Moderation
Options
Replies
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »
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 -
-
-
Subjective0
-
-
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.
So?0 -
thorsmom01 wrote: »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.
+1
+2
and LOL at the people that don't understand there is only one definition of moderation...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
the author uses the webster definition of moderation, not sure why you think it is some made up definition …
0 -
To those who only see black-and-white, there is no such thing as gray.
Moderation is gray.
Some people are arguing that just because dark gray and light gray are different that there is no such thing as gray
They're missing the fact that they are both actually gray, and that gray is actually a thing0 -
Newbie: Puuleeze just tell me what to eat. I'm desperate to lose weight.
Moderate: All food is on the table, it's just how much.
Newbie: But what I am I supposed to eat?
Moderate: Eat the way you are now, only less. Let's start weighing and logging, shall we, just to see where you are?
Newbie: But what about the South Beach Diet? A co-worker of my girlfriend's said she had great results.
Moderate: K, come back when you are ready. I hear the scales at Wal-Mart are half-price.
Not so Newbie: Haalp! I am four weeks away from my wedding date, lost a bunch on the South Beach diet, but put it all back! Puuleeze just give me a quickie twenty pound plan.
Moderate: Sorry, too late for that. Here's what you realistically can lose in the next two weeks. In the meantime, get the dress altered.
Not so Newbie: So can I sweat it off? Is there an off-market pill I can take? Puuleeze just tell me what to eat.
Moderate: All food is on the table, it's just how much.
Not so Newbie: Are you serious? I heard carbs are toxic. I want a cleanse.
Desperation, quickies, fad diets of all descriptions, cleanses, pills, sweats, fears of toxinnnns, elimination of entire macros, are all extreme, so fall out of the moderate's realm.
Simplicity sometimes just cannot be heard.
Can moderation be overdone? Sure. Like weighing water, or trying to stick to the plan 100% of the time. Moderation even in moderation. That's even a thing. 80/20.
LOL.....smh....0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »To those who only see black-and-white, there is no such thing as gray.
Moderation is gray.
Some people are arguing that just because dark gray and light gray are different that there is no such thing as gray
They're missing the fact that they are both actually gray, and that gray is actually a thing
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »To those who only see black-and-white, there is no such thing as gray.
Moderation is gray.
Some people are arguing that just because dark gray and light gray are different that there is no such thing as gray
They're missing the fact that they are both actually gray, and that gray is actually a thing
I just realized my first sentence is a great example of iambic tetrameter/trimeter (Gilligans Island theme)
It's pretty much the Rime of the Ancient Mariner of weight-loss tips0 -
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
the author uses the webster definition of moderation, not sure why you think it is some made up definition …
Just because she quoted the definition does not mean she used the word properly in context. Here's what she initially says (hat tip to the cherry-picking manner in which she choose to present only one definition for the word and completely left out the definition of the idiom "in moderation" which means "without excess; moderately; temperately")mod·er·a·tion
ˌmädəˈrāSH(ə)n/
noun
1. the avoidance of excess or extremes, especially in one’s behavior or political opinions.Eating 100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme.
Yet later in the article she states: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. The specifics will look different for everyone, because everyone has different preferences and tastes. It also leaves room for regular treats and indulgences that feed our soul and give us pleasure.
The application she describes is quite different from the definition she presented, and a 100% paleo diet would easily fit the criteria of a "mostly whole foods diet with plenty of nutrients from fruits, vegetable, lean meats, healthy fats, etc;" the choice to eat a paleo diet would be supported by her statement that "the specifics will look different for everyone, because everyone has different preferences and tastes; and things like paleo desserts would certainly fit into the category of "regular treats and indulgences that feed our soul and give us pleasure."
Therefore, a paleo diet meets the criteria for "what moderation looks like in the real world," which contradicts her previous statement about a paleo diet. The author is applying the same definition inconsistently. In the first instance, she defines moderation by the types of food consumed/behavior of eliminating certain foods from one's diet, and in the second, she defines moderation by the amount/frequency of types of foods consumed and the behavior of exercising that practice.
My post clarified is that her use in the first instance is inaccurate and that the second instance is the correct usage when discussing diet and food consumption, which makes moderation apply across ways of eating. Her use of both instances as acceptable under that one specific definition is glaringly contradictory - which also supports what some other users have said about the definition of moderation being unclear to some people. The author's own words support that position.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »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"?
This was my earlier explanation to someone else's confusion, about that post:
"I am just implying that there's no definitive rules, concerning the levels/percentage of application and/or even the method of application itself of these specific definitions; I don't understand how that's incomprehensible."0 -
mysteps2beauty wrote: »Newbie: Puuleeze just tell me what to eat. I'm desperate to lose weight.
Moderate: All food is on the table, it's just how much.
Newbie: But what I am I supposed to eat?
Moderate: Eat the way you are now, only less. Let's start weighing and logging, shall we, just to see where you are?
Newbie: But what about the South Beach Diet? A co-worker of my girlfriend's said she had great results.
Moderate: K, come back when you are ready. I hear the scales at Wal-Mart are half-price.
Not so Newbie: Haalp! I am four weeks away from my wedding date, lost a bunch on the South Beach diet, but put it all back! Puuleeze just give me a quickie twenty pound plan.
Moderate: Sorry, too late for that. Here's what you realistically can lose in the next two weeks. In the meantime, get the dress altered.
Not so Newbie: So can I sweat it off? Is there an off-market pill I can take? Puuleeze just tell me what to eat.
Moderate: All food is on the table, it's just how much.
Not so Newbie: Are you serious? I heard carbs are toxic. I want a cleanse.
Desperation, quickies, fad diets of all descriptions, cleanses, pills, sweats, fears of toxinnnns, elimination of entire macros, are all extreme, so fall out of the moderate's realm.
Simplicity sometimes just cannot be heard.
Can moderation be overdone? Sure. Like weighing water, or trying to stick to the plan 100% of the time. Moderation even in moderation. That's even a thing. 80/20.
LOL.....smh....
You are amazing @jgnatca and I am glad we are friends!!0 -
Those who do moderation get this already...those who are into extremes need to read it.
People keep quoting this.... I think most of us who eat unusual diets (or "extreme" diets) know what moderation is. We've just chosen NOT to moderate everything, usually for specific reasons for which "moderation in everything" will not work.
I can say I eat a LCHF diet with moderation (meaning I don't eat a rasher of bacon or a pound of cheese per day). If I said I used a moderate approach to my LCHF diet, I mean that I eat those foods that fit my WOE, so it hits my macros and my caloric goals. It would mean that I include a variety of LCHF appropriate foods in my diet.... It is just an approach to a WOE.
I would not just say I eat in moderation. I don't eat everything out there. I do avoid eating a lot of carbs. I'm gluten-free for health reasons, so I could never really be someone who uses moderation anyways. I was excluding foods from the get go. Add LCHF on top of that? It's definitely not "moderation in everything".
Not eating everything in moderation is often a healthy and valid choice for some people. I'm better off with some restrictions.0 -
Those who do moderation get this already...those who are into extremes need to read it.
People keep quoting this.... I think most of us who eat unusual diets (or "extreme" diets) know what moderation is. We've just chosen NOT to moderate everything, usually for specific reasons for which "moderation in everything" will not work.
I can say I eat a LCHF diet with moderation (meaning I don't eat a rasher of bacon or a pound of cheese per day). If I said I used a moderate approach to my LCHF diet, I mean that I eat those foods that fit my WOE, so it hits my macros and my caloric goals. It would mean that I include a variety of LCHF appropriate foods in my diet.... It is just an approach to a WOE.
I would not just say I eat in moderation. I don't eat everything out there. I do avoid eating a lot of carbs. I'm gluten-free for health reasons, so I could never really be someone who uses moderation anyways. I was excluding foods from the get go. Add LCHF on top of that? It's definitely not "moderation in everything".
Not eating everything in moderation is often a healthy and valid choice for some people. I'm better off with some restrictions.
Oh, I don't think there's anything wrong with not eating in moderation. At all. Nor did I take "extreme" in a negative way. It just seems like there's a lot of deliberate misunderstanding here of what moderation is and this article summed it up nicely. Of course, people continue to believe what they want to believe, asevidenced by this thread. My arguments about what moderation is have nothing to do with it being "right" and other ways being "wrong." I agree with you absolutely that some people do know what it is and choose a different way. But clearly some people don't know what it is and apparently don't care to learn.0 -
Those who do moderation get this already...those who are into extremes need to read it.
People keep quoting this.... I think most of us who eat unusual diets (or "extreme" diets) know what moderation is. We've just chosen NOT to moderate everything, usually for specific reasons for which "moderation in everything" will not work.
I can say I eat a LCHF diet with moderation (meaning I don't eat a rasher of bacon or a pound of cheese per day). If I said I used a moderate approach to my LCHF diet, I mean that I eat those foods that fit my WOE, so it hits my macros and my caloric goals. It would mean that I include a variety of LCHF appropriate foods in my diet.... It is just an approach to a WOE.
I would not just say I eat in moderation. I don't eat everything out there. I do avoid eating a lot of carbs. I'm gluten-free for health reasons, so I could never really be someone who uses moderation anyways. I was excluding foods from the get go. Add LCHF on top of that? It's definitely not "moderation in everything".
Not eating everything in moderation is often a healthy and valid choice for some people. I'm better off with some restrictions.
Oh, I don't think there's anything wrong with not eating in moderation. At all. Nor did I take "extreme" in a negative way. It just seems like there's a lot of deliberate misunderstanding here of what moderation is and this article summed it up nicely. Of course, people continue to believe what they want to believe, asevidenced by this thread. My arguments about what moderation is have nothing to do with it being "right" and other ways being "wrong." I agree with you absolutely that some people do know what it is and choose a different way. But clearly some people don't know what it is and apparently don't care to learn.
Fair enough.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 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
- 979 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions