Originally Posted by seluratep

Youd be surprised about that first part, actually. I mean, I seriously doubt you could go to any diet site and find them saying "Yeah, man! Anorexia is the way to go! Woot!" but they might as well, with their suggestions. Ive been to many diet sites where they offer meals plans as low as 500 calories a day!! Anything under 800 calories is considered "starvation level" and anything under 1200 is considered unhealthy. Then there are those ridiculous grapefruit or cabbage diets, which offer no nutritional value.

Originally Posted by plum

I think the ketosis euphoria and the euphoria felt by the semi - fasting anorexic may be one and the same.

I also believe that anorexia and the disorders of insulin metabolism may well turn out in the end to be two sides of the same coin.

seluratep, I would like to recommend to you a book written in 1958 by a British Psychiatrist, Dr Richard Mackarness. Its called "Eat Fat and Grow Slim "
In fact most of this book is available on the internet, if you just do a search on Richard Mackarness or the book title !!!!

heres a little excerpt from the chapter entitled "Psychiatric aspects of Obesity and Food Addiction"...remember, this is from 1958....

"Follow up studies in anorexia nervosa are not numerous, but they show a high relapse rate, varying from 20 % to 65% three to ten years after the first admission. So the standard treatment as outlined briefly above, cannot be called good.
Are doctors looking at the illness from the wrong angle ? Should we not stop assuming that the patient's body and mind are wrong and ask whether the food they are being given is wrong for their real needs ? This could make anorexia nervosa a manifestation of of intolerance or hypersensitivity to too concentrated a diet of refined carbohydrate .... exactly the view I take of the causation of obesity "

Originally Posted by seluratep

But I am starting to see the flaws in the food pyramid; I dont know why I didnt see them before. They do not cater to a person's specific needs. What about vegetarians? I would always just replace their "meat" section with tofu and other high protein things. I suppose the same is true of carbs. You do get some carbs from fruit and veggies, so how could cutting out the processed bread and refined sugar be so bad?

Thank you again for your explanation. And I definitely do think it seems balanced. I'm not afraid to admit when I was wrong! My views have definitely changed some since Ive been here, and thats what I was hoping for.

Originally Posted by gotbeer

One hears this "multifactoral" theory (genetic, biological, social, pocket lint, sports, hot sauce, etc) a lot when dealing with puzzling disorders. While some find multifactoral theories useful, I do not - they raise red flags for me in that they signify a disturbing failure of deductive thought.

They actually show a great deal of reasoning and thought. Do you know how many studies had to be conducted and how many hours, months, years of research had to be done in order for even one scientific person to state their "multifactoral" theories with any bit of validity? These aren't random ideas thrown out sloppily by amateurs. THey are theories which are carefully constructed and amply supported by scientific evidence.

Consider stomach ulcers. For decades ulcers were considered a multifactoral disease: caused by a combination of genetics, physical stress, emotional stress, spicy food, and so on. Ulcer patients were treated with milk and advised to reduce stress. Neither did much good.

Stomach ulcers are not psychiatric disorders. The psychological mind involved in an eating disorder is far more complex than the bacteria and enzymes involved in the digestive system. They are two totally different facets of the body. Therefore it should follow that the development of a psychological disorder, such as anorexia, would be due to reasons more complex than that of an ulcer. It is logical that more factors would influence the psychiatric mind than would influence the digestive system simply by nature of the way the two systems work.


Consider obesity. One hears multifactoral models for obesity/overeating all the time - the same infuriating mixture of fatty diet, genetics, stress, etc. Stunningly, however, the simple steps of reducing the carbs and increasing the fat in one's diet are melting off pounds around the world, and reshaping the economics of food -

Just because Low Carbing has worked for some people who try it, it doesn't mean it works for everyone. Moreover, just because a person can lose weight low carbing, it doesn't mean they have won their battle with food. Until a person deals with the underlying issues surrounding food and why they became overweight in the first place, it is highly unlikely they will remain at a healthy weight/fitness level. If your theory about carbs is true, than every single person in the entire united states would be obese because they all live in a society that promotes high carb/sugary food, and more than likely, we've all consumed carbs at some point. This, however, is not the case. Only some people go overboard with the carbs and food consumption. The question is, why? Until people deal with the "why's", it is unlikely they will maintain whatever weight loss they may achieve.

Now, consider anorexia. Like stomach ulcers (historically) and obesity (partially still), anorexia is considered a multifactoral, food/eating-related disorder, with other nebulous, unproven factors involved.

As someone who has struggled with an eating disorder for almost 10 years, as well as someone who has researched the topic for almost as long, I can say that researchers have found ample evidence used to support various theories concerning why eating disorders develop. Studies have been conducted and research has been done to confirm certain factors influencing the development of eating disorders. I'm sure 10 years from now researchers will have learned even more reasons why such disorders persist in some individuals. But regardless, it is extremely narrow minded to think there is only one reason behind america's struggle with weight, and that that reason is as simple as the carbohydrate.

In my opinion, that is just meaningless crap - comforting crap to some, perhaps, but still crap to anyone honestly searching for solid answers.

Now, the sentiment behind this crap is not necessarily bad - I'm sure it is spread by good people who are just trying to ease the pain associated with those with an ED. The problem with spreading this crap is that it discourages people from thinking critically about concrete causes or treatments. In the end, this makes the multifactoral model the enemy of a cure to this or any other ailment.

Originally Posted by Smiley0202

Eating disorders are complex diseases and can not be compared to, or treated the same, as any other disorder, be it psychological or physical.