Everything in Moderation?
Replies
-
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.
...That's not moderation though? At the point where your portion sizes become bigger than needed you've stopped using moderation. So. Not sure what you're saying.0 -
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.
And excluding food groups entirely is a healthier relationship with food?
TROLOLOLOL.0 -
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.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.
You're right. I'm unwilling to use moderation to optimize my health.
I'm sorry that you had a problem with maintaining moderate choices. But, I'm guessing that if you had trouble with that, you'll have trouble maintaining use of the Whole9 plan as well.
A program only works as well as your commitment to it.0 -
I think this is good advice for people who don't really have a weight problem. But the body is a machine and there are certain mathematical and chemical factors which (no matter what hocus pocus you believe in) still work. A caloric deficit (i.e. taking less than you burn) will always work unless you have an underlying medical issue. That also has to be accompanied by a CARB deficit as well. If you do both consistently (over a period of 14 days or more to go beyond water loss) it will work.
But the body fights against weight loss due to evolutionary factors. Its not that a deficit doesn't work. Most people don't get the results they want because they do it for a week or two. That isn't enough time.0 -
I have been reading this thread and for those that have that perfect healthy diet I applaud you and wonder why you are overweight in the first place. It has taken me many years to finally reach a point where the time was right and I am finally recording my foods. I am using portion control as a first step, but know I will and already have been making better choices as I go, but moderation truly is the place that many of us have to start. I won't live my life not having some of the foods that may not be considered healthy, but I will work to make my lifestyle healthier while enjoying everything I can, in moderation of course
0 -
Moderation is not a result of luck, it's a result of practice.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.0 -
I think far too often it is over looked that all round health is not only being physically healthy but also being mentally healthy. Being able to have a healthy relationship with food is a large part of all round health.
Depriving myself of food I enjoy, social occasions involving food and drink and spending too long stressing about what is right and wrong to eat, I may have a healthy body but not a healthy mind.0 -
I think far too often it is over looked that all round health is not only being physically healthy but also being mentally healthy. Being able to have a healthy relationship with food is a large part of all round health.
Depriving myself of food I enjoy, social occasions involving food and drink and spending too long stressing about what is right and wrong to eat, I may have a healthy body but not a healthy mind.
While I'm definitely in the "everything in moderation" club, I think this a great point. A point in fact that I think I may have been neglecting over the past few weeks. To me, yes, watching what we eat is absolutely important, but also keeping ourselves mentally and emotionally healthy is important too. Sometimes that means we just don't care and splurge. To me, havig a healthy relationship doesn't mean we don't get to enjoy live. After all, if it is a long journey, we have to allow ourselves to let go once in a while.0 -
Then it doesn't work for you. Personally I've done it for over 30 years now...................and still going.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.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Everything in moderation is a sane and healthy way to eat that is maintainable for most people.
The problem comes when people aren't eating in moderation, they're eating everything in huge quantities.
Edit: Nice website sales pitch there though. Think I'll pass on their diet plan/pills though.0 -
Almost everyone I know that is naturally thin (unlike me who has to count the cals) lives by moderation, 80:20, whatever you want to call it. There is more to health than nutrient breakdown. I don't want to live a miserable life of 'optimum' foods I don't like as much. I want to enjoy myself and eat that goddamn unhealthy pizza, and not have to stress because I know the broccoli can come later. My overall quality of life will ALWAYS feel better to me with everything in moderation rather than stress and deprivation.0
-
Y'all are cracking me up ... the absolute very last thing in the WORLD that the Whole9/Whole30 folks are doing is trying to sell diet pills. And the earlier poster is right...you don't have to buy a damn thing to try a Whole30, except amazingly delicious whole foods (which presumably you were going to buy anyway). Yes, they have a book, about which I have heard wonderful things. I don't own it, and yet successfully completed a Whole30 almost a year ago. I know dozens of people who've done the same, with many associated health improvements.
A Whole30 has little to do with weight loss (although I did lose 15# in that month) and more to do with finding out which foods might be causing health problems. For me, I discovered that the small amount of dairy I was eating was having a much larger impact on my bG than I realized or expected. I also found that even my limited use of stevia and honey was triggering cravings for sweets. I still use stevia and a little honey on occasion, but I'm more aware of the effect they have on my body. How can more information about how food affects your body (specifically, not in general) be a bad thing?0 -
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.
Addressing the "moderation means it fits in your cal goals" piece:
If your calorie goal is 1700kcal/day, and you eat 1700kcal of table sugar, do you consider yourself to be indulging in a moderate amount of sugar?0 -
Y'all are cracking me up ... the absolute very last thing in the WORLD that the Whole9/Whole30 folks are doing is trying to sell diet pills.
That cracked me up as well. Made me wonder if they actually read anything on the site??0 -
I don't see how either of these relate to the original topic or to the conversation? Malnourishment does not equal underfed. You can eat an excess of calories and still be malnourished.
Edited for stupid errors.0 -
A caloric deficit (i.e. taking less than you burn) will always work unless you have an underlying medical issue. That also has to be accompanied by a CARB deficit as well.
What the Whole30 program by Whole9 does is help reveal those underlying issues. It helps individuals identify how certain foods are effecting their health (without costing them a dime in medical bills..etc.)0 -
The problem is all this pop psychology "relationship with food" nonsense. People are attributing human qualities to food so that they have yet another thing to blame for their failures.
Well let me burst some bubbles. Food doesn't give a flying crap about you. Food isn't your friend. You don't HAVE a relationship with food, healthy or otherwise. What you have is the ability to control how much food you eat. You either exercise it or you don't.0 -
The problem is all this pop psychology "relationship with food" nonsense. People are attributing human qualities to food so that they have yet another thing to blame for their failures.
Well let me burst some bubbles. Food doesn't give a flying crap about you. Food isn't your friend. You don't HAVE a relationship with food, healthy or otherwise. What you have is the ability to control how much food you eat. You either exercise it or you don't.
AMEN0 -
The problem is all this pop psychology "relationship with food" nonsense. People are attributing human qualities to food so that they have yet another thing to blame for their failures.
Well let me burst some bubbles. Food doesn't give a flying crap about you. Food isn't your friend. You don't HAVE a relationship with food, healthy or otherwise. What you have is the ability to control how much food you eat. You either exercise it or you don't.
I disagree. I believe that food is essential to survival and that it can make you healthy or unhealthy. I think our relationship with food is no longer as simple as you make it out to be due to the way it has been manipulated by manufacturers.0 -
I don't see how either of these relate to the original topic or to the conversation? Malnourishment does not equal underfed. You can eat an excess of calories and still be malnourished.
Edited for stupid errors.
They were in response to someone making up that nutrient deficiencies cause fat to be stored and the first link was in response that the person that said "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"0 -
I don't see how either of these relate to the original topic or to the conversation? Malnourishment does not equal underfed. You can eat an excess of calories and still be malnourished.
Edited for stupid errors.
They were in response to someone making up that nutrient deficiencies cause fat to be stored and the first link was in response that the person that said "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"
It is my opinion that you are the most ignorant person on MFP and it's beyond ridiculous how you go out of your way to ridicule my personal experience at every opportunity. It's interesting that you follow me around just to try to push people away from my simple message, based on 40 years of experience with what does NOT work, that WHAT one eats matters in regards to health. I think it's ridiculous that only your experiences matter and since you have apparently had no metabolic disorders, etc, you assert that it must not exist. My comments are usually in regards to someone that is struggling and I speak from personal experience with many health problems; shame on your for doing your best to sabotage people who desperately need a healthier lifestyle.
I did not say that ALL malnourished people are fat. I'm talking about fat people in developed nations such as the US and Canada. Many of those people are malnourished. I was one of them. Strangely, though, previous hunter/gatherers that adopt a diet similar to SAD, obesity is soon commonplace even in absence of large quantities of calories (Pima Indians, native New Zealanders, Inuit, many others). Perhaps you should start learning about some things outside of your own limited experience, since you seem to lacking and would benefit from learning about other people. Anthropology would be just one of many places to start.
I'd love to see you post a real picture of yourself. At least I'm not hiding behind a fake image of perfection.
Ah the Pima, do a little research you say? Pot meet kettle. And ignorance? Better do a little more research before you call people ignorant, you have eat fat to burn fat herp derp
RESULTS— We estimated that the traditional Pima diet, although seasonably variable, was ∼ 70–80% carbohydrate, 8–12% fat, and 12–18% protein.
CONCLUSIONS— The major composition change in the Pima Indian diet over the last century has been that the
high complex carbohydrate/high fiber foods have been replaced by high-fat modern foods. This change in the Pima
Indian diet parallels the increase in diabetes.
The Traditional Pima Indian Diet: Composition and adaptation for use in a dietary intervention study
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/16/1/369.full.pdf+html
No you didn't say all malnourished people were fat, what you did say was, "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."
Which was made up, as then we would see 3rd World countries as some of the most obese nations on Earth. Also posted a study of someone who fasted for over a yr with medical supervision, why wasn't tons of excess fat stored?
As for the picture, it really is me. But do continue with the personal attacks, as they won't make what you say any more true0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions