Choosing healthy foods now called a mental disorder

Tell me about frozen "fresh" bread because I just took mine out of the oven:)

Serious.

Agreed. I'm the first person to believe in healthy eating and believe that our food choices are the reason behind a lot of our illnesses. However, in my time, I've met a LOT of people who are just fanatically obsessed over every single thing that goes into their mouths. They email producers of organic foods to ask about the soil that it's grown in. They refuse to drink anything other than distilled water (which I had always been under the impression was really bad for you) because of the minute chance of contaminants that aren't removed from other filters. Every.single.f--king.disease is caused by food allergies. I can't help but wonder how they get through the day - it has to take a lot of mental energy to worry so much! I'm sorry, but those people are insane and give the healthy-eating movement a bad name.

It's one thing to be aware of what you're eating. It's another to obsess about it.

I had no appetite for food either for years, weight fears and/or drinking.

"Abby"!:)

3rdtime:

. I have known people who refused to go out to eat or dine at the home of friends because they could not have 100% control over ingredients and preparation methods for even one meal a month. Now that is sick.

Why is that sick?

If you believe the poisons that are commonly put into our often GM food are, in fact, poisons, isn't it reasonable that you wouldn't want to eat any of them?

i.e. Is agreeing to eat a small amount of poison saner than refusing ot eat any poison?

Sorry, but I'm just not following your thinking here...

I have a friend that is a strict vegan. He will eat at my home even though I am an omnivore.

Did someone miss the word "fixation"? They really are talking about compulsive behavior not just ordinary everyday healthful eating. I have known people who refused to go out to eat or dine at the home of friends because they could not have 100% control over ingredients and preparation methods for even one meal a month. Now that is sick.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

The REAL problem is that Americans do not know the importance of proper nutrition.

I think it is sick to not care about what you take into your body.

If you believe the poisons that are commonly put into our often GM food are, in fact, poisons, isn't it reasonable that you wouldn't want to eat any of them?

You said the magic word: believe. My neighbor is a schizt - he "believes" that his food supply (yeah, his...the one he bought at the grocery store like everyone else) is being poisoned by the FBI. So he only eats food that he grows and even then he "believes" that it has been tainted by the FBI - when planed fly overhead.

Believing it doesn't make it any less sick.

GOZO - With all due respect, your article summary is misleading. This "disorder" is not being pushed by the psychiatric industry. It was a term coined by one guy and there is no evidence that the American Psychological Association has any plans to include it in its official definitions.

Okay, but one important thing to remember is that psychiatric help is voluntary. There are no laws against being weird.

But if someone is wanting to stop a behavior or thought process and is unable to do so and it begins to negatively influence their life (either emotionally because of stress or practically in some way) and they WANT to learn how to overcome their obsessive actions and/or thoughts - they can.

If you are happy they way you are, obsessions - quirks - weirdness- and all, great. No one, not even psychiatrists or psychologists are suggesting you MUST get treatment for anything.

When it comes to these issues - only the person with the issue knows if it is a problem for them. But making light of it or suggesting that psychiatrists/psychologists only want to make money or are making up problems may discourage someone who needs help from seeking it from one of these professionals.

I am a bit bias because my father is a child psychologist - so he doesn't treat "disorders" like the one mentioned - but he is extremely hardworking, compassionate, and knowledgeable...and has helped many, many families. I would hate to think someone needs a professionals assistance and don't go because they think they are useless creeps.

WeRdoomed:

Believing it doesn't make it any less sick.

I don't think your friend's problem has anything to do with food, so I'm not sure how it is relevant here...

The seeded article talks about people who are very strict in their approach to what they allow to be taken into their body based upon the option of eating good food or bad food. The seeded article doesn't seem to have anything to do with delusional folk who believe stuff about the FBI.

On the other hand, there is a long and impressive record of big companies putting poisons into the foold supply and government agencies turning a blind eye that activity...

No help in the shrinks office...just a drug. Better drugs on the street.

I will just humbly disagree. Thanks for the seed.

WeRDoomed:

I think if you took a step back from the seed, you might see the situation a little differently.

Specifically, we're talking about people who are allegedly "fixated" on doing something that is essentially good for them.

We're not talking about people who are struggling with impulses to do things that are inherently damaging to them, such as drinking alcohol, gambling, using cocaine...

The problem I have with attaching a pathological label to an inherently healthy activity is that the labelling undermines and seeks to stigmatize positive behavior in healthy people as much as it seeks to idenify allegedly pathological behavior in unhealthy people.

This seed is simply an attempt at villifying the American Psychological Association which I take offense to -- and tend to think such harsh feelings towards the profession usually comes from someone trying to push their own agenda. My agenda is that people do what is best for them as individuals.

These are words from the actual person who coined the term "Orthorexia":

I realize this sounds like an oxymoron. How can focusing on healthy food be bad for you? The apparent contradiction has led to a great deal of challenge of the concept.

But the emphasis is intended to be on “unhealthy obsession.” One can have an unhealthy obsession with something that is otherwise healthy. Think of exercise addition, or workaholism. I never intended the expression to apply to anything other than extreme cases of over-focus, particularly where the person themselves would rather lighten up and stop thinking about it so much. http://www.orthorexia.com/

To say anyone is suggesting a person who wants to "eat healthy" should be treated (always with the implication that they will be medicated which is totally FALSE) is a blatent lie meaning to skew a person into believing all mental health professionals are just pill pushers.

WeRdoomed:

To say anyone is suggesting a person who wants to "eat healthy" should be treated (always with the implication that they will be medicated which is totally FALSE) is a blatent lie meaning to skew a person into believing all mental health professionals are just pill pushers.

I see your point, but I think that you might be reading too much into the resistance to this specific labelling.

Sure, there is a larger -- alternative vs mainstream -- agenda than just the food aspect of this "pathology" issue.

But I don't see the same sweeping attempt to impeach of the mental health industry in the resistance being expressed toward to this labelling that you do.

I guess we just come at the issue from different places.

I guess we just come at the issue from different places.

Quite possible. Thanks for the civil exchange.

WeRdoomed:

Quite possible. Thanks for the civil exchange.

Ditto. :-)

I see nothing wrong or 'abnormal' about wanting to know exactly what you are putting into your body. If you buy your food from a store, you don't really know what is in it. If you grow it yourself, you know.

Calling it obsessive is very subjective. Being 'obsessed' with one's health seems like it should be the norm in a rational society!

Just because the majority of people are okay with being naive about what is in their foodstuff, doesn't make those who do 'disordered'.

Just because the majority of people are okay with being naive about what is in their foodstuff, doesn't make those who do 'disordered'.

Again, if you read the quote in #8.14, you will see that this "disorder" applies to people who 1. are BOTHERED by their own obsessive thoughts/actions regarding food choices 2. suffer malnutrition as a result of their food choices as result of health concerns (this you will read if you follow the link) and 3. seek help for themselves.

It is not and was never meant to apply to people who just like to be healthy. Or even people who are extreme about their health. Only those who have identified themselves as being obsessive and wanting to control their obsessive thoughts/actions regarding food. AND, despite what is being suggested -- no one has ever suggested in the medical profession that the treatment for this disorder include medication.

The problem is...the evaluator decides if "You" are bothered by your obsessions

No, there are no psychiatrists knocking on your door after you order an organic salad at Whole Foods. If someone seeks out a doctor - they are bothered. But no doctors are approaching people on the streets to label them. That is false.

No need to be rude. I'd love to see the statistics on people forcibly referred to psychiatric review because they like to be healthy.

I'd love to see the statistics on people forcibly referred to psychiatric review because they like to be healthy.

Police, Fire, ANY type of first responder is subjected to a review process as well as certain types of those accused of infractions or crimes, only a small percentage of which are deemed to be "mentally ill" but those reviews are completed non the less. I'm sure there are others.

Police, Fire, ANY type of first responder is subjected to a review process as well as certain types of those accused of infractions or crimes, only a small percentage of which are deemed to be "mentally ill" but those reviews are completed non the less.

Are you suggesting it is a bad idea to screen people for mental illness before allowing them to be responsible for the care of human lives? Specifically, access to weapons?

Nevertheless -- I'd like to know how many people - of any kind - were reviewed because they liked healthy food too much.

Then why don't we psyhc and drug screen local, state, and national leaders?

I don't know, but I wouldn't be against it.

307.50
Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified

A nice catch-all for the PUSHERS.

From the link you provided:

Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified

The Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified category is for disorders of eating that do not meet the criteria for any specific Eating Disorder. Examples include

1. For females, all of the criteria for Anorexia Nervosa are met except that the individual has regular menses.

2. All of the criteria for Anorexia Nervosa are met except that, despite significant weight loss, the individual's current weight is in the normal range.

3. All of the criteria for Bulimia Nervosa are met except that the binge eating and inappropriate compensatory mechanisms occur at a frequency of less than twice a week or for a duration of less than 3 months.

4. The regular use of inappropriate compensatory behavior by an individual of normal body weight after eating smallamounts of food (e.g., self-induced vomiting after the consumption of two cookies).

5. Repeatedly chewing and spitting out, but not swallowing, large amounts of food.

6. Binge-eating disorder: recurrent episodes of binge eating in the absence of the regular use of inappropriate compensatory behaviors characteristic of Bulimia Nervosa (see Appendix B in DSM-IV-TR for suggested research criteria).

Also from the link you provided:

It is recommended that Binge Eating Disorder, described in this section of DSM-IV, be recognized as an independent disorder in DSM-5. Recommended changes in the criteria for Anorexia Nervosa, Bulimia Nervosa, and for eating and feeding disorders usually beginning in childhood should also reduce the need for Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified.

If these recommendations are accepted, the examples in Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified will be changed accordingly.

The work group is also considering whether it may be useful and appropriate to describe other eating problems (such as purging disorder--recurrent purging in the absence of binge eating, and night eating syndrome) as conditions that may be the focus of clinical attention. Measures of severity would be required, and these conditions might be listed in an Appendix of DSM-5.

It appears this proposal would apply in times a person displays some, but not all, classical symptoms of eating disorders - not 'eating healthy', specifically. Furthermore, things are not considered a "disorder" unless they interfere with the individuals ability to live a healthy life (both physically and mentally). So, if eating healthy isn't an obsession that causes fear, anxiety, etc., etc. then it wouldn't be a disorder. If "eating healthy" becomes an obsession for an individual to the point that it is interfering with their ability to live a healthy life (in this case, it would be more related to their mental health), then for that person, it would be crossing into being a disorder. Probably more of an anxiety-based disorder. Being passionate and conscientious about what you eat is not the same as being obsessed with what you eat. Just an example - OCD is an anxiety based disorder that involves obsessive thoughts and compulsive behavior. Everyone has some things they always do a certain way and it must be done that way - that would be compulsive behavior. Everyone has things they think about constantly - that would be obsessive thoughts. Most people, however, can still function - they can go about their day with little to no interruption as a result of these things - as a result, even though most people have obsessive thought and compulsive behavior they don't have OCD. I have to organize my cabinets a certain way, if I don't, I'm afraid that I will run out of things, we'll all starve and if the weight isn't distributed properly, the cabinets will break off the walls and hurt us. I have to double check the stove, light switches, locks, curling irons, etc., etc. 5 times each - if I don't things might catch on fire, someone might break in, there might be an electrical shortage, etc. and we'd all die. It typically takes me about 30 minutes just to be sure everything is shut off, doors, windows, etc. are locked before I can get out of the door everyday (and that's down from what it use to be).I have OCD and it's not fun.

The point I'm making is that there is a difference between a disorder and simply being passionate about something. Most healthy eaters are simply passionate about eating healthy - which is a good thing. But, having extreme anxiety, obsessive and compulsive behaviors - even about eating healthy - isn't healthy.

then guess what?

They are defined as disordered!

Yeay, then they can become even more stressed out from not being able to afford all the pills that will be prescribed for them!

Hey, works for Big Pharma.

GOZO-unlimited: Like I said, there is a difference between being obsessed to the point that it is detrimental to the person's health (both physical and mental) and being passionate about something. You can be passionate about healthy eating - and everyone should be - without it being obsessive. There is a difference. Remember life is a balance - everyone's life is a different balance, and everyone has different priorities. That is fine - and normal. If someone isn't able to pay rent because their diet is too expensive - either directly due to the cost of the diet or indirectly due to the travel necessary to maintain that diet - then, they need to make a choice to either remain living in the same location and alter their diet, or move to a location that makes it possible for them to maintain their diet. If a person gets evicted from their home because they are obsessed over a diet - then, yes, that could be a problem. It depends on the individuals life.

IMO, this article simply isn't entirely accurate. It comes across like there is no line between being obsessed and being passionate/conscientious about something - and truly there is. The author of this article mis-states what obsession is when he tries to imply that the APA is saying simply reading a label makes you obsessed. Furthermore he questions the statement "The obsession about which foods are "good" and which are "bad" means orthorexics can end up malnourished.". For someone that truly has an obsession - not just conscientious about what they eat - this can be true. Many people are concerned about the amount of carbs, sugar, fat, etc. that they eat (not talking about chemicals in foods, etc.) - and they should be. However, if you have a true obsession, a fixation, on this - you can inadvertently end up with a skewed diet that lacks some minerals, vitamins, essential amino acids, etc.

Someone that is simply reading labels, looking for organic food, and eating a nutritionally balanced diet - isn't necessarily disordered. I read the article from The Gaurdian that this article is commenting on. The article he is commenting on is NOT describing someone who is conscientious about healthy eating as we all should be. It is describing something beyond simply being aware of what is in the food and maintaining a well balanced meal. It is describing someone that has gone as far as to have so much stress in their lives that they have problems maintaining inter-personal relationships, etc. In fact, in the article by The Gaurdain - it does say "There is a fine line between people who think they are taking care of themselves by manipulating their diet and those who have orthorexia." Which is true - most people will never cross the line into orthorexia - just as most people never cross the line between dieting and anorexia. However, for those that cross the line from healthy, even if strict, adherence to a diet to obsession - it is a mental health disorder. IMO, Mike Adams, the author of your linked article, is deliberating misleading people about what The Guardian article states. That deliberate misleading about this article is extremely damaging to those people who truly do have disordered eating habits - and that can be downright dangerous.

Everyone is on a "diet". Your diet is what you eat...

Well-said, Summer. This article is misrepresented. And actually, the seeded article is really just essentially someone's blog. I worry about the misrepresentation of the APA by people with their own agenda: usually the complete denial of any modern medicine in exchange for "natural" and holistic rememdies.

Personally, I think we should be working to optimize huamn health which will most likely be a combination of modern and holistic paths to physical/mental health.

weRdoomed: Thank you. I agree - it takes combination of modern and holistic methods to achieve optimal health.

(:

It appears this proposal would apply in times a person displays some, but not all, classical symptoms ___________________—

(of eating disorders) - not 'eating healthy', specifically.

In case anyone HASN'T guessed it yet- THIS IS THEIR SCAM. Anyone, at ANY point could be found to exhibit "symptoms" of something in the DSM. This is the WHOLE reason they endeavor to add exponentially to its voluminous size at every turn. In the 50's the DSM was roughly the size of a small magazine including maybe 20-50 "diseases"

The current revision of the DSM carries over 300 different billing codes for "mental illnesses".

then guess what?

They are defined as disordered!

Have you ever wondered why they refer to them as "disorders" or "syndromes" and the catch all "mental illness"?

They CAN'T classify these "symptom groups" as diseases because they can't verify them with a biological test. To call them diseases would open themselves legally to the liability of malpractice as well as having the burden of scientifically proving a person had a biological disease.

This was, is and always will be the defining criteria for the "mental health care" industry. A group of members of the APA meeting & voting by a show of hands to include a "disorder" in the DSM is a process which hasn't ANY BASIS IN SCIENTIFIC DATA VERIFICATION.

It is their OPINION.

It, the APA & WPA, are "professional" (and I use the term LOOSELY) organizations whose sole purpose and motives are the advancement OF THEIR BUSINESSES both privately, and publicly AND NOTHING MORE.

For a good doppleganger rent and view the film THANK YOU FOR SMOKING and every time you hear the words "cigarettes" or "smoking" think "psychiatry" and "pharma". There's hardly any difference.

take21a: You do realize that the proposal is to change this so that there is better classification of the eating disorders. If you actually read the tabbed information - it's clear that they are trying to eliminate the title "not otherwise specified".

What is creative? Better defining anorexia, bulimia, and binge eating - which is specifically the disorders being referred to by take2la's link. In fact, it focuses primarily on binge eating because bing eating doesn't, currently, have it's own designation, but, in practice, binge eating isn't really bulimia, anorexia, etc. In fact, the link that take2la provided doesn't mention a single thing about obsessive healthy eating. Remember - the key word here is obsessive.

Summer,

Oh I realize it-- I just DON'T think including more people means "better classification".

Making "criteria" more broad and overlapping doesn't do anyone any good EXCEPT those who get BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars, world wide, by using these DSM billing codes to line their pockets.

It's not including more people - these people are already included under the non-descriptive title because their particular disorder doesn't fit any currently recognized named disorder. It doesn't make the criteria more broad and overlapping. According to the link YOU posted, there are people that meet the qualifications for anorexia, except they still have their period - so, under the current classification system, they can't be classified as anorexic. There are people that meet the qualifications for bulimia - but don't binge eat. There are people that binge eat, but don't purge. The proposal is to be able to say anorexia with menses is a form of anorexia - which it is; the proposal is to be able to classify binge eating w/o purging as it's own eating disorder, not part of the "not otherwise specified" variety. That's not more broad - that's taking current issues that are being faced in clinics a proper classification.

Again, your link had absolutely NOTHING to say about obsessive healthy eating.

It's not including more people - these people are already included under the non-descriptive title because their particular disorder doesn't fit any currently recognized named disorder. It doesn't make the criteria more broad and overlapping.

So just to get it straight-its your position that making more "disorders" in the DSM DOESN'T add up to including more people as being effected?

I think the APA would argue this as they have STEADILY increased the categories in the DSM since the 50's and the profits of their members have accordingly responded, as have the numbers of diagnoses exponentially. WELL BEYOND the population rates BTW.

take2la: Well, perhaps you need to read the link YOU provided in order to understand what I'm saying. Essentially your link in no way supports the article seeded (which was highly misleading to begin with). Not only does your link not support the article seeded, it doesn't support anything you are saying - the only thing it states is that they are proposing (and it isn't even done) that the classifications be clarified to reflect what is being seen in clinic.

Perhaps these two examples will give you better ideas of just where I stand on the DSM & the APA revision "process".

How to Market a Mental Disorder & Make Billions: "Female Sexual Dysfunction"

Are You Normal or Just Finally Diagnosed?

I don't care whether the APA is discussing the addition of a "new kind" of schizophrenia they have "discovered" or the inclusion of the dreaded "sibling rivalry disorder" (marked by teenage sibling arguments) or "coffee cessation disorder" or 307.50 Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified.

What's abundantly evident by the APA's past history regarding the DSM revisions is that they AREN'T so much trying to "help" people as they are trying to expand their ability to define new categories of billing codes to insurance companies.

IT IS ABOUT INCLUDING NEW WAYS TO ACCESS OTHER PEOPLES (patients) MONEY.

I hope that's more clarifying for you.

There are corrupt people in every field in the world: that includes molecular nutritionists, nurses, teachers, police officers, bus drivers, chiropractors, chefs, athletes, dentists...you get the idea...

but it is crazy to discredit an entire profession because you are aware of the fact the corruption exists in it. In that case, you should never trust anyone at any time for any reason. It is unreasonable and it is unfair -- especially when the profession contains so much good. There is nothing wrong with making people aware of potential pitfalls of a profession...

but it is disingenuous to to portray those corruptions as if it is each and every one of the individuals in the profession. It lacks integrity and turns reasonable people off to any argument you might make.

take2la- your position regarding the APA is obvious - however, that still does nothing to support the claims made by the seeded article. Which grossly misrepresented the article in The Guardian. You are entitled to your opinions - as we all are.

Everyone is on a "diet". Your diet is what you eat.

If someone goes to a dietician for any reason, the first thing that is done is a "diet history". A record of what they eat.

Some diets are followed with a specific purpose in mind. The most common is a 'weight loss' diet. There are diets for diabetics, people with failing kidneys, failing livers, gastrointestinal disorders (celiac disease, irritable bowel...).

While it is true you do not eat a diet, you do eat food. The food you eat constitutes your diet.

di·et ¹

n.

1. The usual food and drink of a person or animal.
2. A regulated selection of foods, as for medical reasons or cosmetic weight loss. 3. Something used, enjoyed, or provided regularly:

Dr Know is referring to definitions 1 and 3

GOZO-unlimited is referring to definition 2

You are both right.

Actually, I was referring to all three (3) definitions. The common misconception is that the only "diets" refer to #2 with emphasis on weight loss.

Thank you, Newsvine Team, for restoring comment #13.23.

I fail to see how your judgement found anything in that comment disrespectful, harrassment, or intimidation. I have let my emotions get the better of my at times and admit to having been disrespectful at times and expect and accept my comment being removed in those cases.

This was not at all the case in this situation, and with all due respect, I think you let your emotions get the better of you in that case. I only fought this deletion because I sincerely felt it was unwarranted. I highly respect your view on things and am interested in your valuable perspectives (specifically in the field of Nutrition/health), but it is in my nature to challenge things when I disagree.

The only reason I am boring you with long comment (my apologies) is because your articles/seeds are so insightful and I would love to engage you in a dialogue on some issues, but I hesitate now because it appeared (in this case) that someone cannot challenge your views without being accused of being disrespectful.

I have avoided your articles/seeds since the deletion because I don't see the point in contributing when a dissenting view will not only be ignored, but actually censored and deleted. And, again, it's a real shame because I am so interested in your perspectives.

With continued respect,

Heather