Moderation
Replies
-
I'd you define "moderation" as "avoiding extremes," then you have to know what the extremes are. If you don't know what they are, there is no way to determine whether or not you've avoided them.lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Paleo people who eliminate something aren't eating in moderation, but vegetarians who eliminate something are?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.
No, I'm rejecting your attempt to exclude people who follow different ways of eating from being considered as practicing moderation, because you are applying the one definition provided by the author arbitrarily and incorrectly. And you can't really define moderation without identifying the opposing ends of the spectrum it falls within, otherwise it's a completely subjective concept. If it is subjective, then what is or is not moderation will fall to the individual to determine for themselves, and statements like "100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme" is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
does paleo eliminate food from it's plan? If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game.
application is subjective. If I bought a 2000$ purse making 25k a year that is not a moderate purchase...but if I make 250k a year it's a moderate purchase.
If I eliminate dairy from my diet due to being lactose intolerant that is not extreme....but if I get rid of milk cause of an eating plan to "make me better.." that is extreme.
Someone up thread said elimination depended on a "good reason." Is that how you see it, too? If you have a "good reason" then you can practice elimination and eat in moderation, but if you don't have a "good reason" then you can't?
doesn't matter how I see it to be frank...moderation is the absence of extremes by definition and I feel that most "diets" are extremes and that eliminating foods to lose weight because you just "can't" manage to lose weight if you eat them is extreme. ie atkins, paleo, south beach, 17 day, LCHF, clean etc.
*note diets is in quotes
Ok, but the "extremes" part of what you just said is where things are arbitrary. ,Same for whatever's in between them.
This is not perverse word-twisting, by the way, it naturally follows from the definition. And although it is a point that hinges on semantics, it's not "academic" or theoretical.
Back to drinking for a minute: I had an English friend who was worried about the amount he was drinking, how it impacted his life. It was like 7-8 pints a day. He went to his (English) doctor, who said, "nah, you're fine, you're just drinking the wrong stuff. Quit drinking European beer and get back to English ale".
(That's an example of malpractice, probably, but also of how very different standards of moderation can be.)
and that is why we have all said...there is one definition of moderation but the application is subjective.
my purse example...2k on a purse is not moderate spending if you make 25k a year but it is moderate if you make 2.5m or 250k...or whatever...subjective application.
So how do I know what kind of purse you have?
Not the purse, the income if anything. The purse can be part of a moderate purchase, if your income allows for it.
Right, ok, the income. (I'd guess at their income and idea of moderation by whether it was Gucci or whatever.) Just knowing she has a purse doesn't tell me anything useful.
It does. It tells you that she doesn't have some weird dogma to never buy any purses because her horoscope told her it was bad karma.
Having criticisms of "clean eating" doesn't clarify what "moderation" means.
Moderation means there are no "You absolutely must X" or "You absolutely can't Y" rules. The absence of extremes.
If you want to lose weight, eat at a deficit that is appropriate for you, with nutrition that is appropriate for you.
If that allows for a bag of gummy bears every day, that's still moderation.
If that means you can only have a handful, that's still moderation.
If you don't like gummy bears and don't eat them at all, that's still moderation.
If you like gummy bears, they'd fit into your diet, you'd want to eat them, but you don't eat them for arbitrary reasons, that's not moderation.
That was said 9 pages ago. Multiple times.
Again: what counts as "extreme" is subjective.
Sure.
So what?
I continue to not see the argument here.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »mrsnazario1219 wrote: »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?
I would not worry too much OP. It is just the usual folks that don't understand the concept, and how to apply it to their daily lives, so they have to destroy the concept as something that no one can understand, because they do not understand it.
I absolutely understand the concept and how to apply it in my daily life. My argument is that my definition of moderation is different from yours, and from others, and so "moderation" when it comes to a way of eating is not a useful term.
Why do you think your definition of moderation is different? Simply because you eat different foods? That doesn't make the definitions different.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Personally, I think people are going wrong here with trying to drill down to individual food choices when talking about moderation and diet/nutrition...people are getting way too wrapped up in "treats" and what not.
By definition, a diet of moderation would be well balanced...you don't necessarily have to get into individual food choices which make up a balanced (moderate)...while not perfect, My Plate and just about any food pyramid out there is a pretty good picture of what a well balanced (moderate) diet would look like.
You can apply any number of diets and ways of eating and still maintain a well balanced and moderate diet. I would think a diet that eliminates or severely restricts one or more macro nutrients would obviously fall outside of moderate. I would consider the SAD to not be a diet of moderation either.
But a lot of people would.
Nope.0 -
Gotcha. And thank you for answering the question.
I can post here because I darn well feel like it. Whether or not you approve of me posting is irrelevant.
I'd encourage you to reread my first post. I was brought up, so I piped up.
I'm very simple. I say what I mean. There is nothing to "tell" or "find." I've said this to you 10,000 times when you've insisted I meant things I didn't say and I specifically state that I didn't mean them, but meant what I said.
First, you said:
Paleo people who eliminate something aren't eating in moderation, but vegetarians who eliminate something are?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.
No, I'm rejecting your attempt to exclude people who follow different ways of eating from being considered as practicing moderation, because you are applying the one definition provided by the author arbitrarily and incorrectly. And you can't really define moderation without identifying the opposing ends of the spectrum it falls within, otherwise it's a completely subjective concept. If it is subjective, then what is or is not moderation will fall to the individual to determine for themselves, and statements like "100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme" is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
does paleo eliminate food from it's plan? If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game.
application is subjective. If I bought a 2000$ purse making 25k a year that is not a moderate purchase...but if I make 250k a year it's a moderate purchase.
If I eliminate dairy from my diet due to being lactose intolerant that is not extreme....but if I get rid of milk cause of an eating plan to "make me better.." that is extreme.
Someone up thread said elimination depended on a "good reason." Is that how you see it, too? If you have a "good reason" then you can practice elimination and eat in moderation, but if you don't have a "good reason" then you can't?
doesn't matter how I see it to be frank...moderation is the absence of extremes by definition and I feel that most "diets" are extremes and that eliminating foods to lose weight because you just "can't" manage to lose weight if you eat them is extreme. ie atkins, paleo, south beach, 17 day, LCHF, clean etc.
*note diets is in quotes
"If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game."
Now, it seems like it is more rationale-dependent.
I'm now trying to figure out which one it is. I'm genuinely confused. Is everyone who eliminates something automatically excluded from "eating in moderation" or not?
How I personally see vegetarians (due to moral/ethical choices) has no bearing on what moderation means or the fact that paleo, clean eating, atkins etc are not in line with the definition of moderation....
How people apply moderation to their WOE is totally subjective.
If you feel paleo is in line with moderation have at...I disagree.
If I feel paleo isn't moderate so be it...you apparently disagree...I think...you haven't really said one way or the other...
no wait you don't use the word moderate/moderation so you neither agree or disagree....so why are you arguing that paleo is moderate? or are you? I can never tell with you.
I would like to know if you believe one can eliminate certain foods or food groups from the diet and still eat in moderation.
Either you'll answer or you won't. That's all there is to that.
k then you mean what you say...you don't use the word moderate ...then why are you in here discussing moderation?????? confusing...
and to answer your question....What do I believe/feel
If a person eliminates food for medical reasons ie diabetic/sugar or gluten/celiac no it's not extreme as it is a requirement for health.
If a person eliminates food due to dislike no it's not extreme.
If a person eliminates food due to a religion no it's not extreme (people take their religions very seriously and I am not messing with that)
If a person eliminate food for any other reason than stated above yes I feel it is extreme. But that's me.
So yes I feel that if a vegetarian is that because of moral/ethics it's extreme and not moderate. esp since it can have long lasting detrimental effects on their children (while developing in the womb) if they aren't careful.
My feelings on it tho have no bearing on the actual definition of it just the application of it...
Ok, so it's rationale-dependent. Someone else said something similar, only they used the words "good reason."
New question:
*Assuming that the definition of moderation is "avoiding extremes," which you're on board with...*
If you feel that it's "extreme", it cannot be "in moderation" - correct?
answer my question first...this is a give and take after all right????
if you don't subscribe to moderation why are you here debating what it is and isn't? You don't use the word so why argue what it is...it has no bearing on your, your life or how you live it...
Now, will you answer the question?
Your first post in this thread is below I don't see where your name was mentioned at all or were you referenced in anyway prior to jumping in. no @Kalikel nothing...hmmm...odd how you "assumed" that some people meant you...
I would be the person who argued that. It's because it's true.Oh, I like this one! There are some folks that think that moderation "can mean anything" but this article nails it down. It is the absence of extremes. Nice. Thanks for sharing it!
When I first started reading on MFP, I was trying very hard to figure out what the heck people meant when they said "clean" or "in moderation" because one person would say this was clean and another would say that was clean, while one person saying moderation was this and another was saying moderation was that.
You can argue that both terms have definitions, but are carried out differently. That really doesn't help the person who is trying to figure out exactly what it means.
The fact of the matter is that saying "clean" or "in moderation" just isn't specific. It has no meaning that anyone could pinpoint and say "Everyone who says they eat this way does X."
I don't mind people using the words "clean" or "in moderation." I get what they mean in a general sense. But when they use those words, I don't know exactly how they are defining them. Most of the time, the general sense works just fine. Occasionally, though, I need a little more.
"I've been eating clean and I'm gaining weight!"
"I've been eating in moderation and I'm gaining weight!"
I'm going to need more. It doesn't really explain how they're actually eating.
If someone asks about how to eat treats "in moderation", there will be 20 different ways to do it.
As many posters have many meanings for each term, specifics will be required.
I have the same issue with both terms - "clean" and "in moderation" and am not slamming either group or trying to make fun of either group or have a fight.
I never suggested that anyone should stop using those terms! It's just that they aren't really clearly describing a way of eating.
so basically you are here to say that moderation has many meanings...when in fact it has one meaning and multiple applications..sort of like a sheet of fabric softener....it is made to keep cloths soft and static free but can be used to get bugs off your car grill.
Are you going to answer the question or not?
fine answer your question
Ok, so it's rationale-dependent. Someone else said something similar, only they used the words "good reason."
New question:
*Assuming that the definition of moderation is "avoiding extremes," which you're on board with...*
If you feel that it's "extreme", it cannot be "in moderation" - correct?
Extreme is defined as "exceeding the bounds of moderation" so yes if it's extreme it cannot be moderation by it's definition....it exceeds the bounds of moderation.
What I feel is extreme is subjective to the situation hence us saying over and over again...
Moderation has one definition but multiple application and depends greatly on the variables in that situation...see purse example.
0 -
Your first post in this thread is below I don't see where your name was mentioned at all or were you referenced in anyway prior to jumping in. no @Kalikel nothing...hmmm...odd how you "assumed" that some people meant you...
@Kalikel could have reasonably construed that these posts from page one:Oh, I like this one! There are some folks that think that moderation "can mean anything" but this article nails it down. It is the absence of extremes. Nice. Thanks for sharing it!Yep. There was a discussion here recently where some people were trying to argue that moderation has a million different definitions, just like "clean." I couldn't figure out how to articulate that even though we all might do it differently, it is still the same thing.
Referred to her post:Okay. I pulled up some of the reasons people are confused about Moderation. The OP has her definition...and it's wonderful. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with her approach or her attempt to explain the word "moderation" at all. The problem is that she's not the only one defining it.
