Moderation is a basic life skill.

BinaryPulsar

Mmmhmmm

highervibes

I'm no scientist, and this is all anecdotal but for me personally, the initial period of restricting sugar and carbs did WONDERS for my ability to control cravings and now I CAN have everything "in moderation" pretty effortlessly (with the exception of wheat because I have digestive upset and cramps when I eat it but it's pretty easy to stay away from stuff that makes you feel sick lol). I can stop at ONE scoop of ice cream, I can have a handful of m&m's (and not the Costco size bag lol), 2 gluten free cookies etc.. I think if your eating is out of control, restriction could be helpful in the VERY short term while you work out the mental aspect of moderation. It's easier to go to moderate from nothing than it is from a free-for-all. I agree that moderation is the more sustainable approach in the long run and I'm glad I wasn't pig headed about making changes to my 'plan'

Otterluv

10/10, would read again.

Zaniejane

Good to think of this when raising your children.

Oishii

I'm all for moderation, however there is research suggesting a 'nature' element may play a role along with 'nurture'. In the experiment (which I've seen replicated for different TV programmes in the UK), a group of toddlers are all fed until they say they're not hungry any more. Then they get out a colouring activity and also put more food on the tables. Some children keep eating, while others ignore the food and get on with the colouring.

That this divide exists so early on brings up two possibilities: 1) nature is partly to blame 2) very early nurture is key.

In my everyday life I have 3 examples: my friend's son and my cousin's daughter who will eat long past satiety and my son who hates to be too full. All 3 were demand breastfed, although for differing amounts of time. When solids were introduced, my son did babyled weaning, so controlled his own intake, rather than being forced to finish a jar or tub of food. Now, in both of the other households, you must finish your food, dessert is ice cream or sweets and food is used as a reward, none of which we do (dessert is sometimes ice cream and sweets, but more often, fruit). I can't say whether these 'nurture' factors have played a role, or if we're just lucky that moderation in food is in his nature.

So, nice post, but I don't think it's true that moderation is equally easy to learn for everyone. Equally, not everyone who drinks a lot becomes an alcoholic, so other, possibly genetic factors, must come into play.

darvin1023

OMFG! THANK YOU!!!!
this post rocks!

LoraF83

So, nice post, but I don't think it's true that moderation is equally easy to learn for everyone.

Just because it isn't easy, doesn't mean it isn't worth it.

Achrya

So, nice post, but I don't think it's true that moderation is equally easy to learn for everyone.

Just because it isn't easy, doesn't mean it isn't worth it.

Losing weight and getting fit isn't easy. Guess we should all just stop logging on.

myofibril

So, nice post, but I don't think it's true that moderation is equally easy to learn for everyone.

I agree. I thought the OP was good but it is clear to me that fat loss is not purely a mental / rational / intellectual learned process which is unaffected by an individual's biochemistry.

Psychology and physiology are interconnected. They influence each other and in a way are symbiotic.

For example, we know that high circulating glucose levels can mediate neural impulses and make the desire for highly calorific and palatable food stronger. Consider two people. Person A has high circulating levels, person B does not. They are told the best way to approach their eating is to "learn" to eat in moderation. They both introduce amounts of say....poptarts and ice cream...into their diets.

Person A: physiologically results in intense cravings - they in turn are hard to resist - try and exercise willpower - feels psychologically and physiologically ill at ease due to the conflict of body and mind - binges - feels psychologically a failure - falls off their programme

Person B: physiologically results in moderate cravings - they in turn are more manageable to resist - try and exercise willpower - feels psychologically and physiologically steady due to the lesser conflict of body and mind - maintains - feels psychologically a success - adheres to their programme

For Person A the advice to learn moderation is poor until their glucose levels falls (which they make never do if they are continually trying to incorporate very sugary items into their diet.) For Person B it is great advice.

Ironically for Person A "learning" avoidance in the short term may exactly be what they need to achieve moderation in the long term.

I think balance is important in life. I also think finding happiness, contentment and your unique way of doing so, whatever that may be and as long as it is safe and healthy, is much more important.

neandermagnon

I'm all for moderation, however there is research suggesting a 'nature' element may play a role along with 'nurture'. In the experiment (which I've seen replicated for different TV programmes in the UK), a group of toddlers are all fed until they say they're not hungry any more. Then they get out a colouring activity and also put more food on the tables. Some children keep eating, while others ignore the food and get on with the colouring.

That this divide exists so early on brings up two possibilities: 1) nature is partly to blame 2) very early nurture is key.

In my everyday life I have 3 examples: my friend's son and my cousin's daughter who will eat long past satiety and my son who hates to be too full. All 3 were demand breastfed, although for differing amounts of time. When solids were introduced, my son did babyled weaning, so controlled his own intake, rather than being forced to finish a jar or tub of food. Now, in both of the other households, you must finish your food, dessert is ice cream or sweets and food is used as a reward, none of which we do (dessert is sometimes ice cream and sweets, but more often, fruit). I can't say whether these 'nurture' factors have played a role, or if we're just lucky that moderation in food is in his nature.

So, nice post, but I don't think it's true that moderation is equally easy to learn for everyone. Equally, not everyone who drinks a lot becomes an alcoholic, so other, possibly genetic factors, must come into play.

I would say that nurture plays the major role, and that human brains are extremely plastic, and by the time you're a toddler the environment you were raised in has already had a major impact on shaping certain behaviours (including this). For example, some toddlers already have feeding problems, e.g. refusing to eat while an overly anxious parent tries to cajole them into eating something they don't want to eat, or it's gone beyond what the child wants to eat, and into a control issue/battle of wills between the parent and child. Toddlers who are regularly refusing food at mealtimes will snack at every opportunity, and even if they were fed beforehand as part of the experiment, I'd expect them to still eat something else offered to them after that, because that's what they're in the habit of doing.

But I think the nurture factors go back way further than that. I'd imagine that before you even get on to baby led weaning versus spoon feeding, there's questions like whether the baby was formula fed or breastfed, and whether the baby was fed on demand or to a schedule, and whether the baby was allowed to finish feeding in their own time, or were encourage to finish the bottle after they were full (i.e. expected to take a set amount of milk at each feed), or breastfeed for a fixed number of minutes rather than in their own time, and things like that.

There are studies that link formula feeding to obesity, and that's been blamed on a number of different factors (which may have nothing to do with formula milk itself, because correlation doesn't mean causation), but one interesting factor is that when breastfeeding, the foremilk (which comes first) is watery and thirst quenching, then the hindmilk (which comes later) is much richer and is more like food... but with formula milk it's all the same, so babies may take more calories in milk than they actually need, because they're trying to quench their thirst and hunger at the same time, as opposed to breastfed babies who quench their thirst first, then take as much hind milk as they need to not feel hungry, so they're provided with better tools to learn to satisfy their thirst, then hunger, in their own time, then stop feeding.

It's extremely hard to separate nature and nurture in behaviours, probably twin studies, i.e. identical twins raised in different environments, may shed light on it, e.g. if identical twins as adults both have the same level of ability at moderation regardless of the environment, that would suggest genetic factors. But in the context of the opening post, it doesn't really matter whether it's genetics or bad habits learned in childhood, because they're factors that are beyond your control. However I concur with the OP that it is something that can be learned later in life, and I agree with you (and I think the OP does too) that it is genuinely harder for some people to learn moderation than others. But his point is that it's worth putting the effort in to learn how to eat in moderation even if you find it harder than average, because the other two extremes are not conducive to happiness. And also I think that as parents we should learn how to teach our kids moderation so they don't have to deal with the misery of being stuck at one extreme or the other, or yo-yoing between the two.

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

I'm all for moderation, however there is research suggesting a 'nature' element may play a role along with 'nurture'. In the experiment (which I've seen replicated for different TV programmes in the UK), a group of toddlers are all fed until they say they're not hungry any more. Then they get out a colouring activity and also put more food on the tables. Some children keep eating, while others ignore the food and get on with the colouring.

That this divide exists so early on brings up two possibilities: 1) nature is partly to blame 2) very early nurture is key.

In my everyday life I have 3 examples: my friend's son and my cousin's daughter who will eat long past satiety and my son who hates to be too full. All 3 were demand breastfed, although for differing amounts of time. When solids were introduced, my son did babyled weaning, so controlled his own intake, rather than being forced to finish a jar or tub of food. Now, in both of the other households, you must finish your food, dessert is ice cream or sweets and food is used as a reward, none of which we do (dessert is sometimes ice cream and sweets, but more often, fruit). I can't say whether these 'nurture' factors have played a role, or if we're just lucky that moderation in food is in his nature.

So, nice post, but I don't think it's true that moderation is equally easy to learn for everyone. Equally, not everyone who drinks a lot becomes an alcoholic, so other, possibly genetic factors, must come into play.

I would say that nurture plays the major role, and that human brains are extremely plastic, and by the time you're a toddler the environment you were raised in has already had a major impact on shaping certain behaviours (including this). For example, some toddlers already have feeding problems, e.g. refusing to eat while an overly anxious parent tries to cajole them into eating something they don't want to eat, or it's gone beyond what the child wants to eat, and into a control issue/battle of wills between the parent and child. Toddlers who are regularly refusing food at mealtimes will snack at every opportunity, and even if they were fed beforehand as part of the experiment, I'd expect them to still eat something else offered to them after that, because that's what they're in the habit of doing.

But I think the nurture factors go back way further than that. I'd imagine that before you even get on to baby led weaning versus spoon feeding, there's questions like whether the baby was formula fed or breastfed, and whether the baby was fed on demand or to a schedule, and whether the baby was allowed to finish feeding in their own time, or were encourage to finish the bottle after they were full (i.e. expected to take a set amount of milk at each feed), or breastfeed for a fixed number of minutes rather than in their own time, and things like that.

There are studies that link formula feeding to obesity, and that's been blamed on a number of different factors (which may have nothing to do with formula milk itself, because correlation doesn't mean causation), but one interesting factor is that when breastfeeding, the foremilk (which comes first) is watery and thirst quenching, then the hindmilk (which comes later) is much richer and is more like food... but with formula milk it's all the same, so babies may take more calories in milk than they actually need, because they're trying to quench their thirst and hunger at the same time, as opposed to breastfed babies who quench their thirst first, then take as much hind milk as they need to not feel hungry, so they're provided with better tools to learn to satisfy their thirst, then hunger, in their own time, then stop feeding.

It's extremely hard to separate nature and nurture in behaviours, probably twin studies, i.e. identical twins raised in different environments, may shed light on it, e.g. if identical twins as adults both have the same level of ability at moderation regardless of the environment, that would suggest genetic factors. But in the context of the opening post, it doesn't really matter whether it's genetics or bad habits learned in childhood, because they're factors that are beyond your control. However I concur with the OP that it is something that can be learned later in life, and I agree with you (and I think the OP does too) that it is genuinely harder for some people to learn moderation than others. But his point is that it's worth putting the effort in to learn how to eat in moderation even if you find it harder than average, because the other two extremes are not conducive to happiness. And also I think that as parents we should learn how to teach our kids moderation so they don't have to deal with the misery of being stuck at one extreme or the other, or yo-yoing between the two.

I'd be interested to know whether there is any difference then between formula and pumped breast milk. Is there still a benefit to breast feeding if the baby is drinking breast milk from a bottle?

legreene515

I love this post! This is so true. I've written a lot about moderation on my blog, because I tend to eat to excess because I'm bored or unhappy, but I definitely feel best when I moderate.

I'm not one of those people who can give up things. I just moderate. For instance: I had a Snickers bar this week, but I still stayed in my calorie total that day. I adjusted the rest of my food so I didn't have to deprive myself of that want for chocolate. Made me happy, and I didn't feel guilty.

neandermagnon

I'm all for moderation, however there is research suggesting a 'nature' element may play a role along with 'nurture'. In the experiment (which I've seen replicated for different TV programmes in the UK), a group of toddlers are all fed until they say they're not hungry any more. Then they get out a colouring activity and also put more food on the tables. Some children keep eating, while others ignore the food and get on with the colouring.

That this divide exists so early on brings up two possibilities: 1) nature is partly to blame 2) very early nurture is key.

In my everyday life I have 3 examples: my friend's son and my cousin's daughter who will eat long past satiety and my son who hates to be too full. All 3 were demand breastfed, although for differing amounts of time. When solids were introduced, my son did babyled weaning, so controlled his own intake, rather than being forced to finish a jar or tub of food. Now, in both of the other households, you must finish your food, dessert is ice cream or sweets and food is used as a reward, none of which we do (dessert is sometimes ice cream and sweets, but more often, fruit). I can't say whether these 'nurture' factors have played a role, or if we're just lucky that moderation in food is in his nature.

So, nice post, but I don't think it's true that moderation is equally easy to learn for everyone. Equally, not everyone who drinks a lot becomes an alcoholic, so other, possibly genetic factors, must come into play.

I would say that nurture plays the major role, and that human brains are extremely plastic, and by the time you're a toddler the environment you were raised in has already had a major impact on shaping certain behaviours (including this). For example, some toddlers already have feeding problems, e.g. refusing to eat while an overly anxious parent tries to cajole them into eating something they don't want to eat, or it's gone beyond what the child wants to eat, and into a control issue/battle of wills between the parent and child. Toddlers who are regularly refusing food at mealtimes will snack at every opportunity, and even if they were fed beforehand as part of the experiment, I'd expect them to still eat something else offered to them after that, because that's what they're in the habit of doing.

But I think the nurture factors go back way further than that. I'd imagine that before you even get on to baby led weaning versus spoon feeding, there's questions like whether the baby was formula fed or breastfed, and whether the baby was fed on demand or to a schedule, and whether the baby was allowed to finish feeding in their own time, or were encourage to finish the bottle after they were full (i.e. expected to take a set amount of milk at each feed), or breastfeed for a fixed number of minutes rather than in their own time, and things like that.

There are studies that link formula feeding to obesity, and that's been blamed on a number of different factors (which may have nothing to do with formula milk itself, because correlation doesn't mean causation), but one interesting factor is that when breastfeeding, the foremilk (which comes first) is watery and thirst quenching, then the hindmilk (which comes later) is much richer and is more like food... but with formula milk it's all the same, so babies may take more calories in milk than they actually need, because they're trying to quench their thirst and hunger at the same time, as opposed to breastfed babies who quench their thirst first, then take as much hind milk as they need to not feel hungry, so they're provided with better tools to learn to satisfy their thirst, then hunger, in their own time, then stop feeding.

It's extremely hard to separate nature and nurture in behaviours, probably twin studies, i.e. identical twins raised in different environments, may shed light on it, e.g. if identical twins as adults both have the same level of ability at moderation regardless of the environment, that would suggest genetic factors. But in the context of the opening post, it doesn't really matter whether it's genetics or bad habits learned in childhood, because they're factors that are beyond your control. However I concur with the OP that it is something that can be learned later in life, and I agree with you (and I think the OP does too) that it is genuinely harder for some people to learn moderation than others. But his point is that it's worth putting the effort in to learn how to eat in moderation even if you find it harder than average, because the other two extremes are not conducive to happiness. And also I think that as parents we should learn how to teach our kids moderation so they don't have to deal with the misery of being stuck at one extreme or the other, or yo-yoing between the two.

I'd be interested to know whether there is any difference then between formula and pumped breast milk. Is there still a benefit to breast feeding if the baby is drinking breast milk from a bottle?

good question - I'd like to know if breastmilk in a bottle would affect how a baby learns to regulate their intake to their appetite, but I'm not aware of any studies on it. But yes that would result in the foremilk and hindmilk being all mixed together so being more like formula feeding in that respect.

There's still a lot of benefits to breastmilk in a bottle, because what I mentioned is just one small factor of many. And even if you're bottle feeding (whether formula or pumped breastmilk) you can still encourage a baby to regulate their own appetite to some extent by following their cues of when to start and finish feeding, rather than trying to force them into a strict schedule. Or you could give them a little cooled boiled water before giving them the bottle maybe?? (don't take my word for that though, I have very little bottle feeding experience, my first daughter flat out refused all bottles and my second would take a bottle of expressed milk if I wasn't around, but if I was then she wanted milk from the boob and wouldn't accept the bottle)

neandermagnon

OP: this is a really great post, in fact I've copied and pasted it for my kids to read when they get older. At the moment I'm trying to teach them moderation by setting a good example and letting them have "unhealthy" foods but not too often (e.g. getting fast food while going out at the weekend, ice creams after dinner sometimes, that kind of thing, plus making healthy food desirable, e.g. treats of fruit, fruit smoothie, restaurant trips that involve healthy food, e.g. meat grill + salad, and stuff like that, and avoiding the mentality of healthy food = boring) but when kids get older I think they do respond to having stuff explained to them in clear ways and I really like your chart. I also think the principles of you chart apply to other things like financial stability, something else kids have to learn. You used that as an analogy for moderate eating, but it's also a life skill kids need to learn, and the principle of balancing present desires with future health/financial stability and the ability to go on enjoying things is a really important life skill for many other things, not just food and finances. time management also works like that, e.g. work/study life balance, etc.

HollisGrant

So here's the thing:

I'm excellent at moderation at MOST things. Managing my money, exercise, balancing work/play, drinking alcohol, and actually with eating MOST foods.

But sugary junk food? If I have a little, I turn into a crazy person who wants more sugar. It's like torture to stop. I can do it but it's a force of will and I don't always have it, and when I don't it snowballs. If I eat none, I don't crave any and I'm happy and relaxed. In fact, I can even go out to dinner with friends and watch them eat dessert and not want any myself. I definitely don't feel deprived.

I mean - do you tell recovering alcoholics that they just need to master moderation? No, they practice not having even one drink because it triggers them to go overboard. And I know a number of recovering alcoholics who are happy and healthy and never touch alcohol and I don't know anyone giving them crap about how they need to learn moderation.

I'm happy and healthy and feel much better (mentally and physically) when I eliminate certain things from my diet. No, it's not moderation, but when I try to practice moderation with things that trigger me to want to eat more and more and more of them, I'm definitely not happy or healthy.

I feel exactly the same way about sugary junk food. I quit smoking cigarettes many years ago and this is the same process. At the time I quit smoking, I would never had been able to smoke just one cigarette now and then. I can't moderate myself with sugary junk food either and it isn't worth it to me to try. I haven't had any in almost 4 months and for the first time in years don't crave it or even think about it. I'm incredibly grateful to MFP for that alone.

LorinaLynn

10. Got a good beat. I can dance to it. :drinker:

For me, part of eating in moderation is planning before any craving is involved, and it starts at the grocery store. I tend to buy ice cream sandwiches and Klondikes instead of a quart of ice cream, because it's easier to control portions.

I cook only what we'll eat, so there's no leftovers or going back for seconds and thirds.

I see a lot of people say they have no portion control when it comes to pizza... I can't eat any more than my allotted 4 slices, because my husband eats the other 4. As much as I love pizza and could eat more, I know I'm not going to cook or order a second pizza after eating the first.

I tend to buy "fun sized" candy bars, because I've realized the first bite or two is what tastes best. So I only need those two bites. Usually. Sometimes I need eight to ten bites instead. And that's ok, because it's not what I do MOST of the time.

Mia_RagazzaTosta

In

jonnythan

Post of the year.

Oishii

So, nice post, but I don't think it's true that moderation is equally easy to learn for everyone.

Just because it isn't easy, doesn't mean it isn't worth it.

Losing weight and getting fit isn't easy. Guess we should all just stop logging on.

I lose weight exceedingly easily and joined mfp to try to slow it down (didn't work because mfp figures don't work for me, and TDEE -15% wasn't as big on the forums back then, and even that would probably have been too little). I tend to respond to exercise fast too, for example, after running an occasional mile here and there, I went straight to 5K with no difficulty. So, no, losing weight isn't difficult for everyone any more than moderation is.

And did I say you shouldn't do things because they're difficult? I like a challenge, I value hard work, I moved to Japan because I wanted to see if I could learn a harder language. Just mentioning that some things are easier for some than others doesn't mean condoning defeatism. I am pro moderation, pro a belief in self control, but that doesn't mean I can't consider how different others' experiences are.

DragonSquatter

It's amazing to me that this post is necessary, but it is, and incredibly well said.

Was thinking the same thing.

Good writeup.

alpine1994

I agree wholeheartedly with this post. Whenever I tell people that I lost weight by practicing moderation I LITERALLY get an eye-roll. It's like the concept is so unbelievable that people think I'm lying or something, or that there's no way I can eat cake/pizza/ice cream/pasta alfredo/heaps of cheese every now and then and still lose weight and be happy. Try it, eye-rollers!

FITnFIRM4LIFE

This is a great post! We have to choose food, drinks, money and even moods, to keep balance. And within all of those choices moderation, The more a behavior is repeated, the more likely it is that it will become "instinctive." Depending on your unique physical and psychological make-up, it could take three weeks, it could take five days, or it could take a lifetime.

Florawanda

I love this post! This is so true. I've written a lot about moderation on my blog, because I tend to eat to excess because I'm bored or unhappy, but I definitely feel best when I moderate.

I'm not one of those people who can give up things. I just moderate. For instance: I had a Snickers bar this week, but I still stayed in my calorie total that day. I adjusted the rest of my food so I didn't have to deprive myself of that want for chocolate. Made me happy, and I didn't feel guilty.

That is me.. I am NOT going to give up, or not have in the house, foods I like, but have to learn that I cannot have crisps, biscuits and chocolate all day every day! So I have non-chocolate days, ration the biscuits and crisps, etc. And I have learned that sugar is addictive. So when I eventually reach a healthy weight, it won't pile back on as soon as I see a pack of chocolate digestives!!

When I was 10, my big brother gave me a number of small presents, but 'spoiled' each one of them by putting in a proverb, eg the pocket mirror had a note saying "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity". In a Cadbury's Dairy Milk box of chocolates, he had put in a Greek proverb - "moderation in all things". Sadly I did not learn the lesson!

Oishii

I love this post! This is so true. I've written a lot about moderation on my blog, because I tend to eat to excess because I'm bored or unhappy, but I definitely feel best when I moderate.

I'm not one of those people who can give up things. I just moderate. For instance: I had a Snickers bar this week, but I still stayed in my calorie total that day. I adjusted the rest of my food so I didn't have to deprive myself of that want for chocolate. Made me happy, and I didn't feel guilty.

That is me.. I am NOT going to give up, or not have in the house, foods I like, but have to learn that I cannot have crisps, biscuits and chocolate all day every day! So I have non-chocolate days, ration the biscuits and crisps, etc. And I have learned that sugar is addictive. So when I eventually reach a healthy weight, it won't pile back on as soon as I see a pack of chocolate digestives!!

When I was 10, my big brother gave me a number of small presents, but 'spoiled' each one of them by putting in a proverb, eg the pocket mirror had a note saying "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity". In a Cadbury's Dairy Milk box of chocolates, he had put in a Greek proverb - "moderation in all things". Sadly I did not learn the lesson!

How old was the big brother?

glin23

I don't know about any of you guys but I was NEVER taught moderation. I was brought up to 'clean' my plate. And if I was full I ate that piece of cake anyways because if I didn't my dad would eat it and I would never have an opportunity to eat any. Pretty much I was taught to get it now because if you wait then you won't get any.

I wish my family had taught me moderation. Now I am having to re-train myself.

As was I. In the flip side, I was also oftentimes poked fun of because I was fat. And yes, those making disparaging comments included family members. I've pointed out this hypocrisy to my parents ironically enough because now their own health is worse than mine along with other family members. Don't get me wrong, I still spurge every so often, but moderation is definitely a skill not taught as much as it should be.

ZoeLifts

In for the learning!!

kevinjb1

All I can say is...

EvgeniZyntx

I love this post! This is so true. I've written a lot about moderation on my blog, because I tend to eat to excess because I'm bored or unhappy, but I definitely feel best when I moderate.

I'm not one of those people who can give up things. I just moderate. For instance: I had a Snickers bar this week, but I still stayed in my calorie total that day. I adjusted the rest of my food so I didn't have to deprive myself of that want for chocolate. Made me happy, and I didn't feel guilty.

That is me.. I am NOT going to give up, or not have in the house, foods I like, but have to learn that I cannot have crisps, biscuits and chocolate all day every day! So I have non-chocolate days, ration the biscuits and crisps, etc. And I have learned that sugar is addictive. So when I eventually reach a healthy weight, it won't pile back on as soon as I see a pack of chocolate digestives!!

When I was 10, my big brother gave me a number of small presents, but 'spoiled' each one of them by putting in a proverb, eg the pocket mirror had a note saying "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity". In a Cadbury's Dairy Milk box of chocolates, he had put in a Greek proverb - "moderation in all things". Sadly I did not learn the lesson!

I think I prefer the Latin[/b] modification - "moderation in all things, including moderation"

smittybuilt19

In for Moderation and improving self-control....starting with food and having it affect other parts of my life that have been needing it too. Hi5!

Yes! ^^

nytius

Yes! Just yes! Moderation is key, it just means balance. I don't really agree that you can over moderate. How do you...why would you...mess with your balance? After all the work you did to GET balanced ...you are then going to push one side just so you don't have "too much balance" in your life?