Eat everything in Moderation as dietary advice?

umayster

I'm fairly new here, but have been a bit overwhelmed with all the eat everything in modération advice that is despensed regardless of dietary issues.

Are there some studies available to read that give the eat everything/moderation plan some credibility?

mantium999

By dietary issues I assume you mean a medical issue or health concern. Should that be the case, never seen anyone advocate all things in moderation even if the individual has a defined reason to avoid certain things. So, you either miss the point regarding moderation, think you are being coy by asking for studies, or are flame-baiting which is against the TOS of this site.

TavistockToad

umayster wrote: »

I'm fairly new here, but have been a bit overwhelmed with all the eat everything in modération advice that is despensed regardless of dietary issues.

Are there some studies available to read that give the eat everything/moderation plan some credibility?

I gave never seen that advice 'dispensed regardless of dietary issues'. Could you post some links to this in other threads?

callsitlikeiseeit

mantium999 wrote: »

By dietary issues I assume you mean a medical issue or health concern. Should that be the case, never seen anyone advocate all things in moderation even if the individual has a defined reason to avoid certain things. So, you either miss the point regarding moderation, think you are being coy by asking for studies, or are flame-baiting which is against the TOS of this site.

exactly.

if you have a medical condition, you need to speak to your doctors and dieticians regarding your diet, not a bunch of internet strangers.

if however, you re NOT a special snowflake (and you probably aren't) then yes, you can eat anything in moderation and still lose weight. I'm down 60 pounds eating pizza, fast food, beer, and chocolate on a pretty regular basis.

calories in... calories out. its science. it works.

JoanaMHill

Everything in moderation is, for many people, the easiest way to lose weight because they learn to portion-control their favorite things and don't feel like they have to cut it out completely. But if you are, for instance, lactose intolerant no one's going to force-feed you cheese unless you take a couple Lactaids and that's what you want.

seska422

From personal experience, I'm eating everything I want to eat in moderation and I'm losing weight. That's all the credibility I need.

Try it. If it works for you, great. If it doesn't work for you, keep trying different things until you find something that's sustainable in the long run that does work for you.

spzjlb

I think it's everything in moderation, if "moderation" can be defined in this context to be within your calorie alotment that you've determined to be appropriate for weight loss. I find that portion size is the demon that caused me to gain weight, even though I always ate "clean". Like the previous poster who lost 60 lbs eating whatever, I feel that "calories in vs calories out" is the key to moderation. Your moderation and mine may be very different!

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt

mantium999 wrote: »

By dietary issues I assume you mean a medical issue or health concern. Should that be the case, never seen anyone advocate all things in moderation even if the individual has a defined reason to avoid certain things. So, you either miss the point regarding moderation, think you are being coy by asking for studies, or are flame-baiting which is against the TOS of this site.

Yep, this x 1000^^^

PeachyCarol

No one ever advocates for moderation in spite of medical concerns/dietary concerns.

I have celiac disease. No one has ever suggested that I moderate my intake of pizza. The advice to moderate is always in line with an individuals specific needs/goals.

Unless... umayster, you're not conflating medical risk with medical certainty, are you?

Surely you're aware that prohibitions from the medical community (and wider held general feeling) based on risk factors related to food issues, for the most part, are related to studies don't show direct causal links ... or from animal studies based on gross overconsumption beyond what would be considered moderate?

randomtai

Lolz studies? I heard it all.

elphie754

mantium999 wrote: »

By dietary issues I assume you mean a medical issue or health concern. Should that be the case, never seen anyone advocate all things in moderation even if the individual has a defined reason to avoid certain things. So, you either miss the point regarding moderation, think you are being coy by asking for studies, or are flame-baiting which is against the TOS of this site.

Based on their replies in other threads, I am going to say it is this one.

Sued0nim

Then you should report the OP for ignoring the TOS

KateKyi

It depends on if you are a food addict or not. Everything in moderation is ok if you have the discipline not to eat the rest of it. This will not work if you are addicted to what you eat. Its like giving up cigarettes. alcohol or drugs. The same cravings will apply. Non food addicts just dont get that people can be food addicts.

kshama2001

I don't have a medical issue like diabetes, PCOS, or celiac, but I'm increasingly sensitive to sugar, so my personal definition of moderation wouldn't be the same as many other posters here. I don't feel sugar-deprived, so feel that I am being moderate, but wouldn't be compared to the "I eat ice cream every day" crowd. For me, a moderate amount of ice cream is having 4 ounces once or twice per month.

Jennloella

yes! Eat all the things!! Just not the whole bag/container/tub of all the things Also, don't eat anything you're allergic to.....you need others to confirm that one?

SLLRunner

umayster wrote: »

I'm fairly new here, but have been a bit overwhelmed with all the eat everything in modération advice that is despensed regardless of dietary issues.

Are there some studies available to read that give the eat everything/moderation plan some credibility?

Please be more specific with what you mean by dietary issues.

I think the proof is in the success stories of people who eat all the foods they love and are losing weight, or have lost weight and are able to maintain.

Weight loss and management is not about food restriction, it is about calorie restriction.

Anything outside of calorie restriction is either to follow a diet based on medical issues (your doctor told you to follow said diet) or preference.

SLLRunner

KateKyi wrote: »

It depends on if you are a food addict or not. Everything in moderation is ok if you have the discipline not to eat the rest of it. This will not work if you are addicted to what you eat. Its like giving up cigarettes. alcohol or drugs. The same cravings will apply. Non food addicts just dont get that people can be food addicts.

Do you mean binge eater? If not, how's it possible to be addicted to food?

Azexas

mantium999 wrote: »

By dietary issues I assume you mean a medical issue or health concern. Should that be the case, never seen anyone advocate all things in moderation even if the individual has a defined reason to avoid certain things. So, you either miss the point regarding moderation, think you are being coy by asking for studies, or are flame-baiting which is against the TOS of this site.

I'm guess this.

SLLRunner

rabbitjb wrote: »

Then you should report the OP for ignoring the TOS

I'd say this is the best option....

Kexessa

I haven't seen anyone posting about disregarding health issues and eating everything 'in moderation' regardless.

Moderation is subjective and something you personally have to control. My moderation may be to only eat 1 slice of cheese pizza. Another person's idea of moderations is to eat 4 slices and skip the soda.

galgenstrick

umayster wrote: »

I'm fairly new here, but have been a bit overwhelmed with all the eat everything in modération advice that is despensed regardless of dietary issues.

Are there some studies available to read that give the eat everything/moderation plan some credibility?

The concept is energy balance. If you take in less energy that you release, then you will lose weight. That's the first law of thermodynamics. no additional research needed.

So as long as you're eating less than you burn, you'll lose weight, regardless of what you eat. Most people find it the most enjoyable to include all the things they like to eat into their diet, in moderation, to reduce cravings and binges. again, they'll lose weight as long as they are in a caloric deficit.

If you do it this way, I highly recommend you don't completely neglect your health. Make sure the majority of the food you eat is from nutrient dense sources, and fit in the less nutritious foods in small amounts. I also recommend you avoid trans fats completely.

if you're looking to have a certain body composition, more muscular or toned for example, then things are slightly more complicated and you need to pay attention to your macro nutrient ratios as well as training routine.

Alluminati

umayster wrote: »

I'm fairly new here, but have been a bit overwhelmed with all the eat everything in modération advice that is despensed regardless of dietary issues.

Are there some studies available to read that give the eat everything/moderation plan some credibility?

I've never seen this on the boards. Can you link to a specific thread/post that advised this?

LiftAllThePizzas

umayster wrote: »

I'm fairly new here, but have been a bit overwhelmed with all the eat everything in modération advice that is despensed regardless of dietary issues.

Are there some studies available to read that give the eat everything/moderation plan some credibility?

Since you've asked for references, please supply examples of these "regardless of dietary issues" cases.

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt

I always love when an OP drops a bomb and never returns.

callsitlikeiseeit

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

I always love when an OP drops a bomb and never returns.

trolls are the best at that

umayster

My entire eating life has followed the moderation strategy. I've never formally dieted, counted calories or seriously logged food until now. I'm in my 50's and have been interested in and learning about nutrition for about the last 30 years. Simply focusing on 'healthier' food choices (my definition) has always taken care of pounds I wanted to get rid of until the last few years.

Over the last few months logging food and these boards have taught me a new form of moderation (with portions!) - I ate 1/4 cup of ice cream the other night and was both very happy AND very proud of myself! I've always had the ability to eat a lot of food!

The reason I asked the question about moderation was because I was confused at what I was reading. The way 'moderation' is suggested to people on these boards was like it was a long ago established fact.

Moderation is also frequently suggested to folks who come asking questions about a specific type of food or nutrient. Moderation is frequently suggested without first asking if they have health concerns or in some cases some folks are poo-poo'd about foods they would like to eliminate 'unless they have a medically diagnosed health issue'. Many people have family concerns or - heck, just being overweight or obese increases risk of assorted diseases & conditions, so asking before dispensing advice is seems like the prudent course to reduce the chance of inappropriate advice.

I am very concerned that people without a diagnosis, but with health concerns they are trying to be proactive about are being discouraged from taking responsibility for their own diet and eating an appropriate diet for them.

I'm simply trying to find out the source of that moderation belief - is moderation a personal philosophy or a studied strategy that has better weight loss success than food elimination?.

I've lived moderation for just about my entire life and need to help verify my risks of failure in changing strategy to food elimination.

DeguelloTex

The prudent course is to mention medical conditions when asking for advice.

DeguelloTex

umayster wrote: »

I'm simply trying to find out the source of that moderation belief - is moderation a personal philosophy or a studied strategy that has better weight loss success than food elimination?.

I've lived moderation for just about my entire life and need to help verify my risks of failure in changing strategy to food elimination.

Your risk of failure is unique to you. If you want to eliminate certain foods, eliminate them.The idea of moderation is that you don't have to eliminate foods. You can still do so if you choose.

FatFreeFrolicking

I've never seen anyone suggest everything in moderation if a person has medical conditions…

blankiefinder

umayster wrote: »

My entire eating life has followed the moderation strategy. I've never formally dieted, counted calories or seriously logged food until now. I'm in my 50's and have been interested in and learning about nutrition for about the last 30 years. Simply focusing on 'healthier' food choices (my definition) has always taken care of pounds I wanted to get rid of until the last few years.

Over the last few months logging food and these boards have taught me a new form of moderation (with portions!) - I ate 1/4 cup of ice cream the other night and was both very happy AND very proud of myself! I've always had the ability to eat a lot of food!

The reason I asked the question about moderation was because I was confused at what I was reading. The way 'moderation' is suggested to people on these boards was like it was a long ago established fact.

Moderation is also frequently suggested to folks who come asking questions about a specific type of food or nutrient. Moderation is frequently suggested without first asking if they have health concerns or in some cases some folks are poo-poo'd about foods they would like to eliminate 'unless they have a medically diagnosed health issue'. Many people have family concerns or - heck, just being overweight or obese increases risk of assorted diseases & conditions, so asking before dispensing advice is seems like the prudent course to reduce the chance of inappropriate advice.

I am very concerned that people without a diagnosis, but with health concerns they are trying to be proactive about are being discouraged from taking responsibility for their own diet and eating an appropriate diet for them.

I'm simply trying to find out the source of that moderation belief - is moderation a personal philosophy or a studied strategy that has better weight loss success than food elimination?.

I've lived moderation for just about my entire life and need to help verify my risks of failure in changing strategy to food elimination.

If people have specific health conditions, they should put that information in their question. It's unreasonable for us to assume that everyone posting for health has medical conditions.

Moderation is always recommended in conjunction with proper tracking and weighing foods. It's not like we're telling people, go eat whatever you want, whenever you want.

DeguelloTex

FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »

I've never seen anyone suggest everything in moderation if a person has medical conditions…

Not only that, it is almost universally added as a disclaimer when saying foods don't need to be eliminated.