Moderation
Options
Replies
-
That's not a moderate reaction to the term moderation, it's an extreme semantic argument
But it's fine
It's clearly how the black box in your brain works...but not how mine does...with the same input signals we get markedly different output
Is it going to affect either of us that we can't agree?...nope
Are we going to be equally successful in our health and fitness goals? ...quite possibly
I appreciate this is a non sequitur ...but I don't hold out much hope that either side will be swayed
Though I admit to being surprised there is actually another side to what seemed blatantly clear to me
H'oh well...such is the way of folk
I guess I don't understand how people arguing that "moderation" is in any way coherent or meaningful as a dieting philosophy (vs. as a word - seriously, everyone understands the actual, literal word) can fail to see the holes in their arguments, or recognize the irony of their position, given their usual attacks on "clean eaters" (i.e. that "no one understands what 'clean eating' means).
Both concepts are just meaningful enough to be useful hooks for people to hang their dieting hats on; both are vague enough for people to use them however they want.
Like it's silly to me0 -
Is there some definition for what constitutes "extreme"?
Since moderation is avoiding extremes (to some), what constitutes "extreme" as it applies to a diet?
But that's the rub, isn't it? For something to be considered moderate, it has to fall in the middle of two opposing points on the spectrum and is subject to the definition of the points. In politics, someone would be considered politically moderate if they fell between liberal and conservative. But you can also move the end points along the spectrum to identify someone who is moderately conservative or moderately liberal.
When it comes to diet, it seems the author is trying to do two separate things: define ways of eating as moderate, and define consumption as moderate. But she keeps using different spectrums - in keeping with the paleo diet, she uses one spectrum based on food restrictions to say it is not moderate, but later defines moderation using the spectrum of consumption of whole foods vs treats in which paleo could easily fall in the middle.
In keeping with the diet theme, someone upthread mentioned alcohol consumption, and I seem to remember that there was an actual number of drinks and frequency of consumption which would define someone as a moderate drinker (although I can't remember what those numbers were to save my life).
For diet, it would seem that without some consensus as to what a moderate intake is (as in portions and frequency), it does make it a bit ambiguous. I don't think that applying it by portion size would necessarily be accurate, as it would not account for differences in TDEE, and frequency would also be subject to things like lifestyle and portion size.
I would imagine the only real way to define moderation in terms of diet would be to view it in terms of percentages of foods consumed in overall diet over time (this is looking at moderation in terms of consumption/frequency because I think trying to define it by dietary composition is bunk). It would definitely have to have some longevity though to account for things like holidays and vacations which in the short term would skew the data.0 -
Is there some definition for what constitutes "extreme"?
Since moderation is avoiding extremes (to some), what constitutes "extreme" as it applies to a diet?
In keeping with the diet theme, someone upthread mentioned alcohol consumption, and I seem to remember that there was an actual number of drinks and frequency of consumption which would define someone as a moderate drinker (although I can't remember what those numbers were to save my life).
Re drinking - It varies by country. Italy thinks 2 good glasses of wine a day is advisable (per their guidelines). I might agree with that, but the guidelines in my country don't.
And even people who largely agree with any given guideline in general might have a different standard for what moderation is within their subculture. 3 drinks on a Saturday night isn't beyond the pale for most people in the US/Can, but it's more than they technically are advised to drink (immoderate). And someone who mostly doesn't drink but binge drinks once a month might see themselves as moderate, with that one exception 'not counting'.
There is also a rough # of drinks clinicans in north america can use to judge whether someone suffers from alcoholism, but iirc, they're advised to consider cultural influence. i.e. heavy drinkers from cultures in which heavy drinking is normalized (Russia, UK) might not come away with a diagnosis of alcoholism *just* based on the # of drinks
0 -
Is there some definition for what constitutes "extreme"?
Since moderation is avoiding extremes (to some), what constitutes "extreme" as it applies to a diet?
But that's the rub, isn't it? For something to be considered moderate, it has to fall in the middle of two opposing points on the spectrum and is subject to the definition of the points. In politics, someone would be considered politically moderate if they fell between liberal and conservative. But you can also move the end points along the spectrum to identify someone who is moderately conservative or moderately liberal.
When it comes to diet, it seems the author is trying to do two separate things: define ways of eating as moderate, and define consumption as moderate. But she keeps using different spectrums - in keeping with the paleo diet, she uses one spectrum based on food restrictions to say it is not moderate, but later defines moderation using the spectrum of consumption of whole foods vs treats in which paleo could easily fall in the middle.
In keeping with the diet theme, someone upthread mentioned alcohol consumption, and I seem to remember that there was an actual number of drinks and frequency of consumption which would define someone as a moderate drinker (although I can't remember what those numbers were to save my life).
For diet, it would seem that without some consensus as to what a moderate intake is (as in portions and frequency), it does make it a bit ambiguous. I don't think that applying it by portion size would necessarily be accurate, as it would not account for differences in TDEE, and frequency would also be subject to things like lifestyle and portion size.
I would imagine the only real way to define moderation in terms of diet would be to view it in terms of percentages of foods consumed in overall diet over time (this is looking at moderation in terms of consumption/frequency because I think trying to define it by dietary composition is bunk). It would definitely have to have some longevity though to account for things like holidays and vacations which in the short term would skew the data.
sadly, you are over complicating a simple concept.0 -
It's not a straw man. Someone brought up a past post of mine in which I put forth a few of the many, many definitions of "moderation" I've read on these boards. I wouldn't have compiled the list unless people had adamantly argued that everyone defines it the same way and nobody deviates from that definition.lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm completely confused as to what the argument even is.
As the author of the link in the OP said, the issue is that people claim "moderation" is an excuse to eat poorly or 100% fast food or Twinkies or the like, and that's obviously not consistent with the moderate approach nor what anyone recommends.
No one claimed everyone had to do moderation or that moderation is a "way of eating" from which it was possible to determine the exact amount of "treats" you eat per day. Those are strawmen.
The fact that some exercise moderation by eating a little something they categorize as a treat every day and some do it by eating treats only on the weekend or in some cases on rare occasions like holidays does not mean that people are applying different definitions. They are just applying the definition to their own life in their own way.Until a person describes how they eat "in moderation" nobody else can know how they eat.
Yes, of course. No one has said otherwise. So what is the "argument" about? You seem to be suggesting that a definition is meaningless unless it tells us precisely how someone eats. That is not my particular objection to the "clean eating" term. Even if it were applied consistently (no highly processed or fast food, say), it would not tell me how someone eats. What I dislike about it (apart from "clean" being chosen to be insulting to people who eat differently and IMO that being part of the appeal for many who use it), is that there are vastly different definitions of what is "clean" and "unclean" -- bread is often "unclean," not always, potatoes, same, cereal, same, legumes, same, dairy, same, bacon and deli meat and yogurt, same, all restaurant food, same, homemade foods with sugar, same, and I could go on. That's why I ask what someone means by clean -- I know there are foods they are trying to avoid, but I don't know which ones or on what principle (in other words, why they claim potatoes are unhealthy).
When someone says they eat in a moderate fashion, I don't know what their breakfast, lunch, and dinner look like or the specific factors they consider in making eating decisions, but I still have a general sense of their approach and if they are like me they will be happy to share more if someone is interested.0 -
-
even the author herself states that the actual foods consumed will vary based on personal preferences and tastes (which again, contradicts her previous argument that diets like paleo cannot not be moderation).
I bet if you emailed her and asked if someone eating a paleo diet because they don't really like dairy, legumes, or grains is eating "in moderation" that she might say yes.
Personally, I have no problem with that idea (or that one can do a sort of paleo diet in a moderate way). I do wonder why one needs to follow a specific diet if it's how you would eat anyway, though. I did paleo for a bit and decided it was silly for me to do it because: (1) I think dairy and legumes are healthy and probably whole grains too -- specifically, I think including them tends to result in a more healthful diet for me (not for everyone, lots of people are lactose intolerant and some are celiac or other other negative reactions to grains); and (2) I don't really care about grains so it seemed a silly thing to give up as I naturally don't eat much of them (especially refined grains) if I am even remotely mindful and limit calories (which means I rarely eat sweet baked goods).Also, the authors application of moderation is totally in line with the diet as it is one where the theoretical person would be getting micros from whole foods, filling in macros with other foods, and then indulging in treats and what not to fill in left over calories.
The author said 100% strict paleo (like Whole30), which doesn't permit certain kinds of treats or even replacement "paleo treats."0 -
Is there some definition for what constitutes "extreme"?
Since moderation is avoiding extremes (to some), what constitutes "extreme" as it applies to a diet?
In keeping with the diet theme, someone upthread mentioned alcohol consumption, and I seem to remember that there was an actual number of drinks and frequency of consumption which would define someone as a moderate drinker (although I can't remember what those numbers were to save my life).
Re drinking - It varies by country. Italy thinks 2 good glasses of wine a day is advisable (per their guidelines). I might agree with that, but the guidelines in my country don't.
There is also a rough # of drinks clinicans in north america can use to judge whether someone suffers from alcoholism, but iirc, they're advised to consider cultural influence. i.e. heavy drinkers from cultures in which heavy drinking is normalized (Russia, UK) might not come away with a diagnosis of alcoholism *just* based on the # of drinks
actually, 2 glasses (350 ml) for women, and 3 glasses (450 ml) for men
(not an ideal dose, anyway, but the maximum) to be drunk during the meals.
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Is there some definition for what constitutes "extreme"?
Since moderation is avoiding extremes (to some), what constitutes "extreme" as it applies to a diet?
In keeping with the diet theme, someone upthread mentioned alcohol consumption, and I seem to remember that there was an actual number of drinks and frequency of consumption which would define someone as a moderate drinker (although I can't remember what those numbers were to save my life).
Re drinking - It varies by country. Italy thinks 2 good glasses of wine a day is advisable (per their guidelines). I might agree with that, but the guidelines in my country don't.
There is also a rough # of drinks clinicans in north america can use to judge whether someone suffers from alcoholism, but iirc, they're advised to consider cultural influence. i.e. heavy drinkers from cultures in which heavy drinking is normalized (Russia, UK) might not come away with a diagnosis of alcoholism *just* based on the # of drinks
actually, 2 glasses (350 ml) for women, and 3 glasses (450 ml) for men (not an ideal dose, anyway, but the maximum) to be drunk during the meals.
Aha, thank you for the correction, @Gianfranco_R . (I was using the standard that applied to myself
) 0 -
No, if it's applied differently, then people cannot know what someone means when they say they "eat in moderation."
Some people in this thread have claimed that it's not a "moderate diet" and that "in line with the diet" wouldn't be describing it. They feel it isn't a diet at all and isn't about a diet in any way.I just read the article blog some random person wrote, and frankly, I'm think it's completely off on the definition of moderation. Moderation is the absence of extremes, but I think it is more appropriately applied in the same context as "eating within your macros" or "having a calorie deficit" - it's a concept that can be applied to all different ways of eating, whereas this author tries to make moderation into a labeled diet where specific foods are included. The author basically defines it as "eating mostly whole foods with treats." Um, what? That's not any definition of "eating in moderation" that I've ever heard, that's someone trying to co-op the term to make their preferred type of food intake into something they think everyone else needs to adhere to for success.
The most ridiculous part is the author states that things like eating 100% paleo, or going sugar-free, or only eating organic are considered "extreme," but then goes on to contradict herself by saying "The specifics will look different for everyone, because everyone has different preferences and tastes." Wouldn't eating a paleo diet or vegetarian diet or a no added sugar diet fall into the category of personal preferences and tastes? And who determines what is or is not a treat or indulgence in someone else's diet?
To me, moderation has to do with portion size and/or frequency of consumption, not any specific type of food. The author also goes on to talk about food restriction and binging - for some people, yes, this can be a very real concern. For others, restricting or eliminating a food is their path to success. The author admits to having feelings of guilt around long-term restricting/binging and foods - that's her personal psychological issue, it's not endemic to all people who restrict foods. Others find that just eliminating the food reduces or eliminates issues around foods, because they no longer endure the psychological stress of trying to moderate those foods and failing.
TL;DR: I'm glad she found something that works for her, but as far as the author's definition of moderation
the author uses the webster definition of moderation, not sure why you think it is some made up definition …
Just because she quoted the definition does not mean she used the word properly in context. Here's what she initially says (hat tip to the cherry-picking manner in which she choose to present only one definition for the word and completely left out the definition of the idiom "in moderation" which means "without excess; moderately; temperately")mod·er·a·tion
ˌmädəˈrāSH(ə)n/
noun
1. the avoidance of excess or extremes, especially in one’s behavior or political opinions.Eating 100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme.
Yet later in the article she states:So what does moderation look like in the real world?
It looks like eating a MOSTLY whole foods diet with plenty of nutrients from fruits, vegetables, lean meats, healthy fats, etc. The specifics will look different for everyone, because everyone has different preferences and tastes. It also leaves room for regular treats and indulgences that feed our soul and give us pleasure.
The application she describes is quite different from the definition she presented, and a 100% paleo diet would easily fit the criteria of a "mostly whole foods diet with plenty of nutrients from fruits, vegetable, lean meats, healthy fats, etc;" the choice to eat a paleo diet would be supported by her statement that "the specifics will look different for everyone, because everyone has different preferences and tastes; and things like paleo desserts would certainly fit into the category of "regular treats and indulgences that feed our soul and give us pleasure."
Therefore, a paleo diet meets the criteria for "what moderation looks like in the real world," which contradicts her previous statement about a paleo diet. The author is applying the same definition inconsistently. In the first instance, she defines moderation by the types of food consumed/behavior of eliminating certain foods from one's diet, and in the second, she defines moderation by the amount/frequency of types of foods consumed and the behavior of exercising that practice.
My post clarified is that her use in the first instance is inaccurate and that the second instance is the correct usage when discussing diet and food consumption, which makes moderation apply across ways of eating. Her use of both instances as acceptable under that one specific definition is glaringly contradictory - which also supports what some other users have said about the definition of moderation being unclear to some people. The author's own words support that position.
paleo would never meet the requirement of a "moderate diet" because it calls for the elimination of certain food groups, and also says that one has to eat like a paleolithic person, which would mean only eating local foods found within a 100 mile radius of where one lives, and sustaining on a diet of raw meet, grubs, plant roots, etc.
your understanding of moderation is severely flawed, and you do not understand the point that the author is trying to make.
Also, the authors application of moderation is totally in line with the diet as it is one where the theoretical person would be getting micros from whole foods, filling in macros with other foods, and then indulging in treats and what not to fill in left over calories.
Another person suggested it means you have treats, but not all the time.
Someone else suggested that you just don't have too much of something.
Even in the thread about how everyone is thinking the very same thing, there have been some discrepancies on the definition.
how is there a difference in definition...the difference is in the application.
having treats sometimes...moderating treats.
having a drink or two ...moderating alcohol
moderation by definition is allow for things sometimes but not going to an extreme and doing it all the time.
see in this instance it would be not arguing for arguments sake all the time...that's not moderate.
or insisting that there is more than one definition of moderate...
*light bulb moment*
Some would argue that having treats all the time is not extreme, but is moderation.
some would argue black was white too...
Define "all the time"
I eat a chocolate bar every night with a diet coke...that's moderation as I allow for it and don't eliminate chocolate/treats from my diet.
You might not see that as "moderate" because you can't eat chocolate every night and still maintain/lose..but for me it's moderate...application.
That's the nice thing about moderation...the definition is clear...application varies...
They'll need clarification to actually know what it means.
I don't define "moderation" and "clean." Those are terms other people use.
Judging by all the many, many definitions I've read for each word, I do both.
Ironically, based on my understandings of the terms and what you've written in various posts, you do a form of moderation and don't eat clean.
(Same as me, but in a very different way, since different people apply things differently.)0 -
I really can't believe this argument is still going on.
Moderation is a word with a consistent definition that can be looked up in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The way that an individual utilizes moderation as it pertains to diet, or any other concept, will vary based on preferences, tolerances, goals, etc.
Clean Eating is not listed in Merriam-Webster dictionary. In addition to not having a clear definition from a reliable source, it also has subjective application based on individual preferences, tolerances, goals, etc.
I practice moderation but my specific choices in how to apply it to my diet differ from others who practice moderation like @PeachyCarol, @lemurcat12, @ndj1979 . That's ok, because @peachycarol isn't telling me that I have to be a gluten free vegetarian, and @lemurcat12 isn't telling me that I have to eat all foods that come from the CSA or not drink because she doesn't drink, and @ndj1979 isn't telling me I have to eat as much protein as he does because of his lifting. We all recognize that the practice of moderation is individually specific, even though we all understand the consistent definition.
0 -
justrollme wrote: »Moderation applied to some foods works for some people. In my opinion, a lot—perhaps even most, judging by obesity rates, as well as how many people regain weight after losing—either do not moderate their food, or think they moderate their food, but really don't, which is a point a few people here have made that others seem so desperate to dismiss.
Most people don't moderate their food, and I doubt they think about it enough to think they moderate their food.
I didn't moderate my food when I was gaining weight, and I knew it.
Ironically (again), I did do a form of "clean eating" (I called it eating "all natural" or some such nonsense).0 -
Surely a better discussion would be "what does moderation mean to you?" and then see if there are common areas between the approaches - the whole success leaves clues thing.
I agree with this. As I keep saying to Kalikel, most people who do moderation seem happy to talk about what they do in practice.At a pinch I would think it is an approach which honours personal preference, aligns with your goals and does not leave anything you wish to be on the table, off it, but in the right proportions to achieve your goals.
Yes, this is precisely what it means to me.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »this is pretty simple....I can't believe so many people don't get it...my mind is officially blown...i really didn't think there could be this much derp on one site.
I'm only on page 4 so far, but this pretty much sums it for me.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
It's not a straw man. Someone brought up a past post of mine in which I put forth a few of the many, many definitions of "moderation" I've read on these boards. I wouldn't have compiled the list unless people had adamantly argued that everyone defines it the same way and nobody deviates from that definition.lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm completely confused as to what the argument even is.
As the author of the link in the OP said, the issue is that people claim "moderation" is an excuse to eat poorly or 100% fast food or Twinkies or the like, and that's obviously not consistent with the moderate approach nor what anyone recommends.
No one claimed everyone had to do moderation or that moderation is a "way of eating" from which it was possible to determine the exact amount of "treats" you eat per day. Those are strawmen.
The fact that some exercise moderation by eating a little something they categorize as a treat every day and some do it by eating treats only on the weekend or in some cases on rare occasions like holidays does not mean that people are applying different definitions. They are just applying the definition to their own life in their own way.Until a person describes how they eat "in moderation" nobody else can know how they eat.
Yes, of course. No one has said otherwise. So what is the "argument" about? You seem to be suggesting that a definition is meaningless unless it tells us precisely how someone eats. That is not my particular objection to the "clean eating" term. Even if it were applied consistently (no highly processed or fast food, say), it would not tell me how someone eats.
The same is true when someone uses "moderation" to describe their habits, though.
I don't have an objection to either term, personally. I just think people who think what's good for the goose should recognize it's just as good for the gander
or pots/kettles etc0 -
Indeed, they have. That is how all this began two threads back.lemurcat12 wrote: »
It's not a straw man. Someone brought up a past post of mine in which I put forth a few of the many, many definitions of "moderation" I've read on these boards. I wouldn't have compiled the list unless people had adamantly argued that everyone defines it the same way and nobody deviates from that definition.lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm completely confused as to what the argument even is.
As the author of the link in the OP said, the issue is that people claim "moderation" is an excuse to eat poorly or 100% fast food or Twinkies or the like, and that's obviously not consistent with the moderate approach nor what anyone recommends.
No one claimed everyone had to do moderation or that moderation is a "way of eating" from which it was possible to determine the exact amount of "treats" you eat per day. Those are strawmen.
The fact that some exercise moderation by eating a little something they categorize as a treat every day and some do it by eating treats only on the weekend or in some cases on rare occasions like holidays does not mean that people are applying different definitions. They are just applying the definition to their own life in their own way.Until a person describes how they eat "in moderation" nobody else can know how they eat.
Someone who actually, genuinely wanted to know just what the heck people meant when they said people should "eat in moderation" - someone who was in no way attempting to start a fight - couldn't get an answer. It was an honest question.
The thread brought up early on in this thread was one in which people insisted that EVERYONE uses the same definition. I posted a few of the many, many definitions of moderation that have been posted here. At that point people said, "Well, they are using the word incorrectly" and "Of course it will be different for everyone."
That doesn't help someone who is trying to figure it out when they see it. So, they'd have to ask, "How are you defining that?"
It seems to be changing now. It no longer seems to be an actual term, but more a nebulous concept.
Moderation: a general approach to eating (that may or may not include eliminating some items) that is carried out in various ways by different people and occasionally used in a different context by people who use the term incorrectly.
That doesn't exactly clear anything up.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
No, if it's applied differently, then people cannot know what someone means when they say they "eat in moderation."
Some people in this thread have claimed that it's not a "moderate diet" and that "in line with the diet" wouldn't be describing it. They feel it isn't a diet at all and isn't about a diet in any way.I just read the article blog some random person wrote, and frankly, I'm think it's completely off on the definition of moderation. Moderation is the absence of extremes, but I think it is more appropriately applied in the same context as "eating within your macros" or "having a calorie deficit" - it's a concept that can be applied to all different ways of eating, whereas this author tries to make moderation into a labeled diet where specific foods are included. The author basically defines it as "eating mostly whole foods with treats." Um, what? That's not any definition of "eating in moderation" that I've ever heard, that's someone trying to co-op the term to make their preferred type of food intake into something they think everyone else needs to adhere to for success.
The most ridiculous part is the author states that things like eating 100% paleo, or going sugar-free, or only eating organic are considered "extreme," but then goes on to contradict herself by saying "The specifics will look different for everyone, because everyone has different preferences and tastes." Wouldn't eating a paleo diet or vegetarian diet or a no added sugar diet fall into the category of personal preferences and tastes? And who determines what is or is not a treat or indulgence in someone else's diet?
To me, moderation has to do with portion size and/or frequency of consumption, not any specific type of food. The author also goes on to talk about food restriction and binging - for some people, yes, this can be a very real concern. For others, restricting or eliminating a food is their path to success. The author admits to having feelings of guilt around long-term restricting/binging and foods - that's her personal psychological issue, it's not endemic to all people who restrict foods. Others find that just eliminating the food reduces or eliminates issues around foods, because they no longer endure the psychological stress of trying to moderate those foods and failing.
TL;DR: I'm glad she found something that works for her, but as far as the author's definition of moderation
the author uses the webster definition of moderation, not sure why you think it is some made up definition …
Just because she quoted the definition does not mean she used the word properly in context. Here's what she initially says (hat tip to the cherry-picking manner in which she choose to present only one definition for the word and completely left out the definition of the idiom "in moderation" which means "without excess; moderately; temperately")mod·er·a·tion
ˌmädəˈrāSH(ə)n/
noun
1. the avoidance of excess or extremes, especially in one’s behavior or political opinions.Eating 100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme.
Yet later in the article she states:So what does moderation look like in the real world?
It looks like eating a MOSTLY whole foods diet with plenty of nutrients from fruits, vegetables, lean meats, healthy fats, etc. The specifics will look different for everyone, because everyone has different preferences and tastes. It also leaves room for regular treats and indulgences that feed our soul and give us pleasure.
The application she describes is quite different from the definition she presented, and a 100% paleo diet would easily fit the criteria of a "mostly whole foods diet with plenty of nutrients from fruits, vegetable, lean meats, healthy fats, etc;" the choice to eat a paleo diet would be supported by her statement that "the specifics will look different for everyone, because everyone has different preferences and tastes; and things like paleo desserts would certainly fit into the category of "regular treats and indulgences that feed our soul and give us pleasure."
Therefore, a paleo diet meets the criteria for "what moderation looks like in the real world," which contradicts her previous statement about a paleo diet. The author is applying the same definition inconsistently. In the first instance, she defines moderation by the types of food consumed/behavior of eliminating certain foods from one's diet, and in the second, she defines moderation by the amount/frequency of types of foods consumed and the behavior of exercising that practice.
My post clarified is that her use in the first instance is inaccurate and that the second instance is the correct usage when discussing diet and food consumption, which makes moderation apply across ways of eating. Her use of both instances as acceptable under that one specific definition is glaringly contradictory - which also supports what some other users have said about the definition of moderation being unclear to some people. The author's own words support that position.
paleo would never meet the requirement of a "moderate diet" because it calls for the elimination of certain food groups, and also says that one has to eat like a paleolithic person, which would mean only eating local foods found within a 100 mile radius of where one lives, and sustaining on a diet of raw meet, grubs, plant roots, etc.
your understanding of moderation is severely flawed, and you do not understand the point that the author is trying to make.
