BodyBuilding.com Article Bashes IIFYM

In the link below, if you scroll down to the Your Body on Milk section, you will find the following statement:

"'As long as it fits into your daily macronutrient goals' is a frequently seen quote on the message boards, meaning the source doesn't matter. The popular theory is that you should just count your total amount of carbs for the day, and that no food source is off limits. In this case, you'd be advised to consume milk because it only contains 12 carb grams.

This is a perfect example of the analogy of not seeing the forest through the trees."

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/liqu...ybuilding.html

Honestly I'm a bit surprised at BB.com for making such a statement in general, though I guess I shouldn't be. However, I think it's amazing that their attacking milk as opposed to the host of other food choices people commonly eat.

Also, they follow up that statement by discussing lactose intolerance, a completely unrelatedtopic to discretionary calorie allowance.

 

BodyBuilding.com Article Bashes IIFYM

It's very obvious that IIFYM is unhealthy and doesn't work.

I mean, who in their right mind would eat their macros and all other important micros from a variety of minimally processed foods while allowing for 10-20% of processed foods?

 

BodyBuilding.com Article Bashes IIFYM

Theyre saying its bad if youre intolerant to the lactose. Retarded article.
And hes only talking about cutting, saying its bad cause you bloat

 

BodyBuilding.com Article Bashes IIFYM

Don't drink milk if you are lactose intolerant. Seems logical.

 

BodyBuilding.com Article Bashes IIFYM

Actually I viewed his discussion about milk as solely having to do with how you feel, rather than fitting it into your macros. Here is an excerpt that I think summed it up pretty well:

Lactose intolerance is a big deal for many people, but not me. I am not among the minorities that have big issues with lactose, but if I was, I would do my best to avoid it, while not claiming it was wrong for everyone.

 

BodyBuilding.com Article Bashes IIFYM

The inherent weakness in IIFYM is the message itself. It's far too short to include all of the necessary information and makes several assumptions, not the least of which is that you're expected to use common sense when it comes to general health and medical concerns. People who only take IIFYM at face value instead of as a cute way of encouraging a healthy outlook will generally fail to understand the meaning.

And that's why I no longer use the acronym: it's utterly useless if you need to write a novella to explain what it means every time you use it.

 

BodyBuilding.com Article Bashes IIFYM

Right, I get that, but that has nothing to do with the macros which is why it's kind of dumb the author said that.

Exactly.. just seemed stupid the way he brought up the whole IIFYM thing in relation to it... they're completely separate.

Same as above It's obvious that if it bloats you up than you shouldn't drink it, but that has nothing to do with the # of carbs, fats, or proteins. Again... I think he just brought up the wrong topic when mentioning the whole "IIFYM" thing.

It's like he's saying, "See guys!? It's not all about the macros! What about people who are allergic to peanuts!? HUH? THEY can't fit peanuts in their macros! So, see... you're wrong!"

 

BodyBuilding.com Article Bashes IIFYM

I drank a pint of milk with breakfast.

 

BodyBuilding.com Article Bashes IIFYM

Reading the main site was your first problem.

Also what nobrah said. What the acronym stands for is open to huge misunderstanding by anyone who takes it at face value and doesn't care to look into what it might really be about. Taking things at face value, repeating it ad nauseaum and never researching it decribes 99% of the people here.

 

BodyBuilding.com Article Bashes IIFYM

I agree.

It's funny, because if you go to the author's profile by clicking his name, it says he uses "science-proven nutrition" in training his clients