Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why do people deny CICO ?
Replies
-
paperpudding wrote: »sibilantstorm wrote: »I believe that what we eat IS important. You can lose weight eating junk food, because weight gain and loss are a simple matter of a chemical reaction -- but your body will take damage over time from eating insufficient nutrients, and it can sabotage weight loss by escalating cravings as your body searches for what may be missing in your diet. Yes... caloric intake is kind of the final arbiter of weight loss, but being thin and poorly nourished has implications as you age -- and everyone ages. I wish I'd been more sensible about this in my youth, because it's damned hard to fix it in my old age.
of course.
Nutrition is also important from many health points of view - but weight loss is not nutrition
"Nutrition is the sum total of the processes involved in the taking in and the utilization of food substances by which growth, repair and maintenance of the body are accomplished." Without food there is no CICO, metabolism or life.1 -
CICO is how we either gain/lose/or maintain weight almost regardless of what we eat. Nutrition does matter for optimal health and reduction of risk factors.
There are so many options on how people like to apply this for themselves for their own success.
All have pros and cons and I think one just has to find out what works out best for themselves.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1 -
sibilantstorm wrote: »I believe that what we eat IS important. You can lose weight eating junk food, because weight gain and loss are a simple matter of a chemical reaction -- but your body will take damage over time from eating insufficient nutrients, and it can sabotage weight loss by escalating cravings as your body searches for what may be missing in your diet. Yes... caloric intake is kind of the final arbiter of weight loss, but being thin and poorly nourished has implications as you age -- and everyone ages. I wish I'd been more sensible about this in my youth, because it's damned hard to fix it in my old age.
I agree that nutrition is important, so food choices are important. Like you, I wish young me had made some better choices, but she did at least some good stuff nutritionally (much less so calorically).
This next is not a disagreement with the quoted post, just a comment intending to continue the conversation:
I agree that good overall, well-rounded nutrition can be under-emphasized here. Personally, I don't agree with the "only protein matters" comments I feel like I see fairly often here, and definitely don't agree that only calories matter in absolute terms (though I agree that calorie balance is what directly determines net changes in body fat . . . in a complicated, dynamic way).
But another thing I see here fairly often, seems like, is people who think they've fallen under sway of the devil if they eat a fast-food burger or a cookie. That's a waystation on the path toward "must eat only superfoods at all times" or similar extremes, IMO. After a certain point, we don't get extra credit for more broccoli.
Nutrient density and calorie density are different factors; they don't march along in lockstep.
Most fast foods, junk foods, ultra-processed foods, etc., contain some nutrients. Those nutrients aren't inherently cancelled out by the category we put a food in. The foods commonly put in those categories also tend to be more calorie dense, and not very nutrient dense. Many are not very filling for the number of calories they contain, too. So called whole foods or healthy foods also fall at varying places on those scales (nutrient density, calorie density, satiation).
Good overall nutrition is important. Calorie balance (according to one's goals) is important. Exactly which combinations of food get a person to good overall nutrition at appropriate calories: IMO, that's not nearly so important.neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »sibilantstorm wrote: »I believe that what we eat IS important. You can lose weight eating junk food, because weight gain and loss are a simple matter of a chemical reaction -- but your body will take damage over time from eating insufficient nutrients, and it can sabotage weight loss by escalating cravings as your body searches for what may be missing in your diet. Yes... caloric intake is kind of the final arbiter of weight loss, but being thin and poorly nourished has implications as you age -- and everyone ages. I wish I'd been more sensible about this in my youth, because it's damned hard to fix it in my old age.
of course.
Nutrition is also important from many health points of view - but weight loss is not nutrition
"Nutrition is the sum total of the processes involved in the taking in and the utilization of food substances by which growth, repair and maintenance of the body are accomplished." Without food there is no CICO, metabolism or life.
Yup, nice dictionary definition, not attributed . . . though it's a definition used in many places.
In context of the thread, it seemed pretty obvious that PP was pointing out that the nutrient content and energy content of foods are two different dimensions, with different roles in the "sum total of the processes".
3 -
thanks for that Ann - you have explained much better than I could about how nutrition is obviously important - but isnt the key thing about weight loss.
Regardless of how nutritious or otherwise our diet is,and the health implications of that, we can still lose or not lose weight, depending on CICO0 -
sibilantstorm wrote: »I believe that what we eat IS important. You can lose weight eating junk food, because weight gain and loss are a simple matter of a chemical reaction -- but your body will take damage over time from eating insufficient nutrients, and it can sabotage weight loss by escalating cravings as your body searches for what may be missing in your diet. Yes... caloric intake is kind of the final arbiter of weight loss, but being thin and poorly nourished has implications as you age -- and everyone ages. I wish I'd been more sensible about this in my youth, because it's damned hard to fix it in my old age.
I agree that nutrition is important, so food choices are important. Like you, I wish young me had made some better choices, but she did at least some good stuff nutritionally (much less so calorically).
This next is not a disagreement with the quoted post, just a comment intending to continue the conversation:
I agree that good overall, well-rounded nutrition can be under-emphasized here. Personally, I don't agree with the "only protein matters" comments I feel like I see fairly often here, and definitely don't agree that only calories matter in absolute terms (though I agree that calorie balance is what directly determines net changes in body fat . . . in a complicated, dynamic way).
But another thing I see here fairly often, seems like, is people who think they've fallen under sway of the devil if they eat a fast-food burger or a cookie. That's a waystation on the path toward "must eat only superfoods at all times" or similar extremes, IMO. After a certain point, we don't get extra credit for more broccoli.
Nutrient density and calorie density are different factors; they don't march along in lockstep.
