The shape of things

A new study was recently published that found that children who were given food (food from fries to carrots) that were in a McDonald's wrapper thought it tasted better than food not wrapped in the golden arches. Interesting. Or is it? The researchers blame marketing. They say that McDonald's unfairly targets children - who are vulnerable - and could be another reason for the increase in childhood obesity.

McDonald's spokesman says that's not the case. In fact, he points out the recent efforts of the huge Shrek promotion that encouraged kids to eat more vegetables and fruits. He also says that the only advertising McDonalds does to children is for the Happy Meal - which he says is well rounded and only 375 calories total. (Good point).

As a kid, there was something about McDonalds that was just so alluring. Maybe it was all the fatty foods or maybe the cuddly characters (remember the hamburglar?) It's been almost 20 years since those days, and I'm pretty sure that McDonalds retired those lovable characters a long time ago - if not they have in their tv advertising.

Recently I was in the gym locker room changing for my workout and the TV was tuned in to Nickelodeon. I wasn't really paying attention until the commercials came on and every kid in the room seemed to be glued to the TV. I sighed, thinking "what's going to happen with this generation when they become adults"... and then something incredible happened. Every single commercial played during that break was about either being active, exercising, eating healthy, and getting enough fruits and vegetables. I was floored!

So maybe despite this study that found that McFood is better than normal food, marketing to children has improved since I was a kid. Yes, corporations still want kids to plead and beg their parents for the products they sell, but by being socially concious and ethical in their advertising they've cut back on the endless stream of sugary treats and cereals that I remember.

Of course that commercial break on Nickelodeon I saw could have been a fluke, just a one time healthy break, but if not, that's great news.

I subscribe to a few fitness magazines and each month on the cover is another celebrity in a bikini. Always looking tiny and a bit airbrushed, it sets an ideal for women who read the magazine.

I recently read this blog post by fit sugar about how Michelle Pfieffer slimmed down for the movie Hairspray. Well, let's just say it's one step closer to full-blown anorexia. It got me wondering why these women, who use unhealthy fad diets and have unhealthy BMI's get to be plastered on fitness magazines.

I decided to do some research. I wanted to find out the BMI (Body Mass Index) of some celebs (especially ones recently featured in fitness magazines). It's hard to find their weights that are real (obviously), but I tried to stick to somewhat decent sources. For the record: Healthy BMI range from 18.5-24.9. Below 18.5 is considered underweight. Find out your BMI here.

Unhealthy Girls Over 5'5: (Do not aspire to be this size/shape)

• Uma Thurman: Height 6'0, Weight 128, BMI = 17.4 UNDERWEIGHT! It seems like all the celebs over 5'4 are underweight... hmm... (Source)
  
  
• Gwyneth Paltrow: Height 5'10, Weight 111, BMI = 15.9 UNDERWEIGHT. (Source)
  
  
• Cameron Diaz: Height 5'9, Weight, 120, BMI = 17.7 UNDERWEIGHT! (source)
  
  
• Charlize Theron: Height 5'9, Weight 118, BMI = 17.4 UNDERWEIGHT! (source)
  
  
• Angelina Jolie: Height 5'8, Weight 109, BMI = 16.6 UNDERWEIGHT! She attributes her recent weight loss to stress and mourning (which may be legit) but she's very very low. Girl needs to gain 20 pounds. (Source)

Healthy Girls Over 5'5: Aspire to look like this! :)

• Catherine Zeta Jones: Height 5'8, Weight 128, BMI = 19.5 Healthy. (Source)
  
  
• Ashley Judd: Height 5'7, Weight 128, BMI= 20 Healthy! (Source)
  
  
• Jennifer Lopez: Height 5'6, Weight 121, BMI = 19.5 Healthy (source)
  

• Renee Zellweger: Height 5'5, Weight 117, BMI = 19.5 HEALTHY. (source)

Here's The Beautiful and healthy celebs over 5'5:

Unhealthy Celebs under 5'5: (Do not aspire or try to be like these women)

• Lara Flynn Boyle: Height 5'4, Weight 92, BMI =15.8 UNDERWEIGHT (source)
  
  
• Nicole Richie: before pregnancy, Height 5'1, Weight 85 (according to police records, but I doubt it, I'd say more like 90 or 95), Even using a generous 95 pounds her BMI = 17.9 UNDERWEIGHT (source)
  
  
• Mary Kate Olsen: Height 5'1, Weight 80 (doubt it), BMI = 15.6 UNDERWEIGHT (source)

Healthy Celebs Under 5'5: These girls are on track...

• Hilary Duff (on the cover of the August 2007Shape Magazine) - Height 5'2, Weight 109, BMI = 19.9 HEALTHY! On the low end, but still healthy. Go girl. :) (source)
  
  
• Eva Longoria: Height 5'2, Weight 105, BMI = 19.2 HEALTHY. On the low end, but healthy. Once again not too sure about the source
  
  
• Jessica Simpson: Height 5'3, Weight 108, BMI = 19.1 HEALTHY. Much like Eva, Jessica is borderline but healthy. The source is from VH1 and Self Magazine's 100 best bodies show.
  
  
• Drew Barrymore: Height 5'4, Weight 112, BMI = 19.2 Healthy. (Source)
  
  
• Sarah Jessica Parker: Height 5'4, Weight 121, BMI = 20.8 Healthy. (Source)

Here's a picture of the beautiful wee little things:

I'd like to point out one thing before I finish... the hightest BMI out of these girls is 20.8 (and that's SJP!!) but in reality the healthy range of BMI's goes from 18.5-24.9.

So in conclusion, even if you're 5'4 and you have a healthy BMI, it's no guarantee that you'll look like any of these celebs. You're still healthy, at low risk for heart disease and look great, I'm sure!

The point of this post is to show you that we see these women all over the media, in movies and on the Web and a lot of time we find ourselves thinking, can I look like that? You might be able to look like, say Gwyneth, but with a BMI under 18.5 you put your body at the same risks as if you were OVERweight and OBESE. CRAZY!

Being underweight can be as great a danger as being overweight, and your hormones, bones and heart may all be in danger if you don't take in enough calories and maintain a healthy level of body fat.

It's been a while since I've posted. I do apologize. Hopefully this time around I'll stay more current.

As it's nearing that time of year again that college students start school once again, we're reminded of the dangers of freshman 15. I read this article about the topic. Nothing really new or startling in the information, but just a reminder about how different eating habits and availability of a lot of food can lead to weight gain.

I was reminded of my college weight gain experience. Although I doubt I gained 15 pounds in my first year, I do know that I gained about 25 pounds from the time I started college to the middle of my senior year four years later.

The culprit? Many things affected my weight gain.

1. I think one of the most significant was that I stopped playing soccer 4 times a week like I did in high school. Soccer practice and games every weekend easily totaled more than 5 hours of intense exercise a week. When I got to college, there was no soccer practice or soccer games.
   
2. The cafeteria. Like mentioned in the article, the cafeteria did have some healthy options but more often than not that's not what I put on my plate. Or if I did, the portions were WAY bigger than what I would have normally ate at home. Plus, ending each meal *lunch & dinner* with soft-serve ice cream also contributed.
   
3. Late night. My freshman year I would go out with friends about 3-4 times a week. We'd drink a lot and then usually stop somewhere to get a late-night/early-morning snack (McDonalds, Canes chicken fingers, jack in the box, JUNK!).
   
4. Going out to eat. As I cooled down from the partying scene, I started making more friends with different interests. Since we weren't wasting all of our money on booze, we'd waste it on going out to eat every other night. Not only does that add up in money, but also pounds.
   
5. Lack of care. I'd be lying if I said I didn't notice that I was gaining weight. I noticed it when I had to buy all new pants and when I realized I was wearing a bigger size than my older sister, who previously I had always been smaller than. But despite that, I didn't care. I thought it was just a general slow down in my metabolism...not the fact that I was consuming WAY too many calories and not exercising. By the way, back then the word "calories" was a four-letter word to me. I made fun of my friends who counted them!
   
6. Sodas, frappucinnos, etc. While I was on campus I'd stop and get a soda (or two) to sip on during class. If I had a break I'd make a run for the Starbucks and order a sugary frozen drink *grande size!* and if I was bored in class, I'd buy some junk food from the vending machine to snack on class. Result? I was eating tons of calories when I wasn't even hungry.

Why did I feel the need to post all this? Well I want it to be a warning and a reminder to all who are about to embark on a new chapter in life. Whether you're starting college this fall or maybe you just realized that your health is in bad shape, hopefully some of these things will jump out at you and you'll realize what is causing you to gain weight.

Like I said before, I never really noticed the numbers on the scale (I rarely got on one) but I did notice that every year or so I'd go up a size when I was buying jeans. When you realize you've gone up 3 sizes in 3 years, it's alarming.

I encourage you, if you haven't already done this, to examine your life the way you live it right now and figure out what it is about your day-to-day habits that could be causing you to be unhealthy. And next? Make a change!

I was browsing on Shape's Website a few weeks ago and saw an online poll that asked, "Would you ever take a diet pill" Interested, I submitted my answer (no!) and wondered what the results would be (I guessed 70% no, 30% yes). I got the new Shape magazine this week and sure enough, the reader poll and results were featured in the shape.com section. Surprisingly, the results were 52% yes and 48% no.

Let me be clear, I realize that this poll is in no way scientific and/or generalizable to shape readers, young women, or any group for that matter. But despite all that, I'm way alarmed by the results. More than half of the women in the poll would take a diet pill?

I realize that losing weight takes a lot of work (I've been through it) but I also am skeptical of anything that claims it's product makes losing weight easy. It's not easy. It takes willpower, it takes commitment, it takes doing things differently, changing a lifestyle, spending money and time cooking healthy meals, etc. etc. But it's so worth it.

If you (or someone you know) is a diet pill person, or someone who would consider taking these pills, maybe this will change your opinion: They aren't very effective!

Weight loss is modest for prescription diet drugs: an average of less than 5.5 Ib more than placebo at the end of one year with fenfluramine, 7 to 11 Ib for the recently approved sibutramine (Meddia, by Knoll Pharmaceutical), and 8 Ib for orlistat (Xenical, by Hoffman-La Roche). Most studies show maximum weight loss at about 20 weeks, with little or no further weight loss during long-term treatment, and weight regain when the drug is discontinued (Levitsky, 1997).

If you consume 500 calories less than what you are consuming regularly, you can lose 1-2 pounds a week. Multiply that by 52 weeks and you could lose 100 pounds in a year!  

Not only do they not work well, they also are associated with major health risks (like leaky heart valves, increased blood pressure, and possible brain damage.

Americans need to learn that there isn't always an easy way out of things... especially out of obesity.