Buzz
If the dietary advice you follow mirrors what junk food advertisers promote, it might be time to reassess your approach.
The phrase 'Everything in moderation' sounds appealing but is inherently misleading. It suggests avoiding excess, which is a tautology—excess is, by definition, too much. However, the term 'moderation' is ambiguous, allowing individuals to justify any consumption level as moderate, regardless of its actual impact on health.
We Use 'Moderation' as an Excuse to Ignore Uncomfortable Truths
Nutrition experts define moderation as consuming small portions, particularly for foods that should be limited or avoided. This differs from the Aristotelian concept of moderation, which seeks a balance between excess and deficiency. For instance, there’s no harm in completely avoiding candy—it’s unnecessary for health. Nutritionists employ moderation as a strategy to control cravings. As explained by two dietitians in the Journal of Nutrition Education:
The principles of balance, variety, and moderation can alleviate the psychological burdens often associated with healthy eating in the U.S. They help dispel 'all-or-nothing' mindsets that lead to guilt and, in many instances, overeating when individuals occasionally opt for less nutritious foods.
This perspective offers valuable insights: indulging in small amounts of junk food won’t necessarily ruin your diet, and recognizing that occasional treats are acceptable can make it easier to maintain a healthy eating routine.
However.
Granting yourself permission to eat anything 'in moderation' can quickly spiral into unrestricted eating, all while justifying it as moderation. The term has morphed into a justification, a way to defiantly declare, 'I’ll eat what I want,' while smugly asserting that you follow timeless, straightforward advice and needn’t concern yourself with modern nutritional science.
Hats off to these well-meaning nutritionists who swoop in with guidance to help people handle their cravings! Or perhaps not. What they’re really doing is using 'everything in moderation' as a defense mechanism to ignore inconvenient truths and continue their current habits.
After all, adhering to a simplistic rule means you don’t have to stay updated with the constantly shifting landscape of nutritional advice. Rather than adopting sound recommendations, you can convince yourself you’re already following them. This rule also helps us sidestep confronting uncomfortable realities (What if I do consume too much bacon?). Without a clear boundary between moderation and excess, we can define it however we please: anyone eating more bacon than me is overdoing it, but I’m just fine.
Junk Food Companies Adore 'Moderation'
Still skeptical? Consider this: Junk food manufacturers adore the idea of 'moderation'.
Take, for instance, the Back to Balance Coalition, a group of 18 'leading food organizations' that have endorsed a set of principles advocating moderation. Their slogan: 'All foods have a place in a balanced diet.'
And who are these food groups? They consist of the Sugar Association, the National Confectioners Association, the Corn Refiners Association (producers of corn syrup), the National Potato Council (keeping in mind that most potatoes consumed in America are in the form of chips and fries), the Grocery Manufacturers Association (whose members include Coca-Cola and Hershey), and the Snack Food Association.
Their statement asserts that 'All foods can be part of a healthy diet when consumed in moderation, with proper portion sizes and combined with physical activity.' Essentially, these organizations don’t want you to believe you should avoid their products or consider your diet unhealthy just because it includes them. The notion of junk food being part of a balanced diet reminds me of Dave Barry’s remark about cereal brands labeling their products as 'part of a complete breakfast':
Don’t they really mean, 'Adjacent to this complete breakfast,' or 'On the same table as this complete breakfast'? And couldn’t they make the same claim if, instead of Froot Loops, they placed a can of shaving cream or a dead bat there?
The mention of physical activity, while technically accurate, is largely irrelevant: Yes, you can work off the calories from a bag of Doritos, but that doesn’t negate the fact that you consumed it. We also know that you can’t depend on exercise alone to maintain health if your diet is poor.
The National Confectioners Association takes the illusion of moderation even further. On their website, they promote a semi-scientific guideline of consuming '50 to 100 calories a day' from candy. These convenient charts suggest how much candy you can enjoy: Two Twizzlers, ten gummy bears, or one 'fun size' candy bar. If you opt for a full-sized candy bar, that consumes (pun intended) your candy allowance for the entire week.
Yet, on the same website, they provide tips on how to encourage impulse purchases of more candy. They suggest that checkout aisles should allocate 51% of their space to gum, mints, drinks, and snacks for shoppers looking to 'recharge' after a long trip, while 39% should be dedicated to chocolate and other candies for those wanting to reward themselves after finishing their shopping.
The association’s stricter position aligns with the FDA’s recent guidelines, which advise that Americans limit added sugar to no more than 10% of their daily caloric intake, roughly 200 calories. (The World Health Organization suggests cutting that amount in half).
However, they don’t truly support this limit. When the FDA proposed including this recommendation on product labels (assigning added sugars a percent daily value like other nutrients), an NCA spokesperson told Food Business News that the organization opposes the idea:
The National Confectioners Association stated that the FDA’s plan to include daily value percentages for added sugars on food labels was unnecessary and could potentially confuse consumers.
In essence, their talk of moderation is superficial, with no real commitment behind it. If challenged, they’ll claim to recommend only a tiny amount of candy daily, but they’re banking on consumers remaining unaware of—and ignoring—the two-Twizzler limit.
Find a Better Rule
The idea of 'Everything in moderation' is a flawed principle to follow. However, it serves as excellent inspiration for crafting rules that can benefit you in the long term.
It’s accurate that smaller portions of junk food are preferable to larger ones, and you don’t need to entirely eliminate a favorite indulgence. Therefore, decide—now, not when you’re at the sundae bar—which treats are worth enjoying and how much you can 'afford' without undermining your goals.
At Mytour, we offer plenty of guidance on this topic, as managing cravings for junk food is a common challenge. While this might not have been an issue for hunter-gatherers (though some consumed significant amounts of honey), we now live in a world where checkout aisles are filled with temptations designed to exploit our psychological vulnerabilities.
You can evaluate your treats based on their value, determining, for instance, whether that slice of cake is delicious enough to justify a slight setback in your weight loss journey. You can also become more aware of your cravings and establish triggers to steer yourself toward healthier options.
You can also abandon the moderation approach entirely and set strict boundaries on certain foods. Use this method carefully, as it isn’t effective for everyone or with every type of food, but sometimes having a clear 'no' can simplify decisions and bring mental clarity. Alternatively, you can temporarily avoid all foods during specific times of the day: this practice, known as intermittent fasting, can help control cravings.
The strategy you choose should align with your goals. If weight loss isn’t your focus—or if you’ve decided you simply don’t care about your diet (perhaps due to a stressful period in your life, where comfort foods are necessary to survive a challenging year), be truthful with yourself. Also, be honest with others: instead of brushing off dietary advice with 'Everything in moderation,' admit, 'That’s likely good advice, but I’m not going to follow it.'
Illustration by Tara Jacoby.
