Moderation
Options
Replies
-
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.
No because a paleo diet includes extra structures that are not in that definition. A paleo person can't have a snickers because "not paleo brah, how about some honey?". A person practicing moderation may have no personal interest in a snickers, but will not say they cannot have it because moderation forbids it.0 -
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."
Actually it means having a treat every time you an MFP warning - moderator warning, moderation. No one told you? Jail bars means you get to go to the make your own sunday bar.0 -
I missed this post pre-moderation, but some things have certainly become more clear.
0 -
Not eating everything in moderation is often a healthy and valid choice for some people. I'm better off with some restrictions.
Yes, this is true. I don't think anyone is saying everyone should eat in moderation.
On the 100% paleo thing, I think it's worth noting that most of the paleo "gurus" tend not to demand 100% compliance. I think if someone enjoys the paleo style of eating that can be a version of moderation, but freaking out if you slip and eat some bread or cheese would not be. Or giving up beans if you like them and have no reason you can identify for not eating them, same.
Most vegans/vegetarians have reasons for their choices, so they fit specific goals (or tastes or ethical principles, really).
I didn't see the article as saying that eating local or organic was problematic, but that claiming one must do that would be.
IMO, a low carb diet that limits veg and includes tons of sat fat is clearly not "moderate," but if someone enjoys that, it could be a fine choice, none of my business. It only bugs me when people eat a diet that far from typical recommendations and go on to claim everyone else is unhealthy.0 -
I think this pretty well exemplifies this entire thread.
I'm not even trying to take sides in this one.
0 -
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.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.
Many people have deviated from that definition, even more since that thread.
Until a person describes how they eat "in moderation" nobody else can know how they eat. Everyone seems to be in agreement that it's carried out in many different ways. So, really, we are in agreement.0 -
This thread is an absolute study in obtuse posturing for effect0
-
It's typical MFP misunderstandings and hijinks, that's all.
Maybe this example will help illustrate how a word that everyone understands like "moderation" can be slippery in its application in the real world, where people use it to mean different things:
"I'm a moderate drinker", said by two people who sincerely believe it's true of themselves.
Person 1 is a regular pubgoer, hangs out with hardcore daily drinkers in a drinking culture: "Only about three pints a night. I stay in Sundays"
Person 2 is a homebody who only drinks socially: "Once or twice a month, I'll have a glass of wine or two"
Moderation, in practice, has to refer to an objective standard to mean anything. There is no official, objective standard of either the central mean or extremes, so when people say they're "moderate" it's usually in relation to their own (subjective) personal habits and cultural milieu, which differs not only from country to country but across subcultures.
(E.g. there's every country's guidance on alcohol, but that differs country to country. Same for the food guides, which everyone says are political.)
It's exactly the same fuzziness issue as with clean eating, except with "moderation", the fuzziness is about amounts, rather than content.
Although it's also, implicitly, in the popular understanding, about food type, no matter what people say. As reflected in the OP and picked up by @kgeyser . People do still think about treats vs. "healthy" foods. If they were really convinced by the moderation argument, they would only be talking about amounts. And as I said, the goalposts still change with that from person to person.
***
Another example: the level of risk of environmental pollutants. That's not a scientific definition, in application. It's decided by a (political) consensus on what an acceptable amount of exposure to pollutant X might be. That changes over time.
Same for X-rays, the amount of radiation that was formerly tolerated would never be allowed now, though they were considered only "moderately" risk in the past.
Or the amount of estrogen in birth control pills in the 60s (LOTS; "moderately risky") vs now (as little as possible).0 -
It's typical MFP misunderstandings and hijinks, that's all.
Maybe this example will help illustrate how a word that everyone understands like "moderation" can be slippery in its application in the real world, where people use it to mean different things:
"I'm a moderate drinker", said by two people who sincerely believe it's true of themselves.
Person 1 is a regular pubgoer, hangs out with hardcore daily drinkers in a drinking culture: "Only about three pints a night. I stay in Sundays"
Person 2 is a homebody who only drinks socially: "Once or twice a month, I'll have a glass of wine or two"
Moderation, in practice, has to refer to an objective standard to mean anything. There is no official, objective standard of either the central mean or extremes, so when people say they're "moderate" it's usually in relation to their own (subjective) personal habits and cultural milieu, which differs not only from country to country but across subcultures.
(E.g. there's every country's guidance on alcohol, but that differs country to country. Same for the food guides, which everyone says are political.)
It's exactly the same fuzziness issue as with clean eating, except with "moderation", the fuzziness is about amounts, rather than content.
Although it's also, implicitly, in the popular understanding, about food type, no matter what people say. As reflected in the OP and picked up by @kgeyser . People do still think about treats vs. "healthy" foods. If they were really convinced by the moderation argument, they would only be talking about amounts. And as I said, the goalposts still change with that from person to person.
***
Another example: the level of risk of environmental pollutants. That's not a scientific definition, in application. It's decided by a (political) consensus on what an acceptable amount of exposure to pollutant X might be. That changes over time.
Same for X-rays, the amount of radiation that was formerly tolerated would never be allowed now, though they were considered only "moderately" risk in the past.
Or the amount of estrogen in birth control pills in the 60s (LOTS; "moderately risky") vs now (as little as possible).
This is exactly what I mean!0 -
MondayJune22nd2015 wrote: »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."
Again, you are one who is confusing a philosophy with its application. That's why this is painful to read.
Just because terms can be relative in their application does not been that their philosophy is murky.
The thing is some terms ARE absolute. Clean? It's absolute. Moderate? Its very definition defines it as the absence of an absolute, so... yes, there are different ways to be moderate. It doesn't mean it's murky or hard to understand.0 -
If moderation is defined by what it isn't and applies to a wide population of people who are by nature different and employ different diets... there can be no objective standard.
It simply means the absence of extremes or absolutes of choice. I can't understand why thinking of what something isn't instead of what something is seems to be such a difficult concept to grasp.
This is not a slap against people who chose to do the extreme or absolute and restrict themselves to only this or that. If that works for you? Hey, have at it, and enjoy!
Someone who practices moderation doesn't do what you do, that's all.0 -
The point is, no matter how words are twisted for some weird personal agenda, I don't actually care how you choose to eat, unless what I read is unhealthy or unnecessarily restrictive because people are so poorly educated by all the hype about dieting
Sometimes I react to the tone of self-punishment in posts or the absolute ridiculous beliefs in good foods and bad or people spouting fads as facts
This happens with "extremes" and you don't get that from moderation
0 -
It just occurred to me that perhaps this discussion would be more fruitful if the word extreme, which can be construed to be judgmental, were to be replaced with absolute. That sounds more neutral to me.0
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »It just occurred to me that perhaps this discussion would be more fruitful if the word extreme, which can be construed to be judgmental, were to be replaced with absolute. That sounds more neutral to me.
It's not even that "extreme" is judgemental, it's that it's arbitrary and subjective.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »If moderation is defined by what it isn't and applies to a wide population of people who are by nature different and employ different diets... there can be no objective standard.
Correct.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »It just occurred to me that perhaps this discussion would be more fruitful if the word extreme, which can be construed to be judgmental, were to be replaced with absolute. That sounds more neutral to me.
It's not even that "extreme" is judgemental, it's that it's arbitrary and subjective.
Black box theory strikes again
I find it to be neither ..just descriptive of something that is not a moderation approach
Extreme / absolute = I can't eat that
Moderate = I can eat some of that ...the scale may be amount or time or within the nutritional make up of overall diet
Extreme / absolute = that is junk must not eat
moderate = not the most highly nutritional, should not base food intake around it0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »MondayJune22nd2015 wrote: »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."
Again, you are one who is confusing a philosophy with its application. That's why this is painful to read.
Just because terms can be relative in their application does not been that their philosophy is murky.
The thing is some terms ARE absolute. Clean? It's absolute. Moderate? Its very definition defines it as the absence of an absolute, so... yes, there are different ways to be moderate. It doesn't mean it's murky or hard to understand.
It means that people are doing different things with the concept. In the same way that people do different things with the concept of "clean".
Of course the word "moderation" itself isn't hard to understand, no one said it was.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »It just occurred to me that perhaps this discussion would be more fruitful if the word extreme, which can be construed to be judgmental, were to be replaced with absolute. That sounds more neutral to me.
It's not even that "extreme" is judgemental, it's that it's arbitrary and subjective.
Black box theory strikes again
I find it to be neither ..just descriptive of something that is not a moderation approach
Extreme / absolute = I can't eat that
Moderate = I can eat some of that ...the scale may be amount or time or within the nutritional make up of overall diet
Extreme / absolute = that is junk must not eat
moderate = not the most highly nutritional, should not base food intake around it
Ok, but how much is "some"?
Extreme = drinking 3 pints a day 5 days a week, for some, even though other people call it moderate0 -
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 folk0
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
- 981 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions