Most of us are familiar with the book, Eat This, Not That, and the concept behind it. Magazines are filled with these types of features, showing us which foods are superior to their calorie-soaked counterparts. We regularly see these sorts of segments on TV, too.
But while this information may help us make healthier choices, there’s also a slew of insidious messages. When looking through the latest Fitness, where I found some interesting advice, I came across the following sidebar (copied directly from the magazine; unfortunately, the sidebar wasn’t available online). And it made me nervous:
Instant Motivation
Having trouble choosing healthier holiday treats? Look how much gym time you can save!
NAUGHTY 1 slice pecan pie
NICE 1 slice pumpkin pie
SAVE YOURSELF 25 minutes on the stationary bike (187 calories)
2.75-ounce cosmopolitan
4-ounce glass Champagne
9 minutes of jogging (62 calories)
4 tablespoons spinach-artichoke dip
4 tablespoons hummus
11 minutes on the stairmill (100 calories)
4 Swedish meatballs (cocktail size)
4 stuff baby portobello caps
25 minutes of walking (100 calories)
6 coconut shrimp 6 shrimp with cocktail sauce
89 minutes of weight lifting (567 calories)
Why? Because this type of advice fosters a shaky, at best — and destructive, at worst — way of thinking about food and fitness. Don’t get me wrong: I’m all about giving people the tools they need to become sharp and savvy consumers and make informed decisions. For instance, the amount of calories in some restaurant foods is shocking, and as consumers, it’s important for us to know. But… this goes too far.
This table, and others like it, transmit the following risky messages. They imply:
1. That we have to work off every calorie we consume, or it’ll go straight to our thighs and make us horribly huge. Which is a myth. According to eating disorder specialist Sari Shepphird, Ph.D, who I interviewed last May:
There has been this new trend based on the book, Eat This, Not That: Dieticians are using the mass media as a tool to talk about which foods have less or more calories. Sometimes a dietician might say you should skip the thick crust pizza and have the thin crust instead, because you’ll have to run for two hours in order to burn it off. This isn’t true; it is a fallacy to say that one has to exercise for every calorie one consumes. Our bodies are naturally burning calories to take a breath, to wake up, to heal from a cold, to do regular activities in daily life that sustain us.
It is a myth to think that we need to burn off every calorie that we consume through exercise. If we want to maintain our weight, we actually only need to burn off whatever calories are in excess of our metabolic rate. A person can do an equation to calculate how many calories they should be eating per day in order to maintain a normal weight. To calculate one’s basal metabolic rate (BMR), one can use the following formula, but keep in mind that the formula is not exact as BMR can vary based on bone structure and amount of physical activity that one engages in. Or, visit the website links here or here.
BMR formula:
Women: BMR = 655 + ( 4.35 x weight in pounds ) + ( 4.7 x height in inches ) – ( 4.7 x age in years )
Men: BMR = 66 + ( 6.23 x weight in pounds ) + ( 12.7 x height in inches ) – ( 6.8 x age in year )
2. That the goal of exercise is to become slim and stay slim. If this chart was truly promoting health, then a few days of choosing a pecan pie over pumpkin and coconut shrimp over shrimp with cocktail sauce wouldn’t be seen as detrimental. A sugar rush? Maybe. An unhealthy, horrible habit? No way. Eating these foods once in a while won’t damage our organs or undo a healthy lifestyle. This is just another example, in a slew of examples, of magazines promoting the thin ideal – not the idea of working out because it’s healthy, but working out because it gets you closer to achieving today’s skinny standards.
3. That we should fixate on calories. This chart tells us that when we look at food, it’s time to kick-start our internal calorie counter, which can be confusing and inconvenient at best, and very unhealthy, at worst: “Do I have the apple pie or the pumpkin? Which one has more carbs and calories? Is the salad OK to eat?”
Another conundrum: What if the party you’re attending doesn’t offer pumpkin pie? What if there are absolutely no healthy options? Sure, there are always healthier foods but who knows if it’s the pasta or potatoes, the cookies or the cake. Before you know it, nothing looks appealing. By the time, you’re done tallying up the numbers, you may just realize that the easiest and less time-consuming choice is nothing at all (“Forget it; this is too confusing; I just won’t eat anything”). Which can be risky all on its own.
Watching what you eat isn’t inherently unhealthy. It’s important to be mindful of the foods you’re eating and make sure you’re taking in vital nutrients. But fixating on calories can lead to obsession, which can lead to disordered eating.
4. That we’re doing something bad. You can’t browse through a magazine without words like “guilt,” “guilt-ridden” or guilt-free” staring back at you. It seems like indulging in dessert should strike fear in your heart and guilt in your soul. If you choose to nosh on the “naughty” dessert, this table implies that you should feel guilty. But don’t worry; you can absolve yourself from almost any culpability by working off those extra calories accordingly…
In addition to making us feel guilty, terms like “naughty” and “nice” instantly make the decision for us: If you eat the naughty food, you’re bad. Eat the nice food? And you’re an angel. Sure, as adults we know better than to classify our eating habits using black-and-white thinking — or do we? How often have you said, “Oh, I’ve been so bad today with eating that piece of cake, but I’ll be good tomorrow, and just eat salad.” This all-or-nothing thinking encourages an unhealthy way of looking at food. And, interestingly, all-or-nothing thinking can make you less likely to maintain weight loss, anyway. And here’s the thing, as Carrie Arnold of the excellent blog ED Bites writes in a post on guilt:
Eating is not a crime. It’s not a moral issue. It’s normal. It’s enjoyable. It just is.
To get an expert’s opinion, I emailed with eating disorder specialist Karen Samuels, Ph.D, who’s also in charge of COPE (Community Outreach for Prevention of Eating Disorders) here in Florida. She said:
I absolutely concur that it [the chart] promotes weight and shape preoccupation one places an exercise/caloric value on every food eaten. This is exactly what develops in what is known as “exercise bulimia” when an individual uses excess exercise to eradicate the energy value of foods consumed.
While at the holidays, there is often an abundance of foods that are identified with celebrating the day(s), it is absolutely crucial not to devalue foods into “naughty vs. nice” categories. There are no forbidden foods. Deprivation of these so called “bad foods” tends to contribute to cravings for the very items we “forbid” ourselves.
Cravings lead to a larger than normal appetite, food obsessions and consuming negative self talk. These are the three triggers that often lead to problems with disordered eating, negative self and body image and consuming negative thoughts.
Her prescription for a healthy holiday? Shift the focus. She said:
The holidays can be a time of enjoying relationships and connections. For many people challenged with weight obsession, depressed mood states and food struggles, the holidays can become a troubling time of isolation and fear. Holiday gatherings offer a myriad of foods and these social settings may become difficult for the person battling an eating disorder.
If we can shift the emphasis away from the food and drink, offer an opportunity to connect with important loved ones, then we can forget about the invitation to “eat, drink and be merry”. Focus on one true thing that brings a smile to yourself and/or someone you love. Let the food/drink be the backdrop for the time with those we cherish.
What do you think? Does this advice encourage a negative approach to food or help us make better choices? Are magazines merely presenting the facts (i.e., one dessert clearly has fewer calories than that other) or sending potentially dangerous messages — or perhaps a bit of both?
Related Posts
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
It Happened This Week: PCOS, Exercise for Healthy Bones, Magazine Advice & Making Changes | Zero Cellulite (November 13, 2009)
The mainstream media feeds right into our negative self images…time & time again. It reinforces our “good and bad”, “black & white” style of thinking. Its time for people to relaize that they are GOOD & WHOLE no matter what they eat, how much they exersize, or what jeans size they are. If we all start from that belief….we WILL make healthier choices. Loving & Accepting yourself gives you the freedom to be able to give you body what it needs…and ENJOY doing it!!
Amen Stephanie! Well put
The problem in my mind is that all these charts and advice seem to suggest that we can outsmart our body and our hunger. Say you DO choose the option with more calories… so what? You’ve given your body that much more fuel and presumably, in general, in the context of a healthy lifestyle, your body will use that fuel and tell you it’s hungry again a little later than it would’ve if you chose the lower calorie option.
It seems like none of those magazines promote the idea of trusting your body to tell you when it’s hungry and then eating to satisfy that hunger, and trusting that that process will repeat as hunger arises in the future.
JJ, I can’t agree more. The message magazines send is that we have to manipulate ourselves into eating less, that left to our own devices, we really can’t be trusted to make smart choices.
The problem is that eating less is recommended not for health reasons but for appearances (because thin is in). For some people, diets and certain tips and tricks prevent their bodies from being a natural, healthy weight. I’m sure it’s true for many celebs; if they weren’t on restrictive diets and punishing workout plans, celebs would probably be larger (because that’s actually healthier for them).
I’d be interested in a post on how you define a “natural, healthy weight”… if it’s not a certain number on a scale, not a certain BMI, not a certain slimness of appearance–then how do you know what it is? Is it a process thing that you know a person is at a natural, healthy weight because they’re eating healthfully? (That seems to fly in the face of all the “obesity epidemic” stuff getting thrown around these days.)
It also implies that you won’t make up the calories in other ways — our bodies are marvelous at homeostasis. These messages aren’t just risky, they are false. If you take in fewer calories at one event, your body will compensate by making you more hungry at another meal or snack time. If you count calories and don’t allow yourself to follow your appetite and your body’s signals, then your body will adjust by lowering your metabolic rate. Calories in = Calories out is an outdated myth.
I think we need to focus on healthy choices and loving our bodies now. Healthy is in. I think that we don’t give enough emphasis to how smart we really are when it comes to food. Every person knows what is good for them vs. what isn’t. Most of us just make a decision based on how we are feeling at that moment in time instead of always selecting something that may be healthier. There is nothing wrong with picking what you want, we just can’t do it every time. Bottom line, don’t feel guilty about your choice. Just know that you control your intake of bad and good and it is always up to you.
JJ, I think a natural, healthy weight is one that you are when you’re leading a healthy, active lifestyle. By that I mean eating three meals a day with snacks (if hungry) and exercising several times a week.
It doesn’t mean grueling six-day a week workouts, fasting, skipping meals or eating less than 1200 calories (which I believe is the cut-off point for unhealthy eating). Basically, you don’t need to engage in unhealthy behaviors to maintain that weight.
I’ll also consult several experts and get back to you. Great question!
I’m a little confused with the BMR calculation because it seems to imply I should be eating just 1310 calories a day. I am already 9lb under the minimum weight for my height and I eat more calories than that! Is it implying that I need 1310 calories a day just to stay alive (ie for my internal body processes to function), without burning any off through walking about, exercise etc? Is it reasonable, in that case, to think I might burn off 300 or 400 calories a day through walking, cycling to the station etc?
My experience echoes those who commented that if you shortchange yourself at one meal, you’ll be hungrier later. What makes us think our bodies can’t tell the difference between meatballs and mushrooms?
Oh, and I always laugh at those articles that say you need to jog 9 minutes to burn off 62 extra calories. It’s not only obsessive, but inaccurate.
Why is the focus always on calories and not on nutrition? Those “eat this, not that” books and articles are solely based on calories, and not the nutritional value. I’d rather eat one ounce of almonds, with the protein, healthy fat, and vitamins and minerals than a serving of sugar-free jello, which is basically gelatin and artificial sweetener with no nutritional value (and will make you feel hungry later).
I have beens aying for years that dieats promote overeating at some point or another. Anything that your body craves, if you give it that in little doses, it stays happy. If you don’t, that craving builds up till you will binge some day.
Also, BMR is the basic metabolic rate. That should be followed if you do nothing beyond sleeping and sitting around all day. That’s the number of calories needed for your body to just help you live.
If I eat a slice of pecan pie, as long as I live a healthy lifestyle, my body should metabolize it. On the other hand, if I eat half a pumpkin pie, I am sure that’s not healthy either.