5 ms·

I think the result is still interesting. There's a whole lifestyle called "IIFYM" or If It Fits your Macros which suggests that the macronutrient breakdown (% c

I think the result is still interesting. There's a whole lifestyle called "IIFYM" or If It Fits your Macros which suggests that the macronutrient breakdown (% carbs/fat/protein) is the main factor in growth/health, and that you can eat whatever IIFYM. This study contradicts that by showing health improvement while maintaining macronutrient breakdown, albeit in obese kids. Is this replicable in adults and/or normal weight people? Who knows? Still a pretty interesting result IMO.

donkeyd 11y ago
AFAIK, IIFYM also notes that you need vitamins etc. They don't try to make it seem like you can eat sugar cubes, chicken breast and avocado and be healthy.
- brandonmenc 11y ago
  > They don't try to make it seem like you can eat sugar cubes, chicken breast and avocado and be healthy. Most of the people I see practicing IIFYM believe exactly this. They routinely top off with donuts and candy to hit the high carb count needed to gain weight. It's way easier than trying to choke down a pound of brown rice every day. IIFYM is probably not a bad diet for a teenage boy or steroid user trying to pack on weight while doing a high volume of work. Everyone else will put on a lot of unwanted fat.
  - jtuente 11y ago
    >IIFYM is probably not a bad diet for a teenage boy or steroid user trying to pack on weight while doing a high volume of work. Everyone else will put on a lot of unwanted fat. That would depend on both your total calorie count and your macro breakdown. IIFYM determines what percentage of your calories should come from each of carbs, fats and proteins. So if your calorie count is suitable for your height, weight and activity level, then your macro breakdown isn't going to cause you to gain weight. If your breakdown is out of whack, then you're going to end up feeling tired, hungry or otherwise malnourished, but it shouldn't cause you excessive weight gain outside of water retention. The calorie counting needs to be more accurate than the macro breakdown.
  - plonh 11y ago
    Why are they trying to gain weight? They can't convert donut into muscle. Donuts for a sugar feed while working out, sure.
  - plonh 11y ago
    There are many body functions besides muscle growth and fat burning. These functions require vitamins.
dbbolton 11y ago
I agree completely. In my experience I'd say roughly 50% of patients we see in primary care have essentially no clue when it comes to nutrition, then maybe 40% or so have a decent understanding of the macros and percentages on US food labels, and the remaining 10% are actually well-versed on the subject. This study should be an eye opener for that 40% who largely believe "all carbs are created equal". But on the flip side, you have people that believe only "processed" carbs/sugars are bad. You wouldn't believe how many diabetics think they're doing themselves a huge favor by switching from Coke to apple juice, or from pasta to mashed potatoes. I'm tempted to start a tangential rant here but I'll just say that I generally try to avoid fructose. Yes, fruits contain fructose in addition to other nutrients, but my personal opinion is that high-sugar foods (including certain fruits like cherries, grapes, and bananas as well as cookies and chocolate bars) should be considered a treat and used sparingly.
- wdewind 11y ago
  > This study should be an eye opener for that 40% who largely believe "all carbs are created equal". All carbs pretty much are equal, it tends to be the amount of fiber that comes with the carb that changes things. This study was about fructose, not sugar in general, and we've known for a long time that fructose behaves differently from other carbs due to the way it is metabolized in the liver.
  - alextgordon 11y ago
    OK but when people talk about "carbs" they aren't talking about chemicals, they're talking about foods. Nobody is ever going to know what the chemical composition of a potato is, it's just a potato. Fibre, water, protein content is "carbs" when it's in a potato.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Fixing notation would definitely help talking about nutrition. Scientific terms should be used precisely, or not used at all. Dear diet industry: invent your own words, or capture the generic ones. Start with 'magic'.
cheepin 11y ago
IIFYM is a layer of complexity on top of Calorie Counting. If Calorie Counting is "Eat whatever you want as long as you eat below X Calories" IIFYM says, "Hit your calorie mark, but make sure you have enough Fats/Proteins/Carbs". It's not shocking that it would work since it is strictly better than Calorie Counting which also works, but its goal is primarily Body Composition, IE becoming leaner. There is plenty of room to improve on top of that by improving the quality of the nutrient sources and managing micronutrients. This study isn't a contradiction. It just says that micronutrients matter, which is pretty uncontroversial.
- spion 11y ago
  Likewise, IIFY (Macros + sugar) would be another improvement.
jongraehl 11y ago
I like your line of thought, but this is no refutation of IIFYM or "eat less if you're fat" unless they performed this substitution isocalorically. Eating fast sugars instead of equivalent slow starches makes me crave more sooner, and eat more.
the8472 11y ago
Is it really news? Verbose food labels break down Carbs further into fiber/sugar/polysaccharides for a reason. That sugar vs. starches makes a difference is hardly news either if you just take a look at glycemic index/insulin response. And that the kind of fatty acids make a difference in fats is also an aspect going beyond macronutrient breakdown. So really, "fits your macros" has never been sufficient. Making a distinction between glucose and fructose has been more controversial and it's good to see it studied more.

donkeyd 11y ago

AFAIK, IIFYM also notes that you need vitamins etc. They don't try to make it seem like you can eat sugar cubes, chicken breast and avocado and be healthy.

brandonmenc 11y ago
> They don't try to make it seem like you can eat sugar cubes, chicken breast and avocado and be healthy. Most of the people I see practicing IIFYM believe exactly this. They routinely top off with donuts and candy to hit the high carb count needed to gain weight. It's way easier than trying to choke down a pound of brown rice every day. IIFYM is probably not a bad diet for a teenage boy or steroid user trying to pack on weight while doing a high volume of work. Everyone else will put on a lot of unwanted fat.
- jtuente 11y ago
  >IIFYM is probably not a bad diet for a teenage boy or steroid user trying to pack on weight while doing a high volume of work. Everyone else will put on a lot of unwanted fat. That would depend on both your total calorie count and your macro breakdown. IIFYM determines what percentage of your calories should come from each of carbs, fats and proteins. So if your calorie count is suitable for your height, weight and activity level, then your macro breakdown isn't going to cause you to gain weight. If your breakdown is out of whack, then you're going to end up feeling tired, hungry or otherwise malnourished, but it shouldn't cause you excessive weight gain outside of water retention. The calorie counting needs to be more accurate than the macro breakdown.
- plonh 11y ago
  Why are they trying to gain weight? They can't convert donut into muscle. Donuts for a sugar feed while working out, sure.
- plonh 11y ago
  There are many body functions besides muscle growth and fat burning. These functions require vitamins.

dbbolton 11y ago

I agree completely. In my experience I'd say roughly 50% of patients we see in primary care have essentially no clue when it comes to nutrition, then maybe 40% or so have a decent understanding of the macros and percentages on US food labels, and the remaining 10% are actually well-versed on the subject. This study should be an eye opener for that 40% who largely believe "all carbs are created equal". But on the flip side, you have people that believe only "processed" carbs/sugars are bad. You wouldn't believe how many diabetics think they're doing themselves a huge favor by switching from Coke to apple juice, or from pasta to mashed potatoes. I'm tempted to start a tangential rant here but I'll just say that I generally try to avoid fructose. Yes, fruits contain fructose in addition to other nutrients, but my personal opinion is that high-sugar foods (including certain fruits like cherries, grapes, and bananas as well as cookies and chocolate bars) should be considered a treat and used sparingly.

wdewind 11y ago
> This study should be an eye opener for that 40% who largely believe "all carbs are created equal". All carbs pretty much are equal, it tends to be the amount of fiber that comes with the carb that changes things. This study was about fructose, not sugar in general, and we've known for a long time that fructose behaves differently from other carbs due to the way it is metabolized in the liver.
- alextgordon 11y ago
  OK but when people talk about "carbs" they aren't talking about chemicals, they're talking about foods. Nobody is ever going to know what the chemical composition of a potato is, it's just a potato. Fibre, water, protein content is "carbs" when it's in a potato.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Fixing notation would definitely help talking about nutrition. Scientific terms should be used precisely, or not used at all. Dear diet industry: invent your own words, or capture the generic ones. Start with 'magic'.

cheepin 11y ago

IIFYM is a layer of complexity on top of Calorie Counting. If Calorie Counting is "Eat whatever you want as long as you eat below X Calories" IIFYM says, "Hit your calorie mark, but make sure you have enough Fats/Proteins/Carbs". It's not shocking that it would work since it is strictly better than Calorie Counting which also works, but its goal is primarily Body Composition, IE becoming leaner. There is plenty of room to improve on top of that by improving the quality of the nutrient sources and managing micronutrients. This study isn't a contradiction. It just says that micronutrients matter, which is pretty uncontroversial.

spion 11y ago
Likewise, IIFY (Macros + sugar) would be another improvement.

jongraehl 11y ago

I like your line of thought, but this is no refutation of IIFYM or "eat less if you're fat" unless they performed this substitution isocalorically. Eating fast sugars instead of equivalent slow starches makes me crave more sooner, and eat more.

the8472 11y ago

Is it really news? Verbose food labels break down Carbs further into fiber/sugar/polysaccharides for a reason. That sugar vs. starches makes a difference is hardly news either if you just take a look at glycemic index/insulin response. And that the kind of fatty acids make a difference in fats is also an aspect going beyond macronutrient breakdown. So really, "fits your macros" has never been sufficient. Making a distinction between glucose and fructose has been more controversial and it's good to see it studied more.