142.85 average (up a smidge)

weekly summary:

Fri – 140

Sat – 142.8 (F)

Sun – unknown

Mon – unknown (F)

Tue – 142

Wed – 144 (F)

Thu – 140.8

Fri – 143.8 (F)

There ya go. Just as predicted:  another leap upwards away from 140. I’m up by 3.8lbs in fact. This takes me above the physicsdiet average, which raises my average weight (the one I go by) slightly. Disheartened? Not really. It’s funny more than anything else. I’m sure a couple more fast days will get me to below 140.  Thinking long term, this isn’t going to matter in a few week’s time.  I realised this as I was reading over my old posts from early April.  I was accustomed to seeing 143 as a low weight and now I see it as a high one. I was once ten pounds heavier than that (September 2008). I wasn’t a worse person then, so why the worry?  The only thing that’s changed is time. If 143 was a ‘good number’ a month ago, why should it be a bad one today? So I’m just not gonna sweat this and just carry on as I’ve been doing. It’s not like I’m gaining weight, so I don’t have to change anything. I also still have all the other benefits of ADF, that is the lightness, the lack of pudgy bloatiness and the euphoria (yes, it’s back, folks. Euphoria is indeed grand from the inside). Even if the 140 turns out to be an absolute and I never get below it , I’ll just have to accept that my body has its reasons for not wanting to go under that, and what I want is not necessarily what is right or good for me.

I have to remember that in terms of health and body composition, I’m in pretty good shape. In terms of the fashion industry and media-perpetuated ideal of womanhood, I am not.  But which of those two is the more important? So why does part of me still cling to the belief that fitting into the second category will make me happier, will complete my life or make it better somehow?   It cannot be true. Beauty is too heavily influenced by the fickle moodswings of Fashion. Unlike clothing manufacturers and designers’ creations, body and shape cannot keep up with the rapid changes of fashion that pretends it’s version of ‘good’ is some universal truth (until the next big idea).

In the twenties, women were supposed to be flat-chested and have ironing-board type figures, no curves, no waist. In the forties, curves were back. In the fifties, curves were mandatory. In the seventies and eighties, slim was the thing but with some curves up top. In the nineties you had to be ‘toned’ (what a word to use!). By the turn of the millenium you were supposed to be very thin (childlike, almost) and curves were sidelined again. Also, let’s not forget that the art of airbrushing have put the standards into a whole new league. Even the photogenic classes who make their living by the camera cannot reach those standards anymore. (Mind you, image manipulation is nothing new. Photographers employed all sorts of tricks with lenses, lighting, shadows, angles and some dark-room techniques to create flawless movie stars – think of the soft-toned, flawless skin of the photos of Rita Hayworth and the like – photoshop just widens the palette of changes you can make).

And yet I cling to this idea that 139lbs is a superior me to one who weighs 143lbs. That’s quite a ridiculous notion when you think about it.  A person is a complex bundle of different things. Weight is just a statistic that applies to the body part of me.  There is baggage in there from my father (who openly thinks women should be slim. How dare they not be –  as if women’s bodies are there for his delectation). He’s not hidden his disapproval of my weight gain in the past (on several different occasions). In fact he admitted he thought I looked better in the days when I know I was recovering from anorexia and was borderline underweight – that fact alone should remind me he’s not worth taking notice of in this area).

Another part of me wonders whether conforming to an idealised womanly body  (regardless of time/culture or the shape/size in question) is actually about social status. Women have a rank and part of that rank is linked to her physical attractiveness (this is also true for men, but I argue to a lesser extent). Women are judged, ranked and ordered (and controlled) by their appearance, be it facial features, hair style, body shape/size and how she dresses (being glamorous for example). These are ways we manipulate our social status. Being nearer to the ideal puts you in a higher rank than being further from it. Rank is not solely based on appearance but alpha females tend to be the more attractive in a group – this is especially true in high school, before careers,  life choices and wealth can play too big a part.

If it is true, that appearance strongly  influences social status, it would explain why women are so preoccupied  with their appearance (it actually IS important) and why we’re so hierarchical about it (always comparing, always judging), and more concerned with our own bodies (your vehicle for status) than other people’s. Of course I don’t mind if my sister is 5 lbs heavier, I love her whatever she weighs. But she minds because it affects her status. My younger (slimmest, dancer’s body) sister certainly wields her body as an instrument of power over her less perfect siblings. It gives her a confidence over us. Considering she’s always been the baby, I am sure she particularly enjoys that sense of power now.  She and my bigsis in particularly have been competitive about their bodies.  (I was always too fat to be part of the game, so it didn’t involve me at all – I’m both sore and glad about that).

What a funny world we live in. Women in particular.

Eats: 3 milk tea

Exercise: commute in with glorious sunshine | 12 push ups | 12 lunges | plank leg lifts | commute home.

Weather: perfection

Advertisements