Thin/Fat: The Acid on Media Reporting

The farcical reporting of diet and weight issues among many (mainly tabloid) media outlets is jarring. Reporting on body size often degrades into a vindictive and scathing melodrama. Somewhere among the thin/fat debate exists a supposedly "acceptable" size.

The UK Daily Mail delves into the real reason behind celebrity slimming trends - blaming popular Hollywood stylist Rachel Zoe for promoting the emaciated look. Traditional diet and workout regimes don't really seem to be the honest answer behind some of the rapid transformations often seen in Hollywood.

"Trainers like me laugh ourselves silly listening to celebrities talk about their diet and exercise routines," says Jackie Warner of Sky Sport & Spa. "If you want to get your body seriously skinny in three weeks, it's going to be difficult the natural way."
It's more likely that drug use is involved, such as clenbuterol or adderall.

So we hate on skinny people. We watch them like a hawk. We catch them unaware and photograph their scrawny bodies. Of course, if Hollywood wants to cast someone for a role... well... they'll put aside the hatemongering, and pay those skinny folks lots of money to appear on TV.

The Daily Mail article on drug use and skinny-pursuit is well-researched and informative.

And then I turn to another article - based on a photo of U2 frontman Bono apparently sunning himself in Croatia - another paparazzi special. The Daily Mail is quick to pour scorn on the man - it seems he is too fat. They even go as far as making mock-ups of U2 song titles (i.e. "The Noshua Tree").

So somewhere in between the skinny and the fat is the way we're supposed to be. Perhaps the Daily Mail will give us some nutritional advice... yes... there it is - "Let them eat white bread" - an article from Britain's 'leading nutritionist'. Her advice:

Almost nothing beats a freshly baked slice of white bread with jam. [...] Overly healthy parents can fill their children so full of wholegrain that they lack energy. Also, their kids won’t necessarily absorb enough iron and calcium, and they could become anaemic.
I'm not about to debate the issue of kids and white versus whole grain breads - but anaemia?

Bewildered?
Too fat. Too thin. No muscle tone. Tummy's too big. Too many ribs. Photoshop. Boob job. Tummy tuck. Pill-popping. Tablet-taking... it goes on and on.

Doesn't it make you thankful that YOU are NOT your BODY?

More like this in Body Image and Celebrities and Media Watch · Oct 12, 2006

Comments

iportion on 10/12/06

It's the tabloids themself stars get themself real thin to get on the covers
at the same time tabloids make fun of stars and call them fat when they are at a healthy BMI.

Reply
Caramelle-oh on 10/12/06

I love how The Daily Mail is putting the blame everywhere but on it's own idiotic articles, on the one hand, this person is too thin, on the other, that one is too fat! This seems to be the general trend in the gutter press.

Oh, and they should leave Bono alone, or put him on their cover for what he does rather than what he looks like. If every airhead celebrity spent as much of their time and money as he does on world issues (not to mention had even half of his talent), perhaps the only people starving in the world might be those who do so by choice.

Reply
Caramelle-oh on 10/12/06

And what's up with the nutritionist promoting white bread? Just goes to show that anyone who can afford it can get a degree and become an "expert" these days. Scary thought.

Reply
Jim on 10/12/06

This is a bonafide Rant™. Sometimes I can't help myself. The vitriol I see in many hundreds of celebrity-watching blogs, sites, and tabloids never ceases to amaze me.

Reply
Jan on 10/12/06

Jim, excellent post. I remember when Keira Knightley gained around 10 (much needed) pounds and the press was calling her fat, when just a few weeks ago, they were saying she was dying from anorexia. So I don't think there really is a middle ground anymore.

Reply
Judy Wyatt on 10/12/06

I suspect that the weight issue -- too fat, too skinny -- is just an excuse. We read and watch the "news" about celebrities with glee because, let's face it, we're bitches at heart -- we love to see that they have flaws.

Magazines and celebrity news programs give readers and viewers what they want. What they (readers and viewers) want is sleaze and mean-spirited exposees. Weight is just the current topic. In a few years it'll be something else.

Please don't blame the tabloids. They're in the business of selling issues. If we stopped buying because we were tired of the sleaze, they'd have to find another way to attract customers. But don't hold your breath waiting for the public to demand nicer, friendlier-to-celebrities articles.

Reply
noelle on 10/13/06

Good rant. I totally agree.

Reply
Heather on 10/13/06

:( I agree that there's no middle ground for the celebrities (though I am too petty a person to empathise with the billionaires too much over this) -- they are too thin and sick or, if a healthy weight, fat. Hollywood is insane.

Reply
Spectra on 10/13/06

Clenbuterol is not even approved for human use. It's a horse asthma drug and it's dangerous stuff. It will screw up your thyroid really bad if you take it, yet some stars are taking it to lose weight quickly. It's very sad that we are such a catty bunch of snoops in America that we have to dissect every flaw in every famous person out there. I doubt anyone doing the criticizing has the absolute perfect body anyway. Not to mention that perfection is subjective. Many actresses out there with "good" bodies don't look good to me.

Reply
katy on 10/14/06

I dont't care about these magazines. I don't read them.

:-)

Reply
Kailash on 11/28/06

White bread for energy?! Somebody slap this retard. The only energy you'll get from white bread is that quick sugar rush, followed by mass insulin dumped in your bloodstream, making you fat, followed by lethargy in hypoglycemia. That it is easy for our bodies to digest is NOT a boon, but a hormonal disaster (insulin).

And, no, you won't get anemia or any deficiences from eating non-fortified whole grains. Why? Because whole grains don't need to be fortified! They never had the nutrients removed in the first place, as with white bread. White bread is the endosperm removed from the bran, to kill the enzymes which naturally would help in digestion of the bread (but reduce shelf-life). Then they extract some of the nutrients from the bran in a chemical factory, and add them back to the endosperm so that you DON'T get killed by white bread, the food of commerce...

You'll still miss out on the enzymes, the fiber and the rest of the nutrients that weren't added back into the mix, though, while riding the hormonal rollercoaster of insulin spikes.

Somebody slap this sell-out!

Reply

Add Your Comment

Required (nicknames or firstnames only)
Required (never displayed)
Optional



Most comments displayed immediately - some are held for moderation. (How to get an avatar)

©2003-2008 Diet-Blog - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer