#eating disorders

[support]

Everything okay?

If you or someone you know is struggling with an eating disorder, you are not alone.  

If you are in the United States, please try:

National Eating Disorders Association (support, resources, treatment options)

If you are outside the United States, visit IASP to find help lines related to eating disorders for your country. 

For self-help courses on body image and general peer support, please try Koko. 

If you need some inspiration and comfort on your dashboard, follow Post It Forward on Tumblr.

[xenosaurus]

i hate the diet industry as a whole, but there’s something so DEEPLY insidious about how “cleanses” and the marketing thereof is pathologizing... digestion.  like, basic concept of it -- the process of eating food, extracting nutrients over time, and removing anything indigestible by pooping at the end.

your digestive system should not ever be “clean”.  it is full of bacteria.  it contains bile and shit and mucus.  this is normal and healthy.  you do not have “pounds of toxic sludge” in your body, that is partially digested food and unless you are constipated, it is supposed to be there.  your organs are still extracting nutrients from it.  

your intestines are not meant to be 100% empty.  you should have food moving through your system-- you deserve to eat, and you deserve to digest that food as best you can (digestive problems gang, how’s it going?).

you are not losing fat tissue when you take laxative teas, you are losing water, nutrients, electrolytes, healthy bacteria.  and even if you were?  fuck that.  fat people shouldn’t be bullied into taking laxatives.  constant diarrhea is not pleasant or healthy or better than being fat.  let us fucking eat and digest our fucking food.

[dreamdropsystem]

we're getting bad again..

[transmutationisms]

could you talk more on eds and biopolitics?

sure, so this is broad strokes and it's also worth reiterating that the energy deficit characteristic of EDs can have a lot of different causes besides intentional food restriction—food insecurity is a huge and underrecognised factor here but there are many others. so when i talk about intentional restriction and the desire to be thin / lose weight, i'm not suggesting these are universal characteristics or causes of EDs.

anyway though, in the context of discussing these things, and particularly the relationship between 'diet culture' and EDs, a perennial frustration to me is that i often hear people fall back on the idea that the desire to be thin comes about as a result of the beauty standards perpetuated in mass media, fashion adverts, &c, without any subsequent interrogation of why it is that beauty itself is now so heavily dependent on thinness. after all, plenty of people have pointed out this is not a universal; beauty varies in different times and places, what is described or depicted as beautiful in historical records doesn't necessarily have much overlap with today's hegemonic standards, and so forth.

so when historicising this phenomenon it becomes very clear that the euro/anglo standard of thinness as beauty is, one, part of the ideological apparatus justifying colonialism thru the creation of race and white supremacy. sabrina strings and da'shaun harrison have written on this. two, the thin ideal is also inextricably tied up in medical discourses defining the ideal body as one that is economically productive, with the promise being that if the populace can be transformed into 'healthy',*** useful, hardworking citizens, the state benefits. control of bodyweight is therefore certainly a means of demonstrating one's supposed self-control, moral discipline, &c, but it is also a demand expressed in medical terms: these two discourses merge and overlap, and are both part of the capitalist state's transformation of its citizenry into a biological resource that can be controlled, managed, and exploited to bourgeois ends (profit): hence, biopolitics.

(***the story of how 'health' itself comes to be so dependent on thinness is obviously a critical piece of all this but this post is long as shit already so suffice it to say that this conflation is also not obvious, necessary, universal, &c &c)

medico-political discourses in the 19th century tended to talk about the dangers of both over- and under-weight more than what we hear now; similarly, if you think about something like wilbur atwater's calorie-value charts, these were explicitly intended to guide labourers to the most calorie-dense foods, because to atwater the central danger to be avoided was starvation among the workforce. these days in wealthy countries like the us, you are much more likely to hear about weight management in the context of demands to reduce; this is of course following moves like the WHO declaring an 'obesity epidemic' in 1997, and the rise in the usa of more explicitly nationalist, militaristic weight-loss rhetoric in the post-9/11 era.

however, my position is that these demands for thinness, and the beauty standard that follows and justifies them, are not a departure from earlier 19th- and 20th-century scientific nutrition advice, just an evolution that, for a multitude of reasons (politics, medical professional interests, insurance company practices, &c) has simply come to focus more on the ostensible economic and national threat posed by fatness. the underlying logic bears the biopolitical throughline: the state has, or ought to have, an interest in enforcing the health of its population, and as part of this demands that you the individual surveil and alter your weight according to the scientific guidelines du jour.

this is fertile ground for the development of what, in extreme form, we regard as ED pathology. first, because even the most purely 'health'-motivated individual engaging in the required degree of bodily monitoring and caloric restriction is liable to respond to energy deficit in ways that can become diagnosably distressing. second, because the morals of 'health' are never far from standards of beauty; thinness is sold in overtly profitable ways (the diet and weight-loss industries) and furthermore, our idea of beauty is often a kind of post hoc justification for the thinness already being demanded by state and medical authorities. which is really just to say, beauty is part of the ideological superstructure both resulting from and invoked as a justification for the material conditions of capitalist biopolitics. again this is very broad strokes, but imo it is a much more useful framework to understand EDs than simply presenting them as a result of desiring thinness because it is glorified in The Media, because... reasons (essentially the rené girard model, lol).

[transfaguette]

I hate the framing of eating disorders as being a skinny person who thinks they're fat and therefore the problem is they don't recognize their body is actually Good (skinny) and not Bad (fat). The POINT shouldn't be "you're actually skinny but you think you're fat" but rather "you should not obsess over your body or harm it in order to reach impossible standards. your body is fine the way it is." Because like, what does that say about fat people with the same disorders? It literally just telegraphs to them that their bodies ARE actually bad, that it is a problem to be fixed, and so, eh, if you end up Skinny, it's fine.

That is terrible, and you don't actually care about eating disorders, you just care about thin people not thinking they are fat.

[desultory-suggestions]

Your health and safety will always be more important than your productivity or success 

[spiderinthecupboard]

stop underestimating disordered eating in men

[dorianbrightmusic]

PSA

-OCD is not a synonym for neat or preoccupied with tidiness. Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder is all about distressing intrusive thoughts and rituals (compulsions) used to combat those thoughts.

-Intrusive thoughts are not synonymous with silly things I want to do. They're deeply upsetting, often taboo mental apparitions. Letting them win is the last thing anyone wants, and nobody is immoral for having them. (See 'impulsive thoughts' if you need a term.)

-Anorexic is not a synonym for thin or emaciated. The majority of anorexic people have OSFED atypical anorexia – that is, their BMI is above 18.5. You cannot judge the severity of someone's illness by their appearance. (If you're worried about someone, look out more for rapid weight loss than thinness, even when it's occurring in someone in a larger body. 10kg in 10 weeks is never a good thing.)

-Eating disorders are not synonymous with just anorexia and bulimia. Anorexia is an ED, but it's nowhere near the most common. Bulimia is an ED, but again, not the most common. Together, they do not constitute the most common. The most common ED is binge-eating disorder, and the second most common is atypical anorexia, which is one of many, many OSFED categories. Those living with ARFID, pica, night-eating syndrome, rumination disorder, subthreshold BN, subthreshold BED, and orthorexia all deserve dignity, compassion, and acknowledgement. Remember: EDs are not necessarily thin, and never glamorous.

-Schizophrenic is not a synonym of all over the place, abnormal, unpredictable, dangerous, or crazy. Nor is schizoid or schizotypal. Folks with schizophrenia spectrum disorders live with hallucinations, delusions, disorganised thoughts/behaviour, and/or catatonia. They are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators, and go to huge lengths to act okay even when distressed by symptoms.

-Schizophrenic is also not a synonym of multiple personalities/volatile. For the disorder involving having different facets of personality that are generally unaware of each other, see Dissociative Identity Disorder, and even then, don't assume it's a) dramatic as it is in the movies; b) evil; or c) trivial. DID is a trauma disorder.

-Delusional is not a synonym of wrong. Nor is it the same as this politician/friend is saying something I do not like/that is potentially dangerous. Delusions are false, fixed beliefs held despite evidence. And generally, folks with delusions don't tend to proselytise them. I know that certain politicians have beliefs that seem to persist in the face of evidence, but nevertheless, we don't need to stigmatise mental illness further to call out poor political/social behaviour. If you need a word for the pundit spewing potentially dangerous content, use 'dangerous' or 'wrong', but don't call them delusional.

-Bipolar is not a synonym of all over the place or fluctuating results. Bipolar disorder involves mood states that, even in the rapid cycling form, tend to last at least 3-4 days (mania) and weeks (depression). If you need a word for the weather, use 'British' instead.

-Psychotic is not a synonym of evil. Psychosis is losing touch with reality, whether it be through hallucinations or delusions. It doesn't make a person bad or violent. It's just a neurological phenomenon that may be distressing. It's also relatively common: 6-15% of people will hallucinate in their lifetime.

-ADHD is not a synonym of just quirky/scattered/forgetful/unfocussed/lazy/careless. ADHD is fundamentally a disorder of being able to choose where to direct attention, rather than of just I can't focus. If someone can't tune out the noise of the crowd, but can't prevent themself focussing on something trivial because their brain is wired that way, it's not laziness or just being quirky/scattered.

-Autistic meltdown is not a synonym of temper tantrum.

-Borderline is not a synonym of harridan.

-Narcissist is not a synonym of abuser.

-Mentally ill is not a synonym of volatile or bad person. This doesn't mean we have to make something artificially positive out of mental disorders. If there is good to be found in certain disorders, great; if there is nothing positive about living with certain others, that doesn't make you any less real or resilient than anyone else. It's okay to have complex feelings about your own disorders. It's okay to feel exhausted or frustrated by a disorder. But never should anyone have to face stigma.

[anarcha-androgyny]

idk how to tell ppl this but there is never going to be a world that glorifies thinness, demonizes fatness, and emphasizes dieting that will not have an eating disorder epidemic. you can't tell people that fatness is inherently bad and you must control and heavily scrutinize every single food you eat to avoid ever getting/staying fat and then act shocked when people have extremely unhealthy relationships with food

[locketdream]

Shoutouts to:

cluster a autistics

cluster b autistics

cluster c autistics

depressed autistics

anxious autistics

autistics with eating disorders

autistics that deal with hallucinations

autistics with dissociative disorders

autistics with tics

[traumasurvivorshelpingsurvivors]

A small selection of photos from the POC and Mental Illness Photo Project by Dior Vargas.

[bodhrancomedy]

So, I did a very stupid thing.

Actually four stupid things.

1. I got on a scale.

2. I plugged that number (8 stone and 7lbs/4’11”) into the NHS BMI.

3. I looked at the results.

4. I only ate a handful of vegetables for dinner.

Don’t do that.

[animentality]

[transmutationisms]

i have a handful of anonymous asks in my inbox right now asking about harm reduction as applied to eating disorders that their loved ones are experiencing. i'm not answering these individually, both because it would get repetitive and because i don't know your loved ones and can't give them personal advice, but i did want to say a few general things on this topic.

the basic principles of harm reduction are the same in regards to EDs as anything else. the point here is not to force a person to stop doing something dangerous (this is impossible) or even to pressure them to stop (this also doesn't work, and will often have the effect of making you into a person they don't feel safe around and can't turn to for help, thus actually decreasing their access to support and resources). instead, the goal of harm reduction generally is to give people the knowledge and resources they need to engage in risky behaviours as safely as possible. the reasons people do things that are physically or socially harmful to them vary, obviously, but in general these behaviours are serving some purpose in the person's life, like providing emotional 'blunting' they need to deal with otherwise intolerable circumstances, or meeting a physical need for specific substances. harm reduction meets people where they are, beginning with the premise that they deserve basic respect, dignity, and self-determination, whether or not they continue to engage in behaviours that may be endangering them.

some baseline harm reduction strategies for EDs could include:

take necessary safety precautions if (over)exercise is a feature of the disorder, or if you are at risk for fainting; ideally, have someone around (or reachable by phone) who can help in case of injury

do your best to compensate for any micronutrient deficiencies resulting from food restriction; dietary supplementation may be necessary

know if any substances/pharmaceuticals you may use (recreationally or not) can affect you more strongly, faster, or more dangerously on an empty stomach; here, harm reduction for EDs will overlap with harm reduction for drug use

know the signs of electrolyte imbalance and resultant cardiac events, particularly in EDs involving purging by laxative use or self-induced vomiting; keep a stockpile of items like sports drinks/gels that can rapidly replenish electrolytes; know where to seek emergency medical treatment and how to recognise when it may be vitally necessary

monitor long-term health risks, like bone density loss, tooth enamel damage, hyperglycaemia (in cases of diabulimia), &c. note that both this step and the above require finding medical practitioners who will treat patients non-judgmentally and without threat of institutionalisation

....and so forth.

harm reduction plans are highly individualised: they depend on the person's own goals and desires. a harm reduction plan might include strategies for engaging in ED behaviours less frequently or intensely, and may even include a long-term goal of recovery. however, harm reduction has not 'failed' if the person doesn't want to, or can't, reduce frequency or severity of behaviours right now or ever. ED harm reduction that does include goals for reducing behaviours, without necessarily trying to eliminate them entirely, might include strategies like:

purge less frequently; avoid or reduce flushing and chew/spit

reduce food restriction by raising calorie limits, not counting calories at all, eating certain 'fear foods', &c

identify triggers for restriction, binging/purging, &c; try to avoid those triggers (& possibly enlist assistance doing this)

ask someone trusted to eat with you if this would help you, for example, become more comfortable with eating non-restrictively, and turn eating into a social connection rather than a stressful event

consume a sufficient amount of food regularly and consistently <- this is the bedrock of all recovery work

again, though, the particular strategies in a person's harm reduction plan will depend on what they want to implement and are capable of doing right now. a person who's not ready for any step that asks them to engage in fewer behaviours, or to engage in behaviours less frequently, can still benefit from a harm reduction approach if they're interested. this is a conversation that should always be approached non-judgmentally and with the understanding that any harm reduction plan depends on the person's own capacities and goals. harm reduction is not about telling someone else what would be 'best' for them in an 'ideal' world. it's about meeting them where they are right now.

something important to note about EDs is that efforts to restrict food and food groups and to shrink body size are considered extremely common and 'normal' in much of the contemporary popular culture, and are frequently encouraged and prescribed by medical practitioners. this means that even when you are worried about someone with a self-endangering ED, there is often a considerable risk that, in trying to help them, you might still be promoting or acceding to the same fatphobic logic that can fuel the ED. if you, for instance, think that pursuing intentional weight loss is generally benign or healthy; if you have ideas about what size a person's body 'should' be based on things like actuarial charts; if you think that some foods are universally 'bad' and need to be restricted or eliminated; if you think that food should be 'earned' or compensated for by physical activity—stop, do not pass go, and do not try to dispense any kind of advice, harm reduction or otherwise, to someone struggling with an ED. you are not capable of being a resource here unless and until you are committed to a politics of fat liberation, disability rights, mad liberation, and anti-racism. you are not reducing harm if you are contributing to further entrenching the cultural beliefs and economic mechanisms of fatphobia and body fascism that the ED itself thrives on.

(**i am not saying that all EDs start or end with the desire to be thin as articulated through white supremacist body ideals, but it is a very common feature at this moment in history, and having these ideas reinforced, including through the lens of medical fatphobia, can certainly contribute to or worsen already-present behaviours and thought patterns where EDs are concerned.)

harm reduction also means giving a person the knowledge they need to evaluate their own goals and needs. in regards to EDs specifically, lots of public health communication is confounded by industry-funded diet and 'obesity' research that prescribes food restriction, compensatory exercise, and other recognisably 'eating disordered' behaviours, especially to fat people. many people with EDs, and their loved ones, may not even realise how many misconceptions they have learned about body size, nutrition, and the health risks of EDs. some basic places to start learning about these things from a weight-neutral / fat-liberationist angle that i would suggest include: christy harrison's podcast 'food psych' (her book is also decent but treads a lot of the same ground); gwyneth olwyn's work; lindo bacon and lucy aphramor's papers on 'health at every size'; jennifer gaudiani's book 'sick enough', which is a good starter resource on the medical effects of EDs. note that none of these resources are working within an explicitly harm reductionist framework, and imo make some missteps in this arena! but they still contain insights and information that can be useful to those who are interested in harm reduction, and to those with EDs generally.

harm reduction can be a tool to recovery, or a step on that road; it can also be an alternative for people who are not ready to seek recovery, and who may never be ready. the reality is that you cannot force someone to stop engaging in behaviours they rely on to live, whether drug use, EDs, or anything else. harm reduction proceeds from this place and from a fundamental commitment to respect for people who are generally already suffering. when approaching a loved one, you may or may not be able to initiate a conversation in which you express, eg, that you are worried about them hurting themselves, and would like to offer whatever emotional or material resources you can to help. but you have to go into any such interaction understanding that they may very well already know all of the risks of what they're doing, and may have other reasons they can't or don't want to stop. if you're trying to impose your will on them---by force, pressure, or coercion---you're not doing harm reduction, and you're most likely alienating them and turning yourself into a person they don't feel safe around where these behaviours are concerned.

[rius-cave]

Adam being chubby, obviously, and then when he realizes Lucifer wants to sleep with him, he figures it’s the only way to stay at the Hotel, so he starts starving himself so he’ll be skinnier, so that Luci won’t kick him out.

I'VE READ FICS WITH A SIMILAR VIBE TO THIS it's so sad. I don't think Adam would actually be able to starve himself, he strikes me more as the type to just feel like shit about it but without being able to do anything about it. Ooughhhhgh

[funeral]

Researchers studying the kinds of problems adolescents have when they have insecure attachments have found that girls with dismissive attachments...are more likely to develop eating disorders of some kind and to focus their energies on controlling internal emotional states by controlling food intake. There’s some good evidence that the food restriction typical of anorexia causes the brain to release endorphins, since starvation signals ‘‘emergency’’ to the brain. Endorphins cause a ‘‘high’’ feeling and relief of anxiety, quickly and reliably, and can be as addictive as drugs that are ingested. It may be the addiction component that makes eating disorders so difficult to resolve.

Susan Nathiel, Daughters of Madness