Moderation
Replies
-
Again, I think those who eat extremes know what moderation is and don't need to read the article.
Moderation is an approach to a WOE. It deals with how much and how often within that WOE, with an emphasis on consuming more nutrient dense ("healthier") foods:
Moderation (aka moderation in the SAD) is eating any foods in reasonable amounts and with reasonable frequency.
Moderation in a LCHF diet is eating LCHF foods in reasonable amounts and with reasonable frequency.
Moderation in a vegetarian diet is eating non meat foods in reasonable amounts and with reasonable frequency.
Moderation for a celiac is eating gluten-free foods in reasonable amounts with reasonable frequency.
Moderation in clean eating is eating foods deemed clean by an individual in reasonable amounts with reasonable frequency.
Moderation in paleo is eating foods deemed to be paleo by the individual in reasonable amounts with reasonable frequency.
Moderation for Muslims avoids pork and uses halal foods in reasonable amounts with reasonable frequency.
Etc.
Moderation is eating within a WOE, with nutrient dense foods, some treats and in a manner that is largely healthful. It's not hard.
I eat moderately within a keto diet. I will have nuts and chocolate chips almost everyday because it fits my macros. On holidays I have more LCHF treats. I eat foods like bacon and pork rinds because I want to and it fits my woe, but I don't pig-out on them (take or leave the pun).
I would not say that I eat in moderation without the LCHF disclaimer, because when one says they eat in moderation, it implies they eat foods found on a SAD diet, they just moderate amounts and frequency. I don't eat all the foods found on a SAD diet, therefore I eat a LCHF diet in moderation.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »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."
That doesn't make it extreme. I could still be eating the same foods as someone that does not like soda. You are misusing the word moderation. A diet with soda is not extreme no matter what reason I have for excluding it.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »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."
That doesn't make it extreme. I could still be eating the same foods as someone that does not like soda. You are misusing the word moderation. A diet with soda is not extreme no matter what reason I have for excluding it.
Boy, for someone who claims to not understand moderation, you're pretty confident on what it means. The entire premise of this discussion has been focused on personal tastes and motivation.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.
Why is it when someone is describing what they consider an extreme way of eating, it seems to involve telling someone they can't eat something, rather than acknowledging that the person is choosing to eat or not eat certain foods?
Moderation for a Clean Eater: I don't eat X cause it doesn't fit with my dietary goals.
People choose to eat a certain way. No one is making them, and no one is telling them what they can and cannot do. The only person placing restrictions on what you absolutely can and cannot eat is yourself (and maybe your doctor, if you choose to listen). It's not like you have to submit your intake to a committee for approval or you have to turn in your badge.0 -
I would pay good money to find ONE person who is embarking on a change in the way they eat who benefits from the last 16 pages of this thread. If a group of people who all have set ideas about the semantics of certain words and how they apply to eating are going in circles, what's the point? You can't tell me anyone is going to make substantial life changes based on this argument.
ETA: I did appreciate the article, OP. I think it's a great read for anyone starting out on a weight loss or health journey.
I have benefited. This thread has reinforced why it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion about eating and calorie deficits. There are many foods and many ways to eat them. There isn't any one "right" way to eat at a deficit.
I'm very interested in moderation as I can't seem to do it. It's half the cake (or many other high calorie foods) or nothing. I'd like to be able to have one piece of cake and not be white-knuckled because I want another and another. Working on figuring that out.
While I'm eating at a deficit, I prefer to eliminate because I'd rather spend my calories on something that will fill me up more than the foods I want to overeat. When I get to maintaining my weight, I think it would be ideal if I could eat the high calorie foods I like moderately, meaning I wouldn't exceed my weekly calorie allowance and I'm not spending lots of time hungry because I spent all my calories unwisely.0 -
Again, I think those who eat extremes know what moderation is and don't need to read the article.
Moderation is an approach to a WOE. It deals with how much and how often within that WOE, with an emphasis on consuming more nutrient dense ("healthier") foods:
Moderation (aka moderation in the SAD) is eating any foods in reasonable amounts and with reasonable frequency.
Moderation in a LCHF diet is eating LCHF foods in reasonable amounts and with reasonable frequency.
Moderation in a vegetarian diet is eating non meat foods in reasonable amounts and with reasonable frequency.
Moderation for a celiac is eating gluten-free foods in reasonable amounts with reasonable frequency.
Moderation in clean eating is eating foods deemed clean by an individual in reasonable amounts with reasonable frequency.
Moderation in paleo is eating foods deemed to be paleo by the individual in reasonable amounts with reasonable frequency.
Moderation for Muslims avoids pork and uses halal foods in reasonable amounts with reasonable frequency.
Etc.
Moderation is eating within a WOE, with nutrient dense foods, some treats and in a manner that is largely healthful. It's not hard.
I eat moderately within a keto diet. I will have nuts and chocolate chips almost everyday because it fits my macros. On holidays I have more LCHF treats. I eat foods like bacon and pork rinds because I want to and it fits my woe, but I don't pig-out on them (take or leave the pun).
I would not say that I eat in moderation without the LCHF disclaimer, because when one says they eat in moderation, it implies they eat foods found on a SAD diet, they just moderate amounts and frequency. I don't eat all the foods found on a SAD diet, therefore I eat a LCHF diet in moderation.
Keto is for sure not moderation...unless one has some medical reason to do it.0 -
susan100df wrote: »I would pay good money to find ONE person who is embarking on a change in the way they eat who benefits from the last 16 pages of this thread. If a group of people who all have set ideas about the semantics of certain words and how they apply to eating are going in circles, what's the point? You can't tell me anyone is going to make substantial life changes based on this argument.
ETA: I did appreciate the article, OP. I think it's a great read for anyone starting out on a weight loss or health journey.
I have benefited. This thread has reinforced why it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion about eating and calorie deficits. There are many foods and many ways to eat them. There isn't any one "right" way to eat at a deficit.
I'm very interested in moderation as I can't seem to do it. It's half the cake (or many other high calorie foods) or nothing. I'd like to be able to have one piece of cake and not be white-knuckled because I want another and another. Working on figuring that out.
While I'm eating at a deficit, I prefer to eliminate because I'd rather spend my calories on something that will fill me up more than the foods I want to overeat. When I get to maintaining my weight, I think it would be ideal if I could eat the high calorie foods I like moderately, meaning I wouldn't exceed my weekly calorie allowance and I'm not spending lots of time hungry because I spent all my calories unwisely.
So, if you're hoping to eat those foods moderately after you're done eating in a deficit, how does eliminating those foods help you learn to do so?0 -
Just as a reminder, we have an easily-understood summation of what moderation means:
"Moderation means eating anything I want....in moderation, meaning without going to extremes. How one defines extreme is up to them. There really is no reason to wonder any longer!
There is no more reason for disagreement.
I'm sorry, but I'm not even going to acknowledge this until you have posted it another 10 times!
It's an extreme stand point, but one I refuse to apply moderation too!!0 -
as you have expressed a desire to stay on topic, I will answer this in an on-topic kind of way.tincanonastring wrote: »susan100df wrote: »I would pay good money to find ONE person who is embarking on a change in the way they eat who benefits from the last 16 pages of this thread. If a group of people who all have set ideas about the semantics of certain words and how they apply to eating are going in circles, what's the point? You can't tell me anyone is going to make substantial life changes based on this argument.
ETA: I did appreciate the article, OP. I think it's a great read for anyone starting out on a weight loss or health journey.
I have benefited. This thread has reinforced why it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion about eating and calorie deficits. There are many foods and many ways to eat them. There isn't any one "right" way to eat at a deficit.
I'm very interested in moderation as I can't seem to do it. It's half the cake (or many other high calorie foods) or nothing. I'd like to be able to have one piece of cake and not be white-knuckled because I want another and another. Working on figuring that out.
