More On Orthorexia Nervosa

Orthorexia Nervosa — from the Greek work “Ortho”, meaning “correct”. Orthodox Christians strive to be correct in their practice of their faith. An Orthodontist works to correct your teeth. And Orthorexists (is there such a word?) strive to eat correctly. And according to some, they become so picky in the process that they do damage to themselves. But can it be “correct” if it harms you? Absolutely not! So the term is being abused when used in this context.

Any diet that causes harm to your body is, by definition, NOT orthorexic. It’s not correct. So how in the world can you call a diet that harms you “correct”? How can somebody put the label of “orthorexic” on a diet that puts your life in danger?

I came across an article in The Guardian about orthorexia. I’d like to comment on a few things from it.

First, the whole orthorexia “movement” would seem to be a label that has been slapped on a series of unrelated eating disorders, all of which seem to revolve around picky eaters. The article mentions that some people won’t eat nightshades (not sure what those are), others will only eat things that are yellow, while still others will only eat vegetables that have been harvested within the past 15 minutes and were torn, not cut (OK, that last one is a bit of a stretch; it combines two different “philosophies”). And yes, the article does mention us 80/10/10 raw foodists — the people who only eat raw fruits and vegetables and a handful of nuts and seeds. Lumping me into a group of people who will only eat yellow food is ridiculous. Words escape me when I try to describe how silly this is.

So saturated fat, nutrients the body can’t absorb because they were made for other animals, and meat we weren’t designed to digest are all GOOD for us? C’mon, we were made to eat fruits and vegetables; we weren’t made to eat meat, and cow’s milk (along with the things made from it) is perfect for baby cows, not humans. I’ve covered that point many times on this blog. While you can obsess with the 80/10/10 raw food diet to the point where you do endanger yourself, eating a wide variety of food within the raw guidelines is, in my uneducated opinion, quite safe. Besides, we really don’t know exactly what our daily nutritional requirements are (I simply don’t believe the government standards because they are influenced by the S.A.D., which is based on foods that our body cannot properly process) — so who is to say what we really need? I also think that our body will tell us when we need something, and while it’s far from optimal, if you think that “something” is a cooked meal, then eat one every once in a while. It’s better to eat one cooked meal a month than it is to eat one raw meal a month!

Kelly Brownell, who holds a PhD and is the Director of the Center for Eating and Weight Disorders at Yale University (or at least was when this article was written in 2001), seems to be a voice for reason and for sticking to the scientific model:

Research is necessary before one begins to label people. This in itself can have damaging consequences. Bratman has not done the necessary work.

(NOTE: Bratman is the physician who coined the phrase “Orthorexia Nervosa”.)

She goes on to say that obesity and lack of exercise are much greater problems in America (and much of the rest of the world). Our problems stem from the S.A.D. (Standard American Diet), and the 80/10/10 raw diet is far superior to it.

Steve Bloomfield, spokesman for the Eating Disorders Association in the UK (or at least he was in 2001), went on to say that there is a process for defining eating disorders (it’s laid out “by the American Psychiatric Association in a document called DSM4, which is recognised by the World Health Organisation.”). He thinks that “Orthorexia was made up by a writer to make his book sell”.

Wouldn’t be the first time. As a marketer, I know that “buzz phrases” are invented all the time to draw attention to a marketing campaign — and Dr. Bratman did write a book that needed to be marketed…

Bloomfield goes on to say that, unlike many eating disorders, Orthorexia doesn’t have its roots in low self-esteem and therefore doesn’t qualify as an eating disorder. Instead, we raw foodists regard our bodies as gifts from God — or as I personally believe, my body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. I need to take care of it so that God can use me to minister to others. If you are overweight, then you’ve put your temple on an unauthorized expansion project. It’s that simple. And if you don’t exercise, don’t eat right, and don’t get enough rest, then you are neglecting required maintenance.

We are caretakers of a body while we are on this Earth, and if we don’t do our jobs properly, then we’re going to see our temple shut down and demolished long before its natural wear out date. It’s that simple. Our primary job on this planet is to take care of our bodies so that God, the Holy Spirit, Source Energy, or whatever you prefer to call it can use you to minister to others. Can you help others if you are sick or, for that matter, dead?

But I digress… I don’t think I suffer from a lack of self-esteem (nor am I egotistical. I’m just right when I say that the 80/10/10 diet is superior to the S.A.D. diet.). Back to the article.

I do recommend that, outside of the very broad guidelines set by Dr. Graham in his book, that you not obsess too much about what you eat. Yes, you should eat organic if that’s possible, and eating locally grown produce also does good — but quite frankly, if it’s February, you want strawberries, and the only choices are a moldy package in the produce department that was shipped from Who Knows Where that costs $5.00 and a frozen bag that costs $2.00 — hey, go for the frozen. That’s in keeping with my 99% philosophy. Don’t obsess — eat.

Of course, as Bloomfield states, the type of eating behavior that has received the “Orthorexia” label can, and does, exist, and it can be dangerous. The point I’d like to make is that, compared to people who eat S.A.D., my way of eating can seem dangerous. I lost all of that weight rather rapidly, and in our society, people associate rapid weight loss with one thing: sickness. In reality, the weight loss was a lifestyle change. And if you simply “graze your way through the local mall’s food court”, then my insistence on eating nothing but raw can seem compulsive. But just because I can put diesel fuel in my gasoline engine doesn’t mean that I should, and in the same way, just because I can eat a burger and fries doesn’t mean that I should. Sure, it’s readily available, and almost everybody does it, but it’s not the right fuel for my body. And just like putting diesel in a gasoline engine car keeps a mechanic busy, so does eating food that our body was not designed to process keep doctors busy. Once I finally accepted that truth I started down a path that has taken me to a different level (I’ll write more about that in an upcoming blog post). I literally see and think about things that a lot of people cannot even imagine because they have not traveled down the path I’ve chosen to take.

I’m not obsessive about what I eat; I’m merely “concerned”. I care about my body, I care about what I put into it, and I’ve decided that I’m no longer going to shove anything and everything into it. Does that make me orthorexic? So be it. It’s to be preferred over diabetes, cancer, and a zillion other diseases that are caused by America’s sick diet. Sadly, as the article goes on to state, going out to get a pizza is considered to be a “normal eating situation”. I’ll go to a “normal eating situation” with you; I just won’t get the same food that you get (unless you eat like me). I’ve been to dinners where the only thing I ate was the lettuce from the salad!

Yes, I am a bit of a perfectionist, and as I strive to achieve goals that others would never consider, I’ve learned to ignore most of what others say because they say it simply to drag me back down to their level, even if they don’t realize it. The world loves conformity; I prefer to be transformed. On the other hand, I don’t obsess like the writer of that article. If I happen to get a bite or a taste of something cooked, or if my wife chops my vegetables with the same knife she used to slice and butter the kids’ bread, I don’t worry about it. Again, I think my 99% philosophy helps me deal with these things (in reality, I don’t even think about them), and the tiny amount of junk I get from them isn’t worth thinking or worrying about. Besides, worrying about such minor, trivial matters takes my energy away from thinking about the things I need to focus on.

In closing, because we do care about what we put into our bodies, we raw foodists can sometimes come across as self-righteous, condescending, and smugly superior. And I’ll be honest; if you try to tell me that S.A.D. is a superior way to eat, I’ll probably get in your face and tell you why you are wrong. On the other hand, if you come to me because you want to improve your diet and want to know more about what I do, I’d love to talk to you. I have one friend who still eats S.A.D., but is eating nothing but fruit until well after noon almost every day. I think that’s great! He has lost weight and feels much better than he did a few months ago. Would he do better on 100% raw? Of course… — but even this small change is making a difference, and I sincerely hope that what I do has encouraged him to make this small change.

And that’s what it’s all about: Positive Change. Can you do that on a steady diet of burgers, fries, and pizza? Today would be a “grape” day to start that change!

So I admit it; I am orthorexic because I am right about what I eat. But I’m far from being sick or having an eating disorder. In fact, I’m half-seriously thinking about reclaiming that name and using it in a positive, good way because there’s nothing wrong with eating right. Hope Dr. Bratman hasn’t trademarked it yet!

Smacznego,
Tom