40 replies to this topic

[ozmonster]

http://en.wikipedia....horexia_nervosa

"an eating disorder characterized by excessive focus on eating healthy foods. In rare cases, this focus may turn into a fixation so extreme that it can lead to severe malnutrition or even death."

"Bratman proposes an initial self-test composed of two direct questions: "Do you care more about the virtue of what you eat than the pleasure you receive from eating it?... Does your diet socially isolate you?""

I am of the opinion that the healthy CRON dieter will find it beneficial to temper his diet plan with the possibility of falling prey to this disorder.

>"Do you care more about the virtue of what you eat than the pleasure you receive from eating it?

My answer is a resounding YES!

>Does your diet socially isolate you?

Uh, YES! When you live in a society where eating to excess has become the norm and most social gatherings revolve around food, it is impossible to avoid this.

Not sure what to make of this.

So what do you guys think?

Edited by ozmonster, 22 May 2009 - 12:56 PM.

[Voyager]

"...define orthorexia nervosa as a "maniacal obsession for healthy foods" and propose several diagnostic criteria."

I think anytime someone has a maniacal obsession for anything it is not likely to be healthy. And yes, I have seen some really unhealthy behavior in some (think vegan) dieters.

I don't think I've seen maniacal obsession ON THIS FORUM that is not supported by the evidence!

[Matt]

Don't make nothing of it, ignore it. Eat healthy, avoid foods that will kill you, and don't be foolish, don't kill yourself in the process of trying to be healthy. People that go to these extremes usually lack some common sense, knowledge of nutrition, easily fooled into stupid beliefs, and follow some kind of dogma.

Does the way I eat make it difficult to eat with friends? Yes! But this is because I live in a town where practically everyone you know lives off junk food. Does that mean I should follow them to the grave earlier?

Edited by Matt, 22 May 2009 - 06:48 PM.

[imarobot]

http://en.wikipedia....horexia_nervosa

"an eating disorder characterized by excessive focus on eating healthy foods. In rare cases, this focus may turn into a fixation so extreme that it can lead to severe malnutrition or even death."

The "excessive focus on eating healthy foods" without the "fixation so extreme that it can lead to severe malnutrition" is a good thing. The "excessive focus on eating healthy foods" by itself will lead to more life rather than a quicker death.

Sounds like a poorly defined, or even misleading, disorder. Maybe it should have read: "an eating disorder characterized by excessive focus on eating healthy foods which turns into a fixation so extreme that it can lead to severe malnutrition or even death."

[BoBoGuy]

The below was posted on another fourm.

Orthorexia

A new type of eating disorder is emerging where people are becoming obsessed with eating to improve their health. According to the Swiss Food Association, this new wave of nutritional obsession, known as 'Orthorexia' or 'Orthorexia nervosa', from the Greek "orthos" meaning right and correct, and "orexis" meaning appetite, is reaching worrying proportions.

In a quest to cure themselves of a specific disorder, or simply just taking healthy eating to extremes, orthorexics develop their own increasingly specific food rules. Working out how to stick to their self-imposed dietary regimen takes up more and more of their time and they are compelled to plan meals several days ahead. They tend to take a 'survival kit' of their own food with them when they go out, as they cannot eat readily available foods for fear of fat, chemicals or whatever their particular phobia might be.

Sticking to their regimen takes strong willpower and they feel self-righteous and superior to people who do not have such self-control. "Someone whose days are filled with eating tofu and quinoa biscuits can feel as saintly as if they had devoted their whole life to helping the homeless" states Dr. Steve Bratman, the man who initially described orthorexia back in 1997.

By contrast, if the orthorexic breaks their health-food vows and succumbs to a craving for a 'prohibited' food, they feel guilty and defiled. This drives them to punish themselves with ever stricter dietary rules or abstinence. This behaviour is similar to those who suffer from anorexia or bulimia nervosa, except that anorexics and bulimics are concerned with the quantity of food consumed whereas orthorexics are concerned with the quality.

One dietary plan that may be a form of orthorexia is calorie restriction, an organized plan in which participants reduce their calories by 20 to 40%, but make sure they get all required nutrients. The plan rigidly enforces reducing calories and getting the necessary nutrients. Proponents of the plan have a powerful allegiance to it.

As with most aspects of diet, moderation is the key. Changes in food choices should be made gradually and in a way that fits in with a person's tastes and lifestyle. Eating more healthily should have a positive effect on health without reducing the enjoyment of life or affecting relationships with others.

[nowayout]

I would submit that a lot of us here suffer or have at some point suffered from this disorder, even if not to the point of obvious physical self-harm. Many of us obsess daily on these forums about scheduling of supplements, what foods can be combined, whether a banana will kill you with its carbs, whether your latest stack addition or subtraction will be the end of the world, all without almost any evidence that it will make a difference either way. By its very nature, these forums tend to attract somewhat hysterical hypochondriacs (and I am not necessarily excluding myself). Call it what you will but healthy it is not.

Edited by andre, 22 May 2009 - 07:42 PM.

[kismet]

I would submit that a lot of us here suffer or have at some point suffered from this disorder, even if not to the point of obvious physical self-harm. .... Call it what you will but healthy it is not.

You managed to contradict yourself pretty quickly, didn't you?

[nowayout]

I would submit that a lot of us here suffer or have at some point suffered from this disorder, even if not to the point of obvious physical self-harm. .... Call it what you will but healthy it is not.

You managed to contradict yourself pretty quickly, didn't you?

Not if you read the qualifier "obvious". But in any case the second reference was to mental health.

Edited by andre, 22 May 2009 - 08:01 PM.

[Matt]

I would submit that a lot of us here suffer or have at some point suffered from this disorder

You sure 'suffering' is the right word to use? I have a hard time believing that this is the word people would use to describe their own healthy eating / supp experience, on this forum.

I had a pizza with my friends at pizza hut last year, i'm okay?

One dietary plan that may be a form of orthorexia is calorie restriction, an organized plan in which participants reduce their calories by 20 to 40%, but make sure they get all required nutrients. The plan rigidly enforces reducing calories and getting the necessary nutrients.

But the simple fact is that this is a requirement. You have to make sure you get all the required nutrients. Anorexia does not extend lifespan!

Edited by Matt, 22 May 2009 - 08:07 PM.

[nowayout]

I would submit that a lot of us here suffer or have at some point suffered from this disorder

You sure 'suffering' is the right word to use?

Certainly not the right word for everyone. Some people find constructing their lives around a set of dietary obsessions very fulfilling. I guess it keeps the real monsters away. In fact, there are religions organized out of this practice.

By the way, I commend you for not eating junk food like your friends. That is not really what I was referring to.

[kismet]

Not if you read the qualifier "obvious". But in any case the second reference was to mental health.

Still, it sounded somewhat contradictory. I'm not sure I agree: the difference between disease/disorder and "health" is pretty fluent. If we can't define this "diease" (and if there's no censensus and I'm sure there is none) we should work on a more pragmatical definition (as the word "disease" is meaningless). Thus if it doesn't harm you (physically, psychologically), it's fine. Per definition, life extension should not harm you, so if it does you're doing it wrong and might have a problem...
I believe "hysterical hypochondriacs" and supplement fanatics are an entirely different problem...

[nowayout]

I'm not sure I agree: the difference between disease/disorder and "health" is pretty fluent. If we can't define this "diease" (and if there's no censensus and I'm sure there is none) we should work on a more pragmatical definition.

Well, maybe we could put together a questionnaire.

1) A dear friend bakes you a cake for your birthday. It does not fit your dietary requirements or caloric restrictions. Do you

a) refuse to have even the tiniest piece?
b) have only the tiniest piece and feel guilty with every bite?
c) have a piece and pretend to enjoy it for her sake?
d) have a piece and really enjoy it?

2) Aunt Ingrid brings her famous lasagna to a family gathering (or whatever else does not fit your restrictive dietary requirements).
Do you

a) Refuse to try it, knowing that it will make her unhappy.
b) Have a serving because you know it will make her happy - you can always compensate tomorrow.

3) Your supplements are running out and the new batch you ordered has not arrived yet. Are you

a) anxious about skipping some days?
b) not anxious?

4) Friends find it

a) N/A, you have driven away all your friends.
b) impossible to go out to a restaurant with you.
c) exasperating to go out to a restaurant with you.
d) difficult to go out to a restaurant with you.
e) easy to go out to a restaurant with you.

4) Friends find it

a) N/A, you have driven away all your friends.
b) impossible to cook for you.
c) exasperating to to cook for you.
d) difficult to to cook for you.
e) easy to to cook for you.

5) Friends open a great bottle of wine and everyone else enjoys it and comments on it. You

a) N/A, you have driven away all your friends.
b) comment that you believe it causes disease and premature aging.
c) refuse wine and just keep quiet.
d) enjoy some wine and participate in the discussion.

6) You like your yoghurt with your blueberries. You read that this combination may impede absorption of phytonutrients.

a) You immediately start separating your yoghurt and blueberry intakes.
b) You keep on as before but now every time you do this have this nagging feeling in the back of your mind.
c) You keep on as before and don't worry about it.

7) You hear that too much fructose may be bad for you. You like having a banana with your cereal, though.

a) You immediately eliminate bananas from your diet.
b) You only have half a banana now instead of a whole one, even though that leaves you somewhat dissatisfied.
c) You keep the banana but every time you have it this nagging feeling in your mind subtly reduces your enjoyment.
d) You keep the banana and enjoy it.

8) A beautiful girlfriend/handsome boyfriend invites you to eat cool whip (a processed fake whipped cream) off her/his body.

a) You refuse. You would never eat processed foods.
c) You oblige reluctantly.
c) You say to hell with it and enjoy every lick.

The answers are in order from bad (you have orthorexia) to good (no orthorexia). Any additional contributions welcome.

By the way, this is all tongue in cheek, in case someone didn't get it.

Edited by andre, 22 May 2009 - 10:49 PM.

[synaesthetic]

I get accused of being a hypochondriac because I am so sensitive to what I eat. I often get invited out to eat but decline because I am allergic to many things including wheat (which seems like its in EVERYTHING) and I feel weird when I eat stuff that isn't organic. I've had good results with sushi. Still I feel like most places probrably add MSG. Instead of the "Going out to dinner" I'm just going to have to start making healthy paleo organic meals for people.

I've thought about this situation before and the way I look at it is: You have to be hardcore about some things compared to other people if you expect to be happy, healthy, and in good shape when you hit 1,000 years old.

[ozmonster]

All thoughtful posts. As long as we are mindful the the "tightrope" we are walking, I think we can stay away from this disorder.

I think Matt has the right idea

Don't make nothing of it, ignore it. Eat healthy, avoid foods that will kill you, and don't be foolish, don't kill yourself in the process of trying to be healthy. People that go to these extremes usually lack some common sense, knowledge of nutrition, easily fooled into stupid beliefs, and follow some kind of dogma.

Does the way I eat make it difficult to eat with friends? Yes! But this is because I live in a town where practically everyone you know lives off junk food. Does that mean I should follow them to the grave earlier?

Andre: I would not do well on your test. some questions may be asking about the same tendency in different situations.

I have gotten to the point where I don't even sit to eat with anyone. I have a formula that I stick to and WHENEVER I stray, I get unbalanced mentally and physically for at least a day. So I stay regimented.

Last thanksgiving and christmas, didn't sit at the table. I don't eat turkey, ham or chicken, sausage, soup, salad, fruit salad with cream sauce, green beans with bacon, mashed potatoes, gravy, cake, pie, ice cream, etc. So instead of sitting and watching everyone shovel it in, I chill in the other room.

I think if you recognize the isolating tendency of our diet, then you can compensate by nurturing alternative social activities with friends and family that do not center around eating.

For example, when people ask me to lunch, I suggest coffee instead.

Edited by ozmonster, 23 May 2009 - 06:46 AM.

[BoBoGuy]

Do you wish that occasionally you could just eat, and not think about whether it's good for you? Has your diet made you socially isolated? Is it impossible to imagine going through a whole day without paying attention to your diet, and just living and loving? Does it sound beyond your ability to eat a meal prepared with love by your mother – one single meal – and not try to control what she serves you? Do you have trouble remembering that love, and joy, and play and creativity are more important than food? Have you gotten your weight so low that people think you may have anorexia?

If you recognize yourself in these questions, you might have orthorexia.

[Matt]

I think this thread is a big fuss over nothing. It isn't even an recognized as a disease/disorder. The criteria for trying to diagnose this is flawed and not solid enough, and we have a massive problem with obesity rather than people trying to be healthy. Obesity is the disorder worth talking about.

Do you wish that occasionally you could just eat, and not think about whether it's good for you?

But everything I eat I absolutely enjoy so much that the average person finds it somehow unbelievable, but I really love the food I eat, AND it happens to be healthy for me. I've tasted processed crap, biscuits, sweets and whatever else while eating healthy in the last 6 1/2 years and the majority of food is totally bland. People must have problem with their taste. Get off the sugar and salt and then you discover what food really tastes like.

Edited by Matt, 23 May 2009 - 06:24 PM.

[nowayout]

I have gotten to the point where I don't even sit to eat with anyone. I have a formula that I stick to and WHENEVER I stray, I get unbalanced mentally and physically for at least a day. So I stay regimented.

This does not sound healthy. Have you considered counseling?

[ozmonster]

I have gotten to the point where I don't even sit to eat with anyone. I have a formula that I stick to and WHENEVER I stray, I get unbalanced mentally and physically for at least a day. So I stay regimented.

This does not sound healthy. Have you considered counseling?

no.

[openeyes]

>"Do you care more about the virtue of what you eat than the pleasure you receive from eating it?

I select food that is good for me that I enjoy. There are too many enjoyable foods that are also healthy to be forcing anything down my throat, only to find out later on that maybe it wasn't even good for me.

>Does your diet socially isolate you?

No. Usually I just ask friends out for coffee or tea, but there are plenty of good local restaurants where I can have sushi, seafood with a salad, or simply select the vegetarian option (my girlfriend is vegetarian). There's also no reason I have to finish everything on my plate. I live in what's considered "America's foodiest small town", and I can enjoy much of that, in small doses. http://en.wikipedia....lina#Food_scene

I also have a friend that follows a much stricter diet, exclusively raw meat, raw dairy, and home made vegetable juice. Rather than be isolated as a result, he made a game of bringing his food with him and getting people to try it. He's about to move to Oregon to go to naturopathic school now.

[TheFountain]

Orthorexia is just another made up term for malnutrition. It is safe to say most who suffer from this are really suffering from malnutrition, to the point of starvation (and if you don't know when you are hungry you are a lost cause) which is NOT NOT NOT the result of 'an excessive preoccupation with healthy food'. For if you had this preoccupation and you applied it, you would NEVER suffer from starvation! There is no science behind this bogus 'disorder'.

It is hinged on 'omg do other people think I'm CRAAZYY for caring about my diet??? OMG I better accept that next crucial invitation to mcdonalds!!!! or else my social life is DOOOOOOMED TO FAILURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'

Typical american horse shit...

Edited by TheFountain, 16 June 2009 - 06:30 AM.

[ozmonster]

Orthorexia is just another made up term for malnutrition. It is safe to say most who suffer from this are really suffering from malnutrition, to the point of starvation (and if you don't know when you are hungry you are a lost cause) which is NOT NOT NOT the result of 'an excessive preoccupation with healthy food'. For if you had this preoccupation and you applied it, you would NEVER suffer from starvation!

This overstates things a bit. I wish I could live in your "black & white" world but I do not have that luxury. Those pesky things called reason and logic always stand in my way.

You are obviously not on CR with any substantial degree of discipline. Hunger is something you learn to control but it is always there. People who say they don't get hungry on a hardcore CR lifestyle are either dishonest with themselves OR their activity level is sedentary.

So I always have a level of hunger to varying degrees. In addition, I am eight pounds away from chronic ketosis. This means I have eight pounds of fat/water between my CR regime & the onset of starvation. I will lose 8 pounds in a two day fast ... easy.

I am not saying this is a real disorder but it gives us something to think about and perhaps can give us a better understanding of our tendencies. Outright dismissal is foolish.

Edited by ozmonster, 16 June 2009 - 02:38 PM.

[TheFountain]

Orthorexia is just another made up term for malnutrition. It is safe to say most who suffer from this are really suffering from malnutrition, to the point of starvation (and if you don't know when you are hungry you are a lost cause) which is NOT NOT NOT the result of 'an excessive preoccupation with healthy food'. For if you had this preoccupation and you applied it, you would NEVER suffer from starvation!

This overstates things a bit. I wish I could live in your "black & white" world but I do not have that luxury. Those pesky things called reason and logic always stand in my way.

You are obviously not on CR with any substantial degree of discipline. Hunger is something you learn to control but it is always there. People who say they don't get hungry on a hardcore CR lifestyle are either dishonest with themselves OR their activity level is sedentary.

So I always have a level of hunger to varying degrees. In addition, I am eight pounds away from chronic ketosis. This means I have eight pounds of fat/water between my CR regime & the onset of starvation. I will lose 8 pounds in a two day fast ... easy.

I am not saying this is a real disorder but it gives us something to think about and perhaps can give us a better understanding of our tendencies. Outright dismissal is foolish.

The only thing I am dismissing is the specious terminology that makes it sound like 'preoccupation with healthy food' has a damn thing to do with it. People definitely have a problem, but it is not a preoccupation with eating healthy and more a denial of proper nutrition to the point of deficit. Calorie restriction implies calorie deficit, not macronutrient deficit. The right ratio of the latter is what accounts for hunger or the lack thereof.

I just think getting people riled up with some new bogus terminology for what is essentially anorexia and making some fear eating healthily is just a pathetic approach to dealing with the real problem. Most americans can use a good healthy dose of preoccupation with healthy food. Unfortunately the big purple grimace still dominates the unconscious minds of millions.

If I want to take a colorful approach to lifestyle I will balance it in other ways. Example, take trips to south america or other exotic locations. It doesn't have to enter into my dietary regimen. The food I eat is quite enjoyable and once one is weened off of processed garbage, actually tastes much better than that stuff. Another thing doctor orthorex failed to take into account with his 'theory'. And that is all it is, a loose theory with very little solid ground to lay on. Anyone can transpose words and meanings and come up with a supposed new disorder that is really just an old one dressed in a new, misleading suit.

All this theory does is convince people that a preoccupation with eating healthy is the culprit behind it when truly an apparently unconscious, unrealized state of denial that one is starving oneself is the real cause. It is scapegoating starvation over to healthy eating, which is a terrible thing to do.

Doing things this way is a disservice to humanity.

Edited by TheFountain, 17 June 2009 - 01:08 AM.

[ozmonster]

The only thing I am dismissing is the specious terminology that makes it sound like 'preoccupation with healthy food' has a damn thing to do with it. People definitely have a problem, but it is not a preoccupation with eating healthy and more a denial of proper nutrition to the point of deficit. Calorie restriction implies calorie deficit, not macronutrient deficit. The right ratio of the latter is what accounts for hunger or the lack thereof.

A lot of words there but no substance. The right ratio of macronutrient distribution is important and is related to and can effect hunger HOWEVER it IS NOT "what accounts for hunger or the lack thereof." There are many variables to hunger and I am not nearly as comfortable as you about entering into foolish consistency for the purpose of inflating my perception of intelligence.

I just think getting people riled up with some new bogus terminology for what is essentially anorexia and making some fear eating healthily is just a pathetic approach to dealing with the real problem. Most americans can use a good healthy dose of preoccupation with healthy food. Unfortunately the big purple grimace still dominates the unconscious minds of millions.

No one is riled up but you. I am not "most americans" and I think we can agree that the real CR'ers do not fall into this category. There is no need to preach this watered down wannabe activism here. I hope we all have enough sophistication to pull ourselves out of that McCycle.

If I want to take a colorful approach to lifestyle I will balance it in other ways. Example, take trips to south america or other exotic locations. It doesn't have to enter into my dietary regimen.

That is great. Many don't have the luxuries you do. Completely OFF TOPIC other than to toot your own horn. Might be beneficial to try putting some of your overflowing wealth into advancing your mind as opposed to your hedonististic tendencies.

The food I eat is quite enjoyable and once one is weened off of processed garbage, actually tastes much better than that stuff.

I agree.

Another thing doctor orthorex failed to take into account with his 'theory'. And that is all it is, a loose theory with very little solid ground to lay on. Anyone can transpose words and meanings and come up with a supposed new disorder that is really just an old one dressed in a new, misleading suit.

You have lost the plot. Don't get caught up in whether or not this is a valid disorder. Who fucking cares? Just be minful of the tendecy if your fat percentage is below 5%. Just out of curiosity, Fountain, what is you fat percentage?

All this theory does is convince people that a preoccupation with eating healthy is the culprit behind it when truly an apparently unconscious, unrealized state of denial that one is starving oneself is the real cause. It is scapegoating starvation over to healthy eating, which is a terrible thing to do.

Doing things this way is a disservice to humanity.

This only will happen to the ignorant or intellectually careless. Any thinking person can make distinctions and avoid drawing such weak inferences. Give it a try, yo.

And the biggest disservice to humanity is ignorance that feigns knowledge AND THEN DEMONSTRATES CONFIDENCE about this position of ignorance through loud and vociferous declarations. Sort it out.

Edited by ozmonster, 17 June 2009 - 01:11 PM.

[TheFountain]

The only thing I am dismissing is the specious terminology that makes it sound like 'preoccupation with healthy food' has a damn thing to do with it. People definitely have a problem, but it is not a preoccupation with eating healthy and more a denial of proper nutrition to the point of deficit. Calorie restriction implies calorie deficit, not macronutrient deficit. The right ratio of the latter is what accounts for hunger or the lack thereof.

A lot of words there but no substance. The right ratio of macronutrient distribution is important and is related to and can effect hunger HOWEVER it IS NOT "what accounts for hunger or the lack thereof." There are many variables to hunger and I am not nearly as comfortable as you about entering into foolish consistency for the purpose of inflating my perception of intelligence.

I just think getting people riled up with some new bogus terminology for what is essentially anorexia and making some fear eating healthily is just a pathetic approach to dealing with the real problem. Most americans can use a good healthy dose of preoccupation with healthy food. Unfortunately the big purple grimace still dominates the unconscious minds of millions.

No one is riled up but you. I am not "most americans" and I think we can agree that the real CR'ers do not fall into this category. There is no need to preach this watered down wannabe activism here. I hope we all have enough sophistication to pull ourselves out of that McCycle.

If I want to take a colorful approach to lifestyle I will balance it in other ways. Example, take trips to south america or other exotic locations. It doesn't have to enter into my dietary regimen.

That is great. Many don't have the luxuries you do. Completely OFF TOPIC other than to toot your own horn. Might be beneficial to try putting some of your overflowing wealth into advancing your mind as opposed to your hedonististic tendencies.

The food I eat is quite enjoyable and once one is weened off of processed garbage, actually tastes much better than that stuff.

I agree.

Another thing doctor orthorex failed to take into account with his 'theory'. And that is all it is, a loose theory with very little solid ground to lay on. Anyone can transpose words and meanings and come up with a supposed new disorder that is really just an old one dressed in a new, misleading suit.

You have lost the plot. Don't get caught up in whether or not this is a valid disorder. Who fucking cares? Just be minful of the tendecy if your fat percentage is below 5%. Just out of curiosity, Fountain, what is you fat percentage?

All this theory does is convince people that a preoccupation with eating healthy is the culprit behind it when truly an apparently unconscious, unrealized state of denial that one is starving oneself is the real cause. It is scapegoating starvation over to healthy eating, which is a terrible thing to do.

Doing things this way is a disservice to humanity.

This only will happen to the ignorant or intellectually careless. Any thinking person can make distinctions and avoid drawing such weak inferences. Give it a try, yo.

And the biggest disservice to humanity is ignorance that feigns knowledge AND THEN DEMONSTRATES CONFIDENCE about this position of ignorance through loud and vociferous declarations. Sort it out.

Well I will put it to you this way, anyone who falls for the notion that 'preoccupation with eating healthy food' is the causation behind starvation and eating disorders is a easily susceptible, easily influenced jarhead who is not worth spending the time discussing the REAL cause with (I.E old fashioned anorexia!).

Oh and one more thing. If you can't socialize with people because you don't have the same diet they do then you have a much bigger problem than an 'excessive preoccupation with eating healthy'. You should thus see a good Jungian psychotherapist and have it sorted out (this obviously means a lot of people should start looking for jungian therapists in their area, because a lot of people have this problem. That is, a lot of people are weak minded idiots who will adopt another persons diet just to fit in).

Now then, can we agree to disagree and move on to more pertinent things than this bullshit disorder that some doctor is making a lot of money on? Gracias.

Oh and my body fat percentage is currently at 9%

Edited by TheFountain, 17 June 2009 - 03:46 PM.

[Matt]

You shouldn't have to change your diet to fit in, or even occasionally feel the need to eat something bad because somehow it will change something. While on CR i've ate some cake, I've at some easter eggs or other little treats (not whole meals) and there is no negative feelings or anything involved. It's just eat, and move on! It's not hard, and one thing I really dislike in the world of diets is the word 'cheating'. Its the wrong attitude to have imo. It's already associating some sort of guilt or something. Bad.

The people with the real eating disorders are the 50% or so adults and children that are overweight or obese and seriously risking their lives. Some even showing early stages of CVD in their 20's, and earlier! Sometimes it can isolate you a bit if you don't drink alcohol at all, because everything revolves around drinking alcohol when going out, it seemsl. And the fact that most places have music so loud to make you deaf. Do I have a disorder? I am extremely sensitive to any second hand smoke, it happens when you live really clean life, and before the smoking ban I couldn't go to places where there was smoke. Now with food, I think that you should maybe just surround yourself with people that do look after themselves, are into more interesting things and do want to live a long healthy life.

People always ask me all the time "what if you outlive all your friends and family". As in, do they really expect me to start eating McFat meals so that I can die right on time with the rest of them?

Most people from what I understand that are put under the catagory 'orthorexia' really have Anorexia, and even some of them themselves say that they struggled with it before, there was a program on it a while back.

For me I couldn't care what catagory anyone put me under, as long as its not Dead

Edited by Matt, 17 June 2009 - 07:05 PM.

[ozmonster]

Now then, can we agree to disagree and move on.

Great suggestion. I think we can as long as I can get confirmation that you were not making an inference that I was either an "easily influenced jarhead" or a "weak-minded idiot". Otherwise, I may have a bit of a response.

Edited by ozmonster, 17 June 2009 - 04:20 PM.

[TheFountain]

Now then, can we agree to disagree and move on.

Great suggestion. I think we can as long as I can get confirmation that you were not making an inference that I was either an "easily influenced jarhead" or a "weak-minded idiot". Otherwise, I may have a bit of a response.

I think your previous post was somewhat ad hominem, making approximations as per my education or knowledge of certain phenomenon. See, although both our posts were angry the major difference between them was my anger was directed at an impersonal catalystic force, I.E this made up disorder, yours was aimed at me for pointing out that, in my observation, it is complete bullshit. My last response was simply pointing out the fact that there are a lot of easily susceptible people in america.

And when the macro-evidence suggests, as matt pointed out, that obesity is much more of an issue in the western world, I think people can get frightened when someone starts telling them that their attempts to eat healthy will result in starvation and possibly even death. I would even describe the latter as a complete fabricated manipulation if other correlative variables were present. Lastly, there is no doubt that people have eating disorders, including anorexia, but to redress it as a misnomer kind of makes truly ignorant people afraid of even trying. And in america you can guarantee that many people will translate it as 'if I stop eating mcdonalds and start eating a raw food diet, I will die!'.

[ozmonster]

Now then, can we agree to disagree and move on.

Great suggestion. I think we can as long as I can get confirmation that you were not making an inference that I was either an "easily influenced jarhead" or a "weak-minded idiot". Otherwise, I may have a bit of a response.

I guess not.

I think your previous post was somewhat ad hominem, making approximations as per my education or knowledge of certain phenomenon.

Thank you for illustrating the limits of your intellect by your inability to draw obvious distinctions.

"easily influenced jarhead" or a "weak-minded idiot" are nothing but ad hominem.

What I have done for you is to attack your argument first and then logically attack your inability to engage in critical thinking coupled with your irresponsible willingness to make loud and vociferous declarations from a place of ignorance. NOT ad hominem.

<a name="description">

And when the macro-evidence suggests, as matt pointed out, that obesity is much more of an issue in the western world, I think people can get frightened when someone starts telling them that their attempts to eat healthy will result in starvation and possibly even death. I would even describe the latter as a complete fabricated manipulation if other correlative variables were present. Lastly, there is no doubt that people have eating disorders, including anorexia, but to redress it as a misnomer kind of makes truly ignorant people afraid of even trying. And in america you can guarantee that many people will translate it as 'if I stop eating mcdonalds and start eating a raw food diet, I will die!'.

Now I am going to go ad hominem. You are a dickhead. Take a look at the fucking heading at the top of the page. It says Calorie Restriction. Your foolish fucking preaching about obesity should be aimed at someone who is LESS SOPHISTICATED than you. At 9% body fat (and btw pics or its a lie), you are chubby. hopefully you are transiitiioning down. if not, don't act like you know about CR because you don't.

As I said in my second post, Matt had the right idea when he said, "don't make nothing of it."

<a href="http://" target="_blank"></a>

Edited by ozmonster, 17 June 2009 - 06:41 PM.

[TheFountain]

Now then, can we agree to disagree and move on.

Great suggestion. I think we can as long as I can get confirmation that you were not making an inference that I was either an "easily influenced jarhead" or a "weak-minded idiot". Otherwise, I may have a bit of a response.

I guess not.

I think your previous post was somewhat ad hominem, making approximations as per my education or knowledge of certain phenomenon.

Thank you for illustrating the limits of your intellect by your inability to draw obvious distinctions.

"easily influenced jarhead" or a "weak-minded idiot" are nothing but ad hominem.

What I have done for you is to attack your argument first and then logically attack your inability to engage in critical thinking coupled with your irresponsible willingness to make loud and vociferous declarations from a place of ignorance. NOT ad hominem.

<a name="description">

And when the macro-evidence suggests, as matt pointed out, that obesity is much more of an issue in the western world, I think people can get frightened when someone starts telling them that their attempts to eat healthy will result in starvation and possibly even death. I would even describe the latter as a complete fabricated manipulation if other correlative variables were present. Lastly, there is no doubt that people have eating disorders, including anorexia, but to redress it as a misnomer kind of makes truly ignorant people afraid of even trying. And in america you can guarantee that many people will translate it as 'if I stop eating mcdonalds and start eating a raw food diet, I will die!'.

Now I am going to go ad hominem. You are a dickhead. Take a look at the fucking heading at the top of the page. It says Calorie Restriction. Your foolish fucking preaching about obesity should be aimed at someone who is LESS SOPHISTICATED than you. At 9% body fat (and btw pics or its a lie), you are chubby. hopefully you are transiitiioning down. if not, don't act like you know about CR because you don't.

As I said in my second post, Matt had the right idea when he said, "don't make nothing of it."

<a href="http://" target="_blank"></a>

I don't mind being a dickhead when the person I am talking to is an arrogant mother fucker.

You became ad hominem first by making approximations of my intelligence just because I said something you didn't want to read, that is, I said Orthorexia Nervosa is bullshit! I simply returned the favor to show you how it felt.

I am hardly chubby, anything below 10% body fat reveals abdominal muscles. I suggest you look at pics of people with 9% body fat right before you shut up and move on with your life.

Continue being an easily influenced bafoon all you want to. I will no longer feed your insecurities. But I do suggest you see a therapist as it is apparent you have some sort of inferiority complex which seems to negate the possibility of two things co-existing simultaneously in your head. I.E my opinion and yours.

Go karate chop your insecurities away now I won't be replying to anymore ad hominem bullshit.

[seekonk]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it does not seem to be the intent of the definition of O.N. to have much to do with starvation or calorie restricted diets (although that can happen, according to the definition, in rare cases). It has more to do with obsessive-compulsive behavior related to what is perceived to be healthy food and an unreasonable or disproportionate fear of transgressing dietary restrictions.

In other words, most of the people who would fit the proposed diagnostic criteria would be well fed normal weight individuals with balanced nutrition. Many of them would probably even be overweight.

On the other hand, it is perfectly possible to have a perfectly healthy diet and even to be on CR without fitting the proposed diagnostic criteria for O.N.

Just thought I'd point this out, since someone here seems to have missed the point.

Edited by seekonk, 17 June 2009 - 08:11 PM.