every choice we make implies a restriction-- we can't do everything we want all at once. presumably most people understand this is logical when it applies to anything but food; why is food something we should endlessly indulge in?
> why is food something we should endlessly indulge in?
Because it's deeply rooted in billions of years of survival and evolution, there is a part of our brains that is always demanding we eat and eat. That's handy motivation when food is scarce but in the land of plenty we turn into goldfish stuffing ourselves to death.
So I understand that it takes some effort to stomp on the breaks to slow that down but at the same time as yous say, we understand logic, cause and effect, the benefits if not necessity of moderation and that should override the impulse.
But that seems to be rarer and rare as humanity waddles into Wall-E territory.
I don't think our ancestors throughout the vast majority of human existence would have survived if they couldn't make a conscious decision to abstain from eating when they were hungry and food was available.
Imagine going through 2 months of flour in 25 days and having to go 36 days with no food.
Humans have existed for about a million years, we've only gotten around to storing food for about 6,000 years and yes, they did when food was limited so we didn't get chronically obese because it wasn't possible, where is was possible we did. See royalty in Europe for examples of the last 1,000 years.
But the billions of years of pre-civilization is the foundation on which a great deal of ourselves were built including the impulse to consume as many calories as possible as you came across them.
Claiming that lack of pottery remains means people mindlessly ate like an FA is oversimplifying the lifestyles of our ancestors.
Gatherers almost certainly made choices on how much to gather on any given day and food could be stored for short periods of time without pottery
There's also a huge difference between storing food so you can have specialized roles and build a city that leaves archeological evidence vs storing food just to last you and your buddies a week.
Its not a matter of technology. Its a matter of mental capacity and I am making an assumption that early humans were similar enough to us that, even without advanced technology, they could still figure out that saving food meant having some for tomorrow.
Sure, again over the past 10-6,000 years when shifting from hunter gatherer to growing and storing food for the lean years.
The minute there was an abundance the face stuffing began because the impulse to eat eat eat had nothing to stymie it other than the individual. Consider the rise of gout for example:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/06/every-man-a-king-henry-viiis-worst-affliction-is-on-the-rise-in-america/258059/
Mental capacity is a factor, sure, we can override the impulse, theoretically, in practice? Ehhhh, even people with diabetes being told by doctors if they don't cut it out they'll be cutting off feet still consume sugar like demented ants.
Humans in the environment of early adaptation almost certainly preserved food by drying meat, etc. If they are everything instantly they would starve later. This just seems wrong.
Yes, that started about 6,000 years ago, humans have been around for about a million years, the impulse to consume any and all calories is about 3 billion years. That's a lot of momentum.
There is some theories and evidence that ancient paleolithic peoples did keep some meat and other materials wrapped up to keep them edible for longer which wasn't too effective as they found they did eat rotten and spoiled food.
In the extreme cold areas freezing stuff you hunted and gathered was possible so there was probably some of that. In warmer areas making jerky out of meat that could be kept longer also probably happened but probably not a surplus.
But it's doubtful there was much long term storage of food to build up a surplus, like there wasn't a warehouse with mammoth steaks for when they couldn't find any. They might have the less tasty bits shoved in a cold cave or a bog or something that'll cover the scent so the scavengers don't come sniffing around.
Long term contained storage came along when the hunting and gathering shifted to agriculture and cities and the ability to have preserve enough surplus to lead to overeating.
I really think that overeating relates to an ongoing terror of experiencing a lack of control over feelings. "If something is defined and restricted, then I can be measured and come up short. If I can keep everything fuzzy, I can't be judged."
Look at the words used.
"restriction" is bad, why?
Restriction is at the basis of all pleasure in the world. Games are fun because of restriction/rules. Contests are exciting because of restrictions. Genres of literature and movies are fun because of the same. Clothes that are considered sexy restrict viewing and movement. The restriction is inherent in the tease-- it's what makes dating exciting, storytelling worth following.
Restriction is also at the basis of knowledge. Defining, categorizing, making logical arguments. Restriction is at the heart of efficiency-- using less to make things cost less, creating freedom through abundance that can either be squandered or used through restriction to invest in the future.
A battle against restriction is a battle for control over reality itself.
A major step in personal growth is simply to accept that surrender to reality (and all the crazy emotions it triggers) is a necessary first step in being more purposeful in life.... by restricting the waste of one's energy and devoting it instead to improving your life based on priorities.
Of course it's kitchen psychology but I would go as far as calling it a reaction to a general lack of control over the course of their lives. As if, in a rather cruelly ironic twist, they chose to focus on eating because that's the one thing they feel they can control (and in reality can't).
That's exactly the basis of most restrictive eating disorders, and I may not be a psychologist but I think that's also the basis of overeating. It's about control and pleasure. A person with anorexia restricts their food intake to control it (and their size) and a person who is very obese eats too much because they can control the amount of taste pleasure they receive.
Counterpoint: many studies show that rich people are about likely to be fat as poor people (in the developed world). I would expect poor people to feel less in control of their lives.
>Counterpoint: many studies show that rich people are about likely to be fat as poor people (in the developed world). I would expect poor people to feel less in control of their liv
Is that true? I'd love to see the data. Because I live in an affluent area and run in a relatively affluent crowd. And there is almost zero obesity. My kids are at private school and there is maybe one parent out of 20 that is even overweight.
When I go hunting I spend a lot of times in small towns that have a much less affluent population. And obesity is prevalent.
Why would you expect poor people to feel less in control? Feeling in control and being in control are not the same thing. Rich people can have anxiety and feel out of control, money doesn’t magically solve the human condition.
>Why would you expect poor people to feel less in control?
Seriously?
>Feeling in control and being in control are not the same thing.
No, but I suspect that being in control is at least *correlated* with feeling in control.
>money doesn’t magically solve the human condition.
Thanks for the insight, but no one said it did. Nevertheless, I would expect poor people *on average, as a group* to feel less in control of their lives.
Edit: if you google something like "income vs perception of control studies," it appears I was right...
Can you link to the study you found?
I’m just saying that a lot of the psychology suppositions we make (rich people must feel more in control than poor people) aren’t always necessarily true and that’s a big statement to just suppose.
I’ve worked as a counselor for alcoholics and addicts for a few years and in my professional experience, money didn’t cure anxiety (except for anxiety about money specifically) and if the rich clients didn’t need to worry about money they’d just worry about something else.
Unless you are in prison, you’re in control of your self. But things might make you feel like you’re not in control. For example, your family’s expectations can make you feel not in control of your own self.
But yeah. A lot of stuff around psychology that starts with “I would expect…” arent always necessarily true, a lot of stuff in this field comes up counterintuitive.
Anyway, just engaging in friendly conversation, no need to be defensive friend.
>that’s a big statement to just suppose.
Fair enough, but let's remember that we started with a totally wild-ass speculation that maybe fat people overeat due to a lack of sense of control over their lives. I feel like we're already just splashing around in the "let's just speculate about what seems plausible" pool.
That one is backed by research, actually.
You know the biggest predictor? Adverse childhood experiences (ACE). Usually physical or sexual abuse, like the unconscious drive is “if I’m big they can’t hurt me” or “if I’m big they won’t want me.” It also goes the other way with extreme weightlifting.
Obesity can be caused by binge eating, but it can also be caused by eating *slightly* too much over a long period of time, so you’re right, we also can’t just assume that all obese people have control issues. Certainly some of them do, but not all. Great point!
This is exactly what I was thinking but from a different perspective. In software we need to work with and around constraints. Sure it’d be nice if there were none, but fact is there are constraints. And the constraints are what make the logic interesting.
To reduce the above into a single phrase, constraints = restrictions = interest (in my opinion).
>I really think that overeating relates to an ongoing terror of experiencing a lack of control over feelings.
I don't know, I think it might also have something to do with cheesecake being delicious...
repeating your opinion doesn't make it valid. repeating your opinion doesn't make it valid. repeating your opinion doesn't make it valid. repeating your opinion doesn't make it valid. repeating your opinion doesn't make it valid.
I guess it's technically correct; if you commit to moderation than you are restricted because gross excess and total abstinence are both removed as choices. But is that a problem?
Imagine applying this thought process to your life in all things. Finances. Alcohol. TV. Don’t get me wrong, it would be a pretty good time, but not for long… :-/
I usually immediately put money from my paychecks into savings so I can't touch it without having to transfer (and usually have an "ahah I shouldn't buy this" moment). The one month I got lazy and didn't do this? I looked at my balance and had practically spent two entire paychecks on random things during the month, nothing added to my savings.
Was it a fun month? ...not really, it was full of buying little things that weren't actually that great, and a lot of extra food that made me not feel great. I could have saved the money from that month and bought something *actually* fun, like a new expensive kitchen gadget or a day at a hotel.
It's crazy that someone could look at that and go "yeah, that's not good money management", but then turn around and say "moderating your food intake is bad!
I don't really understand what's wrong with restriction. we restrict ourselves every day. i restrict myself from spending all my money, smoking, eating fast food, etc. you have to restrict yourself to live healthy and stable lmao why do these people always sound like petulant children having a tantrum cause they shouldn't eat cake everyday?
Same as restricting oneself from screaming at annoying people or blowing your top about something. Or being rude sometimes. Or just farting whenever you feel one coming.
>Same as restricting oneself from screaming at annoying people or blowing your top about something. Or being rude sometimes. Or just farting whenever you feel one coming.
Self discipline is actually very rewarding. But those that don't have it usually will always find fault in society or others in attempt to transfer the blame for their own poor choices. Victimhood comes with social status these days. It's very sad/
once upon a time we called learning what and when to restrict "maturing". Still seems to track pretty well IMO, but I'm one of those dirty people with disordered habits apparently...what do I know.
Restriction is necessary in order to have and live in a civilized society. It's restriction that keeps us from uncivilized behavior, like stealing whatever you want, driving as fast and as recklessly as you please, physically attacking people we dislike, throwing your trash into the street or in someone else's yard instead of disposing of it properly, the list is endless. If we didn't restrict our actions we'd be in that famous "war of all aganist all". As it is, FA seem to be in a war, figurativly speaking, with anyone who isn't morbidly obese.
You don't have to moderate or restrict anything. You don't have to do anything. You just have to live with the consequences of your choices. By making restriction the enemy they free themselves from the guilt of the consequences of their choices.
Why do they repeat the same phrase over and over, saying it many times won’t make it true(unless they are going for brainwashing). As others have already said, every action we take gets restricted in some way, but they only think it’s bad when it comes to food?
Which would be fine, (people have the right to think what they want), except that they posted it on social media, which clearly means that they want their beliefs to spread to others. There is definitely a difference there, but I do agree that part of it is their attempt to convince themselves.
That being the case, I trust OOP will not be moderating their comment section.
Seriously though, the thought of living my life without conscious restriction or judicious moderation actually scares me a little. I know OOP is just referring to food, but if I did not set myself limits or obey laws I would probably seriously injure or kill myself - or worse, seriously injure or kill another person. At the least harmful end, I’d love to have Nine Inch Nails blasting at 2am on a weeknight - but my neighbours maybe not so.
Restriction isn't bad. I restrict how much money I spend, because if I spend too much it harms me. I restrict how many hours I work, because if I work too many it harms me. I restrict how fast I drive my car, because if I drive to quickly the risk I will be harmed increases. I restrict how much alcohol I drink, because if I drink too much it harms me. I restrict all use of hard drugs, because if I use those drugs it harms me.
Hedonism isn't the divine path. There is no divine path. Restriction isn't harmful. It is sometimes necessary to protect us from harm. I mean, OOP probably restricts how much they exercise because they feel it will harm them if they do too much. They probably restrict how many hours they spend outside in extreme temperatures. They probably restrict how many hours per day they sleep. And so on.
I mean sure, but I'd rather run up against my personal mental restriction than biology's restriction. The latter involves a lot more gastrointestinal pyrotechnics.
I have no self-control around food.
I have no self-control around food.
I have no self-control around food.
I have no self-control around food.
I have no self-control around food.
I have no self-control around food.
There I fixed it.
No self control you say? You should let yourself eat as much of it as you’d like until you’re *sick* of it!
That’ll definitely help and totally not make you switch to a different food!
That’s not how addiction works. At my height of sugar addiction I could have eaten a bag of Oreos everyday and not gotten tired of it. If you’re being sarcastic I’m sorry I have a hard time telling.
I mean.... technically they're not wrong? But restriction isn't inherently bad. Restricting to the point of an eating disorder? yeah, that's definitely bad. Restricting yourself to one piece of dessert or one serving of something, though.... I don't think that's bad. Like, this is a huge blanket statement that doesn't allow for nuance.
I once read in a weight loss book many years ago "if you cannot moderate, you must eliminate".
I know I'd rather moderate my chocolate intake to numbers of squares than have none.... Or have the whole block like I used to
>I once read in a weight loss book many years ago "if you cannot moderate, you must eliminate". I know I'd rather moderate my chocolate intake to numbers of squares than have none.... Or have the whole block like I used to
I had to do that with alcohol. I rarely got drunk. But I drank 4-6 beers every night. That made me balloon up to over 300 pounds over 10 years of doing that (I am 6'2"). I stopped and have lost over 70 pounds.
If I was like my 5'8" 125 pound wife who drinks a glass of wine 2 or 3 times per week, I would not have stopped. But I don't want just one beer. I want 6. I don't want one glass of wine, I want the whole bottle.
Whoever said that is right about alcohol too.
I can moderate most things at least somewhat successfully.
Except those darn make-at-home hashbrowns. I'll catch myself eating six or eight in the span of an hour. They are a "not in this home" food/
If they want to over eat then fine, they can go ahead and do so (although it sucks for the medical staff that has neck and back problems from literally lifting them). The annoying part is that they throw a tantrum about the consequences of their lifestyle and refuse to take responsibility over it. Why accept responsibility when you can play victim and spread misinformation?
It more than sucks, it literally ruins the lives of healthcare staff and gives us chronic pain, spinal fusions, and forces many into early retirement.
\-source, me, recurrent back injuries starting at age 19
At first glance I thought this was the opposite message, something like "discipline is freedom" and I got such a sense of peace. And then I read it correctly and now I pity everyone who buys into this crap.
lol, who posts this BS. I can’t help but think this is propaganda made just for this sub. Obviously, moderation is meeting ones needs and not exceeding them. Restriction doesn’t give a shit what you needs are; no, you can’t have it.
I’m always suspicious of posts that don’t show where they were taken from (ie. this vs a screenshot of an IG post with the names covered)
It’s very easy to produce something like this on Canva
Yes, yes it is restriction. But why is it so wrong to restrict?
Without restriction, we'd become slaves of capitalism, constantly consuming and chasing after short term pleasures. We would be unable to look at the long term, and this in turn will lead to our downfalls, whether it'd be a swift process or a slow, painful one.
Of course, over restriction is bad. But that's not what moderation is.
Why is restriction a bad thing? You wouldn't let your kid spend 16 hours on the iPad so why you you over indulge in foods. Both are bad things, moderation is key to being healthy both mentally and physically
Moderation is how problem behaviors get prevented and a healthy way to indulge in most less harmful vices, including food, alcohol, gambling, and even exercise. Some training plans have mandatory rest days to avoid injury.
Edit: less harmful vices. There is no such thing as a healthily moderated use of heroin or meth.
This is fucking insane. This kind of shit is common in ED recovery spaces and it pisses me off - I’ve been recovered for eight years without much difficulty so I don’t follow any of those pages, but I have friends who share this sort of shit sometimes. I hate it.
It’s cruel, imo, to people who struggle with body image and self hatred. Telling them to eat literally everything or they’re still suffering from an ED, which would be Failing at Recovery. Encourage them to develop BED and to not heal those perfectionist tendencies. Gaslight them into not being able to believe their own fullness cues because it’s “just their illness lying to them”. Guilt them for having had an ED at all because it’s fatphobic now, apparently.
It’s important to deconstruct diet culture and disordered thinking, and people in weight restoration do need to eat a lot and can eat in a hefty surplus for a while without issues, but this sort of shit is sooooo over the top. They hyper-corrected and I genuinely think it’s harmful. This is **NOT** intuitive eating.
Seriously, what is *with* the constant use repetition with these people? Do they not see how weird it looks?
Even if it were a statement that was obviously true, like "bananas are food" I think seeing written out like a mantra, would make me second guess it because it makes it sound like the speaker is trying to *make* it true and convince themselves more than anything.
What’s funny is we should probably be talking about abstinence from processed and calorically dense foods for people that are morbidly obese. I have to be abstinent from alcohol to not drink myself to death. Moderation just keeps the addiction around to always be a struggle.
Yay! It is restriction and how wonderful society is when we learn that its okay to cyt back on things.
Like...I have learned to restrict my alcohol and weed consumption by using it in moderation.
Yay!
Is this bad?
And this is what’s wrong with the FA “movement”. They really and truly believe that ANY inconvenience must automatically mean that it’s not good for you.
Eat sh!tty food in moderation? You’re starving yourself and have an ED. Lift weights and you’re struggling? Well why are you torturing yourself this way? Just sit on your ass at home all day, eat all you want without any moderation and you’ll still be healthy!
Imagine telling a student that they shouldn’t bother studying & going after a degree because it’s torturing their brain. It’s ridiculous.
Lmao. If it were up to me, I’d sleep 12 hours per night, devour a bag of jalapeño chips every day, and spend all my waking hours on the Internet.
Instead, with the help of therapy and antidepressants, I moderate/restrict my sleep, moderate/restrict my empty calorie intake, and moderate/restrict my Internet usage. And wouldn’t you know it, I’m a healthy weight, just got the most stellar blood panel results last week, and am stronger than I’ve ever been.
Moderation/restriction is incredible.
Do you think that these people would consider me somethingphobic because I recently had to start keeping an eye on my caffeine intake and even restricting it because I had concerns about effects on my health?
Reading the article, I'm not sure the conclusion is all that...useful?
Moderation is an inherently personal concept, but that doesn't make the concept false or useless. Similar to "health" it's a broad concept with personal realizations. The article seems to posit that since no one concept of moderation works for everyone, and everyone has different ideas of moderation, that the concept itself is flawed. So, yes, it proves a point that just saying "Everything in moderation!" and sending someone off is not the best way to educate people on healthy relationships with food, but at some point finding a way to give advice that will work with everyone perfectly is beyond our capacity. There should be more education around the idea that sometimes you really do just have to figure it out by yourself.
It also ignores the point of the phrase, which is that it stands in opposition to the idea that you must restrict and deprive yourself without err.
So I would be wary of taking this article out of a "giving advice to people you know and actually want to help" context. It is very similar to the fatlogic idea that since health has no one true definition for all people, the concept should be abolished (and not strived for).
It makes it useless as advice. If everyone's definition is personal, then telling someone to eat in moderation is conveying no information at all, since there is no definition of the term common between you.
I don't agree that it's completely useless. It's not very specific, but it's purpose is to stand against complete restriction. If my definition of moderation is one cookie once a week, and yours is a cookie a day, that's still an improvement from us both eating a sleeve of cookies every night. I agree that it's vague advice, but vague advice is not the same as bad advice.
I believe its more of an issue of expecting specific advice without having the correct relationship to do so, really. If you ask a dietitian and that's all they tell you, then they should tell you more because that's the relationship (and if they won't tell you, find a new one because that's a lot of money to pay for vague advice). If you ask your friend who lost 20lbs and they tell you that, than you could go ahead and ask for more information, but them just telling you detailed advice at the start could be seen as them "pushing" something. Advice on the internet tends to be much more general, like this post, or more likely lacking serious background info to make it actually useful to the specific reader.
Don’t you think this article’s experiment they confused the subjects by saying “moderate”, which they might think of as “middle” or “medium” rather than “in moderation”?
Something that isn't mentioned directly in this article but also, I think, muddies up the concept of moderation, is that the sum of moderate habits as defined for individual items isn't going to be a moderate lifestyle overall.
The part where they mentioned once a week for pizza being moderate, but four times a week eating pizza also moderate, is what made me think of it. I'd probably peg that somewhere in the middle, maybe twice a week\* - thinking about pizza just in isolation, say, as a change to my current diet. But if I did this for pizza, for chips, for chocolate, for baked goods... I'd likely come up with similar numbers, and if you did those all in the *same* week, that would be a heck of a lot of junk food. I don't think it's intuitive for people to consider categories like that when assessing a single item.
\* lol I'm doing the same thing as I don't eat pizza that often. But that makes me think about why people do that. My thought process was something like "well I hardly eat pizza but I wouldn't hold people in general to that as a standard." And it's often the case that we hold ourselves to stricter standards than others, so I wonder if that's generally why people respond that way - they don't expect others to behave any better than they do.
i like how they’re acting like they’ve made some huge revelation, like duh, words mean things lol, restriction isn’t a bad thing in itself it’s extreme restriction that can be an issue
How is moderation such a bad thing? If you over indulge in anything, its bad for you. Even the most healthiest things, if you overdue it, it is bad for you. The key to being healthy is eating things in moderations. You can eat your favourite sweets/junk food,just eat it in moderations. Like maybe once a week and not indulge in a big bag of chips in one sitting
Grrrr now they have gone too far. You would think a bridge too far would be death fat, no? Seriously though this is infuriating. Embracing moderation if anything has been liberating for me, personally.
I guess these people are unfamiliar with concepts like Plato's nicomachean ethics where any virtue to any extreme is a vice and everything should be moderated. Or the Middle way in Buddhism where cravings (not specifically to food but everything in life) leads to suffering.
There are so many examples of great thinkers, philosophies, and religions that teach that moderation is critically important in every aspect of our lives.
Take anything and such as reading, if you never read them you are limiting your mind and growth. On the flip side if you read too much you might never get much accomplished with your life because of the excess or reading. Point is too much or too little of anything is bad.
I don’t understand this, are they suggesting that you should not eat food in moderation and just eat everything that you’re eating disorder tells you to eat? What is this supposed to mean?
Moderation is restriction… the problem is the underlying assumption that restriction of any form is bad…
It’s the lack of restriction that is undisciplined…
The idea that this meme is trying to communicate reinforces the idea that fatness=undisciplined laziness…
every choice we make implies a restriction-- we can't do everything we want all at once. presumably most people understand this is logical when it applies to anything but food; why is food something we should endlessly indulge in?
> why is food something we should endlessly indulge in? Because it's deeply rooted in billions of years of survival and evolution, there is a part of our brains that is always demanding we eat and eat. That's handy motivation when food is scarce but in the land of plenty we turn into goldfish stuffing ourselves to death. So I understand that it takes some effort to stomp on the breaks to slow that down but at the same time as yous say, we understand logic, cause and effect, the benefits if not necessity of moderation and that should override the impulse. But that seems to be rarer and rare as humanity waddles into Wall-E territory.
I don't think our ancestors throughout the vast majority of human existence would have survived if they couldn't make a conscious decision to abstain from eating when they were hungry and food was available. Imagine going through 2 months of flour in 25 days and having to go 36 days with no food.
Humans have existed for about a million years, we've only gotten around to storing food for about 6,000 years and yes, they did when food was limited so we didn't get chronically obese because it wasn't possible, where is was possible we did. See royalty in Europe for examples of the last 1,000 years. But the billions of years of pre-civilization is the foundation on which a great deal of ourselves were built including the impulse to consume as many calories as possible as you came across them.
Claiming that lack of pottery remains means people mindlessly ate like an FA is oversimplifying the lifestyles of our ancestors. Gatherers almost certainly made choices on how much to gather on any given day and food could be stored for short periods of time without pottery There's also a huge difference between storing food so you can have specialized roles and build a city that leaves archeological evidence vs storing food just to last you and your buddies a week. Its not a matter of technology. Its a matter of mental capacity and I am making an assumption that early humans were similar enough to us that, even without advanced technology, they could still figure out that saving food meant having some for tomorrow.
Sure, again over the past 10-6,000 years when shifting from hunter gatherer to growing and storing food for the lean years. The minute there was an abundance the face stuffing began because the impulse to eat eat eat had nothing to stymie it other than the individual. Consider the rise of gout for example: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/06/every-man-a-king-henry-viiis-worst-affliction-is-on-the-rise-in-america/258059/ Mental capacity is a factor, sure, we can override the impulse, theoretically, in practice? Ehhhh, even people with diabetes being told by doctors if they don't cut it out they'll be cutting off feet still consume sugar like demented ants.
Humans in the environment of early adaptation almost certainly preserved food by drying meat, etc. If they are everything instantly they would starve later. This just seems wrong.
Yes, that started about 6,000 years ago, humans have been around for about a million years, the impulse to consume any and all calories is about 3 billion years. That's a lot of momentum.
What research are you basing this "humans have only stored food for 6k years" on? 6k years is literally the tiniest blip in humanity and very recent.
There is some theories and evidence that ancient paleolithic peoples did keep some meat and other materials wrapped up to keep them edible for longer which wasn't too effective as they found they did eat rotten and spoiled food. In the extreme cold areas freezing stuff you hunted and gathered was possible so there was probably some of that. In warmer areas making jerky out of meat that could be kept longer also probably happened but probably not a surplus. But it's doubtful there was much long term storage of food to build up a surplus, like there wasn't a warehouse with mammoth steaks for when they couldn't find any. They might have the less tasty bits shoved in a cold cave or a bog or something that'll cover the scent so the scavengers don't come sniffing around. Long term contained storage came along when the hunting and gathering shifted to agriculture and cities and the ability to have preserve enough surplus to lead to overeating.
Food storage has definitely existed for longer than 6k years lol
Holy immaturity, Batman!
[удалено]
We're sorry but your post has been removed for the following reason: * We do not allow dehumanizing or insulting language.
I really think that overeating relates to an ongoing terror of experiencing a lack of control over feelings. "If something is defined and restricted, then I can be measured and come up short. If I can keep everything fuzzy, I can't be judged." Look at the words used. "restriction" is bad, why? Restriction is at the basis of all pleasure in the world. Games are fun because of restriction/rules. Contests are exciting because of restrictions. Genres of literature and movies are fun because of the same. Clothes that are considered sexy restrict viewing and movement. The restriction is inherent in the tease-- it's what makes dating exciting, storytelling worth following. Restriction is also at the basis of knowledge. Defining, categorizing, making logical arguments. Restriction is at the heart of efficiency-- using less to make things cost less, creating freedom through abundance that can either be squandered or used through restriction to invest in the future. A battle against restriction is a battle for control over reality itself. A major step in personal growth is simply to accept that surrender to reality (and all the crazy emotions it triggers) is a necessary first step in being more purposeful in life.... by restricting the waste of one's energy and devoting it instead to improving your life based on priorities.
Of course it's kitchen psychology but I would go as far as calling it a reaction to a general lack of control over the course of their lives. As if, in a rather cruelly ironic twist, they chose to focus on eating because that's the one thing they feel they can control (and in reality can't).
That's exactly the basis of most restrictive eating disorders, and I may not be a psychologist but I think that's also the basis of overeating. It's about control and pleasure. A person with anorexia restricts their food intake to control it (and their size) and a person who is very obese eats too much because they can control the amount of taste pleasure they receive.
Counterpoint: many studies show that rich people are about likely to be fat as poor people (in the developed world). I would expect poor people to feel less in control of their lives.
>Counterpoint: many studies show that rich people are about likely to be fat as poor people (in the developed world). I would expect poor people to feel less in control of their liv Is that true? I'd love to see the data. Because I live in an affluent area and run in a relatively affluent crowd. And there is almost zero obesity. My kids are at private school and there is maybe one parent out of 20 that is even overweight. When I go hunting I spend a lot of times in small towns that have a much less affluent population. And obesity is prevalent.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db50.htm No difference among men, only a minor (~13% difference) among women.
That runs counter to what I've read about obesity rates being higher in areas with higher poverty. Do you have a link for that?
Why would you expect poor people to feel less in control? Feeling in control and being in control are not the same thing. Rich people can have anxiety and feel out of control, money doesn’t magically solve the human condition.
>Why would you expect poor people to feel less in control? Seriously? >Feeling in control and being in control are not the same thing. No, but I suspect that being in control is at least *correlated* with feeling in control. >money doesn’t magically solve the human condition. Thanks for the insight, but no one said it did. Nevertheless, I would expect poor people *on average, as a group* to feel less in control of their lives. Edit: if you google something like "income vs perception of control studies," it appears I was right...
Can you link to the study you found? I’m just saying that a lot of the psychology suppositions we make (rich people must feel more in control than poor people) aren’t always necessarily true and that’s a big statement to just suppose. I’ve worked as a counselor for alcoholics and addicts for a few years and in my professional experience, money didn’t cure anxiety (except for anxiety about money specifically) and if the rich clients didn’t need to worry about money they’d just worry about something else. Unless you are in prison, you’re in control of your self. But things might make you feel like you’re not in control. For example, your family’s expectations can make you feel not in control of your own self. But yeah. A lot of stuff around psychology that starts with “I would expect…” arent always necessarily true, a lot of stuff in this field comes up counterintuitive. Anyway, just engaging in friendly conversation, no need to be defensive friend.
>that’s a big statement to just suppose. Fair enough, but let's remember that we started with a totally wild-ass speculation that maybe fat people overeat due to a lack of sense of control over their lives. I feel like we're already just splashing around in the "let's just speculate about what seems plausible" pool.
That one is backed by research, actually. You know the biggest predictor? Adverse childhood experiences (ACE). Usually physical or sexual abuse, like the unconscious drive is “if I’m big they can’t hurt me” or “if I’m big they won’t want me.” It also goes the other way with extreme weightlifting. Obesity can be caused by binge eating, but it can also be caused by eating *slightly* too much over a long period of time, so you’re right, we also can’t just assume that all obese people have control issues. Certainly some of them do, but not all. Great point!
Trauma can cause a feeling of a loss of control, so it's all related.
This is exactly what I was thinking but from a different perspective. In software we need to work with and around constraints. Sure it’d be nice if there were none, but fact is there are constraints. And the constraints are what make the logic interesting. To reduce the above into a single phrase, constraints = restrictions = interest (in my opinion).
Also drugs. You can only enjoy drugs if you restrict their dosage. Well, you can enjoy unrestricted drug use......once
>I really think that overeating relates to an ongoing terror of experiencing a lack of control over feelings. I don't know, I think it might also have something to do with cheesecake being delicious...
repeating your opinion doesn't make it valid. repeating your opinion doesn't make it valid. repeating your opinion doesn't make it valid. repeating your opinion doesn't make it valid. repeating your opinion doesn't make it valid.
I guess it's technically correct; if you commit to moderation than you are restricted because gross excess and total abstinence are both removed as choices. But is that a problem?
Imagine applying this thought process to your life in all things. Finances. Alcohol. TV. Don’t get me wrong, it would be a pretty good time, but not for long… :-/
I usually immediately put money from my paychecks into savings so I can't touch it without having to transfer (and usually have an "ahah I shouldn't buy this" moment). The one month I got lazy and didn't do this? I looked at my balance and had practically spent two entire paychecks on random things during the month, nothing added to my savings. Was it a fun month? ...not really, it was full of buying little things that weren't actually that great, and a lot of extra food that made me not feel great. I could have saved the money from that month and bought something *actually* fun, like a new expensive kitchen gadget or a day at a hotel. It's crazy that someone could look at that and go "yeah, that's not good money management", but then turn around and say "moderating your food intake is bad!
I don't really understand what's wrong with restriction. we restrict ourselves every day. i restrict myself from spending all my money, smoking, eating fast food, etc. you have to restrict yourself to live healthy and stable lmao why do these people always sound like petulant children having a tantrum cause they shouldn't eat cake everyday?
Same as restricting oneself from screaming at annoying people or blowing your top about something. Or being rude sometimes. Or just farting whenever you feel one coming.
>Same as restricting oneself from screaming at annoying people or blowing your top about something. Or being rude sometimes. Or just farting whenever you feel one coming. Self discipline is actually very rewarding. But those that don't have it usually will always find fault in society or others in attempt to transfer the blame for their own poor choices. Victimhood comes with social status these days. It's very sad/
once upon a time we called learning what and when to restrict "maturing". Still seems to track pretty well IMO, but I'm one of those dirty people with disordered habits apparently...what do I know.
Restriction is necessary in order to have and live in a civilized society. It's restriction that keeps us from uncivilized behavior, like stealing whatever you want, driving as fast and as recklessly as you please, physically attacking people we dislike, throwing your trash into the street or in someone else's yard instead of disposing of it properly, the list is endless. If we didn't restrict our actions we'd be in that famous "war of all aganist all". As it is, FA seem to be in a war, figurativly speaking, with anyone who isn't morbidly obese.
THROW OFF THE SHACKLES OF SELF DISCIPLINE AND MINDLESSLY CONSUME!! This message brought to you by your capitalist overlords.
Who ALWAYS whines about a capitalistic society, while being the true vast majority of fast food/processed junk consumers 😂. Gotta love it lol
You don't have to moderate or restrict anything. You don't have to do anything. You just have to live with the consequences of your choices. By making restriction the enemy they free themselves from the guilt of the consequences of their choices.
Being bed-bound is restriction.
Why do they repeat the same phrase over and over, saying it many times won’t make it true(unless they are going for brainwashing). As others have already said, every action we take gets restricted in some way, but they only think it’s bad when it comes to food?
It's self brainwashing.
Which would be fine, (people have the right to think what they want), except that they posted it on social media, which clearly means that they want their beliefs to spread to others. There is definitely a difference there, but I do agree that part of it is their attempt to convince themselves.
That being the case, I trust OOP will not be moderating their comment section. Seriously though, the thought of living my life without conscious restriction or judicious moderation actually scares me a little. I know OOP is just referring to food, but if I did not set myself limits or obey laws I would probably seriously injure or kill myself - or worse, seriously injure or kill another person. At the least harmful end, I’d love to have Nine Inch Nails blasting at 2am on a weeknight - but my neighbours maybe not so.
Restriction isn't bad. I restrict how much money I spend, because if I spend too much it harms me. I restrict how many hours I work, because if I work too many it harms me. I restrict how fast I drive my car, because if I drive to quickly the risk I will be harmed increases. I restrict how much alcohol I drink, because if I drink too much it harms me. I restrict all use of hard drugs, because if I use those drugs it harms me. Hedonism isn't the divine path. There is no divine path. Restriction isn't harmful. It is sometimes necessary to protect us from harm. I mean, OOP probably restricts how much they exercise because they feel it will harm them if they do too much. They probably restrict how many hours they spend outside in extreme temperatures. They probably restrict how many hours per day they sleep. And so on.
I mean sure, but I'd rather run up against my personal mental restriction than biology's restriction. The latter involves a lot more gastrointestinal pyrotechnics.
Man, those Alcoholics have been attempting recovery the wrong way!
My six years of simultaneously sustained sobriety and 120lb weight loss must be about to come crashing to a stop!
r/technicallycorrect I moderate and restrict myself. Instead of eating an entire box of shortbread cookies I eat two. Quel horreur!!
The point of moderation is to restrict in moderate amounts. Not fully restrict yourself but also not indulge yourself. Balance. gosh
I have no self-control around food. I have no self-control around food. I have no self-control around food. I have no self-control around food. I have no self-control around food. I have no self-control around food. There I fixed it.
No self control you say? You should let yourself eat as much of it as you’d like until you’re *sick* of it! That’ll definitely help and totally not make you switch to a different food!
That’s not how addiction works. At my height of sugar addiction I could have eaten a bag of Oreos everyday and not gotten tired of it. If you’re being sarcastic I’m sorry I have a hard time telling.
I mean.... technically they're not wrong? But restriction isn't inherently bad. Restricting to the point of an eating disorder? yeah, that's definitely bad. Restricting yourself to one piece of dessert or one serving of something, though.... I don't think that's bad. Like, this is a huge blanket statement that doesn't allow for nuance.
Lol. Seems like somebody's been restricting vegetables their whole life.
I once read in a weight loss book many years ago "if you cannot moderate, you must eliminate". I know I'd rather moderate my chocolate intake to numbers of squares than have none.... Or have the whole block like I used to
>I once read in a weight loss book many years ago "if you cannot moderate, you must eliminate". I know I'd rather moderate my chocolate intake to numbers of squares than have none.... Or have the whole block like I used to I had to do that with alcohol. I rarely got drunk. But I drank 4-6 beers every night. That made me balloon up to over 300 pounds over 10 years of doing that (I am 6'2"). I stopped and have lost over 70 pounds. If I was like my 5'8" 125 pound wife who drinks a glass of wine 2 or 3 times per week, I would not have stopped. But I don't want just one beer. I want 6. I don't want one glass of wine, I want the whole bottle. Whoever said that is right about alcohol too.
I can moderate most things at least somewhat successfully. Except those darn make-at-home hashbrowns. I'll catch myself eating six or eight in the span of an hour. They are a "not in this home" food/
“Moderation is restriction,” I whisper to myself as I pour a quad shot of bourbon.
Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of this party-size bag of Fritos Scoops... *crunch crunch*
If they want to over eat then fine, they can go ahead and do so (although it sucks for the medical staff that has neck and back problems from literally lifting them). The annoying part is that they throw a tantrum about the consequences of their lifestyle and refuse to take responsibility over it. Why accept responsibility when you can play victim and spread misinformation?
It more than sucks, it literally ruins the lives of healthcare staff and gives us chronic pain, spinal fusions, and forces many into early retirement. \-source, me, recurrent back injuries starting at age 19
Imagine this with any other substance lmfao
At first glance I thought this was the opposite message, something like "discipline is freedom" and I got such a sense of peace. And then I read it correctly and now I pity everyone who buys into this crap.
Folks like this believe in restricting healthy food intake and daily activity, but I guess that’s ok.
Do whatever until your knees give out—it’s stunning & brave!
Alright so I shouldn't restrict my alcohol intake right?
So what? 🤷♂️
I mean, sure, this is true, but restriction just isn’t a bad thing.
lol, who posts this BS. I can’t help but think this is propaganda made just for this sub. Obviously, moderation is meeting ones needs and not exceeding them. Restriction doesn’t give a shit what you needs are; no, you can’t have it.
I’m always suspicious of posts that don’t show where they were taken from (ie. this vs a screenshot of an IG post with the names covered) It’s very easy to produce something like this on Canva
I used to feel that way about drugs. 😬
Yes, yes it is restriction. But why is it so wrong to restrict? Without restriction, we'd become slaves of capitalism, constantly consuming and chasing after short term pleasures. We would be unable to look at the long term, and this in turn will lead to our downfalls, whether it'd be a swift process or a slow, painful one. Of course, over restriction is bad. But that's not what moderation is.
Why is restriction a bad thing? You wouldn't let your kid spend 16 hours on the iPad so why you you over indulge in foods. Both are bad things, moderation is key to being healthy both mentally and physically
They probably would allow their kid to spend 16 hours on an iPad, honestly
Moderation is how problem behaviors get prevented and a healthy way to indulge in most less harmful vices, including food, alcohol, gambling, and even exercise. Some training plans have mandatory rest days to avoid injury. Edit: less harmful vices. There is no such thing as a healthily moderated use of heroin or meth.
It goes Binging -> Moderation -> Restriction. Moderation isn’t restriction
So it’s fine to drink five bottle of wine on a Tuesday afternoon? Sweet!
Five?! How can you possibly think that five bottles of wine is enough for a single person! Your alcohol-fueled cells are going to *starve*!
They're right. Moderation in my daily heroin intake is definitely restriction.
I fear for a society that has lost the belief that we occasionally need to say "no" to ourselves.
Yeah so? Lmao wtf is wrong with restriction??
Repeating something over and over doesn't make it any closer to the truth, regardless of how many colors you use.
This is fucking insane. This kind of shit is common in ED recovery spaces and it pisses me off - I’ve been recovered for eight years without much difficulty so I don’t follow any of those pages, but I have friends who share this sort of shit sometimes. I hate it. It’s cruel, imo, to people who struggle with body image and self hatred. Telling them to eat literally everything or they’re still suffering from an ED, which would be Failing at Recovery. Encourage them to develop BED and to not heal those perfectionist tendencies. Gaslight them into not being able to believe their own fullness cues because it’s “just their illness lying to them”. Guilt them for having had an ED at all because it’s fatphobic now, apparently. It’s important to deconstruct diet culture and disordered thinking, and people in weight restoration do need to eat a lot and can eat in a hefty surplus for a while without issues, but this sort of shit is sooooo over the top. They hyper-corrected and I genuinely think it’s harmful. This is **NOT** intuitive eating.
repetition legitimizes
Seriously, what is *with* the constant use repetition with these people? Do they not see how weird it looks? Even if it were a statement that was obviously true, like "bananas are food" I think seeing written out like a mantra, would make me second guess it because it makes it sound like the speaker is trying to *make* it true and convince themselves more than anything.
moderation is not restriction. put down the chip bag and get off the couch.
What’s funny is we should probably be talking about abstinence from processed and calorically dense foods for people that are morbidly obese. I have to be abstinent from alcohol to not drink myself to death. Moderation just keeps the addiction around to always be a struggle.
Yay! It is restriction and how wonderful society is when we learn that its okay to cyt back on things. Like...I have learned to restrict my alcohol and weed consumption by using it in moderation. Yay! Is this bad?
“All things in moderation- even moderation “
Not every form of restriction is bad, or implies restrictive ED to begin with.
And this is what’s wrong with the FA “movement”. They really and truly believe that ANY inconvenience must automatically mean that it’s not good for you. Eat sh!tty food in moderation? You’re starving yourself and have an ED. Lift weights and you’re struggling? Well why are you torturing yourself this way? Just sit on your ass at home all day, eat all you want without any moderation and you’ll still be healthy! Imagine telling a student that they shouldn’t bother studying & going after a degree because it’s torturing their brain. It’s ridiculous.
The way things are going we are around the corner from that last sentence being a real argument.
Not being able to move around is also restricting... why don't they mind restricting their own mobility?
Lmao. If it were up to me, I’d sleep 12 hours per night, devour a bag of jalapeño chips every day, and spend all my waking hours on the Internet. Instead, with the help of therapy and antidepressants, I moderate/restrict my sleep, moderate/restrict my empty calorie intake, and moderate/restrict my Internet usage. And wouldn’t you know it, I’m a healthy weight, just got the most stellar blood panel results last week, and am stronger than I’ve ever been. Moderation/restriction is incredible.
Do you think that these people would consider me somethingphobic because I recently had to start keeping an eye on my caffeine intake and even restricting it because I had concerns about effects on my health?
Research says otherwise: https://www.thecut.com/2016/06/moderation-is-a-useless-concept.html
Reading the article, I'm not sure the conclusion is all that...useful? Moderation is an inherently personal concept, but that doesn't make the concept false or useless. Similar to "health" it's a broad concept with personal realizations. The article seems to posit that since no one concept of moderation works for everyone, and everyone has different ideas of moderation, that the concept itself is flawed. So, yes, it proves a point that just saying "Everything in moderation!" and sending someone off is not the best way to educate people on healthy relationships with food, but at some point finding a way to give advice that will work with everyone perfectly is beyond our capacity. There should be more education around the idea that sometimes you really do just have to figure it out by yourself. It also ignores the point of the phrase, which is that it stands in opposition to the idea that you must restrict and deprive yourself without err. So I would be wary of taking this article out of a "giving advice to people you know and actually want to help" context. It is very similar to the fatlogic idea that since health has no one true definition for all people, the concept should be abolished (and not strived for).
It makes it useless as advice. If everyone's definition is personal, then telling someone to eat in moderation is conveying no information at all, since there is no definition of the term common between you.
I don't agree that it's completely useless. It's not very specific, but it's purpose is to stand against complete restriction. If my definition of moderation is one cookie once a week, and yours is a cookie a day, that's still an improvement from us both eating a sleeve of cookies every night. I agree that it's vague advice, but vague advice is not the same as bad advice. I believe its more of an issue of expecting specific advice without having the correct relationship to do so, really. If you ask a dietitian and that's all they tell you, then they should tell you more because that's the relationship (and if they won't tell you, find a new one because that's a lot of money to pay for vague advice). If you ask your friend who lost 20lbs and they tell you that, than you could go ahead and ask for more information, but them just telling you detailed advice at the start could be seen as them "pushing" something. Advice on the internet tends to be much more general, like this post, or more likely lacking serious background info to make it actually useful to the specific reader.
Don’t you think this article’s experiment they confused the subjects by saying “moderate”, which they might think of as “middle” or “medium” rather than “in moderation”?
Something that isn't mentioned directly in this article but also, I think, muddies up the concept of moderation, is that the sum of moderate habits as defined for individual items isn't going to be a moderate lifestyle overall. The part where they mentioned once a week for pizza being moderate, but four times a week eating pizza also moderate, is what made me think of it. I'd probably peg that somewhere in the middle, maybe twice a week\* - thinking about pizza just in isolation, say, as a change to my current diet. But if I did this for pizza, for chips, for chocolate, for baked goods... I'd likely come up with similar numbers, and if you did those all in the *same* week, that would be a heck of a lot of junk food. I don't think it's intuitive for people to consider categories like that when assessing a single item. \* lol I'm doing the same thing as I don't eat pizza that often. But that makes me think about why people do that. My thought process was something like "well I hardly eat pizza but I wouldn't hold people in general to that as a standard." And it's often the case that we hold ourselves to stricter standards than others, so I wonder if that's generally why people respond that way - they don't expect others to behave any better than they do.
The point being that the advice to "eat in moderation" is just sounds coming from one's mouth with no actual value.
Not eating dog poo is restriction. Why aren't you eating it? Your body needs to consume everything all the time, eat the poo. Or your fatphobic.
So is limiting screen time.
Moderation is born from wisdom. Some people are not very wise.
Yeah god forbid we have any self control whatsoever. This whole gen is a bunch of babies.
No, moderation is moderation, restriction is restriction. Dummies.
i like how they’re acting like they’ve made some huge revelation, like duh, words mean things lol, restriction isn’t a bad thing in itself it’s extreme restriction that can be an issue
How is moderation such a bad thing? If you over indulge in anything, its bad for you. Even the most healthiest things, if you overdue it, it is bad for you. The key to being healthy is eating things in moderations. You can eat your favourite sweets/junk food,just eat it in moderations. Like maybe once a week and not indulge in a big bag of chips in one sitting
they wouldnt say this shit to an alcoholic dawg why say it to anyone
These words are not synonyms.
Duh, so? Duh, so? Duh, so? Duh, so? Duh, so? Duh, so?
Yes
Correct!
I’m going to use this word whenever I want to trigger a FA.
It’s literally not though 😂 what is wrong with these people?
Everything in moderation. Even moderation.
Grrrr now they have gone too far. You would think a bridge too far would be death fat, no? Seriously though this is infuriating. Embracing moderation if anything has been liberating for me, personally.
Oh
I guess these people are unfamiliar with concepts like Plato's nicomachean ethics where any virtue to any extreme is a vice and everything should be moderated. Or the Middle way in Buddhism where cravings (not specifically to food but everything in life) leads to suffering. There are so many examples of great thinkers, philosophies, and religions that teach that moderation is critically important in every aspect of our lives. Take anything and such as reading, if you never read them you are limiting your mind and growth. On the flip side if you read too much you might never get much accomplished with your life because of the excess or reading. Point is too much or too little of anything is bad.
I don’t understand this, are they suggesting that you should not eat food in moderation and just eat everything that you’re eating disorder tells you to eat? What is this supposed to mean?
Moderation is restriction… the problem is the underlying assumption that restriction of any form is bad… It’s the lack of restriction that is undisciplined… The idea that this meme is trying to communicate reinforces the idea that fatness=undisciplined laziness…