Hello, I'm Monica Reinagle, and you're listening to the nutrition divas quick and dirty tips for eating well and feeling fabulous.

And today's show is the second in a two-part series on moderation. Is it really just a slippery

slope to excess? And now on with today's show, which is based on an online discussion that was kicked off by my episode a few weeks ago on fried fish and whether the nutritional benefits of the fish outweigh the deficits of fried foods. Short answer, they really don't, but the

occasional fish fry isn't going to kill you. So last week I shared some of my own thoughts,

as well as a number of comments from nutrition diva fans on the value of

allowing for a certain amount of dietary indiscretion. The general consensus was that

striving for dietary perfection is not only unnecessary but perhaps even counterproductive.

For most of us an approach that allows for the occasional indulgence is more sustainable

and sanity preserving than a zero tolerance policy.

This week, however, I want to explore the other side of the coin.

Frankly, I was a little surprised that more of you didn't question the merits of moderation.

After all, how reliable is our concept of what's moderate?

And could it just be a slippery slope?

Where exactly is the line between moderate and excessive?

As social animals were so influenced by what others around us are doing.

I know I'm much more likely to order dessert if someone else at the table

orders it. Or if you spend time with people who routinely have three or four

drinks over the course of the evening this pattern might seem quite moderate and

harmless. It's not. You might want to check my show on

how much alcohol is healthy. We're also notoriously unreliable when it comes to estimating

our consumption patterns, especially when we over-consume something.

People who drink to excess, for example, typically underestimate just how much they consume.

...