Moderation
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »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.
+1000000
A way of eating that eliminates food you would otherwise shove in your facehole is not moderation.
ETA: I would actually take out the "and you're beating yourself up over it..." portion. I think the act of eliminating a food you enjoy isn't moderation, whether or not your feel any sense of guilt.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »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?
arguing over and over about a concept that has a singular defined definition???????
0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
+1000000
A way of eating that eliminates food you would otherwise shove in your facehole is not moderation.
ETA: I would actually take out the "and you're beating yourself up over it..." portion. I think the act of eliminating a food you enjoy isn't moderation, whether or not your feel any sense of guilt.
+20000000 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
This. This was the point I was trying and failing to make before cause I'm just not linguistically gifted. Thank you0 -
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.
This makes me think of Raw Fruitatarians as the horseshoe politics of veganism reaching paleo.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
I don't disagree - if the paleo diet includes all the foods you want to eat (like vegetarian, or vegan, or low carb, etc), then one can still be paleo and practice moderation, correct? Because that's what I'm interpreting your post as saying, but that contradicts what the blog author says and several statements made by users in this thread as to the definition of moderation.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.
I don't know if anyone is saying they don't know what "moderation" means so much as they don't necessarily know what a person means when they use the term in regards to diet. Because, just like other diet terms, people use it to mean different things.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
I agree it's silly and arbitrary. So do you think his diet isn't moderate because of that one silly and arbitrary choice?0 -
That's not a moderate reaction to the term moderation, it's an extreme semantic argument
But it's fine
It's clearly how the black box in your brain works...but not how mine does...with the same input signals we get markedly different output
Is it going to affect either of us that we can't agree?...nope
Are we going to be equally successful in our health and fitness goals? ...quite possibly
I appreciate this is a non sequitur ...but I don't hold out much hope that either side will be swayed
Though I admit to being surprised there is actually another side to what seemed blatantly clear to me
H'oh well...such is the way of folk
I guess I don't understand how people arguing that "moderation" is in any way coherent or meaningful as a dieting philosophy (vs. as a word - seriously, everyone understands the actual, literal word) can fail to see the holes in their arguments, or recognize the irony of their position, given their usual attacks on "clean eaters" (i.e. that "no one understands what 'clean eating' means).
Both concepts are just meaningful enough to be useful hooks for people to hang their dieting hats on; both are vague enough for people to use them however they want.
Like it's silly to me
I think it's called hypocrisy.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.
0 -
Some people in this thread have claimed that it's not a "moderate diet" and that "in line with the diet" wouldn't be describing it. They feel it isn't a diet at all and isn't about a diet in any way.I just read the article blog some random person wrote, and frankly, I'm think it's completely off on the definition of moderation. Moderation is the absence of extremes, but I think it is more appropriately applied in the same context as "eating within your macros" or "having a calorie deficit" - it's a concept that can be applied to all different ways of eating, whereas this author tries to make moderation into a labeled diet where specific foods are included. The author basically defines it as "eating mostly whole foods with treats." Um, what? That's not any definition of "eating in moderation" that I've ever heard, that's someone trying to co-op the term to make their preferred type of food intake into something they think everyone else needs to adhere to for success.
The most ridiculous part is the author states that things like eating 100% paleo, or going sugar-free, or only eating organic are considered "extreme," but then goes on to contradict herself by saying "The specifics will look different for everyone, because everyone has different preferences and tastes." Wouldn't eating a paleo diet or vegetarian diet or a no added sugar diet fall into the category of personal preferences and tastes? And who determines what is or is not a treat or indulgence in someone else's diet?
To me, moderation has to do with portion size and/or frequency of consumption, not any specific type of food. The author also goes on to talk about food restriction and binging - for some people, yes, this can be a very real concern. For others, restricting or eliminating a food is their path to success. The author admits to having feelings of guilt around long-term restricting/binging and foods - that's her personal psychological issue, it's not endemic to all people who restrict foods. Others find that just eliminating the food reduces or eliminates issues around foods, because they no longer endure the psychological stress of trying to moderate those foods and failing.
TL;DR: I'm glad she found something that works for her, but as far as the author's definition of moderation
the author uses the webster definition of moderation, not sure why you think it is some made up definition …
Just because she quoted the definition does not mean she used the word properly in context. Here's what she initially says (hat tip to the cherry-picking manner in which she choose to present only one definition for the word and completely left out the definition of the idiom "in moderation" which means "without excess; moderately; temperately")mod·er·a·tion
ˌmädəˈrāSH(ə)n/
noun
1. the avoidance of excess or extremes, especially in one’s behavior or political opinions.Eating 100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme.
Yet later in the article she states:So what does moderation look like in the real world?
It looks like eating a MOSTLY whole foods diet with plenty of nutrients from fruits, vegetables, lean meats, healthy fats, etc. The specifics will look different for everyone, because everyone has different preferences and tastes. It also leaves room for regular treats and indulgences that feed our soul and give us pleasure.
The application she describes is quite different from the definition she presented, and a 100% paleo diet would easily fit the criteria of a "mostly whole foods diet with plenty of nutrients from fruits, vegetable, lean meats, healthy fats, etc;" the choice to eat a paleo diet would be supported by her statement that "the specifics will look different for everyone, because everyone has different preferences and tastes; and things like paleo desserts would certainly fit into the category of "regular treats and indulgences that feed our soul and give us pleasure."
Therefore, a paleo diet meets the criteria for "what moderation looks like in the real world," which contradicts her previous statement about a paleo diet. The author is applying the same definition inconsistently. In the first instance, she defines moderation by the types of food consumed/behavior of eliminating certain foods from one's diet, and in the second, she defines moderation by the amount/frequency of types of foods consumed and the behavior of exercising that practice.
My post clarified is that her use in the first instance is inaccurate and that the second instance is the correct usage when discussing diet and food consumption, which makes moderation apply across ways of eating. Her use of both instances as acceptable under that one specific definition is glaringly contradictory - which also supports what some other users have said about the definition of moderation being unclear to some people. The author's own words support that position.
paleo would never meet the requirement of a "moderate diet" because it calls for the elimination of certain food groups, and also says that one has to eat like a paleolithic person, which would mean only eating local foods found within a 100 mile radius of where one lives, and sustaining on a diet of raw meet, grubs, plant roots, etc.
your understanding of moderation is severely flawed, and you do not understand the point that the author is trying to make.
Also, the authors application of moderation is totally in line with the diet as it is one where the theoretical person would be getting micros from whole foods, filling in macros with other foods, and then indulging in treats and what not to fill in left over calories.
Another person suggested it means you have treats, but not all the time.
Someone else suggested that you just don't have too much of something.
Even in the thread about how everyone is thinking the very same thing, there have been some discrepancies on the definition.
how is there a difference in definition...the difference is in the application.
having treats sometimes...moderating treats.
having a drink or two ...moderating alcohol
moderation by definition is allow for things sometimes but not going to an extreme and doing it all the time.
see in this instance it would be not arguing for arguments sake all the time...that's not moderate.
or insisting that there is more than one definition of moderate...
*light bulb moment*
Some would argue that having treats all the time is not extreme, but is moderation.
some would argue black was white too...
Define "all the time"
I eat a chocolate bar every night with a diet coke...that's moderation as I allow for it and don't eliminate chocolate/treats from my diet.
You might not see that as "moderate" because you can't eat chocolate every night and still maintain/lose..but for me it's moderate...application.
That's the nice thing about moderation...the definition is clear...application varies...
Ah but white is black. If you define white and black as being a "combination of all colours". White is a combination of all when looking at a spectrum of light. Black is a combination of all when looking at pigment. MUAHAHAHAHA.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.
The person's reason for being paleo was health. (I'm not sure what other reason there would be, even though I don't think a paleo diet is healthier than a good non paleo diet.)
And as I said she was Catholic, and the Catholic Church (which is, of course extreme -- I'm Catholic too, so not criticizing) does NOT allow for wheat-free communion wafers. (Also, paleo is no grains, not just no wheat.)
The religious aspect was part of it -- she was struggling with the idea that she couldn't participate fully in communion, which was troubling to her, given her understanding of the demands of paleo. (Technically, you can fully participate in communion with just the wine, which the hosts did not know, but in any case I think that level of commitment to "no grains" without being celiac is immoderate and a little troubling. Others might think caring about religion is immoderate, and that's fine, doesn't bother me. ;-) )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.
