Moderation
Replies
-
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.
I hope that we aren't going to get this all confused again, because we really had a good definition of moderation.
You mean the one that was given in the article and provided on the first page?
0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »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).
There has been an EXTREME amount of explaining the vegetarianism.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
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.
I hope that we aren't going to get this all confused again, because we really had a good definition of moderation.
You mean the one that was given in the article and provided on the first page?
*high five*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.
LOL, sorry I mean WOE. Too use to seeing WOD from Workout of the Day when people talk crossfit.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
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?
As has been pointed out ten million times in this thread, "moderation" is NOT a way of eating. It's a theory.0 -
You sure? I thought moderation was a hypothesis or a law.DeguelloTex wrote: »
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?
As has been pointed out ten million times in this thread, "moderation" is NOT a way of eating. It's a theory.
0 -
Im thinking you haven't read the thread. I don't blame you. It's very long and frequently repetitious.DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.
But it has been agreed by everyone that "moderation" is NOT a way of eating and that extremes cannot be defined. It's up to everyone to apply for themselves.
0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »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.
Eliminating one food out of the millions of foods out there is not extreme, no matter what my reason.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
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?
As has been pointed out ten million times in this thread, "moderation" is NOT a way of eating. It's a theory.
LOL at theory ....0 -
You joke, but that's it. It's a theory of eating that involves avoiding extremes. Extremes cannot be defined as anything but "not in moderation." Everyone gets to apply this theory to their own WOE as they see fit.
You sure? I thought moderation was a hypothesis or a law.DeguelloTex wrote: »
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?
As has been pointed out ten million times in this thread, "moderation" is NOT a way of eating. It's a theory.
I think that's a fine definition.
0 -
ahh yes, here we go again for round three. ..the people that refuse to accept a simple definition and apply to whatever lifestyle they have are out to destroy a concept they cannot apply in their daily lives...hilarious...0
-
I gave you definitions of extreme, which you seemed to be confused about.
Im thinking you haven't read the thread. I don't blame you. It's very long and frequently repetitious.DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.
But it has been agreed by everyone that "moderation" is NOT a way of eating and that extremes cannot be defined. It's up to everyone to apply for themselves.
And, yes, it's a way of eating in the way that white light is a color.
0 -
There you have it.
If you feel that my presence in the thread has somehow violated a rule, I encourage you to report me for posting.
I can post here because I darn well feel like it. Whether or not you approve of me posting is irrelevant.
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.
Are you going to answer the question or not?
btw I didn't say if I approved or disapproved.....but I know the moderators have consistently said if you don't have anything useful to add to a conversation on these boards you should avoid the post...and since you don't use the word moderation I wasn't sure what you could add that was useful was all...just pointing it out as it's consistently pointed out when "moderates" go to a clean eating thread or a Low carb thread they/we are told the exact thing I said above...
now where did i say that? I distinctly said "moderators" have often said in posts that if you don't agree with the discussion at hand you should avoid the post to ensure a smooth easy discussion...
no rules to this effect but it has been said...*insert smiley face* just sayin'
perhaps if you aren't adding benefit to the discussion and allowing it to go smoothly it might be time to move to another thread to allow the discussion of the original post to continue...
You will never dictate where I post.
Perhaps we could get back on topic now?
No of course not you post where ever and whenever you want...after all if moderators feel you are in the wrong thread I am sure they will let you know.
So yes topic...what is moderation
moderation is absence of extremes...
extremes exceeding the bounds of moderation
so now that you have been told the definition of both perhaps it is clearer to you now what moderation is.
I do hope that this has been educational for you and that you have a better handle on what is being said in the forums as far as moderation goes.
That should make it clear for all.
0 -
-
They're very similar. In fact, sometimes the people who go back and forth over which is better are doing exactly the same thing. It becomes less an argument over How To Eat and more an argument over diction.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
There isn't one, lol. In fact, it has been explicitly stated that "extreme" doesn't have to be defined, either.tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »The lack of rigid definitions and its broad adaptability is a necessary feature of moderation. Trying to apply specific rules violates its very nature.
Moderation seems as difficult to define and agree on, as the term 'clean eating'.
Who knew!!
actually it is not ..there is one definition in the dictionary, just use that.
so the avoidance of extremes! So what can I eat - precisely - to fit into your definition of moderation??
1. get a dictionary
2. look up and read definition of moderation
3. apply the concept to your daily lifestyle
pretty simple….unless you find that too difficult?
I have a dictionary, as you can tell by the fact that I referred to moderation as 'the avoidance of extremes'.
I'm asking for a clear instruction on what is considered extreme?
One person posted that moderation is avoiding extremes and extremes are outside the bounds of moderation. Those two things are the explanation for each other. That's the "Science!"
This is what I've come up with for both words, up to and including this thread:
Moderation: A theory of eating wherein the person avoids extremes (which are undefined and may be defined differently by each individual) unless the person has a good reason for the extremes.
Clean: A way of healthy eating that may or may not include eliminating certain foods or food groups and which may or may not include eating foods that are processed and/or unhealthy, in varying amounts.
Hope that clears it all up.
Still, if you want to know what the person means when they discuss their eating, you're going to have to ask.
So:
Moderation - perimeters different for everyone!
Clean Eating - perimeters different for everyone!
I see the similarity.
if you think clean eating = moderation then your understanding of the concepts is severly flawed....0 -
Definiton of extreme: eating zero of a food. Eating only a food.
You joke, but that's it. It's a theory of eating that involves avoiding extremes. Extremes cannot be defined as anything but "not in moderation." Everyone gets to apply this theory to their own WOE as they see fit.
You sure? I thought moderation was a hypothesis or a law.DeguelloTex wrote: »
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?
As has been pointed out ten million times in this thread, "moderation" is NOT a way of eating. It's a theory.
I think that's a fine definition.
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.
I was just thinking the same thing - no one is being forced to be vegetarian, or eat paleo, or go gluten-free; it's a choice to eat that way. How is the choice to follow a certain WOE any different from the choice to eat or not a food in a non-labeled WOE?
These diet labels don't exist to pigeon-hole people into situations where they have to eat that way or else, it's just a way of conveying one's dietary choices to others. People keep saying "you can't or must not eat that" in keeping with a diet - if the person really wanted to eat it, then they probably wouldn't have made the choice to adhere to that eating style. And if they do want to eat something, they need to figure out for themselves whether or not a WOE truly works for them, or if they would be better off with a different approach. This goes back to what the blog says about dietary choices being a matter of preference and taste - all easily fitting into moderation.
0 -
It looks like this thread is getting the unspoken treatment of not rising to the top when someone responds. Disappoint.
I had to dig to find it again. It's a sure way of making sure the thread goes in circles since only those with a vested interest in the argument will find it now.
0 -
Well, when you use the term millions of foods, it changes what it means to eliminate one food. For example, eliminating cupcakes isn't eliminating one food, it is eliminating vanilla ones, chocolate ones, ones from Walmart, ones from your local bakery, etc. Now suddenly it isn't really one out of millions.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »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.
Eliminating one food out of the millions of foods out there is not extreme, no matter what my reason.0 -
Matt200goal wrote: »After only 18 pages,
combination of both ...0 -
Well, when you use the term millions of foods, it changes what it means to eliminate one food. For example, eliminating cupcakes isn't eliminating one food, it is eliminating vanilla ones, chocolate ones, ones from Walmart, ones from your local bakery, etc. Now suddenly it isn't really one out of millions.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »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.
Eliminating one food out of the millions of foods out there is not extreme, no matter what my reason.
it is typically one entire macro ..like Carbs, or those evil sugars...or an entire group of food like "processed" which pretty much eliminates all foods...0 -
Matt200goal wrote: »After only 18 pages,
combination of both ...
Well so long as we haven't eliminated either from this thread.0 -
You joke, but that's it. It's a theory of eating that involves avoiding extremes. Extremes cannot be defined as anything but "not in moderation." Everyone gets to apply this theory to their own WOE as they see fit.
You sure? I thought moderation was a hypothesis or a law.DeguelloTex wrote: »
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?
As has been pointed out ten million times in this thread, "moderation" is NOT a way of eating. It's a theory.
I think that's a fine definition.
An extreme is also defined by the nutritional guidelines. A diet of 0% fat might not feel extreme for you but it still would be because it's way out of acceptable healthy eating patterns.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »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).
Vegetarianism is absolutely based on adherence to a way of eating. If I eat meat, I'm not vegetarian. How is that different than following a paleo diet and it's rules if I prefer to eat paleo? If preference decides "extreme" then it decides moderation meaning anything can be moderate.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Definiton of extreme: eating zero of a food. Eating only a food.
You joke, but that's it. It's a theory of eating that involves avoiding extremes. Extremes cannot be defined as anything but "not in moderation." Everyone gets to apply this theory to their own WOE as they see fit.
You sure? I thought moderation was a hypothesis or a law.DeguelloTex wrote: »
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?
As has been pointed out ten million times in this thread, "moderation" is NOT a way of eating. It's a theory.
I think that's a fine definition.
You are the lone dissenter here. PLENTY of people defining "moderation" have said that foods or food groups can be eliminated based on personal tastes, dietary preferences, ways of eating, etc.
It is up to the individual to decide how to apply moderation.Moderation is the absence of extremes...
Extremes exceeding the bounds of moderation
Those are the definitions that have been agreed upon.0 -
Well, when you use the term millions of foods, it changes what it means to eliminate one food. For example, eliminating cupcakes isn't eliminating one food, it is eliminating vanilla ones, chocolate ones, ones from Walmart, ones from your local bakery, etc. Now suddenly it isn't really one out of millions.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »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.
Eliminating one food out of the millions of foods out there is not extreme, no matter what my reason.
it is typically one entire macro ..like Carbs, or those evil sugars...or an entire group of food like "processed" which pretty much eliminates all foods...
I know, I know.
That's the thing, who eliminates one food for a purely diet reason? Usually even the silly attention grabbing ads on the internet set at least 7 foods you can't eat because belly fat or whatever.
I guess people that have their "trigger foods". I'd not define anyone having one of those as moderating.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »It looks like this thread is getting the unspoken treatment of not rising to the top when someone responds. Disappoint.
I had to dig to find it again. It's a sure way of making sure the thread goes in circles since only those with a vested interest in the argument will find it now.
this thread proves that some people are unable to grasp and apply simple concepts, and want to overcomplicate things, which is why the diet industry is able to make hundreds of millions of dollars peddling pseudoscience and cleanses...0 -
They're very similar. In fact, sometimes the people who go back and forth over which is better are doing exactly the same thing. It becomes less an argument over How To Eat and more an argument over diction.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
There isn't one, lol. In fact, it has been explicitly stated that "extreme" doesn't have to be defined, either.tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »The lack of rigid definitions and its broad adaptability is a necessary feature of moderation. Trying to apply specific rules violates its very nature.
Moderation seems as difficult to define and agree on, as the term 'clean eating'.
Who knew!!
actually it is not ..there is one definition in the dictionary, just use that.
so the avoidance of extremes! So what can I eat - precisely - to fit into your definition of moderation??
1. get a dictionary
2. look up and read definition of moderation
3. apply the concept to your daily lifestyle
pretty simple….unless you find that too difficult?
I have a dictionary, as you can tell by the fact that I referred to moderation as 'the avoidance of extremes'.
I'm asking for a clear instruction on what is considered extreme?
One person posted that moderation is avoiding extremes and extremes are outside the bounds of moderation. Those two things are the explanation for each other. That's the "Science!"
This is what I've come up with for both words, up to and including this thread:
Moderation: A theory of eating wherein the person avoids extremes (which are undefined and may be defined differently by each individual) unless the person has a good reason for the extremes.
Clean: A way of healthy eating that may or may not include eliminating certain foods or food groups and which may or may not include eating foods that are processed and/or unhealthy, in varying amounts.
Hope that clears it all up.
Still, if you want to know what the person means when they discuss their eating, you're going to have to ask.
So:
Moderation - perimeters different for everyone!
Clean Eating - perimeters different for everyone!
I see the similarity.
if you think clean eating = moderation then your understanding of the concepts is severly flawed....
But what if eating clean is fulfilling all of your food requirements and you do not feel a need any more to eat the processed foods you are avoiding - is that then moderation??0 -
Well, when you use the term millions of foods, it changes what it means to eliminate one food. For example, eliminating cupcakes isn't eliminating one food, it is eliminating vanilla ones, chocolate ones, ones from Walmart, ones from your local bakery, etc. Now suddenly it isn't really one out of millions.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »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.
Eliminating one food out of the millions of foods out there is not extreme, no matter what my reason.
it is typically one entire macro ..like Carbs, or those evil sugars...or an entire group of food like "processed" which pretty much eliminates all foods...
I know, I know.
That's the thing, who eliminates one food for a purely diet reason? Usually even the silly attention grabbing ads on the internet set at least 7 foods you can't eat because belly fat or whatever.
once you eliminate sugar you are probably eliminating thousand, if not hundreds of thousands of foods...so not really sure what that other posters point is.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions