That woman was me, that was my highest weight in my late teens. Believe me, I was not ignorant of my body (in fact, I was rather upset about it). But I was a total ignoramus about my food, ate lots of carbs and little fat and blimped out anyway. Repeated this a few times over the next 2 decades. This was not an eating disorder, there was (and is) nothing emotional about it, I just didn't want to be fat and didn't know what to do about it. Now I know that I just can't eat carbs like that!

IMHO, you are completely underestimating the impact that insulin resistance can have on one's metabolism. It not only made me fat but screwed up my hormones and gave me severe depression (which has magically vanished, btw).

I'm not presuming to tell anyone how much time is appropriate, just posing a question to ponder... there's researching and there's obsessing. Only you know what's crossing the line for YOU.





I wasn't referring to obvious sources of these things, rather referring to a number of posts from people wailing and gnashing teeth because some fast food restaurant is trying to sabotage them by injecting a basting solution in the chicken...adding an entire GRAM of carbs or so...



Then i guess my post doesn't apply to you there either. I'm happy you're eating so purely.

For me, the advantage of low carbing is not the 300 extra calories a day that one can theoretically consume if one is in ketosis. I suspect that I am seldom, if ever, in ketosis because I think I usually eat somewhere between 40 and 50 net carbs each day, although I don't count carbs or measure my food so I am not sure. I never did Induction, so I probably wasn't even in ketosis at the beginning. My understanding is that if I'm not in ketosis, I don't get any particular calorie advantage from low carbing. I've also never used the pee sticks -- whatever they are called -- so I don't know for sure whether or not I am in ketosis, I'm just guessing that I am not most of the time. I've had two physicals with the doctor since I started low carbing and when the doctor tested my urine he did not find ketones.

For me, the advantage of low carbing is that it keeps my blood sugar stable so that I don't get hungry for at least four to six hours after a good meal. Because I am insulin resistant, when I ate a lowfat, high carb diet, I was always hungry and I never had the "willpower" to fight that hunger for more than a few days at a time. Because I have been hungry less frequently since I started low carbing, I eat less, and hence I have lost weight. I haven't lost as fast as a lot of people -- and I am sure I could have lost faster if I counted every carb I ate and stayed near induction levels -- but I have lost and I continue to slowly lose and one of these days I will get down to a normal weight for me.

I refuse to count carbs or measure my food because I know I couldn't sustain that for the rest of my life (or, for that matter, for the rest of the month). Instead, I try to eat healthy whole foods that are relatively low in carbs and low on the glycemic index -- meat, chicken, fish, eggs, lots of salads, lots of low carb veggies, a little fruit, some nuts, cheese, cottage cheese, olive oil, etc. -- and I try to listen to my body and eat when I am hungry and stop eating when I am full.

And no, I was never ignorant about my weight -- how could I have been at over 350 pounds? What I was ignorant about was low carbing and my own insulin resistance. Once I figured that out, the weight started taking care of itself. Before that, no matter how many times I tried to diet and control my weight, I could not sustain the effort.

This is very much the way I am doing it and very much my attitude. I do think low carbing helps with the will power but I don't think it replaces the will power. I know I ate for emotional reasons. I was not comfortable thin. To be real frank, I was going to college when my weight troubles began and the sedentary grind of college increased my weight. But I could have exercised more and I could have planned my meals better.

Here is what I think contributed most to my weight gain: I was considered a talented poet and my males college professors considered me well. Too well. Proving sexual harrassment is hard and only would have damaged my college career. I felt quite frightened about my future. I did not want to sleep my way to a A or a scholarship. I wanted to earn them. Gaining weight was a blessing. No man wants a fat poet. Horny profs only get romantic about wraith-like poets.

In another thread young women who have lost weight are talking about feeling a bit threatened by the attention they now get from men. Well the threat is real. I could also direct you to any number of sites equating eating disorders both of anorexia, bulimia, and overeating with the incidence of sexual abuse in young women's lives.

If we don't deal with the role that sexuality, media images, sexism, and abuse play in our weight issues and our self-concept, we will find that no matter how much weight we lose or how healthy our eating, these problems will still remain.

Don't get me wrong. I am not blaming those men. They did not stuff food in my mouth and some of them were rather attractive (mostly married) men. But how I dealt with food and my own threatened sense of sexuality had more to do with my weight than all the Snack Well cookies I consumed.

No I don't think I am. I completely believe I was insulin resistent and to some extent still am insulin resistent. But before I was insulin resistent, I had an eating disorder.

I never adored baked potatoes. I almost never ate chips. But I consumed huge quantities of nuts and sweets. But before there was Atkins, everyone knew that this was not an optimal way to eat. Don't tell me there was some smoke screen that made us all think that Twinkies were good for us. I will never believe anyone was ever that brainwashed.

Before there was Atkins, but also before there was the low fat movement, there was Adele Davis. There were nutritionists that recommended limiting bread and increasing protein. Don't tell me that anyone that ever had three pieces of bread with butter had no clue what they were doing.

Before there was Atkins, there was moderation. Sure its easier to control consumption on Atkins or any of a number of sensible low carb plans. But we all still made choices before there was Atkins.

But perhaps I am older than you. I have seen eating plans come and go. Nothing substitutes for responsibility. That's the do it yourself part.

I'm just not convinced that most women who are trying to lose weight have an eating disorder. I mean, a man can go on a weight loss plan and no one wonders if he has issues. Why can't it be that simple for (most) women?

Wyv

Of course men can have eating disorders and often for some of the same reasons women do. In fact, I remember reading a couple of years ago about young men becoming anorexic because of the pressure to be thin. Look how many rock stars are skin and bones. Perhaps the emphasis on being visually attractive is not as compelling for men as it is for women, but it still exists for men. There is is also pressure in athletics. One sport it exists in is wrestling. Wrestling is for men what ballet is for women.

I don't think anyone is saying it is bad to lose weight if you need to. It is the approach to food that goes beyond the rational into the obsessive that can present problems. Whether it is overeating or undereating.

I'm a teenage male, and I have struggled with anorexia, to the point of being hospitalized for not eating. I personally know many men who have had or do have eating disorders. In recent years the pressure for men to be ultra thin is nearly as bad as for women, as it is no longer in vogue for men to be bulky and muscular.

I was truly brainwashed by the lowfat nutritional advice to the point where I never even thought to explore other diets. I remember one summer when I worked outdoors, was very physical, ate moderate-cal / low fat and gained a bunch of weight. I was completely baffled! It really happens.

I think this ED business makes me feel a bit defensive because I (and many other women) have had too many experiences with doctors saying things are just all in our heads and dismissing us. Fatigue, PMS, weight gain for some. I got tired of hearing about how women are just such emotional little critters that they can't tell the difference between love and a twinkie. I feel my problems were mostly physical and I refuse to accept the ED label. Yes, I agree with personal responsibility - the day I finally learned about the carb-connection was the day my life changed 2 years ago.

Carrottop, I'm not accusing you or anyone else here of being condescending like that, but I just think your definition of ED isn't as inclusive as you are implying. And as someone pointed out earlier, it is nearly impossible to diagnose most people or infer their life history or relationship with food from a few posts on a message board.

Hmm. Well it would be interesting to know you age. If I recall the height of the low fat craze was about 1996.



I definitely wish I had learned about low carbing earlier. I think it might have made a difference. And no I am not saying everything is all in our heads. I do know about doctors and the power they have to disempower you. I was diagnosed with major depression and prescribed Paxil. I never had a suicidal thought until I took that drug. Now there is all this publicity about young people who take Paxil having suicidal ideation. Why do they think the brain chemistry of teenagers is so different from adults?

I do recognize the physical component of weight can have. Antidepressant SSRIs typically result in a 20 pound weight gain. I offered by suggestions for a definition of ED to bring some clarity to this discussion and I absolutely accept your refusal of what you see as a "label." But I have an idea. Why don't some of the people who are so certain they do not have ED offer a definition. Let's hear what it is you are rejecting.

Because, you see, I believe we can only empower ourselves if we understand ourselves. We can only empower and support each other if we understand one another.



Well I am not a doctor or a nutritionist. I was offering a definition and not a diagnosis. I offered the definition because it is impossible for a discussion to develop a rational direction without a clear definition of terms. If weight does not help to define ED, then what in your opinion does?

Since you were asking people's ages, I will be 47 years old next week. Through-out my young adulthood, my weight stayed around 180 or 185 -- somewhat overweight for a person who is 5'9", but nowhere near obese and not unreasonable for someone who was very athletic and had a lot of muscles. I started gaining weight in 1985 when I was pregnant with my first child. Looking back, I think I probably developed insulin resistance during that pregnancy. I continued to steadily gain weight for approximately 15 years after that until I read an article about low carbing in the New York Times and changed the way I ate.

In the 1980s and 1990s, I certainly knew that three pieces of bread with butter were bad, but thought that was because of the butter, not the bread. Everyone told us that it was the fat that was bad for us and we should consume more carbohydrates. Have you looked at the Weight Watchers plans from that time period? I went on Weight Watchers a couple of times and if I remember correctly, I could consume five or six pieces of bread a day as long as I kept my fats down to a total of one tablespoon. Have you looked at the food pyramid and the number of servings of carbohydrates it encourages? We were told to focus on the fats in our diet, not the carbohydrates, and those of us who were concerned about our health and our weight did that.

I don't know how old you are, but it is simply untrue that in the 1980s and 1990s it was common knowledge that we needed to eat more protein. Accepted wisdom at that time was the Americans got way more protein than they needed and we didn't need to think about it at all. Adele Davis was considered to be outside the fringes of accepted medical knowledge. I was very aware of nutrition and I read a lot, but I did not read Adele Davis, nor did anyone else I know. I still have never read Adele Davis. Is there some reason I should? Dr. Atkins started advocating a higher protein and fat diet in 1972, but he was also considered crazy and I never read him either. I consulted with many doctors about my weight gain, starting in 1986 when my first child was born and continuing until 2002 when I discovered low carbing. None of them suggested adding protein or cutting carbs and none suggested I read Adele Davis or Dr. Atkins. They all suggested cutting fat and calories and increasing exercise. I was already exercising as much as I could fit into my schedule with two small children and a full-time job, and cuting fat and calories just left me so ravenous that eventually I would break down and binge, sending me down the road to developing an eating disorder I didn't have in the first place and probably ultimately leading to even more weight gain.

Can't an "eating disorder" be a physical syndrome, or do all of you agree it's an emotional problem???

If asthma causes you to be short of breath, anxious, pale and hypoxic, is it somehow more "valid" a problem than if an acute anxiety attack causes the same symptoms?

Sorry, but IMO, a metabolic disease like insulin resistance that causes intense cravings for food, since your body is giving itself wacky "I'm hungry" signals, IS an "Eating Disorder" just as if it were emotionally based. Is it just the stigma of having "mental problems" that is causing people to so strongly object to the term?

I guess then a definition of ED that we all agree on shold be proposed?

http://www.mckinley.uiuc.edu/health...r/und-ed-d.html

According to this site, there is also such a thing as an eating disturbance which "... is similar to an eating disorder, but is less severe and does not meet the specific clinical definition for an eating disorder. " While most places I looked at consider, anorexia, bullimia and binge eating as the three major disorders.

Perhaps what we are talking about is an eating disturbance, not disorder?

Accroding to The University of Chicago Dept of Physchiatry, ED's can, in part, be cause by biological/genetic factors. I don't know if that includes insulin resistence-but I would call that a physiological issue not an ED.

Okay, I understand that part. What I'm trying to understand is why people would balk at the "label" of ED, where saying "I have insulin resistance" bears no such stigma to them. Is it because of our conditioning as a society that it's somehow horrible to have any emotional/mental problems?

If it's just a matter of politcal correctness or not wanting to have someone slap an arbitrary label on you, I can understand, I guess....