Thoughts on Pro-Anorexia Diets
Replies
-
But why the hell does some self righteous person come in every day that the under eaters are killing themselves and nobody is allowed to say the same of the over eaters. And honestly, I would bet that the per person taxpayer cost of obesity is worse than that of anorexia.I have never made fun of someone for being overweight and I do have a lot of sympathy for someone who is very overweight, just as I do for someone who suffers from any eating disorder. It can't be pleasant to live inside their heads or their bodies.
"In 1990, the direct cost of obesity-associated disease in the US was $US45.8 billion, and the indirect cost of obesity was estimated to be $US23.0 billion. Therefore the total economic cost of obesity was estimated to be $US68.8 billion in 1990."
The cost of obesity: the US perspective.
AuthorsWolf AM, et al. Show all Journal
Pharmacoeconomics. 1994;5(Suppl 1):34-7.
Affiliation
Harvard Medical School, Channing Laboratory, Boston, Massachusetts.
Um ... I don't know what message board YOU'RE on, but that does happen. A lot.
I spend altogether too much time here and I've never seen anyone disparage a person with an unhealthy high weight goal. I've only ever seen disparaging remarks towards the people with unhealthy low goals. There are multiple threads and groups supporting unhealthy high goal weights, and I don't always open the threads because I would be too tempted to post that many of the goals are not healthy, and I know that wouldn't do them any good. They either know it isn't healthy and just don't think they are capable of lower or they think it is healthy and nothing I could say or link could change that.0 -
UGH. Why are there SO MANY of these kind of threads??
"I dont understand why people can't just eat their calories"
"Why do people starve themselves"
"People who dont eat 1200 calories a day are destroying their bodies"
etc etc etc
Maybe those people have an eating disorder. Maybe those people dont actually NEED 1200 calories. Maybe those people overate yesterday and want to make up for it today.
It's really none of your business and if it bugs you so much dont look at their food diary and don't talk to them about what they eat.
Does my mere existence bother you that much? Does the fact that I eat under 1000 calories a day just grind your gears SO much that you need to point me out and analyze me and ask questions about me? I don't go around asking how people can eat over their calorie goal.
I'm just so sick of this. LET PEOPLE EAT WHATEVER THE **** THEY WANT.
Actually, it IS OP's business because one of these people sent her a friend request. If these low-cal eaters (whatever if they have a disorder or not) wouldn't try to friend request every skinny person and their mother then it would be such a big deal.
And you can tell yourself eating 800 calories a day is healthy for you, sure it is. But don't expect to win over opinions with that one.
It is still none of the OP's business. Reject the friend request and keep it moving.
I can tell you that if people cut the CRAP and processed JUNK out of their way of eating they could eat enough vegetables, proteins and fats for adequate nutrition on 800 or 900 calories per day.
It is NOT about the number, it is all about the QUALITY
Aboslutely!! THIS
800 calories consisting of whole foods such as grilled meat, healthy fresh vegetables, low-sugar fruit is healthier than 800 calories consisting of over processed "diet" foods.0 -
But why the hell does some self righteous person come in every day that the under eaters are killing themselves and nobody is allowed to say the same of the over eaters. And honestly, I would bet that the per person taxpayer cost of obesity is worse than that of anorexia.I have never made fun of someone for being overweight and I do have a lot of sympathy for someone who is very overweight, just as I do for someone who suffers from any eating disorder. It can't be pleasant to live inside their heads or their bodies.
"In 1990, the direct cost of obesity-associated disease in the US was $US45.8 billion, and the indirect cost of obesity was estimated to be $US23.0 billion. Therefore the total economic cost of obesity was estimated to be $US68.8 billion in 1990."
The cost of obesity: the US perspective.
AuthorsWolf AM, et al. Show all Journal
Pharmacoeconomics. 1994;5(Suppl 1):34-7.
Affiliation
Harvard Medical School, Channing Laboratory, Boston, Massachusetts.
Um ... I don't know what message board YOU'RE on, but that does happen. A lot.
I spend altogether too much time here and I've never seen anyone disparage a person with an unhealthy high weight goal. I've only ever seen disparaging remarks towards the people with unhealthy low goals. There are multiple threads and groups supporting unhealthy high goal weights, and I don't always open the threads because I would be too tempted to post that many of the goals are not healthy, and I know that wouldn't do them any good. They either know it isn't healthy and just don't think they are capable of lower or they think it is healthy and nothing I could say or link could change that.
Well, unless you know someone's height, it's difficult to determine an unhealthy weight goal that's "too high." But I doubt there are a great number of people who are short enough that 80 pounds is healthy. Not to mention that you can see a person's photo and then look at the ticker saying the person wants to lose 20 pounds (when said person is already teeny-tiny) and figure out that is an unhealthy goal.
But if a woman who is 6 feet tall is aiming for, say, 170, is that unhealthy??? Nope.0 -
It doesn't matter how "healthy" your diet is if you're not consuming enough food to sustain your basic nutritional needs. For most of us, 800 calories is simply too low.UGH. Why are there SO MANY of these kind of threads??
"I dont understand why people can't just eat their calories"
"Why do people starve themselves"
"People who dont eat 1200 calories a day are destroying their bodies"
etc etc etc
Maybe those people have an eating disorder. Maybe those people dont actually NEED 1200 calories. Maybe those people overate yesterday and want to make up for it today.
It's really none of your business and if it bugs you so much dont look at their food diary and don't talk to them about what they eat.
Does my mere existence bother you that much? Does the fact that I eat under 1000 calories a day just grind your gears SO much that you need to point me out and analyze me and ask questions about me? I don't go around asking how people can eat over their calorie goal.
I'm just so sick of this. LET PEOPLE EAT WHATEVER THE **** THEY WANT.
Actually, it IS OP's business because one of these people sent her a friend request. If these low-cal eaters (whatever if they have a disorder or not) wouldn't try to friend request every skinny person and their mother then it would be such a big deal.
And you can tell yourself eating 800 calories a day is healthy for you, sure it is. But don't expect to win over opinions with that one.
It is still none of the OP's business. Reject the friend request and keep it moving.
I can tell you that if people cut the CRAP and processed JUNK out of their way of eating they could eat enough vegetables, proteins and fats for adequate nutrition on 800 or 900 calories per day.
It is NOT about the number, it is all about the QUALITY
Aboslutely!! THIS
800 calories consisting of whole foods such as grilled meat, healthy fresh vegetables, low-sugar fruit is healthier than 800 calories consisting of over processed "diet" foods.0 -
It makes me sad when I see people who have unhealthily high goal weights. I have a large frame too, I understand not everybody fits in the box, but if your waist measurements are still disproportionate and you still have over 30% bodyfat, it is not a healthy weight, it is not curvy, it is still unhealthy and obese.
Why are we only allowed to pick on one half of the disordered eaters?
I'm not at all pro-Ana, but I think they have just as much right to be unhealthy as the girls with a 200 pound goal weight.
Very true. I understand that some are only using the higher number as an initial goal, but there are plenty 5'3 people aiming for 175 as their final goal. That can't be a healthy body fat range... I guess some people want to be healthy and others will settle for being healthi-ER than before, even if it's still not healthy.0 -
But why the hell does some self righteous person come in every day that the under eaters are killing themselves and nobody is allowed to say the same of the over eaters. And honestly, I would bet that the per person taxpayer cost of obesity is worse than that of anorexia.I have never made fun of someone for being overweight and I do have a lot of sympathy for someone who is very overweight, just as I do for someone who suffers from any eating disorder. It can't be pleasant to live inside their heads or their bodies.
"In 1990, the direct cost of obesity-associated disease in the US was $US45.8 billion, and the indirect cost of obesity was estimated to be $US23.0 billion. Therefore the total economic cost of obesity was estimated to be $US68.8 billion in 1990."
The cost of obesity: the US perspective.
AuthorsWolf AM, et al. Show all Journal
Pharmacoeconomics. 1994;5(Suppl 1):34-7.
Affiliation
Harvard Medical School, Channing Laboratory, Boston, Massachusetts.
Um ... I don't know what message board YOU'RE on, but that does happen. A lot.
I spend altogether too much time here and I've never seen anyone disparage a person with an unhealthy high weight goal. I've only ever seen disparaging remarks towards the people with unhealthy low goals. There are multiple threads and groups supporting unhealthy high goal weights, and I don't always open the threads because I would be too tempted to post that many of the goals are not healthy, and I know that wouldn't do them any good. They either know it isn't healthy and just don't think they are capable of lower or they think it is healthy and nothing I could say or link could change that.
Well, unless you know someone's height, it's difficult to determine an unhealthy weight goal that's "too high." But I doubt there are a great number of people who are short enough that 80 pounds is healthy. Not to mention that you can see a person's photo and then look at the ticker saying the person wants to lose 20 pounds (when said person is already teeny-tiny) and figure out that is an unhealthy goal.
But if a woman who is 6 feet tall is aiming for, say, 170, is that unhealthy??? Nope.
THIS!!!
There, this above should end the argument. Everyone should educate themselves and then argue. And no, I'm not judging anyone. It's just fact that you have to know what you're talking about to make a point.0 -
I have read the first couple of pages of this thread so I apologise if I'm just repeating what's been said by somebody else.
I started my dieting at 18 stone and would have 1,200 cals per day and NOT eat back any of my exercise calories. I HAD to lose weight quickly for health reasons, and it worked for me. Although most people here are making out that I should have felt rubbish at that amount of cals per day, I actually felt better than ever before, as a lot of my cals were made up from low cal things like veg.. so it didn't feel as though I wasn't eating much.
I stayed on that amount for TWELVE MONTHS before I was no longer in the overweight category. Now, I am gradually increasing my cals because I don't need to lose weight as urgently, and I am also now eating back my exercise cals. So don't judge EVERYONE who only logs 1,200, because there might be a genuine reason that they need to do this in the short term.
I now net 1,500 which usually means I can lost a pound a week (as I live a fairly active lifestyle and don't log my every day walking around for work etc so my net is probably a little lower) and I am happy about that.
I will be able to increase this to 2,000 cals per day when I am maintaining, and this is something that I am REALLY looking forward to.
1,200 is a little low yes, but some people have genuine reasons to need to lose the weight quickly.0 -
It makes me sad when I see people who have unhealthily high goal weights. I have a large frame too, I understand not everybody fits in the box, but if your waist measurements are still disproportionate and you still have over 30% bodyfat, it is not a healthy weight, it is not curvy, it is still unhealthy and obese.
Why are we only allowed to pick on one half of the disordered eaters?
I'm not at all pro-Ana, but I think they have just as much right to be unhealthy as the girls with a 200 pound goal weight.
Very true. I understand that some are only using the higher number as an initial goal, but there are plenty 5'3 people aiming for 175 as their final goal. That can't be a healthy body fat range... I guess some people want to be healthy and others will settle for being healthi-ER than before, even if it's still not healthy.
I actually agree with this. I'm 5'3" and at 166 (my highest) I was FAT. I can't imagine being 175. But if you say anything, you get the lecture about BMI being wrong and muscle and all of that, so it isn't worth the fight.
HOWEVER ... there are many studies showing that being slightly overweight is not all that unhealthy, while being so thin your organs shut down will kill you pretty quickly. So there is a HUGE difference between someone wanting to be a little heavier than he or she probably should be and someone wanting to be a walking skeleton. One is an almost immediate death sentence and the other isn't.
I don't think it's so much that people agree with the higher goals as it is we aren't immediately concerned that person might die within a matter of months.0 -
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.
But that's barely enough to run your brain, so good luck eating that much.0 -
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.
But that's barely enough to run your brain, so good luck eating that much.
Considering my day-to-day work, I'd say my brain does a pretty spectacular job on under 1200 calories per day.0 -
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.
But that's barely enough to run your brain, so good luck eating that much.
Considering my day-to-day work, I'd say my brain does a pretty spectacular job on under 1200 calories per day.
I salute you. :laugh:
But, it IS generally better to eat at least 1200 cals a day.0 -
Instead of dealing with the multitude of abuse reports on this thread (some valid, some not)
I am going to lock this thread. Much of the replies are childish and/or argumentative, and don't belong on MFP.
Please do not report this thread anymore, we've received your complaints and have responded appropriately.
SHBoss1673
MyFitnessPal forums moderator0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions