Diet and nutrition

Remove this Banner Ad

Day 1 of a 3 day water only fast today. Just to get the body into Autophagy and clean the crap out. Planning to now do a 3 day water fast once every 4 weeks, to coincide with my de-load week.

The hardest part so far is hearing KFC is looking to bring back the Double Down 'burger'. Bloody hell, I'll be craving it the next 3 days now. Poor timing. :mad::(
 

Log in to remove this ad.

DemonTim said:
Not at all, it's probably what a lot of people think, since it seems to be what the newbies and loudmouths push. They discuss maximising nutritional value from food etc
Click to expand...
I'm sorry I'm really confused, the name of the diet is "if it fits your macros" not "if it fits your micros and nutritional density requirements". Everyone I've ever seen who brags about the IIFYM diet talks about how much macdonalds and kfc they can eat.

I'm interested to read what this other take on IIFYM dieting looks like, got a link?
 
showdownhero said:
I'm sorry I'm really confused, the name of the diet is "if it fits your macros" not "if it fits your micros and nutritional density requirements". Everyone I've ever seen who brags about the IIFYM diet talks about how much macdonalds and kfc they can eat.

I'm interested to read what this other take on IIFYM dieting looks like, got a link?
Click to expand...
yeah. I can see how being a condescending twat about it is the way to discuss things.

"Third, have fun. Remember, IIFYM is not about eating AS MUCH food as you want, but rather, eating foods you crave when you crave them – in moderation and in accordance with your recommendations. So eat pizza. But, make sure that it fits in your daily macros."

"
Meal Planning

The nice part about IIFYM is that you can choose to eat whatever you want. However, you’ll find that it’s hard to meet your ratios if you eat nothing but “junk food”. For example, if you want to eat pizza, you can. An average medium slice of pepperoni pizza has 10 grams of protein, 13 grams of fat, and 26 grams of carbohydrate. You could probably eat one slice and still meet your daily nutrient goals.

But, if you eat three slices of pizza, you’re up to 39 grams of fat. If you are only allowed 50 grams of fat for the day (example only) eating 3 slices of pizza might not be the best idea.


Overall, you’ll want to choose nutrient-dense, healthy foods for most of the day, and eat smaller amounts of the less nutrient dense foods. Good choices include fruits and vegetables, lean meat, low-fat dairy, and whole grains. By eating more nutrient-dense foods, you’ll get the nutrients that you need (including important vitamins and minerals) and feel full and satisfied. Select natural foods over processed foods, and choose foods without much added salt, added sugar, or added fat."

The pages also literally suggest against starving yourself to fit loads of junk in. The above is sent out to the IIFYM mailing list, tnation, also gives advice on it.

One of the people I was referring to on the IIFYM Facebook page was eating 200 calories 4 days a week, so she could eat corn chips, twinkies, skittles and other stuff like that on the other 3 days. She's following a combo of IIFYM and IF (which is common for those following IIFYM)

As I said:
DemonTim said:
Not at all, it's probably what a lot of people think, since it seems to be what the newbies and loudmouths push. They discuss maximising nutritional value from food etc
Click to expand...
 
showdownhero said:
I'm sorry I'm really confused, the name of the diet is "if it fits your macros" not "if it fits your micros and nutritional density requirements". Everyone I've ever seen who brags about the IIFYM diet talks about how much macdonalds and kfc they can eat.

I'm interested to read what this other take on IIFYM dieting looks like, got a link?
Click to expand...
The only links are to bro science blogs and NO actual Pubmed links.

IIFYM = carbs-protein-fat, doesn't matter where they come from as long as it fits the individuals percentages.
Science shows it's flawed, but the Bro Science brothers are becoming so defensive about it they are shifting the goal posts now saying the quality of macros IS important.

This is a good run down.


"Now, what is wrong here?

I think that this entire dietary cult (IIFYM) is built on a shaky foundation.

First of all, it completely ignores the quality of the foodstuff you put into your mouth.

Second of all, it falsely assumes that food, beside its macronutrient content, has no other value to your health. It only provides energy.

This approach completely ignores how food alters the microbiome and how it affects gene expression. More on that in a bit…

Young people may get away with following IIFYM (and flexible dieting) in their youth years. But even so, it is most likely they are going to pay the price later in life."

http://cristivlad.com/iifym-and-the-major-flaws-of-flexible-dieting/
 
Bazzar said:
The only links are to bro science blogs and NO actual Pubmed links.

IIFYM = carbs-protein-fat, doesn't matter where they come from as long as it fits the individuals percentages.
Science shows it's flawed, but the Bro Science brothers are becoming so defensive about it they are shifting the goal posts now saying the quality of macros IS important.

This is a good run down.


"Now, what is wrong here?

I think that this entire dietary cult is built on a shaky foundation.

First of all, it completely ignores the quality of the foodstuff you put into your mouth.

Second of all, it falsely assumes that food, beside its macronutrient content, has no other value to your health. It only provides energy.

This approach completely ignores how food alters the microbiome and how it affects gene expression. More on that in a bit…

Young people may get away with following IIFYM (and flexible dieting) in their youth years. But even so, it is most likely they are going to pay the price later in life."

http://cristivlad.com/iifym-and-the-major-flaws-of-flexible-dieting/
Click to expand...
I agree with some of it, but those who actually follow it (not just those who bandwagon) aren't the ones pedalling the s**t like above.
 
DemonTim said:
I agree with some of it, but those who actually follow it (not just those who bandwagon) aren't the ones pedalling the s**t like above.
Click to expand...
But the "new" way of following it isn't what IIFYM was originally all about.

And as I said, their is zero studies on this, its just a fake made up thing only in the gyms and bodybuilding scene

Out of curiosity how does your version of IIFYM differ to the ADG?
 
Bazzar said:
But the "new" way of following it isn't what IIFYM was originally all about.

And as I said, their is zero studies on this, its just a fake made up thing only in the gyms and bodybuilding scene

Out of curiosity how does your version of IIFYM differ to the ADG?
Click to expand...
I'd say it depends who you've followed, I know blokes who competed while doing it years ago (one of them was an original admin and creator of gym memes, them and their affiliates are some of the biggest and longest advocates of it). They'd have pop tarts or some crap daily, but for the most part were eating fairly clean. Try eating junk all day and fitting it into standard macros, and getting your fibre and water requirements down too. Basically impossible.

I'm not saying there's studies on it, I've never claimed there is. But like a lot of fitness it's anecdote based, and what works for individuals.

What's "my version" I'm quoting straight from the source, I've been on their mailing list for years. But what you're arguing could be applied to everything, wouldn't every single meal plan be IIFYM if you dumb it down to where you are. I don't follow if it fits your macros per se
 
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=133634471
Here's a guy laying the outline back 5 years ago:
Try to get most of your macros from whole foods. They are high in micronutrients needed to maintain overall health.

To say it wasn't what originally was said is just talking s**t for the sake of it. Criticise it for the actual criticisms (there's zero need to fabricate them)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DemonTim said:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=133634471
Here's a guy laying the outline back 5 years ago:
Try to get most of your macros from whole foods. They are high in micronutrients needed to maintain overall health.

To say it wasn't what originally was said is just talking s**t for the sake of it. Criticise it for the actual criticisms (there's zero need to fabricate them)
Click to expand...
So who is YeomenKek the Pizzabrah, and what's his qualifications in nutrition?
 
Bazzar said:
That's where IIF"Your"M makes no sense.
Originally it was eat any type of carb, protein and fat as long as it fit your percentages, then they changed it to include "quality" micros, so now its just a balanced version of what ever you follow, vegetarian, Med, Primal, LCHF or ADG.
The name IIFYM is just nutritionally dumb
Click to expand...
Except you get shown it wasn't originally that.
 
Bazzar said:
So who is YeomenKek the Pizzabrah, and what's his qualifications in nutrition?
Click to expand...
Now you're just arguing against fallacies, it was to show your claim of what it was originally was incorrect. I didn't once claim he was basing it in science (I actually agreed with that, and said that there are plenty of issues with it). Why can't you respond authentically? Why shift the goal posts?
 
IIFYM has its place as a step in moving to healthier eating and lifestyles.
The posts I've linked you to have basically said it's exactly like any other diet plan, just allowing choice. All diet plans focus heavily on calorie and macronutrient intake
 
Bazzar said:
Shown by who?
Click to expand...
I've referenced you to discussions of it from 5 years ago. Saying the opposite of what you say it was

You want to claim it's bro science and made up, if that's the case, then discussions of it and its principles from 5 years ago is evidenc plenty (not to mention their mailing list has always maintained the same)

But alright, I'll stop discussing in good faith, I'll stop trying to prove the negative. If you want to make your claim of what it is, has been, and was originally developed as (doesn't matter what/when/how much/daily what you eat as long as you hit macros, and that you can do this by eating only junk), show evidence of such

I don't get why you're even arguing this. You're showing my exact initial point, loudmouths perpetuated it as something it's not. It's literally no different to any other initial dieting plan in the complaints that are made against it.
 
It's strange watching two people with a dislike for something, obviously showing they would not follow it, come in and argue against quotes from sources that actually use/market the plan. I can't stand crossfit, but I'm not going to go and argue what crossfit is against quotes from crossfit coaches. Frankly, it doesn't matter in either case what it means, criticism should be levelled based on the actual inaccuracies or issues (which there are plenty of in both cases)
Bazzar touched on one, but barely focussed on it and went back to "it was originally this despite quotes to the contrary"
 
DemonTim said:
I've referenced you to discussions of it from 5 years ago. Saying the opposite of what you say it was
Click to expand...

Any links other than some anonymous gym dude. Something with some science to back it up?

And "not liking it"?
Its not a real thing, that's my issue. It's just gym made up bro science. If you disagree show me some scientific proof that backs IIFYM as legitimate
 
Bazzar said:
Any links other than some anonymous gym dude. Something with some science to back it up?
Click to expand...
DemonTim said:
You want to claim it's bro science and made up, if that's the case, then discussions of it and its principles from 5 years ago is evidenc plenty (not to mention their mailing list has always maintained the same)

But alright, I'll stop discussing in good faith, I'll stop trying to prove the negative. If you want to make your claim of what it is, has been, and was originally developed as (doesn't matter what/when/how much/daily what you eat as long as you hit macros, and that you can do this by eating only junk), show evidence of such
Click to expand...
You're now being deliberately obtuse, or just creating random straw men
I've already discussed that I acknowledge no science behind it (as you do), based on your own opinion of it, you are asking for evidence of its origin in science, which you say won't exist.
So:
It has no scientific backing
You've been given discussions on what the principles are
Yet you won't accept that as evidence of the origin, because it's not scientific

You've created a fallacy of circular reasoning. Either it's scientific, and that's what you are basing what you claim the origin is on, or it's not scientific, and therefore discussions on the original principles are evidence of those principles

(You keep coming back to that because it's a strawman, that deflects from you responding to the actual point. It's Andrew bolt level discussion. I've already responded to it, you ignore the response and continue bringing it up. Despite it showing the shallowness of your discussion)
 
So for all the other readers. I'll give you a TL:DR:
Both bazaar and I agree IIFYM is not based in science
Bazaar contends that IIFYM was originally founded on eat whatever the * you want and make it fit your macros, no other rules (has yet to provide a source or evidence of such)
I contend it's just loudmouths and people new to it, who believe that. And that it's not what it currently is, nor was previously about (provided links to people discussing principles 5years ago, as well as quotes from IIFYM "sources")
Bazaar claims that because these are scientific sources they aren't proof
It is a hypocritical stance, because he acknowledges it isn't science, but wants science to prove "what it originally" was
 
I'll leave you to it. I'd tell you to do some reading but we both know you won't
I haven't even defended the plan per se, it is what it is, a decent stepping stone for some (and misused by others, as I've given specific examples of)
 
DemonTim said:
I'll leave you to it. I'd tell you to do some reading but we both know you won't
I haven't even defended the plan per se, it is what it is, a decent stepping stone for some (and misused by others, as I've given specific examples of)
Click to expand...
I read the Pizza Brah's plan. Meh.

Fact is Eirik Stevens made it up because he was sick of noobs asking silly questions about food intake, from there IIFYM has developed a life of its own as pure bro science ONLY discussed in gyms and NOT in any nutrition circles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top