Sorry for your IIFYM lots..

JudoJosh

JudoJosh

Pro Virili Parte
Changes in intake of protein foods, carbohydrate amount and quality, and long-term weight change: results from 3 prospective cohorts

Abstract

Background: Dietary guidelines recommend interchanging protein foods (e.g., chicken for red meat), but they may be exchanged for carbohydrate-rich foods varying in quality [glycemic load (GL)]. Whether such exchanges occur and how they influence long-term weight gain are not established.

Objective: Our objective was to determine how changes in intake of protein foods, GL, and their interrelationship influence long-term weight gain.

Design: We investigated the association between 4-y changes in consumption of protein foods, GL, and their interaction with 4-y weight change over a 16- to 24-y follow-up, adjusted for other lifestyle changes (smoking, physical activity, television watching, sleep duration), body mass index, and all dietary factors simultaneously in 3 prospective US cohorts (Nurses’ Health Study, Nurses’ Health Study II, and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study) comprising 120,784 men and women free of chronic disease or obesity at baseline.

Results: Protein foods were not interchanged with each other (intercorrelations typically <|0.05|) but with carbohydrate (negative correlation as low as −0.39). Protein foods had different relations with long-term weight gain, with positive associations for meats, chicken with skin, and regular cheese (per increased serving/d, 0.13–1.17 kg; P = 0.02 to P < 0.001); no association for milk, legumes, peanuts, or eggs (P > 0.40 for each); and relative weight loss for yogurt, peanut butter, walnuts, other nuts, chicken without skin, low-fat cheese, and seafood (−0.14 to −0.71 kg; P = 0.01 to P < 0.001). Increases in GL were independently associated with a 0.42-kg greater weight gain per 50-unit increase (P < 0.001). Significant interactions (P-interaction < 0.05) between changes in protein foods and GL were identified; for example, increased cheese intake was associated with weight gain when GL increased, with weight stability when GL did not change, and with weight loss when exchanged for GL (i.e., decrease in GL).

Conclusion: Protein foods were commonly interchanged with carbohydrate, and changes in protein foods and GL interacted to influence long-term weight gain.
 
JudoJosh said:
Changes in intake of protein foods, carbohydrate amount and quality, and long-term weight change: results from 3 prospective cohorts

Abstract

Background: Dietary guidelines recommend interchanging protein foods (e.g., chicken for red meat), but they may be exchanged for carbohydrate-rich foods varying in quality [glycemic load (GL)]. Whether such exchanges occur and how they influence long-term weight gain are not established.

Objective: Our objective was to determine how changes in intake of protein foods, GL, and their interrelationship influence long-term weight gain.

Design: We investigated the association between 4-y changes in consumption of protein foods, GL, and their interaction with 4-y weight change over a 16- to 24-y follow-up, adjusted for other lifestyle changes (smoking, physical activity, television watching, sleep duration), body mass index, and all dietary factors simultaneously in 3 prospective US cohorts (Nurses’ Health Study, Nurses’ Health Study II, and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study) comprising 120,784 men and women free of chronic disease or obesity at baseline.

Results: Protein foods were not interchanged with each other (intercorrelations typically <|0.05|) but with carbohydrate (negative correlation as low as −0.39). Protein foods had different relations with long-term weight gain, with positive associations for meats, chicken with skin, and regular cheese (per increased serving/d, 0.13–1.17 kg; P = 0.02 to P < 0.001); no association for milk, legumes, peanuts, or eggs (P > 0.40 for each); and relative weight loss for yogurt, peanut butter, walnuts, other nuts, chicken without skin, low-fat cheese, and seafood (−0.14 to −0.71 kg; P = 0.01 to P < 0.001). Increases in GL were independently associated with a 0.42-kg greater weight gain per 50-unit increase (P < 0.001). Significant interactions (P-interaction < 0.05) between changes in protein foods and GL were identified; for example, increased cheese intake was associated with weight gain when GL increased, with weight stability when GL did not change, and with weight loss when exchanged for GL (i.e., decrease in GL).

Conclusion: Protein foods were commonly interchanged with carbohydrate, and changes in protein foods and GL interacted to influence long-term weight gain.
Click to expand...

In on discussion
 
Honestly, I haven't even read the paper yet but it's not much of a stretch to think food source matters.
 
JudoJosh said:
Honestly, I haven't even read the paper yet but it's not much of a stretch to think food source matters.
Click to expand...

Im going to have a look at it now. But I completely agree.
 
This paper isn't the first one to conflict with IIFYM either
 
JudoJosh said:
Honestly, I haven't even read the paper yet but it's not much of a stretch to think food source matters.
Click to expand...

In for more discussion.

:)
 
Without reading the entire paper, this is extremely vague.
 
I think people have this need to have "certainty" in diet and exercise. IIFYM is an idea that has been carried too far. But then again, so haven't most other ideas - low carb, low fat, etc. For some reason, we get a little bit of truth and take it all the way...more is better.

I don't know that most people will argue that food source "matters" - but still, it is hard to hit the strictest macros without having some food source consideration in there. I mean, if I have to eat 250 grams of protein, 250 grams of carbs and 100 grams of fat in a day, and I need to keep it around 2900 calories....You'd better believe I'm probably going to be eating some chicken and beef, eggs, milk, etc. - healthy sources of protein. But the IIFYM crowd never talks about this, they just talk about the "look I had a pop tart (for the last 300 calories after eating 2600 "clean" calories all day)"
 
Doing the extreme is often easier than moderation.
 
HIT4ME said:
I think people have this need to have "certainty" in diet and exercise. IIFYM is an idea that has been carried too far. But then again, so haven't most other ideas - low carb, low fat, etc. For some reason, we get a little bit of truth and take it all the way...more is better.

I don't know that most people will argue that food source "matters" - but still, it is hard to hit the strictest macros without having some food source consideration in there. I mean, if I have to eat 250 grams of protein, 250 grams of carbs and 100 grams of fat in a day, and I need to keep it around 2900 calories....You'd better believe I'm probably going to be eating some chicken and beef, eggs, milk, etc. - healthy sources of protein. But the IIFYM crowd never talks about this, they just talk about the "look I had a pop tart (for the last 300 calories after eating 2600 "clean" calories all day)"
Click to expand...

I agree with your post. If you look at IIFYM advocates on any type of social media, they will show the "dirty" foods that they eat. However, that is more than likely a small percentage of their total caloric intake for the day. When "clean" eaters see all those things, they come out firing at the IIFYM groups. That is not to say that people whom follow IIFYM eat sensibly, there are those that eat mostly from processed sources and those people are the ones that give IIFYM a bad name. The same can be said about those that eat strictly clean all the time as well.

Your last sentence sums it up nicely.

I wish people that follow IIFYM just say they flexible diet, because I think that is what most of them do. If people used this term, I think both groups would see that each others diet is pretty similar.

I follow flexible dieting. I am consuming 2,500 cals today. All of my foods were "bro" foods except for one Pop-Tart I had post workout. Yes, one out of the two in the wrapping, so less than 10% of my cals came from a dirty food. In these IIFYM groups, that is never mentioned. I almost think that the majority of IIFTM people like to only talk about there junk food to make it look like they go against the grain 110%

/semi rant
 
Admin said:
Without reading the entire paper, this is extremely vague.
Click to expand...
agreed

It's nice to see some sort of sometbing done on interchangeabliry of macros

But I'm really confused reading it briefly

Thermo effect of food plays a roll
 
Seems like there a few obvious issues:

Calories weren't standardized when food was swapped - so for example swapping white fish for read meat in the same gram quantity will yield a higher calorie content.

I think this is challenging the fact that many people will substitute carbohydrate sources for protein instead of protein AND that meat will lead to weight gain if this happens. Red meat is a fat and protein source and can contain considerably more calories than the same gram content of rice.

This has been seen in other research as well:

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

So these results are not surprising. Of course, we also know that there are behavioral differences between those who tend to eat more red meat (tend to have poorer eating and lifestyle habits than vegetarians or other health conscious people) so the results are both not surprising and irrelevant.

Other studies show that balancing high energy foods with low energy foods can protect against weight gain. In other words, lowering total ED. Hardly surprising: Invalid Link Removed

Other studies find:
If energy intake is strictly controlled, macronutrient composition of the diet (energy percentages of fat and carbohydrates) does not substantially affect body weight or fat mass
Click to expand...

Without studies taking into account total calorie intake, you cannot really say that poor food choices will lead to weight gain.
 
AntM1564 said:
I agree with your post. If you look at IIFYM advocates on any type of social media, they will show the "dirty" foods that they eat. However, that is more than likely a small percentage of their total caloric intake for the day. When "clean" eaters see all those things, they come out firing at the IIFYM groups. That is not to say that people whom follow IIFYM eat sensibly, there are those that eat mostly from processed sources and those people are the ones that give IIFYM a bad name. The same can be said about those that eat strictly clean all the time as well.

Your last sentence sums it up nicely.

I wish people that follow IIFYM just say they flexible diet, because I think that is what most of them do. If people used this term, I think both groups would see that each others diet is pretty similar.

I follow flexible dieting. I am consuming 2,500 cals today. All of my foods were "bro" foods except for one Pop-Tart I had post workout. Yes, one out of the two in the wrapping, so less than 10% of my cals came from a dirty food. In these IIFYM groups, that is never mentioned. I almost think that the majority of IIFTM people like to only talk about there junk food to make it look like they go against the grain 110%

/semi rant
Click to expand...

Yeah this is a very good point. I'm also extremely annoyed with some of the IIFYM people, mostly the ones that act like food quality doesn't matter at all.

Actually one of the people who has been getting on my nerves the most recently is Layne Norton with all his food quality doesn't matter stuff. I don't know if he truly believes that or just likes giving off the impression, but being he has a big influence in the industry, I feel it's misleading a lot of people.

Like most things, there's a right way to do things and a wrong way. I'm probably like you where 95% of what I eat on a daily basis comes from whole foods and a very small amount is "junk" (a few bites of ice cream, a couple chocolate squares, the occasional pop tart, etc.)

Once a week I'll do a refeed day where I might down half a pint of ice cream and a few other junk foods, but nothing too crazy.

What baffles me that nobody points out is there's much more to overall health and even physique goals than just macros. Eating junk food all the time, while you still may be able to look decent, isn't good for your overall health.

When you're unhealthy, aside from your general quality of life suffering, you are hindering yourself in the gym as well. The IIFYM crowd don't seem to appreciate the way everything in the body synergistically works together. Or maybe they just like giving the impression that they are "rebels" and don't need to eat that "clean ****."

Either way, it's getting old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top