The Media's Portrayal of Women's Bodies and Its Consequences

It’s New Year’s Eve which means the people across the world are making resolutions for next year.  One of the most popular resolutions is also the one that Emily and I find the most frustrating - lose weight.  Don’t get me wrong, losing weight can be a very healthy thing to do; however,  it isn’t always.  Losing weight should never be the goal (or resolution) - being healthy should.  So why do so many people, especially women, focus on the weight?

Media’s Portrayal of Women

It’s no surprise to anyone that models are thin, but, in fact, most runway models have BMIs low enough to qualify as anorexic.  Models have been getting thinner as well - “Twenty years ago, the average fashion model weighed 8 percent less than the average woman. Today, she weighs 23 percent less” (Most Models Meet Criteria for Anorexia).  When women turn on the TV or go to a movie, they are inundated with images of women who are much smaller than they are.  “You either look like Calista Flockhart in Ally McBeal and your weight is never mentioned, or you look like Nikki Blonsky [...] and your weight is the focus of the show (The Unwritten Weight Rules for Hollywood Actresses).  If an actress does approach a more average body size, she is generally attacked in the media - just ask Jennifer Love Hewitt who was bullied in the tabloids for pictures taken of her at the beach (one of which is below).  

Women everywhere are being told that being a healthy weight is fat.  We hear sayings like, “you can never be too rich or too thin” or Kate Moss’ “nothing tastes as good as skinny feels”, so it is no wonder healthy women are always trying to lose that last 5 pounds.  For more on the media’s representation of women, check out Mis-representation and America the Beautiful - both are great documentaries and are available on Netflix.  It’s also important to note that men aren’t immune to skewed images in the media either.  Check out the National Eating Disorder website for more info on the increase in muscularity in the media as well as other issues more specific to men with eating disorders.

The Consequences

You might be thinking, “but wait, isn’t there an obesity epidemic in this country?  This can’t be that big of a problem if there is”; however, there are many negative consequences to the unhealthy portrayals of women in the media and our resultant desire for the unattainable body.

1.) Dissatisfaction with body image starts young and can create disordered eating

“Studies have found that nearly half of females ages 6-8 have stated that they want to be slimmer” (Female Body Image and the Mass Media).  The quoted article goes on to say that most eating disorders start as normal dieting behaviors but a good predictor that someone will have a clinical eating disorder is that she had early body dissatisfaction and dieting behavior.  There are not definitive numbers on how many people suffer from eating disorders as many go untreated, but the estimate is between 3 and 10%.  A striking example of how media can cause eating disorders is Fiji.  Before TV was available on the island, only 3 percent of middle school girls surveyed on the island said they had induced vomiting to control their weight - after TV, that percentage rose to 15.  Before TV, 13% of girls were considered at risk for an eating disorder, after TV it rose to 29%.  (Study Finds TV Alters Fiji Girls' View of Body)  Moreover, eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of any mental illness and are associated with depression.

2.) Even women without eating disorders damage their health

Recently, a study came out showing that unregulated supplements, especially those that supposedly burn fat or calories, are causing liver damage.  Supplements account for almost 20% of drug related liver injuries, and, though many are treatable, some people need liver transplants or die from these injuries.  When the ideal body image is unattainable by healthy means, people will turn to unhealthy means.

Conclusion

Instead of making your New Year’s resolution to lose weight, focus on being healthy or feeling good.  Maybe resolve to work out the recommended amount of time a week, or eat more vegetables.  Maybe resolve to lower your blood pressure or cholesterol.  If those things mean that you also lose weight then great - if they don’t, then you didn’t need to lose weight in the first place.

*If you or someone you know is suffering from disordered eating, please seek the care of a medical professional.  To learn more, check out www.nationaleatingdisorders.org or www.anad.org.

The hidden costs of car-centricity

The costs of car-centricity

I am a huge fan of public transportation. I am lucky that I can choose where I live based on the availability of public transportation. In the United States, there are millions of people that do not have the option of public transportation. Many cities are built so that driving is essential for every errand. Stop and think for a second how much money cars cost - the purchase of cars, insurance policies, repairs, parking and the gas. Those are the costs to the individual and they are substantial. Now think about the costs of cars to society - increased obesity and respiratory conditions are among the largest costs. All of these costs could be reduced if we start to improve our cities to be less car-centric and more person-centric.

Car centricity and obesity

On the very basic level, obesity = calorie intake > calories burned. So, if you eat more than you burn, you gain weight. Walking burns calories, while driving doesn’t. Imagine that instead of driving to work, you walked 3 blocks to a bus stop. That would be 6 blocks of walking without even trying!  Researchers have found that the more we drive as a nation, the more obese we become. The map below shows the link between obesity and car commuting.

Obesity rates are highest in Appalachia and the Southeast United States. Image: Planetizen

The American Public Health Association (APHA) estimates that cost of obesity associated with inactivity for society is $142 billion dollars annually for the United States.

Car-centricity and respiratory conditions

Car exhaust exacerbates respiratory conditions and is linked to heart conditions. Children, the elderly, and low-income individuals are at a greater risk than the general public to develop car exhaust related illnesses. While children and the elderly are at special risk due to the structure of their lungs, low-income individuals are at a great risk because the neighborhoods in which they reside are more likely to contain massive highways. The costs associated respiratory conditions include health costs, like doctors appointments and ER visits, as well as premature death. The APHA estimates the cost of air pollution in the United States  from traffic to be $50-80 billion dollars annually.

How to decrease car-centricity

Unfortunately it is not possible for most Americans to take public transportation instead of driving.  Cities are built up around the use of cars and cars are very much part of the American culture. Emerging research suggests that younger Americans are driving less. I do not think that higher taxes on cars or toll ways are a good option. People have to get to work and should not be punished because for centuries American cities have been build around car use. However, mixed-use developments are a promising step in the right direction. Mixed-use development integrates commercial and residential areas into one building that emphasizes pedestrian functionality. Major investment in both city and regional trains is also imperative. On a smaller level, I encourage businesses to offer mass-transit passes to employees or organize ride-share programs.  Americans are interested in more public transportation options. However, our dependence on the car is structural and it will take time to modify the American culture, change human behavior, and re-design cities and regions with better mass transportation options.

Air Pollution - Place Matters

Taken outside of McGlynn Middle School in Medford, MA

Earlier this month, the Chinese cities of Shanghai and Nanjing had such high levels of air pollution that schools cancelled classes and people were warned to stay inside.  The reason this made the US news was not because the levels of pollution were higher than China has seen before, but, in my opinion, because unlike the other cities that have experienced even higher pollution levels, most of us have heard of Shanghai.  Multiple cities in China have experienced pollution levels so high, they were off the 0 to 500 scale that China uses to measure them.  

The Health Effects of Air Pollution

The United States does not have the level of pollution that China has anymore (our pollution levels have improved as we have lessened our reliance on coal for energy and instituted environmental protection policies among other things).  However, 42% of Americans still live in areas with pollution levels are high enough to cause health issues. Some of the health risks from ozone and particulate matter pollution (the two most common) are:

1.) Premature Death: Research has shown that breathing even small amounts of ozone can shorten life.  Spikes in particle pollution can sometimes kill on the day they happen.

2.) Short Term/Immediate Breathing Problems: As the people of Shanghai learned this month, large amounts of pollution can make breathing noticeably more difficult.

3.) Cardiovascular Issues: These include arrhythmia and heart attack

4.) Asthma: Not only can pollution exacerbate asthma that is already present, but it also can cause asthma.

5.) Low Birth Weight: Children born in communities with higher pollution levels are more likely to have low birth weight as well as decreased lung function.

6.) Cancer: People who are exposed to high levels of particle pollution have a higher risk of developing lung cancer.

Place Matters: Who Is Affected?

It is not surprising that where we live dictates how much air pollution we are exposed to.  There are two types of areas where air pollution is higher than others.  The first is pretty obvious - industrial areas.  Industry requires energy often from coal or petroleum products which produce various pollutants.  In developed countries, we have decreased this type of pollution as technology has improved and environmental regulations have been set; however, in developing countries like China, the environment often loses out to economic concerns (just like it did in the US during the industrial revolution).  Because developing countries are by definition less wealthy than developed countries, poorer people around the world are exposed to greater pollution.  The second type of area that has higher pollution, especially in the US, is agricultural.  This may seem strange but the use of high powered machinery to farm often kicks up particulate matter and uses combustion engines that produce pollution.  Spraying pesticides and fertilizers on farmland also harm air quality.

If where we live affects our exposure to air pollution, we have to ask ourselves who lives in the worst places for air quality?  The answer is not surprising - the cities with the worst air pollution in the US also tend to have more people of color than the national average.  Below are two tables that compare the demographics of the US with the 11 cities with the worst air pollution - the first table has the 6 cities in California that made the list, the second contains the rest. (2010 Census Quick Facts)

Race / Ethnicity	US	Bakersfield, CA	Visalia, CA	Los Angeles, CA	Hanford, CA	Fresno, CA	Modesto, CA
White	72.4 %	56.8%	64.5%	49.8%	62.5%	49.6%	65%
African American	12.6 %	8.2%	2.1%	9.6%	4.9%	8.3%	4.2%
American Indian or Alaska Native	0.9 %	1.5%	1.4%	0.7%	1.3%	1.7%	1.2%
Asian American	4.8 %	6.2%	5.4%	11.3%	4.3%	12.6%	6.7%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	0.2 %	0.1%	0.1%	0.1%	0.1%	0.2%	1%
Two or more races	2.9 %	4.9%	4.6%	4.6%	5.4%	5%	6.3%
Hispanic or Latino	16.4 %	45.5%	46%	48.5%	47.1%	46.9%	35.5%

Race / Ethnicity	US	Phoenix, AZ	Pittsburgh, PA	Birmingham, AL	Cincinnati, OH	Louisville, KY
White	72.4 %	65.9%	66%	22.3%	49.3%	70.6%
African American	12.6 %	6.5%	26.1%	73.4%	44.8%	22.9%
American Indian or Alaska Native	0.9 %	2.2%	0.2%	0.2%	0.3%	0.3%
Asian American	4.8 %	3.2%	4.4%	1%	1.8%	2.2%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	0.2 %	0.2%	0%	0%	0.1%	0.1%
Two or more races	2.9 %	3.6%	2.5%	1%	2.5%	2.3%
Hispanic or Latino	16.4 %	40.8%	2.3%	3.6%	2.8%	4.5%

Conclusion

The highlighted cells are showing when a city has a higher percentage of people in a certain race or ethnicity.  As you can see, in many of these cities, the difference in population is dramatic.  This data shows that at the city level, there are disparities in air pollution exposure, but there is also some evidence that within cities there are disparities that even further target communities of color.  Generally, when new highways, truck routes, industries or other potentially harmful additions are planned, they are put in or near low income neighborhoods of color because they have less political power to fight against it.  Also, areas that have higher air pollution also tend to have lower housing prices.  To learn more about these disparities, check out the State of Health Website here.