Did You Learn Nothing From Tracy Turnblad?
I was on a plane yesterday and I bought a couple of magazines, including the new issue of OK with Ricki Lake on the cover. The headline is “Thin, 39, and Looking for a Man.” The article is called “How Ricki Stays Thin” and you can read it here. (Interestingly, she claimed that her weight was connected to being molested as a child.) She’s now down to a size 2/4 and 123 pounds.
I got lazy… I ate lots of junk. I was 18 and chubby and everyone thought I was cute, so in my head I thought, I’m this cute, fat girl!
This is as good as I get. I can’t be any smaller.
I always wanted [this body] and thought I would never, ever get there. To be in this film and be a normal size was really nice.
It’s not that I begrudge Ricki Lake losing weight (even though she’s only eating 1,200 calories a day, which seems tragically low to me); if she’s happy, then great. But the quotes about herself as a fat girl just make me sad; the fact that she felt she really needed to get as small as possible is sad to me. And I wish she were a little more body positive in talking about her weight loss.
I don’t know. I guess it’s like the Sara Rue thing. As irrational as it is, I feel a little sad about it. Another fat girl icon bites the dust.
Posted by mo pie
Filed under: Celebrities, Gossip, Hairspray, Magazines, Ricki Lake, Weight Loss
Email us
“This is as good as I get, I can’t be any smaller.”
“This is as good as I get, I can’t be any smaller.”
Christ.
I think 1200 is the lowest anyone can go before their metabolism crashes. Smaller people need fewer calories, so a lot of people I know that have lost weight and still monitor calories, eat 1200 a day.
I saw Ricki on The View, and I still love her. She has the same attitude and personality, which unfortunately, a lot of former-fatties lose along with their extra weight.
I think the “I can’t get any smaller” quote doesn’t mean she tried to get as small as possible, just that she’s not going to starve herself or become anorexic just to get lower. Everyone knows their point of “I’m doing all that I can healthily do, and this is as good as it gets.” Mine is a size 12, Ricki’s is a size 4 (which IMO looks 12-ish on TV).
I wonder what it’s like to be slender. What does it feel like to move around that freely, to fit in everything, to have the freedom to shop wherever I wanted, to touch my body and not feel rolls or pudge? I want to experience it too. I think Ricki liked herself the way she was, but she wanted to experience what she sees so many others experience. I think that’s evident in her quote “to be in this film and be a normal size was really nice” because it was an experience she was used to (being in a film) while experiencing her new form. It was probably freer. I have things I want to experience thin, too, like sex and shopping. :)
I saw this in line at the grocery store the other day. I thought the headline, “Thin, 39, and Looking for a Man,” pretty much summed up any desperation contained therein.
Isn’t this a really old story? Didn’t she lose that weight 15 years ago? Or, has she been yo-yoing? I remember that she had a talk show only a couple of years after the first Hairspray movie, and that she was thin then. Does she weight cycle constantly and just disappear out of the public eye in the years that she’s heavier, or what?
No, she’s lost weight again, Dee. Go fig… it didn’t stick. She’s probably smaller now than I’ve ever seen her.
Mandy, I was pointing to the fact that Ricki was equating “small” with “good.”
Didn’t she have gastric bypass surgery?
Hmmm, how come I never hear thin people wishing to experience what it is like to be fat? To want to feel the amazing curves and crevices that only fat people (or our lovers) are privy to? To be heavy and strong enough that others can’t move our bodies around without our consent? I really can’t understand why I don’t hear more about that.
[/sarcasm]
“To be heavy and strong enough that others can’t move our bodies around without our consent?”
I actually felt that way this weekend when I went to a self defense class and totally threw some guy around. It was pretty awesome.
I would love to be the cute chubby girl :) Alas, I am not particularly cute.
Personally, and I credit it as one of the reasons why I am the size I am, I do like a number of things about being fat. Maybe we should talk about that more? I think perhaps partly because I am short, being fat makes me feel that bit more powerful, a bit more obvious (literally :) )… I guess it’s also the non-conformist streak in me. If “thin is in” then I like being large, just as a big f*ck you to the dieting industry.
Also, people expect me to eat more cake. What can I say? :)
“…she’s only eating 1,200 calories a day, which seems tragically low to me…”
Mo, there are many overweight people who eat much less than that. I’ve coached two clients whose metabolisms were 4 and 5 levels more efficient than the “norm” for their age — meaning, they could go a long way on half a grapefruit. One of those clients came to me weighing 214 pounds, yet she was eating less than 600 calories/day. Another almost-client (she couldn’t diet because she became pregnant) had a metabolism four levels more efficient than mine, and I’m nearly forty years older than she.
Whenever I see someone who looks 100 or 200 pounds overweight, my first thought is, “This person probably has a super-efficient metabolism.” It’s my belief the condition is genetic; it doesn’t come from too much dieting.
Fillyjonk, I feel you and I came here to post the very same thing. “This is as good as I get. I can’t be any smaller.” That is pretty frickin rough. Jeez Ricki.
wait i am confused. mary what you are describing is a less efficient metabolism, or i am missing something.
eating more frequently increases your metabolism anyway. i think maybe you are using the incorrect terminology?
Ho_cho, I use “efficient” to describe how many calories the body needs to keep running during the course of a day, as well as to maintain a constant weight. The fewer calories needed, the more efficient the metabolism.
I once saw a nature special on TV that described elephants as having a very inefficient metabolism, owing to their great need for constant eating in order to keep their bodies functioning.
Usually, the younger you are, the more calories you need to maintain a constant weight. But I’ve learned that there are some people who have metabolisms that are typical of older people.
The 214-pound client in my first post was in her late sixties, yet she had the metabolism of a 100-year-old person. The almost-client is 38 years younger than I, yet she has my metabolic level. I often wonder if, when she reaches my age, she’ll be living on air — or living at all. Maybe this phenomenon indicates that one’s lifespan will be shorter, the more efficient one’s metabolism is.
These people cannot be the only ones on earth who experience this “phenomenon”.
Ho_cho, we cannot increase our metabolism by eating more frequently, although we can change our hunger pattern by doing so. (Every time you eat, you teach your body when to be hungry.)
Our metabolism is what it is, and it automatically becomes more efficient as we age. We literally eat ourselves up. It would startle you to know how few calories your 90-pound, 94-year-old great-aunt eats. You can be sure it isn’t nearly as much as your 90-pound, 24-year-old cousin eats.
Actually, Mary, increased metabolic efficiency (or low metabolic rate) is correlated with longer lifespan, if you look across species. Basically, the faster your metabolism, the faster your body deteriorates. But of course, the differences between metabolic rates in individual people (as opposed to, say, the differences between a cat and a mosquito) are relatively subtle, and many other factors likely play a more important role in overall longevity.
Also, the effects of aging on metabolism can be partly (but not wholly) attributed to muscle loss with age, which can be somewhat counteracted with exercise. And younger people can increase their metabolic rates by building muscle mass, too.
mary, i must respectfully disagree. you can increase your metabolism in several ways, and you are not stuck with one rate that you cant modify. one of those ways is eating smaller more frequent meals. obviously if you are not eating too much in one sitting you are “teaching your body to be hungry” at different intervals but your metabolism is reacting to your lifestyle. if you eat a big meal and go to sleep your metabolism will slow down – presumably because it assumes you dont need energy. as la wade said, adding muscle can increase your metabolism because muscle requires more energy than fat just to hang out.
if you are using the elephant analogy to describe human metabolism, i find it inappropriate. our metabolism is like a burning fire, if you throw food on it constantly, in small portions, it keeps it burning, therefore increasing fat burn. also, it seems you can offset the slowing of metabolism with age if you exercise. i suppose if you are not talking about weight loss and rather how long a person can subsist on a certain amount of food, thats a different issue.
Ho_cho, it’s true that one isn’t “stuck” with one metabolic rate throughout one’s life. It changes automatically as one ages, no matter how many times a day one eats.
In 1977, I used a much higher eating day allowance than I used in 1991. The goal was the same: 130 pounds, although in 1991, I decided to stop losing at 140 lbs. because I didn’t mind the way I looked at 140.
When I lost 10 more pounds in 2005, as part of my research, I used a still different eating day allowance than I used in 1991 to reach the same goal of 130. After all, I was 14 years older in 2005.
I didn’t exercise, at least not delilberately, at any time while dieting. I do like to walk and climb stairs but otherwise, I don’t Exercise.
If you’re talking about health, yes, it is beneficial to exercise. If you’re talking weight loss, it is simply not necessary to embark on an Exercise Program in order to lose weight — either permanently or temporarily.
It’s also not true that one has to give up 500 calories/day just to lose one pound. Nobody has to do that, no matter what their age.
Mary, while it’s technically true that done doesn’t need to exercise to lose weight, to my mind that’s sort of analogous to saying that you don’t need two hands to play the piano. You don’t, but you’re putting yourself at a huge disadvantage by tying that hand behind your back, so to speak. This is something that has been shown in numerous studies, but I think the statistics from the National Weight Control registry are most telling…94% of people who lost significant weight and kept it off increased their physical activity, making that the second-most important predictor of success right behind modifying food intake (which 98% of people did).
Also, ho_cho is right about eating more frequently increasing metabolism, although the effect size is relatively small. Eating food triggers the release of several hormones that boost metabolic rate and there’s also energy expenditure associated with the breakdown and absorption of food from the gut, known as the thermic effect of food.
La Wade, I can only go by my experience of more than 20 years of research, analysis and testing, and the experience of my clients over the past 14 years. My sites tell about it, but it’ll be awhile before the book shows my complete methodology.
The biggest marketing problem I have is that the diet is simple. I was warned about this. But I enjoy talking to people about it and hope they enjoy listening.
I’m not a moderator and have no authority here, but as a frequent reader I would prefer not to read advertising in this space. Mary, please stop.
A bit of history for you all: Mary has been posting on my blogs, trying to get me to try her diet for literally years. She has no actual professional qualifications.
Mary, this is not a weight loss blog, nor is it (as byrneout rightly points out) free advertising space for your made-up diet. I will put my actual authority behind byrneout’s request.