Thoughts on Pro-Anorexia Diets

elexichoccyeater

I had a friend request yesterday.. I looked and read her status' and threads. I was completely shocked to see she was a young girl (18) living at home asking others advise on fasting and how she could hide a 10day fast from her parents! The replies consisted of taking an apple to the room where her parents were, taking a bite, then going back to the kitchen and spitting it out. She and others seemed to be in competition on how few cals they could survive on and her diary was no more than 400 cals a day.

I also saw others who had tried to help her and had to defriend her as she was not listening to any of their advise. After this I thought , as a fitness website the 'owners' need to hold some responsibility here to help this young girl. If only there was a help button others could press where MFP can offer support.

so yes it is a great site for those who wish to be healthy/ fit / wanting to lose weight / build muscle /
but can be very dangerous for those with eating disorders..............

shannairl

I'm just genuinely interested as to why it and its counterparts are such successful programs when they are allowed to advocate that.

Weight Watchers does well in part because of the group support in its classes. May be less relevant now with online support but has been shown to give better results.

I suspect if you follow their system as intended it's low or zero risk, but it would be easy to use "points" in an inappropriate way.

It's definitely easy to use the points inappropriately, I have heard people raving about how they can have 2 bars of chocolate every day and still lose weight. I think it's ridiculous. I do agree that the support probably has a lot to do with it, it's almost mob mentality in a friendly "we're all in the same boat" kind of way!

niksinnotts

It makes me sad seeing all these young ladies doing pro-anorexia diets. You're only hurting yourselves. If you're feeling this low about your body, you don't need a diet, you need a psychiatrist. The ONLY way to really lose weight, stay healthy and keep it off is to adopt a healthy nutrition plan and get regular exercise. These are not quick fixes you can make, they are life changes. You need calories for your brain, muscles, and cells to survive and anything less than around 1200 calories a day is starvation. These kind of diets kill people. Please please please lose weight the smart way. Lean muscle and nutrition is the key to weight loss. I'm a personal trainer and I know the human body very well. Anorexia is not simply a physical illness but a mental one that should be taken just as serious as any other illness.

I used to be like that and it led to me developing an eating disorder, anorexia nervosa.
It's true, diets such as the ABC Diet and the Skinny Girl Diet are horrible- they lead to so many problems, the first of which being EDs. You don't NEED a psychiatrist, but it's recommended, because then you'll get the help you need, like I did.
Eating so much calories may seem frightening, trust me I know, but it's the only way to be healthy, along with regular exercise.
Skinny isn't beautiful; it's deadly.
So chin up lovelies.

respect to you for coming out the other side, i hope that everything works out for you:flowerforyou:

robin52077

By extension, calories carry the nutrients you need.

So if we get all the nutrients and enough protein in (say) 600 calories we're neither in starvation nor deprivation, as defined thus far.

I'm really really sick of reading your posts. Every freaking topic is an excuse for you to argue starvation and claim it's ok to eat very little. You show a picture of the Minnesota Starvation Experiment and then claim starvation isn't real.
Starvation Mode is a REAL THING.
NO, you will NOT hold on to all your fat, as your picture states. But yes, you will lose weight at a slightly slower rate than if you ate a little more, so why not eat 1400 or 1500 and lose the same as 800, to eat 800 would be intentional deprivation to the point of having the "control issues" mindset that defines anorexia.
Also, you will drastically damage your metabolism to the point where if you ever tried to eat your previous TDEE to maintain, you would gain, since your TDEE would have been drastically reduced.
Why would anyone promote "slower weight loss while being really hungry and ruining your metabolism long term", over "eating a healthy amount over BMR, still losing, and having energy and being healthy"?

Your argument is invalid, sir.

Yes, many people use "starvation mode" VERY VERY wrong. They say they're "in it" if they fast one day (IF is actually very good, IMO), or worry if they eat very low ONE day they'll be "in it" when it really takes a LONG period of time at significantly reduced calories to be affected by Adaptive Thermogenesis (starvation mode's REAL name). And NO, you WILL NOT hold onto ALL your fat, you will STILL lose weight while in SM but your BMR is lowering itself and you would be in less of a deficit due to that and therefore could lose the same amount eating more, so WHY eat less?

yarwell

If only there was a help button others could press where MFP can offer support.

there is a "report post" button below each message.

shannairl

The only thing I'd love to know about the 1200=starvation is this: I used weightwatchers to lose my first 30+lbs. I've added up my food diaries on here and converted them to points - and sometimes I'm over my "daily points" limit on 1200. I don't use their system anymore because I found it unsustainable.

I used to use a points based diet as well Scottish Slimmers. I was allowed 45 "checks" per day, each check amounted to 25 calories - thats only 1125 calories. On top of that you were allowed 2 pieces of fruit, unlimited veg and a calcium allowance all of which amounted to approx 200 cals plus veggies and I found that unsustainable and far too limiting! I supposed these things work for some and not for others. Personally I am on 1500 NET cals per day and even then I am still hungry sometimes and go over a bit and am still losing weight (allbeit slowly!).

I found it limiting with me too. I did not like the fact that if I was hungry at 6pm, that I felt guilty for having some toast or whatever. I can't completely knock it, I mean I did lose a good bit of weight but I find now I'm enjoying my food far more and if I want to have a drink or some crisps at night (as happened with the footy the other night) - I know that I can up my exercise that day, fit in an extra walk and I can safely have my treat.

I actually feel very, very sad reading some food diaries. I also don't think that people should be allowed weigh in every day. I think there should be a setting that only allows that once a week.

Masterdo

That would be something defined a bit like this

Well the first one doesn't even contain the word "starvation" so I won't be looking any further. I'm familiar with metabolic rate reduction in response to reduced calorie intake, it's a few hundred calories at most.

However I don't know what the "Pro-Anorexia diet" referred to in the OP is ? and we've converged on a definition of starvation / deprivation as losing organ, bone or muscle mass.

Well in the case of extreme anorexia, yeah, they do lose hair, organ functions and eventually die... So things like a strict 1200 or less diet probably falls in the category the OP meant, especially when it's not seen (as it should be seen) as something that has to me met, but something you should keep away from. Some people here try to leave a few hundred calories on that 1200, then train on top of it and not eat back. All those little things you can add up and obsess about that can lead you further down to the point of developing and ED like anorexia or bulimia. And they are enabled here since they can get praise from their friends about it too, etc.

If I read correctly, that would be what she meant by "Pro-Anorexia diets".

grrrlface

I'm not for them but I have had an eating disorder for most of my teenage and adult life. I tried to get healthy but did it wrong by eating the wrong foods and too much, and ended up overweight. I'm now trying to lose weight in a healthier way but it's not easy when I have this voice in the back of my mind telling me I'm eating too much...

I agree with what you're saying though, people I go to college with come and ask me for 'tips' on how to lose weight but I outright refuse! (I've lost 28lbs since I started college so it's obvious to them..) I have a disorder, it's not something I want and I certainly don't want to wish it upon them but they don't understand and just think it's about losing weight.

I wouldn't wish the way I feel on my worst enemy, it's a hell. I wish people would realize it hurts when they ask me about what I'm trying to deal with!

I aim for 1200, I reach it on a good day. I admit, if I'm having a bad day I don't reach 1000, sometimes I have as little as 600. But everyday is a battle and I try and get through it.

robin52077

That would be something defined a bit like this

Well the first one doesn't even contain the word "starvation" so I won't be looking any further. I'm familiar with metabolic rate reduction in response to reduced calorie intake, it's a few hundred calories at most.

However I don't know what the "Pro-Anorexia diet" referred to in the OP is ? and we've converged on a definition of starvation / deprivation as losing organ, bone or muscle mass.

Well in the case of extreme anorexia, yeah, they do lose hair, organ functions and eventually die... So things like a strict 1200 or less diet probably falls in the category the OP meant, especially when it's not seen (as it should be seen) as something that has to me met, but something you should keep away from. Some people here try to leave a few hundred calories on that 1200, then train on top of it and not eat back. All those little things you can add up and obsess about that can lead you further down to the point of developing and ED like anorexia or bulimia. And they are enabled here since they can get praise from their friends about it too, etc.

If I read correctly, that would be what she meant by "Pro-Anorexia diets".

perfect response.

The 1200 is a GOAL to reach, not avoid reaching. And there should not be praise for being under goal.

I believe it should be a target range...within 50 calories of goal is green in EITHER direction, 100 is yellow, 150 is orange, and 200 is red. That way you start your day red, get closer to green, and aim to stay in it once you get there, but if you get over into the yellow or orange you can exercise a little more to bring it BACK to green. I hate how 1199 tells you you're in danger when you click the button but 1200 makes it turn red. Some people don't like seeing red so they'd rather be in "danger" than eat 1205 because it will be red.

tayla78

Well said Robin52077

yarwell

Why would anyone promote "slower weight loss while being really hungry and ruining your metabolism long term", over "eating a healthy amount over BMR, still losing, and having energy and being healthy"?

sorry to increase your distress by posting a reply :-)

I don't think I've seen any evidence for "ruining your metabolism long term", metabolic rates appear to return to baseline after refeeding etc even after some delay. (adjusted for reduced mass, obviously). Hunger is not simply a function of calorie intake either.

If one believes that calorie deficit rules the roost, as many do, then an appropriate and nutritionally complete diet of say 800 calories can create a deficit of 600 calories against a reduced TDEE of 1400. If the TDEE was a bit higher through seeing a smaller intake reduction, say 1650, then eating 1050 is required for the 600 deficit. Are both of these "anorexic" or "starvation" ?

How does the math work for eating 1300 with a 600 deficit, for a small woman ? Presumably adding 250 calories of exercise and not eating them back is the only option. That's fine for people that want to exercise but it's not the only way to lose weight at a sensible deficit.

yarwell

The 1200 is a GOAL to reach, not avoid reaching. And there should not be praise for being under goal.

I believe it should be a target range...within 50 calories of goal is green in EITHER direction, 100 is yellow, 150 is orange, and 200 is red.

Makes sense - a symmetrical target or goal. Controlling something biological and emotional to within 50 in 1200 or more is a bit of a challenge anyway.

meerkat70

You need calories for your brain, muscles, and cells to survive and anything less than around 1200 calories a day is starvation.

Can you define "starvation" please, as used in this sentence.

I am not in favour of anorexia or extreme diets, but I am even less in favour of junk science.

I don't think your comment is actually relevant to the discussion at hand. the thread is about pro-ana, and your anxieties about the term 'starvation mode' appear to have nothing much to do with the OP's original comments.

I understand it's a preoccupation of yours but the urgency with which you turn every other thread to your pet topic does seem a little concerning.

jonski1968

When i think of anorexic diets...I think of the young woman that died this week in the UK...Weighing in at 6 stone. (84lbs)

She thought she was fat.

Enough said.

Charloo1990

It makes me sad seeing all these young ladies doing pro-anorexia diets. You're only hurting yourselves. If you're feeling this low about your body, you don't need a diet, you need a psychiatrist. The ONLY way to really lose weight, stay healthy and keep it off is to adopt a healthy nutrition plan and get regular exercise. These are not quick fixes you can make, they are life changes. You need calories for your brain, muscles, and cells to survive and anything less than around 1200 calories a day is starvation. These kind of diets kill people. Please please please lose weight the smart way. Lean muscle and nutrition is the key to weight loss. I'm a personal trainer and I know the human body very well. Anorexia is not simply a physical illness but a mental one that should be taken just as serious as any other illness.

Yes but having anorexia or an eating disorder doesnt always mean that your feeling really low about your body. Theres much much more to it then that. It can be a control thing. It is a mental illness and i don't think anyone who hasnt had any form of eating disorder can really understand what it does to the person. It is a very difficult thing to get out of. It grips you and changes all your thinking towards food and eating healthy/normal amounts.

yarwell

I don't think your comment is actually relevant to the discussion at hand. the thread is about pro-ana, and your anxieties about the term 'starvation mode' appear to have nothing much to do with the OP's original comments.

The OP used the term, I asked her to define what she meant by it ?

Simple enough really. Telling people losing weight on a nutritionally adequate diet at 1000 calories doesn't seem helpful, but we can all sign up to the idea of not eating so little that you don't get enough nutrients that you can do harm.

MrsSWW

The 1200 is a GOAL to reach, not avoid reaching. And there should not be praise for being under goal.

I believe it should be a target range...within 50 calories of goal is green in EITHER direction, 100 is yellow, 150 is orange, and 200 is red.

Makes sense - a symmetrical target or goal. Controlling something biological and emotional to within 50 in 1200 or more is a bit of a challenge anyway.

Alert the media! Yarwell's agreed with something!

jodiex92

I struggle as when I eat a diet that is healthy (containing mainly protein, veg, fruit, good fats and grains) I struggle to eat enough calories. I was previously extremely underweight and probably looked like I had an ED, but infact I never I thought I was eating a 'healthy' balanced diet but it was less than 1200 cals (I was unaware as I did not count as I wsn't trying to lose weight) however this came with alot of affects. So yeah I understand the importance of eating more than 1200 a day as over a long time it can seriously cause damage (it did to me)

However the only way I have kept weight on (I'm a healthy weight now) is adding in junk to my diet (aswell as healthy foods) but now I don't feel good eating stuff like that, but I know if I cut it out I won't even reach 1200. So i'm sort of in a rut

Hambone23

By extension, calories carry the nutrients you need.

So if we get all the nutrients and enough protein in (say) 600 calories we're neither in starvation nor deprivation, as defined thus far.

This is a ridiculous attempt to get a "definition." Granted, I do not have the science to back this up, but I do have my doctor's knowledge and the numbers on my blood tests. After months of eating vegetables, whole grains, fruits, lean meats, and drinking plenty of water to the tune of a 2,000 calorie diet, my tests still came back showing a lack of iron, vitamin D, and vitamin K. Yes, you can--if you are extremely dedicated--probably gain all your nutrients from your diet. However, at 600 calories? That would be close to impossible unless you were chowing down multivitamins or living on a juicing plan that somehow, magically, provided /all/ your nutrients. But how sustainable--or healthy--is that? Granted, you're purposefully using hyperbole to get a reaction from people.

dinosnopro

Can you define "starvation" please, as used in this sentence.

I am not in favour of anorexia or extreme diets, but I am even less in favour of junk science.

While I agree that the term "starvation mode" is misused and falls in the alarmist category but you are kind of being a dick about it.