Body Scans from 12.06.15
stripped part 2
I don't like spoilers, but this article contains various stats, as
well as a discussion about how mine have affected my self-image and
the psychology of my disordered eating and body
preoccupation.
It's difficult to avoid all stats. For some, the troublesome ones can
be reduced down to weights and measurements, but when it comes to how
competition impacts eating disorders and body image, I'm not sure
it's easy to draw lines regarding stats. One way or another, we are
compared to others. Why are some of these ways more scary than
others? What if you don't 'measure up' in any of the categories?
Stats include whatever online photo/s you include, how many friends
you have, how many interests and hobbies you have. How clear is your
skin? How healthy is your hair? Are you a successful student? Do you
have a career? Do you have a good attitude? A nice smile? For anyone
lacking in any of these areas, how should they feel? If they feel
'triggered' by others posting such stats, are they supposed to rise
above it, because it's silly not to? Once you give up the 'eating
disorder stats' of weight and measurements and collarbone, bikini gap
and thigh gap tests, do you go for the 'acceptable' stats which
include accomplishments, 'healthy' weight, and a 'healthy' appearance
endorsed by authority figures?
I recently had my body composition tested using DXA tech. It is not
necessarily a very good thing to add more stats to one's life, and I
do see how such testing could fuel preoccupations and add to the
general craziness. However, the obsession with BMI annoys me. BMI
really doesn't tell you much about a person's health or fitness.
Blood work, blood pressure and body composition seem more likely to
tell more of the story. And when it comes to my personal situation, I
think having factual confirmation of some of my theories might be
psychologically helpful to me.
Most people now have some awareness that BMI might designate some
very fit and muscular people as being overweight or obese when they
are not. But, no one seems to be saying that some people with a low
BMI might be healthier than those with a BMI in the 'healthy range'.
My recent health checks have all yielded 'positive' results. I seem
healthy, despite being technically 'underweight'. I would hazard a
guess that not many people looking at me would think I look
underweight, and I suspect that many would actually think I could use
some exercise, despite the fact that my overall body fat percentage
is in the 'fitness' range, but depending on what I wear, there might
be days when people think I look fit for my age. What does this
mean?
At the DXA place, I was weighed in my clothes - 47.7 kg. Without the
clothes, my weight was estimated at about 47.4 kg, (105 lbs). My
height was measured at 162.5 cm (5'4"), which put my BMI at 18 and
which means I was 'underweight'. I had the scans done 3 weeks ago,
and I have lost a little more weight since that time. I am not sure
if my body composition has shifted, but if it has, it would not be
dramatic.
I had the option of changing into a gown, but I was too self-conscious
to do so, and decided to stay in yoga pants and a long
sleeve t-shirt (sports bra and underwear underneath - for the scans,
you don't want any metal in there, including underwire in bras). I
laid down on the x-ray table, my limbs were arranged by a technician
and the scanning took 3-4 minutes. The technician warned me that
people tended to look like 'squashed frogs', but maybe she was trying
to make me feel better.
When it comes to the health-related aspects of my results, the scans
show that I'm doing well.
I have very little visceral fat. This is the fat you can't see on the
outside, the fat around your organs. My bone density is normal-to-high.
So far, so good. These are both indications of health, and an
encouraging sign that my years of excess haven't had serious or
hidden effects in these areas. My overall body fat percentage was
21.6%, which for my age (49) is considered slightly low (the
recommended amount is 23-34%), but this does not tell the whole
story.
Depending on where you look, people have different ideas about what
'healthy' body fat levels for women are or aren't. Some, but not all,
agree on the following:
Athletes: 14-20%
Fitness: 21-24%
Health: 25-34%
Over: 35%+
While the older women get the higher their body fat is expected to
be, the average woman seems to be at around 40%, and yet there are
fitness and health professionals who think women can or should be
able to maintain somewhere from 8-14%. What body fat percentages do
various celebrities possess? Are many of them in the 8-14% range, and
if they are, should they get credit for training like elite athletes?
What does it mean to be 'skinny fat', and at what percentage does
that designation fit? Am I skinny fat? Is that why I don't look
'thin'? What does it mean if two women of roughly the same body fat
and fitness level look different - for example, one has cellulite,
and the other doesn't? Is this about fat distribution, skin type and
elasticity, history of gaining and losing weight? Pregnancy effects?
Hormones? Should women who have gained and lost wear a 'scarlet
letter' which shames them for having ever gained weight if they
haven't done it in the service of bringing forth offspring?
Average women are living quite long, so what is the big deal about
having a bit more body fat? The possible burden on the healthcare
system is not a good argument. It misses the complexity of the
situation in psychological and evolutionary terms, is not likely to
change behaviour, and might not really do much except cause people to
be even more stressed out than they already are (and possibly gain
even more weight.)
Skin is an incredibly important conditional factor when it comes to
appearance and how it is judged/appraised. If you look at models,
even plus-size models have nice skin that tends to look firm and
smooth, but is this really how most women's skin looks? And why is
'curvy' an adjective that now only applies to women of a certain
weight? Women in porn are quite a bit thinner than they used to be,
while still being very curvy, and there are very slim women who have
body types that are traditionally feminine. Females chosen for movie
roles are often very slim, while still possessing the desired
curves.
What if you have 'curves in all the wrong places'?
Roughly, when my body is divided into parts, the breakdown of
body fat percentages is:
head: 19%
torso: 14%
arms: 27.5% (average of the two)
legs: 30% (average of the two)
overall: 21.6%
I want to discuss both the health-related and psychology-impacting
factors in relation to my body composition. I find it somewhat
amusing that my head and torso are considered in the 'athlete' range,
whereas my limbs are only in the 'health' (or 'recommended') range.
Yikes, what was it all before I lost weight and concentrated on
getting more exercise? And what would it take to actually look fit
all over? I feel like I've worked pretty hard already. I think,
though, that having this info helps me to see that my perceptions
aren't totally out of whack. My arms and legs are big and have a high
fat content in relation to the rest of my body. This could easily
result in me being perceived as bigger, or less fit, depending on
what I wear, or what angle I am viewed from. I will try to take some
photos which further elaborate on the issue, when I tackle part 2 of this subject
matter.
One thing that has occurred to me is that the discrepancy in fat
distribution might relate to my patterns of excess. For periods of
time, I don't find it difficult to adhere to a fairly low fat diet
on a daily basis (10-15%), as long as I can have periods of excess,
and this is preferable to me to having a more moderate amount of fat
continually.
I am unlucky in having 'curves in all the wrong places', but 'lucky'
in that this sort of condition doesn't bode ill for health. Men are
unlucky in being more prone to the kind of fat (around the
midsection) that can impact health. I'm just unlucky in the sense
that I will live a long life being sexually irrelevant to men. Which
is worse? I'm laughing at myself, but I think underneath that I have
been affected in ways that aren't easy to shake off.
It does seem to me that all along, I've had some idea of what was
going on. Because I do not have an equal distribution of body fat,
it actually is likely that people perceive me as being bigger
according to what I wear, or that they might be 'disappointed' in
seeing me naked if I've first managed to wear something flattering.
At the same time, I don't want to get on the tangent of calling my
body type 'weird'. There is some reason it was designed the way it
was. I don't think it's grandiose thinking to say that I have or had
a considerable potential for fitness-related things, or to speculate
that although I am not beautiful or symmetrical, I might have a
stronger and healthier body than many who are or do. (This is
relevant because people often cite evolution: men are drawn to beauty
and symmetry because they are indications of good health.)
Also, because of how the camera adds weight, I can attempt to explain
why my body in particular might be susceptible to not photographing
well - because the camera 'flattens' things, and my body is wide from
the front and back, and narrow in profile. Meanwhile, my face/head
are the opposite, which does seem to bear out my assessment that the
lighting and photography that might suit my face does not suit my
body.
