In broad outline it is that with some nuances.
If we reason in terms of “balanced food bowl”, this must be constitutive of a “complete bowl” according to - for example - the proportions decreed by the WHO in IU (International Unit).
A balanced food bowl is only a view of the mind intended for dieticians to give them an abstract basis. To the notion of balanced food bowl, it is more rational to say food bowl varied with all the difficulties of defining the meaning of varied too, but more accessible to the Lambda consumer.
Even for meat, the quantity officially recommended, should not exceed once or twice a week (from memory), beyond that it is everyone who takes their responsibilities (as with tobacco and alcohol ...).
The disadvantage of this reasoning is that of advertising " a good day, three good morning the damage Who considers that the reasonable is a concept understandable by all whereas it is the opposite, each thinking that his reasonable, to him, is the good. For those who smoke 2 packs a day, 10 cigarettes will seem reasonable. While the reasonable is 0! But as you say, everyone takes responsibility (provided they are sufficiently informed, which is rare)
So it's good to remember a few points, even dangers of this thread at this stage:
I don't take them back, but you're right outside of it
- and finally the most subtle of all (and scientifically proven), to eat something "just because it is good for the health", it is sometimes to force oneself, precisely because it would be prejudged as "good". However, it has been proven that forcing yourself to eat something causes a defensive reaction which makes it indigestible (or something), and this by the secretion of "products" by the body, which can in extreme cases up to to cause the subject's death! There are other cases (not specific to the assimilation of food) such as certain "psychic stress" which can also cause the death of a subject by cardiac arrest, via the release / secretion of "product / s" analogues ( and spontaneously by the human body) it is a paradoxical state, of a subject who has not been listened to !!!
There it is more subtle too! Some people consume only certain foods and not others for lack of taste, but also more frequently by culture and habit. So it is not a question of gorging on "anti all you want" foods, but of gradually introducing one or more specific foods with the desired virtues (it is better than swallowing drugs, presumed to be good, for the same effect) since taste is formed and deformed.
From there, you have to watch out for any type of obligation, restriction or whatever, since it generates a disturbing type of “stress”. So, saying to myself I eat that because "it's good for health" is not enough! If it is so much the better, but never forget the concept of DESIRE / PLEASURE to eat, which are just as important as what we eat (since it makes us salivate rather in one way than another in depending on the food, the smell, its appearance, its taste, and that the pre-digestion begins in the mouth)!
Unfortunately, many people salivate for destructive and more serious products like sugar, alcohol, coffee, salt, spices or MacDo rather than cabbage, for example. But your reasoning remains true as long as the consumer is well informed, but what information? For my example (but I am not the only one in this case) before becoming VG, I consumed almost only pasta, potatoes, meat, rare fruits and I had to “force myself” to consume other plants. Once the transition period has passed, we realize not only that we can consume almost everything but, moreover, with pleasure; otherwise we are left with bad destructive habits for the most part.
Is it so hard to take a Siamese for an 'if mine'? 
Then (again the problem of words and their meaning), I do not use the term will which underlies a form of constraint, but of choice and a choice does the opposite, it is liberating.
)
)