the moderation justification dodge

If you are dedicated to achieving the best possible result, you will not want to eat something that is obviously crappy. But we are human and we want what we want. Me too.

The problem is for the poster who is wavering a bit to be told it’s ok if you do it in moderation. It really isnt ok. Putting crappy stuff in our body is not ok. But! And I say but, I am not telling you not to eat it. Go ahead and eat it but do it knowing there is a cost, even if you do it moderately.

good grief! who said anything about rabbit food? not me...I eat steak...drink real milk...eat full fat cheese...dont twist and add...geeesh
The point is I, and i suspect many others, don't want to go for 100% healthy and cut out all the nice stuff. I'd rather just be 90% healthier and still eat some "crap", than be 100% healthy, and just eat rabbit food the rest of my life.

I was reading an interesting book called Deep Nutrition, Why your genes need traditional food. It has some interesting premises in it, about how eating natural and traditional whole foods are good for your body and for society. That by eating processed and "new" man made foods in today's society, it triggers our genes to turn on or off in a negative and unhealthy way (cancer, diabetes, thyroid problems, etc) and that once we eat like that we pass on defective and unhealthy genes to our kids. But if we eat traditionally and healthily (not processed stuff with chemicals in it) that we are healthy and have healthy genes that we then pass on to our kids. It makes sense on a scientific basis. But if you go with a premise like that, then eating "non-traditional, modern day foods that are highly processed" would not be good in moderation because it would still cause your genes to turn on negative path ways like cancer and diabetes and then pass those defective genes on to our kids. I haven't finished the book yet, so I don't know if I agree with all arguments or all information in it, but it did make me think about what I was eating and what that means. So I would agree that eating in moderation may not be the best thing health-wise even if you can control your calories by doing that depending on what you are eating. And that's not a slam against anyone eating in moderation. I think if eating in moderation is what helps you improve every day, than that's what you have to do. For me, that's the case. I am making small changes every day to try to improve what I am eating, but I am not even close to being there. It's just something I am reading that is making me think, and I thought I would share.

The difficult thing about posting advice on these forums and defaulting with "all things in moderation" and "baby steps" is that you don't know the person on the other end, we (mostly) aren't experts and we're (mostly) talking to laypeople. That's why its hard to tell the girl who doesn't want to lift heavy to do it anyway cause it won't make her bulky. I rue the day she takes my advice and then she hurts herself doing untrained back squats.

Telling the person who has just decided the previous week that they are going to start eating better and exercising regularly who goes over on their calories because they went out to dinner and think they've OMGRUINEDEVERYTHING the "all things in moderation" bit is mostly to calm them down. If you told them, "well ya, you screwed it up and you really need to eat as clean as possible from here on" is likely to hammer in that mistake. Because a lot of people here don't give their background or open up their diaries, you don't know who you are advising.

Telling an old-hand, bodybuilder who drinks raw eggs for breakfast who knows him/herself and is just blowing off some steam that it's okay to eat a bag of cheetos "in moderation" will likely get you the same "Yeah, well F-you!" response that telling someone who just learned to put down the cheetos that they can't have them ever again would elicit.

I am not an expert.
I am not telling you what to eat or what not to eat.
I am not judging what you do eat or do not eat.

I'm with you 100% so far and I feel the same way about myself. As such, I'm going to give you my honest opinion, take it for just that, an opinion.

I have been around here a bit and have learned a great deal and have read some crazy and whacky stuff.

The “it’s ok if you do it in moderation” philosophy is good most of the time but not ALL of the time.

I also agree on the above. Specifically, there are people who, due to their relationship with food, cannot practice moderation successfully and in those limited cases, I believe elimination is a viable method. That being said I think it (elimination of food) is practiced far too often and in some cases it probably PREVENTS people from effectively learning moderation.

If you are dedicated to achieving the best possible result, you will not want to eat something that is obviously crappy.

I'm not trying to argue semantics as I think the issue I'm about to raise is a very legitimate one. "Crappy" is a completely ambiguous term.

Secondarily but equally as important: You cannot make claims like this without applying CONTEXT. Can you say that vegetables will always be a better food choice than almonds? What about comparing white bread to an orange? You cannot make these claims without context. What if I have already meet sufficiency on everything that an orange provides but I'm terribly fat deficient? Ice cream might actually benefit me more in this particular example.

I'm aware that these are specific scenarios that I'm setting up that people couldn't possibly isolate when making food choices, at least not to this degree, but the point I'm trying to get at is that by labeling a food item as crappy you're not helping anyone establish a better relationship with food. In fact I'd say it makes things worse.

I support your position that people should understand the consequences of their choices but the assertion that foods fall into "good" and "bad" buckets and that choosing from the "bad" bucket is weak, is (in my opinion of course) itself an unhealthy foundation for maintaining a good relationship with food.

can someone please list which foods are "crappy" and those that are not? want to make sure i avoid all the crappy ones

so far i see cool whip and diet soda are "crappy" good thing i use Redi whip on my ice cream

i think mickey d's is crappy which is why i stick to BK.

I have been around here a bit

I'm surprised you didn't realize how a thread like this would be received!

Assuming you're talking figuratively and not literally, what is crap and what will happen if I eat crap in moderation?

good assumption. yes, figuratively. and I bet you know what I am talking about. U want debate or chance to lock and load? HA

Just trying to get you to elaborate some. Many months ago I was a bit of clean eating advocate, but more recently I'm more of an "if it fits your macros" advocate. Just curious what you think the penalty is for eating, say, fast food, or pizza, or whatever else you would classify as crap, here and there (aka "in moderation").

oh...well...some pizza can actually be fantastically clean and healthy...I am talking about crap like cool whip (chemicals parading as food) and crap like diet coke...I dont want to debate diet coke again...but it has no redeeming value from a stirct nutrition angle...so I guess I mean calories that do not contribute to anything other than our taste buds

The Diet Coke I buy has no calories. Also, I think my taste buds are pretty important.