Talk:Anorexia nervosa

Statistics?

Are there absolutely NO statistics about how many cases by country and over time? CDC? US gov statisticians? Hans Rosling? -- Michael Janich (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Prposed external link: Archive of Resitance - Anti-Anorexia/Anti-Bulimia

Hi all, I'd like to propose we add the following link to the 'External links' section: Archive of Resitance - Anti-Anorexia/Anti-Bulimia. While the website design is a little basic, the Archive has existed for more than 20 years, and has been referenced in many professional publications, including peer-reviewed journals. It contains resources for and by people dealing with anorexia, as well as professionals in the field. Material posted on the site is edited / vetted, so it's not a site for 'anything goes'. The founder of the archive, David Epston, is highly regarded in the field, and has pioneered non-pathologising therapeutic approaches to dealing with anorexia and bulimia. I will also try to reference his work in the main entry at a later date. Annarean7 (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

picture was tasteless, removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.128.94 (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

History of Anorexia in U.S.

When was anorexia introduced to the U.S.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.156.113.111 (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Anorexia nervosa and sport

In my opionion, bodybuilding is a treatment for Anorexia nervosa. Light bodybuilding with 3 kg weights and small situps produces a nice hunger feeling. Even if you hate all kind of food, you will get stimulate to eat.

I have googled to find medical papers to support this thesis, but i didn't found anything. So my questions:

  1. Is my thesis right? 
  2. Are scientific papers availible to support this thesis? 

--80.78.168.2 (talk) 08:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Excessive exercise is one of the very common methods anorexics (and those with other eating disorders) use to lose and keep off weight, and this definitely includes body building. Link to supporting abstract. So I do not think you will find much support for your thesis. --Danae00 (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible vandalism?

Under the section "interpersonal and social", is inserted the line "Viva la Nation". I can't imagine why that means anything where it is, so... I wanted to leave it so that the guru's can decide if it's a repeat offender, et c. I just thought I'd bring some attention to it. Of course, if that means something to anorexia nervosa specialists, then perhaps we could include a short explanation... Gaedheal (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible Pro-Ana Photograph

The photo on the main anorexia page could be seen as appealing to those who consider themselves Pro-ana Hrmg (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

picture

the picture was tasteless and didn't add any value to the article so it was removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.128.94 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

athletes live near

many pro-athletes suffer from eating disorders and are near anorexic "if they miss one meal or eat too much they could end up in a hospital and can even die" yet there is no mention of this. many pro-sports are very unhealthy and reduce the average life expectancy quite a bit. Markthemac (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This would need a citation, as I would say that it's not that they starve themselves, just that they exercise so much they need the calorie intake. For example, a professional swimmer swims for their whole day burning thousands of calories. They need to take in around 8,000 calories or else their body will not have enough energy to support itself. This does not make them anorexic. yes (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to 'athletes'

I think with the athletes your on about,it's a different scenario, it's not the amount they're eating that's the problem, it's the amount of exercise, they're doing so much they can't possibly eat enough to sustain themselves, they get in a scenario where if they eat any less they become very ill becuase they have no energy, if they eat any more they become very ill becuase it's physically impossible for them to eat so much, they're eating as much as they possibly can eat, but it's still not enough, they need to learn to slow down a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.190.142 (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Maudsley Approach section

This section has been recently added by User:Jneher99. Just glancing at it with comments such as without question and the results are clear -- and without the refs needed for the statements made, this does not seem to be WP:NPOV, and some of it e.g Still others remain skeptical of the role of parents in the treatment consists of weasel words. I've removed an inappropriate resources section. Edgepedia (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

---

jneher----

I've edited in response to your concerns

A comment in passing: While this section clearly needs some copyediting, it may be neutral for the purposes of complying with WP:NPOV. This recent news article describes the Maudsley method as "the only therapy that has proved effective in controlled trials" and says a number of other positive things about it. This assessment seems to be fairly typical of mainstream news sources. I believe therefore that a "positive" section is actually necessary to be "neutral", because NPOV defines neutrality as accurately reflecting the views of the reliable sources, not being even-handed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: Just because it is cited in "mainstream" news media does not prove validation. Also, it is necessary to cite the age and severity of the test population to add perspective to the posting.

I've just done some pruning on the Maudsley section,,took out vague unsourced material, deleted repetition and just some general tidying up. This was taking up way too much space on the main article. I'll go through the rest and check sources when i've got time. StevieNic (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed external link

http://www.everyone-else-is-taken.com

It looks like someone's blog, and as such it is not appropriate, in my opinion. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Autism and Anorexia Nervosa Section

The section is right now preliminary and rough, I intend to improve it. I was contacted by a woman with autism and anorexia who encouraged me to add this information to the article. I have more references that I was given, I'll have a look though them and see what else can be added. The idea that autism maybe a cognitive phenotype underlying anorexia is a Swedish-European thing, and seems to be gaining at least local popularity. --Diamonddavej (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am very unhappy with the autism and anorexia section. Seems someone displaying weak central cohearance got disproportionately over-focused on the word Empathy. I'll remove the reference to empathy rather than risk an dispute, as I am not happy that half the Autism and Anorexia section is now given over to attempting explain the meaning of empathy rather then sticking to the subject at hand. If the editor who made the changes in question would like to read a philosophical exploration of the conspicuous morality displayed in autism and Aspergers syndrome, here is an excellent paper - Autism, Empathy and Moral Agency by Jeanette Kennett.[1] It is argued that autistic people follow a Kantian moral agency. --Diamonddavej (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The section looks allot better now, thanks for improving the readability of the section. --Diamonddavej (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No Picture?

I'm surprised, tbh. I understand that a section above mentions that one was removed for being tasteless, but a picture of someone (preferably a girl, seeing as they suffer form the disorder more often than guys) with the disorder (not nude, but at least with arms and rib cage visible) would definitely improve the article. MichaelExe (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Reinstated Relationship to Autism Section

I have reinstated the relationship to autism section, if anyone is unhappy with its inclusion in the article, let me know why. --Diamonddavej (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, checking cited sources and other medical articles.(google.scholar & pubmed) and there does seem to be credible evidence (as per WP:MEDRS) that supports Family based treatments so this does deserve a mention in the main article. However we must take care not to give 'undue weight' and maintain a NPOV within WP guidelines. There is already mention of family based treatments in the 'Treatments' section.StevieNic (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised that this article doesn't include much on the social or gender-based factors of anorexia. I couldn't find any relevant and recent reviews about those factors, unfortunately. However, some useful information can be found here:

• PMID 15627053 [Hyperactivity and anorexia nervosa: behavioural and biological perspective]
• PMID 12567214 Risk and protective factors for juvenile eating disorders. "Temperamental factors, eating dysregulation, attachment, deficient self regulation and sociocultural ideals of health and beauty all contribute to pathogenesis." It doesn't get any more specific than this in the abstract, though. >.>

MichaelExe (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a section titled "Social and environmental factors" but it was removed another editor, see the article's history. Almost 50% of the article was deleted in the last couple of weeks. It was bloated and in need of a clean up, but I think much relevant material was removed the process. --Diamonddavej (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the original article was about 4500 words and I think the current article is about 1700 words so it’s probably more than 50%. The size of the reduction is not important it’s the content. As I’ve already explained most of the article was unsourced POV,anecdotal hearsay and was not really necessary. I suggest you reread the article as it was about a month ago and then read the current version. It’s definitely a big improvement, it’s a lot tighter and reads with a lot more accuracy. To editors in general, please try not to re add material just because it appears, or there are references to it in the popular press. Mainstream newspapers are not reputable sources and therefore citations from them are not suitable to be used in medical encyclopedia articles. Also primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Only reputable secondary and tertiary reviews from well-respected medical journals should be used. Also remember that not all WP:MEDRS are created equal. PS.. Also I have re added a condensed section from the 'Social and environmental factors' para....Once again Best wishes..StevieNic (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

When I say "... much relevant material was removed" I am largely whihc concerned with the The "relationship to autism" section, which I wrote. It originally contained about 20 references from reputable medical journals, 3 references I accept were not appropriate - from Time Magazine, The New York Times and the BBC. After recent editing, the relationship to autism was section deleted and replaced a single sentence that retained only two references. --Diamonddavej (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, looking back at my editing, I was being rather aggressive with my pruning. I was trying to edit the article to a compendious balanced viewpoint with all the main points covered. When I came to the 'Relationship with Autism' section I thought the whole section could be condensed down to a couple of lines with just a couple of the main references. Just because there are numerous references for a particular treatment or viewpoint it does not necessarily mean that this viewpoint should be given a prominence or an excessive amount of weight.

On a quick perusal of other main Anorexia articles on the web ie. Medline Plus [2], Encyclopedia Britannica [3] , the NHS website [4] and others the subject of autism connection doesn't get that much weight. It is not even mentioned at all in some articles with the most weight being given in Encyclopedia Britannica where it gets a line at most. So therefore I didn't feel it deserved that much prominence so I condensed it down from its original size. StevieNic (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarity,order

I hope nobody gets offended about the revisions I made. I'm not sure how to add to the "reflist" I cited the sources but didn't link to them. The co-morbid and prevalence sections can and should be added to as there are studies, one of which went on for 55 years. There are also statistics from various countries. The fact that men can develop anorexia nervosa and certain subgroups of men have a higher prevalence should probably be added as well. 7mike5000 (talk) 11:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your recent edits. This list is mostly unsourced, and where the sources are quoted they are not suitable for use in a medical encyclopedia article. Please only use sources and peer reviews from well-respected medical journals (as per WP:MEDRS ).StevieNic (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

There's something missing from this article

Maybe I missed it? I don't think so, because I've looked ... I don't see any mention in this article of the widespread misuse of the word "anorexic" in the popular press. The misuse of the term is extremely widespread. To bray in the "media" that someone like Keira Knightley (just to name only one example out of a hundred ludicrous examples) is anorexic is not only bald-faced preposterous BS, but it's also an insult to people that truly do have the disease anorexia. It is disrespectful. Anorexia nervosa is a very dangerous and sad disease, and it is rather rare. Almost all of the actresses and models that are "accused" of having "anorexia" in the popular stupid garbage-tabloid-press are perfectly normal women who just happen to be naturally, and quite healthily, thin (including K. Knightley). HAVE YOU ACTUALLY LOOKED AT A PHOTOGRAPH OF A PERSON THAT REALLY IS ANOREXIC? These models and movie stars these people are calling "anorexic" are not anorexic, and in fact they're not even at all underweight. (And yes, you might notice, if you browse for Keira Knightley's "images" in google that some asshole has pasted a picture of a truly sick and dying anorexic's body onto Keira Knightly's face -- this is the kind of BS I'm referring to -- this misrepresentation of anorexia nervosa is a very sick phenomenon on the Internet.)

Wikipedia needs to address this misuse of the word, or else it is not doing its job as the best encyclopedia in the world (which it strives to be).

The U.S. is the "most obese" nation in all of the Western developed nations. Is this fixation on "all these Victoria's Secret models" and "all these actresses" are anorexic, etc. etc. perhaps just jealousy on the part of people that have difficulty keeping their weight naturally under control?

My point is, this article is remiss in not addressing the point that "anorexia" is an frequently and egregiously misused word in much of the popular press. Is Political Correctness so domineering on Wikipedia that this frequent, fundamental fact of misuse of a medical term cannot be addressed, at least in passing, in the article? Worldrimroamer (talk) 05:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)