If you wonder why people are confused about moderation, here's a small sampling of various definitions and explanations of how it is carried out by different people:
********************
*
"moderation" means including whatever foods you want (to the extent they fit your calories) after nutritional considerations are met
*
For me "in moderation" means this:
No soda or juice. Only Water, un sweetened iced tea and low fat milk.
Having one junk item a day(cookies, candy, ice cream, cupcakes)
Eating out 1 or 2 junk meals a week(pizza, burgers, fries, etc)
Working out 3-4X a week(Cardio and Weights)
Not drinking much alcohol unless I really want it.
If I eat out more then once or twice a week, I'll modify the meal(IE only half a bun, fruit instead of fries, etc)
*
I think it means that you are finding out what your body naturally wants.
*
To me, eating treats in moderation has mostly meant the portion sizes as opposed to the frequency and timing.
*
I like to try to have room for a treat every night, or some time throughout the day.
*
once a week for me, I dont have the will power to eat 1 or 2 cookies,
*
I moderate by limiting how often I indulge in that 20%, but allowing myself to eat as much as I want when I do.
*
moderation doesn't mean using my calories to eat less junk, it means occasionally having something not so healthy if I really want it... Moderation means having the option of choice and never having to say "no" to a small portion of something I really enjoy.
*
My goal is to hit my protein and fat target, then the eating frenzy of whatever can fill the remainder of my calories.
*
I think it's about balance like eat some salad with your pizza
*
Moderation is key. If you deny yourself your favorite foods, you'll end up binging. Since you are changing your lifestyle, you have to figure out how to keep your favorite foods around without letting them ruin you. That usually means cutting the portion size (and/or exercising more).
*
Calories in <Calories out
*
Eat foods you like, and make sure you're getting adequate protein and fats. Ideally you are also eating micronutrient dense foods to hit your macros.
*
if you want a treat make sure first that you can 'afford' the calories and then walk to a shop to buy it. If they're in the cupboard I find it too tempting to steal them when I haven't earned them. That's my method.
*
Moderation is simply eating the foods you love as long as they fit within your calorie budget. The more you exercise, the more you can eat. Simple as that.
*
most people who practice moderation eat primarily nutritious foods...they're just not afraid to have some desert or a slice or two of pizza every once in awhile
*
Moderation in this case simply refers to restricting your intake by some measure. If you can't have any of a food without triggering a craving, then moderation in this case = zero.
*
Moderation. A plan that can last a lifetime.
*
You know I do "moderation" thing too. But I drink light beer instead of real beer. I go to McDonalds but I get a hamburger instead of a Big Mac. I go over my goal calories all the time (probably 5 out of 7 days). But I work out a lot, eat mostly healthy. My philosophy is "make good choices".
*
If you eat 80 calories of strawberries instead of 160, you're still moderating.
*
You need to do whatever it is you need in order to make this as easy as possible. For a lot of people the thought of never having something that we enjoy is demotivating and maybe even enough to send us into a binge so we say things like "everything in moderation" to reinforce that we're in control and not deprived. That doesn't mean junk or trigger foods need to be a part of your diet! If it's easier not to eat something than to control the portion set yourself up to succeed by taking the easier option.
*
iifym
*
To me, moderation means I can eat whatever I want, as long as I don't go overboard.
*
I never eat "junk" when I'm hungry. If I start craving ice cream of chocolate or something, I eat something high protein/high fiber first and down a glass or two of water. After that I'll indulge.
*
I'm one of the "everything in moderation" people, but I also have my trigger foods. If I have cake, candy, ice cream, or anything sweet, I crave sugar all day. I literally can't think about anything except MOAR CAKE! So I don't have those things, unless I can arrange to have just a small serving in the evening when my stomach is already full so I won't keep stuffing my face. But there are some things that I *can* stop at just one, like chips, and so I allow myself those things.
*
I eat 80% healthy food and 20% treats.
*
Treats and cheats don't exist in this approach to achieving CICO because ...moderation
*
The only thing that helps me "eat in moderation" is keeping busy! If I go home right after work, the snacking begins! If I go to the gym right after work, when I get home I only have time to take a shower, make dinner, cool off and go to bed. One other thing that helps me are those 100 calorie packs. If you stock your cabinets with healthy, individual snacks it is easier to limit yourself
*
make yourself walk to the store when you want one. I do that sometimes when I really want a diet rootbeer. or a cheese stick from the gas station. I like to think of it as earning my treats
******************
And my personal favorite (so far), one word definition (which I know is half-joking) of moderation:
"Wine."0 -
I can post here because I darn well feel like it. Whether or not you approve of me posting is irrelevant.
I'd encourage you to reread my first post. I was brought up, so I piped up.
I'm very simple. I say what I mean. There is nothing to "tell" or "find." I've said this to you 10,000 times when you've insisted I meant things I didn't say and I specifically state that I didn't mean them, but meant what I said.
First, you said:
Paleo people who eliminate something aren't eating in moderation, but vegetarians who eliminate something are?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.
No, I'm rejecting your attempt to exclude people who follow different ways of eating from being considered as practicing moderation, because you are applying the one definition provided by the author arbitrarily and incorrectly. And you can't really define moderation without identifying the opposing ends of the spectrum it falls within, otherwise it's a completely subjective concept. If it is subjective, then what is or is not moderation will fall to the individual to determine for themselves, and statements like "100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme" is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
does paleo eliminate food from it's plan? If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game.
application is subjective. If I bought a 2000$ purse making 25k a year that is not a moderate purchase...but if I make 250k a year it's a moderate purchase.
If I eliminate dairy from my diet due to being lactose intolerant that is not extreme....but if I get rid of milk cause of an eating plan to "make me better.." that is extreme.
Someone up thread said elimination depended on a "good reason." Is that how you see it, too? If you have a "good reason" then you can practice elimination and eat in moderation, but if you don't have a "good reason" then you can't?
doesn't matter how I see it to be frank...moderation is the absence of extremes by definition and I feel that most "diets" are extremes and that eliminating foods to lose weight because you just "can't" manage to lose weight if you eat them is extreme. ie atkins, paleo, south beach, 17 day, LCHF, clean etc.
*note diets is in quotes
"If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game."
Now, it seems like it is more rationale-dependent.
I'm now trying to figure out which one it is. I'm genuinely confused. Is everyone who eliminates something automatically excluded from "eating in moderation" or not?
How I personally see vegetarians (due to moral/ethical choices) has no bearing on what moderation means or the fact that paleo, clean eating, atkins etc are not in line with the definition of moderation....
How people apply moderation to their WOE is totally subjective.
If you feel paleo is in line with moderation have at...I disagree.
If I feel paleo isn't moderate so be it...you apparently disagree...I think...you haven't really said one way or the other...
no wait you don't use the word moderate/moderation so you neither agree or disagree....so why are you arguing that paleo is moderate? or are you? I can never tell with you.
I would like to know if you believe one can eliminate certain foods or food groups from the diet and still eat in moderation.
Either you'll answer or you won't. That's all there is to that.
k then you mean what you say...you don't use the word moderate ...then why are you in here discussing moderation?????? confusing...
and to answer your question....What do I believe/feel
If a person eliminates food for medical reasons ie diabetic/sugar or gluten/celiac no it's not extreme as it is a requirement for health.
If a person eliminates food due to dislike no it's not extreme.
If a person eliminates food due to a religion no it's not extreme (people take their religions very seriously and I am not messing with that)
If a person eliminate food for any other reason than stated above yes I feel it is extreme. But that's me.
So yes I feel that if a vegetarian is that because of moral/ethics it's extreme and not moderate. esp since it can have long lasting detrimental effects on their children (while developing in the womb) if they aren't careful.
My feelings on it tho have no bearing on the actual definition of it just the application of it...
Ok, so it's rationale-dependent. Someone else said something similar, only they used the words "good reason."
New question:
*Assuming that the definition of moderation is "avoiding extremes," which you're on board with...*
If you feel that it's "extreme", it cannot be "in moderation" - correct?
answer my question first...this is a give and take after all right????
if you don't subscribe to moderation why are you here debating what it is and isn't? You don't use the word so why argue what it is...it has no bearing on your, your life or how you live it...
Now, will you answer the question?
Your first post in this thread is below I don't see where your name was mentioned at all or were you referenced in anyway prior to jumping in. no @Kalikel nothing...hmmm...odd how you "assumed" that some people meant you...
I would be the person who argued that. It's because it's true.Oh, I like this one! There are some folks that think that moderation "can mean anything" but this article nails it down. It is the absence of extremes. Nice. Thanks for sharing it!
When I first started reading on MFP, I was trying very hard to figure out what the heck people meant when they said "clean" or "in moderation" because one person would say this was clean and another would say that was clean, while one person saying moderation was this and another was saying moderation was that.
You can argue that both terms have definitions, but are carried out differently. That really doesn't help the person who is trying to figure out exactly what it means.
The fact of the matter is that saying "clean" or "in moderation" just isn't specific. It has no meaning that anyone could pinpoint and say "Everyone who says they eat this way does X."
I don't mind people using the words "clean" or "in moderation." I get what they mean in a general sense. But when they use those words, I don't know exactly how they are defining them. Most of the time, the general sense works just fine. Occasionally, though, I need a little more.
"I've been eating clean and I'm gaining weight!"
"I've been eating in moderation and I'm gaining weight!"
I'm going to need more. It doesn't really explain how they're actually eating.
If someone asks about how to eat treats "in moderation", there will be 20 different ways to do it.
As many posters have many meanings for each term, specifics will be required.
I have the same issue with both terms - "clean" and "in moderation" and am not slamming either group or trying to make fun of either group or have a fight.
I never suggested that anyone should stop using those terms! It's just that they aren't really clearly describing a way of eating.
so basically you are here to say that moderation has many meanings...when in fact it has one meaning and multiple applications..sort of like a sheet of fabric softener....it is made to keep cloths soft and static free but can be used to get bugs off your car grill.
Are you going to answer the question or not?
btw I didn't say if I approved or disapproved.....but I know the moderators have consistently said if you don't have anything useful to add to a conversation on these boards you should avoid the post...and since you don't use the word moderation I wasn't sure what you could add that was useful was all...just pointing it out as it's consistently pointed out when "moderates" go to a clean eating thread or a Low carb thread they/we are told the exact thing I said above...0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »mrsnazario1219 wrote: »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?
I would not worry too much OP. It is just the usual folks that don't understand the concept, and how to apply it to their daily lives, so they have to destroy the concept as something that no one can understand, because they do not understand it.
I absolutely understand the concept and how to apply it in my daily life. My argument is that my definition of moderation is different from yours, and from others, and so "moderation" when it comes to a way of eating is not a useful term.
No, your definition of Moderation is the same as mine. Your application of it within your individual approach to moderation is different.
That's what I've been trying to say. Moderation has a textbook definition (the avoidance of extremes) but the application of it is individualized and variable.
Which is why it doesn't describe anything about the diet in a useful way, or help anyone know what it means when people use it. All it really speaks to is an attitude.
It's an approach. I've outlined it a couple of times upthread. I think it IS helpful, yes, although not the only way to do things. What I don't think is helpful (and consider infantilizing and offensive) is to give someone a food plan or tell them to never eat added sugar or to eat no more than 50 carbs or give up fast food or some such. If they decide for themselves to do those things I think it can be a good choice, but lying and telling people that's necessary is wrong. (Obviously you don't do this, but I think you assume newbies should be treated as if they can't figure things out for themselves and I disagree. I think anyone must, to be really successful.)0 -
bahahahahahahaha twelve pages in and this concept is still being debated....oh man, who knew a simple concept with a singular definition could be so confusing for some....*wow*0
-
I'd encourage you to reread my first post. I was brought up, so I piped up.
I'm very simple. I say what I mean. There is nothing to "tell" or "find." I've said this to you 10,000 times when you've insisted I meant things I didn't say and I specifically state that I didn't mean them, but meant what I said.
First, you said:
Paleo people who eliminate something aren't eating in moderation, but vegetarians who eliminate something are?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.
No, I'm rejecting your attempt to exclude people who follow different ways of eating from being considered as practicing moderation, because you are applying the one definition provided by the author arbitrarily and incorrectly. And you can't really define moderation without identifying the opposing ends of the spectrum it falls within, otherwise it's a completely subjective concept. If it is subjective, then what is or is not moderation will fall to the individual to determine for themselves, and statements like "100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme" is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
does paleo eliminate food from it's plan? If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game.
application is subjective. If I bought a 2000$ purse making 25k a year that is not a moderate purchase...but if I make 250k a year it's a moderate purchase.
If I eliminate dairy from my diet due to being lactose intolerant that is not extreme....but if I get rid of milk cause of an eating plan to "make me better.." that is extreme.
Someone up thread said elimination depended on a "good reason." Is that how you see it, too? If you have a "good reason" then you can practice elimination and eat in moderation, but if you don't have a "good reason" then you can't?
doesn't matter how I see it to be frank...moderation is the absence of extremes by definition and I feel that most "diets" are extremes and that eliminating foods to lose weight because you just "can't" manage to lose weight if you eat them is extreme. ie atkins, paleo, south beach, 17 day, LCHF, clean etc.
*note diets is in quotes
"If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game."
Now, it seems like it is more rationale-dependent.
I'm now trying to figure out which one it is. I'm genuinely confused. Is everyone who eliminates something automatically excluded from "eating in moderation" or not?
How I personally see vegetarians (due to moral/ethical choices) has no bearing on what moderation means or the fact that paleo, clean eating, atkins etc are not in line with the definition of moderation....
How people apply moderation to their WOE is totally subjective.
If you feel paleo is in line with moderation have at...I disagree.
If I feel paleo isn't moderate so be it...you apparently disagree...I think...you haven't really said one way or the other...
no wait you don't use the word moderate/moderation so you neither agree or disagree....so why are you arguing that paleo is moderate? or are you? I can never tell with you.
I would like to know if you believe one can eliminate certain foods or food groups from the diet and still eat in moderation.
Either you'll answer or you won't. That's all there is to that.
k then you mean what you say...you don't use the word moderate ...then why are you in here discussing moderation?????? confusing...
and to answer your question....What do I believe/feel
If a person eliminates food for medical reasons ie diabetic/sugar or gluten/celiac no it's not extreme as it is a requirement for health.
If a person eliminates food due to dislike no it's not extreme.
If a person eliminates food due to a religion no it's not extreme (people take their religions very seriously and I am not messing with that)
If a person eliminate food for any other reason than stated above yes I feel it is extreme. But that's me.
So yes I feel that if a vegetarian is that because of moral/ethics it's extreme and not moderate. esp since it can have long lasting detrimental effects on their children (while developing in the womb) if they aren't careful.
My feelings on it tho have no bearing on the actual definition of it just the application of it...
Ok, so it's rationale-dependent. Someone else said something similar, only they used the words "good reason."
New question:
*Assuming that the definition of moderation is "avoiding extremes," which you're on board with...*
If you feel that it's "extreme", it cannot be "in moderation" - correct?
answer my question first...this is a give and take after all right????
if you don't subscribe to moderation why are you here debating what it is and isn't? You don't use the word so why argue what it is...it has no bearing on your, your life or how you live it...
You assumed the poster was talking about something you'd said in some other thread.
I don't know if that was correct, and no one has linked back to the other thread. I assume no one can find it and it might not exist anymore.0 -
If you feel that my presence in the thread has somehow violated a rule, I encourage you to report me for posting.
I can post here because I darn well feel like it. Whether or not you approve of me posting is irrelevant.
I'd encourage you to reread my first post. I was brought up, so I piped up.
I'm very simple. I say what I mean. There is nothing to "tell" or "find." I've said this to you 10,000 times when you've insisted I meant things I didn't say and I specifically state that I didn't mean them, but meant what I said.
First, you said:
Paleo people who eliminate something aren't eating in moderation, but vegetarians who eliminate something are?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.
No, I'm rejecting your attempt to exclude people who follow different ways of eating from being considered as practicing moderation, because you are applying the one definition provided by the author arbitrarily and incorrectly. And you can't really define moderation without identifying the opposing ends of the spectrum it falls within, otherwise it's a completely subjective concept. If it is subjective, then what is or is not moderation will fall to the individual to determine for themselves, and statements like "100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme" is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
does paleo eliminate food from it's plan? If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game.
application is subjective. If I bought a 2000$ purse making 25k a year that is not a moderate purchase...but if I make 250k a year it's a moderate purchase.
If I eliminate dairy from my diet due to being lactose intolerant that is not extreme....but if I get rid of milk cause of an eating plan to "make me better.." that is extreme.
Someone up thread said elimination depended on a "good reason." Is that how you see it, too? If you have a "good reason" then you can practice elimination and eat in moderation, but if you don't have a "good reason" then you can't?
doesn't matter how I see it to be frank...moderation is the absence of extremes by definition and I feel that most "diets" are extremes and that eliminating foods to lose weight because you just "can't" manage to lose weight if you eat them is extreme. ie atkins, paleo, south beach, 17 day, LCHF, clean etc.
*note diets is in quotes
"If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game."
Now, it seems like it is more rationale-dependent.
I'm now trying to figure out which one it is. I'm genuinely confused. Is everyone who eliminates something automatically excluded from "eating in moderation" or not?
How I personally see vegetarians (due to moral/ethical choices) has no bearing on what moderation means or the fact that paleo, clean eating, atkins etc are not in line with the definition of moderation....
How people apply moderation to their WOE is totally subjective.
If you feel paleo is in line with moderation have at...I disagree.
If I feel paleo isn't moderate so be it...you apparently disagree...I think...you haven't really said one way or the other...
no wait you don't use the word moderate/moderation so you neither agree or disagree....so why are you arguing that paleo is moderate? or are you? I can never tell with you.
I would like to know if you believe one can eliminate certain foods or food groups from the diet and still eat in moderation.
Either you'll answer or you won't. That's all there is to that.
k then you mean what you say...you don't use the word moderate ...then why are you in here discussing moderation?????? confusing...
and to answer your question....What do I believe/feel
If a person eliminates food for medical reasons ie diabetic/sugar or gluten/celiac no it's not extreme as it is a requirement for health.
If a person eliminates food due to dislike no it's not extreme.
If a person eliminates food due to a religion no it's not extreme (people take their religions very seriously and I am not messing with that)
If a person eliminate food for any other reason than stated above yes I feel it is extreme. But that's me.
So yes I feel that if a vegetarian is that because of moral/ethics it's extreme and not moderate. esp since it can have long lasting detrimental effects on their children (while developing in the womb) if they aren't careful.
My feelings on it tho have no bearing on the actual definition of it just the application of it...
Ok, so it's rationale-dependent. Someone else said something similar, only they used the words "good reason."
New question:
*Assuming that the definition of moderation is "avoiding extremes," which you're on board with...*
If you feel that it's "extreme", it cannot be "in moderation" - correct?
answer my question first...this is a give and take after all right????
if you don't subscribe to moderation why are you here debating what it is and isn't? You don't use the word so why argue what it is...it has no bearing on your, your life or how you live it...
Now, will you answer the question?
Your first post in this thread is below I don't see where your name was mentioned at all or were you referenced in anyway prior to jumping in. no @Kalikel nothing...hmmm...odd how you "assumed" that some people meant you...
I would be the person who argued that. It's because it's true.Oh, I like this one! There are some folks that think that moderation "can mean anything" but this article nails it down. It is the absence of extremes. Nice. Thanks for sharing it!
When I first started reading on MFP, I was trying very hard to figure out what the heck people meant when they said "clean" or "in moderation" because one person would say this was clean and another would say that was clean, while one person saying moderation was this and another was saying moderation was that.
You can argue that both terms have definitions, but are carried out differently. That really doesn't help the person who is trying to figure out exactly what it means.
The fact of the matter is that saying "clean" or "in moderation" just isn't specific. It has no meaning that anyone could pinpoint and say "Everyone who says they eat this way does X."
I don't mind people using the words "clean" or "in moderation." I get what they mean in a general sense. But when they use those words, I don't know exactly how they are defining them. Most of the time, the general sense works just fine. Occasionally, though, I need a little more.
"I've been eating clean and I'm gaining weight!"
"I've been eating in moderation and I'm gaining weight!"
I'm going to need more. It doesn't really explain how they're actually eating.
If someone asks about how to eat treats "in moderation", there will be 20 different ways to do it.
As many posters have many meanings for each term, specifics will be required.
I have the same issue with both terms - "clean" and "in moderation" and am not slamming either group or trying to make fun of either group or have a fight.
I never suggested that anyone should stop using those terms! It's just that they aren't really clearly describing a way of eating.
so basically you are here to say that moderation has many meanings...when in fact it has one meaning and multiple applications..sort of like a sheet of fabric softener....it is made to keep cloths soft and static free but can be used to get bugs off your car grill.
Are you going to answer the question or not?
btw I didn't say if I approved or disapproved.....but I know the moderators have consistently said if you don't have anything useful to add to a conversation on these boards you should avoid the post...and since you don't use the word moderation I wasn't sure what you could add that was useful was all...just pointing it out as it's consistently pointed out when "moderates" go to a clean eating thread or a Low carb thread they/we are told the exact thing I said above...
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »@Kalikel were you referring to this thread? http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10094415/moderation-a-love-story/p1 It had some substantial cleaning so some of the points to which you were referring may be now lost.
Oh, maybe someone did -- I'll check it out.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Your first post in this thread is below I don't see where your name was mentioned at all or were you referenced in anyway prior to jumping in. no @Kalikel nothing...hmmm...odd how you "assumed" that some people meant you...
@Kalikel could have reasonably construed that these posts from page one:Oh, I like this one! There are some folks that think that moderation "can mean anything" but this article nails it down. It is the absence of extremes. Nice. Thanks for sharing it!Yep. There was a discussion here recently where some people were trying to argue that moderation has a million different definitions, just like "clean." I couldn't figure out how to articulate that even though we all might do it differently, it is still the same thing.
Referred to her post:Okay. I pulled up some of the reasons people are confused about Moderation. The OP has her definition...and it's wonderful. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with her approach or her attempt to explain the word "moderation" at all. The problem is that she's not the only one defining it.
If you wonder why people are confused about moderation, here's a small sampling of various definitions and explanations of how it is carried out by different people:
********************
*
"moderation" means including whatever foods you want (to the extent they fit your calories) after nutritional considerations are met
*
For me "in moderation" means this:
No soda or juice. Only Water, un sweetened iced tea and low fat milk.
