Everyday Systems

I found this in the New York Times. The very last paragraph is the best: “We would all appreciate it if you had an interview with an actress who says: ‘You know what? It’s my job to be a certain size, and it takes a lot of work for me to do so. I tend to eat very healthy, small portions, but once in a while I splurge,’ I would like to hear that. That it’s not easy.â€

I think that's the takeaway -- it's part of their job and it's not easy. It's not something the rest of us should think we can emulate -- unless we want to make it our job and/or have the resources to do that. Most of us don't.

I once read an interview with Giada De Laurentiis and she was asked how she stays so slim. She said that she eats everything, but small portions. And with some very rich or heavy foods, 3-4 bites is all she needs.

Exactly! And Amen to that.

It's not my job to be a size 2. I resent the idea I have to do that on TOP of my other job to be considered worthwhile.

Great article.

I watched "Pretty Woman" once with the director's comments over the top. In the scene where Julia Roberts is driving Richard Gere to the hotel in his swish car (which he can't drive) and the director is reminiscing (I can't remember the exact words, but it was something like):

"Oh, I remember this day on the set. Julia fainted, and we were all so worried. 'We asked her, what have you eaten today?' And she said 'a can of tunafish'. So she ate another can of tunafish, and we finished the shoot."

Keep in mind this was a night shoot, definitely after midnight. I know actresses don't eat much, but I didn't realise they were getting by on 250g of tuna a day. That is just unsustainable.

Not to mention, what with makeup, hairstyling, Photoshop, and CGI, it seems as though even these glamorous one-can-of-tunafish starlets are NOT PERFECT ENOUGH for our viewing pleasure and have to be corrected! In my book, this crosses the line into insane. Who is the audience for this? Is this what we, as consumers, are demanding?

I read that, too! It was a very interesting article.

Re: Pretty Woman, Julia Roberts also had a body double for several of the scenes (for what reasons and which scenes, I'm not exactly sure. I haven't seen that movie in at least 5-7 years) that don't show her face.

Also, male movie stars can have just as hard of a time. It's not unheard of to gain 10 pounds or even more of muscle in a month, but crash gaining is usually accompanied by fat gain. It's fairly common to be able to lose 10 or more pounds of fat in a month, but that comes with muscle loss. Lots of these guys have to gain muscle while losing fat, and do it in a very short timeframe. Then, they have to maintain that body composition for the rest of the shoot. I'm not for a second saying they have it harder than women in the same business, but I think action movie actors have a pretty tough gig (maybe that's why they often de-emphasize the actual acting?).

I hate tuna...

Kelbel wrote:Great article.

I watched "Pretty Woman" once with the director's comments over the top. In the scene where Julia Roberts is driving Richard Gere to the hotel in his swish car (which he can't drive) and the director is reminiscing (I can't remember the exact words, but it was something like):

"Oh, I remember this day on the set. Julia fainted, and we were all so worried. 'We asked her, what have you eaten today?' And she said 'a can of tunafish'. So she ate another can of tunafish, and we finished the shoot."

Keep in mind this was a night shoot, definitely after midnight. I know actresses don't eat much, but I didn't realise they were getting by on 250g of tuna a day. That is just unsustainable.

Not to mention, what with makeup, hairstyling, Photoshop, and CGI, it seems as though even these glamorous one-can-of-tunafish starlets are NOT PERFECT ENOUGH for our viewing pleasure and have to be corrected! In my book, this crosses the line into insane. Who is the audience for this? Is this what we, as consumers, are demanding?

This article is great. I'm sick of actresses lying about what they eat. You know it's complete BS.

I thought I posted about this, but I don't see it.

I noticed a book on Amazon called The Secrets of Skinny Chicks: How to Feel Great In Your Favorite Jeans -- When It Doesn't Come Naturally. Notice doesn't come naturally. These women interviewed kept to 1200-1600 cal. a day and exercised 1-2 hours. They were conscious about it.

funny, when I look at some of the daily check ins here, it looks to me like people are choosing to eat that little. Choosing! Not because theyre supposed to. And when you think of your 15 minutes of Shovelglove and a 45 minute walk...well, not far off. But it sounds like more fun than those women had.

I have known several skinny women in my life. They were not like the conscious ones. They probably also ate about that amount, but they were very unconscious about it. Most of them ate fatty food and sugary things. I rarely saw them eat vegetables. They would forget to eat or go all day without because it was too much trouble to stop for lunch. They would also get a hamburger and fries for lunch and sometimes eat it all or sometimes half because they were full. They hated being full. They would say they loved a food, but eat only two bites of it when they had a chance, and then leave the rest. "Don't you want the rest of that? Don't you like it?" No, I'm just full. I don't believe they were lying. Their appetite matched true need for food. But it also wouldn't stop them from having popcorn and a regular coke at the movies even if they'd had dinner.

So, you never know which kind the interviewer is talking to.

oolala53 wrote:They would forget to eat or go all day without because it was too much trouble to stop for lunch.

Ugh!! I wish this was me.

The comments on that story are also very interesting, some which rang true to me. The fascination with celebrity meals is sexist, because women have to be thin yet eat "like men." The fascination with their meals is proof that they can be "just like us" yet also be superwomen who maintain amazing physiques without even trying - providing to their allure.

They also gorge in public as a defense mechanism from constantly being accused of having an eating disorder. Some do have disorders and just won't admit it. I remember a photo of Lindsay Lohan and Nicole Richie, both accused of having eating disorders, famously inhaling large slices of cake at an outdoor cafe - a situation clearly planted for the benefit of paparazzi.

Sure there are people with naturally fast metabolisms - but it isn't feasible that every single actress is one of those with a fast metabolism. It would be great if actresses were more honest about the sacrifices they made with food and the hard work they put in with exercise. Of course, hard work is not fun and it's boring. Nobody wants to read about that. It's more fun to read an incredible story about a skinny person gorging themselves.

I long for the day when actresses can be the size of Vince Vaughn or Jon Favreau and have their weight not be a part of the storyline. To even get a small part, you must be ridiculously thin.

Oolala - that sounds like my husband's super-skinny cousin (male). He eats like a bird, not on purpose. He just gets full so fast.

leafy_greens wrote: I long for the day when actresses can be the size of Vince Vaughn or Jon Favreau and have their weight not be a part of the storyline. To even get a small part, you must be ridiculously thin.

By and large that's true, but then there are people like Conchata Ferrell and Kathy Bates, to name two. I know there are some younger ones, too, but names are escaping me.

NoelFigart wrote:It's not my job to be a size 2.

Off topic, but I've been wondering this for a long time: What is the deal with female clothes sizes being compressed into a single number? Even us doltish men normally get at least two numbers to describe any given piece of clothing (waist and inseam for pants; neck, chest, and arms for shirts), and it seems like you'd need a good five or six numbers to describe all the different permutations of torso, waist, hips, legs, etc. that make up the wonderful variety of womankind. But no, it's just "2". Seems more insane than usual, even for the world of fashion.

and it seems like you'd need a good five or six numbers to describe all the different permutations of torso, waist, hips, legs, etc. that make up the wonderful variety of womankind.

I've decided that the sheer complication is actually why *they* distilled it all down to a single effectively meaningless number. It's just not worth it to even try.

So we get a number that varies by brand and a dozen different styles and cuts - which can incidentally also cause the number to vary.

Sienna wrote:

and it seems like you'd need a good five or six numbers to describe all the different permutations of torso, waist, hips, legs, etc. that make up the wonderful variety of womankind.

I've decided that the sheer complication is actually why *they* distilled it all down to a single effectively meaningless number. It's just not worth it to even try.

So we get a number that varies by brand and a dozen different styles and cuts - which can incidentally also cause the number to vary.

So can the manufacturer. Additionally, many times the more you pay, the larger the small sizes are. It's vanity sizing.

oolala53 wrote:I noticed a book on Amazon called The Secrets of Skinny Chicks:
How to Feel Great In Your Favorite Jeans --
When It Doesn't Come Naturally. Notice doesn't come naturally.
These women interviewed kept to 1200-1600 cal. a day and exercised 1-2 hours.
They were conscious about it.

I ran across that book several years ago, and liked it so much
that I had a couple of copies shipped to friends.

What was encouraging to me about the book
was that it gave details confirming that many other real life women
also have bodies that require the same kind of effort
to maintain in the normal weight range as my body does.