woman is eating a cupcake being like IIFYM! So why aren’t I on the IIFYM bus ?

IIFYM rests on the premise that all calories are fairly equal and that you can obtain pretty standardized muscle building / fat burning potential by eating within your Macros (proteins, carbs, fats). Thus, if you are at a 270 calorie deficit it’s perfectly okay to indulge in that Hostess Twinkie, you did, afterall, stay within the macros for the day and thus aren’t in any danger of gaining weight or harming your muscle building potential—FALSE !

To understand the drawback of IIFYM you have to understand how macros really affect you, in essence a calorie is not a calorie.
Eating 270 calories of a Twinkie is not going to yield the same muscle building or fat loss power as 270 calories from chicken, spinach, and a sweet potato. Period. In essence the concept of calories in/calories out is flawed.

Furthermore we have to look at what comprises the macros, 270 calories from different sources can drastically impact your physiological response. 270 calories from high glycemic carbs are different then low glycemic, 270 calories of fat is different than non-fats as well. To optimize your weight goals you have to take into consideration how the contents of what you are eating is going to impact you, and when to take advantage of that. A High glycemic carb post workout is a hell of a lot better for muscle building then a low glycemic, but that same high glycemic carb throughout the day can add pounds to the waistline.

That being said take a look at your IIFYM dieting and see how the foods you are eating are impacting your goals… or just look at the progress you’ve made and ask yourself… could I have done it better?

Enjoy the cupcake… and share my ****ing page

Www.facebook.com/kbrownfitness

Rodja hits the nail on the head. I feel as though, like many people, you have misinterpreted the premise of IIFYM. The term was made up to deal with the plethora of people asking questions like, "Can I have a slice of Pizza with my current meal plan". The response would ALWAYS be, if it fits within your total daily intake after all micronutrients and macro targets have been hit then its fine. This was shortened to If it fits your macros.

Your premise of carb timing is also slightly flawed as the post anabolic window doesn't really exist. Only so if you train fasted. So using "fast carbs" over "slow carbs" won't make a difference.

In isocaloric diets where protein is held constant, weight loss between groups is invariably the same as well, so one could swap out carbs for fats or vice versa and body comp would remain fairly the same.

At the end of the day the best meal plans are the ones that work for you

BTW you look huge

There's a lot of misinformation spread regarding IIFYM. Most of the counter arguments all involve adding in a false premise that it's based upon eating solely "junk" foods when it's completely not true.

Your analogy regarding the Twinkie vs chicken is completely false as the macros that comprise these two foods are completely different. It's based upon macronutrients along with caloric allotments and not just calories alone. You also have to look at it from a longevity standpoint. If someone is able to hold an IIFYM philosophy for a year they'll have much better progress than someone who is able to hold a more rigid diet for 3-4 months. Also, the GI of a food is nearly completely irrelevant unless you're consuming a meal comprising solely of carbs and nobody is going to recommend that. The old premise of using them to restore glycogen is based upon science that was misapplied to lifting.

Quoted for importance

 

[Matthersby]

A few people have asked why I don't do IIFYM dieting. Afterall, I am new to dieting and it's everywhere you turn, some sexy woman is eating a cupcake being like IIFYM! So why aren't I on the IIFYM bus ?

IIFYM rests on the premise that all calories are fairly equal and that you can obtain pretty standardized muscle building / fat burning potential by eating within your Macros (proteins, carbs, fats). Thus, if you are at a 270 calorie deficit it's perfectly okay to indulge in that Hostess Twinkie, you did, afterall, stay within the macros for the day and thus aren't in any danger of gaining weight or harming your muscle building potential--FALSE !

To understand the drawback of IIFYM you have to understand how macros really affect you, in essence a calorie is not a calorie.
Eating 270 calories of a Twinkie is not going to yield the same muscle building or fat loss power as 270 calories from chicken, spinach, and a sweet potato. Period. In essence the concept of calories in/calories out is flawed.

Furthermore we have to look at what comprises the macros, 270 calories from different sources can drastically impact your physiological response. 270 calories from high glycemic carbs are different then low glycemic, 270 calories of fat is different than non-fats as well. To optimize your weight goals you have to take into consideration how the contents of what you are eating is going to impact you, and when to take advantage of that. A High glycemic carb post workout is a hell of a lot better for muscle building then a low glycemic, but that same high glycemic carb throughout the day can add pounds to the waistline.

