Orthorexia
Replies
-
kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Do you think the likes of clean eating regimes and mfp can lead to an excessive preoccupation with avoiding foods perceived to be unhealthy, and/or an obsession with logging every calorie?
I have only recently come across the term 'orthorexia' and wonder what leads this fixation.
According to Steven Bratman, who is the one who "discovered" the orthorexia: The basic “clean eating” diet, which focuses on organic whole foods, free of preservatives, antibiotics and GMOs, barely qualifies as a restrictive theory of healthy eating and only occasionally leads to orthorexia. More risk accrues as increasingly practices related to the history of clean eating theories are added, such as detoxes, juice fasts and other “cleanses.”
In general:
Adopting a theory of healthy eating is NOT orthorexia
http://www.orthorexia.com/healthy-eating-vs-orthorexia/
The cleaning eating ideas he listed might not seem very restrictive, but they have the issue of being not grounded in reality, which I would say is just as big an issue. Anorexia has the diganostic restriction that it only applies to people underweight (eating too few calories while overweight is just unspecified eating disorder), in part because the anorexic holds delusional beliefs.
Focusing on nutrition is not delusional...
Focusing on nutrition and "clean eating" are not at all the same thing.
Often the essence of "clean eating" is that there are foods that are pure and foods that are impure and which will make you sick or fat even in small amounts, that they are disgusting and make those who eat them disgusting.
To add on to this, we're not talking about focusing on nutrition and choosing to bring a bowl of fruit to a Super Bowl party. We're talking about obsessing over the perceived nutritional value of the foods that may or may not be at said party and becoming paralyzed with fear over their uncleanness, resulting in shunning the social activity.
When "clean eating" begins to become the focus so much that you stop engaging in normal, social behaviors, it is time to step away and/or get some help.
Which is seldom the case, as stated above and on the link:
The basic “clean eating” diet, which focuses on organic whole foods, free of preservatives, antibiotics and GMOs, barely qualifies as a restrictive theory of healthy eating and only occasionally leads to orthorexia.
Yes, I agree that "clean eating" usually does not become orthorexia. (I agree with snikkins that the essence is severe anxiety connected with normal life events that involve food.) My point was that it also isn't simply focusing on nutrition (which many or most of us dirty eaters also do). It does seem to me that there's a subset on MFP who are attracted to various ways of eating (including but not limited to clean eating) because of a view that those ways of eating make super low calories "healthy," which is a somewhat different issue, but also suggestive of a messed up relationship to food.
But a tendency toward a messed up relationship toward food is probably not at all uncommon on MFP. I recognize such tendencies in myself, which is why I think I try to fight against ideas (like bad and good foods, like the association between eating habits and "being bad") that I see that encourage the things that have messed me up or messed up people I know.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Do you think the likes of clean eating regimes and mfp can lead to an excessive preoccupation with avoiding foods perceived to be unhealthy, and/or an obsession with logging every calorie?
I have only recently come across the term 'orthorexia' and wonder what leads this fixation.
According to Steven Bratman, who is the one who "discovered" the orthorexia: The basic “clean eating” diet, which focuses on organic whole foods, free of preservatives, antibiotics and GMOs, barely qualifies as a restrictive theory of healthy eating and only occasionally leads to orthorexia. More risk accrues as increasingly practices related to the history of clean eating theories are added, such as detoxes, juice fasts and other “cleanses.”
In general:
Adopting a theory of healthy eating is NOT orthorexia
http://www.orthorexia.com/healthy-eating-vs-orthorexia/
The cleaning eating ideas he listed might not seem very restrictive, but they have the issue of being not grounded in reality, which I would say is just as big an issue. Anorexia has the diganostic restriction that it only applies to people underweight (eating too few calories while overweight is just unspecified eating disorder), in part because the anorexic holds delusional beliefs.
Focusing on nutrition is not delusional...
Focusing on nutrition and "clean eating" are not at all the same thing.
Often the essence of "clean eating" is that there are foods that are pure and foods that are impure and which will make you sick or fat even in small amounts, that they are disgusting and make those who eat them disgusting.
Ya? Not for me. I'm with the "discoverer" of orthorexia:
"...If you prefer to eat mostly organic, preservative- chemical- and antiobiotic-free foods (as I do!) and think that many overly processed foods are not foods at all (as I do!) it still doesn’t mean you have to follow those principles 100% of the time."
Eh. I think it's dumb to say Lean Cuisine isn't food, but I also eat mostly farm-sourced whole foods and simply don't find most of the super processed foods that people are usually talking about tasty. That doesn't make me a "clean eater." Similarly, to restate my point, caring about nutrition is not what "clean eating" is.
I think if you feel compelled to refer to yourself as a "clean eater" or your food (or some subset of your food) as "clean" there is something else going on. Not claiming that something else is orthorexia, though--instead, as I stated above or, often, a desire to claim superiority or put down others (or else why refer to foods as "clean" and "unclean" when there's nothing "unclean" about some packaged smoked salmon or even a turkey sandwich purchased from a local lunch place or whatever). This is, I think, why people who claim to "eat clean" are often so anxious to assert (falsely, of course) that those who do not eat Twinkies or donuts 24/7. Because how special would they be if they just ate basically like the rest of us.0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »I prefer to call it food fetishism. People falsely attribute magical qualities to food based on arbitrary standards to avoid the actual important things.
Most people who fetishize food are overweight. There are some who aren't, but for a lot of people, it's to avoid doing the things that actually work. They pretend their huge plat of food is okay because it's organic. Or there's no gluten. Or whatever.
Others are hypochondriacs who project weird powers onto what they eat as well as onto everything around them.
Still others are just completely neurotic about everything, with extreme obsessive mentalities. They won't give their kids plastic toys or sugar for the same reasons other people wash their hands eight times and flip light switches. Both come up with reasons. They're both CRAZY.
I remember one poor family we invited to our kid's birthday party who weren't allowed to have pizza, cake, or soft drinks. Not even for a day. It doesn't just make me sad to see that--it makes me ANGRY. No, your kids shouldn't be eating that every day. But there's no reason to shun it. NONE. And making your kids neurotic, too, is just a really crummy thing to do.
Cleanse, toxic, artificial, processed, organic, chemical, preservative, dye--when referring to the NUTRITIONAL content of anything, those words are 100% meaningless.
I'm amazed how many people are cheering this train of thought on...
It was 6 paragraphs of pure judgmental opinion...
Yes, people should exercise moderation in every aspect of life, but holy cow that's some high horse there. Calling people crazy for having opinions or beliefs that differ to yours is a bit much, don't you think?
Btw... The word "toxic" is actually kinda important when it comes to nutrition, in my opinion anyway
perhaps you got it a little mixed up with "toxin" whilst you were all caught up in your anger. 0 -
MonsoonStorm wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »I prefer to call it food fetishism. People falsely attribute magical qualities to food based on arbitrary standards to avoid the actual important things.
Most people who fetishize food are overweight. There are some who aren't, but for a lot of people, it's to avoid doing the things that actually work. They pretend their huge plat of food is okay because it's organic. Or there's no gluten. Or whatever.
Others are hypochondriacs who project weird powers onto what they eat as well as onto everything around them.
Still others are just completely neurotic about everything, with extreme obsessive mentalities. They won't give their kids plastic toys or sugar for the same reasons other people wash their hands eight times and flip light switches. Both come up with reasons. They're both CRAZY.
I remember one poor family we invited to our kid's birthday party who weren't allowed to have pizza, cake, or soft drinks. Not even for a day. It doesn't just make me sad to see that--it makes me ANGRY. No, your kids shouldn't be eating that every day. But there's no reason to shun it. NONE. And making your kids neurotic, too, is just a really crummy thing to do.
Cleanse, toxic, artificial, processed, organic, chemical, preservative, dye--when referring to the NUTRITIONAL content of anything, those words are 100% meaningless.
I'm amazed how many people are cheering this train of thought on...
It was 6 paragraphs of pure judgmental opinion...
Yes, people should exercise moderation in every aspect of life, but holy cow that's some high horse there. Calling people crazy for having opinions or beliefs that differ to yours is a bit much, don't you think?
Btw... The word "toxic" is actually kinda important when it comes to nutrition, in my opinion anyway perhaps you got it a little mixed up with "toxin" whilst you were all caught up in your anger.
Wait, what? You're defending "food fetishism"?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Do you think the likes of clean eating regimes and mfp can lead to an excessive preoccupation with avoiding foods perceived to be unhealthy, and/or an obsession with logging every calorie?
I have only recently come across the term 'orthorexia' and wonder what leads this fixation.
According to Steven Bratman, who is the one who "discovered" the orthorexia: The basic “clean eating” diet, which focuses on organic whole foods, free of preservatives, antibiotics and GMOs, barely qualifies as a restrictive theory of healthy eating and only occasionally leads to orthorexia. More risk accrues as increasingly practices related to the history of clean eating theories are added, such as detoxes, juice fasts and other “cleanses.”
In general:
Adopting a theory of healthy eating is NOT orthorexia
http://www.orthorexia.com/healthy-eating-vs-orthorexia/
The cleaning eating ideas he listed might not seem very restrictive, but they have the issue of being not grounded in reality, which I would say is just as big an issue. Anorexia has the diganostic restriction that it only applies to people underweight (eating too few calories while overweight is just unspecified eating disorder), in part because the anorexic holds delusional beliefs.
Focusing on nutrition is not delusional...
Focusing on nutrition and "clean eating" are not at all the same thing.
Often the essence of "clean eating" is that there are foods that are pure and foods that are impure and which will make you sick or fat even in small amounts, that they are disgusting and make those who eat them disgusting.
Ya? Not for me. I'm with the "discoverer" of orthorexia:
"...If you prefer to eat mostly organic, preservative- chemical- and antiobiotic-free foods (as I do!) and think that many overly processed foods are not foods at all (as I do!) it still doesn’t mean you have to follow those principles 100% of the time."
Eh. I think it's dumb to say Lean Cuisine isn't food, but I also eat mostly farm-sourced whole foods and simply don't find most of the super processed foods that people are usually talking about tasty. That doesn't make me a "clean eater." Similarly, to restate my point, caring about nutrition is not what "clean eating" is.
I think if you feel compelled to refer to yourself as a "clean eater" or your food (or some subset of your food) as "clean" there is something else going on. Not claiming that something else is orthorexia, though--instead, as I stated above or, often, a desire to claim superiority or put down others (or else why refer to foods as "clean" and "unclean" when there's nothing "unclean" about some packaged smoked salmon or even a turkey sandwich purchased from a local lunch place or whatever). This is, I think, why people who claim to "eat clean" are often so anxious to assert (falsely, of course) that those who do not eat Twinkies or donuts 24/7. Because how special would they be if they just ate basically like the rest of us.
Since I tend to avoid black and white statements like "I am a clean eater," I assume you are using "you" in the general sense. I will talk about things like "cleaning up my diet" and "strive to be a humane-itarian" and the preferences expressed above.
I would prefer to only eat meat that was humanely raised, and that's what I buy at supermarkets, but unfortunately this is not widely available when eating out in my area, but that doesn't cause me to refuse to eat out. I just make the choice I am most comfortable with. I don't proselytize or judge my dining companion's menu selections.
0 -
If you want an example of eating (reasonably) healthy without being "clean", take a look at my food diary. It's open.
I'm eating BOOOOOORING right now because it's easy to measure and the kids are out of town. In a couple of weeks, I'll get off my rear and actually enter some recipes into the sucker and it won't be all chicken breast and broccoli. LOL.
But I eat PROCESSED CHOCOLATE, margarine, and more. I don't track sodium. Let me tell you, though, that I dump a ton of salt on everything and don't record it--there is absolutely no point in a woman with below normal to normal BP to restrict sodium. NONE. (I also don't bother to record herbs on the chicken because it's like 1 TSP for 3 lbs, which starts getting silly.)
I also drink most Diet Coke. It's only downside it that the caffeine can demineralize my bones. You'll see an uptick in calcium as soon as I lose most of this weight (in a few months) to counteract that--right now I don't have the calories.
I realize that I can lose weight on KitKats. But I'd be REALLY, REALLY hungry on 1200 cals of KitKats. So I'm mostly eating for bulk and satiation right now.
I also only eat things I like. Broccoli is pretty much my favorite veg. I don't eat apples because I don't like them.
Not one thing I buy is organic because there is zero nutritional difference. Not one thing is specially non-GMO.0 -
There's nothing wrong with Lean Cuisine except that I have to eat 2 to make a meal. 0
-
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »I prefer to call it food fetishism. People falsely attribute magical qualities to food based on arbitrary standards to avoid the actual important things.
Most people who fetishize food are overweight. There are some who aren't, but for a lot of people, it's to avoid doing the things that actually work. They pretend their huge plat of food is okay because it's organic. Or there's no gluten. Or whatever.
Others are hypochondriacs who project weird powers onto what they eat as well as onto everything around them.
Still others are just completely neurotic about everything, with extreme obsessive mentalities. They won't give their kids plastic toys or sugar for the same reasons other people wash their hands eight times and flip light switches. Both come up with reasons. They're both CRAZY.
I remember one poor family we invited to our kid's birthday party who weren't allowed to have pizza, cake, or soft drinks. Not even for a day. It doesn't just make me sad to see that--it makes me ANGRY. No, your kids shouldn't be eating that every day. But there's no reason to shun it. NONE. And making your kids neurotic, too, is just a really crummy thing to do.
Cleanse, toxic, artificial, processed, organic, chemical, preservative, dye--when referring to the NUTRITIONAL content of anything, those words are 100% meaningless.
Yeah. I absolutely agree with that. Poor kids. It's so unfair to them. I can imagine how they felt. Why their parents don't understand that nothing bad would happen because of a slice of pizza.
0 -
MonsoonStorm wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »I prefer to call it food fetishism. People falsely attribute magical qualities to food based on arbitrary standards to avoid the actual important things.
Most people who fetishize food are overweight. There are some who aren't, but for a lot of people, it's to avoid doing the things that actually work. They pretend their huge plat of food is okay because it's organic. Or there's no gluten. Or whatever.
Others are hypochondriacs who project weird powers onto what they eat as well as onto everything around them.
Still others are just completely neurotic about everything, with extreme obsessive mentalities. They won't give their kids plastic toys or sugar for the same reasons other people wash their hands eight times and flip light switches. Both come up with reasons. They're both CRAZY.
I remember one poor family we invited to our kid's birthday party who weren't allowed to have pizza, cake, or soft drinks. Not even for a day. It doesn't just make me sad to see that--it makes me ANGRY. No, your kids shouldn't be eating that every day. But there's no reason to shun it. NONE. And making your kids neurotic, too, is just a really crummy thing to do.
Cleanse, toxic, artificial, processed, organic, chemical, preservative, dye--when referring to the NUTRITIONAL content of anything, those words are 100% meaningless.
I'm amazed how many people are cheering this train of thought on...
It was 6 paragraphs of pure judgmental opinion...
Yes, people should exercise moderation in every aspect of life, but holy cow that's some high horse there. Calling people crazy for having opinions or beliefs that differ to yours is a bit much, don't you think?
Btw... The word "toxic" is actually kinda important when it comes to nutrition, in my opinion anyway perhaps you got it a little mixed up with "toxin" whilst you were all caught up in your anger.
Wait, what? You're defending "food fetishism"?
Nope, I am simply saying that that was a whole post full of nothing but judgementalism and borderline anger.
Labelling people as "CRAZY" with caps because they have OCD, The kids thing... you have no idea WHY the parents are doing that, I've had two children in my class in the past with strict diets. One had retinal cancer and her mum was desperately trying to do anything to save her little girl's sight - she wants her to "eat clean" in the hope it will happen, that's her prerogative... the other kid was from a Mormon family. Their dietary limitations were due to religious reasons. Are they "CRAZY" too? That's excluding the kids with various allergies/issues.
To say that there is no reason to shun something is incredibly presumptuous.
Stop shoving everything into black and white. It's not.
(by the way, my kids never had various plastic toys... know why? I lived in China at the time and it's pretty well known that cheap chinese rubbish is full of all sorts of nastiness. Does that make me CRAZY too?)
0 -
I don't buy into the stigma of the word "crazy". Meh, I've been crazy myself, and don't worry about admitting it.0
-
I don't buy into the stigma of the word "crazy". Meh, I've been crazy myself, and don't worry about admitting it.
It's not particularly about the word crazy, it was the tone of the post, and subsequently the amount of people who agreed with it.
Made me a little sad.
But hey ho, whatever.0 -
Um, actually I do know why. The mother was neurotic and believed that all "processed" food, sugar, GMO, and non-organic foods were poison.
She was neurotic. Medically neurotic. And her neuroses led to her husband divorcing her--and I can't blame him one bit. I couldn't stand to be around her because she'd corner me and try to talk about all her difficulties avoiding gluten or how deadly conventional beef is or whatever new fetishistic thing she read was a TOXIN.
Apparently, she wasn't bothered by her own home being filthy. I guess those were all "good bacteria." It wasn't "I'm messy" kind of house. It was "I haven't vacuumed the house in well over a year or had anyone else do it" kind of house. It was a "dishes from a month ago are stacked up to the lower cabinets" kind of house. You sat on the edge of the chair because the upholstery was that dirty.
Now why the HUSBAND didn't do anything about the filth.... I don't understand that, either.0 -
The provenance of food is indeed tied in with nutrition and concern about it isn't delusional:
Modern intensive agricultural methods have stripped increasing amounts of nutrients from the soil in which the food we eat grows. Sadly, each successive generation of fast-growing, pest-resistant carrot is truly less good for you than the one before.
A landmark study on the topic by Donald Davis and his team of researchers from the University of Texas (UT) at Austin’s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry was published in December 2004 in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition. They studied U.S. Department of Agriculture nutritional data from both 1950 and 1999 for 43 different vegetables and fruits, finding “reliable declines” in the amount of protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin (vitamin B2) and vitamin C over the past half century. Davis and his colleagues chalk up this declining nutritional content to the preponderance of agricultural practices designed to improve traits (size, growth rate, pest resistance) other than nutrition.
“Efforts to breed new varieties of crops that provide greater yield, pest resistance and climate adaptability have allowed crops to grow bigger and more rapidly,” reported Davis, “but their ability to manufacture or uptake nutrients has not kept pace with their rapid growth.” There have likely been declines in other nutrients, too, he said, such as magnesium, zinc and vitamins B-6 and E, but they were not studied in 1950 and more research is needed to find out how much less we are getting of these key vitamins and minerals.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/0 -
@tomatoey a more recent review of studies has shown there is no significant nutritional difference between organically and conventionally grown fruit and vegetables.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/organic-food-no-more-nutritious-than-conventionally-grown-food-2012090552640 -
OrthoMonsoonStorm wrote: »MonsoonStorm wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »I prefer to call it food fetishism. People falsely attribute magical qualities to food based on arbitrary standards to avoid the actual important things.
Most people who fetishize food are overweight. There are some who aren't, but for a lot of people, it's to avoid doing the things that actually work. They pretend their huge plat of food is okay because it's organic. Or there's no gluten. Or whatever.
Others are hypochondriacs who project weird powers onto what they eat as well as onto everything around them.
Still others are just completely neurotic about everything, with extreme obsessive mentalities. They won't give their kids plastic toys or sugar for the same reasons other people wash their hands eight times and flip light switches. Both come up with reasons. They're both CRAZY.
I remember one poor family we invited to our kid's birthday party who weren't allowed to have pizza, cake, or soft drinks. Not even for a day. It doesn't just make me sad to see that--it makes me ANGRY. No, your kids shouldn't be eating that every day. But there's no reason to shun it. NONE. And making your kids neurotic, too, is just a really crummy thing to do.
Cleanse, toxic, artificial, processed, organic, chemical, preservative, dye--when referring to the NUTRITIONAL content of anything, those words are 100% meaningless.
I'm amazed how many people are cheering this train of thought on...
It was 6 paragraphs of pure judgmental opinion...
Yes, people should exercise moderation in every aspect of life, but holy cow that's some high horse there. Calling people crazy for having opinions or beliefs that differ to yours is a bit much, don't you think?
Btw... The word "toxic" is actually kinda important when it comes to nutrition, in my opinion anyway perhaps you got it a little mixed up with "toxin" whilst you were all caught up in your anger.
Wait, what? You're defending "food fetishism"?
Nope, I am simply saying that that was a whole post full of nothing but judgementalism and borderline anger.
Labelling people as "CRAZY" with caps because they have OCD, The kids thing... you have no idea WHY the parents are doing that, I've had two children in my class in the past with strict diets. One had retinal cancer and her mum was desperately trying to do anything to save her little girl's sight - she wants her to "eat clean" in the hope it will happen, that's her prerogative... the other kid was from a Mormon family. Their dietary limitations were due to religious reasons. Are they "CRAZY" too? That's excluding the kids with various allergies/issues.
To say that there is no reason to shun something is incredibly presumptuous.
Stop shoving everything into black and white. It's not.
(by the way, my kids never had various plastic toys... know why? I lived in China at the time and it's pretty well known that cheap chinese rubbish is full of all sorts of nastiness. Does that make me CRAZY too?)
I agree with you.
I'm quoting this from Wikipedia. Not taking guff for it either, it's as reliable as a lot of more respected sources:
It is important to differentiate between healthy individuals who choose specific diets for any number of reasons, and those who exhibit obsessive compulsive behavior that leads to an unhealthy condition or lifestyle. What tips the balance from being committed to healthy eating and having orthorexia is the extreme limitation and obsession in food selection. Orthorexics find themselves being unable to take part in everyday activities. They isolate themselves and often become intolerant of other people's views about food and health.[21]
0 -
@tomatoey a more recent review of studies has shown there is no significant nutritional difference between organically and conventionally grown fruit and vegetables.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/organic-food-no-more-nutritious-than-conventionally-grown-food-201209055264
Ah, well, good to know. They mention differences in phosphorus; do you happen to know if they looked at other trace minerals?0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Um, actually I do know why. The mother was neurotic and believed that all "processed" food, sugar, GMO, and non-organic foods were poison.
She was neurotic. Medically neurotic. And her neuroses led to her husband divorcing her--and I can't blame him one bit. I couldn't stand to be around her because she'd corner me and try to talk about all her difficulties avoiding gluten or how deadly conventional beef is or whatever new fetishistic thing she read was a TOXIN.
Apparently, she wasn't bothered by her own home being filthy. I guess those were all "good bacteria." It wasn't "I'm messy" kind of house. It was "I haven't vacuumed the house in well over a year or had anyone else do it" kind of house. It was a "dishes from a month ago are stacked up to the lower cabinets" kind of house. You sat on the edge of the chair because the upholstery was that dirty.
Now why the HUSBAND didn't do anything about the filth.... I don't understand that, either.
Yikes. I wouldn't even know where to start cleaning in a mess like that. It might be easier to strike a match.0 -
@tomatoey a more recent review of studies has shown there is no significant nutritional difference between organically and conventionally grown fruit and vegetables.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/organic-food-no-more-nutritious-than-conventionally-grown-food-201209055264
Ah, well, good to know. They mention differences in phosphorus; do you happen to know if they looked at other trace minerals?
Cheers. The abstract doesn't say. But here's the link if you want to buy the paper:
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=13556850 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Um, actually I do know why. The mother was neurotic and believed that all "processed" food, sugar, GMO, and non-organic foods were poison.
She was neurotic. Medically neurotic. And her neuroses led to her husband divorcing her--and I can't blame him one bit. I couldn't stand to be around her because she'd corner me and try to talk about all her difficulties avoiding gluten or how deadly conventional beef is or whatever new fetishistic thing she read was a TOXIN.
Apparently, she wasn't bothered by her own home being filthy. I guess those were all "good bacteria." It wasn't "I'm messy" kind of house. It was "I haven't vacuumed the house in well over a year or had anyone else do it" kind of house. It was a "dishes from a month ago are stacked up to the lower cabinets" kind of house. You sat on the edge of the chair because the upholstery was that dirty.
Now why the HUSBAND didn't do anything about the filth.... I don't understand that, either.
And this is relevant how?
You obviously hate this woman, we get it. She has issues which you don't know about nor understand. It's not your place to judge.
But this one example really shouldn't be a reason to paint anyone with even remotely similar beliefs with the same brush.
I know a fat person who is very lazy. Does that mean all fat people are lazy, or all lazy people are fat?
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Since I tend to avoid black and white statements like "I am a clean eater," I assume you are using "you" in the general sense.
Yes, I am. It only applies to you if you feel compelled to identify as a "clean eater" or call other people's food "not real" or "unclean."I will talk about things like "cleaning up my diet" and "strive to be a humane-itarian" and the preferences expressed above.
Not my choice of language (I'm not really into "itarian" stuff when it comes to eating--I have ideas that I try to put in practice, not always successfully, but I generally don't see the point of labels). However, none of this would strike me negatively if someone else said it.I would prefer to only eat meat that was humanely raised, and that's what I buy at supermarkets, but unfortunately this is not widely available when eating out in my area, but that doesn't cause me to refuse to eat out. I just make the choice I am most comfortable with. I don't proselytize or judge my dining companion's menu selections.
Pretty much like me (except I try to avoid buying meat, eggs, and milk at supermarkets since I'm skeptical even of WF's system, although I do buy meat and fish there sometimes). I don't judge others who choose other ways to source meat, though--and I understand you also do not--IMO, this is something worth it to me and so something I'm willing to spend money on, and I'm lucky enough to have that as an option). So again, not what I think we are talking about (and also--unrelated to the orthorexia topic, but responsive to tomatoey's "nothing wrong with caring about nutrition" point, also not necessary for those who care about nutrition (although I do see the value for other reasons) or what "clean eating" is).0 -
MonsoonStorm wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Um, actually I do know why. The mother was neurotic and believed that all "processed" food, sugar, GMO, and non-organic foods were poison.
She was neurotic. Medically neurotic. And her neuroses led to her husband divorcing her--and I can't blame him one bit. I couldn't stand to be around her because she'd corner me and try to talk about all her difficulties avoiding gluten or how deadly conventional beef is or whatever new fetishistic thing she read was a TOXIN.
Apparently, she wasn't bothered by her own home being filthy. I guess those were all "good bacteria." It wasn't "I'm messy" kind of house. It was "I haven't vacuumed the house in well over a year or had anyone else do it" kind of house. It was a "dishes from a month ago are stacked up to the lower cabinets" kind of house. You sat on the edge of the chair because the upholstery was that dirty.
Now why the HUSBAND didn't do anything about the filth.... I don't understand that, either.
And this is relevant how?
You obviously hate this woman, we get it. She has issues which you don't know about nor understand. It's not your place to judge.
But this one example really shouldn't be a reason to paint anyone with even remotely similar beliefs with the same brush.
I know a fat person who is very lazy. Does that mean all fat people are lazy, or all lazy people are fat?
Touché! Correlation does not imply causation.
0 -
MonsoonStorm wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »I prefer to call it food fetishism. People falsely attribute magical qualities to food based on arbitrary standards to avoid the actual important things.
Most people who fetishize food are overweight. There are some who aren't, but for a lot of people, it's to avoid doing the things that actually work. They pretend their huge plat of food is okay because it's organic. Or there's no gluten. Or whatever.
Others are hypochondriacs who project weird powers onto what they eat as well as onto everything around them.
Still others are just completely neurotic about everything, with extreme obsessive mentalities. They won't give their kids plastic toys or sugar for the same reasons other people wash their hands eight times and flip light switches. Both come up with reasons. They're both CRAZY.
I remember one poor family we invited to our kid's birthday party who weren't allowed to have pizza, cake, or soft drinks. Not even for a day. It doesn't just make me sad to see that--it makes me ANGRY. No, your kids shouldn't be eating that every day. But there's no reason to shun it. NONE. And making your kids neurotic, too, is just a really crummy thing to do.
Cleanse, toxic, artificial, processed, organic, chemical, preservative, dye--when referring to the NUTRITIONAL content of anything, those words are 100% meaningless.
I'm amazed how many people are cheering this train of thought on...
It was 6 paragraphs of pure judgmental opinion...
Yes, people should exercise moderation in every aspect of life, but holy cow that's some high horse there. Calling people crazy for having opinions or beliefs that differ to yours is a bit much, don't you think?
Btw... The word "toxic" is actually kinda important when it comes to nutrition, in my opinion anyway perhaps you got it a little mixed up with "toxin" whilst you were all caught up in your anger.
Yes, it is opinion, but she also gave some examples where she thought food and behavior was taken to the extreme in respect to people she knows. By the way, crazy means going down the same street doing the same things and expecting different results. The behavior she described is indeed crazy behavior.
0 -
@tomatoey a more recent review of studies has shown there is no significant nutritional difference between organically and conventionally grown fruit and vegetables.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/organic-food-no-more-nutritious-than-conventionally-grown-food-201209055264
It's not nutritional differences that drive me to buy organic and grow my own food, but pesticide.
EWG's 2015 Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce
Nearly two-thirds of the 3,015 produce samples tested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2013 contained pesticide residues
...Pesticides persisted on fruits and vegetables tested by USDA, even when they were washed and, in some cases, peeled.
USDA EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce recognizes that many people who want reduce their exposure to pesticides in produce cannot find or afford an all-organic diet. It helps them seek out conventionally grown fruits and vegetables that tend to test low for pesticide residues. When they want foods whose conventional versions test high for pesticides, they can make an effort to locate organic versions.
Highlights of Dirty Dozen™ 2015
EWG singles out produce with the highest pesticide loads for its Dirty Dozen™ list. This year, it is comprised of apples, peaches, nectarines, strawberries, grapes, celery, spinach, sweet bell peppers, cucumbers, cherry tomatoes, imported snap peas and potatoes.
Each of these foods tested positive a number of different pesticide residues and showed higher concentrations of pesticides than other produce items.
Key findings:- 99 percent of apple samples, 98 percent of peaches, and 97 percent of nectarines tested positive for at least one pesticide residue.
- The average potato had more pesticides by weight than any other produce. [see next post for more]
- A single grape sample and a sweet bell pepper sample contained 15 pesticides.
- Single samples of cherry tomatoes, nectarines, peaches, imported snap peas and strawberries showed 13 different pesticides apiece.
The Clean Fifteen™
EWG's Clean Fifteen™ list of produce least likely to hold pesticide residues consists of avocados, sweet corn, pineapples, cabbage, frozen sweet peas, onions, asparagus, mangoes, papayas, kiwis, eggplant, grapefruit, cantaloupe, cauliflower and sweet potatoes. Relatively few pesticides were detected on these foods, and tests found low total concentrations of pesticides on them.
Key findings:- Avocados were the cleanest: only 1 percent of avocado samples showed any detectable pesticides.
- Some 89 percent of pineapples, 82 percent of kiwi, 80 percent of papayas, 88 percent of mango and 61 percent of cantaloupe had no residues.
- No single fruit sample from the Clean Fifteen™ tested positive for more than 4 types of pesticides.
- Multiple pesticide residues are extremely rare on Clean Fifteen™ vegetables. Only 5.5 percent of Clean Fifteen samples had two or more pesticides.
See the full list.
Read more: http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php0 -
...Danny Forsyth laid out the dismal economics of potato farming for me one sweltering morning at the coffee shop in downtown Jerome, Idaho. Forsyth, 60, is a slight blue-eyed man with a small gray ponytail; he farms 3,000 acres of potatoes, corn and wheat, and he spoke about agricultural chemicals like a man desperate to kick a bad habit. ”None of us would use them if we had any choice,” he said glumly.
I asked him to walk me through a season’s regimen. It typically begins early in the spring with a soil fumigant; to control nematodes, many potato farmers douse their fields with a chemical toxic enough to kill every trace of microbial life in the soil. Then, at planting, a systemic insecticide (like Thimet) is applied to the soil; this will be absorbed by the young seedlings and, for several weeks, will kill any insect that eats their leaves. After planting, Forsyth puts down an herbicide — Sencor or Eptam — to ”clean” his field of all weeds. When the potato seedlings are six inches tall, an herbicide may be sprayed a second time to control weeds.
Idaho farmers like Forsyth farm in vast circles defined by the rotation of a pivot irrigation system, typically 135 acres to a circle; I’d seen them from 30,000 feet flying in, a grid of verdant green coins pressed into a desert of scrubby brown. Pesticides and fertilizers are simply added to the irrigation system, which on Forsyth’s farm draws most of its water from the nearby Snake River. Along with their water, Forsyth’s potatoes may receive 10 applications of chemical fertilizer during the growing season. Just before the rows close — when the leaves of one row of plants meet those of the next — he begins spraying Bravo, a fungicide, to control late blight, one of the biggest threats to the potato crop. (Late blight, which caused the Irish potato famine, is an airborne fungus that turns stored potatoes into rotting mush.) Blight is such a serious problem that the E.P.A. currently allows farmers to spray powerful fungicides that haven’t passed the usual approval process. Forsyth’s potatoes will receive eight applications of fungicide.
Twice each summer, Forsyth hires a crop duster to spray for aphids. Aphids are harmless in themselves, but they transmit the leafroll virus, which in Russet Burbank potatoes causes net necrosis, a brown spotting that will cause a processor to reject a whole crop. It happened to Forsyth last year. ”I lost 80,000 bags” — they’re a hundred pounds each — ”to net necrosis,” he said. ”Instead of getting $4.95 a bag, I had to take $2 a bag from the dehydrator, and I was lucky to get that.” Net necrosis is a purely cosmetic defect; yet because big buyers like McDonald’s believe (with good reason) that we don’t like to see brown spots in our fries, farmers like Danny Forsyth must spray their fields with some of the most toxic chemicals in use, including an organophosphate called Monitor.
”Monitor is a deadly chemical,” Forsyth said. ”I won’t go into a field for four or five days after it’s been sprayed — even to fix a broken pivot.” That is, he would sooner lose a whole circle to drought than expose himself or an employee to Monitor, which has been found to cause neurological damage.
Read more: http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/playing-god-in-the-garden/0 -
Eating organic is fine, I have no problems with that.
I do think the EWG is unnecessarily using FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) in their reports. A lot of what they claim is based on the idea that any "bad" substance must be eliminated even though no actual risk has been proven.
I honestly support some of their conclusions, but I think their approach is more harmful than beneficial in many instances. Their political agenda drives the science, not vice versa.0 -
I firmly believe that my mom has orthorexia. She has been battling breast cancer and follows a version of "clean eating" that has her cutting out dairy, gluten, sugar, anything from packages, and a long list of things that I just haven't paid attention to enough to remember. It has gotten to the point that she makes everyone miserable every time we try to go out to eat or have a family party because she obsesses over what she can and can't eat. She is firmly convinced that if any of the "unclean" foods touch her lips, her cancer is going to come back. She demonizes food groups, literally cries if she sees my sister or me eating things she thinks are bad, and has let this fear control almost every aspect of her day to day life. I avoid visiting my parents close to mealtimes because it becomes a nightmare.
Focusing on nutrition and properly fueling your body is one thing. I'm all for taking care of yourself. Demonizing and obsessing over food is another.0 -
cmcdonald525 wrote: »I firmly believe that my mom has orthorexia. She has been battling breast cancer and follows a version of "clean eating" that has her cutting out dairy, gluten, sugar, anything from packages, and a long list of things that I just haven't paid attention to enough to remember. It has gotten to the point that she makes everyone miserable every time we try to go out to eat or have a family party because she obsesses over what she can and can't eat. She is firmly convinced that if any of the "unclean" foods touch her lips, her cancer is going to come back. She demonizes food groups, literally cries if she sees my sister or me eating things she thinks are bad, and has let this fear control almost every aspect of her day to day life. I avoid visiting my parents close to mealtimes because it becomes a nightmare.
Focusing on nutrition and properly fueling your body is one thing. I'm all for taking care of yourself. Demonizing and obsessing over food is another.
Yup. I think this is the type of thing that they're talking about. Having cancer and how scary that must be cannot help.
There's a member of my family who seems convinced that had my aunt just eaten clean enough, she wouldn't have died of cancer. It's heartbreaking and angering at the same time. I feel your pain.
0 -
cmcdonald525 wrote: »I firmly believe that my mom has orthorexia. She has been battling breast cancer and follows a version of "clean eating" that has her cutting out dairy, gluten, sugar, anything from packages, and a long list of things that I just haven't paid attention to enough to remember. It has gotten to the point that she makes everyone miserable every time we try to go out to eat or have a family party because she obsesses over what she can and can't eat. She is firmly convinced that if any of the "unclean" foods touch her lips, her cancer is going to come back. She demonizes food groups, literally cries if she sees my sister or me eating things she thinks are bad, and has let this fear control almost every aspect of her day to day life. I avoid visiting my parents close to mealtimes because it becomes a nightmare.
Focusing on nutrition and properly fueling your body is one thing. I'm all for taking care of yourself. Demonizing and obsessing over food is another.
I feel for you.
I have a dear friend who is a breast cancer survivor who does that with added sugar. Her holistic doctor told her fruits are fine, but she must never again eat added sugar because cancer feeds off sugar.
I have never asked her how cancer distinguishes fruit sugar from added sugar.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »@tomatoey a more recent review of studies has shown there is no significant nutritional difference between organically and conventionally grown fruit and vegetables.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/organic-food-no-more-nutritious-than-conventionally-grown-food-201209055264
It's not nutritional differences that drive me to buy organic and grow my own food, but pesticide.
EWG's 2015 Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce
Nearly two-thirds of the 3,015 produce samples tested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2013 contained pesticide residues
...Pesticides persisted on fruits and vegetables tested by USDA, even when they were washed and, in some cases, peeled.
USDA EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce recognizes that many people who want reduce their exposure to pesticides in produce cannot find or afford an all-organic diet. It helps them seek out conventionally grown fruits and vegetables that tend to test low for pesticide residues. When they want foods whose conventional versions test high for pesticides, they can make an effort to locate organic versions.
Highlights of Dirty Dozen™ 2015
EWG singles out produce with the highest pesticide loads for its Dirty Dozen™ list. This year, it is comprised of apples, peaches, nectarines, strawberries, grapes, celery, spinach, sweet bell peppers, cucumbers, cherry tomatoes, imported snap peas and potatoes.
Each of these foods tested positive a number of different pesticide residues and showed higher concentrations of pesticides than other produce items.
Key findings:- 99 percent of apple samples, 98 percent of peaches, and 97 percent of nectarines tested positive for at least one pesticide residue.
- The average potato had more pesticides by weight than any other produce. [see next post for more]
- A single grape sample and a sweet bell pepper sample contained 15 pesticides.
- Single samples of cherry tomatoes, nectarines, peaches, imported snap peas and strawberries showed 13 different pesticides apiece.
The Clean Fifteen™
EWG's Clean Fifteen™ list of produce least likely to hold pesticide residues consists of avocados, sweet corn, pineapples, cabbage, frozen sweet peas, onions, asparagus, mangoes, papayas, kiwis, eggplant, grapefruit, cantaloupe, cauliflower and sweet potatoes. Relatively few pesticides were detected on these foods, and tests found low total concentrations of pesticides on them.
Key findings:- Avocados were the cleanest: only 1 percent of avocado samples showed any detectable pesticides.
- Some 89 percent of pineapples, 82 percent of kiwi, 80 percent of papayas, 88 percent of mango and 61 percent of cantaloupe had no residues.
- No single fruit sample from the Clean Fifteen™ tested positive for more than 4 types of pesticides.
- Multiple pesticide residues are extremely rare on Clean Fifteen™ vegetables. Only 5.5 percent of Clean Fifteen samples had two or more pesticides.
See the full list.
Read more: http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php
I try to choose organic mainly for that reason. I have used the Dirty Dozen/Clean Fifteen as a guide to choosing when I have to make a choice. I would generally prefer organic, even if it's on the Clean Fifteen list, because I have found that organic produce usually tastes better to me. Conventional tomatoes, unless they are hydroponically grown, are mushy and tasteless to me. Organic, or from my own garden if I have one, are delicious. Conventional bananas are bland. Organic actually taste like, well, a banana. However, I have found that conventional oranges of any type are usually tastier than organic, so I'll buy conventional. Doesn't seem crazy reasoning to me.0 -
Organic bananas picked and eaten in Costa Rica are like ambrosia from the gods
Best fish I ever had in my life was in Costa Rica as well. Caught and cooked within an hour.
Some foods just don't transport as well as others. That's part of the problem with tomatoes - they are picked too early so they will transport.
Supermarket kale that comes already chopped up is like a different food than the kale I pick from my garden, which is much more tender. Ditto for asparagus - garden asparagus doesn't even need to be cooked.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions