Introduction
Within the nutrition universe, there are an infinite number of diets, concepts and ideologies floating around, making it tough to really know what to listen to. In this post, im going to be looking at 3 different dietary ideologies that I have heard people talking about during my day to day activities today. These were IF It Fits Your Macros, Intermittent Fasting and Meal Frequency (you can tell I work with models if I have heard all of these mentioned in a day!). Anyway, lets get to it.
IIFYM- If It Fits Your Macros (IIFYM) is, in my opinion, the worst diet concept in existence. The premise of IIFYM is that you can eat anything- as long as you hit your basic calorie, protein, carb and fat macronutrient targets for the day.
Now, I actually think the concept of IIFYM (in a sick, distorted kind of way) isn’t too bad, in the sense that, if you are eating clean for 95% of the time with adequate fibre intake, then having a “cheat” every once and a while is more justifiable if it doesn’t knock you over any of your macro targets for the day.
The problem with IIFYM is that it is taken literally and as a complete dietary concept by those who employ it. Those who eat by IIFYM will eat anything they like as often as they like. Hypothetically, an IIFYM preacher could justify eating a Big Mac post workout over the macro-equivalent in white rice/chicken breast. By almost exclusively eating foods which fit into a certain macronutrient range, you are ignoring the fact you are over-consuming other nutrients such as saturated fats, sugars and salts. You will also be under-consuming many other vital micronutrients, and massively under-consuming fibre.
Hence, I would really suggest avoiding implementing IIFYM as a whole entity when it comes to your nutrition. Justifying a “cheat” by the fact that it fits into your macros, however, is justifiable.
Intermittent Fasting- Intermittent Fasting, or IF, is based predominantly on meal timing. The premise of IF is that you consume your entire macro/caloric requirements within a set period, and then fast for the remaining time period. A typical IF split Is a 18 hour fast, with a 6 hour meal period, where you consume an entire days-worth of food in this time space.
Personally, I have dabbled in IF. I used it when I was trying to lose a bit of bodyfat and it worked. However, I also lost a reasonably significant amount of muscle mass in this time period. I don’t hate on IF as much as I do IIFYM, but there are several reasons whereby I do not believe it is the most optimal of dieting principles.
Firstly, IF is extremely rigid. By sticking to a set fast:eat split on a day by day basis, you are very limited as to what you can and cant do at certain times. Practically, this isn’t ideal. If you train early morning but your feeding window isn’t until the late afternoon, your body will really struggle to repair and take advantage of the anabolic response from training (nb many argue over the existence of a post workout anabolic window. From practical experience however, I have found it is most certainly beneficial to consume protein/carbohydrates in the hour post workout).
On a biomechanical note, I can’t help but feel that the changing of stomach volume caused by fasting/large eating periods can be functionally or aesthetically beneficial. Although I am not a fan of completely instinctual eating, I also think that boxing yourself into a set eating pattern without the ability to listen to what your body is telling you it needs, is inherently sub-optimal.
There are a few lessons I believe can be learnt from IF though. I think the concept of structured meal/nutrient timing is a good one, it should just be done to fit into your lifestyle and training requirements. In a sense, I intermittently cycle carbohydrates as I (personally) only consume them in the 4-6 hour window around training. Thus I am effectively “fasting” from carbs over the other 18-20 hours of the day. As such, I think nutrient timing is a very important factor to consider when implementing a nutrition plan.
Meal Frequency- this isn’t really a set in stone concept, more of a variable ideology in terms of meal structure throughout the day. Im going to make one point before I begin. Higher meal frequency does not, in ANY WAY, influence your metabolism. Eating 6 times a day will not help you metabolise food at a greater rate than 3 meals a day. The reason physique athletes eat over several meal periods is essentially because it is an easier way to consume a large amount of food. I eat about 3400 calories a day. Imagine that over 3 meals? To put it into context, if I were to eat my complete diet over 3 meals, lunch would be something like 600g Chicken Breast, 500g Rice and 300g Broccoli. Personally, I don’t think I could handle over 1kg of food in a single sitting!
So, higher meal frequency is purely practical in my eyes. It also allows me to alter my macronutrient balance around my training to a greater degree. Take post workout for example. On leg day, I like to get in about 50g Protein and 100g carbs in my post workout meal (about an hour after my PWO Shake). 3 hours later, I then try to get in 75g protein, 75g carbs and some fats. By splitting up these two meals, it is a lot easier to hit my post workout macronutrient targets, whilst maintaining a bit of sanity without staring at an unbeatable mountain of food for hours.
Conclusion
This is just the beginning of the dietary concepts and ideologies floating around today. I think that a combined knowledge of macronutrients, your own bodies needs and your lifestyle are the key factors you need to consider when making a nutrition plan. What fits into my day? What macro split do I reasons best to? What do I need to eat? And when? You need to ask yourself these questions predominantly. Dont be pigeon-holed into a specific dietary concept, as it is unlikely to return long success. Your body is a completely unique biomechanical machine, and thus everyone requires different fuels to operate at maximum efficiancy.
Patrick Chapman Fitness 
Leave a comment