While I'm eating at a deficit, I prefer to eliminate because I'd rather spend my calories on something that will fill me up more than the foods I want to overeat. When I get to maintaining my weight, I think it would be ideal if I could eat the high calorie foods I like moderately, meaning I wouldn't exceed my weekly calorie allowance and I'm not spending lots of time hungry because I spent all my calories unwisely.
So, if you're hoping to eat those foods moderately after you're done eating in a deficit, how does eliminating those foods help you learn to do so?
Many people find that by first eliminating certain foods from their diet, they are then able to work in small amounts, later, without overeating.
That is how they apply moderation.
0 -
as you have expressed a desire to stay on topic, I will answer this in an on-topic kind of way.tincanonastring wrote: »susan100df wrote: »I would pay good money to find ONE person who is embarking on a change in the way they eat who benefits from the last 16 pages of this thread. If a group of people who all have set ideas about the semantics of certain words and how they apply to eating are going in circles, what's the point? You can't tell me anyone is going to make substantial life changes based on this argument.
ETA: I did appreciate the article, OP. I think it's a great read for anyone starting out on a weight loss or health journey.
I have benefited. This thread has reinforced why it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion about eating and calorie deficits. There are many foods and many ways to eat them. There isn't any one "right" way to eat at a deficit.
I'm very interested in moderation as I can't seem to do it. It's half the cake (or many other high calorie foods) or nothing. I'd like to be able to have one piece of cake and not be white-knuckled because I want another and another. Working on figuring that out.
While I'm eating at a deficit, I prefer to eliminate because I'd rather spend my calories on something that will fill me up more than the foods I want to overeat. When I get to maintaining my weight, I think it would be ideal if I could eat the high calorie foods I like moderately, meaning I wouldn't exceed my weekly calorie allowance and I'm not spending lots of time hungry because I spent all my calories unwisely.
So, if you're hoping to eat those foods moderately after you're done eating in a deficit, how does eliminating those foods help you learn to do so?
Many people find that by first eliminating certain foods from their diet, they are then able to work in small amounts, later, without overeating.
That is how they apply moderation.
cosign!0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
How is it possible to claim that eating a healthy diet means eating "clean" when the excluded foods vary so much?
But, no, if you claim it's necessary to 100% exclude a broad range of foods you would prefer to be able to eat on occasion for health (NO added sugar or white flour ever, or NO processed foods, or NO grains, legumes, or dairy), that's an extreme position. It's not supported by any credible nutrition scientists, for example. Similarly extreme is that people should eat without any concern about health or nutrition.0 -
as you have expressed a desire to stay on topic, I will answer this in an on-topic kind of way.tincanonastring wrote: »susan100df wrote: »I would pay good money to find ONE person who is embarking on a change in the way they eat who benefits from the last 16 pages of this thread. If a group of people who all have set ideas about the semantics of certain words and how they apply to eating are going in circles, what's the point? You can't tell me anyone is going to make substantial life changes based on this argument.
ETA: I did appreciate the article, OP. I think it's a great read for anyone starting out on a weight loss or health journey.
I have benefited. This thread has reinforced why it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion about eating and calorie deficits. There are many foods and many ways to eat them. There isn't any one "right" way to eat at a deficit.
I'm very interested in moderation as I can't seem to do it. It's half the cake (or many other high calorie foods) or nothing. I'd like to be able to have one piece of cake and not be white-knuckled because I want another and another. Working on figuring that out.
While I'm eating at a deficit, I prefer to eliminate because I'd rather spend my calories on something that will fill me up more than the foods I want to overeat. When I get to maintaining my weight, I think it would be ideal if I could eat the high calorie foods I like moderately, meaning I wouldn't exceed my weekly calorie allowance and I'm not spending lots of time hungry because I spent all my calories unwisely.
So, if you're hoping to eat those foods moderately after you're done eating in a deficit, how does eliminating those foods help you learn to do so?
Many people find that by first eliminating certain foods from their diet, they are then able to work in small amounts, later, without overeating.
That is how they apply moderation.
Thanks, but that doesn't really tell me how one learns to practice moderation when one has eliminated a food entirely. How does elimination help Susan learn to not white-knuckle the chair after having only one piece of cake?
Also, since I don't particularly care about being on-topic other than pointing out the hypocrisy in how derailment and flamebaiting is enforced, how would you have answered that question in a manner that was off-topic?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.
INB4 wat if webz sight not colorful? Wat about gray skales?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
How is it possible to claim that eating a healthy diet means eating "clean" when the excluded foods vary so much?
But, no, if you claim it's necessary to 100% exclude a broad range of foods you would prefer to be able to eat on occasion for health (NO added sugar or white flour ever, or NO processed foods, or NO grains, legumes, or dairy), that's an extreme position. It's not supported by any credible nutrition scientists, for example. Similarly extreme is that people should eat without any concern about health or nutrition.
I think for a lot of people venturing into clean eating it's the reverse. They are actually trying new 'healthier' foods.
Experimenting with different fresh ingredients, trying new varieties of fruit and veg they normally wouldn't of.
They've cut out turkey drumsticks and added pomegranates - that's not a bad thing!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?
It isn't about whether it is logical or not. There are no truly logical reasons in diets, and even very few rational reasons in diets.
It is about if the reason is rigid or not.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?
Most people who give up soda probably do have a logical reason to do so: it is not worth the calories it adds, and I enjoy other foods more and get more benefit out of them.
But if you do like soda (I actually cannot drink sugary soda, as I really dislike it after not drinking it for a long time), and are thirsty and feel like you need a drink and yet feel like you cannot accept an offered soda (and must just remain parched, apparently no other beverages available) because it will automatically make you fat or unhealthy -- that's extreme.
For example, I don't like sports drinks and don't choose to drink them. But if I were running a race and they were out of water, I would. If I felt like I needed some sugar/calories/electrolytes in that scenario, I would, despite the fact I usually don't. I wouldn't put a rule over what's pragmatic. (On the other hand, if I had experience with it messing with my stomach, which they can, I might think differently -- and that would be a logical reason.)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.
Why wouldn't your preferences make it extreme?
What could be one person's torture could be another's most enjoyable Saturday night. If both were doing the same thing every Saturday, wouldn't the one who considers it torture be thought of as going to an extreme more so than the one that likes it?0 -
Technically, no could make anyone eat a certain way short of restraining them, it is still a choice. Even if someone has a gun to someone's head and says "eat the ham sandwich" eating it is still a choice.
People wouldn't normally call that choosing though - I'd dare say reasonable people would call that torturing the language, but perhaps some people here are a big more sadistic towards English.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »
as you have expressed a desire to stay on topic, I will answer this in an on-topic kind of way.tincanonastring wrote: »susan100df wrote: »I would pay good money to find ONE person who is embarking on a change in the way they eat who benefits from the last 16 pages of this thread. If a group of people who all have set ideas about the semantics of certain words and how they apply to eating are going in circles, what's the point? You can't tell me anyone is going to make substantial life changes based on this argument.
ETA: I did appreciate the article, OP. I think it's a great read for anyone starting out on a weight loss or health journey.
I have benefited. This thread has reinforced why it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion about eating and calorie deficits. There are many foods and many ways to eat them. There isn't any one "right" way to eat at a deficit.
I'm very interested in moderation as I can't seem to do it. It's half the cake (or many other high calorie foods) or nothing. I'd like to be able to have one piece of cake and not be white-knuckled because I want another and another. Working on figuring that out.
While I'm eating at a deficit, I prefer to eliminate because I'd rather spend my calories on something that will fill me up more than the foods I want to overeat. When I get to maintaining my weight, I think it would be ideal if I could eat the high calorie foods I like moderately, meaning I wouldn't exceed my weekly calorie allowance and I'm not spending lots of time hungry because I spent all my calories unwisely.
So, if you're hoping to eat those foods moderately after you're done eating in a deficit, how does eliminating those foods help you learn to do so?
Many people find that by first eliminating certain foods from their diet, they are then able to work in small amounts, later, without overeating.
That is how they apply moderation.
Thanks, but that doesn't really tell me how one learns to practice moderation when one has eliminated a food entirely. How does elimination help Susan learn to not white-knuckle the chair after having only one piece of cake?
Also, since I don't particularly care about being on-topic other than pointing out the hypocrisy in how derailment and flamebaiting is enforced, how would you have answered that question in a manner that was off-topic?
Opps, sorry. I didn't post looking for advice. It was an observation that I like the concept of moderating food. I'm working on the white knuckle effect offline.
What Kalikel posted is basically my reasoning behind eliminating certain foods. I would add that if I didn't eliminate them, I wouldn't be eating at a deficit and losing weight.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.
Why is it when someone is describing what they consider an extreme way of eating, it seems to involve telling someone they can't eat something, rather than acknowledging that the person is choosing to eat or not eat certain foods?
Moderation for a Clean Eater: I don't eat X cause it doesn't fit with my dietary goals.
People choose to eat a certain way. No one is making them, and no one is telling them what they can and cannot do. The only person placing restrictions on what you absolutely can and cannot eat is yourself (and maybe your doctor, if you choose to listen). It's not like you have to submit your intake to a committee for approval or you have to turn in your badge.
Moderate can include "I usually don't eat X because it doesn't fit with my dietary goals vs. other foods I'd normally rather eat."
I don't think it can include "food X will never, under any circumstances, pass my lips" unless that's based on a true allergy or similar health reason or not liking the food. There's no genuine health reason I can think of to say you will never even under any circumstances eat potato (or whatever). It's putting the rule above the reasons for the rule in the first place.
Moderation I see as more about guidelines -- these are things that generally help me meet these goals (the goals being the crucial thing).
Generally not eating certain foods could be part of that -- I normally choose whole grains vs. white, say.
But when you make the rule absolute, so it must be adhered to even if it doesn't serve the reasons for the goal (i.e., you choose whole wheat over white to be healthier, but will choose whole wheat pasta with a cheesy, no veg or protein sauce vs. white with lean meat and veg), then I think it's extreme.
Similarly, if you get anxious about imperfection or your focus on worrying about your diet adds lots of stress to your life, I think that's extreme.
There are also ways to be extreme that aren't negative, though. Like someone else said, people seem to be assuming that we think a non moderate approach is bad, and I certainly do not. I don't think the Fuhrman diet is moderate, but if someone enjoys it, I think being extreme with your diet can be something that works for people. Arguably I try to be extreme with my approach to some other things.0 -
Technically, no could make anyone eat a certain way short of restraining them, it is still a choice. Even if someone has a gun to someone's head and says "eat the ham sandwich" eating it is still a choice.
People wouldn't normally call that choosing though - I'd dare say reasonable people would call that torturing the language, but perhaps some people here are a big more sadistic towards English.
Do avoid or reduce your intake of transfats?
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
How is it possible to claim that eating a healthy diet means eating "clean" when the excluded foods vary so much?
But, no, if you claim it's necessary to 100% exclude a broad range of foods you would prefer to be able to eat on occasion for health (NO added sugar or white flour ever, or NO processed foods, or NO grains, legumes, or dairy), that's an extreme position. It's not supported by any credible nutrition scientists, for example. Similarly extreme is that people should eat without any concern about health or nutrition.
I think for a lot of people venturing into clean eating it's the reverse. They are actually trying new 'healthier' foods.
I have not seen that at MFP, and it's certainly not necessary to eliminate foods to try new foods. I always encourage people to try nutrient dense foods and am often shocked at how few vegetables people seem to eat (or have even tried).
On the other hand, turkey legs can be part of a healthy diet, and the idea that you must cut them out would show that you weren't really learning anything about nutrition. It's a dumb things down approach, and I think people should aim higher.0 -
susan100df wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »
as you have expressed a desire to stay on topic, I will answer this in an on-topic kind of way.tincanonastring wrote: »susan100df wrote: »I would pay good money to find ONE person who is embarking on a change in the way they eat who benefits from the last 16 pages of this thread. If a group of people who all have set ideas about the semantics of certain words and how they apply to eating are going in circles, what's the point? You can't tell me anyone is going to make substantial life changes based on this argument.
ETA: I did appreciate the article, OP. I think it's a great read for anyone starting out on a weight loss or health journey.
I have benefited. This thread has reinforced why it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion about eating and calorie deficits. There are many foods and many ways to eat them. There isn't any one "right" way to eat at a deficit.
I'm very interested in moderation as I can't seem to do it. It's half the cake (or many other high calorie foods) or nothing. I'd like to be able to have one piece of cake and not be white-knuckled because I want another and another. Working on figuring that out.
While I'm eating at a deficit, I prefer to eliminate because I'd rather spend my calories on something that will fill me up more than the foods I want to overeat. When I get to maintaining my weight, I think it would be ideal if I could eat the high calorie foods I like moderately, meaning I wouldn't exceed my weekly calorie allowance and I'm not spending lots of time hungry because I spent all my calories unwisely.
So, if you're hoping to eat those foods moderately after you're done eating in a deficit, how does eliminating those foods help you learn to do so?
Many people find that by first eliminating certain foods from their diet, they are then able to work in small amounts, later, without overeating.
That is how they apply moderation.
Thanks, but that doesn't really tell me how one learns to practice moderation when one has eliminated a food entirely. How does elimination help Susan learn to not white-knuckle the chair after having only one piece of cake?
Also, since I don't particularly care about being on-topic other than pointing out the hypocrisy in how derailment and flamebaiting is enforced, how would you have answered that question in a manner that was off-topic?
Opps, sorry. I didn't post looking for advice. It was an observation that I like the concept of moderating food. I'm working on the white knuckle effect offline.
What Kalikel posted is basically my reasoning behind eliminating certain foods. I would add that if I didn't eliminate them, I wouldn't be eating at a deficit and losing weight.
For the record, I think this can be a good reason to eliminate foods and it worked for me (mostly because I just had to get out of the habit of misusing them). I wouldn't claim I had a moderate approach to food (or was practicing moderation) when I first started, though.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Technically, no could make anyone eat a certain way short of restraining them, it is still a choice. Even if someone has a gun to someone's head and says "eat the ham sandwich" eating it is still a choice.
People wouldn't normally call that choosing though - I'd dare say reasonable people would call that torturing the language, but perhaps some people here are a big more sadistic towards English.
Do avoid or reduce your intake of transfats?
Well, I'll play this like the semantists in here.
No. I actually have absolutely not one single care about if foods contain trans fats.0 -
susan100df wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »
as you have expressed a desire to stay on topic, I will answer this in an on-topic kind of way.tincanonastring wrote: »susan100df wrote: »I would pay good money to find ONE person who is embarking on a change in the way they eat who benefits from the last 16 pages of this thread. If a group of people who all have set ideas about the semantics of certain words and how they apply to eating are going in circles, what's the point? You can't tell me anyone is going to make substantial life changes based on this argument.
ETA: I did appreciate the article, OP. I think it's a great read for anyone starting out on a weight loss or health journey.
I have benefited. This thread has reinforced why it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion about eating and calorie deficits. There are many foods and many ways to eat them. There isn't any one "right" way to eat at a deficit.
I'm very interested in moderation as I can't seem to do it. It's half the cake (or many other high calorie foods) or nothing. I'd like to be able to have one piece of cake and not be white-knuckled because I want another and another. Working on figuring that out.
While I'm eating at a deficit, I prefer to eliminate because I'd rather spend my calories on something that will fill me up more than the foods I want to overeat. When I get to maintaining my weight, I think it would be ideal if I could eat the high calorie foods I like moderately, meaning I wouldn't exceed my weekly calorie allowance and I'm not spending lots of time hungry because I spent all my calories unwisely.
So, if you're hoping to eat those foods moderately after you're done eating in a deficit, how does eliminating those foods help you learn to do so?
Many people find that by first eliminating certain foods from their diet, they are then able to work in small amounts, later, without overeating.
That is how they apply moderation.
Thanks, but that doesn't really tell me how one learns to practice moderation when one has eliminated a food entirely. How does elimination help Susan learn to not white-knuckle the chair after having only one piece of cake?
Also, since I don't particularly care about being on-topic other than pointing out the hypocrisy in how derailment and flamebaiting is enforced, how would you have answered that question in a manner that was off-topic?
Opps, sorry. I didn't post looking for advice. It was an observation that I like the concept of moderating food. I'm working on the white knuckle effect offline.
What Kalikel posted is basically my reasoning behind eliminating certain foods. I would add that if I didn't eliminate them, I wouldn't be eating at a deficit and losing weight.
Thanks for coming back to respond. I appreciate it. My question was more for educational purposes (sorry to be selfish there). When I tried elimination, it led to binging down the road. When I got back on track and "learned" moderation, it came very easily to me. So, I guess what I'm asking you (and anyone else who is taking your approach), what is going to be different once you reach maintenance? How are you expecting to add those foods back in small amounts if your only experience is half a cake or no cake?0 -
This. This is all it is. You're leaving yourself the options. There is no book or website telling you you can't ever eat this or that on that diet, or that you must eat this or that for arbitrary reasons.lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
How is it possible to claim that eating a healthy diet means eating "clean" when the excluded foods vary so much?
But, no, if you claim it's necessary to 100% exclude a broad range of foods you would prefer to be able to eat on occasion for health (NO added sugar or white flour ever, or NO processed foods, or NO grains, legumes, or dairy), that's an extreme position. It's not supported by any credible nutrition scientists, for example. Similarly extreme is that people should eat without any concern about health or nutrition.
Is that really so hard to understand that we need over 20 pages of discussion on this or are you guys just having a jolly ol' time with us?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
How is it possible to claim that eating a healthy diet means eating "clean" when the excluded foods vary so much?
But, no, if you claim it's necessary to 100% exclude a broad range of foods you would prefer to be able to eat on occasion for health (NO added sugar or white flour ever, or NO processed foods, or NO grains, legumes, or dairy), that's an extreme position. It's not supported by any credible nutrition scientists, for example. Similarly extreme is that people should eat without any concern about health or nutrition.
I think for a lot of people venturing into clean eating it's the reverse. They are actually trying new 'healthier' foods.
I have not seen that at MFP, and it's certainly not necessary to eliminate foods to try new foods. I always encourage people to try nutrient dense foods and am often shocked at how few vegetables people seem to eat (or have even tried).
On the other hand, turkey legs can be part of a healthy diet, and the idea that you must cut them out would show that you weren't really learning anything about nutrition. It's a dumb things down approach, and I think people should aim higher.
If I added new foods to my diet and didn't reduce my intake of other foods I would probably put weight on.
Oh and by turkey drumsticks I meant the Bernard Matthew ones. Which can also be part of a healthy diet (maybe not a flavoursome one though).
0 -
I wouldn't answer it off-topic as I prefer to stay on topic. Almost since the beginning of this thread, people have been attempting to switch this into a discussion of "clean eating" and it seems they've succeeded in doing so.tincanonastring wrote: »
as you have expressed a desire to stay on topic, I will answer this in an on-topic kind of way.tincanonastring wrote: »susan100df wrote: »I would pay good money to find ONE person who is embarking on a change in the way they eat who benefits from the last 16 pages of this thread. If a group of people who all have set ideas about the semantics of certain words and how they apply to eating are going in circles, what's the point? You can't tell me anyone is going to make substantial life changes based on this argument.
ETA: I did appreciate the article, OP. I think it's a great read for anyone starting out on a weight loss or health journey.
I have benefited. This thread has reinforced why it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion about eating and calorie deficits. There are many foods and many ways to eat them. There isn't any one "right" way to eat at a deficit.
I'm very interested in moderation as I can't seem to do it. It's half the cake (or many other high calorie foods) or nothing. I'd like to be able to have one piece of cake and not be white-knuckled because I want another and another. Working on figuring that out.
While I'm eating at a deficit, I prefer to eliminate because I'd rather spend my calories on something that will fill me up more than the foods I want to overeat. When I get to maintaining my weight, I think it would be ideal if I could eat the high calorie foods I like moderately, meaning I wouldn't exceed my weekly calorie allowance and I'm not spending lots of time hungry because I spent all my calories unwisely.
So, if you're hoping to eat those foods moderately after you're done eating in a deficit, how does eliminating those foods help you learn to do so?
Many people find that by first eliminating certain foods from their diet, they are then able to work in small amounts, later, without overeating.
That is how they apply moderation.
Thanks, but that doesn't really tell me how one learns to practice moderation when one has eliminated a food entirely. How does elimination help Susan learn to not white-knuckle the chair after having only one piece of cake?
Also, since I don't particularly care about being on-topic other than pointing out the hypocrisy in how derailment and flamebaiting is enforced, how would you have answered that question in a manner that was off-topic?
As this is now going to be people arguing about "clean eating," which has no agreed-upon definition, I think I'm done.
Perhaps everyone who follows "clean" eating (whether "in moderation" or not, though I expect most are) will get together and decide that they should have one definition, too.
I hope not, lol. But maybe they will. It won't happen in this thread, though.
I love that we now have a super-great idea what moderation is.
I think the rest of this thread will be just people trying to have fights and am not really interested in fighting.
0 -
Foods excluded by various clean eater definitions
Wheat or not wheat (paleo clean eating says no, whole fooders ok depending on prepartion, ok for vegans)
Sugar or not sugar (wholes fooders no unless it comes from fruit, paleo no unless it comes from fruit or bees, vegans you steal bee's food! I guess it is alright probably fruit form is better)
Chocolate or not chocolate (whole fooders it has to be dark caocao, paleo it has to be dark caocao and you have to have south american ancestors, vegan only if it is dairy free fair trade)
soy or not soy (whole foods well soy beans are fine, paleo that's poison!, vegans well without soy power I wouldn't get enough protein)
meat (whole foods so long as you know the farmer and cow's name, paleo nomnom BACON!, vegans gross)
Foods excluded moderation
tumbleweeds - like literally don't eat those
hemlock
raw sewage
I don't know, a few other funny strawmen that aren't really food in the first place?
Joking aside, you'll see the moderation people all consistently agree on what foods you exclude as part of moderation: none.0 -
Because that's circular, and circular "reasoning" is useless.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.
Why is it when someone is describing what they consider an extreme way of eating, it seems to involve telling someone they can't eat something, rather than acknowledging that the person is choosing to eat or not eat certain foods?
Moderation for a Clean Eater: I don't eat X cause it doesn't fit with my dietary goals.
"I don't eat X cause it doesn't fit with my dietary goals."
"What are your dietary goals?"
"Not to eat X."
"Why don't you eat X?"
"Cause it doesn't fit with my dietary goals."
That's different than paleo, etc. don't "allow" that, which is the core of where a great deal of these discussions originate. As soon as the question is "Can I eat this and still be eating clean/paleo/whole30/whatever" then "why does that matter" is relevant. The person obviously wants to eat that type of food but feels it isn't "allowed." The "dietary goals" becomes about the "diet" and not the "goals."
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