re: Disorders go with obsession about physiques

[Guest guest]

>> The medical term is muscle dysmorphia, though it has been nicknamed

``reverse anorexia'' or ``bigorexia.''<<

While the article certainly may have merit, I have to wonder about this

statement. The medical term is not muscle dysmorphia, but body dysmorphic

disorder. Along with hypochondriasis it is a form of somatoform disorder

known as preoccupation somatoform disorders. The DSM-IV criteria for body

dysmorphic disorders are " Preoccupation with an imagined or exaggerated

defect in appearance " and " significant stress or impairment. " Body

dysmorphic disorder covers a wide range of perceptual defects ranging from

appearance (too big, too small, my teeth are crooked and so on) to other

aspects such as body odor or even baldness.

While it may seem merely semantic, the increase in disorders nowdays does

nothing but complicate the issue. Why bother with " bigorexia " when it is

not dissimilar to current disorders - in fact it is not at all seperate from

its roots? IMO it is the same as these " breakthroughs in exercise science "

that are nothing more than older principles repackaged for commercial

consumption - " presenting, the ALL NEW AB WHEEL!!!. " There has certainly

been a lot of noise made in APA journals and in the media about this and

other " new disorders. " While it may do some good to bring the issues into

public eye, I have to wonder if at the core it is nothing more than publish

or perish syndrome in academia coupled with home shopping network

psychology.

(shaken not stirred)

Zillah, Washington

[Guest guest]

Philip Saks <philipsaks@...> quoted Muscle mania: Disorders

go with obsession about physiques BY TRACY WHEELER:

> At the foundation of their theory is a study in Psychology Today.

> In 1972 -- when Eastwood, Csonka and were the epitome of

> maleness -- the study shows that 15 percent of American men were

> dissatisfied with their overall appearance. By 1997, that figure

> had nearly tripled to 43 percent.

> Why?

I guess it hasn't occurred to anybody that men's physiques have

objectively decline since then too. How much has obesity increased

in the past 30 years again?

> In the late 1960s, the authors point out, G.I. Joe was a soldier of

> normal proportions, with what would be a 32-inch waist and 12-inch

> biceps on a man 5 feet 10.

Were those normal proportions for a young male soldier? I certainly

wouldn't blanch at 14 " or even 16 " arms on a heroic male from that

era.

> Now, G.I. Joe Extreme carries biceps that, life-size, would be 27

> inches -- nearly as big as his waist.

Yep, ludicrous.

>

> ``The images out there are not the norm,'' said Dr. Bruce Sterman,

> an Akron cosmetic surgeon. ``The average man is not going to attain

> that.''

Right, but does anyone think they're the norm? Even kids? I always

thought my dad was the norm. I never thought superheroes were the

norm. They were...superheroes.

Matt Madsen

__________________________________________________