nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

MyFitnessPal Community

Weight Loss (CICO) Vs. Nutrition

megpie41

Weight Loss (CICO) Vs. Nutrition...do people differentiate between the two? I 100% agree that if you consume less calories than you burn, you will lose weight (that's basic science). I guess I am of the school of thought that nutrition and weight loss should go hand in hand.

I read posts here where people are asking about sugar, carb, fat intake and 90% of the responses say it doesn't matter as long as you follow the CICO method. I could eat my calorie allotment in doughnuts and cookies, and I would probably lose weight...but I wouldn't be healthy.

It is my belief that weight loss should be a lifestyle change...not a diet. I don't want to spend the rest of my life counting calories. If you eat the right foods, weight gain really shouldn't be an issue because the foods we should be eating shouldn't be making us fat.

I'm generalizing here, but most of the standard Western diet is lacking in fiber and high in added sugar (I realize that most people here believe a high sugar diet makes no difference...I won't even bring up artificial sweeteners). Fiber makes you feel full, so a lack of it makes us keep eating.

I guess I'm confused as to why so many people want to lose weight, but they only do so by the CICO method. If you continue to eat the same foods that caused you to gain weight in the first place, but less of it, as soon as you stop counting calories you will gain it back. I for one don't want to count calories my whole life. Why not make a lifestyle change and eat healthier foods that will improve health (blood pressure, cholesterol, etc) and full of fiber that will fill you up and make you not want to eat as much, hence eliminating the calorie counting?

I know I'm in the vast minority here when I say that I believe added sugar and HFCS are making us fat. As a test, my boyfriend and I cut out all added sugar from our diets for 1 month. We didn't count calories or log our food...we just read every label and ate nothing with added sugar (most processed foods). Within 1 month he lost ~15 lbs and I lost ~8 lbs. We both are pretty healthy to begin with (only 10-15 lbs to lose each), so that amount of weight was significant.

CICO will allow you to lose weight, no doubt about that, but aren't health and nutrition important factors as well? If you agree or disagree with me, I'd love to hear your thoughts and opinions.

Replies

Ready2Rock206

I think it is ridiculous to say it is either or. No one is eating nothing but donuts all day. People can have a salad and a donut and enjoy life - to think that you're superior because you're not eating the donuts and implying that the rest of us are just stuffing our faces with nothing but sugar is nonsense. Health and nutrition are important but that doesn't mean a life of restriction. You can eat a donut (or whatever) and still be healthy and have proper nutrition.

megpie41

I was using the donut example as an exaggerated example. I don't eat healthy all the time by any means. I just am confused by these message boards because all I see is people saying CICO is all that matters for weight loss. And in no way do I think I am superior...I was simply stating MY personal opinions and beliefs that I choose to follow. I am simply trying to understand the other way of thinking. I'm not trying to attack anyone or look down on anyone...I was just trying to have a mature discussion.

GottaluvFood

It not 'vs' at all. It is a matter of what the goal is. If someone says their only goal is weight loss, then cico is all that is needed. If someone says they want to get healthy AND lose weight then cico AND fruit/veggie counting are appropriate. (Just to over simplify for sake of brevity.) I've read multiple advisors saying "yes you can loose weight on just doughnuts & Hi-C, but...not...advisable". The loosing weight on just doughnuts with cico is to prove a point...nothing else. It is not a recommendation.

On the other hand, one can be very overweight eating only healthy things. That would be me.

My mom lost 40-50 pounds 5 times in my lifetime. She tried every diet method & every diet method worked. So, when I found myself 60 pounds over weight, I knew I had to loose it without dieting. I love my veggies & I love my fruit. I love whole-grain. I love fish. But, I'm a binge-eater...a zombie-eater. I need some discipline. I need "Mindful eating".

I've learned somethings too. I need a minimum of 400 calories a meal & 100-200 calorie for my afternoon snack. This keeps me from panic-eating. Ya know, I'm so hungry I have to overeat. Don't get it. I'm not gonna starve, but that's me. So, I've learned my calorie minimums. I can eye my typical foods & tell it's calorie content. I don't have to weigh & measure every time, 'cuz I can eye it. Say I have dessert at someone's house. I'm not gonna measure or read labels. That seems rude. I will look for a similar dessert & log what I think it was, based upon the knowledge I've gained from logging & measuring since January.

I monitor things per week, too. I make sure my sugar content is below most days of the week, not every day. So the close cake calorie count when I'm a house guest is enough to show me that I had dessert that day. I try not to have dessert every day. A few times a week.

In short, it's still useful if not exact.

accidentalpancake

In a nutshell, many people believe that labeling foods as good (healthy) or bad (unhealthy) would somehow reflect on those consuming those foods (themselves), which causes distress for them.

Some people have no issues with considering foods by their inherent nutritional values, and don't think that consuming them is a reflection of the individual.

Not a discussion worth having here, as you'll end up with exactly what you got in your very first reply: a reductio ad absurdum response that puts words in your mouth claiming that nobody eats sugar (or whatever) all day, which was never the point.

seska422

megpie41 wrote: »

I was using the donut example as an exaggerated example. I don't eat healthy all the time by any means. I just am confused by these message boards because all I see is people saying CICO is all that matters for weight loss. And in no way do I think I am superior...I was simply stating MY personal opinions and beliefs that I follow. I am simply trying to understand the other way of thinking.

Weight loss and nutrition are separate issues. The goal of good nutrition is assumed.

When someone goes shopping for a wedding dress, does the person selling the dress ask about their wedding plans for showering, brushing teeth, and other grooming issues? No. It's assumed that the person realizes that grooming on their wedding day is an assumed action.

Nutrition is an underlying assumed requirement.

AnvilHead

megpie41 wrote: »

I was using the donut example as an exaggerated example. I don't eat healthy all the time by any means. I just am confused by these message boards because all I see is people saying CICO is all that matters for weight loss. And in no way do I think I am superior...I was simply stating MY personal opinions and beliefs that I follow. I am simply trying to understand the other way of thinking.

That's absolutely 100% true. Speaking purely in terms of weight loss, CICO is all that matters.

With that said, you'll find that most of the seasoned, knowledgeable people here will also say that macros and micros matter for nutrition, performance, satiety, body composition and overall health. Once you go beyond speaking purely of weight loss, the conversation becomes a lot more nuanced than simple CICO.

It's also good to consider context. For a morbidly obese person, the best possible thing they can do is lose the weight by whatever diet is most sustainable for them. Regardless of their diet, they will see improvements in health markers and reduction of comorbidities. For a person who's 10-15 pounds overweight, reasonably active and has specific performance/body composition goals in mind, having their nutrition on point is going to matter a lot more.

mamadon

But see the thing is, most of us eat the same food we always have, including what some would define as junk. We just eat less of it. It's not necessarily true that people will gain weight if they stop counting calories. Some do yes, but it's not the food their eating but the amount of it. You mention that maybe if they filled up more on high fiber things, it would make them feel fuller and not eat as much. People over eat for a lot of reasons, not all of them are physical or due to hunger. Also, many people, including myself had significant improvement on our health simply because we lost a lot of weight, not because we were eating "healthier" foods. I for example, no longer needed high blood pressure pills.
I am one of those people who continue to count calories after 3 years of maintenance. I know the calories of most things I eat, but it helps keep me in check and I kind of enjoy a numbers game. Some people can just keep track easily on their head.
I guess my point is I don't believe you have to eat nothing but "healthy" foods to be successful long term. All things in moderation, including for me, sugar and processed foods at times.

cmriverside

I guess when posting as a new person on a forum it helps to know your audience.

This forum has thousands of threads that discuss (over hundreds if not thousands of pages...) your point.

I don't think this is anything new. People who are successful at weight-loss and maintenance know this and people who are new could read the Most Helpful Posts (sticky threads) at the top of any forum...like in "Getting Started."

CICO is whatever food you want it to be. I lost my first 30 pounds without hitting my protein goals ever, and by trying to keep eating the same sugary carby foods I always ate. I lost the weight but it was really a bad plan, I was always hungry and eventually I had to make more vegetables and more protein part of my life. It takes time for some people to come around to the whole nutrition part of weight loss - but in the meantime they can still have success even if they eat less than optimal nutrition.

estherdragonbat

What's working for me this time is recognizing that I will not be satisfied 'virtuously' nibbling on carrot sticks when everyone around me is having cake. Acknowledging that I want cake, that if I refrain from taking it now, I will pretty much take my cue from "Cathy":

and do more damage, and that so long as I have room in my daily allotment for some calorie-dense items, it's okay to have them? It has been a lifesaver. I'm less stressed. I feel that I have a healthier relationship with food. I don't feel guilty anymore when I have dessert.

There's no 'versus'. Getting adequate nutrition keeps me healthy and satiated. Working in a few indulgences keeps me happy and relaxed. Going down from a 3X to Large in nine months? Keeps me thinking I'm doing something right.

kimny72

No one is ever told that CICO is the only thing that matters for any goal. They are told that CICO is the only thing that matters for weight loss but that obviously you need to eat a balanced nutritious diet for health and fitness goals. And if someone complains about hunger they are often advised to focus more on protein or to bulk up their meals with veggies.

I'd love it if you could please post a link to a thread where a bunch of veteran posters told the OP to just focus on CICO and don't worry about nutrition?

EmbeeKay

I have tried to be "fit and healthy" by only eating "clean foods." (Paleo)

Then, inevitably, I eat a cookie, or a piece of pizza, whatever...

Then suddenly I've "fallen off the wagon" and the "diet" goes out the window and I'm eating all the things I've forbidden myself and I'm thinking, this is it, I'm a failure and I'm never going to be healthy.

So imagine how refreshing it is to accept that I CAN have a cookie or a piece of pizza and still be healthy. Suddenly I'm not "falling off the wagon" anymore. I'm not stuffing my face with leftover cake and telling myself I'll be "back to no sugar tomorrow." For once in my life, I really am eating everything in moderation and I'm the healthiest I've ever been.

TorStar80

I know what you are trying to say OP. I see many many comments from people, usually in response to a newbie poster who doesn't fully understand CICO where they will state it doesn't matter what you eat as long as it's calories in and calories out... then a newbie will say, well what if I eat ice cream all day as my calorie allotment and the experienced community will say, well as long as it's CICO you can do that BUT you will probably feel like crap and be starving because lower calorie foods you can eat a whole heck of a lot more of. What I'm saying is that I think most people recognize eating ice cream all day isnt good but they are simplifying it so the concept is understood. Imho.

lemurcat12

megpie41 wrote: »

I guess I am of the school of thought that nutrition and weight loss should go hand in hand.

I think nutrition is important, independent of weight loss, but whether they go hand in hand depends on the person. Many people (including me) cared about nutrition before losing weight, so focusing on nutrition alone gets you nowhere (although for some of us it may work as motivation and make it easier to modify the diet). Others were motivated to lose weight but not interested or even scared of changing the diet, and saying you had to make those kinds of major changes (not just amounts) would have made losing harder. Many of those got interested in nutrition during the process (I think that's common, as you realize that calories have to go a long way) or even after -- OliveGirl talks about how she didn't specifically focus on nutrition while losing but got interested later, I think, and she's maintained for a while.

I read posts here where people are asking about sugar, carb, fat intake and 90% of the responses say it doesn't matter as long as you follow the CICO method. I could eat my calorie allotment in doughnuts and cookies, and I would probably lose weight...but I wouldn't be healthy.

I think you must be reading selectively -- people say it doesn't matter for weight loss (because it doesn't) but that a nutritious diet is valuable for health and other reasons.

Recently there have been threads where people ask if they will gain from going over sugar (answer: no), or if it matters if they are over sugar from fruit and veg (IMO, that's not bad unless you are short on other important things). If you are reading those answers to mean people are saying nutrition does not matter, I think you are misreading them and wonder why.

It is my belief that weight loss should be a lifestyle change...not a diet. I don't want to spend the rest of my life counting calories. If you eat the right foods, weight gain really shouldn't be an issue because the foods we should be eating shouldn't be making us fat.

Sadly, many of us have found this is not true. I don't usually count at maintenance, but I absolutely have to pay attention, even eating the "right" foods or a very nutrient dense diet. I "ate clean" (ugh, that word -- I called it the equally annoying "eating natural foods") for years, and managed to gain during that time. I enjoy lots of healthful foods and can apparently overeat them. Oh, well, so I will pay attention.

As for lifestyle change, are you assuming that people who want to lose weight (whether a few lbs, as I currently do, or lots and lots) must have a poor diet? That's just not so. My lifestyle change (a term I dislike, but it beats "journey"!) was much more about getting active again (I call it reclaiming my lifestyle), not changing what I ate. I don't snack and I watch portions and I still eat lots of vegetables, but none of that is a lifestyle (the latter is no different than what I did before, so also no change).

I guess I'm confused as to why so many people want to lose weight, but they only do so by the CICO method.

There is no inconsistency between focusing on CICO and being conscious of nutrition.

If you continue to eat the same foods that caused you to gain weight in the first place, but less of it, as soon as you stop counting calories you will gain it back.

That's what I did, mostly -- I ate protein and vegetable centered meals, cooked from scratch, ate seasonally when possible, lots of fish, enjoyed experimenting with historical ways of cooking, loved the farmers market, got my meat and eggs from a farm, so on. Now I eat those same things, but less. So I guess you are saying that's a mistake; I need to find a dramatic change to have any chance of sustaining?

And my tests were fine before I lost, although they did improve still, because weight loss generally does that.

ninerbuff

I've brought this up several times in other threads, but if nutritional value was as an important a factor to great health and reduced demise of people's lives, then they'd need to explain to me why prison inmates aren't dying off from eating the same low nutritional, processed foods day in and day out for long terms sentences. And obesity isn't an issue in prison for one main reason..............they don't have a lot of access to eating tons of food all the time. Meals are portion and reasonable in carbs, protein and fat. And they eat 3 meals a day. Snacks are bought in the commissary and it's usually junk food.

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

I differentiate between the two because they aren't the same thing, but they also go hand in hand - it's very difficult to eat less for any visible weight loss to happen, without eating well. So it's not "versus", it's "but also".

CICO is also not a method, it's the process of weight management. Calorie counting is a method, one of many, to control CICO.

Should and should... for any lasting result, you have to keep doing what's causing the result. Diet or lifestyle change, whatever you call it, your changes in eating habits have to be permanent in order to keep you at goal weight.

No foods makes you magically not regain. But some foods are more difficult to overeat. You still have to not overeat.

Demonizing foods, food groups and nutients is generally a bad idea. Forbidden fruit does indeed taste the sweetest. No foods are toxic, fattening or morally bad. It's all about context, dosage and frequency. This is the main reason behind telling people they can eat anything they want and lose weight. It is not to encourage people to ignore nutrition. On the contrary. People who feel they can make their own decisions, freely, make overall better decisions, including food choices.

Meganthedogmom

To lose weight, you must eat in a calorie deficit.
It is helpful to get to a calorie deficit while eating nutritiously.
It's not an either/or thing. I mean I suppose for some people it is, but neither seems like a long-term sustainable thing (depriving yourself from all "unhealthy" foods forever, or eating nothing but sugar... in small amounts).

Lounmoun

Weight management is CICO. If you lost weight you took in fewer calories or burned more calories. You did not lose just because you didn't eat doughnuts but because you reduced calorie intake. You can eat too many calories of chicken or beans just as you can with sugar.

For health you should meet your body's nutritional needs. I haven't seen anyone say don't do this. I have seen people say you do not have to give up every food you love to lose weight. Usually they advocate moderation.
People are usually advised to get enough protein and add more low calorie vegetables to their diets to bulk out their meals. Most people do change their lifestyle to reduce the amount of high calorie/low nutrition foods or drinks because they realize those are not filling.

What you eat is personal preference.

CaliMomTeach

I think it's funny how people say that no foods are good or bad on here. I still eat foods that I know offer nothing of nutritional value, or very little, but I don't kid myself by thinking all foods are equal as far as how much they offer nutritionally. Of course the tomatoes and zucchini I ate last night offer more nutrition than french fries. Sugar intake is a problem for many people because it puts them in a huge calorie surplus and so many of us are prediabetic or diabetic in the U.S. It is freeing to realize you can lose (a lot) of weight just by calorie counting no matter what you choose to eat, but for me nutrition is important too. I think it may be that some of us choose to lose weight for mostly vanity reasons (wanting to look better/more attractive), while others have health reasons (high cholesterol, prediabetic). When I was younger, I don't think I would have been as concerned about the nutritional aspect. My recent weight loss would never have happened without a doctor saying she wanted to put me on medication. People probably assume a shared perspective when offering advice on here. If the person is primarily concerned with just dropping pounds, then he or she may say the only thing that matters is CICO. If the person is trying to lower his or her blood sugar through weight loss or just wants to feel healthier, then he or she might look at a bigger nutritional/physical activity picture. Having said all of that, I happily enjoy foods that are bad for me if I eat them in large, regular quantities. I choose to eat them less frequently and in smaller amounts. I know they are "bad" food choices for me and many people. That's why I limit them.

GottaBurnEmAll

Some great points have been raised by previous posters.

I think the current culture surrounding weight loss in the media is fraught with so much misinformation that it's important to be very clear and precise with language surrounding our discussion of it on the forums. I don't think conflating nutrition and energy intake does anything but muddy the waters for new members. It's no better than what they can get from any fitness blog.

I came into this round of weight loss vaguely knowing that you needed to eat less and move more but I didn't know the finer points of TDEE (in terms of it being specific to age/height) and calorie burns for exercise. Previous attempts at weight loss for me always included an element of chance and uncertainty because the method used removed an element of knowing exactly how they all worked and I didn't know enough about how weight loss generally worked.

I also took in a lot of misinformation about nutrition over the years (restrict this or that food/macro or combination of foods - that's what's making you fat! It's not your fault!).

When I started on MFP, I was a whole foods vegetarian, and not a bite of sugar every passed my lips, but I weighed 210 pounds. I had excellent nutrition, but I obviously ate too much.

This is the problem with the argument in your post, OP. It doesn't necessarily lead to a healthy weight. It is entirely possible to overeat healthy foods. I had plenty of veggies, whole grains, legumes, eggs, and low fat dairy. And olive oil. I'm sure it was the olive oil that was a large part of what did me in. I had a heavy hand with it. After all, it is a healthy fat! That's what all the experts told me.

I've learned over the course of my weight loss (I'm still fiddling with vanity weight, I'm a perfectly healthy BMI now and have firmly established an exercise habit) that restricting foods like I used to is not a life-long sustainable solution for me. Every week or so, I buy myself a candy bar. Other than that, I still eat a low fat, mostly whole foods vegetarian diet with plenty of vegetables and fruit because I genuinely like those foods. But then again, someone else might not consider protein powder or gluten free Rice Krispies whole foods. I do.

Balance in all things. CICO is king. Nutrition is about health, satiety, and dietary compliance. CICO is about weight loss. Since the two things govern different elements, they should never be conflated.

CaliMomTeach

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

Some great points have been raised by previous posters.

I think the current culture surrounding weight loss in the media is fraught with so much misinformation that it's important to be very clear and precise with language surrounding our discussion of it on the forums. I don't think conflating nutrition and energy intake does anything but muddy the waters for new members. It's no better than what they can get from any fitness blog.

I came into this round of weight loss vaguely knowing that you needed to eat less and move more but I didn't know the finer points of TDEE (in terms of it being specific to age/height) and calorie burns for exercise. Previous attempts at weight loss for me always included an element of chance and uncertainty because the method used removed an element of knowing exactly how they all worked and I didn't know enough about how weight loss generally worked.

I also took in a lot of misinformation about nutrition over the years (restrict this or that food/macro or combination of foods - that's what's making you fat! It's not your fault!).

When I started on MFP, I was a whole foods vegetarian, and not a bite of sugar every passed my lips, but I weighed 210 pounds. I had excellent nutrition, but I obviously ate too much.

This is the problem with the argument in your post, OP. It doesn't necessarily lead to a healthy weight. It is entirely possible to overeat healthy foods. I had plenty of veggies, whole grains, legumes, eggs, and low fat dairy. And olive oil. I'm sure it was the olive oil that was a large part of what did me in. I had a heavy had with it. After all, it is a healthy fat! That's what all the experts told me.

I've learned over the course of my weight loss (I'm still fiddling with vanity weight, I'm a perfectly healthy BMI now and have firmly established an exercise habit) that restricting foods like I used to is not a life-long sustainable solution for me. Every week or so, I buy myself a candy bar. Other than that, I still eat a low fat, mostly whole foods vegetarian diet with plenty of vegetables and fruit because I genuinely like those foods. But then again, someone else might not consider protein powder or gluten free Rice Krispies whole foods. I do.

Balance in all things. CICO is king. Nutrition is about health, satiety, and dietary compliance. CICO is about weight loss. Since the two things govern different elements, they should never be conflated.

Good point. You definitely can overeat healthy foods and gain weight!

kommodevaran

CaliMomTeach wrote: »

I think it's funny how people say that no foods are good or bad on here. I still eat foods that I know offer nothing of nutritional value, or very little, but I don't kid myself by thinking all foods are equal as far as how much they offer nutritionally. Of course the tomatoes and zucchini I ate last night offer more nutrition than french fries. Sugar intake is a problem for many people because it puts them in a huge calorie surplus and so many of us are prediabetic or diabetic in the U.S. It is freeing to realize you can lose (a lot) of weight just by calorie counting no matter what you choose to eat, but for me nutrition is important too. I think it may be that some of us choose to lose weight for mostly vanity reasons (wanting to look better/more attractive), while others have health reasons (high cholesterol, prediabetic). When I was younger, I don't think I would have been as concerned about the nutritional aspect. My recent weight loss would never have happened without a doctor saying she wanted to put me on medication. People probably assume a shared perspective when offering advice on here. If the person is primarily concerned with just dropping pounds, then he or she may say the only thing that matters is CICO. If the person is trying to lower his or her blood sugar through weight loss or just wants to feel healthier, then he or she might look at a bigger nutritional/physical activity picture. Having said all of that, I happily enjoy foods that are bad for me if I eat them in large, regular quantities. I choose to eat them less frequently and in smaller amounts. I know they are "bad" food choices for me and many people. That's why I limit them.

I find the discussion interesting because it highlights how we use words so differently. Nobody has yet claimed that tomatoes and french fries have equal nutritional profiles? But different nutritional profiles doesn't make one of them good and the other one bad. They are both bad for you if you eat them in large enough quantities. No foods should be eaten in unlimited quantities. So the problem isn't the food, but the too large quantities.

Sugar intake doesn't put people in a calorie surplus, people get overweight by consistently eating too much. (I personally think the passive voice is contributing to deteriorating health; MFP encourages personal responsibility and awareness, and I think that is great.)

For me, just counting calories, and thereby not feeling guilty for choosing wrong (bad) foods, was so liberating that I voluntarily - in fact, eagerly - started eating more nutritionally dense foods (yes, including vegetables and whole grains) and less nutritionally poor foods (chocolate, ice cream, chips, etc).

I have personally lived under the scare of disease prevention through healthy diet all my life, and I really, honestly, tried to stick to a healthy diet. But I just couldn't, not until I learnt enough about weight management and nutrition to be able to separate those two entities and figure out the "how"s myself.

Often health markers improve just by weight loss alone.

Azdak

The main reason why there is such a hard push to emphasize CICO is because of the overwhelming amount of bad dietary information out there. It's like the people trying to fight off the swarming hordes of zombies in "World War Z". When you need to kill massive hordes quickly, there is not a lot of time for nuance.

So much of what passes for "weight loss" advice consists of promising miracle results from eating a certain way, demonizing foods, "you never have to count calories", etc. I would say that accounts for 80% of all mass media "diet" advice. That hasn't decreased in any substantial way as far as I know. The recent bandwagon jumping for keto just proves the point. (Keto can be a valid intervention by serious people but that's not the way most newbies are approaching it--they are looking for the magic pill).

So the first step is to move people out of that mind set. And while it's not mentioned each and every single time, the importance of healthy food choices has been mentioned thousands of times in the forums whenever the topic comes up.

sijomial

It is my belief that weight loss should be a lifestyle change...not a diet. I don't want to spend the rest of my life counting calories. If you eat the right foods, weight gain really shouldn't be an issue because the foods we should be eating shouldn't be making us fat.

But OP I got fat eating the right foods (mostly home prepared and high quality), I ate the right foods to maintain my weight overweight for 20 years, I went on a calorie controlled diet of those right foods which reduced my portion sizes and calorie load for a while and got slim again.
I still eat the right foods to maintain at an appropriate and very healthy weight. No lifestyle change was required, just a temporary diet. Never had a problem with nutrition - just excess calories.
Sugar was never an issue for me as I don't have a sweet tooth.

You seem to filter things through an odd set of unscientific beliefs and feelings.
Next time you see one of these threads you believe are full of people saying nutrition isn't important very carefully read the question asked.
The question sets the context of the answer.
"Can I lose weight eating X if I'm under my calorie limit?" is a very specific question that may well get a specific answer "yes you can eat X, or any other item, and lose weight if you are in a calorie deficit".

It may not be the right question or the complete picture of course, but it's the correct answer.

OliveGirl128

megpie41 wrote: »

Weight Loss (CICO) Vs. Nutrition...do people differentiate between the two? I 100% agree that if you consume less calories than you burn, you will lose weight (that's basic science). I guess I am of the school of thought that nutrition and weight loss should go hand in hand.

I read posts here where people are asking about sugar, carb, fat intake and 90% of the responses say it doesn't matter as long as you follow the CICO method. I could eat my calorie allotment in doughnuts and cookies, and I would probably lose weight...but I wouldn't be healthy.

It is my belief that weight loss should be a lifestyle change...not a diet. I don't want to spend the rest of my life counting calories. If you eat the right foods, weight gain really shouldn't be an issue because the foods we should be eating shouldn't be making us fat.

I'm generalizing here, but most of the standard Western diet is lacking in fiber and high in added sugar (I realize that most people here believe a high sugar diet makes no difference...I won't even bring up artificial sweeteners). Fiber makes you feel full, so a lack of it makes us keep eating.

I guess I'm confused as to why so many people want to lose weight, but they only do so by the CICO method. If you continue to eat the same foods that caused you to gain weight in the first place, but less of it, as soon as you stop counting calories you will gain it back. I for one don't want to count calories my whole life. Why not make a lifestyle change and eat healthier foods that will improve health (blood pressure, cholesterol, etc) and full of fiber that will fill you up and make you not want to eat as much, hence eliminating the calorie counting?

I know I'm in the vast minority here when I say that I believe added sugar and HFCS are making us fat. As a test, my boyfriend and I cut out all added sugar from our diets for 1 month. We didn't count calories or log our food...we just read every label and ate nothing with added sugar (most processed foods). Within 1 month he lost ~15 lbs and I lost ~8 lbs. We both are pretty healthy to begin with (only 10-15 lbs to lose each), so that amount of weight was significant.

CICO will allow you to lose weight, no doubt about that, but aren't health and nutrition important factors as well? If you agree or disagree with me, I'd love to hear your thoughts and opinions.

You can still be overweight eating the 'healthiest' foods. And the idea that you can maintain a healthy weight, especially if one already has had issues with their weight, just by eating the 'right' foods seems very naive to me? There's lots of people here who have shared their stories of becoming overweight while eating very 'healthy' diets.

I lost the extra weight by only focusing on CICO. I continued to eat similarly to how I ate before, just within my calorie deficit parameters. I still ate fast food several times a week, still ate all sorts of 'processed' foods, guzzled diet soda (switched from guzzling regular), ate very little vegetables and no fruit at all, no whole grains, still ate foods with added sugars and HFCS etc etc. Along with the 50lb weight loss I also improved every single health marker-including normalizing a prediabetic glucose number. CICO met me where I was at and learning how weight loss actually worked, without being bogged down with a bunch of drastic changes, made it possible for me to lose the weight and become healthy again. Oh, I didn't exercise at all either....

Now I'm over 4 years into successfully maintaining the weight loss, which makes me a statistical freak of nature

In the years that have followed my weight loss phase I've experimented with all sorts of eating plans, have added new foods and have gotten bored with other foods and don't really eat them anymore. Throughout all of this though I've continued to focus on CICO and that's the core of my weight management plan.

Because of my medical history I get blood work panels done twice a year and my glucose number consistently comes back now in the 80s. Total cholesterol in the 150s and 160s, triglycerides in the 50s and 60s (and one time it came back in the 40s). My blood pressure is excellent, I take no medications and I have a current bmi of 19.9, (my stats are 38 year old mom of 3 kids/5ft, 6in/ current weight 123lbs). I do eat veggies and fruit every day now, as well as whole grains. I also still eat fast food every week and drink diet soda every day. And yes I still eat foods with added sugar and HFCS.

I've found the balance that makes this whole thing sustainable for me, long term. 4 years of maintenance done, around 50 more years to go

edit: more details

HeidiCooksSupper

There are many factors to a healthy diet and the science defining a healthy diet is constantly under scrutiny. New knowledge is added to our understanding with each new study. Things we used to "know" were found to be naive and wrong as we developed new understandings through research.

The "best" information of the past linked dietary cholesterol to serum cholesterol. "Don't eat eggs, they will raise your cholesterol." Subsequent research found there is very little link between dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol. So we changed what we "knew" about healthy eating and adapted our diets accordingly. Change is the steady state of our understanding of human nutrition.

Hubby and I "aim toward" a healthy diet. For us, that includes watching our sodium intake, eating several servings of vegetables every day, trying to keep saturated fat consumption within reason, keeping fiber intake up, trying to make potassium intake greater than sodium intake, getting sufficient omega3 fatty acids, etc. The list goes on. None of these aims is related to weight loss but they should have health benefits for us.

For weight loss, the only thing that matters is consuming fewer calories than we expend.

lemurcat12

CaliMomTeach wrote: »

I think it's funny how people say that no foods are good or bad on here. I still eat foods that I know offer nothing of nutritional value, or very little, but I don't kid myself by thinking all foods are equal as far as how much they offer nutritionally.

I'm not invested in the "no foods are good or bad" approach (I use the term "junk food" or "healthy foods" knowing that they are not precise but also knowing what I mean, and I don't tend to beat myself up for eating something, at least not now, which is what "bad food" conveys to some). That said, I think you are misunderstanding what people mean when they say foods are not good or bad, and I wonder if maybe we can talk about this and get past the misunderstanding, because I find it a frustrating one.

Rather obviously (IMO), when someone says a food is not good or bad on its own, they do NOT mean that are foods are equal or have no differences or have the same nutritional content. I am genuinely curious why you would think that's what is meant.

What is meant is that merely not having lots of micros or protein or whatever doesn't make a food "bad." It may well make it a food that is harder to fit in a day or needs to be consumed less often or in smaller amounts -- this is the case with, say, cheese, which I used to overeat. I don't see why that makes it bad or what I would gain by calling cheese bad or calling my planned post-dinner dessert of Maytag blue cheese "eating bad food." Can you maybe help me understand what you see as the value of that?

Same with good foods (although I will casually use it, I won't argue for it being especially logical). Many foods are nutritionally dense and good to include in a diet in significant amounts (IMO, vegetables fall in this category). But other foods are nutritionally helpful (steak has lots of protein and iron) but probably should be consumed in somewhat limited quantities for other reasons, so why even bother with a debate over good or not? I prefer being more specific and referring to a good or healthy diet (and what that is can be incredibly varied). Also, that vegetables (or fruit) are nutritionally dense doesn't make them ALWAYS a better choice and we see this misunderstanding with things like the juicing fad or people deciding to do a only raw fruit and veg diet and lacking other things needed, so IMO it's much better to make clear that foods cannot be ranked good to bad, but you need an overall adequate diet, which can be achieved with a mix of foods, some more nutrient dense than others, some with different strengths than others.

Does that make sense and help at all with an understanding of what people are saying?