Layne Norton's New VLOG: IIFYM V.S Clean Eating

[CanadianEric]

I can't stand the IIFYM movement because so often it is abused...its that damn acronym! People read "If It Fits Your Macros" and before they are done reading the sentence they're already in the McDonalds drive-thru...

If everyone understood IIFYM like Norton does, I wouldn't have a problem with the movement, even if I do disagree several key features of its philosophy.

[PR1MO]

even if I do disagree several key features of its philosophy.

In light of what Alan just slapped the sh*t out of us with, care to elaborate on which "key features" of its philosophy you disagree with?

[necon76]

Le sigh.

[SuffolkPunch]

The majority of people in this thread are broadly in agreement with each other on most things.

The problem comes down to one of how to present knowledge to the endless stream of newbies... IIFYM was an attempt at that but like all oversimplifications, it always backfires in some way. Another example of this is the calorie calculation formulae - I see endless threads recently of guys who are coming up with wacky TDEE figures usually because they didn't include their BF% or have an unrealistic view of their BF%... or they just did it wrong... but the blame can't always be ascribed to the newbie, some of it is in the presentation too.

What's DCA now? I need awaring on the latest TLA (three letter acronym)

[Makween]

The majority of people in this thread are broadly in agreement with each other on most things.

The problem comes down to one of how to present knowledge to the endless stream of newbies... IIFYM was an attempt at that but like all oversimplifications, it always backfires in some way. Another example of this is the calorie calculation formulae - I see endless threads recently of guys who are coming up with wacky TDEE figures usually because they didn't include their BF% or have an unrealistic view of their BF%... or they just did it wrong... but the blame can't always be ascribed to the newbie, some of it is in the presentation too.

What's DCA now? I need awaring on the latest TLA (three letter acronym)

Discretionary calorie allowance. It's been around for decades, in fairness.

[Bronzzi]

Is it still okay if I'm supposed to get 3900 kcals daily and let's say 1000 kcals comes from candy or sugary cereal everyday and the rest of the foods are still minimal to non processed, pasta, chicken, veggies etc. ?

[necon76]

Discretionary calorie allowance. It's been around for decades, in fairness.

Doesn't matter what you call it, idiots on will still find a way to abuse the concept & argue about it.

[Makween]

Doesn't matter what you call it, idiots on will still find a way to abuse the concept & argue about it.

No disagreement here.

[Bronzzi]

Is it still okay if I'm supposed to get 3900 kcals daily and let's say 1000 kcals comes from candy or sugary cereal everyday and the rest of the foods are still minimal to non processed, pasta, chicken, veggies etc. ?

Hey guys, what do you think about this?

[Makween]

Hey guys, what do you think about this?

Imo, 25% of daily calories every single day sounds like too much.

Based on your past threads, you clearly have issues in your relationship with food and should seek help. You want to do this because you're literally obsessed with high carb/low fat on training days and lower carb/higher fat on rest days. I suspect that this is because you think fat gain will be limited if you follow this protocol, which is incorrect.

[acrawlingchaos]

While I agree that there are always "one-offs" for any scenario it is fairly certain, while maybe not 100%, that if a person smokes for anywhere even close to 80 years they will die of lung cancer!! And the science on that is about as clear as it can get...

If someone has been smoking for 80 years (and assuming the didn't start smoking out of the womb), I am more inclined to say they died of old age.

Is it still okay if I'm supposed to get 3900 kcals daily and let's say 1000 kcals comes from candy or sugary cereal everyday and the rest of the foods are still minimal to non processed, pasta, chicken, veggies etc. ?

Yes... you have my permission.

[SuffolkPunch]

Is it still okay if I'm supposed to get 3900 kcals daily and let's say 1000 kcals comes from candy or sugary cereal everyday and the rest of the foods are still minimal to non processed, pasta, chicken, veggies etc. ?

Put it into fitday.com and post the breakdown here.

[Bronzzi]

Imo, 25% of daily calories every single day sounds like too much.

Based on your past threads, you clearly have issues in your relationship with food and should seek help. You want to do this because you're literally obsessed with high carb/low fat on training days and lower carb/higher fat on rest days. I suspect that this is because you think fat gain will be limited if you follow this protocol, which is incorrect.

Not any more on fat cycling, now I'm consuming around 70-80g of fat everyday.

[BroFoods]

I just watched the video, he has a lot of good points. I was definitely a victim of the broscience , clean eating b.s. I'm glad I finally am really learning about proper nutrition, thanks to guys like layne and this forum.

[Hamzzza]

If someone has been smoking for 80 years (and assuming the didn't start smoking out of the womb), I am more inclined to say they died of old age.

lmfao

[Leeuf]

I understand his perspective: it's to sell supplements. And I undertand why DCA (IIFYM's) is viewed as a threat to his business.

After all, if people really took the time to understand the concept of DCA (IIFYM's), then they would know that it's best to compose a diet that meets both micronutrient and macronutrient sufficiency from mostly whole and minimally processed foods.

This would negate the market for most supplements. Plus it would shine a spotlight on the fact that many if not the vast majority of supplements sold are just highly processed fast foods.

Why did we ever argue? I think you were the disingenuous one.

Regardless, I agree wholeheartedly.

[rand18m]

I've preached this for over a year almost, I've negged people, I've begged people even not to use it

Several of us have been!

[n0useforaname]

If a person practices common sense

The best solution is to STFU & not use IIFYM as a label at all, since most people in fitness & BBing circles have obsessive tendencies & cannot think in terms of anything but extremes.

Common sense.. seems to be the hardest thing for anyone to grasp. And sadly, the more cut/bigger guys seem to struggle with it more so than the noobs.

[FitnessCPA]

The "IIFYM" acronym is overused and flat-out wrong. If IIFYM means "compose a diet of mostly whole and minimally processed foods while ensuring macro and micronutrient sufficiency and properly calibrated energy balance," then why the fuk do we condense all that into an acronym that stands for "If It Fits Your Macros?"

"If it fits your macros" and "compose a diet of mostly whole and minimally processed foods while ensuring macro and micronutrient sufficiency and properly calibrated energy balance" are two very different things.

So why don't we just tell new people "compose a diet of mostly whole and minimally processed foods while ensuring macro and micronutrient sufficiency and properly calibrated energy balance?"

[rand18m]

The "IIFYM" acronym is overused and flat-out wrong. If IIFYM means "compose a diet of mostly whole and minimally processed foods while ensuring macro and micronutrient sufficiency and properly calibrated energy balance," then why the fuk do we condense all that into an acronym that stands for "If It Fits Your Macros?"

"If it fits your macros" and "compose a diet of mostly whole and minimally processed foods while ensuring macro and micronutrient sufficiency and properly calibrated energy balance" are two very different things.

So why don't we just tell new people "compose a diet of mostly whole and minimally processed foods while ensuring macro and micronutrient sufficiency and properly calibrated energy balance?"

We do!

[n0useforaname]

So why don't we just tell new people "compose a diet of mostly whole and minimally processed foods while ensuring macro and micronutrient sufficiency and properly calibrated energy balance?"

Like Rand said, most do just say that... The problem is, the majority who come here are looking for a "miracle diet" that doesn't exist. And when they hear IIFYM, eat whatever you want and lose weight, they stick to that acronym and think "wow, I can eat whatever I want and lose weight". Where I work at, people literally would eat pop-tarts all day long just to lose weight, and not care about anything else.

[ko300zx]

Most people do not have the faintest fucking clue how the whole IIFYM thing came about. It was never intended to be viewed as a particular diet. It was never intended to have a bunch of rules ascribed to it that would define it as a specific protocol or way of eating. It was simply an acronym born out of the frustration towards endless noob threads in this forum asking if it's okay to have certain foods (i.e., fruit, dairy, nuts, etc) while dieting. The acronym became a meme, and then people started making a diet out of it. The best solution is to STFU & not use IIFYM as a label at all, since most people in fitness & BBing circles have obsessive tendencies & cannot think in terms of anything but extremes.

Sooooooooooooo....is it ok to have those foods (i.e., fruit, dairy, nuts, etc) or whatever else I want or not? You're going to have to be more specific. We're not all famous nutritionologists like you.

[FitnessCPA]

Like Rand said, most do just say that... The problem is, the majority who come here are looking for a "miracle diet" that doesn't exist. And when they hear IIFYM, eat whatever you want and lose weight, they stick to that acronym and think "wow, I can eat whatever I want and lose weight". Where I work at, people literally would eat pop-tarts all day long just to lose weight, and not care about anything else.

Bold is the problem - they need to stop hearing IIFYM.

[WonderPug]

Bold is the problem...

I think the problem is a paucity of common sense.

As JasonDB said, "IIFYM's is an IQ test for the fitness world."

[FitnessCPA]

I think the problem is a paucity of common sense.

As JasonDB said, "IIFYM's is an IQ test for the fitness world."

But why can't we just call it something else? The acronym isn't really representative of what we're trying to say. Why not say IIFYM&M? "Iffy m and m" is how it'd be pronounced!

[WonderPug]

But why can't we just call it something else? The acronym isn't really representative of what we're trying to say. Why not say IIFYM&M? "Iffy m and m" is how it'd be pronounced!

DCA.

Now that solves one problem, but it doesn't address the paucity of common sense problem.

[ParsonBrown]

But why can't we just call it something else? The acronym isn't really representative of what we're trying to say. Why not say IIFYM&M? "Iffy m and m" is how it'd be pronounced!

I think we CAN and DO try to call it something else. The problem, to some extent, is the YouTube experts. They use the acronym, and have a larger audience than the NUT section. The people watching those videos are also failing the IQ test...they end up here in an attempt to get their "Fitness GED's"...ultimately realizing they are not even GED material. It's a sad state really, but I'm not sure there is any hope for any of us

[sawoobley]

I can't stand the IIFYM movement because so often it is abused...its that damn acronym! People read "If It Fits Your Macros" and before they are done reading the sentence they're already in the McDonalds drive-thru...

If everyone understood IIFYM like Norton does, I wouldn't have a problem with the movement, even if I do disagree several key features of its philosophy.

There are ONLY two features to its philosophy.

1) COMMON SENSE

2) MODERATION



All other explanations such as hit you macro and micronutrient goals are said to explain to people how to practically use their common sense and exercise moderation in composing their diet.

[Jorge18]

The "IIFYM" acronym is overused and flat-out wrong. If IIFYM means "compose a diet of mostly whole and minimally processed foods while ensuring macro and micronutrient sufficiency and properly calibrated energy balance," then why the fuk do we condense all that into an acronym that stands for "If It Fits Your Macros?"

"If it fits your macros" and "compose a diet of mostly whole and minimally processed foods while ensuring macro and micronutrient sufficiency and properly calibrated energy balance" are two very different things.

So why don't we just tell new people "compose a diet of mostly whole and minimally processed foods while ensuring macro and micronutrient sufficiency and properly calibrated energy balance?"

IIFYM is much easier to remember than CADOMWAMPFWEMAMSAPCEB.

[ErickStevens]

This is new.