How much merit does "IIFYM" have?

[Haveboards]

When did I say that? Please point it out to me. What is superfluous about any of the items you listed?

I am not sure you are getting my point?

Your definition

I clearly defined "clean foods" as "whole", "non-processed", with nothing superfluous in them which has no place to be there. Such as coloring in a pepper.

Non processed whole foods. So protein powder being heavily processed is dirty? Olive oil, milk, bread etc...


Lol it's you that seems to be missing the point.

You cannot categorise individual foods as clean or dirty without consideration to overall diet with the exception of industrial trans fats.

This topic has been beaten to death here I doubt you will offer any new insight.
I'm out.

[Mrpb]

I clearly defined "clean foods" as "whole", "non-processed", with nothing superfluous in them which has no place to be there.

By your definition perfectly healthy products would be dirty while some poisonous products would be clean.

[respawn]

A good read and a video from Alberto. Alan Aragon also did a short video on this a few weeks ago on his ******** to try and clear IIFYM up because some peopole don't understand it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11883916/
http://anthonymychal.com/2013/08/calories/
http://www.jcdfitness.com/2009/03/ho...ng-completely/

[Connor1226]

What I dislike about this thread OP, is that you pose a question, which is a legitimate question and could stimulate some serious discussion about bulking clean vs. IIFYM. However, instead of actually encouraging a discussion, you already have your mind made up that you are right and everyone else is wrong, and IIFYM has no merit.

So don't ask questions about things you aren't willing to learn about, nor things you already have your mind made up about.

[timpapa]

Your definition

Let me highlight my definition again:

"clean foods" as "whole", "non-processed", with nothing superfluous in them which has no place to be there.

I think you missed the last part. Olive oil and protein powder do not apply. Unless you add rat poison to them.

You cannot categorise individual foods as clean or dirty without consideration to overall diet with the exception of industrial trans fats.

Actually, I think you can. The "overall diet" statement is made a lot on these boards but it disregards significant nuances about nutrition, ingredients and food profile that ultimately leads to poor choices and lack of knowledge. A lot of foods beyond trans fats (which are objectively bad) are far removed from their natural form that I call that dirty. It doesn't have to kill you or be deep fried to not be "clean". Think outside the box. Don't ape whatever the boards tell you. Only in America is a pepper with coloring considered "normal".

SMH.

[timpapa]

By your definition perfectly healthy products would be dirty while some poisonous products would be clean.

Let me highlight this part: "nothing superfluous in them which has no place to be there."

I think you may have missed it. Like I said, olive oil, protein powder and peanut butter do not necessarily apply. Think outside the box.

You are assuming that I'm saying that all dirty foods are inherently bad for you. Not to the same degree, absolutely not. You equate ditry foods with deep fried oreos. That's a textbook definition but it misses the nuances. For instance, vegetables with artificial dyes are not my definition of normal. Despite the fact that they contain nutrients. But I've made my point here.

[chamelious]

Let me highlight this part: "nothing superfluous in them which has no place to be there."

I think you may have missed it. Like I said, olive oil, protein powder and peanut butter do not necessarily apply. Think outside the box.

You are assuming that I'm saying that all dirty foods are inherently bad for you. Not to the same degree, absolutely not. You equate ditry foods with deep fried oreos. That's a textbook definition but it misses the nuances. For instance, vegetables with artificial dyes are not my definition of normal. Despite the fact that they contain nutrients. But I've made my point here.

I'm not sure if anyone understands your point.

You're classifying this veg with colouring as dirty. Does consuming a normal, rational amount of it cause any ill effect whatsoever? If it doesn't, i can't see how you can consider it "dirty". Almost ALL food has stuff in or on that isn't naturally there, if you want to only consume 100% natural as it comes out of the ground "clean" food, you're going to have a difficult/expensive/boring time of it.

Further point: Drinking too much water will kill you. I highly doubt eating a few peppers from subway every week will have any observable effect whatsoever. This is why everyone says "everything in moderation".

[Mrpb]

Let me highlight this part: "nothing superfluous in them which has no place to be there."

I think you may have missed it.

No I didn't miss it. By your definition perfectly healthy products would be dirty while some poisonous products would be clean.

Look it's cool that you're trying define clean and dirty, but the next person will define it differently.

This is exactly what Alan Aragon describes so well: http://www.simplyshredded.com/resear...an-aragon.html

So if you want to eat only whole and minimally processed foods (I think that's what you're trying to say) that's fine. But they aren't necessarily more healthy than processed foods.

You are assuming that I'm saying that all dirty foods are inherently bad for you. Not to the same degree, absolutely not. You equate ditry foods with deep fried oreos.

What? I think you got me confused with someone else

[Haveboards]

Not sure if potato or troll?

[timpapa]

Not sure if potato or troll?

Who knows?

[respawn]

Not sure if linked. But OP should def read.

http://iifym.com/eating-clean-vs-kno...you-are-doing/

[timpapa]

This is exactly what Alan Aragon describes so well

That is a great reference, but Alan's ultimate point is not directly that there are no clean or dirty foods, but that "the small amount of dirtiness in most foods will not do you any harm, so don't sweat it". Which is not my point.

[timpapa]

I'm not sure if anyone understands your point.

You're classifying this veg with colouring as dirty. Does consuming a normal, rational amount of it cause any ill effect whatsoever? If it doesn't, i can't see how you can consider it "dirty". Almost ALL food has stuff in or on that isn't naturally there, if you want to only consume 100% natural as it comes out of the ground "clean" food, you're going to have a difficult/expensive/boring time of it.

Further point: Drinking too much water will kill you. I highly doubt eating a few peppers from subway every week will have any observable effect whatsoever. This is why everyone says "everything in moderation".

Saying "everything in moderation" does not negate the existence of dirty foods, it merely makes them "acceptable." I am not arguing whether eating dirty foods is good or bad, I am saying that they do exist.

But I see what you're saying. My point is that some foods are not clean if they have superfluous stuff added to them that should absolutely not be there. They may be nutritionally sound, but they have been removed unnecessarily from their natural forms. Peanut butter, olive oil, protein powder and dairy etc do not count or apply to this rule, like some mistakenly pointed out.

People seem to generally be of the agreement "if it's not bad for you, how can it be dirty?" That's not my point. My point is that, in generalizing foods based on solely on their fat, protein and carb content people are moving away from looking at the nuances of food alterations. It's just education. But perhaps this is too complex for most people.

I gave the example of vegetables. Why should there be artifical coloring added to a pepper? It's not going to kill you in moderation - of course - but that vegetable is no longer clean. Is it bad for you? Probably not. But that's not the point. Sure, deep fried twinkies are way dirtier, but hey.

Finally, it comes down to semantics.

Dirty and clean mean different things to different people. So let's leave it at that.

[Mrpb]

That is a great reference, but Alan's ultimate point is not directly that there are no clean or dirty foods, but that "the small amount of dirtiness in most foods will not do you any harm, so don't sweat it". Which is not my point.

Please reread:

Everyone knows the difference between dirty and clean foods, so I don’t have to explain the obvious…or do I? My favorite response to questions about how to eat clean is, “Wash your food.” The biggest problem with discussing foods in these terms is that there’s no clear definition of clean or dirty. The difference might seem obvious, but a closer look shows that it’s far from clear-cut. The confusion is compounded when clean eating is preached as the best way to optimal health and body composition.

[respawn]

Podcast here with Layne Norton.

*****://soundcloud.com/biolayne/physique-science-episode-2-flexible-dieting-vs-clean-eating

[timpapa]

Please reread:

Firstly, that quote does NOT say there are no clean or dirty foods, just that they are hard to define. Which we agree on.

If you read the entire article, Aragon ultimately states:

Eat 10-20% of whatever you want.

He never states there are no dirty and clean foods per se.

Read my definition of clean and dirty. Aragon generally does not look at individual foods when stating what is or isn't dirty. He merely looks at food "groups".

I.e. a "small amount of sugar won't do you any harm" based on these studies etc.

etc. NOT MY POINT

Read my posts above for reference.

But yes, I agree -- it's semantics in the bodybuilding community.

[respawn]

Another for OP to read for merit.

http://www.fitnflexed.com/article/ju...-why-theyre-ok

[unstrong]

>>Saw thread title
>>Immediately knew thread would be several pages long

[desslok]

Eat 10-20% of whatever you want.

Read my definition of clean and dirty. Aragon generally does not look at individual foods when stating what is or isn't dirty. He merely looks at food "groups".

I.e. a "small amount of sugar won't do you any harm" based on these studies etc.

etc. NOT MY POINT

Read my posts above for reference.

But yes, I agree -- it's semantics in the bodybuilding community.

I am a vegan, because I don't consider cows animals. They don't fit my definition of the word.

[Mrpb]

Firstly, that is Aragon's opinion! Not a fact.

Haha well Alan gets it. Layne Norton too. Some day you might too.

[ironwill2008]

Please elaborate why what I posted is nonsense. Thank you.

Poster enters forum, states that The Earth is Flat.


Challenges others to waste their time proving him wrong.

[timpapa]

Haha well Alan gets it. Layne Norton too. Some day you might too.

Gets what?

What does Layne Norton get?

Just because he is in shape and has published a few papers on leucine threshold in mice? What is there to "get"?

[timpapa]

Poster enters forum, states that The Earth is Flat.


Challenges others to waste their time proving him wrong.

I actually stated there are dirty and clean foods.

Nobody proved me wrong yet. I was just mocked for being a troll and negged. SMH.

What else to expect?

[timpapa]

I am a vegan, because I don't consider cows animals. They don't fit my definition of the word.

Cool. That is a subjective opinion. Help yourself.

"Some beings reject alcohol, and instead drink tea. No one is quite sure why."

[chamelious]

I actually stated there are dirty and clean foods.

Nobody proved me wrong yet. I was just mocked for being a troll and negged. SMH.

What else to expect?

You yourself have stated that definitions of clean and dirty are subjective. The thing is, your definition doesn't line up with anyone elses. No one in here, and none of the people cited who do this for a living.

In short, people might agree that you're entitled to your "opinion", but nobody really cares about yours.

[timpapa]

You yourself have stated that definitions of clean and dirty are subjective. The thing is, your definition doesn't line up with anyone elses. No one in here, and none of the people cited who do this for a living.

In short, people might agree that you're entitled to your "opinion", but nobody really cares about yours.

The people cited include primarily Alan Aragon and Layne Norton. References that have been going around for a long time. They do worthwhile research, but all of the cited studies looked at a broader generalization of food groups when defining what is clean and what is dirty with the aim of being accessible to the general population. These are very generic, middle-of-the-road studies. Helpful to most, but let's get serious for a moment. Heck, Alan's conclusion is "eat up to 20% of whatever the hell you wish."

Yes, definitions are subjective, but food science isn't. Anyway, we will agree to disagree.

[WonderPug]

I actually stated there are dirty and clean foods.

Nobody proved me wrong yet. I was just mocked for being a troll and negged. SMH.

It's your assertion and thus you have the burden of proof.

Please cite peer-reviewed journal published research were the definition of "clean" and "dirty" food appear.

[timpapa]

Nice try, Wonderpug. I stated what I consider to be dirty and clean. Would you please comment on those?

Please cite peer-reviewed journal published research were the definition of "clean" and "dirty" food appear.

You want a definition of "dirty food"?

Let's entertain your stupid request with a useless reference that nonetheless answers your question: http: // ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.5.4.347

[respawn]

Nice try, Wonderpug. I stated what I consider to be dirty and clean. Would you please comment on those?




You want a definition of "dirty food"?

Let's entertain your stupid request with a useless reference that nonetheless answers your question: http: // ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.5.4.347

Whats the date on that?

[timpapa]

Whats the date on that?

Amazing, huh.