Youth, brains and body image

Notwithstanding the formation of a new National Advisory Group on Body Image earlier this month, a government officer - who wished to remain nameless because of an obligation of “workplace loyalty” - contacted me urging me to write about “the diet industry, obesity fear mongering and eating disorders in light of the latest campaign on body image”, in the hope of giving this issue “the public discussion and interest it deserves”.

My immediate reaction was concern about the absurdity of our democratic institutions gagging intelligent discussion and about the reality of freedom of speech, but ultimately I thought this person’s obviously sincere request deserved closer examination.

Unbeknown to my correspondent, my credentials to discuss this matter aren’t academically based. Many years ago a member of my own family had an eating disorder. Strangely, given its significance at the time, it’s something she doesn’t think about nowadays. And although her experience was mercifully short lived, she found herself receiving the common adult ultimatums like "Eat or you'll be hospitalised", and "Eat or you'll die". Hardly an approach conducive to achieving a durable outcome.

She can’t now remember when or why she became trapped in her own body-focused mind. Perhaps it was an uncharitable comment from a peer about her appearance that started her off; perhaps it was a quest to fit in or be valued; perhaps her body was the only thing in her life she could control.

But what she does remember is the positive reinforcement she received when losing weight in a "plug in", body image focused society. Suddenly she was in a spiral of action, outcome and reinforcement. The more weight you lose, the more acknowledgement you get; the more acknowledgement you get, the more you set about losing, and so on until finally you have rewired your brain so that it thinks in a certain way about the way you look and dictates what you need to do to sustain it.

I assume the same thing happens in reverse for obesity: the more weight you gain, the more negative looks and comments you receive; the more comments, the more you retreat, the more you eat, the more you avoid activities that reveal your body and so on. It's just a shame I didn't know about neuroplasticity (PDF 28KB) back then - it may have helped.

Having personally closely observed that process I did - and still do - wonder whether society isn't attempting to treat the symptoms instead of the disease. In other words, talking about the consequences of eating disorders or their treatment does nothing to help a young person understand who they are, how their brain works, why they are important, where they are going, how to get there, and what they are likely to face.

I often feel empathy for young people between adolescence and adulthood. It is a time when many of them have adult thoughts and feelings in an adolescent vessel, trapped in their circumstances essentially by financial dependency. Few have any power of free choice in their daily lives. They can’t vote. Their views are too often dismissed as being unimportant or irrelevant, or just inexperienced and wrong.

Yet nothing engages young people more than allowing and encouraging them to think for themselves, to have their own views instead of having views imposed upon them, and asking them questions about life and listening intently and respectfully - and without judgment - to their responses.

Frances E. Jensen, a professor of neurology, described it well (PDF 60KB)when he said, "The teenage brain is not just an adult brain with fewer miles on it ... It's a paradoxical time of development. These are people with very sharp brains, but they're not quite sure what to do with them."

But discussing the personal effects of eating disorders and body image fixations, on the one hand, and the capacity of young people to deal competently with their lives to a much greater extent than we permit them, on the other, skirts around where the problem actually originates.

It undoubtedly operates by means of social mores operating within the brain of the individual (PDF 2.12MB), through school, the family and the socio-cultural environment - which is the process of socialisation that forges identity, values, beliefs and attitudes that give the individual a place and a role in the society in which he or she grows up - but the values underlying those mores seem to be based in, or heavily contributed to by, media generated and media perpetuated imagery.

Add to that the developmental stages of the brain itself up to the age of 25 (a sobering thought in the context of recruiting ages for the armed forces and sending those young people into armed combat). According to two physicians at Children's Hospital Boston and Harvard Medical School (HMS) who "have been exploring the unique structure and chemistry of the adolescent brain", their research has revealed that:

• young brains have both fast-growing synapses and sections that remain unconnected. This leaves teens easily influenced by their environment and more prone to impulsive behaviour, even without the impact of souped-up hormones and any genetic or family predispositions;
• most teenagers don't understand their mental hardwiring, so Jensen, whose laboratory research focuses on newborn-brain injury, and David K. Urion, an associate professor of neurology who treats children with cognitive impairments like autism and attention deficit disorder, are giving lectures at secondary schools and other likely places. They hope to inform students, parents, educators, and even fellow scientists about this new data, which have wide-ranging implications for how we teach, punish and medically treat this age group. As Jensen told some 50 workshop attendees at Boston's Museum of Science, "This is the first generation of teenagers that has access to this information, and they need to understand some of their vulnerabilities";
• the brain grows and changes continually in young people - and that it is only about 80 per cent developed in adolescents ... the last section to connect is the frontal lobe, responsible for cognitive processes such as reasoning, planning, and judgment. Normally this mental merger is not completed until somewhere between ages 25 and 30; and
• there are also gender differences in brain development: the part of our brain that processes information expands during childhood and then begins to thin, peaking in girls at roughly 12 to 14-years-old and in boys about two years later. This suggests that girls and boys may be ready to absorb challenging material at different stages, and that schools may be missing opportunities to reach them.

Add to all that biology, sleep deprivation, chemical enhancements, levels of physical activity, culture and environment, innumerable medical conditions, sensory overload or other matters impacting upon children that we know about or are yet to discover, and it’s no wonder young people are saying "loud and clear" to Kate Ellis, the Minister for Sport and Youth “that they are concerned about the issue of body image and the impact that it’s having on them, their friends and the community".

And is it really surprising that one in four young people aged 12 to 25 will experience a mental health problem in any 12-month period, or that mental health issues are in the top three areas of concern (PDF 34KB) identified by young people themselves, or that statistics show fewer than a fifth of young women are happy with their bodies?

On December 5, 2008 Kate Ellis announced that $125,000 had been allocated to develop a “voluntary” National Media and Industry Code of Conduct on body image which will consider, among other things:

• notification of Digital Alterations (in case of physical manipulation);
• a minimum age limit of 16 years for participation in adult fashion shows, magazine shoots and TV programs;
• commitment to diversification of body shape and size; and
• glamorisation of severely underweight models or celebrities.

Although this is an important first step it is over simplistic in its approach, and by being "voluntary" is too lighthanded, when the calculatedly predatory behaviour is directed towards adolescent brains that are more vulnerable to external stressors (PDF 64KB).

The government’s lacklustre proposal involves no more than the allocation of a very modest sum to the development of a toothless optional guideline: it makes one wonder, just how well does the government really want to know the enemy? Shouldn’t they be asking bigger questions? Does the media (using that term to refer to the messages of the marketers as much as to the media vehicles themselves) provoke uncertainty? Does the media make money from uncertainty?  How can one hold the media to account? Do teenagers equate normalcy with what the media or some corporation persuades them to buy or what it tells them to do? How difficult is it for them to resist?

Although it is not a gender specific issue, how marketing and advertising affects equality between women and men, and how it “fuels and consolidates gender stereotypes, were outlined in a European Parliament motion passed last year. It clearly outlines how the Member States plan to respond. So the European Parliament is well ahead of ours: it has formally recognised the link between poor body image, gender stereotypes and the media and it is already moving to do something about it. Perhaps the European Parliament recognises that advertisers and the media have refused to consider the moral responsibility of their position: after all, they don’t have to wipe away the tears in the early hours of the morning, or participate in counselling sessions or fund medical treatment or attend funerals. And because of that detachment from the consequences of their actions our legislators must step in without the option of "voluntariness".

Government regulation should be avoided where possible, but in this case the end justifies the means. Surely the problem warrants the Ministers for Youth, Health, Education, Families, Science and Research, Communications- and any other portfolio that directly or indirectly affects young people (which is most of them) - to form a working group to closely examine the issue with both eyes open and all hands and resources on deck?

Younger generations will face increasing numbers of challenges to which they will have to find solutions. Many of them have been created by the foolish generations that preceded theirs, including us. Now more than ever it would seem mightily important to monitor, educate, encourage and support our young people from adolescence to adulthood to ensure that they arrive safe and sound and well-equipped. They are, after all, tomorrow’s parents.

For those who are wondering, the member of my family recovered, as far as she can recall, only because she was afraid to die. Many adolescents are not. Perhaps the media and government should bear that in mind when considering the way forward.