Aw, I'm sad that the study on brain abnormalities didn't conclude whether they were a cause or consequence! On an intuitive level I wouldn't be surprised if it was a consequence, because my cognitive processes are FINALLY - after two freaking years of recovery - returning. Hopefully any damage to my brain is in the process of reversing. Ugh. But while I think differences in structure could be consequence, I'm not so sure about differences in function.

I think researchers and clinicians alike can sometimes be a little too hasty and reductive when classifying a behaviour into compulsive or impulsive. For example, although hair pulling was never a feature of my illness, self harm was - and it did not always feel like an impulse control problem. There were some periods when it became very much a part of my OCD, in respect of having to do it a certain number of times, having rituals associated with it, etc. It wasn't just a case of "oh I feel angry, better cut myself". I only ever did it when I was at a healthy weight too, when my anorexia was fulfilling all my OCD's desires (heh) I never wanted or needed to hurt myself. My anorexia and exercise always felt like a part of my OCD too, whereas bingeing felt impulsive but again, I know it's not the case for everyone. Different behaviours can be compulsive, ritualistic, impulsive, a combination of any two or all three depending on the person.

Actually that abstract mostly caught my attention because of the sentence "one in 20 individuals endorsed hair pulling", which made it sound like they were raving about the joys of trichotillomania to the researchers! The mental image is going to be stuck in my head all day now...

Regarding the "adiposity index" -first of all, what a crappy article! They go through the bother of providing the equation but don't give what units to use, or what index is "desirable". Secondly, why do supposedly smart people such as doctors and epidemiologists feel they need a numerical index, and that one can even be reliably used on human beings? If obesity is their field, can't they tell by examining someone whether they are clinically obese, i.e., suffering ill health due to excessive weight? Is this so they can calculate "statistics" for the media to report? Thirdly, can't they make up their freakin minds? Apparently waist/hip ratios are so "last year" because if you were all happy because you had relativel large hips and therefore a low ratio - well guess what! This year those hips will do you in.

Anon- I had the same pissed reaction at the article re: body-adiposity. Not at first though. At first, I saw an exciting opportunity to measure myself, calculate, compare, and obsess. Then I saw that there was no interpretation of the number available. THEN I got pissed. Why the hell give me a formula and then not tell me what the answer means??? So that I can see yet another number that will then terrorize me and make me frantic to control it? ...

In the end, I realized that I was actually relieved not to know- I decided to definitely NOT look into it further- and I left the measuring tape in the drawer!

Thank you for the post about the possible treatment facility in London, ON.

I have been to Homewood Health Centre in Guelph, ON, which was at a huge cost to my family.

I hope to keep this in mind if such a treatment centre opens in London, as the cost sounds like it is dramatically lower.

Much appreciated!!