The New York Times this week ran a fascinating story related to food and eating, one that has provoked some strong opinions on the paper’s web site. The subject of the article is MeMe Roth, a Manhattan woman who has clashed with administrators at her children’s public elementary school. Ms. Roth, reports the Times, strongly objects to the sugary snacks and baked goods that her kids and others have been offered at school, such as the cupcakes that parents bring into class for birthday celebrations. “I thought I was sending my kid to P.S. 9, not Chuck E. Cheese,” the Times quotes her as saying.
It is true that it is tough for kids to make healthy choices when they are constantly exposed to sweets. It’s tough for adults, too, to make those healthy choices if their own refrigerator is packed with ice cream and cake. Reducing children’s exposure to junk food makes it easier for kids to avoid eating it.
But in trying to eradicate all traces of snacks and sweets from a child’s (or adult’s life), a person can go too far. By going to extremes in making a diet healthy for oneself or someone else, one can end up perpetuating an eating disorder that can be just as harmful as a steady diet of Tootsie Rolls.
One unhelpful approach is to categorize foods as good or bad. A cupcake by itself, for example, is not intrinsically evil. But if it is demonized and taboo--think of the tree in the Garden of Eden-- it becomes more seductive and desirable. In the likely event that a person eventually does yield to temptation and eat the forbidden fruit (or junk food), he or she ends up feeling terrible and guilt-ridden -- and, feeling defeated, keeps on eating. A key goal in working with people with eating disorders is to help them prevent one slip from turning into a binge. And one way to do that is to stop demonizing certain kinds of food.
Another unhelpful approach is to fast for long periods during the day. Often, people with eating disorders will eat little during the day -- letting themselves get extremely hungry -- and then binge at night. Feeling horrible and guilty, they decide to start dieting the next day -- and begin the cycle anew. So part of treating people with eating disorders is to help them get comfortable with eating regularly, to not let themselves get too hungry and to move away from dieting and deprivation.
For people with food and weight issues, it is not easy to navigate all the external cues and social pressures to eat. At the same time, outlawing fat and food are hardly the way to help.
Showing posts with label eating disorder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label eating disorder. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Obesity Prejudice in the News
Recently, colleagues on an eating-disorder message board were discussing the value of using weight-loss drugs to help reduce people's weight. (The consensus: There is very little evidence that the drugs lead to meaningful, sustainable weight loss.)
The discussion raised the question of how we see weight. Is being overweight and having a high body-mass index immediately indicative of health problems? Or is a high BMI one of several indicators of poor health? Not everyone who is overweight is unhealthy, and not everyone who is of normal weight is healthy. As one person on the mailing list put it, when we automatically consider someone with a high BMI to be unhealthy, it's as if we are saying that tall people are at a greater risk of medical problems—and then jumping to the conclusion that tallness itself is the disease we need to treat.
Soon after this discussion, I came across the following article on The Daily Beast [http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-04/fat-judges-need-not-apply/] about the candidates for the Supreme Court replacement for David Souter. The article suggests that some Democrats—who want Obama's appointments to be on the court for as long as possible—are using weight and thinness as a proxy for health and longevity. In this case, they prefer thinner candidates, such as Diane Wood and Kim McLane Wardlaw over the heavier ones, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Their belief is that because Kagan and Sotomayor are heavier, they are less healthy and likely to die younger. (Although not slim, neither woman is obese.)
This is a widely held view—that thin equals good and healthy and that fat equals bad, unhealthy and likely to die an early death. Yes, it is true that, on average, obesity is associated with a higher risk of death. But that doesn't mean that any given thin person will outlive someone who is heavier.
What I actually see in this particular Supreme Court debate is a weight prejudice doctored up as a health concern. Underneath the seeming concern about longevity is the dismissal of two women who do not completely fit social expectations for appearance.
The discussion raised the question of how we see weight. Is being overweight and having a high body-mass index immediately indicative of health problems? Or is a high BMI one of several indicators of poor health? Not everyone who is overweight is unhealthy, and not everyone who is of normal weight is healthy. As one person on the mailing list put it, when we automatically consider someone with a high BMI to be unhealthy, it's as if we are saying that tall people are at a greater risk of medical problems—and then jumping to the conclusion that tallness itself is the disease we need to treat.
Soon after this discussion, I came across the following article on The Daily Beast [http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-04/fat-judges-need-not-apply/] about the candidates for the Supreme Court replacement for David Souter. The article suggests that some Democrats—who want Obama's appointments to be on the court for as long as possible—are using weight and thinness as a proxy for health and longevity. In this case, they prefer thinner candidates, such as Diane Wood and Kim McLane Wardlaw over the heavier ones, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Their belief is that because Kagan and Sotomayor are heavier, they are less healthy and likely to die younger. (Although not slim, neither woman is obese.)
This is a widely held view—that thin equals good and healthy and that fat equals bad, unhealthy and likely to die an early death. Yes, it is true that, on average, obesity is associated with a higher risk of death. But that doesn't mean that any given thin person will outlive someone who is heavier.
What I actually see in this particular Supreme Court debate is a weight prejudice doctored up as a health concern. Underneath the seeming concern about longevity is the dismissal of two women who do not completely fit social expectations for appearance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
