Was that IIFYM is dead thread deleted?!

[muruku]

Wasted 1/2 hour of my life. Watching that vid and making that comment.

[SuffolkPunch]

Not by mods. Yes, I find it annoying when people delete a thread that I've put effort into making a considered reply.

[muruku]

Goddomot.

Anyway the study/review he quoted did not comment on fat requirements.

Most literature that I have read recommends at least 15% of calories from fats, with an upper limit of 35% of calories. Lactating/pregnant women, children and other special cases will require more.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/defa...ments/1461.pdf
http://www.fao.org/docrep/v4700e/V4700E06.htm

The most common ratio I seen thrown for fats is 1:1:1. Can't find the source ATM. will update if I do.

He argues from a false premise in his video.
On this forums, we do not recommend hitting Xg of carbs, fats of protein. Rather we provide you with the MIN REQ for protein and fats and advise you fill the remaining calories with a combination of macros of your choice as long as you remain within your caloric goals. We also highly encourage the use of common sense.

IMO, giving a min req for fats is needed as most people are generally still afraid of fats. This can be seen from the prevalence of low-fat/non-fat foods and the constant threads about whether XX fatty food is ok.

The maker of that video also has to watch this vid if he has not done so:



Finally if you choose to make a video, why not take advantage of the visual aspect of it and present some relevant studies or charts? I'd rather just read a damn article or listen to a podcast.
Also if you wish to use studies in your video, QUOTE THEM or provide links to them in the description. Don't just say I remember XX. What's the fckin point!?

[Mrpb]

Maybe it got deleted because he was trying to push his own Youtube channel? Seems justified imo.

[muruku]

Maybe it got deleted because he was trying to push his own Youtube channel? Seems justified imo.

Naw, he regularly posts his stuff here. Or at least used to.

[Mrpb]

Naw, he regularly posts his stuff here. Or at least used to.

Well the fact that he does it more often doesn't mean it's allowed as you probably realise.

Afaik promoting your own Youtube channel is against the rules.

Then again, maybe he deleted it himself because no one took him serious.

[muruku]

Well the fact that he does it more often doesn't mean it's allowed as you probably realise.

Afaik promoting your own Youtube channel is against the rules.

Then again, maybe he deleted it himself because no one took him serious.

I dun goofed then

[JustLost]

Then again, maybe he deleted it himself because no one took him serious.

That would be my guess.

[mike33511]

Then again, maybe he deleted it himself because no one took him serious.

Yep. I think the reaction he received was the opposite of what he expected.

[Budjola]

first rule of IIFYM you dont mess with IIFYM.

all eating plans are legit (well more or less) its just that you need to find the one that works and suits your needs. for me personally IIFYM is super easy to maintain and u eat without limits (well almost)

[EmperorRyker]

Not by mods. Yes, I find it annoying when people delete a thread that I've put effort into making a considered reply.

But I thought you can't delete your own threads after you get replies.

[SuffolkPunch]

But I thought you can't delete your own threads after you get replies.

You can.

You lose the ability to delete after a certain time period ( I don't know what it is, probably 1 day)

[desslok]

Maybe he realized the flaw in his "logic"

[ZMan45]

Cliffs of thread? Or video?

[Domicron]

Cliffs of thread? Or video?

some dude was like "tracking your calories and macros is old and busted; the new hotness is tracking calories and protein and fat"

[ZMan45]

some dude was like "tracking your calories and macros is old and busted; the new hotness is tracking calories and protein and fat"

Sounds like the same thing to me.

[Domicron]

Sounds like the same thing to me.

probably why the dude deleted his stupid thread

[muruku]

some dude was like "tracking your calories and macros is old and busted; the new hotness is tracking calories and protein and fat"

No. Just calories and protein. And eating intuitively for carbs and fat

[EmperorRyker]

Goddomot.

Anyway the study/review he quoted did not comment on fat requirements.

Most literature that I have read recommends at least 15% of calories from fats, with an upper limit of 35% of calories. Lactating/pregnant women, children and other special cases will require more.

Yeah, that's the problem with studies about fats, there's no firm number that you can glean from them. I asked Lyle about this once and he said he recommends 0.4 g/lb as a minimum by extrapolation from the studies that used percentages. So he basically took the percentage the researchers quoted and then looked at how that translates to g/lb.

He argues from a false premise in his video.
On this forums, we do not recommend hitting Xg of carbs, fats of protein. Rather we provide you with the MIN REQ for protein and fats and advise you fill the remaining calories with a combination of macros of your choice as long as you remain within your caloric goals. We also highly encourage the use of common sense.

I didn't watch the video, but from the cliffs he didn't seem to argue against what is recommended on these boards. He argued against IIFYM, which is built on daily calories and macros. In fact, it started out as saying you just have to hit the macros for the day and not eat specific foods. Just because a lot of people took this even further and are even more flexible doesn't really change the original definition.

[Domicron]

No. Just calories and protein. And eating intuitively for carbs and fat

my point is just that he's trying to act like what he was suggesting was something innovative and different than what's commonly recommended here.

fats are pretty easy to hit for most of us, so it's not that different than what most of us recommend: hit fat and protein mins, then hit the rest of your cals how you like (obv factoring in micros and fiber)

[muruku]

my point is just that he's trying to act like what he was suggesting was something innovative and different than what's commonly recommended here.

fats are pretty easy to hit for most of us, so it's not that different than what most of us recommend: hit fat and protein mins, then hit the rest of your cals how you like (obv factoring in micros and fiber)

Since you were answerinv zman question, Your point should be correctly representing what he said in the vid. And your 2nd para is what I said in post 3

[muruku]

I didn't watch the video, but from the cliffs he didn't seem to argue against what is recommended on these boards. He argued against IIFYM, which is built on daily calories and macros. In fact, it started out as saying you just have to hit the macros for the day and not eat specific foods. Just because a lot of people took this even further and are even more flexible doesn't really change the original definition.

Watch the vid before commenting. The iifym in the vid is about hit ting specific amounts of each macro.
You may need to watch the alan aragon vid too.
Contrary to what you said, people became more rigid with macros but more flexible with their food choices.

[EmperorRyker]

Watch the vid before commenting. The iifym in the vid is about hit ting specific amounts of each macro.

Yeah, which is exactly what IIFYM is about, hitting macros for the day, but not necessarily caring about how you get there.

[muruku]

RE: fat intake.

it seems the upper limit is based on the recommended saturated fat limit (7-10% of total calorie intake)
while the lower limit is determined by the required fat intake for adequate intake of fat soluble vitamins and
"a diet with a fat content of less than 20 E% has an adverse effect on HDL cholesterol and triglyceridesconcentrations. An amount of 20 E% was also considered to be sufficient for an adequate linoleic acid intake. "

pg 23 onwards; http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/defa...ments/1461.pdf

[muruku]

Yeah, which is exactly what IIFYM is about, hitting macros for the day, but not necessarily caring about how you get there.

No. It is about meeting your min REQ for pro and fats. And keeping within your caloric goals.
just watch the alan aragon vid.

[EmperorRyker]

No. It is about meeting your min REQ for pro and fats. And keeping within your caloric goals.
just watch the alan aragon vid.

What Alan Aragon video and what does he have to do with IIFYM?

[Mrpb]

What Alan Aragon video and what does he have to do with IIFYM?

Post #3 answers that.

[EmperorRyker]

Post #3 answers that.

Oh, I missed that.

[muruku]

ITT: headline readers.

http://thesciencepost.com/study-70-o...-the-headline/ [FYI this article is satire"]

Do you review a restaurant based on its menu? Or a movie based on its trailer?

I've been guilty of this, not reading before commenting, but I'm trying to correct this behavior.

[EmperorRyker]

ITT: headline readers.

http://thesciencepost.com/study-70-o...-the-headline/ [FYI this article is satire"]

Do you review a restaurant based on its menu? Or a movie based on its trailer?

I've been guilty of this, not reading before commenting, but I'm trying to correct this behavior.

I read the whole thread, but didn't watch the video. I just watched it now, though, and he doesn't say what you were saying at all.