Talk:Eating disorder/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Why do people have eating disorders

Why do people have eating disorders????

Although people say that the media has an influence, essentially it is a mental illness. Most interestingly, eating disorders are not generally found in non-western societies. A recent article in Newsweek noted that as Japan becomes more westernized, eating disorders are becoming more prevalent. --billlund 02:23, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

If the quesion refers to evolutionary explanaitons for anoexia, then some do exist. A recent one, interestingly, links anorexia to obesisty (Lozano, G. A. 2008. Obesity and sexually selected anorexia nervosa. Medical Hypotheses 71: 933-940.)

What should you do if you have an eating disorder?

Seek help immediately from competent medical care providers. This will not go away. It is not a life style. It is as dangerous to your life as drug addiction, whether you want to admit it or not. You will not be helped by others with an eating disorder. --billlund 02:23, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

What should you do if you know someone with an eating disorder?

Confront them immediately and encourage them to get competent medical help. Telling them to "just eat" accomplishes nothing. You are not the food police, but you can care and help them to get help. Don't let them put you off. Their life is in real danger. --billlund 02:23, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Take time to listen to them and hear what they are saying and feeling. If we take the time to help people we know with an eating disorder there is more of a chance to help others we don't know as well. The only thing we can do is listen and not cast judgment. Even if the main source of the eating disorder doesn't seem realistic, it is for that person.Graciemrollins (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've responded as best I know how, but I don't see how this information can fit into an encyclopedia. --billlund 02:23, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

This section, which references parents as "causal" or contributory is out of date. Current science was presented by the Society for Adolescent Medicine Position Paper (2003) found here:http://www.adolescenthealth.org/Position_Papers/612/1489.htm It is also bolstered by the Academy for Eating Disorders position paper, The Role of the Family in Eating Disorders" (Sept 15, 2009) http://www.aedweb.org/policy/index.cfm . This entire section needs to be rewritten to reflect current understandings. The problem is that when newer information is added it keeps getting deleted. While I respect that this is a global editing process, families looking for help with their children need to have access to modern understandings about the etiology and treatment of eating disorders, not outdated theories. Is there a solution to this conundrum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotlydia (talk • contribs) 19:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with that statement. People need the most up to date information on something as serious as an eating disorder.

Eating disorder seems like it has turned into a new trend to our generation especially in our entertainment business. Numerous of celebrities are suffering from various types of eating disorder. Tyring to look better than everyone else maybe one of the factors why people are being engaged with this type of sickness.Special Girl Dee-Dee (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Continuum

The eating disorder page does not discuss how there is an different levels of eating disorders. It basically makes it sound as if you either have an eating disorder or you do not. I believe that we should add in the continuum and talk about how there are many different spots between functional and dysfunctional when discussing eating disorders. For example, somewhere in between these two points, you can find people who are very self-conscious of their body image and may fall under a slight eating disorder. Closer to the functional side are people who diet occasionally, skip meals to control their weight, or binge eat because these people have some concern about their body weight and shape. In comparison, closer to the dysfunctional side are people who are frequently dieting, skipping meals a lot to control their weight, compensate when they eat with extreme exercise, or binge eat because they have frequent concern about their body weight and shape. This is very interesting because many people think that someone either has an eating disorder or they don't. This shows that their are many different spots throughout the continuum that someone can fall. Jspellman210 (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Jessica Spellman

Clarification of the difference between anorexia nervosa binge/purge type and bulimia nervosa

Hello.

In the description for the restricting type of anorexia nervosa "to lose weight by restricting weight" was not clear to me and according to the listed reference people with anorexia nervosa experience weight loss by fasting, dieting, and/or excessive exercise. I believe that making the change from "restricting weight" to "restricting food intake" would be more appropriate.

The distinction between anorexia nervosa binge/purge type and bulimia nervosa does not include the fact that bulimia nervosa includes people who have a normal body weight and some may be overweight and even obese. (National Alliance on Mental Illness). I think it's also important to emphasize the degree of how far below the normal range people with anorexia weigh. According to (American Psychiatric Association) anorexia nervosa is diagnosed when a person weighs a minimum of 15% less than the normal weight for their height.

I propose the following:

The difference between anorexia nervosa binge/purge type and bulimia nervosa is the body weight of a person. Those diagnosed with anorexia nervosa binge/purge type are well under a healthy bodyweight, while those with bulimia nervosa may have a body weight that falls within the range from normal to overweight and obese .

This is more specific and explains the criteria of those who fit the criteria for anorexia and bulimia. Any thoughts? Mcdcrdna (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Adding amenorrhea

I think amenorrhea needed to be added to this eating disorders section because it is one major affect of eating disorders on the body. I find it strange that it was not mentioned already in this article. Mentioning this in the article gives readers a greater idea and understanding of the severity of the disorder, and the major effect it has on the body. Zoedommm (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Amenorrhea, a loss of menstraution was actually already mentioned in the article, just further down.

Mcdcrdna (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding to Binge-Eating Disorder

Under the Classification heading I feel that adding Binge-Eating results in feelings of shame and guilt is important when classifying this disorder. I found many external links that list this as one of the common symptoms of this disorder. Meganem94 (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC) meganem94

References

Obesity and Eating Disorders

The article on eating disorders focuses on the common disorders such as Bulimia Nervosa, Anorexia Nervosa, Binge-Eating Disorder, and the hormones that contribute to these eating disorders. The article briefly mentions obesity, which has been increasing greatly over the past years. The article mentions the relationship of leptin and ghrelin to obesity and the parental pressure to eat more and relations to obesity, however I think that data on obesity should be included. Obesity has increased due to the presence of fast food restaurants and the percentage of our population that consumes unhealthy foods. Obesity becomes more prevalent to members of society that don't have funds to buy food and purchase inexpensive fast food that is high in fat and calories, which over time results in excess body fat. Based on Information from: Nolen-Hoeksema, Susan. (Ab)normal Psychology. 6th Edition

--Abpsych12 (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Eating Disorder Numbers

"Binge eating disorder is the most common eating disorder, followed by the more widely recognized bulimia nervosa and anorexia nervosa, respectively.[1] "I read several more recent studies that stated OSFED is the largest/most common eating disorder, affecting more than 50% of eating disorder patients. Does anyone have a good reference?

Also this article is poorly outdated, and the feminism rant is off the charts. In terms of organization, each ED diagnosis should be in its own section, with a discussion of the recognized sub-diagnoses in OSFED. I deleted some of the more egregious outdated information (e.g. anorexics are underweight, bulimics are normal to overweight - particularly since current research is moving away from BMI-based diagnostic criteria for anorexia, and has never been a part of the criteria for bulimia or BED.

This article is in desperate need for revisions!!PuzzleMe82 (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes this article was hit by a University of Toronto Pyschology class. I have been meaning to update it. Will work on it again tomorrow.

Obesity is not really an eating disorder as defined by the DSM though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Eating disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131209183958/http://www.credoreference.com/entry/sharpecw/beauty_pageants to http://www.credoreference.com/entry/sharpecw/beauty_pageants

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Feminist literature sub-section - is it necessary?

I think that the feminist literature sub-section under the 'Society and culture' section of the article should be completely removed. It doesn't fit in with the medical focus of the rest of the article. Considering the DSM-5 was updated so that amenorrhea is no longer a necessary criterion for diagnosis of anorexia so as not to exclude male sufferers (and others), it seems inappropriate to keep a section that talks about "the necessity to be thin is far from being gender-neutral" citing references from the late 80s and early 90s. I propose that the feminist literature sub-section be deleted, that this section be retitled 'Economics' and simply include the dotpoints that are presently under this sub-heading. Does anyone have any thoughts on this proposal? Autumnstorm19 (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, this page is useful if you want to learn about this topic very briefly. It has a great short summary about the topic and it talks about the different types of eating disorders out there. Also, there were few studies that were stated to support the information but it did not say where they got that study from. It would have been more helpful if they listed where or who said it so we can research about it more. Overall, there were some great facts about eating disorders and very useful for people who are just curious about this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CDE6:E130:310D:C146:EE92:9707 (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is very informative and I appreciate the abundant amount of information provided. It was easy to navigate through the lengthy article because of the bold subheadings. However it is extremely wordy and is hard to stay intrigued because of the writing style. The page could have had more links within each paragraph because there are many subjects I was unfamiliar with and would have liked to have easy access to understanding them more. An article that was used well for reference is "Cultural trends and eating disorders" by Pike, Kathleen M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:5B11:7600:D508:17E3:3854:5E73 (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Outdated and incorrect statements

Hello all!

My first impression of the page is that some of the information is presented in a disjointed way. For example, in the second paragraph, the focus jumps from general etiology to how it affects dancers specifically. Though I think this information is relevant, as a reader, I found it distracting. Also, a number of statements are based on DSM-IV criteria, which, with the development of DSM-5, should be updated to reflect the new guidelines.

I also found some inaccurate information, such as in the third paragraph, a sentence states that "Both anorexia and bulimia increase the risk of death", which is inaccurate. According to Effective Child Therapy, bulimia nervosa is not associated with an increased risk for mortality. The sentence could remain in the same location, but instead I recommend that it says, "Anorexia is associated with an increased mortality rate, whereas bulimia nervosa has not been shown to increase the risk of death." See link from Effective Child Therapy below.

http://effectivechildtherapy.org/content/bulimia-nervosa

Furthermore, under the Classifications heading, I think it would be useful to include the DSM-5 thresholds for diagnosing bulimia, as this paragraph only addresses broad characterization of the disorder. Alternatively, it could say, "Bulimia nervosa is a disorder characterized by episodes of binge eating and purging occurring at least once a week for at least three months, as well as excessive evaluation of one's self-worth in terms of body weight or shape.[8] See link below to AACAP practice parameters for bulimia nervosa.

http://www.jaacap.com/article/S0890-8567%2815%2900070-2/pdf

Finally, I found that in the third paragraph of the introduction, the statement "Hospitalization is occasionally needed" should provide a citation and more specific information about the frequency of hospitalizations. Instead, using information from a statistical brief from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, the statement should say, "Hospitalization is often needed for those suffering from eating disorders, with the number of hospitalizations rising 24% from 1999 to 2009." Citation provided below.

Zhao, Y., & Encinosa, W. (2011). An update on hospitalizations for eating disorders, 1999 to 2009.

Thanks! Mecole95 (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Everything in the lead is based on the DSM5 not DSM4

The statement that bulimia increases the risk of death is based on this 2013 review [1] which states "Both anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa are associated with increased mortality."

This site is not a good source.[2] It states " Unlike those suffering from anorexia nervosa, adolescents with BN are typically in the average weight range and do not appear to be at increased risk for mortality." which it says is based on this 2015 review [3]

The 2015 review however states "Mortality rates in BN are understudied, but some reports suggest rates approximating those of AN". So that website misrepresents its source.

Every sentence of the lead is referenced. The ref is this one for hospitalization [4]. The number of people needing hospitalization can go in the body of the article. That ref of course is just about the USA so not appropriate for the lead IMO. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eating disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150501013951/http://www.dsm5.org:80/Documents/Eating%20Disorders%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf to http://www.dsm5.org/documents/eating%20disorders%20fact%20sheet.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

AFD: Joey Julius

Joey Julius

AFD: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joey_Julius — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Kingfisher (talk • contribs) 04:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Peer review

hi, I already reviewed your article but it says I have not, so here we go again. It is very well structured, informative, and non biased. the only suggestion I would make is to add a section on hot lines or chat rooms for people who are suffering from eating disorders can talk to other people who are also struggling with eating disorders. Perhaps a section that has links to specialists or foundations that specialize in eating disorders Danischneier (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

DOI syntax broken: fixed. DOI broken: contact Wiley.

Hello.

I am fixing CS1 errors from a list. However, although I've corrected the DOI within this article, it is broken on the publisher's end. Please contact Wiley and let them know via the customer service feedback service. Here is where you can confirm the DOI: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229700276_Depression_and_eating_disorders

Here is my edit: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Eating_disorder&type=revision&diff=870035436&oldid=869969727

Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 23:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - please see here for an explanation. CV9933 (talk) 10:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, CV9933. Is this a category which I can (similar to the CS1 errors list) get involved in investigation and outreach to get the DOIs fixed? DOIs with problems are super alarming to me, since I thought the whole point was to never have the problem of broken URLs again! Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 21:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The software checks the parameter |doi= for certain errors and if it finds them, places the article into this category It is easy to see how this parameter could get corrupted in the editing process so I wouldn't be too alarmed. Regards CV9933 (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Citation missing

I found some information that it did not have citation (Aveanna15 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC))

A 2019 review

Maybe a good recent source to add: Davis, LE; Attia, E (2019). "Recent advances in therapies for eating disorders". F1000Research. 8. doi:10.12688/f1000research.19847.1. PMID 31598212.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link). --Signimu (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Classification & Signs and symptoms

I'm not a huge fan of these two sections. The first few paragraphs in Classification would probably do better down in Signs and symptoms. In the Signs and symptoms section, it might be better to add a few subsections -- and get specific about the associated characteristics for AN, BN, and BED (since those seem to be the main 3 the article talks about). Do y'all think that might be something that could make the article more streamlined? Kupur (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Autism and Eating Disorders

A little bit astonished to find no mention of autism in the entry on Eating Disorders, when the overlap is so common.

e.g. "Estimates vary, though most researchers agree that roughly 20 percent of people with anorexia are autistic."()

More here (probably the most recent/comprehensive study to date):

The autism/ED link is already covered in the Wiki entry on ARFID (), but surely the general ED entry should be updated?

thepc (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Treatments

The section needs to be improved. Too many therapies without any in-depth analysis of current, emerging, and instrumental ones. No efficacy data. This generates extreme confusion in the reader. Srobodao84 (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Liuxinci.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 September 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zavalaalexis5.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 October 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bunny233. Peer reviewers: Bunny233.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 26 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tmatkins19. Peer reviewers: Cvcaudill, Mojoad33.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Scientific Communication

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Asollers (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Asollers (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Using news articles as sources for scientific fact

News articles are often not reliable enough to be used as scientific fact, especially if they are anecdotal. I have spotted a couple of claims that rely on such sources in this article. Anecdotal sources are not good enough as the case might be rare or just a coincidence. For example, if you know somebody who has smoked all their life, yet never been sick and lived until they were a hundred, it does not mean that smoking is safe. It is therefore not meaningful to mention. Additionally, news sources have a lower standard of demonstrating proof in comparison to scientific articles. JustACritic (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi JustACritic, you are correct about news article not being reliable enough for biomedical claims. See this guide about how to fix that. Feel free to be bold and improve the article yourself :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

"Venn diagram"

2603:8000:E503:153E:EC2A:B28D:7295:33F5, you removed what you called the Venn Diagram (the table) comparing/contrasting OCD and eating disorders. I don't see why you'd remove it (at least for the reason you said in your edit summary): it is simply summarizing/visually presenting the information in the paragraph(s) surrounding it. There is significant overlap/comorbidity between the two, and the article text goes into similarities and differences. Can you explain why you think the table should be removed? Kimen8 (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I removed the table because it's unsourced and doesn't accurately summarize any of the information in the introduction. For example, there's no mention of perfectionism, intrusive thoughts, or genetics anywhere in the introduction. Just because the information appears later in the article doesn't mean the table belongs in the introduction. Furthermore, the table is sloppy and confusing, given that tables and venn diagrams are not interchangeable visual media.

The user who added it (Asollers) also added the same table on the OCD article on the same day (3 October 2022). The table was removed by Treetoes023 on 28 January 2023‎. I believe I'm following suite in deleting the table here as well. If it belongs elsewhere in the article, that's for someone else to decide. 2603:8000:E503:153E:9C50:6263:EFA2:A707 (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)