Talk:Inedia

What's actually claimed by breatharians??

I think it's important we do our best in separating fact from opinion in this article (especially on a topic as different to mainstream or scientific thought as this one!). Even if one dismisses the notion entirely we can still look at what is it that breatharians actually claim? And not just what do we think they claim. When we look closely we might might find there's a difference. With this in mind a brief bit of research on the topic shows that breatharians do not claim that food and water is not necessary for survival in such simple terms. Most appear to state it requires a process to be gone through in order for the body to require less or no food and water. It is important to provide proper context here and it would therefore be more accurate to say humans have the potential to live without food and water rather than whether humans simply can or can't. I compare this to saying humans can run a mile in under four minutes. Whilst it has some truth it is not entirely true. I can't run a mile under 4 minutes. And neither can anyone I know. But for some people, with training, it does appear to be possible doesn't it? And from what I have researched on the matter breatharians make the same claim in relation to living without food or water. It's not something everyone can do right now, but it is a potential for some people and it requires a process of transformation to enable it to happen. Here-For-The-Pizza (talk) 12:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This is all WP:SYNTH and WP:OR please read my edsums, provide sources for your edits, and stop edit warring. Thanks. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Inedia is not synonym of breatharianism

Using "inedia" in stead of "breatharianism" as synonyms is misleading. They are not synonyms. This page should be called "breatharianism". Inedia just means "loss of appetite" but this article poses it as synonym of breatharianism: the statement "Inedia (Latin for 'fasting') or breatharianism /brɛθˈɛəriənɪzəm/ is the claimed ability for a person to live without consuming food" is implying that "Inedia is the claimed ability for a person to live without consuming food", which is incorrect. Inedia simply means "loss of appetite" and is at most a medical condition. Please provide reference to who defined or used "inedia" as synonym of breatharianism, otherwise this page is an attempt to redefine what inedia means and should be corrected.

Psychologist Guy provided a reference to Riddle, Joseph Esmond. (1847). A Copious and Critical English-Latin Lexicon, Founded on the German-Latin Dictionary of Dr. Charles Ernest Georges. London: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans. p. 342. in support of the claim, but even in that source there is no connection between inedia and breatharianism; the source actually supports my claim. — Simone (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Inedia in Latin means "not eating" and "to subdue one's appetite". I would say the term to some pretty much equates to breatharianism which is not eating but to avoid confusion I would support changing the name of this article to breatharianism because the sources on the article all use the term breatharian or breatharianism.. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I still stand on my position. "Inedia" just means "not eating" or "loss of appetite"; the fact that it is a Latin word doesn't add anything to its meaning, nor it makes it more similar to breatharianism. "Breatharianism" could be a religion, a movement, or a belief: it refers to a group of individuals who decide to not eat becase they claim they can live without food. Saying that the "term to some pretty much equates to breatharianism" is the same as saying that the terms pretty much equates to "fasting" because the word means "not eating". Just because one "fasts" we don't say that they "claim to live without consuming food"; it's a non sequitur. In the same way, just because one suffers "inedia", or suffer from a "loss of appetite", it doesn't imply that they are "claiming to live without consuming food" (inedia can be an eating disorder, and is associated with starvation, which is the opposite of what breatharianism claims). If the followers of breatharianism are "claiming to live without consuming food", then they are following or believing in "breatharianism". It's not a matter of confusion, it's a matter that using "inedia" is plain wrong.

You also claimed that it means "to subdue one's appetite": I believe you took that definition from the same source, but note that the source doesn't say that "to subdue one's appetite" is the definition of inedia. The source says that the translation of "to subdue one's appetite" is "se longis jejuniis domare" in latin. I invite you to read the source you provided again.

Please note people are already copying what Wikipedia says and are starting to use inedia improperly. This should be corrected as soon as possible.

— Simone (talk) Sun Nov 08 00:27 2020 UTC

Inedia is the alleged ability to live without food, for example see this [1]. Breatharianism is basically a form of inedia, in fact the only form because its claimants say they get all their energy from air. But both inedia and breatharianism are equated with each other by most writers on this topic and used interchangeably. This website [2] uses both terms. This is basically a semantics dispute. Inedia means not eating and so does breatharianism so I don't think many other editors will agree to rename the article. I retract my suggestion on that. I don't think this article is confusing people with the terms used. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Recently published critical evaluation of cases of claimed inedia / breatharianism / bigu

Dear article editors/authors,

I would like to bring to your attention my recently published scientific review article on cases of claimed inedia / breatharianism / bigu: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2020.05.015 It is the first critical, in-depth review of all cases where claimants where monitored around the clock. Note that, in addition to the main article, there are six supplements with further information.

I required a high methodological standard for such extraordinary claims to be considered verified. None of the studies were able to meet that standard. Yet, there are curious cases and results that justify further research.

You may want to consider citing the article on this page. I think it can give readers some orientation in this controversial field.

Best regards, Marcus H. Mast

Marcus H. Mast (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@User:Marcus H. Mast other than the doi link, do you have an academic-style reference to this article? Is it peer reviewed?--Nø (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@User:Nø It is an Elsevier-published, peer-reviewed scientific journal. See section "Peer Review" in the journal guidelines: https://www.elsevier.com/journals/explore/1550-8307/guide-for-authors#txt20920. Reference: Mast MH. Claims of anomalously long fasting: An assessment of the evidence from investigated cases. Explore. 2020;16(5):287-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2020.05.015. Marcus H. Mast (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately this account is now spamming talk-pages [3] but Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing is not used on any Wikipedia articles. It not considered a reliable science journal. It appears to be a front for publishing the paranormal. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Has Herr Mast published any other work? I cannot find any. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah. this quote helped me, "The journal has been described as a "sham masquerading as a real scientific journal" which publishes "truly ridiculous studies"" -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out the article on the relevant pages as it relates to their content. I think that's an appropriate thing to do and not "spamming". Other than that, I'm not here to argue or discuss. You think what you think and do what you want to do with this information. Marcus H. Mast (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I have read someting, but this "paper" is true sham ("the implications for science would be profound should inedia be real."; "However, while a skeptical attitude certainly is appropriate, one should keep in mind that science has seen major corrections of theoretical paradigms in the past"; "Should inedia turn out to be a real phenomenon, expanding existing theory to account for it would likely constitute a longer process.") and so on and so on.

It is a cheap attempt to hide sham as real scientifc work. --Julius Senegal (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

About that image

In the photo of the purported 1669 report that accompanies this entry, why are the letters surrounded by white borders? Cpacker666 (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Origin of "breatharianism"

I think the entry could use the following information. I'll leave it to expert editors to decide.

First use of "Breatharianism" appears to have been in 1952 by George R Clements (d. 1970), an esotericist/mystic/pseudoscientific health writer: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Clement-3126 in book "Man's Higher Consciousness" (1962) under pseudonym Hilton Hotema https://www.google.com/books/edition/Man_s_Higher_Consciousness/RSdt-s6dqj0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22breatharianism%22&pg=RA1-PA39&printsec=frontcover Page 40 has typical prose. This book was a reissue of his 1952 book called "Man's Higher Consciousness" written under pseudonym Kenyon Klamonti and first (possibly) brought to public attention by Ormund Powers, a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel on July 24, 1952 (p 1): http://newspapers.com/clip/72640206 Cpacker666 (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)