On women's glossy magazines
Jan. 4th, 2008 10:12 amMy sister, I've mentioned on these pages before, is lots cleverer than me. To illustrate this, she has a degree in advanced cleverness from Oxbridge University, whilst I studied a social science at a former polytechnic - which intellectually means that my eyebrows grow together and my knuckles drag along the ground.
In the light of this it always surprises me that she seems to have an odd addiction to the astonishingly brain-dead glossy magazines which fill the 'womens lifestyle' shelves at WHSmith in drifts. She's an avid reader of Vogue for instance, although it's a mystery to me how anyone can 'read' it - there don't seem to be any words in it, just page upon page upon page of endless pictures of overpriced shoes and handbags.
Sometimes she brings home a copy of something like Red or Marie Claire, which at least have some writing in them, and occasionally an article with a title like "Sex - what he's really thinking" which are always good for a laugh.
Last night she came gamely tripping along with a copy of Easy Living, the cover of which declares it to be the 'New year weight loss issue - your ultimate guide to losing weight!'. Now, over Christmas I accidentally fell face-first into a tin of florentines and had to be cut free by the fire brigade so I might have gained the odd ounce here and there, so I picked it up for a browse to see if I could pick up any tips.
By the time I'd finished reading the 10-15 page feature on losing wieght for the new year I was nigh-apoplectic with shock. In the space of those 10-15 pages and thousands of words of text not once - and I went back and checked - was the word 'exercise' used. Not once. Nor was 'gym', walking', or 'try moving around a bit more'. The whole thing, all of it, was just articles and features on what to eat and how to make your diet work. All of this despite the first article in the feature acknowledging that research indicates that diets alone do not work, with 93% of dieters ending up heavier than when they started - but is there any indication of what you might add to 'diets alone' to make them work? There is not. Instead we get a lengthy piece on 'Your relationship with food'.
I don't know about you but I'm not sure that I have a 'relationship with food'. If I do, it's roughly similar to the 'relationship' I'd have with girls I met in the Union Bar when I was a student - I've got a hearty appetite, I'll help myself to other peoples if they're not looking, and any still there in the morning can be warmed up for second helpings.
There's a lot of text about various dietary supplements to suppress appetite or prevent your body digesting fat, but nothing whatsoever about how you might help your weight loss intentions by occasionally moving more than rummaging for the remote control down the back of the sofa. It beggars my comprehension how you can run an 'ultimate' guide to weight loss without suggesting that burning extra calories might in some way aid the process, but somehow Easy Living manages it.
Easy Living sells more then 200,000 copies a month and claims more than double that number of actual readers - that's over 2% of the adult women in this country reading this fatuous crap. The feature goes on to say Show me a woman, and I'll show you someone who is on a diet, has been on a diet, or is going on a diet. That can't be strictly true, can it?
Can it?
[Poll #1115516]
In the light of this it always surprises me that she seems to have an odd addiction to the astonishingly brain-dead glossy magazines which fill the 'womens lifestyle' shelves at WHSmith in drifts. She's an avid reader of Vogue for instance, although it's a mystery to me how anyone can 'read' it - there don't seem to be any words in it, just page upon page upon page of endless pictures of overpriced shoes and handbags.
Sometimes she brings home a copy of something like Red or Marie Claire, which at least have some writing in them, and occasionally an article with a title like "Sex - what he's really thinking" which are always good for a laugh.
Last night she came gamely tripping along with a copy of Easy Living, the cover of which declares it to be the 'New year weight loss issue - your ultimate guide to losing weight!'. Now, over Christmas I accidentally fell face-first into a tin of florentines and had to be cut free by the fire brigade so I might have gained the odd ounce here and there, so I picked it up for a browse to see if I could pick up any tips.
By the time I'd finished reading the 10-15 page feature on losing wieght for the new year I was nigh-apoplectic with shock. In the space of those 10-15 pages and thousands of words of text not once - and I went back and checked - was the word 'exercise' used. Not once. Nor was 'gym', walking', or 'try moving around a bit more'. The whole thing, all of it, was just articles and features on what to eat and how to make your diet work. All of this despite the first article in the feature acknowledging that research indicates that diets alone do not work, with 93% of dieters ending up heavier than when they started - but is there any indication of what you might add to 'diets alone' to make them work? There is not. Instead we get a lengthy piece on 'Your relationship with food'.
I don't know about you but I'm not sure that I have a 'relationship with food'. If I do, it's roughly similar to the 'relationship' I'd have with girls I met in the Union Bar when I was a student - I've got a hearty appetite, I'll help myself to other peoples if they're not looking, and any still there in the morning can be warmed up for second helpings.
There's a lot of text about various dietary supplements to suppress appetite or prevent your body digesting fat, but nothing whatsoever about how you might help your weight loss intentions by occasionally moving more than rummaging for the remote control down the back of the sofa. It beggars my comprehension how you can run an 'ultimate' guide to weight loss without suggesting that burning extra calories might in some way aid the process, but somehow Easy Living manages it.
Easy Living sells more then 200,000 copies a month and claims more than double that number of actual readers - that's over 2% of the adult women in this country reading this fatuous crap. The feature goes on to say Show me a woman, and I'll show you someone who is on a diet, has been on a diet, or is going on a diet. That can't be strictly true, can it?
Can it?
[Poll #1115516]
no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 10:21 am (UTC)H
no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 10:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 10:47 am (UTC)That cunning plan of eating sensibly and moving around more, that worked. However, I obviously did something wrong as my cupboards are not full of weight loss supplements. Damnit.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 10:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 10:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 10:53 am (UTC)i have ONCE (when i accidentally gained a stone and a half in an accident much like yours, and none of my clothes fitted any more) stopped eating SO much (ie stopped with the constant munching and just ate, like at mealtimes) and walked to work a bit
does that count?
I lost a stone and a half in 6 weeks, just by not overeating and walking more. sod diets, as far as i can see they are just another tool of the Glossy Mafia to make us feel bad
no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 11:04 am (UTC)No wonder so many women have eating disorders if the sort of crap in Easy Living is indicative of the advice on offer.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 11:06 am (UTC)and I refuse to leap about in a leotard too
or do anything that sounds like a euphemism
"cross-training"
preparation for crucifixion?
no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 11:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 11:09 am (UTC)You're counteracting the food and beer intake with being active, though so no harm in that.
*nods*
Date: 2008-01-04 11:18 am (UTC)As long as it's varied and balanced, you can eat what you like. If you eat less, you can afford higher quality produce, which will generally help, too. Buy a nice piece of meat from the butcher's instead of a vacuum packed, water-filled, fatty, pumped full of drugs piece of junk from the supermarket shelf, get your veg and fruit from the market and throw away snack bars and get a nice bar of high quality dark choc instead.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 11:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 11:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 11:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 12:03 pm (UTC)Diets are far more harmful to the body.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 12:14 pm (UTC)This is sounding a bit like "Diets don't work but...".
no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 12:26 pm (UTC)It's also my first diet ever, so does that mean I've not been a girl for the previous 38 years? Or does the fact that I am only doing it now cos it's the only way to limit the damage the osteo-arthritis is doing to my knee mean that I'm still not a 'real' girl?
no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 12:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 12:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 12:42 pm (UTC)but in general reducing input and increasing output works best for the majority of people
no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 12:43 pm (UTC)bah curse my brain today
no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 12:50 pm (UTC)BUT This (http://www.pingmag.jp/2007/01/15/haramaki-a-granny-item-made-fashionable/) is SUCH a great idea! Now I know what I can do about all of my tops that suddenly don't meet my trouser waistband any more but otherwise still fit! No more cold kidneys for me!
Genius!
no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 01:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 01:12 pm (UTC)The thing I object to in all this is the idea that it is simple or easy for most people to lose weight, via any normal means, whether that's a diet or an eating plan or lifestyle changes or anything of that sort. There's a whole industry (several, actually) whose profits come from convincing people that thin is good, thin is healthy, and thin is actually very thin and very thin is normal. And then, on top of that, that fat is bad, fat people are unhealthy, fat people must lose weight, and diets/commercial eating regimes are the answer. Weight Watchers is currently marketing themselves with the idea that diets are bad so do WW instead. Many, many fat people *do* eat normally and exercise, and still don't lose weight. There is a culture which then claims that fat people must be lying about what they eat or do, because obviously if they ate like normal people they would lose weight. This emphasis on 'just eat a bit less and walk a bit more', even with tweaks, kind of presupposes that fat people are stupid and haven't considered this. It's a whole world of aaaargh.
I could spend hours rambling about BMI categories, the effect of starvation on the body, and so on, but I am not a scientist, I don't have the data at my fingertips and it's pointless to make huge rants of unsupported claims. I just want to suggest to anyone who is still remotely interested in this thread that it is Not That Simple, and you might consider looking at blogs such as Junkfood Science and Shapely Prose if you want to think about other possibilities.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 01:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 01:25 pm (UTC)Look at me, 5ft2 and weigh about 93kg, I must therefore eat shite and sit around all day, obviously??!!?? No, I'm on my feet for eight hours a day running in circles and go to the gym at least once a week, and I eat my 5 fruit and veg a day and less than 2000cals a day. In theory I should be a skinny rake since to maintain the weight I'm at (with a fiddly calculation my mum showed me) I can eat up to 2800!!! Thats like all the food in the world.
For the eat healthy (rather than less) and walk a bit, thats my mothers answer to most people a little on the porky side, it worked for her as she went from a 24 to an 18 dress size. Shes been a dietition for about 30 years so she must know what she is talking about. Even she says BMI is rubbish.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 01:28 pm (UTC)Thats another rant in itself, how apparently Type 2 is the less serious of the two types. *grrrrrrrrr*
no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 01:31 pm (UTC)Me: Excuse me madam you appear to be a bit porky/overly endowed in the belly department/need greasing to get through a door way/forgot to stop eating etc. Would you like some "Healthy Lifestyle Advice"
*slap*
Me: I'll take that as a no then.
Bit ironic considering I'm round to say the least.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 01:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 01:39 pm (UTC)Gits.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 01:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 01:50 pm (UTC)Just that if you have the Fell-Into-Some-Florentines-Over-Xmas-Lard-Trauma, then less in-more out is IN GENERAL far more effective than any other bizarre diety thing TM
no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 02:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 02:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 03:07 pm (UTC)And oh the irony of that ad for 'Slim With Hoodia' above this comment box... ;-)
no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 04:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 04:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 05:43 pm (UTC)I am apalled at the number of people who don't seem to be able to walk anywhere other than to their own fridge. I am very tempted to have a t-shirt printed with "don't be so damned pious".
no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 07:16 pm (UTC)I rarely weigh myself so I'm not sure precisely, but I used to be about a stone lighter than I am now. Was the same for about 30 years (without thinking about it) then I stopped smoking.
I started walking more and swimming regularly. I cut down on the less nutritious food (like chocolate and biscuits). And it has not made a difference.
I may have to learn gym. I worry that I am too old to learn gym. We didn't have stuff like that in my day. I may have to risk those instrument of torture machines...
Or I could cut down 500 calories per day worth of beer...
no subject
Date: 2008-01-05 01:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-05 03:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-05 07:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-05 07:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-05 11:33 pm (UTC)