“Everything in moderation” is attractive advice, but also a trap. It amounts to saying we shouldn’t have too much of anything, which is true by definition: that’s why we call it “too much.” But the word “moderation” is vague, and its vagueness makes it a friendly, big-tent kind of concept: however much you eat, you can find a way of convincing yourself that you eat in moderation.
It’s not really a “rule,” it’s a platitude. Platitudes have been around since forever and they’ve promoted stupidity through the ages.
Moderation is fine as long as you quantify that moderation. If you’re using a food/calories/macro tracker like MyFitnessPal, then put everything you do in moderation in there as well so that you can see exactly how it’s going to have an impact on your goals. And again, it comes down to individual goals. You want that six pack, but still have 20%+ BF? You’re going to have to quantify moderation. Feel like what you’re doing is “good enough” and you aren’t obsessive about progress? Then keep doing your thing.
Years after Swedish distance runner Mikael Ekvall crapped his shorts in the midst of a half-marathon, his photo still shows up on Facebook. You might’ve seen it with a “fail” caption or a demotivational poster—played-out viral image formats that were de rigueur at the time—or in any number of “world’s most embarrassing photos” compilations. Clearly, people still haven’t gotten over Ekvall’s uncomfortable grimace and the liquified shit trickling down his legs.
Paula Radcliffe stopped on the course and dropped a deuce en route to winning the 2005 London marathon. She didn’t get it all over herself like this poor gentleman, but it did happen in view of the fans and on live TV. Greg LeMond had the same thing happen during a Tour de France stage in ’89. He won that stage. And the whole Tour.
To the uninitiated it may be gross, but to those in the know there is a quiet respect, an understanding, and the attitude about not quitting once is what defines winners.
…I decided to do a price comparison to discover the restaurant menu items that serve up the biggest cost difference from homemade versions. As a reference, I used the menus of my local, reasonably priced diners and mom-and-pop restaurants. If you eat out at more expensive restaurants, the price difference will be even more extreme. Here’s what I found.
While the article can be inspiring, it overlooks the reality of running a business. Without profit, there is no business – that’s a non-sustainable business model. A nonprofit classification doesn’t mean the business doesn’t make money – only that the surplus is used to achieve goals rather than distribute as profit or dividends. So while the ingredients may be cheap (and cheaper if able to buy in commercial bulk prices), there’s other overhead to contend with like payroll for employees (including health, dental, pension – more generic than food but you get the idea), rental/lease for location, permits, heat/elec/AC/water. These are the first things a food business needs to ballpark so they can cost their food. After that, you can look at what the market will bear. There’s good and bad to being the cost effective option in your market…
Another aspect is that cooking, like anything, takes time. There was a quote years back: “It’s free if your time is worth nothing”. Depending on skill level and aptitude, there are people who will rival professional staff. And some can’t right now, but could with time and practice.
Sometimes, we go out just for the experience. Whatever the culinary endeavour, I hope it’s enjoyable.