I think it's a general approach and some things clearly aren't within that approach ("eating any added sugar ever will ruin my health or spoil my diet and so asking me if I want pie on Thanksgiving is sabotage!" or "vegetables are disgusting, I eat only bacon, sausage, and beer"). But what it will look like is going to vary.
What I liked about the piece OP linked (without analyzing the whole thing too closely) is that it responded to the usual nonsense about "moderation" just being an excuse for eating a poor diet. No, part of moderation is eating what you like as part of an overall balanced diet that IS concerned with meeting goals like calorie appropriateness AND nutritional considerations and feeling good.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
I don't disagree - if the paleo diet includes all the foods you want to eat (like vegetarian, or vegan, or low carb, etc), then one can still be paleo and practice moderation, correct? Because that's what I'm interpreting your post as saying, but that contradicts what the blog author says and several statements made by users in this thread as to the definition of moderation.
The way I understand the blog post is that she is directly referring to people believing they must do this or that. That old thinking of if you're not eating clean you just want to eat burgers all day and the "look at me how disciplined I am for only eating chicken, brown rice and broccoli day in and day out" type of people. Specifically the ones who would not eat that way just because that's what they like but because it's the newest fad they read about in a magazine and suddenly they go from 50% of their diet being carbs to <20 grams per day from one day to the other. That's an extreme.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
What about strict calorie counting?
If I reach my calorie goal for the day but still want to eat some food, but choose not to because I cannot go over my allotted calories for the day (which a lot of people eating on a calorie controlled diet stick to) does that change my diet from moderation to extreme (for that day)?
In essence I am eliminating ALL food.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
I don't disagree - if the paleo diet includes all the foods you want to eat (like vegetarian, or vegan, or low carb, etc), then one can still be paleo and practice moderation, correct? Because that's what I'm interpreting your post as saying, but that contradicts what the blog author says and several statements made by users in this thread as to the definition of moderation.
For the record (I know this wasn't addressed to me but I just wanted to chime in), I'm not taking the blog author as the definitive expert on what constitutes moderation, just as I'm not sure I totally agree with other people who are proponents of moderation on their specific interpretation. What I have been saying repeatedly is that the definition is consistent, the actual implementation of moderation is individualized and variable. With that, the interpretation of whether or not someone else considers what I do to be moderation and not extreme, can also be subjective. I personally believe that a person CAN be Paleo and still practice moderation. I also believe that some people who are Paleo are using extreme restriction and therefore would not fit my interpretation of Moderation. That doesn't invalidate the definition of moderation because 5 different people in this thread as well as the blog author have a different interpretation of whether or not it is possible to practice moderation with a Paleo diet.
There is not going to be consensus on whether or not every single way of eating based on medical requirements, ethical reasons, or personal preference is an appropriate application of moderation. The entire point of this is that an individual who practices moderation chooses what the boundaries/extremes are for themselves and they determine where in the middle they want to swim.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
What about strict calorie counting?
If I reach my calorie goal for the day but still want to eat some food, but choose not to because I cannot go over my allotted calories for the day (which a lot of people eating on a calorie controlled diet stick to) does that change my diet from moderation to extreme (for that day)?
In essence I am eliminating ALL food.
I'd personally say, if you realize there is nothing wrong with doing it it's not extreme. You can go over your calories one day, it won't kill you. Maybe set you back a day or two, but that's all. I know I eat more than my allotted calories a lot of the time. And I'm okay with that. I still lose at a good pace.
You can definitely be extreme in calorie counting too.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
What I liked about the piece OP linked (without analyzing the whole thing too closely) is that it responded to the usual nonsense about "moderation" just being an excuse for eating a poor diet. No, part of moderation is eating what you like as part of an overall balanced diet that IS concerned with meeting goals like calorie appropriateness AND nutritional considerations and feeling good.
^This
And....stevencloser wrote: »
The way I understand the blog post is that she is directly referring to people believing they must do this or that. That old thinking of if you're not eating clean you just want to eat burgers all day and the "look at me how disciplined I am for only eating chicken, brown rice and broccoli day in and day out" type of people. Specifically the ones who would not eat that way just because that's what they like but because it's the newest fad they read about in a magazine and suddenly they go from 50% of their diet being carbs to <20 grams per day from one day to the other. That's an extreme.
^This0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
What about strict calorie counting?
