Friday, August 31, 2007

Size Happy


Margaux Laskey, of Size Ate, posted yesterday about a recent weight gain. For those of you unfamiliar with her, check out this post, which features clips and commentary from her one-woman show.

You can read her thoroughly insightful and enlightening post here.

The upshot?

She's gained some weight.

She's happy.

And she's one of the best writing bloggers I know.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Miss Antisocial Personality Disorder



Teeshirtsrock.com has the above item in stock for just under $25. Now, my questions for you (some rhetorical, some not) are:

1) Who would buy this shirt?
2) Whom would you buy it for?/Who would wear it?
3) Why don't they have its Miss Bulimic counterpart?
4) Any shirts on other mental or physical illnesses? (Miss Schizophrenia? Miss Female Orgasmic Disorder? Miss Diabetes? Miss Cancer?

Just checking. . .

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Small Bites

Thanks to one of my readers for forwarding me this, Gawker's tongue-in-cheek commentary on the recent obesity-as-virus news item.

Also, I checked out Gawker this morning for an interesting bit on fried Oreos. I must confess--until a few months ago, I never knew there was such a thing. They fry Oreos? Wow.

And yes, that is a picture of yours truly back in the day. I hope no one is offended by the bagel. ; )

Monday, August 20, 2007

A Matter of Fabric


(Another post brought to you by little m). . .

MOD*EL – noun (adjective, verb, -eled, -eling.)

n.

Conventional fashion wisdom is that “models are selected based on how well fabric drapes on their bodies.”

And, as we know, all sorts of things can be extrapolated from that. Like, therefore, that’s the only way to be beautiful. Like the only way to look good in your clothes is to look like that.

But maybe – just maybe - conventional fashion wisdom is not the whole truth.

The smaller the body, the less fabric it’s generally going to take to construct a garment for it. The less fabric used, the lower the production cost. Cheaper production costs, all other things being equal, lead to bigger profits, which are generally deemed to be better in business.

So maybe designers are praised and rewarded when they use less fabric.

Being the granddaughter of a seamstress, I learned early that it’s easier to cut in a straight line than on a curve. So the more curves to the body, the more difficult the garment is to make.

So maybe designers are lazy. :D

We’ve read so much about the fashion models that have starved themselves and used drugs in order to work, that if we link to all the articles describing the phenomenae, Dr. S’s server may go on strike from the overload.*

So maybe FASHION models should NOT be ROLE models.

What do you all think?

*Editor's note: See mamavision for a great primer on modeling and our bodies. . .

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Oops . . The Response

Since some have expressed concern about my health (related to my recent weight gain), I figured I'd shoot you a quick update from my hospital bed.

Sorry, I'm feeling feisty. ; )

My health is fine--thanks for your concern. I'll directly address some of the comments to "Oops" in this post.

BUT....12 pounds is not a small amount of weight to gain in six months. The reasons ARE important. Because if you continue to do the same thing you're doing to gain that weight, then eventually, one should be concerned about what health effects it would have. If, on the other hand, the reasons you might have gained that weight are temporary in nature, then you are right to not be concerned at all.

At what point do you begin to worry? What about a woman who is over 180 pounds (at 5'4'')gaining that kind of weight in six months? Would you also tell her to go on about her day like no big deal? Isn't it much healthier to take a realistic attitude and admit that some healthy changes need to be made, while not freaking about it?


The reasons are important, as you suggest, but they were not important to my telling of this story.

In my mind, you begin to worry about the health consequences of gaining weight when there are health consequences of gaining weight. This does not include a doctor telling you you should lose weight for your health. As some others have noted, there are plenty of skinny, unhealthy people, and plenty of fat, healthy people.

In case anyone's curious (since it seems some of you are), my blood pressure is typically about 90/60. It's low. It's low enough that I have a history of passing out (especially when dehydrated). Romantic swooning aside, a 12-pound weight gain is only going to help me out when it comes to blood pressure concerns.

So when i read ur comment, please forgive me but i felt like here is another person missing the point.
I feel like we all act like extra weight automatically means a health problem. And may i venture a guess that most people (maybe not u but most) would not show ANY concern over a 12 pound weight LOSS, they wouldnt worry if the very fact that weight was fluctuating is a sign something is wrong, but when the weight goes up they do.


That's exactly right. I encourage you all to read "The Diet Myth" and "Rethinking Thin" (scroll down the side bar for info). There's a lot of propaganda out there on the relationship between health and weight. Research shows that being underweight is associated with more health consequences than being overweight.

And, how come no one assumed I'm a recovering anorexic who should be congratulated on gaining 12 pounds?

I am just wondering, and wish maybe Dr. Stacy would chime in. How much "fluctuation" in weight is too much? And by "too much" I mean either a health risk (say for an "average 5'5" woman), or a "slippery slope" that if not nipped in the bud, WILL lead to an unhealthy gain. How many of us would really not care about a 12 lb. gain? I'd not only be very disappointed but by that time would be having knee pain, back pain, difficulty participating in my usual physical activities, and tight pants. Are those worth worrying about?


I have absolutely no idea, first because I'm not a medical doctor, and second, because even if I were, I'd have to assume that this issue could only be addressed on a case by case basis.

But it CAN amount to something- stress on your joints, increased blood pressure... 12 lbs is not "nothing". 3 lbs is nothing.


Well, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to define "nothing," except on an individual basis. In my case, 12 pounds is physically "nothing." I'm 5'6", so perhaps that helps, but I can still exercise, engage in daily activities, etc. to the same extent before I gained the weight. My body, like many others, tends to cycle with weight related to a host of reasons (which are important to me, but not necessarily for this discussion).

So, my BP is fine, but about my joints? I think they're ok, too. I run quite a bit, and I'd venture to guess that the damage I've done by pounding the pavement (long-distance running) is far more deleterious than that created by these extra 12 pounds. I haven't notice any variation in orthopaedic symptoms related to my weight.

12 pounds, though, in my case, and in many others, COULD be tremendously damaging psychologically, and that was the point of this post.

NONE of you actually asked "Dr. stacy, how is your blood pressure? And how do your joints feel?"
You assume based on her weight gain.
Furthermore, I doubt you'd ask this of yourself or anyone else as long as they are skinny.

Forgive me if I sound snappish, I don't mean to disrespect your opinions and if you have info to back that up that you want to share by all means do.
I just am sick of everyone crying out "health" to excuse our obsession with being thin.
If you care about someone's health, ASK THEM HOW THEY FEEL, don't analyze their weight or YOUR perception of their lifestyle, dietary and excercise choices.


Thank you for asking. The "health" argument will persist as long as we need something to justify our intense hatred of fat in others and ourselves.

As an athlete, gaining 12 lbs. would severely hinder my ability to train pain-free. If I saw I gained 12 lbs. in six months I wouldn't freak out - but I would certainly begin to restructure my food intake and activity levels.

I mean, if you gained 12lbs. in the past 6 months, that means you could potentially gain 24 in one year...48 in two years...100 in four years...


True, I guess it's possible that I'll gain 100 pounds in four years, but I'm going with history on this one. I've gained weight and lost weight (just about this amount) several times. There's the allure in trying to lose it again (as many of you might feel), but I'm not actively encouraging either weight gains or losses at this point in my life--the more we cycle, the worse it is for our HEALTH.

And, let's say I did want to lose the weight. Should I diet? We all know that 95-98% (depending on which research you read) of all diets fail. Dieters lose weight, gain it back, and then some. If I'm to being to restrict my food (I already exercise enough), I might lose some weight, but I won't be eating intuitively and the likelihood is that that'll backfire, and I actually could see that 100 pounds you mentioned.

I had no idea those were the lyrics in that song. Good lord, what crap. I'm embarrassed that I ever bobbed my head to such nonsense.


I actually made those up, but now that I know that my writing is virtually indistinguishable from Britney Spears's (or at least enough that I could fool one of my good friends), I'm more encouraged about the eventual publication of this book. ; )

Monday, August 13, 2007

Oops. . . I Did it Again

I stepped on the scale
Let go of the rail
I wanted to see
The damage to me
Oh, weigh me, weigh me. . . Oops. . . I did it again. . .
(a la Britney, circa 2000)*

I think the last time I knew my weight was about six months ago (dr's visit). And now, a couple of seasons later, I felt a sudden curiosity one day at the gym. I knew I'd gained--the fact that I haven't been fitting into about 1/3 of my wardrobe could have told me that. But, I wanted to know. . . THE NUMBER.

And, here it was, staring me right back in the face.

12 pounds.

I really thought it would have been about 8. But, it was 12.

12 pounds, I've gained in just about six months. The why's are unimportant here (and I'm sure I could speculate forever), but, what's more important, for our purpose, is what I did. My options? You must all know them quite well. . . .

Freak out.

Begin restricting that afternoon, or at least enroll in or plan for a full-fledged diet that Monday.

Commit to a more intensive exercise plan.

Hate myself.

Get back on the scale and try again (maybe taking off my adorning towel, because we all know how much a dry towel can weigh).

Do nothing.

I kinda handed you this one. I did nothing. I went about my shower, getting dressed, and returned to work. My exercise and eating habits didn't change a bit, and I really wasn't distressed at all. Would I like to have seen less of a weight-gain, or not one at all? Sure. I'd be lying if I said I didn't, especially because some of my favorite wardrobe items have been neglected as of late. But, I've bought some new stuff, bringing the mountain to Mohammed, and I'm really not sweating the 12 pounds at all. Because in the scope of what I do and who I am and the world I live in, 12 pounds of extra flesh amount to absolutely nothing.

*Sorry, it's just that she's been in the news so much lately, and the tune sort of lent itself to the material. . . .

Friday, August 03, 2007

A Word from a Reader*

Hello Dr. Stacey,

I just wanted to write you as I just finished reading your entire blog. It really spoke to me. I have experienced problems with eating for years now, since the age of nine when a family member poked my belly and made fun of my tiny fat rolls. Though it could be blamed on normal changes that happen when a girl goes through puberty, ever since then I have felt uncomfortable in my skin, and I'm 27 now.

I have taken diet pills, been on countless diets, and even flirted with anorexia a time or two. Unfortunately, though I have lost weight in the past, I always return to my comfort of compulsively overeating, and I go back into what I don't want to be. I currently weigh the most I ever have, and I am so tired. I am tired of feeling 'less than' because of my own insecurities tied to a physical characteristic. I am tired of feeling worried for my health and sanity because I don't know how to treat myself with respect. I am tired of hiding this part of myself from others who don't know me well. It's exhausting, and not respectful As a student of psychology (almost finished with my bachelor's degree), I have done a lot of introspection regarding myself and my eating issues. I am ready to finish what I have started, and I want to love myself for the awesome person I am. The only problem is, I don't even know where to begin. I have read quite a few books regarding the subject of compulsive overeating, including all the ones written by Geneen Roth. I have identified with what she has written, but I still don't know how to take what she is offering and run with it.

I hope that you are able to continue your book-writing aspirations. I think you will make a wonderful author, and have a lot to offer the ED community. Like I said, I got so much out of your blog, I read the entire thing in one go. Thank you for writing it and for allowing others to share their experiences with you. Thank you for reading what I have written here - it means a lot to know that I have shared this with someone who is attempting to help. It is hard to find people who understand what I go through on a daily basis, hence this long, rambling e-mail.

Thank you again.

*I post this with permission from the writer, with the idea that others might identify with her story.

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Book Review--Rethinking Thin

(It's on my sidebar as an EWHAED rec).

Just last week, I finished New York Times writer Gina Kolata's new book, Rethinking Thin. Kolata's served as a science journalist for The Times for almost 30 years, and has published a handful of books, including Flu: The Story of the Great Influenza Pandemic of 1918 and the Search for the Virus that Caused It and Ultimate Fitness: The Quest for Truth about Health and Exercise.

In Rethinking Thin, Kolata sets out on a similar quest for truth, this time concerning the diet industry and our societal obsession with (and relentless pursuit of) being thin. In the fashion of Paul Campos's The Diet Myth and Laura Fraser's Losing It, Kolata tackles head on the diet world, the concept of the obesity "epidemic," and the idea that dietary control may result in sustained weight-loss. A University of Pennsylvania study comparing two popular diets (low calorie vs. low carb) sets the backdrop for Kolata's historical account of how we've gained weight, lost it, and then, inexorably, gained it back.

You know the "willpower" argument--the mantra we hear almost daily that encourages us to keep trying harder to lose the weight? As Kolata writes, "Who could miss the drumbeat of messages from scientists and weight loss experts, the incessant hectoring year in and year out, assuring fat people that everything is possible for those who really, really try." Well, Kolata debunks that myth with support from the science of weight, highlighting the genetic influences associated with body type. She confronts the notion that fat people are to blame for their size, instead offering a literary montage of research studies suggesting we really don't have much control over what we weigh. It's a never-ending battle against our genes, and quite frequently, concerning our expectations, they simply just don't fit.

Kolata's account is cultural at times, referring to images of the Gibson girl, socio-political at others, documenting the negative correlation between obesity and socio-economic status, and even meticulously scientific, discussing hormones and chemicals, like neuropeptide Y and oxyntomodulin, suspected to relate to hunger and weight.

It's also sentimental--we follow the journey of four dieters in the university study, empathizing with their loftiest weight-loss hopes and dreams. Even Kolata, the objective science journalist gets drawn in by the diet allure, as she cheer leads the fateful four:

I wanted it so much that I began to suspend disbelief. I knew, I knew, the science and the overwhelmingly convincing evidence that most obese people will not be able to diet, get thin, and stay at a new low weight. But. . . I allowed myself to think that maybe, just maybe these people would make it. Maybe they would fulfill their dreams.

A whole science of obesity and weight loss seems be similarly hopeful, forever searching for the weight-loss holy grail. Kolata writes:

I'd often wondered how obesity researchers can keep doing study after study, advertising for subjects. . ., starting them off again and again on a path whose outcome they must know for sure. Could it be that the researchers too fall for the dieter's delusion?

Or, as Kolata notes, and as others have documented before her, can an entire industry rest on the possibility of autonomic weight control, be invested in studies and products that propagate this myth?

And, the assumption that fat is bad is similarly endowed with individual, institutional, and corporate backing. As Kolata points out, a lot of people have a lot to lose if we're to continue to show that being fat is not consistent with the dire health consequences the media and diet industry would like us to believe. In fact, publication of opposing studies is often displaced by those (which, incidentally, are often not as statistically sound as their counterparts) that champion the idea that if you are fat, you will die. Kolata states:

I'd like to think also that as the population gets fatter, there might be a rethinking of the risks of a few extra pounds. When health data have not supported the alarmist cries of a medical disaster in the making, could society perhaps let up on the beleaguered fat people.

Could we? We're so invested in some of these beliefs, challenging them would require a vigilant shift in focus, an active rebellion against the status quo, and a voracious curiosity and search for the truth behind the scenes. Kolata writes: "If nothing else, I believe that that research by scientists who have open minds about obesity and its causes and consequences is starting to open doors." With help from Kolata's exposé, we may eventually arrive at a place where the "age-old assumption that the perfect diet will somehow emerge" is as much a scientific blunder as the thought that the world was flat or the idealistic misconception that physical exercise should be effortless.

Thankfully, Kolata gives us a running start.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Shameless Self-Promotion

And now, a little bit more about me. . .

Who's the Hottest?


I'm sitting here with three of my favorite trade weeklies: In Touch, Us, OK magazines. Each has a feature where two celebrities are pitted against each other in similar frocks, titled, "Who Wore it Better?" Us actually compares three stars, modifying the superlative a bit to, "Who Wore it Best?"

See, the thing with these little contests is that I always get it wrong. I cover the winner (based on staff selection or reader polls), and I try to guess who, in fact, they chose. I study the images carefully--since, we're talking about clothing, I look at how the garment is tailored, shoe and accessory selection, fit, and even at the way the item falls on the celebrity's figure.

But, I almost always get it wrong.

Let me give you an example of why I think this is. Us Weekly's version (this is the July 2nd issue), compares three stars: Sofia Vergara, America Ferrara, and Tiffani Thiessen. Who do you think received the fewest number of votes?

Enough said.

OK's (July 16th) issue weighs Naomi Campbell against Beyonce. Again, guess who won?

My hunch is that it's really not so much about the clothing here, but about the celebrity's figure. I'd have to pour over the magazines' archives for this research project, but I'm guessing that the celebrity with the better body wins, regardless of her hem line, the clutch she carries, or the height of her heels. See, I think Beyonce has a rocking body, but a lot of people don't.

Usually, in my anecdotal research, it's the thinner celebrity, but not those we judge to cross the line. So, in In Touch's version, Eva Mendes actually triumphs over Bai Ling. Admittedly, I'm relieved when stars like Nicole and Paris and Victoria are not victorious.

I really wish we weren't putting these stars' bodies up for such scrutiny and competition. The guise of whose stylist assembled the better ensemble is simply too thinly veiled.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Music and Lyrics

During graduate school, some classmates and I were hanging out in the psychology graduate student lounge (a happening place, as you can imagine), and the subject of music came up--specifically, were we "lyrics" or "music" people? In other words, when you like a song, do you like it primarily because of its words or its beat? All of my classmates, given my attraction to the written word, figured I'd be a "lyrics" girl. Not so. So much of what attracts me to music is the beat, and often, I'm not even sure what the actual message is. Which bring me to the point of this post. . .

Recently, I was introduced to songster Mickey Avalon, and I've taken a liking to his work. (Right now you're probably think that I'm a 16-year-old boy--I assure you I am not). A couple of downloads later, I finally listened to the lyrics of one of the songs, "So Rich, So Pretty" (yes, I should have known) and was shocked to hear (and then look up) the lyrics below.

I liked the song. Now, I'm kinda mixed. Erase it from the play list?

Mickey Avalon - So Rich, So Pretty
I like a girl with caked up makeup.
In the sunshine, smoking cigarettes to pass the time.
Who wakes up to a bottle of wine
On the nightstand, bites and scratches the blinds.

But i ain't found one quite right yet.
So I step with pep to the park or supermarket it.
Her apartment best be messy.
And Lisa don't mind when i call her Leslie.

She's gotta dress with class.
In Jean Paul Gautier and an Hermes bag.
And 4 inch tips made of ostrich.
Sharp enough to slit your wrists, her lips spread gossip.
Won't say sorry when she offends.
She comes over to my place in her old man's Benz.
In gold and silver and jewels of all colors.
And she doesn't take them off when we're tearing up the covers.

Come on get it 'fore I change my mind.
Come on kid don't waste my time.
So rich, so pretty
The best piece of ass in this whole damn city.
So rich, so pretty.

I like a girl who eats and brings it up.
A sassy little frassy with bulimia.
Her best friend's a plastic surgeon.
and when her Beemers in the shop she rolls the Benz.
Manis and Pedis on Sundays and Wednesdays
Money from mommy, lovely in Versace.
Costly sprees it's on at Barneys.
And i love to watch her go thru 50 G's calmly.

She gets naughty with her pilate's body.
And thinks it's really funny when her nose goes bloody.
Cuz the blows so yummy and it keeps her tummy empty
And makes her act more friendly.
Dance the night away.
And she won't say nothing when she makes a man stray.

Come on get it 'fore I change my mind.
Come on kid don't waste my time.
So rich, so pretty
The best piece of ass in this whole damn city.

I've had you come before Mickey.
Go get my purse Mickey
Lock the door Mickey
You're just a midnight snack
Shhh
Don't talk back.
You're just a boy Mickey.
You're just a toy Mickey.
You're just a boy Mickey.

Come on get it 'fore I change my mind.
Come on kid don't waste my time.
So rich, so pretty
The best piece of ass in this whole damn city.
So rich, so pretty.
So rich, so pretty.
The best piece of ass in this whole damn city.

Thursday, July 12, 2007

The Mutual Admiration Society


A couple of days ago, I received an email from Leslie Goldman, author of The Locker Room Diaries (check out my side bar for the Amazon link). Goldman was writing to compliment me on this site and my writing and to suggest that we somehow collaborate in the future. Wait--the woman, whose book rests proudly among my other e.d. reads, was contacting me, saying she liked MY writing?

Nice!

So, stay tuned for some type of LRD/EWHAED venture. In the meantime, check out Goldman's iVillage blog. Her writing's funny, poignant, and EWHAED approved!

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

You'll Never Have to Exercise Again

Well, at least that's what the headlines will soon lead you to believe. . .

Salk Institute scientists recently created an "exercise pill," activating a gene that results in cellular fat burning. Mice who were given the formula failed to gain weight, via chemical activation of PPAR-d, a fat-burning gene, even when fed a high fat diet.

Of course, our interest in mice only extends to how research might apply to us; researchers are suggesting these findings might warrant new ways of addressing human metabolic concerns.

So, exercise no more? Even if the pill is to be proven safe and effective with humans, the only demonstrated benefit (at least with mice) is increased cellular fat burning. That leaves a whole host of physiological and psychological benefits of exercise untouched.

Back to the treadmill it is. . .

Thursday, July 05, 2007

We Pause for this Important Message

Today, I'm tired of writing about eating disorders, (aren't you sick of reading about them?), so I'll focus on another issue, our nation's health care system, my diatribe inspired and fueled by my recent viewing of Sicko, Michael Moore's new flick. If you have any interest in health care, check it out--if nothing else, Moore's acerbic wit is sure to entertain. I actually found myself laughing out loud at a scene in which a woman, who had been in an accident, reported that the payment for her emergency transportation to the hospital was denied because she had failed to have the ambulance ride pre-authorized. It's funny. But it's not.

As both a patient and a provider, I've struggled with managed care. I've found myself wondering what universal health care would look like in the States, why we can't seem to get it right. Applying for Medicaid, which is supposed to insure even the most economically disadvantaged, isn't the easiest process to navigate. And, once you have Medicaid coverage, you don't get much besides the card. Most providers, at least in mental health, don't even accept Medicaid, and at horrendous reimbursement rates, that make a mockery of their advanced degrees, why would they?

Several years ago, I did a brief stint at a city hospital, where most of the patients were covered by Medicaid. My stint was brief because on my first day on the job, I was assigned 103 patients--any idea what a typical therapist's case load is like? Not 103 patients.

The objective was to meet with 10 patients a day, for 30 minutes each. Now, in the managed care and private pay worlds, patients are entitled to a bit more time. Not these folks. And, the frequency of therapy? Because of my 40-hour work week and various administrative demands, I was instructed to see each patient once every three to four weeks. Not the most ethical or medically sound care, given that many of the patients had major mood and/or psychotic disorders. Each patient in my case load required volumes of paperwork--I took to, and I'm embarrassed to say this, completing the paperwork in session, because it was the only way to get it done. For many, I was their third or fourth therapist in the last few months, due to incredibly high turnover rates.

In addition to the clinical overload, the work environment was, to put it mildly, sub-par. It took way too long to get my office up and running. My phone didn't work--not even a dial tone. So, I went downstairs to the telecom department, which was conveniently located next to the morgue, and spoke to Ms. Telecom about the problem. "My phone doesn't work. No dial tone, " I said. She handed me a slip of paper. "Here, call this number."

My computer, as luck would have it, didn't work, either. I went to I.T. They also gave me a number to call. Or, if I'd rather, they mentioned, I could log on to their trouble-shooting site. Every exchange, every moment at this hosptial, felt just like this.

Pretty soon into my stay, knowing that I would leave shortly, I visited the H.R. department to inquire about health insurance coverage. "I'm curious how long you have to work here in order for you to qualify for COBRA?", I asked. And, the director of benefits, housed in the hospital's H.R. department responded, "What's COBRA?" He also engaged me in a casual conversation regarding his recent vacation and his concern that there had been some Arab travelers aboard his flight. "You should be suspicious of the Arabs," he said. I quickly thought, "You should be suspicious of those who tell you to be suspicious of the Arabs."

So, who would work at facility with dysfunctional technology (and office clerks), dusty, likely asbestos-rich walls, and racist, incompetent H.R. staff? Let me tell you about my colleagues, each caricatures of a sort: One of the psychiatrists seemed to have some trouble reading social cues. Whenever he spoke to me, he never made eye contact, and I was always left wondering if he was talking to me or himself. One day, he said something to me in passing in the hallway. I had thought we were done, so I continued walking, but he kept talking, unfazed by my departure.

A social worker down the hall wore a white coat to work each day, as if he were an M.D. I asked him about it once, and he reported that many social workers wear white coats. No they don't. That's great, I thought to myself, there's a therapist with a delusional disorder working down the hall.

And our fearless leader? The clinic director, a psychiatrist, stood up at a staff meeting one day and stated how difficult it was for him to be the most intelligent person in the room. I'm not kidding. He's also the person who told me my first week, "If you and I get along, you should have no problems here," who referred to our clerical staff as "stupid" (yes, to their faces!), and encouraged his providers to commit Medicaid fraud. According to information gleaned after my departure, a thick enough H.R. file eventually resulted in the discipline of said psychiatrist. He was only kept on board with the provision that he must always have a third person present for his one-on-one conversations. He was castrated, but still allowed to screw.

Clinical care was substandard, morale was atrocious, and the building was falling apart. Can you see why I left? But, the thing is, this is the care that countless of Americans get. They wait hours and hours for appointments (one patient arrived for his scheduled 11 a.m. appointment at 8:30 am. because he was so accustomed to having to wait) to see providers who are overworked, mistreated, and not provided with the appropriate resources and administrative support they need to do their jobs. . . who then leave, despite their best intentions to make the world, or at least Manhattan, a better place, after just three whirlwind months. I wonder how, if we were to insure every American (and without extraordinary tax hikes), this scenario could be different, where folks who needed medical care could actually get it and not just instigate a paperwork trail that made it look as if they did.

(Apologies for the non-eating-disorder rant. Regularly scheduled programming will resume next week.)

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Day at the Beach


Thesuperficial.com recently posted a bit on Kelly Clarkson's six-month battle with bulimia in high school. Accompanying the text was a newer photo of Clarkson, snapped at the beach.

As of this writing, 249 comments poured in, and I had the chance to scroll through some of the them. I sometimes forget, writing a body-friendly blog, about the angry, hateful voices that surround us. True, the domain name should have warned me, but some of these (original writing preserved) were still quite alarming:

"Beached whale!!!"

"From the looks of that picture, she should think about starting up again."

"She looks like a very thin and unattractive woman that was stretched fat. There is no shape to her such as an hourglass figure and she definitely is fat. It is quite remarkable that she is so tubby yet not at all curvaceous. That body does nothing for a man. Sex with her would be a fitting punishment for minor crimes."

"I think this pic was snapped just as she started to hurl. Way to go Kelly! There is a thin you trapped somewhere in there."

"Wow! Kelly Clarkson bullimic? yeah right! if she was ever skinny, then i was a girl in my previous life. which i still am...only i have no boobs, an extremely large penis and...well, Long Story Short, im a guy. but in other words...i'd still do her. with a bag over her head of course."

One commented. . .

"She is NOT FAT at all. I dont see cellulite, rolls or a belly. she's just not super skinny. Part of the reason people become bulimic is because of comments like this."

. . . but was quickly rebuffed:

"I don't think so, celia. the reason people become bulimic is because they take extreme pleasure in overpowering and torturing people, namely, themselves."

Inaccurate.
Hurtful.
Angry.
Violent.
Misogynistic.

It's a dangerous world out there.

Or, as one commenter noted:

"Wow. Do most of you peeps have lives of your own? I'd love to see how you measure up against an incredibly normal-looking human being having fun at the beach. I love this website, but man, so many of the commenters have really fucked up views of what is good/beautiful/acceptable/normal. You're all so brainwashed to think that women who are so Hollywood thin are normal. They ain't. Kelly looks incredibly normal and healthy there. If she wants more in the boobage area, there are nice padded bras to wear. When you're having fun at the beach, who gives a fuck? And who should, frankly?"

Well put.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Is the Tortoise Catching Up?



Yesterday, out and about in New York, I happened across not one, but two body positive t-shirts. The first, by the designer Joie, stated boldy across a woman's chest, "Diets Stink." The other, pictured above, reads, "If the definition of beautiful gets any thinner no one will fit." Cleverly, the word "fit" falls just outside the box. This shirt and others can be purchased at New Moon, an EWHAED-endorsed, grass-roots, advocacy organization that publishes an advertisement-free magazine for "girls and their dreams." Another t-shirt in their catalog? "I Can Be My Dream." I kinda like that one, too.

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Big Girls



23-year-old, Lebanese-born Mica Penniman (aka Mika) hands us this latest pearl in the size acceptance movement. A celebration of the (larger) female form, catchy lyrics, a campy beat--check it!

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Alli

Back in February, the FDA approved Alli, an over-the-counter version of the weight-loss drug, Xenical. Alli, which cleverly sounds like a comrade in war or a girlfriend you'd meet for brunch (depending on how you pronounce it, though the correct pronunciation is the first), hit store shelves last week to an uproar, as expected.

The $50-something Alli starter pack sold out in hours in many pharmacies, in a furor typically reserved for a life-saving remedy. The Los Angeles Times interviewed Santa Monica pharmacist, Roe Love, who equated the Alli sellout with the post-9/11 anthrax-induced Cipro dash, reporting that the bulk of Alli purchasers at her store have been women, adding, "And they're not fat."

Love's store is in Santa Monica. Did we really think they would be?

If you haven't heard, Alli, which results in weight loss due to blocked fat absorption, comes with some minor side effects, of the gastro-intestinal sort. The manufacturer's (GlaxoSmithKline) website euphemistically refers to these as "treatment effects": 1) gas with oily spotting
2) loose stools 3) more frequent stools that may be hard to control.

Not terrible, but the site goes on to say: "You may feel an urgent need to go to the bathroom. Until you have a sense of any treatment effects, it's probably a smart idea to wear dark pants, and bring a change of clothes with you to work." That bad, huh? And, manufacturers warn that the product won't work without the adoption of a low-fat, low-calorie diet and commitment to an exercise plan. Seems like what we've been told for years. . . without the need to change our oily, loose-stooled pants.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Mortality

Last week's cover of In Touch Weekly featured photos of Nicole Richie and Angelina Jolie, tagged: "Scary Skinny! Alarming new photos of Nicole and Angelina spark more fears for their health."

But, are we really worried about their health? Sure, they look unhealthy, and perhaps we pontificate about the consequences of their being too thin, but are we really concerned about their lives? What needs to happen in order for there to be bona fide concern, in order for us to stop trying to look like them? Richie and Jolie are just the latest faces of celebrity emaciation. Their predecessors (Kate Bosworth, Keira Knightley, Kate Moss, etc.) either gained weight or somehow escaped the too-thin radar. For now.

Somehow, we've learned that the consequences of being too thin aren't that serious. Somehow, we've ignored the passing of South American models. And, somehow, we've denied the fact that anorexia has hightest mortality rate of all mental illnesses.

This weekend's New York Times featured an article on cocaine, New York's party favor du jour. The substance, as common at bars, parties, and clubs as vodka tonics, has proliferated recently, in part, because of a recent absence of publicized drug-induced casualties. As Herbert Kleber, of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, is quoted as saying, "'Drug use tends to be cyclic. . . . As some of my colleagues said, John Belushi had to die before people believed that these drugs were really dangerous.'"

Is that what it will take in order for us to wake up to the dangers of anorexia? Do we need, at least on American soil, a star to lose her life? Do we really need another Karen Carpenter?

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Drug of Choice


This weekend's New York Times "Style" section featured an article tracing the cupcake craze, the proliferation of bake shops across the country specializing in the fourth-grade birthday party signature treat, cupcakes. The article suggests our interest in cupcakes represents a return to comfort food (others find a similar path toward mac and cheese) and discusses how far from comfort, a la our diet culture, we've strayed. Lesley Balla, blogging food writer comments on the advent of cupcake stores in L.A.: "Do we really need another bakery? Probably not. But Angelenos have been starving for sugar and carbs for so long that the bakeries seem like a breath of fresh air."

Balla's wise words capture the principle of psychological reactance, defined in the APA Dictionary of Psychology :

. . . a motivational state characterized by distress, anxiety, resistance, and the desire to restore that freedom. According to this model, when people feel coerced or forced into a certain behavior, they will react against the coercion, often by demonstrating and increased preference for the behavior that is restrained, and may perform the opposite behavior to that desired.

The beauty of reactance theory is that it, despite its psychobabble, succinctly captures why diets fail (or at least the psychological reasons they fail). The more we're told we can't have, the more we want. Proponents of reactance theory might even argue for legalization of marijuana, gambling, and prostitution.

And so, since Atkins/South Beach/other diet of the moment has expressly forbidden sugar and, gasp, white flour, we begin to crave these ingredients to such an extent that we find ourselves secretly bingeing on them, or patiently, but urgently, lined up outside a cupcake bakery, waiting for our fix.

When I first visited Magnolia Bakery (a cupcake shop with its own wikipedia entry) in New York City*, I wasn't yet living here, but a friend thought I'd enjoy the experience. On a cold winter day, a line wrapped around the West Village block, and we were ushered in in two's and three's, allowed to box our own cupcakes, but warned of the cupcake limit (12). My friend apyly commented, "There's really no difference between this and a crack house." It's just a different drug of choice.

*for the record, now a permanent New York City resident, I prefer Crumbs, which offers 1) more flavors 2) a moister cake portion 3) frosting that isn't too sweet 4) an indoor line