I can have chocolate. But not Hershey. (Or Dove, or Palmer, or Nestle)
I can have eggs. But only certain, specific eggs. Not generic grocery store eggs.
I can eat apples. If they are unwaxed and peeled. But that doesn't mean I can have any old applesauce.
I can eat rice. But only if it's un-enriched, and only from certain farms that don't grow corn.
The restrictions sound crazy. Laughable, even.
I can remember being relieved that I was "just" allergic to corn. Just corn. It sounded so easy. But things got harder, I sought help. I started reading and found a community of corn-allergic individuals. My eyes widened, I shook my head, I congratulated myself on not going overboard. And then, slowly, I learned that I needed to be just as fanatical as others seemed to be. There are times I wonder if I've gone crazy. But I've spent too much time recovering from unplanned, unexpected, hindsight revealed 'oopses' to believe that it could possibly be just in my head.
Every so often it gets to be too much. I step outside myself and look at the restrictions through a stranger's eyes and think I'm going too far. And although I try to rationalize it out, and even talk myself into taking chances, I find others in a similar situation voicing their own shaken faith in their bodies' reactions to normal, healthy, should-be-safe food. More often than not, the culprit is quickly and easily identified in the form of an added enrichment, or a new preservative. Sometimes it requires a little digging...like a cross contaminated batch of almonds (perhaps shipped in the same loading truck as corn?) How can you dispute unintentional blind trials that end in proof? Especially when there are multiple people reporting the same experience. Maybe our methods aren't scientific, but they aren't easy to dismiss either.
That's what makes social events so hard. Even water is softened with corn derived citric acid, or the taste is improved by corny minerals, or it's bottled in a corn-based environmentally 'friendly' polymer. People might overlook the fact that you abstain from cookies. But if you can't even accept the water they hand you due to allergies...well, the looks are enough to make even the least self conscious of us blush.
Whispers of eating disorders aren't uncommon, or surprising. Especially now that Orthorexia is the diagnosis du jour.
For me, as I suspect it is for others, the truth is much more complicated. There is no self-loathing involved. I'm tempted to give in, and hang the consequences. Regardless of caloric content, I'd love to eat that cookie. Taste the pasta salad, or at least have a few pieces of the fruit plate. (I'd settle for drinking some of that new-branded water in the cooler) But in reality, the consequences aren't worth it. I want to share the meal, but I want to function tomorrow. Whether it's hives, boils or GI malfunction...the reactions are not fun, comfortable, or something to be shared in public. They also aren't mediated by any part of the brain other than the immune system. IgE, IgG...the body is attempting to protect itself.
It's unfortunate that without demonstrating those reactions, it's difficult at best to convince others that they are nonetheless real and valid reasons for food avoidance.
The trouble with corn is that even when I'm avoiding everything as I should be, there are little, subtle exposures that slip in. These exposures seem to keep me from fully recovering or ever being 100% reliable. And the years of damage have affected my daily stamina. I don't have the energy I should, and it isn't depression...it's malnutrition. Even if/when I'm eating healthfully, the long term damages are still there.
With a corn allergy, sometimes it feels like I'm sitting in a box seat. I'm not entirely alone, thanks to the internet, but I don't exactly fit in with most of the other groups. Whether it's the food allergy advocates, the Celiac sufferers or the tree-huggers; I have 3/4 of the values in common...but there's still a wall between us made of that eco-friendly kernel, insidious yellow seed, corn.
Showing posts with label eating disorders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label eating disorders. Show all posts
Friday, June 17, 2011
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Is it safe to go allergen free?
There's a new slew of "all in your head" diagnosis coming out. First up, doctors have supposedly identified an eating disorder known as orthorexia. Essentially, sufferers believe that certain foods are pure evil and begin to restrict their diet to the point that it is unhealthy and dangerous.
Next up is a spin-off of anorexia. People with eating disorders begin to blame gluten or other food allergies as the reason that they can't eat what is put before them, or offered at parties, or why they aren't eating at social functions.
"Whether confirmed as celiac disease through blood tests or self-diagnosed as intolerance...the condition requires treatment by way of a highly restrictive diet. ... it also requires monitoring trace elements of protein present in foods or its preparation becomes necessary lest upset stomachs, painful GI tracts or other debilitating symptoms strike." (emphasis mine)
In the article I site above, this paragraph disturbs me even more than this upsetting practice. Because it indicates that even if one has a documented, medically rational reason for complete and total avoidance...the worst that can happen is a stomach ache (the word debilitating is in there, but I doubt most people really comprehend how debilitating physical GI symptoms can feel) The truth is that with the (albeit relatively rare) true IgE food allergies, which are NOT limited to the top 8, even a small crumb can cause anaphylaxis. If a peanut falls on the salad, and the cook immediately fishes it out and sends the salad out to a nut allergic individual, their throat can swell shut before the rest of the party is done commenting on how delicious the first course looks.
If someone with celiac accepts a plate with toast on it, and simply removes the toast and brushes off the crumbs...not only will they suffer from debilitating stomach issues for a few days, their intestines will sustain physical damage that can be viewed and verified by endoscopy. This damage leads to malnutrition, along with a host of other related problems and, worst case scenario, even cancer.
I don't doubt that there are some people who are afraid of food for unhealthy reasons. Nor do I doubt that there are people with unhealthy obsessions about food, or avoiding too many foods. But is the best way to address that fear to label restrictive eating as a psychiatric disorder? Or is it to do more research?
I firmly believe that most people seeking a restrictive diet are motivated by physical symptoms. Maybe they have an intolerance or allergy. Maybe their bodies are just fed up with soda and fried foods. Maybe they just need a little help balancing nutrition. Regardless, identifying the motivation should be the first step. And then rule out causes.
And if an individual is adament about avoiding foods, then it seems likely that they may not need to reintroduce those foods. Instead, therapy or medical support should focus on identifying what one *can* eat. And instituting a balanced diet. So many people these days do not know how to cook, or find vegetables...or what to do with them when they do, that if they decide to give up gluten and nightshades they feel like they're stuck with white rice and carrots. There are a host of little known veggies out there...and others that are just scary looking.
Maybe the orthorexic would be more adventurous if they learned how to prepare and eat an artichoke, a salad, their own dressing or sauces. Those with anorexia and other eating disorders obviously do need counseling toward reaching a healthy body image. But it might be easier if any digestive problems (like bloating, which can make a teenager feel inexplicably "fat") were addressed at the same time.
At any rate, when someone has a valid reason for total avoidance, their choices need to be respected. And they will be less likely to obsess over their food choices if they weren't concerned with mental health labels. At least in the long run. It seems reasonable and healthy to me for someone newly diagnosed to spend a little time obsessing about food, since they quite likely have been told to drastically change their way of looking at food.
As someone with a unique allergy, I don't want to be blown off and made sick or worse because of a 'trend' in 'it's all in your head' diagnoses. As the mother of a food allergy sufferer, I don't want her labeled as eating disordered just because a few of her peers use the word 'allergy' inappropriately. I see her eat a wide variety of fruits, veggies, carbs and protein every day. What we don't eat doesn't matter nearly as much as what we DO eat. And I sincerely hope the medical practitioners diagnosing these conditions, as well as the laymen labeling them, acknowledge the difference.
Next up is a spin-off of anorexia. People with eating disorders begin to blame gluten or other food allergies as the reason that they can't eat what is put before them, or offered at parties, or why they aren't eating at social functions.
"Whether confirmed as celiac disease through blood tests or self-diagnosed as intolerance...the condition requires treatment by way of a highly restrictive diet. ... it also requires monitoring trace elements of protein present in foods or its preparation becomes necessary lest upset stomachs, painful GI tracts or other debilitating symptoms strike." (emphasis mine)
In the article I site above, this paragraph disturbs me even more than this upsetting practice. Because it indicates that even if one has a documented, medically rational reason for complete and total avoidance...the worst that can happen is a stomach ache (the word debilitating is in there, but I doubt most people really comprehend how debilitating physical GI symptoms can feel) The truth is that with the (albeit relatively rare) true IgE food allergies, which are NOT limited to the top 8, even a small crumb can cause anaphylaxis. If a peanut falls on the salad, and the cook immediately fishes it out and sends the salad out to a nut allergic individual, their throat can swell shut before the rest of the party is done commenting on how delicious the first course looks.
If someone with celiac accepts a plate with toast on it, and simply removes the toast and brushes off the crumbs...not only will they suffer from debilitating stomach issues for a few days, their intestines will sustain physical damage that can be viewed and verified by endoscopy. This damage leads to malnutrition, along with a host of other related problems and, worst case scenario, even cancer.
I don't doubt that there are some people who are afraid of food for unhealthy reasons. Nor do I doubt that there are people with unhealthy obsessions about food, or avoiding too many foods. But is the best way to address that fear to label restrictive eating as a psychiatric disorder? Or is it to do more research?
I firmly believe that most people seeking a restrictive diet are motivated by physical symptoms. Maybe they have an intolerance or allergy. Maybe their bodies are just fed up with soda and fried foods. Maybe they just need a little help balancing nutrition. Regardless, identifying the motivation should be the first step. And then rule out causes.
And if an individual is adament about avoiding foods, then it seems likely that they may not need to reintroduce those foods. Instead, therapy or medical support should focus on identifying what one *can* eat. And instituting a balanced diet. So many people these days do not know how to cook, or find vegetables...or what to do with them when they do, that if they decide to give up gluten and nightshades they feel like they're stuck with white rice and carrots. There are a host of little known veggies out there...and others that are just scary looking.
Maybe the orthorexic would be more adventurous if they learned how to prepare and eat an artichoke, a salad, their own dressing or sauces. Those with anorexia and other eating disorders obviously do need counseling toward reaching a healthy body image. But it might be easier if any digestive problems (like bloating, which can make a teenager feel inexplicably "fat") were addressed at the same time.
At any rate, when someone has a valid reason for total avoidance, their choices need to be respected. And they will be less likely to obsess over their food choices if they weren't concerned with mental health labels. At least in the long run. It seems reasonable and healthy to me for someone newly diagnosed to spend a little time obsessing about food, since they quite likely have been told to drastically change their way of looking at food.
As someone with a unique allergy, I don't want to be blown off and made sick or worse because of a 'trend' in 'it's all in your head' diagnoses. As the mother of a food allergy sufferer, I don't want her labeled as eating disordered just because a few of her peers use the word 'allergy' inappropriately. I see her eat a wide variety of fruits, veggies, carbs and protein every day. What we don't eat doesn't matter nearly as much as what we DO eat. And I sincerely hope the medical practitioners diagnosing these conditions, as well as the laymen labeling them, acknowledge the difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)