Moderation
Replies
-
Becaue 0 of a food as an inherent part of a way of eating is, by definition, extreme. You can't eat any less. If is is, by definition, extreme, it is, by definition, not moderate.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
How does eliminating a particular food make a diet not moderate? What is extreme about eliminating a particular food? There are still a whole lot of foods to choose from.
0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
How does eliminating a particular food make a diet not moderate? What is extreme about eliminating a particular food? There are still a whole lot of foods to choose from.
Because while an upper extreme limit cannot be defined, the lower extreme limit is always zero. You can't get more extreme than nothing.
It doesn't seem to fit the dictionary defintion of moderation at all. It seems a very hard line.
Well, I don't understand how you would eat less than zero of something, so a line has to be drawn somewhere. You were the one asking for definitions of an extreme. Zero is an extreme.
Making any hard and fast rule about food seems extreme rather than moderate. You MUST not eliminate a food. That one food is all that is keeping you moderate. If you eat a completely balanced and vaired but decide to give up soda because you think it's not good for you, then you are not eating in moderation. You MUST have a soda!!!
I could eat a completely healthy, balanced and varied diet as a vegetarian. But if I eat meat, I will not be a vegetarian so my diet is extreme?
Moderation most certainly should not mean everything. Everything is as extreme as nothing.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I think the author included the caveat about whole foods as a rebuttal to the notion that moderation is eating fast food and cookies all day every day, but you do raise an interesting point. I think eating whole foods is important, but the most important piece of that sentence would be the focus on getting nutrients, not the source. I think people who rely on prepackaged convenience foods could also be using moderation.
I agree, and made a similar point on the early pages. The article says that eating only fast food would not be moderation, but you could eat a balanced diet of fast food if you wanted.
True, and I think that is one of the limitations of the blog. I feel like the initial portion where the author talked about what is not moderation and was what "extreme" probably would have been better served by fleshing out her thought process as to what was "extreme" about it rather than just a bulleted list. But the author seems to apply the term arbitrarily throughout the article with different criteria of "extremes" - I'm guessing with the fast food reference, she was thinking of the limitations of not having a variety of different foods and mentally picturing someone having burger/fries/big soda for most meals, and not utilizing the other choices on the menu like salads or wraps.
The more I think about the blog, the more I feel like the piece would probably be better as an explanation of IIFYM than moderation.
Absolutely not. A true IIFYM would say nothing wrong with eating nothing but fast food. Nor would someone following 100% strict paleo be incompatible in any way with IIFYM.0 -
Yep. "You can't eat grains" can't be included in moderation. "Zero grains" as a way of eating, for example, is inherently extreme because zero is the extreme lower limit.DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
Nope! Absolutely any WOE can be included in moderation.
It's not "other ways of eating" because moderation is not a way of eating, so there aren't others. They're all included.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
How does eliminating a particular food make a diet not moderate? What is extreme about eliminating a particular food? There are still a whole lot of foods to choose from.
Because while an upper extreme limit cannot be defined, the lower extreme limit is always zero. You can't get more extreme than nothing.
It doesn't seem to fit the dictionary defintion of moderation at all. It seems a very hard line.
Well, I don't understand how you would eat less than zero of something, so a line has to be drawn somewhere. You were the one asking for definitions of an extreme. Zero is an extreme.
Making any hard and fast rule about food seems extreme rather than moderate. You MUST not eliminate a food. That one food is all that is keeping you moderate. If you eat a completely balanced and vaired but decide to give up soda because you think it's not good for you, then you are not eating in moderation. You MUST have a soda!!!
I could eat a completely healthy, balanced and varied diet as a vegetarian. But if I eat meat, I will not be a vegetarian so my diet is extreme?
Moderation most certainly should not mean everything. Everything is as extreme as nothing.
It isn't that a person practicing moderation won't eat certain foods, it is the reasoning behind why they won't eat certain food. If it comes down to preference, that's moderation. If you aren't eating something because that's a rule in a diet, you're not practicing moderation.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »If you are eliminating food that you otherwise enjoy in hopes of getting a certain dietary goal....then it isn't moderation. This couldn't be more simple and people here have made 17 pages trying to make it super complicated.
But a lot of people change their tastes. I would suggest that a lot of people (myself included) on life style change diets no longer enjoy or want.
So at what point does that become a moderation style diet?
So eventually your restriction turns into moderation because you adopt new tastes. Congratulations!
Simple discernment, if you honestly say "I'm not eating that because I don't feel like eating that", your eating is in moderation. If you honestly confess "I can't eat that because my diet doesn't allow it", your eating is not in moderation.
Some people believe differently. Some have argued that you absolutely can eliminate foods or food groups you enjoy and still be eating in moderation, depending on your reason. And the reason may be different for everyone because everyone can apply this theory differently.
For some, medical or ethical reasons for eliminating things still count as moderation. For some, eating healthier items is still included because eating a mostly (or entirely) healthy diet can be part of moderation. For others, those things are considered extreme.
Everyone gets to apply it in their own way. As long as they aren't hitting extremes (which cannot be defined, per the concept of moderation), they're eating in moderation.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Becaue 0 of a food as an inherent part of a way of eating is, by definition, extreme. You can't eat any less. If is is, by definition, extreme, it is, by definition, not moderate.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
How does eliminating a particular food make a diet not moderate? What is extreme about eliminating a particular food? There are still a whole lot of foods to choose from.
There must be extremes on both ends of the spectrum. If I can't eliminate any food, what is the opposite pole in a moderate diet?0 -
I would pay good money to find ONE person who is embarking on a change in the way they eat who benefits from the last 16 pages of this thread. If a group of people who all have set ideas about the semantics of certain words and how they apply to eating are going in circles, what's the point? You can't tell me anyone is going to make substantial life changes based on this argument.
ETA: I did appreciate the article, OP. I think it's a great read for anyone starting out on a weight loss or health journey.
This is so true and I also really enjoyed the article as something to refer people to who feel like they HAVE to give up things they enjoy to be successful, or people who think that people on Team Moderation eat nothing but donuts or Doritos.
I participated fully in the semantics debate that helped turn this thread from something useful for those with questions about moderation into a piddly argument about semantics and I wish I hadn't gotten sucked into it.
Thanks for trying to get this back on track @kkenseth, I fear it is too late for this thread but maybe someone will post the link again. And thanks OP for sharing it. Sorry again!
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Yep. "You can't eat grains" can't be included in moderation. "Zero grains" as a way of eating, for example, is inherently extreme because zero is the extreme lower limit.DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
Nope! Absolutely any WOE can be included in moderation.
It's not "other ways of eating" because moderation is not a way of eating, so there aren't others. They're all included.
That just depends on how you apply moderation.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »If you are eliminating food that you otherwise enjoy in hopes of getting a certain dietary goal....then it isn't moderation. This couldn't be more simple and people here have made 17 pages trying to make it super complicated.
But a lot of people change their tastes. I would suggest that a lot of people (myself included) on life style change diets no longer enjoy or want.
So at what point does that become a moderation style diet?
I think the point of contention over the last 17 pages is that some people are convinced that if someone is following paleo or low carb or vegan or organic or [insert name of diet here] that they are inherently giving up foods they love and want to eat in order to adhere to that way of eating, and it is therefore not moderation.
Whereas others are saying that not everyone following that diet is "depriving themselves," and therefore the diet itself cannot be considered not moderation just because one individual is not able to find a way to make the way of eating match their personal boundaries for moderation.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I think the author included the caveat about whole foods as a rebuttal to the notion that moderation is eating fast food and cookies all day every day, but you do raise an interesting point. I think eating whole foods is important, but the most important piece of that sentence would be the focus on getting nutrients, not the source. I think people who rely on prepackaged convenience foods could also be using moderation.
I agree, and made a similar point on the early pages. The article says that eating only fast food would not be moderation, but you could eat a balanced diet of fast food if you wanted.
True, and I think that is one of the limitations of the blog. I feel like the initial portion where the author talked about what is not moderation and was what "extreme" probably would have been better served by fleshing out her thought process as to what was "extreme" about it rather than just a bulleted list. But the author seems to apply the term arbitrarily throughout the article with different criteria of "extremes" - I'm guessing with the fast food reference, she was thinking of the limitations of not having a variety of different foods and mentally picturing someone having burger/fries/big soda for most meals, and not utilizing the other choices on the menu like salads or wraps.
The more I think about the blog, the more I feel like the piece would probably be better as an explanation of IIFYM than moderation.
I agree, and it shows that when people say "moderation" when refering to diet they don't always mean the same thing.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »If you are eliminating food that you otherwise enjoy in hopes of getting a certain dietary goal....then it isn't moderation. This couldn't be more simple and people here have made 17 pages trying to make it super complicated.
But a lot of people change their tastes. I would suggest that a lot of people (myself included) on life style change diets no longer enjoy or want.
So at what point does that become a moderation style diet?
So eventually your restriction turns into moderation because you adopt new tastes. Congratulations!
Simple discernment, if you honestly say "I'm not eating that because I don't feel like eating that", your eating is in moderation. If you honestly confess "I can't eat that because my diet doesn't allow it", your eating is not in moderation.
Some people believe differently. Some have argued that you absolutely can eliminate foods or food groups you enjoy and still be eating in moderation, depending on your reason. And the reason may be different for everyone because everyone can apply this theory differently.
For some, medical or ethical reasons for eliminating things still count as moderation. For some, eating healthier items is still included because eating a mostly (or entirely) healthy diet can be part of moderation. For others, those things are considered extreme.
Everyone gets to apply it in their own way. As long as they aren't hitting extremes (which cannot be defined, per the concept of moderation), they're eating in moderation.
The bolded is exactly what I've said. If you're eliminating it for something that isn't because it is your diet plan, it absolutely is moderation. When I say diet, I mean diet as in a set of rules for eating that have to be obeyed because they are the diet. If you don't eat gluten because you have celiac, that isn't because of diet. If you don't eat meat because you're ethically opposed to it, that isn't your diet. Now if you don't eat gluten because paleo tells you not to, you're doing it because of diet. If you're not eating meat because Freelee the Banana Girl has promised you immortality and magical health powers as a frugivore, you're restricting meat because of your diet.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Becaue 0 of a food as an inherent part of a way of eating is, by definition, extreme. You can't eat any less. If is is, by definition, extreme, it is, by definition, not moderate.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
How does eliminating a particular food make a diet not moderate? What is extreme about eliminating a particular food? There are still a whole lot of foods to choose from.
There must be extremes on both ends of the spectrum. If I can't eliminate any food, what is the opposite pole in a moderate diet?
If one pole is never eating the food, the other pole would be eating that food continuously, wouldn't it?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
How does eliminating a particular food make a diet not moderate? What is extreme about eliminating a particular food? There are still a whole lot of foods to choose from.
Because while an upper extreme limit cannot be defined, the lower extreme limit is always zero. You can't get more extreme than nothing.
It doesn't seem to fit the dictionary defintion of moderation at all. It seems a very hard line.
Well, I don't understand how you would eat less than zero of something, so a line has to be drawn somewhere. You were the one asking for definitions of an extreme. Zero is an extreme.
Making any hard and fast rule about food seems extreme rather than moderate. You MUST not eliminate a food. That one food is all that is keeping you moderate. If you eat a completely balanced and vaired but decide to give up soda because you think it's not good for you, then you are not eating in moderation. You MUST have a soda!!!
I could eat a completely healthy, balanced and varied diet as a vegetarian. But if I eat meat, I will not be a vegetarian so my diet is extreme?
Moderation most certainly should not mean everything. Everything is as extreme as nothing.
It isn't that a person practicing moderation won't eat certain foods, it is the reasoning behind why they won't eat certain food. If it comes down to preference, that's moderation. If you aren't eating something because that's a rule in a diet, you're not practicing moderation.
So we both eat the exact same diet, you because you don't like meat, me because I'm vegetarian. Your diet is moderate but mine is not? That's silly.0 -
Well, the opposite of eating zero of a food would be eating only that food, wouldn't it?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Becaue 0 of a food as an inherent part of a way of eating is, by definition, extreme. You can't eat any less. If is is, by definition, extreme, it is, by definition, not moderate.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
How does eliminating a particular food make a diet not moderate? What is extreme about eliminating a particular food? There are still a whole lot of foods to choose from.
There must be extremes on both ends of the spectrum. If I can't eliminate any food, what is the opposite pole in a moderate diet?
0 -
If you could clarify the bolded part for me, it would help me understand what you're saying. When you say "diet", do you mean "way of eating" or "foods you eat" or what?tennisdude2004 wrote: »If you are eliminating food that you otherwise enjoy in hopes of getting a certain dietary goal....then it isn't moderation. This couldn't be more simple and people here have made 17 pages trying to make it super complicated.
But a lot of people change their tastes. I would suggest that a lot of people (myself included) on life style change diets no longer enjoy or want.
So at what point does that become a moderation style diet?
So eventually your restriction turns into moderation because you adopt new tastes. Congratulations!
Simple discernment, if you honestly say "I'm not eating that because I don't feel like eating that", your eating is in moderation. If you honestly confess "I can't eat that because my diet doesn't allow it", your eating is not in moderation.
Some people believe differently. Some have argued that you absolutely can eliminate foods or food groups you enjoy and still be eating in moderation, depending on your reason. And the reason may be different for everyone because everyone can apply this theory differently.
For some, medical or ethical reasons for eliminating things still count as moderation. For some, eating healthier items is still included because eating a mostly (or entirely) healthy diet can be part of moderation. For others, those things are considered extreme.
Everyone gets to apply it in their own way. As long as they aren't hitting extremes (which cannot be defined, per the concept of moderation), they're eating in moderation.
The bolded is exactly what I've said. If you're eliminating it for something that isn't because it is your diet plan, it absolutely is moderation. When I say diet, I mean diet as in a set of rules for eating that have to be obeyed because they are the diet. If you don't eat gluten because you have celiac, that isn't because of diet. If you don't eat meat because you're ethically opposed to it, that isn't your diet. Now if you don't eat gluten because paleo tells you not to, you're doing it because of diet. If you're not eating meat because Freelee the Banana Girl has promised you immortality and magical health powers as a frugivore, you're restricting meat because of your diet.
I'm honestly a little confused because the "diet" word has "because they are the diet" as part of the definition and m not sure if the word "diet" is being used in two different ways or if the word "diet" is being used as part of the explanation of "diet."
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
How does eliminating a particular food make a diet not moderate? What is extreme about eliminating a particular food? There are still a whole lot of foods to choose from.
Because while an upper extreme limit cannot be defined, the lower extreme limit is always zero. You can't get more extreme than nothing.
It doesn't seem to fit the dictionary defintion of moderation at all. It seems a very hard line.
Well, I don't understand how you would eat less than zero of something, so a line has to be drawn somewhere. You were the one asking for definitions of an extreme. Zero is an extreme.
Making any hard and fast rule about food seems extreme rather than moderate. You MUST not eliminate a food. That one food is all that is keeping you moderate. If you eat a completely balanced and vaired but decide to give up soda because you think it's not good for you, then you are not eating in moderation. You MUST have a soda!!!
I could eat a completely healthy, balanced and varied diet as a vegetarian. But if I eat meat, I will not be a vegetarian so my diet is extreme?
Moderation most certainly should not mean everything. Everything is as extreme as nothing.
It isn't that a person practicing moderation won't eat certain foods, it is the reasoning behind why they won't eat certain food. If it comes down to preference, that's moderation. If you aren't eating something because that's a rule in a diet, you're not practicing moderation.
So we both eat the exact same diet, you because you don't like meat, me because I'm vegetarian. Your diet is moderate but mine is not? That's silly.
If you're ethically a vegetarian, that's still moderation. If you don't eat meat because you have a diet rule like frugivorism that says you don't, that's not moderation.
And how is it it silly? We consider the reason behind actions all the time. Chunks of our legal system are built on it.
Would you consider it silly that a person was mad at someone because the person intended to trip them, but wouldn't be mad at them if it was an accident? The difference there is reason and intent.0 -
No, a way of eating that didn't avoid the extremes would be, by definition, moderate. One that consisted of the extremes would be, by definition, not moderate.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Yep. "You can't eat grains" can't be included in moderation. "Zero grains" as a way of eating, for example, is inherently extreme because zero is the extreme lower limit.DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
Nope! Absolutely any WOE can be included in moderation.
It's not "other ways of eating" because moderation is not a way of eating, so there aren't others. They're all included.
That just depends on how you apply moderation.
