Moderation, A Love Story
Replies
-
TheVirgoddess wrote: »I'm not derailing. I'm discussing the same thing the OP is discussing. She's concerned that people are confused about the definition of the word "moderation." I'm explaining why that confusion exists. It exists because everyone uses the word differently. Right here in this thread, we have different definitions. There is even disagreement over whether there are different definitions:It would make sense that an "in moderation" diet would have multiple definitions....hence the term moderation. One moderates their diet to include a variety of different foods. Boom.
If you want everyone to understand what people are saying when they say "in moderation," then the people who use the term will have to come to some consensus on it's definition....there are not alternative individual definitions
I think we all know who is being silly here. Moderation is quite easily defined. We all know what we mean when we say it. You are the one who keeps going off on a tangent, by throwing ridiculous terms like 'cheat days' and 'clean eating' into the mix.
Eating a small amount of all the foods one likes, fitting them into the calorie goals, meeting macro goals. Not too hard to figure out, hmmmm?
I will add it to the list.
I am not sure why everyone insists that there aren't a bunch of different definitions for this word.
There are certainly different ways to moderate yourself, but that doesn't change the definition of the word. It's also known as flexible dieting, which has a standard definition. Maybe that will help you:
For starters, flexible dieting is not a diet - it's a nutritional concept. The basic rundown is simple: You have a daily calorie, macronutrient (carbohydrate, protein, fat), and fiber target to hit and as long as those specific numbers are achieved, then food selection is left up to your personal preference.
I'm not really going to comment on the "clean" eating. I feel like there is some weird morality involved with the clean eating concept that I'm not comfortable with. So I tend to keep my opinion on it to myself.I have this feeling that people who make excuses for eating donuts and junk food aren't really serious about getting healthy. And "cheat days" are just plain stupid. You're only cheating yourself. For me, moderation is giving up the daily venti frappe, and instead having a weekly non fat Grande iced latte. And working out an extra 15 minutes that day.
I don't need an excuse to eat anything. I've lost 83 pounds and holding. I'm good.
No, it doesn't help. I understood what you meant right off the bat.
It just isn't the only definition, as I pointed out. For some, they eat some junk food. For others, junk food does not exist. Some believe that you need to eat nutritious foods, others say it's all about calories. Some believe in working little bits in daily while others go once a week, once a month or just rotate it as they please...and others say it's more about portion size than eating nutritious food and having extra.
The reason we don't know what people mean when they "in moderation" is that there are many, many different definitions...as I already pointed out,
Not everyone who uses the word uses it the way you do. I suspect that you'd disagree with the "No juice" woman.
"Flexible dieting" - if it has that definition and that definition only - would be more understandable.
Now you're just being argumentative for the sake of it.
I realize not everyone defines moderation (with eating) the way I do. That's why I specifically used the word I multiple times in my OP. Because this is my interpretation of the moderation approach. As it happens, it's shared by many and argued by few. I'll let that speak for itself.
0 -
Not everyone who uses the word uses it the way you do. I suspect that you'd disagree with the "No juice" woman.
Look at my three points about context and personal preference, please.
If that woman claimed that moderation meant that people should not drink juice, then yes I'd say that she did not properly understand moderation or flexible dieting. (Similarly, if someone tells me that IIFYM means that you must eat 50% protein, 30% carbs, and 20% fat or some such, I know they have misunderstood the concept.)
However, if what that woman was saying is that due to her personal preferences and goals that she had determined that drinking calories, including from juice, was not a good use of calories or that because of her individual health issues she had a negative reaction to fruit sugar on its own (as in a glass of juice without other food), then absolutely that's consistent with moderation.
Again, moderation does not mean that you eat everything. It means that you are open to eating anything you might enjoy and that you can make work with your goals for the day or week.
Personally, I almost never do drink calories, including juice, although on rare occasion I might well have some juice that's worth it. I certainly don't drink it daily at breakfast. But that doesn't mean that someone else couldn't while having a perfectly consistent definition of moderation.0 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »There seems to be a lot of confusion around the topic of moderation. So I thought I'd clear things up, as far as I view and interpret moderation and maybe the misconceptions can stop.
First, what moderation isn't:
It's not eating cheeseburgers all day.
It's not eating donuts, pizza, fries, ice cream, chocolate, cake or candy all day, either.
Eating a lot of one thing - it's the opposite of moderation. So can we all agree to drop that particular argument? Yes? Great!!
Now, moving on.
What moderation is:
Moderation is approaching your day with the following goals in mind: your macro-nutrient goals (carbs, protein, fats), your micro-nutrient goals (vitamins, minerals) and your sanity/happiness/zen/satisfaction/mental health/insert word here.
What I (we?) do is find food that I (we) enjoy eating, that meet these goals. We fill our day(s) with them. Lean proteins, pizza, vegetables, ice cream, fruits, bacon, whole grains - whatever fills the roles of both nutrition and satisfaction. Because macro/micro nutrients and satisfaction are what every body needs, and as long as we're meeting those needs, we're good.
Let's also all agree that everyone knows it's important to eat nutritious food and properly fuel our bodies. Yes? Great!
If we reach our goals and have a bit extra, I/we can "spend" those calories on whatever we want - because our nutrition goals have successfully been met and at this point in our day, there's nothing wrong with some extra ice cream, or a piece of cake or a brownie (edge, of course). We've given our body what it needs, and we won't get extra "awesome" points if we choose a carrot over some chips, if that is our preference.
TL;DR: Moderation is avoiding an excess or extreme. It's eating by putting nutrition first, but happiness and satisfaction a close second. It's not restricting your food intake because rationally we know that juggling our calories so we can eat chili cheese tater tots once a month is not going to undo all the other days before them, or the ones after.
I agree with everything except the bolded. It has to be a gooey center piece.
My thoughts exactly
Well said OP!
0 -
I have this feeling that people who make excuses for eating donuts and junk food aren't really serious about getting healthy. And "cheat days" are just plain stupid. You're only cheating yourself. For me, moderation is giving up the daily venti frappe, and instead having a weekly non fat Grande iced latte. And working out an extra 15 minutes that day.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I wonder why I've lost 112 pounds and seen my blood pressure, blood work in general, and resting heart rate all improve if I'm not serious. It didn't happen by accident, that's for sure.I have this feeling that people who make excuses for eating donuts and junk food aren't really serious about getting healthy. And "cheat days" are just plain stupid. You're only cheating yourself. For me, moderation is giving up the daily venti frappe, and instead having a weekly non fat Grande iced latte. And working out an extra 15 minutes that day.
What's inherently "stupid" about eating 200 calories fewer fora couple of days so that you can eat 400 more at a party or favorite restaurant, or whatever?
This is hilarious. You are kind of both saying the same thing. It doesn't matter if you call it a "cheat" day or not...you are BOTH giving up some of the foods to later reap the benefits of something you really want. I think this is kind of the point of the "derailing" poster (sorry, can't remember who). You each have different semantics, but are actually doing exactly the same thing!0 -
I think this is great. I have spent most of my life overweight and as a result, I have tried about every fad diet that exists in the world. The rules I tell you. You can't eat this. You can't eat that. You can eat this, but only if you eat it with that. Eat at this time. Don't eat after this time. This food is bad and makes you fat. This food is addictive and tricks your brain. This food kickstarts your metabolism. This food stores as fat immediately. This food is bad. This food is unclean.
All those rules. All those things. It made me crazy and it also was only a temporary fix and not something that was sustainable. And once I smartened up, I realized all those rules above were just tricks to try to get people to eat at a deficit. I finally decided that I am smart enough that I don't need to be tricked into this. I know now that if I eat at a deficit that I will lose weight. It's freeing. Like totally freeing. There are no rules to be broken. And yes, I can have foods in moderation and still meet my goals.
Moderation is something quite amazing. Moderation is freedom. Moderation gives the power of my diet and obtaining a caloric deficit in my own hands. Ahh. Freedom.
I love this!
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Not everyone who uses the word uses it the way you do. I suspect that you'd disagree with the "No juice" woman.
Look at my three points about context and personal preference, please.
If that woman claimed that moderation meant that people should not drink juice, then yes I'd say that she did not properly understand moderation or flexible dieting. (Similarly, if someone tells me that IIFYM means that you must eat 50% protein, 30% carbs, and 20% fat or some such, I know they have misunderstood the concept.)
However, if what that woman was saying is that due to her personal preferences and goals that she had determined that drinking calories, including from juice, was not a good use of calories or that because of her individual health issues she had a negative reaction to fruit sugar on its own (as in a glass of juice without other food), then absolutely that's consistent with moderation.
Again, moderation does not mean that you eat everything. It means that you are open to eating anything you might enjoy and that you can make work with your goals for the day or week.
Personally, I almost never do drink calories, including juice, although on rare occasion I might well have some juice that's worth it. I certainly don't drink it daily at breakfast. But that doesn't mean that someone else couldn't while having a perfectly consistent definition of moderation.
Kalikel may be referring to my recent post on juice. I said that I eat whole apples just fine but apple juice makes me sick. So I don't drink it.
I went on to clarify that my abstention from juice was referring to me and should not be interpreted that I was advocating it for anyone else.
(BTW, I wasn't drinking apple juice alone - I also had bread and peanut butter.)
0 -
Nope. I'm referring to one of the definitions (the second one on the list) of what "in moderation" means. It includes no juice as a part of "in moderation."kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Not everyone who uses the word uses it the way you do. I suspect that you'd disagree with the "No juice" woman.
Look at my three points about context and personal preference, please.
If that woman claimed that moderation meant that people should not drink juice, then yes I'd say that she did not properly understand moderation or flexible dieting. (Similarly, if someone tells me that IIFYM means that you must eat 50% protein, 30% carbs, and 20% fat or some such, I know they have misunderstood the concept.)
However, if what that woman was saying is that due to her personal preferences and goals that she had determined that drinking calories, including from juice, was not a good use of calories or that because of her individual health issues she had a negative reaction to fruit sugar on its own (as in a glass of juice without other food), then absolutely that's consistent with moderation.
Again, moderation does not mean that you eat everything. It means that you are open to eating anything you might enjoy and that you can make work with your goals for the day or week.
Personally, I almost never do drink calories, including juice, although on rare occasion I might well have some juice that's worth it. I certainly don't drink it daily at breakfast. But that doesn't mean that someone else couldn't while having a perfectly consistent definition of moderation.
Kalikel may be referring to my recent post on juice. I said that I eat whole apples just fine but apple juice makes me sick. So I don't drink it.
I went on to clarify that my abstention from juice was referring to me and should not be interpreted that I was advocating it for anyone else.
(BTW, I wasn't drinking apple juice alone - I also had bread and peanut butter.)
0 -
Nope. I'm referring to one of the definitions (the second one on the list) of what "in moderation" means. It includes no juice as a part of "in moderation."kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Not everyone who uses the word uses it the way you do. I suspect that you'd disagree with the "No juice" woman.
Look at my three points about context and personal preference, please.
If that woman claimed that moderation meant that people should not drink juice, then yes I'd say that she did not properly understand moderation or flexible dieting. (Similarly, if someone tells me that IIFYM means that you must eat 50% protein, 30% carbs, and 20% fat or some such, I know they have misunderstood the concept.)
However, if what that woman was saying is that due to her personal preferences and goals that she had determined that drinking calories, including from juice, was not a good use of calories or that because of her individual health issues she had a negative reaction to fruit sugar on its own (as in a glass of juice without other food), then absolutely that's consistent with moderation.
Again, moderation does not mean that you eat everything. It means that you are open to eating anything you might enjoy and that you can make work with your goals for the day or week.
Personally, I almost never do drink calories, including juice, although on rare occasion I might well have some juice that's worth it. I certainly don't drink it daily at breakfast. But that doesn't mean that someone else couldn't while having a perfectly consistent definition of moderation.
Kalikel may be referring to my recent post on juice. I said that I eat whole apples just fine but apple juice makes me sick. So I don't drink it.
I went on to clarify that my abstention from juice was referring to me and should not be interpreted that I was advocating it for anyone else.
(BTW, I wasn't drinking apple juice alone - I also had bread and peanut butter.)
why would removing juice be considered moderation??
Because someone on here labeled it as such. Apparently.0 -
Nope. I'm referring to one of the definitions (the second one on the list) of what "in moderation" means. It includes no juice as a part of "in moderation."kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Not everyone who uses the word uses it the way you do. I suspect that you'd disagree with the "No juice" woman.
Look at my three points about context and personal preference, please.
If that woman claimed that moderation meant that people should not drink juice, then yes I'd say that she did not properly understand moderation or flexible dieting. (Similarly, if someone tells me that IIFYM means that you must eat 50% protein, 30% carbs, and 20% fat or some such, I know they have misunderstood the concept.)
However, if what that woman was saying is that due to her personal preferences and goals that she had determined that drinking calories, including from juice, was not a good use of calories or that because of her individual health issues she had a negative reaction to fruit sugar on its own (as in a glass of juice without other food), then absolutely that's consistent with moderation.
Again, moderation does not mean that you eat everything. It means that you are open to eating anything you might enjoy and that you can make work with your goals for the day or week.
Personally, I almost never do drink calories, including juice, although on rare occasion I might well have some juice that's worth it. I certainly don't drink it daily at breakfast. But that doesn't mean that someone else couldn't while having a perfectly consistent definition of moderation.
Kalikel may be referring to my recent post on juice. I said that I eat whole apples just fine but apple juice makes me sick. So I don't drink it.
I went on to clarify that my abstention from juice was referring to me and should not be interpreted that I was advocating it for anyone else.
(BTW, I wasn't drinking apple juice alone - I also had bread and peanut butter.)
why would removing juice be considered moderation??
if you want to start a thread to discuss the various meanings that you seem to have ID'd for moderation then please do; however, please stop derailing this one with this ridiculousness.
I'll take this one
Is the answer "it wouldn't"?
0 -
Nope. I'm referring to one of the definitions (the second one on the list) of what "in moderation" means. It includes no juice as a part of "in moderation."kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Not everyone who uses the word uses it the way you do. I suspect that you'd disagree with the "No juice" woman.
Look at my three points about context and personal preference, please.
If that woman claimed that moderation meant that people should not drink juice, then yes I'd say that she did not properly understand moderation or flexible dieting. (Similarly, if someone tells me that IIFYM means that you must eat 50% protein, 30% carbs, and 20% fat or some such, I know they have misunderstood the concept.)
However, if what that woman was saying is that due to her personal preferences and goals that she had determined that drinking calories, including from juice, was not a good use of calories or that because of her individual health issues she had a negative reaction to fruit sugar on its own (as in a glass of juice without other food), then absolutely that's consistent with moderation.
Again, moderation does not mean that you eat everything. It means that you are open to eating anything you might enjoy and that you can make work with your goals for the day or week.
Personally, I almost never do drink calories, including juice, although on rare occasion I might well have some juice that's worth it. I certainly don't drink it daily at breakfast. But that doesn't mean that someone else couldn't while having a perfectly consistent definition of moderation.
Kalikel may be referring to my recent post on juice. I said that I eat whole apples just fine but apple juice makes me sick. So I don't drink it.
I went on to clarify that my abstention from juice was referring to me and should not be interpreted that I was advocating it for anyone else.
(BTW, I wasn't drinking apple juice alone - I also had bread and peanut butter.)
why would removing juice be considered moderation??
if you want to start a thread to discuss the various meanings that you seem to have ID'd for moderation then please do; however, please stop derailing this one with this ridiculousness.
Maybe I'm missing something but wouldn't removing juice be considered an elimination diet and not moderation. You can't moderate something that isn't there.0 -
I am convinced obesity would be cured if everyone logged and exercised with the same conviction and intensity this arguement has.0
-
I really doubt that any sane person with half a brain thinks moderation and gluttony are synonyms. It's safe to assume that anyone who acts as if they are, is either trolling or too stupid to bother with.0
-
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »I really doubt that any sane person with half a brain thinks moderation and gluttony are synonyms. It's safe to assume that anyone who acts as if they are, is either trolling or too stupid to bother with.
+10 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »
This was my experience as well. Embracing moderation actually freed me from a lot of anxiety I used to have tied up with food. The whole realization that I have control and can include the things I like is such an empowering thing.
Yes to moderation = freedom. Agree wholeheartedly.
Great original post.
And to the woman talking about yoga and apple juice: please STAHP.0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Let's also all agree that everyone knows it's important to eat nutritious food and properly fuel our bodies. Yes? Great!
No. Let's not.
The very definition of weight loss is to *improperly* fuel your body, right? To not give it enough calories -- to *purposely* deprive the body of needed calories such that we cannibalize our own fat cells for mere survival.
We do not all agree so we can just stop right there and I won't even address the rest of the ... the ... the untruthiness (am I doing it right, mods, or will you delete this one, too? ) in your post.
0 -
Alright folks - this discussion has been cleaned substantially. There were several really great posts that went away in the cleaning, and for that I will apologize. I think the original post is a really great one, and rather than remove the discussion to the great blue mod-land where it would never be seen again, I removed a TON of off-topic posts. SOME of the posts I removed actually were ON topic, but quoted posts (that may have quoted other posts) that were either rude or off-topic. As I am not *quite* crazy enough to try to clean dozens of multi-quotes (though *almost*), I ended up removing things I would have preferred to stay. If one of those posts was yours, I'm sorry.
So, my point here - we *can* have nice things. We just have to follow the guidelines while we have them. If you see a post that you believe to be off-topic, please use the report function at the bottom of each post (Flag/Report/select reason for report/Submit) to report the offending post to the moderation team. We will take a look and determine whether there really is a violation. Engaging a user regarding whether or not their post is 'derailing' often will cause a derailment where one might not have otherwise occurred. Just because you feel something is not relevant to a topic does not make it irrelevant - it may just mean that you cannot see the connection. Either way, report, let the mods take a look, and move on. I'm begging here.
TL;DR - Discussion off-topic, drama was escalating. Has been cleaned. Carry on.0 -
Thanks for reopening!0
-
A. This kind of depends on if proper means adequate or having intended effect. If you intend to lose weight, having a deficit is proper fueling.SergeantSausage wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Let's also all agree that everyone knows it's important to eat nutritious food and properly fuel our bodies. Yes? Great!
No. Let's not.
The very definition of weight loss is to *improperly* fuel your body, right? To not give it enough calories -- to *purposely* deprive the body of needed calories such that we cannibalize our own fat cells for mere survival.
We do not all agree so we can just stop right there and I won't even address the rest of the ... the ... the untruthiness (am I doing it right, mods, or will you delete this one, too? ) in your post.
B. As long as micros are met, a person with a deficit has enough fuel, the source is just changed from diet sources to storage.
C. Your body burns off fat molecules for fuel. Fat cells tend to just become emptier. There used to be a belief that fat cells were set for life, but it has been shown they are replaced as they sure, but there is no evidence they die from weight loss.
0 -
Don't mind me, just felt like giving this thread a little
0 -
Aw, look at the cute kitty! I definitely support that cat. 100%. You can do it!0
-
This content has been removed.
-
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Don't mind me, just felt like giving this thread a little
Kitty!0 -
I am so happy to see this thread again! I remind myself every day how important moderation is in my life. Luckily, it's like second nature for me now.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Don't mind me, just felt like giving this thread a little
Looovee the nudge.
tincanonastring wrote: »Aw, look at the cute kitty! I definitely support that cat. 100%. You can do it!
LOL!0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Don't mind me, just felt like giving this thread a little
Awww. What a great day to bump this.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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