Talking with a friend, she took a nutrition class that advocates everything in moderation. How can I help her see this is faulty thinking?

That's a tough, complex situation. One can only pursue the WOE that suits oneself and possibly, with success in this pursuit, be an example for someone who is in a similar situation. No one eating approach works for all. I don't even try, as this is a path for personal improvement. Changing the world? Not so much . . .

Ask her what she thinks moderation means, then take it to absurd extremes. Now she has to make sure she eats the same amount of food every day, no matter how hungry she is. Now she has to make sure she eats the same amounts of different types of food. Now she has to change her recipes so that they all have the same quantities of each of the different ingredients.

At some level, she must realise that more of certain things and less of other certain things is objectively better. Therefore no matter what the truth actually is, moderation is simply sub-optimal.

I agree with asking her to define "moderation".

If she thinks it means a middle-sized amount of something, then, a few examples would be good.

I've heard the following example:

If someone is trying to quit smoking, would half a pack a day be a moderate amount? What about cutting down from four packs to two?

And what is her definition of "everything"?

Planting the seeds of real thinking, yes, but who knows if those seeds will have the right environment to sprout and take root.

I'm sure you're asking because you're concerned about the friend's health. Yes?

The problem with "everything in moderation" is that it gives us absolutely no guidance whatsoever on WHAT is an appropriately "moderate" amount of any particular food.

For me, an appropriately moderate amount of sucrose is probably less than 1 to 2 tsps/month. I do on, on very rare occasions, eat a tiny bit of chocolate which contains sucrose. But I have to limit the amount of it to the equivalent of about 1 square of Hershey's chocolate about once every couple of weeks... or I start wanting more and more and more. Other people will say that drinking one sugary soft-drink per day is "moderate" despite the fact that a single serving of coke contains 10 tsps of sugar.

On the other hand, I'm sure many people who parrot the phrase "everything in moderation" would say that an appropriately moderate amount of red meat is less than a couple of ounces per week. (I'm ignoring vegans and vegetarians here because, by definition, they don't believe in "everything" in moderation....at best they'll say "everything but meat in moderation." However, I happily chow down on half-pound burgers 3 to 5 times per week without gaining weight and, so far, without it causing any of my lipid markers to go out of whack. I also indulge in at least a pound of meat of some sort (or eggs) every single day. Definitely not "moderate" amounts under the SAD guidelines, but moderate for me.

So, I don't even try to argue against the "everything in moderation" mantra. I just jump to questions: "How much daily sugar would you consider is a moderate amount?" "How much protein?" "How much starchy carbohydrate?" "How much complex carbohydrate?" "How much fat?"

AND then I'll say something like: "Since you believe in everything in moderation, I assume you're sticking to the moderation limits you just expressed.... so, how is THAT working for you? Are you happy with your current weight and current state of health?"

If they are, then conversation is over. If not, they'll probably say something like "Oh, I eat too much X...." or you can gently suggest that maybe either they're actually eating more of something than they themselves consider moderate or that maybe their idea of a moderate amount of something is off-track. That can lead to the conversation about why it is so hard NOT to overeat certain foods.

ok. Im getting it.

Bottom line is butt out....most people are happy with their ignorance.

This is true. Plenty of people have their own reasons for not considering LC; whether we think those reasons are valid or not, it's their decision to make at the end of the day.

Best thing you can do with these people is just to be the best example you can be yourself.

did any one read this

In order to teach someone something they have to have an open mind. Someone who is already convinced they have the answer will not likely be open to another approach.

Yes, I thought I did read it. Many of us on this forum see the flaw in the statement "everything in moderation." Most outside of those who have focused themselves on healing through nutrition think this is sound guidance. Yet, it is such a broad generalization, that it provides nothing to the person trying to understand what it means. It's equivalent to a doctor telling you to "eat healthy." Totally meaningless.

Meaningless like the food label that says "natural". My friend, she thought it was OK to eat honey because it's natural and I told her that sugar cane is natural too but it's all sugar!

I did read it Arielle and what I do is not deny what they think they know but just slowly infuse LC to them in small amounts and a year or two later I've seen a couple of my friends come around.

As mentioned in my signature below, people are limited by what they can imagine If they cannot imagine "life without bread" then they eat bread "moderately." No matter how much they actually eat!

I am convinced most people have been eating an incredibly skewed vision of "healthy" that keeps them from understanding even the simplest principles of what is actually healthy. My version of a healthy salad is one with meat, cheese, nuts, and full fat dressing with no croutons or breaded items. This horrifies them; they have been taught that a healthy salad is only leaves with lots of crunchy bread things and fake dressing, on the side.

If such a discussion gets to that point, I have said that my version of healthy salad lets me not be hungry for hours and hours; and that is my goal, that is how I know my body is getting fuel without sending my blood sugars into crazy zigzag patterns.

This usually stops them in their tracks; because their "normal" is cramming themselves full of hearthealthywholegrains and zero fat stuff with sugar in it (like their travesty of yogurt) and eating every two hours and still being constantly screaming hungry.

Putting it in terms of how their food makes them feel is how I present what and when I eat. I am willing to bet lunch money on the fact they never ever thought of it that way

The phrase "everything in moderation" is meaningless. It offers no guidance in how to eat and no scientific reasoning to support it. It allows people to define its meaning for themselves and then eat everything and anything they want, as long as they don't eat too much of it, but how much is too much? I figure I can't argue with anyone who goes that route because clearly they are looking for a way to justify their eating patterns rather than figure out how to eat in a truly healthy manner. I figure the best I can do is serve as an example for others but since so much time has passed since I started eating this way most people I meet now probably think I am just one of those lucky ones who doesn't have to worry about their weight or health. But even when I tell them my story somehow they are able to ignore what I say, finding it too different from theirs to imagine my story has any relevance to them.

I don't discuss diet or nutrition with anyone. I do what I believe is best for me, but I don't talk about how I eat with anyone.

I find that nutrition is like religion and politics in terms of subjects that are best to avoid in terms of trying to 'convince' others.

Arsenic is "all natural" LOL Spot on!

I am conflicted on Honey. I buy only raw local. Only one or two tsp/night sometimes to stave hunger -- as indicated in the "Honey Diet" regime.

It's been reported that beekeepers and honey eaters live longer (small study), their "Telomeres" (DNA strands degradable end caps) are longer like the Read Sea urchin -- it lives with an reproductive good "health-span" of 200 years. It maintains very long DNA Telomere caps.

I also practice BVT (known as Apitherapy) or bee-venom therapy. Works for me, and now, well it still hurts a bit -- sometimes a lot, but I am now immune to the sting of the European honeybee. No real swelling or any other reactions.

This 'therapy' is contraindicated if allergic to ANY insect bites! Do NOT try it with any wasps! EpiPen (Adrenaline) use if indicated :-)

I once got stung on my upper arm by a honeybee; attracted to my deodorant I suspect. I had a lot of swelling/itching, but no serious reactions. I figured the bee therapy was therefore safe for me.

I recently had a honey bee get in my shoe. She stung me on my little toe! absolutely no swelling. Before desensitization my foot would have looked like an inflated surgical glove -- lol

It's free and works similar to a shot of cortisone IMOEven better, the Celestial Seasonings "Sleepy Time Tea."

BTW: If afflicted with that horrid Adenovirus (dry ticklishly cough at night that can last 6 weeks) now going around: an ounce of Tequila Bianco with 1 tsp raw honey -- mixed well, heated for 12-15 sec in the microwave. That's good -- it's cough syrup on steroids -- LOL!