(For the sake of clarity, though I know clarity isn't important to people who want to obfuscate, this is in terms of prescriptions of the ways of eating, not personal preferences.)
0 -
But that's just his application. You still fit into "moderation" because you get to pick how it is applied.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
How does eliminating a particular food make a diet not moderate? What is extreme about eliminating a particular food? There are still a whole lot of foods to choose from.
Because while an upper extreme limit cannot be defined, the lower extreme limit is always zero. You can't get more extreme than nothing.
It doesn't seem to fit the dictionary defintion of moderation at all. It seems a very hard line.
Well, I don't understand how you would eat less than zero of something, so a line has to be drawn somewhere. You were the one asking for definitions of an extreme. Zero is an extreme.
Making any hard and fast rule about food seems extreme rather than moderate. You MUST not eliminate a food. That one food is all that is keeping you moderate. If you eat a completely balanced and vaired but decide to give up soda because you think it's not good for you, then you are not eating in moderation. You MUST have a soda!!!
I could eat a completely healthy, balanced and varied diet as a vegetarian. But if I eat meat, I will not be a vegetarian so my diet is extreme?
Moderation most certainly should not mean everything. Everything is as extreme as nothing.
It isn't that a person practicing moderation won't eat certain foods, it is the reasoning behind why they won't eat certain food. If it comes down to preference, that's moderation. If you aren't eating something because that's a rule in a diet, you're not practicing moderation.
So we both eat the exact same diet, you because you don't like meat, me because I'm vegetarian. Your diet is moderate but mine is not? That's silly.
Once you get that everyone gets to pick how they apply it, it gets much easier. Everything fits into moderation. All you have to do is avoid extremes and you get to pick what is extreme. If you don't feel that it's extreme, it isn't.
0 -
If you could clarify the bolded part for me, it would help me understand what you're saying. When you say "diet", do you mean "way of eating" or "foods you eat" or what?tennisdude2004 wrote: »If you are eliminating food that you otherwise enjoy in hopes of getting a certain dietary goal....then it isn't moderation. This couldn't be more simple and people here have made 17 pages trying to make it super complicated.
But a lot of people change their tastes. I would suggest that a lot of people (myself included) on life style change diets no longer enjoy or want.
So at what point does that become a moderation style diet?
So eventually your restriction turns into moderation because you adopt new tastes. Congratulations!
Simple discernment, if you honestly say "I'm not eating that because I don't feel like eating that", your eating is in moderation. If you honestly confess "I can't eat that because my diet doesn't allow it", your eating is not in moderation.
Some people believe differently. Some have argued that you absolutely can eliminate foods or food groups you enjoy and still be eating in moderation, depending on your reason. And the reason may be different for everyone because everyone can apply this theory differently.
For some, medical or ethical reasons for eliminating things still count as moderation. For some, eating healthier items is still included because eating a mostly (or entirely) healthy diet can be part of moderation. For others, those things are considered extreme.
Everyone gets to apply it in their own way. As long as they aren't hitting extremes (which cannot be defined, per the concept of moderation), they're eating in moderation.
The bolded is exactly what I've said. If you're eliminating it for something that isn't because it is your diet plan, it absolutely is moderation. When I say diet, I mean diet as in a set of rules for eating that have to be obeyed because they are the diet. If you don't eat gluten because you have celiac, that isn't because of diet. If you don't eat meat because you're ethically opposed to it, that isn't your diet. Now if you don't eat gluten because paleo tells you not to, you're doing it because of diet. If you're not eating meat because Freelee the Banana Girl has promised you immortality and magical health powers as a frugivore, you're restricting meat because of your diet.
I'm honestly a little confused because the "diet" word has "because they are the diet" as part of the definition and m not sure if the word "diet" is being used in two different ways or if the word "diet" is being used as part of the explanation of "diet."
Diet as not simply a WOD but as rules for eating.
If you have something you must not do, you have rules and you have a diet.
If you have things you'd rather not do, you probably have moderation.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Well, the opposite of eating zero of a food would be eating only that food, wouldn't it?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Becaue 0 of a food as an inherent part of a way of eating is, by definition, extreme. You can't eat any less. If is is, by definition, extreme, it is, by definition, not moderate.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
How does eliminating a particular food make a diet not moderate? What is extreme about eliminating a particular food? There are still a whole lot of foods to choose from.
There must be extremes on both ends of the spectrum. If I can't eliminate any food, what is the opposite pole in a moderate diet?
So to be a moderate eater I must eat ALL foods I enjoy but not eat only any single food I enjoy?
ALL is an extreme, no?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I think the author included the caveat about whole foods as a rebuttal to the notion that moderation is eating fast food and cookies all day every day, but you do raise an interesting point. I think eating whole foods is important, but the most important piece of that sentence would be the focus on getting nutrients, not the source. I think people who rely on prepackaged convenience foods could also be using moderation.
I agree, and made a similar point on the early pages. The article says that eating only fast food would not be moderation, but you could eat a balanced diet of fast food if you wanted.
True, and I think that is one of the limitations of the blog. I feel like the initial portion where the author talked about what is not moderation and was what "extreme" probably would have been better served by fleshing out her thought process as to what was "extreme" about it rather than just a bulleted list. But the author seems to apply the term arbitrarily throughout the article with different criteria of "extremes" - I'm guessing with the fast food reference, she was thinking of the limitations of not having a variety of different foods and mentally picturing someone having burger/fries/big soda for most meals, and not utilizing the other choices on the menu like salads or wraps.
The more I think about the blog, the more I feel like the piece would probably be better as an explanation of IIFYM than moderation.
I agree, and it shows that when people say "moderation" when refering to diet they don't always mean the same thing.
I think that is going to be a given when it comes to diet. A reasonable portion is going to vary by individual due to things like TDEE, and frequency of consumption is going to be a function of lifestyle. And the foods included are always going to vary, even the people who eat everything don't really eat everything. I think "what does moderation mean to you?" is probably the way to go.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
How does eliminating a particular food make a diet not moderate? What is extreme about eliminating a particular food? There are still a whole lot of foods to choose from.
Because while an upper extreme limit cannot be defined, the lower extreme limit is always zero. You can't get more extreme than nothing.
It doesn't seem to fit the dictionary defintion of moderation at all. It seems a very hard line.
Well, I don't understand how you would eat less than zero of something, so a line has to be drawn somewhere. You were the one asking for definitions of an extreme. Zero is an extreme.
Making any hard and fast rule about food seems extreme rather than moderate. You MUST not eliminate a food. That one food is all that is keeping you moderate. If you eat a completely balanced and vaired but decide to give up soda because you think it's not good for you, then you are not eating in moderation. You MUST have a soda!!!
I could eat a completely healthy, balanced and varied diet as a vegetarian. But if I eat meat, I will not be a vegetarian so my diet is extreme?
Moderation most certainly should not mean everything. Everything is as extreme as nothing.
It isn't that a person practicing moderation won't eat certain foods, it is the reasoning behind why they won't eat certain food. If it comes down to preference, that's moderation. If you aren't eating something because that's a rule in a diet, you're not practicing moderation.
So we both eat the exact same diet, you because you don't like meat, me because I'm vegetarian. Your diet is moderate but mine is not? That's silly.
other 'moderates' seem to think that is compatible with moderation to eat gluten free because you are celiac, while you are 'extreme' if you cut them because you just think it is healthy (like in strict paleo).
It seems more to me that 'moderation', for some, is just a mindset, how they perceive themselves.
0 -
That first sentence, you meant "did", right?DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, a way of eating that didn't avoid the extremes would be, by definition, moderate. One that consisted of the extremes would be, by definition, not moderate.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Yep. "You can't eat grains" can't be included in moderation. "Zero grains" as a way of eating, for example, is inherently extreme because zero is the extreme lower limit.DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
Nope! Absolutely any WOE can be included in moderation.
It's not "other ways of eating" because moderation is not a way of eating, so there aren't others. They're all included.
That just depends on how you apply moderation.
(For the sake of clarity, though I know clarity isn't important to people who want to obfuscate, this is in terms of prescriptions of the ways of eating, not personal preferences.)
We all get that. Avoiding extremes is moderation. And "extremes" cannot be defined, because that's moderation. It's left up to each person to determine.
It's all been very clearly laid out. I think it's all very obvious now.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
How does eliminating a particular food make a diet not moderate? What is extreme about eliminating a particular food? There are still a whole lot of foods to choose from.
Because while an upper extreme limit cannot be defined, the lower extreme limit is always zero. You can't get more extreme than nothing.
It doesn't seem to fit the dictionary defintion of moderation at all. It seems a very hard line.
Well, I don't understand how you would eat less than zero of something, so a line has to be drawn somewhere. You were the one asking for definitions of an extreme. Zero is an extreme.
Making any hard and fast rule about food seems extreme rather than moderate. You MUST not eliminate a food. That one food is all that is keeping you moderate. If you eat a completely balanced and vaired but decide to give up soda because you think it's not good for you, then you are not eating in moderation. You MUST have a soda!!!
I could eat a completely healthy, balanced and varied diet as a vegetarian. But if I eat meat, I will not be a vegetarian so my diet is extreme?
Moderation most certainly should not mean everything. Everything is as extreme as nothing.
It isn't that a person practicing moderation won't eat certain foods, it is the reasoning behind why they won't eat certain food. If it comes down to preference, that's moderation. If you aren't eating something because that's a rule in a diet, you're not practicing moderation.
So we both eat the exact same diet, you because you don't like meat, me because I'm vegetarian. Your diet is moderate but mine is not? That's silly.
No, vegetarianism can absolutely be a diet of moderation. Both are based on personal preference, not adherence to a way of eating. I feel like this is something that has been pointed out repeatedly (along with the rest of the questions from the non-acute participants in this thread).0 -
Who said that? You can choose to eat or not to eat. The moderate way of eating doesn't proscribe foods as clean eating, paleo, etc. do.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Well, the opposite of eating zero of a food would be eating only that food, wouldn't it?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Becaue 0 of a food as an inherent part of a way of eating is, by definition, extreme. You can't eat any less. If is is, by definition, extreme, it is, by definition, not moderate.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
How does eliminating a particular food make a diet not moderate? What is extreme about eliminating a particular food? There are still a whole lot of foods to choose from.
There must be extremes on both ends of the spectrum. If I can't eliminate any food, what is the opposite pole in a moderate diet?
So to be a moderate eater I must eat ALL foods I enjoy but not eat only any single food I enjoy?
ALL is an extreme, no?
0 -
What is WOD? "Way of dieting?"
If you could clarify the bolded part for me, it would help me understand what you're saying. When you say "diet", do you mean "way of eating" or "foods you eat" or what?tennisdude2004 wrote: »If you are eliminating food that you otherwise enjoy in hopes of getting a certain dietary goal....then it isn't moderation. This couldn't be more simple and people here have made 17 pages trying to make it super complicated.
But a lot of people change their tastes. I would suggest that a lot of people (myself included) on life style change diets no longer enjoy or want.
So at what point does that become a moderation style diet?
So eventually your restriction turns into moderation because you adopt new tastes. Congratulations!
Simple discernment, if you honestly say "I'm not eating that because I don't feel like eating that", your eating is in moderation. If you honestly confess "I can't eat that because my diet doesn't allow it", your eating is not in moderation.
Some people believe differently. Some have argued that you absolutely can eliminate foods or food groups you enjoy and still be eating in moderation, depending on your reason. And the reason may be different for everyone because everyone can apply this theory differently.
For some, medical or ethical reasons for eliminating things still count as moderation. For some, eating healthier items is still included because eating a mostly (or entirely) healthy diet can be part of moderation. For others, those things are considered extreme.
Everyone gets to apply it in their own way. As long as they aren't hitting extremes (which cannot be defined, per the concept of moderation), they're eating in moderation.
The bolded is exactly what I've said. If you're eliminating it for something that isn't because it is your diet plan, it absolutely is moderation. When I say diet, I mean diet as in a set of rules for eating that have to be obeyed because they are the diet. If you don't eat gluten because you have celiac, that isn't because of diet. If you don't eat meat because you're ethically opposed to it, that isn't your diet. Now if you don't eat gluten because paleo tells you not to, you're doing it because of diet. If you're not eating meat because Freelee the Banana Girl has promised you immortality and magical health powers as a frugivore, you're restricting meat because of your diet.
I'm honestly a little confused because the "diet" word has "because they are the diet" as part of the definition and m not sure if the word "diet" is being used in two different ways or if the word "diet" is being used as part of the explanation of "diet."
Diet as not simply a WOD but as rules for eating.
If you have something you must not do, you have rules and you have a diet.
If you have things you'd rather not do, you probably have moderation.
Unless someone is holding a gun to your head, there is nothing that you must not do. It's all a matter of choice. Everyone is eating what they'd rather eat. Everyone is eliminating things they don't want to eat...and there are ten million reasons for it.
I hope that we aren't going to get this all confused again, because we really had a good definition of moderation.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
How does eliminating a particular food make a diet not moderate? What is extreme about eliminating a particular food? There are still a whole lot of foods to choose from.
Because while an upper extreme limit cannot be defined, the lower extreme limit is always zero. You can't get more extreme than nothing.
It doesn't seem to fit the dictionary defintion of moderation at all. It seems a very hard line.
Well, I don't understand how you would eat less than zero of something, so a line has to be drawn somewhere. You were the one asking for definitions of an extreme. Zero is an extreme.
Making any hard and fast rule about food seems extreme rather than moderate. You MUST not eliminate a food. That one food is all that is keeping you moderate. If you eat a completely balanced and vaired but decide to give up soda because you think it's not good for you, then you are not eating in moderation. You MUST have a soda!!!
I could eat a completely healthy, balanced and varied diet as a vegetarian. But if I eat meat, I will not be a vegetarian so my diet is extreme?
Moderation most certainly should not mean everything. Everything is as extreme as nothing.
It isn't that a person practicing moderation won't eat certain foods, it is the reasoning behind why they won't eat certain food. If it comes down to preference, that's moderation. If you aren't eating something because that's a rule in a diet, you're not practicing moderation.
So we both eat the exact same diet, you because you don't like meat, me because I'm vegetarian. Your diet is moderate but mine is not? That's silly.
If you're ethically a vegetarian, that's still moderation. If you don't eat meat because you have a diet rule like frugivorism that says you don't, that's not moderation.
And how is it it silly? We consider the reason behind actions all the time. Chunks of our legal system are built on it.
Would you consider it silly that a person was mad at someone because the person intended to trip them, but wouldn't be mad at them if it was an accident? The difference there is reason and intent.
What if I'm vegetarian for health? I eat perfectly healthy varied diet that makes me happy and you eat the same diet. But because of our reasons for our choices your diet is moderate and mine is not? No, that's way beyond the dictionary defintion of "moderation". That's getting into the "FEELZ". You feel meat will not harm me so I should eat it. I feel differently.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Well, the opposite of eating zero of a food would be eating only that food, wouldn't it?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Becaue 0 of a food as an inherent part of a way of eating is, by definition, extreme. You can't eat any less. If is is, by definition, extreme, it is, by definition, not moderate.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
How does eliminating a particular food make a diet not moderate? What is extreme about eliminating a particular food? There are still a whole lot of foods to choose from.
There must be extremes on both ends of the spectrum. If I can't eliminate any food, what is the opposite pole in a moderate diet?
So to be a moderate eater I must eat ALL foods I enjoy but not eat only any single food I enjoy?
ALL is an extreme, no?
Not must, can. You can eat all the foods you enjoy. If you tried to eat all the foods you enjoy, you would quickly exceed your calorie goal, which would not be moderation.0 -
Extremes have been defined repeatedly. For example, would you agree that eating zero of a food is an extreme? And eating only that food is an extreme? And that those are the two extremes on the food-eating continuum?
That first sentence, you meant "did", right?DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, a way of eating that didn't avoid the extremes would be, by definition, moderate. One that consisted of the extremes would be, by definition, not moderate.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Yep. "You can't eat grains" can't be included in moderation. "Zero grains" as a way of eating, for example, is inherently extreme because zero is the extreme lower limit.DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
Nope! Absolutely any WOE can be included in moderation.
It's not "other ways of eating" because moderation is not a way of eating, so there aren't others. They're all included.
That just depends on how you apply moderation.
(For the sake of clarity, though I know clarity isn't important to people who want to obfuscate, this is in terms of prescriptions of the ways of eating, not personal preferences.)
We all get that. Avoiding extremes is moderation. And "extremes" cannot be defined, because that's moderation. It's left up to each person to determine.
It's all been very clearly laid out. I think it's all very obvious now.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 432 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions