Calories are not all equal and all things in moderation is a

kyle4jem

Besides, I don't buy into the majority of 'studies' out there - because studies can be skewed to support any theory. As long as everyone out there does what works best for them, and they get positive results, I don't see what difference it makes, anyway.

What's worse is the mis-representation of such studies by the media. Even the BBC is guilty of printing such stories without showing relative values that make better sense and better describe the risk.

It's important to watch our calories; it's equally as important to watch what types of foods we eat ensuring that it's balanced in terms of nutrients. You can live on Happy Meals but you'd probably stil be lacking some essential vitamins and minerals as well as consuming over processed sugars and flour.

Some people have food addictions and that's a shame. It's unfair... but hey those are the breaks.

I have a friend who only found out late in life that he's a coeliac (gluten intollerant) but the majority of us can learn to enjoy treats. I have found in the past that when I undertook restrictive diets that meant I couldn't have certain foods, I wanted them more and when I stopped the diet, I ended up guzzling more and more to compensate for all the months of deprivation.

Portion control is probably far more important that abstination, but at the end of the day, it's what works for you that works best. I could no more drink a protein shake or a smoothie than I could eat a bowl of tripe. I just don't like museli, nor wholemeal bread or pasta, nor brown rice, nor bean sprouts, nor tofu nor ... well the list is long. But I do like a variety of foodstufs from the devils food to the superfoods. Variety is the spice of life and moderation means that... keeping within healthy guidelines :smokin:

Qarol

posts like this make my *kitten* twitch

AdAstra47

"Regardless of what the article says, in my experience, the occasional treat IS a problem. It depends on your metabolism & genetics, of course. But some people... perhaps many people... have an addiction to certain types of foods."

Surely this is a strong argument for learning to eat moderately, not for total avoidance. Total avoidance is how people ultimately end up crashing heavily off the wagon. Learning to manage food appropriately makes far more sense.

Total abstention isn't ultimately sustainable, I don't think - not in a society where temptation is everywhere. Learning to love your body, to feed it well, to treat yourself in non-food ways - these things are all key. But so too is learning how to manage just having a small piece of cake, and enjoying it without having to munch through mountains of the stuff.

I don't think this poster quite understands the concept of addiction. You can't tell an alcoholic that one little drink won't hurt her. Or tell a cocaine addict to just go ahead & do one little hit. Carbohydrate addiction is less publicized but no less real and no less an addiction. So please don't go around telling people that total avoidance is impossible, because for some people, it's necessary. The alcoholic DOES have to learn how to go out with friends who are drinking, and put up with the omnipresent billboards and commercials for booze. Just like I have had to learn to watch fast food commercials and go to restaurants and potlucks with my friends, without eating any carbs myself. It can be done, because it MUST be done.

And this isn't just some fad. My doctor ran a bunch of tests on my metabolism, and these are his orders. And I have met people who have eaten this way for over 12 years now because it is what keeps them healthy. I plan on eating this way for the rest of my life, and if that means I never eat another chocolate-chip cookie, then so be it. I'd rather give up certain foods than continue with the depression, low energy, and myriad of other health problems caused when I eat carbs. Now that I know what caused all my problems, my health is worth it.

I know that severe dietary restrictions are not for everyone; but I think my point, and the point of the original post, is that "all things in moderation" doesn't work for everyone either. Everyone's body is different, and you shouldn't criticize people or accuse them of being unhealthy just because they don't do what *you* do.

infamousmk

AdAstra47 - Pardon my ignorance, but I really would like to understand....


You stated earlier that your body does not tolerate carbohydrates. You cannot have any carbs because even a small amount triggers issues with over-consumption. Is that correct? In essence, you are saying that because your body does not properly metabolize carbohydrates, and because you basically have an addiction to them, you will never touch another carb... and there are others like you, meaning that they either have an addiction or a biological aversion to carbs. (Please, correct me if I'm wrong...)


Now, if the above is correct - that would mean that there are carb addicts out there just like there are alcoholics. Psychologically, biologically, socially, they are driven by the same type of root causes, I'm willing to speculate.

If that is the case, then yes, someone with a carb addiction has to avoid carbs completely, learn to live without them, use tools to go out with friends and not indulge, even a little bit. But, just like with alcoholism, a great deal of people out there aren't alcoholics. Folks may over-indulge every now and then, might have one drink and then lose a little control and have five drinks while out with friends. They're not alcoholics, they just used poor judgement on some random Friday night. They show restraint most of the time, enjoy their drinks generally responsibly. They're not alcoholics, but they're not perfect and make dumb choices sometimes.

In conclusion: the average American dealing with weight loss probably doesn't have an addiction to carbs.. they make a decent amount of choices that have led them down an unhealthy path, and maybe they didn't learn proper nutrition. With education, practice, and application, they're able to eat all macro nutrients and learn to use moderation. Just like how the average college student has to learn that drinking too much on Sunday nights makes for difficult Monday classes.

This is how I understand the connection between carb addiction and alcoholism... not everyone is an alcoholic, so if they're not, they can learn good habits regarding alcohol, just like someone that doesn't have a carb addiction/aversion can learn to properly use carbs in their [healthy] diet.

If I'm totally off base or completely off my rocker, let me know ... but this is how I'm understanding things.

agthorn

Too bad it didn't mention anything about EXERCISE. While I don't doubt they gained weight, in 12-20 years your metabolism slows and you lose lean muscle. Makes sense you would gain weight if you burned less calories and ate the same amount of food each year.

Actually, the original study did mention exercise (they also looked at sleep, TV habits, and alcohol consumption). But "exercise helps keep weight off" doesn't make for sexy headlines like "all calories are not equal" does.

"Across quintiles, participants with greater increases in physical activity gained 1.76 fewer pounds within each 4-year period. Absolute levels of physical activity, rather than changes in these levels, were not associated with weight change (data not shown). Overall, increases in alcohol use (per drink per day) were positively associated with weight change (0.41 lb), but heterogeneity was evident with respect to both the beverage type and the size and direction of changes in use (see the figure in the Supplementary Appendix). Sleep duration had a U-shaped association with weight gain, with greater weight gain occurring with less than 6 hours or more than 8 hours of sleep per night. Increases in time spent watching television (per hour per day) were independently associated with weight gain (0.31 lb, P<0.001)."

jellybaby84

Adastra, if the carbs thing is your addiction then yes, you can avoid it completely just like an alcoholic. But a far more common reason for weight gain and obesity is FOOD addiction - ultimately a person cannot avoid food forever so they HAVE to learn moderation, they have no choice.

I don't have the scientific knowledge to say if that article is accurate or not (I suspect not but that's just from personal experience) but taking on board the message that it's not okay to ever have a treat or a 'bad food' is a) sad and b) dangerous, especially if that becomes ingrained into our society and onto our children - I wouldn't want to raise kids who were terrified of an ice cream!

I totally admit that there is an obesity and overeating epidemic in Western society today - but who are we to judge and to claim to have it better? We are all here because food has, at some point in our lives, made us unhappy with our bodies. We are reliant on calorie counting and many people (myself included) are downright obsessive. How much better to be the middle of the road person who doesn't obsess over what nutrients they eat or how many calories but eats when they are hungry, stops when they are full and enjoys a full balanced diet, *including* the "bad" stuff. Those people, as long as they are active, will have no more of a weight problem than people who studiously avoid all sugars and carbohydrates forever.

I am not saying that either of these diets are a good thing but, just to illustrate that a calorie might be a calorie, regardless of what it is:
* I once lost 8 pounds in 2 weeks eating just marshmallows and jellybabies
* I maintained a significantly underweight bmi for nearly 2 years during which time I "saved" around 400 calories of my total intake of around 800-1200 just for fudge and icecream!

Oishii

I'm guessing most people have only read the NYT or Huffington Post summaries of the NEJM article.

From the NEJM article: "Total energy intake, biologic factors (e.g., blood pressure), and medications were not included as covariables because such factors could be mediators (in causal pathways) or direct correlates of mediators of the effects of lifestyle on weight gain."

Meaning: They DID NOT control for differences in calorie intake. The study was designed to look at CHANGES IN HABITS, not total calorie consumption.

"The dietary factors with the largest positive associations with weight changes, per serving per day, were increases in the consumption of potato chips (1.69 lb), potatoes (1.28 lb), sugar-sweetened beverages (1.00 lb), unprocessed red meats (0.95 lb), and processed meats (0.93 lb)."

"Inverse associations with weight gain, per serving per day, were seen for increased consumption of vegetables (−0.22 lb), whole grains (−0.37 lb), fruits (−0.49 lb), nuts (−0.57 lb), and yogurt (−0.82 lb)."

Meaning: People who INCREASED their consumption of chips and sugar-sweetened beverages also tended to increase their weight. People who INCREASED their consumption of fruits and vegetables also tended to decrease their weight.

In the end a calorie is still a calorie is still a calorie. But making positive CHANGES to your diet generally correlates in better health and weight loss. It's not rocket science. It's just science.

I read The Times' article on this but didn't realise they hadn't controlled for calorie consumption. If you are not counting calories and you up your consumption of chips, or whatever, you are not likely to subconsciously reduce other things, so your overall calories are likely to increase so you are likely to gain weight... So, without controlling for calories, this study tells us very little that doesn't mean the same as calories in v. calories out, which I feel is quite disappointing in such an in-depth study,

Thanks for clearing this up.

AdAstra47

In conclusion: the average American dealing with weight loss probably doesn't have an addiction to carbs.. they make a decent amount of choices that have led them down an unhealthy path, and maybe they didn't learn proper nutrition. With education, practice, and application, they're able to eat all macro nutrients and learn to use moderation. Just like how the average college student has to learn that drinking too much on Sunday nights makes for difficult Monday classes.

This is how I understand the connection between carb addiction and alcoholism... not everyone is an alcoholic, so if they're not, they can learn good habits regarding alcohol, just like someone that doesn't have a carb addiction/aversion can learn to properly use carbs in their [healthy] diet.

My point was that "all things in moderation" does not work for everyone and should not be taken as a Gospel Truth. For some people, being told that they must eat carbs in moderation is harmful and damaging.
And to go back to the example of alcoholism, many people who are not alcoholics choose not to ever drink because they don't like what alcohol does to their bodies & minds. Many people who choose a low-carb diet are the same way: they may not have a health condition that actually makes carbs dangerous, but they have chosen to restrict themselves for other reasons. And, I say again, there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

Yes, you CAN safely cut foods out of your diet entirely. It is not for everyone, but it is also not harmful. So the original post is correct, "all things in moderation" is a myth. If that philosophy works for you, that's great, but everyone is different. So my point is that people should not criticize others for not following their particular philosophy.

infamousmk

In conclusion: the average American dealing with weight loss probably doesn't have an addiction to carbs.. they make a decent amount of choices that have led them down an unhealthy path, and maybe they didn't learn proper nutrition. With education, practice, and application, they're able to eat all macro nutrients and learn to use moderation. Just like how the average college student has to learn that drinking too much on Sunday nights makes for difficult Monday classes.

This is how I understand the connection between carb addiction and alcoholism... not everyone is an alcoholic, so if they're not, they can learn good habits regarding alcohol, just like someone that doesn't have a carb addiction/aversion can learn to properly use carbs in their [healthy] diet.

My point was that "all things in moderation" does not work for everyone and should not be taken as a Gospel Truth. For some people, being told that they must eat carbs in moderation is harmful and damaging.
And to go back to the example of alcoholism, many people who are not alcoholics choose not to ever drink because they don't like what alcohol does to their bodies & minds. Many people who choose a low-carb diet are the same way: they may not have a health condition that actually makes carbs dangerous, but they have chosen to restrict themselves for other reasons. And, I say again, there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

Yes, you CAN safely cut foods out of your diet entirely. It is not for everyone, but it is also not harmful. So the original post is correct, "all things in moderation" is a myth. If that philosophy works for you, that's great, but everyone is different. So my point is that people should not criticize others for not following their particular philosophy.

Okay, I agree with you that not everyone can do all things in moderation - but that doesn't make the concept of moderation a myth. Calling it a myth implies that it's hearsay, untrue, and does not work. Which is untrue. For many, many people, moderation of ALL macronutrients and treats DOES work. So, until someone discovers through life experiences or medical tests that they are unable to consume something in moderation, I will continue to suggest that everyone enjoy treats, carbs, alcohol and everything else out there in moderation.

FaithsVegWorkout

An average gain of 3 or so pounds every 4 years is kind of below average, isn't it? I thought on average people gain about 5 pounds per year.

songbyrdsweet

All they did was fill out food questionnaires. Those things are notoriously sucky. They basically ask people 'what did you eat in the past 3-7 days?' or they have them track intake for 3-7 days. Us science people don't get along with the behavioral people to run these types of studies. SO subjective!

AdAstra47

...For many, many people, moderation of ALL macronutrients and treats DOES work. So, until someone discovers through life experiences or medical tests that they are unable to consume something in moderation, I will continue to suggest that everyone enjoy treats, carbs, alcohol and everything else out there in moderation.

Just don't go telling people that moderation is the ONLY acceptable choice. Which is what a lot of posters have been doing. Saying things like "It's unhealthy to cut out certain foods entirely" and criticizing people who have made that choice.

Pebble321

"Regardless of what the article says, in my experience, the occasional treat IS a problem. It depends on your metabolism & genetics, of course. But some people... perhaps many people... have an addiction to certain types of foods."

Surely this is a strong argument for learning to eat moderately, not for total avoidance. Total avoidance is how people ultimately end up crashing heavily off the wagon. Learning to manage food appropriately makes far more sense.

Total abstention isn't ultimately sustainable, I don't think - not in a society where temptation is everywhere. Learning to love your body, to feed it well, to treat yourself in non-food ways - these things are all key. But so too is learning how to manage just having a small piece of cake, and enjoying it without having to munch through mountains of the stuff.

I don't think this poster quite understands the concept of addiction. You can't tell an alcoholic that one little drink won't hurt her. Or tell a cocaine addict to just go ahead & do one little hit. Carbohydrate addiction is less publicized but no less real and no less an addiction. So please don't go around telling people that total avoidance is impossible, because for some people, it's necessary. The alcoholic DOES have to learn how to go out with friends who are drinking, and put up with the omnipresent billboards and commercials for booze. Just like I have had to learn to watch fast food commercials and go to restaurants and potlucks with my friends, without eating any carbs myself. It can be done, because it MUST be done.

And this isn't just some fad. My doctor ran a bunch of tests on my metabolism, and these are his orders. And I have met people who have eaten this way for over 12 years now because it is what keeps them healthy. I plan on eating this way for the rest of my life, and if that means I never eat another chocolate-chip cookie, then so be it. I'd rather give up certain foods than continue with the depression, low energy, and myriad of other health problems caused when I eat carbs. Now that I know what caused all my problems, my health is worth it.

I know that severe dietary restrictions are not for everyone; but I think my point, and the point of the original post, is that "all things in moderation" doesn't work for everyone either. Everyone's body is different, and you shouldn't criticize people or accuse them of being unhealthy just because they don't do what *you* do.

I find the term "carbohydrate addiction" a curious choice. If your body does not metabolise carbs in the regular (healthy) way, surely we're talking about an" intolerance" or even perhaps an "allergy" though that may not be correct.
I'm certainly not arguing about your situation, of course you should follow your doctor's advice, I'm very glad you've found the cauase of the problem you were having and have found a way to eliminate them.
But to call it an addiction seems bizarre (and very American!) to me.

To get back to the original topic - unless you have a definition for "moderation" then we could argue all day (night/month/year).
To me it means making healthy eating choices most of the time, but enjoying an occasional treat. You won't convince me that isn't a good thing!

In fact, I can quote the last line of your original post, attributed to Dr. Mozaffarian: “There are good foods and bad foods, and the advice should be to eat the good foods more and the bad foods less.”
Surely this itself is the definition of moderation?

Yet he goes on to say: “The notion that it’s O.K. to eat everything in moderation is just an excuse to eat whatever you want.”

But he's just said - eat more good foods, less bad foods.

This doesn't make sense!!

agthorn

All they did was fill out food questionnaires. Those things are notoriously sucky. They basically ask people 'what did you eat in the past 3-7 days?' or they have them track intake for 3-7 days. Us science people don't get along with the behavioral people to run these types of studies. SO subjective!

You can see all the questionnaires from the Nurses Health Study (one of the raw data sets used in the NEJM analysis) at http://www.channing.harvard.edu/nhs/questionnaires/index.shtml - check out 1980's questionnaire for the first set of questions about food intake. They only asked "Average Use Last Year" and "My Use During The Past 10 Years Has Increased/Decreased" for various foods. So there was never any attempt to track calories or specific food intake, just overall trends.

songbyrdsweet

All they did was fill out food questionnaires. Those things are notoriously sucky. They basically ask people 'what did you eat in the past 3-7 days?' or they have them track intake for 3-7 days. Us science people don't get along with the behavioral people to run these types of studies. SO subjective!

You can see all the questionnaires from the Nurses Health Study (one of the raw data sets used in the NEJM analysis) at http://www.channing.harvard.edu/nhs/questionnaires/index.shtml - check out 1980's questionnaire for the first set of questions about food intake. They only asked "Average Use Last Year" and "My Use During The Past 10 Years Has Increased/Decreased" for various foods. So there was never any attempt to track calories or specific food intake, just overall trends.

Which is exactly the problem. Can you remember your average use of *anything* for the past 10 years?? I have had to take classes shared between the science/physiology and behavioral science sections of my department...even the behavioral sci people don't put much into questionnaires. I take them with maybe a half grain of salt.

agthorn

Which is exactly the problem. Can you remember your average use of *anything* for the past 10 years?? I have had to take classes shared between the science/physiology and behavioral science sections of my department...even the behavioral sci people don't put much into questionnaires. I take them with maybe a half grain of salt.

Oh, I agree - I have a PhD in science. My only argument ever was that the NEJM study didn't really say what the news articles were writing, because it wasn't designed that way. It was simply looking for *correlations* between behaviors and weight gain.

Obstinate07

I always took "everything in moderation" to mean "eat more good stuff than bad stuff, but you're not going to blow up like a balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade just because you eat something that's not exactly health food every once in a while."

I take it to mean "a world without cheetos and caramel cremes is no world I want to live in" :-)

I agree. I don't care how many articles are being published, "Bad foods" will continue to be my treat every now and then. However, moderations is the key.

meerkat70

For the more patronising people on the thread .... I have a PhD in psychology and I teach research methodology, and mental health (among other things, I teach about addiction and eating disorders). I still disagree that total abstinence for food behaviours is a good idea, for the reasons I have outlined. I also think, for the reasons more articulately outlined by others, that my original point - that the article does not in fact say what the NYT article and the OP suggested - holds.

There's a reason, incidentally, that many scholarly articles put nice little scare quotes around the term 'addiction' in relation to carbs. It's become way, way too fashionable, particularly in the US, for all habitual behaviour to be termed 'addiction'. There is a huge critical literature around the pathologisation of behaviours through the language of 'addiction'. And most mainstream eating disorder research stresses the importance of normalising eating behaviours.

The metaphor of addiction is not a language I find useful either personally or professionally (it is individualising and pathologising). If you find it helpful, more power to you.

That I don't agree with what some individuals are saying does not, in fact, make me stupid or incapable of understanding. 'The poster' understands. 'The poster' simply disagrees with you.

meerkat70

That's because, as I pointed out, you can't read the full article at the link you've provided....

Huh? You click on 'Article'. Not that difficult.

Did you take your full quota of the patronising git pills this morning?

Good for you!


"This article is available to subscribers.
Sign in now if you're a subscriber."

I'm not a subscriber. My library does not subscribe.

Perhaps you do not understand what 'the full article' means?

kyle4jem

That I don't agree with what some individuals are saying does not, in fact, make me stupid or incapable of understanding. 'The poster' understands. 'The poster' simply disagrees with you.

Brava! Excellent post :flowerforyou:

Pebble321

For the more patronising people on the thread .... I have a PhD in psychology and I teach research methodology, and mental health (among other things, I teach about addiction and eating disorders). I still disagree that total abstinence for food behaviours is a good idea, for the reasons I have outlined. I also think, for the reasons more articulately outlined by others, that my original point - that the article does not in fact say what the NYT article and the OP suggested - holds.

There's a reason, incidentally, that many scholarly articles put nice little scare quotes around the term 'addiction' in relation to carbs. It's become way, way too fashionable, particularly in the US, for all habitual behaviour to be termed 'addiction'. There is a huge critical literature around the pathologisation of behaviours through the language of 'addiction'. And most mainstream eating disorder research stresses the importance of normalising eating behaviours.

The metaphor of addiction is not a language I find useful either personally or professionally (it is individualising and pathologising). If you find it helpful, more power to you.

That I don't agree with what some individuals are saying does not, in fact, make me stupid or incapable of understanding. 'The poster' understands. 'The poster' simply disagrees with you.

Thanks for this note about addiction and eating behavior, I didn't know if my perception that people in the US are tending to call many behaviours "addictions" was correct or if it was just based on the fact that we get shows like Dr Phil repeated over and over in Australia (and of course get news about Charlie Sheen inflicted on us, surely you could keep that to yourself!)

TavistockToad

I always took "everything in moderation" to mean "eat more good stuff than bad stuff, but you're not going to blow up like a balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade just because you eat something that's not exactly health food every once in a while."

i agree with this! i eat 'junk' probably one meal per week and have lost weight just fine. thats 'everything in moderation' to me!

tails86

Ohhh I like a good argument. Very interesting ideas here.

So, how would I know what is 'good' and what is 'bad'? To me, bread doesn't seem to have much bad in it. Bread is fluffy and soft. It reminds me of a pillow. How can pillows be bad? Although, bread contains a lot of carbs. How can nuts be considered 'good' if they contain lots of fat? Good and bad are too relative!

On the psychological side of the argument, eating junky foods every now and again make me feel good. If I cut out every bad thing out, would I still feel the same enjoyment? Probably not, but I would certainly live longer. We could all live longer if we all ate the same things every day and did nothing too extreme to harm ourselves, but sometimes it is necessary to go out and enjoy life. It pleases me to pig out every once in a while, so I don't feel the need to quit. I don't consider that an addiction.

That's my two cents.

agthorn

So, how would I know what is 'good' and what is 'bad'?

Does it make you ill? Then it's bad. (This covers food allergies, medical issues and noxious/spoiled food). Otherwise, there are no "bad" foods. Only bad portions.

songbyrdsweet

So, how would I know what is 'good' and what is 'bad'?

Does it make you ill? Then it's bad. (This covers food allergies, medical issues and noxious/spoiled food). Otherwise, there are no "bad" foods. Only bad portions.

Agreed!

I had a spoiled strawberry once. It was bad, very very bad. But I think we can all agree that strawberries are normally little red jewels of tasty yumminess. ^_^

Sezmo83

To me, everything in moderation means it's okay to have the occasional not so healthy meal or snack. I don't want a life without my favourite foods. If I want to treat myself to a piece of cake or a couple of slices of pizza or even that disgustingly greasy full english breakfast the cafe near work serves then I will do so and not feel guilty about it. I see no good reason why I should completely deprive myself of foods I enjoy so much.

millionsofpeaches

Study or no study... I truly believe that there is wisdom to the words... "You are what you eat"

In my opinion, our bodies need nutritious food to make us feel good. I have more energy when I eat clean and make healthy choices than when I eat a bunch of pizza, beer, and crap... Even if I stay within my calories.

songbyrdsweet

Study or no study... I truly believe that there is wisdom to the words... "You are what you eat"

In my opinion, our bodies need nutritious food to make us feel good. I have more energy when I eat clean and make healthy choices than when I eat a bunch of pizza, beer, and crap... Even if I stay within my calories.

Millions of peaches, peaches for me. Millions of peaches, peaches for free. Peaches come in a can! They were put there by a man in a factory downtowwwnnnnn. If I had my little way, I'd eat peaches every day!

Also, I agree with you. But my body can handle a little ice cream now and then, especially if I biked 13+ miles that day!

infamousmk

...For many, many people, moderation of ALL macronutrients and treats DOES work. So, until someone discovers through life experiences or medical tests that they are unable to consume something in moderation, I will continue to suggest that everyone enjoy treats, carbs, alcohol and everything else out there in moderation.

Just don't go telling people that moderation is the ONLY acceptable choice. Which is what a lot of posters have been doing. Saying things like "It's unhealthy to cut out certain foods entirely" and criticizing people who have made that choice.

This is actually the second thread I've seen you defending the 'moderation doesn't work' theory, and both times it has appared to me that you are on the defensive. You have stated that it is poor judgement to suggest a person even try to eat treats in moderation, implying that completely cutting out treats is the only acceptable choice. I will stop suggesting that people eat 'everything in moderation' when you stop suggesting that moderation doesn't work.

AdAstra47

Just don't go telling people that moderation is the ONLY acceptable choice. Which is what a lot of posters have been doing. Saying things like "It's unhealthy to cut out certain foods entirely" and criticizing people who have made that choice.

This is actually the second thread I've seen you defending the 'moderation doesn't work' theory, and both times it has appared to me that you are on the defensive. You have stated that it is poor judgement to suggest a person even try to eat treats in moderation, implying that completely cutting out treats is the only acceptable choice. I will stop suggesting that people eat 'everything in moderation' when you stop suggesting that moderation doesn't work.

Yes, I'm on the defensive! And justifiably so! Because I am being criticized for my choices, simply because my choices are different from what someone else has chosen.

If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I never say "it doesn't work." In almost every post I've ever written, I've used the phrase "everyone's body is different" or "everyone's metabolism is different" or "you have to find what works for you." What I say is that "it doesn't work FOR EVERYONE." Which is not a suggestion, it's a fact. And I also say that it is hurtful and harmful for people to insist that there is ANYTHING out there that will, certainly, without a doubt, work for everyone. Whether that's moderation or anything else. There is no one-size-fits-all solution.

I understand that it comes from a generous impulse in people. When you find what works for you, you want to help others by sharing that information. But people take it too far when they start thinking that their solution is the ONLY solution. The Vegans and Vegetarians start feuding with the Paleos and the Primals, etc. It is one thing to offer solutions on a thread where someone has asked for advice. In that case, telling your story & your philosophy may be helpful, because it may turn out to be what works for them. But saying that your philosophy WILL DEFINITELY work for them is harmful. It just sets them up for feeling like a failure if they don't happen to have the same kind of metabolism as you.

And if someone has already found their solution, and it works for them, then criticizing them for it and insisting that they are doing something unhealthy serves no useful purpose.