Why do people say nutrition is a secondary issue

mactaffy428 · December 2016

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.

CurlyCockney · December 2016

If people ask about losing weight, the answer is always calorie deficit. Unless they tell you, you have no way of knowing what other people's goals are, so there's little point comparing your way of getting to your goal to their way of getting to theirs.

malibu927 · December 2016

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.

crzycatlady1 · December 2016

The quality of food has absolutely nothing to do with weight loss though. To lose weight you only need to be at a calorie deficit. That's it.

And for many people just losing the excess weight will improve their health, regardless of what kinds of foods they're eating. I started out overweight and a pre-diabetic. I lost 50lbs while still eating fast food several times a week, eating all sorts of processed 'diet' foods, still eating sugary foods and chugging diet soda etc. After losing the extra weight my blood work completely changed to excellent-including having glucose numbers solidly in the normal range.

I'm now almost 4 years into maintenance and I still eat the same way as I always have-I've just learned how to fit it into my calorie goals. Sure I eat veggies and whole grains and chicken and fish etc. But I also still eat fast food several times a week, still eat 'processed foods', still chug diet soda

My twice a year blood work panels come back consistently good, with glucose levels still in the 80s and 90s. I'm in excellent health, am no longer a pre-diabetic, have a bmi of 21 and I eat a varied diet that includes all the foods I like. Doing things this way has made my weight loss sustainable, and I'm one of the very few people who are successfully maintaining the weight loss and improved health.

This is worth a read if you have a minute-
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

lemurcat12 · December 2016

If someone is obese, especially extremely obese, the most significant influence on health outcomes is just losing weight. The Twinkie experiment (which also included a few other foods and supplements) showed that, with great improvements in some health markers.

Beyond that, hypothetical/experimental Twinkie diet aside, most people will eat a diverse enough diet to not be terribly short on micros, I'd hope (I am, granted, often surprised at how some on MFP report eating, as it is not consistent with my experience offline -- perhaps I live in a bubble where people actually cook and eat vegetables and have common sense!).

Also, and I think this is not understood well enough by those worrying that dieters will eat only junk food (which IMO no one thinks is a good idea) -- cutting calories tends to result in people eating more satiating foods which tend to have more micronutrients also (vegetables are really low cal, after all, protein is filling for most, especially lean protein, etc.).

But if someone is losing weight, cutting calories is the main thing. Doing that while eating a nutritious diet is something I'd recommended, but if someone finds it easier to focus on calories first, nutrition later, that's probably better for their health than justifying being fat with "but I eat lots of micronutrients."

(I say this as someone who did eat a whole foods based, homecooked, lots of vegetables kind of diet when fat and who still knew that being fat was bad for my health long-term.)

WinoGelato · December 2016

Agree with everything that @lemurcat12 and @crzycatlady1 already mentioned. Also wanted to add that protein also spikes insulin, just doesn't get the bad rap that refined carbs do...

And edited to add that eating nutritious foods is no guarantee of good health, it is entirely possible to overeat on Whole Foods and still be overweight with numerous health concerns.

Not to say that nutrition isn't important, it is.

broseidonkingofbrocean · December 2016

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.

lemurcat12 · December 2016

Oh, on some of the specific comments:

mactaffy428 wrote: »

Refined carbs can cause an insulin spike which promotes fat storage which seems that it can change parameters for that whole CICO argument.

This is factually untrue if the claim is that carbs become fat even in a deficit, and the "spike" depends on what else you eat. It's only a problem if one is IR, also, and then, ironically, you AREN'T putting on fat because of it -- the problem is that you are resistant to insulin so have more trouble storing carbs as fat or using protein for muscle (which must lead some people to eat more). (The Japanese eat plenty of white rice and yet are less fat than us, for example. Most of the refined carbs people in the US eat are combined with fat too, again, ironically when people just want to pretend it's all about carbs.)

But anyway the dynamics of this are irrelevant, because typically refined carbs aren't eaten alone -- even in the SAD you'd presumably eat them with fiber, fat, or protein or some combination. And, more significantly, you cannot put on fat in a deficit, the macros you eat don't matter (and it's easier to store fat as fat than carbs). What we definitely know is that you can lose weight eating any diet.

Now, would I recommend someone eat a bad diet? Of course not, and I really don't understand why you think this happens, as I haven't seen it. Maybe you are misunderstanding? I certainly think you are reading a lot into the true statement "calories are what matters for weight loss." That does not mean nutrition isn't important (or that food choice doesn't matter for satiety).

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".

I think, again, that you are misunderstanding, and wonder why.

People are trying to explain weight loss to those who think that they must cut out specific foods or adopt specific macros for weight loss to work at all. Knowing the truth is always preferable and helpful, IMO. Does that mean they shouldn't focus on nutrition? Of course not, and as someone who often responds, I know I and others recommend that and I link to good sources on nutrition.

What I more often see is people doing things they THINK are good nutrition (what if I only eat raw fruits and veg or on the other extreme "why don't I cut out all carbs") and being told that's not actually good nutrition. If someone wants to do something that's not actually helpful to nutrition, I don't care, and same if they want to try something not necessary to weight loss (I think low carbing is helpful for many, though not necessary), but if they assert false ideas those ideas should be corrected.

kommodevaran · December 2016

No, that is not what people are saying. People are saying that to lose weight, all you need is a sustained calorie deficit. You could eat only Twinkies and lose weight. Nobody is saying that you should do that, and it's highly doubtful that you can. To be able to sustain a calorie deficit, you'll want to feel satisfied and energetic, and an all-Twinkie diet would make you feel hungry, hangry, and miserable. But you could, if you wanted to and didn't mind feeling hungry, hangry, and miserable.

Fat storage in a calorie deficit is something I choose to not take seriously.

Docbanana2002 · December 2016

I agree with you that a good long term goal for optimal health is healthy weight, good nutrition, and active lifestyle. For someone who generally does those things and has just packed on a few pounds due to sloppiness or a temporary life circumstance, maybe they can best address the issue by cleaning up nutrition. Replace a caloric drink with water or diet soda, fill up on a salad before starting on the breadsticks, snack on apples not donuts and chips, that kind of thing.

The reason some people are advised to just focus on calories is that a lot of people have long term severe and chronic issues with weight, poor nutrition, and sedentary lifestyle and are ignorant about CICO or even the basics of nutrition and think they have to eat some kind of special right food or do everything perfect form the start in order to live healthy. They are like aspiring jugglers who start out trying to keep 10 pins in the air from day one, always crashing and burning and giving up in despair. Sometimes it can be a gift to hear that it is okay to just learn to throw and catch one pin....count calories and stay within a small deficit for a while. They will still lose weight and their health can improve from just that one act. Over time they will see their nutrition stats and start to learn what is best to eat for micronutrients, satiety, etc. Will see that they can eat more when they move more and will start paying attention to their Fitbit steps......but let them master this one huge thing first. They rest can come as they are ready.

ninerbuff · December 2016

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.

If quality of food is what really mattered as much as you'd like to think in weight loss/gain/maintenance, then prison inmates should have an obesity issue. They have the lowest quality of food at a cost of $4 a day for 3 meals. Thing is they eat portioned controlled "bad" food, which is why there isn't an obesity issue in the prison population.
It makes sense to eat more nutritious from a health standpoint, but weight loss comes down to CICO. Especially with people who have lots to lose.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

kommodevaran · December 2016

Grr, I forgot the other part

The reason for answers like this, is that a lot of people come in here with a lot of random food rules that overwhelm them and prevents them from reaching their goals. To cut to the basics is supposed be helpful (it was for me) and take away a lot of anxiety of not "doing it right". But of course, there is always a risk of misunderstanding the message

cwolfman13 · December 2016

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.

It's not necessarily a secondary issue...it's a separate issue. Yes, people should take measures to improve their nutrition, but understanding calories and getting that sorted out is ultimately where weight loss is going to come from. As nutrition goes, this is often baby steps in reversing bad dietary habits and adopting healthier ones...trying to make whole sale changes to diet overnight is generally a recipe for failure.

Yes, a highly nutritious diet should ultimately be the goal for overall health...my diet is certainly much improved from what it was 4 years ago...but for me, it was baby steps getting here.

lorrpb · December 2016

Nutrition is integral to weight loss. For MOST people, but certainly not some of heros here, the most successful way to stay within a restricted calorie goal is to eat nutritious statisfying food BECAUSE proper nutrition helps reduce cravings, improve satiety, and contribute to energy. If someone has cravings, hunger, and fatigue, they are much more likely to overeat.

Chef_Barbell · December 2016

Because people have different goals.

lemurcat12 · December 2016

kommodevaran wrote: »

Grr, I forgot the other part The reason for answers like this, is that a lot of people come in here with a lot of random food rules that overwhelm them and prevents them from reaching their goals. To cut to the basics is supposed be helpful (it was for me) and take away a lot of anxiety of not "doing it right". But of course, there is always a risk of misunderstanding the message

This is a good way to explain it.

Another thing is that most of the "nutrition" discussions here end up being about one "diet" or another, when there's no reason to think doing those specific diets is the same as good nutrition (which is much easier and doesn't require that one go from insane amounts of junk food to none ever, which is often what newbies seem to think).

And, interestingly, most of the talk about why some specific diet is nutritionally superior ignore that in addition to just losing weight the most important thing you can do for your health is get active.

everher · December 2016

Usually those people you speak of are doing what I like to call fad dieting. Yes, they want to make their diet more nutritional, but they think they have to cut out processed sugars, eat low carb, a ridiculous amount of protein, etc.

For most people, radically changing their diet is not going to be sustainable in the long term. It may work for a while - I've seen it work for a year or two for some people - but eventually they will return to their old diet.

Just as I believe weight loss should be a slow, steady process I believe a person should make small, sustainable changes over time.

CICO should help with that because they will have to learn how to balance treats with more nutritious food.

NeuronsNeuronsNeurons · December 2016

lorrpb wrote: »

Nutrition is integral to weight loss. For MOST people, but certainly not some of heros here, the most successful way to stay within a restricted calorie goal is to eat nutritious statisfying food BECAUSE proper nutrition helps reduce cravings, improve satiety, and contribute to energy. If someone has cravings, hunger, and fatigue, they are much more likely to overeat.

This^^^ with that said, I find it useful to learn to eat treats in moderation as well. There's no way I could maintain a religious diet for longer than 3 months, that would be insanely boring. A twinkie is only 135-150 calories per cake, that's well within the confines of a balanced 2,000 calorie diet. I'd rather have a Skinny Cow Ice Cream sandwich as my treat for the day but to each their own!

Lounmoun · December 2016

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. Not everyone is losing weight to be healthy. I'm sure you have seen posts about how people want to look a certain way, fit in clothes or win a contest. They are not primarily concerned about health.
2. For weight loss calories matter. Nutrition is important for health as is exercise but it is a seperate issue because you really can eat a horrible diet nutritionally and not exercise at all and lose weight if you have a calorie deficit.
3. People here usually recommend eating in a way you can sustain as opposed to a total diet overhaul. It is more important to get to a healthy weight and stay there than eat a perfect diet but get derailed by every life event. If you only know how to lose weight eating grilled chicken breast, salad and brown rice you are in a bad way when those things are not an option.
4. People here recommend getting enough protein, fiber, fats to help you feel satisfied. If you are doing that and sticking to your calorie deficit then you are not eating a diet of Twinkies and chips. They usually advise reducing portions of higher claorie items and increasing lower calorie choices like vegetables. If you are mostly eating nutritient packed foods then eating less nutritious foods sometimes will not impact your health unless you have a health condition that demands you avoid those foods.

The overall message here is not nutrition does not matter for health but that calories are most important for weight management. If weight management is your goal, look at your CICO.

jemhh · December 2016

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

Why do people say nutrition is a secondary issue

Replies

Categories