Why do people say nutrition is a secondary issue
Options
Replies
-
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
-
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.1 -
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.0 -
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.1 -
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.2 -
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:
3 -
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.6
-
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.
2 -
mactaffy428 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.)0 -
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)2 -
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.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions