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

So if it is not good for you, don't stick it in your face. Seems easy enough.

Moderation is relative... moderately eating celery is different than moderately eating twinkies.

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 think anyone with some common sense knows that, if you eat junk food every day, even if you're within calories, you won't lose weight as effectively as if you eat primarily home cooked and healthy food. However, this does not mean that an occasional treat is a problem - and the article you've quoted doesn't actually suggest that it does.

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. The most famous is alcohol: it has been scientifically proven over and over that some people have a genetic predisposition that means they will get addicted to alcohol. And their only "cure" is to go cold turkey and never have another drop. But alcohol is not the only substance like that. My body can't handle carbs, so I've had to give up all breads, pastas, & starches. Cold turkey. If I let myself slip even once, I am miserable for several days and find it very difficult to get back on the wagon.

And I really HATE it when people keep repeating the mantras "calories in, calories out" or "a calorie is a calorie." Because that is simply not true! I did that for 20 years, I counted calories, avoided junk food, and ate less than I was burning. And for 20 years, I steadily gained weight. People, including my doctors, assumed I was lying about being good. It was incredibly frustrating to do everything "right" and still be judged as lazy, undisciplined and a liar.

It turns out that as long as too many of those calories were carbs, I was going to gain weight no matter how few calories I ate. When you look into the biochemistry, you'll see that your body treats carbs, fat and protein very differently. They all produce energy, but using completely different chemical reactions. So I think it's about time that someone is getting the word out that people need to pay attention to the KIND of calories we eat! So many people could be helped by simply adjusting their ratios of carbs - fat - protein to the correct ratio for their metabolism and body type. Once my doctor put me on 5% - 30% - 65%, I have been losing weight for the first time in my life.

Thanks so much for posting this & helping get the word out!

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.