Context Matters
I've stated many, many times on this site that energy balance is the ultimate determinant of whether a person will gain, maintain, or lose body mass. Despite what many people purport, a low carbohydrate diet will not lead to weight-loss in the context of a caloric surplus; and neither will a low fat diet. Both the low carb camp and the low fat camp believe in mistaken understandings of how the body metabolizes incoming energy from food. The low carbers mistakenly think that when little to no carbohydrate are present in one's diet, insulin will hardly be produced, and since insulin causes fat storage, no fat will be stored in the context of a low carb diet. The logic here is absurd!
The body has various non-insulin dependent pathways by which it can store fat. Moreover, when you do consume carbohydrate, and thus have an insulin spike, that carbohydrate itself is less likely than whatever dietary fat you consumed with said carbohydrate to be stored as adipose tissue. Much to the low carbers chagrin, dietary fat is in fact the nutrient most easily stored as body fat.
This is not to say, however, that the low fat dieters are right. Yes, dietary fat does more often than not get stored as adipose tissue; but, whether or not said fat remains stored in the long term is a matter of energy balance. Energy balance is the key, and anyone who says otherwise better provide a comprehensive, intensive, and downright compelling case based upon quality scientific research if they wish to make claims to the contrary.
How Quality Food Choices Work
Certain diets, such as Atkins, Primal Blueprint, Vegan, etc., often have loyal followers for one very important reason: People have succeeded with these diets. While variations in macronutrient ratios abound with such diets--and thus the physiological effect of each varies--, these diets often lead to weight-loss because they restrict food choice in some way, thus curtailing the variety of foods one can eat, causing a spontaneous reduction in ad libitum calorie consumption.
This curtailment of variety is often bolstered by a simultaneous improvement in the quality of foods eaten. Fruits, veggies, whole cuts of meat, eggs, fish, plain potatoes, properly treated legumes and grains, etc. are far more filling and less hyper-rewarding than most foods that are typical of the standard American diet (SAD). By eliminating SAD foods from one's diet, and by replacing these foods with high quality fare, people often see drastic improvements in their health, in their body composition, and in their quality of life.
How "If It Fits Your Macros" (IIFYM) Works
IIFYM is a certain philosophical approach to dieting that entails unrestricted food choice, moderated by targeted macronutrient numbers and calories. So long as the foods you eat fall in line with the quantity of protein, carbohydrate, and fat you have allotted to you, you can virtually eat whatever food you want.
People often berate the IIFYM approach for being too laissez-faire in regards to food choice. These people's concerns are well founded. Many people who utilize this approach will often make some pretty questionable food choices, such as eating nothing but Big Macs, ice cream, and Lucky Charms. This is not to say, however, that this method does not lead to improvements in body composition.
As it should turn out, those who use IIFYM have provided thousands of anecdotal case studies that reveal that the quality/healthfulness of food choice has very little, if any effect upon short term changes in body mass. People using this method have shown us that, indeed, a diet composed of Big Macs, ice cream, and Lucky Charms can lead to a "beach-ready-body."
Finding a Balance
Uncontrolled food quantity can work for weight loss only when mediated by controlled food quality. Uncontrolled food quality can work for weight loss only when mediated by controlled food quantity. Both methods have their downsides and their upsides. With the former, you have to closely watch what you eat and make indulgences in SAD foods a rarity. With the latter, if you don't give at least some concern to the quality of the food you're eating, you could incur various nutritional deficiencies in the long term, despite looking incredibly lean and healthy.
In my opinion, both of these methods will work, but a hybrid of the two might work best. By controlling food quality, we can ensure that our long term health is taken care of. By controlling food quantity, and by using a targeted macros approach, we can ensure that our diet supports our performance and/or physique goals in the short term.
Pick Your Poison
Not everyone has the same goals, and not everyone has the same psychological response to food. Some people may find the incorporation of IIFYM a hindrance to the convenience of their lives. IIFYM may also lead to OCD behaviors in some individuals whereby they become obsessed with tracking their diet to absurd ends. For these people, monitoring their food choice will likely work best.
For others, the hybrid option may work very well. Once again, however, we must remain cautious of incurring OCD behavior. Moreover, we must be careful to avoid the development of orthorexia (a mental disorder entailing an unhealthy and extreme preoccupation with eating healthy foods). For people who may have a propensity to develop orthorexia, IIFYM may actually work best.
Ultimately, you must take personal responsibility for assessing what method will work best for you. Remember, the best diet in the world is the one that you will follow.
No comments:
Post a Comment