A popular phrase among some registered dietitians (RD) is “Anything is healthy in moderation.” Though other RD’s will roll their eyes at that idea and softly mutter under their breath “A small portion doesn’t mean it provides optimal nutrition”, Dr. VanDellen has some research to debunk the ‘moderation myth’. Dr. VanDellen is a researcher in the Psychology department at the University of Georgia and studies how people can be successful at self-regulation and self-control1. Self-regulation and self-control are words often tossed around in the context of obesity research and understanding how people’s interpretations of moderate amounts of food can help understand their behavior.
Dr. VanDellen explained that “moderation” can take on different meanings, depending on when you ask questions related to moderation.2 She went on to explain that the following two questions should have the same answer if a person is truly “eating in moderation”:
- “How many cookies should you eat?”
- “How many cookies would be considered ‘a moderate amount’?”
The results were conflicting; the answer to question (1) was “2” and the answer to question (2) was “3”. She went on to explain that, for her participants, “moderate consumption” was consistently reported as a greater amount than what they actually consumed, if they were prompted with the question after they ate the cookies. Additionally, if you asked them question (2) before they ate the cookies, the reported moderate” amount wasn’t as consistent across participants, but it was always more than what they ended up eating as the intervention time progressed.
The perceptions of moderation justified their actions—but their perceptions changed based on their scenario. Consistently with this, if more food was consumed during the study period, the more food subjects perceived they could eat it while still considering it “in moderation”. In a computer-simulated “Thanksgiving meal”, VanDellen compared participants who were told to either build their Thanksgiving plate as they would on the actual holiday, or to construct a plate “in moderation”. In the latter scenario, they put more food on their plates!
Her take home message? Moderation messages are not reducing the number of calories people are consuming!
These findings present an interesting new construct for healthcare practitioners, especially RDs, to consider. According to Dr. VanDellen’s research, participants consume more food when they are told to eat foods in moderation and the definition of moderation depends on when people are prompted with the question. From the evidence she presented, “moderation” is too abstract a concept to facilitate beneficial behavior change, especially if weight loss is the primary desirable outcome. A better option would be to teach people how to identify the amount of calories, fat and added sugars are found in specific foods, and providing them with the tools to assess how these foods can fit within their daily (or weekly) intakes.
- Michelle VanDellen. University of Georgia. Internet: http://psychology.uga.edu/directory/michelle-vandellen. Accessed 21 September 2015.
- Michelle VanDellen. Counterintuitive Finding in How Nutrition and Health Messages Affect Consumption. University of Georgia. Department of Foods and Nutrition Seminar Series. October 7, 2015.
This is very interesting research that addresses a cognitive aspect of healthy eating that I had not considered before. It makes sense that an individual’s perception of what can be eaten in “moderation” would change the amount of food they actually consume. I also think these perceptions would be influenced a considerable amount by what food is being discussed. If they had been asked how many grapes should you eat versus how many grapes would be considered a moderate amount, would their answers have differed as much depending on in which order the questions were asked? I definitely agree, however, that moderation is too abstract a term and can mean different amounts to different people, and thus is not an effective means of decreasing an individual’s intake. Concrete numbers and set amounts would be more useful towards creating a heathy and balanced plate, and would help to eliminate and reduce how much an individual’s perceptions played a role.
After reading this journal entry, I know see how flawed the “moderation works” philosophy is. It is very subjective depending on the person. I know there have been times when I am on a big healthy eating kick and and then a long or rough day happened, and I ate a bit more ice cream than I should have, and I remember thinking to myself, “this would be less than some people would eat so, it’s still in moderation for me”. If I would of known the extra calorie, sugar and fat amount, I may of watched how much I was eating in a serving. I also love the point that Caitlyn brought up in the comment about me. If the questions, “How many _____ should you eat?” and “How many _______ would be considered a moderate amount?” were replaced with a food other than a sweet, like fruits or even a little snack food like pretzels, how would the number changes? Would you still see a difference between the two questions or would they be more even?
I found the thanksgiving example to be extremely interesting. I feel like if I was told to make my thanksgiving plate with all the different foods that I wanted but in moderation, I may base that on what people’s plates around me looked like, and if was less than theirs than I would consider that moderation. But from this journal we see that that is not the case and that moderation is not based on anyone else, it should only be based on you and your dietary goals.
This post and the research behind it was extremely interesting. I think it does a great job of “debunking” the in moderation myth. I also think the article brings up a great point about how different foods can be and how their nutritional info can differ immensely. When you tell someone to eat “in moderation,” to me theoretically the “moderation number” wouldn’t change. For example, 6 carrots is very different than 6 doughnuts but in “moderation terms” many people would be thinking they are doing what they are supposed to. I think RD’s who use the “in moderation theory” need to provide a much better education when talking with patients to allow them to realize that yes although moderation is a large factor the types of food you are considering play an even larger rollin a healthy lifestyle.