Moderation
Replies
-
WinoGelato 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.
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.
I've been focusing on the blog because that's what this thread is about; I don't consider a blogger to be an expert either. We pretty much agree on moderation, and my argument has been that people are taking the definition and applying it inaccurately to meet with their personal views about what is extreme, then declaring that as "fact." The most glaring example being that paleo is not moderation, whereas most of us would say "yes, it can be."
The thing I like about moderation, which I think @lemurcat12 touched on from the blog, is that it is an approach that can be very helpful in dietary adherence and get people away from an "all-or-nothing" mentality when it comes to food choices. As Cookie Monster would say, there are Sometimes Foods.
But what I dislike is people trying to apply moderation in an all-or-nothing way, as in you moderate all foods, or you don't get to say you practice moderation. I think that is wrong. To me, moderation is about the foods you like, want to eat, enjoy, and feel bring some benefit to your life. Those are the foods you moderate. Anything you don't like, enjoy, want to eat, or feel brings some benefit to your life, you can eliminate if you want. Stating that people who follow certain ways of eating can't be practicing moderation because of how they've set their macros or the foods they choose to eat directly contradicts the notion that the individual chooses the boundaries or extremes for themselves - which is what a lot of people here have been trying to explain in their responses, only to be told that they "don't get it."
I think that is why people feel like there are multiple definitions - people are applying it based on their own boundaries and extremes, and are then being told by someone else "no, that's not it," because that person subjectively finds it extreme, or doesn't agree with a decision to eat or not eat a certain way.0 -
Need2Exerc1se 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.
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.
Yes, that's my take as well.0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »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.
I eat ice cream pretty much every day and I never get tired of that ....0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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.
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.
Yes, that's my take as well.
it is a pretty simplistic concept that some in this thread have actively chosen to not grasp.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???
A cupcake a day wouldn't be moderate for me, but if someone else want to fit a cupcake a day in their macros/micros/calories, I'm not going to take the position that it is not moderate for them.
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.
I'm obnoxiously going to quote myself, but I feel the need to add to my list.
You can never eat cupcakes again or you are a failure as a dieter and human being! - extreme
I don't like cupcakes and would rather spend my calories on potato chips. - moderate
I only eat cupcakes on special occasions, like my birthday or Christmas. - moderate
It's ok to have cupcakes sometimes if it fits your calories and nutritional/macro goals. - moderate
I eat a cupcake every night. It fits my calories and rounds out my fat/carb macros nicely. - moderate
Calories are ALL that matter, so you should only EVER eat cupcakes! It's called the cupcake diet!! - extreme
See, there can be different levels on moderation.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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.
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.
Yes, that's my take as well.
it is a pretty simplistic concept that some in this thread have actively chosen to not grasp.
It's a concept that some deem simplistic by saying everyone that doesn't it define as I do is wrong.0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »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.
I'm obnoxiously going to quote myself, but I feel the need to add to my list.
You can never eat cupcakes again or you are a failure as a dieter and human being! - extreme
I don't like cupcakes and would rather spend my calories on potato chips. - moderate
I only eat cupcakes on special occasions, like my birthday or Christmas. - moderate
It's ok to have cupcakes sometimes if it fits your calories and nutritional/macro goals. - moderate
I eat a cupcake every night. It fits my calories and rounds out my fat/carb macros nicely. - moderate
Calories are ALL that matter, so you should only EVER eat cupcakes! It's called the cupcake diet!! - extreme
See, there can be different levels on moderation.
I like you0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »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.
I'm obnoxiously going to quote myself, but I feel the need to add to my list.
You can never eat cupcakes again or you are a failure as a dieter and human being! - extreme
I don't like cupcakes and would rather spend my calories on potato chips. - moderate
I only eat cupcakes on special occasions, like my birthday or Christmas. - moderate
It's ok to have cupcakes sometimes if it fits your calories and nutritional/macro goals. - moderate
I eat a cupcake every night. It fits my calories and rounds out my fat/carb macros nicely. - moderate
Calories are ALL that matter, so you should only EVER eat cupcakes! It's called the cupcake diet!! - extreme
See, there can be different levels on moderation.
