YOU CAN EAT WHATEVER YOU WANT!!

[Deano]

IIFYM

What does it mean though?

IIFYM (If It Fits Your Macros) means you can eat ANYTHING you want as long as it fits into your daily calorie requirements and daily macros split of protein, carbs and fats.

So basically what im saying is .....

Can someone Polyfy this message so its eaiser to understand for us Brown Bruddas in our slang.

[Luigi]

Good thread JR shame some of these idiots wont listen to you :doh:

[Darkmanx]

I absolutely agree 100% with phedder.

[JOSEF RAKICH]

Can someone Polyfy this message so its eaiser to understand for us Brown Bruddas in our slang.

You can eat whatever you want IF IT FITS YOUR DAILY MACROS TARGETS AND CALORIE REQUIREMENTS. There is no "clean" or "dirty" foods (unless you are talking about processed etc,) Im not saying eat junk food all day every day like a idiot, still eat your oats and egg whites etc, but if you want to eat 5 licqorice sticks or McDonalds you can just FIT IT INTO YOUR DAILY MACROS and eat it every day (if you want to) there is no foods you have to eat food choices are all personal preference.

White bread VS Wholemeal bread, both are the same regarding body composition, eat whatever you think tastes better.

[jimjim83]

IIFYM

What does it mean though?

IIFYM (If It Fits Your Macros) means you can eat ANYTHING you want as long as it fits into your daily calorie requirements and daily macros split of protein, carbs and fats.

So basically what im saying is.....

Can someone Polyfy this message so its eaiser to understand for us Brown Bruddas in our slang.

I actually agree with Deano talk about snore fest. Ill break it down for you deano none of this micro macro shit like above.

Eatbig+liftbig=getbig.

[AgentOrange]

Can someone Polyfy this message so its eaiser to understand for us Brown Bruddas in our slang.

Polyfy!? ha ha ha

[MOD EDIT: No offensive comments, please.]

no wonder you don't understand

[jimjim83]

Can someone Polyfy this message so its eaiser to understand for us Brown Bruddas in our slang.

Polyfy!? ha ha ha

sorry mate it does not contain the words steal, gamble, winz, TAB, church, rape

no wonder you don't understand

Bhahhaha

[Chemo]

if i eat only dextrose and whey in one sitting then no it doesnt "IIFYM"

What? This dosent even make sence..

You can eat dextrose and whey and make it fit into your daily macros.. I dont get what you are saying?

Yeah sorry bud, was a pretty shit sentence, i was just worked up about how shit this iifym shit is. Ok say I get 300g pro, 300gcho and 90g fat from wpi or even worse pea protein, glucose and butter

All fitting my daily macro requirements, all on one sitting.

Iifym...

I don't see this being beneficial fir body composition. So why endorse the iifym statement?!

Another extreme example and unrealistic but to simply say if it fits your macros as some golden rule for body composition is soooo shit and half arsed. Timing and quality of food is important.

[genetic freek]

So if I drink 4 botles of coke a day I'll get a sexy body like you?

Cool

[Phedder]

Cut the abusive crap guys. This is a beneficial topic for discussion and it doesn't need to be ruined with abuse and racism, keep it civil.

[Pseudonym]

Agreed. So let's put up our considered, calm, rational, unemotive arguments one by one. And JR can respond in a similar manner - one by one. By taking it one point at a time, we can minimise any ambiguity.

Like this...

My argument:

Joseph, you say GI doesn't make any difference. Putting aside the issue of micronutrients (vitamins and minerals), you say that 100g of carbs from sugar has the same fat loss/storage potential (depending on your total daily intake) as 100g of carbs from a low GI source like rice. Have I got that right?

But we know that a high GI increases insulin, and that makes it more likely your 100g carbs will be stored as fat. That's a fact. How does your theory disprove that?

And Joseph's argument might be:

It's true that a higher GI carb might be stored as fat. However, if you are storing 100g of carbs as fat, that's 100g of carbs that you aren't using for energy, so your body has to find the energy-equivalent of 100g of carbs elsewhere. And where does it find them? In your fat stores. So that's 100g of carbs out, but 100g of carbs in. So the net effect of a high GI carb is zero.

I have no idea whether that's Joseph's answer or not. The point is, both arguments are clear and logical, and they don't resort to name-calling. Think we can manage that?

[Riccardo]

Basically what this argument comes down to is if Glycemic index is relevant or not. Unfortunately this is a highly controversial subject as seen in some of the responses in this thread. Lately literature has pointed towards GI as being irrelevant in insulin sensitivity and weight gain. Here is an extract from a particular study done in 2005:

No association was observed between glycemic index and SI, fasting insulin, AIR, disposition index, BMI, or waist circumference after adjustment for demographic characteristics or family history of diabetes, energy expenditure, and smoking. Associations observed for digestible carbohydrates and glycemic load, respectively, with SI, insulin secretion, and adiposity (adjusted for demographics and main confounders) were entirely explained by energy intake. In contrast, fiber was associated positively with SI and disposition index and inversely with fasting insulin, BMI, and waist circumference but not with AIR

SI= Insulin sensitivity AIR=acute insulin response.

What they found was that in fact fiber is more important! High fiber is associated with healthy pancreatic function, insulin sensitivity and avoiding fat accumulation.

As an interesting note, acute fluctuations in anabolic hormone levels have been shown in numerous papers to have no effect on anabolism. chronic elevation of anabolic hormones does. So its not so much the kind of carbohydrates that you eat but more so the amount you eat.

Lastly it is true that High GI carbs can potentially increase insulin levels over that of an equivalent amount of low GI carbs however low GI carbs cause insulin to be elevated for a longer period of time. Thus having a greater effect on fat anabolism.

So in conclusion the type of carbs you consume is not as important as the amount of carbs you consume. The association of improved insulin sensitivity and reduced fat anabolism may be due to the fiber that is typically present in low GI carbs over High GI carbs, therefore if you have a large portion of your diet consisting of High GI carbs it is advisable that you also consume more fiber with those carbs.

my 2cents.

[vracula]

excellent post riccardo!

[PeterDolan]

Basically what this argument comes down to is if Glycemic index is relevant or not. Unfortunately this is a highly controversial subject as seen in some of the responses in this thread. Lately literature has pointed towards GI as being irrelevant in insulin sensitivity and weight gain. Here is an extract from a particular study done in 2005:

No association was observed between glycemic index and SI, fasting insulin, AIR, disposition index, BMI, or waist circumference after adjustment for demographic characteristics or family history of diabetes, energy expenditure, and smoking. Associations observed for digestible carbohydrates and glycemic load, respectively, with SI, insulin secretion, and adiposity (adjusted for demographics and main confounders) were entirely explained by energy intake. In contrast, fiber was associated positively with SI and disposition index and inversely with fasting insulin, BMI, and waist circumference but not with AIR

SI= Insulin sensitivity AIR=acute insulin response.

What they found was that in fact fiber is more important! High fiber is associated with healthy pancreatic function, insulin sensitivity and avoiding fat accumulation.

As an interesting note, acute fluctuations in anabolic hormone levels have been shown in numerous papers to have no effect on anabolism. chronic elevation of anabolic hormones does. So its not so much the kind of carbohydrates that you eat but more so the amount you eat.

Lastly it is true that High GI carbs can potentially increase insulin levels over that of an equivalent amount of low GI carbs however low GI carbs cause insulin to be elevated for a longer period of time. Thus having a greater effect on fat anabolism.

So in conclusion the type of carbs you consume is not as important as the amount of carbs you consume. The association of improved insulin sensitivity and reduced fat anabolism may be due to the fiber that is typically present in low GI carbs over High GI carbs, therefore if you have a large portion of your diet consisting of High GI carbs it is advisable that you also consume more fiber with those carbs.

my 2cents.

Something credible. Great post dude!

[olympia]

My diet is perfect I hit my macros targets every day. I hit my calorie requirements, bang on. (well i did before i got sick with glandular fever). Food choices do not matter, hitting your macros by the end of the day does matter. Hit your macros however you want, whatever foods you prefer its all personal preference.

Every day my daily macros is as follows:

Protein - 300g

Carbohydrates - 350g

Fats - 70g

This is my daily diet and my food choices every day:

Meal 1 - Protein + Oats (proats)

Meal 2 - Home made pizza

Meal 3 - Lean chicken breast (or) steak + Rice + Vegetables

Meal 4 - Home made pizza

Meal 5 - McDonalds (Chicken deluxe burger + Large fries)

*Workout*

Meal 6 - Protein + Oats (proats)

Meal 7 - Protein ice cream + Peanut butter

General body composition is about calorie and portion control, not food choices.

Thats actually not all that bad . I was kind of thinking you ate Mcdonalds and mini pizzas all day :doh:

[JOSEF RAKICH]

if i eat only dextrose and whey in one sitting then no it doesnt "IIFYM"

What? This dosent even make sence..

You can eat dextrose and whey and make it fit into your daily macros.. I dont get what you are saying?

Yeah sorry bud, was a pretty shit sentence, i was just worked up about how shit this iifym shit is. Ok say I get 300g pro, 300gcho and 90g fat from wpi or even worse pea protein, glucose and butter

All fitting my daily macro requirements, all on one sitting.

Iifym...

I don't see this being beneficial fir body composition. So why endorse the iifym statement?!

Another extreme example and unrealistic but to simply say if it fits your macros as some golden rule for body composition is soooo shit and half arsed. Timing and quality of food is important.

Ok that is just completly un-realistic and stupid, who in the right mind would do that? Of corse you should still follow your healthy diet (IIFYM dosent mean go and be a idiot and eat nothing but the worse foods you can find) IIFYM means if you want to eat McDonalds you can just fit it into your daily macros and you are fine. Lets just say the meal + drink has a macros of 35g protein, 115g carbs and 35g fat, if you fit those numbers into your daily macros split then there will be no difference what so ever, calories are calories. Calories are a form of energy, they cannot give any more or any less than what they are. I know serious bodybuilders world wide who eat chocolate every single day in there pre-contest diet, why? Because they like chocolate and they fit it into there daily macros.

The worlds strongest man Mariusz Pudzianowski

Did you know most of his diet consists of chocolate? (serious) Google it up if you dont belive me, he even wakes up 3-4am in the morning and eats chocolate then goes back to sleep.

Nutrient timing is not all important, you dont even need a post-workout protein shake after your workout, you can have it at a nother time of the day (5 hours before of 5 hours after) and it will not make a difference at all on body composition. You people have to look at the bigger OVERALL picture, calories in VS calories out.

When speaking of nutrition for improving body composition or training performance, its crucial to realize theres an underlying hierarchy of importance. At the top of the hierarchy is total amount of the macronutrients by the end of the day. Distantly below that is the precise timing of those nutrients. With very few exceptions, athletes and active individuals eat multiple times per day. Thus, the majority of their day is spent in the postprandial (fed) rather than a post-absorptive (fasted) state. The vast majority of nutrient timing studies have been done on overnight-fasted subjects put through glycogen depletion protocols, which obviously limits the applicability of the outcomes. Pre-exercise (and/or during-exercise) nutrient intake often has a lingering carry-over effect into the post-exercise period. Throughout the day, theres a constant overlap of meal digestion & nutrient absorption. For this reason, the effectiveness of nutrient timing does not require a high degree of precision.

[JOSEF RAKICH]

Agreed. So let's put up our considered, calm, rational, unemotive arguments one by one. And JR can respond in a similar manner - one by one. By taking it one point at a time, we can minimise any ambiguity.

Like this...

My argument:

Joseph, you say GI doesn't make any difference. Putting aside the issue of micronutrients (vitamins and minerals), you say that 100g of carbs from sugar has the same fat loss/storage potential (depending on your total daily intake) as 100g of carbs from a low GI source like rice. Have I got that right?

But we know that a high GI increases insulin, and that makes it more likely your 100g carbs will be stored as fat. That's a fact. How does your theory disprove that?

And Joseph's argument might be:

It's true that a higher GI carb might be stored as fat. However, if you are storing 100g of carbs as fat, that's 100g of carbs that you aren't using for energy, so your body has to find the energy-equivalent of 100g of carbs elsewhere. And where does it find them? In your fat stores. So that's 100g of carbs out, but 100g of carbs in. So the net effect of a high GI carb is zero.

I have no idea whether that's Joseph's answer or not. The point is, both arguments are clear and logical, and they don't resort to name-calling. Think we can manage that?

Yup, i will reply to this post explaining how the G.I makes no difference on body comp later on today after i have gotten through my clients emails and facebook Q's etc.

[ThePman]

A few questions:

1. How are you going to fit extreme examples, like 4L of Coke, into a diet that only gives you so many calories each day and requires you to hit targets for protein and fat as well? Most of the counter-examples being made don't even make sense.

2. Has anyone bothered to look at how GI and digestion rates are affected by combining carbs with protein and fat, as in eating a complete meal? GI barely touches on What Really Happens, and I think that's kinda funny that some of you are hassling JR over "too much science" when what he's saying is far more true to real life than the completely lab-tested GI concept.

I guess the "science doesn't tell us anything" argument only applies to things you disagree with, and not the supplement-company studies passed off as True Knowledges.

3. Even if you mainline a few hundred calories of sugar -- all you've got left after getting macros sorted and staying under your daily calorie target -- and even if it does get stored as fat, why is that fat going to stay stored if you're in a calorie deficit?

Not storing fat is the whole point of a calorie deficit.

[Chemo]

You people have to look at the bigger OVERALL picture, calories in VS calories out.

Yeah for sure bro, thats why I don't like the simple IIFYM, and yeah energy balance is important. The bigger picture should focus on healthy eating

Ok that is just completly un-realistic and stupid, who in the right mind would do that? Of corse you should still follow your healthy diet (IIFYM dosent mean go and be a idiot and eat nothing but the worse foods you can find) IIFYM means if you want to eat McDonalds you can just fit it into your daily macros and you are fine. Lets just say the meal + drink has a macros of 35g protein, 115g carbs and 35g fat, if you fit those numbers into your daily macros split then there will be no difference what so ever, calories are calories. Calories are a form of energy, they cannot give any more or any less than what they are. I know serious bodybuilders world wide who eat chocolate every single day in there pre-contest diet, why? Because they like chocolate and they fit it into there daily macros.

I know very unrealistic, but it tests the IIFYM statement, even if I were to space my pea protein, glucose and butter meals out \:D/ they are just empty cals with little nutritious value and crappy protein, ill get my energy needs no doubt but without micros over a long period of time im not going to perform very well.

You've said above that "Of corse you should still follow your healthy diet" which is cool and makes a lot of sense, and I understand the idea behind cheat meals. But healthy eating needs to be put before IIFYM because a calorie is not simply a calorie, and the IIFYM can be deceiving

[PeterDolan]

I didn't realise that we were talking exclusively about a deficit.

I think the 4L of coke point was made to illustrate that it would have an effect (I'm guessing). Yeah no one in their right mind on this site would do that but surely 4L of coke would be bad? What IIDFYM (If It Doesn't Fit Your Macro's)? So I aim to get 250g C, 200g P and 80g Fat but I decide to go for 300g C. Would the 50g extra be better coming from coke or brown rice?

[JOSEF RAKICH]

Yeah for sure bro, thats why I don't like the simple IIFYM, and yeah energy balance is important. The bigger picture should focus on healthy eating

Chemo i dont think you understand IIFYM by the way you reply to my posts. They dont make much sence lol..

Of corse healthy eating is important, all im saying is if you want to eat them skittles, fit them into your macros and eat them skittles. You arnt automatically going to gain fat.

You've said above that "Of corse you should still follow your healthy diet" which is cool and makes a lot of sense, and I understand the idea behind cheat meals. But healthy eating needs to be put before IIFYM because a calorie is not simply a calorie, and the IIFYM can be deceiving

Its not a cheat meal IIFYM, its only a "cheat meal" if it exceeds your daily macros target. Do you understand where i am coming from yet??

If you eat a piece of chocolate cake and a f*ck load of cream and it fits into your daily macros, then its not a cheat meal. However if you eat a piece of chocolate cake and a f*ck load of cream and it dosent fit into your daily macros then that is a cheat meal.

Of corse healthy eating is more important then IIFYM, im just clearing up the fact where people think if they eat a cream pie they are automatically going to sore fat lol. And yes a calorie is a calories they are forms of energy.

[ThePman]

I didn't realise that we were talking exclusively about a deficit.

I think the 4L of coke point was made to illustrate that it would have an effect (I'm guessing). Yeah no one in their right mind on this site would do that but surely 4L of coke would be bad? What IIDFYM (If It Doesn't Fit Your Macro's)? So I aim to get 250g C, 200g P and 80g Fat but I decide to go for 300g C. Would the 50g extra be better coming from coke or brown rice?

The point is not to eat the extra 50g at all; your daily calories are set where they are for a reason.

What JR is saying about IIFYM (where did that one come from?) requires both the calorie target (whether dieting down or trying to grow, the target's there for a reason) and the macro targets to be in place; it's useless to argue against one or the other with examples that have nothing to do with what he's saying.

It really looks like the problem here is people talking past each other. I know, that's shocking on a bodybuilding forum.

[PeterDolan]

I'd like to see these studies used on the top ranked natural bodybuilders in the world

[JOSEF RAKICH]

I didn't realise that we were talking exclusively about a deficit.

I think the 4L of coke point was made to illustrate that it would have an effect (I'm guessing). Yeah no one in their right mind on this site would do that but surely 4L of coke would be bad? What IIDFYM (If It Doesn't Fit Your Macro's)? So I aim to get 250g C, 200g P and 80g Fat but I decide to go for 300g C. Would the 50g extra be better coming from coke or brown rice?

Well bad as in health, maby. Bad as it havign different effects on body composition, no.

If you had an excess of 50g carbs it would make no difference if it was from coke or brown rice, the effects on bodycomp would be the same, brown rice can still be stored as fat.

People ITT, im not saying go out and eat the worst foods you can find im just saying you can eat anything you want IIFYM. If you like skittles you can eat them every day im just trying to clear up the fact on "clean" VS "dirty" foods, there is no "bad" foods which automatically make you fat. It really anoys me when people think eating a piece of cake automatically makes them fat. Because its CAKE.

[ThePman]

I'd like to see these studies used on the top ranked natural bodybuilders in the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong