Why is it that people call eating disorders diseases?

Question

Someone called me an intolerant asshole after saying eating disorders and alcoholism is not a disease. Now I say this because I thought a disease was an illness created by the invasion of pathogens into the body. Now I thought these are only biological, if someone decides to throw up it is not a disease. Now I believe that it can start a cycle where your body starts rejecting food. But I do not believe it is an actual infectious disease. That is completely ridiculous. And I'm willing to say the same about alcoholism. One chooses to drink your genetics have nothing to do with you choosing to be an alcoholic. Now I believe one can depend on it but still it is not a disease but a psychological issue. I do not think these should be worded as diseases. Because it takes the blame away from the idiots making themselves sick. Basically my question is if something is brought on psychologically how can it be considered a disease?

Answer 1

Well, you already answered your question...those are diseases in and of themselves. What is disease anyway? Isn't it defined as an alternate state of being healthy? Such definition is subtle, but explains well enough that a state of disease is the opposition of a state of health; if having an "eating disorder" results from a person "making himself/herself sick", then isn't that a PSYCHOLOGICAL DISEASE that brought about the eating disorder itself?

You must know that diseases are not only infectious in nature, and need not only be caused by pathogens. Can you blame a person or accuse them of not having a disease if his/her body does not absorb nutrients because he/she doesn't want to eat? Would it change your mind with that same person if you were to find out that his/her nutrient deficiency is actually caused by Celiac's disease or Scurvy or Atrophy or a metabolic disease for the matter? Diseases come in different colors--not just microbially-induced diseases that are infectious in nature.

It is true that alcoholics CHOSE to be that way, but isn't that a disease already? I think the term for that is PATHOLOGICALLY ALCOHOLIC--see the word "patho" in the terminology, pertaining to the latin of disease which is "pathos"?

And just to let you know, "psychological issues" can be PATHOLOGIC; this is exactly the reason why psychological disorders exist. If they are not diseases to begin with, how would you call them? ABNORMAL? But isn't "abnormal" a deviation from the normal state, the healty state? So, to some extent, they do have a disease? Would you rather call those people "wrong", instead of being sick? Because the moment you call them sick just means that they do have a disease, unless of course they are demented...oh, wait, dementia is a DISEASE!

To answer your question, something that arose psychologically which led to the manifestation of a disease is already a disease in and of itself. It was a disorder that made them arrive at a diseased state, so such a disorder or abnormal thinking or whatever pleases you to call them is already a disease of the mind...you don't need to be a doctor to understand the dividing line between the normal and pathologic state. If you were to brand "psychological issues" as "not diseases", then you defeat this purpose, because you are "patho-phobic", which is a disease to begin with.

Let me give this now...is a genetic disease caused by an "invading pathogen"? Or should you claim that there are genes that invade a person to acquire a genetic disease? What about metabolic diseases and enzyme protein mutations...did a bacterium, for example, rearranged such a mutation that brought about the disease itself? And what about prions!? Those invade other proteins of the same kind to be "infectious", but do you consider proteins pathogens that inavde humans? They are not even cells for crying out loud and yet they do cause a disease.

Don't live inside your box, because there are a bunch of things that can disprove your pin-cushion hypothesis and saddleback opinions. I'm sorry to disappoint you on your insight, but you are absolutely mistaken, at least for the most part.

Answer 2

Yeah, that's an ingesting affliction. rather of ingesting nutrition like that, try bringing your man or woman nutrition to lunch. start up out small. Drink water rather of juice. That juice is probable all sugar and empty energy. Water is fit and has no energy. =] interior the morning, have a mini muffin. Bran or something healthful. For lunch, have a salad. that's fantastic. yet upload meat or nuts and fruit to the vegetables. No ranch. A lemon wedge will upload flavor without each and all of the energy. For a snack, consume raisins or celery and peanut butter. For dinner, consume something small. Have a small ingredient of meat, like 2 oz. of meat with some eco-friendly beans. Or yet another small component. some products of sparkling fruit until now mattress and you're finished! and that's extra nutritious than the nutrition they serve on the cafeteria that'll do extra to your physique and has virtually the comparable volume of energy. in case you start up ingesting in many situations back, you will back countless weight. Small, distinctive nutrients during the day develop your metabolism. each and all of the nutrition and clean produce will do extra to your physique than each and all of the processed ingredients and cokes.