Moderation
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
the avoidance of excess or extremes,Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Those who do moderation get this already...those who are into extremes need to read it.
Yep. There was a discussion here recently where some people were trying to argue that moderation has a million different definitions, just like "clean." I couldn't figure out how to articulate that even though we all might do it differently, it is still the same thing.
But they aren't wrong. There are many different ways the term "moderation" is used in reference to diet. Not everyone that says they eat in moderation follows the description in this article.
Is the definition in this article and is the actual definition.
Those who follow moderation do this exact thing...we don't do extremes.
It looks like eating a MOSTLY whole foods diet with plenty of nutrients from fruits, vegetables, lean meats, healthy fats, etc. The specifics will look different for everyone, because everyone has different preferences and tastes. It also leaves room for regular treats and indulgences that feed our soul and give us pleasure.
and this is the key to the article and moderation...
specifics are the difference but moderation is moderation regardless of how you do it...clean eating has a million different definitions....moderation 1
After more than a year on this site, I don't believe this is true. I'd say it's true of the majority who say they eat in moderation, but it's not true of all.
So like the article says, if someone eats a diet of mostly junk food, that's not moderation, it's an extreme.
But extreme is not much more than an opinion. Same for "junk food". Burgers are junk food to some, for others there is nothing extreme or "junky" about a ground beef sandwich.
The article also says if someone eats mostly (or maybe it said all) fast food that was extreme. You can get a pretty varied diet of fast food these days. Subs, salads, soups, burgers, grilled chicken, sandwich wraps, fruit, oats, chili, baked potato, burritos, tacos. While that may seem extreme to some, it's a normal way of eating to others.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »Loved the article! Thanks for posting.
As for the side argument with people parsing words?
I used to go to school with this girl who used big words incorrectly all the time. Her misuse of the word didn't change what it fundamentally meant and did not suddenly mean that the definition of it was murky.
Just sayin'.
If you avoid the extremes, you're practicing moderation.
Exactly, it's like people who say feminism is man-hating because some people who call themselves that term behave that way or people who call themselves vegetarian but still eat meat. The definitions of the words don't change just because some people use them incorrectly.
This seems in direct contrast to your earlier post to which I replied. It said "There was a discussion here recently where some people were trying to argue that moderation has a million different definitions, just like "clean."
"clean" has a dictionary definition too.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Loved the article! Thanks for posting.
As for the side argument with people parsing words?
I used to go to school with this girl who used big words incorrectly all the time. Her misuse of the word didn't change what it fundamentally meant and did not suddenly mean that the definition of it was murky.
Just sayin'.
If you avoid the extremes, you're practicing moderation.
Exactly, it's like people who say feminism is man-hating because some people who call themselves that term behave that way or people who call themselves vegetarian but still eat meat. The definitions of the words don't change just because some people use them incorrectly.
This seems in direct contrast to your earlier post to which I replied. It said "There was a discussion here recently where some people were trying to argue that moderation has a million different definitions, just like "clean."
"clean" has a dictionary definition too.
One that actually relates to "clean eating"?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Loved the article! Thanks for posting.
As for the side argument with people parsing words?
I used to go to school with this girl who used big words incorrectly all the time. Her misuse of the word didn't change what it fundamentally meant and did not suddenly mean that the definition of it was murky.
Just sayin'.
If you avoid the extremes, you're practicing moderation.
Exactly, it's like people who say feminism is man-hating because some people who call themselves that term behave that way or people who call themselves vegetarian but still eat meat. The definitions of the words don't change just because some people use them incorrectly.
This seems in direct contrast to your earlier post to which I replied. It said "There was a discussion here recently where some people were trying to argue that moderation has a million different definitions, just like "clean."
"clean" has a dictionary definition too.
One that actually relates to "clean eating"?
Not that I've seen. But then I've never seen a dictionary definition for "moderation" that relates to eating either. Which was my point.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Loved the article! Thanks for posting.
As for the side argument with people parsing words?
I used to go to school with this girl who used big words incorrectly all the time. Her misuse of the word didn't change what it fundamentally meant and did not suddenly mean that the definition of it was murky.
Just sayin'.
If you avoid the extremes, you're practicing moderation.
Exactly, it's like people who say feminism is man-hating because some people who call themselves that term behave that way or people who call themselves vegetarian but still eat meat. The definitions of the words don't change just because some people use them incorrectly.
This seems in direct contrast to your earlier post to which I replied. It said "There was a discussion here recently where some people were trying to argue that moderation has a million different definitions, just like "clean."
"clean" has a dictionary definition too.
One that actually relates to "clean eating"?
Not that I've seen. But then I've never seen a dictionary definition for "moderation" that relates to eating either. Which was my point.
Avoiding extremes is what was suggested above.
It's usually the non clean eaters who talk about the dictionary definition of "clean." That there is no actual definition that relates to "clean eating" is one reason people use it to mean millions of different things.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Loved the article! Thanks for posting.
As for the side argument with people parsing words?
I used to go to school with this girl who used big words incorrectly all the time. Her misuse of the word didn't change what it fundamentally meant and did not suddenly mean that the definition of it was murky.
Just sayin'.
If you avoid the extremes, you're practicing moderation.
Exactly, it's like people who say feminism is man-hating because some people who call themselves that term behave that way or people who call themselves vegetarian but still eat meat. The definitions of the words don't change just because some people use them incorrectly.
This seems in direct contrast to your earlier post to which I replied. It said "There was a discussion here recently where some people were trying to argue that moderation has a million different definitions, just like "clean."
"clean" has a dictionary definition too.
One that actually relates to "clean eating"?
Not that I've seen. But then I've never seen a dictionary definition for "moderation" that relates to eating either. Which was my point.
Avoiding extremes is what was suggested above.
It's usually the non clean eaters who talk about the dictionary definition of "clean." That there is no actual definition that relates to "clean eating" is one reason people use it to mean millions of different things.
I don't know if you all really don't understand what I'm saying, or if you are just pretending not to. But my point was that it is not true that 100% of people who say they eat in moderation mean what is described in the article or mean the same thing.
That's it and that's all.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Loved the article! Thanks for posting.
As for the side argument with people parsing words?
I used to go to school with this girl who used big words incorrectly all the time. Her misuse of the word didn't change what it fundamentally meant and did not suddenly mean that the definition of it was murky.
Just sayin'.
If you avoid the extremes, you're practicing moderation.
Exactly, it's like people who say feminism is man-hating because some people who call themselves that term behave that way or people who call themselves vegetarian but still eat meat. The definitions of the words don't change just because some people use them incorrectly.
This seems in direct contrast to your earlier post to which I replied. It said "There was a discussion here recently where some people were trying to argue that moderation has a million different definitions, just like "clean."
"clean" has a dictionary definition too.
One that actually relates to "clean eating"?
Not that I've seen. But then I've never seen a dictionary definition for "moderation" that relates to eating either. Which was my point.
Avoiding extremes is what was suggested above.
It's usually the non clean eaters who talk about the dictionary definition of "clean." That there is no actual definition that relates to "clean eating" is one reason people use it to mean millions of different things.
I don't know if you all really don't understand what I'm saying, or if you are just pretending not to. But my point was that it is not true that 100% of people who say they eat in moderation mean what is described in the article or mean the same thing.
That's it and that's all.
And once again, just because some people use the word incorrectly doesn't change the meaning of the word. And I am pretty sure that absolutely no one offered a qualifier of "100%."0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Loved the article! Thanks for posting.
As for the side argument with people parsing words?
I used to go to school with this girl who used big words incorrectly all the time. Her misuse of the word didn't change what it fundamentally meant and did not suddenly mean that the definition of it was murky.
Just sayin'.
If you avoid the extremes, you're practicing moderation.
Exactly, it's like people who say feminism is man-hating because some people who call themselves that term behave that way or people who call themselves vegetarian but still eat meat. The definitions of the words don't change just because some people use them incorrectly.
This seems in direct contrast to your earlier post to which I replied. It said "There was a discussion here recently where some people were trying to argue that moderation has a million different definitions, just like "clean."
"clean" has a dictionary definition too.
One that actually relates to "clean eating"?
Not that I've seen. But then I've never seen a dictionary definition for "moderation" that relates to eating either. Which was my point.
The nice thing about moderation is that it is an approach which can be applied to a number of different concepts.
Moderation in eating
Moderation in spending
Moderation in drinking
The definition of no extremes is applicable in all of those examples. How an individual moderates their eating, spending, and drinking may differ from person to person - but the overall concept is fairly clear, the avoidance of excess or extremes.
Conversely, the word "clean" is an adjective that has very different meanings depending on how it is used.
Clean house
Clean eating
Clean bill of health
I don't believe it is possible to come up with a singular definition for the word "clean" which is applicable to all of those concepts.0 -
Perhaps you could point those of us who don't understand what you're talking about in the direction of some of these people who are outliers in the definition of moderation as being without extremes0
-
Perhaps you could point those of us who don't understand what you're talking about in the direction of some of these people who are outliers in the definition of moderation as being without extremes
Yes, that would be helpful. Because frankly, I can't figure out who the heck would fit this description of saying that they eat in moderation but they don't eat in moderation but they also don't eat in extremes . . .0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Loved the article! Thanks for posting.
As for the side argument with people parsing words?
I used to go to school with this girl who used big words incorrectly all the time. Her misuse of the word didn't change what it fundamentally meant and did not suddenly mean that the definition of it was murky.
Just sayin'.
If you avoid the extremes, you're practicing moderation.
Exactly, it's like people who say feminism is man-hating because some people who call themselves that term behave that way or people who call themselves vegetarian but still eat meat. The definitions of the words don't change just because some people use them incorrectly.
This seems in direct contrast to your earlier post to which I replied. It said "There was a discussion here recently where some people were trying to argue that moderation has a million different definitions, just like "clean."
"clean" has a dictionary definition too.
One that actually relates to "clean eating"?
Not that I've seen. But then I've never seen a dictionary definition for "moderation" that relates to eating either. Which was my point.
Avoiding extremes is what was suggested above.
It's usually the non clean eaters who talk about the dictionary definition of "clean." That there is no actual definition that relates to "clean eating" is one reason people use it to mean millions of different things.
I don't know if you all really don't understand what I'm saying, or if you are just pretending not to. But my point was that it is not true that 100% of people who say they eat in moderation mean what is described in the article or mean the same thing.
That's it and that's all.
And once again, just because some people use the word incorrectly doesn't change the meaning of the word. And I am pretty sure that absolutely no one offered a qualifier of "100%."
Yup, this.0 -
Well, to be a true member of the moderate club, we would need about 80% compliance, not 100%0
-
By the way, moderation is a very, very old idea.
Cleobulus of Lindos: "Moderation is the best thing." He governed as tyrant of Lindos, in the Greek island of Rhodes, c. 600 BC.
Solon of Athens: "Keep everything with moderation." Solon (c. 638 – 558 BC) was a famous legislator and reformer f
from Athens, framing the laws that shaped the Athenian democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sages_of_Greece0 -
By the way, moderation is a very, very old idea.
Cleobulus of Lindos: "Moderation is the best thing." He governed as tyrant of Lindos, in the Greek island of Rhodes, c. 600 BC.
Solon of Athens: "Keep everything with moderation." Solon (c. 638 – 558 BC) was a famous legislator and reformer f
from Athens, framing the laws that shaped the Athenian democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sages_of_Greece
0 -
I consider moderation & clean to be levels of opinion, we don't all conform to a specific of what either is or isn't with each other. Some people might consider consuming meat in moderation, if it's 50% of their diet; for me it's 25%. Some people don't bathe everyday & consider themselves clean, I don't consider myself clean, unless I bathe everyday. Definition/application aren't always cohesive.0
-
mrsnazario1219 wrote: »
i'll cosign that ....!!0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
the avoidance of excess or extremes,Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Those who do moderation get this already...those who are into extremes need to read it.
Yep. There was a discussion here recently where some people were trying to argue that moderation has a million different definitions, just like "clean." I couldn't figure out how to articulate that even though we all might do it differently, it is still the same thing.
But they aren't wrong. There are many different ways the term "moderation" is used in reference to diet. Not everyone that says they eat in moderation follows the description in this article.
Is the definition in this article and is the actual definition.
Those who follow moderation do this exact thing...we don't do extremes.
It looks like eating a MOSTLY whole foods diet with plenty of nutrients from fruits, vegetables, lean meats, healthy fats, etc. The specifics will look different for everyone, because everyone has different preferences and tastes. It also leaves room for regular treats and indulgences that feed our soul and give us pleasure.
and this is the key to the article and moderation...
specifics are the difference but moderation is moderation regardless of how you do it...clean eating has a million different definitions....moderation 1
After more than a year on this site, I don't believe this is true. I'd say it's true of the majority who say they eat in moderation, but it's not true of all.
oh it is true, it is very true..
Just because you do not want to believe it does not make it so ....
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Perhaps you could point those of us who don't understand what you're talking about in the direction of some of these people who are outliers in the definition of moderation as being without extremes
Yes, that would be helpful. Because frankly, I can't figure out who the heck would fit this description of saying that they eat in moderation but they don't eat in moderation but they also don't eat in extremes . . .
Yes this...please.
0 -
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.0 -
By the way, moderation is a very, very old idea.
Cleobulus of Lindos: "Moderation is the best thing." He governed as tyrant of Lindos, in the Greek island of Rhodes, c. 600 BC.
Solon of Athens: "Keep everything with moderation." Solon (c. 638 – 558 BC) was a famous legislator and reformer f
from Athens, framing the laws that shaped the Athenian democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sages_of_Greece
I believe that Artistotle also thought that the middle ground was the most sensible...0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
the avoidance of excess or extremes,Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Those who do moderation get this already...those who are into extremes need to read it.
Yep. There was a discussion here recently where some people were trying to argue that moderation has a million different definitions, just like "clean." I couldn't figure out how to articulate that even though we all might do it differently, it is still the same thing.
But they aren't wrong. There are many different ways the term "moderation" is used in reference to diet. Not everyone that says they eat in moderation follows the description in this article.
Is the definition in this article and is the actual definition.
Those who follow moderation do this exact thing...we don't do extremes.
It looks like eating a MOSTLY whole foods diet with plenty of nutrients from fruits, vegetables, lean meats, healthy fats, etc. The specifics will look different for everyone, because everyone has different preferences and tastes. It also leaves room for regular treats and indulgences that feed our soul and give us pleasure.
and this is the key to the article and moderation...
specifics are the difference but moderation is moderation regardless of how you do it...clean eating has a million different definitions....moderation 1
After more than a year on this site, I don't believe this is true. I'd say it's true of the majority who say they eat in moderation, but it's not true of all.
Perhaps the others are wrong about how they eat.
That was my point. People use the term 'moderation' to describe various different ways of eating.
Mmm I guess I was trying to say that those people are using the wrong word. For example, I can keep calling concrete "cement" but that doesn't make me right. So I'm trying to say that those people may be calling it "moderate", but that doesn't make their diet truely moderate, but it might make them wrong. Which would perpetuate confusion, but not change the definition.
Another example might be similar to someone saying they only eat low GI foods. Meanwhile they're eating a lot of high GI foods. That just makes their statement incorrect, didn't change the diet they're referring to.
At least that's how I understood the point of the article. Of course the article and the definition are not specific like a scientific GI diet. So that's part of it too. Is 80% whole food moderate? 75%? 60%? Where is the limit?
I see both sides. Where does it move from being moderate to being extreme?
I'm rambling.0 -
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.
moderation is very specific, moderate your food choices to the ones that you like. Plain, simple, easy.
Clean eating however has about a million different definitions and a million different variants.
I do not understand why this is so hard for some to understand.
0 -
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.
The difference is that there's a specific definition to 'moderation'. Good luck finding one for 'clean eating'.0 -
MondayJune22nd2015 wrote: »I consider moderation & clean to be levels of opinion, we don't all conform to a specific of what either is or isn't with each other. Some people might consider consuming meat in moderation, if it's 50% of their diet; for me it's 25%. Some people don't bathe everyday & consider themselves clean, I don't consider myself clean, unless I bathe everyday. Definition/application aren't always cohesive.
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.
Basically you just said, the same thing; that I did!0 -
This demonstrates what I mean.WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Loved the article! Thanks for posting.
As for the side argument with people parsing words?
I used to go to school with this girl who used big words incorrectly all the time. Her misuse of the word didn't change what it fundamentally meant and did not suddenly mean that the definition of it was murky.
Just sayin'.
If you avoid the extremes, you're practicing moderation.
Exactly, it's like people who say feminism is man-hating because some people who call themselves that term behave that way or people who call themselves vegetarian but still eat meat. The definitions of the words don't change just because some people use them incorrectly.
This seems in direct contrast to your earlier post to which I replied. It said "There was a discussion here recently where some people were trying to argue that moderation has a million different definitions, just like "clean."
"clean" has a dictionary definition too.
One that actually relates to "clean eating"?
Not that I've seen. But then I've never seen a dictionary definition for "moderation" that relates to eating either. Which was my point.
The nice thing about moderation is that it is an approach which can be applied to a number of different concepts.
Moderation in eating
Moderation in spending
Moderation in drinking
The definition of no extremes is applicable in all of those examples. How an individual moderates their eating, spending, and drinking may differ from person to person - but the overall concept is fairly clear, the avoidance of excess or extremes.
Conversely, the word "clean" is an adjective that has very different meanings depending on how it is used.
Clean house
Clean eating
Clean bill of health
I don't believe it is possible to come up with a singular definition for the word "clean" which is applicable to all of those concepts.
One person could say they spend in moderation, but they define it as having three homes, one yacht and one airplane. Another person might feel that spending in moderation is buying their clothes at Wal-Mart instead of Goodwill. Both can say they're spending in moderation, but you don't know what they mean until you ask.
One person's clean house may mean doing spring cleaning on a weekly basis while another has it meaning they moved junk from the floor to the counter.
You just don't know the specifics until you ask.
0 -
"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.
True, but the difference is that I've never seen the former.If someone asks about how to eat treats "in moderation", there will be 20 different ways to do it.
Because people are different, and "in moderation" really just means "not to excess" in this context.
And IMO, moderation does not describe a way of eating. It describes an approach.0 -
By the way, moderation is a very, very old idea.
Cleobulus of Lindos: "Moderation is the best thing." He governed as tyrant of Lindos, in the Greek island of Rhodes, c. 600 BC.
Solon of Athens: "Keep everything with moderation." Solon (c. 638 – 558 BC) was a famous legislator and reformer f
from Athens, framing the laws that shaped the Athenian democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sages_of_Greece
I believe that Artistotle also thought that the middle ground was the most sensible...
Aristotle (384-322 BC) was merely a twinkle in his grandfather's eye when Cleobulus and Solon were around. He was reflecting an Athenian ideal.0 -
I personally don't believe it has to be one way or the other. For some people, myself included, a combination of moderation and elimination has worked. Not sure that there is a "name" for that method but I don't really see a need to label it.
0 -
By the way, moderation is a very, very old idea.
Cleobulus of Lindos: "Moderation is the best thing." He governed as tyrant of Lindos, in the Greek island of Rhodes, c. 600 BC.
Solon of Athens: "Keep everything with moderation." Solon (c. 638 – 558 BC) was a famous legislator and reformer f
from Athens, framing the laws that shaped the Athenian democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sages_of_Greece
I believe that Artistotle also thought that the middle ground was the most sensible...
Aristotle (384-322 BC) was merely a twinkle in his grandfather's eye when Cleobulus and Solon were around. He was reflecting an Athenian ideal.
was that not that Aristotilian mean or something like that?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions