Originally Posted by cub (Post 4311300)

That's not what I'm saying. I said we shouldn't slap a label of 'mental illness' on people who are obese, or suggest that people that turn to food as a comfort is the other side of the coin - and therefore the same - as anorexia.

Weight gain is often based on being unhappy and the use of food as a happiness-booster. Anorexia, as I understand it, is more of a control issue.

Obesity is food-led. Anorexia is body shape-led.

Most overweight people feel unhappy when they look in the mirror. Anorexics want to be thin. Obese people do not want to be fat.

Originally Posted by Beastie (Post 4310600)

When it's only them to blame.

Anorexia is also a self loathing illness. If an anorexic dies they only have themselves to blame.

Originally Posted by Claymores (Post 4309665)

It does occur to me that obesity can be a long-term lifestyle choice in many cases, whereas starving yourself to death is a form of body dysmorphia which requires sympathy and intervention for the mental illness. It implies conscious angst rather than a love of food and fun over years. The two are incomparable and to mention the two extremes in the same breath is silly.

Nobody is going to stop the fatty having the chocolate pudding + enjoying themself at the dinner table while he/she engages with everyone..........I believe it is less torrible if another is not eating, having food issues and/or 'doing a Diana' down the toilet pan in mental anguish.

Originally Posted by lostalex (Post 4312868)

Actually many obese people do have body dysmorphia. A lot of fat people are in denial about how fat they are, because it usually happens slowly, gaining weight i mean, so they still see themselves as thin, even though they are over weight. Plus there are so many media sources saying "women are supposed to be curvy" justifying being over weight.

Originally Posted by Pyramid* (Post 4312936)

I'm not I'm buying this....... an obese person can still see themselves as thin?

Many obese people are in complete denial about the amount of food that they eat, but they still are more than aware that they are obsese - they will argue blind about how little they eat, and the type of foods that they eat. Many more than admit to it being 'a comfort, makes them feel good/better' - they are aware they are obsese.

Originally Posted by lostalex (Post 4312937)

have you ever been obese?

Originally Posted by Pyramid* (Post 4312942)

I don't have to be obese to have a viewpoint that simply doesn't match yours.

Originally Posted by lostalex (Post 4312944)

I didn't ask you to agree. But the way you spoke, you sounded very authoritative about the issue, so i was wondering if you had personal experience. just wondering.

Originally Posted by lostalex (Post 4312947)

My mom was always struggling with her weight, and she was the most hard working person i've ever known. My brother is the skinniest person i've ever known, and he's one of the laziest people i've ever seen.

I don't think being over weight has anything to do with gluttony or laziness. That's just my own personal experience though.

Originally Posted by Pyramid* (Post 4312936)

I'm not buying this....... an obese person can still see themselves as thin?

Many obese people are in complete denial about the amount of food that they eat, but they still are more than aware that they are obsese - they will argue blind about how little they eat, and the type of foods that they eat. Many more than admit to it being 'a comfort, makes them feel good/better' - they are aware they are obsese.

Originally Posted by joeysteele (Post 4312968)

Very informed and totally correct statement, Obese epeople do know they are overweight,its as you say they won't admit the reasons they are,as in how much they eat as you point out for one example.
Well said.

Originally Posted by Pyramid* (Post 4312984)

Thanks Joey. I recall years ago, watching a documentary - iirc, it was a teenager or a young adult. They/their mother replaced regular crisps with 'low fat' crisps -(they continued to munch their way through a dozen packs a day or so, but it was okay, coz they were eating 'low fat' varieties). Instead of thick chocolate biscuits, they stocked up on 'non choc' biscuits, instead of enough fried breakfast to feed 6 people, they moved to grilling - and reduced (for example) the 6 bacon rashers, tin of beans, 4 eggs, 5 sausages, 4 slices of toast - to about 3 bacon, 1/2 tin of bean, 2 eggs, 3 saus, 2 slices of toast - then had two bowls of cereal afterwards...... and let the kid eat their way through kilos of fruit via constant snacking all day.

The dieticians, nutrtionists, doctors could not get it through to either the child or the mother, that regardless - the amount of food being consumed was still far too much - as well as still being much of the wrong type.

Low fat is not always a good alternative has they have a high sugar level in
Incredible, ignorant and in complete denial in every sense.

Their argument? He eats healthy food and lots of it

Originally Posted by Pyramid* (Post 4312984)

Thanks Joey. I recall years ago, watching a documentary - iirc, it was a teenager or a young adult. They/their mother replaced regular crisps with 'low fat' crisps -(they continued to munch their way through a dozen packs a day or so, but it was okay, coz they were eating 'low fat' varieties). Instead of thick chocolate biscuits, they stocked up on 'non choc' biscuits, instead of enough fried breakfast to feed 6 people, they moved to grilling - and reduced (for example) the 6 bacon rashers, tin of beans, 4 eggs, 5 sausages, 4 slices of toast - to about 3 bacon, 1/2 tin of bean, 2 eggs, 3 saus, 2 slices of toast - then had two bowls of cereal afterwards...... and let the kid eat their way through kilos of fruit via constant snacking all day.

The dieticians, nutrtionists, doctors could not get it through to either the child or the mother, that regardless - the amount of food being consumed was still far too much - as well as still being much of the wrong type.

Incredible, ignorant and in complete denial in every sense.

Their argument? He eats healthy food and lots of it

Originally Posted by lostalex (Post 4313005)

That sounds exactly like anorexia to me...

Originally Posted by Pyramid* (Post 4313008)

Absolutely.


:whistle:



:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by lostalex (Post 4313014)

you don't see how replacing the words too much, with too little would be exactly applicable to anorexics?

Originally Posted by Pyramid* (Post 4313015)

Nope. Anorexic don't eat. Obese people eat to much. It's not exactly rocket science or difficult to understand. It is completely different ends of the spectrum.

Originally Posted by lostalex (Post 4313021)

that's like saying having brain cancer is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to having cancer in the marrow of your leg bones. OMG the cancer is on totally different ends of the body, so it's not comparable at all!


The fact is, both over-eating, and anorexia are both eating disorders, and all eating disorders are part of the disease of Addiction.

Over-eating and Anorexia and Bulimia are all the same disease. They are all eating disorders and they all fall under the same umbrella of Addiction.

Originally Posted by lostalex (Post 4313028)

Okay, well we're getting no where in this conversation, so i agree we don't really have much left to say. I think i've been fairly frank and did my best to educate anyone who wished to listen.

Originally Posted by tmi (Post 4313044)

Not getting involved in argument but, just a little story a woman had a gastric band in America to stop her bad eating habits, the band worked and she lost weight but then gained another addiction booze. So I think food is addiction to some people, they see it has a crutch like various other addictions, cigarettes, drugs etc. Most peoples bad eating habits stem from emotional or physical problems. The way to go is eat to live not eat to live.

Originally Posted by lostalex (Post 4313021)

...and yes, Addiction is a MEDICAL DISEASE.

Originally Posted by Zippy (Post 4313053)

No it is not. You're being simplistic as usual.

A disease requires medical intervention.

Millions of addicts have weened themselves off smoking, drinking, drugs etc without any help from doctors, counsellors or outside intervention. They do so by altering their own psychology and applying self discipline. You don't cure diseases like this. Addiction is often a habit gotten out of control. Its a psychological behavioural pattern that can certainly lead to medical diseases. But in itself it is not a disease.

I think addicts like to call it a disease to somehow make themselves look less responsible for their actions. It becomes less of a stigma. Truth is, many addicts just do not have the willpower or determination to end their addiction. This is where calling it a disease comes in very handy...

Originally Posted by Zippy (Post 4313053)

No it is not. You're being simplistic as usual.

A disease requires medical intervention.

Millions of addicts have weened themselves off smoking, drinking, drugs etc without any help from doctors, counsellors or outside intervention. They do so by altering their own psychology and applying self discipline. You don't cure diseases like this. Addiction is often a habit gotten out of control. Its a psychological behavioural pattern that can certainly lead to medical diseases. But in itself it is not a disease.

I think addicts like to call it a disease to somehow make themselves look less responsible for their actions. It becomes less of a stigma. Truth is, many addicts just do not have the willpower or determination to end their addiction. This is where calling it a disease comes in very handy...

Originally Posted by tmi (Post 4313056)

The difference is you have to eat. So no avoidance.

Originally Posted by Zippy (Post 4313053)

No it is not. You're being simplistic as usual.

A disease requires medical intervention.

Millions of addicts have weened themselves off smoking, drinking, drugs etc without any help from doctors, counsellors or outside intervention. They do so by altering their own psychology and applying self discipline. You don't cure diseases like this. Addiction is often a habit gotten out of control. Its a psychological behavioural pattern that can certainly lead to medical diseases. But in itself it is not a disease.

I think addicts like to call it a disease to somehow make themselves look less responsible for their actions. It becomes less of a stigma. Truth is, many addicts just do not have the willpower or determination to end their addiction. This is where calling it a disease comes in very handy...

Originally Posted by tmi (Post 4313056)

The difference is you have to eat. So no avoidance.

Originally Posted by Zippy (Post 4313059)

I don't see anorexia as an addiction.

If you're talking about obesity then you do not have to avoid food; you make better choices and eat better portions. Its not all or nothig. And there's no shortage of healthy eating advice out there.

Originally Posted by lostalex (Post 4313060)

by your logic cancer is not a medical disease eigther then, because many people claim to have cured themselves through holistic herbal rememdies and stuff.

Addiction has nothing to do with willpower. Addiction is like diabetes. you can manage it through a strict regime, but it is incredibly difficult. But you cannot choose to be an addict, just like you cannot choose to be a diabetic.

Originally Posted by lostalex (Post 4313060)

by your logic cancer is not a medical disease eigther then, because many people claim to have cured themselves through holistic herbal rememdies and stuff.

Originally Posted by Zippy (Post 4313053)

No it is not. You're being simplistic as usual.

A disease requires medical intervention.

Millions of addicts have weened themselves off smoking, drinking, drugs etc without any help from doctors, counsellors or outside intervention. They do so by altering their own psychology and applying self discipline. You don't cure diseases like this. Addiction is often a habit gotten out of control. Its a psychological behavioural pattern that can certainly lead to medical diseases. But in itself it is not a disease.

I think addicts like to call it a disease to somehow make themselves look less responsible for their actions. It becomes less of a stigma. Truth is, many addicts just do not have the willpower or determination to end their addiction. This is where calling it a disease comes in very handy...

Originally Posted by lostalex (Post 4313063)

well it doesn't matter "how you see it" we're talking about facts and medical science. And it's been proven over and over again, that anorexics and bulimics are able to release pleasure hormones into the brain through either restricting (in the case of anorexics) or binging/purging (in the case of bulimics) the same pleasure hormones released in the brains of gambling addicts when they gamble, or sex addicts when they have sex. It is an addiction, medically. Whether you choose to believe it or not.

Originally Posted by joeysteele (Post 4313071)

I go with you near all the way Zippy, however I don't know, lostalex is in the States, maybe addictions are seen as diseases there.

Also in the UK many addictions as to drugs and drinking are dealt with medically,even with no serious illness problems to treat the addiction and minimise it and then get them off it.
Of course as you say, the addictions do most often lead to serious health matters and then it is an alcohol or drug related medically recognised disease.

I help out,only an hour a week at an addictions centre and no 2 people are the same, you can have 8 people with the same addiction but will often need to apply totally different plans for each of them.

Getting people to admit they have a problem whether that's drugs, drinking or any eating disorders is the real hardest part.

Originally Posted by lostalex (Post 4313063)

well it doesn't matter "how you see it" we're talking about facts and medical science.

Originally Posted by Pyramid* (Post 4313080)

The word 'problem' being the key. Not an illness...but a problem, that they need to admit, and they need to accept before they are able to progress in tackling their problem.

The epitomy of the difference between anorexia and many of those who are obsese.

Originally Posted by joeysteele (Post 4313092)

Again, I agree with you Pyramid. The thing is too, whether it be drinking,drugs or eating disorder problems,by the time the problem is admitted,massive damage to health is already done.

Originally Posted by Pyramid* (Post 4313095)

Agreed once again...... are we sharing the same brain. :o If so,can I please have 'my half' back again for Monday morning - need it for serious heavy duty work stuff!!


Wise cracks aside: -

The last part you mentioned: when the persons problem results in damage to their health - that I think is part of the 'misconception' in the tag of 'illness'. It's the problem that caused the illness: not the illness that caused the problem.

Originally Posted by joeysteele (Post 4313102)

On this issue and on several other we do seem to have the same brain :joker: all powers that be help you on that.

At the risk of seeming really more tedious I have to agree again because once a health issue is treated as an illness, from an addiction, the diagnosis is (in the case of alcohol or drugs for instance) alcohol related liver disease or drugs related etc.
It would be recognised officially as being an addiction induced illness,one that normally may not have occurred.