I haven’t read the study yet (I will!), but every blog post and newspaper article I’ve read so far focuses on a few things:

• eating disorder tips/tricks
• thinspiration
• promotion of anorexia as some kind of elitist lifestyle choice
• sick poems, art, music, etc.
• advice on hiding the disorder from friends/parents and avoiding food

It’s true that all of this exists and is unhealthy.  Sure.  However, if you were to analyze the traffic on these eating disorder websites, I bet you anything you’d find that only a SMALL percentage of one’s time is spent looking at “thinspiration” or reading some anorexia-glorifying poem.  Rather, people frequent these sites because of the forums — and that’s becuase they are using the forums for support.

And I mean serious support.

On many of the sites, it doesn’t matter if you’re in recovery, anti-recovery, or have never even thought about it.  You can complain about anything – how guilty you feel for “not restricting enough” today, how isolating it is to not have your school friends understand, how upset you are over breaking up with your boyfriend, how fearful you are that  your nutritionist is trying to make you fat, etc.  I really doesn’t matter what you talk about, other people in these communities are going to support you.  They’ll tell you that tomorrow will be better, or you actually hardly ate anything, or that they’re worried about you and are glad you ate more.  Someone will be able to relate to your boyfriend situation, your run-in with your dietitian, or your recent argument with your parents.

Individuals start to get all of their social support from these communities… which means not only are they getting some really unhealthy “advice,” but it also means more and more of their time is being spent in this eating disorder world.  Even if you can talk to your parents or school friends, they likely don’t understand at the level as the other girls on these forums do.  Or, if you are in treatment, what other support is available at 2am?

I’m not supporting pro-ED sites (or non-anti-ED sites…. if that makes sense) at all, and don’t want this post to be mistaken as such.  Of course I think they are harmful.  However, I don’t think that the “thinspiration” or ED “tips” that are the most concerning aspects of these sites.  You can find a picture of Mary-Kate anywhere.  It’s much harder to come by a friend who will support your disordered thoughts and behaviors.  That’s what keeps people active in unhealthy ED communities, and I think that’s a much more complicated issue to address than the photo galleries and static “how to lie to your parents about eating” pages.

To summarize this article in a couple of lines:

Alabama is giving its employees roughly a year to start getting in shape or state employees will be charged $25 a month for insurance that would otherwise be free.

Some states offer benefits for healthy living, but Alabama is the first state to punish those not trying to slim down.

How many studies need to be published to show that dieting is not the answer?  And why is the government not taking medical conditions and eating disorder into consideration?  Are we giving the general population the necessary tools to improve overall health?  How exactly does Alabama suggest that these individuals go about losing the proposed weight?

We already live in a society that encourages negative body image and an unattainable physical ideal (note: I do not blame society for eating disorders.  still, it doesn’t help).  How awful is it to not only be receiving the “you are too heavy” message from the media, but from the government as well?  Maybe you are already struggling with weight, food issues, emotional eating, medical problems — who knows… and now you are going to be punished by paying an additional fee for weighing too much?  How shameful.

Shame doesn’t solve anything (and certainly won’t help the obesity epidemic).  Shame will lead to more emotional eating (you have to compensate for those awful feelings!), which will just dig people deeper into that hole.  I’m not saying I know how to fix things… but I’m pretty sure that this is not the correct direction.

The article makes some great points, so I definitely recommend reading it… but I of course have to give my two cents.

Why do I think that Prozac should NOT be OTC?  Well, my biggest concern, is that depressed individuals who would take OTC Prozac would not seek the help that they need — and they may very likely need MORE help than just an SSRI.  It’s hard to seek mental health treatment — while depression has become so common these days, there’s still a stigma attached to it.  If you could just go to the drug store and pick up some antidepressants, then you don’t have to take that first asking-for-help step.  Suicide rates are going to rise, because so many cases of depression are going to go unreported.  And this isn’t because they’re going to take the OTC Prozac and feel better — it’s because they’re going to think that a Psychiatrist can’t do any more for them.

Pills don’t make problems with psychological components go away. Take diet pills for example — they clearly have not ended the obesity epidemic or cured people suffering from binge eating.  They have caused a lot of heart attacks, though.

Do I think that it should be hard to get antidepressants?  No.  Do I think they should be basically free?  Yes.  (and Prozac practically is at Walmart!  Still waiting for the day when Wellbutrin is on the $4 med list… the day may never come…)  I do think it should SSRIs should stay prescription, though, because I think that someone should be somehow monitoring you at least a couple of times a year.

According to a study from researchers at Cardiff University, one way to encourage children to eat healthily is to ban all unhealthy snacks in schools.

So…. if only healthy snacks are allowed in school… then children will eat more healthy snacks because their only alternative is… not eating?

An even greater impact was seen in schools which also had a “no food ” or “fruit only policy”, where children ate 0.14 more portions of fruit per day and in schools where fruit was the only food allowed, children ate 0.37 more portions of fruit per day.

Again… children ate more fruit when fruit was the only food allowed? Um, YEAH. If everyone brings a 3:00 snack, and suddenly the only snack is allowed to be fruit… then I think at least some kids are going to choose to bring fruit over bringing nothing.

Believe me, I could go on and on, but I’ll spare you all. Now, I am all for promoting healthy eating in elementary schools (and all schools, and workplaces, etc.)… but the whole idea of banning food seems very wrong to me. First, can a school really say that a kid can’t bring a cookie in his lunchbox? (I realize that school vs. family responsibility is a large, separate issue). Second, why do we want to introduce this black and white thinking about food at such a young age? Good food vs. bad food. I think that healthy attitudes about eating are JUST as important as healthy habits.

Third… look how good this good food / bad food thing is working for adults! (read: it’s not). I think that the obesity epidemic is just fueled by society’s dieting obsession. I don’t think that I really need to go into the issues that arise around trying to eat only “good food” (and inevitably failing).

Fourth… the article did mention the issue of after-school snacking. These kids are going to go home and eat all of the junk food that they would have eaten at school. What kind of overall effect does this have? Kids aren’t eating anything in the morning or during the school day (when they need the energy), and are consuming the bulk of their calories in the evening (probably empty calories, on top of it). Yet another lifestyle problem that dietitians preach against.

Lastly… I think that this model introduces shame into one’s daily lifestyle and reflection of self. (Enter eating disorder relevancy). You’re telling kids, “WHAT are you doing! You are eating BAD food. What kind of person would make such an unhealthy choice? People who eat like you are right now get FAT… and that is WRONG, and if you want to be a good person, then you need to eat GOOD food.” Okay, maybe that’s extreme… but I could definitely see feeling ashamed by being scolded by a teacher for bringing something unhealthy in for lunch.

Tags: eating disorder, ban unhealthy snacks, healthy snacks, snacks in school, cardiff university

I guess that this isn’t really an article on mental health, but I thought that it deserved a few comments. Having been anorexic as a teen, I think that there is something to be said about the role of physical activity.

To sum up the article: Physical activity has health and psychological benefits, so it’s important for your daughters to stay active.

Hmm… being signed up for group sports. While this is probably fine when they’re little, I know a lot of kids who were always MADE to participate in a group sport — whether or not they wanted to. Not everyone enjoys the team atmosphere. Also, not all teams / sports are particularly friendly and inviting. At my high school, you had better be damn good at whatever you sign up for — otherwise you’re just going to embarrass yourself. I’m all for encouraging your children to be a part of a group sport… but not excited about being made to participate.

But there’s a downside. Although girls’ participation in organized sports is on the rise, the number of girls staying physically active outside this arena is declining, especially after they become teenagers. According to the report, adolescent girls are only half as likely as teen boys to be physically active. That’s a big problem. Not only are they forgoing the positive benefits that exercise has for their bodies — better heart health, lower incidence of Type 2 diabetes and prevention of osteoporosis — but they are also missing out on the psychological pluses: compared with their more active counterparts, physically inactive girls rank lower in self-esteem, social skills and the ability to make friends and to handle conflicts.

I don’t think that there are many arenas outside of organized sports for teen girls to participate in. You can take up running or horseback riding or ice skating (non-organized sports), but they’re all still sports. Just thinking about my current friends, I don’t know anyone who is part of a team sport. They’re not inactive people — they just belong to a gym. I can’t recall ever seeing teenagers at my gym. Maybe I live in a non teenage girl-friendly area, but I just don’t think it’s common for teenagers to belong to a gym. My point with this rambling is that sports seem like the only choice as a teenager.

Also at fault is what LaVoi refers to as “the professionalization of youth sports” — parents treating kids like mini-pros by pushing them to engage in highly competitive sports leagues. “You could argue that kids just don’t know how to participate in unstructured play because there is so much focus on organized activities these days,” she says.

Parents can also help find activities that are fun for girls, which may not always mean organized competitive sports. Rebekah Granquist, director of program development at the YMCA of San Diego County, the second largest YMCA in the country, says, “Although many girls gravitate toward soccer, volleyball and cheering, more and more girls are signing up for our noncompetitive activities like dance and mind-body programs like yoga.” Fit daughters who say om — that’ll soothe any mom.

Okay, glad to see that they agree

To touch on any mental health aspect of this article that could possibly exist… I think it’s hard to make the conclusion that “Physically inactive girls rank lower in self-esteem, social skills and the ability to make friends and handle conflicts.” I would argue that girls (or boys) who are depressed, not interested in many social situations, and not necessarily outgoing, are less likely to participate in sports. I don’t think you can blame physical inactivity on all of the above.

Also interesting — as our culture becomes increasingly weight-obsessed, many children are becoming less active. I’m sure some of this is attributed to the shift in motivation to exercise. Girls aren’t necessarily joining a sport because it’s fun, but because it’s exercise. Oh, and the helicopter parents who push their kids to excel at everything aren’t making life easier for anyone. I don’t know at what age you had to start playing tennis in my area, but if you weren’t amazing, you weren’t going to be on the high school team (JV even). Many school organized sports have just become competitive — not places to learn a new game or healthier lifestyle.

Related to that thought — with this societal ideal of athletes: thin, powerful, skilled, etc. — I think that it’s intimidating to try a sport. I think that the whole “athlete” thing is intimidating. It’s not that kids just want to sit around all afternoon in front of the television… it’s just that being part of a team sport takes a lot of time, dedication, and hard work. And with all the homework and pressure to get into a good college, that just doesn’t sound appealing.

Tags: eating disorder, females athletes, girl sports, sports and depression, sports and mental health, team sports, teen depression

This is a great article on rumination.  I’m not going to do much to explain / summarize it, so you might want to read it before continuing:

Complexity reflects an ability to incorporate various points of view into a recollection, to vividly describe the circumstances, context and other dimensions. It is the sort of trait that would probably get you killed instantly in a firefight; but in the mental war of attrition through middle age and after, its value only increases.

This definition makes complexity seem so… clear-headed. So “Ah! Now I see the light.” I would argue that no, complexity is, well, complicated. It’s a dozen different ah-ha! moments added up. And each of those times, you thought “This explains it. It all makes sense now.” There’s that clarity. But in the end — when you reach that higher level of complexity — all the different causes, influences, situational factors, relationship issues, genetic components, perspectives, dimensions, etc. are just tangled in a big mess.

Not that you don’t reach some state of higher wisdom. You role your eyes at girls who are “only anorexic because they don’t want to get fat.” (Riiiight.) It is very valuable to be able to identify contributing factors and understand your response.

“I feel fortunate in a backhanded way to have experienced misfortune as a young woman. I feel it taught me humility … and the ability to regroup. … Life is good but not lavish. It’s hard work and we have to give each other a hand once in a while.”

Huh. This is the phenomenon that I call “having had too much therapy.”

What I really wonder after reading this article… is how does complexity relate to Maslow’s stage of self-actualization? It came to mind immediately while reading the article. And, in this case, how does the following excerpt apply? Because not everyone reaches the self-actualization stage… and I would make an argument that many people never reach a high level of complexity, either. At least not in some domains. I think that some people will always view their divorce, depression, eating disorder, etc., from a simple, one-dimensional perspective.

Dr. King has followed groups of people for years and found that this knack for self-evaluation develops over time; it is a learned ability. “To elaborate on loss, to look for some insight in it, is not just what a psychologically mature person does,” Dr. King said. “It’s how a person matures. That’s what the studies show.”