Moderation

tennisdude2004

senecarr wrote: »

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.

So the following people are excluded from the moderation club:

Low Carbers
Clean eaters
Vegans
Vegetarians
People with strict religions food restrictions.
People with nut allergies
Lactose intolerant people
Diabetics
People on a low fat diet
Calorie Counters (the one's still hungry at the end of the day).

Moderation excludes lots of people by your definition.

Maybe the rest of us can just eat the food we choose and enjoy.

kgeyser

lemurcat12 wrote: »

kgeyser wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

tennisdude2004 wrote: »

shell1005 wrote: »

tennisdude2004 wrote: »

shell1005 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.

I want to start by saying that I 100% agree that if your diet is causing you stress or worry that there is a problem.

But this is what frustrates me here. Why do people have to justify their reasoning about how they moderate their diet to someone else? Let's take the wheat/pasta example you put forth, because I think that's a really good example we can use.

So the person chooses whole grains vs white on the basis that whole grain is "healthier." Ok, good to go. Now we get to the pasta example - a whole grain pasta with a cheesy sauce (no veg or protein) vs white pasta with lean meat/veg. Comparing the 2 dishes, the second is probably a more rounded meal and better option to hit nutrients and macros. But since the person is practicing moderation, why wouldn't the whole grain with cheesy sauce fit into their diet as an indulgence or "other" food that they enjoy after hitting all their micros? Perhaps they already hit their protein macro earlier in the day, and the cheesy pasta helps them hit the fat/carbs they need, making it not really an indulgence at all, but a whole food helping them reach their goals.

The problem with trying to label something as absolute or extreme in someone else's diet is that we end up with examples like the above where people focus in on one particular instance and stop looking at the overall diet as a whole. I find it troubling that some people can say "moderation" and "80/20" for their diets, but things like paleo or low carb or "clean" absolutely must be adhered to 100% of the time, or the person shouldn't be allowed to use the label. That's not realistic, and it seems like the people outside the situation are much more concerned about it than the person themselves. I think when it comes to moderation, we don't use the same reasoning for every food we choose to include or exclude from our diets, and it's kind of silly to expect someone else to do it.

Need2Exerc1se

tincanonastring wrote: »

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.

When did I claim to not understand moderation?

Need2Exerc1se

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

kgeyser wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

kgeyser wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

PeachyCarol wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

ndj1979 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.

This just further supports my argument that it's totally subjective and therefore has many meanings and therefore no meaning.

Moderation in diet must be supported by "credible nutrition scientists"? Who gets to decide who is credible? Do these credible scientists agree that I can't have a healthy diet diet while eliminating whatever I am choosing to eliminate?

What if someone does eat without concern abotu health or nutrition but their diet is healthy and nutritious nonetheless?

I mean seriously. The people on this one thread trying to define "a diet of moderation" can't even agree on what it means, yet we're supposed to believe it has only one meaning.

Nova

Hi Folks,

This topic has been closed. We have moderated it as much as we feel is appropriate. Any future topics that have or will be created in reference to this discussion will result in warnings.

Regards,
Nova