Why do people say nutrition is a secondary issue

MelanieCN77

I think the absolute stripped down definition of CICO has become the go-to response firstly because it is true, but also because a lot of people come at dieting in a convoluted, gimmicky way that is about fooling themselves into losing weight because they are afraid of hunger. Sometimes it is ignorance but often it is that someone wants results with as little effort as possible. So instead of this fast or that shake or carb cycling or food combining or Alli or green tea extract, it gets broken down to the bare bones with the expectation they work up from that what's tolerable or practical for them. I'd personally prefer to eat a skillet of mixed veggies and some chicken for dinner than a bag of Cheetos, but the end result would mostly be the same short term. There's no doubt in my mind that some foods are good for you and some are completely null in benefits, but everyone has their tolerance level physically and mentally and no one diet is right for everyone.

Also, exercise is totally part of CICO in that it can build the CO. < Unpopular view.

mactaffy428

broseidonkingofbrocean wrote: »

An experiment from a kansas state nutrition professor where the guy literally ate little debbie snack cakes as his primary source of calories not only lost weight but got healthier. Link here altho im sure there are better ones on this subject. http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/did-kansas-state-nutrition-professor-dr-mark-haub-really-go-on-a-little-debbie-snack-cake-diet/9226

Same goes for the guy who made the documentary Fat Head where he debunked Supersize Me. He ate nothing but fast food but in a deficit. He had similar results as the little debbie snack cake diet. His doctors being astonished by the results. If you watched Supersize Me and felt it was informative I highly recommend watching this.



This is interesting, thank you.

mactaffy428

malibu927 wrote: »

For strictly weight loss, calories are all that matter. Energy wise, 100 calories from a Twinkie will be the same as 100 calories of spinach. That's when nutrition comes into play...many people, after they eat something like a Twinkie, may not feel as satisfied and want to eat more. Eating more whole foods will keep most people fuller longer.

Not sure this is true from the reading I've been doing. 100 cal of an apple may actually have "less energy" in it than 100 calories of bread. That's why I think it is so hard, sometimes, to actually figure out this whole CICO thing. I'm not trying to be difficult and I really appreciate everyone's option. And thanks for the links. Anything I can read to help me further my knowledge is a boon to me.

I hope everyone has a great New Years.

dragon_girl26

I don't think I've ever personally seen anyone claim that nutrition is secondary. If anything, that is simply taking what is being said out of context.
CICO is the ground level explanation for weight loss. People come on the boards asking how to cut out sugar or bread or whatever because those foods are seen as "unhealthy" and are somehow the roadblocks to their weight loss. The replies simply point out that one can eat sugary foods, breads, etc, and still have a healthy diet. That doesn't mean take it as a free for all. It's not an all or nothing scenario. Its saying you can eat a Big Mac sometimes, and other times it's baked chicken, veggies, and rice. In an ideal setting, you can incorporate the things that you want into a diet that is healthy.

GottaBurnEmAll

jemhh wrote: »

I've never seen anybody call nutrition secondary. I've only seen it referred to as a separate issue.

I've called it secondary, and I've meant it in the context of hierarchy in terms of what matters for weight loss/nutrtion. CICO comes first. You can have the healthiest diet in the world, but if you're eating too many calories, you won't lose weight.

Sort of like this:

diannethegeek

When I started to really see some success with weight loss, I wanted to tear my hair out with people asking how I did it. They'd either get disappointed by an answer like "hard work, time, & calorie counting" or they'd get this laser beam focus on one portion of my routine: "so you're saying I need to eat Greek yogurt & Brussels sprouts?" or "Richard Simmons videos, got it." They missed the point looking for some gimmick or simple step they could take. So I got into the habit of breaking things down to the simplest elements because the specifics of what I did aren't necessarily what everyone else should do. CICO is the most basic rule for weight loss and people need to build up from there to suit their own needs. A healthful diet comes in a lot of different forms. I eat a lot more dairy than others might like. Someone else might find more meat than I like is a better suit for them. I have to watch my fat and others don't. So while I always try to stress that one should try to hit their nutrition goals, I think it's up to them to decide what those goals are and how to hit them. Since most posts about nutrition specifics end up as debates about the latest way of eating anymore, sticking to the basics is, ime, more helpful to newer members and less likely to (but not immune from) spark a 10-page thread.

snickerscharlie

MelanieCN77 wrote: »

Also, exercise is totally part of CICO in that it can build the CO. < Unpopular view.

I don't find that it's unpopular, as much as it's that exercise is not actually necessary for weight loss. And part of the KISS principle that weight management really needs to be boiled down to for many people that are entirely new to it.

For *me,* I incorporated exercise as part of my daily routine because it allowed me the caloric wiggle room to include more of the foods I enjoy while I continued to lose the weight, which was extremely helpful in keeping me on track without feeling deprived. I credit those extra calories earned from exercise with being a large contributing factor in getting me to my goal weight.

Like good nutrition, exercise isn't strictly necessary for weight loss. But incorporating them into the equation can make the process not only more bearable but give a better end result as well.

lemurcat12

mactaffy428 wrote: »

malibu927 wrote: »

For strictly weight loss, calories are all that matter. Energy wise, 100 calories from a Twinkie will be the same as 100 calories of spinach. That's when nutrition comes into play...many people, after they eat something like a Twinkie, may not feel as satisfied and want to eat more. Eating more whole foods will keep most people fuller longer.

Not sure this is true from the reading I've been doing. 100 cal of an apple may actually have "less energy" in it than 100 calories of bread.

This has to do with calorie counts being estimates and people varying in how much you are able to absorb from foods. Nuts, meat, and higher fiber foods may well have fewer calories (at least for the average person) than we thought. (Apples don't have all that much fiber, so I kind of doubt they are much off, and bread varies in how much fiber it has.)

That said, this is totally majoring in the minors and a different issue than nutrition.

I eat a lot of the foods that may be overcounting calories and not much "ultraprocessed" stuff, but if I'm eating fewer calories than I think I figure that's a bonus or covering some inaccuracies. Bigger issue is the specific calories I am eating do not matter but relative calories -- if I am eating what I THINK is 2000 and not losing, I should try 1800. If my actual numbers are wrong it doesn't matter if I am consistent.

You can obviously lose eating any diet, so long as you can stick to a deficit (and satiety and nutrition are separate too, although many nutritious foods are, on average, sating for most).

I think it's simpler -- and not putting nutrition second -- to say that calories are what controls weight loss, but that for health it's also ideal to eat a good diet if you can and to be active. (Some who are just starting out find the idea of changing their diet overwhelming or adding exercise to be overwhelming, and for them it's good to know that's not necessary. Others find focusing on nutrition an easier way to end up with a deficit than just counting calories.)

cwolfman13

MelanieCN77 wrote: »

I think the absolute stripped down definition of CICO has become the go-to response firstly because it is true, but also because a lot of people come at dieting in a convoluted, gimmicky way that is about fooling themselves into losing weight because they are afraid of hunger. Sometimes it is ignorance but often it is that someone wants results with as little effort as possible. So instead of this fast or that shake or carb cycling or food combining or Alli or green tea extract, it gets broken down to the bare bones with the expectation they work up from that what's tolerable or practical for them. I'd personally prefer to eat a skillet of mixed veggies and some chicken for dinner than a bag of Cheetos, but the end result would mostly be the same short term. There's no doubt in my mind that some foods are good for you and some are completely null in benefits, but everyone has their tolerance level physically and mentally and no one diet is right for everyone.

Also, exercise is totally part of CICO in that it can build the CO. < Unpopular view.

Why would you say that...I think pretty much everyone knows and that it's quite obvious that exercise increases energy expenditure (CO)

MelanieCN77

In almost every thread you'll get 2-3 people who can't help but point out that exercise isn't part of CICO. They'll also say CICO is for weight loss and exercise is for health. It's way more nuanced than that, as half of us will acknowledge and half will hardline "eat in a deficit" and comment no more.

CurlyCockney

I haven't noticed anyone saying that exercise isn't part of CICO, but I've seen (and said) that exercise isn't necessary for weight loss. It's hard to get the context of what you're saying when you're talking about a totally different thread though.

WinoGelato

MelanieCN77 wrote: »

In almost every thread you'll get 2-3 people who can't help but point out that exercise isn't part of CICO. They'll also say CICO is for weight loss and exercise is for health. It's way more nuanced than that, as half of us will acknowledge and half will hardline "eat in a deficit" and comment no more.

I've never seen someone say exercise isn't a part of CICO. What I often see is people saying that weight loss comes down to calorie deficit, and exercise isn't specifically required.... maybe you are extrapolating that to mean that they think exercise isn't a part of CICO.

CO is the sum of all the calorie output including BMR, daily non exercise activity, and purposeful exercise. Some people don't do purposeful exercise and that doesn't invalidate CICO or mean that it wouldn't be part IF they chose to do it.

MelanieCN77

I think you're confusing me with someone who thinks otherwise. I guess we read different threads.

lemurcat12

WinoGelato wrote: »

MelanieCN77 wrote: »

In almost every thread you'll get 2-3 people who can't help but point out that exercise isn't part of CICO. They'll also say CICO is for weight loss and exercise is for health. It's way more nuanced than that, as half of us will acknowledge and half will hardline "eat in a deficit" and comment no more.

I've never seen someone say exercise isn't a part of CICO. What I often see is people saying that weight loss comes down to calorie deficit, and exercise isn't specifically required.... maybe you are extrapolating that to mean that they think exercise isn't a part of CICO.

Yeah, this was my thought. Obviously exercise is part of CO, but what's important is a calorie deficit, whatever CI and CO are. So when someone says "exercise for health, calorie deficit for weight loss," they aren't saying exercise isn't part of the equation. And we are discussing ELMM in another thread, where obviously MM is part of it.

Machka9

mactaffy428 wrote: »

I've seen so many posts where people say nutrition is a secondary issue to weight loss. I don't understand why. If people want to lose weight, isn't the reason to be healthy? How can you be healthy if you lose weight by eating Twinkies? Yes, I know the whole CICO argument, that you can lose weight eating anything you want. But why would you want to do that? Don't get me wrong, I have my bit of chocolate; however, i think the quality of food that one eats is going to play a major part of weight loss. Refined carbs can cause an insulin spike which promotes fat storage which seems that it can change parameters for that whole CICO argument. It seems that, perhaps, we are learning that a calorie is not, perhaps, a calorie. I guess what I don't understand is that some people want help in making their diets more nutritious and people come back with the whole "you can eat anything to lose weight, nutrition is secondary". It seems very short sighted to me. I think we are learning just how much the quality of food matters in weight loss (not to mention health). I'd just like to know what others might think.

1) I wanted to lose weight so I could cycle up hills easier. Health is a secondary issue.

2) For me, it is healthier to be lighter. Happily I can accomplish that any way I want.

3) As it happens, vegetables are both low cal and healthy. Win win. But that's not to say I won't eat what might possibly considered less healthy (what is healthy anyway?).

Machka9

malibu927 wrote: »

goldthistime wrote: »

I felt the same way when I first came to MFP. I was trying to unlearn the habit of eating so many treats. Why all the posts celebrating Twinkies and gelato? But I was still thinking of my diet as being temporary. I've taken to heart the idea that slow weight loss is best and that I'll be following a similar program for the rest of my life, and a future completely devoid of treats is unnecessarily bleak. Personally I'd like to see more conversations about good nutrition but the problem is that when they do pop up they don't get many responses. There's just not that much interesting or debatable to discuss.

The funny thing is, I never see Twinkies talked about unless they're in threads like this one. I don't even think I've had one since Hostess brought them back.

My husband and I tried them once on a 6-week trip across the US in 2012 just to see what the fuss was all about ... we kept hearing, on the radio, about them not being made anymore.