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

[ApolloD]

Having just watched Layne's new video, I'm psychologically at ease with my approach to dieting now and will make more flexibilities within my macronutritional reason. i.e. account for more of a variety of foods.




The point I took out of his video is that the IIFYM prevents eating disorders and is better for general living provided you are eating enough fiber. In his opinion this was around "40-60g/day" the lower limit being the minimum needed to be regular and the upper being the maximum before malabsorption occurs.

I'd love to hear other people's opinions.

[kenny878]

like his vlogs, good stuff

[determined4000]

Thought
IIFYM has ruined the nutrition section.
Not because of the concept but because of the misunderstanding, misinformation and misuse

Dont know how many times I have seen, "just hit your macros and eat whatever you want"
"food choice/quality makes no difference"
"a carb is a carb"
:any fat is fine as long as its not trans"
All of these statements need qualifiers.

And just saying to take an 80-20 approach does not work either.
What is one person's percetion of a nutritious food, is not the same as someone else's.
Oatmeal vs oat bran vs All-bran cereal vs Cheerios vs Honey bunches of oats vs chocolate cheerios vs cocoa puffs vs a fudge poptart vs a chocolate frosted donut
Where do you draw your line?

What about they guy in a 20% deficit vs 20% surplus?
One has far more room for discretionary eating.

And just because you arent eating more than 20% crap doesnt mean you are getting a good nutrional foundation.
Claiming to get your vitamins throug a multi rather than fruit/veg/etc, getting all you fat from one source,

But the worst offense is telling people with crappy nutritional backgrounds who are trying to clean up their diet, that they dont need to as long as macros are hit. The likelihood that they will keep hitting macros if they dont clean up their diet is low if they dont make big changes.

Note: I am a HUGE Layne fan and agree with most everything he says.

[ApolloD]

Very well stated determined4000, I agree with all those points to the T.

I'd like to refer to the IIFYM as the "americanised" approach to dieting. Having visited the country last year, I noticed that all food (apart from very high class restraunts) are very bland and tasteless; combated by the addition of sweetners/sauces/ butters and other fats. I'm thinking this had something to do with it.

In Australia, dieters/bodybuilders are very conventional/brosciency for the most part and from my experience with trainers/clients/friends most people will follow the restrictive diets with relative ease - making allowances for a general burger and chips one day of the week.

In saying this I think the origin of food quality does have a lot to do with this debate.

[naturalguy]

Layne makes far too much common sense for this section


The big issue with the silly acronym IIFYM is accuracy. Most people don't know exactly how much they are burning or exactly how much they are taking in.

[tom626]

Is it really not good to go over 60g of fiber? I get into the 80-90 range sometimes.

[naturalguy]

Thought
IIFYM has ruined the nutrition section.
Not because of the concept but because of the misunderstanding, misinformation and misuse

Dont know how many times I have seen, "just hit your macros and eat whatever you want"
"food choice/quality makes no difference"
"a carb is a carb"
:any fat is fine as long as its not trans"
All of these statements need qualifiers.

And just saying to take an 80-20 approach does not work either.
What is one person's percetion of a nutritious food, is not the same as someone else's.
Oatmeal vs oat bran vs All-bran cereal vs Cheerios vs Honey bunches of oats vs chocolate cheerios vs cocoa puffs vs a fudge poptart vs a chocolate frosted donut
Where do you draw your line?

What about they guy in a 20% deficit vs 20% surplus?
One has far more room for discretionary eating.

And just because you arent eating more than 20% crap doesnt mean you are getting a good nutrional foundation.
Claiming to get your vitamins throug a multi rather than fruit/veg/etc, getting all you fat from one source,

But the worst offense is telling people with crappy nutritional backgrounds who are trying to clean up their diet, that they dont need to as long as macros are hit. The likelihood that they will keep hitting macros if they dont clean up their diet is low if they dont make big changes.

Note: I am a HUGE Layne fan and agree with most everything he says.

Agreed with this post ^^^^^^^

[WonderPug]

Layne makes far too much common sense for this section

I respectfully disagree in regard to the video, as there is no mention of micronutrient sufficiency.

Simply ensuring macronutrient sufficiency, including fiber intake, is not enough and this is why DCA (which some folks refer to as IIFYM's on this forum) is a better approach as it calls for properly calibrated energy intake based on an individual's goal while ensuring micro/macronutrient sufficiency from a diet composed, preferably, in the (vast) majority from whole and minimally processed foods.

The big issue with the silly acronym IIFYM is accuracy. Most people don't know exactly how much they are burning or exactly how much they are taking in.

You object to the notion of proper nutrition (DCA aka IIFYM's) because you think most people don't understand or care about nutrition?

[wrhalljr]

Thought
IIFYM has ruined the nutrition section.
Not because of the concept but because of the misunderstanding, misinformation and misuse

Dont know how many times I have seen, "just hit your macros and eat whatever you want"
"food choice/quality makes no difference"
"a carb is a carb"
:any fat is fine as long as its not trans"
All of these statements need qualifiers.

And just saying to take an 80-20 approach does not work either.
What is one person's percetion of a nutritious food, is not the same as someone else's.
Oatmeal vs oat bran vs All-bran cereal vs Cheerios vs Honey bunches of oats vs chocolate cheerios vs cocoa puffs vs a fudge poptart vs a chocolate frosted donut
Where do you draw your line?

What about they guy in a 20% deficit vs 20% surplus?
One has far more room for discretionary eating.

And just because you arent eating more than 20% crap doesnt mean you are getting a good nutrional foundation.
Claiming to get your vitamins throug a multi rather than fruit/veg/etc, getting all you fat from one source,

But the worst offense is telling people with crappy nutritional backgrounds who are trying to clean up their diet, that they dont need to as long as macros are hit. The likelihood that they will keep hitting macros if they dont clean up their diet is low if they dont make big changes.

Note: I am a HUGE Layne fan and agree with most everything he says.

^^^This x2....it is so frustrating to sit back and watch people on here talk about "just hit your macro's" and "a calorie is a calorie" when it is just not true!! Throw up all the "ice cream" videos you want, but if you would rather sit and eat a gallon of ice cream a day when your 22 and already fit to prove a point then more power to you, but long term that is disaster for anyone and especially to the person that struggles with weight gain and is not already fit...in the end it is just flat out WRONG!!

[nbedoya]

Very informative video, layne knows his stuff no doubt. The thing is people dont actually really know what iifym actually is, people are led to believe aslong as you hit your macros eat whatever you want, no. It close to impossible to actually hit your daily macros if your diet consisted of mcdonalds and poptarts. you will have to include a lot of these so called "clean" foods.

I look at iifym from the point of view that if i'm craving something like a slice of pizza or a cookie and i have room for it in my macros, yes i will eat it, and no i wont feel bad about eating it after.

I'm not sure how many people can relate to this but strict dieting can lead to a eating disorder. I used to be one of those who only ate "clean" foods, and when i discovered iifym i developed a binge disorder that took like 3 weeks to overcome, simply because i had restricted myself from so many foods for such a long period of time. My diet used to consist of literally chicken, oats, brown rice and veggies. So when i started to incorporate these so called "dirty" foods in my diet while making sure they fit my macros, i would look control and what would have been 1 slice of pizza ended up being a whole large pizza instead.

point is iifym needs to be looked at with common sense , eat NUTRIENT dense foods, make sure you are getting enough protein and healthy fats. Moderation is the key, if you ever are craving a food item you enjoy well then eat it. Dont restrict yourself from the things you.

[WonderPug]

^^^This x2....it is so frustrating to sit back and watch people on here talk about "just hit your macro's" and "a calorie is a calorie" when it is just not true!!

No reputable poster would say something that silly. And, by the way, the point of DCA is that micro/macronutrient sufficiency is essential as is properly calibrated energy intake, from a diet composed in the (vast) majority from whole foods.

[lee__d]

In on pug/NattyGuy tug of war.

[WonderPug]

In on pug/NattyGuy tug of war.

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.

[Adds420]

No reputable poster would say something that silly. And, by the way, the point of DCA is that micro/macronutrient sufficiency is essential as is properly calibrated energy intake, from a diet composed in the (vast) majority from whole foods.

I've read plenty of "quality" poster continually spout bs like this. The other issue is the rudeness and entitlement all the avid IIFYM followers have. Heaven forbid you say the word clean. Your post will then be littered with pictures of soap and windex. I follow IIFYM, but will never attack anyone for eating "clean.'

/rant

[naturalguy]

In on pug/NattyGuy tug of war.

Nah, I just ignore him. He posts random things. I don't talk about supplements here in the nutrition section.

[naturalguy]

^^^This x2....it is so frustrating to sit back and watch people on here talk about "just hit your macro's" and "a calorie is a calorie" when it is just not true!! Throw up all the "ice cream" videos you want, but if you would rather sit and eat a gallon of ice cream a day when your 22 and already fit to prove a point then more power to you, but long term that is disaster for anyone and especially to the person that struggles with weight gain and is not already fit...in the end it is just flat out WRONG!!

Yup, it's unfortunate to see this kind of stuff being posted

[wrhalljr]

No reputable poster would say something that silly. And, by the way, the point of DCA is that micro/macronutrient sufficiency is essential as is properly calibrated energy intake, from a diet composed in the (vast) majority from whole foods.

Seriously? I don't know who you consider a "reputable poster" or not but it is on almost every single post in this section and others...I know rep power and number of posts is not necessarily "reputable", however on here that is the only gauge one has most of the time, and if you go by that there are plenty that say those exact things!!

[WonderPug]

Nah, I just ignore him.

I believe the truth is that you simply can't substantively reply to my posts in this thread.

Basically, I say DCA (IIFYM's) calls for properly calibrated energy intake based on an individual's goals while ensuring micro/macronutrient sufficiency from a diet composed, preferably, in the (vast) majority from whole and minimally processed foods.

He says: IIFYM's is stupid and he grossly misstates the actual guidelines so as to ridicule the concept.

Seriously? I don't know who you consider a "reputable poster" or not but it is on almost every single post in this section and others...I know rep power and number of posts is not necessarily "reputable", however on here that is the only gauge one has most of the time, and if you go by that there are plenty that say those exact things!!

If that's the case, those posters are simply incorrect, but that has nothing to do with DCA, which is a proper nutritional guideline.

Anyway, you should point out those specific instances and correct those posters, as they're doing a disservice to readers of this forum.

[LordWolF]

Damn reading stuff like this, just makes you more confused about nutrition when you are trying to learn what does work and what does not work.

[naturalguy]

Damn reading stuff like this, just makes you more confused about nutrition when you are trying to learn what does work and what does not work.

It can be overwhelming especially with the amount of opinions out there. You need to find out what works for you and your body. Everyone is different.

[rand18m]

Damn reading stuff like this, just makes you more confused about nutrition when you are trying to learn what does work and what does not work.

Nah, it's really not that difficult!

For tight accuracy you simply need to know your energy requirements. That starts with a baseline calculation and then trial and error to tweak what your needs truly are.

After that you can compose a diet that provides sufficient nutrients and meets those targets. Common sense would dictate that whole foods such as meats of your choice, vegetables, fruits and carbohydrates that fit within the caloric parameters of our diet can be eaten from a wide variety of foods.

If you are not being the accurate with your diet, (as most here likely are not) then you certainly need to ensure that you get adequate amounts of macro/mirco nutrients at the very least. If doing that you are not achieving the goals you desire, you will either have to become more accurate via tight control of what you eat or a much better guesser. The former likely being your best bet.

If anyone here has ever suggested that someone eat nothing but ice cream and candy and you will meet nutrient sufficiency of fats, proteins, carbs and fiber, along with adequate micro nutrients, I haven't seen that advice and I would have admonished them immediately. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, I only get to participate occasionally, but I highly doubt that.

So Lordwolf if you haven't watched the video I suggest you do so, for the most part it explains things pretty well in that it argues against diets that are too restrictive and those that are too loose.

Common sense and the subject of nutrition clearly don't go hand in hand. And the worst part is that many who argue different opinions/strategies often have very little actual knowledge of the intricacies of nutrition and metabolism, and to compound the problem, that occurs in the scientific community as well. GL

[LordWolF]

Nah, it's really not that difficult!

For tight accuracy you simply need to know your energy requirements. That starts with a baseline calculation and then trial and error to tweak what your needs truly are.

After that you can compose a diet that provides sufficient nutrients and meets those targets. Common sense would dictate that whole foods such as meats of your choice, vegetables, fruits and carbohydrates that fit within the caloric parameters of our diet can be eaten from a wide variety of foods.

If you are not being the accurate with your diet, (as most here likely are not) then you certainly need to ensure that you get adequate amounts of macro/mirco nutrients at the very least. If doing that you are not achieving the goals you desire, you will either have to become more accurate via tight control of what you eat or a much better guesser. The former likely being your best bet.

If anyone here has ever suggested that someone eat nothing but ice cream and candy and you will meet nutrient sufficiency of fats, proteins, carbs and fiber, along with adequate micro nutrients, I haven't seen that advice and I would have admonished them immediately. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, I only get to participate occasionally, but I highly doubt that.

So Lordwolf if you haven't watched the video I suggest you do so, for the most part it explains things pretty well in that it argues against diets that are too restrictive and those that are too loose.

Common sense and the subject of nutrition clearly don't go hand in hand. And the worst part is that many who argue different opinions/strategies often have very little actual knowledge of the intricacies of nutrition and metabolism, and to compound the problem, that occurs in the scientific community as well. GL

Thanks man, i have not seen he video yet i will eat now and check it out, and yes I'm trying to fix my nutrition i even bought a scale to measure everything i cook, wife is telling me I'm nuts, trying to calculate my macros and calories, since I've been only doing this for 3 weeks starting 4, I'm just getting the hang of it, i know i will eventually. I'm just trying to read everything i can to learn, what works and what does not, but i know in the end is what i do and what works for me.

[germaine07]

there are plenty that say those exact things!!

You may want to read posts carefully because I don't know many people that just say 'eat whatever you want'.

[Jorge18]

^^^This x2....it is so frustrating to sit back and watch people on here talk about "just hit your macro's" and "a calorie is a calorie" when it is just not true!! Throw up all the "ice cream" videos you want, but if you would rather sit and eat a gallon of ice cream a day when your 22 and already fit to prove a point then more power to you, but long term that is disaster for anyone and especially to the person that struggles with weight gain and is not already fit...in the end it is just flat out WRONG!!

Can you explain how "a calorie is a calorie" is incorrect?

[Makween]

Thought
IIFYM has ruined the nutrition section.
Not because of the concept but because of the misunderstanding, misinformation and misuse

Dont know how many times I have seen, "just hit your macros and eat whatever you want"
"food choice/quality makes no difference"
"a carb is a carb"
:any fat is fine as long as its not trans"
All of these statements need qualifiers.

And just saying to take an 80-20 approach does not work either.
What is one person's percetion of a nutritious food, is not the same as someone else's.
Oatmeal vs oat bran vs All-bran cereal vs Cheerios vs Honey bunches of oats vs chocolate cheerios vs cocoa puffs vs a fudge poptart vs a chocolate frosted donut
Where do you draw your line?

What about they guy in a 20% deficit vs 20% surplus?
One has far more room for discretionary eating.

And just because you arent eating more than 20% crap doesnt mean you are getting a good nutrional foundation.
Claiming to get your vitamins throug a multi rather than fruit/veg/etc, getting all you fat from one source,

But the worst offense is telling people with crappy nutritional backgrounds who are trying to clean up their diet, that they dont need to as long as macros are hit. The likelihood that they will keep hitting macros if they dont clean up their diet is low if they dont make big changes.

Note: I am a HUGE Layne fan and agree with most everything he says.

A thing I see a lot is people saying that once you've hit protein and fat minimums you can fill in the rest of your calories with 'anything you want: pop tarts, ice cream, etc.'

I think that this is the biggest way in which people have misunderstood flexible dieting. Filling remaining calories with any mix of carbs, fats and additional protein isn't the same as eating whatever you want, and it's pretty easy to hit protein and fat minimums without getting anywhere near micronutrient sufficiency. I do think that the rise of 'IIFYM' has been a positive thing overall (in general rather than on this forum; I've not been here long enough to comment on that), but unfortunately not everyone seems capable of applying common sense.

[illiniStrive]

Thought
IIFYM has ruined the nutrition section.
Not because of the concept but because of the misunderstanding, misinformation and misuse

Dont know how many times I have seen, "just hit your macros and eat whatever you want"
"food choice/quality makes no difference"
"a carb is a carb"
:any fat is fine as long as its not trans"
All of these statements need qualifiers.

And just saying to take an 80-20 approach does not work either.
What is one person's percetion of a nutritious food, is not the same as someone else's.
Oatmeal vs oat bran vs All-bran cereal vs Cheerios vs Honey bunches of oats vs chocolate cheerios vs cocoa puffs vs a fudge poptart vs a chocolate frosted donut
Where do you draw your line?

What about they guy in a 20% deficit vs 20% surplus?
One has far more room for discretionary eating.

And just because you arent eating more than 20% crap doesnt mean you are getting a good nutrional foundation.
Claiming to get your vitamins throug a multi rather than fruit/veg/etc, getting all you fat from one source,

But the worst offense is telling people with crappy nutritional backgrounds who are trying to clean up their diet, that they dont need to as long as macros are hit. The likelihood that they will keep hitting macros if they dont clean up their diet is low if they dont make big changes.

Note: I am a HUGE Layne fan and agree with most everything he says.

See... that's the thing though...

I can't say that I've ever seen a poster (esp. not a reputable one) claim that "food quality doesn't matter" or that eating whatever tastes good will yield the same results (strength, body comp, health, satisfaction) as being more conscious about food choices.

[tom626]

I think one of the things that causes confusion is that it is possible to compose a diet that meets protein, fat, and micro requirements but that also contains extremely large amounts of what people normally consider junk food.

For example 20 oz of chicken breast is about 600 cals with 130g of protein. This meets the protein requirements of many people. Throw in 1000 calories worth of fruits and veggies (which is a sh*tload of food if you choose things like broccoli, carrots, and such), and you'll feel absolutely stuffed and will have hit most if not all of your micros, including fiber. If you're consuming in the mid 3000s, that leaves about 2k remaining cals.

The question then becomes, is it OK to fill all of these remaining cals with ice cream, candy, pop tarts, etc (which will most likely meet your remaining fat requirements)? If not, where do you draw the line? This is the grey area many people seem to struggle with. The answer of course is that common sense should dictate. But people have different interpretations of what common sense means.

[wrhalljr]

[QUOTE=Jorge18;1018204063]Can you explain how "a calorie is a calorie" is incorrect?[/QUOTE

I already did in that it may be a good short term skit to post a video on here about how all you ate ice cream or cake every day and you lost weight but long term that is a disaster...so again if you are at 2400 calories per day and a half-gallon of ice cream is 2400 calories (576g carbs, 256g fats, 64g protein) and you eat that daily that is a utter train wreck long term for anyone's body...period!! And then people will say that is extreme or not common sense and I would argue that simply stating as fact "a calorie is a calorie" is extreme and dangerous to someone who is overweight and/or un-fit and grew up eating that kind of junk food diet all their life...

[Jorge18]

[QUOTE=wrhalljr;1018210033]

Can you explain how "a calorie is a calorie" is incorrect?[/QUOTE

I already did in that it may be a good short term skit to post a video on here about how all you ate ice cream or cake every day and you lost weight but long term that is a disaster...so again if you are at 2400 calories per day and a half-gallon of ice cream is 2400 calories (576g carbs, 256g fats, 64g protein) and you eat that daily that is a utter train wreck long term for anyone's body...period!! And then people will say that is extreme or not common sense and I would argue that simply stating as fact "a calorie is a calorie" is extreme and dangerous to someone who is overweight and/or un-fit and grew up eating that kind of junk food diet all their life...

But that's obvious. IIFYM isn't that you can eat whatever you want, is that you can eat whatever you want that FITS YOUR MACROS. Your ice cream example doesn't fit ANYONES macros.

[SINVirtue]

Thought
IIFYM has ruined the nutrition section.
Not because of the concept but because of the misunderstanding, misinformation and misuse

Dont know how many times I have seen, "just hit your macros and eat whatever you want"
"food choice/quality makes no difference"
"a carb is a carb"
:any fat is fine as long as its not trans"
All of these statements need qualifiers.

And just saying to take an 80-20 approach does not work either.
What is one person's percetion of a nutritious food, is not the same as someone else's.
Oatmeal vs oat bran vs All-bran cereal vs Cheerios vs Honey bunches of oats vs chocolate cheerios vs cocoa puffs vs a fudge poptart vs a chocolate frosted donut
Where do you draw your line?

What about they guy in a 20% deficit vs 20% surplus?
One has far more room for discretionary eating.

And just because you arent eating more than 20% crap doesnt mean you are getting a good nutrional foundation.
Claiming to get your vitamins throug a multi rather than fruit/veg/etc, getting all you fat from one source,

But the worst offense is telling people with crappy nutritional backgrounds who are trying to clean up their diet, that they dont need to as long as macros are hit. The likelihood that they will keep hitting macros if they dont clean up their diet is low if they dont make big changes.

Note: I am a HUGE Layne fan and agree with most everything he says.

Well Said! Completely agree