Moderation
Options
Replies
-
diannethegeek wrote: »
No. Some people espouse their diet as the One True Way to eat (or to lose weight.) This is not limited to those who "eat clean" and is certainly not practiced by all of those who "eat clean."
Yes. People get to pick their own definition of clean. I've never even seen anyone argue to the contrary and hope I never do.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
They're very similar. In fact, sometimes the people who go back and forth over which is better are doing exactly the same thing. It becomes less an argument over How To Eat and more an argument over diction.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
There isn't one, lol. In fact, it has been explicitly stated that "extreme" doesn't have to be defined, either.tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »The lack of rigid definitions and its broad adaptability is a necessary feature of moderation. Trying to apply specific rules violates its very nature.
Moderation seems as difficult to define and agree on, as the term 'clean eating'.
Who knew!!
actually it is not ..there is one definition in the dictionary, just use that.
so the avoidance of extremes! So what can I eat - precisely - to fit into your definition of moderation??
1. get a dictionary
2. look up and read definition of moderation
3. apply the concept to your daily lifestyle
pretty simple….unless you find that too difficult?
I have a dictionary, as you can tell by the fact that I referred to moderation as 'the avoidance of extremes'.
I'm asking for a clear instruction on what is considered extreme?
One person posted that moderation is avoiding extremes and extremes are outside the bounds of moderation. Those two things are the explanation for each other. That's the "Science!"
This is what I've come up with for both words, up to and including this thread:
Moderation: A theory of eating wherein the person avoids extremes (which are undefined and may be defined differently by each individual) unless the person has a good reason for the extremes.
Clean: A way of healthy eating that may or may not include eliminating certain foods or food groups and which may or may not include eating foods that are processed and/or unhealthy, in varying amounts.
Hope that clears it all up.
Still, if you want to know what the person means when they discuss their eating, you're going to have to ask.
So:
Moderation - perimeters different for everyone!
Clean Eating - perimeters different for everyone!
I see the similarity.
if you think clean eating = moderation then your understanding of the concepts is severly flawed....
But what if eating clean is fulfilling all of your food requirements and you do not feel a need any more to eat the processed foods you are avoiding - is that then moderation??
So, if I'm not intentionally eating clean, but all of my food diet ends up matching some arbitrary definition of eating clean, am I eating clean? What if I've eat that way for 1 year, but if tomorrow I'd eat a sugar encrusted bacon hotdog with extra preservatives? Am I eating clean up until the moment it touches my lips?
Actually people eating clean tend to think they have the one true way. I've seen it over and over, and the language itself comes from moralizing food, hence you'll see people policing their definition as right because no one wants to suddenly find themselves immoral.
Demanding that YOUR way of doing things is THE RIGHT WAY of doing things is just obnoxious and that happens across the board. All WOEs have their individual obnoxious, demanding proponents.
I think this is an argument that has a lot of merit and would have helped a lot of newbies. Why on Earth did we get 17 pages of semantics instead?
I'm not sure what an argument about clean-eating has to do with moderation, so I'm pretty sure all these posters that keep bringing it up are actively derailing the thread.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »
No. Some people espouse their diet as the One True Way to eat (or to lose weight.) This is not limited to those who "eat clean" and is certainly not practiced by all of those who "eat clean."
Yes. People get to pick their own definition of clean. I've never even seen anyone argue to the contrary and hope I never do.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
They're very similar. In fact, sometimes the people who go back and forth over which is better are doing exactly the same thing. It becomes less an argument over How To Eat and more an argument over diction.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
There isn't one, lol. In fact, it has been explicitly stated that "extreme" doesn't have to be defined, either.tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »The lack of rigid definitions and its broad adaptability is a necessary feature of moderation. Trying to apply specific rules violates its very nature.
Moderation seems as difficult to define and agree on, as the term 'clean eating'.
Who knew!!
actually it is not ..there is one definition in the dictionary, just use that.
so the avoidance of extremes! So what can I eat - precisely - to fit into your definition of moderation??
1. get a dictionary
2. look up and read definition of moderation
3. apply the concept to your daily lifestyle
pretty simple….unless you find that too difficult?
I have a dictionary, as you can tell by the fact that I referred to moderation as 'the avoidance of extremes'.
I'm asking for a clear instruction on what is considered extreme?
One person posted that moderation is avoiding extremes and extremes are outside the bounds of moderation. Those two things are the explanation for each other. That's the "Science!"
This is what I've come up with for both words, up to and including this thread:
Moderation: A theory of eating wherein the person avoids extremes (which are undefined and may be defined differently by each individual) unless the person has a good reason for the extremes.
Clean: A way of healthy eating that may or may not include eliminating certain foods or food groups and which may or may not include eating foods that are processed and/or unhealthy, in varying amounts.
Hope that clears it all up.
Still, if you want to know what the person means when they discuss their eating, you're going to have to ask.
So:
Moderation - perimeters different for everyone!
Clean Eating - perimeters different for everyone!
I see the similarity.
if you think clean eating = moderation then your understanding of the concepts is severly flawed....
But what if eating clean is fulfilling all of your food requirements and you do not feel a need any more to eat the processed foods you are avoiding - is that then moderation??
So, if I'm not intentionally eating clean, but all of my food diet ends up matching some arbitrary definition of eating clean, am I eating clean? What if I've eat that way for 1 year, but if tomorrow I'd eat a sugar encrusted bacon hotdog with extra preservatives? Am I eating clean up until the moment it touches my lips?
Actually people eating clean tend to think they have the one true way. I've seen it over and over, and the language itself comes from moralizing food, hence you'll see people policing their definition as right because no one wants to suddenly find themselves immoral.
Demanding that YOUR way of doing things is THE RIGHT WAY of doing things is just obnoxious and that happens across the board. All WOEs have their individual obnoxious, demanding proponents.
I think this is an argument that has a lot of merit and would have helped a lot of newbies. Why on Earth did we get 17 pages of semantics instead?
I'm not sure what an argument about clean-eating has to do with moderation, so I'm pretty sure all these posters that keep bringing it up are actively derailing the thread.
cosign0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »The lack of rigid definitions and its broad adaptability is a necessary feature of moderation. Trying to apply specific rules violates its very nature.
Moderation seems as difficult to define and agree on, as the term 'clean eating'.
Who knew!!
actually it is not ..there is one definition in the dictionary, just use that.
so the avoidance of extremes! So what can I eat - precisely - to fit into your definition of moderation??
Anything you want. Enjoy.
So I can eat anything I want???
Just protein and fat all day and no carbs - is that really moderation?
I would say that based on what other people have said about boundaries and extremes being determined by the individual when it comes to moderation, that a low carb diet could be moderation just like any other diet. You would still be getting nutrients from whole foods and filling in the rest with foods you enjoy.
But I do see why you would ask, as several people have suggested that the elimination of foods, food groups, or macros would prevent a diet from being moderate, but the overall consensus seems to be that if you are not feeling deprived by the elimination of those foods/food groups/macros then it's consider moderation.
ELIMINATING carbs is not moderation (or, IMO, healthy at all). Almost no one doing a low carb diet actually eliminates carbs, of course, and low carb diets can certainly be a "moderate" approach if one has that particular mindset and approach but also likes low carbing.
As a no-carb diet is pretty much impossible, and I know he knows that, I opted to just respond in terms of low carb to keep the conversation somewhat on the rails on the role of dietary preferences in terms of moderation.
0 -
If those have been agreed upon, why did you write "Extremes cannot be defined as anything but 'not in moderation.'"DeguelloTex wrote: »
Definiton of extreme: eating zero of a food. Eating only a food.
You joke, but that's it. It's a theory of eating that involves avoiding extremes. Extremes cannot be defined as anything but "not in moderation." Everyone gets to apply this theory to their own WOE as they see fit.
You sure? I thought moderation was a hypothesis or a law.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Who said that? You can choose to eat or not to eat. The moderate way of eating doesn't proscribe foods as clean eating, paleo, etc. do.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Well, the opposite of eating zero of a food would be eating only that food, wouldn't it?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Becaue 0 of a food as an inherent part of a way of eating is, by definition, extreme. You can't eat any less. If is is, by definition, extreme, it is, by definition, not moderate.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
How does eliminating a particular food make a diet not moderate? What is extreme about eliminating a particular food? There are still a whole lot of foods to choose from.
There must be extremes on both ends of the spectrum. If I can't eliminate any food, what is the opposite pole in a moderate diet?
So to be a moderate eater I must eat ALL foods I enjoy but not eat only any single food I enjoy?
ALL is an extreme, no?
As has been pointed out ten million times in this thread, "moderation" is NOT a way of eating. It's a theory.
I think that's a fine definition.
You are the lone dissenter here. PLENTY of people defining "moderation" have said that foods or food groups can be eliminated based on personal tastes, dietary preferences, ways of eating, etc.
It is up to the individual to decide how to apply moderation.Moderation is the absence of extremes...
Extremes exceeding the bounds of moderation
Those are the definitions that have been agreed upon.
0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »I eat within my calories. -Right, but what exactly do you eat?
I hit my macros. -Right, but what exactly do you eat?
I eat plenty of fruits and veggies. -Right, but what exactly do you eat?
I eat lots of whole foods. -Right, but what exactly do you eat?
I eat a 80-10-10 split. - Right, but what exactly do you eat?
Is there any way to describe what you eat that isn't full of variance and confusion between two people? On this board we see people who are confused about what MFP stands for and don't know what a carb is. Every description of what you eat comes with questions and disclaimers. So why is everyone so concerned that moderation does as well?
I think most of us know exactly why they're "concerned."0 -
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).0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »
No. Some people espouse their diet as the One True Way to eat (or to lose weight.) This is not limited to those who "eat clean" and is certainly not practiced by all of those who "eat clean."
Yes. People get to pick their own definition of clean. I've never even seen anyone argue to the contrary and hope I never do.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
They're very similar. In fact, sometimes the people who go back and forth over which is better are doing exactly the same thing. It becomes less an argument over How To Eat and more an argument over diction.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
There isn't one, lol. In fact, it has been explicitly stated that "extreme" doesn't have to be defined, either.tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »The lack of rigid definitions and its broad adaptability is a necessary feature of moderation. Trying to apply specific rules violates its very nature.
Moderation seems as difficult to define and agree on, as the term 'clean eating'.
Who knew!!
actually it is not ..there is one definition in the dictionary, just use that.
so the avoidance of extremes! So what can I eat - precisely - to fit into your definition of moderation??
1. get a dictionary
2. look up and read definition of moderation
3. apply the concept to your daily lifestyle
pretty simple….unless you find that too difficult?
I have a dictionary, as you can tell by the fact that I referred to moderation as 'the avoidance of extremes'.
I'm asking for a clear instruction on what is considered extreme?
One person posted that moderation is avoiding extremes and extremes are outside the bounds of moderation. Those two things are the explanation for each other. That's the "Science!"
This is what I've come up with for both words, up to and including this thread:
Moderation: A theory of eating wherein the person avoids extremes (which are undefined and may be defined differently by each individual) unless the person has a good reason for the extremes.
Clean: A way of healthy eating that may or may not include eliminating certain foods or food groups and which may or may not include eating foods that are processed and/or unhealthy, in varying amounts.
Hope that clears it all up.
Still, if you want to know what the person means when they discuss their eating, you're going to have to ask.
So:
Moderation - perimeters different for everyone!
Clean Eating - perimeters different for everyone!
I see the similarity.
if you think clean eating = moderation then your understanding of the concepts is severly flawed....
But what if eating clean is fulfilling all of your food requirements and you do not feel a need any more to eat the processed foods you are avoiding - is that then moderation??
So, if I'm not intentionally eating clean, but all of my food diet ends up matching some arbitrary definition of eating clean, am I eating clean? What if I've eat that way for 1 year, but if tomorrow I'd eat a sugar encrusted bacon hotdog with extra preservatives? Am I eating clean up until the moment it touches my lips?
Actually people eating clean tend to think they have the one true way. I've seen it over and over, and the language itself comes from moralizing food, hence you'll see people policing their definition as right because no one wants to suddenly find themselves immoral.
Demanding that YOUR way of doing things is THE RIGHT WAY of doing things is just obnoxious and that happens across the board. All WOEs have their individual obnoxious, demanding proponents.
I think this is an argument that has a lot of merit and would have helped a lot of newbies. Why on Earth did we get 17 pages of semantics instead?
I'm not sure what an argument about clean-eating has to do with moderation, so I'm pretty sure all these posters that keep bringing it up are actively derailing the thread.
I disagree. Clean eating and eating in moderation actually are similar in that both have subjective definitions. One eliminates foods that are not clean in the mind of the person eating it. Moderation eliminates extremes in the mind of the person eating it. What is clean to me may not be clean to you. What is extreme/moderate to me may not be extreme/moderate to you.
They share that trait, whereas diets like vegetarian, paleo, etc. are less subjective. Meat is meat. Grains are grains. Legumes are legumes...0 -
Im thinking you haven't read the thread. I don't blame you. It's very long and frequently repetitious.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Extremes have been defined repeatedly. For example, would you agree that eating zero of a food is an extreme? And eating only that food is an extreme? And that those are the two extremes on the food-eating continuum?
That first sentence, you meant "did", right?DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, a way of eating that didn't avoid the extremes would be, by definition, moderate. One that consisted of the extremes would be, by definition, not moderate.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Yep. "You can't eat grains" can't be included in moderation. "Zero grains" as a way of eating, for example, is inherently extreme because zero is the extreme lower limit.DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
Nope! Absolutely any WOE can be included in moderation.
It's not "other ways of eating" because moderation is not a way of eating, so there aren't others. They're all included.
That just depends on how you apply moderation.
(For the sake of clarity, though I know clarity isn't important to people who want to obfuscate, this is in terms of prescriptions of the ways of eating, not personal preferences.)
We all get that. Avoiding extremes is moderation. And "extremes" cannot be defined, because that's moderation. It's left up to each person to determine.
It's all been very clearly laid out. I think it's all very obvious now.
But it has been agreed by everyone that "moderation" is NOT a way of eating and that extremes cannot be defined. It's up to everyone to apply for themselves.
It's an approach toward eating. IMO, that can be called a "way of eating" (if I didn't think WOE was a stupid term, anyway), as much as any other such as low carb or paleo. I don't know specifically how a person eats just by knowing they "paleo," either -- I know certain foods they don't eat or usually don't eat or pretend not to eat, that's all.0 -
That is what everyone has agreed upon. Again:DeguelloTex wrote: »
If those have been agreed upon, why did you write "Extremes cannot be defined as anything but 'not in moderation.'"DeguelloTex wrote: »
Definiton of extreme: eating zero of a food. Eating only a food.
You joke, but that's it. It's a theory of eating that involves avoiding extremes. Extremes cannot be defined as anything but "not in moderation." Everyone gets to apply this theory to their own WOE as they see fit.
You sure? I thought moderation was a hypothesis or a law.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Who said that? You can choose to eat or not to eat. The moderate way of eating doesn't proscribe foods as clean eating, paleo, etc. do.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Well, the opposite of eating zero of a food would be eating only that food, wouldn't it?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Becaue 0 of a food as an inherent part of a way of eating is, by definition, extreme. You can't eat any less. If is is, by definition, extreme, it is, by definition, not moderate.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
How does eliminating a particular food make a diet not moderate? What is extreme about eliminating a particular food? There are still a whole lot of foods to choose from.
There must be extremes on both ends of the spectrum. If I can't eliminate any food, what is the opposite pole in a moderate diet?
So to be a moderate eater I must eat ALL foods I enjoy but not eat only any single food I enjoy?
ALL is an extreme, no?
As has been pointed out ten million times in this thread, "moderation" is NOT a way of eating. It's a theory.
I think that's a fine definition.
You are the lone dissenter here. PLENTY of people defining "moderation" have said that foods or food groups can be eliminated based on personal tastes, dietary preferences, ways of eating, etc.
It is up to the individual to decide how to apply moderation.Moderation is the absence of extremes...
Extremes exceeding the bounds of moderation
Those are the definitions that have been agreed upon.
Those are the definitions everyone has agreed upon.So yes topic...what is moderation
moderation is absence of extremes...
extremes exceeding the bounds of moderation
so now that you have been told the definition of both perhaps it is clearer to you now what moderation is.
I do hope that this has been educational for you and that you have a better handle on what is being said in the forums as far as moderation goes.
Moderation can be applied differently, depending on the person.0 -
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.0 -
Because that's how that individual applies moderation. Others can apply it in different ways. It is up to the individual to apply.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.
All you have to do is avoid extremes. Extremes are just things that aren't in moderation. And everyone applies moderation as they see fit.
If you don't feel that it's extreme, it's moderation.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Well, when you use the term millions of foods, it changes what it means to eliminate one food. For example, eliminating cupcakes isn't eliminating one food, it is eliminating vanilla ones, chocolate ones, ones from Walmart, ones from your local bakery, etc. Now suddenly it isn't really one out of millions.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Well, the opposite of eating zero of a food would be eating only that food, wouldn't it?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Becaue 0 of a food as an inherent part of a way of eating is, by definition, extreme. You can't eat any less. If is is, by definition, extreme, it is, by definition, not moderate.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
How does eliminating a particular food make a diet not moderate? What is extreme about eliminating a particular food? There are still a whole lot of foods to choose from.
There must be extremes on both ends of the spectrum. If I can't eliminate any food, what is the opposite pole in a moderate diet?
So to be a moderate eater I must eat ALL foods I enjoy but not eat only any single food I enjoy?
ALL is an extreme, no?
Not must, can. You can eat all the foods you enjoy. If you tried to eat all the foods you enjoy, you would quickly exceed your calorie goal, which would not be moderation.
Eliminating one food out of the millions of foods out there is not extreme, no matter what my reason.
it is typically one entire macro ..like Carbs, or those evil sugars...or an entire group of food like "processed" which pretty much eliminates all foods...
But nobody eliminates an entire macros (as you know).
They may limit their consumption of it, like low carb or low fat but its not an elimination. So therefore it's still moderation, right????
go read the definition and apply it to your concept. Maybe that will help increase your understanding of the concept.
Well you are not explaining it very well! You're making it sound very blurred around the edges.
it is a straightforward concept. I am sorry that you do not have the capacity to grasp it.
I'm sorry you don't have the capacity to explain it clearly, seeing's as how it's such a straightforward concept .0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
How does eliminating a particular food make a diet not moderate? What is extreme about eliminating a particular food? There are still a whole lot of foods to choose from.
Because while an upper extreme limit cannot be defined, the lower extreme limit is always zero. You can't get more extreme than nothing.
It doesn't seem to fit the dictionary defintion of moderation at all. It seems a very hard line.
Well, I don't understand how you would eat less than zero of something, so a line has to be drawn somewhere. You were the one asking for definitions of an extreme. Zero is an extreme.
Making any hard and fast rule about food seems extreme rather than moderate. You MUST not eliminate a food. That one food is all that is keeping you moderate. If you eat a completely balanced and vaired but decide to give up soda because you think it's not good for you, then you are not eating in moderation. You MUST have a soda!!!
I could eat a completely healthy, balanced and varied diet as a vegetarian. But if I eat meat, I will not be a vegetarian so my diet is extreme?
Moderation most certainly should not mean everything. Everything is as extreme as nothing.
It isn't that a person practicing moderation won't eat certain foods, it is the reasoning behind why they won't eat certain food. If it comes down to preference, that's moderation. If you aren't eating something because that's a rule in a diet, you're not practicing moderation.
So we both eat the exact same diet, you because you don't like meat, me because I'm vegetarian. Your diet is moderate but mine is not? That's silly.
No, vegetarianism can absolutely be a diet of moderation. Both are based on personal preference, not adherence to a way of eating. I feel like this is something that has been pointed out repeatedly (along with the rest of the questions from the non-acute participants in this thread).
Vegetarianism is absolutely based on adherence to a way of eating. If I eat meat, I'm not vegetarian. How is that different than following a paleo diet and it's rules if I prefer to eat paleo? If preference decides "extreme" then it decides moderation meaning anything can be moderate.
Personally, I don't think doing something because of ethical commitments or allergies or because your doctor told you making a particular change is essential for health demonstrates an extreme approach to dieting. (Being a vegan is arguably an extreme lifestyle, just like other major changes for ethical reasons can be extreme -- and that's not at all bad, St. Francis had an extreme approach to religion and I wouldn't criticize him for it, after all -- but I don't think it's really rooted in one's approach to food.)
I think the view that eating any grains ever is bad for health if one is not celiac is extreme. Again, though, that doesn't mean it's bad, it's just not consistent with a moderate approach. If you simply don't eat grains because you don't really like any foods containing them and you always have plenty of the alternative foods around, then that's consistent with a moderate approach.0 -
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).
I don't see anyone who is opposed to moderation or bugged by the concept, I think pretty much everyone posting in this thread eats moderately based on the definition that we all determine our own boundaries and extremes, and everyone pretty much agrees on that definition.
I see people asking why their WOE isn't considered moderation just because they choose to eat different foods while still meeting the same criteria of getting all their nutrients and enjoying treats - that's not anti-moderation or being annoyed by it. What I think they are annoyed by is the people telling them a diet is absolutely not moderation because it has a name and set of criteria for what is included in the diet, and that by following the diet, they therefore can't be practicing moderation. The fact that the person is choosing to follow the diet and eat/not eat foods, just like other people choose to eat/not eat foods (which again, falls within the agreed upon definition), is being largely ignored and is the current source of back-and-forth.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
There isn't one, lol. In fact, it has been explicitly stated that "extreme" doesn't have to be defined, either.tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »The lack of rigid definitions and its broad adaptability is a necessary feature of moderation. Trying to apply specific rules violates its very nature.
Moderation seems as difficult to define and agree on, as the term 'clean eating'.
Who knew!!
actually it is not ..there is one definition in the dictionary, just use that.
so the avoidance of extremes! So what can I eat - precisely - to fit into your definition of moderation??
1. get a dictionary
2. look up and read definition of moderation
3. apply the concept to your daily lifestyle
pretty simple….unless you find that too difficult?
I have a dictionary, as you can tell by the fact that I referred to moderation as 'the avoidance of extremes'.
I'm asking for a clear instruction on what is considered extreme?
One person posted that moderation is avoiding extremes and extremes are outside the bounds of moderation. Those two things are the explanation for each other. That's the "Science!"
This is what I've come up with for both words, up to and including this thread:
Moderation: A theory of eating wherein the person avoids extremes (which are undefined and may be defined differently by each individual) unless the person has a good reason for the extremes.
Clean: A way of healthy eating that may or may not include eliminating certain foods or food groups and which may or may not include eating foods that are processed and/or unhealthy, in varying amounts.
Hope that clears it all up.
Still, if you want to know what the person means when they discuss their eating, you're going to have to ask.
So:
Moderation - perimeters different for everyone!
Clean Eating - perimeters different for everyone!
I see the similarity.
Trolling.
I actually set out the differences as I understand them upthread. (It is, of course, true that merely saying I'm a clean eater or I use a moderate approach doesn't tell people precisely how you eat, but that is no one's objection to "clean eating" so the gotcha thing about how moderation doesn't tell you that either is a silly strawman.)
If you are actually interested in responding to the points I and others made, I'm interested. If you choose not to, I will assume you don't actually have a reasonable response.
So not agreeing with you is trolling???
Maybe Alex can include that in an updated version of the forum guidelines.
Intentionally misstating the argument that others have made and doing so repeatedly is trolling. It proves that you are choosing not to, or cannot, engage with the discussion and are just trying to play games.0 -
So, now, you're unclear on what "moderation" means and unclear on what "everyone" means. Got it.
That is what everyone has agreed upon. Again:DeguelloTex wrote: »
If those have been agreed upon, why did you write "Extremes cannot be defined as anything but 'not in moderation.'"DeguelloTex wrote: »
Definiton of extreme: eating zero of a food. Eating only a food.
You joke, but that's it. It's a theory of eating that involves avoiding extremes. Extremes cannot be defined as anything but "not in moderation." Everyone gets to apply this theory to their own WOE as they see fit.
You sure? I thought moderation was a hypothesis or a law.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Who said that? You can choose to eat or not to eat. The moderate way of eating doesn't proscribe foods as clean eating, paleo, etc. do.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Well, the opposite of eating zero of a food would be eating only that food, wouldn't it?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Becaue 0 of a food as an inherent part of a way of eating is, by definition, extreme. You can't eat any less. If is is, by definition, extreme, it is, by definition, not moderate.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Given a framework that doesn't include unlimited calories...
Does a moderate way of eating ever say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
What other ways of eating don't say that if one eats a particular food one will not be adhering to that way of eating?
How does eliminating a particular food make a diet not moderate? What is extreme about eliminating a particular food? There are still a whole lot of foods to choose from.
There must be extremes on both ends of the spectrum. If I can't eliminate any food, what is the opposite pole in a moderate diet?
So to be a moderate eater I must eat ALL foods I enjoy but not eat only any single food I enjoy?
ALL is an extreme, no?
As has been pointed out ten million times in this thread, "moderation" is NOT a way of eating. It's a theory.
I think that's a fine definition.
You are the lone dissenter here. PLENTY of people defining "moderation" have said that foods or food groups can be eliminated based on personal tastes, dietary preferences, ways of eating, etc.
It is up to the individual to decide how to apply moderation.Moderation is the absence of extremes...
Extremes exceeding the bounds of moderation
Those are the definitions that have been agreed upon.
Those are the definitions everyone has agreed upon.So yes topic...what is moderation
moderation is absence of extremes...
extremes exceeding the bounds of moderation
so now that you have been told the definition of both perhaps it is clearer to you now what moderation is.
I do hope that this has been educational for you and that you have a better handle on what is being said in the forums as far as moderation goes.
Moderation can be applied differently, depending on the person.
0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »It looks like this thread is getting the unspoken treatment of not rising to the top when someone responds. Disappoint.
I had to dig to find it again. It's a sure way of making sure the thread goes in circles since only those with a vested interest in the argument will find it now.
@Alex - Could you please address this? Why is this thread not bumping to the top of the Recent Discussions list?
ETA: I've developed a workaround for this glitch (I'm assuming it's a glitch) specific to this thread.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10276601/moderation-link?new=1
Alright - assuming it's not a glitch as the link is not accessible anymore. Now I'm wondering why.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions