The longer I’ve been in the magazine industry, the more I’ve come to believe that the master’s tools cannot dismantle the master’s house. I have met so many smart women who “get it” working on these pages, and those women have been responsible for some great stuff like what you mention here. But the very beast of women’s magazines means that they will never, ever be truly friendly to women’s bodies. They will never stop relying on coverlines that generate the supermarket response (the “I’ve got to read that!” story). Coverlines are an absolute science in magazines, and they wouldn’t put them on there if they didn’t sell copies. (This is one place where readers have power, IMHO–advertiser relationships dictate the amount and direction of beauty and fashion content. But the “fat blast” coverlines are about the readers’ response.)

There was a line in the pilot of 30 Rock in which Jack does a quick typing of Liz Lemon, something like, “You’re the woman who buys magazines with body-image stories on the cover.” It made me laugh in self-recognition, but it also made me sad–magazines run those stories ALL THE TIME, because the editors are acutely aware of the need for improved body image among readers (and staffers!), but those stories tend to be abstract and falsely positive. Learning to love one’s body is a process; there are no quick tips that can run in 30-word bites to fill out a page. But there is never a lack of new health studies that can provide such bites, even if they completely miss the point of a holistic approach to health.

All that said: I have seen more awareness of the variety of bodies in the world in magazines during the past year than I’ve ever seen. I do think that a sea change is coming, but right now I’m with you: It’s a waiting game. We won’t know in six months whether there’s actually been progress; we might not know in a year. I think we’ll only know once the fright of the “obesity epidemic” has subsided a bit (and thus, the media attention paid to its backlash, the fat acceptance/health at any size movement). I’m wary of giving too many props for too little action on magazines’ parts. It actually saddens me how happy seeing that gorgeous Glamour spread made me–because it was so terribly rare.

As for the Marie-Claire blogger, I’m impressed that she’s actually overweight and not just, say, size 10. I think it’s fantastic that there’s awareness of the need for improved body image among women of normal or near-normal weight (say, sizes 8-14), but the focus on that can overshadow the very real trials of women who are plus-size (as opposed to being “plus” for a model, which isn’t really plus at all).

This article raised a couple of interesting points for me, both of which are side points to the main point of the article, but both of which I think are valid issues, so I’ll share them here.

The first relates to the link to the Glamour photo spread of “plus-size models.” What struck me about this photo is that these models do not look plus size; they look fairly average in their weight. Perhaps they have been photoshopped or posed to look skinnier than they are, but in this picture they look as though they were around a size 12 – 14: not skinny, but a very normal weight; people who would not wear plus size clothing and would perhaps even be within the upper end of the healthy BMI range for their weight. So my issue is this: why should “normal” weight models be called “plus-size” models? I’m glad they’re showing pictures of average weight people, but to be terming those of average or just slightly above average weight as “plus size” only reinforces the message that we should all really be wearing a size 2.

My second point might be seen as arguing the opposite stance of what I just said, but I think it’s an equally valid one. It seems to be a general theme of this column, including this article, that all body weights should be celebrated. While I certainly don’t think we should all aspire to wear a size 2, I think it needs to be recognized here, and in general, that there is such a thing as a healthy weight range, and being overweight is associated with some very serious health risks. It is true, as I think has been mentioned in this column, that the method of calculating healthy weight based on BMI has its pitfalls, such as failure to account for big-boned vs. small boned individuals, proportion of fat to muscle, etc. However, it is also true that whatever the flaws of the system of calculation, there is such a thing as an unhealthy weight. I am particularly aware of this fact now that my weight has for the first time crossed the threshold out of the healthy BMI range, and my body, for a while now, has been showing signs of protest in the form of a whole bunch of stretch marks. (Not to mention that having your thighs rub together, as mentioned in the Falcon article above, can sometimes be uncomfortable.) It’s great to be ok with how we look, but for those of us that really are at the point where we need to lose some unhealthy weight, it is not good to be so complacent with our weight that we forget we need to do something about it.

I think we need to recognize that while it does no good to sit around loathing the way we look, we do also need to keep the goal of a healthy muscle to fat ratio in mind (please keep in mind I’m not saying we should eliminate all fat, but that we should have a HEALTHY amount of fat) and for those of us who haven’t achieved that, we need to work toward that goal.

It would be really helpful if this blog, in addition to all the useful advice you give on loving your body no matter how it looks, could as part of that give some practical advice on how to eat healthily and lose weight healthily when needed – these two goals are important factors in loving your body. If you love your body, treat it right!