It seems that people like to think of selfies as 'selfish'. But, if
we realistically examine the culture we are part of, it is virtually
impossible for females in particular to avoid being compared to
models. Everyone has that baggage floating around somewhere in their
conscious and unconscious. If someone says 'you should be a model',
it means something in particular. If no one ever says it, it means
something, too. Is it morally preferable to wait for someone, in all
likelihood a guy, to say 'you're worth photographing, I want to
photograph you' than it is to acknowledge that you want to be
photographed, and to take the initiative so that it doesn't remain an
unfulfilled secret wish that you wait for someone to give you
permission to act on? Maybe it represents that you want to get in the
game, or interact, be part of the big picture? What if you aren't in
any circumstances where anyone would ever take your photo? What if
you are photographically challenged, but not lacking in creativity?
In today's visually-oriented world, should you just give up if you're
not model material? Should you accept that you are just not one of
the lucky ones who can inspire desire, or that the kinds of romance
depicted through the ages is not for you, but you can probably still
get married to someone who will live a life of quiet desperation
pining for someone more beautiful, and/or who will dump you for
someone 20 years younger if they ever get the chance?
When people say that women are harder on women than men are, it's not
a very well thought-out assessment. Men sometimes aren't consciously
in touch with how hard they are on women, and part of this might well
relate to not having realistic ideas about standards of beauty. For
example, the average woman might weigh 144-155 lbs, but men will
think of average as 120 lbs. When a man is saying he's ok with
someone average, what he usually means is the 120 lb version of
average, with smooth, clear skin, and not necessarily what is
indicative of average, or, he might have in mind an idealized version
of 'plus-size', complete with firm skin, large breasts, and
photogenic features. And why would women be hard on other women?
Well, perhaps in an unconscious sense they are trying to get women to
'give up', drop out of the game. This can be an unconscious strategy
to reduce the competition - for men. And women's harshness
toward other women can also represent that all women are hard on
themselves in ways that have been profoundly internalized. Everyone
believes that women should be judged first on their
appearance. This belief is just expressed differently by the
different sexes.
Even 'plus size' models (who are not always technically plus-sized,
but look more like average women, or even slimmer) are photographed
with firm-looking skin, when the reality is that a large percentage
of all women have cellulite. And when it comes to aging, the ones
showing skin are the ones who look the most like the young women, the
exceptions, or if there are some issues, there is still a case of it
being better than the norm, although it is presented in a certain way
as if to say 'even though I look like this, I'm ok, especially if I
have these beautiful kids to show for it'. I think it is human nature
to try to show the best, and to play down 'weakness' or 'flaws', but
the more all of this goes on, the less anyone (including men) has a
realistic idea of what women 'should' look like. And then we also
have people who say that if one woman can achieve 10% body fat, then
others who don't have more work to do, are lazy and self-indulgent.
But there's very little awareness that 'healthy body fat' levels can
display as not perfectly smooth, or that two individuals with the
same level of body fat and a comparable level of fitness might look
considerably different - one 'acceptable' and the other looking
'unhealthy' or 'unfit'.
It seems likely to me that my body fat distribution has affected my
self-perception, and others' perceptions of me throughout my life. My
body fat is not equally distributed, and even when I have exercised a
lot and am capable of quite a lot from a fitness point of view (even
when young), I might still look overfat in areas - especially in the
legs. Going only by the scans above, and these comments, I can easily
imagine people thinking 'ew' regarding my body type, and thinking
it's a 'weird' body type. What is the reality moving around in life,
in clothes? Do photographic facets tell the whole story? Do they give
an impression of the kind of physical vitality I might have in person
that is hard to convey in a photograph, but would be conveyed through
motion, posture, and when in a room with other women? Is there a kind
of energy or vibe that doesn't come through in photos?
I have been doing certain exercises for months, including lunges, hip
raises, various versions of donkey kicks, squats, and now also
deadlifts. I've also done a lot of pilates, as well as pushups and
exercises for arms and upper body. Over the last 7 months, the amount
of exercise I've done works out to more than half an hour a day, and
roughly half is cardio and half is toning. But I think the assumption
might be that I don't work on my legs enough, or that I'm doing
exercises incorrectly. Or maybe I'm not doing enough overall, I have
to step it up, or I'm not eating enough protein, or eating too high
fat. What if I've actually followed the 'rules' pretty well, but
still don't have the results that everyone thinks I should have?
Should I look at increasing load/weight, but if I do, do I risk my
legs getting even bigger? So, should I build my upper body to
compensate? But meanwhile, my body fat would have to keep decreasing,
and surely my upper body would be mainly muscle, and even less
breasts? I think it makes sense that women with certain body types,
like mine, think what makes most sense is to try to make the body as
small as possible. However, it should be an option to go for muscle.
If you do, though, you risk people calling it 'scary'.
When I was younger, it was likely my body fat was lower, especially
during the times I worked out a lot. It was still possible for me to
have cellulite at those times. Now, I find that my skin is looser. I
have become aware of how stretching in various positions might result
in bits not showing, but it would be too difficult to constantly be
aware of having to flex and stretch and pose so that no loose skin
anywhere on my body ever shows. I do admit that I feel like 'it's
over'. 7 years ago, it wasn't too bad, but now, there is no way to
'fix' things. There is no way I will ever be able to just 'let it all
hang out'. I am too aware of what people's (albeit unrealistic)
expectations are, and how easy it is to horrify people. I've been
thinking of sex as 'expendable'. It is a major effort to not totally
give up on sex, but at the same time, I think the best I can do is
try to remain open to the possibility of something unexpected, in
spite of what my observations regarding the current state of things
are screaming at me. However, I can't hold my breath, and I'm not
sure I'm capable of 'looking'. I tried to be open to others finding
something 'interesting' about me, I tried to be open to connecting
deeply, but honestly, I think what most want is someone pretty,
young, and 'nice', and all of that trumps 'interesting', any day. And
even nice men take a magnifying glass to images they see, so to
speak. In private, they zoom in, they flip images around to peruse
them from different angles, and they do compare them to the ideals
they have formed over a lifetime. They have ideas about perfection,
and often about 'desirable' or 'acceptable flaws'. I think of the
pleasures in life as relating to food, alcohol, drugs, fantasy. And
sleep.
In the past, I have often worked out 2-3 hours a day for several
weeks (or longer), and I do think it made a difference. This time
around, my efforts have been less concentrated, but longer-lasting
(more than 7 months). Usually, I lose control at a certain point and
it's non-stop binge city (food or alcohol). I don't know what will
happen this time. I could lose control at any time. I think I could
enjoy life a bit more if I could trust myself to be able to maintain
at about 105 lbs, but I have aimed at that in the past, and never
been able to accomplish it for more than a short time. Will this time
be different? The truth is that I do find it easier and more
enjoyable to deal with the outside world when I'm about 105 lbs or
so, and that might not be something I can change.
My goal weight is 44.5 kg (approximately 98 lbs) - but this is not
the weight I want to maintain. I just wanna go the distance. It could
be that this figure has been in my head since I was 7-10 years old,
because of a little booklet my mother gave me at that time which
contained ideal weights for women. At my age now, according to the
booklet, (height factored in) I would actually be allowed to weigh
more than 108 lbs (108 was the figure for adult women, 98 for teens
and young women, and over 108 was for 'older' women - they were
allowed a pound a year extra over a certain age, I think with a cap
of 10 lbs, something like that.) I factored in a kind of inflation
related to modern thinking/perceptions, and the omnipresence of
cameras (as well as that the 'camera adds 10 lbs') and it seemed to
make sense that I should aim at what young women 'should' weigh. I am
only half-joking, but I do see a kind of humour in it.
Aren't I over all this now? Isn't it all seeming ridiculous and
tiresome at my age? In truth, no, I'm not over it, and I think it
might be 'unfinished business', or maybe even a sign that underneath
everything, I still care about and wish for a sexually passionate and
intimate relationship. I am still trying to achieve some kind of
'personal best' that would help me to psychologically enjoy such a
relationship more. Effort is linked to that sort of thing.
Objectively, it might be that I need to create a task or quest, and
in my isolation, it is difficult to find an 'appropriate' one, or a
more appropriate one. I think I can use the experience in a creative
way that perhaps helps me to contribute more to the overall
discussion. This becomes a sublimation of unrealistic and frustrated
sexual desires. Does it make more sense to try to achieve something
respectable and practical in life, something that would be more
'worthy' of 'love'? Fuck respectable and practical. This whole thing
might be my great white whale, but dammit I can't get rid of the
compulsion to go after it one more time, and finally get it right.
It's no longer about trying to 'deserve' love, it's about beating
this beast.
I have long suspected that to photograph 'well', I would actually
need to be less than 98 lbs, but what I'm hoping to do is to see if I
can develop my photographic skills to compensate. When I read about
it being illegal to use models with a BMI under a certain amount, I
find it ludicrous. Body types differ tremendously. Some women
probably can't achieve the look without going lower than others (and
might not actually look smaller than others of a higher BMI), but the
weight/height stats alone don't prove who is healthier. Besides, how
do you police this kind of thing? Most women know that you can gain
or lose a few pounds fairly quickly if you try, or if you have to for
a special occasion, or the right motivation (or at least it's less
difficult when you're young). A large number of women live with
fluctutating weight. I don't think the solution is to outlaw certain
BMIs. Unfortunately, I think we all have to get more obsessed with
the topic in certain ways - we have to examine the angles in more
analytical ways, and we have to become more educated about
variations. And, perhaps this might also be unpleasant, but it could
be that we have to start examining the nature of competition itself
in less moralistic and simplistic ways, and figure out what we really
think in response to some of the cold, hard truths. We have to
examine what human beings really are, want and value, as opposed to
what they think they are, and should want and value. Not all people
agree that superthin models look sick or awful (I don't), and those
who do cannot expect their taste and morality to be accepted by all.
What do those who have studied art and design think?
I want to know for sure what 98 lbs actually looks like on me. I
think that I need to know. I realize it's risky to try to
control this and expect to get away without triggering or
reactivating some type of eating disorder or stress, but I think it
would mean something to me to do my best, try to examine the outcome
as objectively as possible, and then try to accept the backlash,
wherever that goes. Am I again going to level off at about 130 lbs or
so, or will I regain more? Part of the hoarding I have been doing
involves preparing for a variety of outcomes and possible weights. I
have bought clothes and underwear in a range of sizes, and think I
might be ready to accept 'who I am', whatever that means this time.
Er.. to a certain extent. I think I will reach a new level of peace
with it all that won't necessarily be complete - I may isolate myself
again, and not really want a lot of contact with 'reality' and
people's judgments, but I might be more relaxed about living life in
my own way, in excess, with enough food and wine to help facilitate
a fantasy life.
Or, maybe I have reached a new phase and life will open up in ways I
don't expect. Ha. Time will tell.
When I reach my goal weight, I will post the second part to this
entry. If I don't reach it, I will probably try to do my best to take
a few shots to illustrate some of the psychologically complicated
issues related to my body before I gain too much weight back.
Yes, I'm well-aware that I sound stuck and doomed to repeat history.
If that's the case, then bring it on. It's not like I see anyone
really demonstrating alternatives that look appealing or realistic
for me, personally.
I felt a burning need to seek out this information. In the end,
though, the 'healthiest' thing to do might be to say 'ok, I tried
this, I learned something, I'll see what I can realistically adjust,
and get another scan in half a year to test that out, but maybe the
way to go is to make a conscious choice to remind myself that the
'shoulds' can be challenged at every opportunity.'
stripped part 2
->exile on meme st: a diary
->xesce.net
