Follow-Up…

The Biggest Loser winner Rachel Frederickson, who revealed her thin frame on the show's finale after dropping 60 percent of her body weight, is responding to critics who speculated she went too far.

Frederickson started at 260 pounds and lost 155 in seven months. At 5’4” and 105 pounds, doctors are calling attention to her BMI of 18, which is "underweight" according to CDC standards. But Frederickson, who graces the new cover of People, reveals that though she’s overwhelmed by the response to her new weight, she does not have an eating disorder. “I’ve never felt better. I keep saying it: I am healthy,” she says in the interview.

“Too enthusiastic” is how she describes her training, which consisted of six hours of exercise each day on 1,600 calories. While producers for the show are still backing her extreme weight loss, skeptics abound, including Biggest Loser host and former Shape cover model Ali Sweeney.

“I understand and shared in the concern for Rachel at the finale,” Sweeney told People. “My hope is that she and all show contestants achieve life long health.”

Other contestants have come forward both in favor of the show’s extreme weight loss and against it. Season 10 champion Patrick House lost nearly half his body weight on the show and has kept it off. “You can’t tell me I’m not healthier now than I was at 420 pounds,” he told People. But Kai Hibbard, a finalist from season 3, has been critical about her time on the show and the subsequent eating disorder she developed, citing that she wasn’t sleeping and stopped menstruating while the show’s trainers pushed her to get back on the treadmill.

Dolvett Quince, Frederickson’s trainer, admits this season’s weight loss was too much, and says he and Frederickson have discussed “getting her body back to a place where she has energy and muscle mass.” And Frederickson seems to agree. “I trained like an athlete for the finale," she says. "Now I am a girl in her real life.”

Until Monday - Keep thinking veggies and protein! 

The Latest Attack on Barbie…

It’s long but I had to copy the whole article!

This just in: Barbies absolutely do not influence little girls in any way when it comes to ideals of body size, says the lead Barbie designer at Mattel.  Furthermore, the doll’s inhuman proportions were made that way simply as a functional necessity, “for girls to easily dress and undress.”

Um, what?

As someone who was obsessed with Barbies until about the age of 10—and who has been prone to fears of getting fat, on and off, since right around then—I cannot say for certain whether there’s a connection or not. But what I can say with some conviction is this: This new explanation, courtesy of Barbie’s vice president of design Kim Culmone, is total BS.

“Barbie's body was never meant to be realistic…Primarily it’s for function for the little girl, for real life fabrics to be able to be turned and sewn, and have the outfit still fall properly on her body,” she continues in her no-holds-barred interview with Fast Company. To that, the interviewer follows up with (yes!), “So to get the clean lines of fashion at Barbie’s scale, you have to use totally unrealistic proportions?”

Culmone remains steadfast. “You do!” she says. “Because if you’re going to take a fabric that’s made for us, and turn a seam for a cuff or on the body, her body has to be able to accommodate how the clothes will fit her.”


When she’s asked whether Mattel would ever consider altering Barbie’s stacked and skinny body to reflect more realistic proportions, Culmone says that, while it’s not out of the question, there are two important points to ponder: One is that moms like to hand Barbie outfits down over generations, and changing the doll’s body size could seriously mess with that tradition. Plus, making such body-size changes wouldn’t happen without a clear reason, she notes, adding, “So to me, there isn’t an objective to change the proportion of Barbie currently.”

Finally, the design VP transforms herself into a child psychologist, explaining that girls do not make body comparisons when playing with Barbie.

“Girls view the world completely differently than grown-ups do. They don’t come at it with the same angles and baggage and all that stuff that we do. Clearly, the influences for girls on those types of issues, whether it’s body image or anything else, it’s proven, it’s peers, moms, parents, it’s their social circles,” she says (with Fast Company, brilliantly, linking “proven” to a study showing that Barbie may in fact be connected with body dysmorphia and eating disorders).


But studies don’t faze Culmone. “When they’re playing, they’re playing,” she continues. “It’s a princess-fairy-fashionista-doctor-astronaut, and that’s all one girl. She’s taking her Corvette to the moon, and her spaceship to the grocery store. That is literally how girls play.”

So, just a few things here: First, Culmone does have a point, as I honestly don’t recall, while acting out bizarre scenarios with or chopping off the hair of my Barbies, that I made any connection whatsoever between my pre-pubescent self and the strange, nipple-less, pointy-toed bodies of the dolls. (Though I do recall one 1975 version of Barbie's little sister, Growing Up Skipper, who GREW BREASTS when you wound her arm backwards, and that I had some inkling that this was scarily related to my future.) I did intuit, of course, that the oversized physiques of my Cher, Candi and Bionic Woman dolls were inferior to real-Barbie’s petite grace. So I do hear what she’s saying. And yet…

How can anyone seriously know if Barbie did or did not help teach me or anyone else what beautiful girls are supposed to look like?

Here's a clue: Culmone says Barbie's body is designed with clothes in mind—they just fit better on her unrealistic figure. I can't help but make comparisons to the fashion industry, with its parade of scary-skinny models, and the not-so-mysterious affect it's had on us all.

As for whether I'll let my own 5-year-old daughter play with Barbie, so far I haven't. But she's also never asked for one—and, to my knowledge, had never heard of such a thing, though I just asked her and she said, without missing a beat, "She's a doll who has blond hair and some pink outfit." Just goes to show, you can never be too sure about what seeps in.

DIVVY…

The Chicago solution for commuting around city via bike.  For an annual fee of 75 dollars you can use this bike for 30 minute intervals.  There are Divvy stations all over town.  Even though I have my own set of wheels, I did sign up!  Because our weather has been off the charts I have not activated my key yet!  I am excited to be able to use this blue bike to head downtown and not be worried about my own bike being stolen.  It will open up more doors to getting around the city, meeting friends and doing some quick errands!  Chicago is constantly opening up more stations and I can’t believe how many people are using them!  I just wish we had a must wear helmet law!  Looks like my helmet will become a part of my everyday accessory!

Wedding Dress…

OMG - I had my wedding dress on!  25 years preserved in the box and out it came on Friday!  The unbelievable thing is - it just about fit!  If only I didn’t put on the Holiday weight!  I am so excited to be revamping the dress to wear on our anniversary this year!  Of course it is going to be shortened and the the top is going to be totally reconstructed.  It has to be a little bit of a surprise, because like my wedding day - I do not want Bob to see it until he meets me out for dinner :).  More to follow - this is a big ordeal for me and I am so excited about it!  This idea would never have been a thought until I took off the weight and have almost retained it for trust about the last 5 years!  This photo doesn't do the dress any justice.  You just don't get the details of the little pearls and rhinestones!  But - that is me 25 years ago!

CVS Calls it Quits on Tobacco..

I thought this was news worthy!  A nasty habit that Bob and I were able to conquer!  Starting in October, CVS will stop selling tobacco products nationwide, as it interferes with the brand's overall goal of promoting health and wellness. "Selling tobacco is very inconsistent with being in that business," said Helena Foulkes, CVS's pharmacy president in a statement. "We really thought about this decision as it relates to the future as a health company—it's good for customers and our company, in the long run."