Most fast foods, junk foods, ultra-processed foods, etc., contain some nutrients. Those nutrients aren't inherently cancelled out by the category we put a food in. The foods commonly put in those categories also tend to be more calorie dense, and not very nutrient dense. Many are not very filling for the number of calories they contain, too. So called whole foods or healthy foods also fall at varying places on those scales (nutrient density, calorie density, satiation).
Good overall nutrition is important. Calorie balance (according to one's goals) is important. Exactly which combinations of food get a person to good overall nutrition at appropriate calories: IMO, that's not nearly so important.neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »sibilantstorm wrote: »I believe that what we eat IS important. You can lose weight eating junk food, because weight gain and loss are a simple matter of a chemical reaction -- but your body will take damage over time from eating insufficient nutrients, and it can sabotage weight loss by escalating cravings as your body searches for what may be missing in your diet. Yes... caloric intake is kind of the final arbiter of weight loss, but being thin and poorly nourished has implications as you age -- and everyone ages. I wish I'd been more sensible about this in my youth, because it's damned hard to fix it in my old age.
of course.
Nutrition is also important from many health points of view - but weight loss is not nutrition
"Nutrition is the sum total of the processes involved in the taking in and the utilization of food substances by which growth, repair and maintenance of the body are accomplished." Without food there is no CICO, metabolism or life.
Yup, nice dictionary definition, not attributed . . . though it's a definition used in many places.
In context of the thread, it seemed pretty obvious that PP was pointing out that the nutrient content and energy content of foods are two different dimensions, with different roles in the "sum total of the processes".
That's why they're in quotes. They're not different dimensions, try as you might though and weight loss requires nutrition but reductionist thinking is standard fare for the most part so I can see why people think like that, especially when it comes to CICO and calorie counting. Cheers0 -
neanderthin wrote: »sibilantstorm wrote: »I believe that what we eat IS important. You can lose weight eating junk food, because weight gain and loss are a simple matter of a chemical reaction -- but your body will take damage over time from eating insufficient nutrients, and it can sabotage weight loss by escalating cravings as your body searches for what may be missing in your diet. Yes... caloric intake is kind of the final arbiter of weight loss, but being thin and poorly nourished has implications as you age -- and everyone ages. I wish I'd been more sensible about this in my youth, because it's damned hard to fix it in my old age.
I agree that nutrition is important, so food choices are important. Like you, I wish young me had made some better choices, but she did at least some good stuff nutritionally (much less so calorically).
This next is not a disagreement with the quoted post, just a comment intending to continue the conversation:
I agree that good overall, well-rounded nutrition can be under-emphasized here. Personally, I don't agree with the "only protein matters" comments I feel like I see fairly often here, and definitely don't agree that only calories matter in absolute terms (though I agree that calorie balance is what directly determines net changes in body fat . . . in a complicated, dynamic way).
But another thing I see here fairly often, seems like, is people who think they've fallen under sway of the devil if they eat a fast-food burger or a cookie. That's a waystation on the path toward "must eat only superfoods at all times" or similar extremes, IMO. After a certain point, we don't get extra credit for more broccoli.
Nutrient density and calorie density are different factors; they don't march along in lockstep.
Most fast foods, junk foods, ultra-processed foods, etc., contain some nutrients. Those nutrients aren't inherently cancelled out by the category we put a food in. The foods commonly put in those categories also tend to be more calorie dense, and not very nutrient dense. Many are not very filling for the number of calories they contain, too. So called whole foods or healthy foods also fall at varying places on those scales (nutrient density, calorie density, satiation).
Good overall nutrition is important. Calorie balance (according to one's goals) is important. Exactly which combinations of food get a person to good overall nutrition at appropriate calories: IMO, that's not nearly so important.neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »sibilantstorm wrote: »I believe that what we eat IS important. You can lose weight eating junk food, because weight gain and loss are a simple matter of a chemical reaction -- but your body will take damage over time from eating insufficient nutrients, and it can sabotage weight loss by escalating cravings as your body searches for what may be missing in your diet. Yes... caloric intake is kind of the final arbiter of weight loss, but being thin and poorly nourished has implications as you age -- and everyone ages. I wish I'd been more sensible about this in my youth, because it's damned hard to fix it in my old age.
of course.
Nutrition is also important from many health points of view - but weight loss is not nutrition
"Nutrition is the sum total of the processes involved in the taking in and the utilization of food substances by which growth, repair and maintenance of the body are accomplished." Without food there is no CICO, metabolism or life.
Yup, nice dictionary definition, not attributed . . . though it's a definition used in many places.
In context of the thread, it seemed pretty obvious that PP was pointing out that the nutrient content and energy content of foods are two different dimensions, with different roles in the "sum total of the processes".
That's why they're in quotes. They're not different dimensions, try as you might though and weight loss requires nutrition but reductionist thinking is standard fare for the most part so I can see why people think like that, especially when it comes to CICO and calorie counting. Cheers
If we aren't reductionist to some extent, we can't discuss anything.
If things don't have attributes we can discuss somewhat separately, there's nothing to talk about.
Personally, I wouldn't consider discussing the attributes of things, and why they may matter in different ways, to be reductionist in a bad way, necessarily. YMMV, apparently does.3 -
neanderthin wrote: »sibilantstorm wrote: »I believe that what we eat IS important. You can lose weight eating junk food, because weight gain and loss are a simple matter of a chemical reaction -- but your body will take damage over time from eating insufficient nutrients, and it can sabotage weight loss by escalating cravings as your body searches for what may be missing in your diet. Yes... caloric intake is kind of the final arbiter of weight loss, but being thin and poorly nourished has implications as you age -- and everyone ages. I wish I'd been more sensible about this in my youth, because it's damned hard to fix it in my old age.
I agree that nutrition is important, so food choices are important. Like you, I wish young me had made some better choices, but she did at least some good stuff nutritionally (much less so calorically).
This next is not a disagreement with the quoted post, just a comment intending to continue the conversation:
I agree that good overall, well-rounded nutrition can be under-emphasized here. Personally, I don't agree with the "only protein matters" comments I feel like I see fairly often here, and definitely don't agree that only calories matter in absolute terms (though I agree that calorie balance is what directly determines net changes in body fat . . . in a complicated, dynamic way).
But another thing I see here fairly often, seems like, is people who think they've fallen under sway of the devil if they eat a fast-food burger or a cookie. That's a waystation on the path toward "must eat only superfoods at all times" or similar extremes, IMO. After a certain point, we don't get extra credit for more broccoli.
Nutrient density and calorie density are different factors; they don't march along in lockstep.
Most fast foods, junk foods, ultra-processed foods, etc., contain some nutrients. Those nutrients aren't inherently cancelled out by the category we put a food in. The foods commonly put in those categories also tend to be more calorie dense, and not very nutrient dense. Many are not very filling for the number of calories they contain, too. So called whole foods or healthy foods also fall at varying places on those scales (nutrient density, calorie density, satiation).
Good overall nutrition is important. Calorie balance (according to one's goals) is important. Exactly which combinations of food get a person to good overall nutrition at appropriate calories: IMO, that's not nearly so important.neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »sibilantstorm wrote: »I believe that what we eat IS important. You can lose weight eating junk food, because weight gain and loss are a simple matter of a chemical reaction -- but your body will take damage over time from eating insufficient nutrients, and it can sabotage weight loss by escalating cravings as your body searches for what may be missing in your diet. Yes... caloric intake is kind of the final arbiter of weight loss, but being thin and poorly nourished has implications as you age -- and everyone ages. I wish I'd been more sensible about this in my youth, because it's damned hard to fix it in my old age.
of course.
Nutrition is also important from many health points of view - but weight loss is not nutrition
"Nutrition is the sum total of the processes involved in the taking in and the utilization of food substances by which growth, repair and maintenance of the body are accomplished." Without food there is no CICO, metabolism or life.
Yup, nice dictionary definition, not attributed . . . though it's a definition used in many places.
In context of the thread, it seemed pretty obvious that PP was pointing out that the nutrient content and energy content of foods are two different dimensions, with different roles in the "sum total of the processes".
That's why they're in quotes. They're not different dimensions, try as you might though and weight loss requires nutrition but reductionist thinking is standard fare for the most part so I can see why people think like that, especially when it comes to CICO and calorie counting. Cheers
If we aren't reductionist to some extent, we can't discuss anything.
If things don't have attributes we can discuss somewhat separately, there's nothing to talk about.
Personally, I wouldn't consider discussing the attributes of things, and why they may matter in different ways, to be reductionist in a bad way, necessarily. YMMV, apparently does.
Zooming out and looking at a bigger picture is not forgoing the details, not in the least, but separating nutrition from energy balance isn't something I'm going to let just casually slip by like it's a given. I know my opinion is not well accepted around here but I can live with that fact. Cheers1 -
I think it is important to differentiate the two, even if they are intertwined in big picture.
Obviously overall nutrition of a way of eating is important- but we do often see posts of I'm eating all clean, vegan, cut out all junk etc - why aren't I losing weight.
Important to separate the CICO weight loss equation from the nutrition equation.
6 -
Ironically, in a way, weight loss is kind of a state of nutrient deficiency, as you have to be eating less of at least one macronutrient than your body requires to maintain it's current state.1
-
paperpudding wrote: »I think it is important to differentiate the two, even if they are intertwined in big picture.
Obviously overall nutrition of a way of eating is important- but we do often see posts of I'm eating all clean, vegan, cut out all junk etc - why aren't I losing weight.
Important to separate the CICO weight loss equation from the nutrition equation.
Nutrition and the way people eat is why 75% of the population is overweight and obese costing tax payers trillions of dollars every year in the US and I don't think counting calories and the continual flow of people here that count calories and still complain they're not losing weight as a good solution. Personally I think the answer is a little more complicated than understanding math and being able to count properly. Although I also understand that counting calories is for some people the only way they can mitigate their weight gain, I just don't think concentrating on that singularly is a good permanent solution. imo. cheers1 -
I dont think anybody said concentrating on counting calories or on weight loss singularly was a good idea - saying weight loss and nutrition are not same thing doesn't mean one has to concentrate on only one of them4
-
Funny, I see repeatedly in these forums that calorie counting trumps other weight loss strategies (for weight loss, only calories matter) and not to be confused with CICO and maybe that's why my nit picking surfaces. I do agree though that concentrating on just one strategy is not a good idea.1
-
I don't think calorie counting 'trumps' other strategies according to many of us.
But the fact is that simply reducing carbs or eating more whole foods or doing intermittent fasting or... does not guarantee that you will be in a calorie deficit.
These strategies can result in weight loss if they lead to a calorie deficit, but without counting calories you're flying blind. You may get where you want, or you may not.
Before I started calorie counting, I had attempted to lose weight by changing what I ate. And I didn't lose weight, because I was still eating too many calories. E.g. avocado is great for increasing healthy fat intake, but if you don't realise that it is also calorie dense... E.g. hummus being touted by a friend of mine who wants to lose weight because 'it's healthy', eating 'unlimited' amounts of it as an appetizer - I'm sure she didn't realize how many calories hummus contains.
Calorie counting is a tool that can complement other strategies.
Some people combine it with keto, intermittent fasting,... Other just reduce their intake without significantly changing what they eat or when.
And some people 'even' use it to maintain their weight or even gain weight.7 -
I don't think calorie counting 'trumps' other strategies according to many of us.
But the fact is that simply reducing carbs or eating more whole foods or doing intermittent fasting or... does not guarantee that you will be in a calorie deficit.
These strategies can result in weight loss if they lead to a calorie deficit, but without counting calories you're flying blind. You may get where you want, or you may not.
Before I started calorie counting, I had attempted to lose weight by changing what I ate. And I didn't lose weight, because I was still eating too many calories. E.g. avocado is great for increasing healthy fat intake, but if you don't realise that it is also calorie dense... E.g. hummus being touted by a friend of mine who wants to lose weight because 'it's healthy', eating 'unlimited' amounts of it as an appetizer - I'm sure she didn't realize how many calories hummus contains.
Calorie counting is a tool that can complement other strategies.
Some people combine it with keto, intermittent fasting,... Other just reduce their intake without significantly changing what they eat or when.
And some people 'even' use it to maintain their weight or even gain weight.
Exactly this. I see nutrition and the foods I eat as a way to make sticking to a calorie deficit easier. But it's not a given that any particular way of eating will "make" you lose weight. They're tools to help adjust calories in/calories out.1 -
I don't think calorie counting 'trumps' other strategies according to many of us.
But the fact is that simply reducing carbs or eating more whole foods or doing intermittent fasting or... does not guarantee that you will be in a calorie deficit.
These strategies can result in weight loss if they lead to a calorie deficit, but without counting calories you're flying blind. You may get where you want, or you may not.
Before I started calorie counting, I had attempted to lose weight by changing what I ate. And I didn't lose weight, because I was still eating too many calories. E.g. avocado is great for increasing healthy fat intake, but if you don't realise that it is also calorie dense... E.g. hummus being touted by a friend of mine who wants to lose weight because 'it's healthy', eating 'unlimited' amounts of it as an appetizer - I'm sure she didn't realize how many calories hummus contains.
Calorie counting is a tool that can complement other strategies.
Some people combine it with keto, intermittent fasting,... Other just reduce their intake without significantly changing what they eat or when.
And some people 'even' use it to maintain their weight or even gain weight.
There's nothing here that I don't disagree with, on the surface. Unfortunately none of these strategies whether it be counting calories, taking a different dietary stance or reducing the time for feeding, works very well, they've always shown a very low percentage for success (around 5%) with rebound weight gain a common result. I do have a feeling that time restricted eating might fair a little better than the other 2 simply because it's not about restricting calories per se and consequentially less invasive where they're not worrying about labels and gathering information and imputing data over the course of a day, everyday, or eating food where types or groups of food are restricted but basically tries to restrict eating into a shorter time space creating a deficit and basically quite effortlessly but that's just my opinion and of course the longer the time interval the less successful.
Disclosure: I'm low carb
Most of the scientific data about the success rates of very low carb, not to be confused with ones consuming 38% or ketogenic diets that are even worth investigating are well designed RCT's and I've read hundreds where when comparing the control group that were calorie restricted to participants on the low carb and ketogenic diet didn't lose weight and eating ad libitum. The failure rate for both groups is always in the duration of the studies. The longer the groups led their lives with less and less counseling and incentive as the intervention went on the less effective the diets became where both groups began consuming either more calories or more of the foods that were restricted and it appears about 6 months was the average before the numbers started to creep up for both. The media of course jumped on to say low carb diets are not sustainable and just a fad diet, if over 100 years of literature using low carb for weight loss is a fad diet then, yep, that's true, but so was calorie counting not effective.
Your health food comment I understand why you said it and in the context of calories it's very true and it makes you wonder what other foods might be high in calories, like unhealthy foods for example and do Americans even eat those, healthy food I mean, just kidding. Cheers.
-1 -
neanderthin wrote: »Your health food comment I understand why you said it and in the context of calories it's very true and it makes you wonder what other foods might be high in calories, like unhealthy foods for example and do Americans even eat those, healthy food I mean, just kidding. Cheers.
I'm not American by the way, any comments/jokes about Americans aren't likely to bother me 😄5 -
neanderthin wrote: »Your health food comment I understand why you said it and in the context of calories it's very true and it makes you wonder what other foods might be high in calories, like unhealthy foods for example and do Americans even eat those, healthy food I mean, just kidding. Cheers.
I'm not American by the way, any comments/jokes about Americans aren't likely to bother me 😄
I picked up some guanciale and made carbonara last night, getting guanciale is not easy, so it had to be done. Cheers 0 -
They say, "It works if you work it." I think that can be said of weight loss maintenance regimens.
If Keto works, good. If low carb works, good. If IF works, yay for you. If the only thing that works longterm is keeping track of how many food calories you are intaking, then that's what you need to do.
None of the weight loss things work long term if the user doesn't use it. Seems obvious.
I have to log food. I tried not doing that, and used the same foods and meal times etc that I had used previously. But I'm not good at eyeballing portions after a while, and I'll use up the rest of that butter/cheese/dressing just because it's close to the end of it...then I'll start buying candy and cookies and chips and soda pop and and and and...I have to log food. I use a food scale on 90% of my food logging, too.
I've kept my 80 pounds off (other than winter/summer fluctuations) since 2008.
I come on here daily and read or post. I have to keep my head in the game every day. Have to. Otherwise all the food out there starts winning.5 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »sibilantstorm wrote: »I believe that what we eat IS important. You can lose weight eating junk food, because weight gain and loss are a simple matter of a chemical reaction -- but your body will take damage over time from eating insufficient nutrients, and it can sabotage weight loss by escalating cravings as your body searches for what may be missing in your diet. Yes... caloric intake is kind of the final arbiter of weight loss, but being thin and poorly nourished has implications as you age -- and everyone ages. I wish I'd been more sensible about this in my youth, because it's damned hard to fix it in my old age.
I agree that nutrition is important, so food choices are important. Like you, I wish young me had made some better choices, but she did at least some good stuff nutritionally (much less so calorically).
This next is not a disagreement with the quoted post, just a comment intending to continue the conversation:
I agree that good overall, well-rounded nutrition can be under-emphasized here. Personally, I don't agree with the "only protein matters" comments I feel like I see fairly often here, and definitely don't agree that only calories matter in absolute terms (though I agree that calorie balance is what directly determines net changes in body fat . . . in a complicated, dynamic way).
But another thing I see here fairly often, seems like, is people who think they've fallen under sway of the devil if they eat a fast-food burger or a cookie. That's a waystation on the path toward "must eat only superfoods at all times" or similar extremes, IMO. After a certain point, we don't get extra credit for more broccoli.
Nutrient density and calorie density are different factors; they don't march along in lockstep.
Most fast foods, junk foods, ultra-processed foods, etc., contain some nutrients. Those nutrients aren't inherently cancelled out by the category we put a food in. The foods commonly put in those categories also tend to be more calorie dense, and not very nutrient dense. Many are not very filling for the number of calories they contain, too. So called whole foods or healthy foods also fall at varying places on those scales (nutrient density, calorie density, satiation).
Good overall nutrition is important. Calorie balance (according to one's goals) is important. Exactly which combinations of food get a person to good overall nutrition at appropriate calories: IMO, that's not nearly so important.neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »sibilantstorm wrote: »I believe that what we eat IS important. You can lose weight eating junk food, because weight gain and loss are a simple matter of a chemical reaction -- but your body will take damage over time from eating insufficient nutrients, and it can sabotage weight loss by escalating cravings as your body searches for what may be missing in your diet. Yes... caloric intake is kind of the final arbiter of weight loss, but being thin and poorly nourished has implications as you age -- and everyone ages. I wish I'd been more sensible about this in my youth, because it's damned hard to fix it in my old age.
of course.
Nutrition is also important from many health points of view - but weight loss is not nutrition
"Nutrition is the sum total of the processes involved in the taking in and the utilization of food substances by which growth, repair and maintenance of the body are accomplished." Without food there is no CICO, metabolism or life.
Yup, nice dictionary definition, not attributed . . . though it's a definition used in many places.
In context of the thread, it seemed pretty obvious that PP was pointing out that the nutrient content and energy content of foods are two different dimensions, with different roles in the "sum total of the processes".
That's why they're in quotes. They're not different dimensions, try as you might though and weight loss requires nutrition but reductionist thinking is standard fare for the most part so I can see why people think like that, especially when it comes to CICO and calorie counting. Cheers
If we aren't reductionist to some extent, we can't discuss anything.
If things don't have attributes we can discuss somewhat separately, there's nothing to talk about.
Personally, I wouldn't consider discussing the attributes of things, and why they may matter in different ways, to be reductionist in a bad way, necessarily. YMMV, apparently does.
Zooming out and looking at a bigger picture is not forgoing the details, not in the least, but separating nutrition from energy balance isn't something I'm going to let just casually slip by like it's a given. I know my opinion is not well accepted around here but I can live with that fact. Cheers
The flip side of that is actually a thing that's made me eye-roll at certain articles (outside MFP) explaining why calorie counting doesn't work: Literally, some assume that if a person counts calories, they ignore nutrition.
Ignoring nutrition is a dumb thing to do (IMO), but so is assuming that calorie counting inherently implies ignoring nutrition. (I'm not saying you're doing that, neanderthin.)
It's like claiming that if I budget for a vacation, I can't simultaneously plan/save for retirement income. People balance multiple issues and priorities in many spheres of life. Some people are better at balancing than others, and sometimes even better at balancing in one sphere vs. another.
There's no reason to assume that thinking about one aspect of a situation means totally excluding all other considerations . . . at least until someone makes it explicit that they're doing that.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it would be difficult to find any reasonable-length thread around here where literally everyone says "only calories matter" but no one says some variation on "nutrition is also important". It's not necessary for every single person to say both, in that kind of context.5 -
neanderthin wrote: »Your health food comment I understand why you said it and in the context of calories it's very true and it makes you wonder what other foods might be high in calories, like unhealthy foods for example and do Americans even eat those, healthy food I mean, just kidding. Cheers.
I am American but those types of jokes don’t bother me, either, because I didn’t grow up eating the types of foods you proselytize against, and I still don’t eat them so I can’t identify. But calories in vs. calories out is something I understand very well and have had struggles with too much and/or too little on both sides of the equation.
I love food and and have a tendency to overeat. I can’t blame an imbalance which affects hunger cues. I will continue eating when I am full and I have eaten when I'm not hungry. I can’t blame my upbringing. My parents have never been overweight. I can’t blame anything other than myself.
Sometimes it’s pure gluttony but most times it’s extras. An extra piece of cheese, an extra scoop of chili, three eggs instead of two, an extra handful of nuts. These extra calories in add up, especially if they're not balanced by the calories out.
With my job I'm already sedentary for a good part of the day. If I overeat, I feel full and sluggish and I’ll tend to just keep sitting around instead of being active. And If I’m already sitting around, I’m more likely to start eating again, which will make me feel full and sluggish again and the cycle continues. If it's a one-off day or if I break the cycle, then it's OK, but If I let that cycle become a habit, it eventually becomes a lifestyle.
I allowed this be my lifestyle for the last six years. I'm not sure it matters how healthy you're eating when you're consuming enough calories for two and your exercise is walking to the refrigerator for more. Obesity and lack of physical activity are a terrible combination, especially if you have a family history of type 2, you are the age when those family members got diagnosed, and you carry all of your weight in the midsection, just like them. I’m stupid, not ignorant, so I wasn’t surprised when that lifestyle finally caught up with me this year.
5 -
I don't think calorie counting 'trumps' other strategies according to many of us.
I agree.
MFP is essentially a calorie counting site so obviously that will be strategy most used and discussed by posters - but most of us acknowledge that there are other strategies that work for other people and for some people on here.
Sometimes in conjunction with calorie counting and sometimes stand alone.
any strategy, be it calorie counting or anything else, that creates a calorie deficit will result in weight loss
ETA for the nitpickers - any strategy used correctly.
2 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »sibilantstorm wrote: »I believe that what we eat IS important. You can lose weight eating junk food, because weight gain and loss are a simple matter of a chemical reaction -- but your body will take damage over time from eating insufficient nutrients, and it can sabotage weight loss by escalating cravings as your body searches for what may be missing in your diet. Yes... caloric intake is kind of the final arbiter of weight loss, but being thin and poorly nourished has implications as you age -- and everyone ages. I wish I'd been more sensible about this in my youth, because it's damned hard to fix it in my old age.
I agree that nutrition is important, so food choices are important. Like you, I wish young me had made some better choices, but she did at least some good stuff nutritionally (much less so calorically).
This next is not a disagreement with the quoted post, just a comment intending to continue the conversation:
I agree that good overall, well-rounded nutrition can be under-emphasized here. Personally, I don't agree with the "only protein matters" comments I feel like I see fairly often here, and definitely don't agree that only calories matter in absolute terms (though I agree that calorie balance is what directly determines net changes in body fat . . . in a complicated, dynamic way).
But another thing I see here fairly often, seems like, is people who think they've fallen under sway of the devil if they eat a fast-food burger or a cookie. That's a waystation on the path toward "must eat only superfoods at all times" or similar extremes, IMO. After a certain point, we don't get extra credit for more broccoli.
Nutrient density and calorie density are different factors; they don't march along in lockstep.
Most fast foods, junk foods, ultra-processed foods, etc., contain some nutrients. Those nutrients aren't inherently cancelled out by the category we put a food in. The foods commonly put in those categories also tend to be more calorie dense, and not very nutrient dense. Many are not very filling for the number of calories they contain, too. So called whole foods or healthy foods also fall at varying places on those scales (nutrient density, calorie density, satiation).
Good overall nutrition is important. Calorie balance (according to one's goals) is important. Exactly which combinations of food get a person to good overall nutrition at appropriate calories: IMO, that's not nearly so important.neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »sibilantstorm wrote: »I believe that what we eat IS important. You can lose weight eating junk food, because weight gain and loss are a simple matter of a chemical reaction -- but your body will take damage over time from eating insufficient nutrients, and it can sabotage weight loss by escalating cravings as your body searches for what may be missing in your diet. Yes... caloric intake is kind of the final arbiter of weight loss, but being thin and poorly nourished has implications as you age -- and everyone ages. I wish I'd been more sensible about this in my youth, because it's damned hard to fix it in my old age.
of course.
Nutrition is also important from many health points of view - but weight loss is not nutrition
"Nutrition is the sum total of the processes involved in the taking in and the utilization of food substances by which growth, repair and maintenance of the body are accomplished." Without food there is no CICO, metabolism or life.
Yup, nice dictionary definition, not attributed . . . though it's a definition used in many places.
In context of the thread, it seemed pretty obvious that PP was pointing out that the nutrient content and energy content of foods are two different dimensions, with different roles in the "sum total of the processes".
That's why they're in quotes. They're not different dimensions, try as you might though and weight loss requires nutrition but reductionist thinking is standard fare for the most part so I can see why people think like that, especially when it comes to CICO and calorie counting. Cheers
If we aren't reductionist to some extent, we can't discuss anything.
If things don't have attributes we can discuss somewhat separately, there's nothing to talk about.
Personally, I wouldn't consider discussing the attributes of things, and why they may matter in different ways, to be reductionist in a bad way, necessarily. YMMV, apparently does.
Zooming out and looking at a bigger picture is not forgoing the details, not in the least, but separating nutrition from energy balance isn't something I'm going to let just casually slip by like it's a given. I know my opinion is not well accepted around here but I can live with that fact. Cheers
The flip side of that is actually a thing that's made me eye-roll at certain articles (outside MFP) explaining why calorie counting doesn't work: Literally, some assume that if a person counts calories, they ignore nutrition.
Ignoring nutrition is a dumb thing to do (IMO), but so is assuming that calorie counting inherently implies ignoring nutrition. (I'm not saying you're doing that, neanderthin.)
It's like claiming that if I budget for a vacation, I can't simultaneously plan/save for retirement income. People balance multiple issues and priorities in many spheres of life. Some people are better at balancing than others, and sometimes even better at balancing in one sphere vs. another.
There's no reason to assume that thinking about one aspect of a situation means totally excluding all other considerations . . . at least until someone makes it explicit that they're doing that.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it would be difficult to find any reasonable-length thread around here where literally everyone says "only calories matter" but no one says some variation on "nutrition is also important". It's not necessary for every single person to say both, in that kind of context.
Of course ignoring nutrition is dumb and that's because it's common sense to want to be healthier at the end of the day or life, which is the argument I've been making. Almost all people here have done something to adjust their nutrition while counting calories because taking responsibility and trying to rectify what they feel might be problematic is the logical thing to do, but that is not my argument. It's the fact that some here deny that nutrition has anything to do with weight loss. Yes, counting is just a mathematical formula to collect numerical data and has nothing to do with nutrition, I get that, but in the context of a living organism connecting the dots and applying it to that living organism while someone is trying to lose weight is a skill that I suspect would be helpful and would say is fundamental for success in the long run, and done intuitively by most people. imo. Cheers1 -
“It's the fact that some here deny that nutrition has anything to do with weight loss.”
Nutrition doesn’t have anything to do with weight loss. Maybe I’m wrong? Can you source that for me?
Where are the posts that say nutrition doesn’t matter for health, which is what I think you’re trying to say?1 -
“It's the fact that some here deny that nutrition has anything to do with weight loss.”
Nutrition doesn’t have anything to do with weight loss. Where are the posts that say nutrition doesn’t matter for health, which is what I think you’re trying to say?
I dunno. I do think nutrition can have something to do with weight loss (indirectly). Poor nutrition is more likely to tank energy level (so burn fewer calories in daily life) or trigger cravings/appetite (so make it hard to stick with a calorie goal). The direct effect is still via calories, of course.
Repeating myself, I don't see huge numbers of people here denying nutrition's importance. Not mentioning nutrition in every single post about weight loss is not the same as claiming it doesn't matter.
Do a few people claim it doesn't matter? Sure, probably. I've also seen people claim that it's important to drink water sitting down, that daily HIIT is the only and best route to fitness, that it's essential to eat raw foods before cooked ones (or was it vice-versa), and all kinds of other bizarre things. So what? Minority report.neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »sibilantstorm wrote: »I believe that what we eat IS important. You can lose weight eating junk food, because weight gain and loss are a simple matter of a chemical reaction -- but your body will take damage over time from eating insufficient nutrients, and it can sabotage weight loss by escalating cravings as your body searches for what may be missing in your diet. Yes... caloric intake is kind of the final arbiter of weight loss, but being thin and poorly nourished has implications as you age -- and everyone ages. I wish I'd been more sensible about this in my youth, because it's damned hard to fix it in my old age.
I agree that nutrition is important, so food choices are important. Like you, I wish young me had made some better choices, but she did at least some good stuff nutritionally (much less so calorically).
This next is not a disagreement with the quoted post, just a comment intending to continue the conversation:
I agree that good overall, well-rounded nutrition can be under-emphasized here. Personally, I don't agree with the "only protein matters" comments I feel like I see fairly often here, and definitely don't agree that only calories matter in absolute terms (though I agree that calorie balance is what directly determines net changes in body fat . . . in a complicated, dynamic way).
But another thing I see here fairly often, seems like, is people who think they've fallen under sway of the devil if they eat a fast-food burger or a cookie. That's a waystation on the path toward "must eat only superfoods at all times" or similar extremes, IMO. After a certain point, we don't get extra credit for more broccoli.
Nutrient density and calorie density are different factors; they don't march along in lockstep.
Most fast foods, junk foods, ultra-processed foods, etc., contain some nutrients. Those nutrients aren't inherently cancelled out by the category we put a food in. The foods commonly put in those categories also tend to be more calorie dense, and not very nutrient dense. Many are not very filling for the number of calories they contain, too. So called whole foods or healthy foods also fall at varying places on those scales (nutrient density, calorie density, satiation).
Good overall nutrition is important. Calorie balance (according to one's goals) is important. Exactly which combinations of food get a person to good overall nutrition at appropriate calories: IMO, that's not nearly so important.neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »sibilantstorm wrote: »I believe that what we eat IS important. You can lose weight eating junk food, because weight gain and loss are a simple matter of a chemical reaction -- but your body will take damage over time from eating insufficient nutrients, and it can sabotage weight loss by escalating cravings as your body searches for what may be missing in your diet. Yes... caloric intake is kind of the final arbiter of weight loss, but being thin and poorly nourished has implications as you age -- and everyone ages. I wish I'd been more sensible about this in my youth, because it's damned hard to fix it in my old age.
of course.
Nutrition is also important from many health points of view - but weight loss is not nutrition
"Nutrition is the sum total of the processes involved in the taking in and the utilization of food substances by which growth, repair and maintenance of the body are accomplished." Without food there is no CICO, metabolism or life.
Yup, nice dictionary definition, not attributed . . . though it's a definition used in many places.
In context of the thread, it seemed pretty obvious that PP was pointing out that the nutrient content and energy content of foods are two different dimensions, with different roles in the "sum total of the processes".
That's why they're in quotes. They're not different dimensions, try as you might though and weight loss requires nutrition but reductionist thinking is standard fare for the most part so I can see why people think like that, especially when it comes to CICO and calorie counting. Cheers
If we aren't reductionist to some extent, we can't discuss anything.
If things don't have attributes we can discuss somewhat separately, there's nothing to talk about.
Personally, I wouldn't consider discussing the attributes of things, and why they may matter in different ways, to be reductionist in a bad way, necessarily. YMMV, apparently does.
Zooming out and looking at a bigger picture is not forgoing the details, not in the least, but separating nutrition from energy balance isn't something I'm going to let just casually slip by like it's a given. I know my opinion is not well accepted around here but I can live with that fact. Cheers
The flip side of that is actually a thing that's made me eye-roll at certain articles (outside MFP) explaining why calorie counting doesn't work: Literally, some assume that if a person counts calories, they ignore nutrition.
Ignoring nutrition is a dumb thing to do (IMO), but so is assuming that calorie counting inherently implies ignoring nutrition. (I'm not saying you're doing that, neanderthin.)
It's like claiming that if I budget for a vacation, I can't simultaneously plan/save for retirement income. People balance multiple issues and priorities in many spheres of life. Some people are better at balancing than others, and sometimes even better at balancing in one sphere vs. another.
There's no reason to assume that thinking about one aspect of a situation means totally excluding all other considerations . . . at least until someone makes it explicit that they're doing that.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it would be difficult to find any reasonable-length thread around here where literally everyone says "only calories matter" but no one says some variation on "nutrition is also important". It's not necessary for every single person to say both, in that kind of context.
Of course ignoring nutrition is dumb and that's because it's common sense to want to be healthier at the end of the day or life, which is the argument I've been making. Almost all people here have done something to adjust their nutrition while counting calories because taking responsibility and trying to rectify what they feel might be problematic is the logical thing to do, but that is not my argument. It's the fact that some here deny that nutrition has anything to do with weight loss. Yes, counting is just a mathematical formula to collect numerical data and has nothing to do with nutrition, I get that, but in the context of a living organism connecting the dots and applying it to that living organism while someone is trying to lose weight is a skill that I suspect would be helpful and would say is fundamental for success in the long run, and done intuitively by most people. imo. Cheers
. . . and things like the bolded are reasons I don't feel like we absolutely must flog the importance of nutrition or healthy food choices in every single blippin' post.
In most cases, I feel like if we tell people to hit their calories, figure out what's filling/energizing for them, they can connect those dots.
I pretty much always mention nutrition or food choices as important when saying calories are the key to weight loss. Partly, that's because there always are those few people who don't post complete/helpful information themselves, but who are quick to complain about others' incomplete or (in their view) incorrect posts. I get tired of that kind of behavior, TBH.
If a thread lacks full information, post the information and do so clearly, is what I'd say to them if I could. But it's against the Community Guidelines to go meta like that, strictly speaking.3 -
@AnnPT77 I think over complicating the topic confuses many of us (not saying you are personally 😊). People are pretty clear for the most part that nutrition matters for health and if someone says otherwise I’m sure they’re swiftly corrected.
What many of us have a harder time understanding is that they can eat foods they love and still lose weight. This concept blew my mind. I wish this was clarified more than the mostly obvious importance of nutrition. In fact many people believe they have to have a perfect diet or they completely blew their day. Posters usually think they’re eating “clean” and can’t figure out why they’re maintaining or gaining weight. I’ve met exactly zero people that have said, I only eat Twinkie’s, why can’t I lose weight? This typically means that they believe nutrition accounts for weight loss and not being in a calorie deficit, doesn’t it? I appreciate this site for informing on this point more than anything.3 -
@AnnPT77 I think over complicating the topic confuses many of us (not saying you are personally 😊). People are pretty clear for the most part that nutrition matters for health and if someone says otherwise I’m sure they’re swiftly corrected.
What many of us have a harder time understanding is that they can eat foods they love and still lose weight. This concept blew my mind. I wish this was clarified more than the mostly obvious importance of nutrition. In fact many people believe they have to have a perfect diet or they completely blew their day. Posters usually think they’re eating “clean” and can’t figure out why they’re maintaining or gaining weight. I’ve met exactly zero people that have said, I only eat Twinkie’s, why can’t I lose weight? This typically means that they believe nutrition accounts for weight loss and not being in a calorie deficit, doesn’t it? I appreciate this site for informing on this point more than anything.
I feel like I've written that essay a bunch of times here, too: That there are no good/bad foods, only more or less good/bad overall ways of eating; that treats (or so-called junk food, highly processed food, fast food, etc.) are fine in the context of an overall calorie-appropriate, overall nutritious way of eating.
Suffering is optional, mostly; and I agree with you that some people feel that it's essential to cut out every single so-called unhealthy food forever. That's nonsense, IMO.
I also feel like we're all more sensitive to (so notice more) when people de-emphasize or don't mention the thing(s) that matter most to us, maybe feel like posts that de-emphasize those things are more common. To me, it seems like what's in the overall thread matters a lot, and any individual comment should be taken in that context . . . especially comments that reinforce a key point, after others have stated a more nuanced version of the whole picture.
2 -
@AnnPT77 I think over complicating the topic confuses many of us (not saying you are personally 😊). People are pretty clear for the most part that nutrition matters for health and if someone says otherwise I’m sure they’re swiftly corrected.
What many of us have a harder time understanding is that they can eat foods they love and still lose weight. This concept blew my mind. I wish this was clarified more than the mostly obvious importance of nutrition. In fact many people believe they have to have a perfect diet or they completely blew their day. Posters usually think they’re eating “clean” and can’t figure out why they’re maintaining or gaining weight. I’ve met exactly zero people that have said, I only eat Twinkie’s, why can’t I lose weight? This typically means that they believe nutrition accounts for weight loss and not being in a calorie deficit, doesn’t it? I appreciate this site for informing on this point more than anything.
I feel like I've written that essay a bunch of times here, too: That there are no good/bad foods, only more or less good/bad overall ways of eating; that treats (or so-called junk food, highly processed food, fast food, etc.) are fine in the context of an overall calorie-appropriate, overall nutritious way of eating.
Suffering is optional, mostly; and I agree with you that some people feel that it's essential to cut out every single so-called unhealthy food forever. That's nonsense, IMO.
I also feel like we're all more sensitive to (so notice more) when people de-emphasize or don't mention the thing(s) that matter most to us, maybe feel like posts that de-emphasize those things are more common. To me, it seems like what's in the overall thread matters a lot, and any individual comment should be taken in that context . . . especially comments that reinforce a key point, after others have stated a more nuanced version of the whole picture.
Yes, exactly, context is everything. That’s why overcomplicating the context can be confusing. Completely agree with you. I start to get really confused when the context is flipped inside out and upside down like, what did I miss? I’m so confused lol.1 -
“It's the fact that some here deny that nutrition has anything to do with weight loss.”
Nutrition doesn’t have anything to do with weight loss. Maybe I’m wrong? Can you source that for me?
Where are the posts that say nutrition doesn’t matter for health, which is what I think you’re trying to say?
That's pretty funny, thanks.
Cheers. 1 -
neanderthin wrote: »“It's the fact that some here deny that nutrition has anything to do with weight loss.”
Nutrition doesn’t have anything to do with weight loss. Maybe I’m wrong? Can you source that for me?
Where are the posts that say nutrition doesn’t matter for health, which is what I think you’re trying to say?
That's pretty funny, thanks. Cheers.
Sorry, not trying to be funny, there’s always a chance I could be wrong so keep that option open. Also, I’m trying to simplify for myself what you’re saying because it’s confusing to me but I think I understand now.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions