Media representations of fitness: 'skinny' does not equal 'healthy'

Photo by PictureYouth.com

Ensley Riley, the Orlando Personal Training Examiner, recently wrote an article regarding unrealistic physique expectations set by celebrities and the media. 

Sparked by a comment made by a father in the presence of his young daughter about how fat Kelly Clarkson was looking, Ensley was both concerned with the body issues this man was passing on to the next generation, and offended at the double standard set for male and female celebrities.

As the parents of a teenage girl, my wife and I have had concerns over this issue ourselves.  As a fitness trainer, the majority of my clientele comes to me with the goal of losing weight, whether it's healthy for them or not.  As a man, I've been troubled with the realization that our society expects women to look like 13 year old boys with silicone implants.

The argument I've heard numerous times on the subject goes something like "she's a celebrity - it's her job to look good", both implying that non-celebrities aren't expected to maintain the same standards, and defining "attractive" as "thin".

Now, without question, obesity is a tremendous health problem in our culture, which has led to unceasing bombardment with the message of "fat is bad".  Combine that with the media's love of tearing down celebrities, and you get a constant influx of information saying:

1) If you are fat, nobody will love you and you're going to die; and
2) Kelly Clarkson (or other celebrity du jour) is fat. 

The message embedded deep in our brain is "if a woman is bigger than a size 3, she should pack it up and move to a deserted island where she won't inflict her hideousness on the rest of us".  This is not the mindset I want for my daughter.

What makes it worse is the appearance most supposedly "ideal" women have is not physically healthy, or in many cases even genetically possible - it's become expected, as a result of extreme (and unsustainable) eating patterns, drugs, surgical enhancements, and oftentimes airbrushed photos.

Simply put, a woman's genetics are as likely to produce a Jessica Rabbit as a Jessica Simpson:  At least Mrs. Rabbit has hips proportional to her bustline.

The end result is a tremendous number of women who have either given up any attempt at fitness, or have dieted themselves into an advanced stage of "skinny-fat", defined as skinny arms and legs and no muscle tone - so no way to burn off fat.  This leads to health problems, fat deposits in the hips and belly, and little chance of a good physique past the age of about 32.

Ensley's point about the male/female double-standard is well taken also.  Harrison Ford and Sean Connery are listed among sex symbols as often as the more chiseled physiques of Denzel Washington and Colin Farrell.  For the most part, a man's self-esteem doesn't hinge on his body image nearly as much as it does on what job he has or what car he drives. 

What I'd like to see is an interest in female role models who promote healthy - and genetically possible - body images: Athletes like Natalie Woolfolk and Jennie Finch who excel at their sports; models of fitness (as opposed to 'fitness models') such as Krista Scott-Dixon and Nicole Carroll; and while I wouldn't expect anyone to stop looking at female celebrities as exemplary body-types, at least can we have women who really look the way they are portrayed?  The last honest female physique (i.e. no implants, and at least minimal airbrushing) to grace a women's magazine cover may well have been Twiggy, who was a stark contrast to the voluptuous beauty standards of Marilyn Monroe and Bettie Page, and was never presented as an ideal for women to strive for.

In the end, we want to shoot for what's optimal for each of us as an individual.  In very few cases will this be the example set by an anorexic, surgically enhanced, professional basket-case.  Role models are great for seeing how far a human being can get - just make sure the person you're following has gone somewhere you really want to go.