I like you
From what I've seen, it's mutual.
/creepy0 -
WinoGelato 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.
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.
I've been focusing on the blog because that's what this thread is about; I don't consider a blogger to be an expert either. We pretty much agree on moderation, and my argument has been that people are taking the definition and applying it inaccurately to meet with their personal views about what is extreme, then declaring that as "fact." The most glaring example being that paleo is not moderation, whereas most of us would say "yes, it can be."
The thing I like about moderation, which I think @lemurcat12 touched on from the blog, is that it is an approach that can be very helpful in dietary adherence and get people away from an "all-or-nothing" mentality when it comes to food choices. As Cookie Monster would say, there are Sometimes Foods.
But what I dislike is people trying to apply moderation in an all-or-nothing way, as in you moderate all foods, or you don't get to say you practice moderation. I think that is wrong. To me, moderation is about the foods you like, want to eat, enjoy, and feel bring some benefit to your life. Those are the foods you moderate. Anything you don't like, enjoy, want to eat, or feel brings some benefit to your life, you can eliminate if you want. Stating that people who follow certain ways of eating can't be practicing moderation because of how they've set their macros or the foods they choose to eat directly contradicts the notion that the individual chooses the boundaries or extremes for themselves - which is what a lot of people here have been trying to explain in their responses, only to be told that they "don't get it."
I think that is why people feel like there are multiple definitions - people are applying it based on their own boundaries and extremes, and are then being told by someone else "no, that's not it," because that person subjectively finds it extreme, or doesn't agree with a decision to eat or not eat a certain way.
I agree with pretty much all of this and to the bold... Well I would call those people the extreme moderators. Or moderate extremists.
0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »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.
I'm obnoxiously going to quote myself, but I feel the need to add to my list.
You can never eat cupcakes again or you are a failure as a dieter and human being! - extreme
I don't like cupcakes and would rather spend my calories on potato chips. - moderate
I only eat cupcakes on special occasions, like my birthday or Christmas. - moderate
It's ok to have cupcakes sometimes if it fits your calories and nutritional/macro goals. - moderate
I eat a cupcake every night. It fits my calories and rounds out my fat/carb macros nicely. - moderate
Calories are ALL that matter, so you should only EVER eat cupcakes! It's called the cupcake diet!! - extreme
See, there can be different levels on moderation.
Where would "I just don't want to eat cupcakes" fall on the spectrum?0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »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.
I'm obnoxiously going to quote myself, but I feel the need to add to my list.
You can never eat cupcakes again or you are a failure as a dieter and human being! - extreme
I don't like cupcakes and would rather spend my calories on potato chips. - moderate
I only eat cupcakes on special occasions, like my birthday or Christmas. - moderate
It's ok to have cupcakes sometimes if it fits your calories and nutritional/macro goals. - moderate
I eat a cupcake every night. It fits my calories and rounds out my fat/carb macros nicely. - moderate
Calories are ALL that matter, so you should only EVER eat cupcakes! It's called the cupcake diet!! - extreme
See, there can be different levels on moderation.
Where would "I just don't want to eat cupcakes" fall on the spectrum?
It's in there. Just replace "potato chips" with food of choice.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »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???
A cupcake a day wouldn't be moderate for me, but if someone else want to fit a cupcake a day in their macros/micros/calories, I'm not going to take the position that it is not moderate for them.
Do you think it wouldn't be moderate or is it simply not how you choose to practice moderation.
For example, I usually have at least 200 discretionary calories, assuming I am being as active as I should be. So if I found a small cupcake (or baked them), I could fit in a cupcake after dinner most days. I don't, because I'm not that into cupcakes, don't especially want to be baking all the time and so on. I fit in a little ice cream or cheese or include some higher cal meat choices or maybe some chocolate or save calories for meals out, etc. But if I loved cupcakes more than all these other things and so chose to include the cupcakes, why wouldn't that be a form of moderation? I wouldn't thereby go over any sugar or macro goals (and my macro goals are a pretty balanced 40-30-30).0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »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.