That being said take a look at your IIFYM dieting and see how the foods you are eating are impacting your goals... or just look at the progress you've made and ask yourself... could I have done it better?

Enjoy the cupcake... and share my ****ing page

Www.facebook.com/kbrownfitness

Sheeezus, Kbrown. You're still a freaking monster......

 

[Contopaxi]

I do IIFYM and wouldn't have it any other way.

Last years cut shows why I enjoy it

 

[kenpoengineer]

Contopaxi and KBrown, congrats to you both! Ripped and strong!

 

[Tabascoonall]

Lol! Strawberry. I couldn't hold back anymore. It was dark and nobody saw me, but I felt the need to confess of my IIFYM moment

Strawberry is acceptable. I know how you feel. I have. Secret spot at work (Supp shop) where I eat my poptarts without the cameras seeing me Hahahah

 

[AntM1564]

I do IIFYM and wouldn't have it any other way.

Last years cut shows why I enjoy it

Awesome results, you still look full too

 

[Matthersby]

Has anyone noticed pop tarts have become the spokesfood for IIFYM?

 

[Tabascoonall]

very true, not sure way, i would rather have cereal

 

[Matthersby]

What is IIFYM?: http://youtu.be/Wd8tZiHexPc

 

[dbrock504]

I found IIFYM to be pretty good for maintenance and bulking, but not for cutting. I couldn't shred any fat. Probably wasn't doing it right

 

[dbrock504]

I do IIFYM and wouldn't have it any other way. Last years cut shows why I enjoy it

Look good man

 

[HIT4ME]

This entire argument is a perfect example of majoring in minors. The bottom line is, you can become very specific to get better and better results - but the underlying rules don't change.

If you are trying to lose weight, the MOST IMPORTANT factor will be calories in/calories out. Glycemic response will have some role, but if you are eating in a deficit you will lose weight, and if you are eating a surplus you will gain weight. Your macros become the second most important factor.

The missing factor here is that macros have some variability. Protein has amino acids as a sub category, and some of these will have different effects. Fats also have variability - MCTs, omega 3s, omega 6, omega 9, long chain, saturate, monounsaturated, etc. Carbs, also have a sub category - sugars, starches, etc.

You can lose weight eating twinkies, as long as you are in a deficit. Is it the ULTIMATE way? Probably not. You can eat perfectly clean and gain weight also. This is because calories are the overriding factor in both situations. Further defining factors may make things much easier though. Saying it's all calories in/calories out, IIFYM, or all what you eat are all limited viewpoints which only show part of the picture.

 

[Matthersby]

This entire argument is a perfect example of majoring in minors. The bottom line is, you can become very specific to get better and better results - but the underlying rules don't change.

If you are trying to lose weight, the MOST IMPORTANT factor will be calories in/calories out. Glycemic response will have some role, but if you are eating in a deficit you will lose weight, and if you are eating a surplus you will gain weight. Your macros become the second most important factor.

The missing factor here is that macros have some variability. Protein has amino acids as a sub category, and some of these will have different effects. Fats also have variability - MCTs, omega 3s, omega 6, omega 9, long chain, saturate, monounsaturated, etc. Carbs, also have a sub category - sugars, starches, etc.

You can lose weight eating twinkies, as long as you are in a deficit. Is it the ULTIMATE way? Probably not. You can eat perfectly clean and gain weight also. This is because calories are the overriding factor in both situations. Further defining factors may make things much easier though. Saying it's all calories in/calories out, IIFYM, or all what you eat are all limited viewpoints which only show part of the picture.

Very well put. I don't eat skittles regardless of whether they fit my macros. But I could.....

 

[The Solution]

I found IIFYM to be pretty good for maintenance and bulking, but not for cutting. I couldn't shred any fat. Probably wasn't doing it right

You cant shed weight if you dont eat in a deficit, IIFYM or not.
You can eat nothing but chicken and broccoli but if you eat in a surplus you wont lose. thats still IIFYM

 

[AntM1564]

Has anyone noticed pop tarts have become the spokesfood for IIFYM?

I think it is more a less a fad.

I found IIFYM to be pretty good for maintenance and bulking, but not for cutting. I couldn't shred any fat. Probably wasn't doing it right

Then your cals probably weren't low enough. I personally follow more of a "clean" diet when cutting only because I can get more volume.

 

[kBrown]

Glad this thread for so much feedback appreciate all of you

 

[dbrock504]

Then your cals probably weren't low enough. I personally follow more of a "clean" diet when cutting only because I can get more volume.

I thought this too. I dropped cals 200 every 3 weeks I didn't see enough progress to a point where I was only 500 over my BMR and I am the highest activity level there is. I lost what seemed to be fat but lost all strength in the gym. Since going "traditional", I feel full and satisfied each meal and am not nearly at the deficit I was, and leaning out harder by eating good foods and not by eating what I want within my plan on iifym. Again, just my experiences.

 

[AntM1564]

I thought this too. I dropped cals 200 every 3 weeks I didn't see enough progress to a point where I was only 500 over my BMR and I am the highest activity level there is. I lost what seemed to be fat but lost all strength in the gym. Since going "traditional", I feel full and satisfied each meal and am not nearly at the deficit I was, and leaning out harder by eating good foods and not by eating what I want within my plan on iifym. Again, just my experiences.

I agree with cutting and your last point. I'd much rather eat veggies, oatmeal, sweet potatoes, etc. instead of processed foods at a deficit since I can get more volume and feel satisfied, or somewhat satisfied.

 

[The Solution]

I agree with cutting and your last point. I'd much rather eat veggies, oatmeal, sweet potatoes, etc. instead of processed foods at a deficit since I can get more volume and feel satisfied, or somewhat satisfied.

And in a deficit you will have to to meet MICROnutrients which is the number 1 factor of IIFYM before meeting macros

Vitamins minerals are the most important aspect for health and anyone's diet if that's not anyone main focus on how they eat there is a problem

 

[Jiigzz]

I agree with cutting and your last point. I'd much rather eat veggies, oatmeal, sweet potatoes, etc. instead of processed foods at a deficit since I can get more volume and feel satisfied, or somewhat satisfied.

IIFYM isnt about eating processed foods unless you want it to be. I feel as though the premise of IIFYM isnt well understood ITT.

If your target is 2000kcals, IIFYM allows you to have up to 20% variance from your macro goal as long as you hit micro targets and minimum fat and protein targets.

I would question the body comp differences between oatmeal and cornflakes provided kcals are standardised, for example. So for people who do not like oats can eat somethig else that fits their macros

 

[Contopaxi]

IIFYM isnt about eating processed foods unless you want it to be. I feel as though the premise of IIFYM isnt well understood ITT. If your target is 2000kcals, IIFYM allows you to have up to 20% variance from your macro goal as long as you hit micro targets and minimum fat and protein targets. I would question the body comp differences between oatmeal and cornflakes provided kcals are standardised, for example. So for people who do not like oats can eat somethig else that fits their macros

If you ate the cornflakes and they matched the same macronutrient profile as the oats than there will be no difference.

I've seen it first hand.

 

[Jiigzz]

If you ate the cornflakes and they matched the same macronutrient profile as the oats than there will be no difference.

I've seen it first hand.

Thats what I was getting at lol

 

[kBrown]

Cornflakes and oatmeal don't have the same profiles one can wish

 

[AntM1564]

IIFYM isnt about eating processed foods unless you want it to be. I feel as though the premise of IIFYM isnt well understood ITT.

If your target is 2000kcals, IIFYM allows you to have up to 20% variance from your macro goal as long as you hit micro targets and minimum fat and protein targets.

I would question the body comp differences between oatmeal and cornflakes provided kcals are standardised, for example. So for people who do not like oats can eat somethig else that fits their macros

I never said IIFYM is eating processed foods. In my OP, I stated, anyone who counts macros, "clean" or "dirty" foods follows IIFYM. Personally, if I'm cutting I want to get my cals from ore dense sources so I fell full. While recomping or bulking, I will have some cereal or other "dirty" foods 4-5 times per week since it is easier to feel full and get micros.

 

[Contopaxi]

Thats what I was getting at lol

Whoops my bad.

Cornflakes and oatmeal don't have the same profiles one can wish

They don't exactly but they can... Just a different serving size .... Maybe less protein but cornflakes would have less fat also.

 

[hvactech]

Whoops my bad. They don't exactly but they can... Just a different serving size .... Maybe less protein but cornflakes would have less fat also.

Special k protein cereal ftw

 

[kBrown]

Special K has significantly more simple sugars
That is the issue... Sugar
All carbs aren't equal and that's one of the issues of IIFYM

 

[fueledpassion]

There's a lot of misinformation spread regarding IIFYM. Most of the counter arguments all involve adding in a false premise that it's based upon eating solely "junk" foods when it's completely not true.

Your analogy regarding the Twinkie vs chicken is completely false as the macros that comprise these two foods are completely different. It's based upon macronutrients along with caloric allotments and not just calories alone. You also have to look at it from a longevity standpoint. If someone is able to hold an IIFYM philosophy for a year they'll have much better progress than someone who is able to hold a more rigid diet for 3-4 months. Also, the GI of a food is nearly completely irrelevant unless you're consuming a meal comprising solely of carbs and nobody is going to recommend that. The old premise of using them to restore glycogen is based upon science that was misapplied to lifting.

Question, does IIFYM have rules around eating each or certain macros at certain times of the day? Does it suggest some of each macro at every meal or does it say "the heck with balanced meals", just make sure at the end of the day u hit ur % macros?

Does it take into account that the human body has greater or lesser insulin sensitivity at various times of the day, and that certain macros make better sense than others because of this? Is IIFYM aware of the insulin - glucagon curve and how this is affected at each meal? Certain macros create stronger insulin curves, and since insulin is inverse to lipolysis, one could see how certain foods which break down more quickly in the gut can create unwanted spikes, which leads to unwanted fat gain. This is just a simple example but more could be mentioned if needed.

As a reminder, I'm not challenging, I'm asking.

Edit: while no one has answered these questions directly, I feel like I better understand the direction of IIFYM now based on additional posts. It doesn't sound like this diet addresses anything like what I mentioned, but that it simply allows flex for folks not wanting to walk the narrow road of competition dieting.

 

[kBrown]

Question, does IIFYM have rules around eating each or certain macros at certain times of the day? Does it suggest some of each macro at every meal or does it say "the heck with balanced meals", just make sure at the end of the day u hit ur % macros?

Does it take into account that the human body has greater or lesser insulin sensitivity at various times of the day, and that certain macros make better sense than others because of this? Is IIFYM aware of the insulin - glucagon curve and how this is affected at each meal? Certain macros create stronger insulin curves, and since insulin is inverse to lipolysis, one could see how certain foods which break down more quickly in the gut can create unwanted spikes, which leads to unwanted fat gain. This is just a simple example but more could be mentioned if needed.

As a reminder, I'm not challenging, I'm asking.

Your second paragraph is the reason why I am so anti IIFYM

I will wait for answers too maybe I am wrong

 

[dbrock504]

Your second paragraph is the reason why I am so anti IIFYM I will wait for answers too maybe I am wrong

From what I have read, IIFYM doesn't really "believe" in glycemic index or spikes in insulin. Most people will tell you a white potato is identical to a sweet potato, when we know the micronutrient content is very different. IIFYM calls them the same

 

[fueledpassion]

From what I have read, IIFYM doesn't really "believe" in glycemic index or spikes in insulin. Most people will tell you a white potato is identical to a sweet potato, when we know the micronutrient content is very different. IIFYM calls them the same

Really? I hope not. Because that's rubbish. There is plenty of scientific data that supports that insulin responses are different for different foods.
This is EXACTLY why keto diets work - because insulin is deliberately kept quiet with the avoidance of starchy carbs.

It's also why bb'rs that take insulin to grow also tend to put on significant fat mass in the process.

 

[Jiigzz]

Special K has significantly more simple sugars
That is the issue... Sugar
All carbs aren't equal and that's one of the issues of IIFYM

But the effects on weight are the same. You can look up scientific studies comparing polysaccarides vs monosaccarides and weight and you'll see what I mean

 

[dbrock504]

Really? I hope not. Because that's rubbish. There is plenty of scientific data that supports that insulin responses are different for different foods. This is EXACTLY why keto diets work - because insulin is deliberately kept quiet with the avoidance of starchy carbs. It's also why bb'rs that take insulin to grow also tend to put on significant fat mass in the process.

The many people who pointed me to iifym also pointed me to the works of Alan Argaron. He preaches no glycemic index or insulin spikes by using two examples, brown rice vs white rice and russet potato vs sweet potato. They showed me some 46 year old Hawaiian dude who eats 5 Krispy Kreme donuts a day blah blah and is shredded at 180 lbs.

I bought into it. Did it for 6 months consistently. Saw little results. Jumped on the "old school" method 4 weeks ago and have gotten the same amount of results I did in the 6 months of iifym.

 

[Jiigzz]

Question, does IIFYM have rules around eating each or certain macros at certain times of the day? Does it suggest some of each macro at every meal or does it say "the heck with balanced meals", just make sure at the end of the day u hit ur % macros?

Does it take into account that the human body has greater or lesser insulin sensitivity at various times of the day, and that certain macros make better sense than others because of this? Is IIFYM aware of the insulin - glucagon curve and how this is affected at each meal? Certain macros create stronger insulin curves, and since insulin is inverse to lipolysis, one could see how certain foods which break down more quickly in the gut can create unwanted spikes, which leads to unwanted fat gain. This is just a simple example but more could be mentioned if needed.

As a reminder, I'm not challenging, I'm asking.

Edit: while no one has answered these questions directly, I feel like I better understand the direction of IIFYM now based on additional posts. It doesn't sound like this diet addresses anything like what I mentioned, but that it simply allows flex for folks not wanting to walk the narrow road of competition dieting.

You can read high carb cs. Low carb AND weight loss and see the effects on body comp are ALMOST identical.

Can you also explain how insulin causes fat gain in a calorie deficit? You also neglect to mention the inverse relationship between fat intake and carb oxidation.

You miss the forest for the trees in all your posts on nutrition and always find myself questioning where you find your 'evidence'.

You also focus on one aspect while missing the greater picture. Inaulin DOES inhibit lipolysis but only for a time. Even with constant spiking, you can still lose weight on a high carb diet.

 

[Jiigzz]

Really? I hope not. Because that's rubbish. There is plenty of scientific data that supports that insulin responses are different for different foods.
This is EXACTLY why keto diets work - because insulin is deliberately kept quiet with the avoidance of starchy carbs.

It's also why bb'rs that take insulin to grow also tend to put on significant fat mass in the process.

Can you show me evidence where a keto diet out performs an isocaloric high carb diet? Hint, there isnt any.

 

[fueledpassion]

Wow l, so much pseudoscience in one post.

You can read high carb cs. Low carb AND weight loss and see the effects on body comp are ALMOST identical.

Can you also explain how insulin causes fat gain in a calorie deficit?

You miss the forest for the trees in all your posts on nutrition and always find myself questioning where you find your 'evidence'.

You also focus on one aspect while missing the greater picture. Inaulin DOES inhibit lipolysis but only for a time. Even with constant spiking, you can still lose weight on a high carb diet.

Ok...

 

[Jiigzz]

From what I have read, IIFYM doesn't really "believe" in glycemic index or spikes in insulin. Most people will tell you a white potato is identical to a sweet potato, when we know the micronutrient content is very different. IIFYM calls them the same

Glycemic index is ONLY relevant in isolated contexts. How many people eat ine potato in isolation? Couple it with a fat or protein and all of a sudden glycemic load is reduced

However in recent research, it is finally been recognised that CAlORIEs outweigh macros WRT weight manipulation. Too many people focus on "oh but insulin response this and insulin response that" but when a keto diet is put up against a high carb diet, the results are the same.

You have missed what we are saying - IIFYM focuses on hitting micros first and foremost. Then after this has been done a sweet potato vs. A normal potato (which is actually very high in VIT C and potassiun) then the effects on weight loss will be the same

 

[Contopaxi]

The many people who pointed me to iifym also pointed me to the works of Alan Argaron. He preaches no glycemic index or insulin spikes by using two examples, brown rice vs white rice and russet potato vs sweet potato. They showed me some 46 year old Hawaiian dude who eats 5 Krispy Kreme donuts a day blah blah and is shredded at 180 lbs. I bought into it. Did it for 6 months consistently. Saw little results. Jumped on the "old school" method 4 weeks ago and have gotten the same amount of results I did in the 6 months of iifym.

You obviously did it wrong then.