Also, the authors application of moderation is totally in line with the diet as it is one where the theoretical person would be getting micros from whole foods, filling in macros with other foods, and then indulging in treats and what not to fill in left over calories.
Another person suggested it means you have treats, but not all the time.
Someone else suggested that you just don't have too much of something.
Even in the thread about how everyone is thinking the very same thing, there have been some discrepancies on the definition.
how is there a difference in definition...the difference is in the application.
having treats sometimes...moderating treats.
having a drink or two ...moderating alcohol
moderation by definition is allow for things sometimes but not going to an extreme and doing it all the time.
see in this instance it would be not arguing for arguments sake all the time...that's not moderate.
or insisting that there is more than one definition of moderate...
*light bulb moment*
Some would argue that having treats all the time is not extreme, but is moderation.
some would argue black was white too...
Define "all the time"
I eat a chocolate bar every night with a diet coke...that's moderation as I allow for it and don't eliminate chocolate/treats from my diet.
You might not see that as "moderate" because you can't eat chocolate every night and still maintain/lose..but for me it's moderate...application.
That's the nice thing about moderation...the definition is clear...application varies...
They'll need clarification to actually know what it means.
I don't define "moderation" and "clean." Those are terms other people use.
Judging by all the many, many definitions I've read for each word, I do both.
Ironically, based on my understandings of the terms and what you've written in various posts, you do a form of moderation and don't eat clean.
(Same as me, but in a very different way, since different people apply things differently.)
If you'd read all the definitions I have you would have to conclude all four of the following:
1. I eat clean
2. I do not eat clean
3. I eat in moderation
4. I do not eat in moderation
Since I don't use the terms, I must rely on other people's definitions and it really depends on how the person defines whatever term they're using.0 -
Indeed, they have. That is how all this began two threads back.lemurcat12 wrote: »
It's not a straw man. Someone brought up a past post of mine in which I put forth a few of the many, many definitions of "moderation" I've read on these boards. I wouldn't have compiled the list unless people had adamantly argued that everyone defines it the same way and nobody deviates from that definition.lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm completely confused as to what the argument even is.
As the author of the link in the OP said, the issue is that people claim "moderation" is an excuse to eat poorly or 100% fast food or Twinkies or the like, and that's obviously not consistent with the moderate approach nor what anyone recommends.
No one claimed everyone had to do moderation or that moderation is a "way of eating" from which it was possible to determine the exact amount of "treats" you eat per day. Those are strawmen.
The fact that some exercise moderation by eating a little something they categorize as a treat every day and some do it by eating treats only on the weekend or in some cases on rare occasions like holidays does not mean that people are applying different definitions. They are just applying the definition to their own life in their own way.Until a person describes how they eat "in moderation" nobody else can know how they eat.
Someone who actually, genuinely wanted to know just what the heck people meant when they said people should "eat in moderation" - someone who was in no way attempting to start a fight - couldn't get an answer. It was an honest question.
The thread brought up early on in this thread was one in which people insisted that EVERYONE uses the same definition. I posted a few of the many, many definitions of moderation that have been posted here. At that point people said, "Well, they are using the word incorrectly" and "Of course it will be different for everyone."
That doesn't help someone who is trying to figure it out when they see it. So, they'd have to ask, "How are you defining that?"
It seems to be changing now. It no longer seems to be an actual term, but more a nebulous concept.
Moderation: a general approach to eating (that may or may not include eliminating some items) that is carried out in various ways by different people and occasionally used in a different context by people who use the term incorrectly.
That doesn't exactly clear anything up.
Do you have a link to the thread?0 -
You know that phenomena where you read/say the same word over and over and over and it starts to sound wrong when you say it, or weird? I'm getting that feeling with "moderate" now.0
-
Holy f$&@"!!! I can't believe that this conversation has gone so left field! Truly the last time I post an article here. I completely forgot how arbitrary people can be on the Internet. How can I take this post down?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions