Talk:Eating disorder/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Is there any evidence

Is there any evidence that "Among the world's leaders in the treatment of eating disorders is Harry A. Brandt, MD."? Why then wouldn't his name appear later in the page as well? I fear this is an advert. --Crid 20:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether it is meant as an advert, but either way I don't think the it is very useful information, so I'm deleting it. --JoanneB 16:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Confusion

I don't see how hyperplasia or Kleine-Levin syndrome could be considered types of eating disorders. I can't say I'm familiar with either condition, but given the information on WP about them, it's pretty clear that one is a growth dysfunction and the other a sleep dysfunction-- neither seems remotely related to eating behaviors. Am I missing something? --Zeligf 04:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that you're missing anything. PsychINFO (which was called Silver Platter a million years ago, when I was at Columbia) is the researcher's standard for tracking stuff down in the social sciences. If it's in there, there must be a reason (assuming the individual who did the original search parsed it correctly). The question remains...why is it in there? Diagnostically, it makes no sense. I support your confusion.

I suspect ferreting out either (1) a mistake in the original search, or (2) figuring out why these would be included in this particular search return would be helpful. Unfortunately, PsychINFO is a subscriber service, and I no longer have an active subcription...anyone? --Sadhaka 14:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

PsychINFO yielded a list of "narrower" search terms for "eating disorder." The list did include Kleine-Levin syndrome. It did not include hyperplasia, but did include hyperphagia, which is also known as polyphagia- a term indicating excessive hunger and eating. So my guess is someone got their wires crossed somewhere and "hyperplasia" ended up in the list when they meant "hyperphagia." Nonetheless, I don't think hyperphagia is a type of eating disorder so much as a medical sign which may be indicative of an eating disorder.

A search for "eating disorder" and "Kleine-Levin" yielded eleven hits. Many of these indicated that binge eating (along with hypersexuality) is often a result of Kleine-Levin syndrome. I don't think that makes it a type of eating disorder, but there is at least a connection between the two conditions.

I also searched for "eating disorder" and "hyperplasia," just in case, and got seven results, four of which were relevant. Three were case studies; one linked bulimia nervosa to hyperplasia in the kidneys (along with other kidney damge) over time in a woman; one linked bulimia to a case tonsilitis in a 14 year old girl; the last linked anorexia nervosa to gastrointestinal hyperplasia in a man. The fourth hit speculated that a genetic tendency to hyperplasia in fat cells may predispose people to obesity. All in all, it seems there are a few anecdotal reports linking different eating disorders to hyperplasia in different types of cells, but this hardly makes hyperplasia a "type," or even a significant indicator, of an eating disorder. --Zeligf 15:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Pica a well-known eating disorder?

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how Pica is the third most well-known eating disorder. It's just not true at all. Melange fiesta 17:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Bulimarexia

This article is missing a major form of eating disorders. This should be added. -Yupik 12:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That's just adding anorexia and bulimia together, and is generally used in pro ana /mia communities. Medically, it's known as anorexic with bulimic symptoms, or anorexia and bulimia. Srxcef 19:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Prader-Willi Syndrome

Anyone think that this should be included? Srxcef 19:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding a link

My link is Somerset & Wessex Eating Disorders Association, I design and manage the site on a volunteer basis (being a recovered sufferer from anorexia and bulimia myself).

Although we are a rather localized charity I would hope that the information provided by the site would be useful to a much wider audience.

Our site address is www.swedauk.org

I appreciate that others may remove the listing if they don't feel that it's appropriate to be included here but I thought that I'd post in up just in case and have also done so in a few other eating disorder related articles.

I hope that this is helpful. Feel free to email me if there's a problem (contact details are on the website).

With Kind Regards Paul

You make good points, however I think (1) the information being provided globally, and (2) that this is in extremely good faith, make the link valid for this particular article. While the information may not be vouched for by the scientific community ( or, more likely, simply not cited ), if the information is true, and likely to help someone looking into whether their behavior or that of a friend may qualify as an eating disorder, then it does far more good than harm, and should stay. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. FireWeed 20:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can certainly accept that it's a localized service and if that marks it out as unsuitable and can accept that. I would hope though that it was a little more than a message board, although this is certainly provided.

I would also agree that that the material is not 'vouched' for by any specific organization although there is a great deal of material around and I personally doubt whether anything can be considered truly 'authatitive'. There is a mixture of material written from personal perspective and some, including reasearch, written by experts in the field (at least recognized as such in the UK).

With all that said the site is a bit of an amateur, one-man-band affair and I'm quite happy to accept the view of concensus if people feel that it's not appropriate (otherwise Wikipedia simply become a billboard for anyone wanting to promote their sites).

I appreciate the time taken to check the site out and any constructive feedback is always welcome.

With Kind Regards Paul

Night Eating Disorder

I'm surprised this isn't already in the article, but since it's not, I'm about to act bold. Anybody who disagrees, please list your reasons here before you remove the changes I'm going to make; before I go and add this disorder, let me explain why I'm doing so.

First, see this link [1] to a news article announcing that night binging is officially recognized as an eating disorder. Second, I've been reading about the disorder in other medical texts lately, and there seems to be a consensus among the medical community that that's what this is. ( Also, I believe it describes a co-worker of mine, which is why I'm interested. ) Third, since this is clearly a psychological disorder, and is centered around food intake, it seems extremely appropriate for this article.

Night Eating Syndrome is when most of a person's regular food intake is after 9 or 10 pm, in their local time. These people usually eat very little throughout the day, probably in attempt to diet, and then take in as many as several thousand calories in a late night binge. Between 1 % and 2 % of the Western population are thought to be affected.

Finally, while the BBC article I linked to is poorly written ( "ever wake up and have a snack? you might be sick" ), this is a condition that applies to it's "victims" ( I'm sure there's a better word ) on a daily or almost daily basis. We've all had a late-night snack from time to time, and this is distinct from people who habitually eat half their calories when other people are winding down toward the end of their day or already asleep. What I'm trying to say is this is an actual disorder, as opposed to just an occasional behavior we all do from time to time that's not particularly healthy.

FireWeed 20:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Where does this leave people on permanent night-shift? or shift-workers generally. Does anyone have any info about this problem, because, from memory, I had a hard time eating properly when changing from a run of nights to a run of lates. ( Iused to be a Guard on British Rail.)dick 17:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Does anyone else think that the external links section is incredibly excessive? I could see links to a couple major eating disorder organisations, but this links to About.com's secion on eating disorders and various other small websites. I mean, there is a link to HOW OA groups, a subtype of Overeaters Anonymous! Does anyone else agree that we should prune this down? Celtic Labyrinth 02:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just pruned it down, lol, when I saw a treatment center linked I knew I had to. If anyone objects please talk here about why and what links should be added. Celtic Labyrinth 02:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Addition from the INSTITUE

Does the comment about "ZINC", attributed to a "DR. CAMI LEE MASON" from the "INSTITUE OF HIGHER LEARNING" seem suspicious to anyone else? It doesn't appear that the statement can be easily verified, since A) It was attributed to a person, rather than a publication, and B) It's not clear what the statement is trying to say in the first place (i.e. what does "This" refer to?). I have not made an edit since I'm unsure about what should happen here. If a statement is made that can't be verified using the cited source, but you can't personally disprove it, what's the protocol? 24.61.139.247 01:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sentence struck me as weird (and sent me over to the Talk page to see if anyone else thought so too). Very bizarre, I don't know much about Wikipedia standards but it sounds odd to me. Stu21202 07:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge Causes and mechanisms leading to eating disorders

This is very good information, and I think it would be more accessable in this article rather than in it's own. — Craigtalbert 19:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation style

I notice that this page has a {{Citation style}} warning on it. Is there any objection to my trying to clean this up? -- Boracay Bill 04:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Causes and Mechanisms

It mentions on the page that victims of, for example, sexual abuse will develop eating disorders to punish themselves because they feel worthless. This may be true as well, but another important reason why many victims of rape/abuse develop EDs is because they crave control. Rape/abuse makes the victim feel powerless, so many need to feel a sense of control - and many choose to control their food intake (leading to anorexia nervosa). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.207.111 (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Orthorexia nervosa

It would be good if someone could find references and add a section about Orthorexia. It is an eating disorder currently coming to light, which is characterized by an obsession with eating healthy to the point of destroying one's health. Wikipedia already has an article on the subject, but it would be good to get a bit of an idea on this page too. Kristamaranatha (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good idea. I feel like this page is missing a LOT of information. It doesn't even have anything about treatment resources.

Wecanbehiros (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Treatment & Resources

I'm going to add a section on Treatment and Resources when I get time and can pull together some stuff as I think that's a really important to have on here.

Wecanbehiros (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"piknoid body type"

I'm a little suspicious about the passage containing the phrase "piknoid body type." The wording seems odd, and when I did a google search to try to find the definition of "piknoid," all the hits I got were worded in exactly the same odd way. Piknoid does not appear in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Terrek (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge...

Food craving and eating disorders are medically incompatible conditions. An eating disorder is a compulsion that is driven by specific subconscious cues and miscues, which can lead to the diagnosis of a mental disorder.

Food craving is a physiological condition driven by the body's signal for a specific nutrient, for a specific reason. Mjformica 14:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

While some eating disorders may be associated with food cravings, a food craving in and of itself is NOT a signal of an eating disorder. Most people experience food cravings ranging from weak to intense during their lives with few to no ill effects. -- NO

DONT MERGE I find myself experiencing food cravings all the time. I skipped lunch yesterday, and was starved by dinner. This isn't a psychological disorder, though - simply a strong craving brought on by the body signalling the lack of food.

Also, some eating disorders - aniorexia - seem opposite of craving for food, so merging these articles would do more harm than good. FireWeed 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge. What FireWeed saiddick 16:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

DONT MERGE If anything, the merge should be the other way. Eeekster (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't merge Too distinct for one article. hmwithτ 20:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Rumination Syndrome

In the intro to this article, I notice nowhere in the definition does it say that an eating disorder has to be self inflicted.

Therefore, I would like an adknowlegement/link to be made to Rumination syndrome, which is a rare, though severely underdiagnosed condition. While historically affecting only infants and the mentally and developmentally challenged, it has been diagnosed in increasing numbers of otherwise healthy adults and adolescents. Its occurrence is unknown due to a lack of acknowledgment of the condition by the medical community, and many sufferers go several years without a proper diagnosis. They are often labelled as bulimic, or told that they are doing it to themselves.

Let's make this debilitating condition just a little bit more known

- Floydian (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Because of the lack of response, I assume there are no issues with me putting it into the article. If you strongly disagree with that then please let me know why here. -- Floydian ^τ _γ 03:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Disorders outside the 6/7 identified

Are there any experts here that might offer some comment on whether there are formally recognised disorders that fall outside the ones listed in the article? *ARE* there any that are recognised at all?

Thanks!

Sardaukar86 (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone's brought it up, but EDNOS ("eating disorder not otherwise specified")is a general catch-all for disordered eating that doesn't fit the classifications mentioned. EDNOS

Daliminator (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

bulimia

Aren´t people with bulimia eating like normal people, and then throwing up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.162.126.86 (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, bulemia is characterized by overeating and then "purging" - often throwing up to get rid of the excess food that was just consumed. For more info, see Bulimia nervosa. Kristamaranatha (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

They may or may not be eating like normal people. 219.5.126.13 (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding a Link

I have added a link to a site containing many reference articles regarding eating disorders, how children are impacted by eating disorders, and what parents can do to help. I think the link adds value to the article by referring interested readers to children specific references and will give parents an outlet to find additional information. The resources are also very reputable, with information from the Dept. of Ed, NYU Child Study Center, Kids Health, and others.

I have spent 15 years in education and know when a parent is confronting an eating disorder, the more information they have, the better off they will be. I have also been a consultant with this reference website, helping to build out their collection of resources.

To avoid any kind of conflict of interest and maintain the integrity of the article, I would like to get your opinion. Please take a look at the information on the site and leave your feedback here as to the value it adds to the article.

Educator08 (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add links to sites produced by your employer. Thanks. - Ehheh (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize we disagree on this, but I would like to get feedback from other editors. Again, working with the website, especially a non-commercial website, does not automatically preclude contributions from that website which add value and enhance the article.

Any other opinions:

http://www.education.com/reference/topic/KeepingKidsHealthy_SpecialNeeds_EatingDisorders/

Educator08 (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I added an external link that was just deleted. It was to the Medline Plus page where eating disorders information is provided http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/eatingdisorders.html#cat32 Is there some reason that the US National Library of Medicine line would be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotlydia (talk • contribs) 19:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

National Eating Disorders Association (NEDA)

I recently made the stub article National Eating Disorders Association (NEDA), to differentiate it from the National Educational Debate Association, and the National Electronic Distributors Association.

I was wondering if this is a legitimate group (really non-profit), and if there are other (better) groups for eating disorders. They claim to be the largest non-profit organization in the United States (non-profit in general or non-profit eating disorder group?). I'm sure someone here would know more about it and could help expand the article. This Is Their Website.

-Thanks

Tiki God 21:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)'

Hi, I'm a member of NEDA because it is a not for profit organization. There are a few other external links that I think would help patients and families looking for help for their children. First is the Academy for Eating Disorders http://www.aedweb.org/ "a global professional association committed to leadership in eating disorders research, education, treatment, and prevention." This list of global organizations might be of particular help: http://www.feast-ed.org/edcommunityworldwide/edgroupsworldwide.html

The Eating Disorders Coalition http://www.eatingdisorderscoalition.org/ is also independent and focuses on policy in the US.

Tiki, I think you're right to be skeptical of sites offered by for profit organizations. Some are sponsoring sites that look independent, but aren't. spotlydia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotlydia (talk • contribs) 22:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Prose?

"However, it can be appropriate to use a list style when the items in a list are "children" of the paragraphs that precede them. Such "children" logically qualify for indentation beneath their parent description. In this case, indenting the paragraphs in list form may make them easier to read, especially if the paragraphs are very short. The following example works both with and without the bullets:" The article was previously in "prose" format. Rambling,verbose, non-sensical prose.When you list various facts, eating disorders, causes, symptoms they have a tendency to look like "lists". The list format makes it clear, concise and succinct. 7mike5000 (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, was just a thought. I do believe, however, that as a condition with over 400 years of literature behind it that rumination syndrome should be above these quasi-disorders that have not yet been established as tru medical disorders by the medical literature at large. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

We reached a mutual consensus on changing the title from "eating disorder" to "eating disorders". I believe that you also agreed that the portions that are in list format are justified. It's the most concise way to present the information, i.g., a list of statistics, causes etc. If you look at other sites on the internet and Wikipedia that's par for the course. When a person clicks on a Wikipedia article and sees those tags I think they automatically question the validity of the information, I do. I have a bit of a vain attachment to the article because I'm human and I wrote it but the article is heavily cited throughout, it's all factual information and it could possibly be useful to people. I believe the tag sitting there detracts from the article rather than adding to it. 7mike5000 (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:COLOR

You may want to run the page through a colour check. I think the blue [show/hide] links on the aquamarine background might be troublesome to see. Otherwise, this should go to WP:FAC soon; amazing work! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

They're still out a bit, but its much better now. This tool might help you find a colour that works.[2] Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, cool tool. 7mike5000 (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Images

Have removed a number of images that do not pertain directly to eating disorders.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Have restored them per WP:BRD. See the article history. What would an 'image of an eating disorder' look like? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of options. People with belemia have marks on their fingers and trouble with the enamel of the teeth. We can create a map looking at prevalence in different parts of the world. People with anorexia have changes in hair patterns. Pictures of what different BMIs look like might be good. A picture of the person who first described the condition. A graph looking at how the frequency of anorexia has changed over time. Etc. Having images just to have images is not recommended. Look at the page on Obesity for examples. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe 7mike5000's reasoning is that of visual metaphor. I'll wait and let them speak for themselves though. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is the guideline here [3]. The visual metaphor is not sufficient justification. Mike is done with editting Wikipedia per his user page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A true shame, and great loss to the project. Continue with your dissection. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I inquired about the decorative approach at MOS, and the responses can be read here. In general, the superfluous images were opposed, but the striped table (which should not be hidden, as it creates WP:Accessibility problems) can remain striped (although a lighter gray is recommended). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I wrote this article out of altruism and "trying to do the right thing". In comparison to what it was it is a vast improvement. I don't have an eating disorder and have no personal connection to the topic matter. Getting into childish tit for tat nonsense is not something I am interested in. This comment "Colored tables because they're pretty" is rude. There are no "pretty colors" on the page, I added two. Light blue in the box heading and grey in the sections that are in list format, a not uncommon thing to do. As far as the "superfluous images"; every image corresponded to the adjoining text, they explain and expound upon the subject matter, e.g., a lack of neuroplasticity in the somatosensory homunculus has been hypothesized to be a contributing factor in body image distortion. The image I included was of Penfield's homunculus. How that can be considered "superfluous", I don't understand.

Nobody had a problem with the page or the content as it was written, It is somwhat ironic that after an unpleasant exchange on another page, which I did not initiate, this one becomes the object of attention. I'm not part of the Wiki medicine project, or what ever it's called. I wouldn't want to be. But I would think that people who are actually concerned about improving content would be looking for things like the "endocinal jubachina system", Which was on the the thyroid page for over two years, in the infobox not buried in the text. Petty grievances against myself do not give you the right to dissect other articles I wrote or contributed to. Your alleged concerns over "accesibility" are not valid. Collectively the "collapsible boxes" I have put on articles have been viewed well over a million times, without alteration or complaint. 7mike5000 (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Mike, the term "pretty" is generally not considered a rude term, and WP:MOS, of all project pages, may be the forum that is most sympathetic to aesthetic considerations. Most commenters supported the use of colored striping in these tables. I do not understand how any rational person could interpret direct support as opposition.

As for the images, they certainly relate to the other articles, but they are perhaps not sufficiently relevant to eating disorders to justify inclusion in this article.

Finally, I realize that collapsed tables don't affect your ability to read the article, but it does affect some other people's. Consequently MOS:COLLAPSE prohibits such collapsible tables. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Coy responses like "pretty" is generally not considered a rude term, and how any rational person are irrelevant to what I wrote. Any rational individual would find this Colored tables because they're pretty, superfluous images and the decorative approach to be exactly what they are, snide comments meant to illicit a response. The fact that I do not have an "anoyyingly high I.Q." (sic) like yourself does not mean, I can't read. If that's how you choose to conduct yourself go right ahead, your comments speak for themselves.

The fact of the matter is you have never made 1 contribution to this page, until an exchange between yourself and I, on another page, that you instigated. When this article contained such gems of in formation as Eating disorders can range from mild mental anguish to life-threatening conditions and silly nonsense such as They have the pressure of being "strong, bulk, hot".[dubious – discuss][original research?]". You are no where to be found. But now you pop out of the woodwork.

• The shading of gray was way to dark, I agree with that.
• As for the MOS:COLLAPSE prohibits such collapsible tables. That's your interpretation what I read was: Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show are acceptable for use, but should not be used in article prose. As far as the accessability issue, I don't think there is anyone sitting on the top of a mountain with a Comodore 64 who can't access the page.

The "collapsible tables" you seem to have such an issue with were seen, as I said in various pages at least a few hundred thousand times. No one had an issue except you.

• The superfluous images, that's according to you. The fact that you may not see the relevance of e.g., an image of Penfield's homunculus next to a section of text that describes the somatosensory cortex may be due to your lack of comprehension.
• This version [4] looked fine, before you decided to impress your views and intrepretations on everyone else.
• I have my own issues, eating disorders aren't part of them, so I don't have the time or patience to play right now.

I also noticed that bit on MOS:COLLAPSE. I think most editors mistake content as prose, and fail to notice that the point form information in the collapsible tables is not prose. Further, collapsible tables collapse after the page loads, they appear as regular open tables to users of non-compatible browsers. The issue is not accessibility, its having the written-in-paragraph content in tables, which was never the case. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, my issue is accessibility, as in "Clicking on unnecessarily hidden stuff causes needless pain for people with repetitive stress injuries." Also, are you prepared to guarantee that your sweeping statement about "non-compatible browsers" applies to screen readers that are used by blind people? (I certainly don't have enough information to make such a claim.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be invisible to them since it is javascript. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The "show" button is not invisible, and clicking on it requires motion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

A screen reader picks out the formatting (mostly) and javascript. The 'show' link is created by javascript too, so it doesn't appear. The table appears uncollapsed, and as far as I understand, in this case would be read by a screen reader as if it was part of the prose. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that most screen readers would cope, but how does that matter for a person with repetitive stress injuries who is not using a screen reader? There is more than one kind of disability, you know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

They have to click to move between articles, I don't see why clicking a show/hide link is any different. Sure it's an extra step, but that's why they are forbidden for the prose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floydian (talk • contribs) 18:48, 30 April 2010

I navigate largely from the URL, not by clicking on links. The fact that there is an alternative for navigation, but not for showing the hidden article content, is the important difference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line is this; Nobody has complained except WhatamIdoing and one other individual, a little truce with him and he had no problem. Including information in collapsible boxes does make the page look neater. I have not gone to the pages that I put collapsible boxes on and counted, but it literally is over a million hits collectively. Nobody has complained. Using blindness and repetivive stress injury, as reasons not to include collapsible tables is a specious argument at best. Collapsible boxes in some instances are the best way to present information without cluttering the page.

As to the superfluous images, again the opinion of one individual. The article is a general article on eating disorders. Including images of obese individuals or the ravages that having an eating disorder can have on a person serve no purpose. If the same priciples are applied across the board the article on obesity had a number of superfluous images, including the one of an overweight child on a school playground. Someone already commented on the use of that image as being inappropriate. Someone staked out a school playground to take a picture of an overweight child,it is now on more than one article on Wikipedia. How would you feel if that was YOU. Despite the fact the face is not visible she knows it is her, her friends probably do, so that's real nice being an example of an "overweight child" on the internet for all the world to see. Although if someone wanted to tease her I don't think they would use a term a little less politically correct.Somehow that picture is o.k., Penfield's Homunculus, placed near a block of text describing the somatosensory cortex, not o.k., that makes no sense.

• Wikipedia:Ignore all rules
• Wikipedia:No vested contributors
• Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

7mike5000 (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling I'm gonna regret this, but I was passing by and feel I should come to WhatamIdoing's (partial) defense. On the collapsing tables and colors I have no opinion, but on the images he is absolutely right. The innocent waif, the diagrams of the brain, the fetus in utero -- none of these illustrate anything about eating disorders, but are decoration of the sort one finds enlivening pop psychology books.

In fact (and I'm sorry to say this given the hard work someone's put in) the article is largely a disorganized tidal wave of information whose significance is incomprehensible to most nonspecialists. What is the reader to do with the long list of diagnostic tests? Few or none of the entries explains the relation to anything a layman can understand, least of all eating disorders. "Creatine Kinase Test (CK-Test)...measures the circulating blood levels of creatine kinase, an enzyme found in the heart (CK-MB), brain (CK-BB) and skeletal muscle (CK-MM)." -- OK, so what? And the list of personality traits: an introductory sentence explaining that "There are various childhood personality traits associated with the development of eating disorders," is followed by "Maladaptive levels of certain traits may be acquired as a result of anoxic or traumatic brain injury," and by the time we get to "[T]hese traits have been shown to originate in various regions of the brain such as the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex. Disorders in the prefrontal cortex and the executive functioning system have been shown to affect eating behavior" -- now we're not talking about eating disorders at all, but parts of the brain which may be related to certain personality traits which may be related to eating disorders. Then finally, we have descriptions of these various personality traits, again with no explanation of the relevance to eating disorders, accompanied by diagrams of parts of the brain which may or may not be related to such traits. There's even a link to an online personality test!

It's hard to say what particular part of the article is furthest from the topic at hand; maybe it's "According to a recent report issued in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), anywhere from 40,000 to 80,000 deaths in the US are attributable to misdiagnosis in the hospital setting per year. Also in the US, deaths due to medical errors are higher than the numbers attributable to the 8th-leading cause of death." Sobering no doubt, but can we get back to eating disorders, please?

The opening box of "Statistics" is straight out of an advocacy piece -- like so much of the article, well-meant no doubt but having no business being here, at least not in this form. (And before anyone says anything, I assure you I do comprehend the significance of illustrating Penfield's homunculus -- which comprehension allows me to say that it adds nothing at all to a layman's understanding of eating disorders.) EEng (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with mike that the image of the children on the obesity page adds little and have thus removed it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:IUP#Privacy_rights applies to images like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

it adds nothing at all to a layman's understanding of eating disorders. Everyone is entitled to an opionion, opening box of "Statistics" is straight out of an advocacy piece. Advocating what, exactly? That statment makes no sense.

• Penfield's homunculus: A lack of neuroplasticity in the somatosensory cortex may cause body image disotortion and thus contribute to an eating disorder. Penfields homunculus illustrates the concept clearly to laymen like myself. Why did I include references to medical errors because people die from them, including misdiagnosed eating disorders and misdiagnosed comorbid disorders.
• Image of fetus: Wikipedia is for everyone, not everybody is aware of what "in utero" means.
• Personality traits, what's the relevance to eating disorders? They are relevant to everything we do like the fact that I made the effort to actually write something and you made an effort to criticise it.

Criticism is easy24.173.165.189 (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(1) Overprecise statements such as "Girls with ADHD are 5.6 times more likely to develop bulimia and 2.7 times more likely to develop anorexia nervosa," offered as established fact instead of (as is the actual case) simply statistics from isolated primary studies, seem aimed at convincing the reader of the subject's importance more than simply informing; it is in that sense that I compared the "statistics box" to an advocacy piece.

(2) I agree that the term in utero may be unfamiliar. Good solutions: (a) link to another article or Wiktionary definition explaining the term; (b) explain the term when it first appears; or (c) switch to a plain-language explanation (in the womb or before birth) in the first place. Bad solution: add a picture of a fetus to the article.

(3) I didn't say personality traits aren't related to eating disorders. I said that the article, after vaguely asserting that essentially meaningless generality, goes on to list a pile of personality traits, and hypothesized parts of the brain that may "cause" them (something science is far from establishing, by the way) but never gets back to explaining what anything in the list has to do with eating disorders.

You really should stop using "that's just one opinion" as the response to criticism. I understand you've put a lot of effort into this, but there's way too much information (most of it citing to primary studies, by the way -- a general no-no) and way too little overview and organization. It goes without saying that I speak only for myself, but that doesn't make my points less valid. Nor are they invalided by the fact that I have neither the time, nor sufficient knowledge of the subject, nor sufficient interest in it, to take on the task of fixing this. EEng (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Improving the article

Discussion continued from preceding section

I agree that the stats section is unencyclopedic. I think some of it could be salvaged, perhaps for sections about prognosis and epidemiology. But perhaps you think it would be better to delete the section wholesale? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You just don't give up do you? Why don't you try doing something positive, "stats section is unencyclopedic". It's getting really stale. EEng a couple of comments here and there, from the peanut gallery, doesn't dictate policy. How statisistics on eating disorders on an article on eating disorders is "uncyclopedic", is beyond me. This is being positive [5], contributing images and information that might actually be interesting or useful, at least I make the effort. As I understand personal attacks are a no no, but criticising the content is not, criticising the content is a bit hard to do in some cases, because there is little to no content to criticise. It also seems that does who criticise the most contribute the least. Like this,[6], oops there is nothing there. Just to reiterate a fact, there was no interest displayed by you in this article at all, despite the fact that you have been on Wikipedia for years, now it seems to be a pressing concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7mike5000 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 6 May 2010

The stats section should be combined into the text to help maintain a uniform format across articles.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Preserving the content (some of which needs a closer look at the sources, BTW) while removing the unencyclopedic soundbite style sounds reasonable to me. Would you like to have the first go at integration, or shall I? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of starting a new section here on Talk, and fiddling with the indentation of the discussion so far (at least the last parts of it) to make it easier to tell who's saying what (every participant gets his own indent level -- I hope that's OK). I've changed my mind about something I said earlier: I'm going to spend some time working on this article after all. I propose to start by removing material which, on its face, is irrelevant or barely-relevant. Example: the discussion of the general problem of medical misdiagnosis does not make any reference to eating disorders, nor (based on their titles) do the citations given in that discussion; such material is no more relevant to eating disorders than it is to any other article on a particular condition or on medicine generally. (If there's a reference discussing differential diagnosis, or misdiagnosis, of eating disorders in particular, then material based on such a reference would be a different matter.) Removing such material will make it easier to begin the process of organizing what's left into a useful whole. I'll explain in my edit summaries the reason for each change, and of course if useable cites supporting removed material can be found, or someone figures out a way to relate the removed material to the topic of the article, that material can always be retrieved from the edit history -- so no one's work is being lost, just put on the shelf until there's a way to make use of it consistent with Wikipedia policy and practice, and the interests of the reader.

With regard to discussion here on Talk, I plan to ignore comments which don't make intelligible points or proposals about the content of the article, and I encourage others to do the same. (Comments which mix otherwise useful points with disparaging comments about other editors will also be ignored.)

Thoughts?EEng (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Feel free to begin. I am currently reading an interesting book which looks at how anorexia presents differently in different part of the world but how the presentation has become more westernized and more common but not necessarily for the reasons we usually assume. The research was done by a Hong Kong physician Lee S, Ng KL, Kwok K, Fung C (2010). "The changing profile of eating disorders at a tertiary psychiatric clinic in Hong Kong (1987-2007)". Int J Eat Disord. 43 (4): 307–14. doi:10.1002/eat.20686. PMID 19350649. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

When you present it in that fashion it makes it more palatable. Is some of what I added a "bit much" yes it is, a little advocacy on my part, but shouldn't be included. Actually improving it as opposed to just criticising I have no problem with. 7mike5000 (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you feel that way, and I feel kind of bad now reading your comment after just slashing a huge amount out of the article just now. I fear you'll be shocked. But please read each edit summary and ask yourself whether the removals aren't justified. Perhaps much of the removed material can be integrated into other articles where it will be more at home. EEng (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Mike, I have an idea: perhaps the more technical, detailed material could be moved to subsidiary articles with titles such as "Eating Disorders: Diagnostic issues" and so on. This would keep the main article less complicated, for the average reader, but make the details available for those who are interested. However, I have to make it clear that (in my opinion, of course) the material I just removed from the main article mostly can't be used in any article or sub-article in its current form. The primary problem is that most of the material relies on primary studies, and in general you can't jump from a single primary study to asserting facts in the article. Studies need to be replicated; rarely is quite the same result achieved, and often a completely conflicting result is obtained. Figuring out what it all means requires an expert source which serveys the various results and discusses them; we editors here can't do that on our own, nor is it appropriate to just grab as many studies as we can and repeat what they say -- that doesn't help either. Often this means that the most up-to-date results don't get into the article -- the emphasis has to be on high-quality information, not the latest and greatest. So as I say, much of the material can't be used without new references. I have to run now, but I wanted to say all this in the hopes it will inspire you to think of a way to use all your hard work in a way that serves readers better than the giant article we have now. EEng (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

About the "indispensable" specialist: As a general rule, I think that articles should identify which medical specialty 'owns' any given disease, but it's my (possibly wrong) impression that specialization is less about being board-certified in something, and more about a personal interest. I think, e.g., that there are pediatricians, psychiatrists, neurologists, and gastroenterologists that are all "specialists" in one or more eating disorders. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed a bunch more chunks of material that (I believe) really belong in other articles, such as detailed descriptions of treatment methods. If I overdid it in some cases please add back what y'all think belongs. But remember, material here should give two things: information about treatments/diagnositic procedures/signs&symptoms/whatever that specifically relates to eating disorders and enough information so that the reader here has a general idea whether he should click on the link to learn more from the specific article. At least that's what I think. Mike, you're most familiar with this material so you'd be able to integrate it into other articles much more effectively than I could. That's also a cheap way of saying I don't have time, but something was needed to shake things up and move things forward, and I hope this has helped.

And yes, stuff like "blah blah is indispensible" is more of the "advocacy" flavor I was talking about before. EEng (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism of "In Men" section

Someone has vandalized the "In Men" section of the Eating Disorders page. It's located right above "Symptoms-complications". Would someone who is knowledgeable about eating disorders in men please fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.132.234 (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

One sided so far - only "psychology"

Currently this article is mostly a psych tract, despite the fact that psych is only one approach to eating disorders, and in no way the leader in terms of successful results. Imho the article needs a lot more content about the 12 step approach, which has a good track record and is just as valid. Tabby (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Find good quality references and feel free to expand the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the dichnotomy of "psychological" and "biological" under causes is incorrect. Psychology is a subfield of biology, the biology of the mind, and psychiatry is a subfield of medicine, which has its basis on biology. A more appripriate classification of the casues would include as sub-categories at the same hierrchy topics such as : physiology, development, heredity, genetics, biochemistry, evolution, and yes, psychology.

Order of various disorders/syndromes

I have slightly reordered the list of eating disorders. The first 3 are Anorexia, Bulimia, and Rumination syndrome. This is based on Anorexia and Bulimia being by far the most well known and documented eating disorders with several hundred years of documentation (They are ordered alphabetically since neither is more significant than the other). Rumination is third because of its documentation dating to the 15th century, and its established definition under ICD-9 and 10 (As well as its significant misdiagnosis as Bulimia). Pica should be in this list, as it is a well established eating disorder of childhood.

Compulsive overeating is last because it needs more citations, and doesn't seem to be a formally established eating disorder by any means. The remaining two are recently coined terms that could be in any order. They are arranged alphabetically for now.

1. Anorexia nervosa
2. Bulimia nervosa
3. Rumination syndrome
4. Pica (Not in article)
5. Orthorexia nervosa
6. Selective eating disorder
7. Compulsive overeating

This order makes sense and other changes should have some sort of discussion (Or a suitable reason) instead of being at random. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this section in general needs to be redone and the eating disorders recognized by the DSM and ICD need to be separated from the ones that aren't. The way it is now, the distinction between these two groups isn't made until way further down in the article. Heresybythought (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Eating Disorders

I don't want to take it upon myself but shouldn't the title be "Eating Disorders" as opposed to "Eating disorder"? The headings to most articles in print or electronic media is usually capitalized and the article is about more than one disorder hence it should be in the plural form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7mike5000 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Eating disorders perhaps, but not Eating Disorders. The media may often capitalize the disorders themselves, such as Bulimia Nervosa. WP:MEDMOS probably has something concerning this though. I believe that pluralizing the term implies this is a list, in which case it would be List of eating disorders. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is about eating disorders. It doesn't imply a list. It implies that it is about more than one eating disorder. If someone reads it they aren't going to say "I read an article on eating disorder" or if they were to write about it, somebody is not going to say "I'm writing an article on eating disorder". PBS had a special on "eating disorders". People suffer from "eating disorders". People can go to the library to get books on "eating disorders" You use the singular form when you talk about a specific disorder, e.g., pica is an eating disorder, or in a context such as; I'm glad I don't have an "eating disorder". When you start typing into the Google search box after only 3 letters "eat..", "eating disorders" pops up.

The page has some useful information, it had about 33K hits for Dec. if it were to be correctly titled it would get undoubtedly get more. Maybe somebody can get some beneficial information. When you look something up on the internet the first listing is usually Wikipedia. Not in this instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7mike5000 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. I look it in terms of "What is an eating disorder? An eating disorder is a..." I still disagree on the capitalization, but pluralizing makes sense.

I couldn't help but notice that this page is not titled in accordance to the style of other pages on Wikipedia; to counter the earlier argument ITT, I present Duck, Marble (toy), Mental disorder, Dinosaur, Nose, Website, Subatomic particle, Country, and Video game. Pretty damn sure that randomly adding an "s" to the topic name is not what should be going on in this article. -Aeonoris (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Does this belong here?

Disorders where people must eat very large amounts or they drop weight rapidly, dangerously quickly, even when at very low weight already. If theres somewhere else for it, please let me know. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Still no mention? my attempts at finding other places for such disorders are seriously hampered by the near 100% return of psychological disorders when using search engines. It bugs me because there are quite clearly non-psychological eating disorders, and virtually no information about them is accessible (although whether its due to lack of informaiton or overabundance of psychological information is unclear.) keep in mind im not disputing the importance of psychological eating disorders, just the relative lack of attention given to non-psychological disorders. For neutrality sake, yes I wrote the first part of this question too, and yes, I do have a non-psychological eating disorder as I described previously. Never the less, I feel its important to link to or at least give name to the disorder, but my non-neutrality (and inability to find such a name) renders what I have into "original research". 74.132.249.206 (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Those aren't considered "eating" disorders, because the problem isn't with the behavior of eating. They're usually absorption disorders (e.g., Gluten intolerance or Crohn's disease have damaged your intestines so much that very little of what you eat gets absorbed into the body) or metabolic disorders (your body can't figure out what to do with this kind of fat molecule, so you can eat it all day long, and it just runs out the other end). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

In Men section plagiarized

It is taken word for word from http://www.something-fishy.org/cultural/issuesformen.php without attribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.113.27 (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).

I sincerely appreciate your note about this serious WP:Copyright violation, and I have fixed it. If you ever encounter something similar in the future, please feel free to edit the page to fix it yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome

Quite early on, this article says that eating disorders may be linked with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Shouldn't this article also mention the ideas of Janet Treasure, linking eating disorders to Asperger syndrome? If you go to the article on Asperger syndrome and look at its talk page, you will find quite a discussion on this there. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Diagnosis - "All Organic Causes should be ruled out ..."

On 2012-09-16 I made a change that was shortly after backed out with little clinical justification or explanation

It seems strange that this web page should state that every single organic explanation must be ruled out first before diagnosing an Eating Disorder, but give absolutely no guidance on how to go about this.

Currently, though the Eating disorder page does not refer to the Eating disorder not otherwise specified (EDNOS) page, this is an oversight as EDNOS now accounts for 40% of all "diagnosed" Eating Disorders. No matter the original intent, EDNOS appears to be used - in part - as a residual diagnosis for all patients with weight problems that have no (as yet) obvious explanation. In short, as an easy "diagnostic label" and excuse to stop conducting tests for physical conditions that may present in the same way.

It seems to me that everyone would be well served by focussing research onto the 40% of "Eating disorder" cases that are not well understood - the original intention of a wiki.

The words added were a faltering attempt to help to "disambiguate" the physical and psychological causes of low weight, and are fully backed up by the medically validated Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS) page. If one looks at the EDS "Signs and Symptoms", under the "Other Complications" sub heading is a whole line of example Digestive disorders caused by weak(ening) Collagen. The article makes it clear that maybe as many as 1 in 10,000 have this syndrome.

Patients with progressive EDS affecting their digestive system find themselves with a declining capacity to eat, and so while they do want to eat, their weight declines slowly. Many other digestive system problems have similar presentations. All of these presentations also match the current EDNOS diagnostic tests: Low weight, distress at their weight, etc.

Please can someone explain the clinical evidence basis for removing words that cross-reference to other clinically approved words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EDSparent (talk • contribs) 23:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

First line of article vandalised

I am not sure how it is supposed to read, but the way the first sentence now reads appears to be vandalism. 76.0.12.230 (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC) And as soon as I flipped back to the article, it was corrected. Wow, you guys are good. 76.0.12.230 (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That was me! Thank you! Lova Falk talk 18:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed

University of Toronto Web Login access

Could anybody with a University of Toronto Web Login access this source (presently number 28) and add information about authors, title, year, journal etc. As it is now, all of us who do not have access have no way of knowing which article is meant. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 08:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Merging new stub in the article

Hi, could someone check this stub Emotion regulation and eating? I cannot decide what to do with it, merging or deleting? Thanks, --Ben Ben (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Feedback Wanted

Hello Wikipedians, I am an undergrad student at the University of Florida and brand new to Wikipedia. I have some new information that I believe would be beneficial for the page. I think that it adds more specificty and clears up confusion about the difference between AN and BN. I would greatly appreciate any constructive criticism you would be willing to offer to an excited newcomer.--Crowsona (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Zinc and anorexia

Isn't zinc supplementation used as a treatment for anorexia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.176.89 (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Toxoplasma gondii IS NOT A VIRUS

T. gondii is NOT a virus. It is a protozoan parasite. Whoever wrote this obviously has NO background in microbiology OR parasitology and they didn't even look at the Wiki link. I'd also like to know HOW this parasite would cause an eating disorder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.178.224 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)