The Why of It All

Part of the purpose of this blog/book is to bring to light the personal struggles with food and weight that we all have in common. Psychologists use the word “normalize,” which Mirriam-Webster defines as: “to make conform to or reduce to a norm or standard.” To me, having something normalized is that phenomenon when you find out someone has had an experience similar to you, causing you to exclaim, “Oh, you do that, too?” The process of normalization is what makes support groups (and group therapy, for that matter) so effective. We realize that others are in a similar boat, and there’s a certain comfort in that. In a related way, writing (and speaking) about disordered eating/body image concerns illuminates just how common these struggles are, which hopefully provides a kind of individual solace. It also, in my opinion, weakens the grip of the issues themselves.

A metaphor I like is a storm out at sea—before hitting land, the storm has plenty of time to fester, to build up strength. But upon landfall, the storm’s power/speed/damaging potential weakens, to the point where by the time it reaches you, it may not be so harrowing at all. Through open and honest discussion, we enervate the storm.

I’d like to normalize food fixation, body hatred, and other concepts we’ve been discussing here. As individuals we may feel “crazy” or “dysfunctional” for holding such “odd” beliefs or engaging in such behaviors (as some have commented recently, who would have thought that such violent images of fat removal were so common?), but if we realize that we’re not alone, we may be more prone to discuss/work with our thoughts and feelings, which, ultimately can free us of our obsessions.

Mothers & Daughters

Do our mothers have carte blanche to comment on our bodies?

On a radio morning talk show, a male deejay reported that his mother had told him he looked fat. He reasoned that, of course, his mother was free to share her opinion, and that if she wasn’t truthful with him, who would be? Agree? Would a daughter feel the same way?

And, if that is acceptable, when does a mother cross the line? There are mothers who weigh their daughters, restrict their food, buy them diet pills, comment incessantly on their weight and shape. There are mothers, like writer Pam Houston’s, who, as she ran out to the school bus each morning would shout, “Hold your tummy in!” for all the children to hear. There are mothers who will purchase a new wardrobe for their daughters following a significant weight loss, even if accomplished via an eating disorder.

If a daughter has “a face only a mother could love,” why doesn’t the same unconditional acceptance hold true for her body?

Have You Seen This Commercial?

A Yoplait Light yogurt television ad features a swimsuit-clad woman shimmying around a boardwalk and the beach, hiding her body with an inflatable raft. When she finally lifts the raft, we see 2006’s version of the “Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini.”

But, don’t think the raft came off that easily.

At the same time, we’re introduced to the product, Yoplait Light yogurt. Our heroine would not have had the courage for this particular raft-ectomy had she not befriended the Yoplait product, marketed for its “weight-loss boost.” Fine-tuning a broader advertising campaign that focuses on the scale-savvy features of dairy, we’re exposed to the message that body acceptance will only occur if you're thin. And if you’re not, because you haven’t done your dairy, you better raft-wrap yourself again.

Problem Areas

A derivative of liposuction, called micro liposuction, is becoming increasingly popular, as revealed in an article in The New York Times.* According to the article, Dr. Luiz Toledo, a Brazilian plastic surgeon, who brought the procedure to the U.S., calls it “liposuction for skinny people.” What we’re talking about here are little “tune-ups,” aimed at people who are already quite thin or at specific areas of the body not classically targeting during liposuction.

And what areas are we talking about? The Times cites a recent edition of the journal, Dermatologic Surgery, which in an article entitled "Lexicon of Areas Amenable to Liposuction," identifies: “the ‘buffalo hump’ (upper back), ‘wings’ (bulges around the bra area), the ‘doughnut’ (around the belly button), the ‘banana fold’ (below the buttocks), the ‘piano legs’ (calves) and the ‘chubb.’” In case you’re wondering, like I was, “chubb” is defined for us by Dr. William Coleman III, one of the articles authors, as a “. . . Southern term for the kneecap area."

And who is a classic micro liposuction patient? Dr. Howard Sobel, interviewed by the Times discusses a typical micro liposuction patient: “'Some of them are perfect 10's who want to be 10½'s.'" Sobel, who reportedly has treated models and personal trainers, goes on to say: “'These patients' before pictures are what patients in the past wished their after pictures looked like.'"

The article continues: “One of Dr. Sobel's patients is Judy Goss, a former Ford model who works as a model agent. ‘By normal standards, I'm pretty skinny,’ said Ms. Goss, 38. She is 5-foot-10 and weighs 126 pounds, she said. ‘But my arms were getting a little flappy. I could feel it wiggle every time I shook hands.’ Two years ago, Dr. Sobel performed liposuction on her upper arms.”

Micro liposuction carries similar risks to standard liposuction, with side effects ranging from scarring or infection at the site to the low-probability, but still real, and lethal, chance of an adverse reaction to anesthesia. In addition to any physical consequences, though, is the psychological impact of this procedure both for the individual and for our evolving zeitgeist around (largely) women, bodies, and self-esteem.

You may have seen the show Dr. 90210 on E, a reality show which follows people seeking plastic surgery from consultation to after-shots. The show’s promo begs the question, “Can you fix the inside by fixing the outside?”

I’m asking the question, too. Of course, my immediate reaction is “no,” but I’m willing to entertain the alternative—could there be a very circumscribed “problem” that operates more or less in a vacuum and that once removed, improves your body image and allows you to feel better about yourself?

I’m reminded of a fictional exchange I came across from the book Switcheroo, penned by Olivia Goldsmith in 1998. In it, Goldsmith’s character Sylvie Schiffer consults with a plastic surgeon regarding a face lift, in an attempt to mimic the appearance of her husband’s young mistress. When her doctor asks her what’s wrong, Sylvie replies:

“Everything. Bob’s cheating on me. And I saw her. She looks just like me but younger. Just like me, but no crow’s feet. Just like me, but without the second chin.

“Age crept up on me, John. I wasn’t watching. I didn’t know I looked so bad—”

“Are you insane? You need a psychiatrist, not a plastic surgeon.”

Is Goldsmith (via the surgeon’s character) right?

With micro liposuction, where do we draw the line? Most of us have seen the popular talk show guests who’ve had repeated plastic surgeries and speak of procedures in much the same way that an addict would describe a fix. It seems that doing it once opens the door for doing it again. . . and again.

And more, if patients are seeking surgery to remove a barely visible “problem area,” should doctors have an ethical responsibility to say, “I’m sorry, it’s just not worth the risks.” I can’t understand risking your life for a little bit of chubb.

As the Times indicates, medical ethicists are starting to pose these questions, as well as to understand the implications of the procedure. Dr. Sheila Rothman, a professor of sociomedical sciences at Columbia says, “‘Maybe liposuction will become like a gym membership where you pay a doctor $10,000 for the year and you can have as much surgery as you want.’”
*sent in by a dear reader

A Word of Kindness

Leslie Goldman, author of Locker Room Diaries: The Naked Truth about Women, Body Image and Re-Imagining the “Perfect" Body encourages women to write a letter to their most detested body part, offering an apology for the disdain they’ve habitually directed toward it. It seems that the letter-writing process allows you recognize how aggressive you’ve been toward yourself (there’s something about it that allows said body part to feel more “human”) and to stir up some self-compassion, which is a critical part of restoring a healthy body-image and overall self-esteem. The process calls to mind a famous Jungian quote: "We cannot change anything until we accept it. Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses.”

While it might be easy to identify which body part you’d address, is it clear to you what you would say? And, if you were to engage in this process, what types of feelings would you encounter?

As an example:

Dear Stomach/Butt/Outer Thighs/Upper Arms, Etc.:

I’m sorry for all the blame I’ve cast your way.

I’m sorry for even briefly, and wildly, entertaining the notion that I’d like to be rid of you. . . and, even more so, for imagining hacking you off with a circular saw.

I’m sorry that I look at you with such scorn, and that I’m not willing to accept you for who you are.

I have to admit that I sometimes think you’re cute—you’re dimply and cuddly, and, most important, I realize that if I can’t accept you, there’s really no way I can accept me.

Reverse Psychology

Many writers who address eating/weight concerns speak of “making peace with food.” I’ve always liked the premise, but I wasn’t quite sure what it would look like in practice, until I began to think about the distinction between the conscious versus unconscious mind. Many psychological theories propose that an important goal of therapy is to make what’s unconscious conscious—in other words, to bring feelings, experiences, memories of which you may be unaware into conscious awareness. I think that this goal holds with regard to eating concerns, particularly as we try to uncover reasons for disordered eating, such as emotional eating, restricting, and focusing obsessively on weight and shape—are we bored/lonely/angry/scared? What are we trying to avoid?

However, with regard to the process (and allowance) of eating itself, I wonder if the goal should be the exact opposite—to make the conscious unconscious—to return food/eating to the role of any other physiological process (sleep, breathing, urinating) and to NOT think about the whole experience so much. Imagine what it would feel like to NOT be thinking:

Have I had too much?
What else have I eaten today?
This has too many calories.
My stomach feels huge.

It seems to me that if you can arrive at a place where these thoughts and questions no longer occur to you, that is making peace with food. But, can we really accept eating as simply another physiological process? Imagine giving other biologically-driven processes the same airtime that we give food:

I really shouldn’t pee again—I went so much yesterday.
I know I’m tired, but I’m definitely not going to allow myself to sleep tonight.
Did I just take in too much oxygen? There was so much air in that last breath—my abdomen feels way too big!

Of course, these statements sound ridiculous, but substitute food/eating and you have an all-too-familiar way of thinking. As best we can, we sleep when we’re tired, go to the bathroom when we have to, breathe unconditionally—if only we could do the same with food.

Humor Me

I’m afraid I’ve lost my sense of humor. More and more, I see/hear jokes aimed at eating disorders (anorexia t-shirt). On an episode of Family Guy, a high school cheerleader says to another, “Wow, it sure is great being thin and popular. Let’s go throw-up.”

The New York Post reveals a report that the cast trailers for the filming of The Nanny Diaries (in Manhattan) are labeled according to the roles each star will play: “Glamour Mom,” “Charity Mom,” “Divorcing Mom,” “Eating Disorder Mom.” I’m not quite sure I see the parallel structure here.

In OK Weekly magazine, staff writers discuss a “beauty boo-boo” they call “blondorexia,” which is an “acute condition” that “happens when a young star aspires to the ‘more-is-more’ school of hair color.” True, some celebrities (and even we normal folk) might take hair coloring a bit too far. But, do we really have to equate this with a disease? (same goes for “tanorexia”)

On E’s 50 Most Shocking Celebrity Confessions, comedian Pat Dixon quips, “Bulimia isn’t a disease; it’s a decision.” On the same show, another commentator reports that Dennis Quaid, who after losing 40 pounds for the role of Doc Holliday in Wyatt Earp, developed “manorexia,” a term I’d describe as a cutesy bastardization of a serious illness (which, by the way, he admits to having). And, on 101 Incredible Celebrity Slimdowns, a comedienne says, “When I know I’m going to have to wear a bikini, I usually throw up everything I eat for about a week straight.”

This is supposed to be comedy.

A Word on Pro-Ana Websites

If you’re not familiar with the concept, pro-ana websites are those designed to provide support for sufferers of eating disorders. The sites describe anorexia (cleverly referred to as “Ana”) and bulimia (“Mia”) as “lifestyle choices,” not diseases, and do not encourage recovery from these conditions. An introduction to one site I found had this to say:

“This is a pro-ana website. Pro-ana is a source of support for those who are living with an eating disorder. Please leave if you are not living with anorexia or bulimia, or if you are trying to recover. Do not misuse the information on this site and let your eating disorder get out of hand. I will not be held responsible for your actions. This site is not intended to encourage people to develop eating disorders. The purpose of this website is to offer support to those who are living with an eating disorder.”

Support, though, seems to be an amorphous concept. Many of the sites offer encouragement for food restriction, glorifying starvation, as well as tips for easier purging and how to hide one’s disorder from others. Adulation is offered to those able to toe the fine line between life and death. A red string bracelet (similar to that modeled by the Kabbalah faithful, promulgated by celebrities) is worn to distinguish those who are pro-ana and pro-mia from the rest of the world.

Inspiration on the sites arrives in the form of pithy quotes, such as “Nothing tastes as good as thin feels” and via pictures of eating-disordered or grossly underweight celebrities, filed under “thinspiration.” One site warns its readers not to eat, urging, “You should be eating your own flesh all away from the inside first, before you are deserving of actual legitimate sustenance.” It also encourages e.d. sufferers to “Remember, think thin, and try not to faint too often or die.”

One site offers this tip: “If you have a sweet tooth use stevia instead of sugar. Try to stay away from stuff like Splenda. Remember, if it came from a science lab, it’s probably not healthy for your body. The best things for you are natural, and grown in a garden.” Upon first glance, this seems true and quite supportive of nutritional health. However, this also comes from a site that describes the first day of its weight-loss plan as “starve day.” Not so nutritional after all. . .

The psychological community (particularly that which serves eating-disorder populations) is, as you’d imagine, rather disturbed by the proliferation of these sites, though the question of what to do remains an issue. While the first amendment comes to play here, some web hosts, such as Yahoo (so I’ve heard), have disallowed pro-ana sites a home. Many sites are still available, however, and those who struggle with eating disorders (a persistent bunch, by definition) are easily able to find them.

I hesitate, in fact, to write at all about pro-ana sites, for fear that those unexposed will decide to visit them and find something that promotes disordered eating. However, this is a bona fide concern in the eating disorder community, and I think it’s important to expose, particularly given the appeal of these sites to young girls. Pro-ana sites anthropomorphize eating disorders, turning serious illnesses into friends (“Ana” and “Mia”) that sound more like friends you’d like to join for lunch than serious physical and psychological illnesses.

I’ve realized, though, that the sites are largely reflective of a culture that is, for the most part, pro-ana. Fashion and celebrity magazines celebrate food restriction and other unhealthy means of weight-loss (e.g., Mariah's Diet). A recent issue of Star magazine featured a story entitled, “Skinny S.O.S.! Stars’ Scary New Affliction—Foodophobia And It’s Contagious!”, but the very nature of the two-page, photo-plenty spread focusing on Kate Bosworth, Victoria Beckham, and Nicole Ritchie seemed to tacitly reinforce the unhealthy eating patterns/sizes of these stars. True, the fashion world/Hollywood does not (at least, vocally) promote subsisting on “your own flesh,” but there seems to be a very fine line between the daily messages we’re exposed to and those offered on pro-ana sites, causing me to begin to wonder if the only difference between a pro-ana website and a fashion/celebrity magazine is that the website is willing to admit what it is up to.

Jessica Weiner on the Today Show

A while back, I wrote about a book entitled, Do I Look Fat in This? written by Jessica Weiner. I saw her speak at a conference and found her to be v. warm, funny, and engaging. She has a history of an eating disorder and has made it her work to educate and inform about such struggles.

Anyway, here's a release from her press team about her upcoming appearance:

Watch Jessica do what she does best, on the Today Show with Matt Lauer
Thursday July 6, 2006 at appx. 8:09 am EST.

Please check your local listings for the appropriate NBC station and airtime in your city.

Here's a link to her site as well. (She happens to be the advice columnist for MK and Ashley's web site!)

If you're around tomorrow morning (or have a DVR), you may want to check her out. . . .

Drstaceyny's Movie Review: The Devil Wears Prada (in a Size 2, of Course)

I didn’t read the book, so the movie was my entry to the weight-obsessed consciousness of the fashion world portrayed here. It seems that one of the major plot lines involves Anne Hathaway’s (Andrea’s) weight. She is, at the story’s outset, a Size 6, which in industry terms is decidedly “fat,” as Meryl Streep’s character, Miranda Priestly, so ungraciously informs her. Early on, we learn the truth about models’ sizes—that a Size 2 is the new 4, and a 0, the new 2. Andrea’s size is equated with her matronly cabled sweaters, her sensible shoes, and her wide-eyed naïveté about clothing and the fashion world she encounters. Luckily for Andrea (and for audiences, who, by our very nature, pull for a happy ending), she encounters Dolce and Gabbana, becomes intimate with Chanel, and drops to a Size 4 before the credits roll. Phew. . .

Interestingly, the movie’s sub-text on weight doesn’t focus on Ms. Hathaway, but rather on Emily Blunt, who plays Ms. Priestly’s first assistant, Emily. In an interview with Liz Smith*, Ms. Blunt reported she had to drop weight in order to secure the roll. How much weight? During her interview with Ms. Smith, Ms. Blunt reported:

“I can eat now. . . You know, Prada was the only movie I’ve ever done where they wanted me to lose weight. I went in, and this woman asked, “How much do you weigh?’ And I told her and she made a face. And then she said, ‘You have to get in shape.’ And I said, ‘Well, really, I think I am in shape.’ She shook her head like, ‘poor thing.’ So I had to ask, ‘Look, just how thin do you want me?’ And she said, ‘On-the-edge-of-sickness thin.’ So, I figured, ‘Great, I’ll call you from the emergency room.’"

So, here’s a movie (whose audience, by the way, was filled with young girls) that glorifies sickly thinness and shuns a Size 6 as “fat.” In a country where the average woman wears a Size 14, what messages are we sending (and receiving)? Why are Andrea’s talents as an assistant (a job, for which, she’s overqualified) directly proportionate to her size? And, did Ms. Blunt actually drop the requested weight, and if so, did she endanger her health in order to play this part? At one point in the film, Emily's character cries, "I'm just one stomach flu from my goal weight!" Another fine example of art imitating life. . .

*sent in by a dear reader

More On American Idol and AOL News

AOL News begs the question, “Does American Idol Have a Body Bias?”

Uh. . . yeah.

Simon Cowell really didn’t have to ask the infamous question, “Do we have a bigger stage this year?” following Mandisa Hundley’s performance for us to know that. Yes, American Idol has a body bias, but it’s only reflecting that of the culture. To be a female American idol, you have to look the part.

Fashion director of In Style magazine, Hal Rubenstein, reveals, "Whether it’s acting or anywhere, people do tend to want to look at pretty people first. . . . It is about packaging, especially nowadays." He goes on to say: “Does Britney have a great voice? Does Jessica? Who cares? Look what they look like. And it’s an unfair world: I think it’s more so for women than for men."

As the article mentions, Reuben won Idol and Luther Vandross achieved fame, despite their weight. But those are men, and there’s a different playing field. The standards are different for us.

Still, Rubenstein argues, "In the long run, talent does win out. Luther Vandross always struggled with a weight problem. Yet women would go to his concerts and faint from happiness. If you’ve got a great voice, you’ve got a great voice, and we will listen to anything you do."

True? Do men “faint from happiness” when listening to the voice of a fat female singer? Uh. . . who, exactly, are we talking about? Janet Jackson gained weight, as did Mariah Carey (though certainly not fat), and it seemed that recent interest in their careers was piqued only after they had lost the weight (and there seems to be greater interest in how they dropped the pounds than in their voices or concert dates). Who are our Luther Vandross equivalents?

If you’re a woman, you don’t get to be a pop icon, unless you have the look. And so, with open arms, we welcome to the music world Hillary Duff, Lindsay Lohan, and Paris Hilton, whose recent single, “Stars are Blind” is currently climbing the charts. Stars may be blind, as Paris notes, but unfortunately, the public is not.

This Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Eating Disorders

But because it's Friday and because it's fun. . .

What Celebrity Do You Resemble?

Her Lovely Lady Lumps

Perezhilton.com (yes, guilty as charged) recently posted pictures of Mena Suvari, snapped while she purchased gas for her car, in a feature entitled, “Mena’s Got Back.”

True, Mena’s still thinner than most American women (much thinner), but I am struck that in a town full of ultra-thin, bony celebrities, she’s held onto her rear. What I was most interested in, though, were readers’ comments—would we bash this starlet for not being stick-thin, or would we appreciate her subtle, feminine curves? Yes, a couple of comments were less than flattering (why, I ask, if you’re a woman, do you feel the need to comment negatively on her breasts or her face?) and others were overtly sexual/somewhat offensive, but the majority looked something like this:

“She looks great!”
“That is one nice ass!”
“Thank you Mena, for not following the latest Anorexic trend.”
“I never knew she had such a nice body, I must say I'm a little envious.”
“She looks AMAZING!!!”
“Most men love a little junk-in-the-trunk.”

Is this true? It seems, to me, at least, that men (and women, too, when discussing lesbian sex) would rather have sex with a body that is curvy and lush than one that is over-exercised, bony, or stick-thin. Women may chase after the Nicole-Richie ideal, but is this really what’s attractive to men?

Research has consistently illustrated that across cultures, men prefer one feature of a woman’s body over all others—that her waist-to-hip ratio hovers at .7. This means that the circumference of her waist measures approximately 70% the circumference of her hips. Now, before you take your tape measure out. . . think about all the medical and lifestyle contortions we undergo in order to appeal to men—breast implants, liposuction, excessive exercise, starvation diets, when, in reality, most of what it comes down to is that 70%.

It seems that this ratio is indicative of fertility, which is why, in an evolutionary sense, it’s so appealing to men. Other features of appearance that have shown to be universally appealing? Clear skin; large, white teeth; symmetrical features; thick, healthy hair; erect posture; and an upright gait. No research suggests that protruding clavicles, sternums, ribs, or hips are evenly remotely sexually attractive to men, unless, because of their own psychology, they’re looking for a little girl.

See? Diets Don't Work! (Or, Why You Binge at Night)

As an AOL subscriber, it seems that every day, my welcome screen beckons with seductive weight-loss tips or diet plans. Yesterday’s headline was: “Plan to Boost Your Bottom Line,” and, for the record, this had absolutely nothing to do with finance.

Another encouraged us to, “Blast Away Your Female Fat Zones.” On other occasions, we’ve been invited to learn about “The Ultra-Metabolism Diet,” as well as to “Find Your Ideal Diet Plan.” (Note of curiosity to self: If we each have an ideal diet plan, then what’s with this ultra-metabolism diet?)

However, not long ago, I came across something a little bit different. At first glance, I was quite the skeptic. After all, the title of the piece was, “Tight Genes in Your DNA?” and the subject was Dr. Mark Hyman, author of the book, UltraMetabolism. In the article, Hyman discusses the starvation myth, the “idea that if we eat less and exercise more we will lose weight, and unfortunately, when we do that, when we starve ourselves or restrict our calories, we trigger a primitive survival response that drives us to compensate by overeating. We all have the experience, for example, of starving yourself all day, skipping breakfast, light lunch or maybe not at all, and then you get home and what happens? You clean out the refrigerator.

Hyman goes on to say: “And then you feel sick. Of course, we've done that over and over again. Now the first time you might do it you might think, 'Oh well, I shouldn't do this again because it's going to make me feel sick.' But how many times have all of us done that? Why? That's how our bodies are programmed. So if you eat less than your basic needs, if you starve yourself, you'll always backfire, you'll gain the weight back, and you'll probably gain back even a little bit more. People gain an average of five pounds for every diet they go on.

Wise man, I say (this review coming from a clinical psychologist, which, today, AOL revealed is the 22nd best job to have).

From Object to Subject

Feminist thought often fuels the way I think about women’s struggles with body image. Recently, it occurred to me that while men are appreciated for what they accomplish, women often find favor for how they appear. This certainly takes its toll in the way we feel about our bodies.

Men DO. Women ARE.

It seems to me that an important goal here would be to make the transition from body as object to body as subject—in other words, to figure out: What can your body DO?

Mine can:
1) Run, bike, and swim
2) Carry 10 bags of groceries from the car to the house in one trip
3) Hug you
4) Dance (for hours at a time)
5) Climb mountains
6) Revel in the warm sun after an ocean dip
7) Since I live in NYC, serve as my mode of transportation
8) Produce other bodies
9) (Egged on by a mind that makes dangerous, but exhilarating, decisions), rappel, zip-line, parasail, and fly on the trapeze

The more you think about what your body can DO, the less time you have to focus on its shape, it’s size, or simply how it IS.

What can your body DO?

More on Kirstie Alley

Ms. Alley recently revealed that her weight loss has helped her to become a better mother. If, in fact you’ve been questioning your parenting skills, clearly you just need to drop some pounds. To celebrate her weight loss, Ms. Alley intends to visit the Oprah show. . . in a bikini.

I’m saddened that Oprah, who’s obviously struggled with her own body image issues over the years, is choosing to showcase Ms. Alley in this fashion. Although, I guess I shouldn’t expect any different from a woman who, several months ago, aired a show revealing even young children’s body image concerns, interspersed with commercials for Jenny Craig, L.A. Weight Loss, and Ritz 100-Calorie Snacks. I wrote the show (via web site) about the mixed messages, but received no response. Now that I think about it, I’m sure Ms. Alley’s Oprah visit is simply Jenny Craig’s idea of creative product placement.

Should Ms. Alley visit the Oprah show to talk about her next project? Sure! Might she visit to reveal how losing weight has helped her to feel healthier and get less winded when playing with her children? Of course! But, why are these two women colluding to further the notion that the superficial features of a woman’s weight loss are the most important aspects of her being? Ms. Alley should have worn a bikini on the Oprah show at her heaviest weight. Now, that would have been respectable.

In a recent issue of People magazine, Alley indicates, “I'm not emphasizing 'Thin is good.' I'm trying to teach my kids that you can't judge yourself on what other people think and that getting into a size 2 Chanel skirt isn't the be-all-end-all of life."

Of course it’s not. Wearing a bikini on national television is.

Geneen Roth Workshop Notes

This past weekend, I attended Geneen Roth’s “Take Back Your Life” workshop, which I highly anticipated after reading most of her work. The title was intriguing enough—I wondered who had taken my life and if I really wanted it back, for that matter.

About 200 (mostly) women piled into a large banquet hall, whose walls were covered with Pictionary-style paper, offering sentence completion exercises. Throughout the conference, women were able to add their associations to such leads as:

If I ate whatever I wanted. . .
Thin people. . .
Fat people. . .
I am keeping myself deprived by. . .
In the cafeteria of life, I. . .

Geneen began with (and came back to several times) the premise that “You eat the way you live.” In this way, food and your intake (or lack thereof) is a clear metaphor for the way you live your life. What do you deserve? What are your thoughts about abundance and pleasure and entitlement? With the help of some colleagues, she’s categorized all “emotional eaters” into two groups: restrictors and permitters.

According to Geneen, restrictors are those who like rules/structure, and fare pretty well on diets (at least for a while). They are typically able to recite the calorie/carbohydrate/etc. count of most foods they ingest, and their deprivation-driven motto is, “Less is more.” Permitters, on the other hand, detest/rebel against rules (including diets) and often “go past their hunger as a way of merging with chaos.” They allow, but they allow too much.

Which type resonates with you?

As Geneen correctly indicated, both are defense mechanisms, which we use to protect us from difficult feelings. And both are demonstrative of how you are in other parts of your life. As she describes it, “Your relationship with food is a doorway,” and examining this relationship can give insight into other struggles you have.

Most of Geneen’s work has focused on overeating, which she encourages us to meet with a kind and curious inquiry. Hmm. . . I wonder why I just ate beyond the point of fullness. I guess something must be bothering me—what could it be? Often, this is not our default reaction following a binge—instead, we judge, criticize, shame, reject, and promise (or threaten) to be “better” tomorrow. In this way, “We treat ourselves exactly the way we’ve been treated” in the past.

Early on in the conference, we divided into groups of four (all strangers) and were asked to tell our individual stories about food and our weight. I went last. It’s a powerful thing, having to summarize your entire history regarding eating and your body in just a few moments. . . and with people you’ve never met. Geneen’s personal history includes over 1000 pounds gained and lost (via dieting and bingeing) over the years and a bout of anorexia, in which her weight plummeted to 82 pounds, followed by a rebound weight-gain of 80 pounds in just two months.

Geneen’s eating philosophy is her personal variant of intuitive eating. Her seven eating guidelines include:
1) Eat when you are hungry.
2) Eat sitting down in a calm environment. This does not include the car.
3) Eat without distractions. Distractions include: radio, television, newspapers, books, intense or anxiety-producing conversations, and music.
4) Eat only what your body wants.
5) Eat until you are satisfied.
6) Eat (with the intention of being) in full view of others.
7) Eat with enjoyment, gusto, and pleasure.

At one point, we divided into groups of six and discussed the guidelines and why each might be difficult to employ. I’m comfortable with numbers 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7, though find myself arguing 2 and 3. Sometimes you get hungry. . . and you’re in the car (or another not-so-calm environment), and it’s my belief that to deprive yourself of food just because of the environment you’re in, conflicts with #1.

I also get stuck on #3. I’m not sure why it’s kosher to dine with family/friends, but not to sit down to eat with the radio or television on. I think, if you have to eat alone, doing so without any kind of background noise feels like punishment. It feels like a diet. Perhaps mindful eating can be approached less rigidly, by coming in and out of mindfulness, checking in with yourself periodically as you eat (“How is this tasting?” “Am I satisfied, yet?”) the same way you’d do when eating with company. I understand that eating should ideally be a calm, focused experience, but this isn’t life (or, at least, my life), and so for me, these guidelines feel a bit too rigid, at least in the way I conceptualize “making peace with food.”

Speaking of mindful eating, we did an eating exercise together. All 200 guests received a small paper cup containing a raisin, a tortilla chip, and a Hershey’s Kiss. Beginning with the raisin (and ending with the Kiss), we took the item out of the cup, held it up to the light, rolled it between our thumb and index finger, smelled it, rubbed it against our lips, sucked on it, chewed it, and eventually swallowed it. I mentioned to a friend that the workshop should be subtitled, “How to Make Love to a Raisin.” It was an interesting, and somewhat frustrating, exercise that came with an interesting moral. Geneen noted that so often (especially when we’re snacking or bingeing), each bite (or chip or piece of chocolate) only serves as a prelude to the next. Increasing awareness will likely return the focus to the present and break the spell, but it does so, I think, at the expense of interrupting the calming disassociation of overeating, thereby returning you to the very feelings you’re trying to avoid. If this were easy, you probably wouldn’t be turning to food in the first place.

Geneen spent a lot of time talking about feelings, attempting to locate feelings in the body, and recognizing, that while notable, feelings are not more powerful than we are. “When you inhabit a feeling, the paradox is that it opens and changes,” she says. It reminds me of behavioral psychology—so often, we avoid difficult feelings, and in this way, they actually gain momentum and power over us. To embrace the feeling, to expose ourselves to it, is actually what allows the feeling to defuse.

Other quotables:
“When we began eating emotionally, it was for exquisitely good reasons.”

“Diets, when they’re based on force, or the conviction that you have to change/restrict yourself do not work.”

“No change ever happens by force, guilt, shame, or punishment.”

“We live our lives following instructions from people in our history that we wouldn’t ask for street directions today.”

“If the goal of human life really is just to lose weight (or be thinner) and this is why we live our lives, we would not get to the end of our lives and leave our bodies behind.”

Overall, I enjoyed the conference, but think I would have been more moved had I not already read her books—I can see how coming across her principles for the first time in person could be an immensely powerful experience. Many of the women communicated that this was their last hope, that they were desperate, frightened, and sad. There were lots of therapists there, some food people (nutritionist/dietician types), thin people, fat people, and many who publicly admitted personal struggles with self-esteem, love, depression, parents, and life. I love Geneen’s focus on feelings (instead of weight). As she said, “It’s really easy to lose weight,” and if this were all you wanted to do, you could go on a diet and lose the weight. But, it doesn’t address the reasons that you’re overeating, and you’re likely to end up in the exact same place again. About her own process, she stated, “I wasn’t suffering because I was fat; I was fat because I was suffering.” Ultimately, I think the road to “making peace with food” is a uniquely individual one, and Geneen’s work, while not entirely palatable to me, has certainly contributed to the way I approach eating/body image issues both personally and professionally, and I enjoyed the opportunity to see her and to surround myself with women on the verge of discovery.

The Road to American Idol

American Idol finalist Katharine McPhee, 22, recently went public with her struggle with bulimia. According to People magazine, Ms. McPhee has a history of bingeing, self-induced starvation and vomiting, as well as excessive exercise, beginning at age 17. After auditioning for Idol, she sought treatment at the Los Angeles Eating Disorder Center of California and now discusses her disorder in the past tense.

I’m so happy that Ms. McPhee has recovered from her illness and, even more so, that she’s willing to share with the public the depths of her disease. I do, however, have one small bone to pick.

Since her appearance on the show, Ms. McPhee has lost 30 pounds due to some variation of an “intuitive eating” approach, as reported by People. Interestingly, these types of approaches are the exact ones I espouse—eating what you want, when you want, and not depriving yourself. (See, it does lead to weight loss!)

But, it summarizes perfectly the dilemma I have regarding the work that I do. I realize that what people most want to hear (and what sells best) is how to lose weight. Even if I think the approach is healthier than a diet or, certainly, a disordered-eating ritual, the goal is still to help you shrink your size.

But, is this it?

Is this the ultimate goal, or should there be a larger and more psychologically adaptive one (the therapist in me is shrieking, “Yes, yes!”) that allows you to accept yourself for who you are, no matter what your size or what the scale reads?

There’s a part of me that wishes Ms. McPhee could have exited treatment and retained the 30 pounds. Wouldn’t that have represented a larger challenge, to give up her bingeing and purging as coping resources and become comfortable with who she was? Instead, the message seems to be that if you treat your bulimia, you can lose weight (which may happen), not that if you treat your eating disorder, you’ll improve your physical and psychological health and be a better person because of it. Ms. McPhee is a role model for girls and women around this country and, likely, beyond. Recovering from an illness and promoting self-acceptance at any weight would make her the greatest idol, yet.

Nestle and Jenny Craig: A Match Made in Heaven

If you haven’t yet heard, Nestle recently purchased Jenny Craig Inc. to the tune of $600 million (no, this is not a joke). What a perfect time for a post on what I call the “diet-world dichotomies.” We’re all familiar with the edible incarnations of good versus evil (carrot good, ice cream bad), on-plan versus off-plan (Monday versus weekends), and a host of other black-and-white depictions that define the diet world.

But, each extreme occurs only in relation to the other—diet Monday occurs after overeating weekend. Overeating weekend follows diet week. I’m reminded of one of main tenets espoused by Geneen Roth: “For every diet, there is an equal and opposite binge.” Call it Newton’s fourth law of (e)motion. It’s a cycle that fuels itself.

To add a psychological touch to this concept, I believe we are always acting out some part of the impulsive-compulsive spectrum. When we’re impulsive, we overeat, and when we’re compulsive, we restrict. As with most things, freedom from the struggle lies with moderation, a concept which Nestle will likely overlook.. It’s as if their marketing team will now cheer on your chocolate consumption, “More, more, more. . . oops, too much. . . go to Jenny Craig!” And, when you tire of/fail at Jenny Craig, which you inevitably will, there's a road paved with chocolate just ahead.

It’s an age-old battle:

Impulsive vs. compulsive
Id vs. superego
Jean Valjean vs. Inspector Javert

And, in its latest acquisition, Nestle has purchased the rights to the impulsive-compulsive spectrum. It has, as assets, the entire continuum of human behavior, related to food. Not bad for 600 million.

Less Than a Forkful

In US Weekly’s (via Life & Style) “How She Got So Thin” feature, describing Mariah Carey’s recent 32-pound weight-loss, staff writers encourage us to “Steal Mariah’s Mini-meal Menu.”

Mini-meals sound like a wonderful idea, unless, or course, they’re got the Carey spin: “I kind of invented it. . . . Basically you can have a tiny bit of everything you want—but it has to be less than a forkful.”

Less than a forkful?

I’m not going to steal her mini-meals. I’m going to steal her a plate, so that along with her fork, she can eat a decent-sized portion like the rest of us.

In all seriousness, my concern is that tips like this encourage disordered eating. Eating less than a forkful is a restrictive, compulsive way of enjoying one’s food. What starts out as a “diet secret” can easily morph into an eating disorder, as most e.d. sufferers will tell you. Typically, a disorder does not spring from out of the blue, but often results from a slow, insidious process that began with an “innocent” diet. Many eating disorder stories begin with some variation of, “I went on my first diet at nine years old.” Beginning with a diet that encourages eating less than a forkful of food is one sure way to hasten this process.

Hunger Pains

Ever think about your first thought following a hunger pang?

I can’t be hungry—I just ate.
I shouldn’t have any more calories today.
Fuck.

How about your first feeling?

Worry.
Anger.
Despair.

I invite you to experiment with honoring your hunger. This is your body working as it was designed to do, and this is you, receiving a message.

I may have eaten recently, but I guess I could use something else.
Rather than counting calories, I’m going to try to attend to my body’s signals and have that be my eating guide.
Woo-hoo!

It’s likely that you’ll eat more frequently throughout the day. It’s also likely that you’ll begin to eat less on each occasion. Because, with each “woo-hoo” experience, you’re learning to respect your hunger, which teaches you, among other things, how to respect your satiety.

Is Mother Nature Single Because She's Fat?

Not too long ago, Kirstie Alley signed on as the promotional spokesperson for Jenny Craig. I realize that I did not approach this ad campaign (and Ms. Alley’s involvement) with the greatest objectivity. Years ago, I remember reading that, as a Scientologist, Ms. Alley marched on Capitol Hill in protest of psychiatric medication. While I don’t prescribe medication and realize that everyone is entitled to her own opinion about its use, it worried me to think that people who might benefit from (or require) psychotropic medication might be swayed by Ms. Alley’s congressional protest.

Recently, her Jenny Craig commercial promotion features her slimmed down, dancing to the song, “It’s Raining Men.” The connotation here is simple—lose weight and attract men. A visit to the Jenny Craig corporate web site revealed:

The new campaign, which will launch nationally on December 26, 2005, continues to focus on Ms. Alley’s increased energy, Jenny Craig’s personalized program, and the wide variety of foods offered by Jenny Craig. The first commercial includes a splashy, music video-type dance production, in which Ms. Alley realizes her oft-expressed desire that her weight loss — and the associated boost in her self-confidence — will enhance her appeal to the opposite sex. She discovers that she’s not only finding men, but that “It’s Raining Men”! The ad concludes with a fanciful double somersault, a special effect that captures Ms. Alley’s new spirit. http://jennycraig.com/corporate/news/releases/122105.asp

I was wondering exactly how they might capture Kirstie’s “new spirit”—a double somersault! Of course!

It is possible that someone who loses 60-plus pounds may attract more male attention. It is also possible that a boost in self-confidence might be perceived as more attractive. But, of concern is the direct correlation posited here and the frightening alternative, which suggests that if you don’t lose weight (or you’re not thin enough), you won’t find love. It’s a message that, perhaps, as a consumer with an analytical eye, you can dispel and attempt to discard. But, imagine a little girl watching the same commercial—can she do the same? Or, will she internalize the concept that her weight will forever determine her plight with men?

Did You Gain Weight, or Are You Just Pregnant?

(Murphy's and Aniston's "pregnancy" photos)


I’m pregnant.

So, apparently, are all of you.

It seems that celebrity gossip columnists are perennially on the lookout for stars with a bump. In this usage, a “bump” constitutes any abdomen that is not concave in form. The latest victims? Jennifer Aniston and Brittany Murphy. File this under reasons to be grateful you’re not a celebrity. True, bump sightings sometimes result in real-life embryos, but in their zeal to predict celebrity reproduction, reporters often jump the gun, creating a baby out of a hearty meal, a form-fitting dress, or, heavens forbid, some additional weight.

It reminds me of last year, when Sandra Bullock responded to a reporter’s query about a possible pregnancy: “It’s called weight gain.” I just loved her “get over it” response.

It’s funny how (in real life) social graces encourage us to avoid the pregnancy question like the plague. Nothing could be worse than identifying a false positive. I remember visiting my veterinarian one day, thinking she was pregnant, but being too afraid to ask (for the slight chance she wasn’t). Finally, my curiosity got the best of me. She was eight months in. I think we’ll know our culture’s settled into a healthy place regarding weight and shape when we’re able to ask the pregnancy question as easily as any other—did you cut your hair? Were you out in the sun?—because the potential connotation of weight gain won’t be the dagger it is today.

Congratulations to all of you—I’m having, as you can probably guess from the size of my bump, twins.

Another Beeping Rewrite

Conversation #2:

(overheard on a street in Manhattan between a little girl, maybe 5- or 6-years-old, and her father)

“Daddy, I’m hungry.”

“Well, that’s a shame, since you had ample opportunity to eat earlier.”

The rewrite of Dad’s response:

“I’m sorry I couldn’t design an eating environment in sync with your internal signals. I recognize, though, that hunger (especially at your age, when emotional eating hasn’t had much time to develop) is largely a biological process and that, often, your hunger will not coincide with the meals we, as your parents, provide. It’s important, though, to continue to honor your hunger (lest you develop an eating disorder later on), and for this reason, I think we should get you something to eat (we’re on the streets of Manhattan—this can’t be too difficult a task). Looking ahead, I’ll make a note to always bring snacks along so that you don’t feel so hungry again. In the future, I promise to validate your experiences (both physiological and emotional) and to avoid use of such erudite phrases as “ample opportunity” until you’re at least nine or ten.”

Beep!

It’s amazing to me how frequently conversations about food and weight occur. Admittedly, I am more attuned to such talk nowadays, but I can barely get through a day without hearing women talk about what they should (not) be eating and how fat they feel.

I’m reminded of a roommate in college who studied education. As such, she was particularly sensitive to casual use of the word “retarded,” since to her, this was a psycho-educational designation, not a word to throw around when you meant “stupid” or “silly.” Every time someone slipped and used the r-word, (i.e., “That guy I met the other night was so retarded!”), she’d interrupt with a loud, “Beep!” It wasn’t long before I became conditioned and began to censor myself. In graduate school, as the professor of my psychopathology class discussed diagnostic criteria for mental retardation, all I could think of was, “Beep!”

I’m contemplating beeping conversations about food and body image, but I fear I’ll sound like a semi truck in reverse.

Recently, while standing in a restaurant entrance waiting for my party to join me for dinner one night, I overheard two women participate in the following exchange:

“Can we get spinach dip?”

“Yes! I’ve been really good lately.”

Instead of beeping these women, I immediately began to rewrite the dialogue:

“I’m in the mood for spinach dip. I realize I don’t need your permission to order some, but I’m wondering if you’d care to share it with me?”

“Sure! I’d love to. I’m aware that food choices really aren’t ‘good’ or ‘bad’ and that too often, intake is confused with morality. In addition, I’m in the mood for the dip not because I’ve been restricting and now feel deserving and not because I’ve been restricting and now feel rebellious, but because I’m simply in the mood for spinach dip.”

There. Much better.

Stages of Change

Prochaska & DiClemente’s (1983) Transtheoretical Model of Change proposes a theoretically rich sequence of stages involved in the process of behavioral change. In laymen’s terms, it’s a model that helps us understand how people make changes in their lives. The model predicts that there are five stages that people typically pass through:

1) Pre-contemplation: You have no intention of making a change, at least in the next six months or so.
2) Contemplation: You’re planning on making a change, sometime within the next six months. (Ready!)
3) Preparation: You’re going to make the change soon, sometime within in the next month. (Set!)
4) Action: You make the change. (Go!)
5) Maintenance: You continue to work on new behaviors and try to guard against relapse.

It’s a model that’s usually used when discussing health behaviors—getting rid of negative behaviors (cigarette smoking, alcohol/drug use) and integrating positive ones (exercising, using sunscreen). I think that we can easily apply this to our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors related to food and our bodies.

-Thinking about addressing your food restriction/obsession/compulsion?
-Willing to love yourself with 10, 20, etc. extra pounds?
-Do you want to give up the idea of dieting?
-Would you like to return food to its natural role (as sustenance) and remove its powers to alternately calm you down and stir up anxiety?
-Are you ready to accept your body the way it is right now?

Where are you?

And, what allows you to prepare for action? In my experience, it’s being fed up (no pun intended) with the alternative—thinking about food/what you’ll eat/your weight uncontrollably, compulsively eating/exercising/weighing yourself, and generally despising your body and yourself.

In a body image workshop I led a couple of years ago, one participant spoke about her self-hatred as a painful, but necessary process. She alluded to the fact that if she were to stop hating herself, she’d let herself go and, consequently, gain weight. The potential illogic of her argument aside, it was clear that in her case, her self-hatred was not as painful as the possibility of gaining some weight. When it does become painful, when it becomes absolutely unbearable, and when you realize that there’s so much more to you than what you eat and what you weigh, you might be ready to move.

Too Big to Be a Housewife

Former ER star, Alex Kingston, recently reported that she auditioned for the part of Desperate Housewives’, Lynette Scavo, but was rejected due to her size. Kingston revealed to the London Evening Standard: “I didn't get the part, and I know why: irrespective of acting ability, I'm just way too big.” Kingston goes on to say, “It drives me crazy; it's encouraging women to feel guilty about not looking like that.”

So, instead, the show selected Felicity Huffman, a talented actress, who, with a self-reported history of bulimia, more aptly fit the bill. This is, after all, an ensemble where Nicolette Sheridan might, bizarrely enough, be known as “The Fat One” and where Teri Hatcher’s gaunt-looking frame is camouflaged perfectly on Wisteria Lane.

No Really, Do I?

Do I look fat in this? It’s one of the oldest questions in the book. It also, now, happens to be a book, penned by Jessica Weiner, whom I met at a conference several months ago.

As most recipients of this question can attest, there’s really no right answer. As a woman, what answer do you want to hear?

“No, you look fine.”

“Well, it’s not your most flattering outfit.”

Honesty or diplomacy? Fact or tact?

A social psychology theory, self-verification theory, gives us a hint. It posits that we actively seek out information consistent with our self-concept, the ideas we already have about ourselves. It explains why we might want “the truth” (according to us), even if it hurts. Incidentally, the theory also provides insight into self-mutilation, remaining with an abusive partner, and Stockholm syndrome.

We’re looking for confirmation, not affirmation.

If I believe I look fat, I urge you to join me, to see me how I do.

I’d rather feel right than good.

A Call to Arms

Around the time of Katie Couric’s departure from The Today Show, a disc jockey at NYC’s 92.3 FM spoke about the famous co-host, making repeated mention of Couric’s “fat arms.”

I’d imagine that as broadcast journalists, DJs would admire Couric’s assent to the pinnacle of her field. For the first time in American history, a woman is poised to become the solo anchor of a primetime news program, and we’re talking about her body, or rather, the one thing that’s (arguably) wrong with her body.

Maybe you don’t like her interviewing style. Maybe you disagree with her politics. Maybe you think she’s just not that entertaining. Feel free to comment on any of these. But, please, leave her arms alone.

Feast or Famine?

Meet Callie, my canine love.

You could learn a lot from a dog about eating and appetite.

Well, not my dog. As many of you dog lovers know, you have a choice when it comes to feeding your pooch—you can go with regular meals or allow the dog to free feed, meaning she has constant access to food.

Callie’s on a meal plan—she eats two meals a day. She’s a healthy weight, but outside of mealtime, you’d think she was slowly starving to death. Luckily for her, the sidewalks of Manhattan provide ample opportunity for her to indulge her cravings. Despite my best efforts at leash control, Callie has dined on pizza, soft pretzels, French bread, and, on occasion, a whole chicken discarded outside a restaurant. She’ll even, outside the local bars, mop up vomit from the night before. I know, I must be so proud. . . .

If Callie were to free feed (and, at this point it may be too late, and I’m not really trying to cure her of an eating disorder), her food dish would remain full, and she’d graze throughout the day—a bite here, a nibble there, maybe even a full meal in the morning or after some rigorous play. Because the food would always be available, she wouldn’t feel the need to so desperately scavenge the sidewalk gutters. She’d follow her appetite, instead of relying on the external cues of mealtimes. She’d likely be less anxious and obsessive around food.

As a human, you may restrict your intake to designated mealtimes, and to certain foods at that (the hallmark of the diet). As a result, cravings develop and bingeing becomes your way of guaranteeing satisfaction within the realm of these restrictions. If you’re to remove the restrictions and free feed, the likelihood is (after some adjustment time), you’ll learn to follow your appetite, eat when you are hungry, and stop when you are full. . . because you’ll know that the food will always be there, and you won’t have to scramble on the sidewalk to retrieve it.

Weighing In: My Lunchtime Field Trip to a Weight Watchers Meeting

As some of you know, I’m a big proponent of the anti-diet movement. Weight Watchers, as flexible as the plan may be, still, in my mind, constitutes a diet. Before issuing my official stance on WW, however, I decided to attend a meeting.

A little bit of background: I was first introduced to WW through clients who’ve enrolled throughout the years. About five years ago, a client described her adherence to a WW food plan, as I listened intently:

“I get 24 points a day.”

“How many points are in a slice of pizza?” I asked, thinking of the smaller size slices typical of Domino’s, or Papa John’s, that I regularly enjoyed.

“8.”

“Oh. . . So, what if you happen to have three slices of pizza for lunch?”

“That’s it.”

“You can’t eat the rest of the day?”

“Not technically.”

I began to think about the program’s restrictions and its tendency to promote alternate episodes of bingeing and fasting. Personally, I like to conceptualize what I eat as food, not points, and I can’t bear the possibility of restrictions. I’m the kind of person who, when visiting some friends in Ventura, CA and learning that there were no public bathrooms (I’m still perplexed!) immediately had to pee. Tell me not to eat, and you’d better clear the trajectory between the bag of Twizzlers and my mouth.

Nevertheless, I didn’t pursue a research degree for nothing, so it was only fair to gather some background data before I published my conclusions. This is how I ended up at a Manhattan WW meeting last week.

Just before noon, I entered the building and climbed the steps to the second floor, which opened to the meeting itself. The first thing I saw? The scales. (Cue the score to Jaws.) As those of you who know me are aware, I don’t believe in scales.

I completed a registration form and took my place on line. The card asked for my address. In anticipation of the upcoming, frequent mailings, I wondered, “What will the mailman think?” For the record, I’ve never before pondered the intricacies of my mail carrier’s mind. The form also inquired about any “disability” I might have that would require special consideration. I thought about the scales that lined the reception area. Yes, in fact, I have a condition that requires people to treat me with dignity and respect. It’s quite disabling. I also had to sign a waiver of damages, indicating that I would not hold WW responsible for any adverse health consequences. What, exactly, were they planning to do to me?

At the front of the line, I greeted the lady behind the counter, handed her my card, and stated that I was here to try out a meeting.

“$13, please.”

“Oh, I thought the first meeting was free.”

“No, it’s $13.”

“But, on the web site, it said the first meeting was free.”

“I’m not sure where you saw that.”

Probably on the specific web page entitled, “Visit a Weight Watchers Meeting for Free!” (See for yourself: http://www.weightwatchers.com/beourguest/index.aspx)

I scrounged through my bag for $13 and handed it to her, intent on not causing a scene, in a place where I’m already. . . out-of-place.

“How tall are you,” she asked.

“5’6.”

“Ok, now, put down your bag, take off your shoes, and step on the scale.”

“Oh, I really don’t want to be weighed.” (part defiance, part personal philosophy)

“You have to be weighed. You don’t have to look, and I won’t tell you, but you have to be weighed in order to register.”

“Oh, you see, I don’t want to register. I just want to try out a meeting.”

She threw my $13 on the counter and said, “See me at the end if you’re interested in joining.”

Not off to such a good start.

I take a seat and survey the room. I notice a man from my gym. Terrific. What catches my attention is the preponderance of already-thin women. I wonder if they’re WW success stories, or if they’re just starting out, New York City’s take on “overweight.” Diaries, food planners, and boxes of Pretzel Thins, Smoothies, and Mini-Bars line the shelves that occupy the room’s perimeter. An older woman seated in front of me has a banana and a Diet Coke. (Lunch?) I later learn she’s been on the program for 40 years. 40 years?! I debate whether I’d rather go to WW or wander the desert for 40 years.

The meeting is facilitated by a woman I’ll call “Marilyn.” She’s 60-ish, and I believe she’s had work done on her face. Marilyn begins the discussion by focusing on “lapses,” when WW members fall off the wagon and eat in excess of their points. She mentions the tendency to overeat once you’ve already lapsed, rationalizing, “I’ll never be thin, anyway.” Her analysis is consistent with a cognitive therapy approach and focuses on the thought distortion known as “black-and-white” thinking. Nice work, Marilyn.

Marilyn continues by querying why a lapse occurs. People volunteer: stress, illness, missing meetings, attending dinner parties/special events. As solutions, members reiterate their commitment to plan their meals, come to meetings, and use their extra points. Marilyn also asks the group about their “last-straw incident,” the final push that brought them to WW (e.g., seeing themselves in a photo, doctor’s advice). She transitions to other ways people might handle their emotions, rather than reaching for food. Members offer: exercise, reading, talking to a friend. Here, Marilyn focuses on enhancing coping resources and self-soothing techniques. Not bad. Later on, she returns to the experience of emotions and, capturing the omnipresent legitimacy of what you feel, states, “You can’t take a feeling away from somebody.” That’s right.

Throughout the meeting, various members share their stories. Following one, Marilyn praises, “That’s a little bravo!” She hands out stickers as positive reinforcement. I suppose candy is out of the question. I don’t know what the stickers said. I didn’t get one.

It seems that in order to qualify for what’s called “lifetime membership,” you’re supposed to weigh below a certain amount. Marilyn points out that if there’s a bona fide reason you’re unable to attain this goal, “You can get a doctor’s note and Weight Watchers will accept that.” At one point, Marilyn notes, “Having a plan like this makes you feel happy.” I can understand secure, hopeful, in control, but I’m not sure I get “happy.”

Inadvertently, I learn a little bit about the food plan. It seems that, daily, you’re allowed two milks, two teaspoons of oil, five fruits, unlimited vegetables (mostly), a limited amount of grains and proteins at every meal, and “3-4 points a day for goodies.” I learn how to use “pointing” as a verb and that it has nothing to do with my index finger.

One woman reveals that following a meeting last week, she left and “immediately went out” and “was bad.” To me, there’s no such thing as “bad,” unless you’re hurting someone else, and it’s frustrating how commonly morality’s intertwined with food. I can, however, understand the need to rebel, particularly following a weigh-in (with consequent shame) and a discussion on restriction.

Marilyn closes the meeting by offering, “Think where you don’t want to be again and where you want to go.”

My answers arrive without pause (“here” and “home”), though, surprisingly, I’m not opposed to the program in its entirety. It seems to offer a bare bones approach to healthy eating, provides social support, incorporates a number of sound psychological principles, and is less restrictive than most diets I know. Still, it is a diet, forces (I believe) a fixation on counting and planning, and in its (even flexible) restrictions, can’t help but arouse rebellion—I’m not surprised when I hear how various members have yo-yoed as a result. Oh, and the scales? They really gotta go. . . .

Speaking of Celebrities. . .

As I was reading up on Jamie-Lynn Sigler, I came across this site:

Holding onto an Eating Disorder

One of the things that separates eating disorders from other diagnostic categories is their relative allure--while depression, anxiety, and psychosis, for example, are typically painful, intolerable states, driving people into treatment rather willingly, many who have eating problems are reluctant to seek help. If a friend had entered a depressive episode, I'd have no problem discussing it with her, recommending treatment, etc. It's a little bit different with an eating disorder. I'd probably dance around the topic (yes, this has happened several times before, particularly during my college days, when I first became exposed to the ubiquity of eating disorders), fear that the conversation might jeopardize our friendship, and proceed with calculated caution.

Eating disorders (and, by this, I mean, the clincal conditions of anorexia and bulimia, as well as the omnipresent sub-clinical manifestations of food/weight fixation. . . which, may also meet criteria for other diagnoses, such as Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified and Body Dysmorphic Disorder), in this way, look more like alcoholism and substance abuse, than other mental illnesses. Efforts at confrontation are often dismissed or met with failure.

So, why would a woman be so consumed with holding onto her eating disorder? Surely, having an eating problem is not a comfortable way of being in the world. (For just how uncomfortable anorexia can be, read Marya Hornbacher's, Wasted. The author, through her personal memoir, rips every little last ounce of glamour from an eating disorder and hangs it out to dry.)

What comes to mind is the psychological distinction between ego-syntonic versus ego-dystonic conditions. An ego-syntonic disorder is viewed as somehow acceptable and compatible with one's overall self-concept. Ego-dystonic conditions, on the other hand, are behavioral constellations that are inconsistent with your general views about yourself.

Despite the intense pain, secrecy, and obessive quality associated with an eating problem, it's basically ego-syntonic, consistent with a self-image that is negative, punishing, and often quite empty. While treating the eating problem on its own likely will not be met with success, addressing self-esteem concerns may allow a woman to arrive at a place where her eating disorder becomes obsolete.

Choices

In The Body Image Workbook: An 8-Step Program for Learning to Like Your Looks, Thomas Cash discusses 10 arguable "appearance assumptions" that lead to problems with body image:

1) Physically attractive people have it all.
2) The first thing that people will notice about me is what's wrong with my appearance.
3) One's outward physical appearance is a sign of the inner person.
4) If I could look just as I wish, my life would be much happier.
5) If people knew how I really look, they would like me less.
6) By controlling my appearance, I can control my social and emotional life.
7) My appearance is responsible for much of what has happened to me in my life.
8) I should always do whatever I can to look my best.
9) The media's messages makes it impossible for me to satisfied with my appearance.
10)The only way I could ever like my looks would be to change them.

How many of these statements do you endorse?

With the help of Dr. Cash, I'm available to argue them all, but for now, I'd like to focus on #s 9 and 10. I've been writing a lot lately about the media's messages and how they affect how we feel about ourselves. I think #9 is partially true, but the sticking point is the word "impossible." Difficult? Frustrating? Hard to master? YES! But, it's not impossible. Mastering #9 ultimately requires a shift from desire (to emulate Hollywood) to anger (about the unnatural portrayal of women's bodies in the media). It starts with awareness, questioning, and a healthy dose of outrage.

With regard to #10, I flash back to another therapist's question I heard years ago. If you're dissatisfied with your body, which would be easier--to lose weight or to work on your dissatisfaction? Well, clearly, if the first option were easy, you would have done it already. The second, too, may seem impossible (and likely, undesirable), from where you are. But, this is it. These are your two options.

One will last you in the long-run. One will help you pass on body-positive images to your children. One will move you from a place of self-hatred, anger, and depression, to a warmer, happier place. One will not.

Letter from a Fan

Dear E! Entertainment Television,

I've watched The Girls Next Door.

I've watched The Gastineau Girls.

I even watched (readers, please feel free to click the "next blog" icon at the top of your browser now). . . Taradise.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm a loyal viewer, and I'm hoping you'll give this some thought. 101 Celebrity Slimdowns--professionally, I have some doubts, but as a consumer, I get it. We love to see how stars got skinny, the before-and-after shots, the glamour of it all. It's entertaining. It's good television.

Sure, we might quibble over some finer points (like how thin Jennifer Aniston should be), but I'm willing to choose my battles. I'll even let the comedienne's bulimia joke fly. That's the kind of loving fan I am.

But. . .

Could you please remove Jamie-Lynn Sigler from the list?

Ms. Sigler (#50 on your list) has publicly admitted she suffered from an eating disorder. In fact, she's now a spokesperson for the National Eating Disorders Association and doing her best to help others in a similar place.

The other celebrities on your countdown? Sure, they, too, might have their own eating disorders. But, that's ultimately speculation. This is not.

Please do not celebrate the mental illness of a star.

Sincerely,
drstaceyny

And This Is the Healthy Twin

Meet Ashley Olsen, one of your children's new health ambassadors.

It seems that Ashley and Mary Kate may soon be delivering messages about healthy eating and exercise to the 4-5-year-old set.

Despite the obvious concerns about the smoking, drinking, eating disordered (though, she did get help) twins preaching health, I wonder how the media and culture's current fixation on health and diet will affect these kids, say 10 years down the road. I mean, most of us struggle with ideas about food and weight--and we were raised in an era where the most rigid guideline against unhealthy eating was the food pyramid!

Now, children are encouraged to work out (I recently saw a Curves outpost that advertised, "Bring your daughter for free this summer!"), schools are including children's B.M.I.'s on their report cards, and a cookie is "a sometimes food."

I understand that childhood obesity is of epidemic proportions. And, I certainly understand the benefits of teaching good nutrition and encouraging active lifestyles. But, I shudder to think about the projected incidence of eating disorders given the frequency and urgency of these early messages.

Baby Weight

A friend's infant recently had trouble keeping food down. Failing to gain weight, she was diagnosed with gastro-intestinal reflux disease and eventually prescribed medication. As the medicine started to take its effect, the baby held on to her meals and began to gain weight, and celebrations of her newfound pudge ensued.

I realized that this is the last time in this girl's life that we'll delight in her weight. Too soon, any excess poundage will be accompanied by frowns, pity, and prescriptions to take it off. When she starts school, we'll tell her that she'll make friends a little more easily, and get teased a little less frequently, if she just loses some weight. As she gets older, we'll insist that if she diets, she'll have the boy/guy/man of her dreams. And, throughout her life, we'll note that she's just five pounds away from feeling better about herself.

And I wonder, if we'll ever remember the time when we reveled in the chubbiness of her infant thighs.

Would You Buy This?

A friend alerted me to the work of Sarah Jane Sikora, a British artist whose paintings and sculptures focus on large women. As my amateur photography may obscure, the piece above is entitled, "Biscuit Baiting." Below, a woman pays a visit to her refridgerator late night, and a gentleman from inside, ostensibly her husband, wards her away with a sign that reads, "Go back to bed, Muriel!"



On the web site for Regent Galleries, the gallery that shows Ms. Sikora's work, the artist writes: "Sometimes I am responding to social issues. For example much of my work has focused on turning around the negative relationship, that women, in particular have with their bodies thanks to the media presenting perfect airbrushed models for us to live up to."

Thus, similar to the way African-Americans may try to reclaim the "N-word," Ms. Sikora's work aims to reclaim the concept of fat and to challenge negative internalizations of body image. Unfortunately, I see her work (or at least, some of it) as shaming, critical, and sad. What may have originated as good intention has translated into culturally sanctioned fatttism, not to mention, a rather contentious gift.

You be the judge.

Destiny's Diet

In US Weekly magazine’s “Hottest Bodies at Every Age” feature, Beyonce Knowles occupies one of the 20-something slots. Ms. Knowles, 24, reports how she recently lost 20 pounds to star in the upcoming feature, Dreamgirls: “I literally fasted. I drank a drink that gave m all the vitamins I needed, and I didn’t eat for 14 days and then I just drank protein
shakes. . . . It’s not healthy but it was necessary.”

Beyonce!

This, from the girl, who along with Jennifer Lopez and Mariah Carey, ushered in a brief, but now defunct, period of female-body acceptance, where (moderate) curves were lauded, in lieu of the form of the waif.

At first, I was disappointed—the last thing we need is to be highlighting and promoting unhealthy, unnatural ways of losing weight. On the other hand, at least it’s honest. Too often, we’re exposed to unrealistic and incomplete messages about how to be thin (see the same issue’s report of Janet Jackson’s recent weight loss, “I take off weight very quickly. I’m very fortunate that way.”) Like most of us would have to do, Beyonce has to starve herself in order to look like the movie star she is.

And, by the way, why was a 20-pound weight-loss to play a member of another girl group, “necessary”?

Road Trip?

In Wodaabe culture (a West African tribe), it’s male beauty that takes the stage. Here, in a seasonal pageant, aided by costumes, make-up, and body-painting, Wodaabe men compete for the honor of most beautiful man, and in a reversal from our own culture, it’s the women who judge.

Did You Know?

When I’ve lectured about eating disorders in the past, one item that tends to surprise people has to do with bulimia. Now, because of our growing fascination with pop psychology, as well as the media’s love for stars who suffer, most people are vaguely familiar with this disorder. In sum, bulimia translates to binge and purge.

But, the sticking point here has to do with the word, “purge.” The most commonly mentioned methods of purging, or compensating for bingeing, include vomiting and laxative use. However, other compensatory mechanisms included as part of the diagnostic criteria are: use of diuretics/enemas, food restriction, and excessive exercise (for full criteria for bulimia, see below).

That is, even if you’re bingeing without vomiting or using laxative/diuretics or overexercising, you might still meet criteria for bulimia, as long as your binges are followed by periods of fasting/food restriction. This is, “I ate so much—I’m not going to eat again until tomorrow” gone bad.

With a diagnosis not as cut and dry as previously thought (now claims of, “I’m not bulimic—I don’t throw-up” warrant a second look), I wonder how many more people fit the bill. And, in my argument that eating problems exist along a continuum, the possibility of a non-purging bulimia adds yet another shade of grey.


(from the DSM-IV TR, the diagnostic manual of mental disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association)

A. Recurrent episodes of binge eating. An episode of binge eating is characterized by
both of the following:
1. eating, in a discrete period of time (e.g., within any 2-hour period), an amount of food that is definitely larger than most people would eat during a similar period of time and under similar circumstances
2. a sense of lack of control over eating during the episode (e.g., a feeling that one cannot stop eating or control what or how much one is eating)

B. Recurrent inappropriate compensatory behavior in order to prevent weight gain, such as self-induced vomiting; misuse of laxatives, diuretics, enemas, or other medications; fasting; or excessive exercise.

C. The binge eating and inappropriate compensatory behaviors both occur, on average, at least twice a week for 3 months.

D. Self-evaluation is unduly influenced by body shape and weight.

E. The disturbance does not occur exclusively during episodes of Anorexia Nervosa.

Specify type:
Purging Type: during the current episode of Bulimia Nervosa, the person has regularly engaged in self-induced vomiting or the misuse of laxatives, diuretics, or enemas
Nonpurging Type: during the current episode of Bulimia Nervosa, the person has used other inappropriate compensatory behaviors, such as fasting or excessive exercise, but has not regularly engaged in self-induced vomiting or the misuse of laxatives, diuretics, or enemas.

Controversy

I was leaving Dunkin Donuts the other day, as the woman behind me ordered her coffee with Splenda. I began to think how our behavior sends constant messages to ourselves (sometimes consciously, sometimes not) and how these frequent messages add up.

Choosing Splenda or Sweet & Low or NutraSweet over sugar translates to, “I don’t deserve what I want, what I like, or what is available to me. I will settle for second best.”

Refusing to bring certain food items into your home (especially those you crave), or to have just a couple of cookies (because that would mean you wouldn’t stop) communicates, “I don’t trust myself.”

And exercising to the point of discomfort, pushing yourself when you’re tired, sick, or plain, just don’t want to, communicates, “I deserve to be uncomfortable and to be punished.”

Now, I know some people may prefer sugar substitutes, either for taste or the fact that they preserve their caloric intakes and their teeth. But, I’d argue that the taste is conditioned, the long-term carcinogenic properties of these substances still largely unknown, and the message that you’re sending to yourself the most dangerous of all. And I know that access to certain foods can lead to overeating—but doesn’t that just raise the need to address why that’s happening? And, finally, I know that sometimes, exercise can be enjoyable, but not when you’re tired or weak or pushing yourself beyond what your body is willing to give.

I don’t deserve what I want. I can’t trust myself. I need to be punished.

Repeat over and over—your self-esteem doesn’t stand a chance.

So, choose regular over diet, invite a bag of potato chips into your home, and skip the gym. In the long-run, I think you’ll end up eating less, enjoying more—because you’ll believe you’re worth it.

Cellulite, It Is

Ever think about liposuction? It’s amazing to me how many beautiful women have. I’ve always countered their thoughts by reciting to them the side effect that stings most—that liposuction, followed by any degree of weight gain, results in the weight traveling to heretofore unconquered regions—your back, your knees, your face. The fat will not return to your hips, your stomach, your thighs, but it will go somewhere, possibly somewhere even less acceptable to you than the biologically and evolutionarily intelligent places it started out.

I’ll choose an hourglass shape over a distorted one, any day. As a woman, your fat belongs where it is, not as an accessory to your ulna.

And then, I came across http://www.liposuction.com/, which lists the following adverse side effects, also associated with the procedure.

-Pulmonary thromboembolism (a blood clot in the lung)
-Infection
-Intra-Abdominal Perforation with Visceral Injury
-Hematoma or Seroma
-Nerve Damage
-Swelling or Edema
-Skin Necrosis
-Pulmonary Edema
-Adverse Drug Reactions (Toxicity or Allergic Reactions)
-Death

And people are still signing up? Granted these side effects are relatively rare, but in a world where Olivia Goldsmith (author of The First Wives Club) lost her life during a routine face lift two years ago, the irony of the price for beauty is not lost, no more than the potential for gaining weight following an hour with the wand.

Marketing 101

I’m shopping in Sephora, and a product on the top shelf catches my eye: “Fat Girl Slim.”

The byline advertises: “This lean, mean circulation stimulating, slimming cream with caffeine and QuSomes (a proprietory delivery enahncer that helps penetration) helps smooth the skin as it firms, trims, tones, and energizes.”

I’m glad they defined QuSomes.

Hmm. Should I get some? Alleged benefits aside, to buy it would be admitting to the Sephora staff, myself, and anyone who visited my home that I could be, according to someone (if even myself), fat. I get the concept, but I still think it’s poor marketing. Even Dexatrim isn’t calling people fat. But then again, maybe this is business genius—if a product can make a woman feel ugly, insecure, and lacking (i.e., accomplish the work of most diet plans, fashion magazines, and the entire spring line of Abercrombie and Fitch), it’s sure to sell.

Dating, Anyone?

I came across the following ads posted recently on craigslist:

Bachelor #1:
Hi, I'm kind of on the thinner side so I like thin or small girls. I'm not small though, well, around 5'10 so not that tall either. Anyway, this site seems to be flooded with fuller figured women and that's great for some people I guess. It's just a preference thing, that's all. I have many nice and really sweet larger friends.

Got it—just like my best friend is Jewish.

Bachelor #2:
I would like to rest my blue eyes on a long-haired, shorter woman (maybe around 5'0 to 5'5 -- I'm at least 5'10) with curvy features. By "curvy features," I do not mean "fat." I am talking about slim waists contrasted by curves up top and down below. Skin and eye and hair color doesn't matter. I'm kind of ridiculously awesome if you like "sweet-with-an-edge" guys who have intelligent and funny things to say. My "edge" comes in the form of sarcasm and creative expression, not domestic abuse. I have, like, zero arrests for that!

Thank God he has "like zero arrests.” Anything in that neighborhood is fine. And who would even think to mention “domestic abuse”?

And then, Bachelor #3:
Some guys like women with curves and a little meat on their bones! I happen to like women on the anorexic side, extremely thin & dainty. :) I'm a nice guy - tall 6'4", athletic and successful. If you fit this profile, please drop me a line thanks!

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Behind every man seeking anorexic bliss is someone alarmingly insecure. In selecting a frail, fragile, disappearing girl, he’s hoping to overpower/overcome/outweigh, while, at the same time, impressing the crowds by selecting the model ideal. Is this really someone you'd want to date?

Charlotte's Web

On a Season 3 episode of Sex and the City, Charlotte York (Kristin Davis) conquers the health-club steam room, quelling her weight-and-shape fears, by finally baring it all. Charlotte struggles throughout the episode with body image concerns, compares herself to others, and resolves her body conflict only after another woman in the steam room compliments her on her breasts.

I remember being somewhat surprised by Charlotte’s struggle, as she was typically referred to (in my very unscientific poll) as the foursome’s most attractive. If Charlotte was unhappy with her appearance, what does that say for the rest of us?

Recently, Kristin Davis revealed to the Scottish Daily Record that, like Charlotte, she too struggled with eating and body image concerns. "Everyone would talk about their diets and working out, and what it made me do was go to Craft services—where all the food for the cast and crew was—and I would eat." As compensation, Ms. Davis began to run seven miles at a pop, and, in regard to her over-exercising, she notes, “I was killing myself. My ankles hurt, my knees hurt and I was working 18-hour days."

Just being surrounded by Hollywood’s ultra-thin glitz wasn’t bad enough—when Ms. Davis joined the show’s cast, a reporter noted she’d be too heavy to take the lead role, based on the life of Candace Bushnell. This is the same Ms. Bushnell, who in a 2002 New York magazine interview, referred to a dress in a store window and proclaimed, “See, this is the kind of thing that if you have any fat at all, it'll show right up!" When her interviewer pointed out that Ms. Bushnell was someone who in fact, had no fat at all, she retorted, "If you could just see me without my clothes on!"

While the role went to Sarah Jessica Parker, damages were awarded to Davis, who revealed that following this reporter’s comment, "I tried not to cry, and said I had to leave,” after which, she binged on cookies to the tune of, "To hell with you, I'm going to eat what I want.'"

No matter what other descriptors we might use to depict Charlotte (romantic, kind, optimistic, loving), the one that sticks is the one that she, and the actress who gave her life, dreads most: not skinny enough. It’s now clear that Ms. Davis, like any of us who might be cast in a similar role, managed to infuse her character’s struggle with an emotionality that can only be gained through experience.

Soapbox

Funny?

Maybe at first, but imagine its comrades: A smiling, well-rested woman, wearing, “I Beat Depression,” or a healthy-weight male, with infection-free skin, wearing, “I Beat H.I.V.”

Not to mention that this man may (or may not) suffer from one or more other conditions related to obesity and may (or may not) have an eating disorder of his own.

Anorexia is a disease. And that’s not so funny.

Picture This

"I am walking down the street in Manhattan, Fifth Avenue in the lower Sixties, women with shopping bags on all sides. I realize with some horror that for the last fifteen blocks I have been counting how many women have better and how many women have worse figures that I do. Did I say fifteen blocks? I meant fifteen years."
Pam Houston, A Little More About Me

It reminds me of class picture day in elementary school, when shortly after passing out plastic, pocket-sized combs, the photographer would line us up by height—shortest to tallest—which would then determine our positioning for the picture, tallest in back.

As women, we gravitate toward a similar process, though this time, the variable’s weight. We size up where we fall in the thin-fat continuum and gently slip into place. Everyone in front of us is thinner and therefore somewhat better and everyone behind us, well, thank god, we’re not there. We know that just as the tallest kids occupied the final row (in grammar school, boys, generally proudly and girls, somewhat sheepishly and slouching), those of us weighing the least will be front-center, while the heaviest will be left behind.

Origins

It’s a radical title, I know.

Again, I’m not saying we all have full-blown, clinical eating disorders, specifically Anorexia or Bulimia. (For a discussion on Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, stay tuned.)

But, most of us have eating/body image/exercise concerns that puncture our lives in more ways than one, and, in a hopeful attempt to defuse, I’d just like there to be some dialogue about that.

Imagine a day, or even a meal, without thinking or questioning:
-What have I eaten already?
-Does this make me look fat?
-I wonder how many calories this has.
-I’ve had too much.
-I hate my [body part].
-What’s she eating?
-Have I exercised today?
-I shouldn’t.

We’d have so much else to think about. A group of women and I realized the other day that when we’re not connecting over how much we’re eating/how much we hate our bodies—or about men (dating/relationships/husbands)—we’re not sure how to connect.

I know there’s so much more to talk about (books and politics and animals and our emotions—all of which require significantly less self-hatred), and I, for one, would hate to think I overlooked a smile, an interesting conversational thread, or an expression of love because I was too focused on the size of my hips.

Resume: New Hire

A recent study conducted for Fitness magazine revealed that of 1007 men and women, over 50% would rather lose their jobs than gain weight.

Specifically, 58% of women and 54% of men would rather be let go than gain 75 pounds. Maybe over-optimistically, I find some small degree of comfort in the 75-pound margin. That’s a pretty major weight gain, not just five or ten pounds, and maybe we’re all looking for a reason for career change/advancement. I’m also comforted by the fact that men and women were roughly equally likely to opt for unemployment over added weight.

But, some other statistics concerned me. More than 25% of the women polled would rather have their wisdom teeth extracted than go shopping for bathing suits. Have you had your wisdom teeth removed?? And, 25% of women and 20% of men indicated they’d sacrifice 20 IQ points for the perfect body.

20 IQ points. . . Assuming we have an “average” IQ (that’s 100, according to the bell curve), we’d rather drop to an 80, on the cusp of low-average/borderline intellectual functioning, than settle for a less than perfect figure.

That’s a pretty significant drop.

But, in a world where pretty girls are attended to more in school and attractive (read: thin) women are hired more often than their less attractive counterparts, maybe it’s not such a sacrifice after all. Getting fired may be a small price to pay for universal acceptance, and since finding a new job is more a function of the size of your frame than the weight of your brain, this might be the most intelligent career decision, yet.

Ballerina Girl

Nicole Richie: “I’m Too Thin”

There, she said it.

But to trace her weight-loss over the past year or so, it become clear that collectively, we egged her on. Richie’s diminishing body became a product that has sold her fashion endorsements, a book contract, and more attention and speculation than she’d ever gotten before. As a culture, it’s almost as if we chant, “Thinner, thinner, thinner, thinner!” until, “Oops—too thin.” Because when someone becomes anorexic, that’s where we draw the line.

So, “You can never be too rich or too thin,” has an addendum. “Be as thin as you can, but don’t be anorexic.” This applies to stars and ourselves.

Still, the messages are mixed. Star magazine recently informed us, “Skinny jeans look best on the super-svelte like Nicole Richie, 24.”

In June’s issue of Vanity Fair, Richie reveals: "I know I'm too thin right now, so I wouldn't want any young girl looking at me and saying, 'That's what I want to look like.' "

But they do. And so do we, because we’re told, that’s how skinny jeans look best.