Magazines that won't slim down

ANNA SMYTH, The Scotsman, July 10, 2003

link to article

THE majority of diets undertaken may be unsuccessful, but that does not seem to be putting readers off a new breed of slimming mags.

In fact the quick-fix weight loss plans of a plethora of new slimming titles makes the diet genre the biggest success story in the newsagents this summer.

Deep down everyone knows that the only way to lose weight is to eat less and exercise more, but increasing numbers of magazine titles have found ever more inventive ways of saying this, over and over again.

There are definitely more slimming magazines on the shelves than you could shake a king-size Mars bar at.

This explosion in nutritional literature chimes with our rabid interest in the size and shape of celebrity bodies and, to a lesser extent, our own.

We are now in the position to choose from such inspirational titles as Slimming World, Slimmer and Slimming, not to mention the latest spin-off from the Woman’s Own stable - Dream Bodies. So far Slimmest exists only in the ad man’s mind.

A quick glance at the covers of these magazines reveals in part why they have been so successful, competing as they do with slogans such as, "How to trim two inches from your waist in two weeks!", and "It’s so easy - lose eight lbs this month!".

But do the two-week eating plans and step-by-step exercise regimes actually constitute sensible advice on how to lose weight, or do the magazines subscribe to the idea of built-in obsolescence - that’s to say - if you lose weight quickly you can put it back on quickly and keep all those weight-watching writers in a job.

Amanda Wynne, from the British Dietetic Association, says that although there are a number of quality titles around, much of the advice is misleading.

"It has to be said that there is great variety in the publications available," she says. "Fortunately, there are a number of magazines which employ registered dieticians to either write or edit the articles they print, and so in that case I would say that they are a good source of information."

The problem Ms Wynne finds with this sort of magazine lies in the promises they make to their readers.

"The concerns we have are with the faddy diets that some of them promote," she says. "Readers learn about the regimes followed by celebrities like Jennifer Aniston or Catherine Zeta Jones and think that they must be healthy and successful ways to lose weight. People tend to think that if they follow the Atkins diet - or whichever plan is flavour of the month - they will be instantly transformed into a glamorous superstar."

There is an argument that the magazines thrive on the desperation of many overweight people who will do - and spend - practically anything to try to shed fat. Some people become almost hooked on these publications which offer a seemingly practical solution to their worries. They switch diet mag every week, and hang on to every word of the latest celebrity to lose weight and talk about it.

However, Harriett Gilbert, who lectures on magazine journalism at London’s City University, cites another reason for the success of this market.

"I think the explosion in this area is very similar to that which has been enjoyed by food magazines," says Ms Gilbert.

"With these slimming magazines it may well be that people buy them to make themselves feel better, as if they are taking an important step, but never actually follow the advice they give. It’s like taking out a gym membership and never going."

She adds: "In my opinion, there is little danger of people getting obsessed or going to extremes."

Whether these magazines act as a self-esteem boost, or exploit the vulnerability of dieters, they are certainly enjoying a period of heightened popularity and industry success. As a population, we are clearly fascinated with all matters nutritional, with television programmes like Celebrity Fat Club and Diet Trials recording top audience figures. With this trend in place, the slimming magazine industry is in very good shape, irrespective of the state of its readers.

I sent this to their easy-to-find Letters to the Editor email of the dim-witted publication involved (in this day and age, it's a no-brainer to instantly find where to respond to these publications which usually have electronic web versions of their articles/contact info, etc.).

Email I sent to:

letters_TS~scotsman.com

Contents:
Title: Was Anna Smyth joking?

In Smyth's July 10th article "Magazines that won't slim down" she makes the ridiculously oversimplified statement that: "Deep down everyone knows that the only way to lose weight is to eat less and exercise more."

By Smyth's logic, if I cut my daily intake from, say, 1800 calories of nutrient-dense protein, vegetables, etc. and instead "ate less" by substituting those foods with only 1600 calories, consisting of high-sugar desserts, ice cream, chocolate cake, donuts, etc. then I will lose weight.

Right?

Wrong, of course. Oversimplified illogic as hers is partially what contributes to the current confusion in the dieting realm. Rather than help the public understand better, she contributed to the confusion and misinformation. As far as her bashing the Atkins Diet, again, she fails to clearly distinguish the real merits of said diet (when done properly, it works) vs. the admittedly overhyped magazine articles which sometimes don't get the whole story correct - you know, just like Anna Smyth's partially-faulty article.

Underwhelmed,
A surprised reader wondering how her sloppy misreporting made it past the editor.