Starvation and Refeeding Syndrome

Options
2»

Replies

  • Dickersondiva
    Dickersondiva Posts: 97 Member
    Options
    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
    Quasita Posts: 1,530 Member
    Options
    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
    Quasita Posts: 1,530 Member
    Options
    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
    ATT949 Posts: 1,245 Member
    Options
    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
    ATT949 Posts: 1,245 Member
    Options
    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."
    :-)