This is patently incorrect and under your definition a person who is legitimately starving to the point of suppression of cognitive function and the break down of normal processes such as menstrual cycles, normal endocrine release, and degradation of vital organs would not be considered anorexic. Because as I understand your definition does not allow traditionally overweight people to be considered anorexic. I can assure you that when I was 17, hadn't gotten my period in 3 years, eating less than 800 calories and still considered overweight I was absolutely anorexic. The poster child for anorexia being a skeleton thin frail female is actually not very indicative of the majority of the populace it affects. A large number (35%) of kids who are identified as having anorexia are obese: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/overweight-anorexic_n_3882347.html. Your definition of anorexia seems to be largely about the physical. Every definition out there, including the one in the DSM-V addresses the fact that anorexia nervosa is a mental disorder and has nothing to do with the physical. Its chief hallmark is the obsession with loss of weight, and severe restriction of calories. Many articles cite the beginning of a designation of anorexia as high as a restriction to 1500 calories. Even the DSM-V has recently been revised to reflect that "absolute weights are not barometers for health" and should not be considered primary diagnostic criteria (https://www.verywellmind.com/anorexia-nervosa-in-individuals-of-higher-weights-1138302). Your "atypical" anorexia is anorexia. Full stop.
The topic was "relatively reasonable suggestions" for overweight people to lose weight. Overweight means a larger body mass. Its not a difficult extrapolation.
That having been said, I'm parachuting out of this for my own mental health. I think a fair few people in this conversation have come to the conclusion that this and other conversations that you started with the ostensible premise of helping you understand where you went wrong only seem to have one acceptable conclusion for you - absolving you of any culpability. That's not a cause I'm willing to donate my spoons to.
Actually the topic is hating on the word "fee fees" if you're going to go back beyond the sentence right in front of what I said.
Answering because Trilli has stepped out of the convo for her mental health: That might be what started the conversation, but that is not at all the topic of this thread, or the topic of the paragraph that Trilli was responding to. The topic of this thread is fatlogic, their rhetoric, and your phrasing that you've adopted from them, as well as related websites. The topic of the paragraph / post that Trili was responding to was the idea that a ProAna website had any good ideas about weight loss, which includes "suggestions for overweight people to lose weight". So not only was your response rude and dismissive, it's factually wrong.
So factually, an apple and enough other stuff to fill a salad plate is not comparatively better than trying to live on sugar-free jello? Really se shouldn't have gone beyond the paragraph because I marked it as a tangent. That 2-- plate I linked actually looks pretty good except that I'd sub out the almonds because they're harder than my teeth. One of those to cure the morning headache, one to cure the afternoon grumpies so I can cook dinner, then dinner. (I probably wouldn't have afternoon grumpies if I was drinking tea instead of rum-coke.) I found hänen rather rude because se was so off that I couldn't see where se was misinterpreting. (That's awkward... not going to fix the pronouns to english plural from finnish, but going to go back to english plural after this.)
Greallan, you might need to take a hard look at yourself and ask why you're so damn invested in policing other people's choices and seem only to have interests and hobbies based on pulling others down. Lots of people have given you lots of very well researched and well documented information on versions topics you've been pretty horrible about, and you keep going "but but but" and honestly, it looks like you've invested a great deal of your mental energy - and possibly based your own self image - in being what you discern as 'better' than others, and look for excuses to shift blame when someone tells you that toxic shit ain't gonna fly. It's not healthy, and you seem to keep wondering why you run into problems in various communities, and never seem to consider that it's because you hold a lot of really terribly offensive and bigoted points of view that you then defend (or get offended when called out.) It's really not that complex a concept. Stop being a jerk with your opinions, consider you could just be wrong (particularly about things people are telling you you're woefully misinformed in), be a better person.
Unnecessary additions like this are, again, a massive part of what gets you consistently hostile responses. You don't just disagree with people, you do it while taking condescending potshots at them. TrillianAri was PLENTY on-topic, and expecting the thread to stay focused on just the term 'fee-fees' when you yourself have been talking about a lot of other things is... kind of ridiculous? That might have been a tangent, but you also said it, and expecting people to not respond to things after you post them in a public thread as part of an ongoing conversation is unreasonable. Making condescending asides about how people should have known not to respond to the words you put in this thread is unreasonable. You might be allowed to do it, but you're still antagonizing people for no good reason, which I keep bringing up in these various threads as a persistent, self-sabotaging theme.
Same hat. The calorie-counter app I use has me at 1450 calories as the absolute minimum I should be getting if I'm not doing anything more intense than "walk around the house and Generally Exist". If I'm even just meeting my step goal for the day? I need to add about 100 calories more to what I'm taking in for every thousand steps I've taken. I generally don't have a lot of patience for fatlogic or proana rhetoric, because that shit is toxic. My mom has struggled with her weight for as long as I can remember - and she's always been on the heavier side. She once told me that the thinnest she'd been was before she met my dad, at a point when she was eating pretty much just oatmeal and cottage cheese and biking everywhere. I believe it, and I also believe that it was probably incredibly unhealthy for her and that it would be even more unhealthy for me to try and emulate that. She has never encouraged me or my sister to try and diet, but I'm pretty sure there aren't many diets she hasn't tried either - I know we had a South Beach Diet cookbook in the house, and she did Weight Watchers on and off when I was a teen. Personally, I've gone from being told that I'm too thin and need to eat more (and being the 'skinny kid' of the family, whose pants always needed to be taken in if we didn't want them falling off me) to being told that I look just like my mother when she was my age. The only real difference is that I used to be walking a kilometer home from school every weekday and I had unmedicated ADHD (which meant that I was moving restlessly even at home), and that back then I had a teenager's metabolism; now I'm a bit less active and I'm in my 30s. I've come to terms with the fact that I am never going to look like one of the models on Project Runway. It's physically impossible for me to look like that, even if I starve myself; I'm not a teenager any more, and I would probably die of malnutrition or starvation before I started looking rail-thin like that. I'd rather not die, so society's views on my weight can fuck right off; I'm aware that the only way to keep myself at goal weight if I ever hit it is to maintain a calorie-restricted diet and to exercise daily, and that it's going to be increasingly impossible to stay that weight as I get older and my metabolism slows down.
Spock already covered this, but it doesn't matter if what you said was a tangent. You still said it. Trilli (and I) thought it was harmful and felt it needed to be commented on, so Trilli did that. What??? Someone missing the point that you thought you were making does not make them rude. It means that you med to communicate your point better. I'll be honest in that I didn't really care to look at the link you posted. Based on what Trilli and others have said, that plate of food would be a good snack or maybe a light breakfast. Certainly not a full meal. Trying to pass it off as one is harmful and that's why we're talking about it.
Congrats, you found something on a pro-ana site that isn't as harmful as say, "three grapes is totally a meal"! That doesn't mean that pro-ana logic (those calorie counts are way too fucking low) isn't harmful, (those calorie counts are WAY TOO FUCKING LOW) and fatlogic isn't condescending fuckery. Just because you managed to find something that isn't 100% grade-a bullshit doesn't mean you're not Mayor Wrong of Wrongtown, sitting listening to President Wrong of Wronglandia. Nobody commented on the salad plate vs jello, because the overarching idea and culture are fucking toxic. Some things might be less toxic. Maybe fatlogic has some actual weight loss advice that isn't based entirely on shame and an understanding of biology so flimsy it makes Lemark sound reasonable. That doesn't mean it's not full of people punching down and complaining about those whiny fatasses who dare want to be treated like real people. My anecdata for the pile: I gained a lot of weight after my MI diagnoses due to medication roulette fucking up both my metabolism and my emotional state. I already had a hard time because of unspecified physical health issues I'm just now starting to get sorted because of aforementioned mental illnesses. I initially got the "everything is wrong because you're fat, stop being a fatass you fatass" treatment from my doctor. More specifically, I complained about problems I've had since I was underweight (constant flares of pain, a heart rate that never went below 85, breathing issues) and she sent in a nutritionist to lecture me on healthy diet and what the fuck a carb is rather than, you know, actually address my problems. I was livid. I grew up with a brittle type 1 diabetic. Most others in my family are type 2. I know how to portion and what carbs are and the importance of protein. Fortunately the nutritionist actually listened to me. She told me to eat more. See, I dissociate near constantly. I tend not to notice my body's signals until they're unbearable, so I won't eat until dinner because even if I woke up hungry I won't notice until my body is straight fucking screaming at me. Fortunately my family tends to shove dinner at me so I don't miss whole days. Then I eat too much at dinner (but don't hit my min calorie count) because fuck, I just realized I'm HUNGRY. So my body ends up in a feast/famine loop and everything gets converted to fat. (And not eating makes my dissociation worse, so I don't eat, so I dissociate, so I don't eat...) I've started eating more, even if it just means drinking a protein shake at Designated Meal Time. I've lost a good 50 pounds, with some yoyoing because my self care is shit, but when I'm keeping on track it works. An increase in food has caused me to lose weight. If I ate even less all that would happen is I'd get sick. Fuck fatlogic and their "bodies follow the laws of physics~" bullshit. Bodies are complicated. People aren't a goddamn balloon that expands when filled with stuff and deflates when not. I've got a friend who can eat six plates at an all you can eat buffet and lose weight because their digestion is phuct and their body can't process most of it. (They'll also spend the next several days regretting everything with their intestines tying themselves in knots, but my point stands). It's not a neat little equation you can write out and have everyone adhere to with perfect results every time. "Eat less" as a means of losing weight may help one person and literally kill another.
Because I keep finding more things to say -- I said that your response to Trilli about the topic of conversation was factually incorrect. In that post I did not say anything about the plate of food. Please respond to the actual words that I said and that you quoted. Based on your logic later in the post, you're being rude again for missing my point. Note: that's not actually why I think you're being rude right now, but I want to hold you to your own standards.
real talk: 287 calories is not enough for a mealtime. it doesn't matter if it's 287 calories of jello or 287 calories of vegetables - if you're eating 287 calories and passing that off as lunch, you're going to have problems. there is not enough energy there to sustain you at all.
Yup. 200-odd calories isn't even One Sandwich worth of food. It's half a sandwich, at most; I could get 200 calories from a couple slices of deli cheese. A sandwich made with that deli cheese would come in at around 400-odd calories, and that's still not going to be enough for a complete meal. (Of course, you might get fooled by how much is 'enough' for a meal, if you're looking at the calorie counts of frozen entrees. Lean Cuisine's stuff rarely goes above 300 calories per box. Which only goes to prove that the whole diet industry is fucked up.)
The thing about "calories in, calories out" as "advice" is that scientific research on what physically leads to weight loss really, really, really needs to be combined with scientific research on what psychologically leads to weight loss. The evidence shows that the number of calories is very important; it also shows that trying to count them is highly likely to backfire and sabotage whatever goal you might have with it.
Anorexia isn't 'about' either of those things. No offence, but I strongly recommend that you stop trying to armchair-define what it's 'about', because it sounds about as accurate as my old roommate off her face on DMT having a ~revelation~ about what the Big Bang 'meant'.
Technically speaking, it seems the DSM defines one of the diagnostic criteria for anorexia nervosa as an unusually low weight, and correlates BMI with severity of the disorder. But in my opinion, that's really stupid, and would be like saying one of the necessarily symptoms for diagnosing diabetes is blindness. (But at least, it's better than the previous "85% of ideal body weight and missed three periods if AFAB" bullshit so that points to some progress, I guess.)
People on 1200isplenty are generally either 5'2 or trying to lose weight. Also not everyone is restricting to 1200. However, it does look like a proanna vibe going on. Looking at some calculators, my maintain calories are above 2000 and the weight loss one says a bit over 1200. I'll have to poke around some more to see what number ranges I get from other calculators. I can't remember what site I was looking at, but it was saying my goal weight should be 140-ish and I plugged that in instead of a more reasonable 180 I'll try to keep in mind that I should mark my level of belief in things. There's still some things people are saying here that I don't agree with.
