We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Why do people say nutrition is a secondary issue
mactaffy428
Posts: 61 Member
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.
6
Replies
-
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.6
-
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.7
-
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/9 -
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.)9 -
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.8 -
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.
6 -
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.6 -
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.2 -
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.10 -
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.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 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
2 -
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 
6 -
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.5 -
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.2
-
Because people have different goals.2
-
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.2 -
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.5 -
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!0 -
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.7 -
This content has been removed.
-
I've never seen anybody call nutrition secondary. I've only seen it referred to as a separate issue.5
-
This site is read by people all over the planet. You may not even recognize some of the foods I eat. Good health means different things to different people, but weight loss only happens through a calorie deficit. You can't even be too strict on how that happens because there's different methods to do that, too. So to me, it's about recognition of diversity, flexibility of methods, and clarity.
I also think many of us with weight issues are living in a time / place of prosperity. If you define good health as getting enough of a certain macro or micro nutrient, frankly, many of us looking to lose weight are, by definition getting too much of it. A lot of the rest, to me, falls under personal goals and preference.2 -
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.
But that just means it can help in facilitating the actual thing that causes weight loss.
Fact is and stays that you could eat the most varied, balanced, according to dietary guidelines diet in the world, if you eat too much of it your weight stays right where it is. And depending on how overweight you are, that can be worse for your health than if you managed to lose the weight eating just twizzlers.3 -
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.3
-
goldthistime wrote: »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.
I find "how to eat a healthful diet" to be an interesting topic and if someone wants to and is struggling with it I am interested in knowing why and offering helpful ideas, if possible. People rarely seem interested in that, though -- either they know what eating healthy is and are doing it or they just don't want to do it at all (there are sometimes "I hate vegetables, what should I do" posts).* Sometimes they claim not to know (although I bet they would if they thought about it) and there I normally give a link and some thoughts, and rarely see a follow up. Often I think people would rather do a fad diet or some extreme detox in the idea that that's easier and faster than just the boring old nutritious diet.
*I admit I usually ignore these since I am intolerant of extreme pickiness especially "I hate vegetables" from someone over 3. (I get that some people genuinely have medical issues surrounding veg and don't mean them.)3 -
@lemurcat12 I just want to say, your timing is impeccable ;-)2
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »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.
I find "how to eat a healthful diet" to be an interesting topic and if someone wants to and is struggling with it I am interested in knowing why and offering helpful ideas, if possible. People rarely seem interested in that, though -- either they know what eating healthy is and are doing it or they just don't want to do it at all (there are sometimes "I hate vegetables, what should I do" posts).* Sometimes they claim not to know (although I bet they would if they thought about it) and there I normally give a link and some thoughts, and rarely see a follow up. Often I think people would rather do a fad diet or some extreme detox in the idea that that's easier and faster than just the boring old nutritious diet.
*I admit I usually ignore these since I am intolerant of extreme pickiness especially "I hate vegetables" from someone over 3. (I get that some people genuinely have medical issues surrounding veg and don't mean them.)
Done. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10493842/how-to-eat-a-healthful-diet/p1?new=1
0 -
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.
Now gelato? I didn't even discover it until after I started losing weight. And I'm so glad I did.5 -
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.
Haven't had either in decades but I use to just LOVE eating Hostess Twinkies and chocolate cupcakes.
Think the filling in both was the same and it was really addictive to me. Much tastier to me than the center of an Oreo.
Also loved the way you could pull off the icing on top of the cupcake, roll it up and eat it separately. What a sugar rush!!! LOL!!!
Ah, those childhood memories . . .
1 -
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.
Haven't had either in decades but I use to just LOVE eating Hostess Twinkies and chocolate cupcakes.
Think the filling in both was the same and it was really addictive to me. Much tastier to me than the center of an Oreo.
Also loved the way you could pull off the icing on top of the cupcake, roll it up and eat it separately. What a sugar rush!!! LOL!!!
Ah, those childhood memories . . .
I'm sad the cupcakes don't do that anymore, it just cracks apart. I used to buy them regularly at lunch in high school (late 90s so the nutrition crackdown wasn't a HUGE THING yet). But now I find the cakes too oily.0 -
In my case I do best with routine and don't manage multiple changes in my habits very well. Fail at one, fail at all mindset. The priority for me was to lose the weight to improve my labs (just got them back and much closer to normal!) so I haven't changed much about what I eat (a lot of frozen meals). This year I'm ready to focus on more nutrient/protein dense choices to nudge my numbers completely into the normal range, and that will work for me because I'm already habituated to managing my calories.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.4K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions