Starvation and Refeeding Syndrome

Quasita

Please read and BUMP my new blog entry
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Quasita/view/starvation-and-refeeding-syndrome-a-brief-look-with-sources-223672

It has a LOT of very good resources that many people on this site need to read/see. It's good information for everyone.
Thanks, and happy MFPing!

Weighinginwithmy02

really well written and well sourced! Nice to see somebody give a well rounded view on what an eating disorder truely is.

secretlobster

Thanks so much for writing this. You are 100% right about physical vs mental eating disorders. Those who do struggle with an eating disorder of some kind often find it very difficult to associate with labels because the causes can be so vastly different.

"Remember, our goal is to be HEALTHY not SKINNY. "

Can I get an AYYY-MEN??

Rays_Wife

GREAT read, everyone should read this!

Quasita

Thank you so much I was worried the information would get buried with all the posts that happen, so it's good to see that some people took the time to read it. Thank you! I have been developing what I wanted to say almost immediately after my initial post about starvation.

ATT949

I've read the documents that you've cited and I can't find anything in any of those articles to substantiate your statement "Basically, what this RFS is, is when a person who was previous starving (under 1200 calories) "

Each of the four articles refers to people who are "starving" though the last one includes "have severely restricted calories and/or sudden weight loss are also at risk.".

In addition to starving, the articles discuss fasting. The only site that mentions "severely restricted calories" is the only source that has something to sell you.

Just because a person eats less than 1200 calories per day, does not mean that they are starving.

Starvation is brutal. These articles discuss prisoners of war who were intentionally subjected to horrid living conditions, including being given almost nothing of nutritional value for months or perhaps years on end.

The idea that someone eating "under 1200" calories is in the same category is highly misleading.

Quasita

I've read the documents that you've cited and I can't find anything in any of those articles to substantiate your statement "Basically, what this RFS is, is when a person who was previous starving (under 1200 calories) "

Each of the four articles refers to people who are "starving" though the last one includes "have severely restricted calories and/or sudden weight loss are also at risk.".

In addition to starving, the articles discuss fasting. The only site that mentions "severely restricted calories" is the only source that has something to sell you.

Just because a person eats less than 1200 calories per day, does not mean that they are starving.

Starvation is brutal. These articles discuss prisoners of war who were intentionally subjected to horrid living conditions, including being given almost nothing of nutritional value for months or perhaps years on end.

The idea that someone eating "under 1200" calories is in the same category is highly misleading.

I also state that this post is one that is a followup to my previous posting, which has a cited peer reviewed discussion on what starvation is, as well as the definition of anorexia being the voluntary placing of oneself in this state by eating a substantially reduced number of calories. The articles also cite studies, which I personally have taken the time to research and read, that discuss in detail the various calorie points that are considered by nutritionist as starving.

Anorexia IS brutal. That's the point. The POWs are an exception, as well as starving people in Africa, etc etc, but there are also cited studies that discuss volunteers from an otherwise well-fed lifestyle that participated in laboratory studies that re-created these effects at the levels I am discussing.

If you would like to provide criticism, that's fine. However, if you want to do so without doing extensive digging into the sources of the sources, then you need not speak up.

Quasita

I.E. My point in writing the blog post is to summarize the information that I have spent hours researching and reading. Neither one of the scientific, academic papers are "selling" something unless you are referring to publishing rights and such. I just tried to provide more than one avenue, since people learn differently and not everyone wants to read through the terms.

Apparently you missed the area of the conversation in one article that discussed the groups of people that are most likely to develop malnutrition and refeeding syndrome, where it lists cancer patients, alcoholics, anorexics, people with renal failure, undiagnosed diabetes, and on and on. This is not just about the extreme cases of POWs. This can affect ANYONE that is not feeding their body properly.

ATT949

I.E. My point in writing the blog post is to summarize the information that I have spent hours researching and reading. Neither one of the scientific, academic papers are "selling" something unless you are referring to publishing rights and such. I just tried to provide more than one avenue, since people learn differently and not everyone wants to read through the terms.

I do appreciate your efforts. Accurate information is always welcome.
And that's the gist of my response.

http://www.rd411.com/index.php

The page cited above is to a .com site. .com indicates that the site is a commercial venture. There are numerous banner ads on the front page. On that basis, I posted that they are "selling" something and they are.

The fact that that you put some effort forth does not mean that either what you wrote is accurate or that we have to accept what you wrote as being accurate.

As I stated earlier, I read through the articles at the links and could not find the 1200 calorie figure in the articles.

There's no doubt that I might have missed it so, if you would be so good as to explain what article it appeared in and indicate where it appeared, then we could clear up the misunderstanding.

Apparently you missed the area of the conversation in one article that discussed the groups of people that are most likely to develop malnutrition and refeeding syndrome, where it lists cancer patients, alcoholics, anorexics, people with renal failure, undiagnosed diabetes, and on and on. This is not just about the extreme cases of POWs. This can affect ANYONE that is not feeding their body properly.

What that in the NEDA article? I did not read that.
I just scanned that article and didn't find a mention of 1200 but I didn't scan for cancer patients, etc.

"This can affect ANYONE that is not feeding their body properly."
"properly" - how is that defined?

Yes, you're making an assertion but, without an explanation, what it means to any given person can be completely different so its value is diminished.


Now, let's steer the issues away from my reading comprehension because that's not the issue.

What I take exception to, and you have failed to substantiate, is your 1200 calorie claim.


Taking it one step further, even if that is mentioned in the literature, do you actually trust a source that states that at a calorie level of X, certain things will happen to all people?


BTW, I'm 100% in agreement with the sources that I read. I've asked you to substantiate your assertion about the 1200 calorie level.

ATT949

I've read the documents that you've cited and I can't find anything in any of those articles to substantiate your statement "Basically, what this RFS is, is when a person who was previous starving (under 1200 calories) "

Each of the four articles refers to people who are "starving" though the last one includes "have severely restricted calories and/or sudden weight loss are also at risk.".

In addition to starving, the articles discuss fasting. The only site that mentions "severely restricted calories" is the only source that has something to sell you.

Just because a person eats less than 1200 calories per day, does not mean that they are starving.

Starvation is brutal. These articles discuss prisoners of war who were intentionally subjected to horrid living conditions, including being given almost nothing of nutritional value for months or perhaps years on end.

The idea that someone eating "under 1200" calories is in the same category is highly misleading.

I also state that this post is one that is a followup to my previous posting, which has a cited peer reviewed discussion on what starvation is, as well as the definition of anorexia being the voluntary placing of oneself in this state by eating a substantially reduced number of calories. The articles also cite studies, which I personally have taken the time to research and read, that discuss in detail the various calorie points that are considered by nutritionist as starving.

Anorexia IS brutal. That's the point. The POWs are an exception, as well as starving people in Africa, etc etc, but there are also cited studies that discuss volunteers from an otherwise well-fed lifestyle that participated in laboratory studies that re-created these effects at the levels I am discussing.

If you would like to provide criticism, that's fine. However, if you want to do so without doing extensive digging into the sources of the sources, then you need not speak up.

Your last sentence may perhaps be a slip of the keyboard. Don't know. It doesn't help your case — you appeal to the emotions by telling us how hard you've worked on this (which is commendable!) and then you throw it in the logical dumper with your last paragraph:

"If you would like to provide criticism, that's fine. However, if you want to do so without doing extensive digging into the sources of the sources, then you need not speak up."

From what I understand of the last paragraph, I conclude that I have to do "extensive digging into the sources of the sources" before I can "speak up." but you also state "If you would like to provide criticism, that's fine."

That works for me. I'm providing criticism.

And the reason why I say that you're putting your case in the dumper is that I'm just some poor schlub who wandered in an asked an innocent question and you're taking me to the woodshed for it.


It seems that you've taken my comments in a manner in which they were not intended. I didn't read all of the sources of the sources - that's just too much work! Instead, I read what I thought were the sources and, based on my reading, I couldn't find the 1200 calorie figure. If it's in the sources of the sources, please cite it. If it's not there, please state that, as well.



It's great that you're into researching "this stuff". I'm interested in it, as well, and I'd love to see a medically based document that talks about the 1200 calorie figure and compares VLCD's, LCD's, and "regular" diets (whatever those are!). I think that would be a great story to tell and, unfortunately, it's not something that I've ever seen, either here or anywhere else.

Quasita

Like I said, the 1200 calorie intake was from my previous posting, where I discussed the recommended rehabilitation of starving individuals. In that cited source, it was discussed that the proper rehabilitation of such individuals should start at a MINIMUM of 1200 calories and the upped from there. It is a standard of nutritional rehabilitation for the malnutritioned individual.

You did not go through all of the attached sources, I'm sure. You see, when an academic article is published, they cite sources for their information, including case studies, definitions, and trials. I know from your post that you have not read the 30+ cited sources. I have read those that I did not have to purchase viewing rights to, which are more than enough to support my statements.

Had you done what I suggested, and looked at previously researched items I have written, you would have seen that I recommend repeatedly that people who think they may have these issues see a physician and a nutritional counselor. My point is to educate, not to define any certain person's health condition.

As for you statements about the POWs, had you looked deeper into that, what it says is that the FIRST noticed instance of this was when they tried to feed those that had been kept from food during WWII. When those people began to get very sick and die, apparently from that eating, they did a voluntary experiment in Minnesota where men volunteered to be subjected to severely restricted diets for the sole purpose of learning how best to refeed the population of millions that had been so lacking of food. It doesn't say that it only manifests in POWs, nor does it say that that was the only instance other than the clinical trials.

The properly statement is on par with the eating disorders definitions, as well as attached documentation that discusses the intentional/unintentional instigation of malnutrition in children and adults that have unknown levels of restriction in their diets. These articles discuss how even if a person seems to be eating adequate food regarding their hunger, they can in essence still be "starving" due to lack of nutrients, and would face similar issues with RFS.

I personally suffered starvation and RFS in my early 20s, as did several of my friends on here and the eating disorders counselor that I know. You won't convince me that the instance rate of this in the common population is non-existent. The studies I provide, as well as my own experience, combat that argument over and over again.

Please, stop saying you "read" the articles if you didn't bother to read the entirety of the academic paper synopsis, and if you didn't take the time to pull up the various charts and diagrams that discuss risk factors, pre-disposition, results, and symptoms.

My point, at the end of the day, was to respond to the allthe people on MFP that are stating that they are trying to up their calories from their current sub-par level to the one that is right for them, and are seeing hurdles because they keep getting sick. If you can't respect that, then stop posting.

MissSorcha

Thank you for the article, I just recently joined this site and after logging my food for a week I saw that I was not reaching my daily caloric intake (just over 900). This site says I should have 1500 and have been working on it this week and have had severe headaches. Maybe I need to scale it back and ease into it.

rach7turtle

I would caution you as to who you are saying has anorexia or bulimia solely on how many calories they eat or don't eat.

"People who have anorexia have an intense fear of gaining weight. They severely limit the amount of food they eat and can become dangerously thin." (webmd.com)
"People who have anorexia:
Weigh much less than is healthy or normal.
Are very afraid of gaining weight.
Refuse to stay at a normal weight.
Think they are overweight even when they are very thin." (www.webmd.com)

The technical criteria for Anorexia Nervosa based on the DSM-IV is very specific and a person with some but not all criteria cannot be classified as having anorexia. There are also different types...the restricting and the binge/purge type. :

"A. Refusal to maintain body weight at or above a minimally normal weight for age and height (e.g., weight loss leading to maintenance of body weight less than 85% of that expected; or failure to make expected weight gain during period of growth, leading to body weight less than 85% of that expected).

B. Intense fear of gaining weight or becoming fat, even though underweight.

C. Disturbance in the way in which one's body weight or shape is experienced, undue influence of body shape on self-evaluation, or denial of the seriousness of the current low body weight.

D. In postmenarcheal females, amenorrhea, i.e., the absence of at least three consecutive menstrual cycles.

Type: Restricting Type vs. Binge-Eating/Purging Type. " (www.medicalcriteria.com)

Quasita

I would caution you as to who you are saying has anorexia or bulimia solely on how many calories they eat or don't eat.

"People who have anorexia have an intense fear of gaining weight. They severely limit the amount of food they eat and can become dangerously thin." (webmd.com)
"People who have anorexia:
Weigh much less than is healthy or normal.
Are very afraid of gaining weight.
Refuse to stay at a normal weight.
Think they are overweight even when they are very thin." (www.webmd.com)

The technical criteria for Anorexia Nervosa based on the DSM-IV is very specific and a person with some but not all criteria cannot be classified as having anorexia. There are also different types...the restricting and the binge/purge type. :

"A. Refusal to maintain body weight at or above a minimally normal weight for age and height (e.g., weight loss leading to maintenance of body weight less than 85% of that expected; or failure to make expected weight gain during period of growth, leading to body weight less than 85% of that expected).

B. Intense fear of gaining weight or becoming fat, even though underweight.

C. Disturbance in the way in which one's body weight or shape is experienced, undue influence of body shape on self-evaluation, or denial of the seriousness of the current low body weight.

D. In postmenarcheal females, amenorrhea, i.e., the absence of at least three consecutive menstrual cycles.

Type: Restricting Type vs. Binge-Eating/Purging Type. " (www.medicalcriteria.com)

I would like to point out the fact that I post sources that discuss at length the definitions of these disorders, and that in my discussion, I state that people are suffering not mentally per se, but physically, it is the case. Most people with these highly restrictive diets don't realize that their restrictions are the same as those for ED.
Also, again, I discuss at length in my previously written article to which this is a followup, the dangers of the symptomology and encouraging certain behaviors. I guess I should have written more than "as discussed in my previous article" to imply that this was part of a series of educational pieces. But thank you.

ATT949

Like I said, the 1200 calorie intake was from my previous posting, where I discussed the recommended rehabilitation of starving individuals. In that cited source, it was discussed that the proper rehabilitation of such individuals should start at a MINIMUM of 1200 calories and the upped from there. It is a standard of nutritional rehabilitation for the malnutritioned individual.

You did not go through all of the attached sources, I'm sure. You see, when an academic article is published, they cite sources for their information, including case studies, definitions, and trials. I know from your post that you have not read the 30+ cited sources. I have read those that I did not have to purchase viewing rights to, which are more than enough to support my statements.

Had you done what I suggested, and looked at previously researched items I have written, you would have seen that I recommend repeatedly that people who think they may have these issues see a physician and a nutritional counselor. My point is to educate, not to define any certain person's health condition.

As for you statements about the POWs, had you looked deeper into that, what it says is that the FIRST noticed instance of this was when they tried to feed those that had been kept from food during WWII. When those people began to get very sick and die, apparently from that eating, they did a voluntary experiment in Minnesota where men volunteered to be subjected to severely restricted diets for the sole purpose of learning how best to refeed the population of millions that had been so lacking of food. It doesn't say that it only manifests in POWs, nor does it say that that was the only instance other than the clinical trials.

The properly statement is on par with the eating disorders definitions, as well as attached documentation that discusses the intentional/unintentional instigation of malnutrition in children and adults that have unknown levels of restriction in their diets. These articles discuss how even if a person seems to be eating adequate food regarding their hunger, they can in essence still be "starving" due to lack of nutrients, and would face similar issues with RFS.

I personally suffered starvation and RFS in my early 20s, as did several of my friends on here and the eating disorders counselor that I know. You won't convince me that the instance rate of this in the common population is non-existent. The studies I provide, as well as my own experience, combat that argument over and over again.

Please, stop saying you "read" the articles if you didn't bother to read the entirety of the academic paper synopsis, and if you didn't take the time to pull up the various charts and diagrams that discuss risk factors, pre-disposition, results, and symptoms.

My point, at the end of the day, was to respond to the allthe people on MFP that are stating that they are trying to up their calories from their current sub-par level to the one that is right for them, and are seeing hurdles because they keep getting sick. If you can't respect that, then stop posting.

We agree that I haven't read all of the source material.

I've stated that and you've stated that.

While I do appreciate all that you've written, you are once again not substantiating your statement about the 1200 calorie level.

My credentials, activities, and reading habits have nothing to do with this.

My original posting read, in full:
"I've read the documents that you've cited and I can't find anything in any of those articles to substantiate your statement "Basically, what this RFS is, is when a person who was previous starving (under 1200 calories) "

Each of the four articles refers to people who are "starving" though the last one includes "have severely restricted calories and/or sudden weight loss are also at risk.".

In addition to starving, the articles discuss fasting. The only site that mentions "severely restricted calories" is the only source that has something to sell you.

Just because a person eats less than 1200 calories per day, does not mean that they are starving.

Starvation is brutal. These articles discuss prisoners of war who were intentionally subjected to horrid living conditions, including being given almost nothing of nutritional value for months or perhaps years on end.

The idea that someone eating "under 1200" calories is in the same category is highly misleading. "



I stand by my last sentence "The idea that someone eating "under 1200" calories is in the same category is highly misleading."


You seem to feel that, because I haven't read enough, I don't understand what you've written. Sorry, you gotta find smarter readers! No, the core of the issue is the wording and, you, it appears are much more interested in writing more words rather than editing your original document.

That's unfortunate because there's a good message there (one that I'm aware of) but your insistence that my lack of background knowledge is the reason I don't understand the article is simply denial. I read the article, I know all the words, and yet what you've written simply leads the reader to the wrong conclusion.

Your research was good and most of what you wrote was on the money. The only thing I'm taking issue with is one sentence.

Thanks for your contribution.

Quasita

It is substantiated in my previous post on my blog, which, as I said, defines 1200 calories as being the minimum one should use in feeding an individual. That post also has links that are more specifically linked to starvation. This blog post is a FOLLOWUP. Will I change the wording? No. As far as I am concerned, all I did was ask you to look at what I've already provided, yet you still haven't. That's not my issue.

ATT949

It is substantiated in my previous post on my blog, which, as I said, defines 1200 calories as being the minimum one should use in feeding an individual. That post also has links that are more specifically linked to starvation. This blog post is a FOLLOWUP. Will I change the wording? No. As far as I am concerned, all I did was ask you to look at what I've already provided, yet you still haven't. That's not my issue.

And I'm completely fine with that!

As a reader of your blog, I've challenged a statement that you've made and you're refusing to defend your statement. And, it's here in the record, that you're refusing to do so.

If you're interested in growing your readership, you might want to take a different approach.

I've had the good fortune to write about 15 magazine articles and I took a different approach to reader questions. (Since they occurred in the internet age, I provided links and footnotes and answered emails when people sought additional information. My undergrad thesis was before the internet so I had no link, just footnotes and biblio).

One of the results of those articles was that, in 0ver 20 years of writing software for a living, I've only ever advertised once. For the rest of all of my work, including being recruited by Apple to write software for them, I've had a steady flow of customers who seek me out and pay me for my advice and expertise.

I don't know if increasing readership is your end goal (I've heard of vanity publishing) but I'd be hard pressed to imagine that your reaction to my postings will win you any fans (I hope I'm wrong about that, though!).

Again, thanks for your work. There's a lot of good info there!

Quasita

I guess we look at this differently, seeing as I feel that I have defended the statement, while you don't. It's a difference of opinion. Just because you've written 15 articles for magazines, doesn't mean you trump me in my approach. It just means we differ.
I could attack back and say cite me a source that says it's healthy to eat that low that isn't from a fad diet website. I have provided ample indication as to where to find the information.

For the record, I didn't give you exactly what you want because I found your response to be rude and completely argumentative. You didn't bother to mention that there was anything worthwhile in what I had to say until later in the exchange.

I'm an internationally published author myself, and I already have an established readership. I'm not too concerned about longevity on this site, I'm not posting for popularity reasons. Maybe that's what you go for, but it's not my schtick. I post because I'm trying to help people think of things differently, and holding myself accountable to my own mistakes, to help others avoid the problems I've had to deal with because of my eating disorder.

ATT949

I guess we look at this differently, seeing as I feel that I have defended the statement, while you don't. It's a difference of opinion. Just because you've written 15 articles for magazines, doesn't mean you trump me in my approach. It just means we differ.

Well, of course we differ but that means nothing.

I've asked you to substantiate what I see as a misleading statement.

If I understand you correctly, you feel that I should read elsewhere to understand what you're saying. That's a sign of laziness, perhaps, or someone who can't be bothered.

All in all, it's poor journalism.

If you make an assertion that's not clear, edit the document.

When you stoop to telling someone, in essence, go look it up, do you think that increases the value of what you write or do you think that it decreases it?

I could attack back and say cite me a source that says it's healthy to eat that low that isn't from a fad diet website. I have provided ample indication as to where to find the information.

This implies that you have poor reasoning skills.

What I believe, think, or feel has zero bearing on your ability/desire to defend what you've written.

I haven't attacked you — I've raised a question about what you've written. Those are very, very different things.

And "attacking me [you]" would be childish and vindictive.

I took you to task on a statement that I think was misleading. You've written quite a bit but, again, have failed to respond to my simple statement.

For the record, I didn't give you exactly what you want because I found your response to be rude and completely argumentative. You didn't bother to mention that there was anything worthwhile in what I had to say until later in the exchange.

You know, I had a bad childhood, too. Mean people are…mean. But I'm not mean.

I didn't insult you or call you names. My statement was very straightforward.

I've asked you repeatedly to back up your assertion and your response, in a nutshell, is "I've given you the links - go look it up."

That's a cop out, plain and simple.

I'm an internationally published author myself, and I already have an established readership. I'm not too concerned about longevity on this site, I'm not posting for popularity reasons. Maybe that's what you go for, but it's not my schtick. I post because I'm trying to help people think of things differently, and holding myself accountable to my own mistakes, to help others avoid the problems I've had to deal with because of my eating disorder.

Popularity's never been my thing, frankly, and interchanges like this diminish my interest. Insofar as longevity on this site, MFP has been a good resource for me and I'll keep using the site as long as it provides value to me.

Good luck with your weight loss. Sounds like things are going an awful lot better now.

suziecue66

Well said ATT949. I agree with what you have written.

ronninator

The page cited above is to a .com site. .com indicates that the site is a commercial venture. There are numerous banner ads on the front page. On that basis, I posted that they are "selling" something and they are.

The gentleman is clearly new to the world of the internet. The .com extension was the only and therefore the default site address extension for years. My two sites are on a .com domain and have neither advertising, nor products/services for sale. In fact, that claim is so preposterous that I find it hard to place any credibility in the rest of your posts. I mean, you made a false claim with such conviction and certainty.

Dickersondiva

Type A much? Geez! At the end of the day, there is good info and bad info. There is good research and bad research. If you don't like it, then keep it moving. If you are interested, cool. Keep reading. Some people act as if their living is made on criticizing and piecing apart folks' individual research. There is nothing wrong with asking for references, evidence-based research, and the like, but picking folks apart is just.....wow.....

They say pride is the result of displaced anger. Pride is not needed here. I could care less how many degrees you obtained, how many Fortune 500 companies you worked for, or how many countries you write in....what the OP did was share what she learned. Take it or leave it. Some of you folks just don't know how to LEAVE it. If it works great for her, it just may work for someone else. What sets YOU free may not be what sets HER or SOMEONE ELSE free. MFP has become a real breeding ground for contempt and readiness to cut someone down for sharing and caring for others besides SELF.

Quasita

I would caution you as to who you are saying has anorexia or bulimia solely on how many calories they eat or don't eat.

"People who have anorexia have an intense fear of gaining weight. They severely limit the amount of food they eat and can become dangerously thin." (webmd.com)
"People who have anorexia:
Weigh much less than is healthy or normal.
Are very afraid of gaining weight.
Refuse to stay at a normal weight.
Think they are overweight even when they are very thin." (www.webmd.com)

The technical criteria for Anorexia Nervosa based on the DSM-IV is very specific and a person with some but not all criteria cannot be classified as having anorexia. There are also different types...the restricting and the binge/purge type. :

"A. Refusal to maintain body weight at or above a minimally normal weight for age and height (e.g., weight loss leading to maintenance of body weight less than 85% of that expected; or failure to make expected weight gain during period of growth, leading to body weight less than 85% of that expected).

B. Intense fear of gaining weight or becoming fat, even though underweight.

C. Disturbance in the way in which one's body weight or shape is experienced, undue influence of body shape on self-evaluation, or denial of the seriousness of the current low body weight.

D. In postmenarcheal females, amenorrhea, i.e., the absence of at least three consecutive menstrual cycles.

Type: Restricting Type vs. Binge-Eating/Purging Type. " (www.medicalcriteria.com)

I just wanted to add to this, for a second... Though I know I already responded. Anorexia and Anorexia Nervosa are considered two different things, which is also addressed by my cited sources. Thanks.

Quasita

Type A much? Geez! At the end of the day, there is good info and bad info. There is good research and bad research. If you don't like it, then keep it moving. If you are interested, cool. Keep reading. Some people act as if their living is made on criticizing and piecing apart folks' individual research. There is nothing wrong with asking for references, evidence-based research, and the like, but picking folks apart is just.....wow.....

They say pride is the result of displaced anger. Pride is not needed here. I could care less how many degrees you obtained, how many Fortune 500 companies you worked for, or how many countries you write in....what the OP did was share what she learned. Take it or leave it. Some of you folks just don't know how to LEAVE it. If it works great for her, it just may work for someone else. What sets YOU free may not be what sets HER or SOMEONE ELSE free. MFP has become a real breeding ground for contempt and readiness to cut someone down for sharing and caring for others besides SELF.

True that Miss! Gets way too mean spirited around here when a person is trying to just inform. I almost want to be childish about it and say stuff like, at least I didn't post yet another Dr. Oz article or something, but... LOL! I found the case studies fascinating, personally, and I just don't really have a "real life" forum for discussion of their content. Sucks to have the thread dominated over a dispute over a single phrase, and therefore completely trump out the discussion of the actual topic at hand.

ATT949

The OP has sent me a PM that reads, in part, "Please do not message me anymore, on there or here."

My intent was to get her to clarify her statement and, as we have seen, I've not been successful at getting her to address my issue.

There was no intent to detract from the body of what she's taken the time to research and post. What Quasita has done is bring to light an interesting topic and one that I've had to deal with.

When I stopped losing back in July, I upped my calories slowly at first. IIRC, I added 100 cals/day for a week at a time. I don't know if that helped me but I have no reason to believe that it "hurt" me in any way.

ATT949

The page cited above is to a .com site. .com indicates that the site is a commercial venture. There are numerous banner ads on the front page. On that basis, I posted that they are "selling" something and they are.

The gentleman is clearly new to the world of the internet.

The .com extension was the only and therefore the default site address extension for years. My two sites are on a .com domain and have neither advertising, nor products/services for sale. In fact, that claim is so preposterous that I find it hard to place any credibility in the rest of your posts. I mean, you made a false claim with such conviction and certainty.
[/quote]

I appreciate your willingness to make statements in public. Open, vigorous discussion of issues is the lifeblood of learning and understanding.

What you have written is logically flawed, in places, and it is, factually, grossly incorrect.



One of the things that I try to do, though I know that I don't always do it, is to make statements that are not absolutes. It's one of the things that I've learned over the years and the reason for that is that there's just so much I don't know!

First off, I appreciate you quoting me accurately and for sharing your experience. It helps provide some background…some "human touch".

"The gentleman is clearly new to the world of the internet."
Heh, I'm a gentleman now but I'm thinkin' that it's 'cause there are other less friendly words that you might have used! ;-)

Some thoughts on your posting:

It appears that you judge my experience on the internet based on my assertion that ".com indicates that the site is a commercial venture."

Your statement "The .com extension was the only and therefore the default site address extension for years. My two sites are on a .com domain and have neither advertising, nor products/services for sale."
appears to be in effort to contradict my assertion.

I have no reason to question how many domains you have registered and what you do with them. However, one of the problems with your statement is that it appears to attempt to imply that because you have two .com websites and you don't sell anything on them that means that .com doesn't indicate that it's a commercial website.

That's a logical fallacy.

Your logic is as flawed as this argument "I own a motorcycle. I don't speed. Therefore motorcycles aren't used to speed."

What you do, or don't do with your websites, has nothing to do with how the DNS was set up (IIRC, it was first set up under ICANN after Berners Lee popularized the web in the early 90's.)


With this simple discussion, it's clear that your logic to refute my contention is fatally flawed.


Your assertion "The gentleman is clearly new to the world of the internet." is thus not only built on a logical fallacy but it is laughably wrong.


I've been using what we now refer to as "the Internet", gosh, yes, it's been 25 years now. I used "the Internet" when I worked on a DARPA project when I was in the US Army. DARPA has a long history with the internet - I think it's fair to say that they started what we now refer to as "the Internet".

I was interested in the world wide web when it came out. That was, as you'll realize, about 5 years after I'd been using the Internet.

I registered my first domain name in 1995 and have a few other domains but they're either .com or .net

I programmed my first web site when I worked on netbuyer.com. Our client for netbuyer was Ziff Davis, the publishing powerhouse, and our technology firsts were notable. One was that we coined and created the first "CRM" application. The other was that we had the first site on the internet that allowed the user to select two or more products and display them side by side. Believe it or not, that was a big deal in 1996!

Ziff brought netbuyer in house and put a new label on it. It's now called computershopper.com

I started working for Apple Computer in 2002 to work on their PowerSchool Student Information System. My main function was to refactor PowerGrade, the standalone double clickable application used by 150,000 teachers PG communicated with the server using TCP/IP to transport student data. Of course, it ran over the internet.

In my over 20 years of experience as a professional programmer I have written numerous applications and functions within those applications that use the Internet. In addition to writing applications that use HTTP(S), I've written email programs (using IMAP, POP, and SMTP); FTP clients (standard port); as well as software that uses proprietary protocols on non-standard ports. Toss in extensive work with web services and SOAP over the last 7 years.



The DNS is "new", from my perspective so I've had the opportunity to see it evolve. One of the needs in the DNS was to expand it because we were running out of choices for domain names.

As it's widely reported, the .com moniker is short for "commercial". Similarly, .edu indicates education. When I was using the Internet in 1987, I'm pretty certain that was using sites that ended in .mil

Might I suggest that you Google this phrase "what does ".com" mean" and check out some of the links. Between the explanations that you'll find there, you'll add to your personal knowledgebase.

While some folks would kiddingly call me "new" to the internet perhaps, in light of the above facts, you'll change you assertion.



"In fact, that claim is so preposterous that I find it hard to place any credibility in the rest of your posts. I mean, you made a false claim with such conviction and certainty."
:-)