If it fits your macros (iifym)

sharkey 25

This aproach to nutrition seems to becoming quite popular from some things I've seen online. At a very basic level it doesn't look at the types of food you eat but is more concerned with the numbers a person is trying to reach for any given day. Counting the macronutrients instead of overall calories seems to be a good idea. It seems to be a touchy subject for some people , judging by videos I've seen on yt.
What are people's opinions on iifym?

rocky

iiwfydip - if it works for you do it ... nevermind

Dotcomdolly

So it doesn't matter if you eat 4000 cals a day as long as your macros are in the right ratio??

boomtown84

sharkey 25 wrote: »

This aproach to nutrition seems to becoming quite popular from some things I've seen online. At a very basic level it doesn't look at the types of food you eat but is more concerned with the numbers a person is trying to reach for any given day. Counting the macronutrients instead of overall calories seems to be a good idea. It seems to be a touchy subject for some people , judging by videos I've seen on yt.
What are people's opinions on iifym?

Fine if you want to lose weight but a pain in the hoop counting everything if you're maintaining or gaining weight.

Dotcomdolly wrote: »

So it doesn't matter if you eat 4000 cals a day as long as your macros are in the right ratio??

If you need 4,000 cals, yes. If you don't then no. You get your required calorie number first then hit whichever macro ratio you decide you need.

Hanley

It seems infinitely more effort to count macros, which you end up counting as a by-product of kcals anyway...

Mellor

sharkey 25 wrote: »

Counting the macronutrients instead of overall calories seems to be a good idea.

But the calorie content of carbs, protein and fats is pretty constant. So you are still calories, jsut makeing it a lot more difficult.

Counting cals and aiming for a protein target is far simplier and achieves the same end result.

Gummy Panda

The idea is basically flexible dieting. There is no clean or dirty foods. No demonised macro. And the Glycemic Index is useless.

It's from the bodybuilding subculture so not exactly for joe soap who wouldn't plan out daily meals in such detail.

rocky

sharkey 25 wrote: »

Counting the macronutrients instead of overall calories seems to be a good idea.

Even though it's called 'if it fits your macros', the primary target is total calories, then macros (grams, not percentages)

alexsmith

IIFYM is so stupid.the people that started this fad diet must have no grasp of nutrition or health in the long term.

the basics are hitting your macros daily from any food source.in studies they show that there is no difference in body composition when comparing simple to complex carbs.

il give you an example:
200lb male needs 3000cals to increase muscle mass.

daily macros that need to be met for said individual:(grams) 240p 280c 100f = roughly 3000cals a day.

now the IIFYM crowd think its ok if you hit your daily macros from any food source.

grand so that means i can get my 280g of carbs from coke,jellies and cereal.i can get my 240g of protein from processed meats and dairy etc and the fat from other bad quality foods/artificial spreads.they take in to no consideration for long term health risks such as diabetes or organ health/overall body functioning properly.its retarded

Gummy Panda

alexsmith wrote: »

IIFYM is so stupid.the people that started this fad diet must have no grasp of nutrition or health in the long term.

the basics are hitting your macros daily from any food source.in studies they show that there is no difference in body composition when comparing simple to complex carbs.

il give you an example:
200lb male needs 3000cals to increase muscle mass.

daily macros that need to be met for said individual:(grams) 240p 280c 100f = roughly 3000cals a day.

now the IIFYM crowd think its ok if you hit your daily macros from any food source.

grand so that means i can get my 280g of carbs from coke,jellies and cereal.i can get my 240g of protein from processed meats and dairy etc and the fat from other bad quality foods/artificial spreads.they take in to no consideration for long term health risks such as diabetes or organ health/overall body functioning properly.its retarded

IIFYM is not meant for Joe Public. It's meant for the people who already plan out means and to help them stop being super anal retentive.

It was to stop posts like "OMG is xyz food a clean food... I might have blown my diet" on loads of forums

sharkey 25

Mellor wrote: »

sharkey 25 wrote: »

Counting the macronutrients instead of overall calories seems to be a good idea.

But the calorie content of carbs, protein and fats is pretty constant. So you are still calories, jsut makeing it a lot more difficult.

Counting cals and aiming for a protein target is far simplier and achieves the same end result.

Would you recommend having a Target for fat ? BTW I weigh 170, on my fitness pal my goals are 166p 166c 65f.

rocky

alexsmith wrote: »

IIFYM is so stupid.the people that started this fad diet must have no grasp of nutrition or health in the long term.

the basics are hitting your macros daily from any food source.

which of course does not mean that ALL your food is crap ALL of the time. It just means you can have a treat now and then without orthorexia punishing you for the rest of your week, iifym.

For some people not accepting of iifym, I'd go so far as saying they might have issues with food. From one extreme, 'clean food all the time' (whatever clean is) (which is fine as long as they stop bashing people who do iifym), to 'brb veg oil and coke 24/7' - do you really think this is what iifym means?

alexsmith wrote: »

in studies they show that there is no difference in body composition when comparing simple to complex carbs.

il give you an example:
200lb male needs 3000cals to increase muscle mass.

daily macros that need to be met for said individual:(grams) 240p 280c 100f = roughly 3000cals a day.

now the IIFYM crowd think its ok if you hit your daily macros from any food source.

grand so that means i can get my 280g of carbs from coke,jellies and cereal.i can get my 240g of protein from processed meats and dairy etc and the fat from other bad quality foods/artificial spreads.they take in to no consideration for long term health risks such as diabetes or organ health/overall body functioning properly.its retarded

I'll give you another example;
White bread is a complex carb
glucose is a simple carb

What mechanism would cause diabetes in the (extreme) example of people not paying too much attention to the food sources, iiftm? As long as they are eating at maintenance...

And another example, mine. when I lost weight, I hit my macros (and calories), but had a bit of a treat every day (tiramisu, ice cream etc). Why do I not have diabetes yet?

sharkey 25

alexsmith wrote: »

IIFYM is so stupid.the people that started this fad diet must have no grasp of nutrition or health in the long term.

the basics are hitting your macros daily from any food source.in studies they show that there is no difference in body composition when comparing simple to complex carbs.

il give you an example:
200lb male needs 3000cals to increase muscle mass.

daily macros that need to be met for said individual:(grams) 240p 280c 100f = roughly 3000cals a day.

now the IIFYM crowd think its ok if you hit your daily macros from any food source.

grand so that means i can get my 280g of carbs from coke,jellies and cereal.i can get my 240g of protein from processed meats and dairy etc and the fat from other bad quality foods/artificial spreads.they take in to no consideration for long term health risks such as diabetes or organ health/overall body functioning properly.its retarded

I think having an interest in micro nutrients might stop people from eating junk all day.
BTW does anyone check if they are getting enough micros? I just make sure to get plenty of veg and get protein from a wide variety of sources.

Mellor

sharkey 25 wrote: »

Would you recommend having a Target for fat ? BTW I weigh 170, on my fitness pal my goals are 166p 166c 65f.

Looks good to me, roughly equal distribution. 35% 35% 30%

alexsmith wrote: »

grand so that means i can get my 280g of carbs from coke,jellies and cereal.i can get my 240g of protein from processed meats and dairy etc and the fat from other bad quality foods/artificial spreads.they take in to no consideration for long term health risks such as diabetes or organ health/overall body functioning properly.its retarded

Firstly, your suggestion of foods above is stupid as you aren't meeting protein requirements with out blowing out fat and carbs. So thats the first rule out the window.

Secondly, nobody is going to think thats how the rule applys.

Its aimed at bodybuilders, they are notoriously anal about thier food. They aren't going to suddenly think that coke and milk is fine because of a new accronym. They'll still eat the same food. Just not in "meals". No more breakfast lunch or dinner. Just try an hit the macros,

Chicken, milk and olive oil - sounds rough but hey, IIFYM
Mince and maise starch- WFT? IIFYM
Steak, peanut butter and ice cream - nyom nyom nyom macros