[Cadaverous Pallor]

I see NA's point, however, there is grey area that can mess with the "switch" concept. Example - Either I'm biking to work or I'm not. I'm not, anymore. My reason is that it's too cold. Some people may say my switch is off, that it's an excuse, that I should be out there biking. To me, it's not even up for debate. I was out there for a bit when the weather turned and I was miserable. Should I be making myself miserable for long term gain? Yes, that's a valid argument. However, by my measure, it's too miserable for me to do, period.

Same goes for eating. How often is too often for moderation's sake? Am I still "eating right" if I eat small, nutritious portions for dinner, but have fast food for lunch everyday? What about if I have fast food every other day, or once a week? Yes, if I ate healthy at each and every meal there would be no question, but demanding that of any human being would make them, well, miserable. So we say "moderation", but there's no "switch" about it, no way you can say you're on the wagon or off the wagon. What if eating one "unhealthy" meal a week isn't enough for me? How miserable is too miserable?