Message our coaching team

Unsure about coaching? We'll answer your questions, talk through what you're trying to achieve, how we're operating and let you know if we're a fit.

WhatsApp

0448 388 070

From Monday to Saturday, 8am-8pm (Australia/Perth Time)

Message us on WhatsApp
Learn Helpful Hints

Abstainer or moderator? Two ways to handle tempting foods

Some people do best cutting a tempting food out completely. Others do best keeping it in. Here's how to find the strategy that actually keeps you consistent.

Rhianna 2min read 11/06/2026

Most food advice assumes one rule fits everyone: “just have a little.” For some people, that works perfectly. For others, “a little” is the start of a lot. The difference usually comes down to which of two strategies fits you: abstaining or moderating. An abstainer does best cutting a trigger food out completely, because a clear boundary removes the decision altogether rather than testing willpower every time. A moderator does best keeping a small amount in, because restriction is often what drives overeating in the first place, and removing the food entirely can backfire, the same logic behind why flexible dieting tends to outlast a plan that bans entire food groups outright. Most people have just never been told both are legitimate, equally evidence-backed ways to handle the same problem, so they assume whichever one fails them is a willpower issue rather than a fit issue. The right one for you is whichever keeps you consistent without turning every meal into a negotiation.

What is an abstainer?

An abstainer finds it easier to leave something out completely than to have a small amount. Clear boundaries mean fewer decisions and less mental noise, if there’s no chocolate in the house, there’s nothing to negotiate with.

This works well for foods or habits that feel triggering: the ones where one bite tends to lead to the whole block.

For example: someone who finds it easier to keep chocolate out of the house than to ration one square a day.

What is a moderator?

A moderator does best with flexibility, a small amount, then move on. Allowing the food in reduces the feeling of restriction, which for many people is exactly what drives overeating in the first place.

Moderating tends to build sustainable habits over time, and works best when paired with self-awareness and a sense of control.

For example: someone who enjoys a few squares after dinner and doesn’t think about it again.

Abstainers aren’t too rigid, and moderators aren’t lacking discipline, they’re running two different strategies toward the same goal. Here’s how to tell which one suits your situation:

When each one tends to work best

Abstaining can help when:

  • the food or behaviour feels triggering
  • “a little” usually becomes a lot
  • you feel out of control around it
  • you can’t stop thinking about it while it’s in the house
  • you want structure and mental clarity

Moderating can help when:

  • you want flexibility
  • the food doesn’t feel triggering
  • you’re building balanced, sustainable habits
  • you want to improve your relationship with certain foods

Frequently Asked Questions

You're likely an abstainer if a food feels genuinely triggering, if a little tends to turn into a lot, or if you feel out of control once it's in the house. You're likely a moderator if that same food doesn't feel triggering and a small amount is enough to satisfy you without wanting more. Neither pattern is a character flaw, they're just different ways your brain responds to the same food. The fastest way to tell is to notice how you actually feel and behave the last few times that food was available, rather than how you think you should feel about it.

No, it's usually the opposite. Abstaining removes the decision entirely, so there's nothing left to negotiate with every time the food is around, which takes far less willpower than trying to have 'just a little' of something that tends to spiral. For someone whose trigger foods reliably escalate, a clear boundary is often the strategy that actually requires less daily effort and mental noise, not more.

Not for people it actually suits. Moderating works because restriction itself is often what drives overeating in the first place, so allowing a small amount in regularly can reduce the urge to binge on it later. It tends to work best when paired with self-awareness, a sense of control around the food, and no strong triggering response to having it available. If moderating consistently turns into overeating for you, that's a sign abstaining may fit you better for that particular food.

Yes, and that's the core idea behind this framework. One person might need to cut chocolate out completely to feel in control, while another enjoys a couple of squares after dinner without thinking about it again. Both are legitimate, evidence-backed approaches, there's no single correct way to handle a tempting food that applies to everyone. What matters is which strategy actually keeps you consistent, not which one sounds more disciplined.

No, most people end up using both, depending on the food and the season of life they're in. You might abstain from something like soft drink while moderating chocolate, or shift stricter while chasing a specific result and more flexible once you're maintaining it. The goal was never short-term perfection, it's finding whichever mix keeps you feeling in control and moving forward long term.

Written by

Rhianna

Co-founder and Head Coach, Elevate Fitness and Nutrition

Working in the health industry for six years. Exercise scientist and nationally recognised nutritionist in Australia.

Want a plan built around how you actually live?

Reading is a great start. A coach who builds the strategy around you is how it sticks. Get your body composition scoreboard, no payment, no obligation.