Moderation
Replies
-
Extreme is "outside of moderation" and everyone applies moderation as they see fit.stevencloser wrote: »
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.
And the nutritional guidelines are fairly good non-individual parameters of what's moderate and what isn't.
A diet that involves 0 protein or fat can not be moderate, even if you love doing it.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »Moderation is the avoidance of extremes.
You can never eat cupcakes again or you are a failure as a dieter and human being! - extreme
It's ok to have cupcakes sometimes if it fits your calories and nutritional/macro goals. - moderate
Calories are ALL that matter, so you should only EVER eat cupcakes! It's called the cupcake diet!! - extreme
Moderation is ANYTHING that falls between the extremes. Really isn't rocket science.
but if you eat a cupcake a day and it fits within your micors/macros/calories, is that still moderation???
A cupcake a day wouldn't be moderate for me, but if someone else want to fit a cupcake a day in their macros/micros/calories, I'm not going to take the position that it is not moderate for them.
Do you think it wouldn't be moderate or is it simply not how you choose to practice moderation.
For example, I usually have at least 200 discretionary calories, assuming I am being as active as I should be. So if I found a small cupcake (or baked them), I could fit in a cupcake after dinner most days. I don't, because I'm not that into cupcakes, don't especially want to be baking all the time and so on. I fit in a little ice cream or cheese or include some higher cal meat choices or maybe some chocolate or save calories for meals out, etc. But if I loved cupcakes more than all these other things and so chose to include the cupcakes, why wouldn't that be a form of moderation? I wouldn't thereby go over any sugar or macro goals (and my macro goals are a pretty balanced 40-30-30).
It's not how I would apply moderation for me.
I agree that your example is moderate.
Because we are both right is part of why this thread has gone on for so many pages - I and others are taking the position that because moderation can mean different things to different people, it's not a particularly useful term when applied to eating.
I don't understand why it's so hard to see something that's a broad concept which is not meant to define a specific way of eating for what it is ... a broad concept.
You're defining moderation (saying it means different things) and then complaining that because you can't put your finger on it that it's not useful.
Is this the legacy of named plans or something? I'm not taking a shot with that, I'm trying to draw the distinction between an approach and a "diet".
Moderation isn't a diet. It's an approach or concept applied to eating. How people apply that concept has a very broad spectrum in which to operate.
It doesn't have to be "useful". It just has to be understood.
The article that started this thread did not offer a broad definion of moderation. It was actually pretty specific.
"So what does moderation look like in the real world?
It looks like eating a MOSTLY whole foods diet with plenty of nutrients from fruits, vegetables, lean meats, healthy fats, etc. "
Sure the specifics will be different from person to person, but the specifics for clean eating, paleo, vegetarian and other diet would be different too. That description that was so highly praised on the first few pages does not = eating anything you want. UNLESS you want to eat mostly whole foods.
I think the author included the caveat about whole foods as a rebuttal to the notion that moderation is eating fast food and cookies all day every day, but you do raise an interesting point. I think eating whole foods is important, but the most important piece of that sentence would be the focus on getting nutrients, not the source. I think people who rely on prepackaged convenience foods could also be using moderation.
I agree, and made a similar point on the early pages. The article says that eating only fast food would not be moderation, but you could eat a balanced diet of fast food if you wanted.
True, and I think that is one of the limitations of the blog. I feel like the initial portion where the author talked about what is not moderation and was what "extreme" probably would have been better served by fleshing out her thought process as to what was "extreme" about it rather than just a bulleted list. But the author seems to apply the term arbitrarily throughout the article with different criteria of "extremes" - I'm guessing with the fast food reference, she was thinking of the limitations of not having a variety of different foods and mentally picturing someone having burger/fries/big soda for most meals, and not utilizing the other choices on the menu like salads or wraps.
The more I think about the blog, the more I feel like the piece would probably be better as an explanation of IIFYM than moderation.
I agree, and it shows that when people say "moderation" when refering to diet they don't always mean the same thing.
Maybe people could point out two versions of the moderate position that they see as inconsistent IN THIS THREAD and then we can flesh out whether they are truly different. So far the only people I notice claiming that the definition of moderate is incoherent are those who seem to be opposed to or bugged by the concept of moderation (or by people talking about how we enjoy it as an approach, although we of course all apply it in our own ways).
It's been said that moderation means eating anything I want. The article in the OP says I can't eat nothing but fast food and be moderate. That's inconsistent if I want to eat only fast food.
I don't think anyone claims moderation means eating whatever you want in any quantities regardless of whatever else you have eaten. It means that you can choose to fit anything you want to eat in your overall diet if you so desire. You never have to say "oh, I cannot have that, it is forbidden according to my way of eating" (at least not for diet reasons -- for ethical or religious, sure).0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Moderation means eating anything I want....in moderation, meaning without going to extremes. How one defines extreme is up to them. It's absolutely freeing for those who practice moderation to be able to use a model that doesn't have rigid rules or place parameters on what the specific person finds as the best way of eating.
I still don't understand why this concept is ever hard to understand, outside of the obvious trolling.
When I did low carb dieting and therefore was not eating a moderation model, I still understood the concept and what is brought to those who chose to eat that way. I refuse to believe that I am just that much smarter than those who seem to be unable to understand the concept.
Because you are not clearly defining where the cut off between moderation and extreme is!
Also is not being able to eat as much of something as you want moderation or not moderation?
That's because it is individual and a personal preference. I moderate different foods that someone else does, depending on my preference. Once again, not a difficult concept, if one is not all about being a troll.
Giving examples is not needed or even helpful since it is different for each person, for which of course you know.
I'm trying to understand how it is different to clean eating - as a lot of you are professing!
Moderation (in relation to diets) seems a 'loose term', just like 'clean eating' does.
Yet a lot of the people touting moderation are the ones stating that clean eating can't be a real thing because the definition is 'a loose term'.
That's what I am unclear about.
If an adult has made a concious decision to eat a certain way, they have chosen to eat the food they are eating (in a calorie deficit I assume) and therefore they must fall under the category of moderation - yet a lot of you won't acknowledge that and claim their diets are extreme???
I would also suggest that anyone calorie counting and stopping eating when they are still hungry on a regular basis (which is probably most on mfp) can't be eating in moderation under your definition, because they are not eating what they want.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Personally, I don't think doing something because of ethical commitments or allergies or because your doctor told you making a particular change is essential for health demonstrates an extreme approach to dieting. (Being a vegan is arguably an extreme lifestyle, just like other major changes for ethical reasons can be extreme -- and that's not at all bad, St. Francis had an extreme approach to religion and I wouldn't criticize him for it, after all -- but I don't think it's really rooted in one's approach to food.)
I think the view that eating any grains ever is bad for health if one is not celiac is extreme. Again, though, that doesn't mean it's bad, it's just not consistent with a moderate approach. If you simply don't eat grains because you don't really like any foods containing them and you always have plenty of the alternative foods around, then that's consistent with a moderate approach.
I think viewing all grains as bad if one is celiac is extreme, since there are a number of grains that do not contain gluten. But that's kind of off subject.
Fair point. I phrased that badly, but you knew what I meant, of course.0 -
.
We are all on agreement on what moderation is:stevencloser wrote: »
Extreme is "outside of moderation" and everyone applies moderation as they see fit.stevencloser wrote: »
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.
And the nutritional guidelines are fairly good non-individual parameters of what's moderate and what isn't.
A diet that involves 0 protein or fat can not be moderate, even if you love doing it.Moderation means eating anything I want....in moderation, meaning without going to extremes. How one defines extreme is up to them.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »Moderation is the avoidance of extremes.
You can never eat cupcakes again or you are a failure as a dieter and human being! - extreme
It's ok to have cupcakes sometimes if it fits your calories and nutritional/macro goals. - moderate
Calories are ALL that matter, so you should only EVER eat cupcakes! It's called the cupcake diet!! - extreme
Moderation is ANYTHING that falls between the extremes. Really isn't rocket science.
but if you eat a cupcake a day and it fits within your micors/macros/calories, is that still moderation???
A cupcake a day wouldn't be moderate for me, but if someone else want to fit a cupcake a day in their macros/micros/calories, I'm not going to take the position that it is not moderate for them.
Do you think it wouldn't be moderate or is it simply not how you choose to practice moderation.
For example, I usually have at least 200 discretionary calories, assuming I am being as active as I should be. So if I found a small cupcake (or baked them), I could fit in a cupcake after dinner most days. I don't, because I'm not that into cupcakes, don't especially want to be baking all the time and so on. I fit in a little ice cream or cheese or include some higher cal meat choices or maybe some chocolate or save calories for meals out, etc. But if I loved cupcakes more than all these other things and so chose to include the cupcakes, why wouldn't that be a form of moderation? I wouldn't thereby go over any sugar or macro goals (and my macro goals are a pretty balanced 40-30-30).
It's not how I would apply moderation for me.
I agree that your example is moderate.
Because we are both right is part of why this thread has gone on for so many pages - I and others are taking the position that because moderation can mean different things to different people, it's not a particularly useful term when applied to eating.
I don't understand why it's so hard to see something that's a broad concept which is not meant to define a specific way of eating for what it is ... a broad concept.
You're defining moderation (saying it means different things) and then complaining that because you can't put your finger on it that it's not useful.
Is this the legacy of named plans or something? I'm not taking a shot with that, I'm trying to draw the distinction between an approach and a "diet".
Moderation isn't a diet. It's an approach or concept applied to eating. How people apply that concept has a very broad spectrum in which to operate.
It doesn't have to be "useful". It just has to be understood.
The article that started this thread did not offer a broad definion of moderation. It was actually pretty specific.
"So what does moderation look like in the real world?
It looks like eating a MOSTLY whole foods diet with plenty of nutrients from fruits, vegetables, lean meats, healthy fats, etc. "
Sure the specifics will be different from person to person, but the specifics for clean eating, paleo, vegetarian and other diet would be different too. That description that was so highly praised on the first few pages does not = eating anything you want. UNLESS you want to eat mostly whole foods.
I think the author included the caveat about whole foods as a rebuttal to the notion that moderation is eating fast food and cookies all day every day, but you do raise an interesting point. I think eating whole foods is important, but the most important piece of that sentence would be the focus on getting nutrients, not the source. I think people who rely on prepackaged convenience foods could also be using moderation.
I agree, and made a similar point on the early pages. The article says that eating only fast food would not be moderation, but you could eat a balanced diet of fast food if you wanted.
True, and I think that is one of the limitations of the blog. I feel like the initial portion where the author talked about what is not moderation and was what "extreme" probably would have been better served by fleshing out her thought process as to what was "extreme" about it rather than just a bulleted list. But the author seems to apply the term arbitrarily throughout the article with different criteria of "extremes" - I'm guessing with the fast food reference, she was thinking of the limitations of not having a variety of different foods and mentally picturing someone having burger/fries/big soda for most meals, and not utilizing the other choices on the menu like salads or wraps.
The more I think about the blog, the more I feel like the piece would probably be better as an explanation of IIFYM than moderation.
I agree, and it shows that when people say "moderation" when refering to diet they don't always mean the same thing.
Maybe people could point out two versions of the moderate position that they see as inconsistent IN THIS THREAD and then we can flesh out whether they are truly different. So far the only people I notice claiming that the definition of moderate is incoherent are those who seem to be opposed to or bugged by the concept of moderation (or by people talking about how we enjoy it as an approach, although we of course all apply it in our own ways).
It's been said that moderation means eating anything I want. The article in the OP says I can't eat nothing but fast food and be moderate. That's inconsistent if I want to eat only fast food.
I don't think anyone claims moderation means eating whatever you want in any quantities regardless of whatever else you have eaten. It means that you can choose to fit anything you want to eat in your overall diet if you so desire. You never have to say "oh, I cannot have that, it is forbidden according to my way of eating" (at least not for diet reasons -- for ethical or religious, sure).
Quantity had nothing to do with my response. It was about food source. The OP's article says I have to eat mostly whole foods to eat in moderation. That's not the same as saying I can eat anything I want as long as I eat a healthy balanced diet. That is the inconsistency.
And I don't see how reasons have anything to do with moderation. Whether it's extreme because I feel it's morally wrong or a prescribed diet says I should be, I'm still extreme.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Moderation means eating anything I want....in moderation, meaning without going to extremes. How one defines extreme is up to them. It's absolutely freeing for those who practice moderation to be able to use a model that doesn't have rigid rules or place parameters on what the specific person finds as the best way of eating.
I still don't understand why this concept is ever hard to understand, outside of the obvious trolling.
When I did low carb dieting and therefore was not eating a moderation model, I still understood the concept and what is brought to those who chose to eat that way. I refuse to believe that I am just that much smarter than those who seem to be unable to understand the concept.
Because you are not clearly defining where the cut off between moderation and extreme is!
Also is not being able to eat as much of something as you want moderation or not moderation?
That's because it is individual and a personal preference. I moderate different foods that someone else does, depending on my preference. Once again, not a difficult concept, if one is not all about being a troll.
Giving examples is not needed or even helpful since it is different for each person, for which of course you know.
I'm trying to understand how it is different to clean eating
It is different because "clean" is defined differently by different people, but moderation has a definition:Moderation means eating anything I want....in moderation, meaning without going to extremes. How one defines extreme is up to them.0 -
As I said, it have yet to see anyone argue that everyone who "eats clean" is doing the same thing. If it comes up, it does. I assume they will be disabused of that notion rather quickly.lemurcat12 wrote: »
Yes. People get to pick their own definition of clean. I've never even seen anyone argue to the contrary and hope I never do.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
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??
So, if I'm not intentionally eating clean, but all of my food diet ends up matching some arbitrary definition of eating clean, am I eating clean? What if I've eat that way for 1 year, but if tomorrow I'd eat a sugar encrusted bacon hotdog with extra preservatives? Am I eating clean up until the moment it touches my lips?
People have vastly different definitions of clean, but that doesn't mean they agree that their definition is merely subjective and not the right one. Typically they assert that "clean eating" is a specific thing (and that we all secretly know what it is, of course, and are just pretending not to) and ignore the fact that others who "clean eat" may think that lots of the food they eat is not clean.
That's how I think "clean eating" is quite different than simply trying to eat a healthful diet. People who try to eat a healthful diet (like those who practice moderation -- and you can do both, of course, as nutrition is part of moderation), will acknowledge that there are many ways to do that in practice.
People who eat "clean" pretend it's like paleo, where we all know what they don't eat, but in fact they all don't eat vastly different things. So the idea that it's a helpful way to improve one's diet makes no sense. There's nothing about dropping foods that you think fall into the category of "processed" (usually in an inconsistent way) that necessarily results in one eating a better diet, as shown by the numerous posts that say stuff like "I hate and won't eat vegetables, can I still eat clean?"
This is actually the idea that starts most of the contentious threads. Someone says "I'm eating clean, can I eat X" or "eating clean here, how do I stick to the rules?" People get this idea from other sites or magazines or a friend or whatever that eating "clean" is a specific way to eat with recognized rules that they assume have something to do with being healthy or losing weight and that they thus should do it.
I admit the term "clean" just is like nails on a chalkboard for me (although I'm trying to move past that and not make a big deal about it), but my usual response to these posts is that "clean" is not a recognized thing where we all know what you are doing, so you need to tell us how you have chosen to eat and the underlying principles and then we can help. I don't know if greek yogurt is "clean" or not unless I know what you mean by "clean." And if you are struggling with it and doing it because you've been told it's necessary, saying "I lost without doing that, although for me it was really helpful to focus on nutrition and rather than elimination I approach structuring my diet in this way" can be helpful.
But then people jump in and insist everyone knows what "eating clean" is, when the fact is I'm pretty sure most of those same people would think I do eat clean (when IMO I obviously do not). ;-)0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Moderation means eating anything I want....in moderation, meaning without going to extremes. How one defines extreme is up to them. It's absolutely freeing for those who practice moderation to be able to use a model that doesn't have rigid rules or place parameters on what the specific person finds as the best way of eating.
I still don't understand why this concept is ever hard to understand, outside of the obvious trolling.
When I did low carb dieting and therefore was not eating a moderation model, I still understood the concept and what is brought to those who chose to eat that way. I refuse to believe that I am just that much smarter than those who seem to be unable to understand the concept.
Because you are not clearly defining where the cut off between moderation and extreme is!
Also is not being able to eat as much of something as you want moderation or not moderation?
That's because it is individual and a personal preference. I moderate different foods that someone else does, depending on my preference. Once again, not a difficult concept, if one is not all about being a troll.
Giving examples is not needed or even helpful since it is different for each person, for which of course you know.
I'm trying to understand how it is different to clean eating - as a lot of you are professing!
Moderation (in relation to diets) seems a 'loose term', just like 'clean eating' does.
Yet a lot of the people touting moderation are the ones stating that clean eating can't be a real thing because the definition is 'a loose term'.
That's what I am unclear about.
If an adult has made a concious decision to eat a certain way, they have chosen to eat the food they are eating (in a calorie deficit I assume) and therefore they must fall under the category of moderation - yet a lot of you won't acknowledge that and claim their diets are extreme???
I would also suggest that anyone calorie counting and stopping eating when they are still hungry on a regular basis (which is probably most on mfp) can't be eating in moderation under your definition, because they are not eating what they want.
I think part of the problem here is the assumption that "extreme" is necessarily a bad thing. In some cases it can be, sure. But that shouldn't be an automatic assumption. I might think low-carb is extreme but that doesn't mean i think it's terrible. And the difference between clean and moderation, as I am sure you well know, is that clean eating tries to define what people should eat. Moderation simply says to eat what you want to eat within reason. Meaning no, you shouldn't eat a diet of Little Debbie cakes and candy bars, but use your common sense (which some folks seem to be lacking, clearly) and eat a mostly nutritious diet. I don't see why it matters whether low-carb or vegetarian or anything else is "allowed" to be called moderation. It only matters if you insist on using the word extreme in a negative way. The bottom line, that we all mean when we say moderation is that no food has to be off the table. Sure, you can take it off the table if you so choose, but no one is required to not eat anything.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Moderation means eating anything I want....in moderation, meaning without going to extremes. How one defines extreme is up to them. It's absolutely freeing for those who practice moderation to be able to use a model that doesn't have rigid rules or place parameters on what the specific person finds as the best way of eating.
I still don't understand why this concept is ever hard to understand, outside of the obvious trolling.
When I did low carb dieting and therefore was not eating a moderation model, I still understood the concept and what is brought to those who chose to eat that way. I refuse to believe that I am just that much smarter than those who seem to be unable to understand the concept.
Because you are not clearly defining where the cut off between moderation and extreme is!
Also is not being able to eat as much of something as you want moderation or not moderation?
That's because it is individual and a personal preference. I moderate different foods that someone else does, depending on my preference. Once again, not a difficult concept, if one is not all about being a troll.
Giving examples is not needed or even helpful since it is different for each person, for which of course you know.
I'm trying to understand how it is different to clean eating - as a lot of you are professing!
Moderation (in relation to diets) seems a 'loose term', just like 'clean eating' does.
Yet a lot of the people touting moderation are the ones stating that clean eating can't be a real thing because the definition is 'a loose term'.
That's what I am unclear about.
If an adult has made a concious decision to eat a certain way, they have chosen to eat the food they are eating (in a calorie deficit I assume) and therefore they must fall under the category of moderation - yet a lot of you won't acknowledge that and claim their diets are extreme???
I would also suggest that anyone calorie counting and stopping eating when they are still hungry on a regular basis (which is probably most on mfp) can't be eating in moderation under your definition, because they are not eating what they want.
Difference to clean eating:
Clean Eater: "You can't eat X if you're a clean eater."
Moderation: "I don't eat X cause I don't like it (or whatever reason)."
One says you absolutely can't under any circumstances do this or do that or else you're "not doing it" while 10 other people claiming to do the same thing have their own lists of "you absolutely can't do this or that" that differ from the first.
While moderation applies to you alone with the only overall goalposts being an overall healthy diet. I can't eat a bag of gummy bears in good conscience to meet my goals, DeguelloTex could. If he wanted to. I don't tell him he can't or else he's not eating moderately.0 -
If you want to know what, specifically, people mean when they say "clean" or "in moderation", you have to ask.lemurcat12 wrote: »
As I said, it have yet to see anyone argue that everyone who "eats clean" is doing the same thing. If it comes up, it does. I assume they will be disabused of that notion rather quickly.lemurcat12 wrote: »
Yes. People get to pick their own definition of clean. I've never even seen anyone argue to the contrary and hope I never do.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
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??
So, if I'm not intentionally eating clean, but all of my food diet ends up matching some arbitrary definition of eating clean, am I eating clean? What if I've eat that way for 1 year, but if tomorrow I'd eat a sugar encrusted bacon hotdog with extra preservatives? Am I eating clean up until the moment it touches my lips?
People have vastly different definitions of clean, but that doesn't mean they agree that their definition is merely subjective and not the right one. Typically they assert that "clean eating" is a specific thing (and that we all secretly know what it is, of course, and are just pretending not to) and ignore the fact that others who "clean eat" may think that lots of the food they eat is not clean.
That's how I think "clean eating" is quite different than simply trying to eat a healthful diet. People who try to eat a healthful diet (like those who practice moderation -- and you can do both, of course, as nutrition is part of moderation), will acknowledge that there are many ways to do that in practice.
People who eat "clean" pretend it's like paleo, where we all know what they don't eat, but in fact they all don't eat vastly different things. So the idea that it's a helpful way to improve one's diet makes no sense. There's nothing about dropping foods that you think fall into the category of "processed" (usually in an inconsistent way) that necessarily results in one eating a better diet, as shown by the numerous posts that say stuff like "I hate and won't eat vegetables, can I still eat clean?"
This is actually the idea that starts most of the contentious threads. Someone says "I'm eating clean, can I eat X" or "eating clean here, how do I stick to the rules?" People get this idea from other sites or magazines or a friend or whatever that eating "clean" is a specific way to eat with recognized rules that they assume have something to do with being healthy or losing weight and that they thus should do it.
I admit the term "clean" just is like nails on a chalkboard for me (although I'm trying to move past that and not make a big deal about it), but my usual response to these posts is that "clean" is not a recognized thing where we all know what you are doing, so you need to tell us how you have chosen to eat and the underlying principles and then we can help. I don't know if greek yogurt is "clean" or not unless I know what you mean by "clean." And if you are struggling with it and doing it because you've been told it's necessary, saying "I lost without doing that, although for me it was really helpful to focus on nutrition and rather than elimination I approach elimination in this way" can be helpful.
But then people jump in and insist everyone knows what "eating clean" is, when the fact is I'm pretty sure most of those same people would think I do eat clean (when IMO I obviously do not). ;-)
Generally, you can get the gist from context and won't need the specific details of what they eat. But if you really do need to know exactly what they mean, how they define "clean" or are carrying out "moderation", you have to ask them for that info.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »Moderation is the avoidance of extremes.
You can never eat cupcakes again or you are a failure as a dieter and human being! - extreme
It's ok to have cupcakes sometimes if it fits your calories and nutritional/macro goals. - moderate
Calories are ALL that matter, so you should only EVER eat cupcakes! It's called the cupcake diet!! - extreme
Moderation is ANYTHING that falls between the extremes. Really isn't rocket science.
but if you eat a cupcake a day and it fits within your micors/macros/calories, is that still moderation???
A cupcake a day wouldn't be moderate for me, but if someone else want to fit a cupcake a day in their macros/micros/calories, I'm not going to take the position that it is not moderate for them.
Do you think it wouldn't be moderate or is it simply not how you choose to practice moderation.
For example, I usually have at least 200 discretionary calories, assuming I am being as active as I should be. So if I found a small cupcake (or baked them), I could fit in a cupcake after dinner most days. I don't, because I'm not that into cupcakes, don't especially want to be baking all the time and so on. I fit in a little ice cream or cheese or include some higher cal meat choices or maybe some chocolate or save calories for meals out, etc. But if I loved cupcakes more than all these other things and so chose to include the cupcakes, why wouldn't that be a form of moderation? I wouldn't thereby go over any sugar or macro goals (and my macro goals are a pretty balanced 40-30-30).
It's not how I would apply moderation for me.
I agree that your example is moderate.
Because we are both right is part of why this thread has gone on for so many pages - I and others are taking the position that because moderation can mean different things to different people, it's not a particularly useful term when applied to eating.
I don't understand why it's so hard to see something that's a broad concept which is not meant to define a specific way of eating for what it is ... a broad concept.
You're defining moderation (saying it means different things) and then complaining that because you can't put your finger on it that it's not useful.
Is this the legacy of named plans or something? I'm not taking a shot with that, I'm trying to draw the distinction between an approach and a "diet".
Moderation isn't a diet. It's an approach or concept applied to eating. How people apply that concept has a very broad spectrum in which to operate.
It doesn't have to be "useful". It just has to be understood.
The article that started this thread did not offer a broad definion of moderation. It was actually pretty specific.
"So what does moderation look like in the real world?
It looks like eating a MOSTLY whole foods diet with plenty of nutrients from fruits, vegetables, lean meats, healthy fats, etc. "
Sure the specifics will be different from person to person, but the specifics for clean eating, paleo, vegetarian and other diet would be different too. That description that was so highly praised on the first few pages does not = eating anything you want. UNLESS you want to eat mostly whole foods.
I think the author included the caveat about whole foods as a rebuttal to the notion that moderation is eating fast food and cookies all day every day, but you do raise an interesting point. I think eating whole foods is important, but the most important piece of that sentence would be the focus on getting nutrients, not the source. I think people who rely on prepackaged convenience foods could also be using moderation.
I agree, and made a similar point on the early pages. The article says that eating only fast food would not be moderation, but you could eat a balanced diet of fast food if you wanted.
True, and I think that is one of the limitations of the blog. I feel like the initial portion where the author talked about what is not moderation and was what "extreme" probably would have been better served by fleshing out her thought process as to what was "extreme" about it rather than just a bulleted list. But the author seems to apply the term arbitrarily throughout the article with different criteria of "extremes" - I'm guessing with the fast food reference, she was thinking of the limitations of not having a variety of different foods and mentally picturing someone having burger/fries/big soda for most meals, and not utilizing the other choices on the menu like salads or wraps.
The more I think about the blog, the more I feel like the piece would probably be better as an explanation of IIFYM than moderation.
I agree, and it shows that when people say "moderation" when refering to diet they don't always mean the same thing.
Maybe people could point out two versions of the moderate position that they see as inconsistent IN THIS THREAD and then we can flesh out whether they are truly different. So far the only people I notice claiming that the definition of moderate is incoherent are those who seem to be opposed to or bugged by the concept of moderation (or by people talking about how we enjoy it as an approach, although we of course all apply it in our own ways).
It's been said that moderation means eating anything I want. The article in the OP says I can't eat nothing but fast food and be moderate. That's inconsistent if I want to eat only fast food.
I don't think anyone claims moderation means eating whatever you want in any quantities regardless of whatever else you have eaten. It means that you can choose to fit anything you want to eat in your overall diet if you so desire. You never have to say "oh, I cannot have that, it is forbidden according to my way of eating" (at least not for diet reasons -- for ethical or religious, sure).
Quantity had nothing to do with my response. It was about food source. The OP's article says I have to eat mostly whole foods to eat in moderation. That's not the same as saying I can eat anything I want as long as I eat a healthy balanced diet. That is the inconsistency.
And I don't see how reasons have anything to do with moderation. Whether it's extreme because I feel it's morally wrong or a prescribed diet says I should be, I'm still extreme.
The article writer may believe that eating a healthy diet means eating mostly whole foods (I believe that's so for me). Someone who does not, but still takes health/nutrition into consideration would still fall into the broad moderation approach, as I defined it above (I currently really like my own definition, but I would). I suspect the article writer would actually concede this if she were part of the discussion, but perhaps I'm wrong.
I see this as people having different ideas about what's needed for good health. I take the sat fat recommendations more seriously than some, so for me moderation includes not going nuts on sat fat. But I except that people can in good faith question whether they need to worry so much about sat fat and I wouldn't say that means they don't care about health or that they or I are therefore on an extreme.0 -
I love how some people here have such a hard time understanding the difference between "definition" and "application."0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Obviously there is a broad range within and people can be closer to one extreme or the other and people can disagree on when they are actually at the extreme, but it provides a general guideline to use when making food and diet decisions.
Vegetarian, paleo, pescetarian, low carb have specific definitions, yes.
It's entirely possible (IMO) to have a moderate approach and also follow some other way of eating (if we really must use that terminology).
That is pretty much what I just said. There is no definition of eating in moderation except that a person feels they are eating in moderation. And that is much like clean eating, which is completely subjective on what foods a person feels is clean.
They are far from alike, but they are similar in their subjectivity.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Moderation means eating anything I want....in moderation, meaning without going to extremes. How one defines extreme is up to them. It's absolutely freeing for those who practice moderation to be able to use a model that doesn't have rigid rules or place parameters on what the specific person finds as the best way of eating.
I still don't understand why this concept is ever hard to understand, outside of the obvious trolling.
When I did low carb dieting and therefore was not eating a moderation model, I still understood the concept and what is brought to those who chose to eat that way. I refuse to believe that I am just that much smarter than those who seem to be unable to understand the concept.
Because you are not clearly defining where the cut off between moderation and extreme is!
Also is not being able to eat as much of something as you want moderation or not moderation?
That's because it is individual and a personal preference. I moderate different foods that someone else does, depending on my preference. Once again, not a difficult concept, if one is not all about being a troll.
Giving examples is not needed or even helpful since it is different for each person, for which of course you know.
I'm trying to understand how it is different to clean eating
It is different because "clean" is defined differently by different people, but moderation has a definition
Clean eating has a different definition depending on who is doing it (eliminating "unclean" foods, which are [fill in the blank]. However, people who do it apply it the same way: they eliminate unclean foods.
Moderation has the same definition. Unless another moderate here disagrees, I'm going to use this one:Moderation means generally trying to eat a healthy diet according to an understanding of how much you need to eat and what's required for nutrition and your other goals and otherwise not worrying too much about it. It avoids the extremes of completely ignoring health/nutrition considerations, on the one hand, and obsessively deciding that every food decision is super charged and will make or break a diet, on the other (the idea that it's not just unhealthy to eat too much of something, but that that food must be 100% avoided).
However, everyone of course applies it differently and there's a broad range of ways to do so. Among other things, you have to think through principles of health and nutrition and think about your own goals.
Clean eating, however, asserts that there is a one-size-fits-all rule: "eliminate unclean foods and you will be healthier." What is silly about that is that if you can't even agree on what an unclean food is, how can you assert that one will be healthier eliminating it.
I don't see how moderation poses that same problem, especially since it is not supposed to be a one-size-fits-all rule. I don't think everyone would necessarily be better off doing moderation. It just makes sense to me.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Moderation means eating anything I want....in moderation, meaning without going to extremes. How one defines extreme is up to them. It's absolutely freeing for those who practice moderation to be able to use a model that doesn't have rigid rules or place parameters on what the specific person finds as the best way of eating.
I still don't understand why this concept is ever hard to understand, outside of the obvious trolling.
When I did low carb dieting and therefore was not eating a moderation model, I still understood the concept and what is brought to those who chose to eat that way. I refuse to believe that I am just that much smarter than those who seem to be unable to understand the concept.
Because you are not clearly defining where the cut off between moderation and extreme is!
Also is not being able to eat as much of something as you want moderation or not moderation?
That's because it is individual and a personal preference. I moderate different foods that someone else does, depending on my preference. Once again, not a difficult concept, if one is not all about being a troll.
Giving examples is not needed or even helpful since it is different for each person, for which of course you know.
I'm trying to understand how it is different to clean eating - as a lot of you are professing!
Moderation (in relation to diets) seems a 'loose term', just like 'clean eating' does.
Yet a lot of the people touting moderation are the ones stating that clean eating can't be a real thing because the definition is 'a loose term'.
That's what I am unclear about.
If an adult has made a concious decision to eat a certain way, they have chosen to eat the food they are eating (in a calorie deficit I assume) and therefore they must fall under the category of moderation - yet a lot of you won't acknowledge that and claim their diets are extreme???
I would also suggest that anyone calorie counting and stopping eating when they are still hungry on a regular basis (which is probably most on mfp) can't be eating in moderation under your definition, because they are not eating what they want.
Difference to clean eating:
Clean Eater: "You can't eat X if you're a clean eater."
Moderation: "I don't eat X cause I don't like it (or whatever reason)."
One says you absolutely can't under any circumstances do this or do that or else you're "not doing it" while 10 other people claiming to do the same thing have their own lists of "you absolutely can't do this or that" that differ from the first.
While moderation applies to you alone with the only overall goalposts being an overall healthy diet. I can't eat a bag of gummy bears in good conscience to meet my goals, DeguelloTex could. If he wanted to. I don't tell him he can't or else he's not eating moderately.
Could 'whatever reason' be:
* because you choose not too.
Would this then be moderation or not moderation?
What about:
* because I don't have any calories left for the day.
Would this then be moderation or not moderation?
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Obviously there is a broad range within and people can be closer to one extreme or the other and people can disagree on when they are actually at the extreme, but it provides a general guideline to use when making food and diet decisions.
Vegetarian, paleo, pescetarian, low carb have specific definitions, yes.
It's entirely possible (IMO) to have a moderate approach and also follow some other way of eating (if we really must use that terminology).
That is pretty much what I just said. There is no definition of eating in moderation except that a person feels they are eating in moderation. And that is much like clean eating, which is completely subjective on what foods a person feels is clean.
They are far from alike, but they are similar in their subjectivity.
But it's really not subjective because it still needs to be a healthy diet that meets your body's needs. What foods that entails and where on the macro distribution you are can be different.
And any individual approach that fits in "a healthy diet that meets your body's needs" without arbitrary extra rules would be moderation. But next you're going to ask me "Oh, but what is arbitrary?" because this discussion has been going around in circles on every single page.0 -
Or TL, DR:
Moderation as applied involves a range of ways of carrying out the same principles.
Clean eating=lots of totally different things (grains are bad! meat is bad! processed foods are bad! ultra processed foods are bad! additives are bad! white foods are bad! carbs are bad! bacon is bad!), all done in the same way (elimination).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »Moderation is the avoidance of extremes.
You can never eat cupcakes again or you are a failure as a dieter and human being! - extreme
It's ok to have cupcakes sometimes if it fits your calories and nutritional/macro goals. - moderate
Calories are ALL that matter, so you should only EVER eat cupcakes! It's called the cupcake diet!! - extreme
Moderation is ANYTHING that falls between the extremes. Really isn't rocket science.
but if you eat a cupcake a day and it fits within your micors/macros/calories, is that still moderation???
A cupcake a day wouldn't be moderate for me, but if someone else want to fit a cupcake a day in their macros/micros/calories, I'm not going to take the position that it is not moderate for them.
Do you think it wouldn't be moderate or is it simply not how you choose to practice moderation.
For example, I usually have at least 200 discretionary calories, assuming I am being as active as I should be. So if I found a small cupcake (or baked them), I could fit in a cupcake after dinner most days. I don't, because I'm not that into cupcakes, don't especially want to be baking all the time and so on. I fit in a little ice cream or cheese or include some higher cal meat choices or maybe some chocolate or save calories for meals out, etc. But if I loved cupcakes more than all these other things and so chose to include the cupcakes, why wouldn't that be a form of moderation? I wouldn't thereby go over any sugar or macro goals (and my macro goals are a pretty balanced 40-30-30).
It's not how I would apply moderation for me.
I agree that your example is moderate.
Because we are both right is part of why this thread has gone on for so many pages - I and others are taking the position that because moderation can mean different things to different people, it's not a particularly useful term when applied to eating.
I don't understand why it's so hard to see something that's a broad concept which is not meant to define a specific way of eating for what it is ... a broad concept.
You're defining moderation (saying it means different things) and then complaining that because you can't put your finger on it that it's not useful.
Is this the legacy of named plans or something? I'm not taking a shot with that, I'm trying to draw the distinction between an approach and a "diet".
Moderation isn't a diet. It's an approach or concept applied to eating. How people apply that concept has a very broad spectrum in which to operate.
It doesn't have to be "useful". It just has to be understood.
The article that started this thread did not offer a broad definion of moderation. It was actually pretty specific.
"So what does moderation look like in the real world?
It looks like eating a MOSTLY whole foods diet with plenty of nutrients from fruits, vegetables, lean meats, healthy fats, etc. "
Sure the specifics will be different from person to person, but the specifics for clean eating, paleo, vegetarian and other diet would be different too. That description that was so highly praised on the first few pages does not = eating anything you want. UNLESS you want to eat mostly whole foods.
I think the author included the caveat about whole foods as a rebuttal to the notion that moderation is eating fast food and cookies all day every day, but you do raise an interesting point. I think eating whole foods is important, but the most important piece of that sentence would be the focus on getting nutrients, not the source. I think people who rely on prepackaged convenience foods could also be using moderation.
I agree, and made a similar point on the early pages. The article says that eating only fast food would not be moderation, but you could eat a balanced diet of fast food if you wanted.
True, and I think that is one of the limitations of the blog. I feel like the initial portion where the author talked about what is not moderation and was what "extreme" probably would have been better served by fleshing out her thought process as to what was "extreme" about it rather than just a bulleted list. But the author seems to apply the term arbitrarily throughout the article with different criteria of "extremes" - I'm guessing with the fast food reference, she was thinking of the limitations of not having a variety of different foods and mentally picturing someone having burger/fries/big soda for most meals, and not utilizing the other choices on the menu like salads or wraps.
The more I think about the blog, the more I feel like the piece would probably be better as an explanation of IIFYM than moderation.
I agree, and it shows that when people say "moderation" when refering to diet they don't always mean the same thing.
Maybe people could point out two versions of the moderate position that they see as inconsistent IN THIS THREAD and then we can flesh out whether they are truly different. So far the only people I notice claiming that the definition of moderate is incoherent are those who seem to be opposed to or bugged by the concept of moderation (or by people talking about how we enjoy it as an approach, although we of course all apply it in our own ways).
It's been said that moderation means eating anything I want. The article in the OP says I can't eat nothing but fast food and be moderate. That's inconsistent if I want to eat only fast food.
I don't think anyone claims moderation means eating whatever you want in any quantities regardless of whatever else you have eaten. It means that you can choose to fit anything you want to eat in your overall diet if you so desire. You never have to say "oh, I cannot have that, it is forbidden according to my way of eating" (at least not for diet reasons -- for ethical or religious, sure).
Quantity had nothing to do with my response. It was about food source. The OP's article says I have to eat mostly whole foods to eat in moderation. That's not the same as saying I can eat anything I want as long as I eat a healthy balanced diet. That is the inconsistency.
And I don't see how reasons have anything to do with moderation. Whether it's extreme because I feel it's morally wrong or a prescribed diet says I should be, I'm still extreme.
The article writer may believe that eating a healthy diet means eating mostly whole foods (I believe that's so for me). Someone who does not, but still takes health/nutrition into consideration would still fall into the broad moderation approach, as I defined it above (I currently really like my own definition, but I would). I suspect the article writer would actually concede this if she were part of the discussion, but perhaps I'm wrong.
I see this as people having different ideas about what's needed for good health. I take the sat fat recommendations more seriously than some, so for me moderation includes not going nuts on sat fat. But I except that people can in good faith question whether they need to worry so much about sat fat and I wouldn't say that means they don't care about health or that they or I are therefore on an extreme.
And if I believe eating a healthy diet means eating clean or paleo? Again, we seem to be agreeing that a moderate diet is completely subjective.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Moderation means eating anything I want....in moderation, meaning without going to extremes. How one defines extreme is up to them. It's absolutely freeing for those who practice moderation to be able to use a model that doesn't have rigid rules or place parameters on what the specific person finds as the best way of eating.
I still don't understand why this concept is ever hard to understand, outside of the obvious trolling.
When I did low carb dieting and therefore was not eating a moderation model, I still understood the concept and what is brought to those who chose to eat that way. I refuse to believe that I am just that much smarter than those who seem to be unable to understand the concept.
Because you are not clearly defining where the cut off between moderation and extreme is!
Also is not being able to eat as much of something as you want moderation or not moderation?
That's because it is individual and a personal preference. I moderate different foods that someone else does, depending on my preference. Once again, not a difficult concept, if one is not all about being a troll.
Giving examples is not needed or even helpful since it is different for each person, for which of course you know.
I'm trying to understand how it is different to clean eating - as a lot of you are professing!
Moderation (in relation to diets) seems a 'loose term', just like 'clean eating' does.
Yet a lot of the people touting moderation are the ones stating that clean eating can't be a real thing because the definition is 'a loose term'.
That's what I am unclear about.
If an adult has made a concious decision to eat a certain way, they have chosen to eat the food they are eating (in a calorie deficit I assume) and therefore they must fall under the category of moderation - yet a lot of you won't acknowledge that and claim their diets are extreme???
I would also suggest that anyone calorie counting and stopping eating when they are still hungry on a regular basis (which is probably most on mfp) can't be eating in moderation under your definition, because they are not eating what they want.
Difference to clean eating:
Clean Eater: "You can't eat X if you're a clean eater."
Moderation: "I don't eat X cause I don't like it (or whatever reason)."
One says you absolutely can't under any circumstances do this or do that or else you're "not doing it" while 10 other people claiming to do the same thing have their own lists of "you absolutely can't do this or that" that differ from the first.
While moderation applies to you alone with the only overall goalposts being an overall healthy diet. I can't eat a bag of gummy bears in good conscience to meet my goals, DeguelloTex could. If he wanted to. I don't tell him he can't or else he's not eating moderately.
Could 'whatever reason' be:
* because you choose not too.
Would this then be moderation or not moderation?
What about:
* because I don't have any calories left for the day.
Would this then be moderation or not moderation?
Depends why you choose not to.
If a colourful website selling supplements told you to never eat it, I wouldn't call that moderation.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Obviously there is a broad range within and people can be closer to one extreme or the other and people can disagree on when they are actually at the extreme, but it provides a general guideline to use when making food and diet decisions.
Vegetarian, paleo, pescetarian, low carb have specific definitions, yes.
It's entirely possible (IMO) to have a moderate approach and also follow some other way of eating (if we really must use that terminology).
That is pretty much what I just said. There is no definition of eating in moderation except that a person feels they are eating in moderation. And that is much like clean eating, which is completely subjective on what foods a person feels is clean.
They are far from alike, but they are similar in their subjectivity.
But it's really not subjective because it still needs to be a healthy diet that meets your body's needs. What foods that entails and where on the macro distribution you are can be different.
And any individual approach that fits in "a healthy diet that meets your body's needs" without arbitrary extra rules would be moderation. But next you're going to ask me "Oh, but what is arbitrary?" because this discussion has been going around in circles on every single page.
How does excluding a food for an arbitrary reason not fit in the dictionary definition of moderation? Or even as it would apply to diet? If I say, "I'm giving up soda" and I have no logical reason to do so how does that make my diet extreme?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Obviously there is a broad range within and people can be closer to one extreme or the other and people can disagree on when they are actually at the extreme, but it provides a general guideline to use when making food and diet decisions.
Vegetarian, paleo, pescetarian, low carb have specific definitions, yes.
It's entirely possible (IMO) to have a moderate approach and also follow some other way of eating (if we really must use that terminology).
That is pretty much what I just said. There is no definition of eating in moderation except that a person feels they are eating in moderation. And that is much like clean eating, which is completely subjective on what foods a person feels is clean.
They are far from alike, but they are similar in their subjectivity.
But it's really not subjective because it still needs to be a healthy diet that meets your body's needs. What foods that entails and where on the macro distribution you are can be different.
And any individual approach that fits in "a healthy diet that meets your body's needs" without arbitrary extra rules would be moderation. But next you're going to ask me "Oh, but what is arbitrary?" because this discussion has been going around in circles on every single page.
How does excluding a food for an arbitrary reason not fit in the dictionary definition of moderation? Or even as it would apply to diet? If I say, "I'm giving up soda" and I have no logical reason to do so how does that make my diet extreme?
Do you like soda?0 -
Newbie: Puuleeze just tell me what to eat. I'm desperate to lose weight.
Moderate: All food is on the table, it's just how much.
Newbie: But what I am I supposed to eat?
Moderate: Eat the way you are now, only less. Let's start weighing and logging, shall we, just to see where you are?
Newbie: But what about the South Beach Diet? A co-worker of my girlfriend's said she had great results.
Moderate: K, come back when you are ready. I hear the scales at Wal-Mart are half-price.
Not so Newbie: Haalp! I am four weeks away from my wedding date, lost a bunch on the South Beach diet, but put it all back! Puuleeze just give me a quickie twenty pound plan.
Moderate: Sorry, too late for that. Here's what you realistically can lose in the next two weeks. In the meantime, get the dress altered.
Not so Newbie: So can I sweat it off? Is there an off-market pill I can take? Puuleeze just tell me what to eat.
Moderate: All food is on the table, it's just how much.
Not so Newbie: Are you serious? I heard carbs are toxic. I want a cleanse.
Desperation, quickies, fad diets of all descriptions, cleanses, pills, sweats, fears of toxinnnns, elimination of entire macros, are all extreme, so fall out of the moderate's realm.
Simplicity sometimes just cannot be heard.
Can moderation be overdone? Sure. Like weighing water, or trying to stick to the plan 100% of the time. Moderation even in moderation. That's even a thing. 80/20.
Yep.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Obviously there is a broad range within and people can be closer to one extreme or the other and people can disagree on when they are actually at the extreme, but it provides a general guideline to use when making food and diet decisions.
Vegetarian, paleo, pescetarian, low carb have specific definitions, yes.
It's entirely possible (IMO) to have a moderate approach and also follow some other way of eating (if we really must use that terminology).
That is pretty much what I just said. There is no definition of eating in moderation except that a person feels they are eating in moderation. And that is much like clean eating, which is completely subjective on what foods a person feels is clean.
They are far from alike, but they are similar in their subjectivity.
But it's really not subjective because it still needs to be a healthy diet that meets your body's needs. What foods that entails and where on the macro distribution you are can be different.
And any individual approach that fits in "a healthy diet that meets your body's needs" without arbitrary extra rules would be moderation. But next you're going to ask me "Oh, but what is arbitrary?" because this discussion has been going around in circles on every single page.
How does excluding a food for an arbitrary reason not fit in the dictionary definition of moderation? Or even as it would apply to diet? If I say, "I'm giving up soda" and I have no logical reason to do so how does that make my diet extreme?
Do you like soda?
For the example, let's say yes. Why does that matter? My taste preference suddenly makes my diet extreme? It's the exact same diet regarless of why I exclude it.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Moderation means eating anything I want....in moderation, meaning without going to extremes. How one defines extreme is up to them. It's absolutely freeing for those who practice moderation to be able to use a model that doesn't have rigid rules or place parameters on what the specific person finds as the best way of eating.
I still don't understand why this concept is ever hard to understand, outside of the obvious trolling.
When I did low carb dieting and therefore was not eating a moderation model, I still understood the concept and what is brought to those who chose to eat that way. I refuse to believe that I am just that much smarter than those who seem to be unable to understand the concept.
Because you are not clearly defining where the cut off between moderation and extreme is!
Also is not being able to eat as much of something as you want moderation or not moderation?
That's because it is individual and a personal preference. I moderate different foods that someone else does, depending on my preference. Once again, not a difficult concept, if one is not all about being a troll.
Giving examples is not needed or even helpful since it is different for each person, for which of course you know.
I'm trying to understand how it is different to clean eating - as a lot of you are professing!
Moderation (in relation to diets) seems a 'loose term', just like 'clean eating' does.
Yet a lot of the people touting moderation are the ones stating that clean eating can't be a real thing because the definition is 'a loose term'.
That's what I am unclear about.
If an adult has made a concious decision to eat a certain way, they have chosen to eat the food they are eating (in a calorie deficit I assume) and therefore they must fall under the category of moderation - yet a lot of you won't acknowledge that and claim their diets are extreme???
I would also suggest that anyone calorie counting and stopping eating when they are still hungry on a regular basis (which is probably most on mfp) can't be eating in moderation under your definition, because they are not eating what they want.
Difference to clean eating:
Clean Eater: "You can't eat X if you're a clean eater."
Moderation: "I don't eat X cause I don't like it (or whatever reason)."
One says you absolutely can't under any circumstances do this or do that or else you're "not doing it" while 10 other people claiming to do the same thing have their own lists of "you absolutely can't do this or that" that differ from the first.
While moderation applies to you alone with the only overall goalposts being an overall healthy diet. I can't eat a bag of gummy bears in good conscience to meet my goals, DeguelloTex could. If he wanted to. I don't tell him he can't or else he's not eating moderately.
Could 'whatever reason' be:
* because you choose not too.
Would this then be moderation or not moderation?
What about:
* because I don't have any calories left for the day.
Would this then be moderation or not moderation?
Depends why you choose not to.
If a colourful website selling supplements told you to never eat it, I wouldn't call that moderation.
You choose not to because it doesn't nutritionally benefit you above other choices and you've not had to pay a penny or buy a thing from a third party. Moderation or not?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Obviously there is a broad range within and people can be closer to one extreme or the other and people can disagree on when they are actually at the extreme, but it provides a general guideline to use when making food and diet decisions.
Vegetarian, paleo, pescetarian, low carb have specific definitions, yes.
It's entirely possible (IMO) to have a moderate approach and also follow some other way of eating (if we really must use that terminology).
That is pretty much what I just said. There is no definition of eating in moderation except that a person feels they are eating in moderation. And that is much like clean eating, which is completely subjective on what foods a person feels is clean.
They are far from alike, but they are similar in their subjectivity.
But it's really not subjective because it still needs to be a healthy diet that meets your body's needs. What foods that entails and where on the macro distribution you are can be different.
And any individual approach that fits in "a healthy diet that meets your body's needs" without arbitrary extra rules would be moderation. But next you're going to ask me "Oh, but what is arbitrary?" because this discussion has been going around in circles on every single page.
How does excluding a food for an arbitrary reason not fit in the dictionary definition of moderation? Or even as it would apply to diet? If I say, "I'm giving up soda" and I have no logical reason to do so how does that make my diet extreme?
Do you like soda?
For the example, let's say yes. Why does that matter? My taste preference suddenly makes my diet extreme? It's the exact same diet regarless of why I exclude it.
Because you're eliminating the possibility of having something you like in order to fit your "diet."0 -
If I say, "I eat treats in moderation," you don't have any idea how much or how often. All you know is that I consider it to be "in moderation."lemurcat12 wrote: »
And I'd say that when someone is new and just begins reading the boards, they're not going know exactly what people mean.
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.
But we're talking about food. We all have a set limit of calories to maintain a healthy weight. Sure, yours might be lower than mine so we might not have the same definition of what 'moderation' is, but there's still a limit above which it won't be moderation for you anymore - if you're starving all day because you ate 5 cookies, you know that it's not moderation for you, for example. But someone who exercises a lot could easily fit that in their day, for example... that would be moderation for him/her.
So I would say that in a way, when it comes to food, 'moderation is pretty self explanatory'.
Oh, you mean if someone says "eat X in moderation" they couldn't figure out for themselves what that means? I disagree -- I think it obviously means "not to excess" and people know what too excess is for them based on their calorie goal and, as Francl pointed out, how they feel, as well as general ideas of health. I never believe there's a risk that a newby will misunderstand and think it's cool to eat only cookies all day (even if they might want to, and I can't imagine anyone wanting to), because common sense.
Moderation is defined as not going to extremes.
Reading the servings on the package is a good start. Maybe you have a serving, maybe you have two just because you feel like it. One person might define extreme as having two servings, so for them they would not be moderating. Another person might not define two servings as moderate, therefore for them they would not be going to extremes. However, I think most people would agree that having more than 2 servings of something might be going to an extreme.
Moderation is never perfect, and you can't do it 100 percent of the time. You just have to work on it day by day.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Moderation means eating anything I want....in moderation, meaning without going to extremes. How one defines extreme is up to them. It's absolutely freeing for those who practice moderation to be able to use a model that doesn't have rigid rules or place parameters on what the specific person finds as the best way of eating.
I still don't understand why this concept is ever hard to understand, outside of the obvious trolling.
When I did low carb dieting and therefore was not eating a moderation model, I still understood the concept and what is brought to those who chose to eat that way. I refuse to believe that I am just that much smarter than those who seem to be unable to understand the concept.
Because you are not clearly defining where the cut off between moderation and extreme is!
Also is not being able to eat as much of something as you want moderation or not moderation?
That's because it is individual and a personal preference. I moderate different foods that someone else does, depending on my preference. Once again, not a difficult concept, if one is not all about being a troll.
Giving examples is not needed or even helpful since it is different for each person, for which of course you know.
I'm trying to understand how it is different to clean eating - as a lot of you are professing!
Moderation (in relation to diets) seems a 'loose term', just like 'clean eating' does.
Yet a lot of the people touting moderation are the ones stating that clean eating can't be a real thing because the definition is 'a loose term'.
That's what I am unclear about.
If an adult has made a concious decision to eat a certain way, they have chosen to eat the food they are eating (in a calorie deficit I assume) and therefore they must fall under the category of moderation - yet a lot of you won't acknowledge that and claim their diets are extreme???
I would also suggest that anyone calorie counting and stopping eating when they are still hungry on a regular basis (which is probably most on mfp) can't be eating in moderation under your definition, because they are not eating what they want.
Difference to clean eating:
Clean Eater: "You can't eat X if you're a clean eater."
Moderation: "I don't eat X cause I don't like it (or whatever reason)."
One says you absolutely can't under any circumstances do this or do that or else you're "not doing it" while 10 other people claiming to do the same thing have their own lists of "you absolutely can't do this or that" that differ from the first.
While moderation applies to you alone with the only overall goalposts being an overall healthy diet. I can't eat a bag of gummy bears in good conscience to meet my goals, DeguelloTex could. If he wanted to. I don't tell him he can't or else he's not eating moderately.
Could 'whatever reason' be:
* because you choose not too.
Would this then be moderation or not moderation?
What about:
* because I don't have any calories left for the day.
Would this then be moderation or not moderation?
Depends why you choose not to.
If a colourful website selling supplements told you to never eat it, I wouldn't call that moderation.
Moderation has a lot of rules!
Only give up foods for a reason. As long as the reason is not arbitrary and isn't because a colorful website told you to and it isn't because you are trying to eat clean or follow a diet with a name.
What about inclusions? Like say I eat anything I want but include Shakeology which I'm not crazy about but drink anyway because I think it's good for me? Have I gone to the other end of extreme because of that one shake?0 -
Just as a reminder, we have an easily-understood summation of what moderation means:
There really is no reason to wonder any longer!Moderation means eating anything I want....in moderation, meaning without going to extremes. How one defines extreme is up to them.
There is no more reason for disagreement. 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