healthy eating disorder [orthorexia nervosa]

> 10 years ago
Reply
Register to post, see what you've read, and subscribe to topics.
petermac33
petermac33
WA
6415 posts
WA, 6415 posts
30 Jun 2010 1:54am
Choosing healthy foods now called a mental disorder


Mike Adams
NaturalNews
June 29, 2010

In its never-ending attempt to fabricate "mental disorders" out of every human activity, the psychiatric industry is now pushing the most ridiculous disease they've invented yet: Healthy eating disorder.




Eating junk foods keeps you dumbed down and easy to control

This is no joke: If you focus on eating healthy foods, you're "mentally diseased" and probably need some sort of chemical treatment involving powerful psychotropic drugs. The Guardian newspaper reports, "Fixation with healthy eating can be sign of serious psychological disorder" and goes on to claim this "disease" is called orthorexia nervosa - which is basically just Latin for "nervous about correct eating."

But they can't just called it "nervous healthy eating disorder" because that doesn't sound like they know what they're talking about. So they translate it into Latin where it sounds smart (even though it isn't). That's where most disease names come from: Doctors just describe the symptoms they see with a name like osteoporosis (which means "bones with holes in them").

Getting back to this fabricated "orthorexia" disease, the Guardian goes on to report, "Orthorexics commonly have rigid rules around eating. Refusing to touch sugar, salt, caffeine, alcohol, wheat, gluten, yeast, soya, corn and dairy foods is just the start of their diet restrictions. Any foods that have come into contact with pesticides, herbicides or contain artificial additives are also out."

Wait a second. So attempting to avoid chemicals, dairy, soy and sugar now makes you a mental health patient? Yep. According to these experts. If you actually take special care to avoid pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified ingredients like soy and sugar, there's something wrong with you.

But did you notice that eating junk food is assumed to be "normal?" If you eat processed junk foods laced with synthetic chemicals, that's okay with them. The mental patients are the ones who choose organic, natural foods, apparently.

What is "normal" when it comes to foods?

I told you this was coming. Years ago, I warned NaturalNews readers that an attempt might soon be under way to outlaw broccoli because of its anti-cancer phytonutrients. This mental health assault on health-conscious consumers is part of that agenda. It's an effort to marginalize healthy eaters by declaring them to be mentally unstable and therefore justify carting them off to mental institutions where they will be injected with psychiatric drugs and fed institutional food that's all processed, dead and full of toxic chemicals.

The Guardian even goes to the ridiculous extreme of saying, "The obsession about which foods are "good" and which are "bad" means orthorexics can end up malnourished."

Follow the non-logic on this, if you can: Eating "good" foods will cause malnutrition! Eating bad foods, I suppose, is assumed to provide all the nutrients you need. That's about as crazy a statement on nutrition as I've ever read. No wonder people are so diseased today: The mainstream media is telling them that eating health food is a mental disorder that will cause malnutrition!

Shut up and swallow your Soylent Green

It's just like I reported years ago: You're not supposed to question your food, folks. Sit down, shut up, dig in and chow down. Stop thinking about what you're eating and just do what you're told by the mainstream media and its processed food advertisers. Questioning the health properties of your junk food is a mental disorder, didn't you know? And if you "obsess" over foods (by doing such things as reading the ingredients labels, for example), then you're weird. Maybe even sick.

That's the message they're broadcasting now. Junk food eaters are "normal" and "sane" and "nourished." But health food eaters are diseased, abnormal and malnourished.

A d v e r t i s e m e n t
But why, you ask, would they attack healthy eaters? People like Dr. Gabriel Cousens can tell you why: Because increased mental and spiritual awareness is only possible while on a diet of living, natural foods.

Eating junk foods keeps you dumbed down and easy to control, you see. It literally messes with your mind, numbing your senses with MSG, aspartame and yeast extract. People who subsist on junk foods are docile and quickly lose the ability to think for themselves. They go along with whatever they're told by the TV or those in apparent positions of authority, never questioning their actions or what's really happening in the world around them.

In contrast to that, people who eat health-enhancing natural foods - with all the medicinal nutrients still intact - begin to awaken their minds and spirits. Over time, they begin to question the reality around them and they pursue more enlightened explorations of topics like community, nature, ethics, philosophy and the big picture of things that are happening in the world. They become "aware" and can start to see the very fabric of the Matrix, so to speak.

This, of course, is a huge danger to those who run our consumption-based society because consumption depends on ignorance combined with suggestibility. For people to keep blindly buying foods, medicines, health insurance and consumer goods, they need to have their higher brain functions switched off. Processed junk foods laced with toxic chemicals just happens to achieve that rather nicely. Why do you think dead, processed foods remain the default meals in public schools, hospitals and prisons? It's because dead foods turn off higher levels of awareness and keep people focused on whatever distractions you can feed their brains: Television, violence, fear, sports, sex and so on.

But living as a zombie is, in one way quite "normal" in society today because so many people are doing it. But that doesn't make it normal in my book: The real "normal" is an empowered, healthy, awakened person nourished with living foods and operating as a sovereign citizen in a free world. Eating living foods is like taking the red pill because over time it opens up a whole new perspective on the fabric of reality. It sets you free to think for yourself.

But eating processed junk foods is like taking the blue pill because it keeps you trapped in a fabricated reality where your life experiences are fabricated by consumer product companies who hijack your senses with designer chemicals (like MSG) that fool your brain into thinking you're eating real food.

If you want to be alive, aware and in control of your own life, eat more healthy living foods. But don't expect to be popular with mainstream mental health "experts" or dieticians - they're all being programmed to consider you to be "crazy" because you don't follow their mainstream diets of dead foods laced with synthetic chemicals.

But you and I know the truth here: We are the normal ones. The junk food eaters are the real mental patients, and the only way to wake them up to the real world is to start feeding them living foods.

Some people are ready to take the red pill, and others aren't. All you can do is show them the door. They must open it themselves.

In the mean time, try to avoid the mental health agents who are trying to label you as having a mental disorder just because you pay attention to what you put in your body. There's nothing wrong with avoiding sugar, soy, MSG, aspartame, HFCS and other toxic chemicals in the food supply. In fact, your very life depends on it.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to join the health experts who keep inventing new fictitious diseases and disorders, check out my popular Disease Mongering Engine web page where you can invent your own new diseases at the click of a button! You'll find it at: www.naturalnews.com/disease-.

Sources for this story include:

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2.



www.infowars.com/choosing-healthy-foods-now-called-a-mental-disorder/




seancuk23 Says:

June 29th, 2010 at 10:08 am
Clearly the establishment are worried that people will stop eating their poison, so they now plan to demonise people who don't eat their aspartame, GMO and fluoride containing foods and liquids. Personally I always hated the idea of GMO food even before I woke to what was really going on in the world. People in the UK buy a lot of organic food luckily and most of our water does not contain added sodium fluoride yet, although their is a giant push towards bringing it in nationwide. As for Aspartame, there is not a popular sugar free drink that does not contain Aspartame in the UK. I have given up sugur free everything now just to stay safe. I must have Orthorexia nervosa! lol, I had better go to the doctors and get something to take care of it! Yes.we.can!.yes.we.can!


russh
russh
SA
3027 posts
SA, 3027 posts
30 Jun 2010 11:12am
For some its just a definite case "conitor ratio egreto "
Carantoc
Carantoc
WA
7298 posts
WA, 7298 posts
30 Jun 2010 12:16pm
petermac33 said...



... never-ending attempt to fabricate “mental disorders” out of every human activity, ....


.... The Guardian newspaper reports, “Fixation with ..



Or perhaps a never ending attempt to fabricate something sinister out of every human activity ?

Seems to me the original message was a 'fixation', not a simple reasoned and rational desire to eat more healthily and avoid harmful substances.

I would suggest a 'fixation' on anything is some form of mild psycological issue, purely by the definition of 'fixation' and 'psycological disorder'.

A rational, balanced and reasoned desire to be more healthy and avoid potentially harmful substances is called 'one of the seven characteristics of life as defined by the science of biology'.

Twisting the latter into the former perhaps also meets the definition of 'fixation' ??
doggie
doggie
WA
15849 posts
WA, 15849 posts
30 Jun 2010 12:49pm
Lets play "twister"
Gorgo
Gorgo
VIC
5127 posts
VIC, 5127 posts
30 Jun 2010 2:55pm
I'm guessing some sub-editor has picked up on some research and turned it into a half-arsed article about scientists wasting time on the obvious.

If you take any behaviour to extreme it can be unhealthy.

Eating healthy food is a good thing. Constantly worrying about what you eat and obsessing about the latest healthy food fad is not.

For example, you need water to survive. It is healthy to drink several glasses a day. If you drink too much water in too short a time it will upset the electrolyte balance of your body and kill you. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

It's reasonable for scientists to study behaviours and identify whether serious problems exist or not. The point of science is to identify the truth.
choco
choco
SA
4186 posts
SA, 4186 posts
30 Jun 2010 2:51pm
don't eat chocolate no good for you
eat chocolate it's good for you
drink red wine it's good for you
don't drink red wine not good for you
eat red meat good for you
dont eat red meat not good for you
dont drink coffee not good for you
drink coffee it's good for you
eat fish it's good for you
dont eat fish not good for you

this is some of the crap I've come across...everyday something new, it's more like the company that slips the most cash under the table to these researchers
westozwind
westozwind
WA
1419 posts
WA, 1419 posts
30 Jun 2010 1:27pm
Another "cut & paste" post of meaningless diatribe.
Stay off the mushies petermac33
doggie
doggie
WA
15849 posts
WA, 15849 posts
30 Jun 2010 1:35pm
Now you can keep drinking pepsi petermac33 but it wont help with your other problems
doggie
doggie
WA
15849 posts
WA, 15849 posts
30 Jun 2010 1:36pm
westozwind said...

Another "cut & paste" post of meaningless diatribe.
Stay off the mushies petermac33


But he did tell us where the diatribe came from so thats a start I guess
superlizard
superlizard
VIC
702 posts
VIC, 702 posts
30 Jun 2010 3:55pm


don't eat chocolate no good for you
eat chocolate it's good for you
drink red wine it's good for you
don't drink red wine not good for you
eat red meat good for you
dont eat red meat not good for you
dont drink coffee not good for you
drink coffee it's good for you
eat fish it's good for you
dont eat fish not good for you

this is some of the crap I've come across...everyday something new, it's more like the company that slips the most cash under the table to these researchers


it's very simple... before any of these, so called, researchers or scientiests, or nutritionists, or medical practitioners, or whatever they call them selves, can give you any true or bullsh1t information, they need to back it up with concrete evidence, based on more than just "recent research"...

so here is one suggestion: find out which are the statistically longest living groups of people on earth... then study their methods, ways of living, and draw conclusions for your self.

Only half of the above statements can ultimately be true.

you can use this as a starting point:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0511/feature1/index.html

all you gotta do now, is find out for your self what these guys do... i already did, and i can assure you, it doesn't involve eating junk food...

Gorgo
Gorgo
VIC
5127 posts
VIC, 5127 posts
30 Jun 2010 4:20pm
choco said...

don't eat chocolate no good for you
eat chocolate it's good for you
drink red wine it's good for you
don't drink red wine not good for you
eat red meat good for you
dont eat red meat not good for you
dont drink coffee not good for you
drink coffee it's good for you
eat fish it's good for you
dont eat fish not good for you

this is some of the crap I've come across...everyday something new, it's more like the company that slips the most cash under the table to these researchers


Your quotes are from the media and your imagination. They don't represent any realistic scientific opinion.

Eat chocolate because it contains anti-oxidants ... but you have to eat unsweetened natural chocolate (which tastes awful) otherwise the sugar and fat added to it will negate any benefits you get.

Red wine has anti-oxidants but too much is bad for your heart.

Fish is high quality protein and omega-3 fatty acids ... but large fish are the top of the food chain and concentrate heavy metals so limit your consumption of certain species. Some fish are caught using unsustainable practices so you have to watch that as well.

Red meat is high in iron and high quality protein ... but has been linked to bowel cancer. Eat lean red meat and don't have too much of it.

It all seems pretty reasonable to me. None of the claims are contadictory. They all make sense if they are properly researched and presented.
choco
choco
SA
4186 posts
SA, 4186 posts
30 Jun 2010 4:11pm
Gorgo said...

choco said...

don't eat chocolate no good for you
eat chocolate it's good for you
drink red wine it's good for you
don't drink red wine not good for you
eat red meat good for you
dont eat red meat not good for you
dont drink coffee not good for you
drink coffee it's good for you
eat fish it's good for you
dont eat fish not good for you

this is some of the crap I've come across...everyday something new, it's more like the company that slips the most cash under the table to these researchers


Your quotes are from the media and your imagination. They don't represent any realistic scientific opinion.

Eat chocolate because it contains anti-oxidants ... but you have to eat unsweetened natural chocolate (which tastes awful) otherwise the sugar and fat added to it will negate any benefits you get.

Red wine has anti-oxidants but too much is bad for your heart.

Fish is high quality protein and omega-3 fatty acids ... but large fish are the top of the food chain and concentrate heavy metals so limit your consumption of certain species. Some fish are caught using unsustainable practices so you have to watch that as well.

Red meat is high in iron and high quality protein ... but has been linked to bowel cancer. Eat lean red meat and don't have too much of it.

It all seems pretty reasonable to me. None of the claims are contadictory. They all make sense if they are properly researched and presented.


the quotes are from the media and i think there a load of crap! superlizard is right with his post
poor relative
poor relative
WA
9106 posts
WA, 9106 posts
30 Jun 2010 7:55pm
Heres the real definition.
Its a diagnosis of extremity however DSM 5 or ICD 10 does not recognize the classification.

Orthorexia, or orthorexia nervosa is a term coined by Steven Bratman, a Colorado MD, to denote an eating disorder characterized by excessive focus on eating healthy foods. In rare cases, this focus may turn into a fixation so extreme that it can lead to severe malnutrition or even death. Orthorexia is not recognized as a mental disorder in any of the medical manuals, such as the ICD-10[3] or the DSM-IV,[4] neither is it part of the proposed revision of this manual, the DSM-5.

Although it is not an official medical diagnosis, and it is not listed in the DSM-IV[11] or planned to be included in the DSM-V to be published May 2013,[12] it is still used as a diagnosis by some practitioners who have documented the damaging results of the condition as they have seen in their practices.

As of January 2007, two peer-reviewed studies have been published on the condition. In the studies, Donini et al. define orthorexia nervosa as a "maniacal obsession for healthy foods" and propose several diagnostic criteria.Sufferers of orthorexia often display symptoms consistent with obsessive-compulsive disorder and have an exaggerated concern with healthy eating patterns. Like anorexia, however, these obsessive compulsive symptoms may be an effect of starvation rather than a cause of the disorder. A diagnostic questionnaire has been developed for orthorexia sufferers, similar to questionnaires for other eating disorders.Bratman proposes an initial self-test composed of two direct questions: "Do you care more about the virtue of what you eat than the pleasure you receive from eating it?... Does your diet socially isolate you?"Other questions concerning those who may be suffering from orthorexia provided by Davis on the WebMD (2000) website are: Do they spend more than 3 hours a day thinking about healthy foods? When they eat the way they're supposed to, do they feel in total control? Are they planning tomorrow's menu today? Has the quality of their life decreased as the quality of their diet increased? Have they become stricter with themselves? Does their self-esteem get a boost from eating healthy? Do they look down on others who don't eat this way? Do they skip foods they once enjoyed in order to eat the "right" foods? Does their diet make it difficult for them to eat anywhere but at home, distancing them from family and friends? Do they feel guilt or self-loathing when you stray from their diet? If yes was answered to two or more questions, the person may have a mild case of orthorexia.


source : wikipedia
Carantoc
Carantoc
WA
7298 posts
WA, 7298 posts
30 Jun 2010 9:36pm
So Mr petermac

Can we now conclude that the information in NaturalNews and Infowars was sensationalised and produced with somewhat of a zealotistic attitude and people should perhaps read the media in the terms that the media reports in ?

That being not necessarily blatent lies design wholeheartedly to fool us and deny us, but with the interpretation that the journalist and editor make and put on the story, for both the target audience and their personnal life experiences with a little bit of sensationalising to get the headlines and make the sale ?

Seems Infowars and NaturalNews report much like Fox News ???

What a surprise !!

But - Condem one condem them all ?? Or deny one and accept the others ??

Personally I see little difference between NaturalNews trying to condition me to accept that 'main stream' is wrong and perverted and Fox News conditioning me to accept that 'alternative' is wrong and subversive.

I take both with a pinch of salt. How come you have salt for one and sugar for the other ??

(is zealotistic a word ??)



evlPanda
evlPanda
NSW
9207 posts
NSW, 9207 posts
1 Jul 2010 12:36am
poor relative said...

Heres the real definition.
Its a diagnosis of extremity however DSM 5 or ICD 10 does not recognize the classification.

source : wikipedia


Time: 1 minute.
evlPanda
evlPanda
NSW
9207 posts
NSW, 9207 posts
1 Jul 2010 12:38am
I don't know about you but I'm sticking to a strict diet of Brawndo. It's got electrolytes! It's what plants crave!



www.brawndo.com
doggie
doggie
WA
15849 posts
WA, 15849 posts
1 Jul 2010 9:50am
Is it ok for Pandas tho? Like choclate is bad for dogs?
Please Register, or first...
Topics Subscribe Reply