If I reach my calorie goal for the day but still want to eat some food, but choose not to because I cannot go over my allotted calories for the day (which a lot of people eating on a calorie controlled diet stick to) does that change my diet from moderation to extreme (for that day)?
In essence I am eliminating ALL food.
How is that eliminating all food? By such word play and inanity, you might as well claim all diets are extreme because they eliminate all food in that no diet would say it is okay to be constantly eating 100% of the day.
All the foods are available, you just have to acknowledge that if you want to lose weight, the calories over time will have to be in a deficit, so eat less tomorrow, eat the food tomorrow, or accept slower weight loss.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
What about strict calorie counting?
If I reach my calorie goal for the day but still want to eat some food, but choose not to because I cannot go over my allotted calories for the day (which a lot of people eating on a calorie controlled diet stick to) does that change my diet from moderation to extreme (for that day)?
In essence I am eliminating ALL food.
How is that eliminating all food? By such word play and inanity, you might as well claim all diets are extreme because they eliminate all food in that no diet would say it is okay to be constantly eating 100% of the day.
All the foods are available, you just have to acknowledge that if you want to lose weight, the calories over time will have to be in a deficit, so eat less tomorrow, eat the food tomorrow, or accept slower weight loss.
But what if you stick to your calorie goal everyday and everyday you still want to continue to eat after you have reached your calorie limit, but beat yourself up over it and choose not to?
Is that still classed as a moderation diet, or under Steven's definition is it considered an extreme diet?0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
What about strict calorie counting?
If I reach my calorie goal for the day but still want to eat some food, but choose not to because I cannot go over my allotted calories for the day (which a lot of people eating on a calorie controlled diet stick to) does that change my diet from moderation to extreme (for that day)?
In essence I am eliminating ALL food.
no you're not...
and yeah, a lot of people are over the top obsessive about calorie counting...and take things to extremes.0 -
The blog was just okay, imo. The writer's thoughts seemed very disorganized and fuzzy to me. I've seen better writing and clearer thoughts expressed about moderation in posts on MFP.
I especially disagree with this:
"So what does moderation look like in the real world?
It looks like eating a MOSTLY whole foods diet with plenty of nutrients from fruits, vegetables, lean meats, healthy fats, etc. The specifics will look different for everyone, because everyone has different preferences and tastes. It also leaves room for regular treats and indulgences that feed our soul and give us pleasure."
This sounds like a bunch of rules to me. Like a diet plan. Why mostly whole foods? Why not mostly processed foods?
I understand moderation as something akin to flexibility and lack of rigidity. As in, there's cake and I want some, so I'm going to fit it in. Or, oranges have plenty of vitamin C, but I'm not really worried about vitamin C so I'm not going to suffer to eat an orange just because it has some virtue I don't really care about.
I pay some attention to macro's, and like no attention to micros. I definitely pay no regard to whether my food is "whole" or not, or "mostly whole". Why should I? I'm not averse to whole foods, but I don't feel any obligation to seek them out, either. I eat what I want, according to my calorie goals and, sometimes, my macro goals (which have more to do with controlling my hunger due to my calorie goal than anything else)
I dunno, maybe I don't eat in moderation, if what it means is that I adhere to some pseudo-virtuous (imho) WOE.
As far as avoidance of extremes, I might be able to get on board with that, except no one thinks what they do is extreme, kind of like how no one believes that what they think is unreasonable.
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...
Unless... is clean eating defined by what it isn't? Because hey, that's hard to pin down obviously.
I understand that some want to see a pot/kettle situation here, but unless you're comparing two exclusionary methods of defining something, it's not a similar sort of reference/argument being made/had.
Moderation exists on a spectrum of applications applied by individuals and circumscribed by the extremes within which it exists. Does clean? If it does, why don't its followers simply say so?0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
What about strict calorie counting?
If I reach my calorie goal for the day but still want to eat some food, but choose not to because I cannot go over my allotted calories for the day (which a lot of people eating on a calorie controlled diet stick to) does that change my diet from moderation to extreme (for that day)?
In essence I am eliminating ALL food.
How is that eliminating all food? By such word play and inanity, you might as well claim all diets are extreme because they eliminate all food in that no diet would say it is okay to be constantly eating 100% of the day.
All the foods are available, you just have to acknowledge that if you want to lose weight, the calories over time will have to be in a deficit, so eat less tomorrow, eat the food tomorrow, or accept slower weight loss.
But what if you stick to your calorie goal everyday and everyday you still want to continue to eat after you have reached your calorie limit, but beat yourself up over it and choose not to?
Is that still classed as a moderation diet, or under Steven's definition is it considered an extreme diet?
Then yes, if you're constantly deprived, you either have some more serious issue, or you're being extreme.
You can set a calorie goal of zero calorie's a day. That isn't moderation.0 -
This week I learned that Norwegians have a slang word for crazy, "texas." As in "this thread has gone ALL texas." Imma go have a cookie and look up some o these big words I just read in this texas thread.0
-
soulofgrace wrote: »This week I learned that Norwegians have a slang word for crazy, "texas." As in "this thread has gone ALL texas." Imma go have a cookie and look up some o these big words I just read in this texas thread.
Might as well keep the Scandinavian theme going and have some Kringla or Lefse0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »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...
Unless... is clean eating defined by what it isn't? Because hey, that's hard to pin down obviously.
I understand that some want to see a pot/kettle situation here, but unless you're comparing two exclusionary methods of defining something, it's not a similar sort of reference/argument being made/had.
Moderation exists on a spectrum of applications applied by individuals and circumscribed by the extremes within which it exists. Does clean? If it does, why don't its followers simply say so?
because there are at least 5 million different definition of what clean eating is....0 -
Moderation is the avoidance of extremes.
You can never eat cupcakes again or you are a failure as a dieter and human being! - extreme
It's ok to have cupcakes sometimes if it fits your calories and nutritional/macro goals. - moderate
Calories are ALL that matter, so you should only EVER eat cupcakes! It's called the cupcake diet!! - extreme
Moderation is ANYTHING that falls between the extremes. Really isn't rocket science.0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »Moderation is the avoidance of extremes.
You can never eat cupcakes again or you are a failure as a dieter and human being! - extreme
It's ok to have cupcakes sometimes if it fits your calories and nutritional/macro goals. - moderate
Calories are ALL that matter, so you should only EVER eat cupcakes! It's called the cupcake diet!! - extreme
Moderation is ANYTHING that falls between the extremes. Really isn't rocket science.
but if you eat a cupcake a day and it fits within your micors/macros/calories, is that still moderation???
Better yet, if I eat a cupcake in the woods, do the calories still count because no one is around to see me eat the cupcake?0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »Moderation is the avoidance of extremes.
You can never eat cupcakes again or you are a failure as a dieter and human being! - extreme
It's ok to have cupcakes sometimes if it fits your calories and nutritional/macro goals. - moderate
Calories are ALL that matter, so you should only EVER eat cupcakes! It's called the cupcake diet!! - extreme
Moderation is ANYTHING that falls between the extremes. Really isn't rocket science.
but if you eat a cupcake a day and it fits within your micors/macros/calories, is that still moderation???
Better yet, if I eat a cupcake in the woods, do the calories still count because no one is around to see me eat the cupcake?
Just be careful...cupcakes attract bears0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »Moderation is the avoidance of extremes.
You can never eat cupcakes again or you are a failure as a dieter and human being! - extreme
It's ok to have cupcakes sometimes if it fits your calories and nutritional/macro goals. - moderate
Calories are ALL that matter, so you should only EVER eat cupcakes! It's called the cupcake diet!! - extreme
Moderation is ANYTHING that falls between the extremes. Really isn't rocket science.
but if you eat a cupcake a day and it fits within your micors/macros/calories, is that still moderation???
Better yet, if I eat a cupcake in the woods, do the calories still count because no one is around to see me eat the cupcake?
Pretty sure I would get sick of cupcakes after a while if I ate them everyday and I LOVE cupcakes.0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »Moderation is the avoidance of extremes.
You can never eat cupcakes again or you are a failure as a dieter and human being! - extreme
It's ok to have cupcakes sometimes if it fits your calories and nutritional/macro goals. - moderate
Calories are ALL that matter, so you should only EVER eat cupcakes! It's called the cupcake diet!! - extreme
Moderation is ANYTHING that falls between the extremes. Really isn't rocket science.
15 pages of semantic arguement beg to differ.
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
- 427 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