Moderation
Replies
-
I really can't believe this argument is still going on.
Moderation is a word with a consistent definition that can be looked up in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The way that an individual utilizes moderation as it pertains to diet, or any other concept, will vary based on preferences, tolerances, goals, etc.
Clean Eating is not listed in Merriam-Webster dictionary. In addition to not having a clear definition from a reliable source, it also has subjective application based on individual preferences, tolerances, goals, etc.
I practice moderation but my specific choices in how to apply it to my diet differ from others who practice moderation like @PeachyCarol, @lemurcat12, @ndj1979 . That's ok, because @peachycarol isn't telling me that I have to be a gluten free vegetarian, and @lemurcat12 isn't telling me that I have to eat all foods that come from the CSA or not drink because she doesn't drink, and @ndj1979 isn't telling me I have to eat as much protein as he does because of his lifting. We all recognize that the practice of moderation is individually specific, even though we all understand the consistent definition.
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.
Most people don't moderate their food, and I doubt they think about it enough to think they moderate their food.
I didn't moderate my food when I was gaining weight, and I knew it.
Ironically (again), I did do a form of "clean eating" (I called it eating "all natural" or some such nonsense).0 -
Surely a better discussion would be "what does moderation mean to you?" and then see if there are common areas between the approaches - the whole success leaves clues thing.
I agree with this. As I keep saying to Kalikel, most people who do moderation seem happy to talk about what they do in practice.At a pinch I would think it is an approach which honours personal preference, aligns with your goals and does not leave anything you wish to be on the table, off it, but in the right proportions to achieve your goals.
Yes, this is precisely what it means to me.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »this is pretty simple....I can't believe so many people don't get it...my mind is officially blown...i really didn't think there could be this much derp on one site.
I'm only on page 4 so far, but this pretty much sums it for me.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
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.
The same is true when someone uses "moderation" to describe their habits, though.
I don't have an objection to either term, personally. I just think people who think what's good for the goose should recognize it's just as good for the gander
or pots/kettles etc0 -
Indeed, they have. That is how all this began two threads back.lemurcat12 wrote: »
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.
Someone who actually, genuinely wanted to know just what the heck people meant when they said people should "eat in moderation" - someone who was in no way attempting to start a fight - couldn't get an answer. It was an honest question.
The thread brought up early on in this thread was one in which people insisted that EVERYONE uses the same definition. I posted a few of the many, many definitions of moderation that have been posted here. At that point people said, "Well, they are using the word incorrectly" and "Of course it will be different for everyone."
That doesn't help someone who is trying to figure it out when they see it. So, they'd have to ask, "How are you defining that?"
It seems to be changing now. It no longer seems to be an actual term, but more a nebulous concept.
Moderation: a general approach to eating (that may or may not include eliminating some items) that is carried out in various ways by different people and occasionally used in a different context by people who use the term incorrectly.
That doesn't exactly clear anything up.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
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.)
If you'd read all the definitions I have you would have to conclude all four of the following:
1. I eat clean
2. I do not eat clean
3. I eat in moderation
4. I do not eat in moderation
Since I don't use the terms, I must rely on other people's definitions and it really depends on how the person defines whatever term they're using.0 -
Indeed, they have. That is how all this began two threads back.lemurcat12 wrote: »
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.
Someone who actually, genuinely wanted to know just what the heck people meant when they said people should "eat in moderation" - someone who was in no way attempting to start a fight - couldn't get an answer. It was an honest question.
The thread brought up early on in this thread was one in which people insisted that EVERYONE uses the same definition. I posted a few of the many, many definitions of moderation that have been posted here. At that point people said, "Well, they are using the word incorrectly" and "Of course it will be different for everyone."
That doesn't help someone who is trying to figure it out when they see it. So, they'd have to ask, "How are you defining that?"
It seems to be changing now. It no longer seems to be an actual term, but more a nebulous concept.
Moderation: a general approach to eating (that may or may not include eliminating some items) that is carried out in various ways by different people and occasionally used in a different context by people who use the term incorrectly.
That doesn't exactly clear anything up.
Do you have a link to the thread?0 -
You know that phenomena where you read/say the same word over and over and over and it starts to sound wrong when you say it, or weird? I'm getting that feeling with "moderate" now.0
-
Holy f$&@"!!! I can't believe that this conversation has gone so left field! Truly the last time I post an article here. I completely forgot how arbitrary people can be on the Internet. How can I take this post down?0
-
There's a cognitive distortion called "all or nothing thinking" that some dieters fall in to. This is why I advocate moderation. A diet is not derailed by a single processed chocolate chip cookie. People who think to lose that they must follow the diet perfectly, are more likely to feel bad, and fail.0
-
mrsnazario1219 wrote: »Holy f$&@"!!! I can't believe that this conversation has gone so left field! Truly the last time I post an article here. I completely forgot how arbitrary people can be on the Internet. How can I take this post down?
You can't. I suppose you could report the post to the mods, unfortunately this is a very polite argument compared to the ones they are willing to shut down. So that may go the way of Jennifer Lawrence's nudes. It's the internet after all, someone has probably already saved it via screen shot.0 -
mrsnazario1219 wrote: »Holy f$&@"!!! I can't believe that this conversation has gone so left field! Truly the last time I post an article here. I completely forgot how arbitrary people can be on the Internet. How can I take this post down?
You can report your own post and request that it be deleted, but I'd really like it if you didn't. Despite some people who don't seem to get it (deliberately or otherwise), there's value in this thread in that misconceptions are being pointed out and corrected.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I really can't believe this argument is still going on.
Moderation is a word with a consistent definition that can be looked up in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The way that an individual utilizes moderation as it pertains to diet, or any other concept, will vary based on preferences, tolerances, goals, etc.
Clean Eating is not listed in Merriam-Webster dictionary. In addition to not having a clear definition from a reliable source, it also has subjective application based on individual preferences, tolerances, goals, etc.
I practice moderation but my specific choices in how to apply it to my diet differ from others who practice moderation like @PeachyCarol, @lemurcat12, @ndj1979 . That's ok, because @peachycarol isn't telling me that I have to be a gluten free vegetarian, and @lemurcat12 isn't telling me that I have to eat all foods that come from the CSA or not drink because she doesn't drink, and @ndj1979 isn't telling me I have to eat as much protein as he does because of his lifting. We all recognize that the practice of moderation is individually specific, even though we all understand the consistent definition.
this should end this thread, right here.0 -
clgaram720 wrote: »You know that phenomena where you read/say the same word over and over and over and it starts to sound wrong when you say it, or weird? I'm getting that feeling with "moderate" now.
misquote
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I really can't believe this argument is still going on.
Moderation is a word with a consistent definition that can be looked up in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The way that an individual utilizes moderation as it pertains to diet, or any other concept, will vary based on preferences, tolerances, goals, etc.
Clean Eating is not listed in Merriam-Webster dictionary. In addition to not having a clear definition from a reliable source, it also has subjective application based on individual preferences, tolerances, goals, etc.
I practice moderation but my specific choices in how to apply it to my diet differ from others who practice moderation like @PeachyCarol, @lemurcat12, @ndj1979 . That's ok, because @peachycarol isn't telling me that I have to be a gluten free vegetarian, and @lemurcat12 isn't telling me that I have to eat all foods that come from the CSA or not drink because she doesn't drink, and @ndj1979 isn't telling me I have to eat as much protein as he does because of his lifting. We all recognize that the practice of moderation is individually specific, even though we all understand the consistent definition.
I think you are misunderstanding the argument here, at least the one I'm making. Because according to the author's initial definitions of moderation, PeachyCarol's gluten-free vegetarian diet would be extreme and not moderation, as would only eating foods that come from a CSA, even though you recognize them as being individually-specific, personal choices. I also recognize them as being individually specific and all within moderation.
Others are arguing that diets like paleo or organic, despite also being individually specific personal preferences, cannot be within moderation because of the restriction of certain foods, which makes them "extreme."0 -
mrsnazario1219 wrote: »Holy f$&@"!!! I can't believe that this conversation has gone so left field! Truly the last time I post an article here. I completely forgot how arbitrary people can be on the Internet. How can I take this post down?
Oh, please don't. I know the arguing over the semantics is annoying, but the original post was so good, and I really hope that others who are following along but maybe not commenting find some good info within the link itself, or with the discussion.
I really think the fact that this has turned into an argument about whether or not the word moderation is any more clearly defined than the term clean eating, is telling about the concepts themselves and the points that people are making on both sides.
For people who are advocating that the term moderation has a clear definition, but how one chooses to implement moderation is variable based on individual goals, preferences - that is a moderate approach. Choose what works best for you. Eat mostly healthy things and add in treats if you like. Whatever those treats may be is up to you. You also can feel free to eat more treats some days than other. Personal preference, all things in moderation, including moderation... etc, etc.
For people that are arguing that the word moderation isn't any more clear than the term clean eating, and saying that there has to be a one size fits all approach for moderation and trying to dissect whether a vegetarian is practicing moderation, or someone who is low-carb, etc; those people are focused on the absolutes and extremes by virtue of their argument....
0 -
mrsnazario1219 wrote: »Holy f$&@"!!! I can't believe that this conversation has gone so left field! Truly the last time I post an article here. I completely forgot how arbitrary people can be on the Internet. How can I take this post down?clgaram720 wrote: »You know that phenomena where you read/say the same word over and over and over and it starts to sound wrong when you say it, or weird? I'm getting that feeling with "moderate" now.
I would not worry too much OP. It is just the usual folks that don't understand the concept, and how to apply it to their daily lives, so they have to destroy the concept as something that no one can understand, because they do not understand it.
Think you meant to quote this one0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I really can't believe this argument is still going on.
Moderation is a word with a consistent definition that can be looked up in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The way that an individual utilizes moderation as it pertains to diet, or any other concept, will vary based on preferences, tolerances, goals, etc.
Clean Eating is not listed in Merriam-Webster dictionary. In addition to not having a clear definition from a reliable source, it also has subjective application based on individual preferences, tolerances, goals, etc.
I practice moderation but my specific choices in how to apply it to my diet differ from others who practice moderation like @PeachyCarol, @lemurcat12, @ndj1979 . That's ok, because @peachycarol isn't telling me that I have to be a gluten free vegetarian, and @lemurcat12 isn't telling me that I have to eat all foods that come from the CSA or not drink because she doesn't drink, and @ndj1979 isn't telling me I have to eat as much protein as he does because of his lifting. We all recognize that the practice of moderation is individually specific, even though we all understand the consistent definition.
I think you are misunderstanding the argument here, at least the one I'm making. Because according to the author's initial definitions of moderation, PeachyCarol's gluten-free vegetarian diet would be extreme and not moderation, as would only eating foods that come from a CSA, even though you recognize them as being individually-specific, personal choices. I also recognize them as being individually specific and all within moderation.
Others are arguing that diets like paleo or organic, despite also being individually specific personal preferences, cannot be within moderation because of the restriction of certain foods, which makes them "extreme."
naw Winogelato gets it...you don't.
extremes are based on choices made for no reason other than "I heard that if I do this I will be better off..."
Carols choice is due to dislike of meat and medical issues....not a choice due to claims made by others.
Paleo is a way of eating to eliminate processed foods as people "feel" processed foods are "bad" hence the extreme of it.
Moderation has one definition...multiple applications.0 -
clgaram720 wrote: »mrsnazario1219 wrote: »Holy f$&@"!!! I can't believe that this conversation has gone so left field! Truly the last time I post an article here. I completely forgot how arbitrary people can be on the Internet. How can I take this post down?clgaram720 wrote: »You know that phenomena where you read/say the same word over and over and over and it starts to sound wrong when you say it, or weird? I'm getting that feeling with "moderate" now.
I would not worry too much OP. It is just the usual folks that don't understand the concept, and how to apply it to their daily lives, so they have to destroy the concept as something that no one can understand, because they do not understand it.
Think you meant to quote this one
whoops..yes, I did..0 -
That, too, depends on who you ask. Some people insist there is no such thing as healthy foods or treats. All food is the same.All I want to know is, what the hell is a "treat"?
One poster has suggested that there is no such thing as treats in moderation because they don't exist under that concept.
Others say you can have a few treats, but never have been pinned down on the definition.
Me, I would define a treat as any junk food or any food that is just wicked high in calories and not the kind of thing one could eat a lot and still get their vitamins and minerals: cake, tarts, candy, cornbread, pizza, juice, etc. those types of things would be treats to me.
0 -
clgaram720 wrote: »mrsnazario1219 wrote: »Holy f$&@"!!! I can't believe that this conversation has gone so left field! Truly the last time I post an article here. I completely forgot how arbitrary people can be on the Internet. How can I take this post down?clgaram720 wrote: »You know that phenomena where you read/say the same word over and over and over and it starts to sound wrong when you say it, or weird? I'm getting that feeling with "moderate" now.
I would not worry too much OP. It is just the usual folks that don't understand the concept, and how to apply it to their daily lives, so they have to destroy the concept as something that no one can understand, because they do not understand it.
Think you meant to quote this one
whoops..yes, I did..
It's no biggie 
0 -
mrsnazario1219 wrote: »Holy f$&@"!!! I can't believe that this conversation has gone so left field! Truly the last time I post an article here. I completely forgot how arbitrary people can be on the Internet. How can I take this post down?
I would not worry too much OP. It is just the usual folks that don't understand the concept, and how to apply it to their daily lives, so they have to destroy the concept as something that no one can understand, because they do not understand it.0 -
That, too, depends on who you ask. Some people insist there is no such thing as healthy foods or treats. All food is the same.All I want to know is, what the hell is a "treat"?
One poster has suggested that there is no such thing as treats in moderation because they don't exist under that concept.
Others say you can have a few treats, but never have been pinned down on the definition.
wow did you do that on purpose?
you need to teach me how to take what is being said and slant it like that...law school here I come...
bravo to you.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.
No, I'm rejecting your attempt to exclude people who follow different ways of eating from being considered as practicing moderation, because you are applying the one definition provided by the author arbitrarily and incorrectly. And you can't really define moderation without identifying the opposing ends of the spectrum it falls within, otherwise it's a completely subjective concept. If it is subjective, then what is or is not moderation will fall to the individual to determine for themselves, and statements like "100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme" is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
0 -
That, too, depends on who you ask. Some people insist there is no such thing as healthy foods or treats. All food is the same.All I want to know is, what the hell is a "treat"?
One poster has suggested that there is no such thing as treats in moderation because they don't exist under that concept.
Others say you can have a few treats, but never have been pinned down on the definition.
wow did you do that on purpose?
you need to teach me how to take what is being said and slant it like that...law school here I come...
bravo to you.
No slant. These things have been said.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.
No, I'm rejecting your attempt to exclude people who follow different ways of eating from being considered as practicing moderation, because you are applying the one definition provided by the author arbitrarily and incorrectly. And you can't really define moderation without identifying the opposing ends of the spectrum it falls within, otherwise it's a completely subjective concept. If it is subjective, then what is or is not moderation will fall to the individual to determine for themselves, and statements like "100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme" is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
does paleo eliminate food from it's plan? If you answer yes then it's extreme due to "elimination" which is an extreme no matter how you play the word game.
application is subjective. If I bought a 2000$ purse making 25k a year that is not a moderate purchase...but if I make 250k a year it's a moderate purchase.
If I eliminate dairy from my diet due to being lactose intolerant that is not extreme....but if I get rid of milk cause of an eating plan to "make me better.." that is extreme.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.
No, I'm rejecting your attempt to exclude people who follow different ways of eating from being considered as practicing moderation, because you are applying the one definition provided by the author arbitrarily and incorrectly. And you can't really define moderation without identifying the opposing ends of the spectrum it falls within, otherwise it's a completely subjective concept. If it is subjective, then what is or is not moderation will fall to the individual to determine for themselves, and statements like "100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme" is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
I define moderation the way the dictionary does. You on the other hand are grasping at straws to make moderation fit into some myopic world view that you have.
I don't see why it is so hard to understand that a strict 100% paleo diet is not moderation.0 -
Subjective for sure. Some people say a treat consists of 10 raw, unsalted almonds. To me a treat is something you take out of a box and throw to a dog.
exactly application is subjective...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
- 427 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