Lindsey Lohan talks about bulimia, drug use in Vanity Fair

[texas*princess]

... maybe she was referring to the movie roles she was accepting

[christiangirl]

Originally posted by KillarneyRose
Too true! Several years ago Vanity Fair released a quote from Christian Slater in reference to then-supermodel Christy Turlington that read, "And there I was, doing it with Christy Turlington." When the issue came out, it turned out he had been talking about a photo shoot the two of them had done when they were dating.

This is what I mean. It's not exactly the same since CNN is in on it (there're more reputable), but before I start in on "Oh, poor Lindsay" I need to see the whole thing.

Besides the minimum requirements for 'clinical bulimia nervosa' are pretty strict, so unless she was treated by doctors, I doubt it was the real thing (which sucks, b/c people with real problems don't get necessary treatment if they don't meet those requirements).

[PM_Mama00]

Originally posted by christiangirl
This is what I mean. It's not exactly the same since CNN is in on it (there're more reputable), but before I start in on "Oh, poor Lindsay" I need to see the whole thing.

Besides the minimum requirements for 'clinical bulimia nervosa' are pretty strict, so unless she was treated by doctors, I doubt it was the real thing (which sucks, b/c people with real problems don't get necessary treatment if they don't meet those requirements).

That's stupid. (not you, but requirements) If someone is doing something to purposely expel things from their body in order to lose weight, no matter what, it's bulimia.

[christiangirl]

Originally posted by PM_Mama00
That's stupid. (not you, but requirements) If someone is doing something to purposely expel things from their body in order to lose weight, no matter what, it's bulimia.

I agree it's stupid, but that's the way it is right now. According to the DSM-IV-TR published by the American Psychiatric Association, Lindsay Lohan DID NOT have bulimia if she did not experience recurrent episodes of bingeing following by inappropriate compensating behavior (which means vomiting, laxatives, exercise, etc.) consistently for at least twice a week for 3 months. When I become a licensed psychologist, this is one of the first things I want to change. While I know that a person (i.e., girl) who clearly has a problem would receive some sort of medical attention, this is still crazy (the req. for anorexia is equally ridiculous). It's hard enough for people to admit they have problems, how can you sit back and tell them they don't 'qualify' to get help for it?

So while Lindsay may have said she had bulimia (which I still haven't seen proof of, I'd have to see the interview), if she wasn't "making herself sick" consistently for those 24+ times, then (technically) no dice.

[AlphaFrog]

THe DSM is a GUIDE. I doubt you'll find a psychiatrist that's not a quack that says: "According to the DSM VI, you don't meet the criteria, so there's nothing I can do to help you, you're fine, get out of my office." Even if someone's not a "textbook" case, if they are self-conscience about their body and throw up/take laxtives/etc...even a few times, there's probably some underlying problem there that needs to be addressed.

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by christiangirl
I agree it's stupid, but that's the way it is right now. According to the DSM-IV-TR published by the American Psychiatric Association, Lindsay Lohan DID NOT have bulimia if she did not experience recurrent episodes of bingeing following by inappropriate compensating behavior (which means vomiting, laxatives, exercise, etc.) consistently for at least twice a week for 3 months. When I become a licensed psychologist, this is one of the first things I want to change. While I know that a person (i.e., girl) who clearly has a problem would receive some sort of medical attention, this is still crazy (the req. for anorexia is equally ridiculous). It's hard enough for people to admit they have problems, how can you sit back and tell them they don't 'qualify' to get help for it?

So while Lindsay may have said she had bulimia (which I still haven't seen proof of, I'd have to see the interview), if she wasn't "making herself sick" consistently for those 24+ times, then (technically) no dice.

She would have, however, been diagnosed with ED-NOS even if she didn't fit every single characteristic for bulimia. And any reputable therapist or doctor would have treated her anyway. So I'm not sure why this matters . . .

[irishpipes]

Originally posted by sugar and spice
She would have, however, been diagnosed with ED-NOS even if she didn't fit every single characteristic for bulimia. And any reputable therapist or doctor would have treated her anyway. So I'm not sure why this matters . . .

I have no idea, but I wonder if it might matter in terms of insurance coverage?

[AlphaFrog]

Originally posted by irishpipes
I have no idea, but I wonder if it might matter in terms of insurance coverage?

As loaded as she is, does it matter?

[irishpipes]

Originally posted by AlphaFrog
As loaded as she is, does it matter?

I didn't mean for Lindsay - I meant for non-celebrity people.

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by AlphaFrog
THe DSM is a GUIDE. I doubt you'll find a psychiatrist that's not a quack that says: "According to the DSM VI, you don't meet the criteria, so there's nothing I can do to help you, you're fine, get out of my office." Even if someone's not a "textbook" case, if they are self-conscience about their body and throw up/take laxtives/etc...even a few times, there's probably some underlying problem there that needs to be addressed.

That's quite a leap -- to say you don't meet the criteria for bulemia, therefore I can't do anything to treat the problems you do have. WTF?

[AlphaFrog]

Originally posted by valkyrie
That's quite a leap -- to say you don't meet the criteria for bulemia, therefore I can't do anything to treat the problems you do have. WTF?

That's exactly what I was saying. If someone thinks they have enough of a problem to seek out help, I don't think you'll find a shrink that would turn them down because they don't meet the criteria for any particular disorder.

[Tickled Pink 2]

Now, will Nicole Richie please tell the truth?

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by irishpipes
I have no idea, but I wonder if it might matter in terms of insurance coverage?

The kind of treatment typically needed to address an eating disorder (several weeks or even months of inpatient or daily outpatient therapy, followed by months or years of appointments with psychologists and nutritionists) is often not covered by insurance. Even when it is, it's notorious for covering only a ridiculously short time span (say, ten days when the recommended minimum treatment time is 60 days) to the point where decent treatment can be pretty tricky to obtain unless you're wealthy.

What the diagnosis would be more likely to affect is whether or not you're admitted to a treatment program in the first place. I've had friends struggle with eating disorders for years, finally reach the point where they admit that they need help -- and contact treatment programs only to find out that they're not considered "sick" enough to get the help they need.

Ohh, the wonderful world of eating disorder treatment . . . haha.

[christiangirl]

I was talking about what happens BY THE BOOK not the exceptions that we making in real life. My point was that the characterstics shouldn't be that strict in the first place (esp. if good doctors wouldn't follow that if they are, why even go through the charade of leaving them that way if they won't/shouldn't be followed?).

[pinkiebell1001]

Originally posted by Tickled Pink 2
Now, will Nicole Richie please tell the truth?

Seriously!!! I saw a picture of her in shorts (most likely a size zero) and they were hanging on her!!! I mean, I'm honestly afraid for her at this point-she really doesn't have anything left to lose! I hope she gets some help soon