I'm obnoxiously going to quote myself, but I feel the need to add to my list.
You can never eat cupcakes again or you are a failure as a dieter and human being! - extreme
I don't like cupcakes and would rather spend my calories on potato chips. - moderate
I only eat cupcakes on special occasions, like my birthday or Christmas. - moderate
It's ok to have cupcakes sometimes if it fits your calories and nutritional/macro goals. - moderate
I eat a cupcake every night. It fits my calories and rounds out my fat/carb macros nicely. - moderate
Calories are ALL that matter, so you should only EVER eat cupcakes! It's called the cupcake diet!! - extreme
See, there can be different levels on moderation.
Excellent list.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?
Does the Pope eat cupcakes?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »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???
A cupcake a day wouldn't be moderate for me, but if someone else want to fit a cupcake a day in their macros/micros/calories, I'm not going to take the position that it is not moderate for them.
Do you think it wouldn't be moderate or is it simply not how you choose to practice moderation.
For example, I usually have at least 200 discretionary calories, assuming I am being as active as I should be. So if I found a small cupcake (or baked them), I could fit in a cupcake after dinner most days. I don't, because I'm not that into cupcakes, don't especially want to be baking all the time and so on. I fit in a little ice cream or cheese or include some higher cal meat choices or maybe some chocolate or save calories for meals out, etc. But if I loved cupcakes more than all these other things and so chose to include the cupcakes, why wouldn't that be a form of moderation? I wouldn't thereby go over any sugar or macro goals (and my macro goals are a pretty balanced 40-30-30).
In a diet of moderation, why wouldn't all calories be discretionary?0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »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.
I'm obnoxiously going to quote myself, but I feel the need to add to my list.
You can never eat cupcakes again or you are a failure as a dieter and human being! - extreme
I don't like cupcakes and would rather spend my calories on potato chips. - moderate
I only eat cupcakes on special occasions, like my birthday or Christmas. - moderate
It's ok to have cupcakes sometimes if it fits your calories and nutritional/macro goals. - moderate
I eat a cupcake every night. It fits my calories and rounds out my fat/carb macros nicely. - moderate
Calories are ALL that matter, so you should only EVER eat cupcakes! It's called the cupcake diet!! - extreme
See, there can be different levels on moderation.
Where would "I just don't want to eat cupcakes" fall on the spectrum?
I'm confused by this, because I don't think anyone has ever said it's extreme to not eat foods you don't want to eat. In a given week all of us don't eat far more foods than we eat. It's just we don't eat them because we don't want to, not because we eliminated them. I never eat McDonalds, but I certainly didn't need to eliminate it. I just don't eat it.
(I am not saying that eliminating foods is inherently non-moderate either, but I really don't think it's moderate to say -- or that anyone is claiming -- that you have to eat foods you don't want to eat. If I have limited food to eat and have to make choices, some foods just won't get chosen.)0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »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.
I'm obnoxiously going to quote myself, but I feel the need to add to my list.
You can never eat cupcakes again or you are a failure as a dieter and human being! - extreme
I don't like cupcakes and would rather spend my calories on potato chips. - moderate
I only eat cupcakes on special occasions, like my birthday or Christmas. - moderate
It's ok to have cupcakes sometimes if it fits your calories and nutritional/macro goals. - moderate
I eat a cupcake every night. It fits my calories and rounds out my fat/carb macros nicely. - moderate
Calories are ALL that matter, so you should only EVER eat cupcakes! It's called the cupcake diet!! - extreme
See, there can be different levels on moderation.
Where would "I just don't want to eat cupcakes" fall on the spectrum?
It's in there. Just replace "potato chips" with food of choice.
I think that's the question that a lot of people are asking though - what about the people who don't want to eat cupcakes, or potato chips, or cookies, or ice cream, etc? What about when the food of choice is fruit salad or frozen mashed banana - is it still moderation when the food of choice isn't a traditionally indulgent "dieting no-no*" foods, or does that make it extreme?
*This is not saying there are bad foods. This is merely acknowledging the existence of dieting myths about what you can or cannot eat on the diet, and it's usually things like cupcakes, cookies, potato chips, etc. The blog author acknowledges this by commenting on viewpoints about hyperpalatable, calorie dense foods and their place in weight loss.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »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???
A cupcake a day wouldn't be moderate for me, but if someone else want to fit a cupcake a day in their macros/micros/calories, I'm not going to take the position that it is not moderate for them.
Do you think it wouldn't be moderate or is it simply not how you choose to practice moderation.
For example, I usually have at least 200 discretionary calories, assuming I am being as active as I should be. So if I found a small cupcake (or baked them), I could fit in a cupcake after dinner most days. I don't, because I'm not that into cupcakes, don't especially want to be baking all the time and so on. I fit in a little ice cream or cheese or include some higher cal meat choices or maybe some chocolate or save calories for meals out, etc. But if I loved cupcakes more than all these other things and so chose to include the cupcakes, why wouldn't that be a form of moderation? I wouldn't thereby go over any sugar or macro goals (and my macro goals are a pretty balanced 40-30-30).
In a diet of moderation, why wouldn't all calories be discretionary?
Well, you are going to use a certain minimum amount getting in things that the cupcake does not provide (or that the cheese really doesn't provide or which you could get in fewer cals than the prime rib). So sure, it's all discretionary in a way, but I mean extra in the sense that you aren't really worried about adding to nutrients (beyond calories).0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »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.
I'm obnoxiously going to quote myself, but I feel the need to add to my list.
You can never eat cupcakes again or you are a failure as a dieter and human being! - extreme
I don't like cupcakes and would rather spend my calories on potato chips. - moderate
I only eat cupcakes on special occasions, like my birthday or Christmas. - moderate
It's ok to have cupcakes sometimes if it fits your calories and nutritional/macro goals. - moderate
I eat a cupcake every night. It fits my calories and rounds out my fat/carb macros nicely. - moderate
Calories are ALL that matter, so you should only EVER eat cupcakes! It's called the cupcake diet!! - extreme
See, there can be different levels on moderation.
Where would "I just don't want to eat cupcakes" fall on the spectrum?
It's in there. Just replace "potato chips" with food of choice.
I think that's the question that a lot of people are asking though - what about the people who don't want to eat cupcakes, or potato chips, or cookies, or ice cream, etc? What about when the food of choice is fruit salad or frozen mashed banana - is it still moderation when the food of choice isn't a traditionally indulgent "dieting no-no*" foods, or does that make it extreme?
*This is not saying there are bad foods. This is merely acknowledging the existence of dieting myths about what you can or cannot eat on the diet, and it's usually things like cupcakes, cookies, potato chips, etc. The blog author acknowledges this by commenting on viewpoints about hyperpalatable, calorie dense foods and their place in weight loss.
Yes. It's still valid because you can overeat anything and require moderation to keep from gaining weight.0 -
I absolutely know moderation when I see it. It's that point in the middle as I swing from one extreme to another.0
-
WinoGelato 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.
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.
I've been focusing on the blog because that's what this thread is about; I don't consider a blogger to be an expert either. We pretty much agree on moderation, and my argument has been that people are taking the definition and applying it inaccurately to meet with their personal views about what is extreme, then declaring that as "fact." The most glaring example being that paleo is not moderation, whereas most of us would say "yes, it can be."
The thing I like about moderation, which I think @lemurcat12 touched on from the blog, is that it is an approach that can be very helpful in dietary adherence and get people away from an "all-or-nothing" mentality when it comes to food choices. As Cookie Monster would say, there are Sometimes Foods.
But what I dislike is people trying to apply moderation in an all-or-nothing way, as in you moderate all foods, or you don't get to say you practice moderation. I think that is wrong. To me, moderation is about the foods you like, want to eat, enjoy, and feel bring some benefit to your life. Those are the foods you moderate. Anything you don't like, enjoy, want to eat, or feel brings some benefit to your life, you can eliminate if you want. Stating that people who follow certain ways of eating can't be practicing moderation because of how they've set their macros or the foods they choose to eat directly contradicts the notion that the individual chooses the boundaries or extremes for themselves - which is what a lot of people here have been trying to explain in their responses, only to be told that they "don't get it."
I think that is why people feel like there are multiple definitions - people are applying it based on their own boundaries and extremes, and are then being told by someone else "no, that's not it," because that person subjectively finds it extreme, or doesn't agree with a decision to eat or not eat a certain way.
I agree with this, I think I was trying to convey a similar point earlier in the thread about the mindset behind diet composition being the deciding factor if someone is practicing moderation or not.
As for the reasoning about elimination for bringing benefit to your life? I think that might be a topic for another thread. A lot of diets sell themselves with claims that plant supposed benefits in their follower's heads, and the followers, expecting certain outcomes, go on to "feel" them. In the face of perhaps missing some of their old foods, those feelings could be transitory gratification. New conversion zeal and all that. The argument is leaving the door open to some extreme plans, like ... oh hey! The Military Diet made me drop 3 pounds! Score!!!!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »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???
A cupcake a day wouldn't be moderate for me, but if someone else want to fit a cupcake a day in their macros/micros/calories, I'm not going to take the position that it is not moderate for them.
Do you think it wouldn't be moderate or is it simply not how you choose to practice moderation.
For example, I usually have at least 200 discretionary calories, assuming I am being as active as I should be. So if I found a small cupcake (or baked them), I could fit in a cupcake after dinner most days. I don't, because I'm not that into cupcakes, don't especially want to be baking all the time and so on. I fit in a little ice cream or cheese or include some higher cal meat choices or maybe some chocolate or save calories for meals out, etc. But if I loved cupcakes more than all these other things and so chose to include the cupcakes, why wouldn't that be a form of moderation? I wouldn't thereby go over any sugar or macro goals (and my macro goals are a pretty balanced 40-30-30).
It's not how I would apply moderation for me.
I agree that your example is moderate.
Because we are both right is part of why this thread has gone on for so many pages - I and others are taking the position that because moderation can mean different things to different people, it's not a particularly useful term when applied to eating.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »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???
A cupcake a day wouldn't be moderate for me, but if someone else want to fit a cupcake a day in their macros/micros/calories, I'm not going to take the position that it is not moderate for them.
Do you think it wouldn't be moderate or is it simply not how you choose to practice moderation.
For example, I usually have at least 200 discretionary calories, assuming I am being as active as I should be. So if I found a small cupcake (or baked them), I could fit in a cupcake after dinner most days. I don't, because I'm not that into cupcakes, don't especially want to be baking all the time and so on. I fit in a little ice cream or cheese or include some higher cal meat choices or maybe some chocolate or save calories for meals out, etc. But if I loved cupcakes more than all these other things and so chose to include the cupcakes, why wouldn't that be a form of moderation? I wouldn't thereby go over any sugar or macro goals (and my macro goals are a pretty balanced 40-30-30).
It's not how I would apply moderation for me.
I agree that your example is moderate.
Because we are both right is part of why this thread has gone on for so many pages - I and others are taking the position that because moderation can mean different things to different people, it's not a particularly useful term when applied to eating.
But no one is saying that we all have to eat cupcakes. Again - the definition of moderation is consistent. It shouldn't "mean something different" to you or anyone else. How you choose to apply moderation to your dietary choices is variable upon the individual's goals, preferences, or tolerances.
The example from @SingRunTing is perfect. There are 6 scenarios surrounding cupcakes. 4 of them are a moderate approach. 2 of them are extreme approaches. The only ones that are extreme are the ones saying "NOTHING EVER BECAUSE BAD" or "MUST EAT ALL THE TIME BECAUSE GOOD"SingRunTing wrote: »
You can never eat cupcakes again or you are a failure as a dieter and human being! - extreme
I don't like cupcakes and would rather spend my calories on potato chips. - moderate
I only eat cupcakes on special occasions, like my birthday or Christmas. - moderate
It's ok to have cupcakes sometimes if it fits your calories and nutritional/macro goals. - moderate
I eat a cupcake every night. It fits my calories and rounds out my fat/carb macros nicely. - moderate
Calories are ALL that matter, so you should only EVER eat cupcakes! It's called the cupcake diet!! - extreme
See, there can be different levels on moderation.
Moderation is a sliding scale. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have a clear definition. It means that it can be practiced in different ways.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »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???
A cupcake a day wouldn't be moderate for me, but if someone else want to fit a cupcake a day in their macros/micros/calories, I'm not going to take the position that it is not moderate for them.
Do you think it wouldn't be moderate or is it simply not how you choose to practice moderation.
For example, I usually have at least 200 discretionary calories, assuming I am being as active as I should be. So if I found a small cupcake (or baked them), I could fit in a cupcake after dinner most days. I don't, because I'm not that into cupcakes, don't especially want to be baking all the time and so on. I fit in a little ice cream or cheese or include some higher cal meat choices or maybe some chocolate or save calories for meals out, etc. But if I loved cupcakes more than all these other things and so chose to include the cupcakes, why wouldn't that be a form of moderation? I wouldn't thereby go over any sugar or macro goals (and my macro goals are a pretty balanced 40-30-30).
It's not how I would apply moderation for me.
I agree that your example is moderate.
Because we are both right is part of why this thread has gone on for so many pages - I and others are taking the position that because moderation can mean different things to different people, it's not a particularly useful term when applied to eating.
I don't understand why it's so hard to see something that's a broad concept which is not meant to define a specific way of eating for what it is ... a broad concept.
You're defining moderation (saying it means different things) and then complaining that because you can't put your finger on it that it's not useful.
Is this the legacy of named plans or something? I'm not taking a shot with that, I'm trying to draw the distinction between an approach and a "diet".
Moderation isn't a diet. It's an approach or concept applied to eating. How people apply that concept has a very broad spectrum in which to operate.
It doesn't have to be "useful". It just has to be understood.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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.
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.
Yes, that's my take as well.
it is a pretty simplistic concept that some in this thread have actively chosen to not grasp.
It's a concept that some deem simplistic by saying everyone that doesn't it define as I do is wrong.
the problem is you want to have your own definition. Just use the one in the dictionary and apply it, period.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »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???
A cupcake a day wouldn't be moderate for me, but if someone else want to fit a cupcake a day in their macros/micros/calories, I'm not going to take the position that it is not moderate for them.
Do you think it wouldn't be moderate or is it simply not how you choose to practice moderation.
For example, I usually have at least 200 discretionary calories, assuming I am being as active as I should be. So if I found a small cupcake (or baked them), I could fit in a cupcake after dinner most days. I don't, because I'm not that into cupcakes, don't especially want to be baking all the time and so on. I fit in a little ice cream or cheese or include some higher cal meat choices or maybe some chocolate or save calories for meals out, etc. But if I loved cupcakes more than all these other things and so chose to include the cupcakes, why wouldn't that be a form of moderation? I wouldn't thereby go over any sugar or macro goals (and my macro goals are a pretty balanced 40-30-30).
It's not how I would apply moderation for me.
I agree that your example is moderate.
Because we are both right is part of why this thread has gone on for so many pages - I and others are taking the position that because moderation can mean different things to different people, it's not a particularly useful term when applied to eating.
But I still don't see how what moderation means to you is different than what moderation means to me, and you have not elaborated on that.
Perhaps it would help to define what moderation means to you.
Absolutely no one is suggesting that the diets of two people practicing moderation will look the same. Of course they will not.0 -
The lack of rigid definitions and its broad adaptability is a necessary feature of moderation. Trying to apply specific rules violates its very nature.0
-
tincanonastring wrote: »The lack of rigid definitions and its broad adaptability is a necessary feature of moderation. Trying to apply specific rules violates its very nature.
STAHP. Don't you see we have been going in circles for 16 pages? I've done so many 360's I'm dizzy. You can't just come in now and in two sentences clear this whole thing up!0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »WinoGelato 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.
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.
I've been focusing on the blog because that's what this thread is about; I don't consider a blogger to be an expert either. We pretty much agree on moderation, and my argument has been that people are taking the definition and applying it inaccurately to meet with their personal views about what is extreme, then declaring that as "fact." The most glaring example being that paleo is not moderation, whereas most of us would say "yes, it can be."
The thing I like about moderation, which I think @lemurcat12 touched on from the blog, is that it is an approach that can be very helpful in dietary adherence and get people away from an "all-or-nothing" mentality when it comes to food choices. As Cookie Monster would say, there are Sometimes Foods.
But what I dislike is people trying to apply moderation in an all-or-nothing way, as in you moderate all foods, or you don't get to say you practice moderation. I think that is wrong. To me, moderation is about the foods you like, want to eat, enjoy, and feel bring some benefit to your life. Those are the foods you moderate. Anything you don't like, enjoy, want to eat, or feel brings some benefit to your life, you can eliminate if you want. Stating that people who follow certain ways of eating can't be practicing moderation because of how they've set their macros or the foods they choose to eat directly contradicts the notion that the individual chooses the boundaries or extremes for themselves - which is what a lot of people here have been trying to explain in their responses, only to be told that they "don't get it."
I think that is why people feel like there are multiple definitions - people are applying it based on their own boundaries and extremes, and are then being told by someone else "no, that's not it," because that person subjectively finds it extreme, or doesn't agree with a decision to eat or not eat a certain way.
I agree with this, I think I was trying to convey a similar point earlier in the thread about the mindset behind diet composition being the deciding factor if someone is practicing moderation or not.
As for the reasoning about elimination for bringing benefit to your life? I think that might be a topic for another thread. A lot of diets sell themselves with claims that plant supposed benefits in their follower's heads, and the followers, expecting certain outcomes, go on to "feel" them. In the face of perhaps missing some of their old foods, those feelings could be transitory gratification. New conversion zeal and all that. The argument is leaving the door open to some extreme plans, like ... oh hey! The Military Diet made me drop 3 pounds! Score!!!!
I wasn't thinking about fad diets when I wrote that, I was thinking more about foods that people eat but don't really provide any benefit to them nutritionally or in terms of enjoyment. Foods that they snack on mindlessly, or that they buy because they are convenient or on sale but don't really love, or foods they bought because they think they're healthier, or even foods they tend to overeat.
I don't think there is anything wrong with doing an analysis of the foods in your house and deciding what foods are staples for you, and what you really don't need or want in your life. Doing that doesn't always mean "getting rid of the cookies," it can also be things like 86ing the "diet" versions of foods in favor of the regular options, nixing the canned fruit for fresh, or deciding to stop buying frozen pizza and making a homemade version when you get the urge.
And it can mean ditching the cookies - if you've found yourself in a rut where you spend every evening on the couch stuffing cookies into your mouth while watching TV, you may find ditching the cookies is the first step to realizing that the TV wasn't doing much for you either and there's something else you'd rather be doing. Or perhaps, you do fine when the unopened cookies are in the house, but once they are opened, you're grabbing some each time you walk past the pantry; maybe you'd rather just not bring the cookies in at all since it's just throwing you off your game.
I think people assume that when someone cuts something out of their diet, they have some cockamamie reason for doing so. There's nothing wrong with decluttering your diet just as you would anything else in your life; just because someone else finds a certain food enjoyable in some way doesn't mean you have to as well.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions