"eating disorder" thrown around loosely

NavyKnightAh13

By some standards I would have had an eating disorder in 7th and 8th grade because I would only eat 1 to 2 meals a day (and no one realizing that a lot of it had to do with at home circumstances).

Now, to an extent I probably do have "disordered eating" because there are times where I ask myself "am i going to get fat from eating this?" but that is usually when I am eating a cookie or something like that. Unfortunately, that comes from when my mom was alive and she would basically berate about my weight and how she wished I would have looked like a college cheerleader or dancer and why did i have to be the fat kid and blah blah blah. it also doesn't help when my husband says to me "I'm hungry. O wait, you are counting your calories today."

I think when someone comes on and says "I'm eating such and such calories" that it can be cause for alarm. but in the amount of time I have been on mfp, when someone says that, it usually means they are eating too little.

My cousin was 569 this time around when he started trying to lose weight (his heaviest in his life was 1200), and he is now down to 371ish (he drinks 2 shakes a day and one meal). Do i say "that's not right you need to do this instead." nope, because eventually he will learn.

Psychology is an area that i don't understand so therefore i can't give advice on. But some here on mfp have been on here for years, and so they give their 2 cents in hopes to help out and maybe the old saying "another year older, another year wiser" holds some truth.

Also OP, congratulations on the weight loss!!!!!!!!!!

Why would eating one or two meals per day mean somebody has an eating disorder, I don't get that bit, I wonder why some people would think that?

I only have two meals per day and no, I do not have an eating disorder before anybody thinks I do :laugh:

and to the OP, I agree that "eating disorder" is thrown around too much and usually by people that really haven't got a clue what they are on about.

I should have clarified. In the town that I was going to school in, I was told that I had an eating disorder because the meals I would eat would equal out to 500-700 calories a day. But nobody knew that a lot of the times it was either I ate or my mom ate (usually school lunches were nasty enough to make me wanna hurl so I wouldn't eat lunch at school and we didn't have money for me to take lunch to school), and so it went on until i hit high school which is when i finally started breaking down and eating lunch.

I'm not saying you do, there are times still to this day where I will eat only one or 2 meals a day, other times more. And no I don't think you have an eating disorder. I would be more worried if you came on here and said "I eat 500 calories everyday and not feel hungry".

DebbieLyn63

I have been on this site for almost a year now, and have watched the constant berating by some people for anyone that doesn't eat the same way that they do. I am not saying that a 100 lb girl eating 500 cals a day is ok. No, that is not ok. But I rarely see anything close to that on the boards. There are certainly quite a few young girls on here that definitely have serious eating disorders, but they generally stick to their own little groups and don't post in the general forums.

More often it is the mob that attacks everyone who says they eat 1200 cals a day, and insists they are screwing up their metabolism, losing all their muscle mass, their hair will fall out and they will gain all their weight back plus more as soon as they go back to eating 'normal'. And anyone who HASN'T seen these posts, is not paying very much attention.
And don't even get me started on 'skinny-fat'.
If MFP were to raise the limit to 1400, then THAT would be the new magic number to attack people over. SMH.

Also, if anyone says they have cut out certain foods, i.e. processed sugar, gluten, processed carbs, ice cream or pop tarts, then they are indeed attacked and accused of having orthorexia. (a word I had never even heard of before coming on here).

The internet makes everyone an expert, and the power of the typed word makes many people control-freaks. Some people simply cannot go to sleep at night until they have convinced everyone else to think and do as they do. Generally, insecurities in themselves brings this need out.

What really gets me is the newbies that come on here and read thru a few forums and are suddenly experts on the 'right' way to lose weight. Yeah, why don't you give it some time and see how much weight you lose in the next 6 months, or even if you are still here in 6 months, then you can start sharing your words of wisdom with the rest of the class!

For me, I found women around my age, activity level, and starting weight who had successfully lost weight, and friended them. I figure if it worked for them, it might work for me. So far, so good.

But I gotta say, I do really wish the girls would quit starting threads like "1200 calories and not losing", after only a week on here, because this only feeds the trolls. And it usually turns out that they aren't even measuring their food, or they don't count 'cheat days'. Yet you will get the standard reactions of "you need to eat more!!"

If you restrict your calories, then you have disordered eating. If you decide not to eat junk food, then you have orthorexia, but for some reason, if you eat 2000k a day and spend 2 hours in the gym every day burning it off, that is perfectly normal?

Eh, I will just keep doing my thing. Thanks for the platform. Rant over.

deksgrl

1200 calories a day is not some random magic number that MFP decided to use. It is a recognized standard of health professionals as the minimum number of calories required to get proper nutrition. Unless recommended by a doctor, people shouldn't eat less than that for any length of time.

yarwell

Merely because you have lots of fat stored does NOT mean you can safely live off it. Fat has no nutrients stored. Yes, your body can cannibalize the calories. It cannot cannibalize protein, calcium, etc etc.

Actually it can work without food for a very long time. It takes months for hunger strikers to meet their end and you should familiarise yourself with Mr AB of Scotland - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf - who didn't eat for over a year.

yarwell

1200 calories a day is not some random magic number that MFP decided to use. It is a recognized standard of health professionals as the minimum number of calories required to get proper nutrition.

References ? If I google for "1200 calories" most of the hits are to low quality sites.

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/obesity/lose_wt/tac_1200.htm sets out a 1200 calorie eating plan. In fact at http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/obesity/lose_wt/calories.htm it says "Eating plans that contain 1,000–1,200 calories each day will help most women lose weight safely." So that's another myth busted. This message brought to you by The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, National Institutes of Health

BrainyBurro

1200 calories a day is not some random magic number that MFP decided to use. It is a recognized standard of health professionals as the minimum number of calories required to get proper nutrition. Unless recommended by a doctor, people shouldn't eat less than that for any length of time.

^ this. i know there are a bunch of women on this site who insist that they are fine at 1200 or below and cannot believe the audacity of anyone who suggests otherwise, but there is a very good reason that the so-called "bullies" and "trolls" (BTW, the people being referred to are neither of those terms) make the effort to convince those ladies to increase their calories. that is because there really are undesirable consequences for most women at such low calorie levels.

i do believe that some women are ok at that level. if they've run the numbers with their BMR and have set a reasonable calorie deficit for themselves and the result is around 1200, i have no issue with that.

i am concerned by the women (mostly young and uninformed) who heard that a friend was doing 1200 calories or they read about 1200 calories in Cosmopolitan magazine and have decided that they would follow that guideline as well WITHOUT even checking the numbers or understanding their BMR or TDEE.

getting all of your necessary nutrients on 1200 calories per day is hard. you have to be very selective with your food and food amounts. it can be done, but i don't believe most people ore obsessive enough to do it every day. neglecting the whole BMR/TDEE aspect of 1200 calories, let's just look at it nutritionally.

a woman who weighs 125lbs and has a BF% of 25% needs the following macronutrients every day.

- 0.85g/lb LBM protein = 80g protein = 320 calories
- 0.35g/lb dietary fat = 44g fat = 396 calories
- 100g carbs = 400 calories

that's 1116 calories specifically chosen just to meet the macro requirements. you can see this doesn't leave much wiggle room if you're only eating 1200 calories a day.

obviously, heavier women and/or women with a lower BF% will spend even more calories meeting these guidelines. it really is a full time job to make sure you meet your nutritional needs on 1200 calories.

the carb suggestion is not a hard and fast rule, but generally speaking, to keep your mind alert and to have enough ready energy to face the day, 100g of carbs per day has been a recommendation i've seen for at least the last 30 years. i know the low carbers will argue that it's too many, but i disagree with them. people who go too low on carbs for too long often complain of sluggishness and lack of energy.

one last point... i don't make posts like this to "make myself feel better" or because "i enjoy telling people that they are wrong" or any other such nonsense like that. i make posts like these because i believe information is the key to everything in this process. the more informed somebody is, the better their choices should be. if somebody reads what i've written and still makes the choice to eat 1200 calories a day... i'll still sleep well. i'd rather they understand the difficulties and consequences of their choice than not. so long as they do, and still make that choice, then they at least are taking responsibility for their own actions.

ETA: fixed a careless math mistake.

whierd

1200 calories a day is not some random magic number that MFP decided to use. It is a recognized standard of health professionals as the minimum number of calories required to get proper nutrition. Unless recommended by a doctor, people shouldn't eat less than that for any length of time.

^ this. i know there are a bunch of women on this site who insist that they are fine at 1200 or below and cannot believe the audacity of anyone who suggests otherwise, but there is a very good reason that the so-called "bullies" and "trolls" (BTW, the people being referred to are neither of those terms) make the effort to convince those ladies to increase their calories. that is because there really are undesirable consequences for most women at such low calorie levels.

i do believe that some women are ok at that level. if they've run the numbers with their BMR and have set a reasonable calorie deficit for themselves and the result is around 1200, i have no issue with that.

i am concerned by the women (mostly young and uninformed) who heard that a friend was doing 1200 calories or they read about 1200 calories in Cosmopolitan magazine and have decided that they would follow that guideline as well WITHOUT even checking the numbers or understanding their BMR or TDEE.

getting all of your necessary nutrients on 1200 calories per day is hard. you have to be very selective with your food and food amounts. it can be done, but i don't believe most people ore obsessive enough to do it every day. neglecting the whole BMR/TDEE aspect of 1200 calories, let's just look at it nutritionally.

a woman who weighs 125lbs and has a BF% of 25% needs the following macronutrients every day.

- 0.85g/lb LBM protein = 94g protein = 376 calories
- 0.35g/lb dietary fat = 44g fat = 396 calories
- 100g carbs = 400 calories

that's 1172 calories specifically chosen just to meet the macro requirements. you can see this doesn't leave much wiggle room if you're only eating 1200 calories a day.

obviously, heavier women and/or women with a higher BF% will spend even more calories meeting these guidelines. it really is a full time job to make sure you meet your nutritional needs on 1200 calories.

the carb suggestion is not a hard and fast rule, but generally speaking, to keep your mind alert and to have enough ready energy to face the day, 100g of carbs per day has been a recommendation i've seen for at least the last 30 years. i know the low carbers will argue that it's too many, but i disagree with them. people who go too low on carbs for too long often complain of sluggishness and lack of energy.

one last point... i don't make posts like this to "make myself feel better" or because "i enjoy telling people that they are wrong" or any other such nonsense like that. i make posts like these because i believe information is the key to everything in this process. the more informed somebody is, the better their choices should be. if somebody reads what i've written and still makes the choice to eat 1200 calories a day... i'll still sleep well. i'd rather they understand the difficulties and consequences of their choice than not. so long as they do, and still make that choice, then they at least are taking responsibility for their own actions.

Excellent post.

quirkytizzy

Merely because you have lots of fat stored does NOT mean you can safely live off it. Fat has no nutrients stored. Yes, your body can cannibalize the calories. It cannot cannibalize protein, calcium, etc etc.

Actually it can work without food for a very long time. It takes months for hunger strikers to meet their end and you should familiarise yourself with Mr AB of Scotland - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf - who didn't eat for over a year.

I have no doubt it can work for some time. One can do any number of unhealthy things and survive for some time. (Run through fires without a flame retardant suit, eat razor blades, date Kardashian's, etc).

It doesn't mean it's healthy nor advisable. A shame you see no difference.

Hearts_2015

I have an eating disorder...I am addicted to eating well.

That's an actual eating disorder. It's called Orthorexia.. It hasn't been added to the DSM, but it is highly recognized in the eating disorder community.

"Orthorexia is a proposed eating disorder or mental disorder characterized by an extreme or excessive preoccupation with avoiding foods perceived to be unhealthful"

I hope you are okay!!

The above person wasn't told they had orthorexia. It was pointed out that the disorder exists. That's not the same thing.

Exactly! I wasn't claiming he or she had Orthorexia. I was just explaining that it is a legit disorder. I'm not a person who will label people with anything- diagnosis or otherwise!

Knowledge is power, if you have information- share it (hopefully in a thoughtful, kind way. There's no need to be pejorative or nasty! Kindness breads kindness, my friends.)

yarwell

It doesn't mean it's healthy nor advisable. A shame you see no difference.

The guy did it under medical supervision. He lived, lost the weight and kept it off.

This suggests it was both healthy and advisable as he was advised to do it. Go figure.

BrainyBurro

1200 calories a day is not some random magic number that MFP decided to use. It is a recognized standard of health professionals as the minimum number of calories required to get proper nutrition. Unless recommended by a doctor, people shouldn't eat less than that for any length of time.

^ this. i know there are a bunch of women on this site who insist that they are fine at 1200 or below and cannot believe the audacity of anyone who suggests otherwise, but there is a very good reason that the so-called "bullies" and "trolls" (BTW, the people being referred to are neither of those terms) make the effort to convince those ladies to increase their calories. that is because there really are undesirable consequences for most women at such low calorie levels.

i do believe that some women are ok at that level. if they've run the numbers with their BMR and have set a reasonable calorie deficit for themselves and the result is around 1200, i have no issue with that.

i am concerned by the women (mostly young and uninformed) who heard that a friend was doing 1200 calories or they read about 1200 calories in Cosmopolitan magazine and have decided that they would follow that guideline as well WITHOUT even checking the numbers or understanding their BMR or TDEE.

getting all of your necessary nutrients on 1200 calories per day is hard. you have to be very selective with your food and food amounts. it can be done, but i don't believe most people ore obsessive enough to do it every day. neglecting the whole BMR/TDEE aspect of 1200 calories, let's just look at it nutritionally.

a woman who weighs 125lbs and has a BF% of 25% needs the following macronutrients every day.

- 0.85g/lb LBM protein = 94g protein = 376 calories
- 0.35g/lb dietary fat = 44g fat = 396 calories
- 100g carbs = 400 calories

that's 1172 calories specifically chosen just to meet the macro requirements. you can see this doesn't leave much wiggle room if you're only eating 1200 calories a day.

obviously, heavier women and/or women with a higher BF% will spend even more calories meeting these guidelines. it really is a full time job to make sure you meet your nutritional needs on 1200 calories.

the carb suggestion is not a hard and fast rule, but generally speaking, to keep your mind alert and to have enough ready energy to face the day, 100g of carbs per day has been a recommendation i've seen for at least the last 30 years. i know the low carbers will argue that it's too many, but i disagree with them. people who go too low on carbs for too long often complain of sluggishness and lack of energy.

one last point... i don't make posts like this to "make myself feel better" or because "i enjoy telling people that they are wrong" or any other such nonsense like that. i make posts like these because i believe information is the key to everything in this process. the more informed somebody is, the better their choices should be. if somebody reads what i've written and still makes the choice to eat 1200 calories a day... i'll still sleep well. i'd rather they understand the difficulties and consequences of their choice than not. so long as they do, and still make that choice, then they at least are taking responsibility for their own actions.

Excellent post.

btw, i corrected "higher BF%" to "lower BF%.

whierd

btw, i corrected "higher BF%" to "lower BF%.

Why would a woman with a lower bf% need to spend more calories to meet those guidelines? Sluggish mind today.

BrainyBurro

It doesn't mean it's healthy nor advisable. A shame you see no difference.

The guy did it under medical supervision. He lived, lost the weight and kept it off.

This suggests it was both healthy and advisable as he was advised to do it. Go figure.

you're an odd duck. you choose these ridiculous points to stand your ground on. avoiding food for months at a time is not healthy. you can survive perhaps, but it's not healthy.

that rugby team that crashed in the Andes in the 70's ended up eating flesh from their dead friends. that's cannibalism. and yet, many of them survived to be rescued. by your logic, that was a healthy diet for them.

what a silly point you are trying to make.

BrainyBurro

btw, i corrected "higher BF%" to "lower BF%.

Why would a woman with a lower bf% need to spend more calories to meet those guidelines? Sluggish mind today.

lower BF% means a higher LBM which means a higher protein requirement. also, in re-doing these numbers, i just realized i made a careless math mistake (d'oh! not enough carbs for me today!!) so i'll go back and fix that too.

125lbs with 25% BF = 93.75lbs LBM = 80g protein = 320 calories
125lbs with 20% BF = 100lbs LBM = 85g protein = 340 calories

SurfyFriend

I agree, the terms are thrown around more loosely than necessary.

poohpoohpeapod

I think the point is also people that tend to undereat cannot maintain it. ^ months later they have gained it all back. I think the number is about 90 percent. I think that MFPers also know that undereating can affect metabolism and usually has rebound effects. A lifestyle change at a resonable amount of calories is much better.
A car can rev at 90mph however, driving it at that speed all of the time is probably not reasonable. Hope you are the snowflake that beats the odds, something tells me you are "different" ...lol.

whierd

btw, i corrected "higher BF%" to "lower BF%.

Why would a woman with a lower bf% need to spend more calories to meet those guidelines? Sluggish mind today.

lower BF% means a higher LBM which means a higher protein requirement. also, in re-doing these numbers, i just realized i made a careless math mistake (d'oh! not enough carbs for me today!!) so i'll go back and fix that too.

125lbs with 25% BF = 93.75lbs LBM = 80g protein = 320 calories
125lbs with 20% BF = 100lbs LBM = 85g protein = 340 calories

Gotcha, I thought that was what you were talking about, but wanted to make sure.

trudijoy

If you have disordered eating, then you have an ED. It may be minor, but often these are a slippery slope into the more serious. You might not have anorexia or bulimia or OE, but disordered eating is disordered eating and recognising that this is not normal and needs addressing is a huge component of keeping it in control.

Its like illness. You're sick if you have cancer. But you're still sick if you just have a cold, it's simply that the severity and effect on you is much less.

Crochetluvr

Obesity can cause..... , diabetis,....

This is the only part of your post I disagree with. Research is leaning towards obesity being a symptom of diabetes and not the cause, as many thin people can develop T2. I used to blame my being fat for my T2, but I no longer do. I was probably insulin resistant for years and didn't know it. But, of course, if an obese person has T2, losing weight can only help with controlling their diabetes.

princesspea234

Anorexia will kill you faster than being fat will, in general. So when someone comes here at already an unhealthy low weight and talks about eating less than 1200 calories a day, yes, it is cause for alarm. Not everyone comes here because they were fat, many come here because they *think* they are fat when in reality, they are not.

I apologize for not being more clear. I am talking about only people who are overweight and doing what they have to do to lose the weight. I know there are some that come here to maintain fitness or even gain weight, but the majority are people like myself who have or had a considerable amount of weight they needed to or do need to be lose to improve health.

Just because they're overweight doesn't mean they have to eat less than 1000 calories... nor does it mean it's healthy to do so. You're advocating for eating disorders... it's not right. It's not right whether a person is 100 pounds or 300 pounds.

Sometimes it's doctor ordered to go on a VLCD to lose an initial chuck of weight, control diabetes 2 and get to a weight where exercise is possible. However, it's almost impossible to maintain nor should it be a prolonged diet. We should be less quick to judge. However, it's important to get the guidance of a health professional to do this so that the VLCD removes health issues rather than creates them.

I think the whole point is that people are quick to attack on the forums sometimes. Even those with the most sincere intentions can have an off moment with delivery. Frankly though, if someone is asking questions which puts up red flags for disordered eating, I feel that is an outcry for help.