Moderation
Replies
-
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.
I not only don't think there's anything wrong with doing that; it's what I normally recommend and what I did myself. I feel like there's a misunderstanding here although I don't think anyone has been all that unclear. Of course you should be choosy about what you eat and not waste calories on foods you don't like that much or on mindless eating. I'd say that's moderate.
Edit: and of course doing this is not at all cutting out foods you love. I stopped eating candy at my office, which I'd eaten mindlessly, but I don't love candy -- I don't even like it much. I eat less Indian food, but I continue to eat it (including naan), because I do love it. So I figured out how to make it fit (in moderation!).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.
I actually prefer to assume that people have a good reason for making the decisions they make regarding their diet and what they choose to eat, however, you have to admit, there are plenty of posts on here day in and day out with cockamamie reasons for cutting something out of their diet. That's usually why I ask, "why do you think you need to reduce/restrict/eliminate sugars, do you have a medical reason to do so" or "What does 'processed' mean to you and why do you think you need to avoid it"? However, often when I ask those questions to better understand the reasons for why someone is choosing to reduce/restrict/eliminate something, the response from people in the thread is, "what does it matter what their reason is, they want to cut out all added sugar, we should be supportive of them".
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Yes, what WinoGelato said.
I have cut things out for a variety of reasons and don't think it's a bad thing to do (it might or might not be moderation, depending -- it hasn't always been when I did it). When I ask someone who says "how can I do this?" why they are trying to do it, what they are struggling with specifically, what "clean eating" means to them (since I don't know from that precisely what they are trying to do) it IS with the intent of gathering more information to be more helpful. And sure, if someone says "well, I'm dieting, of course I have to cut out all "white foods" or go low fat or cut out carbs/sugar/fruit, I will let them know that you don't, as well as the fact that I did cut out added sugar at one point and my experience.
But those threads go off the rails in large part because people jump in and act offended that anyone dares ask or suggest that something is not necessary (you even get people jumping in to defend the merits of the military diet or any VLCD also). It's really not mean or rude to tell someone they don't have to do something extreme to lose and hard as it may be for some of us to believe a lot of people think they do. Dieting lore is both weird and pervasive.0 -
I find it hard to care about this to be honest
I thought it was a good article but it's not a religion ..they're not selling anything ...it's a definition and a descriptor of a relaxed approach to achieving goals
I eat how I eat
You eat how you eat
If you ask for advice I will give you my perspective
If you tell someone that doing something extreme is the only way to lose weight / the best way to lose weight / the healthiest way to lose I will step in and ask you to prove it or refute it with my own proofs
There are too many fads and scams and experts with no sound background for their snake oils and extreme methods that keep people failing over and over
Do I need to justify my everything in moderation with a healthy overall balance to anyone? No I don't
When someone comes online and says you can't eat sugar or carbs, or drink coffee it's the devil I think but I do, I lost my weight, I'm at goal I'm the healthiest and fittest I've ever been and I want other people to find it as easy as I did..finally
Rabbit is always wise. Always.
This post is a great example of just what is so wrong with MFP today. Heaven forbid that people who moderate their food be allowed to post about it. Attack!
I've lost a lot of respect for several posters in here.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.
I see nothing wrong with any of that, and think it's all part of forming new habits, which moderation is consistent with. Let's face it, most people needing to lose weight can't usually be accused of having been moderate coming into the game.
I don't know how much of the cookie ditching scenario is assumption, though. Most people who ditch cookies tell you why they did it, I've found.
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.
Well, this should pretty much end the thread right there.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
Well, this should pretty much end the thread right there.
Yesssss.......................0 -
sixteen pages and some still can't figure out the definition of moderation ..LOL0
-
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.
Moderation seems as difficult to define and agree on, as the term 'clean eating'.
Who knew!!0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Moderation seems as difficult to define and agree on, as the term 'clean eating'.
Who knew!!
So you didn't read the whole thread?0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Moderation seems as difficult to define and agree on, as the term 'clean eating'.
Who knew!!
actually it is not ..there is one definition in the dictionary, just use that.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Moderation seems as difficult to define and agree on, as the term 'clean eating'.
Who knew!!
So you didn't read the whole thread?
I read the first two pages - I assume the next 14 were jut a rehash of the first two.
(joking by the way), yes I read the thread and no-one has given a clear definition of moderation that applies to everyone.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Moderation seems as difficult to define and agree on, as the term 'clean eating'.
Who knew!!
So you didn't read the whole thread?
I read the first two pages - I assume the next 14 were jut a rehash of the first two.
(joking by the way), yes I read the thread and no-one has given a clear definition of moderation that applies to everyone.
then you did not read the thread as moderation was clearly defined several times.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Moderation seems as difficult to define and agree on, as the term 'clean eating'.
Who knew!!
actually it is not ..there is one definition in the dictionary, just use that.
so the avoidance of extremes! So what can I eat - precisely - to fit into your definition of moderation??0 -
This content has been removed.
-
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Moderation seems as difficult to define and agree on, as the term 'clean eating'.
Who knew!!
actually it is not ..there is one definition in the dictionary, just use that.
so the avoidance of extremes! So what can I eat - precisely - to fit into your definition of moderation??
1. get a dictionary
2. look up and read definition of moderation
3. apply the concept to your daily lifestyle
pretty simple….unless you find that too difficult?0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Moderation seems as difficult to define and agree on, as the term 'clean eating'.
Who knew!!
So you didn't read the whole thread?
I read the first two pages - I assume the next 14 were jut a rehash of the first two.
(joking by the way), yes I read the thread and no-one has given a clear definition of moderation that applies to everyone.
then you did not read the thread as moderation was clearly defined several times.
I did read it, but I didn't see this clear definition you speak of.
You maybe interpreted it as clear, but not me.
But then I know you and others struggle with the interpretation of clean eating - when others don't.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Moderation seems as difficult to define and agree on, as the term 'clean eating'.
Who knew!!
So you didn't read the whole thread?
I read the first two pages - I assume the next 14 were jut a rehash of the first two.
(joking by the way), yes I read the thread and no-one has given a clear definition of moderation that applies to everyone.
then you did not read the thread as moderation was clearly defined several times.
I did read it, but I didn't see this clear definition you speak of.
You maybe interpreted it as clear, but not me.
But then I know you and others struggle with the interpretation of clean eating - when others don't.
this thread is not about clean eating. If you want to have a debate about defining clean eating then start another thread.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Moderation seems as difficult to define and agree on, as the term 'clean eating'.
Who knew!!
actually it is not ..there is one definition in the dictionary, just use that.
so the avoidance of extremes! So what can I eat - precisely - to fit into your definition of moderation??
1. get a dictionary
2. look up and read definition of moderation
3. apply the concept to your daily lifestyle
pretty simple….unless you find that too difficult?
I have a dictionary, as you can tell by the fact that I referred to moderation as 'the avoidance of extremes'.
I'm asking for a clear instruction on what is considered extreme?0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Moderation seems as difficult to define and agree on, as the term 'clean eating'.
Who knew!!
So you didn't read the whole thread?
I read the first two pages - I assume the next 14 were jut a rehash of the first two.
(joking by the way), yes I read the thread and no-one has given a clear definition of moderation that applies to everyone.
then you did not read the thread as moderation was clearly defined several times.
I did read it, but I didn't see this clear definition you speak of.
You maybe interpreted it as clear, but not me.
But then I know you and others struggle with the interpretation of clean eating - when others don't.
this thread is not about clean eating. If you want to have a debate about defining clean eating then start another thread.tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Moderation seems as difficult to define and agree on, as the term 'clean eating'.
Who knew!!
So you didn't read the whole thread?
I read the first two pages - I assume the next 14 were jut a rehash of the first two.
(joking by the way), yes I read the thread and no-one has given a clear definition of moderation that applies to everyone.
then you did not read the thread as moderation was clearly defined several times.
I did read it, but I didn't see this clear definition you speak of.
You maybe interpreted it as clear, but not me.
But then I know you and others struggle with the interpretation of clean eating - when others don't.
this thread is not about clean eating. If you want to have a debate about defining clean eating then start another thread.
Maybe you haven't read the whole thread??
Clean Eating is mentioned on pretty much every page several time (from page 1), so clearly it does have a bearing on the discussion.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Moderation seems as difficult to define and agree on, as the term 'clean eating'.
Who knew!!
actually it is not ..there is one definition in the dictionary, just use that.
so the avoidance of extremes! So what can I eat - precisely - to fit into your definition of moderation??
Anything you want. Enjoy.
So I can eat anything I want???
Just protein and fat all day and no carbs - is that really moderation?0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Moderation seems as difficult to define and agree on, as the term 'clean eating'.
Who knew!!
actually it is not ..there is one definition in the dictionary, just use that.
so the avoidance of extremes! So what can I eat - precisely - to fit into your definition of moderation??
Anything you want. Enjoy.
So I can eat anything I want???
Just protein and fat all day and no carbs - is that really moderation?
You love trolling, don't you? Perhaps if you read the entire thread, you would have seen that the proponents of moderation consistently spoke about hitting nutritional goals, staying within calorie limits, and eating a balanced diet. Can you do that with (literally) zero carbs?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Moderation seems as difficult to define and agree on, as the term 'clean eating'.
Who knew!!
actually it is not ..there is one definition in the dictionary, just use that.
so the avoidance of extremes! So what can I eat - precisely - to fit into your definition of moderation??
1. get a dictionary
2. look up and read definition of moderation
3. apply the concept to your daily lifestyle
pretty simple….unless you find that too difficult?
I have a dictionary, as you can tell by the fact that I referred to moderation as 'the avoidance of extremes'.
I'm asking for a clear instruction on what is considered extreme?
You have either not read the thread or are being intentionally obtuse.
There is a clear definition of moderation.
The application of it varies by individual according to their personal goals, tolerances, and preferences.
The beauty of moderation is that your version of it is different than mine is different than ndj.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Moderation seems as difficult to define and agree on, as the term 'clean eating'.
Who knew!!
actually it is not ..there is one definition in the dictionary, just use that.
so the avoidance of extremes! So what can I eat - precisely - to fit into your definition of moderation??
Anything you want. Enjoy.
Anything you want. As long as it's moderate and not extreme. If you want to eat extreme, then you can't eat what you want. Clear as mud.0 -
There isn't one, lol. In fact, it has been explicitly stated that "extreme" doesn't have to be defined, either.tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Moderation seems as difficult to define and agree on, as the term 'clean eating'.
Who knew!!
actually it is not ..there is one definition in the dictionary, just use that.
so the avoidance of extremes! So what can I eat - precisely - to fit into your definition of moderation??
1. get a dictionary
2. look up and read definition of moderation
3. apply the concept to your daily lifestyle
pretty simple….unless you find that too difficult?
I have a dictionary, as you can tell by the fact that I referred to moderation as 'the avoidance of extremes'.
I'm asking for a clear instruction on what is considered extreme?
One person posted that moderation is avoiding extremes and extremes are outside the bounds of moderation. Those two things are the explanation for each other. That's the "Science!"
This is what I've come up with for both words, up to and including this thread:
Moderation: A theory of eating wherein the person avoids extremes (which are undefined and may be defined differently by each individual) unless the person has a good reason for the extremes.
Clean: A way of healthy eating that may or may not include eliminating certain foods or food groups and which may or may not include eating foods that are processed and/or unhealthy, in varying amounts.
Hope that clears it all up.
Still, if you want to know what the person means when they discuss their eating, you're going to have to ask.0 -
I defy any of you clean eaters to show me a "clean" diet that doesn't eliminate food. "May or may not include elimination..." What a load of unprocessed horse manure.0
-
There isn't one, lol. In fact, it has been explicitly stated that "extreme" doesn't have to be defined, either.tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Moderation seems as difficult to define and agree on, as the term 'clean eating'.
Who knew!!
actually it is not ..there is one definition in the dictionary, just use that.
so the avoidance of extremes! So what can I eat - precisely - to fit into your definition of moderation??
1. get a dictionary
2. look up and read definition of moderation
3. apply the concept to your daily lifestyle
pretty simple….unless you find that too difficult?
I have a dictionary, as you can tell by the fact that I referred to moderation as 'the avoidance of extremes'.
I'm asking for a clear instruction on what is considered extreme?
One person posted that moderation is avoiding extremes and extremes are outside the bounds of moderation. Those two things are the explanation for each other. That's the "Science!"
This is what I've come up with for both words, up to and including this thread:
Moderation: A theory of eating wherein the person avoids extremes (which are undefined and may be defined differently by each individual) unless the person has a good reason for the extremes.
Clean: A way of healthy eating that may or may not include eliminating certain foods or food groups and which may or may not include eating foods that are processed and/or unhealthy, in varying amounts.
Hope that clears it all up.
Still, if you want to know what the person means when they discuss their eating, you're going to have to ask.
So:
Moderation - perimeters different for everyone!
Clean Eating - perimeters different for everyone!
I see the similarity.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
The article that started this thread did not offer a broad definion of moderation. It was actually pretty specific.
"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. "
Sure the specifics will be different from person to person, but the specifics for clean eating, paleo, vegetarian and other diet would be different too. That description that was so highly praised on the first few pages does not = eating anything you want. UNLESS you want to eat mostly whole foods.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