nil

posted by John Lampard on Tuesday, 19 June, 2007 to the comment subset

I seem to hear a lot of talk about doing things in moderation. Eat in moderation. Drink in moderation. Sleep in moderation, even.

It’s only lately though I’ve started to give consideration to what degree you can be doing something for it to be considered moderation.

To me moderation is the opposite of excess.

Lets look at this way. Three or four beers is moderation. Ten or more is starting to get excessive. And while I may have nailed the example of excess, it seems my definition of moderation is slightly well, excessive.

An article in the local paper on an unrelated subject caught my eye last weekend, where according to Dr Parikh of Sydney, one standard drink per day is deemed to be drinking in moderation.

Alcohol in moderation of, say, one standard drink per day with two alcohol-free days per week has some health benefit. The trouble is to discipline yourself to the recommendation.

So should moderation be redefined to mean just barely doing something, or something close to nothing?

Tags: , , , ,
permalink | tweet this post | RSS feed | contact | disassociated.com

end post icon

  • Well, I think 3-4 could still be in moderation. Because if you’re supposed to drink one per day but you skip Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, that still leaves you with four to catch up on Thursday and have FOUR ***still*** in moderation, right?

    Jill at 12:03 am on Thursday, 21 June, 2007
  • Heh, yes that’s one way to look at it; combining the allocation! ;)

    That would almost allow a total of eight drinks a week to be consumed, while still doing so almost in moderation!!

    John at 3:22 pm on Thursday, 21 June, 2007