We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Moderation
Replies
-
diannethegeek wrote: »
I think this is an argument that has a lot of merit and would have helped a lot of newbies. Why on Earth did we get 17 pages of semantics instead?
I'm not sure what an argument about clean-eating has to do with moderation, so I'm pretty sure all these posters that keep bringing it up are actively derailing the thread.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »
I'm not sure what an argument about clean-eating has to do with moderation, so I'm pretty sure all these posters that keep bringing it up are actively derailing the thread.
cosign0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
ELIMINATING carbs is not moderation (or, IMO, healthy at all). Almost no one doing a low carb diet actually eliminates carbs, of course, and low carb diets can certainly be a "moderate" approach if one has that particular mindset and approach but also likes low carbing.
As a no-carb diet is pretty much impossible, and I know he knows that, I opted to just respond in terms of low carb to keep the conversation somewhat on the rails on the role of dietary preferences in terms of moderation.
0 -
If those have been agreed upon, why did you write "Extremes cannot be defined as anything but 'not in moderation.'"
You are the lone dissenter here. PLENTY of people defining "moderation" have said that foods or food groups can be eliminated based on personal tastes, dietary preferences, ways of eating, etc.
It is up to the individual to decide how to apply moderation.
Those are the definitions that have been agreed upon.
0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »I eat within my calories. -Right, but what exactly do you eat?
I hit my macros. -Right, but what exactly do you eat?
I eat plenty of fruits and veggies. -Right, but what exactly do you eat?
I eat lots of whole foods. -Right, but what exactly do you eat?
I eat a 80-10-10 split. - Right, but what exactly do you eat?
Is there any way to describe what you eat that isn't full of variance and confusion between two people? On this board we see people who are confused about what MFP stands for and don't know what a carb is. Every description of what you eat comes with questions and disclaimers. So why is everyone so concerned that moderation does as well?
I think most of us know exactly why they're "concerned."0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I agree, and it shows that when people say "moderation" when refering to diet they don't always mean the same thing.
Maybe people could point out two versions of the moderate position that they see as inconsistent IN THIS THREAD and then we can flesh out whether they are truly different. So far the only people I notice claiming that the definition of moderate is incoherent are those who seem to be opposed to or bugged by the concept of moderation (or by people talking about how we enjoy it as an approach, although we of course all apply it in our own ways).0 -
This content has been removed.
-
tincanonastring wrote: »
I'm not sure what an argument about clean-eating has to do with moderation, so I'm pretty sure all these posters that keep bringing it up are actively derailing the thread.
I disagree. Clean eating and eating in moderation actually are similar in that both have subjective definitions. One eliminates foods that are not clean in the mind of the person eating it. Moderation eliminates extremes in the mind of the person eating it. What is clean to me may not be clean to you. What is extreme/moderate to me may not be extreme/moderate to you.
They share that trait, whereas diets like vegetarian, paleo, etc. are less subjective. Meat is meat. Grains are grains. Legumes are legumes...0 -
Im thinking you haven't read the thread. I don't blame you. It's very long and frequently repetitious.
But it has been agreed by everyone that "moderation" is NOT a way of eating and that extremes cannot be defined. It's up to everyone to apply for themselves.
It's an approach toward eating. IMO, that can be called a "way of eating" (if I didn't think WOE was a stupid term, anyway), as much as any other such as low carb or paleo. I don't know specifically how a person eats just by knowing they "paleo," either -- I know certain foods they don't eat or usually don't eat or pretend not to eat, that's all.0 -
That is what everyone has agreed upon. Again:DeguelloTex wrote: »If those have been agreed upon, why did you write "Extremes cannot be defined as anything but 'not in moderation.'"
Those are the definitions everyone has agreed upon.So yes topic...what is moderation
moderation is absence of extremes...
extremes exceeding the bounds of moderation
so now that you have been told the definition of both perhaps it is clearer to you now what moderation is.
I do hope that this has been educational for you and that you have a better handle on what is being said in the forums as far as moderation goes.
Moderation can be applied differently, depending on the person.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Maybe people could point out two versions of the moderate position that they see as inconsistent IN THIS THREAD and then we can flesh out whether they are truly different. So far the only people I notice claiming that the definition of moderate is incoherent are those who seem to be opposed to or bugged by the concept of moderation (or by people talking about how we enjoy it as an approach, although we of course all apply it in our own ways).
It's been said that moderation means eating anything I want. The article in the OP says I can't eat nothing but fast food and be moderate. That's inconsistent if I want to eat only fast food.0 -
Because that's how that individual applies moderation. Others can apply it in different ways. It is up to the individual to apply.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
It's been said that moderation means eating anything I want. The article in the OP says I can't eat nothing but fast food and be moderate. That's inconsistent if I want to eat only fast food.
All you have to do is avoid extremes. Extremes are just things that aren't in moderation. And everyone applies moderation as they see fit.
If you don't feel that it's extreme, it's moderation.
0 -
it is a straightforward concept. I am sorry that you do not have the capacity to grasp it.
I'm sorry you don't have the capacity to explain it clearly, seeing's as how it's such a straightforward concept .0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Vegetarianism is absolutely based on adherence to a way of eating. If I eat meat, I'm not vegetarian. How is that different than following a paleo diet and it's rules if I prefer to eat paleo? If preference decides "extreme" then it decides moderation meaning anything can be moderate.
Personally, I don't think doing something because of ethical commitments or allergies or because your doctor told you making a particular change is essential for health demonstrates an extreme approach to dieting. (Being a vegan is arguably an extreme lifestyle, just like other major changes for ethical reasons can be extreme -- and that's not at all bad, St. Francis had an extreme approach to religion and I wouldn't criticize him for it, after all -- but I don't think it's really rooted in one's approach to food.)
I think the view that eating any grains ever is bad for health if one is not celiac is extreme. Again, though, that doesn't mean it's bad, it's just not consistent with a moderate approach. If you simply don't eat grains because you don't really like any foods containing them and you always have plenty of the alternative foods around, then that's consistent with a moderate approach.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Maybe people could point out two versions of the moderate position that they see as inconsistent IN THIS THREAD and then we can flesh out whether they are truly different. So far the only people I notice claiming that the definition of moderate is incoherent are those who seem to be opposed to or bugged by the concept of moderation (or by people talking about how we enjoy it as an approach, although we of course all apply it in our own ways).
I don't see anyone who is opposed to moderation or bugged by the concept, I think pretty much everyone posting in this thread eats moderately based on the definition that we all determine our own boundaries and extremes, and everyone pretty much agrees on that definition.
I see people asking why their WOE isn't considered moderation just because they choose to eat different foods while still meeting the same criteria of getting all their nutrients and enjoying treats - that's not anti-moderation or being annoyed by it. What I think they are annoyed by is the people telling them a diet is absolutely not moderation because it has a name and set of criteria for what is included in the diet, and that by following the diet, they therefore can't be practicing moderation. The fact that the person is choosing to follow the diet and eat/not eat foods, just like other people choose to eat/not eat foods (which again, falls within the agreed upon definition), is being largely ignored and is the current source of back-and-forth.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »
So not agreeing with you is trolling???
Maybe Alex can include that in an updated version of the forum guidelines.
Intentionally misstating the argument that others have made and doing so repeatedly is trolling. It proves that you are choosing not to, or cannot, engage with the discussion and are just trying to play games.0 -
So, now, you're unclear on what "moderation" means and unclear on what "everyone" means. Got it.That is what everyone has agreed upon. Again:
Those are the definitions everyone has agreed upon.
Moderation can be applied differently, depending on the person.
0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »
I had to dig to find it again. It's a sure way of making sure the thread goes in circles since only those with a vested interest in the argument will find it now.
@Alex - Could you please address this? Why is this thread not bumping to the top of the Recent Discussions list?
ETA: I've developed a workaround for this glitch (I'm assuming it's a glitch) specific to this thread.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10276601/moderation-link?new=1
Alright - assuming it's not a glitch as the link is not accessible anymore. Now I'm wondering why.0 -
Moderation means eating anything I want....in moderation, meaning without going to extremes. How one defines extreme is up to them. It's absolutely freeing for those who practice moderation to be able to use a model that doesn't have rigid rules or place parameters on what the specific person finds as the best way of eating.
I still don't understand why this concept is ever hard to understand, outside of the obvious trolling.
When I did low carb dieting and therefore was not eating a moderation model, I still understood the concept and what is brought to those who chose to eat that way. I refuse to believe that I am just that much smarter than those who seem to be unable to understand the concept.
Because you are not clearly defining where the cut off between moderation and extreme is!
Also is not being able to eat as much of something as you want moderation or not moderation?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Intentionally misstating the argument that others have made and doing so repeatedly is trolling. It proves that you are choosing not to, or cannot, engage with the discussion and are just trying to play games.
How am I misstating it? Asking questions for clarification is not trolling!0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »So, now, you're unclear on what "moderation" means and unclear on what "everyone" means. Got it.
I'm no longer unclear.Moderation means eating anything I want....in moderation, meaning without going to extremes. How one defines extreme is up to them.
There you have it!
0 -
Yes. People get to pick their own definition of clean. I've never even seen anyone argue to the contrary and hope I never do.
People have vastly different definitions of clean, but that doesn't mean they agree that their definition is merely subjective and not the right one. Typically they assert that "clean eating" is a specific thing (and that we all secretly know what it is, of course, and are just pretending not to) and ignore the fact that others who "clean eat" may think that lots of the food they eat is not clean.
That's how I think "clean eating" is quite different than simply trying to eat a healthful diet. People who try to eat a healthful diet (like those who practice moderation -- and you can do both, of course, as nutrition is part of moderation), will acknowledge that there are many ways to do that in practice.
People who eat "clean" pretend it's like paleo, where we all know what they don't eat, but in fact they all don't eat vastly different things. So the idea that it's a helpful way to improve one's diet makes no sense. There's nothing about dropping foods that you think fall into the category of "processed" (usually in an inconsistent way) that necessarily results in one eating a better diet, as shown by the numerous posts that say stuff like "I hate and won't eat vegetables, can I still eat clean?"0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Personally, I don't think doing something because of ethical commitments or allergies or because your doctor told you making a particular change is essential for health demonstrates an extreme approach to dieting. (Being a vegan is arguably an extreme lifestyle, just like other major changes for ethical reasons can be extreme -- and that's not at all bad, St. Francis had an extreme approach to religion and I wouldn't criticize him for it, after all -- but I don't think it's really rooted in one's approach to food.)
I think the view that eating any grains ever is bad for health if one is not celiac is extreme. Again, though, that doesn't mean it's bad, it's just not consistent with a moderate approach. If you simply don't eat grains because you don't really like any foods containing them and you always have plenty of the alternative foods around, then that's consistent with a moderate approach.
I think viewing all grains as bad if one is celiac is extreme, since there are a number of grains that do not contain gluten. But that's kind of off subject.
But your response just shows that moderation in diet can be pretty much anything at all. That's it's definition is not universal. Not just the specifics but the very definition. Any diet may be extreme and moderate at the same time, depending on who is evaluating it.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
As I said, it have yet to see anyone argue that everyone who "eats clean" is doing the same thing. If it comes up, it does. I assume they will be disabused of that notion rather quickly.lemurcat12 wrote: »
People have vastly different definitions of clean, but that doesn't mean they agree that their definition is merely subjective and not the right one. Typically they assert that "clean eating" is a specific thing (and that we all secretly know what it is, of course, and are just pretending not to) and ignore the fact that others who "clean eat" may think that lots of the food they eat is not clean.
That's how I think "clean eating" is quite different than simply trying to eat a healthful diet. People who try to eat a healthful diet (like those who practice moderation -- and you can do both, of course, as nutrition is part of moderation), will acknowledge that there are many ways to do that in practice.
People who eat "clean" pretend it's like paleo, where we all know what they don't eat, but in fact they all don't eat vastly different things. So the idea that it's a helpful way to improve one's diet makes no sense. There's nothing about dropping foods that you think fall into the category of "processed" (usually in an inconsistent way) that necessarily results in one eating a better diet, as shown by the numerous posts that say stuff like "I hate and won't eat vegetables, can I still eat clean?"
0 -
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I disagree. Clean eating and eating in moderation actually are similar in that both have subjective definitions. One eliminates foods that are not clean in the mind of the person eating it.
If one does this, presumably one would have a consistent explanation for why the foods are not "clean" and should be eliminated. Normally, this is what is lacking. That's because there's no true health rationale that the elimination is based on, usually, and that's also why the choices about what foods are "unclean" vary so widely.Moderation eliminates extremes in the mind of the person eating it. What is clean to me may not be clean to you. What is extreme/moderate to me may not be extreme/moderate to you.
Moderation means generally trying to eat a healthy diet according to an understanding of how much you need to eat and what's required for nutrition and your other goals and otherwise not worrying too much about it. It avoids the extremes of completely ignoring health/nutrition considerations, on the one hand, and obsessively deciding that every food decision is super charged and will make or break a diet, on the other (the idea that it's not just unhealthy to eat too much of something, but that that food must be 100% avoided).
Obviously there is a broad range within and people can be closer to one extreme or the other and people can disagree on when they are actually at the extreme, but it provides a general guideline to use when making food and diet decisions.
Vegetarian, paleo, pescetarian, low carb have specific definitions, yes.
It's entirely possible (IMO) to have a moderate approach and also follow some other way of eating (if we really must use that terminology).0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.7K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions