A Pop Health Book Review of “Unbearable Lightness”

Welcome back readers! After a holiday, bronchitis, and work travel hiatus- Pop Health is back with a new feature- reviews of books which examine public health and popular culture issues.

Over the weekend I finished reading “Unbearable Lightness- A Story of Loss and Gain”, by Portia De Rossi. I actually mentioned this book back in a November post when it first came out. The story chronicles Portia’s struggle with both Anorexia and Bulimia from approximately age 12 to the present. The strength of the book is in its ability to portray the absolute complexity of an eating disorder. Sometimes these disorders (and other mental or physical health issues) are over simplified. For example, the commonly held belief that someone is Anorexic simply because she/he needs to “have control over something”. However, in Portia’s case, she wove an incredible story that examined causes at multiple levels. And in public health, this multilevel thinking is essential for the development of effective interventions. I have decided to begin with the causes most closely associated with Portia herself and work my way out.

Intrapersonal:

Portia endured a complete lack of healthy coping mechanisms. She dealt with a lot of sorrow and changes in a short amount of time as an adolescent growing up in Australia. Her father passed away and she changed to a more affluent school district. She worked to cope with these challenges by identifying a way to be “special” and “stand out”. She chose modeling because models are special. She also changed her name when she was 15. There was another girl her age with the same name (Amanda Rogers), so she changed it to Portia De Rossi to be more unique.

Portia also felt intense guilt and shame over being gay. Although she realized her sexual orientation early on, she kept this secret until her late 20s. Much of her self hatred focused on feeling as if she was disappointing her family and would ultimately ruin her chances to have a successful career and “normal” life.

Interpersonal:

Portia’s relationship with her mother is examined in quite a bit of detail. Throughout her modeling career as a teenager, her mother was definitely her accomplice in yo-yo dieting. Her mother taught her “dieting tricks” to lose the weight quickly for jobs, but also rewarded her with McDonald's after auditions. However, her mother’s strongest influence seemed to be over the guilt and shame she felt over being gay. After she came out to her mother, the response was “let’s just keep this to ourselves”. Portia was told to keep it from the family and from employers/co-workers.

Besides 1-2 friends and her brother, Portia is very isolated. In addition, her relationships with co-workers on Ally McBeal and other colleagues in the industry seem to have contributed to her eating disorder as well. For example, two of her co-stars (Calista Flockhart and Courtney Thorne-Smith) were famously accused of being Anorexic and underweight throughout the show’s run. So Portia was constantly working with and compared to an unrealistic ideal. In addition, many people who could have and should have recognized the problem and intervened- stayed silent. For example, as Portia dropped from a healthy 130 lbs to sub-100s, her costume designer told her she looked fantastic and asked for her secrets to weight loss. Portia also sought the help of a professional nutritionist. Even though she confided to binging and purging on the first visit, she was still given a food scale and a diet to help her lose weight. The nutritionist did not try to intervene until Portia was almost down to 82 lbs.

Community/Society:

Portia’s existence in several “communities” contributed to her struggle with eating disorders. Her first professional affiliation in the modeling community in Australia is where she developed a strong knowledge of dieting, purging, and excessive exercise. The “older girls” taught her this. It was the norm in that group to be unhealthy in order to get ready for a job.

From Australia, Portia traveled to the United States and the “Hollywood Industry”. Unfortunately, it was a smooth transition from the unrealistic expectations of the modeling to the acting industry. She describes a particularly gut-wrenching fitting that she endured when a photo shoot had to be rescheduled after the client realized that she was in fact a size 8- so no selected clothes would fit her.

In addition to body size, she also felt Hollywood was not accepting of a homosexual lead actress. Several times she spoke of the paralyzing fear she felt after seeing how quickly Ellen DeGeneres’ show was canceled after she came out in the late 1990s.

This is just a brief overview of these complex contributors to Portia’s eating disorder- I could easily go on for many more pages. Overall, I think the book is a fascinating read…for those of us interested in public health, eating disorders, and/or Hollywood. It portrays Portia’s struggle, self hatred, and self destruction with brutal honesty- so be prepared.

A closing word of caution: this book may not be appropriate for someone with a current or recently recovered eating disorder, since it outlines her eating, binging, and exercise rituals in incredible detail.

Calling the Sugar Plum Fairy Fat and Other Ways To End Up on the Naughty List!

Back in the mid 1990's I first began getting interested in public health. One of my first areas of interest was around eating disorders, especially among female athletes. Many of you may remember the book that sparked my interest, "Little Girls in Pretty Boxes".

This book focused on body weight/image pressures among female athletes in elite gymnastics and figure skating. The book is heartbreaking, following several athletes along paths of injury and disordered eating...many of which lead to permanent injury or death. Even though the book is almost 15 years old, I sometimes wonder if we've even learned anything from those stories.

On NBC's Today Show this morning, Jenifer Ringer was a guest. She is a New York City Ballet principal dancer, currently playing the Sugar Plum Fairy in The Nutcracker. Her name has been all over the blogosphere in the past week after a critic for The New York Times Dance Section wrote that "she looked as if she'd eaten one sugar plum too many".

In response to the outrage over his comments, the critic (Alastair Macaulay) published a second editorial five days later called "Judging the Bodies in Ballet". His primary argument- judging the body is fair game in ballet. "If you want to make your body irrelevant to criticism, do not choose ballet as a career". And I would assume that he would argue that the same goes for gymnastics or figure skating, where the body is actually part of the art form. But if that is true, how does the cycle of pressure and expectation ever get broken? Are you asking for criticism if you choose to participate in one of these sports?

In public health, we often make much more headway by changing laws/policies versus changing any one individual's opinion. In that spirit, there have been some systemic changes that have made these types of sports safer for young female athletes. For example, a minimum age limit for Olympic competition was enforced (even though some countries have cheated), hoping that it will help with wear and tear on young bodies that can not yet handle the intense training. Changes have been made to make the equipment safer. For example, after many serious injuries occurred on the women's vault in gymnastics, their pommel horse was replaced with a "vaulting table" that was more appropriately sized and padded.

So minimum ages and safer equipment are wonderful, but what will help with the unrealistic body image problem? In her Today Show interview, Jenifer shared that the New York City Ballet has all types of bodies on the roster, including hers that is more "womanly". I guess that's a good start. If ballet companies can model variety and acceptance and strength for their audiences (including aspiring ballerinas), that can begin to change perceptions of what is "normal". And the outrage shown by readers of the critic's comments. I guess that's a good start too.

Shame on you Mr. Macaulay for picking on the Sugar Plum Fairy.

In Honor of World AIDS Day: Can Celebrity "Digital Deaths" Prevent Real Deaths from HIV/AIDS?

Kim Kardashian, Ryan Seacrest, and Lady Gaga are all dead! No, not really...but they are considered "Digitally Dead" for today- World AIDS Day (December 1st). These celebrities and many more joined forces with a charity co-founded by singer Alicia Keys called Keep a Child Alive. The charity provides treatment, love, and support to families affected by HIV/AIDS.

For today's campaign, celebs were pictured in coffins, featured in "last video testaments", and pledging to stay digitally silent on their social media accounts (i.e., on Facebook and Twitter) until their lives were "bought back" by donors reaching a minimum of one million dollars total. Although the images of celebs in coffins were a little creepy, Keep a Child Alive co-founder Leigh Blake says:

"We're trying to sort of make the remark: Why do we care so much about the death of one celebrity as opposed to millions and millions of people dying in the place that we're all from? Its about love and respect and human dignity."

It is an interesting concept for a health communication/advocacy campaign. Usually when campaigns advocate via social media, it is done by bombarding their followers with messages and links to donate or sign up to assist the cause. Here, the campaign is trying to motivate donors by having an ABSENCE of the celebrities' voices. How powerful is that absence? Will the public really miss reading celebs tweets and facebook status updates? Apparently so. As of tonight on Twitter, Kim Kardashian had 5,467,107 followers and Ryan Seacrest had 3,683,658 followers. So whether we like it or not, the voices (and silences) of these celebrities matter in our communities.

While I do think the campaign will have large reach, I will say that their coffin posters left room for improvement. I've analyzed health communication campaigns on this blog before, and the key is always- "What is the cue to action? Does the audience know what they are supposed to do after seeing the poster/brochure/PSA?" Well- when I first saw this poster of Kim Kardashian, I had no idea what it was about. I had to Google and read the narrative about the World AIDS Day campaign for Keep A Child Alive. For this blog post, I had to blow the image up over 100% to read the text on the bottom of the poster. It reads,

"Kim sacrificed her digital life to give real life to millions of others affected by HIV/AIDS in Africa and India. That means no more Facebook or Twitter until we buy her life back". Then the charity website and text number were provided to accept donations. In future campaigns, they would want that text to be much bigger. It should not take the audience several minutes, a Google search, and a magnifying glass to figure out what they are supposed to do to help poor Kim get out of that coffin.

Overall, I give this campaign a B+ for creativity in using the "absence" of social media messages and targeting celebrities with a huge following and reach to potential donors.

Text Messages and Public Health: Can They Remove Barriers for "Calling" 9-1-1?

Text messages are a great time saver. You do not have to have a long conversation with someone...instead you can just send a quick message like "I made it home safe!" or "Can you pick up milk on your way home?" These text messages work well to support our busy lives, but can they also be incorporated into effective public health interventions and systems?

This week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced that it is looking into letting citizens report crimes via text message. An article posted by Wired discusses the possibility and highlights some of the "barriers" that this new strategy could help to address. First and foremost, it could allow citizens to report a crime without being overheard if they were in dangerous situations (e.g., kidnapping, robbery). The FCC specifically pointed to the 2007 shootings at VirginiaTech and reported that texts could have allowed emergency personnel to respond more quickly and with a better understanding of the circumstances inside the campus buildings.

While at first glance, it may seem surprising to use text messaging for 9-1-1 reporting (due to potential logistical considerations and challenges), it would not be the first time that texts were being integrated into public health interventions and emergency response systems. For example:

• Text messages are used to disseminate key health messages to various priority populations. E.g., The Text4Baby campaign allows mothers to self select into their program by texting "Baby" to the program number. The mothers then receive weekly text messages (timed to their due date or baby's birth day) regarding key health issues for their babies (e.g., nutrition, immunizations, etc).

• Many workplaces and college campuses have signed up for emergency response systems that will send out automatic alerts to email and phones (via text message) during a crisis (e.g., shooter on site).

In the case of using text messages for "calling" 9-1-1, I wonder about how texts could influence a well documented social psychology barrier to calling for help. Those of you that took a social psychology course in college may remember the name "Kitty Genovese". She was a woman who was murdered outside her home in Queens, NY in 1964. At least one dozen people heard or observed her attack (lasting approximately 30 minutes), but there was much delay in anyone calling for help. A NY Times article running two weeks after her death was entitled, "Thirty-Eight Who Saw Murder Didn't Call Police". This case is widely discussed as an example of the "Bystander Effect", which is used to explain why many people do not help in emergency situations when others are present. Some hypotheses about the effect are that we just do what others are doing (i.e., nothing to help), we assume someone else is already calling/helping, or we assume that others are more qualified to help. Perhaps it is also too much trouble to call 9-1-1? They require a lot of information, we have to stay on the phone, etc. Perhaps a more "passive" option to report the information (like text messaging) would decrease resistance and the bystander effect?

In addition to the great potential with this strategy, there are also several barriers that must be addressed in the planning:

• Costs (equipment, training, staffing)
• Regulation and Oversight: Will text message support be required or voluntary at emergency centers? Who will conduct a formative and ongoing evaluation of the system?
  
• Interpretation of messages: Operators will need special training to (quickly) interpret and respond to text messages. Texts are often written in short hand, so you would need someone very skilled to decipher them accurately. It may also be time consuming to support the texting back and forth that may be required to receive all relevant information from the "caller" in order to dispatch an appropriate response.

Even with the barriers noted above, it does seem like text messages are a viable option to consider in order to increase timely and safe 9-1-1 reporting. However, the 9-1-1 system will need to think critically to develop the type of infrastructure that can keep up with our ever changing and expanding communication technology.

No Matter How Graphic The Images, Fear Based Messages Will Continue To Be Ineffective For Prevention

All over the news in the past week, we have seen samples of the new graphic images being proposed for addition to cigarette packages. They include corpses and people dying of cancer. However, just because these images and warnings are larger and more graphic, does not mean that they will be effective in smoking prevention.

A story ran today on Boston.com called "Will graphic cigarette warnings help- or hurt?" Two experts in tobacco prevention are quoted regarding their concerns about the new images. Gregory Connelly of the Harvard School of Public Health points to the results coming from Canada after using similar images. Smokers there simply purchased sleeves to cover up the images on their cigarette packs. Also, the smoking rate did not go down. The second expert is a wonderful professor of mine from the Boston University School of Public Health, Dr. Michael Siegel. Dr. Siegel writes regularly regarding this topic on his blog, "The Rest of the Story: Tobacco Analysis and Commentary". In the Boston.com article, he states "I do not actually think it's going to have much of an impact". His argument- the images are too late. The smokers are seeing the images after they have already purchased cigarettes. And (drum roll please....) people already know smoking is bad for them.

As someone who grew up during the "This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?" era...I wonder why we have not made much progress since then? Numerous studies have shown that scare tactics (or fear appeals) are not effective for preventing or producing sustained reductions of Alcohol, Tobacco, or other Drug use among youth. In addition to the issues outlined above, there is another problem with the fear based approach:

Although the fear based messages may increase knowledge (e.g., if they did not know it already, smokers will learn that cigarettes are bad for them from the graphic images)- knowledge does not equal behavior change. Especially when you are dealing with an addictive behavior. Addictive behaviors like smoking and drug use are impacted by much more than a rational weighing of pros and cons. There is the biological component of addiction, local-state-national prevention policies, social norms around the behavior, consequences experienced (or not experienced), ease of access to the substance, social support for quiting, money to support the addiction, etc. As you can see, knowledge alone will not change this kind of complex behavior.

Many of the most successful prevention strategies around this and other public health issues will continue to be a refocus from increasing individual knowledge to changing an environment that supports the behavior. In other words, laws that create smoke-free workplaces and crack down on establishments that sell cigarettes to underage kids will always be more effective at keeping the population healthy versus trying to educate (or scare) one individual at a time.

Kids, Gender Identity, and Bullying: Moms Fight Back

Last week on Facebook, no less than ten friends posted a link to the Nerdy Apple Bottom website post "My son is gay". The post was written by the mother of a 5-year old boy who dressed as Daphne (from Scooby Doo) for Halloween. She talks about his arrival at school in his costume and the harsh reaction received...mostly from other parents. She documents her internal reaction to this reception, which prompted much discussion and cheering among my Facebook friends:

"If you think that me allowing my son to be a female character for Halloween is somehow going to 'make' him gay, then you are an idiot. Firstly, what a ridiculous concept. Secondly, if my son is gay, OK. I will love him no less. Thirdly, I am not worried that your son will grow up to be an actual ninja so back off".

As of tonight, this post had 41,311 comments.

Coincidentally, the November 15th edition of People Magazine runs a story called "A Tale of Acceptance". The story profiles a Seattle mother named Cheryl Kilodavis who also has a 5-year old son that likes to dress up as a girl character. When the behavior began three years ago, she and her husband discussed it and decided to let him dress how he liked. In order to help other kids accept him, Cheryl decided to write a children's story. She calls her self-published book, "My Princess Boy".

Cheryl first shared the book at her son's school. The vice principal loved it and put copies in all the classes. Cheryl soon had orders from nine other schools and now that there has been so much press coverage, the family is searching for a publisher and trying to keep up with the book requests.

Of course, not all of the press has been positive. A New York Times article late last week discussed some therapists' concerns about these young boys being "outed" by their parents by having their pictures posted on YouTube, blogs, and talk shows. Some commenters wonder why these mothers do not protect their children from ridicule by making them dress in costumes that are more gender appropriate.

The discussion of bullying and suicide over the past few months has seemed to provide a real "teachable moment" for this country. People want to talk about it (as evidenced by the 41,000+ comments on the Nerdy Apple Bottom site). People want to teach kids how to respect themselves and each other. Therefore, they seem fascinated by "My Princess Boy", which uses words and illustrations that can allow even the youngest children to participate in the discussion around personal expression and acceptance. These blogs and books and support from children's schools can really help to change the social norms around what is "normal" behavior and dress. We must be creative in designing a way to evaluate these normative changes. Hopefully we will see a reduction in negative outcomes for students (e.g., reports of bullying, rates of depression, and suicide). But hopefully we will also see a reduction in risk factors further up stream, like attitudes around acceptance and gender roles.

Marie Claire Blogger vs. Mike & Molly: A "Heavyweight" Fight

Last week a blogger for Marie Claire Magazine named Maura Kelly posted an article called, "Should 'Fatties' Get a Room? (Even on TV)?" The post is focused on a new fall sitcom for CBS called "Mike & Molly". I must disclose that I have not watched this show, but have read that it centers on a couple that meets at an Overeaters Anonymous Group. Ms. Kelly takes a strong position that this show is "promoting obesity" and is grossed out by having to watch two obese people make out (or do anything else, like walk across a room).

As you can imagine, this post has been met with quite a reaction, including 3,195 reader comments (as of tonight) that prompted Ms. Kelly to post an update (aka apology). The update apologizes to those readers that were offended (many of which state that they have since canceled their Marie Claire subscription) and offers that perhaps her strong reaction to these overweight actors comes from her own history as an anorexic. The gist I get from the comments, is that most readers do not feel the apology is sincere and expected a better response from Marie Claire (that would include firing Ms. Kelly and/or making it clear that they will not support this type of discrimination). There has also been a strong response from the celebrity community, including Sharon Osborne on "The Talk" who said that she was appalled and wondered about what Ms. Kelly would think of her. Sharon admitted that she's 30 pounds overweight...should she not be allowed to kiss her husband or walk across the room?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 34% of adults are overweight and about the same percentage are obese. If approximately 70% of our adult population is overweight or obese, why don't we have more characters that accurately reflect what people actually look like and the challenges that they face? Hasn't there been some effort to portray more diverse characters in other ways (e.g., race and ethnicity)? Why would being overweight be so offensive to the viewing population? And is Mike & Molly really the first show to do this? Growing up, I was a fan of the sitcom "Roseanne" (1988-1997). The primary couple on the show (Rosanne Barr and John Goodman) were very overweight and struggled quite openly with weight, diet, and exercise on the show. Perhaps my memory is fuzzy, but I never remember hearing that viewers were horrified by these characters showing affection on the show.

Ironically, as I was getting ready to put this post together today, I caught the Oprah show. She had on Portia Di Rossi who discusses her battle with Anorexia and Bulimia in her new book "Unbearable Lightness".

Portia spoke about her breakout role in Ally McBeal in the 1990s. Many of you may remember the media headlines at that time calling the three female leads "Scary Skinny" (which they were- Portia was down to 82 pounds at one point). Ironically, she specifically discussed her fear about a scene where she seduces her boss in her lingerie in the law office. Although she was skeletal and sick looking, did we hear from viewers or writers that they were "grossed out" to watch her make out with her boss on the show?

So what is best for viewers? What messages regarding "normal" should we be sending to viewers? If actors are too skinny, the concern is that the image is not realistic and it is causing young girls to have eating disorders trying to achieve this ideal. However, when a show like Mike & Molly is showing characters that accurately represent 70% of the population, there is also controversy. From a public health perspective, I would say that characters should accurately reflect the viewing population- people tend to respond to people that they can relate to. If you are creating a health communication product (e.g., poster or brochure), you test it with the target audience to make sure that they connect to the images. If you are concerned about "promoting obesity", then have the characters modeling healthy behaviors. For example, Mike & Molly are attending an Overeaters Anonymous Group, which means they are taking steps to improve their lifestyle.

I for one, would be very happy to see more realistic characters on television. I would also like to see research on how those characters can be used as a health communication tool to promote positive body image and health behaviors among the viewing population.