Moderation
Replies
-
juggernaut1974 wrote: »I assume that those who (rightly or wrongly) believe there is no one standard definition of terms such as "moderation" will no longer have any poutrage or problems when someone asks a future OP to further define his or her personal definition of clean eating
They would probably have no poutrage about asking the question.
But then as the future OP's 'personal' definition is then mercilessly attacked,( mainly by posters with a few thousand posts to their name), they have the mick taken out of them,
someone writes something amazingly humorous about, 'does washing my cake in bleach make it clean?', a couple of people post a small verbal kicking and disappear again, and a gif is posted of some celebrity rolling their eyes, to which follow posters write,'^ this', then they probably would get a bit of poutage.
And another mission would be complete.
( Oh, don't forget the 'peer reviewed paper' demand).0 -
maplehouse200 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »I assume that those who (rightly or wrongly) believe there is no one standard definition of terms such as "moderation" will no longer have any poutrage or problems when someone asks a future OP to further define his or her personal definition of clean eating
They would probably have no poutrage about asking the question.
But then as the future OP's 'personal' definition is then mercilessly attacked,( mainly by posters with a few thousand posts to their name), they have the mick taken out of them,
someone writes something amazingly humorous about, 'does washing my cake in bleach make it clean?', a couple of people post a small verbal kicking and disappear again, and a gif is posted of some celebrity rolling their eyes, to which follow posters write,'^ this', then they probably would get a bit of poutage.
And another mission would be complete.
( Oh, don't forget the 'peer reviewed paper' demand).
Other than forgetting the white knights that appears to save the OP, and the sock-puppet posters whose only posts are mocking or attacking "few thousand post" members *cough cough* I think you summed it up pretty well.0 -
maplehouse200 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »I assume that those who (rightly or wrongly) believe there is no one standard definition of terms such as "moderation" will no longer have any poutrage or problems when someone asks a future OP to further define his or her personal definition of clean eating
They would probably have no poutrage about asking the question.
But then as the future OP's 'personal' definition is then mercilessly attacked,( mainly by posters with a few thousand posts to their name), they have the mick taken out of them,
someone writes something amazingly humorous about, 'does washing my cake in bleach make it clean?', a couple of people post a small verbal kicking and disappear again, and a gif is posted of some celebrity rolling their eyes, to which follow posters write,'^ this', then they probably would get a bit of poutage.
And another mission would be complete.
( Oh, don't forget the 'peer reviewed paper' demand).
Guessing that will happen...tomorrow? Because Friday.0 -
' I think you summed it up pretty well.'
Thanks Mr juggernaut.
I thought so too.
( Apologies for my omissions. Very remiss of me).0 -
justrollme wrote: »Moderation applied to some foods works for some people. In my opinion, a lot—perhaps even most, judging by obesity rates, as well as how many people regain weight after losing—either do not moderate their food, or think they moderate their food, but really don't, which is a point a few people here have made that others seem so desperate to dismiss.
But, since we're sharing blog posts, here is an alternate point of view.
those that think they are moderate but aren't...aren't. Just because the word is used incorrectly doesn't make "moderation" bogus.
like someone said before concrete vs cement.
As for the blog you posted...eh.
Moderation does not equal mediocre
Moderation means not in excess.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »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.
as a vegetarian, do you eat meat 'in moderation'?
Yes, a vegetarian does, or would you claim there are vegetarians eating meat in excess? Moderation is defined more by what is avoided (excess) than it is defined by anything it includes.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 …
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.
paleo would never meet the requirement of a "moderate diet" because it calls for the elimination of certain food groups, and also says that one has to eat like a paleolithic person, which would mean only eating local foods found within a 100 mile radius of where one lives, and sustaining on a diet of raw meet, grubs, plant roots, etc.
your understanding of moderation is severely flawed, and you do not understand the point that the author is trying to make.
Also, the authors application of moderation is totally in line with the diet as it is one where the theoretical person would be getting micros from whole foods, filling in macros with other foods, and then indulging in treats and what not to fill in left over calories.
Vegetarian and vegan diets also call for the elimination of certain food groups, as do diets that eliminate certain foods due to medical conditions. Is your argument that none of those people can enjoy a moderate diet due the elimination factor? No one with Celiac's is eating a moderate diet or practices moderation?
My understanding of moderation is correct; both you and the author are trying to co-opt the term and make it apply to your preferred way of eating and the actual foods you wish to eat. You are the one whose understand is severely flawed by trying to state that only people who eat a diet that does not eliminate any foods is eating in moderation - especially since even the author herself states that the actual foods consumed will vary based on personal preferences and tastes (which again, contradicts her previous argument that diets like paleo cannot not be moderation).Also, the authors application of moderation is totally in line with the diet as it is one where the theoretical person would be getting micros from whole foods, filling in macros with other foods, and then indulging in treats and what not to fill in left over calories.
That application of moderation is also totally in line with paleo, vegetarian, vegan, no-added-sugar, low carb, and gluten-free diets.
The actual reason for the elimination matters. Paleo is hidebound about diet for the sake of diet. Vegetarianism isn't about diet as much as it is about ethics. There are ways to be a non-moderating vegetarian. Having an allergy or other food intolerance is about a person not wanting to actually hurt themselves - there is no moderation in self-inflicted harm.
Like if you're just going to spitball ludicrous counterexamples, why not go full out and just claim no one moderates because no one eats moderate amounts of hemlock?0 -
maplehouse200 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »I assume that those who (rightly or wrongly) believe there is no one standard definition of terms such as "moderation" will no longer have any poutrage or problems when someone asks a future OP to further define his or her personal definition of clean eating
They would probably have no poutrage about asking the question.
But then as the future OP's 'personal' definition is then mercilessly attacked,( mainly by posters with a few thousand posts to their name), they have the mick taken out of them,
someone writes something amazingly humorous about, 'does washing my cake in bleach make it clean?', a couple of people post a small verbal kicking and disappear again, and a gif is posted of some celebrity rolling their eyes, to which follow posters write,'^ this', then they probably would get a bit of poutage.
And another mission would be complete.
( Oh, don't forget the 'peer reviewed paper' demand).
because having a fact based, scientific discussion, is soooo 1920's....0 -
maplehouse200 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »I assume that those who (rightly or wrongly) believe there is no one standard definition of terms such as "moderation" will no longer have any poutrage or problems when someone asks a future OP to further define his or her personal definition of clean eating
They would probably have no poutrage about asking the question.
But then as the future OP's 'personal' definition is then mercilessly attacked,( mainly by posters with a few thousand posts to their name), they have the mick taken out of them,
someone writes something amazingly humorous about, 'does washing my cake in bleach make it clean?', a couple of people post a small verbal kicking and disappear again, and a gif is posted of some celebrity rolling their eyes, to which follow posters write,'^ this', then they probably would get a bit of poutage.
And another mission would be complete.
( Oh, don't forget the 'peer reviewed paper' demand).
because having a fact based, scientific discussion, is soooo 1920's....
Why I say, after doing the Charleston, nothing is quite as invigorating as peer review, followed by a coke soda pop full of actual cocaine.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »
as a vegetarian, do you eat meat 'in moderation'?
Is this supposed to be a trap saying that because a vegetarian doesn't eat meat there's an absolute?
I don't eat beets either, is this a problem too? I don't eat foods I don't like. Most people don't. I don't think this kicks me out of club moderation.
Not eating meat is "eliminating an entire food group" which is the sort of thing dietitians regard as not moderate behaviour. I view it as an extreme, eating a bit of meat would be moderation, but refusing all meat is an extreme position.
I wholeheartedly support the ethics behind vegetarianism and veganism, but as we are omnivores, agree that eliminating meat should qualify as an extreme position per the article in the OP.0 -
this thread may go down as the most epicly ridiculous thread in MFP history, barring, of course, the mini trampoline thread....0
-
I have yet to see countless posts of newbs posting "Halp,! I'm eating in moderation , why am I not losing weight?!"0
-
-
Moderation: Eating a wide variety of foods that meet your nutritional needs without overdoing it on some things or completely cutting out certain foods without a good reason (good reasons include but are not limited to: not liking the taste, medical reasons, ethical reasons, religious reasons). What would not be a good reason: "Oh I love X so much, but I can't eat it on my diet or else I'll stay fat."0
-
stevencloser wrote: »Moderation: Eating a wide variety of foods that meet your nutritional needs without overdoing it on some things or completely cutting out certain foods without a good reason (good reasons include but are not limited to: not liking the taste, medical reasons, ethical reasons, religious reasons). What would not be a good reason: "Oh I love X so much, but I can't eat it on my diet or else I'll stay fat."
Logic has no place here....tsk tsk you should know better.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 …
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.
paleo would never meet the requirement of a "moderate diet" because it calls for the elimination of certain food groups, and also says that one has to eat like a paleolithic person, which would mean only eating local foods found within a 100 mile radius of where one lives, and sustaining on a diet of raw meet, grubs, plant roots, etc.
your understanding of moderation is severely flawed, and you do not understand the point that the author is trying to make.
Also, the authors application of moderation is totally in line with the diet as it is one where the theoretical person would be getting micros from whole foods, filling in macros with other foods, and then indulging in treats and what not to fill in left over calories.
Vegetarian and vegan diets also call for the elimination of certain food groups, as do diets that eliminate certain foods due to medical conditions. Is your argument that none of those people can enjoy a moderate diet due the elimination factor? No one with Celiac's is eating a moderate diet or practices moderation?
My understanding of moderation is correct; both you and the author are trying to co-opt the term and make it apply to your preferred way of eating and the actual foods you wish to eat. You are the one whose understand is severely flawed by trying to state that only people who eat a diet that does not eliminate any foods is eating in moderation - especially since even the author herself states that the actual foods consumed will vary based on personal preferences and tastes (which again, contradicts her previous argument that diets like paleo cannot not be moderation).Also, the authors application of moderation is totally in line with the diet as it is one where the theoretical person would be getting micros from whole foods, filling in macros with other foods, and then indulging in treats and what not to fill in left over calories.
That application of moderation is also totally in line with paleo, vegetarian, vegan, no-added-sugar, low carb, and gluten-free diets.
Explain how the bolded is in line with "moderation"
Low carb maybe...as you allow for carbs sometimes...
It's in line with the statement that was quoted but was collapsed in your quote. The statement was: "one where the theoretical person would be getting micros from whole foods, filling in macros with other foods, and then indulging in treats and what not to fill in left over calories."
All of those diets fit the criteria of getting micros from whole foods, filling in macros with other foods, and then indulging in treats and what not to fill in the left over calories. The only difference is the foods the person chooses to eat to meet that criteria, and as I pointed out, the author herself states that it's going to vary based on preferences and tastes, which would therefore include any of those diets.0 -
Is there some definition for what constitutes "extreme"?
Since moderation is avoiding extremes (to some), what constitutes "extreme" as it applies to a diet?
I think an extreme would be denying yourself something you want in the name of following a specific food plan.
If you are content with the variety of food you eat, I don't think that's extreme.
0 -
justrollme wrote: »Moderation applied to some foods works for some people. In my opinion, a lot—perhaps even most, judging by obesity rates, as well as how many people regain weight after losing—either do not moderate their food, or think they moderate their food, but really don't, which is a point a few people here have made that others seem so desperate to dismiss.
But, since we're sharing blog posts, here is an alternate point of view.
That is written by someone with poor self-control who confuses concepts easily.
I'm sure, if he manages his weight, he practices moderation of his portions, even if he does not believe in practicing moderation of his food choices. To equate the idea of passion for something as the antithesis of moderation is just silly.
His argument is that we are boring if we don't apply passion to what we .... eat? He moved the argument from food to running? Made no sense.
Me, I'll stick with my portion of cookies. Because I can have a portion and walk away. He obviously can't.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »
as a vegetarian, do you eat meat 'in moderation'?
Is this supposed to be a trap saying that because a vegetarian doesn't eat meat there's an absolute?
I don't eat beets either, is this a problem too? I don't eat foods I don't like. Most people don't. I don't think this kicks me out of club moderation.
Not eating meat is "eliminating an entire food group" which is the sort of thing dietitians regard as not moderate behaviour. I view it as an extreme, eating a bit of meat would be moderation, but refusing all meat is an extreme position.
I'm ... not a vegetarian because of ethics. I don't like meat. Do you eat things that you don't like? I don't eat beets, blackberries, or Swiss chard either. Is this extreme of me?
Additionally even if I were an ethical veggie, the point of the blog, if you read into it, was that eliminating food you would otherwise want for the sake of a diet can be counterproductive.
It is not high on any vegetarian's list to someday eat meat. If someone on some other restrictive plan is happy and content on their plan? Well carry on then. Otherwise, if some food you're missing is causing you to slip up on your path to weight loss, restrictive plans are not the only way to lose weight. You can incorporate any foods you choose to eat and still lose weight.
This is all she was saying.
Vegetarians moderate their food choices within the dictates of the conscience, not within the dictates of some diet plan they read about.0 -
That's not a moderate reaction to the term moderation, it's an extreme semantic argument
But it's fine
It's clearly how the black box in your brain works...but not how mine does...with the same input signals we get markedly different output
Is it going to affect either of us that we can't agree?...nope
Are we going to be equally successful in our health and fitness goals? ...quite possibly
I appreciate this is a non sequitur ...but I don't hold out much hope that either side will be swayed
Though I admit to being surprised there is actually another side to what seemed blatantly clear to me
H'oh well...such is the way of folk
I guess I don't understand how people arguing that "moderation" is in any way coherent or meaningful as a dieting philosophy (vs. as a word - seriously, everyone understands the actual, literal word) can fail to see the holes in their arguments, or recognize the irony of their position, given their usual attacks on "clean eaters" (i.e. that "no one understands what 'clean eating' means).
Both concepts are just meaningful enough to be useful hooks for people to hang their dieting hats on; both are vague enough for people to use them however they want.
Like it's silly to me0 -
Is there some definition for what constitutes "extreme"?
Since moderation is avoiding extremes (to some), what constitutes "extreme" as it applies to a diet?
But that's the rub, isn't it? For something to be considered moderate, it has to fall in the middle of two opposing points on the spectrum and is subject to the definition of the points. In politics, someone would be considered politically moderate if they fell between liberal and conservative. But you can also move the end points along the spectrum to identify someone who is moderately conservative or moderately liberal.
When it comes to diet, it seems the author is trying to do two separate things: define ways of eating as moderate, and define consumption as moderate. But she keeps using different spectrums - in keeping with the paleo diet, she uses one spectrum based on food restrictions to say it is not moderate, but later defines moderation using the spectrum of consumption of whole foods vs treats in which paleo could easily fall in the middle.
In keeping with the diet theme, someone upthread mentioned alcohol consumption, and I seem to remember that there was an actual number of drinks and frequency of consumption which would define someone as a moderate drinker (although I can't remember what those numbers were to save my life).
For diet, it would seem that without some consensus as to what a moderate intake is (as in portions and frequency), it does make it a bit ambiguous. I don't think that applying it by portion size would necessarily be accurate, as it would not account for differences in TDEE, and frequency would also be subject to things like lifestyle and portion size.
I would imagine the only real way to define moderation in terms of diet would be to view it in terms of percentages of foods consumed in overall diet over time (this is looking at moderation in terms of consumption/frequency because I think trying to define it by dietary composition is bunk). It would definitely have to have some longevity though to account for things like holidays and vacations which in the short term would skew the data.0 -
Is there some definition for what constitutes "extreme"?
Since moderation is avoiding extremes (to some), what constitutes "extreme" as it applies to a diet?
In keeping with the diet theme, someone upthread mentioned alcohol consumption, and I seem to remember that there was an actual number of drinks and frequency of consumption which would define someone as a moderate drinker (although I can't remember what those numbers were to save my life).
Re drinking - It varies by country. Italy thinks 2 good glasses of wine a day is advisable (per their guidelines). I might agree with that, but the guidelines in my country don't.
And even people who largely agree with any given guideline in general might have a different standard for what moderation is within their subculture. 3 drinks on a Saturday night isn't beyond the pale for most people in the US/Can, but it's more than they technically are advised to drink (immoderate). And someone who mostly doesn't drink but binge drinks once a month might see themselves as moderate, with that one exception 'not counting'.
There is also a rough # of drinks clinicans in north america can use to judge whether someone suffers from alcoholism, but iirc, they're advised to consider cultural influence. i.e. heavy drinkers from cultures in which heavy drinking is normalized (Russia, UK) might not come away with a diagnosis of alcoholism *just* based on the # of drinks
0 -
Is there some definition for what constitutes "extreme"?
Since moderation is avoiding extremes (to some), what constitutes "extreme" as it applies to a diet?
But that's the rub, isn't it? For something to be considered moderate, it has to fall in the middle of two opposing points on the spectrum and is subject to the definition of the points. In politics, someone would be considered politically moderate if they fell between liberal and conservative. But you can also move the end points along the spectrum to identify someone who is moderately conservative or moderately liberal.
When it comes to diet, it seems the author is trying to do two separate things: define ways of eating as moderate, and define consumption as moderate. But she keeps using different spectrums - in keeping with the paleo diet, she uses one spectrum based on food restrictions to say it is not moderate, but later defines moderation using the spectrum of consumption of whole foods vs treats in which paleo could easily fall in the middle.
In keeping with the diet theme, someone upthread mentioned alcohol consumption, and I seem to remember that there was an actual number of drinks and frequency of consumption which would define someone as a moderate drinker (although I can't remember what those numbers were to save my life).
For diet, it would seem that without some consensus as to what a moderate intake is (as in portions and frequency), it does make it a bit ambiguous. I don't think that applying it by portion size would necessarily be accurate, as it would not account for differences in TDEE, and frequency would also be subject to things like lifestyle and portion size.
I would imagine the only real way to define moderation in terms of diet would be to view it in terms of percentages of foods consumed in overall diet over time (this is looking at moderation in terms of consumption/frequency because I think trying to define it by dietary composition is bunk). It would definitely have to have some longevity though to account for things like holidays and vacations which in the short term would skew the data.
sadly, you are over complicating a simple concept.0 -
It's not a straw man. Someone brought up a past post of mine in which I put forth a few of the many, many definitions of "moderation" I've read on these boards. I wouldn't have compiled the list unless people had adamantly argued that everyone defines it the same way and nobody deviates from that definition.lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm completely confused as to what the argument even is.
As the author of the link in the OP said, the issue is that people claim "moderation" is an excuse to eat poorly or 100% fast food or Twinkies or the like, and that's obviously not consistent with the moderate approach nor what anyone recommends.
No one claimed everyone had to do moderation or that moderation is a "way of eating" from which it was possible to determine the exact amount of "treats" you eat per day. Those are strawmen.
The fact that some exercise moderation by eating a little something they categorize as a treat every day and some do it by eating treats only on the weekend or in some cases on rare occasions like holidays does not mean that people are applying different definitions. They are just applying the definition to their own life in their own way.Until a person describes how they eat "in moderation" nobody else can know how they eat.
Yes, of course. No one has said otherwise. So what is the "argument" about? You seem to be suggesting that a definition is meaningless unless it tells us precisely how someone eats. That is not my particular objection to the "clean eating" term. Even if it were applied consistently (no highly processed or fast food, say), it would not tell me how someone eats. What I dislike about it (apart from "clean" being chosen to be insulting to people who eat differently and IMO that being part of the appeal for many who use it), is that there are vastly different definitions of what is "clean" and "unclean" -- bread is often "unclean," not always, potatoes, same, cereal, same, legumes, same, dairy, same, bacon and deli meat and yogurt, same, all restaurant food, same, homemade foods with sugar, same, and I could go on. That's why I ask what someone means by clean -- I know there are foods they are trying to avoid, but I don't know which ones or on what principle (in other words, why they claim potatoes are unhealthy).
When someone says they eat in a moderate fashion, I don't know what their breakfast, lunch, and dinner look like or the specific factors they consider in making eating decisions, but I still have a general sense of their approach and if they are like me they will be happy to share more if someone is interested.0 -
-
even the author herself states that the actual foods consumed will vary based on personal preferences and tastes (which again, contradicts her previous argument that diets like paleo cannot not be moderation).
I bet if you emailed her and asked if someone eating a paleo diet because they don't really like dairy, legumes, or grains is eating "in moderation" that she might say yes.
Personally, I have no problem with that idea (or that one can do a sort of paleo diet in a moderate way). I do wonder why one needs to follow a specific diet if it's how you would eat anyway, though. I did paleo for a bit and decided it was silly for me to do it because: (1) I think dairy and legumes are healthy and probably whole grains too -- specifically, I think including them tends to result in a more healthful diet for me (not for everyone, lots of people are lactose intolerant and some are celiac or other other negative reactions to grains); and (2) I don't really care about grains so it seemed a silly thing to give up as I naturally don't eat much of them (especially refined grains) if I am even remotely mindful and limit calories (which means I rarely eat sweet baked goods).Also, the authors application of moderation is totally in line with the diet as it is one where the theoretical person would be getting micros from whole foods, filling in macros with other foods, and then indulging in treats and what not to fill in left over calories.
The author said 100% strict paleo (like Whole30), which doesn't permit certain kinds of treats or even replacement "paleo treats."0 -
Is there some definition for what constitutes "extreme"?
Since moderation is avoiding extremes (to some), what constitutes "extreme" as it applies to a diet?
In keeping with the diet theme, someone upthread mentioned alcohol consumption, and I seem to remember that there was an actual number of drinks and frequency of consumption which would define someone as a moderate drinker (although I can't remember what those numbers were to save my life).
Re drinking - It varies by country. Italy thinks 2 good glasses of wine a day is advisable (per their guidelines). I might agree with that, but the guidelines in my country don't.
There is also a rough # of drinks clinicans in north america can use to judge whether someone suffers from alcoholism, but iirc, they're advised to consider cultural influence. i.e. heavy drinkers from cultures in which heavy drinking is normalized (Russia, UK) might not come away with a diagnosis of alcoholism *just* based on the # of drinks
actually, 2 glasses (350 ml) for women, and 3 glasses (450 ml) for men
(not an ideal dose, anyway, but the maximum) to be drunk during the meals.
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Is there some definition for what constitutes "extreme"?
Since moderation is avoiding extremes (to some), what constitutes "extreme" as it applies to a diet?
In keeping with the diet theme, someone upthread mentioned alcohol consumption, and I seem to remember that there was an actual number of drinks and frequency of consumption which would define someone as a moderate drinker (although I can't remember what those numbers were to save my life).
Re drinking - It varies by country. Italy thinks 2 good glasses of wine a day is advisable (per their guidelines). I might agree with that, but the guidelines in my country don't.
There is also a rough # of drinks clinicans in north america can use to judge whether someone suffers from alcoholism, but iirc, they're advised to consider cultural influence. i.e. heavy drinkers from cultures in which heavy drinking is normalized (Russia, UK) might not come away with a diagnosis of alcoholism *just* based on the # of drinks
actually, 2 glasses (350 ml) for women, and 3 glasses (450 ml) for men (not an ideal dose, anyway, but the maximum) to be drunk during the meals.
Aha, thank you for the correction, @Gianfranco_R . (I was using the standard that applied to myself
) 0 -
No, if it's applied differently, then people cannot know what someone means when they say they "eat in moderation."
Some people in this thread have claimed that it's not a "moderate diet" and that "in line with the diet" wouldn't be describing it. They feel it isn't a diet at all and isn't about a diet in any way.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.
paleo would never meet the requirement of a "moderate diet" because it calls for the elimination of certain food groups, and also says that one has to eat like a paleolithic person, which would mean only eating local foods found within a 100 mile radius of where one lives, and sustaining on a diet of raw meet, grubs, plant roots, etc.
your understanding of moderation is severely flawed, and you do not understand the point that the author is trying to make.
Also, the authors application of moderation is totally in line with the diet as it is one where the theoretical person would be getting micros from whole foods, filling in macros with other foods, and then indulging in treats and what not to fill in left over calories.
Another person suggested it means you have treats, but not all the time.
Someone else suggested that you just don't have too much of something.
Even in the thread about how everyone is thinking the very same thing, there have been some discrepancies on the definition.
how is there a difference in definition...the difference is in the application.
having treats sometimes...moderating treats.
having a drink or two ...moderating alcohol
moderation by definition is allow for things sometimes but not going to an extreme and doing it all the time.
see in this instance it would be not arguing for arguments sake all the time...that's not moderate.
or insisting that there is more than one definition of moderate...
*light bulb moment*
Some would argue that having treats all the time is not extreme, but is moderation.
some would argue black was white too...
Define "all the time"
I eat a chocolate bar every night with a diet coke...that's moderation as I allow for it and don't eliminate chocolate/treats from my diet.
You might not see that as "moderate" because you can't eat chocolate every night and still maintain/lose..but for me it's moderate...application.
That's the nice thing about moderation...the definition is clear...application varies...
They'll need clarification to actually know what it means.
I don't define "moderation" and "clean." Those are terms other people use.
Judging by all the many, many definitions I've read for each word, I do both.
Ironically, based on my understandings of the terms and what you've written in various posts, you do a form of moderation and don't eat clean.
(Same as me, but in a very different way, since different people apply things differently.)0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions