# Othorexia and the plague of "clean eating"



## Stormcat (Dec 2, 2015)

People like being healthy. Eating healthy is a good way to maintain ones health. But then there are these people.

Any Dietician can give you diet advice, most of it is good. Consume fattening things in moderation, drink plenty of water, and reduce sugar and salt. But I'm researching into people who seem to think "chemicals" means "bad". They insist on eating "clean" foods and may foster the belief that Monsanto is evil because it dares create pesticides and GMOs. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthorexia_nervosa

The Wikipedia page is very limited. I'm a member of facebook groups that debunk clean eating claims, but all the information I seem to get is anecdotal. I want hard, solid evidence that too much clean eating is dangerous and detrimental to one's health.

Naturally, I can't find any cautionary advice on any "food babe" type blogs, because these people tend to delete any comment they perceive as "trolling" even if it brings up a legitimate question. I've found blogs that deconstruct the products the food babe hawks, proving that they contain the very "chemicals" she warns her followers not to consume. But what I need is a good case study of what happens when you are too healthy.


----------



## LeeC (Dec 2, 2015)

Beyond the basic advice you noted, I think you'll be hard pressed to find evidence that organic/natural foods aren't in general healthier, and I won't belabor the supporting evidence since that's not what you're looking for. I do however share a distaste regarding all the opining about which foods are "healthiest" ;-) 

As far as your mention of pesticides:

“_It is, of course, one of the miracles of science that the germs that used to be in our food have been replaced by poisons._” ~ Wendell Berry

And as far as both -cides and GMOs go, I see it as more of man playing god in altering the web-of-life that sustains us, without any way of knowing where it will lead. 

I do think more questioning, such as yours, can be beneficial 

-----------------

just a nit, the spelling is "orthorexia"


----------



## Sam (Dec 2, 2015)

Monsanto isn't bad because it uses pesticides. It's bad because the sheer magnitude of the operation crushes small and medium farms by virtue of the fact that they are unable to match the quantity of produce that Monsanto can create and harvest. 

As for what happens when you're too healthy: you can die from being too healthy every bit as much as from being not healthy enough.


----------



## LeeC (Dec 2, 2015)

Sam said:


> As for what happens when you're too healthy: you can die from being too healthy every bit as much as from being not healthy enough.



"_Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing._"  ~  Redd Foxx


----------



## Stormcat (Dec 2, 2015)

Sam said:


> Monsanto isn't bad because it uses pesticides. It's bad because the sheer magnitude of the operation crushes small and medium farms by virtue of the fact that they are unable to match the quantity of produce that Monsanto can create and harvest.
> 
> As for what happens when you're too healthy: you can die from being too healthy every bit as much as from being not healthy enough.



I'm not arguing that Monsanto doesn't have shady practices. I'm more concerned with the GMO scaremongers.

I was actually in a "farm school" for a few years, I've met farm kids who were all for Monsanto, and those who were being pressured out of the family business because of it. But none of those kids would Deny the benefits of GMOs, pesticides, or other farm-ready products. So I've got a pretty good view of the "production" side, but not really the consumer side of the whole "clean foods" movement.


----------



## Plasticweld (Dec 2, 2015)

Coming from a farming background the only people who can be against GMOs are those who know nothing about farming, it has nothing to do with the size of the farm, realistically GMOs benefit small farmers more than any other.

It is impossible as a farmer to find any fault with crops that are disease resistant, weather resistant, give you a larger yield per acre, and are far cheaper to grow per acre because of less of a need for herbicides, "fewer trips to the field, less fuel."


Man since the beginning of time has sought the best crop that would grow and thrive in less than ideal conditions. It maybe my perspective, but I see no downside to them, nor do I see them as a villain when it comes to small farms falling by the wayside... I speak with firsthand experience here. Taxes per acre are sky high making a small farm harder to run. The cost of equipment is through the roof, I have frequently heard of farmers paying more for a single tractor than they did for the original farm years ago. To be cost effective you need to be mechanized, to be mechanized you need to own enough acreage and have enough capital. The days of being under funded and making it are gone. The age of doing it because it was something you loved or your family did has pretty much passed away. The benefits of large commercial farming are no different than large commercial businesses in any line of products, they are made cheaper and better. Today the same is true in the produce and dairy industry. Food costs less to today than it did many years ago, milk today per hundred weight is not that much higher than when I got out in 1977. I can think of no industry that has not been affected by the change in the times and technology. Farming seems to be the only industry that somehow is supposed to remain back in time, out of some foolish notion that it was better back then. When I see organically grown food by those who wish to do it on a small scale and or the old fashion way I also notice that they charge almost double for what they have and their customers are the wealthy. For the average consumer GMOs are the difference between the bill at the grocery story being affordable.



First example of GMOs 1847
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/irishfamine.htm


----------



## Red Sonja (Dec 2, 2015)

I don't have any hard evidence of people actually dying of "clean eating" unless you include the statistics from roommates and family members finally getting fed up with the holier-than-thou preachfest that goes along with a "clean" lifestyle and taking the law into their own hands. 

But seriously, folks: Unless you are growing and preparing the food yourself, you don't know FOR SURE that it's 100% "organic" or "chemical-free" or whatever. Trusting labels and promises and advertising has led to a number of verifiable deaths, now, hasn't it? Food (ha!) for thought. 

Another point: It can be more than a minor annoyance when someone you are dining with has a bunch of fussy, rigid dietary requirements and wants to know where everything has come from, who touched it, did the animal have its last rites, and so on. Haven't you ever sat in a restaurant listening to some person grill the waiter (ha!) about "I have to make sure there's no animal fat (or whatever) in this muffin"...? I'll bet you have! Didn't you ever think to yourself some version of the following: "If I was that waiter I would just lie to him," "Does he do that with a vending machine?" "What if he has to eat food that CONTAINS ADDITIVES??? Will it kill him and how much will it cost me to find out?" and so on. 

But really: What happens if someone who has these rigid dietary requirements has to drink a regular Coke from a Coke machine because it's a hot day and that's all there is, and then maybe follow it up with one of those giant choco-chip cookies that's like 12" in diameter or maybe a corn dog? It might not be fatal but it might cause an illness, in much the same way a vegetarian will become violently ill if you secretly put some REAL meat in his casserole. (Don't ask me how I found that out.) 

It's commonly known that exercise nuts often die at a younger age than we softer types who like food, drink, and takin it easy (even though they will make us wish we were dead more often by lecturing us, while they still live, about how unhealthy and fat we are). How often have you read a headline about some well-known fitness nut buying it from a heart attack at age 40 while he's pounding down some lonely trail in the hot sun? Think of some well-known athletes from your parents' day and look them up; how many are still alive and in good health? (I count knee replacements as "poor health" by the way. Surgery is NEVER good for you!) 

Hubris, ya know? Apollo's arrows and all that. But you have alertly realized this already, of course, which is why you are posting your question now. We know about exercise, but we are not as sure if obsessing over healthy food is as malignant. 

To that end, one final point: If you can't afford certified-chemical-free food and believe you MUST have it in order to be healthy, then any of the options for obtaining same (stealing food, stealing money for food, or stressing over having to eat non-healthy food) could result in your death. Like, there is an episode of "CSI" (great TV show!) where a fashion model EXACTLY weighs out her food AND her excreta (vomit, poop, etc) so that she can "balance out" her intake of food. That's crazy, right? And she ends up dying because eventually she starts mutilating herself to make her weight balance out. I've never known anyone who went to that extreme with dieting, but pretty close to it! Not kidding, I've worked in "poor-people" health care and hoity-toity health care and seen all kinds of food craziness. 

I mean, how can a person TELL FOR SURE if the carrot he's looking at has chemicals in it or not? There's no way really to tell. The whole "organic" thing (for non-farmers) requires an enormous amount of trust on the part of the consumer. 

Anyway, I hope you might find some of this information (and opinions, of course) useful in your research.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 2, 2015)

how exactly would eating a naturally occurring foodstuff cause you to be more unhealthy than one that is unnatural? Are you removing a poison from its naturally occurring genetic makeup? Certainly, if you were to add something healthful to its genetic make-up it might be considered superior, but how then does the original cause you to become unhealthy? Again, with the potato, you have to deep-fry it to make it kill you. I don't think anyone typically gets sick or dies from eating a potato. I guess rice can kill you, it can give you _Beri-beri, _but then rice-eating cultures know this and make dietary choices to combat this.


----------



## Red Sonja (Dec 2, 2015)

Good point; there may in fact be no real way to die from "clean eating." I was attempting to say was there may be a way it could kill you as a sort of side effect.


----------



## ppsage (Dec 2, 2015)

> It is impossible as a farmer to find any fault with crops that are disease resistant, weather resistant,


About half of all GMO induced traits are herbicide resistance, so you can spray the hell out of the fields without affecting the crop. As this resistance escapes into nature, as it already has is some minor cases, the weeds get herbicide resistant as well. A relatively small proportion of the induced traits are virus resistance, and another small percentage are for product enhancement. This latter usually being retarded ripening to improve shipping at the expense of succulence. Most actual product improvement is not accomplished by genetic modification but by old-fashioned hybridization. For weather resistance, for lumber trees at least, cloning (which has been used in fruit trees by grafting since forever) is the method frequently used. (Cloning is not genetic modification.) For straight genetic modification, we're almost always talking about herbicide resistance, sometimes in combination with other traits.


----------



## Stormcat (Dec 2, 2015)

ppsage said:


> About half of all GMO induced traits are herbicide resistance, so you can spray the hell out of the fields without affecting the crop. As this resistance escapes into nature, as it already has is some minor cases, the weeds get herbicide resistant as well. A relatively small proportion of the induced traits are virus resistance, and another small percentage are for product enhancement. This latter usually being retarded ripening to improve shipping at the expense of succulence. Most actual product improvement is not accomplished by genetic modification but by old-fashioned hybridization. For weather resistance, for lumber trees at least, cloning (which has been used in fruit trees by grafting since forever) is the method frequently used. (Cloning is not genetic modification.) For straight genetic modification, we're almost always talking about herbicide resistance, sometimes in combination with other traits.



I attended a seminar on GMOs once and this problem was highlighted. The speaker then gave us an example of a golf-club owner who wanted herbicide-resistant grass for his club. It apparently took three hours to explain to him in simple enough terms why that was a horrible idea.


----------



## Pluralized (Dec 2, 2015)

One of the biggest problems with GMOs, not to distract further from the original topic, is that the perpetration of high-yield farming as a result of these innovations (which, in addition to herbicide resistance, also allow for more dense planting, especially of corn) the land is sucked free of minerals and crop rotation is not practiced like it should be, depleting the soil year over year. This, combined with the ethanol travesty and subsidy madness, keeps the world (especially US) growing way too much corn. 

Along the Mississippi River, so much pesticide is now sprayed that where she dumps into the Gulf of Mexico has become a *"dead zone"* which obviously has unintended negative effects on other ecosystems. It's a real bad situation, fueled mostly by corporate lobbyists, corn farmers, and bad politicians. 

Meat production and the processing thereof is another whole saga which might spark off too much debate - let's just say we eat entirely too much meat as a culture in the West. Makes me also wonder how much we throw away. Ever seen a restaurant dumpster? It's disturbing.

On the subject of 'clean eating' - the human body is remarkably resilient. But in America, where we fluoridate our water heavily, eat chemical-laden food (mostly of the processed variety, devoid of nutrients), and immerse ourselves in EMF day and night, there is a high likelihood of contracting one of several nasty chronic conditions, some even terminal. And there's a huge problem with what 'healthy' really means anymore, because there are so many vested interests in your being perpetually ill. 

Despite the chemicals and crap we eat, moderation still is the only way to keep yourself ahead of whatever dietary wave you're riding. Easier said than done in our society of pleasure and instant gratification.


----------



## LeeC (Dec 2, 2015)

Another way to look at it Stormcat is that humankind has progressed greatly to reach the point we're at, especially in agriculture since the so called "green revolution" (which involved synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides) credited with saving over a billion people from starvation. Before that agriculture was cleaner so to say, albeit less efficient. Such progress is what defines mankind 

More ominous though is the fact that progress is a two edged sword. We've charged pell-mell into the future, without in most cases giving potential consequences a thought, and what we've achieved is a new set of problems increasing in difficulty. 

Sticking to your thoughts about foods, ppsage made a good point with "For straight genetic modification, we're almost always talking about herbicide resistance, sometimes in combination with other traits." One very serious consequence here is that "-cides" are a major contributor to the accelerating decline of pollinators. This is affecting one out of every three bites the average person takes, and has a cascading effect throughout the food chain. 

Thus regardless of having differing opinions regarding clean or unclean food we eat, on our present course the choice will potentially become one of what's left to eat ;-)

Crickets anyone  

Hopefully more inquiring minds like yours will facilitate better avenues of progress. 

Take care.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 3, 2015)

> there may be a way it could kill you as a sort of side effect.


 how would this be any different from  'dirty' food? what sort of side-effect, anyway, oxidation? Unless you put your entire cell structure into some sort of suspended animation  halting all cellular processes your life's time clock has started counting down as soon as each of your cells is 'born', faults in replication compounding. The (two) collective cellular structures from which your cells originated typically die-off before your separate collective because those cells are an older collection; your offspring outlive you because they have separated from your 'older' structure, and so on...

One of the supposed benefits of 'real' food is the claim that the nutrient content is higher than the unnaturally produced products, including anti-oxidants which 'slow' ageing.

... 

Regarding Monsanto, I suggest you go to their webpage, reading their claims about the benefits of their endeavors, and then go to the other sites that come up when you search-bar 'monsanto'. Critical thinking and reading are a practiced acquired skill and seeing/recognizing  key words and phrases gets easier with practice. For instance, what is the difference between 'most' and 'many'?  

As an example here is a quote from one site:

"The machine, shared across villages, is instilling immense pride and sense of ownership. Those who are witnessing the results are now believers in innovation and the use of improved seeds and technology." 

In the first sentence I would ask what is a 'sense of' as opposed to actual ownership? Do they own the machine or are they buying it on credit? You'd have to read on somewhere else to understand what 'strings' are attached. 

In the second the phrase '...those who are witnessing..' begs the question _And what about those who are not 'witnessing'?_  I happened to read earlier (somewhere else, at a site opposed to...) that many are not witnessing the promised levels of higher output.

 Also, both sentences are talking about feeling and believing which are hardly objective when it comes to judging the factual...

Overall (from my perspective) there are two problems when trying to judge an issue like this.  One is that the information from both sides is suspect, as there are motives from each side which I am not totally aware of, 
and two, I am not in the position to be able to expertly analyze the information regarding completeness or the 'correctness' of any of the given conclusions.


----------



## LeeC (Dec 3, 2015)

Not putting words in Kevin's mouth, but what he says brings to mind the axiom that where there are two sides to a story, the truth should be looked for in-between. 

Granted that's a simplistic statement, but I try to look beyond what is being said to why it's being said. In this case you have the big business mind-set on one side with a primary focus on short-term material gain, and on the other side individual fears relative to health. Complicating the issue is the economic opportunists catering to the individual's fears. 

With the distractions of all this give and take, there's no hard and fast truth in-between, but rather misplaced focus. Think about where this progress is taking us relative to already evidenced consequences. 

As an analogy, consider how big business, including Monsanto, tried desperately to discredit Rachel Carson and her book "Silent Spring," together with other rational writers. In hindsight big business's motives are quite clear. On the other hand consider that elements of the environmental movement went religious to the point of loosing sight of the harmonies of the natural world that sustains us. 

In other words, both extremes argue their perspectives vehemently, distracting all from the brick wall we're accelerating towards. So what I'm saying is that maybe it would help to step back in trying to get a clearer picture of what's behind the problems we face 

I'm nearing the end of my life path, so it's your world to do with as you see fit. Good luck


----------



## Kevin (Dec 3, 2015)

_Two sides to every story…you only see what you want to see…_

I see on the one hand, a murky conglomerate of nefarious, deceitful individuals forming an apparently loose confederacy, but which in reality is a terrible conspiracy, whose work is the never ending spreading of lies and  exaggeration, to promote fear among the gullible yet well-meaning in order to forward a campaign toward their ultimate goals: the debasement of humankind, and degradation of all the planet.

On the other, I see the counter: a group of scientists, biologists, bio-mechanical engineers, _and others_, all coming together while working selflessly for philanthropy, greater endeavor, and the future enlightenment of humankind, the fruits of which are currently helping the poor, ignorant, and undernourished.


----------



## Red Sonja (Dec 3, 2015)

Here's the entire (side) issue (since the OP was about whether someone can die of clean eating) in a nutshell: 

"I do not have the first idea of where food comes from, or how to feed myself. Without grocery stores, I would die. Therefore I depend heavily on the traditional food supply chain: Farmer produces the food, sells the food to someone who processes/cleans the food, that person sells the food to a store where I can buy it. Therefore I must CONTROL THE ENTIRE PROCESS FROM BEGINNING TO END and make sure PLENTY OF LAWS ARE PASSED that govern what can/cannot be put in, on, or near my food. That should solve the problem!" 

No, it doesn't solve the problem. Attempt to regulate any system on which you depend and you will find yourself faced with a monumental, nay, impossible task. If you don't produce the food you eat yourself, you have to trust whoever sells or gives you the food. There is no way to manufacture or regulate trust, which can only be achieved through understanding. 



Stormcat said:


> Naturally, I can't find any cautionary advice on any "food babe" type blogs, because these people tend to delete any comment they perceive as "trolling" even if it brings up a legitimate question. I've found blogs that deconstruct the products the food babe hawks, proving that they contain the very "chemicals" she warns her followers not to consume. But what I need is a good case study of what happens when you are too healthy.



I thought of something! 

Here is how one can die of "clean eating" itself, and not as an adjunct to a mental disorder or from having to commit crimes to get money for chemical-free food: There are numerous examples of folks with weird eating habits who impose those eating habits on their kids. Adults can get by on fewer calories, less protein, and less variety of food because we are not building bones and organs; we're not growing. 

Children, however, do grow and need lots of protein and minerals. Look up the types of foods "clean eating" adults consume and ask yourself how well a child would do on them. Yes, with A LOT of attention and, of course, expenditure of money and other resources, you can shield your child from chemical-free foods AND provide him with enough sugar, protein, carbs, etc., so that he can grow normally, but it's way harder than free-feeding your kid and letting him eat whatever crosses his path that isn't poisonous. 

But you have read the headlines: Parents keep kid at home, won't let him play with other kids or attend regular school, feed him some kinda crazy diet, and he gets really sick, maybe dies. 

In the quote above, you recognize how defensive and belligerent some people get about this food craze stuff, right? Now imagine that same "food babe" raising a kid. Yeah. 

Anyway, that's a great question.


----------



## Stormcat (Dec 3, 2015)

Red Sonja said:


> I thought of something!
> 
> Here is how one can die of "clean eating" itself, and not as an adjunct to a mental disorder or from having to commit crimes to get money for chemical-free food: There are numerous examples of folks with weird eating habits who impose those eating habits on their kids. Adults can get by on fewer calories, less protein, and less variety of food because we are not building bones and organs; we're not growing.
> 
> ...




Excellent! (well, not for the poor kid, but for the overall great answer to my question)

This leads me to wonder if this isn't comorbid with any other dangerous mental conditions. The Wikipedia page mentions a possible comorbidity with obsessive-compulsive-disorder, but I was hoping for something more... contagious. Maybe a deficit of nutrition in children leads to certain infectious diseases becoming more prevalent? I can research vitamin deficiencies until I'm blue in the face, but I don't know much about pediatrics.


----------



## Red Sonja (Dec 3, 2015)

Also, an adult who was disabled and dependent on a "food babe" for nutritional support could be similarly done in, especially if s/he was convinced Food Babe had his/her best interests at heart in making ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN nothing they ate had additives. Especially someone like a quadriplegic who had no sensorium might not necessarily notice the effects of starvation until it was too late.


----------



## Stormcat (Dec 3, 2015)

Red Sonja said:


> Also, an adult who was disabled and dependent on a "food babe" for nutritional support could be similarly done in, especially if s/he was convinced Food Babe had his/her best interests at heart in making ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN nothing they ate had additives. Especially someone like a quadriplegic who had no sensorium might not necessarily notice the effects of starvation until it was too late.



I'm getting this idea also of "summer camp" where individuals live together but have a designated cook.


----------



## Red Sonja (Dec 4, 2015)

And then I thought of something else; I think this is the best and most logical one that makes it TOTALLY the fault of one person's sane, but ultimately misguided, decision to pursue "clean eating: 

A man who is not home a lot (lets say he travels for his job) and does not know how to produce his own food or cook for himself gets talked into "clean eating" by a food babe. He assembles all these different foods at some cost and trouble. He likes the "clean eating" foods (who doesn't? I mean, you have to! They're so expensive!) and congratulates himself on having made a wise life change. 

Then he goes off to his job that keeps him away from home. Since the food is untreated with preservatives, it started to grow bacteria, fungi, etc. When he returns some of it is obviously spoiled and he throws it out but some stuff seems to be ok and he's really hungry so he chows down. (He can't get anything from a convenience store or vending machine on the trip home so he's basically starving.) 

Salmonella happens.


----------

