When I saw the television news last night, concern was raised about the fact that the print press were more interested in the ‘size zero model debate’ than the designer clothes on display in London Fashion week. Perhaps this time, the print press have got it right. Anorexia nervosa and bulimia are both on the increase and are currently one of the biggest killers amongst young British women. Although the causes of eating disorders are multi-factorial, few would dispute the social pressures to be thin, especially for women. However, London Fashion week decided against following the medical advice given during the Madrid fashion parade, where models had to have a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 18 or over before going down the catwalk.
Last year, I made up a short exercise to celebrate London Fashion Week: Count the number of times your brain registers an image of a size 0 model between getting up and going to work. Check your cereal box, your newspaper, your morning TV, bill boards at the bus stop. When I carried out this exercise, I was staggered to count 63 models that appeared underweight in less than an hour. This means almost every minute my brain had been subjected to an unhealthy image. Modern society seems used to the phrase ‘you are what you eat’ and accepts that what you put into your body has an affect on body physiology. Yet, people rarely seem to take the next step and conclude that what you put into your head can affect your brain physiology hence, ‘you are what you think’.
Neuroplasticy is the posh sounding name for how brain inputs affect and can change the wiring in the brain. For example, if the brain is analogous to a computer, then it can be modified by creating new connections, deleting files, uploading or upgrading pieces of computer software. This is a somewhat over simplistic view of how the brain works, but considering just how vigilantly programmes are uploaded onto computers, it seems somewhat strange that such a care free attitude is taken to the inputs into our own brain.
It is said that trends within a society can shape the collective culture, in other words, influence internal beliefs and expectations of what is normal. Hence, it’s possible to postulate that if the brain is bombarded with images of unhealthily thin models and given the unsaid impression that this is to be desired, then this will have an affect, perhaps even resetting what was previously considered normal. Currently this debate is rife with the radical change in model size down from the Marilyn Munroe curvy figure of the fifties, to the pre-pubescent shape of the modern size zero vogue, in the aptly named noughties.
Last year, I made up a short exercise to celebrate London Fashion Week: Count the number of times your brain registers an image of a size 0 model between getting up and going to work. Check your cereal box, your newspaper, your morning TV, bill boards at the bus stop. When I carried out this exercise, I was staggered to count 63 models that appeared underweight in less than an hour. This means almost every minute my brain had been subjected to an unhealthy image. Modern society seems used to the phrase ‘you are what you eat’ and accepts that what you put into your body has an affect on body physiology. Yet, people rarely seem to take the next step and conclude that what you put into your head can affect your brain physiology hence, ‘you are what you think’.
Neuroplasticy is the posh sounding name for how brain inputs affect and can change the wiring in the brain. For example, if the brain is analogous to a computer, then it can be modified by creating new connections, deleting files, uploading or upgrading pieces of computer software. This is a somewhat over simplistic view of how the brain works, but considering just how vigilantly programmes are uploaded onto computers, it seems somewhat strange that such a care free attitude is taken to the inputs into our own brain.
It is said that trends within a society can shape the collective culture, in other words, influence internal beliefs and expectations of what is normal. Hence, it’s possible to postulate that if the brain is bombarded with images of unhealthily thin models and given the unsaid impression that this is to be desired, then this will have an affect, perhaps even resetting what was previously considered normal. Currently this debate is rife with the radical change in model size down from the Marilyn Munroe curvy figure of the fifties, to the pre-pubescent shape of the modern size zero vogue, in the aptly named noughties.
Although much research still needs to be done into neuroplasticity, it does highlight the power of brain inputs. Could inputs of size zero models into the conscious and unconscious mind really encourage unhealthy food restriction? Also, could the opposite occur? Despite the fact that I am unaware of any debate or research about this, I ponder the possibility that inputs of underweight models may lead the unconscious brain into the false belief that famine is approaching, hence increasing the appetite so the body can gain weight as an energy store. No matter on the theory, the West is currently in a public health quandary of what causes the modern day epidemic of extremes in BMI; with unhealthy thin and unhealthy overweight. Can it all be down to food, or do brain inputs and neuroplasticity play a part?