Having one junk item a day(cookies, candy, ice cream, cupcakes)
Eating out 1 or 2 junk meals a week(pizza, burgers, fries, etc)
Working out 3-4X a week(Cardio and Weights)
Not drinking much alcohol unless I really want it.
If I eat out more then once or twice a week, I'll modify the meal(IE only half a bun, fruit instead of fries, etc)
*
I think it means that you are finding out what your body naturally wants.
*
To me, eating treats in moderation has mostly meant the portion sizes as opposed to the frequency and timing.
*
I like to try to have room for a treat every night, or some time throughout the day.
*
once a week for me, I dont have the will power to eat 1 or 2 cookies,
*
I moderate by limiting how often I indulge in that 20%, but allowing myself to eat as much as I want when I do.
*
moderation doesn't mean using my calories to eat less junk, it means occasionally having something not so healthy if I really want it... Moderation means having the option of choice and never having to say "no" to a small portion of something I really enjoy.
*
My goal is to hit my protein and fat target, then the eating frenzy of whatever can fill the remainder of my calories.
*
I think it's about balance like eat some salad with your pizza
*
Moderation is key. If you deny yourself your favorite foods, you'll end up binging. Since you are changing your lifestyle, you have to figure out how to keep your favorite foods around without letting them ruin you. That usually means cutting the portion size (and/or exercising more).
*
Calories in <Calories out
*
Eat foods you like, and make sure you're getting adequate protein and fats. Ideally you are also eating micronutrient dense foods to hit your macros.
*
if you want a treat make sure first that you can 'afford' the calories and then walk to a shop to buy it. If they're in the cupboard I find it too tempting to steal them when I haven't earned them. That's my method.
*
Moderation is simply eating the foods you love as long as they fit within your calorie budget. The more you exercise, the more you can eat. Simple as that.
*
most people who practice moderation eat primarily nutritious foods...they're just not afraid to have some desert or a slice or two of pizza every once in awhile
*
Moderation in this case simply refers to restricting your intake by some measure. If you can't have any of a food without triggering a craving, then moderation in this case = zero.
*
Moderation. A plan that can last a lifetime.
*
You know I do "moderation" thing too. But I drink light beer instead of real beer. I go to McDonalds but I get a hamburger instead of a Big Mac. I go over my goal calories all the time (probably 5 out of 7 days). But I work out a lot, eat mostly healthy. My philosophy is "make good choices".
*
If you eat 80 calories of strawberries instead of 160, you're still moderating.
*
You need to do whatever it is you need in order to make this as easy as possible. For a lot of people the thought of never having something that we enjoy is demotivating and maybe even enough to send us into a binge so we say things like "everything in moderation" to reinforce that we're in control and not deprived. That doesn't mean junk or trigger foods need to be a part of your diet! If it's easier not to eat something than to control the portion set yourself up to succeed by taking the easier option.
*
iifym
*
To me, moderation means I can eat whatever I want, as long as I don't go overboard.
*
I never eat "junk" when I'm hungry. If I start craving ice cream of chocolate or something, I eat something high protein/high fiber first and down a glass or two of water. After that I'll indulge.
*
I'm one of the "everything in moderation" people, but I also have my trigger foods. If I have cake, candy, ice cream, or anything sweet, I crave sugar all day. I literally can't think about anything except MOAR CAKE! So I don't have those things, unless I can arrange to have just a small serving in the evening when my stomach is already full so I won't keep stuffing my face. But there are some things that I *can* stop at just one, like chips, and so I allow myself those things.
*
I eat 80% healthy food and 20% treats.
*
Treats and cheats don't exist in this approach to achieving CICO because ...moderation
*
The only thing that helps me "eat in moderation" is keeping busy! If I go home right after work, the snacking begins! If I go to the gym right after work, when I get home I only have time to take a shower, make dinner, cool off and go to bed. One other thing that helps me are those 100 calorie packs. If you stock your cabinets with healthy, individual snacks it is easier to limit yourself
*
make yourself walk to the store when you want one. I do that sometimes when I really want a diet rootbeer. or a cheese stick from the gas station. I like to think of it as earning my treats
******************
And my personal favorite (so far), one word definition (which I know is half-joking) of moderation:
"Wine."
what does this have to do with the OP? seems like a small off shoot and defense of someone posting in a thread where they aren't really giving much to the continuation of a peaceful and constructive discussion...just sayin0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Paleo people who eliminate something aren't eating in moderation, but vegetarians who eliminate something are?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.
No, I'm rejecting your attempt to exclude people who follow different ways of eating from being considered as practicing moderation, because you are applying the one definition provided by the author arbitrarily and incorrectly. And you can't really define moderation without identifying the opposing ends of the spectrum it falls within, otherwise it's a completely subjective concept. If it is subjective, then what is or is not moderation will fall to the individual to determine for themselves, and statements like "100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme" is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
does paleo eliminate food from it's plan? If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game.
application is subjective. If I bought a 2000$ purse making 25k a year that is not a moderate purchase...but if I make 250k a year it's a moderate purchase.
If I eliminate dairy from my diet due to being lactose intolerant that is not extreme....but if I get rid of milk cause of an eating plan to "make me better.." that is extreme.
Someone up thread said elimination depended on a "good reason." Is that how you see it, too? If you have a "good reason" then you can practice elimination and eat in moderation, but if you don't have a "good reason" then you can't?
doesn't matter how I see it to be frank...moderation is the absence of extremes by definition and I feel that most "diets" are extremes and that eliminating foods to lose weight because you just "can't" manage to lose weight if you eat them is extreme. ie atkins, paleo, south beach, 17 day, LCHF, clean etc.
*note diets is in quotes
Ok, but the "extremes" part of what you just said is where things are arbitrary. ,Same for whatever's in between them.
This is not perverse word-twisting, by the way, it naturally follows from the definition. And although it is a point that hinges on semantics, it's not "academic" or theoretical.
Back to drinking for a minute: I had an English friend who was worried about the amount he was drinking, how it impacted his life. It was like 7-8 pints a day. He went to his (English) doctor, who said, "nah, you're fine, you're just drinking the wrong stuff. Quit drinking European beer and get back to English ale".
(That's an example of malpractice, probably, but also of how very different standards of moderation can be.)
and that is why we have all said...there is one definition of moderation but the application is subjective.
my purse example...2k on a purse is not moderate spending if you make 25k a year but it is moderate if you make 2.5m or 250k...or whatever...subjective application.
So how do I know what kind of purse you have?
Not the purse, the income if anything. The purse can be part of a moderate purchase, if your income allows for it.
Right, ok, the income. (I'd guess at their income and idea of moderation by whether it was Gucci or whatever.) Just knowing she has a purse doesn't tell me anything useful.
It does. It tells you that she doesn't have some weird dogma to never buy any purses because her horoscope told her it was bad karma.
Having criticisms of "clean eating" doesn't clarify what "moderation" means.
Moderation means there are no "You absolutely must X" or "You absolutely can't Y" rules. The absence of extremes.
If you want to lose weight, eat at a deficit that is appropriate for you, with nutrition that is appropriate for you.
If that allows for a bag of gummy bears every day, that's still moderation.
If that means you can only have a handful, that's still moderation.
If you don't like gummy bears and don't eat them at all, that's still moderation.
If you like gummy bears, they'd fit into your diet, you'd want to eat them, but you don't eat them for arbitrary reasons, that's not moderation.
That was said 9 pages ago. Multiple times.
How does excluding a food for arbitrary reasons make a diet "extreme" any more than excluding it for a logical reason? If the food is eliminated it's eliminated and the diet is the same.
Because if eating peanuts would kill me, then excluding peanuts from my diet isn't exactly an extreme move but instead to be expected?
Or it is an "extreme" move that you have to take to save your life, totally depends on the perspective.
now you are just playing a semantical word game...
It sounds like that to you because you're not getting the point I'm making.
you don't have one; therefore, there is nothing to get.
I do, you're just unwilling or unable to see it.
feel free to enlighten us as to what this point is...0 -
Maybe I was wrong. Maybe she was referring to someone else who has repeatedly attempted to get a definition for this.lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'd encourage you to reread my first post. I was brought up, so I piped up.
I'm very simple. I say what I mean. There is nothing to "tell" or "find." I've said this to you 10,000 times when you've insisted I meant things I didn't say and I specifically state that I didn't mean them, but meant what I said.
First, you said:
Paleo people who eliminate something aren't eating in moderation, but vegetarians who eliminate something are?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.
No, I'm rejecting your attempt to exclude people who follow different ways of eating from being considered as practicing moderation, because you are applying the one definition provided by the author arbitrarily and incorrectly. And you can't really define moderation without identifying the opposing ends of the spectrum it falls within, otherwise it's a completely subjective concept. If it is subjective, then what is or is not moderation will fall to the individual to determine for themselves, and statements like "100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme" is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
does paleo eliminate food from it's plan? If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game.
application is subjective. If I bought a 2000$ purse making 25k a year that is not a moderate purchase...but if I make 250k a year it's a moderate purchase.
If I eliminate dairy from my diet due to being lactose intolerant that is not extreme....but if I get rid of milk cause of an eating plan to "make me better.." that is extreme.
Someone up thread said elimination depended on a "good reason." Is that how you see it, too? If you have a "good reason" then you can practice elimination and eat in moderation, but if you don't have a "good reason" then you can't?
doesn't matter how I see it to be frank...moderation is the absence of extremes by definition and I feel that most "diets" are extremes and that eliminating foods to lose weight because you just "can't" manage to lose weight if you eat them is extreme. ie atkins, paleo, south beach, 17 day, LCHF, clean etc.
*note diets is in quotes
"If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game."
Now, it seems like it is more rationale-dependent.
I'm now trying to figure out which one it is. I'm genuinely confused. Is everyone who eliminates something automatically excluded from "eating in moderation" or not?
How I personally see vegetarians (due to moral/ethical choices) has no bearing on what moderation means or the fact that paleo, clean eating, atkins etc are not in line with the definition of moderation....
How people apply moderation to their WOE is totally subjective.
If you feel paleo is in line with moderation have at...I disagree.
If I feel paleo isn't moderate so be it...you apparently disagree...I think...you haven't really said one way or the other...
no wait you don't use the word moderate/moderation so you neither agree or disagree....so why are you arguing that paleo is moderate? or are you? I can never tell with you.
I would like to know if you believe one can eliminate certain foods or food groups from the diet and still eat in moderation.
Either you'll answer or you won't. That's all there is to that.
k then you mean what you say...you don't use the word moderate ...then why are you in here discussing moderation?????? confusing...
and to answer your question....What do I believe/feel
If a person eliminates food for medical reasons ie diabetic/sugar or gluten/celiac no it's not extreme as it is a requirement for health.
If a person eliminates food due to dislike no it's not extreme.
If a person eliminates food due to a religion no it's not extreme (people take their religions very seriously and I am not messing with that)
If a person eliminate food for any other reason than stated above yes I feel it is extreme. But that's me.
So yes I feel that if a vegetarian is that because of moral/ethics it's extreme and not moderate. esp since it can have long lasting detrimental effects on their children (while developing in the womb) if they aren't careful.
My feelings on it tho have no bearing on the actual definition of it just the application of it...
Ok, so it's rationale-dependent. Someone else said something similar, only they used the words "good reason."
New question:
*Assuming that the definition of moderation is "avoiding extremes," which you're on board with...*
If you feel that it's "extreme", it cannot be "in moderation" - correct?
answer my question first...this is a give and take after all right????
if you don't subscribe to moderation why are you here debating what it is and isn't? You don't use the word so why argue what it is...it has no bearing on your, your life or how you live it...
You assumed the poster was talking about something you'd said in some other thread.
I don't know if that was correct, and no one has linked back to the other thread. I assume no one can find it and it might not exist anymore.
It doesn't really matter. I do not have to justify my choice to post in any thread. I can choose to post because I feel like it.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »mrsnazario1219 wrote: »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?
I would not worry too much OP. It is just the usual folks that don't understand the concept, and how to apply it to their daily lives, so they have to destroy the concept as something that no one can understand, because they do not understand it.
I absolutely understand the concept and how to apply it in my daily life. My argument is that my definition of moderation is different from yours, and from others, and so "moderation" when it comes to a way of eating is not a useful term.
No, your definition of Moderation is the same as mine. Your application of it within your individual approach to moderation is different.
That's what I've been trying to say. Moderation has a textbook definition (the avoidance of extremes) but the application of it is individualized and variable.
Which is why it doesn't describe anything about the diet in a useful way, or help anyone know what it means when people use it. All it really speaks to is an attitude.
its not a diet...
That's right. It's a religion in these parts. Or a religiofied secular philosophy applicable towards ice cream and cupcakes.
Eh, this is so obviously false.
I think moderation is a nice approach, but I think other approaches are fine too, as I've said several times in this thread.
Some seem to think that it's totally cool for paleo types or low carbers or the rest to try and evangelize their way of eating, but if some of us talk among ourselves about what we like about moderation, that is apparently annoying and "a religion."
Seems weird.0 -
If you feel that my presence in the thread has somehow violated a rule, I encourage you to report me for posting.
I can post here because I darn well feel like it. Whether or not you approve of me posting is irrelevant.
I'd encourage you to reread my first post. I was brought up, so I piped up.
I'm very simple. I say what I mean. There is nothing to "tell" or "find." I've said this to you 10,000 times when you've insisted I meant things I didn't say and I specifically state that I didn't mean them, but meant what I said.
First, you said:
Paleo people who eliminate something aren't eating in moderation, but vegetarians who eliminate something are?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.
No, I'm rejecting your attempt to exclude people who follow different ways of eating from being considered as practicing moderation, because you are applying the one definition provided by the author arbitrarily and incorrectly. And you can't really define moderation without identifying the opposing ends of the spectrum it falls within, otherwise it's a completely subjective concept. If it is subjective, then what is or is not moderation will fall to the individual to determine for themselves, and statements like "100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme" is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
does paleo eliminate food from it's plan? If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game.
application is subjective. If I bought a 2000$ purse making 25k a year that is not a moderate purchase...but if I make 250k a year it's a moderate purchase.
If I eliminate dairy from my diet due to being lactose intolerant that is not extreme....but if I get rid of milk cause of an eating plan to "make me better.." that is extreme.
Someone up thread said elimination depended on a "good reason." Is that how you see it, too? If you have a "good reason" then you can practice elimination and eat in moderation, but if you don't have a "good reason" then you can't?
doesn't matter how I see it to be frank...moderation is the absence of extremes by definition and I feel that most "diets" are extremes and that eliminating foods to lose weight because you just "can't" manage to lose weight if you eat them is extreme. ie atkins, paleo, south beach, 17 day, LCHF, clean etc.
*note diets is in quotes
"If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game."
Now, it seems like it is more rationale-dependent.
I'm now trying to figure out which one it is. I'm genuinely confused. Is everyone who eliminates something automatically excluded from "eating in moderation" or not?
How I personally see vegetarians (due to moral/ethical choices) has no bearing on what moderation means or the fact that paleo, clean eating, atkins etc are not in line with the definition of moderation....
How people apply moderation to their WOE is totally subjective.
If you feel paleo is in line with moderation have at...I disagree.
If I feel paleo isn't moderate so be it...you apparently disagree...I think...you haven't really said one way or the other...
no wait you don't use the word moderate/moderation so you neither agree or disagree....so why are you arguing that paleo is moderate? or are you? I can never tell with you.
I would like to know if you believe one can eliminate certain foods or food groups from the diet and still eat in moderation.
Either you'll answer or you won't. That's all there is to that.
k then you mean what you say...you don't use the word moderate ...then why are you in here discussing moderation?????? confusing...
and to answer your question....What do I believe/feel
If a person eliminates food for medical reasons ie diabetic/sugar or gluten/celiac no it's not extreme as it is a requirement for health.
If a person eliminates food due to dislike no it's not extreme.
If a person eliminates food due to a religion no it's not extreme (people take their religions very seriously and I am not messing with that)
If a person eliminate food for any other reason than stated above yes I feel it is extreme. But that's me.
So yes I feel that if a vegetarian is that because of moral/ethics it's extreme and not moderate. esp since it can have long lasting detrimental effects on their children (while developing in the womb) if they aren't careful.
My feelings on it tho have no bearing on the actual definition of it just the application of it...
Ok, so it's rationale-dependent. Someone else said something similar, only they used the words "good reason."
New question:
*Assuming that the definition of moderation is "avoiding extremes," which you're on board with...*
If you feel that it's "extreme", it cannot be "in moderation" - correct?
answer my question first...this is a give and take after all right????
if you don't subscribe to moderation why are you here debating what it is and isn't? You don't use the word so why argue what it is...it has no bearing on your, your life or how you live it...
Now, will you answer the question?
Your first post in this thread is below I don't see where your name was mentioned at all or were you referenced in anyway prior to jumping in. no @Kalikel nothing...hmmm...odd how you "assumed" that some people meant you...
I would be the person who argued that. It's because it's true.Oh, I like this one! There are some folks that think that moderation "can mean anything" but this article nails it down. It is the absence of extremes. Nice. Thanks for sharing it!
When I first started reading on MFP, I was trying very hard to figure out what the heck people meant when they said "clean" or "in moderation" because one person would say this was clean and another would say that was clean, while one person saying moderation was this and another was saying moderation was that.
You can argue that both terms have definitions, but are carried out differently. That really doesn't help the person who is trying to figure out exactly what it means.
The fact of the matter is that saying "clean" or "in moderation" just isn't specific. It has no meaning that anyone could pinpoint and say "Everyone who says they eat this way does X."
I don't mind people using the words "clean" or "in moderation." I get what they mean in a general sense. But when they use those words, I don't know exactly how they are defining them. Most of the time, the general sense works just fine. Occasionally, though, I need a little more.
"I've been eating clean and I'm gaining weight!"
"I've been eating in moderation and I'm gaining weight!"
I'm going to need more. It doesn't really explain how they're actually eating.
If someone asks about how to eat treats "in moderation", there will be 20 different ways to do it.
As many posters have many meanings for each term, specifics will be required.
I have the same issue with both terms - "clean" and "in moderation" and am not slamming either group or trying to make fun of either group or have a fight.
I never suggested that anyone should stop using those terms! It's just that they aren't really clearly describing a way of eating.
so basically you are here to say that moderation has many meanings...when in fact it has one meaning and multiple applications..sort of like a sheet of fabric softener....it is made to keep cloths soft and static free but can be used to get bugs off your car grill.
Are you going to answer the question or not?
btw I didn't say if I approved or disapproved.....but I know the moderators have consistently said if you don't have anything useful to add to a conversation on these boards you should avoid the post...and since you don't use the word moderation I wasn't sure what you could add that was useful was all...just pointing it out as it's consistently pointed out when "moderates" go to a clean eating thread or a Low carb thread they/we are told the exact thing I said above...
now where did i say that? I distinctly said "moderators" have often said in posts that if you don't agree with the discussion at hand you should avoid the post to ensure a smooth easy discussion...
no rules to this effect but it has been said...*insert smiley face* just sayin'
perhaps if you aren't adding benefit to the discussion and allowing it to go smoothly it might be time to move to another thread to allow the discussion of the original post to continue...0 -
I'd you define "moderation" as "avoiding extremes," then you have to know what the extremes are. If you don't know what they are, there is no way to determine whether or not you've avoided them.
That only matters if failure to avoid all extremes is critical. Instead of trying to find the edges, the moderator swims in the middle of the pool. It doesn't matter how middling. This is living in the grey. Which is too uncertain for some people.
I'd take as a convention that a woman should not eat below 1,200 calories a day. That's an edge to be avoided. I've also from personal experience, decided that a minimum of protein is needed. But how the other macros shake out is neither here nor there.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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."
I'm not sure what the author's rational was for considering paleo to be extreme, and based on her text about what moderation looks like, paleo falls within that.
Whole30 does have treats, they have recipes for all kinds of desserts. The author states that person includes treats in their diet, she didn't say what the criteria was for treats, and even said it was individual. So 100% strict paleo/Whole30 would fall within the definition.
No, it doesn't. I've read the book. There are tons of "paleo treats" but Whole30 says to avoid them.
From the website: "Do not try to re-create baked goods, junk foods, or treats* with “approved” ingredients. Continuing to eat your old, unhealthy foods made with Whole30 ingredients is totally missing the point, and will tank your results faster than you can say “Paleo Pop-Tarts.” Remember, these are the same foods that got you into health-trouble in the first place—and a pancake is still a pancake, regardless of the ingredients."
I think we are talking about two separate things. I don't seen 100% strict paleo as being the Whole30 elimination stuff in the book, to me 100% strict paleo is someone who sticks completely to paleo, which does have things like desserts and such made from paleo ingredients, which has some overlap with Whole30 recipes.
Regardless, the blog author describes treats as "indulgences," not necessarily snack foods/desserts, so viewing it as things like cookies and cakes is us projecting our own bias about the word "treats;" there are plenty of ways to indulge that don't necessarily involve sweets. In that way, I still think paleo would fit.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »mrsnazario1219 wrote: »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?
I would not worry too much OP. It is just the usual folks that don't understand the concept, and how to apply it to their daily lives, so they have to destroy the concept as something that no one can understand, because they do not understand it.
I absolutely understand the concept and how to apply it in my daily life. My argument is that my definition of moderation is different from yours, and from others, and so "moderation" when it comes to a way of eating is not a useful term.
No, your definition of Moderation is the same as mine. Your application of it within your individual approach to moderation is different.
That's what I've been trying to say. Moderation has a textbook definition (the avoidance of extremes) but the application of it is individualized and variable.
Which is why it doesn't describe anything about the diet in a useful way, or help anyone know what it means when people use it. All it really speaks to is an attitude.
its not a diet...
That's right. It's a religion in these parts. Or a religiofied secular philosophy applicable towards ice cream and cupcakes.
Eh, this is so obviously false.
I think moderation is a nice approach, but I think other approaches are fine too, as I've said several times in this thread.
Some seem to think that it's totally cool for paleo types or low carbers or the rest to try and evangelize their way of eating, but if some of us talk among ourselves about what we like about moderation, that is apparently annoying and "a religion."
Seems weird.
meh, if you don't understand something then demonizing said concept is easier than try to actually understand it.
which is hilarious given that moderation is a basic concept that should be easily comprehendible.0 -
If you feel that my presence in the thread has somehow violated a rule, I encourage you to report me for posting.
I can post here because I darn well feel like it. Whether or not you approve of me posting is irrelevant.
I'd encourage you to reread my first post. I was brought up, so I piped up.
I'm very simple. I say what I mean. There is nothing to "tell" or "find." I've said this to you 10,000 times when you've insisted I meant things I didn't say and I specifically state that I didn't mean them, but meant what I said.
First, you said:
Paleo people who eliminate something aren't eating in moderation, but vegetarians who eliminate something are?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.
No, I'm rejecting your attempt to exclude people who follow different ways of eating from being considered as practicing moderation, because you are applying the one definition provided by the author arbitrarily and incorrectly. And you can't really define moderation without identifying the opposing ends of the spectrum it falls within, otherwise it's a completely subjective concept. If it is subjective, then what is or is not moderation will fall to the individual to determine for themselves, and statements like "100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme" is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
does paleo eliminate food from it's plan? If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game.
application is subjective. If I bought a 2000$ purse making 25k a year that is not a moderate purchase...but if I make 250k a year it's a moderate purchase.
If I eliminate dairy from my diet due to being lactose intolerant that is not extreme....but if I get rid of milk cause of an eating plan to "make me better.." that is extreme.
Someone up thread said elimination depended on a "good reason." Is that how you see it, too? If you have a "good reason" then you can practice elimination and eat in moderation, but if you don't have a "good reason" then you can't?
doesn't matter how I see it to be frank...moderation is the absence of extremes by definition and I feel that most "diets" are extremes and that eliminating foods to lose weight because you just "can't" manage to lose weight if you eat them is extreme. ie atkins, paleo, south beach, 17 day, LCHF, clean etc.
*note diets is in quotes
"If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game."
Now, it seems like it is more rationale-dependent.
I'm now trying to figure out which one it is. I'm genuinely confused. Is everyone who eliminates something automatically excluded from "eating in moderation" or not?
How I personally see vegetarians (due to moral/ethical choices) has no bearing on what moderation means or the fact that paleo, clean eating, atkins etc are not in line with the definition of moderation....
How people apply moderation to their WOE is totally subjective.
If you feel paleo is in line with moderation have at...I disagree.
If I feel paleo isn't moderate so be it...you apparently disagree...I think...you haven't really said one way or the other...
no wait you don't use the word moderate/moderation so you neither agree or disagree....so why are you arguing that paleo is moderate? or are you? I can never tell with you.
I would like to know if you believe one can eliminate certain foods or food groups from the diet and still eat in moderation.
Either you'll answer or you won't. That's all there is to that.
k then you mean what you say...you don't use the word moderate ...then why are you in here discussing moderation?????? confusing...
and to answer your question....What do I believe/feel
If a person eliminates food for medical reasons ie diabetic/sugar or gluten/celiac no it's not extreme as it is a requirement for health.
If a person eliminates food due to dislike no it's not extreme.
If a person eliminates food due to a religion no it's not extreme (people take their religions very seriously and I am not messing with that)
If a person eliminate food for any other reason than stated above yes I feel it is extreme. But that's me.
So yes I feel that if a vegetarian is that because of moral/ethics it's extreme and not moderate. esp since it can have long lasting detrimental effects on their children (while developing in the womb) if they aren't careful.
My feelings on it tho have no bearing on the actual definition of it just the application of it...
Ok, so it's rationale-dependent. Someone else said something similar, only they used the words "good reason."
New question:
*Assuming that the definition of moderation is "avoiding extremes," which you're on board with...*
If you feel that it's "extreme", it cannot be "in moderation" - correct?
answer my question first...this is a give and take after all right????
if you don't subscribe to moderation why are you here debating what it is and isn't? You don't use the word so why argue what it is...it has no bearing on your, your life or how you live it...
Now, will you answer the question?
Your first post in this thread is below I don't see where your name was mentioned at all or were you referenced in anyway prior to jumping in. no @Kalikel nothing...hmmm...odd how you "assumed" that some people meant you...
I would be the person who argued that. It's because it's true.Oh, I like this one! There are some folks that think that moderation "can mean anything" but this article nails it down. It is the absence of extremes. Nice. Thanks for sharing it!
When I first started reading on MFP, I was trying very hard to figure out what the heck people meant when they said "clean" or "in moderation" because one person would say this was clean and another would say that was clean, while one person saying moderation was this and another was saying moderation was that.
You can argue that both terms have definitions, but are carried out differently. That really doesn't help the person who is trying to figure out exactly what it means.
The fact of the matter is that saying "clean" or "in moderation" just isn't specific. It has no meaning that anyone could pinpoint and say "Everyone who says they eat this way does X."
I don't mind people using the words "clean" or "in moderation." I get what they mean in a general sense. But when they use those words, I don't know exactly how they are defining them. Most of the time, the general sense works just fine. Occasionally, though, I need a little more.
"I've been eating clean and I'm gaining weight!"
"I've been eating in moderation and I'm gaining weight!"
I'm going to need more. It doesn't really explain how they're actually eating.
If someone asks about how to eat treats "in moderation", there will be 20 different ways to do it.
As many posters have many meanings for each term, specifics will be required.
I have the same issue with both terms - "clean" and "in moderation" and am not slamming either group or trying to make fun of either group or have a fight.
I never suggested that anyone should stop using those terms! It's just that they aren't really clearly describing a way of eating.
so basically you are here to say that moderation has many meanings...when in fact it has one meaning and multiple applications..sort of like a sheet of fabric softener....it is made to keep cloths soft and static free but can be used to get bugs off your car grill.
Are you going to answer the question or not?
btw I didn't say if I approved or disapproved.....but I know the moderators have consistently said if you don't have anything useful to add to a conversation on these boards you should avoid the post...and since you don't use the word moderation I wasn't sure what you could add that was useful was all...just pointing it out as it's consistently pointed out when "moderates" go to a clean eating thread or a Low carb thread they/we are told the exact thing I said above...
now where did i say that? I distinctly said "moderators" have often said in posts that if you don't agree with the discussion at hand you should avoid the post to ensure a smooth easy discussion...
no rules to this effect but it has been said...*insert smiley face* just sayin'
perhaps if you aren't adding benefit to the discussion and allowing it to go smoothly it might be time to move to another thread to allow the discussion of the original post to continue...
You will never dictate where I post.
Perhaps we could get back on topic now?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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."
I'm not sure what the author's rational was for considering paleo to be extreme, and based on her text about what moderation looks like, paleo falls within that.
Whole30 does have treats, they have recipes for all kinds of desserts. The author states that person includes treats in their diet, she didn't say what the criteria was for treats, and even said it was individual. So 100% strict paleo/Whole30 would fall within the definition.
No, it doesn't. I've read the book. There are tons of "paleo treats" but Whole30 says to avoid them.
From the website: "Do not try to re-create baked goods, junk foods, or treats* with “approved” ingredients. Continuing to eat your old, unhealthy foods made with Whole30 ingredients is totally missing the point, and will tank your results faster than you can say “Paleo Pop-Tarts.” Remember, these are the same foods that got you into health-trouble in the first place—and a pancake is still a pancake, regardless of the ingredients."
I think we are talking about two separate things. I don't seen 100% strict paleo as being the Whole30 elimination stuff in the book, to me 100% strict paleo is someone who sticks completely to paleo, which does have things like desserts and such made from paleo ingredients, which has some overlap with Whole30 recipes.
Regardless, the blog author describes treats as "indulgences," not necessarily snack foods/desserts, so viewing it as things like cookies and cakes is us projecting our own bias about the word "treats;" there are plenty of ways to indulge that don't necessarily involve sweets. In that way, I still think paleo would fit.
dead wrong0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Paleo people who eliminate something aren't eating in moderation, but vegetarians who eliminate something are?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.
No, I'm rejecting your attempt to exclude people who follow different ways of eating from being considered as practicing moderation, because you are applying the one definition provided by the author arbitrarily and incorrectly. And you can't really define moderation without identifying the opposing ends of the spectrum it falls within, otherwise it's a completely subjective concept. If it is subjective, then what is or is not moderation will fall to the individual to determine for themselves, and statements like "100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme" is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
does paleo eliminate food from it's plan? If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game.
application is subjective. If I bought a 2000$ purse making 25k a year that is not a moderate purchase...but if I make 250k a year it's a moderate purchase.
If I eliminate dairy from my diet due to being lactose intolerant that is not extreme....but if I get rid of milk cause of an eating plan to "make me better.." that is extreme.
Someone up thread said elimination depended on a "good reason." Is that how you see it, too? If you have a "good reason" then you can practice elimination and eat in moderation, but if you don't have a "good reason" then you can't?
doesn't matter how I see it to be frank...moderation is the absence of extremes by definition and I feel that most "diets" are extremes and that eliminating foods to lose weight because you just "can't" manage to lose weight if you eat them is extreme. ie atkins, paleo, south beach, 17 day, LCHF, clean etc.
*note diets is in quotes
Ok, but the "extremes" part of what you just said is where things are arbitrary. ,Same for whatever's in between them.
This is not perverse word-twisting, by the way, it naturally follows from the definition. And although it is a point that hinges on semantics, it's not "academic" or theoretical.
Back to drinking for a minute: I had an English friend who was worried about the amount he was drinking, how it impacted his life. It was like 7-8 pints a day. He went to his (English) doctor, who said, "nah, you're fine, you're just drinking the wrong stuff. Quit drinking European beer and get back to English ale".
(That's an example of malpractice, probably, but also of how very different standards of moderation can be.)
and that is why we have all said...there is one definition of moderation but the application is subjective.
my purse example...2k on a purse is not moderate spending if you make 25k a year but it is moderate if you make 2.5m or 250k...or whatever...subjective application.
So how do I know what kind of purse you have?
Not the purse, the income if anything. The purse can be part of a moderate purchase, if your income allows for it.
Right, ok, the income. (I'd guess at their income and idea of moderation by whether it was Gucci or whatever.) Just knowing she has a purse doesn't tell me anything useful.
It does. It tells you that she doesn't have some weird dogma to never buy any purses because her horoscope told her it was bad karma.
Having criticisms of "clean eating" doesn't clarify what "moderation" means.
Moderation means there are no "You absolutely must X" or "You absolutely can't Y" rules. The absence of extremes.
If you want to lose weight, eat at a deficit that is appropriate for you, with nutrition that is appropriate for you.
If that allows for a bag of gummy bears every day, that's still moderation.
If that means you can only have a handful, that's still moderation.
If you don't like gummy bears and don't eat them at all, that's still moderation.
If you like gummy bears, they'd fit into your diet, you'd want to eat them, but you don't eat them for arbitrary reasons, that's not moderation.
That was said 9 pages ago. Multiple times.
How does excluding a food for arbitrary reasons make a diet "extreme" any more than excluding it for a logical reason? If the food is eliminated it's eliminated and the diet is the same.
Because if eating peanuts would kill me, then excluding peanuts from my diet isn't exactly an extreme move but instead to be expected?
I get that, but why would it be extreme for me to not eat peanuts (I am not allergic). What's extreme about it? Everyone keeps harping on how some don't seem to understand the defintion of the word "moderation" but I believe you are misusing the word "extreme".
For the record, IMO, it's not extreme to not eat peanuts, for whatever reason. People have all sorts of arbitrary reasons for not eating individual foods.
Well, it might be extreme to decide that peanuts are super fattening beyond their calories or will cause your arteries to harden if you have even a couple, so decide it would be terrible to ever eat them. That's a rather extreme (and meritless) position.
Similarly, not eating bacon isn't extreme, IMO. Claiming that eating any bacon ever would be terrible for someone's health or make them fat (or that it would you, absent an allergy or something) is extreme.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I'd you define "moderation" as "avoiding extremes," then you have to know what the extremes are. If you don't know what they are, there is no way to determine whether or not you've avoided them.lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Paleo people who eliminate something aren't eating in moderation, but vegetarians who eliminate something are?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.
No, I'm rejecting your attempt to exclude people who follow different ways of eating from being considered as practicing moderation, because you are applying the one definition provided by the author arbitrarily and incorrectly. And you can't really define moderation without identifying the opposing ends of the spectrum it falls within, otherwise it's a completely subjective concept. If it is subjective, then what is or is not moderation will fall to the individual to determine for themselves, and statements like "100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme" is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
does paleo eliminate food from it's plan? If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game.
application is subjective. If I bought a 2000$ purse making 25k a year that is not a moderate purchase...but if I make 250k a year it's a moderate purchase.
If I eliminate dairy from my diet due to being lactose intolerant that is not extreme....but if I get rid of milk cause of an eating plan to "make me better.." that is extreme.
Someone up thread said elimination depended on a "good reason." Is that how you see it, too? If you have a "good reason" then you can practice elimination and eat in moderation, but if you don't have a "good reason" then you can't?
doesn't matter how I see it to be frank...moderation is the absence of extremes by definition and I feel that most "diets" are extremes and that eliminating foods to lose weight because you just "can't" manage to lose weight if you eat them is extreme. ie atkins, paleo, south beach, 17 day, LCHF, clean etc.
*note diets is in quotes
Ok, but the "extremes" part of what you just said is where things are arbitrary. ,Same for whatever's in between them.
This is not perverse word-twisting, by the way, it naturally follows from the definition. And although it is a point that hinges on semantics, it's not "academic" or theoretical.
Back to drinking for a minute: I had an English friend who was worried about the amount he was drinking, how it impacted his life. It was like 7-8 pints a day. He went to his (English) doctor, who said, "nah, you're fine, you're just drinking the wrong stuff. Quit drinking European beer and get back to English ale".
(That's an example of malpractice, probably, but also of how very different standards of moderation can be.)
and that is why we have all said...there is one definition of moderation but the application is subjective.
my purse example...2k on a purse is not moderate spending if you make 25k a year but it is moderate if you make 2.5m or 250k...or whatever...subjective application.
So how do I know what kind of purse you have?
Not the purse, the income if anything. The purse can be part of a moderate purchase, if your income allows for it.
Right, ok, the income. (I'd guess at their income and idea of moderation by whether it was Gucci or whatever.) Just knowing she has a purse doesn't tell me anything useful.
It does. It tells you that she doesn't have some weird dogma to never buy any purses because her horoscope told her it was bad karma.
Having criticisms of "clean eating" doesn't clarify what "moderation" means.
Moderation means there are no "You absolutely must X" or "You absolutely can't Y" rules. The absence of extremes.
If you want to lose weight, eat at a deficit that is appropriate for you, with nutrition that is appropriate for you.
If that allows for a bag of gummy bears every day, that's still moderation.
If that means you can only have a handful, that's still moderation.
If you don't like gummy bears and don't eat them at all, that's still moderation.
If you like gummy bears, they'd fit into your diet, you'd want to eat them, but you don't eat them for arbitrary reasons, that's not moderation.
That was said 9 pages ago. Multiple times.
Again: what counts as "extreme" is subjective.
Sure.
So what?
I continue to not see the argument here.
The extremes are based on nutrition/health. It's not moderate to eat so much broccoli that you don't get the other things you need or, more commonly, so much cake and bacon. If you eat so much fast food (and make choices in doing so) that you lack micronutrients and get way too much sodium, that too.
Beyond that, making up rigid rules and claiming they are necessary for health reasons when they are not -- being scared of eating some ice cream because it is unhealthy or will rule everything is extreme.
(No, I do not think that simply never eating ice cream is extreme. It's quite possible that for a particular person it would never be worth fitting into her diet. Diet in the general sense, not the weight loss sense.)0 -
We are attempting to define a term.I'd you define "moderation" as "avoiding extremes," then you have to know what the extremes are. If you don't know what they are, there is no way to determine whether or not you've avoided them.
That only matters if failure to avoid all extremes is critical. Instead of trying to find the edges, the moderator swims in the middle of the pool. It doesn't matter how middling. This is living in the grey. Which is too uncertain for some people.
I'd take as a convention that a woman should not eat below 1,200 calories a day. That's an edge to be avoided. I've also from personal experience, decided that a minimum of protein is needed. But how the other macros shake out is neither here nor there.
The general consensus is that it means "avoiding extremes." Not everyone has that, but the general consensus among people in this thread has been "avoiding extremes."
If we are to know what the word means, we must know what the extremes are.
If you're going to swim in the middle of the pool, you have to figure out where the walls are first.
0 -
If you feel that my presence in the thread has somehow violated a rule, I encourage you to report me for posting.
I can post here because I darn well feel like it. Whether or not you approve of me posting is irrelevant.
I'd encourage you to reread my first post. I was brought up, so I piped up.
I'm very simple. I say what I mean. There is nothing to "tell" or "find." I've said this to you 10,000 times when you've insisted I meant things I didn't say and I specifically state that I didn't mean them, but meant what I said.
First, you said:
Paleo people who eliminate something aren't eating in moderation, but vegetarians who eliminate something are?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.
No, I'm rejecting your attempt to exclude people who follow different ways of eating from being considered as practicing moderation, because you are applying the one definition provided by the author arbitrarily and incorrectly. And you can't really define moderation without identifying the opposing ends of the spectrum it falls within, otherwise it's a completely subjective concept. If it is subjective, then what is or is not moderation will fall to the individual to determine for themselves, and statements like "100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme" is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
does paleo eliminate food from it's plan? If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game.
application is subjective. If I bought a 2000$ purse making 25k a year that is not a moderate purchase...but if I make 250k a year it's a moderate purchase.
If I eliminate dairy from my diet due to being lactose intolerant that is not extreme....but if I get rid of milk cause of an eating plan to "make me better.." that is extreme.
Someone up thread said elimination depended on a "good reason." Is that how you see it, too? If you have a "good reason" then you can practice elimination and eat in moderation, but if you don't have a "good reason" then you can't?
doesn't matter how I see it to be frank...moderation is the absence of extremes by definition and I feel that most "diets" are extremes and that eliminating foods to lose weight because you just "can't" manage to lose weight if you eat them is extreme. ie atkins, paleo, south beach, 17 day, LCHF, clean etc.
*note diets is in quotes
"If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game."
Now, it seems like it is more rationale-dependent.
I'm now trying to figure out which one it is. I'm genuinely confused. Is everyone who eliminates something automatically excluded from "eating in moderation" or not?
How I personally see vegetarians (due to moral/ethical choices) has no bearing on what moderation means or the fact that paleo, clean eating, atkins etc are not in line with the definition of moderation....
How people apply moderation to their WOE is totally subjective.
If you feel paleo is in line with moderation have at...I disagree.
If I feel paleo isn't moderate so be it...you apparently disagree...I think...you haven't really said one way or the other...
no wait you don't use the word moderate/moderation so you neither agree or disagree....so why are you arguing that paleo is moderate? or are you? I can never tell with you.
I would like to know if you believe one can eliminate certain foods or food groups from the diet and still eat in moderation.
Either you'll answer or you won't. That's all there is to that.
k then you mean what you say...you don't use the word moderate ...then why are you in here discussing moderation?????? confusing...
and to answer your question....What do I believe/feel
If a person eliminates food for medical reasons ie diabetic/sugar or gluten/celiac no it's not extreme as it is a requirement for health.
If a person eliminates food due to dislike no it's not extreme.
If a person eliminates food due to a religion no it's not extreme (people take their religions very seriously and I am not messing with that)
If a person eliminate food for any other reason than stated above yes I feel it is extreme. But that's me.
So yes I feel that if a vegetarian is that because of moral/ethics it's extreme and not moderate. esp since it can have long lasting detrimental effects on their children (while developing in the womb) if they aren't careful.
My feelings on it tho have no bearing on the actual definition of it just the application of it...
Ok, so it's rationale-dependent. Someone else said something similar, only they used the words "good reason."
New question:
*Assuming that the definition of moderation is "avoiding extremes," which you're on board with...*
If you feel that it's "extreme", it cannot be "in moderation" - correct?
answer my question first...this is a give and take after all right????
if you don't subscribe to moderation why are you here debating what it is and isn't? You don't use the word so why argue what it is...it has no bearing on your, your life or how you live it...
Now, will you answer the question?
Your first post in this thread is below I don't see where your name was mentioned at all or were you referenced in anyway prior to jumping in. no @Kalikel nothing...hmmm...odd how you "assumed" that some people meant you...
I would be the person who argued that. It's because it's true.Oh, I like this one! There are some folks that think that moderation "can mean anything" but this article nails it down. It is the absence of extremes. Nice. Thanks for sharing it!
When I first started reading on MFP, I was trying very hard to figure out what the heck people meant when they said "clean" or "in moderation" because one person would say this was clean and another would say that was clean, while one person saying moderation was this and another was saying moderation was that.
You can argue that both terms have definitions, but are carried out differently. That really doesn't help the person who is trying to figure out exactly what it means.
The fact of the matter is that saying "clean" or "in moderation" just isn't specific. It has no meaning that anyone could pinpoint and say "Everyone who says they eat this way does X."
I don't mind people using the words "clean" or "in moderation." I get what they mean in a general sense. But when they use those words, I don't know exactly how they are defining them. Most of the time, the general sense works just fine. Occasionally, though, I need a little more.
"I've been eating clean and I'm gaining weight!"
"I've been eating in moderation and I'm gaining weight!"
I'm going to need more. It doesn't really explain how they're actually eating.
If someone asks about how to eat treats "in moderation", there will be 20 different ways to do it.
As many posters have many meanings for each term, specifics will be required.
I have the same issue with both terms - "clean" and "in moderation" and am not slamming either group or trying to make fun of either group or have a fight.
I never suggested that anyone should stop using those terms! It's just that they aren't really clearly describing a way of eating.
so basically you are here to say that moderation has many meanings...when in fact it has one meaning and multiple applications..sort of like a sheet of fabric softener....it is made to keep cloths soft and static free but can be used to get bugs off your car grill.
Are you going to answer the question or not?
btw I didn't say if I approved or disapproved.....but I know the moderators have consistently said if you don't have anything useful to add to a conversation on these boards you should avoid the post...and since you don't use the word moderation I wasn't sure what you could add that was useful was all...just pointing it out as it's consistently pointed out when "moderates" go to a clean eating thread or a Low carb thread they/we are told the exact thing I said above...
now where did i say that? I distinctly said "moderators" have often said in posts that if you don't agree with the discussion at hand you should avoid the post to ensure a smooth easy discussion...
no rules to this effect but it has been said...*insert smiley face* just sayin'
perhaps if you aren't adding benefit to the discussion and allowing it to go smoothly it might be time to move to another thread to allow the discussion of the original post to continue...
You will never dictate where I post.
Perhaps we could get back on topic now?
No of course not you post where ever and whenever you want...after all if moderators feel you are in the wrong thread I am sure they will let you know.
So yes topic...what is moderation
moderation is absence of extremes...
extremes exceeding the bounds of moderation
so now that you have been told the definition of both perhaps it is clearer to you now what moderation is.
I do hope that this has been educational for you and that you have a better handle on what is being said in the forums as far as moderation goes. 0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »mrsnazario1219 wrote: »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?
I would not worry too much OP. It is just the usual folks that don't understand the concept, and how to apply it to their daily lives, so they have to destroy the concept as something that no one can understand, because they do not understand it.
I absolutely understand the concept and how to apply it in my daily life. My argument is that my definition of moderation is different from yours, and from others, and so "moderation" when it comes to a way of eating is not a useful term.
No, your definition of Moderation is the same as mine. Your application of it within your individual approach to moderation is different.
That's what I've been trying to say. Moderation has a textbook definition (the avoidance of extremes) but the application of it is individualized and variable.
Which is why it doesn't describe anything about the diet in a useful way, or help anyone know what it means when people use it. All it really speaks to is an attitude.
its not a diet...
That's right. It's a religion in these parts. Or a religiofied secular philosophy applicable towards ice cream and cupcakes.
Eh, this is so obviously false.
I think moderation is a nice approach, but I think other approaches are fine too, as I've said several times in this thread.
Some seem to think that it's totally cool for paleo types or low carbers or the rest to try and evangelize their way of eating, but if some of us talk among ourselves about what we like about moderation, that is apparently annoying and "a religion."
Seems weird.
But that's the point people keep trying to make - Paleo, low carb, and moderation are not mutually exclusive ways of eating, yet people are trying to define "moderation" as a way of eating that includes specific foods or macros while still saying that the foods you choose to eat are personal preference. It's contradictory.0 -
If people aren't eating a healthy and well-balanced diet, they are not eating in moderation? They need to be getting all their vitamins and minerals on a regular basis, avoiding trans fats,limiting sat fats, keeping their sodium to 1500-2300mg, etc.lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'd you define "moderation" as "avoiding extremes," then you have to know what the extremes are. If you don't know what they are, there is no way to determine whether or not you've avoided them.lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Paleo people who eliminate something aren't eating in moderation, but vegetarians who eliminate something are?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.
No, I'm rejecting your attempt to exclude people who follow different ways of eating from being considered as practicing moderation, because you are applying the one definition provided by the author arbitrarily and incorrectly. And you can't really define moderation without identifying the opposing ends of the spectrum it falls within, otherwise it's a completely subjective concept. If it is subjective, then what is or is not moderation will fall to the individual to determine for themselves, and statements like "100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme" is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
does paleo eliminate food from it's plan? If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game.
application is subjective. If I bought a 2000$ purse making 25k a year that is not a moderate purchase...but if I make 250k a year it's a moderate purchase.
If I eliminate dairy from my diet due to being lactose intolerant that is not extreme....but if I get rid of milk cause of an eating plan to "make me better.." that is extreme.
Someone up thread said elimination depended on a "good reason." Is that how you see it, too? If you have a "good reason" then you can practice elimination and eat in moderation, but if you don't have a "good reason" then you can't?
doesn't matter how I see it to be frank...moderation is the absence of extremes by definition and I feel that most "diets" are extremes and that eliminating foods to lose weight because you just "can't" manage to lose weight if you eat them is extreme. ie atkins, paleo, south beach, 17 day, LCHF, clean etc.
*note diets is in quotes
Ok, but the "extremes" part of what you just said is where things are arbitrary. ,Same for whatever's in between them.
This is not perverse word-twisting, by the way, it naturally follows from the definition. And although it is a point that hinges on semantics, it's not "academic" or theoretical.
Back to drinking for a minute: I had an English friend who was worried about the amount he was drinking, how it impacted his life. It was like 7-8 pints a day. He went to his (English) doctor, who said, "nah, you're fine, you're just drinking the wrong stuff. Quit drinking European beer and get back to English ale".
(That's an example of malpractice, probably, but also of how very different standards of moderation can be.)
and that is why we have all said...there is one definition of moderation but the application is subjective.
my purse example...2k on a purse is not moderate spending if you make 25k a year but it is moderate if you make 2.5m or 250k...or whatever...subjective application.
So how do I know what kind of purse you have?
Not the purse, the income if anything. The purse can be part of a moderate purchase, if your income allows for it.
Right, ok, the income. (I'd guess at their income and idea of moderation by whether it was Gucci or whatever.) Just knowing she has a purse doesn't tell me anything useful.
It does. It tells you that she doesn't have some weird dogma to never buy any purses because her horoscope told her it was bad karma.
Having criticisms of "clean eating" doesn't clarify what "moderation" means.
Moderation means there are no "You absolutely must X" or "You absolutely can't Y" rules. The absence of extremes.
If you want to lose weight, eat at a deficit that is appropriate for you, with nutrition that is appropriate for you.
If that allows for a bag of gummy bears every day, that's still moderation.
If that means you can only have a handful, that's still moderation.
If you don't like gummy bears and don't eat them at all, that's still moderation.
If you like gummy bears, they'd fit into your diet, you'd want to eat them, but you don't eat them for arbitrary reasons, that's not moderation.
That was said 9 pages ago. Multiple times.
Again: what counts as "extreme" is subjective.
Sure.
So what?
I continue to not see the argument here.
The extremes are based on nutrition/health. It's not moderate to eat so much broccoli that you don't get the other things you need or, more commonly, so much cake and bacon. If you eat so much fast food (and make choices in doing so) that you lack micronutrients and get way too much sodium, that too.
All of that? If they're not basing their diet on established recommendations for nutrition/health, then they have hit an "extreme" and are no longer eating in moderation?
I'm not trying to put words on your mouth! If I'm wrong, correct me!
0 -
Maybe I was wrong. Maybe she was referring to someone else who has repeatedly attempted to get a definition for this.lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'd encourage you to reread my first post. I was brought up, so I piped up.
I'm very simple. I say what I mean. There is nothing to "tell" or "find." I've said this to you 10,000 times when you've insisted I meant things I didn't say and I specifically state that I didn't mean them, but meant what I said.
First, you said:
Paleo people who eliminate something aren't eating in moderation, but vegetarians who eliminate something are?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.
No, I'm rejecting your attempt to exclude people who follow different ways of eating from being considered as practicing moderation, because you are applying the one definition provided by the author arbitrarily and incorrectly. And you can't really define moderation without identifying the opposing ends of the spectrum it falls within, otherwise it's a completely subjective concept. If it is subjective, then what is or is not moderation will fall to the individual to determine for themselves, and statements like "100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme" is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
does paleo eliminate food from it's plan? If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game.
application is subjective. If I bought a 2000$ purse making 25k a year that is not a moderate purchase...but if I make 250k a year it's a moderate purchase.
If I eliminate dairy from my diet due to being lactose intolerant that is not extreme....but if I get rid of milk cause of an eating plan to "make me better.." that is extreme.
Someone up thread said elimination depended on a "good reason." Is that how you see it, too? If you have a "good reason" then you can practice elimination and eat in moderation, but if you don't have a "good reason" then you can't?
doesn't matter how I see it to be frank...moderation is the absence of extremes by definition and I feel that most "diets" are extremes and that eliminating foods to lose weight because you just "can't" manage to lose weight if you eat them is extreme. ie atkins, paleo, south beach, 17 day, LCHF, clean etc.
*note diets is in quotes
"If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game."
Now, it seems like it is more rationale-dependent.
I'm now trying to figure out which one it is. I'm genuinely confused. Is everyone who eliminates something automatically excluded from "eating in moderation" or not?
How I personally see vegetarians (due to moral/ethical choices) has no bearing on what moderation means or the fact that paleo, clean eating, atkins etc are not in line with the definition of moderation....
How people apply moderation to their WOE is totally subjective.
If you feel paleo is in line with moderation have at...I disagree.
If I feel paleo isn't moderate so be it...you apparently disagree...I think...you haven't really said one way or the other...
no wait you don't use the word moderate/moderation so you neither agree or disagree....so why are you arguing that paleo is moderate? or are you? I can never tell with you.
I would like to know if you believe one can eliminate certain foods or food groups from the diet and still eat in moderation.
Either you'll answer or you won't. That's all there is to that.
k then you mean what you say...you don't use the word moderate ...then why are you in here discussing moderation?????? confusing...
and to answer your question....What do I believe/feel
If a person eliminates food for medical reasons ie diabetic/sugar or gluten/celiac no it's not extreme as it is a requirement for health.
If a person eliminates food due to dislike no it's not extreme.
If a person eliminates food due to a religion no it's not extreme (people take their religions very seriously and I am not messing with that)
If a person eliminate food for any other reason than stated above yes I feel it is extreme. But that's me.
So yes I feel that if a vegetarian is that because of moral/ethics it's extreme and not moderate. esp since it can have long lasting detrimental effects on their children (while developing in the womb) if they aren't careful.
My feelings on it tho have no bearing on the actual definition of it just the application of it...
Ok, so it's rationale-dependent. Someone else said something similar, only they used the words "good reason."
New question:
*Assuming that the definition of moderation is "avoiding extremes," which you're on board with...*
If you feel that it's "extreme", it cannot be "in moderation" - correct?
answer my question first...this is a give and take after all right????
if you don't subscribe to moderation why are you here debating what it is and isn't? You don't use the word so why argue what it is...it has no bearing on your, your life or how you live it...
You assumed the poster was talking about something you'd said in some other thread.
I don't know if that was correct, and no one has linked back to the other thread. I assume no one can find it and it might not exist anymore.
It doesn't really matter. I do not have to justify my choice to post in any thread. I can choose to post because I feel like it.
I agree. I have not once said you shouldn't post in the thread.
I've also frequently given a definition when you asked for one, and usually you ignore me. (And obviously that is your right too, but if you'd tell me why my definitions are unsatisfying I might be able to do better.)0 -
Wow. This is a classic MFP thread. People talking in circles around each other and intentionally not understanding one another. Never change MFP never change.
I am a vegetarian who practices moderation in my diet. You think that can't happen. I disagree. I choose to manage my calories in vs. calories out with an approach that includes moderation. I was a vegetarian when I ate at a surplus and gained weight, I was a vegetarian when I was at a deficit and lost weight, I am still a vegetarian in maintenance.
I used to follow those plans which work out of restriction instead of moderation. The Atkins, the South Beach, the Paleo, etc. I could go on and on. The idea that weight loss success and calorie restriction is something that needed to be accomplishment by following a list of rigid rules, etc. However, I am now firmly in the moderation camp...or eating the food I enjoy, not putting anything off limits and saying it will bring me weight loss success. I don't enjoy eating animals....I prefer they enjoy life. Easy enough for me to be a vegetarian that way and still practice moderation.
The idea of moderation seems so basic and simple to me....that the idea that people cannot understand it is something I just can't fathom. So either I am a crazy genius or it is people purposefully being obtuse in an effort to fight for the sake of a fight.
Winner! I am not a vegetarian, but I can really appreciate this post.
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