Moderation
Options
Replies
-
juggernaut1974 wrote: »I assume that those who (rightly or wrongly) believe there is no one standard definition of terms such as "moderation" will no longer have any poutrage or problems when someone asks a future OP to further define his or her personal definition of clean eating
They would probably have no poutrage about asking the question.
But then as the future OP's 'personal' definition is then mercilessly attacked,( mainly by posters with a few thousand posts to their name), they have the mick taken out of them,
someone writes something amazingly humorous about, 'does washing my cake in bleach make it clean?', a couple of people post a small verbal kicking and disappear again, and a gif is posted of some celebrity rolling their eyes, to which follow posters write,'^ this', then they probably would get a bit of poutage.
And another mission would be complete.
( Oh, don't forget the 'peer reviewed paper' demand).0 -
maplehouse200 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »I assume that those who (rightly or wrongly) believe there is no one standard definition of terms such as "moderation" will no longer have any poutrage or problems when someone asks a future OP to further define his or her personal definition of clean eating
They would probably have no poutrage about asking the question.
But then as the future OP's 'personal' definition is then mercilessly attacked,( mainly by posters with a few thousand posts to their name), they have the mick taken out of them,
someone writes something amazingly humorous about, 'does washing my cake in bleach make it clean?', a couple of people post a small verbal kicking and disappear again, and a gif is posted of some celebrity rolling their eyes, to which follow posters write,'^ this', then they probably would get a bit of poutage.
And another mission would be complete.
( Oh, don't forget the 'peer reviewed paper' demand).
Other than forgetting the white knights that appears to save the OP, and the sock-puppet posters whose only posts are mocking or attacking "few thousand post" members *cough cough* I think you summed it up pretty well.0 -
maplehouse200 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »I assume that those who (rightly or wrongly) believe there is no one standard definition of terms such as "moderation" will no longer have any poutrage or problems when someone asks a future OP to further define his or her personal definition of clean eating
They would probably have no poutrage about asking the question.
But then as the future OP's 'personal' definition is then mercilessly attacked,( mainly by posters with a few thousand posts to their name), they have the mick taken out of them,
someone writes something amazingly humorous about, 'does washing my cake in bleach make it clean?', a couple of people post a small verbal kicking and disappear again, and a gif is posted of some celebrity rolling their eyes, to which follow posters write,'^ this', then they probably would get a bit of poutage.
And another mission would be complete.
( Oh, don't forget the 'peer reviewed paper' demand).
Guessing that will happen...tomorrow? Because Friday.0 -
' I think you summed it up pretty well.'
Thanks Mr juggernaut.
I thought so too.
( Apologies for my omissions. Very remiss of me).0 -
justrollme wrote: »Moderation applied to some foods works for some people. In my opinion, a lot—perhaps even most, judging by obesity rates, as well as how many people regain weight after losing—either do not moderate their food, or think they moderate their food, but really don't, which is a point a few people here have made that others seem so desperate to dismiss.
But, since we're sharing blog posts, here is an alternate point of view.
those that think they are moderate but aren't...aren't. Just because the word is used incorrectly doesn't make "moderation" bogus.
like someone said before concrete vs cement.
As for the blog you posted...eh.
Moderation does not equal mediocre
Moderation means not in excess.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »
The problem is that lots of people have defined it, but they've all defined it ver differently.
I would be the person who argued that. It's because it's true.Oh, I like this one! There are some folks that think that moderation "can mean anything" but this article nails it down. It is the absence of extremes. Nice. Thanks for sharing it!
When I first started reading on MFP, I was trying very hard to figure out what the heck people meant when they said "clean" or "in moderation" because one person would say this was clean and another would say that was clean, while one person saying moderation was this and another was saying moderation was that.
You can argue that both terms have definitions, but are carried out differently. That really doesn't help the person who is trying to figure out exactly what it means.
The fact of the matter is that saying "clean" or "in moderation" just isn't specific. It has no meaning that anyone could pinpoint and say "Everyone who says they eat this way does X."
I don't mind people using the words "clean" or "in moderation." I get what they mean in a general sense. But when they use those words, I don't know exactly how they are defining them. Most of the time, the general sense works just fine. Occasionally, though, I need a little more.
"I've been eating clean and I'm gaining weight!"
"I've been eating in moderation and I'm gaining weight!"
I'm going to need more. It doesn't really explain how they're actually eating.
If someone asks about how to eat treats "in moderation", there will be 20 different ways to do it.
As many posters have many meanings for each term, specifics will be required.
I have the same issue with both terms - "clean" and "in moderation" and am not slamming either group or trying to make fun of either group or have a fight.
I never suggested that anyone should stop using those terms! It's just that they aren't really clearly describing a way of eating.
The difference is that there's a specific definition to 'moderation'. Good luck finding one for 'clean eating'.
Maybe the group of people in this thread will agree upon a definition and then people would know what you all meant, but not everyone who uses the term is using it the way you do.
Clean eaters could say that "clean" has a definition, but it is carried out differently by different people and some people are using it wrong. It still doesn't allow me to know what the person who says, "I'm eating clean" actually means.
Saying, "This word has a definition, but is carried out differently by different people and some people are using the word wrong" - that doesn't help the person who reads it to know what it means.
You're confusing a philosophy with its context/application.
They're two separate issues.
Moderation for a dieter with a TDEE of 3800 calories who's an ominivore is going to look different than moderation for a dieter with a TDEE of 1800 calories who's a vegetarian. They can both still practice moderation, but the specifics of how it's applied will look different.
as a vegetarian, do you eat meat 'in moderation'?
Yes, a vegetarian does, or would you claim there are vegetarians eating meat in excess? Moderation is defined more by what is avoided (excess) than it is defined by anything it includes.0 -
I just read the article blog some random person wrote, and frankly, I'm think it's completely off on the definition of moderation. Moderation is the absence of extremes, but I think it is more appropriately applied in the same context as "eating within your macros" or "having a calorie deficit" - it's a concept that can be applied to all different ways of eating, whereas this author tries to make moderation into a labeled diet where specific foods are included. The author basically defines it as "eating mostly whole foods with treats." Um, what? That's not any definition of "eating in moderation" that I've ever heard, that's someone trying to co-op the term to make their preferred type of food intake into something they think everyone else needs to adhere to for success.
The most ridiculous part is the author states that things like eating 100% paleo, or going sugar-free, or only eating organic are considered "extreme," but then goes on to contradict herself by saying "The specifics will look different for everyone, because everyone has different preferences and tastes." Wouldn't eating a paleo diet or vegetarian diet or a no added sugar diet fall into the category of personal preferences and tastes? And who determines what is or is not a treat or indulgence in someone else's diet?
To me, moderation has to do with portion size and/or frequency of consumption, not any specific type of food. The author also goes on to talk about food restriction and binging - for some people, yes, this can be a very real concern. For others, restricting or eliminating a food is their path to success. The author admits to having feelings of guilt around long-term restricting/binging and foods - that's her personal psychological issue, it's not endemic to all people who restrict foods. Others find that just eliminating the food reduces or eliminates issues around foods, because they no longer endure the psychological stress of trying to moderate those foods and failing.
TL;DR: I'm glad she found something that works for her, but as far as the author's definition of moderation
the author uses the webster definition of moderation, not sure why you think it is some made up definition …
Just because she quoted the definition does not mean she used the word properly in context. Here's what she initially says (hat tip to the cherry-picking manner in which she choose to present only one definition for the word and completely left out the definition of the idiom "in moderation" which means "without excess; moderately; temperately")mod·er·a·tion
ˌmädəˈrāSH(ə)n/
noun
1. the avoidance of excess or extremes, especially in one’s behavior or political opinions.Eating 100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme.
Yet later in the article she states:So what does moderation look like in the real world?
It looks like eating a MOSTLY whole foods diet with plenty of nutrients from fruits, vegetables, lean meats, healthy fats, etc. The specifics will look different for everyone, because everyone has different preferences and tastes. It also leaves room for regular treats and indulgences that feed our soul and give us pleasure.
The application she describes is quite different from the definition she presented, and a 100% paleo diet would easily fit the criteria of a "mostly whole foods diet with plenty of nutrients from fruits, vegetable, lean meats, healthy fats, etc;" the choice to eat a paleo diet would be supported by her statement that "the specifics will look different for everyone, because everyone has different preferences and tastes; and things like paleo desserts would certainly fit into the category of "regular treats and indulgences that feed our soul and give us pleasure."
Therefore, a paleo diet meets the criteria for "what moderation looks like in the real world," which contradicts her previous statement about a paleo diet. The author is applying the same definition inconsistently. In the first instance, she defines moderation by the types of food consumed/behavior of eliminating certain foods from one's diet, and in the second, she defines moderation by the amount/frequency of types of foods consumed and the behavior of exercising that practice.
My post clarified is that her use in the first instance is inaccurate and that the second instance is the correct usage when discussing diet and food consumption, which makes moderation apply across ways of eating. Her use of both instances as acceptable under that one specific definition is glaringly contradictory - which also supports what some other users have said about the definition of moderation being unclear to some people. The author's own words support that position.
paleo would never meet the requirement of a "moderate diet" because it calls for the elimination of certain food groups, and also says that one has to eat like a paleolithic person, which would mean only eating local foods found within a 100 mile radius of where one lives, and sustaining on a diet of raw meet, grubs, plant roots, etc.
your understanding of moderation is severely flawed, and you do not understand the point that the author is trying to make.
Also, the authors application of moderation is totally in line with the diet as it is one where the theoretical person would be getting micros from whole foods, filling in macros with other foods, and then indulging in treats and what not to fill in left over calories.
Vegetarian and vegan diets also call for the elimination of certain food groups, as do diets that eliminate certain foods due to medical conditions. Is your argument that none of those people can enjoy a moderate diet due the elimination factor? No one with Celiac's is eating a moderate diet or practices moderation?
My understanding of moderation is correct; both you and the author are trying to co-opt the term and make it apply to your preferred way of eating and the actual foods you wish to eat. You are the one whose understand is severely flawed by trying to state that only people who eat a diet that does not eliminate any foods is eating in moderation - especially since even the author herself states that the actual foods consumed will vary based on personal preferences and tastes (which again, contradicts her previous argument that diets like paleo cannot not be moderation).Also, the authors application of moderation is totally in line with the diet as it is one where the theoretical person would be getting micros from whole foods, filling in macros with other foods, and then indulging in treats and what not to fill in left over calories.
That application of moderation is also totally in line with paleo, vegetarian, vegan, no-added-sugar, low carb, and gluten-free diets.
The actual reason for the elimination matters. Paleo is hidebound about diet for the sake of diet. Vegetarianism isn't about diet as much as it is about ethics. There are ways to be a non-moderating vegetarian. Having an allergy or other food intolerance is about a person not wanting to actually hurt themselves - there is no moderation in self-inflicted harm.
Like if you're just going to spitball ludicrous counterexamples, why not go full out and just claim no one moderates because no one eats moderate amounts of hemlock?0 -
maplehouse200 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »I assume that those who (rightly or wrongly) believe there is no one standard definition of terms such as "moderation" will no longer have any poutrage or problems when someone asks a future OP to further define his or her personal definition of clean eating
They would probably have no poutrage about asking the question.
But then as the future OP's 'personal' definition is then mercilessly attacked,( mainly by posters with a few thousand posts to their name), they have the mick taken out of them,
someone writes something amazingly humorous about, 'does washing my cake in bleach make it clean?', a couple of people post a small verbal kicking and disappear again, and a gif is posted of some celebrity rolling their eyes, to which follow posters write,'^ this', then they probably would get a bit of poutage.
And another mission would be complete.
( Oh, don't forget the 'peer reviewed paper' demand).
because having a fact based, scientific discussion, is soooo 1920's....0 -
maplehouse200 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »I assume that those who (rightly or wrongly) believe there is no one standard definition of terms such as "moderation" will no longer have any poutrage or problems when someone asks a future OP to further define his or her personal definition of clean eating
They would probably have no poutrage about asking the question.
But then as the future OP's 'personal' definition is then mercilessly attacked,( mainly by posters with a few thousand posts to their name), they have the mick taken out of them,
someone writes something amazingly humorous about, 'does washing my cake in bleach make it clean?', a couple of people post a small verbal kicking and disappear again, and a gif is posted of some celebrity rolling their eyes, to which follow posters write,'^ this', then they probably would get a bit of poutage.
And another mission would be complete.
( Oh, don't forget the 'peer reviewed paper' demand).
because having a fact based, scientific discussion, is soooo 1920's....
Why I say, after doing the Charleston, nothing is quite as invigorating as peer review, followed by a coke soda pop full of actual cocaine.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »
as a vegetarian, do you eat meat 'in moderation'?
Is this supposed to be a trap saying that because a vegetarian doesn't eat meat there's an absolute?
I don't eat beets either, is this a problem too? I don't eat foods I don't like. Most people don't. I don't think this kicks me out of club moderation.
Not eating meat is "eliminating an entire food group" which is the sort of thing dietitians regard as not moderate behaviour. I view it as an extreme, eating a bit of meat would be moderation, but refusing all meat is an extreme position.
I wholeheartedly support the ethics behind vegetarianism and veganism, but as we are omnivores, agree that eliminating meat should qualify as an extreme position per the article in the OP.0 -
this thread may go down as the most epicly ridiculous thread in MFP history, barring, of course, the mini trampoline thread....0
-
I have yet to see countless posts of newbs posting "Halp,! I'm eating in moderation , why am I not losing weight?!"0
-
-
Moderation: Eating a wide variety of foods that meet your nutritional needs without overdoing it on some things or completely cutting out certain foods without a good reason (good reasons include but are not limited to: not liking the taste, medical reasons, ethical reasons, religious reasons). What would not be a good reason: "Oh I love X so much, but I can't eat it on my diet or else I'll stay fat."0
-
stevencloser wrote: »Moderation: Eating a wide variety of foods that meet your nutritional needs without overdoing it on some things or completely cutting out certain foods without a good reason (good reasons include but are not limited to: not liking the taste, medical reasons, ethical reasons, religious reasons). What would not be a good reason: "Oh I love X so much, but I can't eat it on my diet or else I'll stay fat."
Logic has no place here....tsk tsk you should know better.0 -
I just read the article blog some random person wrote, and frankly, I'm think it's completely off on the definition of moderation. Moderation is the absence of extremes, but I think it is more appropriately applied in the same context as "eating within your macros" or "having a calorie deficit" - it's a concept that can be applied to all different ways of eating, whereas this author tries to make moderation into a labeled diet where specific foods are included. The author basically defines it as "eating mostly whole foods with treats." Um, what? That's not any definition of "eating in moderation" that I've ever heard, that's someone trying to co-op the term to make their preferred type of food intake into something they think everyone else needs to adhere to for success.
The most ridiculous part is the author states that things like eating 100% paleo, or going sugar-free, or only eating organic are considered "extreme," but then goes on to contradict herself by saying "The specifics will look different for everyone, because everyone has different preferences and tastes." Wouldn't eating a paleo diet or vegetarian diet or a no added sugar diet fall into the category of personal preferences and tastes? And who determines what is or is not a treat or indulgence in someone else's diet?
To me, moderation has to do with portion size and/or frequency of consumption, not any specific type of food. The author also goes on to talk about food restriction and binging - for some people, yes, this can be a very real concern. For others, restricting or eliminating a food is their path to success. The author admits to having feelings of guilt around long-term restricting/binging and foods - that's her personal psychological issue, it's not endemic to all people who restrict foods. Others find that just eliminating the food reduces or eliminates issues around foods, because they no longer endure the psychological stress of trying to moderate those foods and failing.
TL;DR: I'm glad she found something that works for her, but as far as the author's definition of moderation
the author uses the webster definition of moderation, not sure why you think it is some made up definition …
Just because she quoted the definition does not mean she used the word properly in context. Here's what she initially says (hat tip to the cherry-picking manner in which she choose to present only one definition for the word and completely left out the definition of the idiom "in moderation" which means "without excess; moderately; temperately")mod·er·a·tion
ˌmädəˈrāSH(ə)n/
noun
1. the avoidance of excess or extremes, especially in one’s behavior or political opinions.Eating 100% strict paleo is not moderation, it is extreme.
Yet later in the article she states:So what does moderation look like in the real world?
It looks like eating a MOSTLY whole foods diet with plenty of nutrients from fruits, vegetables, lean meats, healthy fats, etc. The specifics will look different for everyone, because everyone has different preferences and tastes. It also leaves room for regular treats and indulgences that feed our soul and give us pleasure.
The application she describes is quite different from the definition she presented, and a 100% paleo diet would easily fit the criteria of a "mostly whole foods diet with plenty of nutrients from fruits, vegetable, lean meats, healthy fats, etc;" the choice to eat a paleo diet would be supported by her statement that "the specifics will look different for everyone, because everyone has different preferences and tastes; and things like paleo desserts would certainly fit into the category of "regular treats and indulgences that feed our soul and give us pleasure."
Therefore, a paleo diet meets the criteria for "what moderation looks like in the real world," which contradicts her previous statement about a paleo diet. The author is applying the same definition inconsistently. In the first instance, she defines moderation by the types of food consumed/behavior of eliminating certain foods from one's diet, and in the second, she defines moderation by the amount/frequency of types of foods consumed and the behavior of exercising that practice.
My post clarified is that her use in the first instance is inaccurate and that the second instance is the correct usage when discussing diet and food consumption, which makes moderation apply across ways of eating. Her use of both instances as acceptable under that one specific definition is glaringly contradictory - which also supports what some other users have said about the definition of moderation being unclear to some people. The author's own words support that position.
paleo would never meet the requirement of a "moderate diet" because it calls for the elimination of certain food groups, and also says that one has to eat like a paleolithic person, which would mean only eating local foods found within a 100 mile radius of where one lives, and sustaining on a diet of raw meet, grubs, plant roots, etc.
your understanding of moderation is severely flawed, and you do not understand the point that the author is trying to make.
Also, the authors application of moderation is totally in line with the diet as it is one where the theoretical person would be getting micros from whole foods, filling in macros with other foods, and then indulging in treats and what not to fill in left over calories.
Vegetarian and vegan diets also call for the elimination of certain food groups, as do diets that eliminate certain foods due to medical conditions. Is your argument that none of those people can enjoy a moderate diet due the elimination factor? No one with Celiac's is eating a moderate diet or practices moderation?
My understanding of moderation is correct; both you and the author are trying to co-opt the term and make it apply to your preferred way of eating and the actual foods you wish to eat. You are the one whose understand is severely flawed by trying to state that only people who eat a diet that does not eliminate any foods is eating in moderation - especially since even the author herself states that the actual foods consumed will vary based on personal preferences and tastes (which again, contradicts her previous argument that diets like paleo cannot not be moderation).Also, the authors application of moderation is totally in line with the diet as it is one where the theoretical person would be getting micros from whole foods, filling in macros with other foods, and then indulging in treats and what not to fill in left over calories.
That application of moderation is also totally in line with paleo, vegetarian, vegan, no-added-sugar, low carb, and gluten-free diets.
Explain how the bolded is in line with "moderation"
Low carb maybe...as you allow for carbs sometimes...
It's in line with the statement that was quoted but was collapsed in your quote. The statement was: "one where the theoretical person would be getting micros from whole foods, filling in macros with other foods, and then indulging in treats and what not to fill in left over calories."
All of those diets fit the criteria of getting micros from whole foods, filling in macros with other foods, and then indulging in treats and what not to fill in the left over calories. The only difference is the foods the person chooses to eat to meet that criteria, and as I pointed out, the author herself states that it's going to vary based on preferences and tastes, which would therefore include any of those diets.0 -
Is there some definition for what constitutes "extreme"?
Since moderation is avoiding extremes (to some), what constitutes "extreme" as it applies to a diet?
I think an extreme would be denying yourself something you want in the name of following a specific food plan.
If you are content with the variety of food you eat, I don't think that's extreme.
0 -
justrollme wrote: »Moderation applied to some foods works for some people. In my opinion, a lot—perhaps even most, judging by obesity rates, as well as how many people regain weight after losing—either do not moderate their food, or think they moderate their food, but really don't, which is a point a few people here have made that others seem so desperate to dismiss.
But, since we're sharing blog posts, here is an alternate point of view.
That is written by someone with poor self-control who confuses concepts easily.
I'm sure, if he manages his weight, he practices moderation of his portions, even if he does not believe in practicing moderation of his food choices. To equate the idea of passion for something as the antithesis of moderation is just silly.
His argument is that we are boring if we don't apply passion to what we .... eat? He moved the argument from food to running? Made no sense.
Me, I'll stick with my portion of cookies. Because I can have a portion and walk away. He obviously can't.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »
as a vegetarian, do you eat meat 'in moderation'?
Is this supposed to be a trap saying that because a vegetarian doesn't eat meat there's an absolute?
I don't eat beets either, is this a problem too? I don't eat foods I don't like. Most people don't. I don't think this kicks me out of club moderation.
Not eating meat is "eliminating an entire food group" which is the sort of thing dietitians regard as not moderate behaviour. I view it as an extreme, eating a bit of meat would be moderation, but refusing all meat is an extreme position.
I'm ... not a vegetarian because of ethics. I don't like meat. Do you eat things that you don't like? I don't eat beets, blackberries, or Swiss chard either. Is this extreme of me?
Additionally even if I were an ethical veggie, the point of the blog, if you read into it, was that eliminating food you would otherwise want for the sake of a diet can be counterproductive.
It is not high on any vegetarian's list to someday eat meat. If someone on some other restrictive plan is happy and content on their plan? Well carry on then. Otherwise, if some food you're missing is causing you to slip up on your path to weight loss, restrictive plans are not the only way to lose weight. You can incorporate any foods you choose to eat and still lose weight.
This is all she was saying.
Vegetarians moderate their food choices within the dictates of the conscience, not within the dictates of some diet plan they read about.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions