Moderation
Options
Replies
-
If I say, "I eat treats in moderation," what does that mean? So we know if that means once or twice a year? Every day? With every meal? Do we know if it's a time thing or an amount one? Doe we know if it's always the same thing or various things?lemurcat12 wrote: »"I've been eating clean and I'm gaining weight!"
"I've been eating in moderation and I'm gaining weight!"
I'm going to need more. It doesn't really explain how they're actually eating.
True, but the difference is that I've never seen the former.If someone asks about how to eat treats "in moderation", there will be 20 different ways to do it.
Because people are different, and "in moderation" really just means "not to excess" in this context.
And IMO, moderation does not describe a way of eating. It describes an approach.
We don't. We don't know what it means except that the person who said it believes they're eating "in moderation."
It doesn't matter. How often any one person specifically eats treats is beside the point. The point is that they do eat them, just not all the time. That's the thing about everything you just wrote here. It is irrelevant. It does not matter if I can only have two cookies and Jim Bob can have four. Two cookies is appropriate for me. Four is appropriate for Jim Bob. As for the specious argument that someone might not know what moderation means, it is very easily explained. Good luck trying that with clean eating.0 -
That's why it's confusing.lemurcat12 wrote: »
If I say, "I eat treats in moderation," what does that mean?lemurcat12 wrote: »"I've been eating clean and I'm gaining weight!"
"I've been eating in moderation and I'm gaining weight!"
I'm going to need more. It doesn't really explain how they're actually eating.
True, but the difference is that I've never seen the former.If someone asks about how to eat treats "in moderation", there will be 20 different ways to do it.
Because people are different, and "in moderation" really just means "not to excess" in this context.
And IMO, moderation does not describe a way of eating. It describes an approach.
You haven't cut them out but you watch how many you eat and try to make it the amount you think is consistent with an overall healthy diet and other factors, like personal pleasure. I eat in moderation but never eat cold cereal, because I don't like it, yuck.So we know if that means once or twice a year? Every day? With every meal? Do we know if it's a time thing or an amount one? Doe we know if it's always the same thing or various things?
No, of course not. Because, again, it's not a way of eating, it's an approach. No one would say you know anything about precisely how someone is eating, because they say "I eat in moderation." And that's why no one ever says "but I'm eating in moderation and not losing." They'd say "I'm eating less and working out more and still not losing" or (better) "I'm eating only 1400 and not losing."
A term that can be applied or carried differently by different people isn't really specific. You can't know what they mean when they use it.
I don't believe it's supposed to be specific. Again, it's just a way of communicating a basic approach.
If someone asked me to describe how I eat, I wouldn't just say "moderately."
I don't really see a bunch of inconsistent and widely varying definitions of moderation. I do see (of course) that people who use the moderation approach eat in a wide variety of ways, because we have different goals and tastes and so on.
I am always happy to explain what I mean by moderation, but I simply don't agree that it's really in dispute. It's just that it doesn't dictate a particular diet.0 -
And I'd say that when someone is new and just begins reading the boards, they're not going know exactly what people mean.
This demonstrates what I mean.WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Loved the article! Thanks for posting.
As for the side argument with people parsing words?
I used to go to school with this girl who used big words incorrectly all the time. Her misuse of the word didn't change what it fundamentally meant and did not suddenly mean that the definition of it was murky.
Just sayin'.
If you avoid the extremes, you're practicing moderation.
Exactly, it's like people who say feminism is man-hating because some people who call themselves that term behave that way or people who call themselves vegetarian but still eat meat. The definitions of the words don't change just because some people use them incorrectly.
This seems in direct contrast to your earlier post to which I replied. It said "There was a discussion here recently where some people were trying to argue that moderation has a million different definitions, just like "clean."
"clean" has a dictionary definition too.
One that actually relates to "clean eating"?
Not that I've seen. But then I've never seen a dictionary definition for "moderation" that relates to eating either. Which was my point.
The nice thing about moderation is that it is an approach which can be applied to a number of different concepts.
Moderation in eating
Moderation in spending
Moderation in drinking
The definition of no extremes is applicable in all of those examples. How an individual moderates their eating, spending, and drinking may differ from person to person - but the overall concept is fairly clear, the avoidance of excess or extremes.
Conversely, the word "clean" is an adjective that has very different meanings depending on how it is used.
Clean house
Clean eating
Clean bill of health
I don't believe it is possible to come up with a singular definition for the word "clean" which is applicable to all of those concepts.
One person could say they spend in moderation, but they define it as having three homes, one yacht and one airplane. Another person might feel that spending in moderation is buying their clothes at Wal-Mart instead of Goodwill. Both can say they're spending in moderation, but you don't know what they mean until you ask.
One person's clean house may mean doing spring cleaning on a weekly basis while another has it meaning they moved junk from the floor to the counter.
You just don't know the specifics until you ask.
But we're talking about food. We all have a set limit of calories to maintain a healthy weight. Sure, yours might be lower than mine so we might not have the same definition of what 'moderation' is, but there's still a limit above which it won't be moderation for you anymore - if you're starving all day because you ate 5 cookies, you know that it's not moderation for you, for example. But someone who exercises a lot could easily fit that in their day, for example... that would be moderation for him/her.
So I would say that in a way, when it comes to food, 'moderation is pretty self explanatory'.
Oh, you mean if someone says "eat X in moderation" they couldn't figure out for themselves what that means? I disagree -- I think it obviously means "not to excess" and people know what excess is for them based on their calorie goal and, as Francl pointed out, how they feel, as well as general ideas of health. I never believe there's a risk that a newby will misunderstand and think it's cool to eat only cookies all day (even if they might want to, and I can't imagine anyone wanting to), because common sense.0 -
Ykshama2001 wrote: »
If I say, "I eat treats in moderation," what does that mean? So we know if that means once or twice a year? Every day? With every meal? Do we know if it's a time thing or an amount one? Doe we know if it's always the same thing or various things?lemurcat12 wrote: »"I've been eating clean and I'm gaining weight!"
"I've been eating in moderation and I'm gaining weight!"
I'm going to need more. It doesn't really explain how they're actually eating.
True, but the difference is that I've never seen the former.If someone asks about how to eat treats "in moderation", there will be 20 different ways to do it.
Because people are different, and "in moderation" really just means "not to excess" in this context.
And IMO, moderation does not describe a way of eating. It describes an approach.
We don't. We don't know what it means except that the person who said it believes they're eating "in moderation."
Yes, exactly. Similarly, my definition of "junk food" will likely be very different from other's.
Please like to a reliable source that has multiple definitions of moderation....0 -
Some might argue that you can eat them all the time, but in small amounts. They'd say that was moderation, too.
If I say, "I eat treats in moderation," what does that mean? So we know if that means once or twice a year? Every day? With every meal? Do we know if it's a time thing or an amount one? Doe we know if it's always the same thing or various things?lemurcat12 wrote: »"I've been eating clean and I'm gaining weight!"
"I've been eating in moderation and I'm gaining weight!"
I'm going to need more. It doesn't really explain how they're actually eating.
True, but the difference is that I've never seen the former.If someone asks about how to eat treats "in moderation", there will be 20 different ways to do it.
Because people are different, and "in moderation" really just means "not to excess" in this context.
And IMO, moderation does not describe a way of eating. It describes an approach.
We don't. We don't know what it means except that the person who said it believes they're eating "in moderation."
It doesn't matter. How often any one person specifically eats treats is beside the point. The point is that they do eat them, just not all the time. That's the thing about everything you just wrote here. It is irrelevant. It does not matter if I can only have two cookies and Jim Bob can have four. Two cookies is appropriate for me. Four is appropriate for Jim Bob. As for the specious argument that someone might not know what moderation means, it is very easily explained. Good luck trying that with clean eating.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »
If I say, "I eat treats in moderation," what does that mean? So we know if that means once or twice a year? Every day? With every meal? Do we know if it's a time thing or an amount one? Doe we know if it's always the same thing or various things?lemurcat12 wrote: »"I've been eating clean and I'm gaining weight!"
"I've been eating in moderation and I'm gaining weight!"
I'm going to need more. It doesn't really explain how they're actually eating.
True, but the difference is that I've never seen the former.If someone asks about how to eat treats "in moderation", there will be 20 different ways to do it.
Because people are different, and "in moderation" really just means "not to excess" in this context.
And IMO, moderation does not describe a way of eating. It describes an approach.
We don't. We don't know what it means except that the person who said it believes they're eating "in moderation."
Yes, exactly. Similarly, my definition of "junk food" will likely be very different from other's.
That's one reason people object to the term "junk food," but the analogy does not work. Referring to "clean food" or "junk food" is saying there are specific foods that fit this category, according to some definition (but there is no consistent definition).
No one eats "moderate foods." Moderation is an approach. Even if people agree on the approach it is understood and expected that everyone would end up eating a vastly different diet. But it does not make sense for "clean food" to be a thing, but bread to be clean for me and not deli meat, whereas you think bacon is clean but not white rice or some such.
However, I actually am not so sure that "junk food" (a term that is usually used kind of casually, not taken literally, so doesn't bother me) is subject to so many alternative definitions. Typically it means one of two things: (1) any high cal, low nutrient food; or (2) highly processed foods that are high in sugar or sat fat or maybe sodium and usually high cal. It was only at MFP, at least, where I saw that apparently some people use it for potatoes or bread or the like. I think among the general public that would seem unusual.0 -
Again - definition of moderation is consistent. The approach to moderation is individualized and may vary from person to person.
Definition of clean is very inconsistent AND the approach varies from person to person AND it has the additional caveat of the perception that if you are not "clean" then you are dirty.
0 -
If I say, "I eat treats in moderation," you don't have any idea how much or how often. All you know is that I consider it to be "in moderation."lemurcat12 wrote: »
And I'd say that when someone is new and just begins reading the boards, they're not going know exactly what people mean.
This demonstrates what I mean.WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Loved the article! Thanks for posting.
As for the side argument with people parsing words?
I used to go to school with this girl who used big words incorrectly all the time. Her misuse of the word didn't change what it fundamentally meant and did not suddenly mean that the definition of it was murky.
Just sayin'.
If you avoid the extremes, you're practicing moderation.
Exactly, it's like people who say feminism is man-hating because some people who call themselves that term behave that way or people who call themselves vegetarian but still eat meat. The definitions of the words don't change just because some people use them incorrectly.
This seems in direct contrast to your earlier post to which I replied. It said "There was a discussion here recently where some people were trying to argue that moderation has a million different definitions, just like "clean."
"clean" has a dictionary definition too.
One that actually relates to "clean eating"?
Not that I've seen. But then I've never seen a dictionary definition for "moderation" that relates to eating either. Which was my point.
The nice thing about moderation is that it is an approach which can be applied to a number of different concepts.
Moderation in eating
Moderation in spending
Moderation in drinking
The definition of no extremes is applicable in all of those examples. How an individual moderates their eating, spending, and drinking may differ from person to person - but the overall concept is fairly clear, the avoidance of excess or extremes.
Conversely, the word "clean" is an adjective that has very different meanings depending on how it is used.
Clean house
Clean eating
Clean bill of health
I don't believe it is possible to come up with a singular definition for the word "clean" which is applicable to all of those concepts.
One person could say they spend in moderation, but they define it as having three homes, one yacht and one airplane. Another person might feel that spending in moderation is buying their clothes at Wal-Mart instead of Goodwill. Both can say they're spending in moderation, but you don't know what they mean until you ask.
One person's clean house may mean doing spring cleaning on a weekly basis while another has it meaning they moved junk from the floor to the counter.
You just don't know the specifics until you ask.
But we're talking about food. We all have a set limit of calories to maintain a healthy weight. Sure, yours might be lower than mine so we might not have the same definition of what 'moderation' is, but there's still a limit above which it won't be moderation for you anymore - if you're starving all day because you ate 5 cookies, you know that it's not moderation for you, for example. But someone who exercises a lot could easily fit that in their day, for example... that would be moderation for him/her.
So I would say that in a way, when it comes to food, 'moderation is pretty self explanatory'.
Oh, you mean if someone says "eat X in moderation" they couldn't figure out for themselves what that means? I disagree -- I think it obviously means "not to excess" and people know what too excess is for them based on their calorie goal and, as Francl pointed out, how they feel, as well as general ideas of health. I never believe there's a risk that a newby will misunderstand and think it's cool to eat only cookies all day (even if they might want to, and I can't imagine anyone wanting to), because common sense.
0 -
If I say, "I eat treats in moderation," you don't have any idea how much or how often. All you know is that I consider it to be "in moderation."lemurcat12 wrote: »
And I'd say that when someone is new and just begins reading the boards, they're not going know exactly what people mean.
This demonstrates what I mean.WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Loved the article! Thanks for posting.
As for the side argument with people parsing words?
I used to go to school with this girl who used big words incorrectly all the time. Her misuse of the word didn't change what it fundamentally meant and did not suddenly mean that the definition of it was murky.
Just sayin'.
If you avoid the extremes, you're practicing moderation.
Exactly, it's like people who say feminism is man-hating because some people who call themselves that term behave that way or people who call themselves vegetarian but still eat meat. The definitions of the words don't change just because some people use them incorrectly.
This seems in direct contrast to your earlier post to which I replied. It said "There was a discussion here recently where some people were trying to argue that moderation has a million different definitions, just like "clean."
"clean" has a dictionary definition too.
One that actually relates to "clean eating"?
Not that I've seen. But then I've never seen a dictionary definition for "moderation" that relates to eating either. Which was my point.
The nice thing about moderation is that it is an approach which can be applied to a number of different concepts.
Moderation in eating
Moderation in spending
Moderation in drinking
The definition of no extremes is applicable in all of those examples. How an individual moderates their eating, spending, and drinking may differ from person to person - but the overall concept is fairly clear, the avoidance of excess or extremes.
Conversely, the word "clean" is an adjective that has very different meanings depending on how it is used.
Clean house
Clean eating
Clean bill of health
I don't believe it is possible to come up with a singular definition for the word "clean" which is applicable to all of those concepts.
One person could say they spend in moderation, but they define it as having three homes, one yacht and one airplane. Another person might feel that spending in moderation is buying their clothes at Wal-Mart instead of Goodwill. Both can say they're spending in moderation, but you don't know what they mean until you ask.
One person's clean house may mean doing spring cleaning on a weekly basis while another has it meaning they moved junk from the floor to the counter.
You just don't know the specifics until you ask.
But we're talking about food. We all have a set limit of calories to maintain a healthy weight. Sure, yours might be lower than mine so we might not have the same definition of what 'moderation' is, but there's still a limit above which it won't be moderation for you anymore - if you're starving all day because you ate 5 cookies, you know that it's not moderation for you, for example. But someone who exercises a lot could easily fit that in their day, for example... that would be moderation for him/her.
So I would say that in a way, when it comes to food, 'moderation is pretty self explanatory'.
Oh, you mean if someone says "eat X in moderation" they couldn't figure out for themselves what that means? I disagree -- I think it obviously means "not to excess" and people know what too excess is for them based on their calorie goal and, as Francl pointed out, how they feel, as well as general ideas of health. I never believe there's a risk that a newby will misunderstand and think it's cool to eat only cookies all day (even if they might want to, and I can't imagine anyone wanting to), because common sense.
It's a relative term.
Politically, although it may involve a similar approach (trying to avoid the extremes, take a middle course), moderation in the US in 2015 means something different than moderation in 1860 US and something different than what it means in Sweden in 2015 or France in 1789.
Similarly, no, I can't know what treats in moderation is for you without knowing your calorie goal, your other goals, and your idea of what a treat is. That doesn't mean that people who get different results aren't both using the same moderation approach.
Also, I can say that certain things are or are not consistent with moderation.
For example, consuming 500 calories of wine, 500 calories of cookies, and 500 calories of everything else, on a regular basis, definitely not moderation.0 -
And I'd say that when someone is new and just begins reading the boards, they're not going know exactly what people mean.
This demonstrates what I mean.WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Loved the article! Thanks for posting.
As for the side argument with people parsing words?
I used to go to school with this girl who used big words incorrectly all the time. Her misuse of the word didn't change what it fundamentally meant and did not suddenly mean that the definition of it was murky.
Just sayin'.
If you avoid the extremes, you're practicing moderation.
Exactly, it's like people who say feminism is man-hating because some people who call themselves that term behave that way or people who call themselves vegetarian but still eat meat. The definitions of the words don't change just because some people use them incorrectly.
This seems in direct contrast to your earlier post to which I replied. It said "There was a discussion here recently where some people were trying to argue that moderation has a million different definitions, just like "clean."
"clean" has a dictionary definition too.
One that actually relates to "clean eating"?
Not that I've seen. But then I've never seen a dictionary definition for "moderation" that relates to eating either. Which was my point.
The nice thing about moderation is that it is an approach which can be applied to a number of different concepts.
Moderation in eating
Moderation in spending
Moderation in drinking
The definition of no extremes is applicable in all of those examples. How an individual moderates their eating, spending, and drinking may differ from person to person - but the overall concept is fairly clear, the avoidance of excess or extremes.
Conversely, the word "clean" is an adjective that has very different meanings depending on how it is used.
Clean house
Clean eating
Clean bill of health
I don't believe it is possible to come up with a singular definition for the word "clean" which is applicable to all of those concepts.
One person could say they spend in moderation, but they define it as having three homes, one yacht and one airplane. Another person might feel that spending in moderation is buying their clothes at Wal-Mart instead of Goodwill. Both can say they're spending in moderation, but you don't know what they mean until you ask.
One person's clean house may mean doing spring cleaning on a weekly basis while another has it meaning they moved junk from the floor to the counter.
You just don't know the specifics until you ask.
But we're talking about food. We all have a set limit of calories to maintain a healthy weight. Sure, yours might be lower than mine so we might not have the same definition of what 'moderation' is, but there's still a limit above which it won't be moderation for you anymore - if you're starving all day because you ate 5 cookies, you know that it's not moderation for you, for example. But someone who exercises a lot could easily fit that in their day, for example... that would be moderation for him/her.
So I would say that in a way, when it comes to food, 'moderation is pretty self explanatory'.
Again, I have no problem at all with people saying "clean" and "in moderation." I get the gist. But sometimes, it gets confusing and you don't know exactly what they mean, as in "Eat treats in moderation."
I'm not on a campaign to try to get people to stop using the words, but thought I'd clarify why the confusion exists, which I believe I have.
Unless someone is really thick, I'm quite sure they will understand that moderation is not stuffing your face with a box of cookies.
I guess I don't see what the problem is. Even when I was stuffing my face with boxes of cookies, it was pretty clear to me that moderation was not what I was doing, but that eating only 2-3 cookies would be considered moderation.
If someone really need to be told what moderation is, well, I just have no answer to you, considering that the package tells you what a serving is.0 -
this is pretty simple....I can't believe so many people don't get it...my mind is officially blown...i really didn't think there could be this much derp on one site.
moderation by it's very definition means you are finding the middle ground and not going to one extreme or another...it's balance and it applies to all facets of life. it's really pretty simple...unless you just have about half a brain or just like to argue because you're bored.
unfortunately we live in a world of extremes...which is maybe why so many people are displaying a fair amount of derp here.0 -
I just read the article blog some random person wrote, and frankly, I'm think it's completely off on the definition of moderation. Moderation is the absence of extremes, but I think it is more appropriately applied in the same context as "eating within your macros" or "having a calorie deficit" - it's a concept that can be applied to all different ways of eating, whereas this author tries to make moderation into a labeled diet where specific foods are included. The author basically defines it as "eating mostly whole foods with treats." Um, what? That's not any definition of "eating in moderation" that I've ever heard, that's someone trying to co-op the term to make their preferred type of food intake into something they think everyone else needs to adhere to for success.
The most ridiculous part is the author states that things like eating 100% paleo, or going sugar-free, or only eating organic are considered "extreme," but then goes on to contradict herself by saying "The specifics will look different for everyone, because everyone has different preferences and tastes." Wouldn't eating a paleo diet or vegetarian diet or a no added sugar diet fall into the category of personal preferences and tastes? And who determines what is or is not a treat or indulgence in someone else's diet?
To me, moderation has to do with portion size and/or frequency of consumption, not any specific type of food. The author also goes on to talk about food restriction and binging - for some people, yes, this can be a very real concern. For others, restricting or eliminating a food is their path to success. The author admits to having feelings of guilt around long-term restricting/binging and foods - that's her personal psychological issue, it's not endemic to all people who restrict foods. Others find that just eliminating the food reduces or eliminates issues around foods, because they no longer endure the psychological stress of trying to moderate those foods and failing.
TL;DR: I'm glad she found something that works for her, but as far as the author's definition of moderation
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »this is pretty simple....I can't believe so many people don't get it...my mind is officially blown...i really didn't think there could be this much derp on one site.
moderation by it's very definition means you are finding the middle ground and not going to one extreme or another...it's balance and it applies to all facets of life. it's really pretty simple...unless you just have about half a brain or just like to argue because you're bored.
unfortunately we live in a world of extremes...which is maybe why so many people are displaying a fair amount of derp here.
+10 -
Love that article!0
-
If I say, "I eat treats in moderation," you don't have any idea how much or how often. All you know is that I consider it to be "in moderation."lemurcat12 wrote: »
And I'd say that when someone is new and just begins reading the boards, they're not going know exactly what people mean.
This demonstrates what I mean.WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Loved the article! Thanks for posting.
As for the side argument with people parsing words?
I used to go to school with this girl who used big words incorrectly all the time. Her misuse of the word didn't change what it fundamentally meant and did not suddenly mean that the definition of it was murky.
Just sayin'.
If you avoid the extremes, you're practicing moderation.
Exactly, it's like people who say feminism is man-hating because some people who call themselves that term behave that way or people who call themselves vegetarian but still eat meat. The definitions of the words don't change just because some people use them incorrectly.
This seems in direct contrast to your earlier post to which I replied. It said "There was a discussion here recently where some people were trying to argue that moderation has a million different definitions, just like "clean."
"clean" has a dictionary definition too.
One that actually relates to "clean eating"?
Not that I've seen. But then I've never seen a dictionary definition for "moderation" that relates to eating either. Which was my point.
The nice thing about moderation is that it is an approach which can be applied to a number of different concepts.
Moderation in eating
Moderation in spending
Moderation in drinking
The definition of no extremes is applicable in all of those examples. How an individual moderates their eating, spending, and drinking may differ from person to person - but the overall concept is fairly clear, the avoidance of excess or extremes.
Conversely, the word "clean" is an adjective that has very different meanings depending on how it is used.
Clean house
Clean eating
Clean bill of health
I don't believe it is possible to come up with a singular definition for the word "clean" which is applicable to all of those concepts.
One person could say they spend in moderation, but they define it as having three homes, one yacht and one airplane. Another person might feel that spending in moderation is buying their clothes at Wal-Mart instead of Goodwill. Both can say they're spending in moderation, but you don't know what they mean until you ask.
One person's clean house may mean doing spring cleaning on a weekly basis while another has it meaning they moved junk from the floor to the counter.
You just don't know the specifics until you ask.
But we're talking about food. We all have a set limit of calories to maintain a healthy weight. Sure, yours might be lower than mine so we might not have the same definition of what 'moderation' is, but there's still a limit above which it won't be moderation for you anymore - if you're starving all day because you ate 5 cookies, you know that it's not moderation for you, for example. But someone who exercises a lot could easily fit that in their day, for example... that would be moderation for him/her.
So I would say that in a way, when it comes to food, 'moderation is pretty self explanatory'.
Oh, you mean if someone says "eat X in moderation" they couldn't figure out for themselves what that means? I disagree -- I think it obviously means "not to excess" and people know what too excess is for them based on their calorie goal and, as Francl pointed out, how they feel, as well as general ideas of health. I never believe there's a risk that a newby will misunderstand and think it's cool to eat only cookies all day (even if they might want to, and I can't imagine anyone wanting to), because common sense.
I trust you when you say you eat treats--"in moderation".
0 -
I trust people, too. It's not hard, generally, to understand what they mean when they say "in moderation" or "clean." And very often, the two are interchangeable. People who say, "I eat mostly clean" are often doing things almost the same way as those who say, "I eat in moderation."snowflake954 wrote: »
If I say, "I eat treats in moderation," you don't have any idea how much or how often. All you know is that I consider it to be "in moderation."lemurcat12 wrote: »
And I'd say that when someone is new and just begins reading the boards, they're not going know exactly what people mean.
This demonstrates what I mean.WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Loved the article! Thanks for posting.
As for the side argument with people parsing words?
I used to go to school with this girl who used big words incorrectly all the time. Her misuse of the word didn't change what it fundamentally meant and did not suddenly mean that the definition of it was murky.
Just sayin'.
If you avoid the extremes, you're practicing moderation.
Exactly, it's like people who say feminism is man-hating because some people who call themselves that term behave that way or people who call themselves vegetarian but still eat meat. The definitions of the words don't change just because some people use them incorrectly.
This seems in direct contrast to your earlier post to which I replied. It said "There was a discussion here recently where some people were trying to argue that moderation has a million different definitions, just like "clean."
"clean" has a dictionary definition too.
One that actually relates to "clean eating"?
Not that I've seen. But then I've never seen a dictionary definition for "moderation" that relates to eating either. Which was my point.
The nice thing about moderation is that it is an approach which can be applied to a number of different concepts.
Moderation in eating
Moderation in spending
Moderation in drinking
The definition of no extremes is applicable in all of those examples. How an individual moderates their eating, spending, and drinking may differ from person to person - but the overall concept is fairly clear, the avoidance of excess or extremes.
Conversely, the word "clean" is an adjective that has very different meanings depending on how it is used.
Clean house
Clean eating
Clean bill of health
I don't believe it is possible to come up with a singular definition for the word "clean" which is applicable to all of those concepts.
One person could say they spend in moderation, but they define it as having three homes, one yacht and one airplane. Another person might feel that spending in moderation is buying their clothes at Wal-Mart instead of Goodwill. Both can say they're spending in moderation, but you don't know what they mean until you ask.
One person's clean house may mean doing spring cleaning on a weekly basis while another has it meaning they moved junk from the floor to the counter.
You just don't know the specifics until you ask.
But we're talking about food. We all have a set limit of calories to maintain a healthy weight. Sure, yours might be lower than mine so we might not have the same definition of what 'moderation' is, but there's still a limit above which it won't be moderation for you anymore - if you're starving all day because you ate 5 cookies, you know that it's not moderation for you, for example. But someone who exercises a lot could easily fit that in their day, for example... that would be moderation for him/her.
So I would say that in a way, when it comes to food, 'moderation is pretty self explanatory'.
Oh, you mean if someone says "eat X in moderation" they couldn't figure out for themselves what that means? I disagree -- I think it obviously means "not to excess" and people know what too excess is for them based on their calorie goal and, as Francl pointed out, how they feel, as well as general ideas of health. I never believe there's a risk that a newby will misunderstand and think it's cool to eat only cookies all day (even if they might want to, and I can't imagine anyone wanting to), because common sense.
I trust you when you say you eat treats--"in moderation".
They're both terms that, generally,can be understood.
But if you want to get into specifics, you have to know more than "clean" or "in moderation."0 -
The problem is that lots of people have defined it, but they've all defined it ver differently.
I would be the person who argued that. It's because it's true.Oh, I like this one! There are some folks that think that moderation "can mean anything" but this article nails it down. It is the absence of extremes. Nice. Thanks for sharing it!
When I first started reading on MFP, I was trying very hard to figure out what the heck people meant when they said "clean" or "in moderation" because one person would say this was clean and another would say that was clean, while one person saying moderation was this and another was saying moderation was that.
You can argue that both terms have definitions, but are carried out differently. That really doesn't help the person who is trying to figure out exactly what it means.
The fact of the matter is that saying "clean" or "in moderation" just isn't specific. It has no meaning that anyone could pinpoint and say "Everyone who says they eat this way does X."
I don't mind people using the words "clean" or "in moderation." I get what they mean in a general sense. But when they use those words, I don't know exactly how they are defining them. Most of the time, the general sense works just fine. Occasionally, though, I need a little more.
"I've been eating clean and I'm gaining weight!"
"I've been eating in moderation and I'm gaining weight!"
I'm going to need more. It doesn't really explain how they're actually eating.
If someone asks about how to eat treats "in moderation", there will be 20 different ways to do it.
As many posters have many meanings for each term, specifics will be required.
I have the same issue with both terms - "clean" and "in moderation" and am not slamming either group or trying to make fun of either group or have a fight.
I never suggested that anyone should stop using those terms! It's just that they aren't really clearly describing a way of eating.
The difference is that there's a specific definition to 'moderation'. Good luck finding one for 'clean eating'.
Maybe the group of people in this thread will agree upon a definition and then people would know what you all meant, but not everyone who uses the term is using it the way you do.
Clean eaters could say that "clean" has a definition, but it is carried out differently by different people and some people are using it wrong. It still doesn't allow me to know what the person who says, "I'm eating clean" actually means.
Saying, "This word has a definition, but is carried out differently by different people and some people are using the word wrong" - that doesn't help the person who reads it to know what it means.
You're confusing a philosophy with its context/application.
They're two separate issues.
Moderation for a dieter with a TDEE of 3800 calories who's an ominivore is going to look different than moderation for a dieter with a TDEE of 1800 calories who's a vegetarian. They can both still practice moderation, but the specifics of how it's applied will look different.
0 -
MondayJune22nd2015 wrote: »The definitions don't define levels of what moderation and/or clean are, so those levels; will always be opinions.
This is damned near painful to read, because the intellectual twisting you have to do to actually think that just boggles.
Please tell me you're not serious here.
Level of... moderate? or clean? Seriously?
What's your feeling on the definition of the word "is"?0 -
But if you want to get into specifics, you have to know more than "clean" or "in moderation."
If you want to know specifics about what they actually eat, of course.
But no one thinks they are communicating that information when they say "I follow the moderate approach" or "I eat treats in moderation."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