Everything in Moderation?

SnicciFit

That piece of advice has always bothered me a little. I think the Hartwigs hit the nail on the head with this:

http://whole9life.com/2013/08/moderation/

BrianSharpe

You mean by stating the obvious......don't eat foods you're allergic to or to which you have sensitivities?

of course, the whole point of their web site is to sell whatever their miraculous secret is for a one time fee of $14.95

Velum_cado

Wow, what a crock.

SnicciFit

You mean by stating the obvious......don't eat foods you're allergic to or to which you have sensitivities?

of course, the whole point of their web site is to sell whatever their miraculous secret is for a one time fee of $14.95

There really isn't a miraculous secret. They did write a book, but about 99% of the stuff in the book is also on the website for free. The book goes a little more in depth. And no, I mean that for some people, some foods shouldn't be eaten even in moderation (even without the allergies/sensitives). What exactly is moderation? As they say, it's too abstract. Too "fluffy."

SnicciFit

Wow, what a crock.

What are you referring to?

BrianSharpe

You mean by stating the obvious......don't eat foods you're allergic to or to which you have sensitivities?

of course, the whole point of their web site is to sell whatever their miraculous secret is for a one time fee of $14.95

There really isn't a miraculous secret. They did write a book, but about 99% of the stuff in the book is also on the website for free. The book goes a little more in depth. And no, I mean that for some people, some foods shouldn't be eaten even in moderation (even without the allergies/sensitives). What exactly is moderation? As they say, it's too abstract. Too "fluffy."

How is it abstract? if your goal is to lose weight you have a caloric limit that you want to work within, all it takes is paying attention to portions. The only thing "fluffy" is their approach to separating me from my money.......

SnicciFit

if your goal is to lose weight you have a caloric limit that you want to work within, all it takes is paying attention to portions.

That doesn't work for everybody. Sure it works for a while, but then the foods that you have been eating "moderately" (whatever that means) start to creep in more & more...and then it's no longer working. For me, anyway. And apparently several others. Like the piece says:

"Now, if you’re one of those folks for which “moderation” works just fine, then you’re lucky. (And you’re probably not trolling the internet looking for diet advice, or reading this article looking for guidance.)"

I used to think that was the way to do it. Just portion sizes. And sure, I did lose weight, but I didn't get any "healthier" physically or in my relationship with food. Nor did I keep the weight off.

AlabasterVerve

I liked the article which probably isn't surprising considering I eat a diet that seems to horrify most. But this line at the end really rang true for me:

"as long as you are making a conscious, deliberate, honest-with-yourself desicion each and every time you choose to indulge."

That's in it in a nutshell for me -- if I indulge too often it stops being a choice and becomes a compulsion I give in to. I'm much happier eating food I really love everyday and saving the other foods I really love as a treat or to celebrate and mark special occasions with. I like having a normal appetite and knowing that when I feel hungry I'm actually hungry too much to ever go back.

Quinnstinct

"if your goal is to lose weight you have a caloric limit that you want to work within, all it takes is paying attention to portions"



This doesn't work for everyone. Health isn't just calories in calories out. If it's good for you, great!

SnicciFit

"if your goal is to lose weight you have a caloric limit that you want to work within, all it takes is paying attention to portions"



This doesn't work for everyone. Health isn't just calories in calories out. If it's good for you, great!

Good point. "Moderation" might work for weight loss, but not so much for health.

Akimajuktuq

When a person is malnourished from poor diet, "moderation" is impossible. If your body needs nutrients and is not getting them, the signal to eat continues and continues, and excessive fat is stored instead of burned. Our body has complex survival mechanisms which we are not easily able to over-ride and for good reason. Some people are able to "eat anything in moderation"; however, that is not true for ALL people especially if they have been malnourished for most of their life. I'm more than a little frustrated with people on MFP that parrot the over-simplification of biological processes that we have been fed by the media, health/food/pharma industries, and our governments. Every research program (that i am aware of) that has studied calorie restricted diets over a long period show that they are a fail for sustainable, permanent weight loss. Some people can force "moderation' for awhile, but more often than not, go back to "over-eating" sooner or later.

KarenJanine

Good point. "Moderation" might work for weight loss, but not so much for health.

Why not? I love this quote I've stolen from Sarauk2sf's profile "once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for eating more nutritious food" - Eric Helms

clairemarie1016

Everything in moderation, including moderation.

Acg67

When a person is malnourished from poor diet, "moderation" is impossible. If your body needs nutrients and is not getting them, the signal to eat continues and continues, and excessive fat is stored instead of burned. Our body has complex survival mechanisms which we are not easily able to over-ride and for good reason. Some people are able to "eat anything in moderation"; however, that is not true for ALL people especially if they have been malnourished for most of their life. I'm more than a little frustrated with people on MFP that parrot the over-simplification of biological processes that we have been fed by the media, health/food/pharma industries, and our governments. Every research program (that i am aware of) that has studied calorie restricted diets over a long period show that they are a fail for sustainable, permanent weight loss. Some people can force "moderation' for awhile, but more often than not, go back to "over-eating" sooner or later.

Lol, so in a deficit you'd be storing lots of excess fat?

Hmmmm what's this?

http://www.nwcr.ws/Research/

SnicciFit

When a person is malnourished from poor diet, "moderation" is impossible. If your body needs nutrients and is not getting them, the signal to eat continues and continues, and excessive fat is stored instead of burned. Our body has complex survival mechanisms which we are not easily able to over-ride and for good reason. Some people are able to "eat anything in moderation"; however, that is not true for ALL people especially if they have been malnourished for most of their life. I'm more than a little frustrated with people on MFP that parrot the over-simplification of biological processes that we have been fed by the media, health/food/pharma industries, and our governments. Every research program (that i am aware of) that has studied calorie restricted diets over a long period show that they are a fail for sustainable, permanent weight loss. Some people can force "moderation' for awhile, but more often than not, go back to "over-eating" sooner or later.

Lol, so in a deficit you'd be storing lots of excess fat?

Hmmmm what's this?

http://www.nwcr.ws/Research/

I think she was referring to a nutrient deficit, not a calorie deficit. Big difference, no?

Acg67

When a person is malnourished from poor diet, "moderation" is impossible. If your body needs nutrients and is not getting them, the signal to eat continues and continues, and excessive fat is stored instead of burned. Our body has complex survival mechanisms which we are not easily able to over-ride and for good reason. Some people are able to "eat anything in moderation"; however, that is not true for ALL people especially if they have been malnourished for most of their life. I'm more than a little frustrated with people on MFP that parrot the over-simplification of biological processes that we have been fed by the media, health/food/pharma industries, and our governments. Every research program (that i am aware of) that has studied calorie restricted diets over a long period show that they are a fail for sustainable, permanent weight loss. Some people can force "moderation' for awhile, but more often than not, go back to "over-eating" sooner or later.

Lol, so in a deficit you'd be storing lots of excess fat?

Hmmmm what's this?

http://www.nwcr.ws/Research/

I think she was referring to a nutrient deficit, not a calorie deficit. Big difference, no?

http://pmj.bmj.com/content/49/569/203.abstract

Acg67

^ Gained a ton of fat

jenn26point2

I've followed their plan countless times and have given them zero dollars as have hundreds of other people. And it works. When I step away from their plan, my joint pain comes back, my stomach/gut hurts constantly, and I get headaches. When I follow their plan, I feel like I can move mountains. Their plan is simply paleo, less sweeteners, alcohol and dairy (if your version of paleo allows dairy). It's through their program that I learned I'm intolerant to dairy. Thank you, Dallas and Melissa!

The moderation argument drives me just as nuts. Sure... eat your milk chocolate loaded up with artificial ingredients and soy bi-products. Or your diet coke with it's disgusting list of chemicals. And enjoy the bloat that comes from eating grains. I'll stick to what the Whole9 recommends b/c it makes me feel good - whether the general populace agrees with their research or not. I may or may not live longer than you as a result, but I bet I'll feel better on a daily basis than I did before.

jenn26point2

Their argument isn't that you can't lose weight when you indulge. Their argument is that you won't reach maximum health by indulging in the foods that have been proven to be less than perfectly healthy for humans - i.e. chemicals, grains, legumes, etc, etc, etc.

Or that if you have a problem with will power (i.e. don't have any or if your will power fails frequently) then moderation is not a solid approach to you reaching your goals. Allergies was only the first section. Did you read it all?

Morninglory81

if your goal is to lose weight you have a caloric limit that you want to work within, all it takes is paying attention to portions.

That doesn't work for everybody. Sure it works for a while, but then the foods that you have been eating "moderately" (whatever that means) start to creep in more & more...and then it's no longer working. For me, anyway. And apparently several others. Like the piece says:

"Now, if you’re one of those folks for which “moderation” works just fine, then you’re lucky. (And you’re probably not trolling the internet looking for diet advice, or reading this article looking for guidance.)"

I used to think that was the way to do it. Just portion sizes. And sure, I did lose weight, but I didn't get any "healthier" physically or in my relationship with food. Nor did I keep the weight off.

The problem is you put moderation in quotation like there isn't a way to measure if it isn't moderation. Moderation means it fits in your cal goals. If you keep increasing your portion size you are no longer using moderation. It is not that moderation doesn't work, it is that you are unwilling to use moderation.

SnicciFit

if your goal is to lose weight you have a caloric limit that you want to work within, all it takes is paying attention to portions.

That doesn't work for everybody. Sure it works for a while, but then the foods that you have been eating "moderately" (whatever that means) start to creep in more & more...and then it's no longer working. For me, anyway. And apparently several others. Like the piece says:

"Now, if you’re one of those folks for which “moderation” works just fine, then you’re lucky. (And you’re probably not trolling the internet looking for diet advice, or reading this article looking for guidance.)"

I used to think that was the way to do it. Just portion sizes. And sure, I did lose weight, but I didn't get any "healthier" physically or in my relationship with food. Nor did I keep the weight off.

The problem is you put moderation in quotation like there isn't a way to measure if it isn't moderation. Moderation means it fits in your cal goals. If you keep increasing your portion size you are no longer using moderation. It is not that moderation doesn't work, it is that you are unwilling to use moderation.

You're right. I'm unwilling to use moderation to optimize my health.

Birder150

Good point. "Moderation" might work for weight loss, but not so much for health.

Why not? I love this quote I've stolen from Sarauk2sf's profile "once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for eating more nutritious food" - Eric Helms

Once your nutrient needs are met, shouldn't you stop eating?

Acg67

When a person is malnourished from poor diet, "moderation" is impossible. If your body needs nutrients and is not getting them, the signal to eat continues and continues, and excessive fat is stored instead of burned. Our body has complex survival mechanisms which we are not easily able to over-ride and for good reason. Some people are able to "eat anything in moderation"; however, that is not true for ALL people especially if they have been malnourished for most of their life. I'm more than a little frustrated with people on MFP that parrot the over-simplification of biological processes that we have been fed by the media, health/food/pharma industries, and our governments. Every research program (that i am aware of) that has studied calorie restricted diets over a long period show that they are a fail for sustainable, permanent weight loss. Some people can force "moderation' for awhile, but more often than not, go back to "over-eating" sooner or later.

Lol, so in a deficit you'd be storing lots of excess fat?

Hmmmm what's this?

http://www.nwcr.ws/Research/

I think she was referring to a nutrient deficit, not a calorie deficit. Big difference, no?

Also let's assume she's right and not just making things up, why isn't Haiti the most obese country ever? Nutrient deficiency leads to fat storage, right?

jwdieter

Moderation is bad because if you have peanut allergies and eat a moderate amount of peanuts you could die.

Moderation is bad because people don't have willpower.

If you're a chronic yo-yo dieter who can't do anything right, buy my product too, please. It totally might work!

CyberEd312

Good point. "Moderation" might work for weight loss, but not so much for health.

Why not? I love this quote I've stolen from Sarauk2sf's profile "once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for eating more nutritious food" - Eric Helms

Once your nutrient needs are met, shouldn't you stop eating?

I can hit my nutrient needs some days and still have 800-1000 calories remaining so no, I myself wouldn't stop eating but I may indulge in some discretionary food choices (ie: ice cream, a bag of candied roasted pecans or almonds, a couple snickers bars, etc) to fill my calorie needs for that day...

stealthq

Good point. "Moderation" might work for weight loss, but not so much for health.

Why not? I love this quote I've stolen from Sarauk2sf's profile "once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for eating more nutritious food" - Eric Helms

Once your nutrient needs are met, shouldn't you stop eating?

I can hit my nutrient needs some days and still have 800-1000 calories remaining so no, I myself wouldn't stop eating but I may indulge in some discretionary food choices (ie: ice cream, a bag of candied roasted pecans or almonds, a couple snickers bars, etc) to fill my calorie needs for that day...

OK, but if you have that many cals remaining, then you haven't reached your energy requirements, yet, right? I count energy requirements as a nutritional requirement, thought everybody did.

Madame_Goldbricker

The Moderation Solution
Now, if you’re one of those folks for which “moderation” works just fine, then you’re lucky. (And you’re probably not trolling the internet looking for diet advice, or reading this article looking for guidance.) But for the vast majority of folks, it’s time to ditch the concept of moderation once and for all. Now, we’re not saying you have to be a 100% perfect eater, day in and day out. We just want you to reframe how you enjoy less healthy foods.

•Eat as little as you have to, as infrequently as you can, to satisfy that desire. Understand that the less you eat, and the less often you choose to indulge, the healthier you will be. Some weeks, you may not eat these less healthy foods at all. Other weeks, you may eat them every day. Both are okay, as long as you are making a conscious, deliberate, honest-with-yourself desicion each and every time you choose to indulge.



Moderation : Meaning

Noun
1.The avoidance of excess or extremes, esp. in one's behavior.
2.The action of making something less extreme, intense.

Synonyms
temperance - restraint - modesty

So erm, basically the advice in the article is applying moderation. Without using the word moderation? OK! :huh:

AlongCame_Molly

Biggest piece of misinformed, self-serving quackery I've ever read. This is nothing more than a cop-out for lazy people who have no control over their urges.

We all have a "finite tank" of willpower? Bullcrap. Willpower is like a muscle or skill; the more you use it, the stronger it gets. It does not run out or become exhausted.

"Moderation works for very few people"? More bullcrap. Myself, my family, everyone on my friends list, and thousands of others here on MFP and in the world all disagree. Oh, and adding "you know this to be true" does not automatically MAKE it true. The author of this retarded article needs a refresher course in persuasive speaking, as well as basic logic.

And OBVIOUSLY no one is saying "peanuts in moderation are ok" if you are in fact ALLERGIC to peanuts. This author is pulling ridiculous, far-reaching arguments out of thin air to make themselves feel better about their own inability to stop stuffing chocolate down their throats after one or two pieces.

To the writer of the article: If you personally are not capable of cutting yourself off after a reasonable serving of chocolate cake, if you honestly CANNOT put that bottle of wine away without finishing it off, if you truly are not able to box up the rest of the cheesecake for later, fine. But admit that you have self-control problems and deal with them on your own time, and stop trying to convince the rest of the world that moderation is an undoable, impossible concept. Because hundreds of thousands of the rest of the adult world do it every day. Grow up.

CyberEd312

Good point. "Moderation" might work for weight loss, but not so much for health.

Why not? I love this quote I've stolen from Sarauk2sf's profile "once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for eating more nutritious food" - Eric Helms

Once your nutrient needs are met, shouldn't you stop eating?

I can hit my nutrient needs some days and still have 800-1000 calories remaining so no, I myself wouldn't stop eating but I may indulge in some discretionary food choices (ie: ice cream, a bag of candied roasted pecans or almonds, a couple snickers bars, etc) to fill my calorie needs for that day...

OK, but if you have that many cals remaining, then you haven't reached your energy requirements, yet, right? I count energy requirements as a nutritional requirement, thought everybody did.

No that is taking into account my energy requirements, I workout hard 6 days a week (1 rest day a week) and am a firm believer in fueling my body for the demands I ask of it.... I am maintaining at 4000 calories a day for the last 9 months and fill my caloric and macro needs with whole foods, lean meats, and grains but like I said once I hit my target nutrient needs then I will fill in my caloric intake with more calorie dense foods that i may want... Learning moderation was key to my success, when I weighed 560 lbs, I was consuming over 10,000 a day mindlessly eating just to eat.... I had to use abstinence in the beginning from those foods that triggered my over consumptions but I also went to therapy to learn how to deal with my food addictions and over time I started adding those foods back into my life so that they no longer had control over me and that I was the one in control and can use moderation to enjoy some of the things I use to eat....

Cranquistador

"if your goal is to lose weight you have a caloric limit that you want to work within, all it takes is paying attention to portions"



This doesn't work for everyone. Health isn't just calories in calories out. If it's good for you, great!

Good point. "Moderation" might work for weight loss, but not so much for health.

yes it does.

PikaKnight

"if your goal is to lose weight you have a caloric limit that you want to work within, all it takes is paying attention to portions"



This doesn't work for everyone. Health isn't just calories in calories out. If it's good for you, great!

Good point. "Moderation" might work for weight loss, but not so much for health.

yes it does.

Agreed. If you have to cut back on things like sweets, fried foods, etc....what do you think you'd have to learn to eat? Less calorie dense foods like vegetables, fruits, and so on. So moderation can encourage being "healthy".

And many people report great numbers from their blood work while still eating foods that many consider junk..but in moderation.