Moderation
Replies
-
FYI @lemurcat12 and others I'd be happy to continue this discussion (evidently) but have some stuff to do. If this thread is still around tomorrow I'll come back.0
-
^Semantics experts in this thread will tell me I can't eat the above in moderation by definition. Everyone that isn't trying to make things more complex and technical than it needs to be understand I can eat extreme Doritos in moderation without paradox.0 -
Does anyone else see the irony that those saying they don't understand what moderation is because there are variable applications of it, and are pushing for absolute examples.... are sort of employing the antithesis of moderation?
No? Just me? Ok carry on.0 -
If I've ignored you, it wasn't on purpose. I missed the post. I apologize. I wasn't trying to ignore you.lemurcat12 wrote: »
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.)
I kind of think I know your take on "moderation" from previous threads.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.
it was defined in the article on page one. You just choose to reject that definition for some unknown reason.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.
Well, like I said above, I think one can do paleo in a moderate way.
Claiming eating grains and legumes and dairy isn't healthy for anyone and that having only a bit will ruin your diet (when that is not true -- i.e., not a true allergy or celiac), seems extreme, on the other hand.
For example, I occasionally listen to paleo podcasts, and on one a person was concerned about taking communion because grains (or the appearance of grains, since she was Catholic ;-)). The hosts basically agreed with her that yes, that was a problem. IMO, having such a concern is not extreme if one is celiac. It does seem extreme otherwise, since there is simply no way it's going to hurt your health -- it's a kind of made-up fear. (None of my business, but not moderate.)0 -
Gotta bail. I'm out!0
-
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?
Hit the flag button on the bottom of your post, choose report and then click the request to have it deleted. I am sorry if I am repeating information. I'm still reading. FWIW, I thought it was a great article.
0 -
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...
Well, I think she is steff. Adding benefit to the discussion that is. So, ah, would it be okay with you if she stays?
I think she should stay.
But it's hypocritical to encourage Kalikel's posts here and criticize those of us who ask what "clean eating" means to an OP or ask why eating yogurt or smoked salmon is supposed to be bad for us when someone says that "processed foods must be eliminated." Or even who ask why having some occasional ice cream within the context of a balanced, calorie appropriate diet is bad when some poster asserts that all added sugar is unhealthy and should be eliminated.
If we can agree that those things are fine too, we are on the same page.0 -
If you eat the foods you like, meet your nutritional needs, and don't exceed your calorie budget, you are eating in moderation. It doesn't get much easier than that to understand.
It doesn't matter if the extremes are undefined because the inherent limiters of a) meeting your nutritional needs and b) staying within a calorie budget will naturally keep you away from the edges of the pool.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »If you eat the foods you like, meet your nutritional needs, and don't exceed your calorie budget, you are eating in moderation. It doesn't get much easier than that to understand.
It doesn't matter if the extremes are undefined because the inherent limiters of a) meeting your nutritional needs and b) staying within a calorie budget will naturally keep you away from the edges of the pool.
stop using common sense!0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »If you eat the foods you like, meet your nutritional needs, and don't exceed your calorie budget, you are eating in moderation. It doesn't get much easier than that to understand.
It doesn't matter if the extremes are undefined because the inherent limiters of a) meeting your nutritional needs and b) staying within a calorie budget will naturally keep you away from the edges of the pool.
stop using common sense!
Not so common in this thread.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.
Oh, I don't personally think vegetarians aren't moderate. I'm saying according to the article they wouldn't be moderate.
So what does moderation look like in the real world?
It looks like eating a MOSTLY whole foods diet with plenty of nutrients from fruits, vegetables, lean meats, healthy fats, etc0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »If you eat the foods you like, meet your nutritional needs, and don't exceed your calorie budget, you are eating in moderation. It doesn't get much easier than that to understand.
It doesn't matter if the extremes are undefined because the inherent limiters of a) meeting your nutritional needs and b) staying within a calorie budget will naturally keep you away from the edges of the pool.
stop using common sense!
Not so common in this thread.
would you say it is extremely not common or moderately not common??????????????
0 -
@Kalikel
We you are attempting to i]further[/i define a term.
The general consensus definition is that it means "avoiding extremes."
If you're going to swim in the middle of the pool, you have to figure out where the walls are first. - only if I am aiming to get in to the exact middle. I jump in and float, aimlessly, and as long as I don't touch the edge, I'm somewhere in the middle.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser 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.
Saying you are trying a moderate diet means:
You don't arbitrarily exclude things.
If someone tells you they're doing LCHF, you don't suggest them things high in carbs.
If someone tells you they're doing a moderate approach you know nothing is off the table.
How is that not useful information?
My husband eats anything and everything he wants. He won't eat tofu because he doesn't like the name and how it looks. Won't even try it. That's an arbitrary reason. So you think his diet isn't moderate because of that one choice?
That's the silliest reason for not wanting to eat something I've ever seen.
But fried tofu is disgusting, he's not missing anything there. Boiled is nice though, kinda like egg white.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »If you eat the foods you like, meet your nutritional needs, and don't exceed your calorie budget, you are eating in moderation. It doesn't get much easier than that to understand.
It doesn't matter if the extremes are undefined because the inherent limiters of a) meeting your nutritional needs and b) staying within a calorie budget will naturally keep you away from the edges of the pool.
stop using common sense!
Not so common in this thread.
would you say it is extremely not common or moderately not common??????????????
Well, considering that not everyone lacks it and not everyone has it, I think we can say it's moderately missing?0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Does anyone else see the irony that those saying they don't understand what moderation is because there are variable applications of it, and are pushing for absolute examples.... are sort of employing the antithesis of moderation?
No? Just me? Ok carry on.
+1. oh, the irony.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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...
Well, I think she is steff. Adding benefit to the discussion that is. So, ah, would it be okay with you if she stays?
I think she should stay.
But it's hypocritical to encourage Kalikel's posts here and criticize those of us who ask what "clean eating" means to an OP or ask why eating yogurt or smoked salmon is supposed to be bad for us when someone says that "processed foods must be eliminated." Or even who ask why having some occasional ice cream within the context of a balanced, calorie appropriate diet is bad when some poster asserts that all added sugar is unhealthy and should be eliminated.
If we can agree that those things are fine too, we are on the same page.
not sure I get to decide that really. I was just pointing out what I had seen moderators post in other threads about this sort of back and forth where the OP was specifically targeted to a certain audience.
If she chooses to stay and add benefit great (however I see she has chosen to leave)
but I agree with Lemurcat about encouraging those posts but to criticise those who ask what clean eating it...0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »If you eat the foods you like, meet your nutritional needs, and don't exceed your calorie budget, you are eating in moderation. It doesn't get much easier than that to understand.
It doesn't matter if the extremes are undefined because the inherent limiters of a) meeting your nutritional needs and b) staying within a calorie budget will naturally keep you away from the edges of the pool.
Just to respond to this quickly
The limitations of meeting particular macros and nutritional needs are additional constraints that also vary. There's a rough global medical consensus on what those are (and not always), and folk cultural understandings of what is "moderate" can vary widely0 -
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.
I don't think it's contradictory at all.
First, like I said before, I think one can do paleo or low carb in a moderate way, sure.
But one can do it in an immoderate way too. For example, there's no way a carnivorous diet is moderate and limiting vegetables because otherwise you'd go too high on carbs or cutting out all fruit (unless you just don't like fruit and prefer eating more vegetables instead) will never seem moderate to me.
With paleo, I don't think most who do it are eliminating foods they just don't want to eat. They've bought into a theory that eating foods that humans started eating more recently in our history (like since farming started) is not healthy. That's not actually grounded in good evidence, and not true -- much of what is cut out are foods that experts consider part of a healthy diet. Anyway, eliminating major groups of foods based on the idea that they are unhealthy in any amount contrary to the actual advice from the experts seems to me an extreme position, much like claiming that vaccines are dangerous is.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »If you eat the foods you like, meet your nutritional needs, and don't exceed your calorie budget, you are eating in moderation. It doesn't get much easier than that to understand.
It doesn't matter if the extremes are undefined because the inherent limiters of a) meeting your nutritional needs and b) staying within a calorie budget will naturally keep you away from the edges of the pool.
Just to respond to this quickly
The limitations of meeting particular macros and nutritional needs are additional constraints that also vary. There's a rough global medical consensus on what those are (and not always), and folk cultural understandings of what is "moderate" can vary widely
that is why the application of the definition is up to the individual.
the definition however, is what it is.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »If you eat the foods you like, meet your nutritional needs, and don't exceed your calorie budget, you are eating in moderation. It doesn't get much easier than that to understand.
It doesn't matter if the extremes are undefined because the inherent limiters of a) meeting your nutritional needs and b) staying within a calorie budget will naturally keep you away from the edges of the pool.
Just to respond to this quickly
The limitations of meeting particular macros and nutritional needs are additional constraints that also vary. There's a rough global medical consensus on what those are (and not always), and folk cultural understandings of what is "moderate" can vary widely
I am not sure how general nutritional RDAs have anything to do with moderation as your statement would apply to all ways of eating. Or are you saying that LCHF or paleo could overcome those generalities in some way that moderation cannot?0 -
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.
If people aren't eating a healthy and well-balanced diet, they are not eating in moderation?
That is my view.
I have a looser understanding of what's a healthy and well-balanced diet than you give below, however, in part because it doesn't seem healthy to me to get too obsessive about it (looking at the diversity of approaches in blue zones, for example, and how a non stressful lifestyle matters too).0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Does anyone else see the irony that those saying they don't understand what moderation is because there are variable applications of it, and are pushing for absolute examples.... are sort of employing the antithesis of moderation?
No? Just me? Ok carry on.
extremists tend to be blinded by their own extremism. just look at politics...everyone thinks they're so balanced and moderate...but really, the vast majority are either far to the left or far to the right.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Does anyone else see the irony that those saying they don't understand what moderation is because there are variable applications of it, and are pushing for absolute examples.... are sort of employing the antithesis of moderation?
No? Just me? Ok carry on.
extremists tend to be blinded by their own extremism. just look at politics...everyone thinks they're so balanced and moderate...but really, the vast majority are either far to the left or far to the right.cwolfman13 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Does anyone else see the irony that those saying they don't understand what moderation is because there are variable applications of it, and are pushing for absolute examples.... are sort of employing the antithesis of moderation?
No? Just me? Ok carry on.
extremists tend to be blinded by their own extremism. just look at politics...everyone thinks they're so balanced and moderate...but really, the vast majority are either far to the left or far to the right.
good point...0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Well, like I said above, I think one can do paleo in a moderate way.
Claiming eating grains and legumes and dairy isn't healthy for anyone and that having only a bit will ruin your diet (when that is not true -- i.e., not a true allergy or celiac), seems extreme, on the other hand.
For example, I occasionally listen to paleo podcasts, and on one a person was concerned about taking communion because grains (or the appearance of grains, since she was Catholic ;-)). The hosts basically agreed with her that yes, that was a problem. IMO, having such a concern is not extreme if one is celiac. It does seem extreme otherwise, since there is simply no way it's going to hurt your health -- it's a kind of made-up fear. (None of my business, but not moderate.)
We agree that different diets can be done in a moderate way, so no argument there. As for the communion example, I would suggest that the view of that being "extreme" is based on the individual's views and values; you're basing it on health reasons, because that's how you make your determinations. That person may have a different set of criteria in making their decisions, and while I think it's a bit much, they do make communion wafers that are wheat-free, so it's an easy fix. Not hearing the program, I'm not sure if the religious aspect was also a struggle for the person, as communion host is generally made from wheat and water as part of the belief system.
I think my issue with this discussion is that people are trying to claim what is and is not moderation as fact when their definitions of what is extreme is based on their subjective view and personal values. It also seems that some people are being told that eating the foods they want to eat and not eating others is in keeping with moderation, but other people doing the same thing are not in keeping with moderation because the individual does not personally agree with their line of reasoning for what they do or do not eat, or the foods they choose to eat.0 -
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?
Hit the flag button on the bottom of your post, choose report and then click the request to have it deleted. I am sorry if I am repeating information. I'm still reading. FWIW, I thought it was a great article.
I thought it was a great article and a good thread with an interesting discussion.
OP, sorry if the discussion wasn't what you were looking for. Whatever you post on MFP some people will disagree, but you shouldn't take that personally, I expect it wasn't meant that way.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
If people aren't eating a healthy and well-balanced diet, they are not eating in moderation?
That is my view.
I have a looser understanding of what's a healthy and well-balanced diet than you give below, however, in part because it doesn't seem healthy to me to get too obsessive about it (looking at the diversity of approaches in blue zones, for example, and how a non stressful lifestyle matters too).
+1 As far as I'm concerned, all of the discussions about WOEs, whether they be LCHF, paleo, IIFYM, moderation, etc., need to be approached from the standpoint that the goal is to meet nutritional needs. Otherwise, what the hell are we even doing here?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.
It's not a way of eating that includes specific foods, it's a way that can include specific foods if you want to, whereas doing paleo (moreso than lowcarb), you absolutely can't eat the foods that are on the no-no list, or else you're not doing paleo, regardless of you as an individual. No one doing that particular paleo style (lord knows there's dozens with different lists of foods that are okay or not okay), can eat those foods if they want to do that diet, if they want to eat them or not.
If you wouldn't eat them anyway, you're fine. If you would, you want to, and you're beating yourself up over it, there's your extreme and you should consider a different approach to eating.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 432 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions