Moderation
Options
Replies
-
the amount of people that can't comprehend the concept of moderation is amazing....
reminds me of a conversation I had with a education pyschologist evaluating my son's learning disability and disruptive behaviour in school...
He said this
"your son is smart and he knows he should be able to learn this hence the disruption....stupid people just don't get that they aren't learning so they just go on and on and on without ever realizing they aren't that smart..."0 -
I'd encourage you to reread my first post. I was brought up, so I piped up.
I'm very simple. I say what I mean. There is nothing to "tell" or "find." I've said this to you 10,000 times when you've insisted I meant things I didn't say and I specifically state that I didn't mean them, but meant what I said.
First, you said:
Paleo people who eliminate something aren't eating in moderation, but vegetarians who eliminate something are?Is there some definition for what constitutes "extreme"?
Since moderation is avoiding extremes (to some), what constitutes "extreme" as it applies to a diet?
But that's the rub, isn't it? For something to be considered moderate, it has to fall in the middle of two opposing points on the spectrum and is subject to the definition of the points. In politics, someone would be considered politically moderate if they fell between liberal and conservative. But you can also move the end points along the spectrum to identify someone who is moderately conservative or moderately liberal.
When it comes to diet, it seems the author is trying to do two separate things: define ways of eating as moderate, and define consumption as moderate. But she keeps using different spectrums - in keeping with the paleo diet, she uses one spectrum based on food restrictions to say it is not moderate, but later defines moderation using the spectrum of consumption of whole foods vs treats in which paleo could easily fall in the middle.
In keeping with the diet theme, someone upthread mentioned alcohol consumption, and I seem to remember that there was an actual number of drinks and frequency of consumption which would define someone as a moderate drinker (although I can't remember what those numbers were to save my life).
For diet, it would seem that without some consensus as to what a moderate intake is (as in portions and frequency), it does make it a bit ambiguous. I don't think that applying it by portion size would necessarily be accurate, as it would not account for differences in TDEE, and frequency would also be subject to things like lifestyle and portion size.
I would imagine the only real way to define moderation in terms of diet would be to view it in terms of percentages of foods consumed in overall diet over time (this is looking at moderation in terms of consumption/frequency because I think trying to define it by dietary composition is bunk). It would definitely have to have some longevity though to account for things like holidays and vacations which in the short term would skew the data.
sadly, you are over complicating a simple concept.
No, I'm rejecting your attempt to exclude people who follow different ways of eating from being considered as practicing moderation, because you are applying the one definition provided by the author arbitrarily and incorrectly. And you can't really define moderation without identifying the opposing ends of the spectrum it falls within, otherwise it's a completely subjective concept. If it is subjective, then what is or is not moderation will fall to the individual to determine for themselves, and statements like "100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme" is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
does paleo eliminate food from it's plan? If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game.
application is subjective. If I bought a 2000$ purse making 25k a year that is not a moderate purchase...but if I make 250k a year it's a moderate purchase.
If I eliminate dairy from my diet due to being lactose intolerant that is not extreme....but if I get rid of milk cause of an eating plan to "make me better.." that is extreme.
Someone up thread said elimination depended on a "good reason." Is that how you see it, too? If you have a "good reason" then you can practice elimination and eat in moderation, but if you don't have a "good reason" then you can't?
doesn't matter how I see it to be frank...moderation is the absence of extremes by definition and I feel that most "diets" are extremes and that eliminating foods to lose weight because you just "can't" manage to lose weight if you eat them is extreme. ie atkins, paleo, south beach, 17 day, LCHF, clean etc.
*note diets is in quotes
"If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game."
Now, it seems like it is more rationale-dependent.
I'm now trying to figure out which one it is. I'm genuinely confused. Is everyone who eliminates something automatically excluded from "eating in moderation" or not?
How I personally see vegetarians (due to moral/ethical choices) has no bearing on what moderation means or the fact that paleo, clean eating, atkins etc are not in line with the definition of moderation....
How people apply moderation to their WOE is totally subjective.
If you feel paleo is in line with moderation have at...I disagree.
If I feel paleo isn't moderate so be it...you apparently disagree...I think...you haven't really said one way or the other...
no wait you don't use the word moderate/moderation so you neither agree or disagree....so why are you arguing that paleo is moderate? or are you? I can never tell with you.
I would like to know if you believe one can eliminate certain foods or food groups from the diet and still eat in moderation.
Either you'll answer or you won't. That's all there is to that.
k then you mean what you say...you don't use the word moderate ...then why are you in here discussing moderation?????? confusing...
and to answer your question....What do I believe/feel
If a person eliminates food for medical reasons ie diabetic/sugar or gluten/celiac no it's not extreme as it is a requirement for health.
If a person eliminates food due to dislike no it's not extreme.
If a person eliminates food due to a religion no it's not extreme (people take their religions very seriously and I am not messing with that)
If a person eliminate food for any other reason than stated above yes I feel it is extreme. But that's me.
So yes I feel that if a vegetarian is that because of moral/ethics it's extreme and not moderate. esp since it can have long lasting detrimental effects on their children (while developing in the womb) if they aren't careful.
My feelings on it tho have no bearing on the actual definition of it just the application of it...
Ok, so it's rationale-dependent. Someone else said something similar, only they used the words "good reason."
New question:
*Assuming that the definition of moderation is "avoiding extremes," which you're on board with...*
If you feel that it's "extreme", it cannot be "in moderation" - correct?
answer my question first...this is a give and take after all right????
if you don't subscribe to moderation why are you here debating what it is and isn't? You don't use the word so why argue what it is...it has no bearing on your, your life or how you live it...
Now, will you answer the question?
0 -
@Kalikel were you referring to this thread? http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10094415/moderation-a-love-story/p1 It had some substantial cleaning so some of the points to which you were referring may be now lost.0
-
WinoGelato wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »mrsnazario1219 wrote: »Holy f$&@"!!! I can't believe that this conversation has gone so left field! Truly the last time I post an article here. I completely forgot how arbitrary people can be on the Internet. How can I take this post down?
I would not worry too much OP. It is just the usual folks that don't understand the concept, and how to apply it to their daily lives, so they have to destroy the concept as something that no one can understand, because they do not understand it.
I absolutely understand the concept and how to apply it in my daily life. My argument is that my definition of moderation is different from yours, and from others, and so "moderation" when it comes to a way of eating is not a useful term.
No, your definition of Moderation is the same as mine. Your application of it within your individual approach to moderation is different.
That's what I've been trying to say. Moderation has a textbook definition (the avoidance of extremes) but the application of it is individualized and variable.
Which is why it doesn't describe anything about the diet in a useful way, or help anyone know what it means when people use it. All it really speaks to is an attitude.
Saying you are trying a moderate diet means:
You don't arbitrarily exclude things.
If someone tells you they're doing LCHF, you don't suggest them things high in carbs.
If someone tells you they're doing a moderate approach you know nothing is off the table.
How is that not useful information?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Paleo people who eliminate something aren't eating in moderation, but vegetarians who eliminate something are?Is there some definition for what constitutes "extreme"?
Since moderation is avoiding extremes (to some), what constitutes "extreme" as it applies to a diet?
But that's the rub, isn't it? For something to be considered moderate, it has to fall in the middle of two opposing points on the spectrum and is subject to the definition of the points. In politics, someone would be considered politically moderate if they fell between liberal and conservative. But you can also move the end points along the spectrum to identify someone who is moderately conservative or moderately liberal.
When it comes to diet, it seems the author is trying to do two separate things: define ways of eating as moderate, and define consumption as moderate. But she keeps using different spectrums - in keeping with the paleo diet, she uses one spectrum based on food restrictions to say it is not moderate, but later defines moderation using the spectrum of consumption of whole foods vs treats in which paleo could easily fall in the middle.
In keeping with the diet theme, someone upthread mentioned alcohol consumption, and I seem to remember that there was an actual number of drinks and frequency of consumption which would define someone as a moderate drinker (although I can't remember what those numbers were to save my life).
For diet, it would seem that without some consensus as to what a moderate intake is (as in portions and frequency), it does make it a bit ambiguous. I don't think that applying it by portion size would necessarily be accurate, as it would not account for differences in TDEE, and frequency would also be subject to things like lifestyle and portion size.
I would imagine the only real way to define moderation in terms of diet would be to view it in terms of percentages of foods consumed in overall diet over time (this is looking at moderation in terms of consumption/frequency because I think trying to define it by dietary composition is bunk). It would definitely have to have some longevity though to account for things like holidays and vacations which in the short term would skew the data.
sadly, you are over complicating a simple concept.
No, I'm rejecting your attempt to exclude people who follow different ways of eating from being considered as practicing moderation, because you are applying the one definition provided by the author arbitrarily and incorrectly. And you can't really define moderation without identifying the opposing ends of the spectrum it falls within, otherwise it's a completely subjective concept. If it is subjective, then what is or is not moderation will fall to the individual to determine for themselves, and statements like "100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme" is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
does paleo eliminate food from it's plan? If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game.
application is subjective. If I bought a 2000$ purse making 25k a year that is not a moderate purchase...but if I make 250k a year it's a moderate purchase.
If I eliminate dairy from my diet due to being lactose intolerant that is not extreme....but if I get rid of milk cause of an eating plan to "make me better.." that is extreme.
Someone up thread said elimination depended on a "good reason." Is that how you see it, too? If you have a "good reason" then you can practice elimination and eat in moderation, but if you don't have a "good reason" then you can't?
doesn't matter how I see it to be frank...moderation is the absence of extremes by definition and I feel that most "diets" are extremes and that eliminating foods to lose weight because you just "can't" manage to lose weight if you eat them is extreme. ie atkins, paleo, south beach, 17 day, LCHF, clean etc.
*note diets is in quotes
Ok, but the "extremes" part of what you just said is where things are arbitrary. ,Same for whatever's in between them.
This is not perverse word-twisting, by the way, it naturally follows from the definition. And although it is a point that hinges on semantics, it's not "academic" or theoretical.
Back to drinking for a minute: I had an English friend who was worried about the amount he was drinking, how it impacted his life. It was like 7-8 pints a day. He went to his (English) doctor, who said, "nah, you're fine, you're just drinking the wrong stuff. Quit drinking European beer and get back to English ale".
(That's an example of malpractice, probably, but also of how very different standards of moderation can be.)
and that is why we have all said...there is one definition of moderation but the application is subjective.
my purse example...2k on a purse is not moderate spending if you make 25k a year but it is moderate if you make 2.5m or 250k...or whatever...subjective application.
So how do I know what kind of purse you have?
Not the purse, the income if anything. The purse can be part of a moderate purchase, if your income allows for it.
Right, ok, the income. (I'd guess at their income and idea of moderation by whether it was Gucci or whatever.) Just knowing she has a purse doesn't tell me anything useful.
It does. It tells you that she doesn't have some weird dogma to never buy any purses because her horoscope told her it was bad karma.
Having criticisms of "clean eating" doesn't clarify what "moderation" means.
Moderation means there are no "You absolutely must X" or "You absolutely can't Y" rules. The absence of extremes.
If you want to lose weight, eat at a deficit that is appropriate for you, with nutrition that is appropriate for you.
If that allows for a bag of gummy bears every day, that's still moderation.
If that means you can only have a handful, that's still moderation.
If you don't like gummy bears and don't eat them at all, that's still moderation.
If you like gummy bears, they'd fit into your diet, you'd want to eat them, but you don't eat them for arbitrary reasons, that's not moderation.
That was said 9 pages ago. Multiple times.
How does excluding a food for arbitrary reasons make a diet "extreme" any more than excluding it for a logical reason? If the food is eliminated it's eliminated and the diet is the same.0 -
Some of it is still there.kshama2001 wrote: »@Kalikel were you referring to this thread? http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10094415/moderation-a-love-story/p1 It had some substantial cleaning so some of the points to which you were referring may be now lost.
0 -
clgaram720 wrote: »doesn't this really come down to what is said to new MFPers though? I mean quibble about the definitions all you want, we could go all day doing that and I'm not even against it. But I think the original point of this wasn't to tell you what is and isn't moderation. It was more about going on a thread that says "Help I'm not Losing Weight" and the two people who typically answer there.
Type 1 guy looks at the diary and says: "You shouldn't eat X. X is bad. X will keep you from losing weight. Here's a list of 'Clean' Y's that you should be eating cause they are 'good'." He says this even when the person's diary is showing a caloric deficit.
Type 2 guy looks at the diary and says: "I've noticed you measure by box-label serving size and cup measures and lots of the food choices you made are user entered and not verified. It's likely you are eating more than you think, consider buying a food scale so you know for sure you're within your count". He doesn't comment on the types of food because he knows that at the end of the day, you really could eat all donuts at a caloric deficit and lose weight. He would never advocate someone do that (as it's an extreme). But he recognizes that a person doesn't need to limit themselves to green veggies and lean chicken breast to lose weight.
Conversely, when someone comes on here with a post stating "I am eating paleo and not losing weight", our Type 1 guy usually goes after food choices, where our type 2 guy looks at caloric intake of those choices.
I mean, isn't it really more important, and certainly more beneficial to everyone on here, especially new people like me who don't necessarily know better, to simply agree that caloric deficit is what matters (moderation of high calorie foods without banning them altogether) and that 'clean' is a set of stricter rules for those people to whom optimal macros and micros are of a much higher priority and who feel wrong if they aren't getting that?
A caloric deficit is what matters to lose weight, but that is not dependent on eating high calorie foods in moderation. Yes, you will probably need to moderate those foods to stay within your calorie count, but there is nothing wrong with eliminating them completely either.
It's personal preference based on dietary adherence. If having a portion of a food you love keeps you on track and within your deficit, great. If eating a portion of a food you love leads to more portions and overeating, then eliminating the food completely might be the thing to do to keep yourself on track.
The point is that it's a personal choice. Telling newbies that one MUST eliminate processed foods to be healthy (or sugar or whatever) is inaccurate advice. Telling newbies they MUST follow some concept of moderation to be healthy is also inaccurate advice (advice I haven't seen anyone giving).
All that one MUST do to lose weight is eat at a calorie deficit. (And to eat in a healthful manner, follow some broad guidelines about nutrition.)
I have some pretty rigid guidelines about food choice that I follow myself (although I'm comfortable with deviating from them when my life demands). However, I would never tell others that they should avoid foods because I don't eat them or buy as much as they can from local farms or never use storebought meals or salad dressings or pasta sauce. I know those are just my things that work for me but aren't at all necessary for health, let alone to lose weight. What frustrates me sometimes is that some seem not to be able to make that separation. If they found that cutting out sweets worked for them they will tell newbies to cut out sweets or even claim that you can't be healthy if you don't.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »mrsnazario1219 wrote: »Holy f$&@"!!! I can't believe that this conversation has gone so left field! Truly the last time I post an article here. I completely forgot how arbitrary people can be on the Internet. How can I take this post down?
I would not worry too much OP. It is just the usual folks that don't understand the concept, and how to apply it to their daily lives, so they have to destroy the concept as something that no one can understand, because they do not understand it.
I absolutely understand the concept and how to apply it in my daily life. My argument is that my definition of moderation is different from yours, and from others, and so "moderation" when it comes to a way of eating is not a useful term.
No, your definition of Moderation is the same as mine. Your application of it within your individual approach to moderation is different.
That's what I've been trying to say. Moderation has a textbook definition (the avoidance of extremes) but the application of it is individualized and variable.
Which is why it doesn't describe anything about the diet in a useful way, or help anyone know what it means when people use it. All it really speaks to is an attitude.
Saying you are trying a moderate diet means:
You don't arbitrarily exclude things.
If someone tells you they're doing LCHF, you don't suggest them things high in carbs.
If someone tells you they're doing a moderate approach you know nothing is off the table.
How is that not useful information?
Saying you're on a moderate diet means you have some idea of what "too much" and "enough" and "just right" are. Your idea of what those actually are might (probably do) differ from someone else's.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Paleo people who eliminate something aren't eating in moderation, but vegetarians who eliminate something are?Is there some definition for what constitutes "extreme"?
Since moderation is avoiding extremes (to some), what constitutes "extreme" as it applies to a diet?
But that's the rub, isn't it? For something to be considered moderate, it has to fall in the middle of two opposing points on the spectrum and is subject to the definition of the points. In politics, someone would be considered politically moderate if they fell between liberal and conservative. But you can also move the end points along the spectrum to identify someone who is moderately conservative or moderately liberal.
When it comes to diet, it seems the author is trying to do two separate things: define ways of eating as moderate, and define consumption as moderate. But she keeps using different spectrums - in keeping with the paleo diet, she uses one spectrum based on food restrictions to say it is not moderate, but later defines moderation using the spectrum of consumption of whole foods vs treats in which paleo could easily fall in the middle.
In keeping with the diet theme, someone upthread mentioned alcohol consumption, and I seem to remember that there was an actual number of drinks and frequency of consumption which would define someone as a moderate drinker (although I can't remember what those numbers were to save my life).
For diet, it would seem that without some consensus as to what a moderate intake is (as in portions and frequency), it does make it a bit ambiguous. I don't think that applying it by portion size would necessarily be accurate, as it would not account for differences in TDEE, and frequency would also be subject to things like lifestyle and portion size.
I would imagine the only real way to define moderation in terms of diet would be to view it in terms of percentages of foods consumed in overall diet over time (this is looking at moderation in terms of consumption/frequency because I think trying to define it by dietary composition is bunk). It would definitely have to have some longevity though to account for things like holidays and vacations which in the short term would skew the data.
sadly, you are over complicating a simple concept.
No, I'm rejecting your attempt to exclude people who follow different ways of eating from being considered as practicing moderation, because you are applying the one definition provided by the author arbitrarily and incorrectly. And you can't really define moderation without identifying the opposing ends of the spectrum it falls within, otherwise it's a completely subjective concept. If it is subjective, then what is or is not moderation will fall to the individual to determine for themselves, and statements like "100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme" is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
does paleo eliminate food from it's plan? If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game.
application is subjective. If I bought a 2000$ purse making 25k a year that is not a moderate purchase...but if I make 250k a year it's a moderate purchase.
If I eliminate dairy from my diet due to being lactose intolerant that is not extreme....but if I get rid of milk cause of an eating plan to "make me better.." that is extreme.
Someone up thread said elimination depended on a "good reason." Is that how you see it, too? If you have a "good reason" then you can practice elimination and eat in moderation, but if you don't have a "good reason" then you can't?
doesn't matter how I see it to be frank...moderation is the absence of extremes by definition and I feel that most "diets" are extremes and that eliminating foods to lose weight because you just "can't" manage to lose weight if you eat them is extreme. ie atkins, paleo, south beach, 17 day, LCHF, clean etc.
*note diets is in quotes
Ok, but the "extremes" part of what you just said is where things are arbitrary. ,Same for whatever's in between them.
This is not perverse word-twisting, by the way, it naturally follows from the definition. And although it is a point that hinges on semantics, it's not "academic" or theoretical.
Back to drinking for a minute: I had an English friend who was worried about the amount he was drinking, how it impacted his life. It was like 7-8 pints a day. He went to his (English) doctor, who said, "nah, you're fine, you're just drinking the wrong stuff. Quit drinking European beer and get back to English ale".
(That's an example of malpractice, probably, but also of how very different standards of moderation can be.)
and that is why we have all said...there is one definition of moderation but the application is subjective.
my purse example...2k on a purse is not moderate spending if you make 25k a year but it is moderate if you make 2.5m or 250k...or whatever...subjective application.
So how do I know what kind of purse you have?
Not the purse, the income if anything. The purse can be part of a moderate purchase, if your income allows for it.
Right, ok, the income. (I'd guess at their income and idea of moderation by whether it was Gucci or whatever.) Just knowing she has a purse doesn't tell me anything useful.
It does. It tells you that she doesn't have some weird dogma to never buy any purses because her horoscope told her it was bad karma.
Having criticisms of "clean eating" doesn't clarify what "moderation" means.
Moderation means there are no "You absolutely must X" or "You absolutely can't Y" rules. The absence of extremes.
If you want to lose weight, eat at a deficit that is appropriate for you, with nutrition that is appropriate for you.
If that allows for a bag of gummy bears every day, that's still moderation.
If that means you can only have a handful, that's still moderation.
If you don't like gummy bears and don't eat them at all, that's still moderation.
If you like gummy bears, they'd fit into your diet, you'd want to eat them, but you don't eat them for arbitrary reasons, that's not moderation.
That was said 9 pages ago. Multiple times.
How does excluding a food for arbitrary reasons make a diet "extreme" any more than excluding it for a logical reason? If the food is eliminated it's eliminated and the diet is the same.
Because if eating peanuts would kill me, then excluding peanuts from my diet isn't exactly an extreme move but instead to be expected?0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »mrsnazario1219 wrote: »Holy f$&@"!!! I can't believe that this conversation has gone so left field! Truly the last time I post an article here. I completely forgot how arbitrary people can be on the Internet. How can I take this post down?
I would not worry too much OP. It is just the usual folks that don't understand the concept, and how to apply it to their daily lives, so they have to destroy the concept as something that no one can understand, because they do not understand it.
I absolutely understand the concept and how to apply it in my daily life. My argument is that my definition of moderation is different from yours, and from others, and so "moderation" when it comes to a way of eating is not a useful term.
No, your definition of Moderation is the same as mine. Your application of it within your individual approach to moderation is different.
That's what I've been trying to say. Moderation has a textbook definition (the avoidance of extremes) but the application of it is individualized and variable.
Which is why it doesn't describe anything about the diet in a useful way, or help anyone know what it means when people use it. All it really speaks to is an attitude.
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.
nope, and if you think its all about ice cream and cupcakes you don't get it.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »@Kalikel were you referring to this thread? http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10094415/moderation-a-love-story/p1 It had some substantial cleaning so some of the points to which you were referring may be now lost.
ahhh yes an extremely benevolent posting that was dive bombed by the "I don't understand moderation crew" hence we have to destroy it.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Paleo people who eliminate something aren't eating in moderation, but vegetarians who eliminate something are?Is there some definition for what constitutes "extreme"?
Since moderation is avoiding extremes (to some), what constitutes "extreme" as it applies to a diet?
But that's the rub, isn't it? For something to be considered moderate, it has to fall in the middle of two opposing points on the spectrum and is subject to the definition of the points. In politics, someone would be considered politically moderate if they fell between liberal and conservative. But you can also move the end points along the spectrum to identify someone who is moderately conservative or moderately liberal.
When it comes to diet, it seems the author is trying to do two separate things: define ways of eating as moderate, and define consumption as moderate. But she keeps using different spectrums - in keeping with the paleo diet, she uses one spectrum based on food restrictions to say it is not moderate, but later defines moderation using the spectrum of consumption of whole foods vs treats in which paleo could easily fall in the middle.
In keeping with the diet theme, someone upthread mentioned alcohol consumption, and I seem to remember that there was an actual number of drinks and frequency of consumption which would define someone as a moderate drinker (although I can't remember what those numbers were to save my life).
For diet, it would seem that without some consensus as to what a moderate intake is (as in portions and frequency), it does make it a bit ambiguous. I don't think that applying it by portion size would necessarily be accurate, as it would not account for differences in TDEE, and frequency would also be subject to things like lifestyle and portion size.
I would imagine the only real way to define moderation in terms of diet would be to view it in terms of percentages of foods consumed in overall diet over time (this is looking at moderation in terms of consumption/frequency because I think trying to define it by dietary composition is bunk). It would definitely have to have some longevity though to account for things like holidays and vacations which in the short term would skew the data.
sadly, you are over complicating a simple concept.
No, I'm rejecting your attempt to exclude people who follow different ways of eating from being considered as practicing moderation, because you are applying the one definition provided by the author arbitrarily and incorrectly. And you can't really define moderation without identifying the opposing ends of the spectrum it falls within, otherwise it's a completely subjective concept. If it is subjective, then what is or is not moderation will fall to the individual to determine for themselves, and statements like "100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme" is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
does paleo eliminate food from it's plan? If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game.
application is subjective. If I bought a 2000$ purse making 25k a year that is not a moderate purchase...but if I make 250k a year it's a moderate purchase.
If I eliminate dairy from my diet due to being lactose intolerant that is not extreme....but if I get rid of milk cause of an eating plan to "make me better.." that is extreme.
Someone up thread said elimination depended on a "good reason." Is that how you see it, too? If you have a "good reason" then you can practice elimination and eat in moderation, but if you don't have a "good reason" then you can't?
doesn't matter how I see it to be frank...moderation is the absence of extremes by definition and I feel that most "diets" are extremes and that eliminating foods to lose weight because you just "can't" manage to lose weight if you eat them is extreme. ie atkins, paleo, south beach, 17 day, LCHF, clean etc.
*note diets is in quotes
Ok, but the "extremes" part of what you just said is where things are arbitrary. ,Same for whatever's in between them.
This is not perverse word-twisting, by the way, it naturally follows from the definition. And although it is a point that hinges on semantics, it's not "academic" or theoretical.
Back to drinking for a minute: I had an English friend who was worried about the amount he was drinking, how it impacted his life. It was like 7-8 pints a day. He went to his (English) doctor, who said, "nah, you're fine, you're just drinking the wrong stuff. Quit drinking European beer and get back to English ale".
(That's an example of malpractice, probably, but also of how very different standards of moderation can be.)
and that is why we have all said...there is one definition of moderation but the application is subjective.
my purse example...2k on a purse is not moderate spending if you make 25k a year but it is moderate if you make 2.5m or 250k...or whatever...subjective application.
So how do I know what kind of purse you have?
Not the purse, the income if anything. The purse can be part of a moderate purchase, if your income allows for it.
Right, ok, the income. (I'd guess at their income and idea of moderation by whether it was Gucci or whatever.) Just knowing she has a purse doesn't tell me anything useful.
It does. It tells you that she doesn't have some weird dogma to never buy any purses because her horoscope told her it was bad karma.
Having criticisms of "clean eating" doesn't clarify what "moderation" means.
Moderation means there are no "You absolutely must X" or "You absolutely can't Y" rules. The absence of extremes.
If you want to lose weight, eat at a deficit that is appropriate for you, with nutrition that is appropriate for you.
If that allows for a bag of gummy bears every day, that's still moderation.
If that means you can only have a handful, that's still moderation.
If you don't like gummy bears and don't eat them at all, that's still moderation.
If you like gummy bears, they'd fit into your diet, you'd want to eat them, but you don't eat them for arbitrary reasons, that's not moderation.
That was said 9 pages ago. Multiple times.
How does excluding a food for arbitrary reasons make a diet "extreme" any more than excluding it for a logical reason? If the food is eliminated it's eliminated and the diet is the same.
Because if eating peanuts would kill me, then excluding peanuts from my diet isn't exactly an extreme move but instead to be expected?
Or it is an "extreme" move that you have to take to save your life, totally depends on the perspective.0 -
I'm saying that if you don't claim that not eating gummy bears makes you superior to people that do, or likely to have better results, or that people who do eat them can't achieve their goals - no one will judge you. That person who isn't eating the gummy bears for their arbitrary reasons still isn't using moderation, but I wouldn't judge them for their choice.
I don't take issue with people who choose elimination or restriction. I take issue with people saying that a person HAS to eliminate or restrict something in order to be successful.
I also take issue with people arguing for the sake of arguing. People who go on and on about something that they claim not to care about in the first place baffle me.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »mrsnazario1219 wrote: »Holy f$&@"!!! I can't believe that this conversation has gone so left field! Truly the last time I post an article here. I completely forgot how arbitrary people can be on the Internet. How can I take this post down?
I would not worry too much OP. It is just the usual folks that don't understand the concept, and how to apply it to their daily lives, so they have to destroy the concept as something that no one can understand, because they do not understand it.
I absolutely understand the concept and how to apply it in my daily life. My argument is that my definition of moderation is different from yours, and from others, and so "moderation" when it comes to a way of eating is not a useful term.
No, your definition of Moderation is the same as mine. Your application of it within your individual approach to moderation is different.
That's what I've been trying to say. Moderation has a textbook definition (the avoidance of extremes) but the application of it is individualized and variable.
Which is why it doesn't describe anything about the diet in a useful way, or help anyone know what it means when people use it. All it really speaks to is an attitude.
Saying you are trying a moderate diet means:
You don't arbitrarily exclude things.
If someone tells you they're doing LCHF, you don't suggest them things high in carbs.
If someone tells you they're doing a moderate approach you know nothing is off the table.
How is that not useful information?
Saying you're on a moderate diet means you have some idea of what "too much" and "enough" and "just right" are. Your idea of what those actually are might (probably do) differ from someone else's.
so people are so stupid as to not know what "balance" is? wow...we're doomed if the overwhelming majority of people are that stupid.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »mrsnazario1219 wrote: »Holy f$&@"!!! I can't believe that this conversation has gone so left field! Truly the last time I post an article here. I completely forgot how arbitrary people can be on the Internet. How can I take this post down?
I would not worry too much OP. It is just the usual folks that don't understand the concept, and how to apply it to their daily lives, so they have to destroy the concept as something that no one can understand, because they do not understand it.
I absolutely understand the concept and how to apply it in my daily life. My argument is that my definition of moderation is different from yours, and from others, and so "moderation" when it comes to a way of eating is not a useful term.
No, your definition of Moderation is the same as mine. Your application of it within your individual approach to moderation is different.
That's what I've been trying to say. Moderation has a textbook definition (the avoidance of extremes) but the application of it is individualized and variable.
Which is why it doesn't describe anything about the diet in a useful way, or help anyone know what it means when people use it. All it really speaks to is an attitude.
Saying you are trying a moderate diet means:
You don't arbitrarily exclude things.
If someone tells you they're doing LCHF, you don't suggest them things high in carbs.
If someone tells you they're doing a moderate approach you know nothing is off the table.
How is that not useful information?
My husband eats anything and everything he wants. He won't eat tofu because he doesn't like the name and how it looks. Won't even try it. That's an arbitrary reason. So you think his diet isn't moderate because of that one choice?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Paleo people who eliminate something aren't eating in moderation, but vegetarians who eliminate something are?Is there some definition for what constitutes "extreme"?
Since moderation is avoiding extremes (to some), what constitutes "extreme" as it applies to a diet?
But that's the rub, isn't it? For something to be considered moderate, it has to fall in the middle of two opposing points on the spectrum and is subject to the definition of the points. In politics, someone would be considered politically moderate if they fell between liberal and conservative. But you can also move the end points along the spectrum to identify someone who is moderately conservative or moderately liberal.
When it comes to diet, it seems the author is trying to do two separate things: define ways of eating as moderate, and define consumption as moderate. But she keeps using different spectrums - in keeping with the paleo diet, she uses one spectrum based on food restrictions to say it is not moderate, but later defines moderation using the spectrum of consumption of whole foods vs treats in which paleo could easily fall in the middle.
In keeping with the diet theme, someone upthread mentioned alcohol consumption, and I seem to remember that there was an actual number of drinks and frequency of consumption which would define someone as a moderate drinker (although I can't remember what those numbers were to save my life).
For diet, it would seem that without some consensus as to what a moderate intake is (as in portions and frequency), it does make it a bit ambiguous. I don't think that applying it by portion size would necessarily be accurate, as it would not account for differences in TDEE, and frequency would also be subject to things like lifestyle and portion size.
I would imagine the only real way to define moderation in terms of diet would be to view it in terms of percentages of foods consumed in overall diet over time (this is looking at moderation in terms of consumption/frequency because I think trying to define it by dietary composition is bunk). It would definitely have to have some longevity though to account for things like holidays and vacations which in the short term would skew the data.
sadly, you are over complicating a simple concept.
No, I'm rejecting your attempt to exclude people who follow different ways of eating from being considered as practicing moderation, because you are applying the one definition provided by the author arbitrarily and incorrectly. And you can't really define moderation without identifying the opposing ends of the spectrum it falls within, otherwise it's a completely subjective concept. If it is subjective, then what is or is not moderation will fall to the individual to determine for themselves, and statements like "100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme" is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
does paleo eliminate food from it's plan? If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game.
application is subjective. If I bought a 2000$ purse making 25k a year that is not a moderate purchase...but if I make 250k a year it's a moderate purchase.
If I eliminate dairy from my diet due to being lactose intolerant that is not extreme....but if I get rid of milk cause of an eating plan to "make me better.." that is extreme.
Someone up thread said elimination depended on a "good reason." Is that how you see it, too? If you have a "good reason" then you can practice elimination and eat in moderation, but if you don't have a "good reason" then you can't?
doesn't matter how I see it to be frank...moderation is the absence of extremes by definition and I feel that most "diets" are extremes and that eliminating foods to lose weight because you just "can't" manage to lose weight if you eat them is extreme. ie atkins, paleo, south beach, 17 day, LCHF, clean etc.
*note diets is in quotes
Ok, but the "extremes" part of what you just said is where things are arbitrary. ,Same for whatever's in between them.
This is not perverse word-twisting, by the way, it naturally follows from the definition. And although it is a point that hinges on semantics, it's not "academic" or theoretical.
Back to drinking for a minute: I had an English friend who was worried about the amount he was drinking, how it impacted his life. It was like 7-8 pints a day. He went to his (English) doctor, who said, "nah, you're fine, you're just drinking the wrong stuff. Quit drinking European beer and get back to English ale".
(That's an example of malpractice, probably, but also of how very different standards of moderation can be.)
and that is why we have all said...there is one definition of moderation but the application is subjective.
my purse example...2k on a purse is not moderate spending if you make 25k a year but it is moderate if you make 2.5m or 250k...or whatever...subjective application.
So how do I know what kind of purse you have?
Not the purse, the income if anything. The purse can be part of a moderate purchase, if your income allows for it.
Right, ok, the income. (I'd guess at their income and idea of moderation by whether it was Gucci or whatever.) Just knowing she has a purse doesn't tell me anything useful.
It does. It tells you that she doesn't have some weird dogma to never buy any purses because her horoscope told her it was bad karma.
Having criticisms of "clean eating" doesn't clarify what "moderation" means.
Moderation means there are no "You absolutely must X" or "You absolutely can't Y" rules. The absence of extremes.
If you want to lose weight, eat at a deficit that is appropriate for you, with nutrition that is appropriate for you.
If that allows for a bag of gummy bears every day, that's still moderation.
If that means you can only have a handful, that's still moderation.
If you don't like gummy bears and don't eat them at all, that's still moderation.
If you like gummy bears, they'd fit into your diet, you'd want to eat them, but you don't eat them for arbitrary reasons, that's not moderation.
That was said 9 pages ago. Multiple times.
How does excluding a food for arbitrary reasons make a diet "extreme" any more than excluding it for a logical reason? If the food is eliminated it's eliminated and the diet is the same.
Because if eating peanuts would kill me, then excluding peanuts from my diet isn't exactly an extreme move but instead to be expected?
Or it is an "extreme" move that you have to take to save your life, totally depends on the perspective.
now you are just playing a semantical word game...0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Paleo people who eliminate something aren't eating in moderation, but vegetarians who eliminate something are?Is there some definition for what constitutes "extreme"?
Since moderation is avoiding extremes (to some), what constitutes "extreme" as it applies to a diet?
But that's the rub, isn't it? For something to be considered moderate, it has to fall in the middle of two opposing points on the spectrum and is subject to the definition of the points. In politics, someone would be considered politically moderate if they fell between liberal and conservative. But you can also move the end points along the spectrum to identify someone who is moderately conservative or moderately liberal.
When it comes to diet, it seems the author is trying to do two separate things: define ways of eating as moderate, and define consumption as moderate. But she keeps using different spectrums - in keeping with the paleo diet, she uses one spectrum based on food restrictions to say it is not moderate, but later defines moderation using the spectrum of consumption of whole foods vs treats in which paleo could easily fall in the middle.
In keeping with the diet theme, someone upthread mentioned alcohol consumption, and I seem to remember that there was an actual number of drinks and frequency of consumption which would define someone as a moderate drinker (although I can't remember what those numbers were to save my life).
For diet, it would seem that without some consensus as to what a moderate intake is (as in portions and frequency), it does make it a bit ambiguous. I don't think that applying it by portion size would necessarily be accurate, as it would not account for differences in TDEE, and frequency would also be subject to things like lifestyle and portion size.
I would imagine the only real way to define moderation in terms of diet would be to view it in terms of percentages of foods consumed in overall diet over time (this is looking at moderation in terms of consumption/frequency because I think trying to define it by dietary composition is bunk). It would definitely have to have some longevity though to account for things like holidays and vacations which in the short term would skew the data.
sadly, you are over complicating a simple concept.
No, I'm rejecting your attempt to exclude people who follow different ways of eating from being considered as practicing moderation, because you are applying the one definition provided by the author arbitrarily and incorrectly. And you can't really define moderation without identifying the opposing ends of the spectrum it falls within, otherwise it's a completely subjective concept. If it is subjective, then what is or is not moderation will fall to the individual to determine for themselves, and statements like "100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme" is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
does paleo eliminate food from it's plan? If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game.
application is subjective. If I bought a 2000$ purse making 25k a year that is not a moderate purchase...but if I make 250k a year it's a moderate purchase.
If I eliminate dairy from my diet due to being lactose intolerant that is not extreme....but if I get rid of milk cause of an eating plan to "make me better.." that is extreme.
Someone up thread said elimination depended on a "good reason." Is that how you see it, too? If you have a "good reason" then you can practice elimination and eat in moderation, but if you don't have a "good reason" then you can't?
doesn't matter how I see it to be frank...moderation is the absence of extremes by definition and I feel that most "diets" are extremes and that eliminating foods to lose weight because you just "can't" manage to lose weight if you eat them is extreme. ie atkins, paleo, south beach, 17 day, LCHF, clean etc.
*note diets is in quotes
Ok, but the "extremes" part of what you just said is where things are arbitrary. ,Same for whatever's in between them.
This is not perverse word-twisting, by the way, it naturally follows from the definition. And although it is a point that hinges on semantics, it's not "academic" or theoretical.
Back to drinking for a minute: I had an English friend who was worried about the amount he was drinking, how it impacted his life. It was like 7-8 pints a day. He went to his (English) doctor, who said, "nah, you're fine, you're just drinking the wrong stuff. Quit drinking European beer and get back to English ale".
(That's an example of malpractice, probably, but also of how very different standards of moderation can be.)
and that is why we have all said...there is one definition of moderation but the application is subjective.
my purse example...2k on a purse is not moderate spending if you make 25k a year but it is moderate if you make 2.5m or 250k...or whatever...subjective application.
So how do I know what kind of purse you have?
Not the purse, the income if anything. The purse can be part of a moderate purchase, if your income allows for it.
Right, ok, the income. (I'd guess at their income and idea of moderation by whether it was Gucci or whatever.) Just knowing she has a purse doesn't tell me anything useful.
It does. It tells you that she doesn't have some weird dogma to never buy any purses because her horoscope told her it was bad karma.
Having criticisms of "clean eating" doesn't clarify what "moderation" means.
Moderation means there are no "You absolutely must X" or "You absolutely can't Y" rules. The absence of extremes.
If you want to lose weight, eat at a deficit that is appropriate for you, with nutrition that is appropriate for you.
If that allows for a bag of gummy bears every day, that's still moderation.
If that means you can only have a handful, that's still moderation.
If you don't like gummy bears and don't eat them at all, that's still moderation.
If you like gummy bears, they'd fit into your diet, you'd want to eat them, but you don't eat them for arbitrary reasons, that's not moderation.
That was said 9 pages ago. Multiple times.
How does excluding a food for arbitrary reasons make a diet "extreme" any more than excluding it for a logical reason? If the food is eliminated it's eliminated and the diet is the same.
Because if eating peanuts would kill me, then excluding peanuts from my diet isn't exactly an extreme move but instead to be expected?
Or it is an "extreme" move that you have to take to save your life, totally depends on the perspective.
now you are just playing a semantical word game...
It sounds like that to you because you're not getting the point I'm making.0 -
I'd encourage you to reread my first post. I was brought up, so I piped up.
I'm very simple. I say what I mean. There is nothing to "tell" or "find." I've said this to you 10,000 times when you've insisted I meant things I didn't say and I specifically state that I didn't mean them, but meant what I said.
First, you said:
Paleo people who eliminate something aren't eating in moderation, but vegetarians who eliminate something are?Is there some definition for what constitutes "extreme"?
Since moderation is avoiding extremes (to some), what constitutes "extreme" as it applies to a diet?
But that's the rub, isn't it? For something to be considered moderate, it has to fall in the middle of two opposing points on the spectrum and is subject to the definition of the points. In politics, someone would be considered politically moderate if they fell between liberal and conservative. But you can also move the end points along the spectrum to identify someone who is moderately conservative or moderately liberal.
When it comes to diet, it seems the author is trying to do two separate things: define ways of eating as moderate, and define consumption as moderate. But she keeps using different spectrums - in keeping with the paleo diet, she uses one spectrum based on food restrictions to say it is not moderate, but later defines moderation using the spectrum of consumption of whole foods vs treats in which paleo could easily fall in the middle.
In keeping with the diet theme, someone upthread mentioned alcohol consumption, and I seem to remember that there was an actual number of drinks and frequency of consumption which would define someone as a moderate drinker (although I can't remember what those numbers were to save my life).
For diet, it would seem that without some consensus as to what a moderate intake is (as in portions and frequency), it does make it a bit ambiguous. I don't think that applying it by portion size would necessarily be accurate, as it would not account for differences in TDEE, and frequency would also be subject to things like lifestyle and portion size.
I would imagine the only real way to define moderation in terms of diet would be to view it in terms of percentages of foods consumed in overall diet over time (this is looking at moderation in terms of consumption/frequency because I think trying to define it by dietary composition is bunk). It would definitely have to have some longevity though to account for things like holidays and vacations which in the short term would skew the data.
sadly, you are over complicating a simple concept.
No, I'm rejecting your attempt to exclude people who follow different ways of eating from being considered as practicing moderation, because you are applying the one definition provided by the author arbitrarily and incorrectly. And you can't really define moderation without identifying the opposing ends of the spectrum it falls within, otherwise it's a completely subjective concept. If it is subjective, then what is or is not moderation will fall to the individual to determine for themselves, and statements like "100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme" is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
does paleo eliminate food from it's plan? If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game.
application is subjective. If I bought a 2000$ purse making 25k a year that is not a moderate purchase...but if I make 250k a year it's a moderate purchase.
If I eliminate dairy from my diet due to being lactose intolerant that is not extreme....but if I get rid of milk cause of an eating plan to "make me better.." that is extreme.
Someone up thread said elimination depended on a "good reason." Is that how you see it, too? If you have a "good reason" then you can practice elimination and eat in moderation, but if you don't have a "good reason" then you can't?
doesn't matter how I see it to be frank...moderation is the absence of extremes by definition and I feel that most "diets" are extremes and that eliminating foods to lose weight because you just "can't" manage to lose weight if you eat them is extreme. ie atkins, paleo, south beach, 17 day, LCHF, clean etc.
*note diets is in quotes
"If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game."
Now, it seems like it is more rationale-dependent.
I'm now trying to figure out which one it is. I'm genuinely confused. Is everyone who eliminates something automatically excluded from "eating in moderation" or not?
How I personally see vegetarians (due to moral/ethical choices) has no bearing on what moderation means or the fact that paleo, clean eating, atkins etc are not in line with the definition of moderation....
How people apply moderation to their WOE is totally subjective.
If you feel paleo is in line with moderation have at...I disagree.
If I feel paleo isn't moderate so be it...you apparently disagree...I think...you haven't really said one way or the other...
no wait you don't use the word moderate/moderation so you neither agree or disagree....so why are you arguing that paleo is moderate? or are you? I can never tell with you.
I would like to know if you believe one can eliminate certain foods or food groups from the diet and still eat in moderation.
Either you'll answer or you won't. That's all there is to that.
k then you mean what you say...you don't use the word moderate ...then why are you in here discussing moderation?????? confusing...
and to answer your question....What do I believe/feel
If a person eliminates food for medical reasons ie diabetic/sugar or gluten/celiac no it's not extreme as it is a requirement for health.
If a person eliminates food due to dislike no it's not extreme.
If a person eliminates food due to a religion no it's not extreme (people take their religions very seriously and I am not messing with that)
If a person eliminate food for any other reason than stated above yes I feel it is extreme. But that's me.
So yes I feel that if a vegetarian is that because of moral/ethics it's extreme and not moderate. esp since it can have long lasting detrimental effects on their children (while developing in the womb) if they aren't careful.
My feelings on it tho have no bearing on the actual definition of it just the application of it...
Ok, so it's rationale-dependent. Someone else said something similar, only they used the words "good reason."
New question:
*Assuming that the definition of moderation is "avoiding extremes," which you're on board with...*
If you feel that it's "extreme", it cannot be "in moderation" - correct?
answer my question first...this is a give and take after all right????
if you don't subscribe to moderation why are you here debating what it is and isn't? You don't use the word so why argue what it is...it has no bearing on your, your life or how you live it...
Now, will you answer the question?
Your first post in this thread is below I don't see where your name was mentioned at all or were you referenced in anyway prior to jumping in. no @Kalikel nothing...hmmm...odd how you "assumed" that some people meant you...
I would be the person who argued that. It's because it's true.Oh, I like this one! There are some folks that think that moderation "can mean anything" but this article nails it down. It is the absence of extremes. Nice. Thanks for sharing it!
When I first started reading on MFP, I was trying very hard to figure out what the heck people meant when they said "clean" or "in moderation" because one person would say this was clean and another would say that was clean, while one person saying moderation was this and another was saying moderation was that.
You can argue that both terms have definitions, but are carried out differently. That really doesn't help the person who is trying to figure out exactly what it means.
The fact of the matter is that saying "clean" or "in moderation" just isn't specific. It has no meaning that anyone could pinpoint and say "Everyone who says they eat this way does X."
I don't mind people using the words "clean" or "in moderation." I get what they mean in a general sense. But when they use those words, I don't know exactly how they are defining them. Most of the time, the general sense works just fine. Occasionally, though, I need a little more.
"I've been eating clean and I'm gaining weight!"
"I've been eating in moderation and I'm gaining weight!"
I'm going to need more. It doesn't really explain how they're actually eating.
If someone asks about how to eat treats "in moderation", there will be 20 different ways to do it.
As many posters have many meanings for each term, specifics will be required.
I have the same issue with both terms - "clean" and "in moderation" and am not slamming either group or trying to make fun of either group or have a fight.
I never suggested that anyone should stop using those terms! It's just that they aren't really clearly describing a way of eating.
so basically you are here to say that moderation has many meanings...when in fact it has one meaning and multiple applications..sort of like a sheet of fabric softener....it is made to keep cloths soft and static free but can be used to get bugs off your car grill.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Paleo people who eliminate something aren't eating in moderation, but vegetarians who eliminate something are?Is there some definition for what constitutes "extreme"?
Since moderation is avoiding extremes (to some), what constitutes "extreme" as it applies to a diet?
But that's the rub, isn't it? For something to be considered moderate, it has to fall in the middle of two opposing points on the spectrum and is subject to the definition of the points. In politics, someone would be considered politically moderate if they fell between liberal and conservative. But you can also move the end points along the spectrum to identify someone who is moderately conservative or moderately liberal.
When it comes to diet, it seems the author is trying to do two separate things: define ways of eating as moderate, and define consumption as moderate. But she keeps using different spectrums - in keeping with the paleo diet, she uses one spectrum based on food restrictions to say it is not moderate, but later defines moderation using the spectrum of consumption of whole foods vs treats in which paleo could easily fall in the middle.
In keeping with the diet theme, someone upthread mentioned alcohol consumption, and I seem to remember that there was an actual number of drinks and frequency of consumption which would define someone as a moderate drinker (although I can't remember what those numbers were to save my life).
For diet, it would seem that without some consensus as to what a moderate intake is (as in portions and frequency), it does make it a bit ambiguous. I don't think that applying it by portion size would necessarily be accurate, as it would not account for differences in TDEE, and frequency would also be subject to things like lifestyle and portion size.
I would imagine the only real way to define moderation in terms of diet would be to view it in terms of percentages of foods consumed in overall diet over time (this is looking at moderation in terms of consumption/frequency because I think trying to define it by dietary composition is bunk). It would definitely have to have some longevity though to account for things like holidays and vacations which in the short term would skew the data.
sadly, you are over complicating a simple concept.
No, I'm rejecting your attempt to exclude people who follow different ways of eating from being considered as practicing moderation, because you are applying the one definition provided by the author arbitrarily and incorrectly. And you can't really define moderation without identifying the opposing ends of the spectrum it falls within, otherwise it's a completely subjective concept. If it is subjective, then what is or is not moderation will fall to the individual to determine for themselves, and statements like "100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme" is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
does paleo eliminate food from it's plan? If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game.
application is subjective. If I bought a 2000$ purse making 25k a year that is not a moderate purchase...but if I make 250k a year it's a moderate purchase.
If I eliminate dairy from my diet due to being lactose intolerant that is not extreme....but if I get rid of milk cause of an eating plan to "make me better.." that is extreme.
Someone up thread said elimination depended on a "good reason." Is that how you see it, too? If you have a "good reason" then you can practice elimination and eat in moderation, but if you don't have a "good reason" then you can't?
doesn't matter how I see it to be frank...moderation is the absence of extremes by definition and I feel that most "diets" are extremes and that eliminating foods to lose weight because you just "can't" manage to lose weight if you eat them is extreme. ie atkins, paleo, south beach, 17 day, LCHF, clean etc.
*note diets is in quotes
Ok, but the "extremes" part of what you just said is where things are arbitrary. ,Same for whatever's in between them.
This is not perverse word-twisting, by the way, it naturally follows from the definition. And although it is a point that hinges on semantics, it's not "academic" or theoretical.
Back to drinking for a minute: I had an English friend who was worried about the amount he was drinking, how it impacted his life. It was like 7-8 pints a day. He went to his (English) doctor, who said, "nah, you're fine, you're just drinking the wrong stuff. Quit drinking European beer and get back to English ale".
(That's an example of malpractice, probably, but also of how very different standards of moderation can be.)
and that is why we have all said...there is one definition of moderation but the application is subjective.
my purse example...2k on a purse is not moderate spending if you make 25k a year but it is moderate if you make 2.5m or 250k...or whatever...subjective application.
So how do I know what kind of purse you have?
Not the purse, the income if anything. The purse can be part of a moderate purchase, if your income allows for it.
Right, ok, the income. (I'd guess at their income and idea of moderation by whether it was Gucci or whatever.) Just knowing she has a purse doesn't tell me anything useful.
It does. It tells you that she doesn't have some weird dogma to never buy any purses because her horoscope told her it was bad karma.
Having criticisms of "clean eating" doesn't clarify what "moderation" means.
Moderation means there are no "You absolutely must X" or "You absolutely can't Y" rules. The absence of extremes.
If you want to lose weight, eat at a deficit that is appropriate for you, with nutrition that is appropriate for you.
If that allows for a bag of gummy bears every day, that's still moderation.
If that means you can only have a handful, that's still moderation.
If you don't like gummy bears and don't eat them at all, that's still moderation.
If you like gummy bears, they'd fit into your diet, you'd want to eat them, but you don't eat them for arbitrary reasons, that's not moderation.
That was said 9 pages ago. Multiple times.
How does excluding a food for arbitrary reasons make a diet "extreme" any more than excluding it for a logical reason? If the food is eliminated it's eliminated and the diet is the same.
Because if eating peanuts would kill me, then excluding peanuts from my diet isn't exactly an extreme move but instead to be expected?
Or it is an "extreme" move that you have to take to save your life, totally depends on the perspective.
now you are just playing a semantical word game...
It sounds like that to you because you're not getting the point I'm making.
you don't have one; therefore, there is nothing to get.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »mrsnazario1219 wrote: »Holy f$&@"!!! I can't believe that this conversation has gone so left field! Truly the last time I post an article here. I completely forgot how arbitrary people can be on the Internet. How can I take this post down?
I would not worry too much OP. It is just the usual folks that don't understand the concept, and how to apply it to their daily lives, so they have to destroy the concept as something that no one can understand, because they do not understand it.
I absolutely understand the concept and how to apply it in my daily life. My argument is that my definition of moderation is different from yours, and from others, and so "moderation" when it comes to a way of eating is not a useful term.
No, your definition of Moderation is the same as mine. Your application of it within your individual approach to moderation is different.
That's what I've been trying to say. Moderation has a textbook definition (the avoidance of extremes) but the application of it is individualized and variable.
Which is why it doesn't describe anything about the diet in a useful way, or help anyone know what it means when people use it. All it really speaks to is an attitude.
its not a diet...
That's right. It's a religion in these parts. Or a religiofied secular philosophy applicable towards ice cream and cupcakes.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions