Clean Eating?
Replies
-
Not if you aren't diagnosed. It's estimated that more people have these issues than are aware of it.
Wait, so a condition is only one in the presence of a diagnosis?0 -
0
-
oh my lawd some people on mfp..0
-
ceoverturf wrote: »
Um...just because something is undiagnosed, doesn't make it any less of a medical condition.
*wow*0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »
Um...just because something is undiagnosed, doesn't make it any less of a medical condition.
+10 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »
Surely you have references for your claim, yes?
reference for what? that absent a medical condition or food allergy our bodies process food in the same manner?0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »
Um...just because something is undiagnosed, doesn't make it any less of a medical condition.
No it doesn't mean you don't have an issue. But it does mean that on threads where you express food reactions you'll receive people telling you it's in your head. Then when people try to tell the OP that they should think about the fact that could have an insulin issue they get written off by other posters.0 -
The bakery sugar is more processed...... That's what it ismantium999 wrote: »
Wait, so a condition is only one in the presence of a diagnosis?
Um. I'm confused. Like, if you go to your doctor and say "I think I'm gluten intolerant," and they do tests, and the tests come back negative and your doctor says "nope, you're not"...you're saying it's still possible?
0 -
reference for what? that absent a medical condition or food allergy our bodies process food in the same manner?
For your claim that the GI distress described by several people here didn't actually occur.0 -
lemonsnowdrop wrote: »
Um. I'm confused. Like, if you go to your doctor and say "I think I'm gluten intolerant," and they do tests, and the tests come back negative and your doctor says "nope, you're not"...you're saying it's still possible?
I think he's saying more along the lines if you have the condition in question, you have it even before you get diagnosed or if you don't go to the doctor.
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
I think he's saying more along the lines if you have the condition in question, you have it even before you get diagnosed or if you don't go to the doctor.
Ah, sure, but I know if I personally suspected myself to have a medical condition, I would be wise enough to seek help from my doctor.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
I think he's saying more along the lines if you have the condition in question, you have it even before you get diagnosed or if you don't go to the doctor.
Well said.0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »
Surely you have references for your claim, yes?
You want a reference for psycho-somatic induced vomiting? It isn't that hard to happen, heck, your initial moral reactions to things you disagree with are processed by the actual same part of the brain that handles biological disgust. You can very easily get physically ill by something that you've become morally outraged against. Hence the issue with demonizing food.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/195862430 -
This content has been removed.
-
You want a reference for psycho-somatic induced vomiting? It isn't that hard to happen, heck, your initial moral reactions to things you disagree with are processed by the actual same part of the brain that handles biological disgust. You can very easily get physically ill by something that you've become morally outraged against. Hence the issue with demonizing food.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19586243
The claim was that people have no differing reactions to food. Psychosomatic response certainly qualifies as a reaction. Whether the root cause is physical or mental isn't at issue.0 -
I can relate. In fact the other day I made a post called "Food hangover". It seems that since I don't eat sweets, much dairy, grains, etc. when I do induge in these items it just doesn't work for my body any longer. It makes me sick and bloated and generally achy all over!
Sugar is not bad, no foods are bad, it comes down to the number of calories.
But some food... when you don't eat it for a long time it really has legit physical effects!0 -
You're trying to reduce it to a black-white choice so that you can claim you're right simply if NDJ is wrong.accidentalpancake wrote: »
For your claim that the GI distress described by several people here didn't actually occur.
What is really happening is post-hoc analysis of probabilities. What is being claimed is that being spontaneously sensitive to sugar is the least probably cause. Far more likely causes are that the cake was prepared wrong, or that it was psycho-somatic.0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »
For your claim that the GI distress described by several people here didn't actually occur.
never said that.
I said it was due to bad food, coming down wit something, or something besides just "sugar"...
0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »
Define medical problem.
I'll play. Found this. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/medical+condition
medical conditionA disease, illness or injury; any physiologic, mental or psychological condition or disorder (e.g., orthopaedic; visual, speech or hearing impairments; cerebral palsy; epilepsy; muscular dystrophy; multiple sclerosis; cancer; coronary artery disease; diabetes; mental retardation; emotional or mental illness; specific learning disabilities; HIV disease; TB; drug addiction; alcoholism). A biological or psychological state which is within the range of normal human variation is not a medical condition.
I bolded the part that relate to your list of 3 items. So, your turn. When 2 of those 3 (hormone response, and insulin sensitivity) fall outside of the range of normal human variation, they would be considered a medical condition, based on their being a physiologic item. So, how is your list of items a contradiction to the statement of "absent a medical condition"???0 -
Yes, it actually is important. Simply because you need to misrepresent NDJ as saying no one felt ill, rather than him arguing about the underlying cause because it is the only way you can make an argument at this point, doesn't change what he said.accidentalpancake wrote: »
The claim was that people have no differing reactions to food. Psychosomatic response certainly qualifies as a reaction. Whether the root cause is physical or mental isn't at issue.0 -
I haven't read all the posts, but could it be more a matter of eating too much rather than WHAT you ate? You said you went over your calories. You don't say by how much, but if you ate a normal day's worth of food and then stuffed down two pieces of cake, that could make you feel sick and you'd likely feel just as sick if you stuffed down the same amount of broccoli. Except no one would stuff down that much broccoli.
0 -
Timorous_Beastie wrote: »I haven't read all the posts, but could it be more a matter of eating too much rather than WHAT you ate? You said you went over your calories. You don't say by how much, but if you ate a normal day's worth of food and then stuffed down two pieces of cake, that could make you feel sick and you'd likely feel just as sick if you stuffed down the same amount of broccoli. Except no one would stuff down that much broccoli.
I was thinking the same thing. I just ate a ton of graham sticks and now I feel ill, but it certainly wasn't because of what I ate.0 -
cushman5279 wrote: »I can relate. In fact the other day I made a post called "Food hangover". It seems that since I don't eat sweets, much dairy, grains, etc. when I do induge in these items it just doesn't work for my body any longer. It makes me sick and bloated and generally achy all over!
Sugar is not bad, no foods are bad, it comes down to the number of calories.
But some food... when you don't eat it for a long time it really has legit physical effects!
I'd be careful saying that here. The thread Nazis will come down on you for speaking unpopular opinions.0 -
mantium999 wrote: »
I'll play. Found this. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/medical+condition
medical conditionA disease, illness or injury; any physiologic, mental or psychological condition or disorder (e.g., orthopaedic; visual, speech or hearing impairments; cerebral palsy; epilepsy; muscular dystrophy; multiple sclerosis; cancer; coronary artery disease; diabetes; mental retardation; emotional or mental illness; specific learning disabilities; HIV disease; TB; drug addiction; alcoholism). A biological or psychological state which is within the range of normal human variation is not a medical condition.
I bolded the part that relate to your list of 3 items. So, your turn. When 2 of those 3 (hormone response, and insulin sensitivity) fall outside of the range of normal human variation, they would be considered a medical condition, based on their being a physiologic item. So, how is your list of items a contradiction to the statement of "absent a medical condition"???
Hormone response differs depending on gender and age, and there is no way to standardize most hormonal responses across all populations. There is no single human variation available to fall outside of.
I'll have to get papers dug up on insulin response, but that's a poor example to support the point as well.
Further, why would they be medical issues if they require no treatment, as both of the above qualify in the majority of cases?
0 -
lemonsnowdrop wrote: »
Um. I'm confused. Like, if you go to your doctor and say "I think I'm gluten intolerant," and they do tests, and the tests come back negative and your doctor says "nope, you're not"...you're saying it's still possible?
Lol ok but the thing is that a lot of the undiagnosed medical problems people tend to have (not speaking now about the OP's response to cake, to be clear) are undiagnosed because
1) they're hard to work out from the symptoms alone, some of which may be vague or hard to differentiate from 100 other things without appropriate medical investigation
2) sometimes, the issues are subclinical as far as official test ranges go - i.e. they're not read by a lab as "abnormal" - but still cause symptoms. This is an issue for people with hormonal problems particularly (thyroid, pcos). (The normal reference ranges for some thyroid tests were recently changed, for example, and not all labs treat them the same way)
3) not all doctors are equally familiar with or competent at diagnosis or management of some complex conditions, or as up on the latest, most helpful treatments as would be ideal. E.g. with IBS, lots of GPs (like mine) just say, "eat more fiber". Yeah ok, except people with different expressions of IBS respond differently to soluble & insoluble fiber. The wrong kind of fiber actually makes things worse for some people.
4) it takes more than you imagine to deal with 3) . Being an effective self-advocate involves a) not feeling demoralized by an indifferent doctors' dismissal of symptoms, i.e. trusting your body over the apparent authority of sometimes inappropriate (for the condition) tests and ranges, or bad or outdated advice, and b) having enough energy to go through the sometimes necessary round of getting second opinions, finding a good care team, etc - which is no mean feat when you already don't feel well.
0 -
lemonsnowdrop wrote: »
Ah, sure, but I know if I personally suspected myself to have a medical condition, I would be wise enough to seek help from my doctor.
Yeah, most people do.
My dad knows he has high blood pressure, but he puts off going to the doctor. Some people are just stubborn.0 -
Yes, it actually is important. Simply because you need to misrepresent NDJ as saying no one felt ill, rather than him arguing about the underlying cause because it is the only way you can make an argument at this point, doesn't change what he said.
Midpath noted that such intake can mess with people's stomachs. NDJ said that it doesn't, and that they only think it does. There's no interpretation to be made, those are the words. Nothing about source of distress, nothing acknowledging distress, but outright denial that it happened.0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »
Hormone response differs depending on gender and age, and there is no way to standardize most hormonal responses across all populations. There is no single human variation available to fall outside of.
I'll have to get papers dug up on insulin response, but that's a poor example to support the point as well.
Further, why would they be medical issues if they require no treatment, as both of the above qualify in the majority of cases?
An engaged discussion, sweet!!! First, I am no expert on hormonal issues, so I am not making claims. Genuinely interacting in conversation here. Would a hormonal response outside of the norm (which you stated can't be standardized) be considered a hormonal imbalance, which are often treated medically? Or are these 2 completely different entities?0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »
Midpath noted that such intake can mess with people's stomachs. NDJ said that it doesn't, and that they only think it does. There's no interpretation to be made, those are the words. Nothing about source of distress, nothing acknowledging distress, but outright denial that it happened.
Long before you came into the thread, NDJ said:
That sounds to me like NDJ perfectly well acknowledging it could be psychosomatic in nature.no, it is called a self fulfilling prophecy. You eat cake and think "oh no, I ate bad foods" and you immediate mental reaction triggers you to feel bad..0 -
Wish I had something to add lol but my sub topic got deleted sooooo
*sits patiently for work to end*0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 448 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions