Can I Have Another Snack?

In today’s episode, I’m speaking to writer and parent educator Eloise Rickman. Eloise’s work focuses mainly on challenging adultism, championing children’s rights, and helping parents and educators rethink how they see children. In this episode, we touch on how diet culture shows up in gentle parenting spaces and how mainstream ideas of gentle parenting don’t always challenge where power comes from and how it’s leveraged. We’ll also talk about kids’ embodied resistance and Elosie’s new book, It’s Not Fair.Don’t forget to leave a review in your podcast player if you enjoy this episode - or let me know what you think in the comments below.Find out more about Eloise’s work here.Pre-order Eloise’s new book here.Follow her on Instagram here.Follow here on Substack - Follow Laura on Instagram here.Subscribe to Laura’s newsletter here.Enrol in the Raising Embodied Eaters course here. Here’s the transcript in full:INTRO:Laura: Hey and welcome to the Can I Have Another Snack? podcast where we talk about appetite, bodies and identity, especially through the lens of parenting. I'm Laura Thomas, I'm an anti-diet registered nutritionist and I also write the Can I Have Another Snack? Newsletter.Today we’re talking to . Eloise is a writer ( ) and parent educator. Her work focuses on challenging adultism, championing children’s rights, and helping parents and educators rethink how they see children. Today we’re going to talk about how diet culture shows up in gentle parenting spaces and how mainstream ideas of gentle parenting don’t always challenge where power comes from and how it’s leveraged. We’ll also talk about kids’ embodied resistance and Elosie’s new book, It’s Not Fair.But first - just a quick reminder that Can I Have Another Snack is entirely reader and listener supported. If you get something from the newsletter or podcast, please consider a paid subscription - it’s £5/month or £50/ year which helps cover the cost of the podcast,  gives you access to our weekly subscriber only discussion threads, the monthly Dear Laura column, and the entire CIHAS archive. Head to laurathomas.substack.com to subscribe now. And thank you to everyone who is already a paid subscriber.Alright team, here’s this week’s conversation with Eloise Rickman. MAIN EPISODE:Laura: Alright Eloise, can you start by telling us a bit about you and your work?Eloise: Yeah, of course. And whenever I do these, I'm always absolutely terrified, that I'm gonna forget something really big , like “I'm a writer” or “I work with parents”. So yeah, I'm a writer and I work with parents. I write books about children and about children's rights.And I've just finished writing my second book, which is on the idea of children's liberation. which looks at all different sorts of topics from parenting to education to children's bodies. And alongside my writing work, I also work with parents running courses on home education and on rights-based parenting and on workshops as well.I'm also – at the same time as doing this – home educating my daughter, who at the time of recording is eight, which also kind of feels like a full time job and just because life is not complicated enough, I'm also doing a Masters in children's rights at the moment, which is brilliant.Laura: Okay, I have no idea how you find the time in the day to do all of those different things, but I am in awe. And you mentioned that you just finished writing your second book, but you didn't say what it's called.Eloise: Sorry, I didn't, you’re right! So it's called It's Not Fair. Which is a title we deliberated over for a really long time, but I really like it because it's something which we hear so often from our children's mouths.It's not fair, this isn't fair. So it's called It's Not Fair: Why it's Time for a Grown Up Conversation About How Adults Treat Children. And that really does sum it up. It's really looking at how we treat children in all different aspects of life. And why a lot of that treatment isn't fair and why we need to rethink it as adults who have more power than children.Laura: Yeah, and I mean, that's really what I want us..we're going to explore these ideas a little bit in a second. But yeah, I've had a little sneaky peek of the book so far. And what I read is incredible. And I'm so excited for this book to be in people's hands because – we'll talk about this a bit more as well – but unlike a lot of just, you know, gentle parenting, like, more prescriptive books, I think that just tell you how to parent, what I really appreciate about your work is that you bring in the kind of socio-political lens, which I feel often gets missed out of a lot of these conversations. So, yeah, I'm really excited about your book coming out and we'll pop a pre-order link to it in the show notes so that people can have that little happy surprise delivered to their doorstep. There's nothing better than, just like, a book showing up that you've forgotten…  Eloise: Oh, I love it. Laura: …that you ordered six months ago! Okay. A lot of your work centers on the idea of dismantling adultism. I'm not sure that people will be completely familiar with that term, so for anyone who is just coming across it, can you explain what even is that and where do we see it show up in our kids’ lives?Eloise: Absolutely, and I think you're totally right that it's not a term that most of us are familiar with at all, and I think that's a huge problem actually.You know, we are now, I think, generally, as a society, getting better at spotting things like sexism or racism or ableism, and that is really important, you know, being able to name injustice when you see it is the first step to dismantling it, to tackling it. Otherwise, how do you really know what it is that you're dealing with and why it's a problem?But yet, when we think about some of the treatment which children experience at the hands of adults, whether that's the fact that in England, at the time of recording, it's still legal to hit your child, even though we would never dream of women being allowed to be hit by their partners, or the fact that, you know, it's still really normal in so many school settings for children to be publicly humiliated, to be losing their break times and so on.All of these seem to be quite disconnected from one another because we don't have the language to join them up. And I think that's why having a word like adultism is the first step in kind of joining those dots and being able to see that children as a social group are marginalised and discriminated against vis-à-vis adults.And I think that term probably feels quite uncomfortable for a lot of us, especially if our children are relatively privileged. You know, if you have a wealthy white child who is not disabled, the idea that your child is discriminated against or is somehow marginalised might feel really shocking. Like, whoa, what do you mean?You know, our child is so lucky, but again, as we've seen with times, like with racism, we talk about white supremacy. The idea isn't that if you have white privilege, you don't have any other problems. You know, you can still be poor or disabled and still have white privilege. And I think in the same way we can see that adults have it easier in a lot of different aspects of their lives.And that doesn't mean being a child is always terrible. It just means they're discriminated against because they're children. So the idea of adultism is really just a way of referencing this age based discrimination, which children face. And I think it really encapsulates this idea that in so many of our societies, adults are seen as the kind of default position, and they are seen as more competent, more capable, more rational, more sensible than children are. And there's a wonderful academic called Manfred Liebel, who talks about these four conditions of adultism. And one of them is that children are just seen as less capable, less competent, less rational, and that they're seen as sort of unfinished. So there's this idea that you're not really a proper person until you become an adult. And that justifies a lot of adult control.Laura: Yeah. Sorry. I was just going to say, there's like this sense that, okay, well, you don't really know what you're talking about. You don't really have any kind of, like, say in what's going on until you turn 18.And, and it's almost like this idea that, yeah, your life is..it doesn't matter, anything that happens to you before 18. It's kind of like a write off somehow. Yeah. Anyway, that was just what was coming to my mind. And I'm sorry for interrupting you. I'm curious to hear more about these conditions of adultism!Eloise: Yeah, but I think that absolutely is true. And that's a really big part of it or where we don’t see children's lives as important or their experience as important. And I think we're getting better now as a society at noticing when things are traumatic or when things are adverse childhood experiences, but often those are described in terms of: this has an impact when they become adults.So they have poorer earning potential or it harms their future intimate relationships, but it's not…so much of it is not focused on children's lives in the here and now, and under adultism, it's very frequent, I think, whether it's in policy documents or whether it's in the language that schools use, or whether it's in parenting manuals, this idea that childhood is this sort of preparation or training ground for when you're a real person, for when you're an adult, and that parenting, education, all of these different things, thus, should be you know, optimising the child's future life without really thinking very much about children's experiences right now. So, and some other examples of adultism as well are, that tied to this, we often think that because parents know best, parents can protect their children from things that we see as harmful. And I think this probably links quite a lot also to diet culture and the way that we see that, you know, oh, I must protect my child from ultra processed food or from sweets because I know best, but actually these things can end up being quite harmful to children because they're not given the opportunity to take risks or make mistakes or to figure out their own body's needs, decide what's best for themselves. And I think there is this real assumption that adults know best and that if a child makes a decision, which is against what adults believe is best, then the child must not be capable of making that decision yet. They must be incompetent. So even if we're saying to a child, okay, you choose. And then the child says, well, I'm going to eat all of my Hallowe’en sweets in one go, or I'm going to eat all of the, you know, chocolates out of my Christmas stocking in one go. And then the adult says, well, actually that shows they can't be trusted. And next time we'll have to, you know, divvy them out or give them more slowly. And I think that sense that children cannot make good decisions if they vary from what we as adults believe are good decisions, also have a wider consequence in that children are really excluded from political decision making.And I think this is twofold, both in terms of the fact that children can't vote, which as you're listening to this, you might think, ‘well, of course children can't vote, you know, why would they be able to vote? They're only children.’ But yet, this is exactly the kind of argument which used to be made for women not being able to vote.And actually, over the course of history, we've seen huge changes in which populations were seen to be considered sort of capable and sound of mind and able to take part in the very scary business of voting and putting a cross in a box. And again, there are lots of people now challenging this, but I think just the very fact that we have a whole section of society who we say ‘you don't have a voice’ is really important to grapple with.I think there could be an argument made for this if our politicians were genuinely taking children's voices, views, concerns into account. But as we've seen with things like education funding, childcare funding, the complete lack of any sort of meaningful action on the climate crisis, children's priorities and futures aren't being safeguarded by those in power. And we tend to have very short termist political structures. Which again, exacerbates this sort of, you know, serving adult populations, but actually the things that children need, the things that are important to children get completely left out of the conversation.Laura: Yeah. Oh, I mean, I don't even really know where, where to kind of go from there. I think you've just…Eloise: Sorry, it's a lot!Laura: It is, it's a lot. And you summed it up. And I think, like, what I kept thinking about as you were speaking is, I think, there is this, like, notion or fantasy that we're not living in Victorian workhouse era, kind of, you know, we're not putting kids into workhouses anymore.And there's this sort of sense that, like, childhood is held in such high esteem, such high regard, like…But what you're saying is there's a real disconnect, right, between this kind of, like, fantasy of childhood versus the reality of how we're treating our children. Do you know what I mean?Eloise: Absolutely. Yeah, totally. And I think that's exactly right.And I think, again, to a lot of people, it will seem strange to talk about children being discriminated against because we're spending, you know, hundreds of pounds on Christmas presents for the children in our families or because we are seeing that children now have access to all these cool opportunities that we didn't when we were their age. And we tend to think that childhood is generally getting better. And in some ways it is, you know, in terms of things like corporal punishment, we are actually getting better as a society. Fewer children are being smacked. It's becoming less normalised, but there is still this real disconnect between the fact that children are…in some circumstances have better material goods, except we're definitely not seeing that for everyone. And actually, you know, as we know in the UK, one in three children more or less lives in poverty, which is a huge political issue in terms of adultism, actually. And it is a real…it's a political choice rather than just a side effect.And, you know, we might not need to get into it now, but there have been lots and lots of policy decisions over the last decade or so, which have pushed families deeper and deeper into poverty. But even for those of us living in very privileged households, we might see, oh yes, well, my child now has an iPad or my child has this, that or the other.But actually in terms of the things that really matter to children, having a safe, healthy environment, having the freedom to be able to go out and see their friends without being overly controlled, having privacy, having independence. We're not really doing much better on any of those sort of key indicators, really. And that power discrepancy. And I think that power is probably the main word in all of this, that adults still have the say, adults still have a final decision. Adults still have more power in our families…hasn't changed since those times. And I think that's what we're really needing to grapple with now.Laura: And I think that that is shifting a little bit in terms of kind of the explosion of gentle parenting, which I think is a concept that probably most of the listeners are familiar with. But just for anyone who isn't, do you think that you could maybe just, like, give your…because I know there's no, like, one set definition of gentle or respectful parenting, but can you tell us a bit about what that concept means to you?Eloise: Yeah, of course. So I think the way that gentle parenting, in a kind of mainstream definition of books like…well, I'm not going to name a lot, but you know, any kind of gentle parenting book you might walk into Waterstones and pick up off the shelf will tend to be much more child focused than, you know, Gina Ford type parenting books.So it will focus on, you know, how is your child feeling, validating their emotions, listening to them, not making them feel bad for crying or for having strong feelings, for trying to work together with them to fix problems rather than just doling out punishments, you know, not putting children in timeouts, really listening to them, having a very warm, nurturing relationship with children.It doesn't necessarily have to go into attachment parenting, but I think there is a sense in gentle parenting that the real aim is trying to have this loving relationship with your child, where they feel heard, they feel listened to, they feel seen. For me, that feels like such a positive move forward collectively as a society.I know that my mum for example feels that she might have parented in a different way had she had more options around at the time. I'm sure my grandparents would have also parented in a very different way if they had had access to some of these ideas. So I think as a society we're definitely moving in the right way.I think the piece for me that feels still sort of missing from gentle parenting, is a lot of it still doesn't question this fundamental aspect of child-parent relationships, which is that it is a fundamentally unequal power dynamic. So what traditional gentle parenting will do, I don't know if you or anyone listening has heard of this idea of these different sort of parenting styles from someone called Diana Baumrind, who talked about. On the one hand you have the authoritarian parenting. She's very strict, very cold, has very high expectations of children's behaviour. On the other side, she talked about permissive parenting. Which is very warm, but has very low expectations of children. So, you know, you might imagine a kind of warm chaos where the kids are kind of running around doing whatever.Laura: Right. There's no, there are very few boundaries. It's a bit more of a…Eloise: Very few boundaries.Laura: Free for all.Eloise: Free for all. It's chaos. Yeah. Kids are in charge kind of idea. Then she posited for actually the middle ground, which I think is what a lot of gentle parenting writers will refer to, is that in the middle you have what she kind of called authoritative parenting, which is both very warm, seeks to understand the child, seeks to not have too many rules, but yet still has those expectations in terms of behaviour.So, you know, you're going to step in if you see your child drawing on the walls or going to hit their sibling, you know, you're going to have expectations, for example, of how dinner times might be held or how you greet other people. And I think this is where a lot of gentle parenting books sit, in this idea that you have power as a parent, but you use it benevolently to try and do your best for your child.And I have a lot of sympathy for that. You know, I think as parents we’re under so much pressure to do well, to do right, especially when we're told from so much developmental psychology, but the impact of these early years on children is so important and it's going to ruin your child's life. But I think for me, what feels like perhaps the next step, and I think we're already starting to see more and more conversations doing this, is being able to step outside of that sort of traditional view that you're either very authoritarian or permissive or you're kind of somewhere in between and remove ourselves from that entirely and say, well, what about the power dynamics?What if parents weren't the ones in charge, but actually we were in partnership with children, making decisions collectively and aiming for respectful relationships just as we would do in our romantic partnerships, in our friendships, in our work relationships of just being humans in the world, trying to figure out how to get along together in as respectful a way as possible.And obviously this is much, much easier said than done. I am absolutely not doing this all the time in my own parenting, let's be really clear. But for me, that feels like the conversation we need to be having more of. And alongside that, it needs to be not just looking at the parent child relationship.Which I think again, a lot of traditional parenting books will do, but really trying to understand that your parenting is impacted by so many things. You know, we live in a capitalist society and the fact that so much of our society is based on getting parents away from their children, separating families out, trying to put children into often very underfunded childcare systems, school systems, making it almost impossible for parents to be relaxed when they're having to work sometimes two, three jobs where they're dealing with poverty, where they're worried about the climate crisis, you know, these things don't happen in a vacuum. And I think it is completely unrealistic to be talking about having this beautiful, you know, egalitarian, no power differentiation relationship with our children, when we're not also trying to dismantle the many, many, many structural issues which are keeping us stressed and exhausted and, you know, kind of triggered by our children as well.Laura: Yeah. As I was preparing to speak to you, I was thinking about a couple of New York Times articles that came out, I think it was last year, that really pushed back on gentle parenting.And then I also saw something in Romper yesterday that was like, you know, here are 10 reasons why gentle parenting doesn't work for my family. And to me, I have a lot of, like, sympathy for parents who are trying out these tools, these ideas, these suggestions, which, you know, may or may not be helpful for them. But, you know, like maybe they buy into the idea sort of cognitively and emotionally, but then when they, when they put it into practice, like it all kind of falls apart for them. And it seems like with those NYT articles and, and with the Romper piece, it really was just missing the lens of like all the systemic and social stuff that we're kind of dealing with that makes it so much more difficult to have a kind of equal distribution of power in those relationships and and not, not sort of a certain power over but but you know giving power to our children to have some autonomy to have some say in their their day and over their bodies and what they want to do it all just feels so impossible when we have yeah like capitalism breathing down our neck, colonialism breathing down our neck, racism, ableism, anti-fat bias, like all of these systems that are, are making our lives so much more difficult.They have an impact on gentle parenting or our ability to parent, but it's not, it's not the, the gentle parenting in and of itself. That's the problem, right? It's all the other shit that we're dealing with.Eloise: Absolutely. Yeah. And like you say, I think there is a fundamental sometimes misread of gentle parenting, but it's just another tool. You know, you do this because you want your child to be more empathetic to their peers, or because you want them to learn more moderation in the long run, or because you want them to be able to self regulate their emotions. And some children absolutely will do all of those things. So there's lots of research showing that actually, if you want children who do tend to have more pro social behaviors, as they're called, that being very controlling, being authoritarian is not the way to do that. And the more we punish children, the more there are lots of different outcomes, all of which are pretty negative. But I think that still misses this wider picture that fundamentally we don't, for example, decide to not punish our daughter or not shout at her or not put her in timeout because we think that's the best way to create a good, happy person. Laura: Compliant child. Eloise: Yeah, we do it because it feels really fucking unfair. Like, I wouldn't want it if my husband was like, ‘Hey, I don't like the way you just spoke to me. So I'm going to remove your debit card for two days’. You know, that would be abuse. We would call that abuse.He, you know, I wouldn't like it if one of my friends was like, ‘Oh, you replied to my text a bit late’. Or like, ‘I didn't like that you didn't, you know, you, you missed something out. So I'm just going to ghost you for a while.’ You know, that's not how we have relationships with people we care about, but yet we have completely normalised this way of treating children.And I think that, yeah, there's a missing piece, which so many of those big New York Times and so on articles seem to miss is that this is not about having another method. This is just about fundamentally treating children like fellow human beings in a respectful way.Laura: Yeah, you're so right, that oftentimes we're kind of weaponising gentle parenting as a, like as a ‘nice’ way, inverted commas, a ‘kind’ way, caring way to try and control and manipulate our children. Eloise: Yes, totally. Laura:  Like, again, I get that. I get why, like, you know, having some tools in your toolkit so that your kid will put their fucking socks on or brush their teeth in the morning so you can get out the door, like why that's helpful. And yeah, if we're doing it solely for the purposes of compliance, that in and of itself can become problematic because it's another way that you're kind of leveraging power, I think.It's a complicated, kind of topic to discuss. Sorry, I'm having like a few different thoughts of where to go! I think maybe I'll stick with gentle parenting just because we've kind of been on that topic. And I was saying to you off mic that I have a feeling that gentle parenting has a diet culture problem.And what sort of spurred this was a reel that I saw, I think just before Hallowe’en. So we're recording this at the beginning of November. We've just had Hallowe’en a couple of weeks ago and there was a kind of quite well known, like, I guess they're gentle parenting influencer coach? I don't know what you would, you would call them.And they basically were talking about how they only let their kid have, I think it was like a cake pop or something on special occasions, which turned out to be like three times a year. And I was like, I was just waiting for people to send me this reel and be like, what, what do you think of this? And the first person to send it to me was Molly Forbes from Body Happy Org. And she was like, gentle parenting has a diet culture problem. And I wanted to get your take on that. Is this something you've seen in, not necessarily gentle parenting, I'm sort of picking on that, but like in children's liberation spaces where there's kind of like a, we want to change the power structures so much. But when it comes to food, and policing bodies, there seems to be like a bit of a disconnect there.Eloise: So I think there are two different strands to this. And I think maybe first we can talk about the kind of more, I guess, like mainstream Instagram version of sort of gentle parenting, which I think absolutely does have a diet culture problem. And then maybe we can talk a bit about this idea of children's liberation, which I think to me feels much less…you know, a lot of the people I know who are talking about children's liberation are also talking about fat liberation, around black liberation, around disability liberation.Laura: Right. They have that intersectional lens on. Yeah. And I think that's a really important distinction. So I'm glad, I'm glad that you made that. Cause like my next question is, was going to be, could you tell us more about, you know, children's liberation. So yeah, I'm really glad that you kind of separated out those two strands.So maybe start with the, like, Instagram…which I can see, just like, I can see the despair in your face. I think it seems like how I feel a lot about, like, a lot of kids feeding stuff online is probably how you feel about a lot of parenting stuff.Eloise: Yeah. Again, I think so much of it means well, but I think there is quite a big intersection between sort of like gentle parenting influencers on the one hand and wellness culture. And I think that often goes really hand in hand. So this idea of kind of like crunchy parenting, you see it a lot as well in homeschool spaces. So obviously I home educate my daughter. I follow home ed accounts. I often get shown stuff in my, like, what is it, like, ‘Explore’ section of my Instagram. And I think depending on where you hang out online, there is a really strong mix of, you know, I home educate my children and I gentle parent, and I also use essential oils. And I also don't ever buy processed food and all of these things coming together in a very aesthetically beautiful and pleasing package, which doesn't…  Laura: Ballerina Farm effect. Eloise: Totally. Yeah. I'd love to know if Ballerina Farm has a, like a secret snack cupboard with her kids. It's just like a munching on dandelions.Laura: Sourdough and yeah, dandelion butter.Eloise: Yeah, absolutely. And again, I think that is this sense from people who maybe were raised, you know, lots of us were raised in the eighties, the eighties, especially in the UK, didn't have great culinary vibes. Sure, like I get that we want to do better.Laura: I grew up in Scotland, we had battered Mars bars. I don't know what you're talking about.Eloise: That sounds great, sign me up. Yeah, I think that sometimes we can maybe go too far or not go far enough. So a great example of this for me feels like the division of responsibility approach to family meals, which I think for so many people feels like, yes, this is kind of different to how I was raised, you know, this isn't about children finishing their plates or being reserved the same meal until they finished it.You know, you really do hear some horror stories when it comes to people and their relationships with food, which started, as so many things do, when they were children. Yeah. And so I totally get that there is this searching for something better. And I think for some people, this idea of division of responsibility, which I'm sure people will be familiar with as they're listening to your podcast, but this idea that I choose what to serve and I choose when to serve it, but you choose what to eat. It looks nice on the surface, but again, it doesn't have any of that interrogation of a power again, like I'm going to sound like a broken record, but imagine if my husband was like, ‘right, I've planned out all of our meals for the week, all of the snacks, all of our meal times, but like you can choose. It's up to you, babe. You know, if you want it, you can have it. If not, have shit.’ And I feel like, again, we wouldn't do this to people who were not children. You know, we might do it to people at institutions, but again, is that really what we want to be going for? And I think a lot of this is done with real love. You know, we want our children to be healthy. We want our children to be happy. We're constantly told in every aspect of our lives, if you have a fat child, they will be miserable and unhappy and unhealthy. And that's the worst possible thing you can do as a parent. And I think that unless you have really engaged with anti-diet culture, fat liberation culture, I can see the appeal of this quite like wellness, you know, Deliciously Ella style approach to feeding children, which I think goes really hand in hand with this idea of wooden toys and gentle parenting and kind of slightly alternative living, but which is packaged up in a very kind of consumerist way. Laura: Totally. Yeah. Yeah. I've talked before about not being a division of responsibility purist and kind of going back to what you were talking about before about authoritarian versus permissive, is that right? And then, yeah, I always get confused, authoritative is kind of in this, in the middle.  And I think a lot of people do position the division of responsibility as being that middle ground. And in a lot of ways, I think, especially when kids are really little, it can be like a really helpful way to kind of parse out and, and help kids kind of understand like hunger and fullness cues, for example, and things like that. But yeah, like as kids get older, they, like, want to have a bit more autonomy over what they're eating. They want to have some decision making power. Why, why wouldn't they, right? Like you say, we make decisions about what we're eating all the time. And if somebody tried to stop us from doing that, we would like, yeah, throw a conniptions. So yeah, I think this is where the, the responsive feeding piece comes in, where it can be really helpful, is that it can be containing for a child to have sort of set meal times, you know, to know like, okay, I will always provide breakfast. I will always provide lunch. I will always provide dinner and, you know, snacks are maybe sort of like somewhere in the middle there. Yeah. I think having that, like a bit of structure can. In the same way that boundaries can be helpful, that that can be helpful. But yeah, if we are then, especially as kids get older and start socialising with people outside of our families and you know, are going to like, you know, outside of primary school, going into secondary school and have more, you know, have their own money to buy things, for example, if we are then still trying to like micromanage every single aspect of what they're eating. Then, yeah, that's really, really unhelpful. And I guess I never really thought of it so much as through the sort of like lens of power dynamics, but I think that that's a really important piece that you're, you're bringing to that conversation. What do you see in terms of, like, in those same spaces around like conversations about sweets and restriction and that kind of thing? I'd love to hear, yeah, what you see around that.Eloise: Yeah, I mean, you can probably imagine, I think. And again, I think there is a real diversity. So I'm kind of caricaturing a bit here. And I think it's also important to say that, like, with all of these conversations…you know, we were just talking about division of responsibility.I think that is quite a big gulf between, say, a wealthy influencer who is talking about this stuff and someone who genuinely has no choice about just serving three meals a day because they've just been to a food bank. So I think all of these questions around, like, giving children choice and being able to be very child led still do come with quite a privileged lens.I have to say again, you know, in terms of sweets and things, I have seen people being like, here's how to make your own fruit flavoured gummies and switch these out instead. And, you know, look, I have no problem with any of this. I enjoy cooking. So that's something…like, I've never made my own gummies, but I would absolutely, you know, I sometimes make our own cakes or biscuits or bread.It's fun. It's part of, like, eating nice food. I enjoy doing it. But I think this idea that to be a kind of good parent, you have to restrict…often the discourse is around, like, refined sugars…seed oil. That's a new thing that I haven’t really engaged with. Laura: Don’t, don’t, don’t.Eloise: E numbers, red dye, all of this stuff. And again, look, I get it. I get that you want to give your child a healthy diet. And, you know, I think I would be hypocritical…like we also try and give our daughter a pretty balanced diet where she has access to lots of vegetables and fruits alongside things typically kind of coded as unhealthy, like chocolate or crisps. But for me, it just feels like it makes such a big issue out of these foods.And then…you know, I say this as someone who, as a child, had quite restricted food. So I had really bad eczema as a young child, and my parents were also on a very low income, and so we didn't just have a snack drawer with loads of like pre-packaged snacks, you know, that wouldn't have been in my parents budget, and also with terrible eczema, my mum… She was quite a young parent.She, you know, she didn't know what to do with it. And she went to lots of doctors. They couldn't help. We tried all sorts of different things. And one of the things she tried was cutting out refined sugar, for example, because people had told her this might help. So for a lot of different reasons, I had quite, like, a restricted upbringing in terms of, again, things typically coded as like ‘junk food’. And I really saw the impact that that had on me as I grew older and had access to my own money or had access to, you know, food choices at school. And I remember being absolutely mystified going to friends’ houses that they could have cupboards with, like, chocolate and crisps in and not just want to sit and eat the whole thing because like, ‘Oh my God, you have chocolate and crisps. Why wouldn't you want to eat the whole thing?’ And I think for me that has served as quite a powerful reminder of so many of the brilliant conversations I see, like the ones you have had around not overly restricting certain types of food. And I've really seen it in action with my daughter as well, where we're pretty chill about what she wants to eat.It's her body, you know, we might have some conversations if she was wanting to eat doughnuts for every meal. What has been really fascinating is just seeing that because this stuff has never been separated out from other foods. She isn't hugely fussed. And again, you know, sometimes she is. Hallowe’en, it's really exciting to have access to all these new different chocolates.Laura: Totally. The goal is not to take the pleasure out of food like that, right? Like, I think that's sometimes what parents…the interpretation of sort of the message that I'm trying to communicate and other people in this space are trying to communicate is that we want to, like, burn kids out on sweets so that they never eat them again.That's not it. Like, food is joyful and pleasurable and like, that's, you know, especially in the context of kids not having any, like, any autonomy or any power over anything. Like, can we just throw them a fucking bone and give them some chocolate, right? I really appreciate what you were saying Eloise about, well, there were just a couple of things that I think, are really important to highlight, you know, in these conversations that a lot of people don't have the choice, right, to offer their kids a more liberal access to sweets and chocolates and crisps and things. And, and the restriction is born out of poverty and deprivation rather than what I think we see in a lot of sort of more privileged well to do spaces where, you know, people may have, can afford plenty of, I don't know, Oreos, but they're not providing their kids access to them. And yeah, I think also the piece around having complex medical needs where you might have no choice, even if there's an allergy or something where it's also really difficult to provide kids the things that you would like to provide them all of the time.So it's not a straightforward conversation and I'm glad that you kind of brought in that complexity. Something else that you mentioned was, you know, if you separate out the kind of like Instagram aesthetic approach to gentle parenting versus kind of more of a radical approach to parenting that is rooted in children's liberation. Can you tell me more about that and yeah, how, how things feel different in that space?Eloise: Definitely. So a very potted history is that people started talking about children's liberation with that language in the 1970s with writers like John Holt, who some people will be familiar with. He writes a lot about alternative education…wrote. And people like A.S. Neill, who founded the Summerhill School, which again is like a big radical school in the UK. But the children's liberation of the time – as many of the writing in the 70s was – was very radical, so it was sort of based on this idea that children should be given the exact same rights as adults, even when it came to things like sexual relationships or information in terms of, you know, children should be allowed to watch whatever movies they wanted to.I think some of these ideas are still absolutely worth exploring and engaging with today, but obviously some of them will be very radical. And I think what he missed…this was before the UN declaration on the rights of a child. And I think what that did is for the first time brought together this idea that children have lots of different rights. They have rights to be protected as well, as well as being able to participate fully in society and to be provided with basic levels of, you know, healthcare and decent quality of living and so on. And I think children's liberation now has to be able to grapple with these things. So the idea that yes, children…we should be fundamentally trying to rethink these power differences, but they do need to be also rooted in the understanding that children's needs are a bit different from adults and that we can still assume that children are competent and still listen to children's voices and involve them in every aspect of society without having to go as far as absolute like legal equality. So we can still give them equality in their rights and equality and just dignity in how they're treated. So for me, this is what Children's Liberation is really trying to do. It's this idea that it's a way to sort of combat adultism that we talked about earlier and really trying to see children as complete people who are able to have a say in every aspect of their lives and where they're really trusted. But that goes alongside having adults around who are also willing to provide support and care too. And I think that then when you start looking at things like food from this perspective, you really see it as just a wider aspect of children's bodily autonomy of being able to choose what happens to their bodies and for children to be able to learn and make mistakes. And yes, have it within these really loving, supportive relationships, either with parents or with other people where, you know, if your child is routinely eating so much chocolate that they're making themselves sick. Then of course, you know, I'm not saying, well, you just ignore it and you think, well, this is a great learning experience. Although it might be if they did it once, you know, this is about sitting down and having a conversation just like we would do with any other thing. And saying, how are you feeling? This is what I'm noticing. Do you want to talk about different strategies? You know, we can also have these just really being in relationship with our children and trying to figure these things out as a team. I think it's fine to have conversations with children around, okay, we don't buy this food because X, Y, Z, or as a family we prioritise X, Y, Z. Does that feel cool with you? You know, is this working for you? It's not about making sure that…you know, sometimes I see the opposite position as well. Like, you know, mothers are already so stressed. Do you expect us to be short order chefs? Of course not. But it can be as much as checking in when you're doing the grocery shop and just being like, ‘Hey, are there any meals you especially want to eat over the coming week? Is there anything, this was what I was thinking, is there anything here you really don't like the sound of?’And you know, sometimes I cook stuff that my daughter doesn't like and that's fine. But I just have the assumption then that she can eat something else and I'm not going to be cross at her for doing that. Again, just as I would with my partner, I'd be like…I know the kind of foods he likes. I will sometimes prioritise those and I'll sometimes prioritise the stuff that I like. You know, it's just about being in relationship together. But I think we are getting better at highlighting where children are able to consent, for example. And I think that food is such an important part of that. And it's also such an important part of children's sort of embodied resistance when they feel that they don't have enough power.You know, we tend to see a child pushing their plate away and being like, I don't like it. I don't want it, as bad behaviour or being overtired and maybe they are overtired, but also maybe they're really fed up of having their meals controlled all the time, and that's something we should at least be exploring.Laura: Yeah, I love that in your book you have a chapter on, I forget what the title is, but it's sort of the intersection of children's liberation and body liberation. What's the title of the chapter?Eloise: It's called Body PoliticsLaura: Body Politics. There you go. And I love the way that you talk about embodied resistance and how children literally will protest with their bodies, like things that don't feel good, that things that don't feel uncomfortable.And I think like you say, so often that's written off as they're tired or they're hungry or, or something like that. But oftentimes they're like really giving us a clue as to how they're feeling. ‘No, I don't want more food, like, forced into my body. No, I don't want to eat that particular thing. I don't want to… whatever it is. Like I'm fed up. I'm feeling like I don't have any agency or autonomy in any of these situations.’ And the only way that I can exert that is through, like, stiffening my body and going, like turning it into a plank so that you can't get me in the bath or whatever it is. I really love that section in that chapter where you talk about that.Is there anything else that you wanted to say? Because again, like the intersection of children's liberation and body liberation or body politics is like, it's so much more than just food, right? That's kind of my, like, bias, but you talk about a lot of other intersections. in the book, and I'm wondering if there's anything else that you wanted to say, anything that feels really pertinent right now.Eloise: Yeah, I mean, I think we're getting really good as women at noticing how things to do with our bodies are actually deeply political, whether that's diet culture, whether that's the way that we're marketed anti-ageing products too, whether that's abortion rights. There are so many different aspects to this, but we tend to see that these are political and that they can be engaged with in these political ways.But again, I think we miss the nuance of this when we're talking about children's bodies, whereas actually even from the tiniest age, the way that we manage, measure, control, discipline children's bodies are all so deeply political and are all tied into all of these different ideas. And I think what we really see with diet culture is it becomes yet another thing that adults do to children from a young age and then children inevitably will often learn to do this to themselves and we see this in other things too, you know, and not all of it is bad. For example, many of us will teach our children table manners because we know that eventually it will help them later on in life because, I don't know, people will treat them better because they'll see that oh, my child is not speaking with the mouth full or whatever.And that's part of that is just the social norms of whatever society you live in. And as we can see, table manners look radically different across the world. But sometimes, you know, and we can see, I think there are really strong parallels with diet culture and with the way that we treat neurodivergent children in terms of kind of masking.And, you know, when you talk to lots of autistic adults or adults who are neurodivergent in other ways. They talk about how as children, they really had to learn to mask. And so much of that would have been adult led, you know, telling your child, don't wriggle, don't do that. Don't make that noise or your teachers at school…don't do that.And then as adults, they've kind of internalised those things. And they don't do it and they mask so much and then, you know, so many autistic adults now will talk about this process of unmasking and de-masking and learning how to sit in yourself in a way that to me feels very much in parallel with people who as adults come to this idea of being anti-diet culture, of fat liberation, of trying to slowly unlearn these habits of how we look at our bodies and how we feed ourselves and so on.And I mean, you can see in other aspects too, but to me, they feel, like, so strongly linked. And once we start recognising this, you know, so much of it is about how – and you've written beautifully about this in the past – how as children, we are so embodied, you know, we make sense of the world through our bodies.We often…most children, unless children are very unwell, will find joy in their bodies. They'll move their bodies, they'll make noises, they'll explore things. And gradually as they get older, and sometimes from a really quite heartbreakingly young age, they will learn to start being critical around their bodies, judging their bodies, comparing their bodies to other people.And I think that, again, if we are thinking about this in terms of adultism and how we can start to dismantle it, I think thinking about this lens of what does society expect of children? In my book, I use the term, we have this sort of normative view of children or what a ‘normal’ child should be, whether that's in terms of our physical development, what their body looks like, their emotional development, their intellectual development, and at every stage of children's lives, starting before children are even born, you know, we're ranking them, we're plotting their centiles.Laura: Fundal height! Yeah. Eloise: Yeah, absolutely. And we're figuring out, you know, what “abnormalities” our children might have, you know, I've put that in scare quotes. And as parents. Or educators, if you've got teachers listening, we're so used to now viewing children through this deficit lens of, ‘oh, you're too fat. You're too noisy. You're not smart enough’. Rather than just seeing children as these glorious individuals who all have differences and who all bring different stuff to the table. Laura: Yeah, I love that. And I really, really love the parallels that you drew between unmasking and kind of unlearning a lot of the things that we have internalised around diet-culture, around policing our bodies. I'd never made that connection in quite that way before. And I think it's, it's really powerful. And particularly when you think about it through the lens of adultism and, and how so much of, so much masking is learned because of adults expectations and the power that adults hold over children. Likewise, you know, so much of the healing from diet culture involves unlearning the messages that we internalise from our, you know – and again, well meaning most of the time – caregivers that in a lot of ways we're probably trying to keep us safe, but in a sort of misplaced kind of way. So yeah, I appreciate that and I love that final sentiment that you had there around just embracing the differences that children have and, and the unique qualities that they bring and, and sort of…yeah, just kind of going back to what we talked about earlier, just really like having an appreciation for who they are right now, even if they're not adults, but the things that they have to bring to the table and that, that they have to offer, like in the here and now rather than waiting until they like ripen and mature or whatever. They're kind of bad analogies people use. I really appreciate this conversation. Thank you so much Eloise. Before I let you go though I would like for you to share your snack. So at the end of every episode my guest and I share something that they've been snacking on can be anything, a literal snack, a book, a podcast, a TV show, something you're wearing, whatever.What do you have for us today?Eloise: So I've got a great book, which fits actually really nicely and kind of accidentally with the theme of this conversation today, which is called Trust Kids. And it's edited by someone called Carla Joy Bergman. And it is this wonderful collection of, she's got some essays in there, interviews. Some of the interviews are between parents and their children. They've also got young people writing some of the essays. There's poetry in there, so it's kind of something for everyone and it deals with lots of different themes, including lots of themes around bodies as well. And it is great. And because of its format, you know, no piece is more than I would say four or five pages, so it is perfect to snack on. And especially as a parent or caregiver, you know how it is. Your kid is engaged in something, so you grab a book for two minutes and it's perfect to read while the kettle is boiling, whatever else you've got going on. And it is brilliant. So I can really recommend it.Laura: Oh, I've heard of that book. It's been kind of on my, like, to read list, but I haven't got around to it yet. So thank you for the little nudge there. I'll link to it in the show notes so other people can check it out. And I really, I've been struggling to read lately. So the thought of, like, dipping in and out of something is really appealing.Okay. So my snack is, well, today is actually my husband's birthday. So I guess my snack is birthdays in general. We've got our birthday tree up, which I've talked about before. It's a big bright pink Christmas tree, basically that we decorate with like happy birthday lights. There's balloons everywhere. And this morning we had a delivery from Flavourtown.Do you know Flavourtown Bakery? Yeah, Eloise knows. So we've got chocolate sprinkle cupcakes. They look amazing. I'm very excited about them. And we're going out for dinner tonight as well. So like, yeah, just the whole like birthdays, but specifically Flavourtown cake. If you haven't had it, they do like vegan options. They do gluten free options and just like regular. And they're like American style, like loads of frosting. You can get, like, rainbow cakes. You can get ones with Biscoff. Like if you like a really saccharine, sweet, indulgent cake, then these are the ones for you. All right, Eloise, before I let you go, could you let everyone know where they can find out more about you and remember to say the name of your book one more time, uh, so that people can pre order.Eloise: So yes, my book, It's Not Fair: Why it's Time to Have a Grown Up Conversation About How Adults Treat Children. You can pre order it. It's out in June. It's very exciting. I can't wait for you all to read it. And then I'm also on Instagram @mightymother_. And I also have a Substack called Small Places, which is probably the best place to kind of find out more broadly about my work and find links to ongoing things as well. So yeah, those are the best places.Laura: We will link to all of those in the show notes so that people can find you. I really appreciate this conversation. Thanks so much for coming on. Eloise: Thank you so much for having me. It's been such a joy.OUTRO:Laura: Thanks so much for listening to the Can I Have Another Snack? podcast. You can support the show by subscribing in your podcast player and leaving a rating and review. And if you want to support the show further and get full access to the Can I Have Another Snack? universe, you can become a paid subscriber.It's just £5 a month or £50 for the year. As well as getting tons of cool perks you help make this work sustainable and we couldn't do it without the support of paying subscribers. Head to laurathomas.substack.com to learn more and sign up today. Can I Have Another Snack? is hosted by me, Laura Thomas. Our sound engineer is Lucy Dearlove. Fiona Bray formats and schedules all of our posts and makes sure that they're out on time every week. Our funky artwork is by Caitlin Preyser, and the music is by Jason Barkhouse. Thanks so much for listening. ICYMI this week: What Are You Eating Right Now?* How are you flipping gender scripts for your kids?* Nourishing Full Bodied Awareness with Hillary McBride* Let's Talk About Snacks, Baby This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit laurathomas.substack.com/subscribe

Hey everyone, and welcome back to the Can I Have Another Snack? Podcast where we talk about food, bodies, and identity, especially through the lens of parenting. I’m Laura Thomas, I’m an anti-diet registered nutritionist and I also write the Can I Have Another Snack newsletter.Today I’m sharing part 2 of my conversation with Professor Karen Throsby, author of Sugar Rush.  If you’re just joining us then make sure you go back and listen to part 1 of this episode before you jump into this one. We talk about mortified mothers, how removing sugar from the diet is gendered work that falls on women, and how the certainty around the ‘badness’ of sugar belies a lot more doubt and ambiguity coming from the scientific community. So go back and check out part 1 if you haven’t listened already. Today we’re getting into why the so-called ‘war on ob*sity’ has to constantly reinvent itself to stay relevant, and how it fails to meet its own objectives. We also talk about how ultra-processed foods are quickly becoming the new sugar and how that conversation fails to acknowledge the role that convenience foods play in offering immediate care or the privilege in being able to eat for some nebulous future health. And we couldn’t talk about sugar and not talk about Jamie Oliver and the sugar tax.INTROBefore we get to Karen, a super quick reminder that all the work we do here is entirely reader and listener supported and the podcast is my biggest operating cost. I will do everything I can to keep it free and accessible to everyone, and you can help by becoming a paid subscriber - it’s £5/month or £50 for the year (and you can pay that in your local currency wherever you are in the world). Paid subscribers get access to the extended CIHAS universe including our weekly discussion threads, my monthly column Dear Laura and the whole back archive. You also support the people who work on the podcast, and help ensure we can keep the lights on around here. You can sign up at laurathomasphd.co.uk and the link is in your show notes. As always, if you’re experiencing financial hardship, comp subscriptions are available, please email [email protected] and put the work ‘snacks’ in the subject line and we’ll hook you up. Thank you as always for your support and for making this work possible.Alright team, I know you’re going to love the second installment of this episode so let’s get straight to it - here’s part two of my conversations with professor Karen Throsby.  Here’s the transcript in full:MAIN EPISODELaura: Karen, I want to come back to this idea that you articulate so well in the book. You say that “the so-called war on ob*sity has been unable to warrant its core empirical claims” – I'm quoting you now, “and has been a notable failure when measured against its own goals of sustained population level weight loss.”Can you explain how in order to sustain itself, the war on ob*sity had to reinvent itself like Madonna? By casting a new villain…and kind of talk about that arc a little bit? Karen: Yeah. So if we think about, I mean, obviously the sort of attack on fat bodies has, has a very long history, but if we think about its most recent history in, in the form of the war on ob*sity, which dates to around the turn of the millennium as a new kind of intensified attack where dietary fat was seen as the core problem.Sugar has always been seen as a problem. We can even go back to the 1960s and the rise of artificial sweeteners. and their take up in the diet industry. So it's always been there as a problem, but it was really fat, fat, fat, fat, fat. And that's why, when I looked at the newspaper articles, sugar was hardly talked about because the focus was different.And I think what we get is then with that repeated failure, where there has been a base, I mean, there's…in the UK, there's been a leveling off of ob*sity rates, but it doesn't meet the aspirations of the attack on ob*sity. It has been a failure. And I think it runs out of steam because it's not achieving the change.And, and yet you get this kind of constant hectoring and sort of constant renewal. I can't…there's been…I can't remember. It's like 17 policies or something, you know, in the last 20 years. And it's, you know, none of them are successful, have been successful. And then, so we get to about 2012, and one of the things that happened in the UK, of course, was the Olympics, where there was a lot of anti-ob*sity talk.It was seen as a way of refreshing the war on ob*sity, and I think that partly opened the door. Laura: Yeah. I'm sort of smirking, because I was in the States at that point doing my PhD, so I kind of, like, missed a lot of what was going on here, around 2012 in the Olympics. So yeah, it's really interesting that you're, you're not, you noted that, that that kind of anti…Karen: Like a core, a core justification for the, for funding, you know, a mega event like the Olympics was that it would boost sport, which would boost attempts to reduce ob*sity. And so you've got that in the background, you've got the fact that it is losing steam, you know, and so it needs to find another, another enemy, something to pick it back up again. And sugar, I think…because at the same time, as I mentioned earlier, we've got austerity measures being consolidated through the Welfare Reform Act in 2012, all of those welfare cuts in place. So then the idea of sugar, and the kind of an austerity worked really well together, the idea that individuals should make small economies to get by to manage their own consumption, that you shouldn't over consume because it costs the state, it costs other people money. And so those narratives came together perfectly and sugar just became this, this model enemy for the moment.And then what we see then is the rise of interest in the sugar tax. which was announced in 2016, which is the peak in the newspaper coverage, and then was launched in 2018. So in a, in a sense, the history of the social life of sugar during this moment is an arc that sort of covers the rise to the sugar tax and then its implementation.But all of the expectation that had been laid on fat is then laid onto sugar as the problem. If only we can solve this problem. And so again, as I said before, it creates this erasure of the absolute complexity of food and eating. The idea that food is only ever swallowing and metabolising, it's, you know, it's so social, it forms so many social functions around love, care, comfort, you know, all of those things that it’s just completely inadequate.And then what we've got now is a tailing off. And actually it tailed off during the pandemic, there was a little peak at the beginning, if you can remember when Boris Johnson launched an anti-obesity policy, when he came out of hospital, he was blaming his own body size on the fact that he'd been very unwell. And so we saw a little peak then, but it's basically dropped off now.So in sort of 10 years, we've had a sort of complete focus on sugar and then this tailing off of interest in it. And I think now what's coming in instead is ultra processed food is now filling that gap, but it's folded sugar into it because obviously ultra processed food is, as almost all, I mean, has always got sugar in it. And so it's picked up the sugar as it's gone. So it's, all of that is still there, but it's now being talked about in terms of ultra processed food.[SMALL PREVIEW OF FIRST UPF ARTICLE]Laura: I imagine that what you, you might say about kind of almost this like third phase of the, the ‘war on ob*sity’ in terms of who or what is responsible, because there almost has to be this singular entity that we can point at.And at the same time, I think it's so interesting that ultra processed food has just kind of subsumed every kind of nutritional villain that we could have. Fat, sugar, sweeteners, and just the complexity within the concept of ultra processed food in terms of just from a lay perspective, right? To try and wrap your head around what is and isn't.I mean, I have a PhD in nutrition and I struggled to get through the NOVA documentation on ultra processed food. And to bring it back to the sort of gendered aspect of this for a second, something that I noted that…so Carlos Monteiro is the guy, right, that developed the NOVA classification. I'm not sure if you've read much around this.I don't know if this is a book that's in the works for the future, but one of the things he said is that ultra processed food is the undoing, basically of the family meal. I mean, there's…there's a lot that we could unpack there in terms of, like, the sort of putting a family meal on a pedestal and how that even has sort of classed and, you know, all kinds of connotations.But, I mean, as a mother of a small child, to my thinking, actually, ultra processed food saves our family meals, right? Like, it makes it feasible to get something on the table while you have, you know, a child kind of hanging around your legs begging you to play with them. All of the, kind of, the rhetoric from Carlos Monteiro and the men of science, it kind of, it misses the piece of labour, around labour, which we've talked about, but it also misses this piece of just how we're all just struggling to survive in late stage capitalism, and how none of us in our lives have the conditions available to us where, you know, we have affordable childcare or family close by because we're living in these like hyper isolated, splintered, you know, individual houses, and we have no community and I think there's this a piece that gets missed out of this conversation about the bigger, broader social structures that we're living within, which I suppose, you know, speaks to the thesis of your book.So yeah, I was just tying it back to some of my observations around ultra processed food, so it's really interesting that you've gone there and I'm curious to hear what additional thoughts you have about that?Karen: Yeah, I mean, I think for me, the, the alarm that goes off for me when I hear this talk about ultraprocessed food is very similar to my alarm around the way the sugar, that sugar is talked about. It's carrying a lot of weight that it's, it's being now framed as again, the problem. But now it's a very different kind of problem to sugar. So we know that sugar is in a lot of foods. If you go to a supermarket, it's, you know, there's a considerable proportion of the foods will have added sugar.But there's a real difference there between, say, observing that, where you could, for example, purchase lower sugar items and so on. But to say that, I mean, what is it, 60 to 80 percent of, of food that we eat – this is the figure that we get, I mean again, who is we? – is ultra processed food and we shouldn't eat it. What, what do they expect people to eat?Are they seriously suggesting that people take out 60 to 80 percent of their habitual diet?Laura: Well, I have an answer to that actually, Karen. So Gyorgy Scrinis, who I know you reference a lot in your book, he thinks that we should all… well, he had two recommendations from one podcast I listened to. One was that we should all, there should be lots of markets everywhere that people can just pick up food, fresh food, right?And secondly, he also thinks we should all be able to go into our garden and pick a salad. Karen: Right. I mean, it's a lovely fantasy. It's a lovely fantasy. Promised on the labour of women, again.Laura: I would love to have a garden, first of all, that I could be able to do that. Karen: Lots of people don't have those gardens. They don't have farmer's markets.It's a lovely fantasy. It's probably not a bad idea, but realistically, people can't do that for all kinds of complicated reasons. And I think what gets lost there is, I think, the idea of health in the present. So, for example, we know that, when I talk about the, we, you know, the, we are eating this, what's often meant there is they are eating this, right?We know that a lot of the people, the, the big figures in the anti UPF field are not and yeah, they're not eating it. So they are eating it and there is this complete lack of understanding around, for example, if you have no money, if you really have no money, if you're very poor, if you're poor in every way, which many, many people are in this country, to feed your child a processed meal that is highly palatable, calorific, that you know they'll finish and not be hungry, is an act of care in the present, that your kid's not going to be hungry. They'll be able to concentrate at school, get a good night's sleep, those things. Whereas those…that act is not credited. So if you were to cook food from scratch or buy an unfamiliar food, for example, and give it to a child. Now I've never raised a child, but from what I kind of understand, children are incredibly conservative and it takes many, many goes at a new food before they will eat it. So if you have no money and you give your child an apple that they won't eat, you can't give them anything else. And so the cost of experimentation is very, very high for people with nothing to fall back on. And so there's lots of reasons. And then we talk about time poverty. It's better to, you know, sit down and grab something that is processed rather than not having the time to cook anything. And so lots of those reasons why people might eat this food. And until you address, I think, the inequalities that are absolutely central to food choice, it makes no sense to actually dictate food choice unless you are prepared to entrench those very same inequalities.Laura: Yeah, thank you for that. I think you articulated it so beautifully with that example around the opportunity cost of feeding a child or, you know, exposing them..we would use the language of ‘exposure’ in nutritional science in terms of, you need 15 to 20 exposures before a child will accept a food and even that's horseshit, right?We know that it can take a lot more than that and, and, and even then, you know, the…say they do eat the green beans or the broccoli or whatever it is, that's unlikely to fill them up and stave off hunger for, for that child. So, yeah, I think framing it as an act of care is such a beautiful way to, to put it because, you know, the, the alternative that's being peddled by these, UPF sort of evangelists is that that you're doing something harmful for your child and setting up that binary is so problematic because again, you're just flattening down so much nuance there.Karen: Yeah, exactly that. This idea that food is either good or bad and sugar is…is bad. And if you say it's good, then you must work for the sugar industry. And if you make, if you make a set of claims, as I have, a kind of critical claim where I, I refuse the idea that it's either good or bad, I've never said that it's good or bad, I just get accused of working for Coca Cola.You know, which I'm not, by the way.Laura: Yeah, no, you're, you're an academic and what you're doing is complicating a lot of these things that, that seem….are, I suppose, where the, the rhetoric around them is so, um, binarised and flattened and yeah, just, just, uh, you're, you're asking questions, which I think we need to do a lot more of.Speaking of questions, there is one, one more thing, little topic that I'd like to – I say, little topic, it's not a little topic at all, but one of the things that you, or one of the threads that felt really important in your book that I feel often gets obscured from any conversations about sugar is the really troubling history stemming from colonialism and enslavement of sugar.Can you speak to how nutrition and public health sort of washed their hands of this history and maybe tell us a little bit about that history and, and what happens when we erase it?Karen: Yeah, I mean a lot of people are aware, even though it doesn't come to the fore as much as it should, that there is a terrible history, and in many ways present, attached to sugar.Obviously it was, you know, a central product in, in the slavery, in the slavery trade. It was, um…you know, millions of people were enslaved in the interests of sugar production, um, the murder of, of uncountable people, the dislocation of uncountable people to get sugar. And this kind of partly relates to its, its, its kind of history as a, firstly as a luxury item, and then as a kind of everyday in, in sort of, you know, the, the 20th century, it becomes a, um, it becomes a more everyday item that you know that workers would put in their tea to get to get energy. But also we can even see more recently in, in, say, Australia, for example, there's a really terrible history of indentured labour…so post slavery. At the end of slavery, there was a use of indentured labor so Pacific Island people, for example in Australia, under absolutely horrific conditions, working conditions, of profound racism as well. And these things leave a long legacy. And we know, the legacy of slavery, you know, has led to the marginalisation of people of colour, you know, into the present. And so I think it's an important point. One of the things that bothers me a little bit about the ways it does get talked about is that it gets, there's a couple of books that talk about it as a kind of essentially evil product. Look, it was connected with slavery and now it's killing everybody. Um, as if it's sort of in itself, it was contaminated, whereas in fact, of course, it was colonialism, it was capitalism, that was the problem, not sugar, because we saw things with cotton and tobacco and so on as well. So it's an interesting thing, because in some ways it gets talked about as, well, it's clearly a kind of terrible product, look at its history, and yet at the same time, we don't talk about its history and what the legacy is of that in terms of racism, the legacies of colonialism and also we should also think as well about the present environmental damage of the sugar industry, which, you know, is incredibly greedy of water, for example, and causes a great deal of environmental damage.Which is also always through the lens of colonialism in the sense of who bears the weight of that damage, which areas, which places?Laura: Absolutely. I thought there was a really…I mean, there were lots of really illuminating examples in the book, but one thing – maybe you could speak more to this – is the kind of voyeuristic aspect of Jamie Oliver's Sugar documentary where he acts…he is almost behaving like the coloniser in, or embodying the coloniser by going to Mexico and sort of, you know, as he claims, seeing the damage that has been caused by companies like Coca Cola, but that that is missing a lot of the, the historical context. Can you just describe that probably a bit better than I can?Karen: Yeah, sure. I mean, Mexico has got this, this kind of, sort of unique status in the anti-sugar world as a place where sugar consumption is very high, but was also one of the first places to introduce a sugar tax.And so it's, it's seen as, as a sort of model site – and sort of everybody references Mexico and all the policy papers and things. And what Jamie Oliver did is in this, his documentary about sugar, he went to Mexico and went to the area of Chiapas, which has a very troubled history of conflict and profound poverty, and he actually goes to a family, a family dinner, a family event. It's actually a memorial event for a family member who died and they have, and they cook up a big dinner. And he looks on very approvingly at the food that they're cooking. They're sort of, you know, frying up all these great vegetables and spices. And he, he keeps saying how authentic it is and how, what a great job they're doing.And then we, he starts seeing what they're drinking and they're drinking pop. They're drinking fizzy drinks from the bottles. And also we see, we see several shots of women feeding babies, or toddlers, giving them pop, uh, to drink. And he sort of..his disapproval is so palpable and he sort of looks at the camera like, ‘why would they do this? Don't they know?’.You know, and he seems to have forgotten that earlier he's spoken to an activist in the area who tells him that there is, there is very little drinkable water in the region. And so actually, again, we can see the pop as an act of care, that the kids are being given, you know, something safe to drink.He never asks the next question. And he's got this very colonial gaze, which is…if only these people knew they would make different choices.Laura: Yeah, that's, it's so interesting. And there was another moment, again, that there, I think there were children drinking Coca Cola and with a similar sort of like, Oh my God, don't they know any better sort of stance? It was a dentist! Who said that they saw a lot of children who had been drinking high amounts of, of, like fizzy drinks, sweetened drinks, and that that they…the dentist started asking questions and the one of the, I think it was the mother maybe, or someone in the family had said that they were giving the child a fizzy drink to help keep them quiet. And then the dentist said, well, why do you need to keep them quiet? And they had said, well, because otherwise they will be beaten by their extended family. Karen: Yeah, I think it's the case from, from Alaska actually, that particular case. But what I think what's in…but yes, the point is that the mother giving the baby fizzy drinks was again performing an act of care to protect the child, in terms of present health, the child wouldn't be beaten for crying and so on. But this, this kind of trope of babies being given pop to drink runs right the way through the anti-sugar field as like the worst, the most egregious example. And of course, it's another version of mother blaming. And of kind of…and then it goes through this colonial lens of ignorance. If only they knew…Laura: And then they need these white male chef saviours to come in and…Karen: Exactly. So again, it's about…it's not, I'm not saying that, you know, giving the babies pop is, is a good thing or a bad thing.It's performing a particular function for the people caring for that child. And then it's, it's framed through this colonial lens of: if only these people knew better, and we are the ones who can teach them. Rather than asking, what is it in your life that influences your food choices? How could we make your lives better?Laura: Yeah, that makes giving our children a sweetened drink, you know, a necessity in the first place, what necessitates that. So then, we've talked a lot about this Jamie Oliver character, and I was telling you before we started recording that I now inextricably have the image of Jamie Oliver dancing outside of Parliament playing in my mind whenever I think about the sugar tax.I don't know if you intended your book to be funny, but I found it hilarious, the way that you were just name dropping all these people who I ,like, know through nutrition, but that's that's an aside! But I wonder if you could tell us a little bit more about the sugar tax and specifically the ways that the sugar tax is constructed so that it cannot fail.Karen: So the sugar tax is… if sugar is a problem about which something must be done, then sugar tax was the something, in the UK context. And the promise of the sugar tax was that it would reduce consumption of sugar, which in turn would a) produce more money to use for health projects and b) create health benefits. It would lead to a reduction in ob*sity, diabetes, all kinds of chronic diseases. Okay.But it's set up in such a way that…so its ultimate goal is to reduce illness, right? So to reduce ob*sity – which I don't consider as being illness – but to reduce ob*sity and to improve measures…make measurable health improvements at population level. That's the target. But actually, it doesn't have to do that to succeed. So the first thing it needs to do, the first way it can succeed is by reducing consumption, which is taken as a proxy for expected benefits. So, the sugar tax did reduce consumption of sugar. A lot of drinks were reformulated in advance of the tax to have less sugar. It did reduce purchasing of the high sugar drinks to some extent. Uh, it's a fairly modest reduction, but it is a reduction and that's been mapped fairly, you know, across the board globally in these taxes, right? But there is no evidence of the measurable health impacts that were assumed to follow. And instead what happens is they get pushed into the future. Ah, ‘we haven't seen them yet, but we will see them, especially if we have more taxes’. So the problem is not that the tax hasn't worked, but that there aren't enough of them, so we need to tax sweets and, and other, you know, cereals and things. So there's that way that as long as it reduces consumption, it can't fail. Even if it doesn't produce measurable health effects. The second is financial. So it will produce money, revenue, which can then be invested into, I mean, in our case, it was, they said it would go towards breakfast clubs and sporting facilities. Although when you look across the documents, the number of times over that the money is spent is amazing. And the idea is that you get, then you get health gains by other means. So you'll have breakfast clubs, so kids will have a healthy breakfast. So it doesn't matter if the sugar reduction doesn't lead to health gains because there's a revenue gain that will lead to health benefits.What's interesting is that also can't lose because if, if the tax doesn't raise very much money, it means that the tax has worked to reduce consumption. And if the tax raises a lot of money, you can say, well, it's worked because we can now compensate for the high consumption by investing in health benefits. So…and actually, I mean, there's, there's a whole other set of questions about what actually happened to the money.Laura: Well, that was what I was wondering, because I'm still seeing that there are 4 million children in England who are food insecure. Where are the free school meals for the 800,000 children that…whose parents are on Universal Credit that aren't eligible for free school meals, like…?Karen: And Sustain, the organisation Sustain actually raised some very specific questions about money that they knew had been raised in revenue that hadn't been…that had just been drawn into the sort of, into the wealth of the country. And so there's that. And then the final way that the sugar tax can succeed is its best way…it's the most nebulous way, is that it's seen as raising awareness. That simply by the fact of its existence, it's alerting people to the dangers of sugar. And so in a sense, it doesn't have to produce any of the other benefits because it's raised awareness. And what's interesting about this to me is that that then flings it straight back onto the individual. “Well, we told you, we've signaled it through the sugar tax. You're still not eating appropriately. You're still not feeding your children appropriately.” So it's a kind of abnegation of political responsibility, even while claiming to be taking responsibility by having the tax. So this is my concern about the tax is that it can't fail. And actually it ends up throwing responsibility back onto individuals and. As always, particularly women, where food is concerned. Laura: Yeah, well, that's exactly what Matt Hancock wanted, so he’s got his way. But I do, I think it's really interesting that, especially that first part that you talked about, the sort of constantly moving goalposts and, you know, oh yes, we'll see these these benefits in the future. And it just all feels so nebulous. And, and then that being used as justification for us needing more and additional, you know, taxation, again, sort of obfuscating from all of the social and structural things over here going that, that nobody is addressing. Karen: I mean, you can think about the attack on sugar and, really on the, on the war on ob*sity more generally, as it's a very future oriented project. The benefits all lie in the future. If I give up sugar now, I will experience these, these benefits in the future, which is in itself a profound active privilege. And that's why I kind of mentioned the, the healthcare in the present of giving your child a bag of chips or something that will fill them up is being an active healthcare in the present because they don't have the luxury to invest in the future in the way that is being determined, um, in these prescriptions to give up sugar.Laura: And simultaneously you see this sense of urgency on the political side of things, even though these alleged benefits to people aren't going to be seen for years and years in the future, but the sense of urgency in terms of policymaking and you get these very off the cuff, ill thought-out, you know, not thinking about the potential collateral damage of these policies just for political gain.Yeah, we're all just collateral damage in this.Karen: I mean, interestingly we're not all collateral damage, it's particular groups of people are collateral damage. Laura: Well, that's true.Karen:…is the really salient point – I agree with you – but that's the really salient point that the weight of this damage does not fall evenly. And that's where my concern, that's kind of where the book really tries to focus, is where the weight of those exclusions falls. Laura: Yeah. No, absolutely. That's so on the point. So thank you for that. Karen, before I let you go, I would love to hear what your snack is. So at the end of every episode, my guest and I share what they've been snacking on. So it could be anything, a show, a podcast, a literal snack, whatever you have been snacking on lately. So what have you got to share with the listeners? Karen: Okay. So, so mine is a…it's an activity, really. So I love to swim and I swim in an outdoor pool, which is unusual in the UK, at a health club. And just, just recently…I swim in the evening and it's got very dark, but it's been very autumnal and the leaves have been kind of falling while, and the, the, the pool is surrounded by trees and it is the most peaceful and delicious space at the end of a very busy day to just go into the pool and be surrounded by this. It's very cold. The pool is warm, but the air is very cold. And it's a very particular moment that happens in the autumn where you get this beautiful colour and the sort of mist is rising off the pool. And it's the most peaceful, relaxing space at the end of a difficult day or a long day and I just look forward to it all day and then I just love…the first 10 minutes of that swim is just, is the best moment ever. So that would, that's my, that's my snack.Laura: So I'm sitting here so envious of you right now because I know exactly what you're talking about. I live, like, a five minute walk from a Lido. here in London. It's very close, but I'm navigating some pelvic pain. I haven't been able to go for a swim for such a long time, but I know exactly that moment that you're referring to, which, um, yeah, it's so lovely when… apart from when you get to the stage in autumn where they, like, leave out baskets and with the idea that you gather up leaves as you're going. Karen: But I love the leaves being in the water. I love having the leaves in the water and it's just, it's such a comforting space for me.Laura: I agree. There's something really holding, containing about being in the water. So my snack is…it's an actual, literal snack. But it's an anticipatory snack because every year…so my brother lives in the States, and every year we do like an exchange of like, I send him a bunch of, like, Dairy Milk and all these like chocolates, and he sends me stuff from from the US, so I've sent him with a list of stuff from Trader Joe's. So I'm vegan, which I believe you are as well. I just ask him to, like, clear the shelves of any, like, vegan shelf stable snacks and just box them all up and send them to me. So I know I have, like, peanut butter pretzels and the almond butter pretzel. They're like these little nuggets filled with peanut butter and almond butter, but like a pretzel casing. So I know that they're coming and they're so salty on the outside. Public Health England…I can see Susan Jebb is just, like, screaming at me right now. But it's okay. So yeah, I'm looking forward to getting that. By the time that this episode comes out in January, I will have had my snacks.Karen: You will have had your snacks. That is fantastic. Laura: Karen, before I let you go, can you please tell everyone where they can find your book? Actually say the title of it! And where they can get it and where they can find more of your work.Karen: Yep. So the book is called Sugar Rush: Science, Politics, and the Demonisation of Fatness. And it's published by Manchester University Press and you can buy it through their website. And if you want to learn more about the work that I'm doing, you can find me at the University of Leeds. If you put my name, Karen Throsby, into the search engine, or into Google, I'll pop up. And there's a list of sort of publications that I've done there and how you can get hold of me as well.Laura: Well, I will definitely link to the book and to your part on Leeds website in the show notes that everyone can find you and learn more about your work. Karen, this has been such a treat. Thank you so much for coming and speaking with us and thank you so much for your really brilliant and important work.Karen: Thank you so much for having me on. OUTRO​Thanks so much for listening to the Can I Have Another Snack? podcast. You can support the show by subscribing in your podcast player and leaving a rating and review. And if you want to support the show further and get full access to the Can I Have Another Snack? universe, you can become a paid subscriber.It's just £5 a month or £50 for the year. As well as getting tons of cool perks you help make this work sustainable and we couldn't do it without the support of paying subscribers. Head to laurathomas.substack.com to learn more and sign up today.  Can I Have Another Snack? is hosted by me, Laura Thomas. Our sound engineer is Lucy Dearlove. Fiona Bray formats and schedules all of our posts and makes sure that they're out on time every week. Our funky artwork is by Caitlin Preyser, and the music is by Jason Barkhouse. Thanks so much for listening. ICYMI this week: “Why Do You Wear Makeup??”* Dear Laura... how do I stop fat shaming my partner's kid?* Rapid Response: Actually, Maybe Don’t Say That to Your Kid* Why Are We So Obsessed With Hiding Vegetables in Our Kids' Food? This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit laurathomas.substack.com/subscribe

Hey everyone! Happy New Year and welcome back to the Can I Have Another Snack? podcast, where we talk about food, bodies, and identity, especially through the lens of parenting. I’m Laura Thomas, I’m an anti-diet registered nutritionist and I also write the Can I Have Another Snack newsletter.I am really excited to share this week’s conversation; it is the perfect antidote to the January diet culture hellscape that we’re all living through. My guest today is gender studies professor and author Dr. Karen Throsby, whose book Sugar Rush (affiliate link) was an absolute highlight for me in 2023. I have been recommending it to everyone. Karen’s thesis in the book is essentially how the public health and popular science discourse around sugar obscures the social and structural inequality responsible for health disparities and by doing so, actively embeds it further into the fabric of society. I’ve split this conversation into two parts - so you’ll get the second half of the conversation in two weeks. But today we talk about how the conversation around sugar being bad for you is framed with so much certainty, whereas the science holds a lot more doubt and ambiguity. We talk about how nostalgic fantasies of a past where nobody ate sugar and everyone climbed trees all day long erases the unpaid labour of women, and how even modern day efforts to eliminate sugar are dependent on unequal distribution of household labour and are framed as work that is pleasurable, or else women get scapegoated as bad mothers. So much great stuff in this episode and like I said, I’ll share part two soon, where we get into the rhetoric around ultra-processed food, how the so-called war on ‘obes*ty’ fails to live up to it’s own aims and loads more. Before we get to Karen just a quick reminder that the entire CIHAS universe is reader and listener supported, meaning I literally can’t do this work without your support. If you like what we do here and want to help keep the lights on then you can upgrade your account to become a paying subscriber - it’s £5/month or £50/year. Not only do you support the time and labour that goes into producing the newsletter and podcast, but you get access to our weekly community discussion thread Snacky Bits. You can comment on posts, and you get access to my monthly Dear Laura column and the full archive. You’ll also see a bit more bonus content on free essays that’s just for paid subscribers in the coming months, so make sure you’re signed up to get in on that action. Head to laurathomas.substack.com or check out the show notes for that link. Follow Laura on Instagram here.Subscribe to Laura’s newsletter here.Enrol in the Raising Embodied Eaters course here.Here’s the transcript in full:MAIN EPISODELaura: Karen, I'd love if you could begin by sharing a bit about you and the work that you do.Karen: Yes, thank you. So I'm a sociologist, I'm a professor of gender studies at the School of Sociology and Social Policy at the University of Leeds. And throughout my 20 plus years of career, I've been looking at issues of gender, bodies, technology and health.So I've done work on reproductive technology, on surgical weight management, I've done work on endurance sports and what you do to a body when you engage in endurance sports socially, what does that mean? And then most recently, I've been working on what I've been calling the social life of sugar. How can we think about sugar in a moment when sugar is being attacked as a kind of health demon, the constant in my career has been this idea about bodies and how we try and change bodies or how bodies change and then most recently in relation to food and particularly sugar,Laura: Tell us a little bit more about that because, you know, you kind of say this almost quite flippantly. “Oh yeah, I’ve been doing sugar”, but that's like a whole like undertaking in terms of research and then the book that came out of that. So, could you maybe tell us a little bit about the research that you did that went into, you know, studying the social life of sugar and, and maybe a little bit about the process of writing the book as well?Karen: Yes, of course. So, it started from observation, which is where a lot of research comes from – of noticing just a lot of sugar talk in the media, for example. And so, I decided to look at it more formally. So, I actually did a, I started with newspapers and I looked at newspaper coverage from 2000. So I ended up looking to 2020 when I searched for newspaper articles in nine UK newspapers. So across the political spectrum and broadsheet, tabloids as well, looking for articles of quite substantive articles like sort of 500 words or more with the word sugar in the title.And then I filtered those. So I took out all of the irrelevant things. So there's lots of mentions of Alan Sugar, uh, for example, lots of sugar metaphors, like a ‘spoonful of sugar’ that you get in business reporting. And I took all those out. And then I kind of looked at the pattern and what you see from 2000 to about 2012, it's very, a very low level of coverage, just trickling along very low.And then in 2013, it starts to shoot up. And then by 2016, it's really high and it peaks there. And then it drops off a little bit, picks up again at 2018 and then slowly falls away. And so I took 2013 through to towards the end of 2020 as the period of study, and that ended up with about 550 newspaper articles that then became my objective analysis of what's happening with sugar.And then I dug out anything else I could find. So policy documents and newspaper, medical articles, self-help books, popular science tracks – anything I could find about sugar. And that became the body of data that I then was analyzing just to see: how is sugar being talked about? Who is being excluded when we talk about sugar?Trying to see it, not literally, but thinking about what is sugar doing socially when we talk about it.Laura: Yeah. It's, it's an, I'm just thinking of this from a research perspective. It's a huge undertaking. I'm just imagining you going through your Nvivo now, it's just like, Karen: exactly. You're right there. I mean, it was an unusual project for me, because all my other projects have been broadly ethnographic. So I've actually gone and observed groups, a social, social organization, and so on, um, or done interviews and things like that. So this was a departure for me that it's very text based. It's looking at how it's reproduced and represented in text, in different kinds of text.But you ask the same questions, what is a newspaper trying to achieve in writing in this particular way? What is a popular science track trying to achieve in writing about sugar in a particular way? And then you can start thinking about, so what does sugar mean in different contexts, but also what kind of work does sugar enable us to do socially?Laura: Mm hmm. So can you tell us a little bit more about the sort of, maybe just like the headline conclusions that you drew out with this and then and we can kind of get into some of the more specifics in a second. Karen: Yeah, I mean the bottom line for me was that sugar and what I'm calling the attack on sugar, this targeting that happens quite suddenly around this time and and taking over from fat in that sense as being the enemy that this talk around sugar appears to be in relation to everyone. It's seen as a problem, a problem that we all have. So you'll see the opening line of, there's a Public Health England document in 2015. And the opening line is ‘we're eating too much sugar’, and it's bad for our health. Right? So it seems like it's everybody's problem.But actually, what happens when you do that is that you ignore social inequality. And so the core argument of the book is that actually by focusing on a single nutrient – like sugar – as the cause of multiple problems, you actually make inequalities worse rather than better. Because it actually relies on erasing inequality from the start to say, we eat too much sugar.So a sociologist would always want to ask, well, who is ‘we’ here? And in fact, what we see by looking at the newspaper coverage and so on, is those who are deemed to be eating ‘too much sugar’ are also those who are already the most marginalized in society. So it provides cover for actually an intensification of attacks on marginalized groups in society. And I argue in the book that that rise that happens in 2012, 2013, is actually related to the implementation of austerity measures in the UK, which is the retrenchment of benefits, the cutting welfare and so on, and targeting particular groups as somehow as ‘over consumers’ of public resources.And therefore they're easily translated as ‘over consumers’ in other ways. And so that this figure of the kind of poor, fat, irresponsible, individual as a caricature comes up as kind of someone who can be blamed and targeted. So the argument in the book is really that by focusing on a single nutrient, you not only ignore those groups, but you actually compound the inequalities that they're already experiencing.Laura: Yeah, you're furthering the marginalization and the stigmatization of those groups. There are a few things within what you've just said there that I wanted to kind of come back and revisit if it's okay. And the first is this idea of certainty. You know, you say at the beginning of those Public Health England documents, and I think throughout the headlines and the media reporting and some of the documentaries that you discuss, there's this thread of certainty.Certainty that sugar is bad for us. Certainty that sugar makes us fat. Certainty that fat is even a bad thing in the first place. Can you talk to us a bit more about how certainty is used in this way as a sort of political device to drive discourse in a specific direction?Karen: Yeah, that's a really good question.And what we can see with these certainty claims, I mean, that sugar is bad for you. That's the core claim is that it's bad for us. But actually, when you look at the arguments against sugar, there isn't very much agreement over what kind of problem it is in the first place. There's two core ways that this plays out.The first is that it's bad for you because it makes you fat. Because it's empty calories. It's more calories than you need. So that's why it's bad for you. It could be anything, but it just happens to be something that is very calorie dense without bringing other nutritional benefit. The other version of the problem of sugar is that it is actively toxic.So not just a source of calories as much as any other, but that it's actively disrupting; it's creating a metabolic dysfunction and disruption. That it creates this chaos around your management of blood sugar and brain chemistry and everything. And they seem to be in opposition to each other, but in fact have managed to coalesce around the certainty that sugar is bad; almost as if it doesn't really matter why it's bad, but it just is.And it's created a kind of lowest common denominator platform that brings everyone together. And so it's provided a space where multiple vested interests can meet. So politicians, for example, have a vested interest in this kind of narrative because it provides targets of blame. It provides a site where you can appear to be doing something about a problem.And people who are writing books saying that it's toxic are invested in that because they have a kind of a brand that is then created. And then there's a whole diet industry that is invested in the idea of empty calories and, you know, and, and so on. And so I'm not suggesting it's a terrible plot. Right.I'm just saying it provides an opportunity for multiple interests to come together. And I think there's a number of ways this is facilitated. So, for example, around the idea that ‘ob*sity’ is a disaster. Is an awful thing. Tthat ‘ob*sity’ is terrible. Around the idea that sugar is ‘addictive’. Yeah. Which is a very common thing that's used.Again, what constitutes addiction is extremely vague. And then there's a nostalgia that comes back. We didn't use to eat like this. Sort of in the 1950s, post war rationing. Although we didn't eat like this. We all just ran around all day and we never ate sugar and we were all fit and healthy. And so those things kind of tie these together to create the certainty that sugar is bad.And that we eat too much of it and it's bad for our health. And so certainty for me, this certainty is manufactured and it is providing political cover for doubt. Which, actually, when you look at the science, science is always much more riddled with doubt and uncertainty than the claims that are made for it.Um, and often that doubt is in the journal articles and so on, but then it gets sort of extracted as a certainty. And so we get this, this sense of certainty that creates an imperative to act. A sense of urgency. For example, and sugar by sort of, as its proxy, is framed as a problem about which something must be done.And so in a sense, then, the need is to be seen to act. And so you could have an intervention, say, like the sugar tax, um, which I would argue is much more about being seen to do something that actually achieving its stated goal. And so I think what this sense of certainty does is it provides cover, and it also erases the inconvenient uncertainties around why do some people eat in particular ways? What are the social reasons? What are the inequalities and the other factors that determine how people choose to eat? And I think those get erased by that certainty. So it's very functional in that way.Laura: Mm hmm. Everything just gets flattened down and collapsed in this, yeah, really problematic way.I mean, there's, there was so much that we could kind of get into what you just said there. But I suppose one section of the book, I mean, I enjoyed all of your book, but I really enjoyed the section where you talked about nostalgia as well, that you just mentioned there in this kind of like going back to a time where we didn't have much sugar in our diet and we, you know, we had all these home cooked meals, everything was, you know, freshly pulled from the ground and we could just climb trees all day.First of all, what kind of utopia were these men living in anyway? But secondly, I think the part that I really appreciated there was how you talked about the erasure of women's labor in making that a reality in the first place. Do you want to just say a little bit about that? Because I want to come back to gender in a bigger, more expansive sense in a second, but I would just be interested while we're there.Karen: In that particular context, you know, there is this vision that it's never, it's never located strictly in time, but it clearly speaks to some kind of post war, sort of immediate post war imagination – fantasy really – that rests, if we were to accept that this vision is true, that everyone was running around, burning off calories, never snacking, coming home to splendid, home cooked, home grown meals.What isn't discussed, of course, is who cooked these meals? How does this food appear? You know, this, this handcrafted food. And of course, that is the completely unrecognized and largely unpaid labor of women. That a lot of these fantasies around the sugar free life are built on this idea. That food just somehow happens that what's often referred to as real food.It just sort of happens. And then the labor of women is completely written out. Which of course then leaves standing that expectation that women should do that work because it doesn't even count as work because; it's just kind of what's done. I mean, interestingly, the other, the other dimension to the nostalgia is a much longer view, which is this idea of a kind of paleolithic past, but again, is never located strictly in time, but definitely pre-agricultural revolution, where we were hunter gatherers and basically it was based on times of plenty. So you would only eat fruit when the berries came out and that would be it. But of course, again, what gets written out here is there's a great focus on hunting and on meat consumption, but actually it erases the work of women who would have been doing the gathering and the preparing of food.And there's, there's interesting archaeological research that points out that actually We find bones from hunting and tools that were used to hunt. But a lot of the preparation of vegetables and fruit and so on leaves no trace. And so the work of women is literally erased in these stories.Yeah. And, and it just disappears.Laura: And presumably as well, there's a lot of embodied wisdom that gets kind of passed through generations to know like, which berries are safe to eat. And there's another layer to it, it feels like there, that that's also being erased.Karen: Yes. Who are the bearers of knowledge? Who teaches? The next generation and so on is lost in the celebrations of hunting cultures, just as much as it's lost in this, this kind of post-war fantasy. Laura: Yeah. Well, actually, since, since we're here, let's maybe let's stay on the topic of, of gender and, and labor, because I think it has implications, right, for the conversations that we're having in this moment around whether it's eliminating sugar from the diet or ultra processed foods from the diet or whatever it is that I think a lot of that rests on women's unpaid labor to make that come to fruition.Again, that's something that I think is completely left out of this conversation on, generally in nutrition, it's left out of the conversation in terms of who's actually doing this work. And I wrote a series about ultra processed foods a little while ago. And that was my central question; who's growing grains and soaking beans? And, uh, you know, like planning menus and doing the shopping? And, you know, even things like who is making sure that this fresh food is being eaten before it gets spoiled?And, you know, that there is a lot of labor there that just kind of gets kind glossed over. And so I wondered if you could tell us some of your thoughts on the work of eradicating sugar and how that's gendered and specifically how mothers shoulder that additional reproductive labor. Karen: No, it's a really important point.I think, so there's, there's a genre of newspaper story that I call the mortified mother story. Laura: I love this. Karen: Which is when the mother, it's always the mother, and it is always households with children. Sort of heterosexual households with children. And what the woman does is she records all the food that the family members eat.Sometimes it's just the children. Sometimes it's the whole family including the male partner. She records everything that they eat and then the sugar is calculated and then a nutritionist or some kind of sort of dietary expert will come in and basically correct her and sort of tell her where she's going wrong and it's always a kind of shock story.‘I had no idea I was giving them so much sugar and often, you know, I thought this was a I thought cereal bars were really healthy’. But actually they're loaded with sugar. And so those kind of revelations. And then she has a kind of confessional moment where she sort of says, ‘oh, you know, this is terrible.I've done all of these things wrong. And now I'm going to do, I'm going to calculate everything online. I'm going to cook their breakfast from scratch. I'm going to do this, that, and the other.’ And what's really striking about the story. Well, first of all, it's always women. The very kind of deliberate harnessing of guilt and shame that's cultivated. I haven't seen a single story of this kind or in any of the self help books that I looked at or any source that I looked at where a redistribution of household labor was part of the recommendations, right? So it's never there. It's about her doing it. But what's clever about it in a way is that it's done in such a way as to make it not work.It's not a kind of work because it's seen as pleasure. As leisure. So she, she is being a mother and therefore, you know, she, it's meant to be, she's gaining pleasure from acquiring these new skills, from being a better mother and so on. Learning these new cooking techniques and things. And so it ends up being not coded as work, which is, uh, you know, like the perfect patriarchal fantasy and do it because they love it so much.And so it's never even, ‘oh dear, I'm really sorry. You have to do all this extra work’. It's ‘lucky you’. Like having to get even more pleasure from cooking and but it's not just cooking. This is the thing that you alluded to as well. It's the planning; it's the shopping; it's the knowing; the remembering.And often in the case of men, actually, one of the responsibilities of women is actually to change their tastes, if you like, without them noticing. So they're not inconvenienced by it. They don't even have to be on board. So they kind of sneak lower sugar things in so that it won't be noticed, so that they never have to actually engage with the process, but it still gets done.And so the guilt and shame and responsibility of this also then makes it impossible to refuse it or hard to refuse it in the sense of, you know, if a good mother does this, what does it mean for someone who doesn't? Can't do it for whatever reason. And of course, all of these things that are recommended, um, in terms of sugar reduction are really oriented towards a middle class set of tastes and dispositions.They assume that you have the money to keep a stock store cupboard of what can often be quite expensive items. That you have a fridge and freezer that you can afford to run. That you have a stove that you can run, that you, you know, that you can have on. And all of these things that you have the time, you're not working three jobs for very little money. But you have the time to cook and prepare and soak the beans and do all these things. And so the gendering of it, then it also ties to a whole set of class expectations about what a good mother is.Laura: I think it's really interesting in the context of sort of, I don't know, third wave feminism and all the rhetoric around how, you know, women are liberated in so many different ways and, and all the, everything that you're talking about.It sort of, I guess, covers up the, the sort of the double burden of work that women now face inside and outside of the home. And how women, particularly mothers, are still scapegoated for a lot of society's problems. Which, you know, we could debate whether or not ‘obesity’ is a problem in the first place. And sugar consumption, is a problem in the first place. But I'm just thinking about how much we still blame mothers. You know, there was um, a whole sort of theory of, well there's, there's many different mother blame theories, isn't there? Sort of ‘refrigerator mums’ causing autism. The, you know, the sort of sexist and fatphobic and racist sort of narrative around black mothers causing high levels of, of, um, unemployment in black, in black men. There's the, um, the mother blame for, you know, anorexia, that was, that was a big one. And then sort of in the mid-century, we see ‘ob*sity’ start to become blamed on mothers, which was kind of, it seems like a, a reaction to undernutrition being the issue then moving to so called ‘overnutrition’. So it feels like on one hand it's something that's very like confined to history, like it's something in the past. It's actually still going on, it's alive and well. There's academic papers being published by reputable institutions, like there was a paper I found from 2019 that blamed working mothers for higher weight children.There was 2022 paper, saying that children's weight was dependent not on how much ultra processed food they ate, but on how much ultra processed foods their mothers ate. So then indicating this sort of butterfly effect, right? That the smallest flap of a wing can cause, you know, ‘catastrophe’, again, in inverted commas, for your child.So that was just a bit of a download of my brain. I'm curious to hear what it kind of like, for you. I mean,Karen: I think, I think that's a really good point. I mean, for me, this kind of raises what we could think of as a dilemma, the dilemma of femininity in itself, that you can never get it right. Right. You’re either too focused on your body or not enough, not focused enough on your body.You know, there's, there's always that fine line that women have to walk in so many ways. And I think this comes out in the food. So one of the things I was looking for when I was looking at these stories, the, the, um, these mortified mother stories was to find one, see if I could find one where the mother was doing okay.And I found, I found one where actually the, the, the expert couldn't really find anything wrong with the diet. They ate lots of fresh fruit and vegetables. A lot of home cooking. Um, you know, they had this, this, what would count as a healthy diet in normative terms. But then there's just this moment at the end where they say, ‘aha’. And because she had a daughter, the nutritionist said, but you don't want her to become obsessed.You don't want the daughter to become obsessed because she'll get an eating disorder. So you need to relax. And not be over strict on sugar, you've got to give them treats sometimes, otherwise she'll go down this very dangerous path. So, again, you can control sugar for others, but not too much because you don't want to become obsessed and risk eating disorders.And so, she literally can't ever, and so her confession is, yeah, you're right, I have been a bit strict, I'll make sure we have some treats. And so you, there's really no, no winning. I think the other thing that I thought about as you were talking, was the fact that women themselves are seen as hyper vulnerable to sugar.Yeah. They themselves are seen as having no control over sugar. And a bit like children, actually. They're seen as being kind of incontinent in the face of sugar. And I found quite a few studies that aimed to show how women just have no kind of…couldn't do anything in the face of, in the face of sugar.And there's, um, uh, David Gillespie, who writes about giving up sugar. He, writes about this and kind of says, you know, ‘you need to go cold turkey’. You've got to, you know, just get it out of your system. And that for men, this can happen quite quickly, but for women, it can take several months. And then doesn't really explain it.It's sort of, there's a mention about hormones. Because that's, you know, when, you know, that's like the go to for everything. But there's no real explanation. And so there is this idea of women as needing to exercise control over the family's diet. But also of being quite dangerous in the sense that they're, they're seen as always perpetually out of control as well. And so kind of not to be trusted in that. Laura: We are the witches witches, Karen: Exactly. And so it's another dimension of the not being able to win. Like, for women in the field of diet and body, body management, it's very hard to find a position where women could be said to be kind of safe.Laura: Absolutely. I have kind of, you know, conversations with friends about this push and pull that we experience particularly as mothers, but women broadly.And you know, the thing I would say to my friend is like, the game is rigged, right? We cannot win. We can't win at all. So we have to figure out something that, that feels authentic to our values.OUTRO​Alright team. That is where we’re leaving off for part 1 of this episode. I’ll share part 2 in two weeks’ time where we’re talking about the sugar tax we have in the UK, how the so-called war on ‘ob*sity’ has to constantly renew itself like Madonna to make itself relevant and how ultra-processed foods are becoming the new sugar. Plus you’ll hear our snacks so make sure you’re subscribed, either on Substack at laurathomas.substack.com or on your podcast player. And if you want to support the show further and get full access to the Can I Have Another Snack universe, you can become a paid subscriber. It’s just £5/ month or £50 for the year. As well as tons of cool perks you make this work sustainable and we couldn’t do it without the support of paying subscribers. Head to laurathomas.substack.com to learn more and sign up today!  Can I Have Another Snack is hosted by me, Laura Thomas, Our sound engineer is Lucy DearloveFiona Bray formats and schedules all of our posts and makes sure they’re on time every week. Our funky artwork is by Caitlin Preyser and the music is by Jason Barkhouse. Thanks for listening. ICYMI this week: The ‘Do Diet’* Kitchen joy, making the table a safe space, and trusting kids bodies* Fundamentals: Why Teaching Kids That Food is ‘Healthy’ Can Backfire* What Are Your Fave Size-Inclusive Swimwear Brands? This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit laurathomas.substack.com/subscribe

Hey and welcome to the Can I Have Another Snack? Podcast. This week I’m talking to specialist diabetes dietitian Erin Phillips about all things insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. Erin shares some background on what happens in the body that leads to type 2 diabetes, why ‘prediabetes’ is a dubious diagnosis and the things the keto-bros often leave out this conversation. We talk about why sugar and higher weight aren’t the cause of type 2 diabetes, and how there is so much more we can do to care for diabetes outside of cutting carbs and losing weight, especially if you have a background of an ED or disordered eating. Lots of you have requested more content around this topic - let me know what questions you still have after listening to this episode!Find out more about Erin’s work here.Follow her on Instagram here.Follow Laura on Instagram here.Subscribe to Laura’s newsletter here.Enrol in the Raising Embodied Eaters course here.Here’s the transcript in full:INTROErin: I think sometimes a diagnosis of prediabetes or type 2 diabetes can be a traumatic event, especially when it's not in the presence of someone caring and that you trust. Or especially if you have a family history of diabetes where you've seen…maybe some scary things. Which I will – now that I said that – I will add that it's, that's not a definite outcome either, those scary things, yeah.But it can be, that can be really stressful, and that's the opposite of what is helpful for blood sugars.Laura: Hey and welcome to the Can I Have Another Snack? podcast where we talk about appetite, bodies and identity, especially through the lens of parenting. I'm Laura Thomas, I'm an anti-diet registered nutritionist and I also write the Can I Have Another Snack? newsletter.Today's guest is registered dietitian Erin Phillips. Erin's work is grounded in health at every size and fat positive nutrition. She has an advanced certification as a diabetes specialist and has spent most of her career working with people living with all types of diabetes. She has a private practice that focuses primarily on the intersection of diabetes and eating disorders. She works with people living with diabetes through individual counselling, as well as providing consultation to clinicians looking to be more grounded and confident in supporting their clients and patients with co-occurring diagnoses of diabetes and eating disorders. So I've had a lot of feedback from newsletter readers and people who listen to the podcast saying that you'd like more information about weight-inclusive approaches to so-called prediabetes – which we'll get into in a minute – insulin resistance and elevated glucose levels as well as type 2 diabetes. Most of the advice out there centers on carbs. So I was excited to talk to Erin about why these approaches are not only unhelpful for a lot of folks, but how they can be harmful. And why you don't need to get sucked into diet culture to care for yourself. In this episode, we discuss why type 2 diabetes isn't caused by too much sugar or having a bigger body, why pre-diabetes is a fake diagnosis, and why you don't need to cut out carbs to manage your blood sugar. I'm so excited for you to hear this episode. But before we get to Erin, I want to remind you that the Can I Have Another Snack? universe is entirely listener and reader supported. If you get something out of the work that we do here, please help support us by becoming a paid subscriber. It's £5 a month or £50 for the year. And as well as getting you loads of cool perks, you help guarantee the sustainability of this newsletter, have a say in the work that we do here and help ensure I can keep delivering deeply researched pieces that provide a diet culture-free take on hot nutrition topics like ultra processed foods, the Zoe app, and the deep dive on folic acid and folate that I just did recently.All of those you can read at laurathomas.substack.com if you haven't already. And if you're not totally sold yet then maybe this lovely review that I got recently will help convince you. So one reader wrote: “I feel so lucky that I found your work around the same time I started feeding my kid real food. It saved me so much angst and has allowed me to relax and really enjoy seeing him explore eating. Your essays on sugar especially was a game changer. I'm sure it won't always be plain sailing, but I feel so much more prepared to ride the waves of his changing appetite. and tastes as he grows, accepting them as a feature and not a bug.So hopefully he can have a much more relaxed relationship to food than I had for a long time. And I pay my £5 a month because I so value the work you put into your writing and think it's worth paying for. There's a lot of free advice out there, but I never know what I can trust. This is such a safe haven.”So yeah, it's £5 a month or £50 for the year. You can sign up at laurathomas.substack.com or check out the show notes for this episode. And if you can't stretch to a paid subscription right now, you can email [email protected] for a comp subscription. No questions asked. You don't need to justify yourself. Just put ‘Snacks’ in the subject line. This is actually going to be our last podcast of the year. I'll be back in your ears in January with brand new guests. Paid subscribers will continue to hear from me in your inboxes and in the group chat, where I'm going to be holding space for all the venting and screaming at diet culture shit that gets dredged up over the holidays and into January. If you'd like to join us, you can sign up at LauraThomas.substack.com. Otherwise I'll speak to you in January. Okay, team. Over to Erin. MAIN EPISODE:Alright, Erin. Can you please start by telling us a bit more about you and the work that you do?Erin: Yeah. I am a registered dietitian. Well, in the United States, based in, um, the Seattle, Washington…I was gonna say, the ‘state of Washington’! And I'm also a certified diabetes care and education specialist. It used to be a certified diabetes educator and they wanted to add more letters. So I'm in private practice and I focus on working with people with diabetes and eating disorders at the same time, or people who had a history of an eating disorder and then were recently diagnosed with diabetes but don't want like It wouldn't be helpful or safe for them to go to just any diabetes educator.So those are the folks that I work with.Laura: Okay, so you're kind of working at that intersection between eating disorder care and diabetes care. And I think, like, what's important to highlight, which people might not be...aware of or familiar with is the idea that people who have type 2 diabetes, I would say in particular, but all forms of diabetes are at a heightened risk of disordered eating and eating disorders. And does that relationship…? No, it doesn't go the other way, does it?Erin: I think it does.Laura: You think it does?Erin: I think it does. There isn't a lot of research on it, but clinically, I absolutely see that.Laura: Okay. That's interesting. Erin: And eating disorders and gestational diabetes. I was talking with a colleague about this, that we see people with a history of, of an eating disorder, it feels like are at much higher risk of gestational diabetes.But the research…I don't, I haven't looked into the research on that, but we definitely see it clinically.Laura: Yeah, that's an interesting observation that you've noticed. So, you use this term diabetes educator. We don't have that here so it might be helpful to just kind of explain a little bit about what that is and then maybe we can unpack what exactly we're talking about here when we talk about diabetes and sort of associated terms.Erin: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thanks for clarifying that. I love talking to people in other countries to learn about like, what do things look like there? So, a diabetes educator, I know they have them in the States and in Canada, maybe Australia, but basically what it is, is...Laura: Just to clarify, like, okay, in case my, like...dietetics colleagues are all like yelling at me right now. We do have dieticians that specialise in diabetes, but it's like the diabetes educator title is kind of a, like a bolt on right to your, your like baseline nutrition training. Is that right?Erin: Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So here to become a. a certified diabetes care and education specialist – that's such a mouthful! You, yeah, you need, I think it's 2000 hours of working with people with diabetes after you've become, become a dietitian or you can be a social worker, you can be a pharmacist, you can be a nurse. There's lots of nurses that are diabetes educators. So you get those practice hours, you get continuing, I don't know how many hours of continuing education a lot. And then you take an exam, right? Then it's like, well, at least here, like the dietitian renewal where every five years you renew by getting enough continuing education credits.Laura: Okay, so it's safe to say you know a lot of stuff about diabetes.Erin: Yes, I think so, yeah.Laura: It's kind of your thing. So, I really wanted to talk to you specifically about type 2 diabetes today because, 1) there seems to be a lot of confusion about it. 2) It kind of gets bundled up with a lot of anti-fat bias and carb-phobia and diet culture. And then 3), it's something that listeners of the podcast and readers of the newsletter have requested that we talk about. Would you mind starting by just telling us what exactly type 2 diabetes is, and how it relates to concepts like prediabetes and insulin resistance? So that's a big question. Where feels like the best place to start?Erin: I think actually starting with insulin resistance, because I think of that as kind of an umbrella and then prediabetes and type 2 diabetes fall underneath that umbrella. Yeah. So, insulin resistance is a term that means…so all humans have glucose floating around in their blood at all times. That is the main source of fuel. It's so funny to look at you while I'm talking about this because I'm like, you know this! But anyway, all humans have glucose floating around in the blood. It's our main source of fuel for the body. And then for glucose to get into our cells, we need insulin. And I always use the analogy of: insulin is the key that unlocks the cell to let the glucose in. And so insulin resistance is where that key gets a little, like, sticky or…kind of like the key to my car right now that I have to wriggle it the just the right way. So it can take a little bit longer for the glucose to get into the cell. It still happens but it just takes a little bit longer.So that is insulin resistance and that is one of the key features of both ‘prediabetes’ and type 2 diabetes. Often, when I say ‘prediabetes’, I do bunny ears or air quotes because it's a misunderstood term and we can totally get into that later. But so type 2 diabetes is where a body has either lived with insulin resistance long enough or something else has happened that has made, in addition to insulin resistance, glucose levels get high enough in the blood to meet this diagnostic criteria.And we've actually…this is something I love sharing with people because often type 2 diabetes is just like, all we focus on is insulin resistance, but there's actually at least 10 other changes in the body that lead to elevated glucose levels that are going on in addition to insulin resistance.Laura: Okay, before we go on, I want to actually reverse and back up a little bit here, because…so you talked about how we have glucose in our bloodstreams that needs to get into our cells all the time.That's like everybody, always – even if you're like a keto bro. What I just wanted to make really clear for anyone who's totally new to these conversations is that glucose…it gets into our bloodstream from the food that we eat and it's a sugar, right? So I think those are two important points to clarify, that we consume food, it gets broken down and digested and absorbed across the gut lumen. And that's what raises our blood glucose levels. And then insulin is the hormone that's secreted by the pancreas that unlocks the door to the cell, to let glucose move into the cell, so we have energy, so we can do things, so we can go about our business as being humans. Sometimes what can happen is that the door gets a little rusty, or the key gets a little rusty, and it's harder for that insulin to get into the cell. Is that like a fair summary of... Wow. What's going on? Erin: That was beautiful. I was nodding furiously.Laura: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's almost like I know something about this! Right. So then can you tell us a little, like – I think you alluded to this – but maybe speak to it a little more to how the kind of the cells get rusty and how it's harder to shift insulin into the cells.Can you talk to us about what happens next? Maybe some of the symptoms people might experience and then what's going on physiologically as well.Erin: Yeah. So when a body is experiencing those like rusty cell doors, there's a lot of different hormones that are actually involved in not only glucose regulation or blood sugar regulation, but just metabolism.So glucose regulation is just one part of metabolism. And when I say metabolism, I mean using energy from food and turning that energy into energy for the body and then using energy to the body.Laura: Yeah, thank you for clarifying that because this is something I come up against a lot where like metabolism is used as this kind of catch-all phrase to mean how quickly your body burns energy or it's like this really diet culture-y kind of thing.But when you and I are talking about it... I think we're talking about all the biochemical processes that are going on inside your body, all these cascades of reactions and like how a nutrient that we ingest in food or in a supplement winds its way into our body and becomes part of these chemical reactions that are going on, like, deep inside our tissues.Erin: Yep. Yeah, that good old Krebs cycle. So when the cell door gets rusty, that's a big kind of flag for the body, I guess you could say, for the metabolic process. So, I think you mentioned the pancreas already. So the pancreas is the organ in the body that produces the hormone insulin, along with other hormones. When the pancreas notices the cell doors getting rusty, the pancreas will say, Oh, that's cool. I got this. And we'll start producing more and more insulin because the signal that the pancreas is getting is from the cells. The cells are saying, we're not getting the glucose that we're wanting, that we need, that we need to survive or not getting it as quickly or as much. And so then the pancreas starts producing more and more insulin.Laura: So it's trying to, it's getting the message that there's not enough insulin to, to get the glucose from the bloodstream into the cell so it starts to produce more. And can you maybe speak to the impact that this can have on the pancreas? Is it helpful to explain that a little bit?Erin: Yeah, yeah, I think so, because I think that's also something that people don't think about or aren't explained. Yeah. So the beta cells are the cells in the pancreas that produce insulin, and as they produce more and more insulin, they start to, after... I should say after decades of producing more and more insulin, those beta cells start to kind of poop out.Laura: Yeah, they get exhausted.Erin: Yeah. That's a better word.Laura: Crap out, poop out, exhaustion. Yeah, like ultimately they're working really hard for a really long time and that takes a toll, I think is what we're saying.Erin: Yeah, they start to go on strike, like they're doing the work of more…Laura: Like the teachers and the nurses and the doctors and the train drivers and yeah, we're having a lot of strikes here at the moment.So yeah, it's almost as though governments are failing globally, right? Almost.Erin: Yeah, you have to laugh because otherwise you cry! So the pancreas starts to get exhausted, in the research that's called beta cell exhaustion or beta cell failure. So the pancreas isn't able to produce quite as much insulin anymore.And after decades and decades and decades, the pancreas will not be able to produce enough insulin to meet the needs of the body. And that's when I say, store bought insulin works really well for that.Laura: Store bought! I love it. I love it because to me that just feels like a much kinder non-judgmental framing of what I think is…often a condition that is attached with a lot of shame and judgment. Like, yeah, there's, there's a real narrative that if you get to the point where you need the store bought insulin, that that's a failure.And there's a lot of research and a lot of conversations at the moment about this idea around ‘remission’ and, you know, ‘reversing diabetes’ and, and all of those kinds of things, which we're going to speak to a little bit in a minute, but I think that just adds so much to the shame of needing the store bought insulin. So yeah, that just feels like a really kind kind of framing around that. So let's see, we've talked a little bit about the mechanisms whereby we find it harder to get glucose into the cells over a long, long, long period of time that can kind of exhaust the pancreas, which means that we might need to get that store bought insulin. But there's kind of a wide spectrum between, like, the cells starting to get rusty and getting to the point where you might need insulin...endogenous? Exogenous! Exogenous insulin.Erin: That's why I say store bought!Laura: Store bought, yes. And I think that's where maybe this idea of like prediabetes comes in. And we've, you've talked about how that's maybe not the most helpful label.I suppose what I'm trying to say is that there's a period where somebody might have some insulin resistance, might have elevated blood glucose levels. But it's not considered high enough for a type 2 diabetes diagnosis. So could you explain what's going on there and why that's a contested term?Erin: Yeah, yeah. So if we think about a timeline of a body experiencing insulin resistance, the first thing that will happen is the insulin resistance And then the next thing that will happen…I shouldn't say will, that's the biggest thing that I don't like about the term pr diabetes is this, that it, it makes us think that it will happen.So what could happen, a body experiences insulin resistance. What could happen is that their glucose levels start to increase to a level where they meet the prediabetes diagnostic criteria. And then, the assumption with the term prediabetes is that that means eventually, unless you do something, like in big, bold, scary letters, that eventually, your body will meet the diagnostic criteria for type 2 diabetes.But what research shows is that that's not, that's not the case. I'm maybe I'm getting ahead of myself.Laura: No, I know. That's absolutely…I think it's a really important point. And so I have, and Erin, you can tell me if this isn't quite right, but my understanding is that progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes is less than 2% per year or less than 10% in 5 years.And I also have another statistic that 59% of people with prediabetes return to normal blood glucose values between 1 and 11 years with no treatment at all. Does that corroborate with your understanding? .Erin: Yeah, yeah, I recently was looking into this research and that sounds like exactly what I found. And it really depends on where you look and what study you look at and what population they were looking at. But the, the biggest takeaway for me was that it's not…Laura: It's not a done deal.Erin: Yeah, someone's body can just be in that prediabetes range forever or um, either forever or they can go back to below the prediabetes range that it…by focusing on the blood glucose values, we're looking at a symptom and we're not really looking at what's going on underneath.And so it's, I find that less, less helpful for that reason.Laura: Yeah, absolutely. So I think what we're saying is that prediabetes is somewhat of a dubious diagnosis, and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this too, but my sense is that like, giving that label can create a lot of shame and create stigma.It freaks people out, is my... experience of working with clients who their doctors have flagged that they have elevated blood sugar levels, let's say, and then….we know that stress and anxiety is not great for blood sugar management, so like, I mean, yeah, do you have anything to add to that? Like, what are your thoughts on that?Erin: That's exactly what I see in my practice and what I saw when I worked in a GP's office as well, that people are freaked out by either, either one of those labels and…yeah, stress and worry and anxiety and trauma. I think sometimes a diagnosis of prediabetes or type 2 diabetes can be a traumatic event, especially when it's not in the presence of someone caring and that you trust, or especially if you have a family history of diabetes where you've seen maybe some scary things, which I will – now that I said that – I will add that it's, that's not a, what's the word? That's not like a definite outcome either of those scary things. But it can be, yeah, it can be really stressful and that's the opposite of what is helpful for blood sugars.Laura: Yeah. Tell us a little about what the difference between a ‘prediabetes’ diagnosis is versus a type 2 diabetes diagnosis? Is it just a difference of the level of sugar in the blood?Is it, is there a factor of time or like, is time factored into that? Like how long it's elevated for? Can you maybe speak to how, you know, you go from ‘prediabetes’ as it were to type 2 diabetes?Erin: Yeah, that's a really good question. The way that I think about it is just in the diagnostic criteria, which is for a type 2 diabetes diagnosis, your blood sugar needs to get so high in the States, we usually diagnose it based on an A1c.So an A1c is usually what we use in the States to diagnose both prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. And here a type 2 diabetes is diagnosed at 6.5 and prediabetes is diagnosed at 5.7 up to 6.4. So ours is actually lower than yours in the UK and lower than Canada and lower than the rest of the world, basically.Laura: I feel like that's probably a really important and intentional thing, and we could probably go off on some conspiracy theories there. Erin: I have many. Yeah. Laura: Yeah, maybe it would be helpful to just briefly explain what HbA1c is, or A1c, and how it's measured and, like, what, what it's measuring. Erin: Yeah. A1c, I call it A1c, but you guys call it HbA1c. Should I say HbA1c?Laura: No, it's, it's fine. And I don't, I don't know why I call it that because I did my dietetics training in the US but I, I dunno, who knows, who knows?Erin: I've noticed everybody calls it something a little bit different.Laura: So, because I guess the HB refers to it being the hemoglobin is the hemoglobin one. But it's the same thing. A1c is easier, so let's just go with that. Erin: Okay, okay, cool. So A1c is a measurement of average glucose levels over the past two to three months. And the reason that it's average and two to three months is that as hemoglobin, so hemoglobin A1c is the full name of the lab value.As hemoglobin is part of our red blood cells, so in our veins and arteries, our red blood cells are floating around and glucose is also floating around. And so as glucose is bumping up against those red blood cells, it leaves a little bit of stickiness of glucose on the red blood cells. And then red blood cells live for 60 to 90 days, so that's 2 to 3 months.So then when they draw blood to check an A1C, they measure what percentage of the red blood cells are…kind of have this glucose levels on them or glucose on them. And then they can give us that A1C measurement in percentage form. So like 5.7 means... That according to the United States, we're classifying that as prediabetes and then 6.5 is type 2 diabetes. And the reason that we diagnose type 2 diabetes or all diabetes at a 6.5 is that long, long, long term research…or we followed, not we, I'm not part of it, the fancy researchers have followed thousands of people for decades and found that if blood sugar stays kind of in that 6.5 to 6.9 range, risk of those scary things like blindness or kidney disease or circulation problems is very, very, very, very, very, very low, basically the same as people without diabetes. So that's why we diagnose it at that, what I think of as like a pretty conservative level, because we want to keep people from experiencing those scary things.Laura: Absolutely. HbA1c is a sort of medium-ish term measurement of your average blood glucose levels, whereas if we were to just do a blood test randomly at any point in the day, there are like a bajillion different factors that could influence, you know, whether it's a high reading or a low reading, like how recently you ate, it can, you know, it can vary according to a whole bunch of different things.So a better way of measuring blood glucose is to look at that value over a slightly longer period of time and get that average, even though there are still some issues with looking at that number, but it's, it's a better number than, than just doing a random blood glucose test. So we've talked a little bit about insulin resistances, what prediabetes is and what type 2 diabetes is. There is this really pervasive myth that type 2 diabetes is caused by eating too much sugar. What do we know about that? Is that true?Erin: Absolutely not. Absolutely not.Laura: That was such a leading question, right?Erin: Is that true? Tell us! The way I think of that is that it's a real, just a misunderstanding of, of the complicated nature of type 2 diabetes – and when I say complicated, I mean, like referring back to those 11 different changes in the body that I mentioned earlier.Laura: Oh, so tell us about that because you, we said we were going to come back to this. What are the different changes?Erin: I can't even remember them all off the top of my head, but some of them are…the insulin resistance is one, the kidneys are responsible for filtering out our glucose when there's too much. And in type 2 diabetes, the kidneys start holding on to more glucose than we would want them to.Another is a decreased level of incretin hormones. So, GLP 1 is an incretin hormone. GIP is another incretin hormone, and those hormones are responsible for helping regulate glucose levels. And, and many people with type 2 diabetes and someone with prediabetes, they have a decreased level of those hormones.Laura: Okay, so I guess what, what you're saying here is that we often just focus on the changes to the pancreas and insulin, which is what I was asking you about before, but actually there are systemic changes that are going on throughout the whole body, right? Is that what we're saying? Erin: Yeah. Laura: Okay.Erin: Yeah. And those are absolutely not caused by eating, quote, too much sugar or eating sugar.Laura: Right, right, right, but because what we're dealing with is elevated blood glucose levels, the sort of obvious, or what people think of is the obvious pathway, as well…it's too much sugar in the diet, therefore your blood sugar level is too high. But what I'm hearing you say is it's just not as straightforward as that.Erin: Absolutely, yeah.Laura: Okay. Anything else that you wanted to add about, like, that particular myth, or?Erin: I wish I had more, like, definitive, like, it, that is not true because X, Y, Z, but you can't disprove a myth with research, you know what I mean?Laura: Yeah, yeah.Erin: Like, if somebody was like, yeah, unicorns exist, I'd be like, I don't know how to prove that to you. Because I can't show you, like, there is not a unicorn here.Laura: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, I hear you. But I guess, like, what I would want people to take away from this and understand is that, like, you didn't cause your type 2 diabetes, like, you're not to blame. And, you know, similarly to how there are all different changes in the body that take place when somebody has type 2 diabetes, there are all sorts of factors that contribute to and help explain why somebody might develop type 2 diabetes. And they are everything from, you know, stress and sleep and things that, you know, often get called like lifestyle variables, even though that in and of itself is problematic, all the way through to experiencing racism, homophobia, transphobia, anti fat bias, you know, all of these like discrimination and prejudiceracism, homophobia, transphobia, anti fat bias, you know, all of these like discrimination and prejudice. Those things are also going to play a part in our blood glucose regulation, but we don't think of that. We don't think about the social determinants of health. We just think about like, well, you ate too many carbs. Therefore you need to cut out carbs. And this is the advice that people are given, we hear this idea that like carbohydrates cause, in inverted commas, type 2 diabetes, but we've…we also hear that it's caused by being a higher body weight.So, I'd love to hear you unpack that a little bit and, and kind of…yeah, is it a similar thing to what I just said about carbohydrates or is there anything else that you would add to that?Erin: So the thing that I go back to a lot with that, I guess, argument is that there's a really big difference between a correlation and a causation.So the example that I give with that is that as soon as ice cream sales go up, there's also an increase in shark attacks. Like, those things are correlated, but we can't say, we can't draw from that that correlation.Laura: Yeah, that ice cream causes shark attacks.Erin: Shark attacks, yeah. Right. And with that one, there's a really obvious, you know, third factor, which is weather, that contributes to both of those things going up, and it's not quite so clear with weight and, and type 2 diabetes.But there's one theory, which is that weight gain can be a symptom of type 2 diabetes. Another problem with that argument is that it really ignores just the natural body diversity that exists and occurs in the world. There are plenty, plenty of people in higher weight bodies who don't have diabetes and If it were true that higher weight causes type 2 diabetes, then all people in larger bodies would, would have type 2 diabetes, and that is...absolutely not true at all and the research shows thatLaura: And I guess the inverse is also true, right, that people who have a lower body weight, a lower BMI also get type 2 diabetes. And so it's, it's again, not looking at the, the correlation and drawing kind of the cause and effect conclusion, but also thinking about, okay, what other factors are going on that we're not seeing?And I think, to my mind, at least, it goes back to some of the things that I talked about before, some of the things that are, well, a lot of things that are outside of our control, like again, how we are treated in society, and how that, you know, that has been shown to like..even things like the Whitehall studies.Are you familiar with the Whitehall studies? Erin: No.Laura: So the Whitehall studies are kind of what I think Michael Marmot's work on the social determinants of health are based on, whereby they studied like civil servants who worked in Whitehall, which is like part of the government in the UK. And basically they stratified, I think it was mostly on men. Whitehall 1 was mostly done on men, because, of course, we need to know more about men, but this was, this was, these studies were done, done a while back and they have since added women. But effectively they stratified people by like their pay grade essentially, and they found that people who were in a lower pay grade, you know, they all worked in the same place. There was a lot of factors that were very similar about these men. But one of the key aspects was how much like autonomy they had in their job and what their income was. And they found that the people who hadl ess autonomy, so they were like a lower pay grade, basically, even though they had sort of overall similar working conditions, that the people in the lower pay grades had, I think, higher risk of cardiovascular disease compared to upper management and that kind of thing.And so it's a similar sort of effect here. And we also see it with like racism and anti-fat bias that there are all these structural things that contribute to our health in really, really complex ways. So I feel like that is a big part of what happens with type 2 diabetes that again, like kind of just seems to get overlooked by the keto bros.Hopefully some of that rambling made sense, but I'd like to maybe now think about...For anyone who has received this prediabetes diagnosis or a type 2 diabetes diagnosis, like, one of the first line pieces of advice that a GP or even a dietitian might give is around weight loss and around limiting carbohydrates in the diet.Where to start, really, Erin? Like, in terms of both of those. But basically, I would be interested to hear from you. Is that where you would start with someone? Or like, even putting it another way, are those helpful places to start? I mean, again, a leading question.Erin: The short answer is no, I do not find that to be a helpful place to start.You know, I'm really looking at this from the perspective of the population that I work with, who are people who have, who have restricted their eating many, many, many times throughout their life, or engaged in intentional weight loss many, many, many times in their life.Laura: Sorry, I just wanted to clarify as well for anyone who's like newer to the podcast that you say intentional weight loss and when you say that someone who has restricted their food for whatever, like, who has restricted their food, that doesn't necessarily mean someone who has an eating disorder, right? Like, like, what I'm trying to get at that people might not immediately realise is that that applies to people who have been chronic dieters, like people who have been dieting their whole life, right? That also kind of falls under that umbrella, right?Erin: Yeah, absolutely. And most people fall under that umbrella versus the, like, the full eating disorder umbrella. So yeah, it really applies to…most people who have been socialised as female, I would be so bold as to say that most, most people who have been socialised as female and many others have, have restricted their eating or dieted or gone on a lifestyle change, many, many times.And. So, because…I'm trying to think of how to say this without getting too into the weeds of, of, um, like clinical weeds…but because the body is hardwired against famine, what will happen if someone tries this again or says like, okay, I've been told to lose weight and restrict carbs or eat less carbs because I've had this diagnosis of prediabetes or type 2 diabetes, what will happen is things will look, quote, better for a little while. And so that's why, that's why the research shows like, oh, yeah, that's the thing that we need to do is because for 12 to 24 months, things are gonna get better. And when I say better, I mean, glucose levels will go lower.Laura: I was just gonna say because research in this area is generally done over like a fairly short term period where maybe If you're really, like, persistent, you can diet for that length of time, but yeah, so that's kind of, I guess what I'm trying to say is that over that shorter time frame, people, especially if they're given lots of support, like in a research study setting, might be able to continue with a restrictive diet for a bit longer, right? But then what happens?Erin: Yeah, but then the body…since the body's hardwired against famine, the body will start to engage in all of these compensatory mechanisms. Yeah. Basically like that, that carb restriction or yeah, any kind of caloric restriction, but especially carb restriction will kind of start the spring loading effect for the body to protect against that famine at all costs, which means that glucose levels will go up higher than they were before, and weight does the same thing, insulin level, same thing. So If we follow people longer than that 12 to 24 months, what we see is that these metabolic health markers are worse than they were at the beginning.Laura: Interesting. Yeah. So, I guess what, what you're saying is... And I see this in practice as well, is that people, yeah, in the shorter term, they might be able to restrict their eating, they may even lose a little bit of weight, or maybe even a lot of weight in some instances, and then in the short term, those biomarkers might seem as though they're improving.But then, because the body is, as you said, hardwired to, yeah, to protect itself, to move, like, protect itself against starvation, and the body can't really tell the difference between, you know, famine. And self imposed or medically imposed dieting and restriction, it eventually fights back against that in the form of like, it dials up cravings for these foods.It might also…like your metabolism, like all of that, those metabolic functions that we talked about right at the beginning, they start to slow down, which means that you start to maintain your weight or, or even put weight on. And what I see – and I'm, I'm curious if you see this as well – is that that degree of restriction that is often asked of people in these very low carb diets that sometimes get prescribed, certainly here in the UK on the NHS or that a lot that are sort of endorsed by a lot of diabetes organizations even, they cause people to fall into a binge restrict cycle. So rather than having kind of a more…moderate's not the right word, but like having a healthier relationship with food where you maybe are eating more regularly, but maybe in a way that feels more attuned to your body and also caring for yourself in all of these other ways that are really important. I don't want to just put that emphasis on food, but we're talking about food here. That what you end up happening is people restrict, restrict, restrict, but then they can't maintain that restriction forever. And so they end up in a blowout, right? Like where they're eating past the point of comfortable fullness, which can send their blood glucose levels sky fucking high, and I don't mean that in like a shaming way. I'm not blaming any individual person who has been caught in this cycle because it's not your fault. But just to illustrate like how kind of messed up that advice is that it can send people sort of, yeah, into this, this downward spiral of binge restrict, binge restrict.And I think what's kind of important to note here is that you could have someone who has what looks like on paper, perfect A1C, right? But they are binging and restricting, binging and restricting, and that the average blood glucose level over time looks like…you know, on paper, it looks great. But if you were to actually look at what was happening to that person and their relationship with food and how they were feeling, you might see a different picture.Erin: Mm hmm. Mm hmm. Yeah, that's a really good point. A really good point. And to add on to what you were saying about it not being someone's fault, that binge restrict cycle is, is a very predictable result of the exact recommendations that people are being given. People are being given these recommendations to restrict calories, restrict carbs, and that is…the most predictable outcome of that is weight gain, higher glucose, and that binge restrict cycle when we look at the long, in the long term.Laura: Yeah, and I think that there's, there's something kind of psychological that goes on here as well when we ask people to really focus on the minutiae of detail around carbohydrates, around what they're eating, that that in and of itself, like that mental restriction can create, like, what I call the fuck it effect, like, or, yeah, just even the threat of restriction and deprivation can kind of trip a switch for people who have had an experience or had a history of disordered eating or chronic dieting or, you know, even, even people who have just tried to maintain a quote, a healthy lifestyle or wellness lifestyle and it really lead to problems for them.So, Erin, for anyone who's listening to this, who is like, well, my doctor has told me to lose weight. My doctor has told me that I need to cut out carbs or my diabetes nurse or my dietitian. But you're telling me, and actually my lived experience is that that's not a great option for me. Where can people start? Like, or more specifically, like, where do you start with people who come to you with this exact?Erin: The first place I start is by repeating over and over that you did not cause your diabetes. This is absolutely not your fault. You did all the things right, quote, right. Like there's nothing that you could have done differently to make this different, to make this not happen. Because like you were saying, Laura, that's most of the, the biggest factors here are stress, trauma, marginalisation. Those, those are the biggest factors and you don't, those are things are completely out of – and genetics! I didn't, we haven’t even mentioned…Laura: Yeah, there's the genetic thing too.Erin: So, I think that's really hard for people to believe because it's the opposite of what they've been told for so long. There's so much of like, if you don't blah blah blah, you're gonna get diabetes. And so I repeat that over and over, that you did not cause your diabetes, it's not your fault. And then the next thing that we talk about is actually eating enough. So making sure that you're nourishing your body enough. Mm hmm. There's a lot of, like, biochemical metabolic processes that we can talk about about the why behind that. But I think we've, we've talked a lot about that today so we can take our words for it. That eating enough is just really, really important.Laura: Yeah, I think there's something there about sort of, you know, if it's available to you, like doing some work maybe around figuring out what your hunger and fullness cues look like, feel like. Because, again, just purely anecdotally, I've noticed that people who are, you know, not so attuned to those signals might, you know, put off, not eat enough throughout the day, so that then it does leave them feeling a bit more vulnerable to bingeing or, you know, like eating in a way that that feels like out of control or chaotic.Not that eating has to be this like super controlled thing, but also just recognising how unsettling and disturbing it can feel, if it feels like you have no say in what's going on as well. So yeah, I love that that's kind of like your, your starting point is like, hold up, are you actually eating enough?Erin: Mm hmm. And I say this in, you know, in this blanket way, talking to you today, because way more often than not, I see that people are not eating enough. And people are shocked at like, wait, I eat that much?Laura: Yeah. And, and I just want to, like, underscore that point. Especially for my clients who are fat or in bigger bodies, plus size, whatever language you feel comfortable using there. When I've said to clients in bigger bodies before, like, I don't think you're eating enough. There is just like a…I don't know, like, just this complete disbelief because it's so counter to what they've always been told, which is like you're eating too much. So, yeah, I just wanted to like flag that as well that like this is not just a thin people thing. That's for everyone.Erin: Absolutely. Yeah. Thank you for highlighting that.Laura: Are there any other like, kind of like, I suppose what I'm thinking of is like low hanging fruit, like things that are like, maybe not easy for people, but like, that might feel more accessible. That's maybe the right word.Erin: Yeah. Yeah, yeah. I think it, you know, really, really depends on the person and their, their experiences with food and movement and the medical system and their body, but some other things that may or may not be low hanging fruit are finding a doctor or a, or a medical team that you really vibe with, or at least that you hate less, we can say, like that feels less terrible. Because one of the biggest, most helpful things you can do with any type of diabetes is monitoring. And when I say monitoring, that can be anything from, well, mostly that's just like checking in with your medical team like quarterly or a few times a year, depending on what's going on for you. And if, if you absolutely dread it, that's not going to happen, right? Like you're not going to be able to be monitored.So finding somewhere that is less terrible, or maybe even someone you vibe with is really important.Laura: Yeah. That's really good advice. And I'm just…I'm thinking about the pathways that we have here in the UK and as far as I know, and it will probably depend slightly on different NHS trusts, but as far as I know you get an annual diabetes review for type 2 diabetes and I'm just thinking like about that in relation to the point that you're making which is that, yeah, having that check in that support just…you know not necessarily like a full review but like just to, yeah, see how things are going and, and see like what you might need, like that might not be available to everyone, certainly in this country. And I'm sure it depends on things like insurance and stuff in other countries, but I guess what I'm learning is just how fucking atrocious a lot of medical…or like not atrocious, that's not what I mean. But like, how under-resourced a lot of medical systems are in terms of like giving people the things that would be most useful, which is again why we're like, here's a diet sheet off you go, and that's not helpful.Erin: Yeah. No. Yeah. Not helpful at all. Gosh, that's, that's so maddening. t's really easy for us here in the U. S. to be like, uh, everywhere else has it better with healthcare, but it's really grounding to hear that not everybody's figured it out.Laura: It's like, what, 13 years of a Tory government? So. It's not surprising that our healthcare system has been absolutely obliterated.And again, it will depend on the area that you're in as to how good that care is. And that's not a reflection on any, like, individual practitioner within that system. Like, we all know how hard they are working and how kind of up against it they are. But what I'm hearing you say, really, Erin, is that, like, the going in hard with, like, weight loss and restricting carbohydrates, that is probably counterproductive to the overall aim of, like, caring for yourself, and that there are some other things that we can, like, think about and incorporate that might…Okay, they're maybe not such a like, go hard or go home approach, but that maybe they're more sustainable. Maybe they're like, kinder and gentler. And I think that reminds me of something that I will say to people if they come to me and they're like, you know, my doctor has flagged this, I'm feeling really stressed is…this is not an emergency. Right, like this is your arm is not hanging off or whatever it is. We can take a beat. And if there's other stuff that you just need to like, get a handle on, like life stuff or whatever it is, like, maybe this isn't your top top priority right now. Like, what are some like, small things that we can do to help you feel like you're caring for yourself or are being cared for that don't sort of, are maybe not going like full throttle, like, you know, what the common narrative is that we should be like cutting out carbs and losing all of this weight. But what are maybe some like softer things that we can start with? Yeah. Oh, well, Erin, thank you so much. This has been really helpful. And I know that you have a ton of resources on your website, on your Instagram that people can dig into. And I'll link to all of that in, in the show notes. I also want to mention that a while back at LCIE, we produced a guide, a weight inclusive guide to insulin resistance, and it has some more information about things like medication, supplementation, and again, some of those like lower hanging fruit things that might be helpful if this is something you're navigating and it has, you know, information about what we talked about today, Erin, the lock and key thing and like the how ‘prediabetes’ is a dubious diagnosis. So I'll also link to that for anyone who's interested in the show notes. Okay, Erin, before I let you go, At the end of every episode, my guest and I share what they've been snacking on. So it can be anything, you know, a show, a podcast, a literal snack, whatever it is. I'd love to hear what recommendation you have for the listeners.Erin: Can I share a couple? Laura: Of course! Yeah. Erin: Okay, cool. Well, I'm literally snacking on all things peanut butter, which I don't know if you guys like peanut butter, but I. Just had some peanut butter pretzels again recently and I was like, gosh… Laura: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, are they the Trader Joe's ones? Erin: Yes. Laura: Okay. So last Christmas, my brother sent me like a huge ass box of stuff 'cause he lives in Oklahoma. From Trader Joe's. And it had those peanut butter pretzels in them and I hadn't had them before. And we don't have good snacks here. I'm just gonna say like the snack game in the States is just like…it's so much better than it is here, but I know those pretzels and they're so good. They're so good, yeah.We're gonna do a, like a snack box exchange again this year. So I sent him like, he loves chocolate, so I sent him like a ton of like Dairy Milk and like chocolates from... the UK and he sends me stuff from the US. So like, that's, that's fun. But I'm going to add them to the list because they are so good.Erin: They are so good. And you can, if you're in the States, you can also get them at Costco. Very similar ones.Laura: Okay.Erin: In bulk. Yeah. Big ol thing. So that's what I'm snacking on. My other thing is the podcast Normal Gossip.Laura: Oh yeah! I have heard a couple of episodes of that. And like, for anyone who hasn't heard it, can you explain the premise?Erin: Yeah, they get a story sent in from someone, like a true story, and then they share the story, like they're gossiping with a guest on, and they'll pause a lot in the story where they're like, okay, so this is what's going on, what would you do next? And so there's a little bit of like, choose your own adventure that I think is really fun.And then it's just so silly, but it's really nice to like, have some silliness.Laura: Oh, 100%. In the mess of everything. Do you have, like, a favourite episode that you would... Is there like a standout?Erin: Well, I just listened to one that was a live episode that I think it was like the plant story or something like that.And it was fun because they had a guest where they would ask them what they'd do. And then they'd have people raise their hands if they like absolutely disagreed in the audience. And then. So you just got a lot…there was even more choose your own adventure.Laura: There's like, yeah, more back and forth. Okay. Yeah. Like the plant story. I'm going to get you to send me the link and I will include it in the show notes because yeah, I am deep down a research rabbit hole at the moment looking at folic acid and folate and I'm like digesting all this biochemistry and I find that that happens a lot that I listen to a lot of like podcasts that are related to my work in some way and I forget the podcast can be fun.Erin: Uh huh!Laura: Yeah, I need to get back into that. All right, real quick, mine. So this is just like a fun, festive thing that I came across the other day, which I was looking for some new shoes and I came across gold sparkly converse high tops. Erin: Oh my God. Laura: And they are so cool. So I bought a pair. I don't know if I'm going to…they haven't arrived yet. I'm gonna try them on, but I feel like gold is a neutral, right? Like, it will go with everything.Erin: Oh, that's true. When I first heard you said neutral, I was like, are they? Is gold neutral? But it does go with anything.Laura: Yeah, so I'm gonna try them on, see what they're like, but I will, I will include a link in the show notes because, yeah, from the picture, I haven't seen them in real life yet, but from the picture, they don't look like they're too over the top and I feel like…if you know if like depending on what you're wearing like you probably get away with them at the playground, right?Erin: Totally. Totally. Laura: This is what I'm telling myself anyway. I kind of text them to all of my friends. I was like, what do you think of this? And there was like a lukewarm reception, but I think, I think I need new friends is really…with better taste is what, is kind of where I've come down on it! Maybe I'll put them on my Instagram stories and see what people think. Erin: There you go. Laura: All right, Erin. This was…uh, I was gonna say this was really fun, that little bit at the end was really fun. Like, all the bullshit around weight loss and low carb diets, not so fun, but I'm glad that we got to unpack, unpack that a little bit.For anyone who wants to dig into your work and your resources a little bit more, where can they find you and more about your work?Erin: My website is a good place. I have some free resources there and I try to update my blog with some kind of my push, my pushing back beliefs on kind of diabetes diet culture. And that is ErinPhillips.com. No, erinphillipsnutrition.com. Laura: Should we fact check your website?! Erin: I tried to buy erinphillips.com, but it wasn't available. So, erinphillipsnutrition.com. And then my Instagram, I think it's @ErinPhillipsNutrition.Laura: Okay, well we…just make sure you click on the link in the show notes because Erin's not a reliable resource on her own social media! So we'll make sure people get there in the end.All right, thank you so much, I really appreciate it Erin. Erin: Yeah, thank you, Laura. Thanks so much for having me.OUTRO:Laura: Thanks so much for listening to the Can I Have Another Snack? podcast. You can support the show by subscribing in your podcast player and leaving a rating and review. And if you want to support the show further and get full access to the Can I Have Another Snack? universe, you can become a paid subscriber.It's just £5 a month or £50 for the year. As well as getting tons of cool perks you help make this work sustainable and we couldn't do it without the support of paying subscribers. Head to laurathomas.substack.com to learn more and sign up today.  Can I Have Another Snack? is hosted by me, Laura Thomas. Our sound engineer is Lucy Dearlove. Fiona Bray formats and schedules all of our posts and makes sure that they're out on time every week. Our funky artwork is by Caitlin Preyser, and the music is by Jason Barkhouse. Thanks so much for listening. ICYMI this week: Gift Concierge + Mini Gift Guide* Fundamentals: Helping Kids build a Good Relationship with Sugar* Here's Why You Might Want to Pass On Getting Your Kid Weighed in School* The One-upMUMship of Kid Food Instagram This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit laurathomas.substack.com/subscribe

Hey and welcome to the Can I Have Another Snack? Podcast. I have been so excited to share this week’s episode with you. Our guest today is Kirstie Beaven from Sonshine magazine - a publication dedicated to raising boys for a more equal world. Kirstie and I talk about how seemingly innocuous things like dinosaur t-shirts and shark pants send a message to our kids about who they can and can’t be, how they should expect to be treated, and how they should treat others. Kirstie gives us a fascinating history lesson on how kids’ clothes became gendered (spoiler, colonialism and capitalism have a lot to do with it) and why these have massive repercussions for gender equality. We also talk about why Kirstie is low-key obsessed with pants (the underwear kind), and why we can’t just empower girls in a vacuum; we also need to be teaching boys emotional literacy and allowing them to have an identity outside of the ‘big boy’, or the sporty one. Just a heads up that we talk about some distressing statistics around sexual harassment, suicide, and violence towards women and girls, but not in explicit detail.This is without a doubt one of my favourite episodes we’ve done on the CIHAS pod - if you’ve never listened before then this is a great place to start, even if you don’t have kids. Don’t forget to leave a review in your podcast player if you enjoy this episode - or let me know what you think in the comments below. Find out more about Kirstie’s work here.Follow her on Instagram here.Follow Laura on Instagram here.Subscribe to Laura’s newsletter here.Enrol in the Raising Embodied Eaters course here.Here’s the transcript in full:INTROKirstie: That's one of the things I really want to do, is just gently point out the things that we take for granted that we say are normal or natural, but they're not. They're totally constructed. Many of the things that we just take for…oh yeah, pink and blue. Pink is a girls’ colour, blue is a boys’ colour. We think of that as completely normal and it's totally made up and it's so recent.Laura: Hey, and welcome to the Can I Have Another Snack? podcast, where we talk about appetite, bodies, and identity, especially through the lens of parenting. I'm Laura Thomas, I'm an anti diet registered nutritionist, and I also write the Can I Have Another Snack? newsletter. Today I'm talking to Kirstie Beavan.Kirstie is the founder and editor of Sonshine Magazine, raising boys for a more equal world. Sonshine is a print and digital quarterly, as well as a social profile for parents who want to change the way we talk to and about our sons, to create a better society for all children.I've been so excited to share this episode. We recorded it a while back and I'm really glad that you're able to finally listen to it. It's such a great discussion about gender inequality and why seemingly innocuous things like how we dress our kids have really long term implications for their emotional development and the roles that they learn to occupy in society. Kirstie is a wealth of knowledge about the gendered history of kids clothing, which you won't be surprised to hear is entirely rooted in capitalism, rather than any real biological or physical differences between sexes. I can't wait for you to hear this conversation, and if you don't already, you need to get your hands on a copy of Sonshine Magazine, which is available in print and digitally. I'll link to it in the show notes so you can order yours. It would make a really lovely holiday gift for your co-parent or some other parents that you have in your life, maybe even for yourself. But before we get to today's episode, I'd love to tell you all about the benefits of becoming a paid subscriber to the Can I Have Another Snack? Newsletter. And of course there are cool perks like being able to comment on posts, our Thursday threads, Snacky Bits, and exclusive posts on intuitive eating, weight inclusive health, and responsive feeding. But more than all of that, being reader and listener supported means I can better control who comes into this space. In other words, we can keep the trolls and the fatphobes out. And if they do sneak in, at least they've had to pay for the privilege, and I can still boot them out. Having control over who comes into the space is essential for creating a safe, nurturing space away from diet culture where we can discuss difficult topics like how we deal with diet-y friends, gender division of labour, and body shame. All the way through to more light hearted stuff like the weird shit that mummy influencers say. If you're still not convinced, then here's a recent testimonial from someone in the CIHAS community. So they wrote: “I wish I had access to the advice and information you share when my kids were little, but it's still valuable now that they're nearly adults for a couple of reasons at least. Firstly, having only been diagnosed as autistic in middle age, I have had a complicated relationship with food for most of my life. From childhood fussy eating, through stigma over my higher body weight and internalised fat phobia, to temporary success with dieting, followed by the inevitable return to my previous size. Your writing has helped me cast off many of my own hang ups about food, weight, and health, making me a better role model for my kids. Secondly, your advice helps me to support and advise my kids with their own food, health, and body image issues, and to advocate for them to family and friends. I believe in showing my appreciation for people who provide me with help and support, at least by saying thank you, and where possible, with feedback and or financially. I can't financially support everyone I'd like to all of the time. But I do what I can when I can. Thank you for all you do Laura.”So what are you waiting for? You can sign up today at laurathomas.substack.com or find the link in your show notes. It's £5 a month or £5 for the year and if you can't stretch that right now just email [email protected] with the word “Snacks” in the subject line and we'll hook you up with a comp subscription. No questions asked. You can also gift a subscription to a friend for the holidays to give them unfettered access to the CIHAS community. I can even send you a gift certificate. Just email [email protected] and we'll hook you up.  Can I Have Another Snack? is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.All right team, let's get to today's conversation with Kirstie Beavan from Sonshine Magazine. MAIN EPISODEAll right, Kirstie, to start with, can you tell us a little bit about yourself and what you do?Kirstie: I'm Kirstie and I run Sonshine Magazine, which is a quarterly print and digital magazine and a social profile and community looking at raising.Laura: You said that with sort of like eyes rolled so we'll come back to that!Kirstie: I'm looking at raising boys for a more equal world so specifically it's parenting, thinking about parenting through the lens really of how we talk to and about our boys.Laura: Okay, and I'm curious to know, like, where this interest in gender equality comes from and like what spurred you to start a magazine about it?Kirstie: I think…so I've got two children and when my daughter was born, I think I felt more confident about how I was going to break down gender stereotypes for…I felt like, you know, I grew up in the 80s and 90s, which is a time of real flux in terms of how women were portrayed and expected to behave. It's a real…there's lots of progress and lots of backlash. And I think I felt – by the time I had my first child who happened to be a daughter – I felt quite confident about the things that I wasn't going to do and the stereotypes that I wasn't going to inflict on her and how I was going to help her navigate the world that I had already grown into womanhood through. And then two years later I had my son and I started to see that there were a lot of negative stereotypes associated with raising boys. And I felt like I had absolutely no model for managing that as a mother, not as a father, obviously. I just felt like, Oh, this is something I hadn't really considered or thought about. So I went to look for…where are the resources to help me parent a boy who I want to be able to grow up in a way that's free of the strictures of sort of gender stereotyping, but also who is going to be what we might now call a good man? You know, where are the resources for that? And I couldn't find any.Laura: Right. There wasn't a playbook.Kirstie: No, there's really few and far between. There weren't websites talking about it at the time. There weren't Facebook groups dedicated to this. There wasn't something that sort of scratched the itch that I had.And I had been working in content. I work mainly in the museums and gallery sector, working on the stuff that you see on the walls when you go into a gallery, like labels. Laura: I always wondered who wrote that stuff!Kirstie: Yeah, it was me. So that sort of stuff. So like presenting information for a general audience, that's been my job for a long time.So I was like, well, I'm a writer. I'm going to write one. I'm going to write the things that people needed, or that I needed really. And that's how I started.Laura: So you found that there weren't the resources that you as a new parent to a boy needed to help you navigate parenting that child in, so that they didn't grow up to be an asshole, basically. I think?Kirstie: Yes, exactly. I mean, yeah, partly that, but also partly because I noticed a lot of things about how my children interacted. Having an elder daughter and a younger son, I mean, I think it's the same if you…for many children, if you have an older sibling and a younger sibling quite close in age, that the younger one, is desperate to do all the things that the older ones do.So they're like, because, and I get it, like there's this person who's so close to you, but they're just better at everything than you are. So you're like, I just want to be them. Like that looks so good. And so she was like the leader. She was, you know, he was following her around, wanted to be just like her, wanted to wear her clothes, do the things that she liked doing, all of this stuff.And I sort of came to realise that I was really happy with this idea of my daughter. breaking stereotypes. I was really confident with this, like, Oh yeah, she's, you know…dress her in blues and darks and comfy clothes and all of that sort of stuff. And that seemed…that sat very easily with me. But when my son is saying, well, I actually want to wear a pink tutu, yeah, a dress and we're going to the shops. And I'm actually feeling a bit uncomfortable about that. Oh right, why am I feeling uncomfortable? I'm not uncomfortable about my daughter wearing trousers. I'm uncomfortable about my son wearing a dress. What is it in me? Because there's no problem for either of them. What is it in me that is the problem here?And having to confront that I have a problem with boys doing things that are feminine or coded as feminine. And what does that mean about how I feel about things being girly? Basically made me feel like, actually, that's not okay. That is something that I need to think about because the message I give to both my son and my daughter, if I don't want someone to be girly is because I think being girly is not aspirational because I think being a girl is not enough.So that is something that I felt like, Oh, that's work I have to do. That's work I have to unpick. And I'm the sort of person who likes information to unpick that stuff. And so there just wasn't that information out there to help me with that.  Laura:Yeah, that's so interesting that you, I guess, noticed that tension in yourself, because you're absolutely right.There's social acceptance of, for want of a better phrase, maybe like ‘tomboyishness’, where girls can, you know, have names that are traditionally masculine names and they can wear trousers and they can climb trees and that's all very well, but we don't have the same leniency for boys who want to do things that are perceived as being ‘more feminine’.And I have the same thing. I have a three year old boy, you know, assigned male at birth, but you know, we try, we like…we let him wear the tutu to the shop and it is, there is a discomfort that I've noticed in myself that I have to work through and kind of push through and I just haven't gone to the lengths of creating an entire magazine about it!But I, I'm really impressed that you have to kind of work through your shit. You made a whole magazine about it. But I'm curious, like, why a magazine and not, say, a podcast or, you know, and I know you do a lot of stuff on social media, which we can also talk about, but why did that feel like the medium for you?Kirstie: I think it's partly because of the way my brain works. So I prefer to organize things. In a way where I, I'm thematically grouping things.Laura: Okay, yes. I just... I get that instinct very much.Kirstie: I just wanted it to feel like, I didn't want to write a diary, I didn’t want to write a straight up blog. And I wanted it to be written content, that's where I feel most confident expressing my ideas.But I didn't want to share too much actually about my children. Because, because... My experience as a parent is my experience, but their experience of being a child is their experience and that felt like that's…their private. It's not for me to talk about that for them. Laura: Right. You don't want to commodify your child, you know, to make money and capital.Kirstie: That's not for me. That's not for me. And I didn't want to feel like I was sharing their lives without their permission, but also telling a story about their lives, which maybe isn't the story that they would tell later on. Yeah. So I wanted to sort of use what I'd noticed in my own experience of parenting to give me a jumping off point to think about lots of other things.And so it made sense to me to work it like a magazine. I started online. So I would publish a series of articles grouped around a theme: clothes, books, screen time, whatever it is. You know, looking at these things, but through this idea of what have I noticed in this space about gender stereotyping and the constraints placed on children time after time, but through lots of different themes.Laura: Yeah. So it becomes a lens to explore a particular topic.Kirstie: Exactly. And the magazine lends itself to that. So each magazine now has a theme and I collate articles around that theme. Yeah. But all with that thread that runs through them, thinking about how you might just. poke at the things that we take for granted.I think that's one of the things I really want to do is just gently point out the things that we take for granted that we say are normal or natural, but they're not. They're totally constructed. Many of the things that we just take for…oh yeah, pink and blue. Pink is a girl's colour. Blue is a boy's colour. We think of that as completely normal and it's totally made up and it's so recent that that has come into being.Laura: Oh, really? Do you know the history of that?Kirstie: Yeah, so basically up until the sort of 1800s, a bit later, all children are wearing white because...Laura: Why? That's, that's a terrible idea!Kirstie: Well, I guess it was probably grey, right? Laura: Yeah. Kirstie: But they're basically wearing stuff they can wash easily. You can produce it and wash it easily. So they're wearing simple, plain colours, stuff you can pass down. All children are wearing dresses until seven, five to seven.Laura: It sounds like it's really, like, utilitarian, right? Like is that the right word? Kirstie: Yes. Yes. It is a bit. So there's this idea that children's clothing is, well, there's lots of things at play and I'm not a fashion historian.Laura: For the purposes of this podcast, you are.Kirstie: So children are wearing clothes that can be washed easily, that are good for toilet training. They're good for, you know, being out and about, right? There is a movement to make children's clothes less constrictive. Particularly for boys, and that's sort of in the 1800s and French ideas around children should be allowed to be outside more and, you know, changing parenting ideals. What happens is that there's a boom in fabric production, which is obviously based on plantations of cotton and exploitation of enslaved people. It's also based on the industrial revolution in places like the UK, which means that using child labour and industrial processes. Cotton can be produced on a huge scale. So there's a lot of exploitation that goes into mass producing fabrics. And then simultaneously there's a movement in chemical production of pigments. So you can start to make colours for clothes. And once you can mass produce fabrics and you can actually cheaply produce colours, for clothes, for the fabric to make clothes on, you know, you can have a boom in fashion for men, for women, and also for children, kids. There's a sort of like, Oh, actually. As a marketer, you know, as a producer of cloth, I want to sell more of this stuff. So as a marketer, what tools have I got at my disposal for that? So one of the things is, you don't want people to hand clothes down. So you don't want people to pass clothes just down and down and down. You want to make them so that they can't be passed on and they have to buy a whole new outfit every time their child grows. So it's building consumption into the processes. And so you come up with reasons for people to buy different things. So by the 1930s, 1940s, people are sort of thinking, Oh, how can we sell more of this stuff? So by the 1940s, there were catalogues going round the department stores and stuff like that saying, ‘these are the clothes that you should buy’, ‘this is our new season,’ ‘this is what everyone is wearing this season’. And it's the same for children's clothes. And they're looking at ways at dividing the children's clothes market by colour. So some of the catalogues produced around that time are saying pink is for brown eyed infants, because that's better for their complexion. And blue, you know…so all of these like weird things, but pinks and blues, but the idea was: pastels were the best ones for the children. And then someone comes up with it…there's a, I forget what it's called, but you can find a pamphlet, if someone comes up with the idea that pink should be for the girls and blue should be for the boys, though you can find other ones, other catalogues and fashion plates that suggest that pink is a stronger colour because it's associated with the red coats that men would have worn in battle, blah, blah, blah, that that should have been the colour for boys. Just made up, basically. Just all made up. Pink and blue is all made up. But it's stuck. And it's stuck with us. And pink got cemented as a feminine colour. By…now I don't want to get it wrong, but I'm going to say Mamie Eisenhower, who was the first lady in the 1940s, and she redecorated the White House and with all these special pink bathrooms and was her favorite colour. And it became sort of cemented, this idea of baby pink as being really feminine, definitely coded girly colour. And ties in with lots of other ideas around femininity that come in through the 1950s.Laura: Yeah, well, you may not be a fashion historian, but I really enjoyed that little foray into understanding, yeah, the, I mean, just the super problematic history that that what we feel is so ‘normal’, was built on.Like, you didn't have to scratch the surface, barely at all, to find the colonialism, the violence, the capitalism, like, the effects of all of these things on. Yeah, how we end up ultimately dressing our kids today and what is coded as feminine, what is coded as masculine…and yeah, I remember when, when Avery was born just me and my husband like eye rolling anytime we got a blue card in the post, you know, like there was just like a sea of blue and we really appreciated our friends who'd like, who knew us really well and went out of the way to, to find a card that wasn't blue.And that's just, that's just such a small, like, meaningless thing in the grand scheme of things, like the colour of your baby card, but you know, there are repercussions to how we dress kids and I think this is something that you talk about so well, not just in terms of like the colour of the clothes – although that I think is, is important as well – but also just like the practicalities of dressing our kids. Maybe practicality isn't the right word, but I guess the functionality of how we dress our kids. And I think you've kind of got a bit of a reputation on Instagram for being the ‘pants lady’.So I'd love you to talk a little bit about that, like what your research has found when it comes to, not just pants, but just generally the discrepancies between clothing for girls and clothing for boys.Kirstie: Yeah. I mean, it's a dubious claim to fame, isn't it? The ‘pants lady’.Laura: I would take it. It's a great moniker to have.Kirstie: I mean, that is…some of the stuff that I've talked about is, that's one of the key things, I think, because people really notice it. It started because my daughter asked for a pair of pants with dinosaurs on them. And this is when we were potty training and I thought, great, dinosaurs, that should be easy. And then she'll want to wear them. And then potty training would be much easier. Yeah. And I went looking for them and I couldn't find any girls pants that had dinosaurs on them. Laura: It doesn't surprise me, but… Kirstie: No, I mean it is a bit better now. This is eight, nine years ago. Yeah, so I couldn't find any, and then I found some boys ones and I thought, oh, well she doesn't know.And then I got them home and I was so shocked to get them out of the packet and find that they were bigger, roomier. They were beautifully…they had these incredible overlocked seams, all the elastic was covered. I noticed that they were about, they were two centimeters bigger in the waistband, basically, than the girls pants, same brand, and were made of a thicker, higher grade cotton. They just were better. They just were loads better. And so I thought, well, maybe that's just the, this is just an anomaly that I've picked up. Because you know, often when you go to a shop, you can pick up two things that are the same size, but actually when you try them on, they're not quite the same. They're different. So there's all of that. So I thought, well, maybe this is it. But actually having looked into it now over the last eight years, that is across the board that the girls' pants in particular are cut to a smaller pattern than the boys pants, and they're made with flimsier fabric. They're more badly made. They're itchy. They've got this lacy trim. They're made with a lighter weight cotton, which has less stretch and give. They're cut shorter in the backside, so they don't come up as high. So this is comparing girls briefs with boys briefs. They have a narrower gusset. So they're more likely to ride up your backside, basically, give you a wedgie.Laura: Ah, is that why that happens? Because of the size of the...Kirstie: Yes, because of how it's cut across the bottom.Laura: Yeah, yeah. No, I can, I can imagine it. As someone who has, like, a lot of problems finding... Like decent underwear. Yeah, like don't get me started on how far downhill M&S underwear has gone over the past few years.Kirstie: Totally agree.Laura: But yeah, I guess I just, I hadn't thought of it…because that was going to be my next question for you was like, so what, right? What's the big deal here? And I think you've already kind of answered it, but it looks like you've got more to say, so…Kirstie: Yeah, I have got more to say. Because the big deal, actually, what it made me realise is that a significant proportion of our children are going to school wearing an uncomfortable piece of underwear. So many people, when I post about this on Instagram, so many people say to me, ‘Oh, my daughter is always getting a wedgie’. ‘My daughter is always complaining that her pants are uncomfortable’.I find it myself, I find the seams and labels inside clothing can be really irritating. Yeah. Giving this advice to oh, just wear them inside out, blah, blah, blah. No! Just let's make..Laura: Buy the boys ones, Kirstie: Kids deserve to be comfortable and it made me think how different my life would have been if I had been wearing clothes that were comfortable, if I'd been wearing clothes that weren't for looking at but were for playing in.It's not just pants actually, it comes across all areas of children's clothing. So you see it in girls’ trousers versus boys’ trousers. You're more likely to find a knee reinforcement in a boy's trouser than you are in a girl's trouser because the expectation is that boys are harder on their trousers than girls.Well, yeah, I mean, obviously you are if your pants aren't riding up your bum all the time. And also, if your shoes…so if you look at the difference between girls’ shoes and boys’ shoes, you'll see that boy's shoes tend to have a thicker sole. They tend to be waterproof. They tend to be made with a toe cover so that you can climb or run more easily.And if you look at girls’ shoes, particularly noticeable in very, very little toddler shoes and school shoes. You'll see that the girl's shoes come with really thin soles, no grip. They often have holes in the top, so they're not really waterproof. They're often made of patent leather, so they're shiny, so they…you can't scuff them up. I mean, you will scuff them up and then you'll be in trouble. So what is what you say? So what? The thing is, it's all based on our expectations of children, our expectations as adults on children. It's nothing to do with whether they, as individuals…what they like doing. You know, if you've got a child that likes running, they like running. It's not whether they're a boy or a girl, it's whether they like running. If you've got a kid that feels more regulated, if they've climbed something and swung on something, it's not because they're a boy or a girl, it's just who they are. That's what their bodies are asking for. But we are channeling them societally down these routes, down these expected routes of you should be more active and you shouldn't be more active just simply based on your genitalia. And it does actually have impact on children. You can see it if you go to any primary school, you can see who's taking up the space in the playground and it is 90% likely to be the boys.Laura: And that wasn't a…in case it came across this way, it wasn't an accusatory…it was meant to be a provocative question because I am 100% with you on this.And I think you articulated it so beautifully when you said, you know, we're setting a precedent, we're setting an expectation that girls clothes are to be looked at and are there to be pretty, whereas boys clothes are designed to be functional and for movement and yeah, to let them really be…engage in a full variety of experiences that we're inadvertently excluding girls from, right?Movement, getting messy, getting scuffed up, getting dirty, whatever, whatever it is.Kirstie: Yeah, it's two sides of the same coin, actually, because you see it with girls that the expectation is that their clothes will be pretty and good to look at. And I particularly don't want to have…in my children's underwear, I particularly don't want to have my daughter thinking that her underwear needs to be good to look at, right? It's gross.Laura: It's a really disturbing thought when you, like, think about the kind of the implications there.Kirstie: Yeah, yeah. It's actually like, what in the world? Children's underwear should just be functional. It should cover up their genitalia.Laura: Maybe it should have days of the week on it. It could, yeah, I'm up for that.Kirstie: Yeah, yeah, exactly. I'm up for that. I'm up for patterns. I'm up for that. I'm up for, like, things on the front so you know which side to get into. Yeah, that's all of that. But it doesn't need to be cut small. It doesn't need to be low rise. It doesn't need to be... skimpy in the gusset. Like none of that is necessary for children's clothing. Laura: It needs to be functional. Kirstie: It needs to, it just needs to do its job. Yeah. And I…and you could even argue that the people most likely to be wearing a skirt are girls. So the children who really need the big pants are the girls. So why is it, when I go to the shops, that the girl's pants are miniscule? Laura: Well I wonder if it goes back to capitalism, because if you've got skimpy pants…you know I'm thinking of this from the perspective of a marketer, if I've got skimpy pants, then I can also sell a pair of shorts to go under the dress. Yeah. This is the only explanation that I could come up with.Kirstie: I mean I have been and interviewed some people who've worked in childrenswear, and a lot of them were like….Oh. We've never thought of this because childrenswear is not a thing conceived of in many big shops. It's not conceived of as childrenswear. It's conceived of as girls and boys and they take their cues from womenswear and menswear. And so they're taking maybe what is the best selling hoodie, jersey weight in the menswear and then they're scaling that down for the boys. And then they're taking what is the best selling hoodie weight, say we're talking about sweaters, jersey for the women's and scaling that down for the girls.And they're not talking to each other necessarily. So it's a sort of vicious circle or a chicken and egg thing where menswear is generally heavier weight and more comfortable and womenswear is generally lighter weight and less comfortable. And the styles from menswear are going to come down into boyswear and the styles from womenswear....And that's the same for underwear. So when you look at women's underwear, that's actually what's going to be started to scale down. Lace trims, bows, the types of patterns that you'll see, crop tops, that sort of stuff is going to be scaled down for the girls underwear. And men's underwear is going to be scaled down for the boys. And I see that, but the fact is that children's bodies are not like men's and women's bodies.That is not... Clothes for children can be clothes for children. Until, really, a long way through their childhood. There's no reason to be making them different. Often when I post about this, and I say, here's a pair of jeans and the jeans for the boys, jeans in the boys’ section, maybe are two inches bigger in the waist than the girls. And maybe they are…they've got more flex in the leg, and maybe they're also an inch or two longer in the leg than the girls. It's particularly noticeable in shorts, so when summer comes around, you'll see that the girls’ shorts are tiny. And that starts from toddler age, so the toddler girls’ shorts, which are often really nice, like they come in nice colours and nice prints and all of that sort of stuff, but they are cut inches shorter.Laura: They're teeny tiny. I remember you posted a reel about this over the summer and I'll link to it in the show notes because yeah, it's…yeah, you're basically dressing toddlers in hot pants.Kirstie: Yeah. The flip of the coin is that if you go into the boys section often you can only find things that are khaki, navy, black, burgundy, what I call sludge. Like you just get sludge colour, so you can't find the pretty prints or the…you can't find florals or butterflies or rabbits. My son loves rabbit, love rabbits for years and it's rabbits and cats…you can't have a rabbit if you're a boy. Because you can only have a shark. And then you think, oh, it's fine. I'll go and buy the rabbit top. It's in the girl's section. What does it matter? And then you get the rabbit top and it's cropped or it's got a cap sleeve or a boat neck, you know, so it's not so sun safe. It's not so easy. You know, it doesn't wash as well. It's very easy, I think, to say, this is obviously bad for girls. This is obviously bad for girls. It's obviously bad to create children's clothes that make girls feel that they are too big for their age. That is obviously bad. I can't see why we are doing this. I've had messages from people who've got boy girl twins who are the same size and if they buy a pair of joggers in the boys’ section, so two pairs of joggers in the boys’ section, they're enormous in the waist, age five to six. And if they go to the girls section and buy the similar joggers. They can't pull them up and these children are the same age and the same size and what does it do to you if by the time you're old enough to understand it, say you're seven, you can see the labels in your own clothes. What does it do to you to know that the age seven jeans are too tight for you? What does that do to you as a girl? What does it conversely do to you as a boy, if you're a slim boy? And you buy the age seven joggers and they're like a tent on you. And the expectation is that you ought to be bigger and you ought to be broader and you ought to be wider or taller. The expectations that this places on our children based only on their gender, you don't have to follow it very far to see how harmful it is.Laura: Yeah. I mean, there's so much to unpack there as well. Like I'm thinking of it through my lens as well, which is thinking about body image and these pretty arbitrary sizes do to kids’ sort of body esteem, if they are, you know, maybe at the lower end of the growth curve or the higher end of the growth curve and they don't fit into that seven to eight, like maybe they're in 10 to 11 and the like the mismatch, I think, between ages and sizes of clothes. And I don't know what the workaround is, it's, it seems kind of like it's all wound up in this, it's a similar problem, right?Kirstie: I think so. I think so. I mean, I think the workaround is what they do in a lot of European countries is…it's not, it's not done by age. It's done by height.Laura: Oh, height. Okay. Yeah.Kirstie: It's a measurement. And I think it's really telling, that if you ask a man what size he is, he'll give you a measurement. Yeah. So if you want to buy a pair of jeans as a man, you're buying a size, an actual size.Laura: X centimetres or inches.Kirstie: 32 inch waist, whatever it is, right? That's a measurement. And if you know what your measurement is, you can buy the right size. But as women, you ask what size we are, we have to give a random number. It doesn't equate to any measurement. Except to make you feel bad. And I think that sort of permeates the landscape of children's clothing.This idea of functionality, that actually clothes are made for comfort and what they can do for you. And what they…they'll just be made to whatever size that you need. That your clothes actually…comfort is the least important thing on the list for women's clothes, often. I mean, I feel like underwear in particular.I'm starting to enter into the preteen world. Yeah. It's really made me question a lot of things. Like this idea that when I was a kid, I guess I was 12, 11 or 12, and we went to get a training bra. And I thought about this… training bra? I thought, what's it being trained for? And I thought I was being trained because bras are really uncomfortable.So to get you used to wearing a thing makes your body more palatable to society's view of what women's bodies should look like. It's not on my horizon yet, but it's something that I've got to have a thought aboout. Laura: How do you have that conversation? Kirstie: Yeah, I don't actually know how I feel about that.Laura: Yeah, I mean, that's a really tricky one.I don't know. I don't know if I've added an unanswerable question to that. Yeah, no, but it is, it's, it's just not something that I've ever given any consideration to. And I think what feels probably really sticky about it is that, you know, you can have these conversations with your kid about, you know, whatever, like some man invented a bra to make our bodies more palatable.I don't actually know if it was a man. I'm making this up, but you probably do know the history of bras as well. I think I read, I read like a really interesting article about it once before, and I, and I really can't remember now, but the list of questions that I was going to ask you is completely gone out of the window. But no, it's great. But yeah, you know, you can have these conversations and you can, like, help your kid feel really empowered to not wear a bra or to wear a bra or to like make their own choice or, you know, about the type of bra that they wear if they choose to wear one. And, but then, you know, they go to school and all their friends are wearing, you know, these cutesy little training bras that probably actually do nothing. Yeah. Really. And so then you have to navigate, like, the social piece, with lining that up with, with your values and their values and it's their body. They ultimately…I think probably what we want to promote in our kids is body autonomy. Also that totally backfired on me the other day when my three year old was like, ‘I'm the boss of my body!’ when he didn't want to get in the bath. Yeah, I mean, this is... I wasn’t prepared for that. But, like, in general, you know, like, it backfires a lot when they're three and they don't want to get in the bath, but hopefully by the time they're, you know, 11, 12, and they're thinking about training bras, maybe a bit younger than that, even, that they...have a better sense of what their boundaries are around their bodies?Kirstie: Yes, I think so. I think they do. But I think there is, I think also the, the influence of peer pressure becomes so much greater then like…actually, you see that you see your influence declines as a parent, you know, you can lay them foundations, but they're coming to the point where what their peers are doing and thinking is really important.And they actually are going to have to navigate this like the foundation that you've laid in terms of what your family values are around bodies and body autonomy, but also, I hope, you know, like that word you used about body esteem. I think that's really great. But I also really like the idea that perhaps they don't think a lot about their bodies.Like, that's what I would really love for them. Laura: That's the dream. Kirstie: Yeah, but there's just a…that's not something that occupies their thoughts all the time. And I, we talked a lot about girls, but it is, it's really important for boys as well. The reason that I want to talk about boys is because it's like the missing piece of the puzzle.We want things to change for our daughters. You can see that the effects of gender stereotyping is,are really bad for women and girls. We have to have actual tasks…well, let's try that again, task force in government, exactly, for violence against women and girls. That's how big of a problem that is. 90% of the perpetrators of violence against women and girls are men. So we have to also be looking at men in that equation. This is not a women's problem. This is a societal problem, a problem across all, everywhere in society about how we treat men and women. And if we're not talking to the boys about equality, If we're only talking to the girls, we're only going to get half of the population changing.It has to be holistically talking to all of our children. And for me, it feels like that means we have to unpick some of that stuff where, you know, the boys are getting a bit of a privilege. You know, we're talking about clothes. That is a privilege for boys that their clothes are made for playing. But it's also, how do you treat a child if their clothes tell you something about them?So if you see a child and they're wearing a top, which has got a bunny wearing a flower crown, what do you, as an adult, think of that child, as opposed to seeing a kid standing next to them, that's wearing a T-Rex with blood dripping from its fangs, right? As adults, how do we treat those children? What are the expectations that we have? Oh, you're big, you're strong, man up, don't cry. You know, the expectations that…that just tiny little cue might give us the emotional connections that we might allow a boy or a girl. These things seem tiny, but they are played out in all sorts of places through society. And unless we allow boys to be warm, be empathetic, to be vulnerable, to be…wrong. You know, to get things wrong and not always be the best at something, you know, we have to allow them some of the things that we're happy to allow girls and the same way that we have to allow the girls some of the things that we're happy to allow the boys. And that's what leads to a more equal distribution as they get older.Laura: I'm really glad that you brought it back there. And I think what I appreciate the most is how you basically connected the dinosaur T-shirt, shark underpants to the toxic masculinity pipeline, right? Like that's, I think what…because I think it's all very well for us to sit here and be like, ‘Oh, girls pants are too small and dah, dah, dah, dah’. But if we can't frame that within the context of, you know, the bigger issues, which I think you do such a great job of bringing it back to, you know, the gender pay gap, for example, like you just did there, like…Well, you didn't say this, but I'm thinking about how male suicide rates are really, really high. Because, and maybe you have some better insight into, like, the statistics around this, but I know especially there was a big conversation about it a few years ago about, yeah, just just like the gender norms that we foist upon men and boys means that they can't express their emotions. They can't tell us when they're struggling, they can't be vulnerable.And I think a consequence of that is that they end up either taking it out on their own lives and ending their own lives, or they take it out on the women around them in the form of things like domestic violence, for example. Can you maybe speak just briefly to, like, yes, it's about pants, but it's about all these other things? You know, like the bigger picture things? Kirstie: Yeah. I mean, it is about pants in, in one way because it sort of lays the baseline. If you are comfortable in your clothes, perhaps you are running a bit faster at school, perhaps you do have a slight advantage in the playground, that sort of thing. Yeah.If your T-shirt says on it, ‘I'm a genius’. Perhaps someone says that to you every time you wear it. Perhaps someone says, ‘Oh yeah, you're a little genius’. And perhaps that's just popping into your head drip, drip, drip day after day. And if your sister's T-shirt says, ‘Isn't she lovely?’ on it? LAURA: ‘I'm a princess’. ‘I'm a princess’ or just even, I mean, it can be so subtle, you know, ‘Always Happy”’.If your T-shirt says “Always Happy” on it – I see that on so many T-shirts – what's that telling you about how you have to present yourself? So these just little drip drip drip messages, they make a difference. And it makes a difference in how we as adults therefore treat them. And then that gap between how they feel about themselves widens.And what they…they get this idea that they are opposites, instead of things that are really similar: humans. Yeah, humans. You get this idea that you're super, super different. Instead of this idea that everybody here has similarities and differences. And this is just one of them, being a boy and a girl. That's just one of the differences. And we don't separate children by any other characteristics. We don't go to the park and say, Come on brown haired children, time to go home from the park. Like, we just don't do it. There's no other characteristic that we yell out. In the playground. ‘Come on, boys!’ So, you know, we make these binary distinctions really, really important.And then by the time they get into secondary school, there's all sorts of things going on. Like, 45% of girls in mixed sex secondary schools have experienced some sort of sexual harassment at school.Laura: I saw this on your Instagram the other day, and I just... It's, it's horrendous. I cannot, like…I mean, I can believe that, but also what?!Kirstie: Yeah, I mean, I…it gives me the fear so badly. Like, what world are we throwing our daughters into? But what world are we throwing our sons into where they think – well, there's a significant proportion of boys in the school that think it's okay to treat women in that way. And it comes back to this idea. This is, that's why this stuff matters. Because it comes back to this idea that if girls are there to be looked at and boys are there to do things. That's how it plays itself out there. So, girls are for looking at. They're not full humans. Boys are the ones that do things. So it doesn't matter if I stick my hand up your skirt, ping a bra strap, whatever it is.That's one pathway, but…as you call it, the toxic masculinity pathway. But the other one is actually...but you can see right through – this is unrelated to clothes really – but you can see right through that the way we talk about, or the way we talk to them, it differs. So studies show that if you know the sex of your baby before it's born, you're more likely to say that they're very active in utero. So you're more likely to use words like ‘active’ or say, ‘Oh, got a little footballer in there. So much kicking’. So colours, your expectation colours, your experience of what you're seeing. And then you have a confirmation bias. So when your child does something that chimes with your ideas of what you think boys must like, you notice it more. So you see your boy playing with something with wheels and you're like, ‘Oh, he loves wheels’. I've heard that boys love wheels. You give them more wheels, you give them a lot of praise or excitement or interest. And it creates a feedback loop where they therefore, yeah, they are going to be more interested in this thing.You keep giving them and showing that you're really proud of them. But we also find that parents are less likely to use emotional language with sons than they are with daughters. When they read books together, they're more likely to talk about, what do you think this character's feeling with a daughter than they are with a son?And in fact, the National Education Union did a survey where they looked at preschool, what were the activities that parents were more likely to do with their children, and they broke it down by gender. And parents are more likely to do singing, reading, painting, and expressive things with their daughters. And the only thing that they were more likely to do with the son was sport.Laura: You think about how we are inadvertently training girls to do the emotional labour. And by not teaching boys how to do it, we're double burdening girls with it. Kirstie: It's exactly that. That's exactly it. And we are expecting girls to behave prosocially.So girls are more likely to be punished for what we could call anti-social behavior…but not sharing. Not being kind, that sort of thing. We are more likely to punish, but whatever form that takes, you know? I'm not suggesting that…punish always sounds like a corporal punishment. But actually to come down heavily on…you know, you've gotta share, you've gotta do that.And we are less likely to reward boys for the pro-social stuff. So when boys are sharing or being kind, we are less likely to say, ‘Oh, he's so good at sharing’. Yeah. You know, that's just a thing that people are less likely to say. So there's exactly, that we expect…the expectation that girls will do a little bit more of that emotional labour, but it comes into school where they can, they've been able to see that boys come with a more limited emotional vocabulary.So they're less able to name their feelings and therefore, once you can name a feeling, you can process it. And if you haven't got the skills to name it, you haven't got the skills to process it. So then you see a third more boys are excluded from school. The stat you were talking about, about suicide. So suicide is still the biggest killer of men under 50.And that speaks to not just a crisis in mental health, men's mental health, because I would say there was a crisis in mental health in general, but in the way that it is expressed and dealt with, and men and boys are less likely to reach out to ask for help. So Childline counsel more girls than they do boys, though the same number of them may be having suicidal ideation thoughts. They're more likely to talk to girls about it than they are to talk to the boys about it, and that is seen in the suicide rates, the death by suicide rates for boys. It being significantly higher for male than girls.Laura: It's so horrendous, like, yeah, as a parent of a boy and, yeah, married to one as well, like, a man, yeah, just hearing that is, it's heartbreaking.Kirstie: I suppose the only other thing I would think is worth mentioning, I don't want people to go away feeling like it's doom and gloom because I think It only takes tiny changes, I think.Laura: I mean, I struggle with this a bit because ultimately it's a social issue. And so, I don't want to put everything on individual parents, like we need to change school policy, we need to change…God, even before that, preschool! My preschooler came home the other day, or we were playing in the playground, and he was like, no girls allowed in. And I had to like, I had to stop the play and be like, Let's talk about how we don't exclude people from playing. And I've, like…he had been at nursery for, like, two weeks before this happened. I was mortified. Where are you getting this? It's before they even get to school is what I'm trying to say.Kirstie: Yeah, and I think it peaks actually around six or seven, that really binary thinking, because they want to find their groups, that's like developmental science, like they're coming away from their parents, they want to find their groups, they do want to fit in actually, it's really hard to not fit in.Laura: Yeah, no, it's an evolutionarY…what's the word that I'm looking for? Like, it's evolutionary adaptive to be part of the group. If you're excluded from the group, you're more likely to get eaten by a predator, or like……I'm putting it in really, really simplistic terms there. But, you know, it's this conversation I have with my clients who are coming to see me about, you know, problems with, with body image.  I mean, problems with body image...! But I mean, you know, when they're struggling with how they feel about their body and they say, you know, I just want this last diet. I…you know,  can't let go of the idea of losing weight. And I'm like, well, of course not, because you're more likely to be accepted when you have thin privilege.  And all the privilege that that gives you access to. And that has an evolutionary basis, right? To be accepted, …there's safety in that group. So yeah, the exact same thing……sorry, that was just a massive tangent for me to talk about myself and my work, but…Kirstie: No, I mean, it's... but that's really important because it's all the same thing, isn't it?Because it's exactly…it's all tied up. Like you say, it's like a societal thing. It's so hard to fight against that. Like, I don't always want to be the person who steps out, speaks up. I mean, sometimes I can't help it. That is who I am. But you know, when I'm standing at the school gate, I just want to be friends. I want to make friends. I don't want to be giving people an earful about everything all the time. So it's the same for our children, isn't it? They want to slot in. I think the things that we can do that change that is try and reduce those divisions. I think putting our children in very, very different clothes based on their gender tells them that we think it's really important. So I think there's lots of things that we can do that just reduce those barriers. And I do think that it is a question of changing policies within schools. And I do think it is also maybe shielding them as much as you can from books or TV programs or…I mean, it becomes impossible to be honest, but that, yeah, it's really hard things that don't constantly drip those messages into their heads. And it's really, really hard because they are absolutely everywhere. But if you're aware of it, you keep an eye on what you're reading with them or what you're watching with them or what you're seeing in the supermarket. You know, if you've just got that little thing running in the back of your head thinking, ‘would I let both my kids wear this’? That's one of the questions I ask myself. And the answer has to be yes, I would let both of my kids wear this. One of the questions I ask in the back of my head, like, does this paint everybody in a good light? Like when you're watching Peppa Pig, is Daddy Pig painted in a good light? What do you think it does to little boys to see that? Just think about that for a second. Like what is it when you're watching...Laura: I've given a lot of thought to this.Kirstie: Yeah, I'm sure you have.Laura: Yeah, I wrote recently about – it's from a different angle – but the horrendous anti-fatness in Peppa Pig. And just how...harmful that show is but I hadn't thought of it, because I try and avoid it if possible, but like I hadn't thought of it from the gender perspective as well as, like the lens…Kirstie: Daddy Pig is portrayed inevitably as an idiot. Yeah. And I just think that doesn't do anything good. But on that, I mean, I think it's really interesting now to see how the idea of talking about bodies…We watch Strictly as a family and that's one of the things that my kids enjoy watching and it's hard to find things that everybody can watch together. And there is so much good representation now in the past few years in Strictly, you know, in terms of same sex couples, in terms of people who are openly gay, like, in terms of people from all different backgrounds and ethnicities, like, that's doing a great job, I think. But we watched the opening show and two of the men talked about how they were overweight. “A bit squashy,” one of them said, something like that, talked about, Oh, well, this is going to be hard for me because I've got a problem with weight. And I thought, I think if a woman was saying this, we would be listening to this in a different way. And we would be thinking about how we could positively respond. I think the conversation around body positivity, which is something I feel a bit uncomfortable about, but I think that conversation for women is at least happening. And I feel like that conversation is more complicated and perhaps nuanced for men because we've had this thing about the dad bod, but equally, I was interested to see that people were like talking about their bodies in this…the disparaging their own bodies. In this show that I think of as not being a…that sort of thing, and it fell down gender lines.Laura: That…it's a really interesting observation. I haven't paid much attention to Strictly, but I think just more broadly speaking, I think – and it ties into kind of just not being able to express themselves, maybe in the same way or talk about the things that are bothering them, but also the shifting roles of body image pressures, I suppose, for men and boys. But I did – I'll link to this in the transcript as well – but so I spoke with Dr. Scott Griffiths, who's a psychologist and a body image researcher about sort of the shifting way that the male bodies are perceived and, and kind of the growing pressure and expectation of them to have this ripped, shredded body to the point that we are now seeing, in older sort of teens, we're seeing something called muscle dysmorphic disorder, so a body dysmorphic disorder, it sort of sits between a body dysmorphic and eating disorder.Generally, boys who struggle with it consider themselves to be like insufficiently muscled and really lean and scrawny and they, they want to bulk up and, and get big and strong, like, you know, all the messages that they've been receiving since they were one and two and three years old. And so they end up…on the really extreme end of it, they might inject testosterone [I MEAN STEROIDS HERE!]. It can lead to infertility. It can, it can lead to all sorts of really, really. hugely problematic things. And again, if I just wonder about, you know…it's, it's acceptable for women to talk about how they struggle with their bodies for better or worse. And we obviously have a sort of counterbalance to that in the, the body positivity, body acceptance movement, but that doesn't exist for men.There is no body positivity for men or…like, there is, but there's a few, you know, a few people talking about it.Kirstie: You could argue that because it hasn't been necessary till now because it has been less of a concern societally for people to police men's bodies. But now we're finding ourselves in this highly visual culture where people are policing everybody's bodies.And simultaneously, like you say, we're asking little boys to conform to these really rigid rules about what it means to be a man or look like a man.Laura: And we're giving them like, if you think back to like what a Ken doll looks like, to what a G.I. Joe or like…I don't know if kids play with them anymore, but you know what I mean?Kirstie: What they do play with is Spider Man or Hulk or Batman or, you know, all of these figures, they are all hyper muscled. And if you watch those Marvel films, those are idealised bodies and the idealising for boys and men is to have these bulging biceps and to have a six pack and things that actually aren't…you know, if you ever hear a film, a film star talking about what they have to do to look the way they do.You know, if you ever heard Hugh Jackman talking about what it was like to be Wolverine, that is not okay. It's punishing. It's absolutely punishing. He didn't drink for days on end. You know, really, he was at the limits of what you can do and still be alive and turning up for work and doing specific sort of flexes and the pressure then that that could put on you if you were the, you know, if you're susceptible to, like you say, injecting hormones or steroids and the fact that that stuff is very reasonable, you know, very easily available or to be buying protein powders and being told on TikTok that you, you too can bulk up, you could, yeah, but actually your genetics are playing a part in this.You can't. Yeah. Bodies are different.Laura: So, so much playing, playing into that. And Kirstie, I feel like we could talk for hours about this stuff. And I, I'm, I'm really conscious about your time. It's a...Kirstie: Yeah, so I've got to go and pick my children up from school! Laura: Okay. So, okay. There is one burning question that I have for you, which is...I don't know if you have this, like, data, but do dads read your magazine?Kirstie: Well, that's a good question. So I don't have this data. What I can tell you is, from my social media account is that it's like 90% women. That's slightly to do with Instagram. Instagram skews towards women. Yeah. This is a question that I get asked a lot: why don't more men write for you? So men are less likely to pitch me. And I think you'll find that men talking about parenting often have daughters. Yeah. And I do get it because I think when you have a daughter as a man, you have the same experience that I talked about where I suddenly was like, Oh, I don't know what it is like to be a boy in this world. I haven't done that. Oh, I see some of the things that you're going to run up against. I think that realisation for some fathers can be huge. Yeah. I think it can be absolutely massive for them. I think they can realise a lot about their own previous experiences to see that. And I don't like the fact that they have to have a daughter for this to happen to them.But they suddenly realise, Oh, I see how you're going to be treated in this world and I do not like it. And I want to talk about parenting now.Laura: I was just going to say, you have a much more generous interpretation of it than I do, which I think is that, and maybe – and I don't think it's one or the other, it's probably both – but I also think that this just speaks to the point that we were making earlier, which is that so much of the emotional labour of raising children falls on women.Kirstie: Yes, I mean, I think that is true, that basically who buys parenting books is women, who worries and feels mum guilt? It's women. We don't, I, I mean, I haven't, I spend a lot of time on the internet, but I haven't seen loads of men talking about dad guilt. I haven't heard a lot of men saying how hard they find it to manage their children's emotional development throughout, through our difficult society.Like that isn't a thing that a lot of men are talking about. It's not the case that no men are talking about it. So there are some prominent men who talk about this stuff. It doesn't fit with our societal narratives. So, I mean, I would recommend anybody to read, Robert Webb's, How Not to Be a Boy. I've really enjoyed that book. There's a really interesting, it's a half memoir, half…Laura: Like parenting?Kirstie: …musing on, well, yeah, it was useful in parenting, I think, in terms of he talks about how he would like to raise his children, bearing in mind what he's done. I would recommend Grayson Perry's book, The Descent of Man. That's a great small book. And it's, he's just got such a really great way of pinpointing the sort of weirdnesses of gender, like there's so many…and he's funny as well and warm, isn't he? He even made a TV programme that went along with that. Those books are relatively old, but I think they have a lot to say. I mean, Justin Baldoni, I don't know if you know him, he was in Jane the Virgin? If you've ever seen that. He was like the beefcake guy, I can't remember, he was called Raphael I think. He's written a book about how hard it was for him growing up and how much he struggled with his own body image. And the expectations placed on him as a young man and how hard he found it to be vulnerable and when someone showed him pornography when he was 12 or younger, he, you know, how he couldn't tell his parents and didn't know how to deal with this.And, you know, so there are some people talking about this, but they are so few and far between. And also it doesn't fall into the easy categories, I think, that we find it, that marketers find it easy to sell, that book publishers see the obvious opportunities, you know. And I think, you're right, men as a general rule aren't being asked to think about this. How are they going to change the world for their sons? Laura: Oh, well, you've given some really cool resources for us to check out and buy for our baby daddies! Right. For Father's Day or whatever, Christmas, whatever's coming up, where are we, what is time? And I think, you know, the work that you're doing is so critical as well and getting these conversations started and just thinking about, you know, like the little things like pants and how they have these huge repercussions.So Kirstie, before I let you go…at the end of every episode, my guest and I share something that they have been really into lately. So it can be a book, it can be…which you've just given us lots of books! But it could be something not to do with work. It could be an actual snack. It can be a podcast, anything that you would like to recommend to the listeners.Kirstie: I had a long think about this. And the thing is, I was thinking that in terms of my actual snacks, I do not have a sweet tooth. Oh, I know this is very…but basically I just want savoury things all the time. So the snacks that I have been snacking on is, I mean, I just eat crisps. I just love crisps.Laura: No shame in the crisp game.Kirstie: Just love crisps. But the thing that I've been really snacking on recently is miso soup. Laura: Miso. Oh, yum. Kirstie: Yeah. Because I, what I really crave in the middle of the day. Is like a hit of that salt. Salty, yes. Salty. Tasty. It feels like a hot velvet drink and so I'm always delighted when it's got cold enough. I feel like, yes, it's soup time. And so that's like my hit of salty deliciousness.Laura: Oh my God, that sounds so good. Actually, I never thought of just…I love miso soup, but like usually when I'm eating Japanese food. Yeah. I never thought of just like…cause you can get like, do you make up miso soup like with miso paste or do you do, like, the instant sachet stuff?Kirstie: I do have the paste, which I just stick in everything because I want everything to taste like that basically. But I bought powdered ones. And they are brilliant.Laura: And yeah, you just fill it up with the boiling water and…?Kirstie: Yeah, it's like two o'clock in the afternoon. I've had my lunch. And eat something else that's delicious.Laura: A little miso pick me up.Kirstie: A little pep me up.Laura: Yeah. Oh, yum. Okay, that's making me hungry just thinking about that. So I am going to be your inverse. And I am going to do a sweet snack. Because we both have food on the mind. It's like 3.30 snack time. Exactly. Right now, this episode is going to come out after Halloween, but at the time of recording it is before Halloween.And M&S have just got all their Halloween sweets in, and I have been taste testing and comparing the Halloween Percy Pigs versus the Halloween Colin the Caterpillars, and the Colins are definitely better. They are sour and tangy, and I love those sour things. You can't eat too many of them before your tongue starts to feel really weird. Kirstie: They've got crunchy on the outside?Laura: No, not crunchy, just they're like jelly sweets, like snake sweets, you know. But they've got, like, a good amount of like whatever that coating is that makes your mouth feel weird, but I love them. Yeah, that's all I have to say about them. They're delicious and people should try them.Kirstie: I would go for a sour sweet.Laura: It has to like, like take..remove like a layer of your tongue. Yeah. For it to be like a sufficiently sour. Sour, sore, slightly sore.Kirstie: I like a strong flavour, whatever it is.Laura: I don't mind what it is. Just needs to have some punch. Yeah. All right, Kirstie, thank you so much for this. Before I let you go, will you tell everyone where they can find you and learn more about your work?Kirstie: Sure, you can find me at sonshinemagazine.com but also sonshinemagazine on Instagram – and it's sonshine with an o so it's like sons and daughters.Laura: See what you did there!Kirstie: Sonshine!OUTROLaura: Thanks so much for listening to the Can I Have Another Snack? podcast. You can support the show by subscribing in your podcast player and leaving a rating and review. And if you want to support the show further and get full access to the Can I Have Another Snack? universe, you can become a paid subscriber.It's just £5 a month or £50 for the year. As well as getting tons of cool perks you help make this work sustainable and we couldn't do it without the support of paying subscribers. Head to laurathomas.substack.com to learn more and sign up today. Can I Have Another Snack? is hosted by me, Laura Thomas. Our sound engineer is Lucy Dearlove. Fiona Bray formats and schedules all of our posts and makes sure that they're out on time every week. Our funky artwork is by Caitlin Preyser, and the music is by Jason Barkhouse. Thanks so much for listening. ICYMI last week: Let's Lighten the Mood...* How Do You Deal With Clothes That Don’t Fit Anymore?* Ranking Chat GPT's Fussy Eating Advice* Fundamentals: What is Embodiment? This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit laurathomas.substack.com/subscribe

Today on the podcast I’m joined by Dr. Molly Moffat - A GP who practices medicine from a weight inclusive, neurodiversity affirming lens, celebrating both diversity of bodies and of minds. In this episode, we are talking about how Molly moved away from recommending diets and weight loss to her patients, towards an anti-diet, weight-inclusive approach, focused on treating individuals with care and compassion. We get into what exactly medical anti-fat bias is and why it's so harmful, and she has some really lovely suggestions for how to talk to patients who come in with the idea that they have to lose weight for medical reasons. Find out more about Molly’s work here.Follow Laura on Instagram here.Subscribe to Laura’s newsletter here.Enrol in the Raising Embodied Eaters course here.Here’s the transcript in full:INTRO:Molly: Fat folk don't go and see their doctor when they need to. And you know, I don't need to explain why that is a concern. That is a concern. It means that diagnoses are missed, diagnoses are made late, and it absolutely contributes to stress, mental health, physical health and health inequity in an already marginalised group of people.Laura: Hey, and welcome to the Can I Have Another Snack? podcast, where we talk all about appetite, bodies and identity, especially through the lens of parenting. I'm Laura Thomas, I'm an anti diet registered nutritionist, and I also write the Can I Have Another Snack? newsletter. Today I'm talking to Dr. Molly Moffat. Molly is a GP with a special interest in learning disability and autism. She practices medicine from a weight inclusive, neurodiversity affirming lens, celebrating both diversity of bodies and of minds. She's neurodivergent herself and has three children. In this episode, Molly and I are talking about how she moved away from recommending diets and weight loss to her patients towards an anti diet, weight inclusive approach, focused on treating individuals with care and compassion. We get into what exactly medical anti-fat bias is and why it's so harmful, and she has some really lovely suggestions for how to talk to patients who come in with the idea that they have to lose weight for medical reasons. I really loved talking to Molly and I think you're going to enjoy this episode.But before we get to today's conversation, I want to tell you real quick about the benefits of becoming a paid subscriber to the Can I Have Another Snack? newsletter and community. Now, I know we're not used to having to pay for content on the internet. and why would you pay for something where 85% of the content is free anyway?Well, because without paying supporters, this work just wouldn't be possible. None of the newsletter, not the podcast. As well as supporting me in the time it takes to research, interview contributors, and write articles, your support goes towards paying guests for their time and their labour, as well as a podcast and a newsletter editor, so it's a whole team effort.You also help me keep the space ad and sponsor free, so I don't have to sell out to advertisers or exploit my kid for freebies. Plus, keeping the community closed to paying subscribers only means that we keep the trolls and the fatphobes out. I recently asked the CIHAS community why they support the newsletter, and this is what one reader had to say:“I'm a mum of one fairly adventurous, self proclaimed vegetarian and one theoretical omnivore. The latter survives almost exclusively on added sugar and butter, but mostly sugar. I consumed all the picky eating advice, some of it really well meaning and pretty mellow, but by seven years in, I was more frustrated, confused, and full of self doubt than ever.Enter CIHAS. The no nonsense, cut through the bullshit, science backed content is exceptional. The content about sugar is especially helpful to me, and the anti diet lens is an antidote to my extremely anti fat/diet culture conditioning. And as an American, the British references are just an added bonus. To say your work is actively changing my life is not an understatement. Thank you.”Well, thank you to the reader who sent that really lovely review. Becoming a paid subscriber is a fiver a month or £50 for the year. And you get loads of cool perks as well as just my undying gratitude for supporting my work. Head to laurathomas.substack.com to subscribe now.  All right, team, here's my conversation with Dr. Molly Moffatt. MAIN EPISODE:Hey Molly, can you start by telling us a little bit about you and the work that you do? Molly: Sure, yes. So I'm a GP, although I actually only do one day of general practice at the moment. I have a special interest in learning disability and autism. I've been working in that field for a few years, and I've recently started working in paediatrics, doing some neurodevelopmental assessments, and I also do some teaching for medical students. The reason I'm here is because I do my very best to practice in a weight inclusive manner, so I'm not worried about fat bodies, but I'm really worried about the way fat bodies are treated, particularly when they're trying to seek healthcare.Laura: Yeah, that's what you're here to talk about today, but I feel like we could probably have a whole other conversation about neurodivergence and feeding differences and all of that stuff, but I will try and rein myself in because, yeah, like you said, I really wanted to talk to you about how fat bodies are perceived and how they're treated in medical settings.So I'm wondering if you could kind of take us on a bit of a journey with you. Can you set the scene for us? You're a medic, straight out of training, going into your GP specialisation. At that point, what do you believe to be true about the relationship between weight and health?Molly: Okay. So I mean, all of my medical school teaching, all of my junior doctor training, and my GP training was absolutely based in this weight normative approach.So the idea that weight was a marker of health, and that we should be pursuing weight management for our fat patients. And there was never any discussion around where that came from. So, you know, it was just stated as a fact that ‘ob*sity’ came with all of these comorbidities and put people at increased risk of X, Y, and Z.And, like I say, I never remember – and I'm really confident it didn't happen – any discussion around where the evidence behind those statements came from, and the fact that actually...it was really complex and that maybe there were some other factors at play that cause that association between body size and certain diseases.And I also never remember any conversation about weight stigma and the impact that that can have on people's health.Laura: Okay. Well, there's so much that I could kind of, like, tease out of what you just said there, but I think the sort of headline for me is just how this information was presented to you as complete certainty. I think if I'm kind of reading between the lines, or what I've even learned in my own training, that as weight goes up, the worse the health outcomes, right? Like in this linear sort of fashion. It sounds as though you learned something similar, but the evidence behind that was never really presented or unpacked or challenged in any way.And that's the part that I find most, like, terrifying because as medics you should be, like, challenging the evidence and not just, like, swallowing it whole and, you know, swallowing information whole and not kind of having any critical thought around it.Molly: I know, I agree. And of course there were things that we critically appraised and we were taught how to critically appraise, but the world of ‘ob*sity’ was just something that was presented as a fact.And I feel so sad that I kind of missed out on all of those years of a greater understanding of how complex it was.Laura: You also mentioned weight stigma, which we'll come back to in a second, but coming back to this idea of how complex it is. So what were some of those messages that you received that oversimplified the relationship between weight and health?You know, I've kind of mentioned this idea that as weight goes up, that health invariably goes down. I'm wondering what other kinds of things that you picked up on that sort of reinforced those ideas.Molly: Yeah, I mean, absolutely kind of ‘eat less and move more’ was something that we spouted. And, you know, when we were kind of practicing role play scenarios, one of the tick boxes was ‘give lifestyle advice’.Part of that was, you know, absolutely eat less and move more. And, you know, assumptions around a person's lifestyle and diet again was very much part of that message. That people were fat because they didn't exercise and they ate too much.Laura: And then they also lie to you, right, about how much they've eaten?That's…at least, that's the thread that we got in nutrition training, is that people who are higher weight, they're almost always lying about their dietary intake. And so you are already…I mean, think about how problematic that is, that you're already going in with the assumption that this person is lying to you about, you know, their lived experience, like, what does that do from the perspective of forming any kind of therapeutic relationship to go in with that understanding and assumption?Molly: Yeah, no, I agree entirely and, you know, let's think about when people are presenting to a healthcare setting, they're generally a bit nervous and anxious and feeling quite vulnerable and they are essentially quite powerless in that situation. And then imagine that they're also giving you information and telling you about their lifestyle and that's being doubted. It's horrible, isn't it?Laura: Yeah, it's really, really messed up when you slow it down and think about it. I'm wondering if there were any particular moments or specific patients that you remember that started to change that understanding a bit for you? That kind of threw a kink in that really simple narrative of ‘weight equals health’, and ‘calories in equals calories out’ and you know, we just need to go on a diet and then everyone will be thin?Molly: Yeah, I mean, my path towards kind of health at every size was quite convoluted. And actually it began with an interest in lifestyle medicine. So I was feeling quite…Laura: Oh, a detour into lifestyle medicine! Okay. The plot thickens.Molly: Yeah, the plot thickens. Absolutely. So. You know, I was feeling quite demoralised by the fact I was seeing a lot of chronic disease and that people were not getting any better and they were coming back to see me and I was giving them lots of medications and, you know, often those medications would come with fairly significant side effects. And so I guess what lifestyle medicine offered me, or what I thought it offered me, was the opportunity to really get to the bottom of those problems without the need for medication and the kind of idea that prevention was better than cure.And it appealed to me from a holistic perspective, you know, this was an opportunity to kind of see the person as a whole, rather than just focusing on an individual symptom. So I was actually really excited and really motivated. But what I found with time was that, first of all, I became more uncomfortable with the dynamic that was being played out, which was me as this middle class professional who carried a significant amount of privilege telling people how to live their lives that with time felt more icky.And also that people weren't able to do all the things we were discussing, or if they did do…follow the advice that I was giving them, it wasn't really making them feel any better because, hey, you know, there are these things called social determinants of health, which actually great…you know, carry a greater significance than personal behaviours.Laura: I'm just wondering for people who maybe aren't familiar with like, the world of lifestyle medicine, if you could say a little bit more about that and kind of the type of advice that you were giving people, like when you say lifestyle advice, what exactly does that mean? And I understand it's like a whole range of things, but yeah, I'm curious to hear how you applied that in your practice.Molly: So, I mean, it was looking at kind of core areas. Those core areas were: sleep, stress management, nutrition, and exercise and, you know, within the nutrition arm, I'm really sad to say that weight loss played a part of that. And, you know, whilst I tried to make that as individualised as possible to the person in front of me, inherently, there is an element of elitism really with lifestyle advice, I feel that, again, just didn't really quite sit right with me. And I actually found myself feeling a bit irritated. If I'm honest, I was feeling irritated that people weren't doing what I was asking. And luckily I had the insight to acknowledge that, you know, that was a me problem, not a them problem.What I realised was that I wasn't really irritated with them. I was just really frustrated that, you know, here was what I thought was this chance to really make people's lives better. And actually it wasn't having the impact that I thought it would.Laura: It's almost as though…and this is totally my perspective and my, I think, a little bit of prejudice against lifestyle medicine.But there…it’s kind of this underlying assumption that people need you to tell them what to do because they don't know any better.Molly: Yeah, they don't know. Oh, it's so patronising. Laura: Yeah. And it's like a kind of a knowledge deficit. Molly: Absolutely. Laura: When most people, they do understand the importance of sleep and they do understand, like, it's helpful to, like, move their bodies in some way and to eat some vegetables.Molly: Absolutely. That rings true so much with me. You know, I hear these conversations where people are talking about healthy weight management and you know, the suggestions are, well, ‘let's teach people how to cook’. And I just think, oh, for goodness sake. You know, it's so patronising to assume that people don't know how to cook and that you're kind of…it's this kind of saviour complex that, well, let's teach them how to cook because they don't know that and therefore their life's going to be okay.They do know how to cook, but what if they've, you know, got three jobs because they need to work three jobs in order to pay the bills? They don't have time to cook.Laura: What if they just don't like…because they've got their own cultural background, they cook food in a very different way than how you cook food or like there's a whole number of reasons why like that might just not only fall flat but It could be problematic for some people. You know, especially if they're like, well, ‘my doctor is telling me I need to do this, but this doesn't really align with either my values or you know, what I'm able to access or have time for the competing messages that I'm getting from within my family’ or whatever it might be.So there's a lot of idealisation I think that goes on in the lifestyle medicine community and not a deep enough understanding of social determinants of health, like you said.Molly: I think that's the big, big part that's missing in lifestyle medicine and the recognition…recognition of the social determinants of health.Laura: Absolutely. And even just like the understanding that even if everybody did eat whatever Rangan Chatterjee is spouting off that we should eat, it doesn't mean that our health will all kind of play out along the same lines. So we were going through your journey.Molly: Yeah, so I was talking about lifestyle medicine and feeling just a bit uncomfortable with the whole thing.And of course at that time I was nurturing a special interest in neurodiversity, kind of recognising my own neurodivergence and my children's neurodivergence. And so eating disorders were kind of very much on my radar. And so intuitively I just didn't like the idea of creating any kind of fear or anxiety around food that just felt wrong.And, you know, that's what we were doing when we were talking about nutrition, the world of nutrition is also extremely confusing. And it was confusing for me. You know, you have all these people giving really compelling arguments as to why their diet is the best. And they're able to give you all this evidence that backs up their claims.But the kind of general theme, yes, is that we are creating this fear and anxiety around, often, whole groups of food.Laura: I mean, wow. There's so much that we could say even about that. Like I got a message from a parent the other day who was like, I feel like I need to have a degree in nutrition to feed my child.I was just like, yeah, that's how fucking convoluted we have made nutrition with all the kind of competing expert voices who are shouting about, you know, their diet as being the best diet and even like among amongst paediatric feeding professionals and, well, just feediatric…did I just invent a new word?! Paediatric dieticians and nutritionists, there's, you know, there's a right and a wrong way.And like you say, it really creates a lot of fear and anxiety about messing up. And it plays into our fears about not being a good enough parent. And yeah, it really, like, tugs on a lot of different parts of us. Where did it go from there then once you had this kind of recognition of like, well, I don't want to be adding fuel to the fire of eating disorders, disordered eating and making food scary for, you know…I'm thinking about patients of yours that might be neurodivergent where food might already be really scary.Where did it go from there?Molly: Where it went from there is that I went on maternity leave.Laura: Get out of there!Molly: Yeah, exactly. So I went on maternity leave with this kind of feeling of disconnect and that something wasn't right and I needed to do something. And of course maternity leave provided me with the opportunity to listen to lots of podcasts and read lots of things while sat feeding a baby. So that's how I actually stumbled across health at every size. You know, the kind of the parenting path that I've chosen to take meant that I was already aware of, you know, division of responsibility and intuitive eating and kind of food neutrality and body neutrality. So I was already, already aware of those. And, you know, I was…again, intuitively the idea of the language that I was using around food and bodies with my children was very important.So I think I actually listened to a podcast. I think it might have been the Full Blooms podcast that I listened to. And I think was being interviewed on that. And that was the first time I heard the words kind of anti diet and health at every size. And yeah, when I have a special interest, I really have a special interest. So, you know, 158 podcasts later, um, yeah, there I was. And, you know, there I was in this state of…a combination of so many feelings of kind of frustration, guilt, sadness, anger, disbelief. Yeah, you know, I kind of had this very strong sense of justice and feel things very deeply and it…I found it very consuming to begin with. This feeling that I'd been getting it wrong and why are more people not talking about this? Why is this not more mainstream? And really, people should be talking about this. And I wanted to tell everybody I knew about this because this is so important.Laura: I've heard a similar version of that story from not just other medical professionals, but also clients of mine who are like, why, why isn't everyone talking about this?And they want to kind of. become these little social justice warriors and really just, like, shout it from the rooftops. But what I really appreciated, Molly, there, was just you talking about all the complexity of the feelings that came up for you, because I think oftentimes, particularly if you're in the medical profession or any kind of allied health profession, because you're in that caring profession, your automatic line of thinking is often, wow, I've caused so much harm.And, and you feel an immense amount of guilt for continuing to prescribe diets when you're learning that diets don't work and you think about all the encounters you've had with patients that might have inadvertently increased their experiences of stigma and harm. And again, we'll come to talk about that more in a bit.I suppose my point is really that…of course you're going to feel that way and that doesn't have to be where it ends being kind of stuck with those feelings of guilt. And so hopefully there was also like a glimmer of hope in there as well? Molly: Oh gosh, yes. Laura: Well, I'm wondering as well, because it sounds like you were quite disenchanted before you went on maternity leave. So did this feel like, okay, this is something that…this is a missing piece of the puzzle for me, for my practice going forward?Molly: Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. And I have complete conviction about it. And I did at the time and I still have now, you know, this is absolutely the way I want to practice. And I do have hope.And I do think that in 20 years time, maybe even 10 years time, we are going to change the way we look at weight and weight management, well, weight management, you know, will not be a thing.Laura: Just abolish weight management. Molly: Yeah, absolutely. Laura: You've used the term health at every size and I'm wondering if you could just give a brief kind of like, explainer of what health at every size is for people who haven't encountered it before. Or weight inclusive healthcare, you know, like whatever feels more comfortable for you.Molly: Yeah, I mean, I guess let's talk about the kind of weight-inclusive, the weight inclusive approach, which is probably what I feel kind of most comfortable with. Laura: Same. Molly: Yeah. So the idea that weight isn't a marker of health, and that people of any size deserve good quality, compassionate, equal access to healthcare, that weight loss isn't possible for most people, and that actually trying to achieve weight loss brings with it lots of concerning things like, a, you know, problematic relationship with food, risk for eating disorders, and weight cycling, so weight going up and down, which again is bad for us, along with stress, and again, stress is not good for us.Laura: Yeah, so there's, there's a lot to even think about within there, but I think that even that first idea is really radical and it shouldn't be, right? That first idea of like, people of all sizes deserve equal access to healthcare and it should all be delivered with compassion and care. And I think most of us, at least those of us who have thin privilege, for us that's more or less a given.Although, you know, I've had plenty of shady encounters with doctors, but in general, you know, I am treated well, whereas, and certainly stories I've heard from clients and, you know, fat activists and people online is that that is…and that's, this is what bears out in the evidence as well, is that that is not guaranteed.That people of a higher body weight can walk into a GP surgery, maybe they're seeking care for, I don't know, a sore throat or a pain in their hand. And to call back to your earlier point about how you have to make these, like, lifestyle recommendations. Patients who are of a higher weight, regardless of what they present for, are almost often given a prescription for weight loss, or they might even be handed a coupon for Slimming World, right?Like the NHS partners with Slimming World too, and some other weight loss companies. But even if that's not what that person came in for, or even if that person said in no uncertain terms, I do not want to talk about weight loss. weight. That's not what I'm here for. I don't want to diet. The doctor generally won’t respect that boundary. Um, yeah.Molly: And what's so sad is that I see patients preempting that. So I have patients that come to me who will say, ‘I know I need to lose weight’, or ‘I know I'm a bigger girl’, you know, it's almost like…because they are so anticipating me saying it and so nervous about that conversation, that they kind of want to say it, so it's out the way.Laura: Yeah. What do you think that's about? What do you think's going on there?Molly: Well, I mean, I think they're feeling vulnerable and anxious. And as I said, they are so used to their doctor saying something about their size that it's almost like they kind of just want to get it out of the way. If I say it, then they won't say it.Laura: Yeah, almost like a defence, it sounds like.Molly: Yeah, absolutely. And it, you know, it's so sad.Laura: And how do you approach that with a patient then if they, if they start a consultation off like that, I'm kind of jumping ahead of myself here a little bit, but thinking about, you know, how from this new perspective of, of being a weight inclusive doctor, do you approach that conversation and start to kind of, you know, take them on a, in a slightly different direction than, than they might have been accustomed to.Molly: So it's not easy and it's something that I'm still kind of trying to work out. And of course, you know, bearing in mind, I have 10-15 minutes with these people. And of course, it's not like they come to me and they say, Oh, you know, tell me what you think about my weight, or do you think I need to lose weight?They come to me with the assumption that I believe they should lose weight, and they, you know, usually they will come about something else like, you know, a chest infection or a sore throat, and their weight will... come up as part of that consultation. You know, that kind of respectful two way dialogue is a really important part for me of the weight inclusive approach.And, you know, in the same way that I feel very strongly that a weight centric consultation is horrible because it's that kind of didactic, this is what you must do. Similarly, you know, me just telling somebody, you don't need to lose weight equally wouldn't sit right with me. And of course, I'm very hyper aware in that scenario of my own thin privilege and how insensitive of me it would be to just kind of, you know, dismiss them and say, you don't need to worry about your weight because that would be really kind of minimising their experience.And of course they have had to worry about their weight because their size has meant that they have faced many obstacles and horrible things happen to them and discrimination and so I think it's really important to kind of acknowledge that. So what I try and do is to actually apologise and say, I'm so sorry that anybody has made you feel that your body is flawed and needs fixing. I don't believe that. And I explain my background and I say, you know, I spent the last few years learning a lot about weight science and reflecting, and as a result of that learning, I now don't see weight as a marker of health and I don't recommend weight loss to my patients and I explain the reasons for that. Laura: Oh my God. I feel kind of emotional hearing you say that just because of just how powerful it would be, I mean, for anyone to hear that who's, you know, had concerns about their weight, but particularly for, for fat folks and, and like, I'm thinking specifically of, of a couple of clients of mine in the past, who've just had horrendous experiences with their GP, even when I have preemptively written to the GP saying, like: ‘this person has a history of disordered eating and we're not pursuing intentional weight loss for these reasons. Here's all this science that you can read to say why this isn't a good idea’, and then still had, you know, yeah, just horrendous experiences.  And so yeah, just to have a GP who is so compassionate and understanding. First of all, you're signalling that you're a safe person to them. And secondly, you're signalling that you can come and talk to me about this stuff. Like, even if they're not there about their weight, they want to get their antibiotics for their chest infection and just get out of there. But in the future, if that comes up, they know that they can come to you and approach you. And it's just, it feels like a really powerful thing to me.Molly: People do cry, actually. I've had a few people cry when I've said that.Laura: I bet they do. Yeah. I hope that any other GPs listening are frantically taking notes at this point of a little, a little spiel that they can say to their clients. And, and has that gone on to open up any other conversations with patients? Or kind of, you say that people get emotional, but what besides that is the response?Molly: like I say, emotional that that's not something they've ever heard anybody say before. And I guess kind of relief. I mean, at the same time, you know, I fully recognise that they will have had a lifetime of being told different things. So, you know, it will take a lot of time for them to completely change their thinking. But yeah, people do come back and have come back to speak to me about it.And, you know, normally what I say is, how would you feel about us instead thinking about certain health behaviours and how we can talk about those, but without weight loss being the goal? And I, I give them that to kind of think about really.Laura: And how do you make it so that that doesn't end up feeling like an earlier lifestyle medicine conversation?Molly: And I'm very conscious of that too. And I guess I make sure that I point out that the reason I don't want weight loss to be the goal is because when weight loss does become the goal, actually those behaviours... become quite unhealthy. As I said, I'm not quite sure I've got it right just yet. I'm constantly trying to think in my head how I can script these things in a way that does mean that people are going to come back to see me to talk about it because I want to talk to everybody about it and I want them to come back and see me, and like you say, for them to feel safe.Laura: Yeah. And I mean, fundamentally your job is to help people care for themselves and to offer them care. So yeah, you, you also can't be sort of, you can't completely ignore, you know, health promoting behaviours, but I suppose like, at least for me, it's eliciting from the individual what is important to them and what feels doable for them.So it's like really basic motivational interviewing stuff. Yeah. Yeah. How can we work from where you already are. And again, it speaks to that piece that a lot of times people already know the things that they need to do. And so it's just supporting them with the changes that they already want to make or not make and holding space for that as well. And offering them the medication if that's actually what they need.Molly:  And there being no shame around that, you know? Laura: Absolutely. Yeah. Wow. It's like a whole new way of doing medicine. So we've talked about a little bit around this concept of weight stigma, because there's a sort of very particular experience of weight stigma that happens in medical settings, or we could also use the words anti fatness to, I think, better describe weight stigma.And yeah, just a sort of side note, weight stigma tends to be a very, like, neutered term that is used in academia, whereas I think in, in critical fat studies and, and in fat liberation spaces, they're more and more using the word anti-fat bias, which really speaks to what that is. Can you explain a little bit more of what that means and how it plays out in a medical setting and how it is so harmful and damaging for people's health?Molly: Yeah. I mean, what we're referring to there is, as you say, the anti-fat bias that people who work in healthcare carry. So meaning a preference to thin bodies and kind of prejudice towards fat bodies. And that's experienced by fat people as weight stigma, that's really, really concerning and it can present in many ways, but it's, let's give you some examples of what that can look like in a GP surgery.So that can look like a fat person coming to see their GP and, as you said earlier, having every symptom put down to their weight, weight loss being the answer for everything. It can mean a fat person losing weight and that weight loss being celebrated, rather than that weight loss being considered the red flag that it should be and being investigated correctly. It can look like there not being the right equipment available, so therefore the necessary examination doesn't take place, the right investigations don't take place. It can look like the treatment options that are available for thin people not being available or accessible to fat people. And, you know, all of this means that fat folk don't go and see their doctor when they need to.And, you know, I don't need to explain why that is a concern. That is a concern. It means that diagnoses are missed, diagnoses are made late and it absolutely contributes to stress. Mental health, physical health, and health inequity in an already marginalized group of people. I find it so concerning.Laura: When you list it all out like that, it just puts it into perspective how healthcare for...fat people is anything but care. It's anything but health. It's, yeah, prejudice, and marginalisation and, yeah, violence. I think a lot of times. Yeah. Because it can kind of, I was just thinking of another example of what people have told me that they've had to go for like two or three oral glucose tolerance tests in pregnancy, because their doctors have, are just baffled that these people aren't…Molly: Couldn't possibly be diabetic…Laura: Couldn't possibly be diabetic... Because there's an assumption, I think made about what fat people's health should be. Molly: Absolutely. Laura: You know, I want to caveat this whole conversation by saying that nobody owes anyone health and yeah, health is, is morally neutral, right? Molly: Absolutely. Yeah. Laura: But there is a very pervasive idea that fat people cannot also have, you know, markers that we would traditionally consider to be within normal range or are healthy by virtue of the fact that they're fat. But I think what the evidence shows us over and over again, when we really dig through it, is that independent of your body size, you can have markers of health. Like, cardio respiratory health, low cholesterol, or like within the healthy range, not have type 2 diabetes, not have high blood pressure. But I think the assumption that I hear from medical colleagues is that people will invariably have those things if they're a higher weight.Molly: Yeah. And you know, when we think about children, I see that, that we have a child who, in terms of their kind of metabolic health markers is healthy. And yet because they are a certain weight that's pathologised and they are treated as if they are a pathology, whereas actually there is nothing wrong with them when you look at their blood results and their blood pressure.Laura: Yeah, because I did want to ask you a little bit about, about kids, if that's okay.I realize it's a bit of a detour, but I'm, I'm curious to hear if you were the parent of that child that you mentioned who might be a higher body weight, but you know, otherwise there's nothing there to worry about. Or even if there is something to worry about, you know, do you have any advice for parents of how to navigate health care and, you know, have these approach these conversations with their GP, you know, to say, like, ‘I don't want to focus on their weight. What else can we do to support this child?’Molly: Yeah, I mean, I think that's what you've just said is a really good way of framing it. Laura: I just realised I just answered my own question!Molly: And, you know, I really, really feel for parents in this situation because it must be such a horrible confrontation. To be faced with health care professionals who are telling you that you need to do something about your child's weight, and yet you have a child in front of you and you're worried about how they feel about their body, how they feel about themselves. And I guess, you know, the sad thing is that many parents do believe what a doctor says to them, and so would put their child on a diet, which just horrifies me and breaks my heart of what we're doing to children when we do that. But yeah, I mean, I think as you posed it perfectly, you know…’I'm happy to talk about health behaviours, but I'm not happy to focus on my child's weight and the reasons for that are that I don't want my child to develop an eating disorder and my child's relationship with their body and food is really important to me.’Laura: That's a really brave thing, a really brave thing to have to do as a parent. I mean, I know trying to like stand up to…I remember declining to be weighed at my booking appointment for the maternity pathway, and the nurse was just so aggressive with me. She was just like, ‘computer says no’. And I was like, but I don't have to do this. But I was in such a like, fragile state. Molly: Of course. Of course. Yeah. Laura: Trying to push back on a healthcare professional when they're not receptive to it. And also, like, there's some weird stuff there, but like, if you decline a test, which is basically what I did decline, they should respect that. And they didn't. So that's like a whole other thing. But my point is that pushing back on a, on a healthcare, an authoritative, an authoritative healthcare provider is really, really challenging.So I think to step into that space as a parent is, it's really hard.Molly: Really, really hard. Absolutely. I do not underestimate that at all. You know, I recently got told that I shouldn't be breastfeeding my two and a half year old and. You know, I approached that situation as a doctor with privilege, and I found that very difficult.Laura: Oh, so a healthcare professional told you?Molly: Yeah, yeah. What? That it currently wasn't offering any nutritional value. And so, yeah, I mean, you know, I'm not trying to compare that to how it must feel as a parent of a fat child, but, uh, you know, I understand that. Yeah. Confronting somebody in a position of authority is extremely, extremely difficult.And I wish people didn't have to have those conversations.Laura: Well, I hope you told them where to shove it with, with their comments about feeding. Molly: I pulled down my top and latched them. Laura: Love it. Okay. Well. Yes, as a still feeding a preschooler, I totally, totally respect your decision to, to keep feeding. And yes, also if you have any tips for how the fuck to get them to self-wean…! Molly: No, sadly not, no! Laura: Uh, he'll stop one day, I keep telling myself. We were just talking a bit about how anti fatness presents itself in the medical setting and how people are less likely to have their experiences believed, they are less likely to be offered the follow up…what's the word, the medical word, I'm struggling to find the medical word, like the assessments and…Molly: Investigations? Laura: Thank you, that they, they might need. Weight loss is often celebrated when it's a red flag for, you know, if it was a thin person, it would be definitely a red flag, but that just doesn't register. There's, I say ‘avoidance’ kind of in quotation marks, avoidance of healthcare and kind of ‘noncompliance’ again in inverted commas because they are such loaded problematic terms, because they put the blame on the individual instead of on the medical professional who is often perpetrating violence against that person. And so, yeah, I just want to kind of give that caveat. Yeah. And it can encourage…or it can mean that people die. Like it's, it's often a case of life, life or death because people understandably don't want to go see their GP.There's a really powerful piece, I'm not sure Molly, if you've read it, by Marquisele Mercedes in Pipewrench Magazine, where she's talking about not just the intersection of anti-fatness and medical care, but also anti-blackness because there's a another layer here when someone is racialised about assumptions made about like their pain threshold and, and tolerance. And it's a really eye-opening read if you haven't already read it. So I'm gonna link to that in the show notes just to give people like more, yeah, a kind of deeper understanding of some of these issues. I'm curious to hear, since you've adopted more of a white inclusive approach, if you've had any pushback from your colleagues and if you have, how do you handle that?Molly: So actually, I haven't. Not that I know about, not that anybody has spoken to me about, and actually, I...Laura: You're just keeping it under your hat because you're just alone in that GP room. You don't have to, like, deal with other doctors on a ward.Molly: I mean, that does help, absolutely, that I do have a lot of autonomy. And yes, I'm in my room and I see my patients. I did do a presentation to my colleagues about weight inclusive care, which I was really nervous about. And isn't that funny? Because... You know, I was thinking about the fact I was far more nervous doing that than I would be doing other presentations and, you know, these days I do a fair amount of presenting, and I kind of unpicked that. I thought, let's think about the crux of what I'm saying here and the crux of what I'm saying here is, you know, the point I made earlier that people of all sizes deserve compassionate, good, equal access to health care, which really, I would hope that most, yeah, doctors are on board with, members of the caring profession would be behind.But yeah, so the presentation went well and, you know, people came to speak to me afterwards and said, it kind of made them think, and they'd be really interested in knowing a little bit more. So that was positive. I mean, as GPs, the idea that weight loss isn't sustainable is something that we see day in, day out. And so I don't think that's too difficult for GPs to get behind. Laura: Okay. And just to kind of expand on that point a little bit, because I know we've, we've talked around this idea that diets don't work. And again, I'll link to a piece that I wrote about the diet cycle and, and this sort of why diets don't work, but just to give like a really quick overview of what the weight science literature tells us is essentially there are – and this is simplifying things, and Molly, feel free to jump in and like expand on anything I'm saying, but what happens when we go on a diet is sort of twofold. First of all, so we reduce the amount of food that we're consuming, right? That's the fundamental premise of any diet. They all work the same way, right? ‘Work’ initially, at least initially. So you might initially see a little bit of. of weight loss, but then your body starts responding to that by dialling up your hunger and appetite hormones, because what it's trying to do is defend your genetically determined set point weight, right?This blueprint that we have for…I like to think of it as a kind of comfortable zone that our bodies will, like, prefer to be in because there's usually always some fluctuation within that, right? Like our weight just kind of goes up and down on its own through various, you know, stages of life. But overall it likes to stay within a window, shall we say.If we're trying to push it down below that comfortable window, our body will respond by amping up hunger and appetite hormones to drive up our appetite, to get us up off of our asses to go and find some food, right? Like it's an evolutionary mechanism. So that's why you kind of end up diving headfirst into a bread basket or, you know, I always say like you find yourself elbow deep in a tube of Pringles if you're, if you're on a diet, like that, that's what can happen. And it's because there are these biological mechanisms driving that. If for some reason you are able to kind of ride that out, you maybe develop some unhealthy coping mechanisms to sort of essentially ignore your hunger, then what can happen is that your body has another mechanism to try and make up for that, which is to slow down your metabolism. Right, so it can kind of…either you can get more food to defend your set point weight, or all the functions in your body can sort of slow down. It often starts with what are considered non essential functions, like reproduction. So you might notice that you're, if you're menstruating, that your period becomes irregular, your hair might kind of become less thick, your nails might get, I mean, your skin might get a bit dull, but then because your body can't sort of say, okay, turn off this system, but leave all the other ones on, you'll notice it kind of like playing out in, in other areas.So somewhere that I see kind of play out a lot is digestion, which I think we can all agree is an essential function, but you start to notice, you might notice it as like IBS type symptoms, constipation, bloating, diarrhoea, all of these things can be a function of not having enough to eat. So, as your metabolism is slowing down, you will obviously get this plateau in weight loss or your weight might start to increase or you could have both things happening kind of simultaneously where your metabolism is dialling down and then at the same time your hunger hormones are dialling up so you have what I call ‘the fuck it effect’ where you know it's like the floodgates open and you're just raiding the fridge. And it's kind of funny but also it's a really distressing experience for people sometimes, if you don't understand what's going on, which is…it's your primal biological urge to eat is kind of overtaking you and you were just trying to meet your needs however you want, but it can feel really chaotic and out of control and oftentimes we label it as like food addiction or comfort eating sometimes, or like, yeah, we pathologise it somehow, even when that's not really what's going on.So that was…more of a detour than I wanted to go on, but I thought it was important to explain a little bit of the mechanics as to why diets don't work. Did you have anything you wanted to add to that, Molly?Molly: No, I think you have summarised that perfectly. My headline would be, bodies are very clever, don't underestimate them.Laura: Absolutely. Yeah, that is a way better way of putting it. But so, medical colleagues, they don't have too much difficulty understanding or kind of appreciating that weight loss is not sustainable. So they see that day to day in their practice. So they…it's an easy sell? Molly: Yes, it's an easy sell. Exactly. Laura: When you kind of go back and fill in, like, some of the stuff that probably should have been taught in medical school, but for whatever reason wasn't…I say probably should have been taught. I mean, definitely should have been taught in medical school, but wasn't. What other kinds of, like, questions or what things did you come up against when having these conversations with colleagues?Molly: So yeah, that is an easy sell. The harder sell is around the idea that, well, ‘ob*sity’ being a thing and, you know, it's associated co-morbidities. Also, what is tricky…so even after I'd kind of finished the talk and had a conversation about it, the conversation turned to, but we do need to think about how safe it is to refer somebody with a BMI of over 30 for any replacement.So, you know, the kind of idea that the research that is at the core of, you know, our approaches and the weight centric approach is full of bias and quite frankly, fat phobia. And that's when I start to feel very conspiratorial, which I hate.Laura: I know exactly what you mean. Yeah.Molly: But I think it's a, you know, it's a really important part of the puzzle, and people really need to appreciate that, that actually research, you know, I think Fiona Willer described it as “a persuasive piece of writing”, which I think's a really important way to look at it, because that's what, you know, research really is. And that, you know, people are generally trying to prove a point when they start a piece of research. And because we live in this inherently fat phobic society, people are generally trying to prove that fat is bad.Laura: And so what you're saying is there, and there's a great paper that explores this, there's a BMJ paper that explores all the underlying assumptions in weight research, all these biases that Molly is describing.They filter through into the research that we get. So it becomes this like, circular, like, self fulfilling kind of thing, where we are looking for problems with higher weight and worse health outcomes. So we find them, right? Like it becomes this yeah, very… Molly: Confirmation bias. Laura: Exactly. That's, that's the right word I was looking for.So I'll link to a couple of papers that for anyone, for like medical students or even nutrition, any allied health professionals who are interested in learning more about this, because it's a lot to kind of take in. And we're, I feel like just getting to the tip of the iceberg here. Thank you for reading Can I Have Another Snack?. This post is public so feel free to share it.Molly: And I guess the other point to make about the research as well that people really need to appreciate is that it's, you know, I've said before, but it's really complex.And so, you know, let's take the example of post operative complications of a knee replacement. And by the way, I haven't really done a deep dive on this, so….I'm just kind of using it as an example rather than it being something I know a lot about, but, you know, let's imagine that there is an increased association between post operative complications in somebody with a high BMI after a knee replacement.Is that as simple as a person's fat and therefore they're going to be at risk of post operative complications, or is it that they are really stressed in a hospital because they know that they're going to be made to feel bad about their body size? Is it that they didn't have the right equipment available to carry out the operation or to, you know, anesthetise that person? Is it that anti fat bias has played a part in the treatment that they've received post operatively? We really, really need to be digging deeper and looking at the complexities around these kind of headlines that form the part of, yeah, our management.Laura: So yeah, what you, what you're talking about there is the sort of potential confounding variables that don't get measured for, that help explain the relationship between X and Y.Yeah. But we just…we see the X and the Y and we don't see all the – this is a terrible analogy – all the other letters, but we're looking for cause and effect, but we're not actually looking at all the other complicating factors that might result in that outcome. I think. Because our, like, primal monkey brains love simple explanations for things, right? They don't want things to be complicated, but they are way more complicated than they first seem. So, last thing I want to ask you about is...Whether you have any advice for medical students or even physicians who are bumping up against anti fat bias, either in their training or with their colleagues?Molly: Well, I guess I really hope there are people in the medical profession listening to this who do share our beliefs and, you know, I'd love to hear from you because solidarity is really important. You know, it can feel quite lonely. I guess my advice would be to kind of stick to your guns and hold on to those values and know that you are keeping people safe and you will mean that people feel able to come and see you who wouldn't otherwise have felt safe coming to see you. And that's really important. And you know, when I'm doubting myself or feeling a bit exhausted by swimming against the tide, what I tell myself is, well, let's think about the alternative. And the alternative is not something that I can entertain. In terms of conversations with colleagues, I mean, podcasts, I really find useful as a way of kind of signposting people to snippets of information and also talking about yourself. So, you know, people are more receptive if you kind of critique your own bias as opposed to critiquing theirs.Laura: Yeah, exactly.Molly: So, you know. A conversation like, you know, I'm thinking about a medical student sat in clinic with somebody saying something like, ‘Oh, I've been thinking about my own anti-fat bias, or I've been thinking about weight stigma and how I might be contributing to that and how that's something I'd really like to address’. You know, that kind of thing just plants that seed, doesn't it? And means that, whether they react perfectly in the moment may mean that that person then has to think about it themselves and reflects on it themselves and does a bit of reading.Laura: Mm hmm. Yeah, absolutely. And you can always, you know, if they are open to, to reading more, like, like I said, you could, I'll link to some papers that you could share with them doing a journal club around those papers or like you did, Molly, a presentation that can also be ways to open up conversations within a department or you know, a university setting or something like that, where you can all be kind of working through some of this stuff together, rather than sort of siloed on, on your own. Because I think it can feel really lonely if you're the only little salmon swimming upstream.Molly: It's really hard work, isn't it? Really hard work being the pariah.Laura: Yeah, absolutely. But I'm really grateful for everything that you're doing. And you know, even if we don't change anyone else's minds, just the fact that you're showing up for your patients the way that you are is so important. So yeah, thank you for that work. At the end of every episode, my guest and I share something that they have been snacking on. It could be anything you like, a show, a podcast, an actual little snack. So what have you been snacking on lately, Molly?Molly: So I have a television show that I've been watching that I'm actually able to share. I have a very specific criteria when it comes to television shows that I'm willing to watch because I'm such an empath that I can't bear watching anything that involves, you know, people being treated badly or humiliated or murdered, you know, anything like that. No, and it also has to be very relatable. I can't, my brain just cannot, you know, get into kind of wizardry and magicians and stuff. I have been watching Couples Therapy, which is a documentary on BBC iPlayer, which films couples going through therapy. And it's like reality TV, but without the vacuous….Laura: The drama. Yeah, okay.Molly: Yeah. And yeah, without the drama. So, I mean, there is drama, but it's a really kind of measured drama, and I just love watching the process. I love seeing the dynamic and seeing how it all pans out. I think the therapist is amazing. Oh. And it's fascinating. Laura: So these are real, these are real therapy sessions? They've not been staged?Molly: They've not. No. No.Laura: Oh wow. It's wild. It's real. I have no idea how they got that through any kind of ethics, but…Molly: Yeah. Yeah. Good point. But it's, but it's…Laura: I mean, it sounds interesting. Who doesn't want to listen in to other people's therapy sessions? Molly: Yeah. I mean, I didn't watch it thinking, oh gosh, I feel really bad that this person is doing this on didn't, it didn't feel like that. It actually felt really, you know, therapeutic.Laura: Like I did a documentary with BBC. a long time ago now and there was like a clinical psychologist on the support staff team so I figure that there has to be like someone…that person who's, yeah, just like making sure everything is contained and everyone is safe and yeah like, yeah, no one is, like, baring their soul on national TV who is gonna regret that they said those things. So that sounds really interesting. Okay, so my snack is sort of, I think, well, really related to what we have been talking about. So the book that I have been reading at the moment is called Sugar Rush: Science, Politics, and the Demonization of Fatness. It's by Karen Throsby, who is a sociologist and it is a bit more on the academic side, but it is so fascinating.Basically what she's done is a content analysis of like 500 odd different newspaper articles and books from about, I think just before the implementation of the sugar tax, or maybe when the sugar tax was being debated, all the way through to like 2020 with Boris Johnson's latest round of anti ‘ob*sity’ policy.She's just tracing kind of like the history of the sugar tax and the way that the media talks about it and some like key anti sugar figures and some of the, like, the rhetoric around sugar and how it has been kind of like socially constructed. And it's also linking it to the demonization of fatness as, yeah, the subtitle suggests.But what I found really interesting is just how she talks a lot about these ideas that are written into policy documents that are so kind of assertive and confident and definitive that are the similar things that you and I have been talking about in this podcast about the relationship between weight and health that are just in all of these policy documents are just like, like, given at face value and there's no further sort of exploration of the science and I'm only kind of the first couple of chapters, but I'm really enjoying it.It's really good. It appeals to my, like, super nerdy nutrition brain where I want to understand the trajectory of all of these policies and how they all kind of interlink and build on one another. And it also has a fair amount of Jamie Oliver bashing. So I'm here for that. So yeah, Sugar Rush by Karen Throsby. So I will link to Couple's Therapy. Is that the name of your show? Couple's Therapy on iPlayer and Sugar Rush in the show notes. All right, Molly, before I let you go, can you let everyone know where they can find out more about you and your work?Molly: So I am on Instagram as @antidietGP, um, similarly on Facebook as Anti Diet GP. Be great to see you there. Laura: All right, I will link to both of those in the show notes so people can come find you and yeah, let us know what you think of this episode and thank you so much again for your work, Molly. It was really good to talk to you. Molly: Oh, thank you.OUTRO:Laura: Thanks so much for listening to the Can I Have Another Snack? podcast. You can support the show by subscribing in your podcast player and leaving a rating and review. And if you want to support the show further and get full access to the Can I Have Another Snack? universe, you can become a paid subscriber.It's just £5 a month or £50 for the year. As well as getting tons of cool perks you help make this work sustainable and we couldn't do it without the support of paying subscribers. Head to laurathomas.substack.com to learn more and sign up today.  Can I Have Another Snack? is hosted by me, Laura Thomas. Our sound engineer is Lucy Dearlove. Fiona Bray formats and schedules all of our posts and makes sure that they're out on time every week. Our funky artwork is by Caitlin Preyser, and the music is by Jason Barkhouse. Thanks so much for listening. ICYMI last week: When Your Friend Announces They’re on a Diet… * Rapid Response: Why I don’t like ‘this food does a little/this food does a lot’* Dear Laura... How do I stop wishing for the past and accept myself now?* Bandit Standing on the Scales is Not Even the Worst Part of Bluey This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit laurathomas.substack.com/subscribe

In today’s CIHAS episode, I’m speaking to online personal trainer and performance nutritionist, Michael Ulloa. Michael is on a mission to make the fitness industry a more welcoming and accepting space for all, which is exactly what we dive into in this ‘sode. We are unpacking some toxic myths about exercise, Michael spills the beans on his feelings about Joe Wicks, and we discuss what really goes into professional fitness models’ photo shoots. Plus we answer loads of your questions like how to find a more joyful relationship with movement after a lifetime of using it as punishment for eating. Find out more about Michael’s work here.Follow his work on Instagram here.Follow Laura on Instagram here.Subscribe to Laura’s newsletter here.Enrol in the Raising Embodied Eaters course here.Here’s the transcript in full:INTRO:Michael: The way that we're being sold health and fitness just isn't sustainable or achievable in any way and then people blame themselves and feel worse and then therefore they're more likely to spend money on all these other programs repeatedly and it's just a vicious cycle that just doesn't ever end.Laura: Hey, and welcome to the Can I Have Another Snack? Podcast, where we talk about appetite, bodies, and identity, especially through the lens of parenting. I'm Laura Thomas. I'm an anti diet registered nutritionist, and I also write the Can I Have Another Snack? Newsletter. Today, I'm talking to Michael Ulloa.Michael is an online personal trainer and performance nutritionist who is on a mission to make the fitness industry a more welcoming and accepting space for all. In today's episode, Michael and I are shooting the shit about the fitness industry, unpacking some toxic myths about exercise, and answering loads of your questions: like how to find a more joyful relationship with movement after a lifetime of using it as punishment for eating.Some of you have been asking for more episodes on movement and fitness, so I think you're going to enjoy this conversation. We'll get to Michael in just a second, but first, I want to tell you real quick about the benefits of becoming a paid subscriber to the Can I Have Another Snack? Newsletter and community.For just £5 a month, or £50 a year, you get access to the extended CIHAS universe. That means exclusive weekly discussion threads, links and recommendations, you get commenting privileges and access to my monthly Dear Laura column, as well as the whole CIHAS archive and a few other sweet perks, but more than anything, you're supporting independent evidence based nutrition information free from diet culture and anti fatness. I can't do this work without the help of paying subscribers. So if you get something out of being here, then please consider upgrading your subscription today. And if you're still not convinced, then check out this recent review I received from a reader. They said: "Laura's podcast and newsletter are always thought provoking, filled with care and compassion, and a respite from one size fits all health and nutrition advice."So if that sounds good to you, then head to laurathomas.substack.com and become a paying subscriber today. Alright team, let's get to today's episode, here's Michael. MAIN EPISODE:All right, Michael, I need to know what the deal is. Because you're like one of maybe five PTs who isn't pushing aesthetic or weight loss goals on us.Has that always been your deal? Or is this more of an evolution for you? Michael: Yeah, it's definitely an evolution and it's funny you mentioned that because I get a lot of angry messages from personal trainers that don't think that my approach is right, which is always quite funny to me. I don't know, it's, I definitely, when I first started off in the fitness industry... I've been a personal trainer now for nearly 10 years.And in terms of personal training, that kind of makes you a bit of a veteran because a lot of trainers are quite short lived on average. When I first started off, I definitely did have your typical, like, mainstream slightly bro approach to fitness and nutrition. And I know most people that maybe work in the kind of space that, like, you operate in, for example, there tends to usually be a reason or a thing that caused them to go down that path.But I didn't have that at all. It really has just been a really slow evolution of just actually reading the research, working with people on a day to day basis, getting feedback from clients about what is working and what isn't, and then just really tweaking things over a very long period of time. I've also had some very honest clients, which have been great too, who kind of really follow my content on social media and they would message me like, oh, that's not very helpful. How about approaching it like this? And i'm always open to feedback, I always want to improve my practice and my messaging and I was always just quite receptive to that and I don't know... 10 years later I now finally feel like i'm working with people in a way that genuinely helps them long term and i'm actually creating content that is useful for people rather than just almost creating content for other personal trainers, which seems to be what a lot of fitness professionals do.Laura: Tell me about the angry messages. Why are other PTs up in your shit about...? Michael: I really don't know. I wish I knew the answer. I think... I guess if you're attacking someone's entire being and their work and their ethos that they've believed in for so many years, then I guess that a lot of people will react to that in quite a negative way.I really don't understand it at all either. Usually male coaches too, are very angry in the way that I approach social media and some of the names and things I've been called are pretty grim, but I only... I wish I knew the answer to that, but some, for some reason people get very angry in the way that I am approaching fitness and nutrition.But yeah, I really don't mind. Like I, as I said, I feel like I'm really helping people now and I'm happy to keep championing that message. Laura: I mean, I'm just wondering if part of it is because that myth, certain myth of no pain, no gain. And that you need to like, basically punish yourself with exercise in order to achieve a particular body type.You're saying, actually, we don't need to do that. It's okay if you don't kill yourself with exercise. We shouldn't be weaponising it against ourselves. For me, it speaks to how deeply internalised people's anti fat bias is. You're challenging the fundamental sort of premise that their beliefs are resting on, which is that, you can't be fit and fat.Or you...yeah, like I said before, that you have to punish yourself with exercise or like that... it's somehow okay to exist in a body that isn't fulfilling this ideal that we have been told that we should not strive for. Michael: Completely. And I mean, if we're completely honest about it, the way that the fitness industry is set up now is way more profitable for these people too.So if you do start attacking the way that they're approaching their lives or their businesses too, then they're probably going to be a little bit grumpy about that. It's so much easier for me as a personal trainer to make money saying, here we go, come sign up for the six week program and we'll strip body fat off you in such a short space of time, rather than me saying, cool, let's work together for three, six, 12 months. And let's really work on those habits and have you feeling and performing better. Like it's just such a hard sell. I mean, especially for, as I mentioned, like, personal training tends to be quite a short lived career for a lot of people. And I appreciate that when people first start off, the best way to get clients is shock and awe, like showing before and after photos, like having the secrets or whatever it is. And the best way to get clients at the start is by doing that. So people are going to follow that path rather than doing it the right way. That is a bit of a slow burner. I know that a lot of coaches aren't really up for that, sadly. Laura: Yeah, no, I think you make a really good point when you're talking about... the financial aspect of things, because, yeah, there's no money to be made in being like, yeah, take a rest day or go for a gentle walk and look at the sky. Yeah, those like making huge promises of around body transformations and then making people sign up for some sort of like intensive bootcamp situation. Of course, that makes sense from like a business model perspective, but as so often is the case, anything that involves capitalism is probably not great for our health overall. Okay, so I am absolutely not in the fitness space at all. I've purged my social media account. I think I follow you and maybe a couple of other personal trainers, because I find it really annoying, honestly, watching fitness content.Michael: I strongly relate to that. And first of all, thank you for following me, but yeah, I honestly, I feel exactly the same way.  Laura: And I think, especially since having had a baby and because I have some enduring physical stuff going on as a result of my pregnancy in terms of, like, pelvic health, even the stuff that is like geared towards women who have had babies and like postpartum stuff.It's just anyway, so I've just checked out of it. So I have no idea. What is going on in that space, really? So I need you to like, translate it all for me. What are some of the most pervasive and toxic fitness myths that you're seeing at the moment? Michael: Everything. Honestly, every topic is so toxic at the moment.It's really frustrating. And I speak to... There's a few coaches that I'm really good friends with, who I think you probably know as well, that I tend to follow their content, I like engaging with them and talking about the fitness industry, but I have also removed myself from a lot of the mainstream approach because...I don't find it motivating or helpful in any way. Like I think a lot of the... Laura: You don't even hate follow some people just to have like stuff to...? Because I hate feed a lot of big feeding. I hate-feed?! I hate-follow a lot of big accounts. I just have this folder on my Instagram called Ammunition.And I just save posts in there that I want to come back and get angry about at some point. What are you seeing from... I know you do it! But what are you seeing from those folks? Michael: So I do a little bit of that. And I, so I've also, I've got an Instagram account for my dog, but I started up ages ago. I don't post anything to it, but every time I see something pop up on, like, the explore page or I see another trainer share, I'll send it to her account. And then I'll use that as fodder for, like, creating content and coming up with ideas. But I do not, I don't hate follow that many people now because like I spent a lot of time on social media, right?And I know that because of that following these accounts and seeing them on a day to day basis all of the time does massively negatively impact my mental health. And I think if i'm feeling that way as a fitness professional who knows the research, knows what these accounts are doing to us and can see through the nonsense... how are everyday people feeling? When they're seeing this content and they don't really know if it's the truth or not. So I actually don't follow that many trainers. There's probably a lot of trainers who... . Laura: So very evolved of you. Michael: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. There's a few trainers who, like, I know through just from working in gyms or whatever, I'll follow them, but I mute them so that I don't have to see their content.Laura: Yeah, that's smart. Michael: But yeah, I don't know. There's so many myths about every topic. Like you mentioned there about, like, women's health and pelvic health and anything pre and postnatal. The stuff around that is really gross because it's not even just the fact that they're spreading misinformation. They somehow always tie in with just losing weight, like this is pretty much what it all comes down to, right? Laura: Yeah. Yeah. That's the subtext. It's always there. Michael: It's always like improve your pelvic health and slim your waist, like it's everything. It just pushes people down the route of still obsessing about body weight and focusing on body weight rather than focusing on general health and wellbeing and health promotion, and it's infuriating.I guess the same as, like, building muscle. Like it's nearly always advertised by these guys that are absolutely jacked, clearly taking steroids, using images of themselves going... you can look like this if you work out like me and buy my programs and my nutrition plans, and you're just never going to look like these people. So you're always going to fail. Like everything within the fitness space is geared towards repeat sales and having people come back for more because the way that we're being sold health and fitness, just isn't sustainable or achievable in any way. And then people blame themselves and feel worse. And then therefore they're more likely to spend money on all these other programs repeatedly. And it's just a vicious cycle that just doesn't ever end. And that's why with my page, I'm trying to step away from any aesthetic goals. Like you'll probably see through my social media, I don't, I'm not against people having aesthetic goals. I just don't really ever talk about it because I don't think it should ever be the focus of someone's fitness journey. I mean, I think that's the bit that seems to piss people off. Laura: Yeah. And I mean, there's some interesting research that shows that people who exercise for aesthetic goals, they're less likely to engage in something that is sustainable for them.Like, it's more likely that they will give up. And I don't mean that in, like, defeatist kind of way, but it just won't be sustainable for them. Versus for people who are approaching, I don't know, a type of exercise or training or whatever it is from a place of maybe wanting to feel stronger or feel more comfortable in their bodies or because they have mobility stuff that they're working through or something like that.So it's really difficult though, because And we'll get to some of the listener questions in a bit where they're asking this, like, how do you uncouple the aesthetic goals from, those more internally motivated goals from the perspective that we are just constantly being drip fed, idealised images of people all over the internet? And then, like you say, half the time those images aren't even real, right? There's people on ‘roids. There are people who are like starving themselves, like making themselves dehydrated, like posing in particular ways. I don't even know what other tactics people use to stylise these images.But I feel like the sort of falsification of these pictures is huge in the fitness industry. Michael: It's honestly horrific. And I would probably go as far as to say, like, every professional fitness model has taken or is taking steroids of some form. That's like the level of manipulation that the fitness industry...I don't know, I don't think there's any issue with... having aesthetic goals. Like I always like to hammer this point home because I think sometimes with my content, I can... people misconstrue that I'm against anyone having any aesthetic goal at all. I'm not, it's just, I think that the emphasis needs to be elsewhere.For example, when I first started in the fitness industry, I was in that loop of must build muscle, have to build muscle to show that I know what I'm talking about and also to be seen as manly and capable or whatever, and I would do a lot of strength training. I would never do cardio because cardio is bad.It ruins your gains. Laura: It’s for girls.Michael: Yeah, it's just exactly that. And it's so frustrating that I would... I spent years just, like, strength training, nothing but strength training, even when I was going through cycles of really hating it. Like I had to do strength training, got to build muscle. When I switched up my training... I still do strength training now. I enjoy building muscle. The challenge of building strength and muscle is really fun, but I also do a lot of cardio because I really enjoy it and it makes me feel great in terms of physical and mental health. And actually since switching up, dropping a bit of strength training that I was doing and doing more cardio, the exercise I really enjoy, I've made so much more progress with my strength building and muscle building gains.And I've just got such a better balance with it all. So if someone listening to this is really struggling of knowing like what they should really be doing, what should they be focusing on? Honestly, just like enjoyment and mental health, that needs to be the priority. And then everything else just tends to fall into line after that.And the fitness industry, just the tactics, as I said, like the trainers use. The one thing that really annoys me is a lot of personal trainers will, anyone who follows any trainers will... I've seen this in the past where a trainer goes through a really extreme cycle of dieting, exercise regime because they're training for a photo shoot - in quotation marks - Where they'll go and get professional photos done that they've dieted down to within an inch of their lives. And they'll get a little snapshot image of look how amazing I look and then they'll use that in all their advertising of promoting healthy behaviour change or whatever other nonsense. It's if you're not using healthy, sustainable habits in achieving your physique, then you should not be allowed to use that in terms of advertising it to say that you're going to help people improve their health and their life, their health and their lives.It's just, it's incredibly infuriating and... Laura: it's false advertising. Michael: Massively. Yeah. Massively. Laura: Need to get that fucking, is it ASA, advertising...? Michael: Yeah. Yeah. Standards Agency. Absolutely. Yeah. Laura: I'm on the case! But two interesting things that I wanted to pick out from what you were saying.First of all, I think there's some complexity and nuance around this idea aesthetic goals, isn't there? Because we are all aesthetically driven, right? We are all, like we're aesthetic creatures in some ways, like when you brush your hair in the morning or I don't know, you trim your beard, Michael, or like I chose clothes that I thought looked somewhat okay together. Like those are all aesthetic goals, right? And so I think it's really, like, hard for people to decouple aesthetic goals from their overall movement, exercise routines, whatever you want to call them. But I think what you're saying, and certainly what I would advocate is that the fitness industry has just blown... yeah, they've blown up aesthetics to be like the sole purpose that people should exercise, right? And that I think is the problem is that yeah, they've just coupled exercise and aesthetics to the point that it's like you were saying, people are engaging in disorderly eating behaviours. They're using illicit drugs, they are, like, punishing themselves to look a particular way, and that's when it becomes problematic, right? Michael: Completely agree. Laura: And you end up on that slippery, slippery slope to disordered eating and eating disorders. Michael: Yeah, it's so true the barometer of success or health or knowledge within the fitness industry is body fat levels. That's pretty much what it all comes down to. Like a trainer who is absolutely jacked and really ripped is seen as being an authority figure without really knowing anything about them. And whereas you'll have a trainer who's in maybe a naturally larger sized body who naturally carries a little bit more body fat, has a much healthier balance of exercise and nutrition, a far better trainer. Just look at the comments under the content that they push out there onto social media and people will criticize them and say they don't know what they're talking about. Like our barometer of success is leanness. I don't know what the answer is to trying to combat that other than just keep churning out content, calling out this nonsense.But unfortunately you feel like you take a few steps forward when it was like two, three years ago, when you see, started to see a lot more body diversity on fitness accounts and kind of big companies like Gymshark and Nike and stuff were using people in larger bodies to advertise clothing.That's now disappearing again because it's no longer.... and it's just toxic. And you just have to go on like TikTok, the latest platform, even though it's been around a few years, I felt like we were maybe making a bit of progress. Then TikTok just flips that again, and you just got to search the hashtag fitness on TikTok.And it's just white, slim, muscular people clearly taking steroids that are the main bulk of the content that you're going to see. It's infuriating. Laura: Everyone in the fitness industry really collectively needs to be speaking out against this, but I think there's a simultaneous thing that has to happen whereby we are amplifying and centering experiences and the work of fat fitness creators, right? And I'm using fat, for anyone who's not listened to the podcast before, fat as a neutral descriptor, as a reclamation of a word that is often used to weaponise and hurt people and harm people. So, yeah, I'm just thinking of some people off the top of my head.Like Intuitive Fatty, Jessamyn Stanley is fantastic for yoga content. Lauren Leavell does a lot of barre stuff, but there's loads. I mean, is there anyone that you would want to give a shout out to like anyone that's doing...? Michael: The Instagram handle Decolonizing Fitness? Ilya. The content is amazing. We're trying to set up a time for Ilya to come into our podcast to chat about this at the moment. And I just... there's so many voices that need to be amplified. And I know that I always have to check my privilege in the content that I'm creating. Like you see very few men within the kind of body neutrality, body positivity, space, whatever you want to call the area I'm working in.So I always like to acknowledge that, okay, I'm creating content for a space that isn't really for me, but I do think that can be really powerful. And we still need more voices of guys, especially within this space, calling it out because I rarely ever see male fitness professionals creating the kind of content that I am.They tend to go down the more mainstream approach. And I like to yes, fitness can look like me. I look how the fitness industry says you're supposed to look, but it doesn't have to look like that, right? This is one way it can look, but it doesn't need to be like that for everyone. And I think that can be really powerful whilst amplifying the voices of those who are marginalised and don't get the airtime that I do.Laura: Yeah, absolutely. And I think, yeah, you make a really good point about men in this space. Like just in body neutrality, body positivity and again, there are some really great people doing stuff in that space. I agree like it's still underrepresented, but like the 300 pound runner. I don't know if you've come across his stuff? Michael: yeah, Martinus Evans.Laura: Yeah, His stuff is really cool as well. But yeah, anyway, just wanted to shout out some accounts and I'll link to them in the show notes as well. Yeah, so you mentioned that fitness professionals will embark on this really extreme diet, they will really bulk up, they'll, probably restrict what they're eating for a really long time, and then they'll do all their photos, and they'll probably go back to whatever they were doing before that. And it just reminded me when... and this is it's like really sad, but do you remember when Joe Wicks was talking all about binging? He went to America, and then it ... he just started talking about like he was eating all this chocolate and pizza and like stuff that he obviously was restricting so hard that when he went to the States, he had this like backlash against all of that and his body was just like, fuck this, and he just started eating like all of the food that he'd been denying himself.It just made me think of that and how he's... how disordered like this space is and how normalised that kind of thing is like that just like binge restrict cycle. Michael: Yeah, I mean when your entire business model relies on getting people really lean. If you're not sticking to those rules and keeping your body lean 100 percent of the time, then your business model kind of goes to shit. And I guess that's probably why he was having issues coming to terms with that. Joe Wicks is a really funny one because I don't like his content at all. I'll throw that out there. Some of the nutrition stuff he's spouted has been... I was going to say nonsense, but it's actually just damaging some of the stuff he comes out with.Also, on the other hand, I feel like, maybe this is giving him too much credit, I always feel like his heart is in the right place, but he just goes about it in completely the wrong way. I don't know if you would agree with that. When I hear him being interviewed, I feel like he's a really passionate guy who feels like he's doing the right thing, but he's just absolutely not.Because all of his content is focused on being lean and weight loss. And I just wish that... he's got such a huge platform now. It's terrifying. That if you had someone like him who could start promoting like a balanced and sensible message, it's never going to happen because he makes too much money now, then it would just be so powerful.Laura: But I don't know, like this piece around heart in the right place. I think we say that about a lot of these actually quite problematic white men. Joe Wicks, Jamie Oliver, I'm just gonna say it, don't @ me. But, of course their heart's in the right place, but their heart's also in their fucking bank balance, right?Michael: Completely, 100%. Laura: So that's one part of it, but also, I don't know when we can, when someone is, like you say, promoting harmful messages around food and around nutrition. And I don't. I think it matters where their heart is. Michael: Agreed. I wonder whether this... Laura: A murderer could use that justification to be like, Oh, well, this man is really toxic to women, so I'm just going to kill him.But that's not the solution. Michael: I know. I wonder whether kind of in my head, the reason I use those words is because I think of kind of the fitness industry as like a huge, like a line of like how problematic someone is. And I feel like he feels he's trying to do the right thing despite doing it very badly.Whereas you have a lot of people within the fitness space that go far beyond that, who are intentionally doing the really bad thing, trying to make a lot of money, it's still very bad. And Jamie Oliver is one of those as well, where he's got such a huge platform, thinks he knows what he's doing is the best thing, but it's just not. Like trying to ban the buy one get one free offers when people are really struggling to feed their families right now.It's just, I feel yes, hearts in the right place, but just no, like they need to be more informed and go about it in a better way. Laura: And especially when they are being given this feedback, right? Like it's one thing if you fuck up and you say, I was really wrong about that and I've learned some new information now like you have, right? And like I have. And you hold your hands up and you say, yeah, I was really fucking wrong and I'm sorry that I've caused harm and I don't want to do that anymore. I'm gonna learn and I'm gonna do better. And Michael: that's the sign of a good practitioner, right? And yeah. Laura: But speaking of Joe Wicks... Michael: Oh god!Laura: So, so you are a new ish parent, right? You have a seven month old. Michael: Yes, my son is seven months old, yeah. Laura: How do you feel about the prospect of Joe Wicks teaching your kid PE someday? Michael: Oh, just no, like awful. Yeah it's terrifying, isn't it? And these people do wangle their way into every aspect of our society of fitness.And there's just no getting away from them now. Personally, I never watched any of his school fitness things throughout lockdown. I know they're very popular. What was his wording? Did you watch any of them then with your kids? Laura: I didn't cause my little one was just a newborn at that point. And he's only three now.It just wasn't on my radar. I've seen his books. He has the burpee bears. And I've written a couple of like book reviews. They're super like, just tongue in cheek. But it strikes me as really problematic that he feels that we need to teach specific moves like burpees or other things like that to children, like to young children, like primary school age kids, and I don't really have a good justification for that because I'm not a fitness professional that other than does a five year old need to learn how to plank? Right? Or should we not be focusing on embodied movement that is climbing on play equipment in the playground or running or skipping or jumping or like, all of these things that kids, depending on their level of mobility and ability that they would intuitively do?Michael: I am completely with you there. I don't think we need to be teaching a five year old how to do a burpee. It's a bit ridiculous, to be honest. Yeah, that's the way that movement should be promoted and advertised to kids, if you want to use those kind of technical terms. It should just be about play and fun and movement, and that's... what it should be. Like if a kid sees their parent doing burpees or lifting weights and they want to try a bit out and get involved yeah, absolutely. But it just, it shouldn't be the go to, right? Yeah, absolutely. Laura: Yeah. My kid has seen me do a downward dog and he like gets involved and we do the cosmic kids yoga. I feel like that's a slightly different thing because it's a, it's so gentle and b it's animal poses. I don't know. All right. So I got sent through loads of questions from listeners and I thought they were really fun. So I just thought we could go through them. I think we've touched on a bit of it already, but maybe you can just give me your quick fire answers.Michael: Sure. Yeah. Laura: So this is an interesting question that Gwen from Dieticians for Teachers sent in. She said she would like to know more about the messages in your formal training. I think we can take a good guess, but I guess what she's getting at is, like, what toxic messages were in your formal training?Michael: Unfortunately, when you're learning to become a personal trainer still so much of it is about weight loss, still. You'll get taught, right, this is what we're going to learn about nutrition and this is how you help someone lose weight. So that is still at the core. And I guess a lot of the training for personal trainers, in terms of nutrition anyway, It's still very like basic government guidelines, which you can take those as you will. Some recommendations are maybe okay, others not that helpful. The training for nutrition for personal trainers is so, so, so, so basic that I would encourage any personal trainer who has recently qualified and not done any further nutrition study from there to please sign up to another course and learn more because what you learn as a personal trainer at the basic level is just nowhere near good enough to work with clients in depth.Laura: I have a lot of thoughts about personal trainers and nutrition, but I'm going to keep them to myself! Michael: No, no feel free to talk about it! It terrifies me. And it's very rare now that... a lot of the people I work with have had personal trainers in the past. The large majority of them have had negative experiences, and it's quite scary that's now just the norm.And I'll ask questions of my clients in consultations whilst working together and they'll be like, Oh, I've never been asked that before. I've never even considered that. And it just blows my mind that these things are being missed out or neglected by coaches. But the training is just not there. Laura: It's so interesting that the focus, I mean, it's not surprising, but that the focus is still on body size and not like flexibility or mobility or like rehab or like any of these, which I'm sure they like get touched on, but it sounds like from what you're saying that the real central focus is not mental health or like overall wellbeing. It's here's how you try and get people shredded, which we know is like biogenetically, if not difficult, if not impossible for most people. Michael: Pretty much. Yeah. Like I'm sure... I don't want to call out every personal training course. Like I did qualify a few years ago now, but I know there's some personal training qualifications that are trying to shift that, but it is still a large majority.And that is why a lot of the coaches coming through now, it's still very much before and after photos, weight centric. Yeah, unfortunately. Laura: Well, it's good to know that maybe there are some shifts coming down the pipe a little bit and I guess it just goes to show why again, you need to keep, like, pushing these alternative messages.Okay. This I thought was a really interesting question. And so this person asked, is exercise truly necessary? I don't enjoy exercising, but I do move a lot during the day, running errands and running after a toddler, all while baby wearing a newborn. And then the follow up question is, and if it is necessary to exercise intentionally, what form of exercise is best for someone who wouldn't otherwise prioritise it? Michael: That's such a good question. And it's very nuanced as well, depending on the person's situation. I would say, I mean, no, it's not necessary if you're moving around a lot throughout the day. However, so many health benefits come from incorporating some form of like direct exercise that it would be really sad to not explore all the potential areas that people could incorporate exercise into their life that maybe might not be the mainstream approach, right? If you are someone who moves around a lot throughout your day, if you say running errands and your general movement and step count is actually really high, then you could argue that as long as you get your nutrition, right, you're doing pretty well.However, strength training. Every time someone comes to me, no matter what their fitness goals are, I try and incorporate some form of strength training that I can, but that can take so many different forms. Laura: This person is carrying a baby around! Michael: Right. Yeah, exactly. Which is strength training, right?Exactly. So it's... when I say strength training, a lot of people listening to this episode right now will automatically... they'll think, like, gym, barbells, dumbbells, heavy weights, and it can come in so many different forms and it can be with resistance bands, body weight, dumbbells, kettlebells, barbells at home. It can be like TRX, it can be like so many different ways that you might enjoy at some point. So don't just think, Oh, I'm not an exercise-y person. I've always hated it because there are so many different ways that we can incorporate exercise. That is a very vague answer. without me knowing much more about this person. However, if you can find a form of exercise you enjoy, that should be a priority because the health benefits are huge. Laura: I'm going to push back because this is my opinion, not necessarily based on scientific fact, but it does feel as though there is this tendency, and I'm also conscious of your bias as a fitness professional, that exercise is held up as the pinnacle of health.And it's like the one thing that we need to do in order to be healthy. And I'm not disputing that there are health benefits. I also am like curious about the magnitude of those benefits within the broader context of health and health behaviours, but also nesting that within sort of social determinants of health and like, how do we measure the effect size of exercise individually from, I don't know, sleep, other elements of mental health, community? I guess what I'm maybe trying to temper is like that there are so many, like, variables and factors that contribute to someone's overall picture of health and I appreciate that movement can be an important facet of that.Michael: Yeah, no I really like that point because it is so important and I think that's why it's important to approach exercise and hence why I said without knowing more about this person, it's hard to give an exact answer. I think it's important to look at all of those things in terms of context when you're trying to prescribe or recommend exercise to someone, right?Let's say that this person is, they're likely lacking in sleep right now at the moment, right? Because their life is very busy running around after small humans. If that person is exhausted and they have no free time at all. I'm not then going to say, right, you've got to go and exercise 30 minutes a day for three times a week, because it's just not going to be helpful. There's other areas of your lifestyle that we can focus on to improve your health. However, if there is a bit of wiggle room, if you have a bit of time, then maybe there are things that we could explore that you could quite comfortably fit into your day without it taking over your life like a lot of the fitness industry wants us to do. Laura: Yeah. I think that the, maybe the TL;DR there is you don't have to sweat it when you are running around after a small child and doing other, all these other things. But if it feels like it's something that you want to explore, and you're curious to give something a try, then yeah, you could have a think about some gentle movement or something, see how that feels and how that fits in the context of your life But yeah, it's tricky to prescribe something without knowing, yeah knowing someone's life and what they want to get out of it. Michael: So true and you're never gonna know if it was directly the exercise. It could be so many other things that then, yeah, that then causes the health benefit.I would just say, once again, like anecdotally, rather than looking at research, every person that I've worked with that we've tried to think, right, how can we incorporate exercising today in some format? The large majority of the time, everything else feels better and improves as a result.Laura: Yeah, no , it can, it has a knock on effect on like sleep and pain and like all these other things. So, okay. How can I move my body without shame and guilt driving it? These are two separate questions, but I'm just lumping them together, and then this, another person asked, how to find the joy in movement after a life forcing it?Michael: I think first of all, it's really important to, like, vet where you're getting all of your inspiration and information from is a really important one because a lot of the time, if we're following the kind of general societal recommendations when it comes to exercise and nutrition. It's always going to have quite a prescriptive image focused approach to movement.And if you can shift away, like what we spoke about at the start of this, you don't follow many personal trainers because you don't think that they're motivating or helpful to you. They actually just make you feel worse. I'm the same. When I constantly see gym bros. telling me that I have to lift weights X amount of times a week, and I've got to get shredded and have low body fat levels, it has the complete opposite impact on me. So if you can first of all vet where you're getting your information from, that is absolutely huge. And then, yeah, I guess also once again, it's not beating yourself up for having the more mainstream thoughts that you used to have. I know a lot of people when they're trying to shift into kind of taking a more intuitive eating approach or a more intuitive eating approach with like exercise too, as well as nutrition, we can sometimes feel really guilty when we start slipping back into older habits that maybe are slightly disordered.I'm just... like giving yourself a bit of leeway and a bit of space to grow and learn. I'm still doing that. I still probably get things wrong and have room for improvement, but I think by doing that, removing the pressure on yourself can be really helpful. Laura: Yeah. Two things that I might add to that are something that I've explored with clients as part of working on the relationship with food and body and movement often comes up as part of that, we might explore this idea of, what it feels like in your body where you've had a period where you haven't moved at all, right? Maybe it's because you're recovering from an injury or because you just were so burnt out with exercise that you just really didn't move. How did that feel in your body? Did you get any pain or did it feel nice to rest or what was that experience? And then also thinking about periods of your life where maybe you've been really deeply invested in fitness culture. And maybe doing the punishing exercises, maybe also getting injuries because of that, maybe getting ill a lot of the time, maybe losing your period, like all kinds of different things, like different experiences that you could have in your bodies.If you've got that framing of this is what no exercise feels like in my body, and this is what too much feels like in my body, then it can help you explore what some sort of happy balance might feel like. So that's something that I encourage people to think about. And I also just wanted to shout out Tally Rye's Intuitive Movement Journal.It's her book Intuitive Movement as well. It is isn't it? Clients have found that those are helpful resources for navigating stepping back from exercise and just exploring what rest feels like through kind of the framework of, or a similar framework to intuitive being. So if intuitive being resonates with you, then maybe Tally's work will as well. So I'll link to them in the show notes. All right, this will be our last question. And it is: I cut out all deliberate movement for a while, by which I mean, I walk to get places and that's it. I'd like to try some movement. and see how it makes me feel. But where on earth do I even start? Michael: Okay, once again, without a lot of context, this is very hard to give specific advice.So I would say think about where you would feel most comfortable exercising and start from there. So I know that for a lot of people, the gym environment can be incredibly intense and intimidating for many reasons. So if you think that maybe that feels a bit much and it's going to put you off. Let's write that off. Don't do that. So let's think, okay, maybe we could start some movement at home. Is there a form of exercise that you really enjoy? Do you like dancing? Do you like jump rope? Do you like bodyweight workouts? What is it that kind of you think, Oh, actually that sounds quite fun to me and start there.And then let's say that there's so many decent content creators online, depending on what you like that I could recommend. Feel free to reach out and just start from that point. If you're thinking that kind of back to my earlier point that, okay, strength training doesn't have to look like that in the gym. What can it look like? A set of basic resistance bands from Amazon for 10 quid, you've got a gym at home. Like you don't have to go to a gym. There's so many different ways that it could look start from that start from what gives you that, Oh, that's interesting. I might give it a try, and start really, really small and build from there and that's probably the best place to start. Laura: If someone hasn't done much movement other than, like, incidental daily movements for a while... there's obviously a lot of privilege in this question but I'm wondering if you would recommend like doing a couple of one on one sessions with a trainer, like a safe trainer that could help build up strength or make like a bespoke kind of program for someone or just help them with their form so that they... I'm maybe thinking of myself here, but I know that I have to be really careful what I do at home because I'm more likely to end up injuring myself just because of my like, specific needs and in terms of managing pain. And so what I've ended up doing... and again shitload of privilege in this but, I'm, after three years of pelvic girdle pain, I'm like, at my limit. So I've started seeing a physio one on one who does clinical Pilates. So it's like very much helping me build my strength, which I could do... like I was going to a barre class before that, but I was walking away with more pain, even though it was supposedly like a supervised class, like there were no adjustments. There were no like modifications for my body, like nothing. So I personally, I have found that trying to build my strength and reduce pain, like finding someone who's really specialised has been a game changer for me. Michael: Yeah, I would say... I was gonna say one of the benefits of COVID. That's not what I meant. I was gonna say for the benefits of kind of the lockdown that happened as a result of COVID is the fitness industry got pushed forward by about five to ten years in terms of the way that it can support people, especially on a tighter budget as well. There are now so many... Laura: oh, you mean like online?Michael: Online support, right? Because I know that personal training is an investment for a lot of people. It's not a cheap route to go down. If you can afford it, absolutely, yes. If you can have the support of a professional who's got years of experience, it does speed things up and it makes things a lot more kind of personalised and perhaps more enjoyable.However, the way that the online fitness space works now, it has improved massively. And for, kind of, much cheaper options, monthly options, you can get the support of a trainer online that will be able to do a video call with you to check your form. You can send them videos. Like I speak to people that follow me on Instagram all the time and they'll ask me a question. I'll say, just send me a video of you doing the exercise. I'm happy to give you some pointers. If you find people online that are truly passionate and care. If you send them a video of you doing an exercise, they'll happily help you out. So there are so many different routes that you can go down to get the support that don't cost a huge amount of money.Once again, even the cheaper forms are still an investment, but there are different routes that you can go down now. Yeah, absolutely. Laura: Yeah. Okay. I appreciate that. And then just to add to that, like I've done some sessions with this, like a one on one physio. And now I'm going to, like the group classes as well.So it's, I think, helpful to just... if you have any kind of rehab that needs to be done, or if you just want to feel more confident in the movements. Cause like Pilates can be tricky if you don't know exactly what you're doing to just be thrown into a class situation. So it's helped me at least like doing a few sessions, even though I've done Pilates before, but just having that refresher to then go into a class setting, it's just helped build up my confidence a little bit. And it's also, I'm not going to like this, like a gym. Sorry, I said that with so much disdain, realizing you're a personal trainer! Michael: Ugh, these disgusting personal trainers!Laura: It had, like, a visceral effect. Michael: It's so funny though, isn't it? That it's so sad that's what the fitness industry has become. And especially as a trainer who is one, every time I meet someone and they'll ask oh, what do you do? I have to like preface, Oh, like I'm not like the rest of them, but I'm a personal trainer, like it's really sad.Laura: I do the same thing, but with nutrition, I'm like, I'm a nutritionist, but I'm not that kind of nutritionist. Michael: I'm not going to sell you a cleanse, I promise! Laura: All right, Michael, this has been so fun to have you on and just shoot the shit about fitness culture. But at the end of every episode, my guest and I share something that they have been snacking on. So it can be a book, a podcast, a TV show. Yeah, just about anything that, that you feel like. So what are you snacking on at the moment? Michael: So one podcast I'm listening to, this is going to be a bit of a curve ball, there's probably quite a few people, especially in the UK listening to it... I don't like politics because in this country, it's so gross the way that politics is at the moment, but I like being well informed in what's going in politics because it has such a huge knock on impact to like societal changes.Laura: I was really glad that you said that, because when you said I don't like politics, I was like, argh where is this going! Michael: no, I do, but I get so infuriated by it because it's so important and I feel like coaches need to be informed because it does directly impact everything we're doing with our clients in terms of like socioeconomic impacts and food access and education and stuff, so I've been listening to The Rest Is Politics podcast. I don't know if you've ever listened to it. It's actually really good. It's Alastair Campbell, Rory Stewart, Labour side, Tory side. They chat about all daily topics and I quite like that they disagree and argue. I, depending on what you think about those two individuals, I'm still very mixed on what I think of them.However, I think it's very good to have a nice balanced approach there. So that's the podcast I've been listening to a lot recently. I really like it. In terms of food. So I can't eat eggs and dairy. I'm lactose intolerant and intolerant to eggs as well. Laura: I think you were probably going to wait for like the bummer, yeah, for me to be like, oh, that's such a bummer. But I'm vegan, so I don't eat any of that stuff . Michael: Yeah, I know. I was saying, I'm like the worst gym bro ever. I can't have whey protein shakes and I can't eat like 12 eggs a day. So maybe that's another reason they all hate me. So I found a vegan chocolate bar from Aldi. I don't know if you've ever had it. I don't think so. What? So they do milk, in quotation marks, milk chocolate and a white chocolate. They do a dark chocolate too, but a lot of vegan chocolate is dark. Anyway, so I haven't even tried that but their milk chocolate and their white chocolate is so good .And i'm getting through far too much of this chocolate at the moment but I finally found a chocolate bar that tastes amazing. They're by far the best chocolate you can get that's vegan, hands down Laura: That sounds really good, but we don't have an Aldi near us. We have a Lidl. Michael: So it's worth commuting. Laura: Oh, is it? Michael: Yeah. Yes. Laura: Okay. Might have to go to the dark depths of Dalston too.Okay. So I'm actually going to do a podcast also, and it's Getting Curious with Jonathan van Ness, which everyone knows who JVN is, obviously. He's amazing. Yeah, love them. There was like a bit of a thing a while ago where on their Netflix show they talked about like food addiction and it was just really problematic and icky and fatphobic. But JVN seems to have really been on a bit of a journey with this stuff and the latest, well, at the time that we are recording, they've just come out with a podcast called... well, an episode of their podcast Getting Curious called What's the Cultural History of the Calorie? With Dr. Athia Chaudhry. They're a fat activist and it's immersed in like fat politics. So, yeah. I would recommend going and giving that one a listen, because yeah, JVN has been on a journey, it seems. Michael: That sounds awesome. And that is my afternoon listening. Thank you very much. Laura: I will link to all of those things in the show notes.Michael, before I let you go, can you tell everyone where they can find out more about you and your work? Michael: Of course, so, most of the content I create is through Instagram, so it's just my name, which is very hard to spell, so probably best if you check it in the show notes. Laura: Yeah, I will link to everything.Michael: Thank you very much. So it's @MichaelUlloaPT, and that's on Instagram, Threads, Twitter, TikTok, whatever platform, it's all the same. Laura: All right, Michael, I will make sure that... It's all fully linked in the show notes so that everyone can find you. Thank you so much for coming on and yeah, like I said before, shooting the shit with us about fitness culture was really fun.Michael: Thank you so much for having me.OUTRO:Laura: Thanks so much for listening to the Can I Have Another Snack? podcast. You can support the show by subscribing in your podcast player and leaving a rating and review. And if you want to support the show further and get full access to the Can I Have Another Snack? universe, you can become a paid subscriber.It's just £5 a month or £50 for the year. As well as getting tons of cool perks you help make this work sustainable and we couldn't do it without the support of paying subscribers. Head to laurathomas.substack.com to learn more and sign up today. Can I Have Another Snack? is hosted by me, Laura Thomas. Our sound engineer is Lucy Dearlove. Fiona Bray formats and schedules all of our posts and makes sure that they're out on time every week. Our funky artwork is by Caitlin Preyser, and the music is by Jason Barkhouse. Thanks so much for listening.ICYMI this week: "I'm Not Your Target Audience" - How Do We Get Men To Care?* Reclaiming our Appetites* MORE Teens, TikTok, and some Good News for a Change.* Dear Laura: I’m freaking out about what my kids eat - but is it really about them? This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit laurathomas.substack.com/subscribe

Today I’m speaking to Sarah Sproule (she/them), a sex educator, an occupational therapist, as well as a mother of three teens. Sarah uses their skills to ensure that every parent and caring adult knows how to build a deeper connection with their growing kids, and believes that no child should ever feel alone and unable to reach out for help with their body, their boundaries, or their needs. Or their knowledge about sexuality.In this episode, we are talking about ‘sensitive things’ with our kids, plus reclaiming the ‘C word’. We dive into the following topics;* The ‘invisible influence of normal’* Showing kids we’re a trusted person to talk to about sensitive things* Why we don’t want to wait until sex ed classes to start talking about sex* Teaching kids about body boundaries* Answering your Qs about: * How to explain to kids why you do some things in private?* 4 year olds asking BIG questions you’re not sure they’re ready for* 3 year olds who are resistant to challenging gender stereotypes* How to support your child when someone is asking invasive questions* Plus Sarah shares the unknown history of the C word!Find out more about Sarah’s work here.Follow her work on Instagram here.Follow Laura on Instagram here.Subscribe to my newsletter here.Enrol in the Raising Embodied Eaters course here.Here’s the transcript in full:Sarah Sproule: I drew analogies between talking about sensitive things and other parts of parenting. So, I don't know a single other parent who waited for their child to ask them for a stem of broccoli before they gave it to them. Right? And we know that broccoli's really great. I don't know a parent who waited for their child to ask them, Can you please show me how to cross the road? Because I want to stay safe. Like, there are so many things we do, we take initiative for, because we know it's important for the health and safety and joy of our child. INTROLaura Thomas: Welcome to the Can I Have Another Snack? podcast, where we are talking about appetite, bodies, and identity, especially through the lens of parenting. I'm Laura Thomas, I'm an anti-diet registered nutritionist, and I also write the Can I Have Another Snack? newsletter. Today, I'm talking to Sarah Sproule. Sarah, who uses she/them pronouns, is a sex educator, an occupational therapist, as well as a mother of three teens.Sarah uses their skills to ensure that every parent and caring adult knows how to build a deeper connection with their growing kids. She believes that no child should ever feel alone and unable to reach out for help with their body, their boundaries, or their needs. Or their knowledge about sexuality.In this conversation, we talk about what Sarah calls the ‘invisible influence of normal’; all the things, spoken and unspoken, that shape how we think about bodies, sex, pleasure, periods, and more. And we talk about why it's important to approach these conversations with our kids early and in a non-judgmental way that prioritises connection and helps inoculate them against body shame.We talk about supporting kids to trust their body boundaries and how that can help them use their voice when something doesn't feel right. Plus we answer your questions like how to teach kids that maybe it's best not to touch their penis at the dinner table, without inadvertently shrouding them in shame.Obviously this is a conversation about sensitive topics to do with sex, and at one point we do mention rape and other forms of violence. We also use the C word quite liberally towards the end, which Sarah and I are comfortable with, but we understand that it may not be for everyone. So all of that is to say, listen at your discretion and take care of yourself. I will say, though, that Sarah is extremely compassionate and thoughtful in how she approaches these topics. So I hope you'll find this to be a safe and nourishing conversation. Just before we get to Sarah, I wanted to tell you real quick about the benefits of becoming a paid subscriber to the Can I Have Another Snack? newsletter and community and whole wider universe.So until the end of September, I'm running a 15% off sale on the cost of annual memberships. So instead of paying £50 a year, you would pay £42.50 and that gets you access to the monthly Dear Laura columns where I answer your questions. It gets you access to the whole CIHAS archive, it gives you commenting privileges, plus weekly discussion threads tackling the big issues like…how clean is your fridge? And who are you dressing for on the school run? It's a really welcoming space where we learn from each other, share with folks who have a similar world view to us, and we have a lot of fun. And of course it's a completely diet, body shame-free space.  I wanted to quickly share what one CIHAS reader said recently. They shared this review saying: “Laura's Substack is a lifeline in a world where diet culture and fatphobia is pervasive in all aspects of our lives including how we feed our children. Every time I start to worry about my toddlers eating and that internalised diet culture mentality starts bubbling up, it's Laura's voice telling me that it's all going to be okay. Through her invaluable work on CIHAS, she's genuinely keeping me sane and empowering me to navigate feeding my child and making the right decisions for my family. The paid subscription is more than worth it. Thanks, Laura.” Well, thank you for that really sweet review. And like I said, we're running a sale for the rest of September and you can sign up at laurathomas.substack.com and I'll drop the link in the show notes so you can find it really easily. And by becoming a paid subscriber, not only do you get the sweet perks that I mentioned earlier, but more importantly, your contributions help make this work sustainable. All right, team, let's get to today's guest. Here's Sarah.  MAIN EPISODEHey, Sarah, can you start by telling us a little bit about you and the work that you do, please? Sarah: I support parents and other adults who are raising children to speak about sensitive things. So that's a euphemism for puberty, genitals, babies, growing up, sex, relationships, all that sort of stuff that might seem a little bit like…eeeeh!...when you think about having conversations about that with kids.And that work is important to me. I'm an occupational therapist, but I do that work because I was one of the kids that would have really benefited from way more open and sort of practical conversations about all that sort of stuff. My mum and dad were missionaries and we grew up in Nigeria for most of my teens, but yeah, even though mum was a nurse and she would have told me how my brother was born and all the bits and bobs and… Laura: Yeah, the gory details.Sarah: Yeah. I think because I had undiagnosed ADHD particularly, it meant that if things weren't repeated and part of everyday life, I just forgot. So I got to be nine years old and I thought sperm flew through the air to get to the egg. So I didn't want the children that I was raising to have that same experience.And so here we are now, Masters in Sexuality Studies. I've been doing this now for a few years, and it just feels like the more I do it, the more I realised that this is the exact sort of work that…all my experiences growing up and being a neurodiverse person…it's all set me up for this. So that's a great sense of joy to feel so aligned with work and with who I am as a person.Laura: For sure. And thank you for sort of walking us through that transition from OT to sexuality studies to what you're doing now. And I think it's so interesting that your background is in OT because – and that's occupational therapy for anyone who isn't familiar with that acronym – because it really shines through in the work that you do.And I think that's the only other allied health professionals, I think, would see that, but definitely you can see the echoes of that. And I think it's such a great foundation for the more coaching-centered work that you're doing. So you sort of alluded to this in what you were saying there, but you talk a lot about this concept of the ‘invisible influence of normal’. Can you unpack that a bit more for us and tell us what that is? Sarah: Yeah, absolutely. So wherever we live, in whatever sort of country or city or family, there are influences on us from those cultures, whether it's family culture, city culture, farm culture, Irish culture, Australian culture, whatever. Those influences or those…the messages we're given subtly show us what normal is.So normal could be being married with children, for example, and not that anyone might have ever said that to us, what's normal is to get married and have kids, but maybe it's an assumption in the way people ask young children or growing people questions about what they want to do in the future, how many kids they want. Like if someone asked someone how many kids you want, there's an invisible assumption there that they want children. So this invisible influence of normal impacts us, not just when we're growing up, but it impacts adults who are raising children as well, because if we lived in a family that didn't use penis and vulva or clitoris as words for genitals with children, then we're going to grow up into adults who…the invisible influence of normal will have said, sort of shaped, you don't use those words with kids. And that's just normal. That's what sort of we grew up to expect. And that's just one example. There are lots of other ways like what is normal just gets sort of embedded into our consciousness, maybe without even our own awareness. So a lot of the times this “normal idea of normal” – and I'm using my fingers in air quotes – we might not realise that it's impacting how we speak to the small people in our life until we have a particular experience. Like it could be something like having a conversation with another parent at the school gate or in childcare, where they speak about, say, walking around nude in their home and all of a sudden you realise, what? Some people think it's normal or okay to walk around nude in front of their kids at home. What? And all of a sudden everything sort of shakes a bit, you know, in our world view. Laura: What I'm hearing you say is that this invisible influence of normal, it shapes our ideas of what is acceptable, what is taboo.And ultimately, I think it shapes whether we have a shame response to something, or whether we can talk openly and transparently about, you know, like you say, sensitive subjects without them becoming, yeah, something that we have to hide or feel shame about. Is that a fair way of kind of putting it? , Sarah: Yeah, that's a beautiful way of saying it.So this story came into my mind and I wanted to share it. So picture me 13 years ago. And I have like a five year old, a three year old and a one year old and it's Saturday. So if any of the people listening are anything like us…Saturdays, we're like, we're just trying to eke out every single minute of sleep, or at least being horizontal in the bed that we can manage, you know, and so our three kids playing around the room, the doors locked so that they can't get into trouble. And you can hear this sort of splashing in the bathroom and I get out of bed and I go in and have a look. There's a five year old has taken some condoms out of the bedside drawer – because condoms were our contraceptive method of choice at the time. And opened up the packet, given one to her brother, one for herself, and they've got them in the basin, they’re trying to fill them up like water balloons. And I'm at the door and I'm looking in the door and, like, my breath catches in my throat….cause, like, your kids are touching something that is related to penises.  Laura: Oh it’s so dirty! Sarah: So it's sort of like, this is the first time I ever thought of anything related to this work, right? And I call out to my partner. I go, John, the, the kids are playing with condoms…and this is my really traditional Irish Catholic husband sort of says, Yeah, so what?  I'm like, they're condoms! And he goes, So? And it was in that moment that I was like, Oh, hang on a minute. So for me, that was a moment when that invisible influence became visible. It was like, yeah, if he thinks this and I don't think that, what's going on here, what's…what's happening? And so it was a really clear moment in time for me.I was like. Oh, there are things at play here. There's, there is influences at play here that I didn't even realise. Um, and I think it was particularly clear because in my mind, John was sort of very traditional and I was like the uber progressive Australian parent living in Ireland. So it was quite a shock.And that's where this whole process for me of really looking and seeing what I thought was right that was unexamined and how that was really leading me down the same path to treat my kids the same way that I was treated, which was…yes, we can answer questions, but at the end of the day, sex and things related to adults, like life, children had to be protected against because it is in some way dangerous and sort of wrong. And of course there are lots of things about adult sexuality that, yes, are not appropriate for children, but there are a whole stinking lot of things that families can talk about in a way that is educational and supportive and kind and open and connecting. And when we don't allow ourselves access to those topics of conversation, we’re losing the chance, not just to inform our children. That, to me, in my work is a secondary thing. The information exchange, that's a secondary thing. What's more important is that we are creating moments over and over again, where we prove and show ourselves to be someone, an adult, a trusted adult, who can talk about pretty much anything and everything. And we do that with understanding and we do it in a way that is respectful of our children and their ability to understand stuff. When that shift happens in an adult's mind that they realise that talking about sensitive things is a bridge over which they build a connection with their child and which will last a lifetime because it will last a lifetime, then all of a sudden it's like, Oh, okay. So this might be awkward and I might not know how to do it, but God damn it. I really want to try because I understand what is possible if I make this effort.  Laura: Yeah, and again, what I'm hearing you say is that you're prioritising the relationship that you have with your child over and above your own comfort and probably other people's comfort, people around you, maybe grandparents, maybe other parents at the school, teachers even, that your, your child might come into contact with. And that kind of leads me to a question that I, I was thinking about for you, which was around why it is so important for us, as parents, as carers, as guardians, to be the people that are starting these conversations with our children, these, like you say, sensitive conversations, and that could, I think, range from calling genitals by their correct names all the way through to puberty and periods.Why does it feel so important for it to be coming from us rather than, you know, waiting until Sex Ed at school or waiting until they hear something in the playground? Sarah: Again, it's about creating connection. I think about it from the perspective of how many years an adult, either a parent or a caregiver in some other capacity, is with their child or their young person, right?So I will often say that, okay, so If our kids stay with us until they're 23, just pick a number. You've got 23 years of meals and negotiations about bathroom time and conversations about going out with friends and all that, where your child has the opportunity to come to tell you something that's difficult or worrying for them or where they can ask you a question that is going to make the difference between them being able to speak up for themselves in a tricky situation or not. So your child is around you lots and lots and lots. Whereas if they first hear something sensitive, like how babies are made or what sex actually is from a teacher at school, that teacher may only be there for, say, 10 months of their life and then they're gone. And so when your child is thinking about the memories of how they learned particular things, a teacher's face will come up, but your face won't. And what that means is when they have a question or a concern or something tough is happening in their world, there's not that sort of memory that connects you and sensitive, awkward, unpleasant, difficult, concerning, but also exciting life events in the head, right? So it's very much about, again, how can we build that connection? How can we demonstrate to a child or a young person that we talk about this stuff. I drew analogies between talking about sensitive things and other parts of parenting. So I don't know a single other parent who waited for their child to ask them for a stem of broccoli before they gave it to them.  And we know that broccoli is really great. I don't know a parent who waited for their child to ask them, can you please show me how to cross the road, because I want to stay safe. Like, there are so many things we do that we take initiative for because we know it's important for the health and safety and joy of our child.And this area of being human, this developing sexual self is no different when you sort of look at it like that. Most of the time people go, oh yeah, I see what you’re saying there, I wouldn't wait for my child to ask me to send them to swimming lessons. I mean, some of us might've done that before our child was even one. So it's far more about realising that our parenting approach, if it's different, only in the sensitive conversation section, then that's showing us that there's something behind that, that needs to be examined so that we can show up for our child in the best way. Laura: If you think about it from the perspective of, you know, like a, I don't know, a seven year old saying to another seven year old in the playground, oh duh duh duh, sex, penis, vulva, and that's complete news to your seven year old. I can imagine that that would be attached to, again, shame, embarrassment, of not knowing that information or that completely, like, coming out of the blue, versus if you've already maybe laid some foundations and some groundwork, then your child might have the language to be like…Or maybe they don't have necessarily, like, they can't explain all the ins and outs of it, but they can be like, oh, yeah, that's something I've heard of, and maybe I can go home to this trusted person and get some more details or ask some more questions. I suppose that's the kind of, I would imagine, you know, the ideal way that that scenario plays out rather than a child who just feels so overcome by shame and embarrassment that they don't have anywhere to go with that information.Sarah: Absolutely. And I mean, that scenario that you've pictured, that's probably actually best case scenario for a child that doesn't know anything. A more problematic scenario might be where a child tells another child something that's just completely and utterly wrong. Like one of my kids came home from school, I think they were probably 10, and he came home and he said, mum, Michael at school told us that rape means having sex with someone and then killing them.And I was like, Oh, that's not right, is it? Because we'd had those conversations. So it's not just about setting your child up to not be surprised by things, but actually if you've got there first with the accurate information, inaccurate stuff tends to like, they don't grab onto it and go, Oh, okay.Because…you know, think about that. It's quite damaging for a child or a young person to think that rape is having sex with someone and then killing them because then they don't understand what rape really is, you know, and so there's all sorts of complexity and difficulty that sort of arise from that.And, and I imagine that any…well, I would hope that any young person would go through the education system and very quickly get the correct definition given to them at some point in the curriculum, but nevertheless. It's not a great introduction if they're getting inaccurate information from a peer.Laura: Yeah, because you're completely missing the whole, you know, really important opportunity to talk about consent.And so speaking of consent, I wanted to – and maybe this will help us take some of these more abstract concepts and put them into more concrete terms, but something that I've noticed since becoming a parent is how entitled people feel to kids’ bodies, you know, whether it's hugs or kisses or touching them in some way.Like, I was with my three year old the other day and someone from their pre-school, a teacher, ran up behind them and picked them up and scooped them up, and it scared the shit out of me, never mind my three year old. And of course it was coming from a well intentioned, loving place, because I know that they have a good relationship, but it feels like such a tricky one to navigate as a parent.And I have a lot of thoughts about this. But I'm curious to hear your thoughts on how we begin to teach kids about their body boundaries and what is okay and not okay in terms of people accessing their bodies and, and talking about who they share their bodies with and in what capacity. Sarah: The best way to learn things is through experience.So we could spend, you know, all day, every day saying to our child, you know, your body, your choice, you get to decide what's done to your body. But if we don't create an environment at home where that is lived rather than just spoken, then that makes it difficult. So children who – and I was one of these kids, actually – children who their voices aren't heard, we – I'm going to say, we – we grow up, we lose sense of what our truth is, right? So here's something that I've been thinking about lately. One of the adults in my community asked a question about school refusal. In my world, it's ‘school can't’ or ‘school avoidance’. If a child is…said we just have to go to school anyway. You just have to go. That's what we do. We have to go. The message there is it doesn't matter how you feel. There are some things that just have to be done because it's always been done like that, right? You can imagine that if that model is placed on a relationship and our child grows up to be a young adult and is in a relationship with someone who is very clear on the way things should be. So for example, I had a relationship for a time with a person and, in the process of negotiating our physical intimacy, I remember an interaction where I said, we'll need some lube. And this person says, Oh no, we don't need lube. And, now, it was a big deal for me to even say we need lube, but the other person being so clear, like we don't need it. I just completely, like, shut down. That was it. Okay, well then that must be true because what the other person is saying, which is opposite to me must be true because that was something that was demonstrated over and over and over again in my growing up. And I'm bringing up school refusal because it's so…it's really difficult. It presses a lot of buttons in an adult, you know, a child who doesn't want to go to school. That's probably one of the more complicated places where respecting our child's voice and their deep inner knowing of what is right for them is going to be hard, whereas maybe a little bit easier in, if it was, do you want to go to the beach or do you want to, you know, go over to Jimmy's house and jump on his trampoline. Like it won't matter so much what our child says, if they say jump on the trampoline and we would have preferred to go to the beach, we’re like, oh, we'll go and jump on the trampoline. But, so there's sort of like a, you know, like a continuum of the places in raising children where it's easier to respect who they are and their interests and what they want, versus the ones that are more difficult. And oftentimes the ones that are more difficult will be the ones where it puts us, as the adult, in a position where we have to go against someone in authority, or someone whose opinion we really value and we're concerned about their response when we're sort of advocating for our child.So it's no easy thing, but it really is about your child's experience of being heard, seen, believed, honoured. Yeah.Laura:  Yeah. You remind me a lot of a conversation I had with the psychologist, Hillary McBride, who is author of the book Wisdom of Your Body, and she talks a lot about embodiment, and we had a conversation about children's embodiment, and it was, you know, there, there are situations, of course, where we can't let our kids stay home because we have to go to work and we don't have any other form of childcare. As much as we would love to stay home with them all day and to let them rest and get all the things that they need, but again, late stage capitalism doesn't allow that. One of the things that she pulled out was just this idea that, even when we have to hold a boundary with our child, that we believe their experience, that we trust them and that we kind of, yeah, validate, I think, their experience because that will enable them to hold on to that seed of being able to trust their own embodied wisdom. You're nodding away there. I don't know if you have anything else that you would like to add to that.  Sarah: Yeah. So in my world, sometimes parents will say, yeah, but like consent is all very well, but what about, I've got a two year old who doesn't want to get into their car seat and we were going to wherever we're going and they have to be in the car seat.I'm like, yeah, yes, they do absolutely have to be in the car seat. And so in my world, I would be talking about informed consent versus like consent. And so a two year old doesn't have enough information and understanding about the implications for what they want to do. They don't understand that that puts them in danger.And so understanding that, while a two year old is very sort of clear on what they need, we have more information. That doesn't mean what they need is wrong. It just means we have more information and we need to facilitate sort of understanding, and that can be really hard when your two year old is doing the banana body and just, there's no way you can get the seatbelt on, you know?And so oftentimes it's about creating a culture when that clash of needs is not happening. So when your two year old is screaming, saying no, about getting in the seat, that's not the time to sit down and explain various things, but maybe there's another time the following day. Where it's possible to say, you know, I love you and my job is to keep you safe.And let's think of all the ways you need to be kept safe, or some of the ways. And you can list off, you know, electricity and fire and other things and then say, and did you know, cars are really dangerous if we don't have seatbelts on, just very like, little drops of knowledge and then I suppose that we can set our two year old up for success.And that could look like…like kids do really well with context, connection and choice, right? So getting to the car, setting context, in half an hour, we're going to need to get in the car. What does your body need to do before we do that? Do you want to run around? What sort of, what busyness? Because you remember, we're going to have to sit in the seat with the belt on.So context, connection, getting down and showing them that you see them. I love you. And I know that your body has a hard time being in the car seat. What can I do to help you out? Like letting them know, we see them, we understand what their experience is like. And then the choice is really offering as much choice as possible.So the seatbelt isn't a non-negotiable thing, but maybe there's other choices. Would you like to take a toy? Or would you like to choose the music? Or would you like to have a special blankie or like try and find all the ways that if your kid, the feeling of at least a little bit of autonomy so that you can keep them safe without too much conflict.And I…like I had three two year olds, I know it's not easy and we're all strapped for time. But if you sort of take a step back and think about it in the broader context, it's not just about that moment where you're trying to put them into the car. Context, connection, and choice are one of those things that's going to help you help your kid. And if you can do that, you feel good. Don't you? As a parent and like, Oh, like, wow. For the first time ever, my two year old got into the car seat without a screaming match. Like that's a win. And that helps me anyway, feel warm and fuzzy.  Laura: Oh, it definitely makes such a difference when you feel like you're maxed out, but then you get that win.And I mean, you're speaking my language, Sarah, and it's the exact same approach that I would take to a child who was struggling to come to the table, or who was really having a hard time eating and getting everything that they needed from food, you know, that connection piece is so important. And I will spare you the TED talk about everything that I see on Instagram that prioritises like these cheap wins over real connection over the feeding relationship. So yeah, I'll rein it back to what we're talking about here. Sarah: You know, when I was thinking about this, that we're going to have this conversation together, I was imagining that you and I at work would probably be that thing where we're holding onto different parts of the elephant. And while my work may look different, it's two parts of exactly the same thing. So I'm pleased to hear that is absolutely the case. Laura: 100%. So I got quite a few questions sent in. I'm not sure if we'll have time to go through them all, but I would really love to get your take on them. So these were sent in on Instagram that, you know, in the Instagram boxes, it's like a really tiny little space. So not all of them have all the context that I think we would need. I'll just shoot anyway. So the first one was “How to explain to kids why some stuff you do in private”. Again, there's no context here, but I'm going to assume that this parent means that their child is touching their vulva or their penis.Maybe…I mean, unless you have any other thoughts as to what might be going on there, but that seemed to be the most obvious thing to my mind. Sarah: Yeah, well, let's assume that. It's like anything else. We can think of other scenarios, that something is right in one context, but not another context. So oftentimes I will say, well, when we're going for a picnic in the park and we're sitting on a blanket. It makes total sense to use our hands, right? Cause we're probably eating a sandwich or a muffin or something, but when we go to granny's house and she served us tomato soup in a bowl, then what makes the most sense is to use a spoon. Or what do we wear when we go to the local swimming pool? Wear our swimmers. What do we do when we go to watch a movie in the cinema? Well, it wouldn't make sense at all to wear our swimmers. We'd get cold in the air conditioning anyway. We need maybe some trousers and a T-shirt. Same thing. With our genitals, depending on where our genitals are or like where our body is, well, there'll be different rules for them.So when we're on our own, when we're in the bathroom, when we're in our room, our genitals are our own. We can touch them and feel them and notice what feels good and what doesn't feel good. And you know, we wash our hands afterwards to make sure we don't spread any germs around the place, but your genitals are yours and you get to touch them and do with them whatever way you want. When we're outside, all the other people, they're allowed to not want to see us playing with our genitals, right? So we don't do it. Because if we didn't have that rule whereby people don't play with their genitals in public, then a lot of people might start playing with their genitals on the bus or in the playground or at school. And then it would be chaos. Not everyone wants to see other people's genitals or their hands down there. So it's just about common courtesy, really. And using analogies for other parts of life, where that same dynamic applies, it tends to ease us adults who are feeling a little bit squeaky about having that conversation in, because it's like, this is the same dynamic that plays out everywhere else in human existence. It just so happens because this is about genitals. Sometimes we're like, eh, I don't know what, help, help. Because maybe we're trying to reduce the likelihood of our child feeling shame, probably because when we were growing up, we were made to feel ashamed by what the adults around us said, and not because they were perhaps doing that on purpose, but because that's what they… Laura: They didn't have it shown to them. Yeah. Sarah: They, they didn't know. And most likely they would've been doing it with good intentions. Yeah. Some of us, you know, the adults that cared for us did not have good intentions. For the most part, though, most adults do, whatever level of ability we have talking about sensitive things is exactly right, depending on what's been in our past.So just because someone in the playground, a parent, is really good at this stuff, and we're not, that doesn't mean they're a better parent. They were just dealt a different hand and that's just the way it is.  Laura: Yeah. I hear you say that it's really important to have some self compassion when you are thinking about these issues.Thinking about having these conversations with your kid, but you kind of get that lump in your throat and you're not really quite sure how exactly to handle them, that just thinking about it, is a really good starting point, isn't it? And then from there, if you notice, Oh, I'm…well, it's checking in with your own bodily experiences, right, and saying, okay, what's coming up for me and where do I need some support or some help or some resources to help me open up these conversations.I really love the analogies that you use because these…yeah, it's a very similar thing, you know, talking about context and what's appropriate – I have some feelings about the word appropriate, but let's not get into that. One question that kind of came to my mind as you were explaining how you might approach that conversation. I'm curious if other parents might have this same thought, is that oftentimes in books around body boundaries and consent, they talk about your genitals as being private. So you know, one of the books that we have talks about how everything that's underneath your bathing suit, you know, it's your body, it's private.Would you use that kind of language, or how might you use that language? Do you find that helpful, or not so much? Sarah: There's a lovely author called Cory Silverberg, and they wrote three books for children of various ages. Laura: They're so good, these books. Sarah: Yeah, they're great. That author coined this idea of middle parts, and so the idea is rather than using private parts, using middle parts to generally describe genitals, because when we talk about private parts, it's just…it makes it complicated to give a child shame-free ownership of those parts of their body, right? One of the shifts in a family culture that can be really useful is this idea that in our family, we talk about everything.So, in a sense, particularly when kids are small, genitals aren't really private in families. Right? Laura: This is the exact thing that I've bumped up against with my three year old who still needs me to wipe his butt. And so there is that confusing thing of like, well, if this is private, but I need help with this or, you know, I still need to bathe him.And even the example that you gave earlier where we walk around our house nude, but we don't go outside nude, right? Like that can be a confusing thing. So I'm sorry to interject, but it just…you're articulating the exact, the exact thing that I have bumped up against. Sarah: Yeah. And so I suppose, again, it's another demonstration of something that manifests in lots of different ways in our parenting, but because it's to do with genitals, it's a bit like, Oh, not quite sure how this works.So the whole dynamic of raising children is that in the beginning, we're having to do a lot of things for them that they will eventually do themselves, feeding, cleaning, dressing, even sort of communicating, like taking the whole burden of communication off them onto us. So we're interpreting sounds and body language and all that sort of thing.So you can explain that dynamic to a child and say that there are certain parts of our body that are more sensitive than others and middle parts or genitals like penis or a vulva or whatever, there's a lot of special skin on those parts. And what that means is that they need special care, right? Now, when you're grown up and when you're, you know, maybe you're 8 or you're 10, you're going to wash those and put your clothes on those parts of your body. And you won't really need an adult's help at all. And you probably definitely won't want an adult's help, but while you're still small and I'm having to help you do a few other things, this is one of the parts of your body that, that you need help with.And my job is to help you eventually do it all on your own. Right. You would need to also say that bit about only trusted people help us with our most sensitive parts of ourselves. Right. And I suppose as a reminder that it's not just genitals we're talking about here. We're also talking about anus and we're talking about mouth because those are parts of the body too that can be used in ways that are really hurtful for people who don't have a child's best interest at heart. So when you're framing it in that way, there's less sense of like…the word private tends to put a shroud over things where, if you're talking about the sensitive special skin and special parts, then it's more like it's an honour and a privilege sort of thing, like to support you in this part of your being human. And to me, it just feels more gentle and collaborative and kind of nurturing. Laura: Yeah, I often thought about, like, the language of private parts as well as being a little bit confusing from the perspective of, like, as in when kids mature into young adults where they might want to start sharing their bodies with other people in a respectful, consensual way.Again, if it's got that sort of private, you know, shroud of shame connotation, then that's going to be a lot harder for them to do that in a way that, that feels safe.Sarah:  I'm laughing because I remember a meme that I saw, it would have been years ago now, but it was like, lies we tell children, number one, we don't lick other people's private parts.And just sort of like this, like head in the hand, like face palm, like, moment where, well, actually, when you get older…And I suppose what it illustrates is, when we're talking to kids, we have all this information and knowledge about where things could go as adults, right? They don't have an understanding of that.And I suppose it's no harm really to allow ourselves as adults to simplify it at a particular point in time, right? Knowing that as our kids get older, that truth that we've told will no longer be true. Right. And so, and that's where resources like Cory Silverberg's book, Sex is a Funny Word or, You Know Sex. Sex is a Funny Word is for around, around seven and eight years, And, You Know Sex is sort of for 10 to 14 year olds where it's really clear, it's a lot about how our bodies are instruments of pleasure, right? Which is often another conversation that adults find hard to have with kids. You know, that classic thing where you have that conversation about how babies are made or well, sperms and eggs get together and a penis goes into a vagina, if those two people want to do that, or you might talk about IVF or artificial insemination, but if it's a penis in a vagina… Laura: It leaves out a whole part of the conversation as to why people have sex. Yeah. Sarah: Exactly. And so oftentimes the kids will come back and say, all right, so I've been thinking about that. So that means you and dad did that twice, right? And parents will go, Oh, which actually just demonstrates that, like you said, a whole section of the conversation that was was left out about pleasure. So I think in these moments, when we're talking to kids about boundaries and safety, it's possible to simplify it a bit, knowing that down the road, one of our important jobs is to bring this whole pleasure and sharing our bodies with other people, and that naturally comes as they grow older and they start cluing in on more things to do with…they see the diversity in relationships around their extended community and family, you know, like if you have a same sex couple in your community, it makes it so much easier. And thank you to all the out gay and bi people, right?Because it makes it so much easier to have the pleasure conversation because it's so clear that if a child has had those conversations that sex really is only a penis and a vagina that all of a sudden you get this beautiful opportunity to talk about, well, actually intimacy is so much more about pleasure and how bodies feel good and how, when we share our body with someone else and we trust them and they trust us, then we get to help another person's body feel really good.There are lots of different ways that that happens. And then remember that in parenting, sometimes you don't have to say everything, like you can…Um, if you have a child who really needs things to be quite concretised, so an autistic child, for example, who really needs very specific communication. I'm autistic, I know what it means when someone's beating around the bush and I have to say, can you just tell me, tell me exactly what you mean by that? What does that mean? And then they're clear. And I'm like, okay, fine. And there are children like that, but some kids, you know, the information layers on over time, so it's far more about just holding your nerve and knowing that over the weeks and the months and the years to come, there'll be lots of opportunity to do and say and read all the things.Laura: And that's exactly what I was going to say is, reminding ourselves that, that this isn't a one and done conversation, that we will be having, if we're lucky and privileged to continue having these conversations with our kids, if they trust us enough to keep coming to us for these conversations, then it will be an iterative, as you say, layering on more information and more nuance as they developmentally can grasp that.So, I'm really curious to hear your answer to this question, because I bet there's a ton that you would love to say, but the person who sent this question in asked, “Four year old is asking questions, I'm not sure she's actually ready to hear the answer about, what do I do?” Sarah: I always say that if a child is asking the question, then they need to know the answer.Oftentimes in parenting advice, you'll hear people say, first of all, you ask them, well, what do you know already? And again, I go back to that old thing about, okay, where else in parenting do we check, well, what do you know already? Like there may be some places where you genuinely want to know, okay, do you know the basics of the solar system, for example? And so then I can just tell you, answer the question based on your knowledge, but oftentimes adults will use that, what do you know already as a way to sort of like create space. Laura: Or deflect. Sarah: Yeah, deflect. That's right. Or create space. And that's not a bad thing if your brain is trying to catch up. But all I would say is, a four year old has huge amounts of capacity for understanding sperms and eggs and uteruses and testicles and lots of things. And as a general rule, if we think a child isn't old enough to get the answer to something, it's probably because there's something in our past or a worry that we have that we don't know is there.So short answer, answer the question and see what happens, and use simple language in a way that you would use for answering any other questions you might ask. Laura: It's interesting, just maybe a point of difference in how we might approach things, because if a, for example, if a child came to me and asked, is this healthy for me? Like this food. Usually, I would be really curious to know, okay, well, I'm interested, what do you think? Do you think this is a healthy food? Just to get a gauge of, like, what information they've picked up or what they've learned so that I'm kind of starting from where they are and then maybe building from there.But I also see, like, how in certain situations it could be, like, Oh, fuck. I'm in too deep here. So let's just get the kid to do the hard work for me. Yeah. Sarah: And I guess, again, it's about how much stigma and shame culturally exists around a topic. There's a lot of stigma and shame that exists around…there is a lot of cultural shit around your topic as well, right? They're both heavily laden. Laura: But I would argue that you probably, uh, win on this, Sarah: Yeah. Yay! My topic's more stigmatised! Laura: You got it, yeah! I think what we're saying is, the point is to have the conversation, right? To think about, and again, what we were saying before, noticing what comes up in us when that question is asked.Sarah: And if you need to buy time, one of the great ways to do it is to say, Oh, I love that question. I'm so glad you asked it. Even if you're lying because you're freaking out, reinforce how great it is that they brought that up. I love that question. I'm so glad you asked it. I want to make sure I give you the best answer I can. So I'll get back to you tomorrow. Now, if you say that. You must get back to them tomorrow, otherwise it's a breach of trust. And remember, we're trying to be askable adults, the people they trust the most to come to them with their worst and best questions and worries. So that's really important. So you, in rugby language, you kick for touch. You tell them you come back tomorrow, you run around and find your most trusted sex educator, or you go to your therapist or ask your best friend who seems to know how to do all these things. And then you go back to your kid the next day.Laura:  Yeah. I did not understand the rugby reference, but everything else you said sounded really good.Sarah: Kicking for touch means, like, you take the ball and you kick it as far down the pitch as you can, hoping that it will bounce in exactly the right way that you can run down and start from that point. Right. Laura: Got it. Okay, I’m with you. Alright, another quick question, just in general: smashing gender stereotypes for a three year old who has turned out like a princess. They love glitter, and dresses, and pink, and does not enjoy wearing pants, despite the parents best efforts to show her a variety of gender roles. And then the same person kind of asked a follow up question, which is, is it okay to just…let her be tacky and think she's a Disney princess, even if I wish it was different.So yeah, questions about gender roles and offering a variety of, not even offering a variety, but challenging gender stereotypes. Sarah: So I'll answer the second part of that question first. It is absolutely okay to allow your three year old to be as tacky and as pink or as glittery as they want. Absolutely.And that goes for a child of any gender. Yeah. Yeah. And I would also say that for some of us, there is a desire, I suppose, to fix everything that's wrong with the world through a small person who's growing up. And really they're one human. Yeah, and they're themselves and they're an individual. And I remember thinking a lot about this when my daughter was, I can't remember what she was, we started to get into YouTube videos about makeup and she loved makeup and I really had to do a lot of soul searching and personal sort of, like, care because I really wanted to fix the whole of the patriarchy when it came to like appearance and that whole makeup culture and everything. But I realized that no, no, that's not my job. And it's definitely not my 11 year old, 10 year old’s job. My job is to love her and support her and help her feel like she is the best thing since sliced bread. Even if she is…has interests along sort of gender stereotype lines. And yeah, so remembering that in the moment when we're thinking of, Oh, we want to sort of fix the gender stereotypes and all that stuff. That really our child's body is not the place in which to do that. If you have a desire to create some sort of change, find somewhere else to do it.And look, the person who's asking these questions has already done a really great job of providing diversity and opportunity to see different things in their home. And so, you know, you've done what you can do and you continue to look at yourself and notice, okay, where are some of the ways that I might unthinkingly be following stereotypical lines and maybe then volunteer for some organisation or donate money somewhere else who's doing work related to gender and get on loving your kid and doing all the sparkly, tulle, pink, whatever it is. Unicorns. Yeah. Laura: Yeah. I think that's such a helpful reminder is that, you know, kids are not our like personal projects for righting everything that is wrong in the world and that there are other ways that we can create opportunities for them, show that we will be loving, accepting no matter what they decide they want to be when they grow up or how they want to express themselves or, you know, who they want to be in relationships with or any of that stuff that we can. There…you know, it doesn't have to be this either/or binary because so much of what is problematic about systems in the world is that they're binary, right?And so we…I suppose one thing that we can do is work to not replicate binaries in our, in our own home and in our parenting. And I have a little curveball question for you that I wanted to ask, which is kind of related to, something else we talked about at the very beginning around people feeling entitled to kids’ bodies, and I promise I didn't just get you on the podcast to answer my own parenting shit, but I was curious to hear if you had or how you might approach this or if you had any thoughts on this. Something that we come up against quite a lot is people really feeling entitled to explanations from my three year old. You know, that thing, which again can be like very well connected, meaning and people want to connect with him by asking, you know, what's your name? What's your age? But then they always ask, are you a boy or a girl?And It just feels so invasive and I can tell that he feels invaded because he kind of like, you know, curls into me, and it's one of those things where I just want to say. There is no such thing as a girl or a boy. What are you talking about? Like, and just launch into this whole diatribe about gender roles and, and things, but it, you know, the corner shop is not the place to do that.So I'm just curious if you have any thoughts on how you can kind of say to your child, like, it wasn't okay that they asked you that question. And, you know, I could tell that you were uncomfortable with that question while also maybe kind of like deflecting that question, does that make sense what I'm asking?Sarah: In a sense, you've partially answered it already because what you said there about saying to your kid afterwards, that question was, I could see it made you uncomfortable. What you're doing is you're, you're reflecting back their experience of it and reinforcing that that was a valid response, right?And so you're really sort of saying that made sense to me that you felt like that, that felt a bit weird. And you could even be more sort of broad and say, you know, some people ask questions that don't feel comfortable or feel a bit unkind or feel a bit rough. Whatever is the natural language that your, your kid would resonate with.But the other thing would be to – and you may already do this – is in the moment when it's happening and the person in the shop has asked that question, you can see your kid's body language doing what it's doing. You could simply say, Oh, I noticed that that question, it feels, it feels uncomfortable. So how about we talk about what we're buying in the shop, or did you know that apples is our favorite fruit? This is a personal choice. Actually. Some people would choose to deflect in a way that's very sort of gentle and easy going, because in the presence of a child, they're not interested in raising the conflict, elevating the energy. So do that way. Some people are more comfortable saying simply, you know, we don't really talk about gender in our house. We're much more interested in… whatever it is. So like it's finding the balance that feels right to you in being able to redirect…or I had one person just simply ignored questions they thought was stupid, they just like blanked them and went, okay, good to see you and off they went or, okay, we're going off to get the milk now. And just like, just pretended that it hadn't even happened, you know. It's different for everyone. There will be, and I'll speak to this too, there will be some people that don't have the personal capacity to manage any of the options that we've just mentioned here. You know, and there's someone in my community who something similar happened, they were in the park and a dear family friend, I think was about 50, saw them after, it might've been after COVID. So it'd been a few years and, her daughter was probably about 10 and he sort of, he moved in or something and she could see her daughter's whole body. So like, like shrink like this, but in the moment, yeah. Did not have the capacity. Like didn't see it coming. Hadn't thought about any of this stuff before. And so the interaction happened, he left and she hadn't been able to do anything about it, which makes complete sense because there are many of us, we go into a trauma response that reflects what's happened to us in our past, where we also were mute or I didn't have power to, to sort of do anything about that.So also, I suppose, a recognition of that. We all have different capacity when it comes to a situation like this and to reiterate and go back to that thing again about self compassion, whatever you have capacity to do in that moment is exactly right. It is not possible to achieve something if you don't have the underlying ability or experience or knowledge to do that.And so there's no shame, there's no blaming about that. It purely gives you an opportunity to notice. And then maybe at some point you'll have the ability to reach out for help. And for some of us, we don't have the ability to reach out for help for 5 years, 10 years. Some of us never in our life because we don't have the economic advantage or the educational support to do so.So it's just a small reminder that we all start in this area at completely different places on this spectrum of ability. And it doesn't mean you're bad or wrong. It simply means you are who you are with the life that you had. Laura: Sarah, I just want to – before we do our snacks – I just wanted to say, I felt myself get emotional at what you were saying there because it's just…the work that you're doing is so important and I know makes such a difference to the families that you help and I know you put a ton of like free resources and content out there.So I'm just really grateful to all the work that you're doing and yeah, just shining a light on these really difficult, challenging conversations in a way that is so compassionate and so just nuanced and thoughtful and yeah, I just know that you're making a big difference for a ton of people, so I wanted to say thank you.And I want to know what your snack is! At the end of every episode, my guest and I share something they've been snacking on. It can be a show, a podcast, a book, you know, like a literal snack, whatever it is that you've been really into lately. So what have you got for us? Sarah:  Yeah, well, this is actually something quite personal because, you know, I mentioned about being autistic.And that diagnosis came very late in life for me, only last year. So the thing I'm snacking on is noticing when it's possible to truly be myself, as opposed to do something that I've learned to do to make everyone else feel comfortable, you know, and that can be something as simple as, well, this isn't simple. Actually, this is quite challenging for me. I was at a, like a week long training for…a therapy training that I'm doing the other week. And instead of sitting on the chair, I sat on the floor because that's where my body felt the most comfortable. So, and it felt so damn good, you know, like it didn't feel just good to sit on the floor. It felt good to honour who I was. And so in an ideal world, I guess, honouring who I am wouldn't be a snack, but because this is a work in progress. It absolutely is a snack right now, and I'm grateful for it. Laura: Oh, I love that. And a lot of people who are part of the Can I Have Another Snack? community are neurodivergent, and I'm sure will really resonate with that experience of, yeah, unmasking and feeling like really comfortable doing that and how, yeah, just affirming that feels. So yeah, thank you for, for sharing that. Oh, my thing is just going to sound really trite compared to that, but my thing is a show, it's called Deadloch. Have you seen it?Sarah: Is that the Australian show? Oh, it's so good. Laura: Yeah. So, okay. So I'm excited to be able to talk to someone about it because I feel like not a lot of people have come across it.Uh, so it's set in Tasmania. It's all I can describe it as…is like a lesbian detective show. Sarah: That's about it. And like, it's so quirky, isn't it? Like it's just so random and weird and sometimes dark and sometimes hilarious. And it's sort of like, it's, it's wild. I'm so glad you love that. Laura: It is wild. And so there's, there's only one season, which is really disappointing, but it…each episode is an hour, so I feel like it's enough that you can, like, get stuck in. And I am someone who, like, my nervous system cannot handle a lot of stress, anxiety in the shows that I watch, I need to, like, be able to decompress. I do want to say that...it is a murder mystery, like it does ramp up in terms of the suspense across the season I want to say, but there's enough dark humour and comedy and, like, a lot of swearing and ridiculousness that it kind of like tempers it out and yeah, so it's really good. I highly recommend it. Sarah: It's amazing. Can I just say, from the perspective of sensitive conversations to the writers of that show, they had to write a rationale for why the word cunt should be in the script because it's used prolifically. For anyone who doesn't know, in Australian colloquial swearing language, cunt is used for lots of different things and it's important it was in there, culturally. It was super important. So I just loved that. And the other thing I loved was that – this isn't a spoiler – the victims of the crimes are not the gender you think, like you naturally assume them to be based on a lot of other like TV crime you would see.So there's some things that comes out and it just sort of skews your expectation based on what the culture has given you, that invisible influence of normal in crime shows, you know? Laura: There is a lot of cultural stuff that is a kind of cultural critique, I suppose, that around gender, around racism, there's a lot of stuff that it touches on, but there is prolific use of the C word.But it, it's just like the way that it is thrown in, it's just very well done. The whole thing is very well done. So highly recommend. Sarah: And can I just say one thing, because you said “the C word” and I think it's important. Because when I was about 28, I was able to reclaim the word cunt because I was in a relationship with an artist at that point and a poet.And he said to me, because I was like, Ooh, that's a yuck word, he said, did you know like, it comes from the old…Old English or Old Norse or something, something of like, when you're ploughing that there's like, the plough leaves a cunt behind in the soil. And I was sort of like, oh, that actually sort of made me feel like, well, that's sort of nice. Like it's a similar sort of look. And for some reason, it just made me feel like I think I could reclaim that word. Not that other people can't, but from that time on, I was like, yeah, okay, that word and I, we can coexist with relative equanimity. Laura: Do you know what? I don't even know why I censored myself because I say cunt all the time.You're a cunt, you're a cunt, they're a cunt. But I understand that maybe not everybody is as comfortable with that word.Sarah, before I let you go, can you let everybody know where they can find you and learn more about your work? Sarah: Sure. Well, my Instagram is @IAmSarahSproule. And at the moment in the season that I'm in, which is really about unmasking and making sure I rest as much as I can. There's not a lot of new things out there, but there is about three years worth of very detailed content there about how to talk to kids about all sorts of things that all different ages, and it's well worth trawling back through there and, getting your fill of support. So that's where the main place you can find me. Laura: Yeah, I will link to all of that in the show notes and there's some great farting content on there as well, which I really appreciate and enjoy. Sarah, it's been such a delight to talk to you. Thank you so much for sharing everything with us. I know we could have gone on for like another 90 minutes, but I will wrap up there and let you go. Thanks so much, Sarah.OUTROThanks so much for listening to the Can I Have Another Snack? podcast. You can support the show by subscribing in your podcast player and leaving a rating and review. And if you want to support the show further and get full access to the Can I Have Another Snack? universe, you can become a paid subscriber.It's just £5 a month or £50 for the year. As well as getting tons of cool perks you help make this work sustainable and we couldn't do it without the support of paying subscribers. Head to laurathomas.substack.com to learn more and sign up today.  Can I Have Another Snack? is hosted by me, Laura Thomas. Our sound engineer is Lucy Dearlove. Fiona Bray formats and schedules all of our posts and makes sure that they're out on time every week. Our funky artwork is by Caitlin Preyser, and the music is by Jason Barkhouse. Thanks so much for listening. ICYMI this week: Let’s Talk All Things Neurodiversity and Food* How are you flipping gender scripts for your kids?* Nourishing Full Bodied Awareness with Hillary McBride* Let's Talk About Snacks, Baby This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit laurathomas.substack.com/subscribe

Alright team, after a little hiatus from the CIHAS pod for a month, we’re coming back hard with Molly Forbes. Molly joined me back in May 2022 on the Don’t Salt My Game pod where we discussed how to stomp out diet culture in schools, and I’m so excited to have her join us in today’s episode.This time around, we discuss what the NCMP is, what it looks like in different schools, why you might want to opt your kid out, how you even go about doing that, and what you can do if you're worried about your child feeling left out if they're the ones who are left in the classroom while everyone else goes to get weighed.Find out more about Molly’s work here.Follow her work on Instagram here.Follow Laura on Instagram here.Subscribe to my newsletter here.Read more about the history of and evidence behind the NCMP here:Here’s the transcript in full:INTRO:Laura Thomas: Hey and welcome to the Can I Have Another Snack? podcast, where we talk about appetite, bodies and identity, especially through the lens of parenting. I'm Laura Thomas, I'm an anti-diet registered nutritionist and I also write the Can I Have Another Snack newsletter. Today I'm talking to Molly Forbes.Molly is a journalist, campaigner and non profit founder. She's the author of the book Body Happy Kids: How to Help Children and Teens Love the Skin They're In and she's the founding director of the Body Happy Organisation CIC a social enterprise dedicated to promoting positive body image in children. I asked Molly to come on during the back to school season because we need to talk about the National Weight Measurement Programme, or the NCMP.This is the programme where children in England have their height and weight taken in schools at age 4-5, so in reception and then again in year six, which is ages 10 or 11. My understanding is that this happens in various forms throughout the UK. So in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland too. Although let me know in the comments how it's different for you or, you know, what the similarities are if you're in one of those countries. The UK government have taken the position that this is an innocuous practice. But, as I discussed with Molly, this is not reflected in the body image research. The programme is associated with poorer body image, which in turn is linked to disordered eating, body preoccupation, and lower overall sense of well being.So Molly and I, in this episode, go on to discuss what the NCMP is, what it looks like in different schools, why you might want to opt your kid out, how you even go about doing that, and what you can do if you're worried about your child feeling left out if they're the ones who are left in the classroom while everyone else goes to get weighed.I really hope you will share this episode with your school WhatsApp group, your friend group, with the teachers in your school, and help end the tyranny of the NCMP. You can also share Body Happy Org and Any Body UK's Informed Decision Making Pack and my writing on the NCMP, all of which I'll link to in the show notes for you.All right, before we get to Molly, I want to tell you real quick about the benefits of becoming a paid subscriber to the Can I Have Another Snack? newsletter and community. Now, I know we're not used to having to pay for content on the internet, and why would you pay for something where 85% of the content is free? Well, that's a great question. I'd love to answer it for you. Well, because without paying supporters, this work just wouldn't be possible. As well as supporting me in the time it takes to research, interview contributors and write articles, your support goes towards paying guests for their time and their labour, as well as a podcast and newsletter editor. You also help keep this space ad and sponsor free so I don't have to sell out to advertisers or exploit my kid for freebies. Plus keeping the community closed to paying subscribers only means that we keep the trolls and the fatphobes out.I recently asked the CIHAS community why they support the newsletter, and this is what they had to say: “I am a mum of one, fairly adventurous, self-proclaimed vegetarian and one theoretical omnivore. The latter survives almost exclusively on added sugar and butter, but mostly sugar. I consumed all the picky eating advice, some of it really well-meaning, and pretty mellow. But by seven years in, I was more frustrated, confused, and full of self-doubt than ever. Enter CIHAS. The no-nonsense, cut through the bullshit, science-backed content is exceptional. The content about sugar is especially helpful to me, and the anti diet lens is an anecdote to my extremely anti-fat slash diet-culture conditioning. And as an American, the British references are just an added bonus to say your work is actively changing. My life is not an understatement. Thank you.” Well, thank you to the reader who shared that lovely testimonial, and if that hasn't inspired you to become a paid subscriber, I don't know what will. It's just a fiver a month or £50 for the entire year, and you get loads of cool perks, as well as just my undying gratitude for supporting my work.Head to laurathomas.substack.com to subscribe now.  All right team, here's Molly. MAIN EPISODE:Laura Thomas: Hey Molly, can you start by telling us a bit about you and the work that you do? Molly Forbes: Yeah. So I run an organisation called the Body Happy Organisation. We're a CIC, so a Community Interest Company, or a social enterprise. Or if you're in the US, you might know that model is like a non profit. And essentially what we're all about is trying to create environments that allow children's body image to thrive.So we're really looking at prevention and we're looking at how we can create, kind of, culture change in schools and youth clubs and anywhere that children hang out and are to help, kind of, create an environment that just allows kids to just be at peace and friends with their body. And then all the other benefits that come with that, including how they treat other children with bodies that don't look or function like their own.And I also wrote a book called Body Happy Kids, which is for adults,  teachers, parents…I'm not a nutritionist. I'm not a dietitian. I'm not a psychologist. But I'm a journalist by trade. So I've really interested in that kind of media and culture angle when it comes to this subject. And that kind of informs, I guess, the lens that I come to this through. But in our organisation, we do have lots of different people from a range of different disciplines, which I think is also what makes us kind of special because we're not at it just from like a body image researcher lens, for example, or just from a nutritional food lens.We're looking at it from, like, a range of different perspectives.Laura Thomas: Yeah, the work that you do is really important. And one sort of thread of the work that you're doing is around the National Child Measurement Programme or the NCMP, which is what I wanted to ask you about today. So when this goes out, it's September, it's back to school time. And I know there's a lot going on on parents’ radars at point in time, but I don't think that the NCMP registers as like something that's high up parents list, you know, in that back to school period.And in fact, I think a lot of parents don't even know what that is, or the fact that their kids will automatically be enrolled in it. So I wondered if you could start by explaining what the NCMP is and why do schools do this?Molly Forbes: Okay, so the NCMP, it stands for National Child Measurement Programme.  it was brought in to schools in 2006. And then in 2012, they started including the feedback element of the programme. And essentially what it is, it's exactly what it says on the tin. It's a national child measurement programme.So what happens is if your child goes to a state funded school,  and they're in reception or year six, then they will be weighed and they will have their height and their weight measured in school, as part of that programme, unless you opt them out.So in 2018, when the GDPR rules changed around GDPR, they kind of changed the way that, like, the logistics will work. So what you really need to know is if your child's in reception or your child's in year six from September, like in this next academic year, they will be weighed in school, unless you actively opt out.It's a way for the government to collect data on kids' height and weight. across the UK. But it's been reframed as this sort of health intervention over recent years as the, you know, the rhetoric around, you know, the O word, obesity, which I don't use that word in my work, but that's the word that we'll see, we'll see in here in the media.As that kind of rhetoric has really got more aggressive then the argument for the NCMP has been that, like, this is a positive thing for our children's health and it's really important and…it's a totally politicised programme.Laura Thomas: Yeah, and so for people who aren't in England, reception is, sort of, I guess the equivalent of like kindergarten or primary one if you're in Scotland, where those kids are four turning five years old. So they're really little still. And then the other thing that I think is important to point out is that year six kids are sort of around that 10,11 mark and their bodies might be preparing for and getting ready to go through puberty or might already be starting the process of puberty. And that is something that is not factored into the sort of the BMI equation and the feedback that is given to parents. And that, that's kind of another piece of this story as well, isn't it, Molly, that the introduction in 2012 of what is colloquially known as the obesity report. And of course, I don't use that word either, but that's the terminology that families will hear. And so basically, the NCMP transitioned from being just a very objective measure of, you know, population changes over time to something that that offers direct feedback, but also in a way that can be stigmatising and judgmental and really upsetting for for families to receive, which we will talk a bit about in a minute.But can you, like, get us into the government's mindset, if you can, around this programme? Why do they think that this is a helpful exercise to put kids through to weigh them in schools, you know, around their peers, with no kind of like real measure of their health, just looking at you know, what we know to be sort of a bullshit measure of their relationship with gravity, their body's relationship with gravity,Molly Forbes: There's the public reasoning and then there's, like, the real reasoning. Actually like we could just cut out all of the waffle around the public reasoning, which is what they'll say that actually, it's good for kids health. It's important that we know what you know, the trends are when it comes to height and weight. It helps us make public policy decisions. It's really important that we have this data. But we could actually just cut all of that out and actually get to the heart of the matter, which is it's all about money. So previously, like back in the day, many schools would have had a school nurse and that nurse would have been like on site and been the person that, you know, if the kids had a tummy ache, they go and see the school nurse, the school nurse would have done like head lice checking. They would have done health education with the kids in terms of like that kind of public health education piece and they would have been like, quite a key part of the school environment just in the way that like the teachers were.And the role of the school nurse was… the focus was really on that holistic kind of health and thinking about health in a holistic way. It's really expensive to do that. So what's kind of happened over the years is the NCMP has been brought in as almost a way to kind of replace that sort of holistic school nurse approach.Now, what you need to know about the NCMP is that many people delivering the NCMP aren't actually school nurses. They work for local authorities and they work in the health team. So they work in the school nursing teams but they're healthcare assistants. They don't have the training and the expertise that a school nurse has.It's not the schools that, that take the measurements. What will happen is the outside teams will come into the school on a pre-organised and agreed day of the year, if the school agreed to it, and the children will basically be lined up and it'd probably be in the school hall or in a separate classroom.And one by one the children will go in and they'll stand on a scale and they'll have their height and their weight measured and they'll probably get a sticker and they'll go back out into the classroom. And the people who are actually taking those measurements are, nine times out of ten, not school nurses, they are healthcare assistants.Now that is so much cheaper to run than having a school nurse who's on site in a school who's actually going in and like teaching kids about like personal hygiene maybe or being there, like if a kid has a tummy ache or like they fall over in the playground, like having someone who's got that level of expertise to actually treat the child on site. It's expensive to, to run that kind of programme and it's much, much cheaper – even though the NCMP costs loads of money – it's much cheaper as a form of public health policy programming than actually having like dedicated school nurses who actually like proper teams who come in and do like proper impactful work with kids and with schools. And so what's happening is the NCMP – which it is a data collection exercise, it's being reframed as a health check – and so lots of parents are then worried about opting out because they think, well, it's a health check. Just the same way that, like, your child's two year check with their health visitor is a health check. People think it's the same thing. And it's really important to know that it is not the same thing. It is absolutely not the same thing.Laura Thomas: And I think I've seen definitely in the sort of the template letters that the government has for schools to use and local authorities to send out to parents about it. The way that it's framed is very much as not just as a, an exercise in health, but also it's framed as being…they don't go as far as to say that it's mandatory, but they give the impression that it's you know, quite a critical check, almost like, like you say, the two year checkup.So tell me a bit more about how that government narrative compares and contrasts with what you see at Body Happy Org and what other researchers and advocates are saying about this programme.Maybe you'll get into this, but you know, it's something that, that really strikes me again in that literature that they, I say literature, but you know what I mean? Like the template letters that they send home to schools…is one of the things that they say very clearly is that there's no negative impact whatsoever of this programme and they claim to have tested that.  But I don't think that…well, I know that's not the full story because I've written about it and I know you know that's not the full story. So can you kind of, like, fill us in on maybe some of the things that is, is less transparent in the communications from people administering this programme?Molly Forbes: Yeah. In 2021, the Women and Equalities Committee released the Body Image Report, and one of their key recommendations was to urgently reassess the NCMP, National Child Measurement programme. And the government's response to that was that they had absolutely no intention of urgently assessing it. In fact, they wanted to double down on it. And, and get teams in and do even more weighing and even more measuring of kids.Now, we created this information pack around the NCMP so parents could actually make a fully informed decision. And we work with Anybody UK, the charity on that pack, it was like a collaborative piece of work that we did together. And they gave evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee as part of that initial report. And what's really interesting is in the rebuffal that the government kind of provided, they cited a study from 2008. And this is often the one that's kind of cited, that found that actually, according to this study…so they basically looked at London schools, and they said that, well, actually, it doesn't cause any issues and, and in some cases, you know, children actually really enjoyed it.Now what's really interesting and important to know about that study is that it was, first of all, it was an opt in study. So parents opted in to get their children weighed. They chose to put their children forward for this. The NCMP is an opt out situation. So unless you actively opt out, your children will get weighed.So already you've got to think, right, who are the people who are opting their children in? So perhaps if a parent thinks that their child is more likely to get, you know, a gold star and be in that healthy weight range category. they're probably less bothered about their child being weighed because they're going to feel like their parenting is validated because their child's body size is fitted, fitting the size that society is telling them that they should fit.So already, like, we can assume that like you know, who are the families, what's the weight range of the children who are going to be measured as part of that study. But the other thing to know is that actually that study did find that children who were found to be in the quote unquote overweight range, their parents were more likely to then follow that up by putting them on a restrictive diet.Laura Thomas: So the research that the government themselves are citing is contradicting the claims that the government are making.Molly Forbes: Well, the claims that the government are making is that actually that's a positive thing and that that's a healthy kind of outcome. So basically what they're saying is that, um that whole study was conducted through the lens of like, you know, healthy weight.  And so essentially, if fat kids get put on a diet, or if some fat kids are harmed in the process, then that's a necessary evil, or it almost doesn't matter.Laura Thomas: Right. Fat kids are fair game for being collateral damage.Molly Forbes: Yeah, completely. Exactly that. And they, they didn't look at it through a lens of how it might impact a fat child, or a child who's, who for whatever reason is more likely, is less likely to come out in that like healthy weight, weight range category that we know is like so flawed anyway.Laura Thomas: Mm hmm.Molly Forbes: So that's their like big study that they cite that's like, oh, there's nothing wrong with it. Most children even enjoyed it, but actually they weren't looking at it. They were looking at it from completely the wrong lens and actually there is so much other evidence to show that weighing children in schools is actually really harmful and the potential for causing harm is massive on so many different levels but the government just basically chose that one study and just keep citing it over and over again as their response and like almost basically refusing to look at the other evidence.Even when it was literally handed to them on a plate as part of that report. Laura Thomas: Yeah. So tell us a little bit more about the harm. So what kind of things do you think are the sort of the fallout from a programme like this?Molly Forbes: Yeah. I guess you can break it down into like two areas. So you can look at the individual harms and the individual child. And then you can look at the, the bigger piece, which is the kind of,  the more like the systemic factors and like the culture piece and the environmental piece, which is what we're kind of interested in at Body Happy.So from like an individual level…by the government's own admission, it's more likely that, that if a child comes home with a letter saying that they're not in the healthy weight range, that they're in the quote unquote overweight range or obese range, that their child will put them on a diet.Now that's really dangerous. I think if someone's listening to this podcast by now, they probably will have done the work to understand why diets are harmful. But it's particularly harmful. Like these are children that we're talking about. We're talking about children who are, you know, four and five, you know, who actually…I mean, you can speak to the health risks of putting a child of that age on a restrictive diet. But then also we're talking about children who are 10 and 11, whose bodies are changing and are going through puberty, which is again, I mean, it's not good to put any kids on diets, but these are two ages when you definitely, definitely do not want to put kids on diets.You can probably speak a bit more about that in terms of like that individual impact.Laura Thomas: Yeah. I think, I mean, the piece around kids, we talked about it before, you know, around 10, 11, preparing to go through puberty, that is one point in time where children are most vulnerable to the development of eating disorders, body image disturbance, low body esteem, which can become a risk factor for things like self harm, anxiety, depression.I mean, it's kind of a chicken and the egg sort of situation in terms of the research, but we know that those things track, you know, where we see dieting and disordered behaviors, there is a strong correlation with poor mental health outcomes.  And then there's the fact that those kids, like, literally need to be growing and gaining weight and, and then the thing that their bodies are supposed to do is the exact thing that we're trying to stop them from doing. That can cause all kinds of problems in terms of their development.I've written a little bit about the risk factors of, or the risks associated with putting children on a diet. So I will link back to that post and, for people who, who maybe are newer around here and, and want to unpack that  a little bit more, but maybe you could say more about the systemic piece, the broader piece that you're focused on at Body Happy. Molly Forbes: Yeah. So we're working really hard to help children know that all bodies are good bodies and all bodies are worthy bodies. And we're working really hard to kind of create cultures in schools that celebrate all bodies and celebrate body diversity and allow children to see themselves as more than their bodies.And that actually, we should treat everyone with respect and dignity, like regardless of what anyone looks like, and we know that, like, weight based teasing and bullying is the most common form of bullying in the playground, like the World Health Organisation have found that.And on the one hand, if we're saying to children, oh, don't, don't do that. Like that's not very kind to, like, tease and, and bully someone for the way they look. But then on the other hand, we're weighing them in school and we're sending letters home saying your body is wrong. That's essentially what we're saying, your body is wrong. So it basically gives the green light for that kind of behaviour. And it also…at any opportunity for body neutrality in a setting where we are literally creating body hierarchies and upholding these hierarchies by weighing children in school is one way, you know. Also the way that we approach, you know, quote unquote healthy eating education, the way that we talk about food and bodies, the way that we deal with appearance based bullying.But weighing in children in schools is like one way that we uphold these body hierarchies. So actually, it literally undermines everything that we're trying to achieve at Body Happy Org. We're trying to create these spaces that celebrate body diversity, celebrate differences, have a real, much more of a focus on, like, body neutrality and health behaviours as separate to… you know, as one part of health, but also separated from weight. So we're trying to teach kids that you can't tell how healthy someone is by looking at them. And even if you could, it shouldn't change the way that you treat that person. Yet we're also weighing them in school and sending a letter home saying you're unhealthy, right, now what's the impact of that? You're going to go and be put on a diet or you're going to be, you know, your parents going to… feel that's a risk. You know, the letter doesn't necessarily say. put your child on a diet…Laura Thomas: Well, it kind of does because it sends people to the Change for Life website or whatever it's called now. I forget, but it basically, it says, if you've received one of those letters, go here, you go there and it says, encourage your child to eat less and move more. And there are so many, I mean, that's problematic in and of itself, but there are so many assumptions baked into that, right? Encourage your child to eat more fruit and vegetables. Well, you don't know how many fruit and vegetables my child is eating. You don't know how active they are. You don't know, you know, what other health concerns they have. You don't know what other, you know, the socio political cultural circumstances that that child's body is, you know, contained within, that all have a bearing on their, their, their body weight.So to just sort of put it down to the, the old calories in calories out equation is…I mean, this is slightly tangent, but it's just, I guess, to me, it's just ratifying anti-fat bias and saying, yeah…it's like you said before, it's creating this disconnect between wanting to create a place of safety for our children, which, you know, schools should be a place of safety, but there's this really violent practice that we're continuing to subject our children to on this other side.And it's just like, yeah, the mixed messages and the head fuck for that child is overwhelming.Molly Forbes: And it's, it's really insidious. So what was happening prior to 2012 is that kids were basically being weighed and the parents weren't receiving…they didn't get any feedback –they call it feedback – and they didn't get a letter home. And so now after 2012, they started sending this letter home.And the parents will receive or the caregiver will receive a letter saying that if your child is in the, one of the basically not the healthy weight category, the parent will be told that and then they'll, as you say, either they'll be directed to like another website, more information. In some areas, they will also be then… Laura Thomas: Referred. Yeah.Molly Forbes: Ttheir details will be passed on to the weight management team or the healthy weight team or whatever they call it, weight management services.And the parent might be contacted and said, you know, do you want to sign your, your kid up? And, you know, I, I sort of jokingly said, oH they're not explicitly saying, put your kid on a diet, but actually what is happening in some areas is that the child is being referred to a weight management service, such as Slimming World.You know, if that's not a diet, what is? So actually, yeah, you're right. That is what's happening. And so that's kind of harmful on an individual level, but we know that, like, kids display anti-fat bias right from like the age of three.Yeah. So, actually, kids know that there is a good and a bad weight that they don't want to be. They know right from early that they're getting these messages. They believe that, you know, that fat is bad and thin is good. And they get these messages from so many different places. And these messages are upheld often by their teachers and perhaps their parents and the family members, people around, by society at large.And so if they're then going into that room to be weighed, you know, if a child, particularly a child who has a fat body has already probably received lots of negative messages about their body, they know that like, as they step on the scales, they're potentially going to, you know, quote unquote, fail the exam.And what's the outcome of that going to be? And the thin kids know as well. It just upholds these ideas that there are good bodies and bad bodies and it literally gives the green light to bullying in the setting and it also gives the green light to kind of these unsaid judgments and bias and microaggressions to just continually happen in the setting.And it's really harmful for all children. It's not just harmful for children who are going to get a letter home. That kind ofatmosphere, it doesn't support any child to have a positive relationship, either with their own body or with the bodies around them. It’s completely counterproductive.And that's important. It's important because we know that kids who have,  you know, a better relationship with their body are generally happier on the long term, healthier. However, you want to kind of categorise that like really loaded word of health. You know, more likely to have better self esteem, less likely to be at risk and vulnerable of, like, eating issues, other mental health concerns, such as anxiety, depression.But also – like those are all individual things – but on a whole, like for me, it's just how we raise children to treat other kids, you know, and this programme is counterproductive to that. And the other piece, and this is the thing that I don't often talk about, but there is also a toll on the adults as well. There's a toll on the parents who are receiving the letter.Laura Thomas: Absolutely.Molly Forbes: There's a toll on the teachers. So many teachers, we've got teachers in our team and they hate it.They hate it on school weighing days, like literally keeps them up at night. They get so upset knowing that their children are being lined up going in and it can be so triggering because they might have their own experiences and bad memories of these kind of things happening when they were at school.And actually many of the people who have to carry out this programme don't like it, you know, it's one part of their job, but I hear from many people who have to do this that don't enjoy it. They don't like it. They know of the…Laura Thomas: Harms. Yeah.Molly Forbes: It's just not fair on anyone.Laura Thomas: So, let's talk about maybe some logistics here in terms of how the programme is conducted, because parents have a choice. Teachers, to some extent, have a choice and schools have a choice, and I don't think that we talk about that part enough. I think you've done a really lovely job of laying out the harms here but I think it's really important to, to help parents figure out how to navigate this. So what, what happens in schools, right? Will parents get a letter? Will they know that this is happening and what can they do with that information? And I know that this is also nuanced because it, it varies by local authority to local authority and school to school. So yeah, as best as you can, can you kind of help us understand what to expect?Molly Forbes: Yeah. So what should happen and the advice for how local authorities and nursing teams need to be delivering this program is that what should happen is that they contact the school and they say, hey, can we come in and, and measure the kids? And the school…the school at that point does have a choice, the school are allowed to say no. And many schools don't know this, but they are allowed to and they do have a choice.Laura Thomas: And who's that up to? Is that up to the head teacher?Molly Forbes: Yeah. So, the head teacher, but often there'll be like a governing body as well. And also schools are often nowadays they're part of like a federation or trust so there'll be other schools. So, it might be that there's a CEO of that federation and so it goes up, you know, higher and higher to who is able to make that decision.It is a big deal. It's scary for schools to say no because the local authorities get so much funding for delivering this programme that they put a huge amount of pressure on schools to kind of let them in. So often schools feel like it's a mandatory thing and they can't say no, but what if there are any teachers listening to this is actually, you can say no.Laura Thomas: It’s within your power?Molly Forbes: Yeah. When I was creating this pack that…she now volunteers for Anybody UK, but someone on that team who wasn't on the team when we were creating this, she is a school governor and she's been helping her school in London opt out of it. And there's been a whole process. They've had to have meetings with parents. They've had to do, like conduct surveys. They've had to go through like various processes with the governors. But, I believe that they are on the way to opting out of it. So what happens then is that say, for example, the school let them in, which nine times out of 10, they will, then two weeks prior to the team coming in to take the measurements and collect the data they should and, and will send home a letter.But it's coming not from the school. It's really important to know it's not the school. It's not your kids’ teachers who are taking these measurements. It's not them who are, although they're the ones who are communicating with you, if there are any like fuck ups and a child is opted out and then still gets weighed, which can sometimes happen. Like ultimately it's not the teachers who are taking this data.Y eah, so the school will send a letter home, or the local authority will send a letter home via the school saying this is happening on this date, and if you want to opt out, then you can either do this. So sometimes there'll be a form,  if they want to make it super easy, there'll be a form. And so you can like fill in the form and just say, I don't give consent. What's increasingly happening is that they're making it harder and harder, making you jump through like multiple hoops.So it might be that you have to ring a phone number, and it might be that when you ring that number, no one answers. Or that you leave a voicemail message and that, you know, and you're having to keep doing that. And I know that as a parent who works full time, that's a nightmare to have to do.Laura Thomas: It's such a pain. Yeah.Molly Forbes: It's such a pain and it's just life admin that no one has time for. I feel like that's not accidental, you know. I may, maybe I'm being cynical, but it feels to me like that's not an accidental choice to make it harder for parents to opt out. And then what should happen is, on the day that the measurements are taking place, the kids who are going to be measured are, like, lined up, and they're sent on through, and they, they have the measurements, and the kids who aren't are basically, like, kept separate, and they don't get sent through, and, and they won't be measured.Laura Thomas: So they can like stay in the classroom or whatever.Molly Forbes: Yeah, exactly. And,  what should also happen is that kids… when the kids are getting measured, they don't see the measurement on the scale so that they, they don't see what the measurements are and they are measured on their own. So it's not happening like in a public, in front of the whole class. Laura Thomas: That's true. But I just want to say that there's a lot of research that suggests that either school nurses or healthcare assistants will report back what the child's weight is depending on, you know, or tell them the category that they fall in. And so it's not as sort of taped off as it sounds like it might be and also kids can look! They can just look, right. Like there's nothing to prevent them from just checking the number. I mean, maybe not the four and five year olds are going to have a harder time with it, but certainly by year six, they can look. And I think the other sort of fallacy that I hear is that, you know, it's all contained within that moment that they get measured, but there's also reports that children will go out and compare their weights in the playground. And I think that's where that bullying, teasing risk kind of comes in, that you talked about before.Molly Forbes: That's what should happen. And that's what in like the best practice kind of how to run the programme they say should happen. But I know anecdotally that that doesn't always happen. So I know anecdotally that there are some children that will be opted out and the parents will opted them out, but the child still gets weighed.Because, you know, accidents are happening. Everyone's overworked. The teachers are stressed and overworked. The nurses are stressed and overworked. There's a lot of children coming through that they have to get all this data. I also know anecdotally, I've heard from parents where the children have overheard their weight being discussed in front of them in their earshot.And I've heard from parents where the children have, as you say, then discussed their weights with, with their peers. So although that's kind of the best practice way of happening and, and that's what they say should happen, it isn't always, no, it's run by humans and there's always room for human error to happen.Laura Thomas: Sure.Molly Forbes: And then afterwards, once they've kind of processed that data, that's when they will send a letter home. Now, it's also important to know that the letter home part of the programme is not mandatory. So the programme is a mandatory programme that the local authorities have to deliver, but that's the local authorities that have to deliver it. The schools don't. They are not mandated to allow the programme to happen in their school. So although the local authority, which effectively runs the schools, is mandated to do that, the schools do have some autonomy. And also the local authorities are not mandated to then provide the feedback. The feedback is an optional added extra part of the programme. And again, I think many, many places don't realise that. And there have been some pilot studies and some trials in some areas where they've looked at what happens if we don't send that feedback letter. And that's really promising, but also there have been some other trials looking at what happens if we ramp up and we just go all in and we double down.And along with that feedback letter, we also include a diagram, which shows children with a different range of bodies, like on a scale from thin to fat. And we like put a big red circle around the body that that child's weight falls into and what then, what will happen if we do that, will the parents be even more likely to quote unquote, take it seriously and do something about their child's weight.So there are two things happening and, depending on, you know, who's running it, kind of depends on what happens. Within that whole framework, there are things that the schools can do to, like, minimise some of the potential harms. First of all, just letting parents know that they can opt out, I think is really important. And second of all, just letting parents know about the information so they can make an informed decision. Because like, if you get like ten forms come home about, you know, there's a school trip happening next week. Oh, by the way, this is our lunchbox policy. Oh, by the way, your kid's being measured and here's the homework that we're doing. Like, it's just going to easily get lost. Whereas if the schools make it really clear to the parents like, okay, this is happening. And this is the letter that we have to send to you. And in this letter, it will say there are no…that studies show there are no adverse impacts of, like, this, this programme. If they could also just link to the Body Happy Org and Anybody UK information pack that would at least give parents enough information to make, you know, know the full story.Laura Thomas: Yeah, and I think just on that on that piece of like all these letters going home and things getting confused and I think like another thing that I've heard happening is just kids opening the letter themselves because again, if you're like 10, 11, you're like, oh, what's this? I want to have a look.And they're reading You know, your child is quote overweight or quote obese and what like the impact that that that can have, it's not even, you know, filtered through the lens of a parent who might be able to be like, well, fuck this, this is rubbish and just, you know, get rid of it, which I know a lot of parents do because they're..they feel like, like you said before, like it's an indictment of their parenting.But yeah, like what happens when that falls into the hands of, you know, a preteen who is really vulnerable to it. So I just, I wanted to make that that point there as well. Like, so just to kind of wrap up, can you tell us a bit more about the… is there anything else you want to say about the process of opting out or, you know, how to, like, any tips for parents to make sure that if you have opted out that you've really opted out?Molly Forbes: Yeah. So I think one thing that I definitely hear the most and one of the biggest pieces of resistance of opting out is that parents are really worried that their child is going to feel left out. Particularly the little ones, like they get a sticker and they get a sticker and like, who doesn't love a sticker?And so like their mates are all coming back into the classroom saying like, I'm, I'm good. I've got a sticker and they're on their own and they just feel left out. And that's a totally  valid and, and natural thing to worry about as a parent. Like what parent wants their kid to be left out and in the class not getting a sticker.Laura Thomas: So side note, at preschool, they give a stamp on the hand for good behaviour. Good behaviour apparently includes eating all your lunch. So my kid...never gets a stamp. So I've just bought a stamp and I've been stamping him and reminding him that you, that he's the boss of his body and it's up to him how much he eats and yes, trying to get away from that behaviourism.But anyway, that's a little detour. We'll come back to...Molly Forbes: I would love you to give him the stamp so that he can go into the playground and just be like….Laura Thomas: Yeah, stamping everyone,Molly Forbes: Yeah, everyone should get a stamp.Laura Thomas: But challenging the school's behavioural policies is for another, another time. But, yeah, so there is that concern that parents have that their parents, that their kids might feel, like left out or sort of singled out for something. So how, what would you say to that?Molly Forbes: Yeah. And the other part of that point as well is that it's really natural if you are the parent of a fat child and you know that you're more likely to get a letter home, it's probably really natural that you would want to opt your kid out but then it's also a very natural concern to be like, do I want to highlight, make my kid even more of a target and have them the only child in the class that is not opted out?Like, will that make that? So there's a sense of safety there. And I think it's really important to understand like it's very difficult.Laura Thomas: That's such an important point. Yeah, I'm glad that you raised that.Molly Forbes: But, but what I think is also really important to note that actually, the more people who are aware that you can opt out and the more people who opt out, then the less chance we have of these kids being in these situations where they're the only one.And actually, a couple of weeks ago I heard from a parent who's,  she shared the NCMP information pack from Body Happy Org and Anybody UK in her class WhatsApp group. Her daughter's in year six and her daughter came home a couple of weeks ago, and they'd been in and they'd had all the weights, the NCMP team had been in and over half the class had opted out.Laura Thomas: Wow, that's…I thought you were going to say like five kids! That’s incredible.Molly Forbes: No, over half the class opted out. So. The more people who are opting out, the more other people who are going to opt out. And actually so many people don't know about this. So even if it's just a case of like forwarding this podcast episodet or mates at school and toyour parent mates and being like, Oh, Hey, did you know, do you know about this? And like having a conversation with people about it, the more chances you have of like other people also opting their children out.Laura Thomas: And I think if you're in any parenting groups, if you're in any school groups, even if your child, you know, even if your child isn't in reception or year six, can you spread the word to parents whose kids are going to be impacted in that year. So even if it feels like it doesn't directly impact you…like last year, I remember sending your pack and the, some articles that I had written as well to like health WhatsApp groups and things that I'm involved in just to kind of help spread that word because I think the more of us that are talking about these issues, the more wider reaching impact that we will have.Molly Forbes: Yeah, absolutely. A hundred percent. And I think also if your child's older, if they're in that year six kind of age group, it's also a really good opportunity to make them part of the conversation. And that's what I did with my eldest daughter. And I said like, this thing is happening and this is why I want to opt you out of it. And what do you think about it? And I think, like, at that age, they are able if, especially if you've already kind of like done the groundwork for the way that you talk about bodies at home. And hey, you know how your school still does it the old way where they stamped kids who've had like a clean plate, you know, and it's like these are the old way. And we don't do that at home. This is happening. And I don't, I don't feel comfortable about you being weighed. And I want you to like, how are you feeling? How would you feel about that? And I think like making kids be kind of part of that conversation at that age can actually be a positive way to then raise little mini advocates who, like, who are activists who literally the future generation who are going to go out and like challenge some of this stuff.Laura Thomas: And how might you approach that conversation with a younger child, do you think? Because I think you can talk about this with a four and, I mean, I know you can talk about this with a four and five year old. So, but, but how, I mean, what might that sound like? Do you think?Molly Forbes: So I think  it would sound like, like focusing on the practical stuff first. So the fact that some of your class today, some of your class might be weighed, and that means standing on a scale, you know, if you don't have scales in your house, like we don't,  it would be kind of a, a bit of a age appropriate explanation about what a scale is and, and why, you know, in our house, you know how we know that all bodies are good bodies, maybe using a picture book, you know, like that lovely Tyler Feder Bodies Are Cool book to like have that kind of conversation.  Or, you know,  the book Big, which is like the latest one that I really love as well. To kind of talk about how, how might it make children who…even if your child has a thin or straight sized body, like getting them at age four and five to think about, you know, actually how might other children feel, you know, being weighed, you know. In the same way that we have those conversations about like, how my daddy pig feel when Peppa pig is mean about his body and always makes his body the punchline of the joke, you can start to have those conversations with little kids and encourage them to kind of grow their empathy skills and think about how other people might be impacted by something.And then I think like, if you have opted them out, just kind of making them aware that this thing might be happening today and some of your class might be going out the classroom and they might come back and they might have stickers. So maybe like being prepared and sending your kid to school with a sticker.Laura Thomas: But not just any sticker, Molly!Molly Forbes: Oh yeah, the Body Happy stickers. We've got some new Body Happy stickers!Laura Thomas: Teed you right up for that.Molly Forbes: I nearly missed that one. Yeah, like just making sure that they've got something to make them feel, you know, special. And then like having a conversation with the teacher and saying. Hey, did you know that there's this resource? I know it's probably too late for you to send it around the school, this information pack, because we've already received the letter, but, it is still worth reading because there is advice in there about how you as a school can manage it and how you as a teacher can manage it. And like maybe bookmark this weighing day with like some positive activities and making sure that like all the kids have a sticker. Like I'm very big on the stickers. I feel really sad for the kids that don't get it.Laura Thomas: Can, can you do bulk orders of the stickers for teachers to have in their classroom?Molly Forbes: yeah,Laura Thomas: Do a little teacher discount.Molly Forbes: Oh yeah, we need to get funding so we can send all the schools a sticker pack. But yeah, I feel like that there are so many things that that can be done, so that even if this programme is happening, that we're kind of mitigating at least some of the potential harms of it.Ultimately, I don't want the programme to exist, but I'm not a lobbyist.  and we have to be really aware at Body Happy Org that, actually, you know, we're in a difficult situation because if we, if we were to start lobbying on this and actually actively kind of campaigning against this programme, that could put us at risk of like not being invited into schools to do our really important workshops at this because it's like recent government changes in terms of advice for who schools can invite in to like run sessions with their kids.So what I want to do is…I just want parents and schools to be aware of all of the various different elements and nuances so that they can make an informed decision. And even if they do decide to allow it to go ahead to at least, at the very least do some of these things around it to mitigate some of its potential harms.Laura Thomas: Oh, Molly, I so appreciate you coming and kind of unpacking all of that. Cause yeah, there's, there's some nuance to this conversation, right? I was just thinking to myself, well, if enough people opt out. Then maybe schools will get the message that actually, we don't want this programme and the whole schools will start to opt out.But then there's also a real risk that the government will, you know, slide in some other legislation that makes it mandatory to participate in these programmes. So, you know, I think, yeah, we're sort of bouncing on a knife edge with this stuff and, and, I guess what we're saying is we have to be conscious of potential unintended consequences, both of participating in the programme, but also from opting our kids out as well.Molly Forbes: Yeah.Laura Thomas: Oh, thank you, Molly, for the just relentless work that you and Body Happy Org are doing,  around this issue.So real quick at the end of every episode, my guest and I share something that they have been snacking on. So it could be anything, a show, a podcast, a literal snack, whatever. So what have you been snacking on lately?Molly Forbes: So I'm going to say a holiday. So this is, this is coming out in September and I will have just come back from France and spending five weeks in France. My favorite thing about holiday is…one of my favorite things is like the supermarkets and I love….Laura Thomas: Like foreign supermarkets are so much fun.Molly Forbes: Especially like French supermarkets are just the best like, oh my gosh, like the cheese. I'm such a cheese fan and I love like just walking down the cheese aisle and just seeing like, oh my gosh…..Laura Thomas: Supermarket sweeping the whole like aisleMolly Forbes: And my favorite thing is like on a holiday, what I really love is the fact that you don't have to meal plan, like, we don't…I absolutely love being able to say, oh, hey guys, what should we have for dinner tonight. I don't have to like do a whole shop and think like, you know, days ahead of, like, what the meal plan is just, we're going to eat whatever we fancy. In this…what should we have for lunch right now?Right. It's not like a packed lunch that's been packed the night before. That kind of being able to be spontaneous with food and like really brings for me as a mum who's busy working and like the mental load and same like with my partner, my husband, like both of us, like get so bored of doing the meal planning and we just like, it brings the joy back into food.Laura Thomas: Yeah.Molly Forbes: Over the, over the summer. So I'm going to say like French supermarkets and also a literal snack. I love goat's cheese and I love, you know, like that time in the day when you're on holiday, when you've just like spent the day out, maybe you've been swimming, maybe you've been on a bike ride, you've been out in the sun and you come home and, or wherever we're camping, so you go and have a shower.And you're all like lovely and clean and fresh and then you sit down and it's like just that period before dinner when you're sitting down and I love like a snack at that point whether that is…well my favourite is goat's cheese but like the hard goat's cheese that you chop up into like bits with like those little mini cornichon pickles, like a little bit of goat's cheese with like a little bit of one of those pickles it's just like mmm I love that.Laura Thomas: Okay, you're making me hungry and I also want to come on a holiday with you, so pack me in your suitcase.Alright, so my snack is a book. It's a complete gear shift from what we've just been talking about. It's a book called Radical Intimacy. It's by Sophie K. Rosa. And I think... The title Radical Intimacy is a little bit misleading because it's not really…like it does talk about romantic relationships, but,  the main sort of thesis is talking about how capitalism infiltrates all different aspects of our life, everything from, like, our interpersonal relationships, what counts as a relationship, who counts as a relationship, how we kind of hierarchicalise our relationships for want of a better word. Like our, our families, our family life, and you know, everything like just…it's really an interesting exploration of some of these, the ways that,  capitalism infiltrates our lives, but also kind of about reimagining something different, something more expansive and, yeah, I'm really here for it.So I will link to that, and I'm also going to link to your NCMP pack, which really, I'm just asking everyone listening to forward it on your WhatsApp groups through email, like share it if you're on a school PTA or like a,  what's it called? Like the governance?Molly Forbes: If you're a governor.Laura Thomas: Yeah. Please, a teacher, like, please take it really seriously.I think what I heard Molly says there's a lot of red tape to opt out, whether it's opting out your child or opting out a whole school, but, you know, you could be laying the groundwork for that for, you know, maybe beyond when your child is even at that school, but I think that's a really worthwhile endeavour.Molly, can you tell us all really quickly where we can find out more about you and your work?Molly Forbes: So the Body Happy Org website is www.bodyhappyorg.com. And we are also Body Happy Org on Instagram. And I am MollyJForbes. Molly with a Y, on Instagram and I'm also really enjoying Threads. That's a whole other conversation. I don't really hang out on Twitter so much. I'm on Twitter, but I don't really hang out there as much, but yeah, probably the website and it's got all of our emails and all of that stuff there as well.Laura Thomas: Well, I'll link to everything in the show notes so people can find you. Thank you so much, Molly.Molly Forbes: Thank you.OUTROLaura Thomas: Thanks so much for listening to the Can I Have Another Snack? podcast. You can support the show by subscribing in your podcast player and leaving a rating and review. And if you want to support the show further and get full access to the Can I Have Another Snack? universe, you can become a paid subscriber.It's just £5 a month or £50 for the year. As well as getting tons of cool perks you help make this work sustainable and we couldn't do it without the support of paying subscribers. Head to laurathomas.substack.com to learn more and sign up today.  Can I Have Another Snack? is hosted by me, Laura Thomas. Our sound engineer is Lucy Dearlove. Fiona Bray formats and schedules all of our posts and makes sure that they're out on time every week. Our funky artwork is by Caitlin Preyser, and the music is by Jason Barkhouse. Thanks so much for listening.ICYMI this week: Rapid Response: Actually, Maybe Don’t Say That to Your Kid* Reclaiming our Appetites* Rapid Response: Why I don’t like ‘this food does a little/this food does a lot’* Dear Laura: I’m freaking out about what my kids eat - but is it really about them? This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit laurathomas.substack.com/subscribe

Today, I’m joined by Dr. Colleen Reichmann - licensed clinical psychologist and eating disorder specialist with lived experience with anorexia, founder of Wildflower Therapy, and author of The Inside Scoop on Eating Disorder Recovery: Advice From Two Therapists Who Have Been There. Colleen is also an advocate for intersectional feminism, body liberation, and HAES, and she's also a passionate advocate for maternal mental health, and an IVF mom times two. Can I Have Another Snack? is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.In this episode, Colleen and I talk about a lot of pretty difficult themes. She discusses her journey to parenthood through IVF and through multiple miscarriages. We talk about grief, ambiguous loss, and being really angry and mad at your body and why it's important to allow all of that to be there. We talk about these topics as sensitively as we can, but if it's not for you right now, then just give this one a miss. There are loads more episodes that you can go back and listen to and just come and join us in the next episode. Find out more about Colleen’s work here.Follow her work on Instagram here.Subscribe to her Substack here.Follow Laura on Instagram here.Subscribe to my newsletter here.Here’s the transcript in full: Colleen Reichmann: But I felt like my body did let me down.I wanted those babies. Like, so much, and it didn't do what I wanted it to do. I can't imagine anything more important in my life than that, and it let me down, like, repeatedly. I had such rage. Like, I am at this point, just like any relationship we have with like a spouse, for example, your points where you're going to be just so angry and need space from your spouse or your partner. And that's how I felt during that period.  I didn't want to be, like, pushed to, like, reunite at that time, I was like, no, I want to sleep in different bedrooms.INTROLaura Thomas: Hey, and welcome to Can I Have Another Snack? podcast, where we talk about food, bodies, and identity, especially through the lens of parenting. I'm Laura Thomas, I'm an anti-diet registered nutritionist, and I also write the Can I Have Another Snack? newsletter. Today I'm talking to Dr. Colleen Reichmann.Colleen is a licensed clinical psychologist practicing in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She works at her group practice, Wildflower Therapy. She has lived experience with anorexia and this experience sparked her passion for spreading knowledge and awareness that recovery is possible. She is now an eating disorder specialist and has worked at various treatment facilities as well as authored a book, The Inside Scoop on Eating Disorder Recovery, advised from two therapists who have been there.She's an advocate for intersectional feminism, body liberation, and health at every size, and she's also a passionate advocate for maternal mental health, and an IVF mom times two. So in this episode, Colleen and I talk about a lot of pretty difficult themes. She discusses her journey to parenthood through IVF and through multiple miscarriages.We talk about grief, ambiguous loss, and being really angry and mad at your body and why it's important to allow all of that to be there. We talk about these topics as sensitively as we can, but if it's not for you right now, then just give this one a miss. There are loads more episodes that you can go back and listen to and just come and join us in the next episode.We're also going to be talking about raising embodied kiddos towards the end of the episode, so you can also just skip forward and listen to that part. And Colleen shares some of her really great advice as a mother and an eating disorder specialist psychologist about how we can help protect our kids’ embodiment.But before we get to Colleen, I really wanted to remind you that the Can I Have Another Snack? universe is entirely listener and reader supported. If you get something out of the work that we do here, please help support us by becoming a paid subscriber. It's £5 a month or £50 for the year and as well as getting you loads of cool perks, you help guarantee the sustainability of this newsletter and have a say in the work that we do here as well as ensure that I can keep delivering deeply researched pieces that provide a diet culture-free take on hot nutrition topics like ultra processed foods, the Zoe app and a deep dive on helping kids have a good relationship with sugar..  All of those articles I've already written and you can read at laurathomas.substack.com. And if you're not yet totally convinced, then maybe this lovely review that I got recently will help. So this reader and listener wrote: “I want to support the work you're doing as I think it's really important and I believe that you should be paid for your work.” I agree! “I value the model of subscriber direct support rather than ad revenue. I really like all your comments and interviews on the podcast about internalised capitalism and how it affects our views of things without us even realising. Thank you for spending your valuable time and skills to do all this research and writing it up.I would love to see you talking about all of this in mainstream newspapers, TVs, magazines, and other media. It's such an important topic and I really hope you get more and more moment  for your work. Also on a personal note, you are helping me change my children's lives for the better by educating me about all of this. Really appreciate all that you're doing.” Such a kind review, thank you to the person who emailed that in, you know who you are. So yeah, it's £5 a month, or £50 for the year, and you can sign up at laurathomas.substack.com. Or check out the show notes for this episode. And if you can't stretch to a paid subscription right now, you can email [email protected] for a comp subscription. No questions asked, just put ‘Snacks’ in the subject line. All right gang, here's Colleen.MAIN EPISODE Colleen, can you start by letting everyone know a little bit about you and the work that you do?Colleen Reichmann: Sure. So my name is Dr. Colleen Reichmann, and I'm a licensed clinical psychologist and an eating disorders and body image specialist with a small group practice in Philadelphia. We see people virtually and in person, there's 5 of us, we all focus on body image and eating disorders and then sort of sub-niches within that community and and one of mine is also perinatal mental health. That's me professionally. I'm also the co-author of the book The Inside Scoop on Eating Disorder Recovery and a speaker and a writer of other things, and then just a mom, somebody with lived experience of an eating disorder, as well as infertility and IVF. And I have two IVF babies, Ezra and Marigold, who live with me, and two, like, very chaotic dogs, and I live with all of them, and my partner, outside of Philadelphia.Laura Thomas: Wow, there's, yeah, loads of different parts of your identity, I suppose, that I'd love to dig into and talk to you about, but I'd love to start by talking about your journey to parenthood. You mentioned there that you had your babies through IVF and I know you talk really openly about this, uh, on your social media platforms and on your Substack. And I'd love just to help orient the listeners a little bit to some of your experiences, if you could share what that journey has been like for you. Colleen Reichmann: For some reason for me the piece about having both of my babies through IVF feels really important to share. It almost just feels like a lot of my parenthood, like my identity hinges on, it just feels so integral to who I am as a mother at this point and a parent, so I feel compelled to make it like, I have it in bios and even my partner at one point is like, why do you have like your professional psychologist and then also IVF mom?And I was like, I don't know. It just, it feels like it factors so much into the whole lens that I view perinatal mental health at this point. So I was somebody who went through about 5 years of infertility. Once you launch into the process of  digging into what's going on with infertility, there's like a cascade of interventions that happens, and mine was pretty standard,. And looking back, I just kind of, like, fell into the cascade and did what everybody said to do.I have, like, just different questions now about the process.  But essentially, I did rounds of medication, medicated cycles, and then IUI is kind of, like, the next part of the process. And we had multiple failed IUIs, which is interuterine insemination. And then when you have enough of those, you know, failures, the next step is IVF. Which I would joke with my partner and call it the…what did I call it? What's like the team, you know, in high school, there's like the…varsity! I was like, well, I'm varsity and fertility now because I'm in the IVF process. Laura Thomas: You've graduated on to the next step. Yeah, I guess that you need some sort of like levity in amongst what sounds to me to be like a, an extraordinarily heavy process otherwise..Colleen Reichmann: Yeah. I think infertility and especially, I think IVF is its own specific form of trauma, but infertility is very traumatic in my opinion. And for me, there was like this specific part of it that felt traumatic that I had this whole history of an eating disorder, like a decade long and part of the reason I had…just reasons to recover or reasons to get into a more stable place and having children was one of them.And so it felt like a slap in the face, like I did all the work that I didn't want to do for many years. And I just felt like, I was promised something by professionals, even though that's not true. Like, it was just, it was discussed a lot in sessions.Laura Thomas: No, but I am, I'm just sitting here reflecting on how many times I've…you know, I, I'm not sure that, like, leveraged that is quite the right phrase, but you know when, when people ask me about what are the long term impacts on my health of, of my eating disorder, you know, I will say fertility is, is one of the, one of those long term things.I can see how that's really a double edged sword to say something like that, because, you know, further down the line, if that person goes through the motions of recovery and does that really excruciating work, and then comes out the other side and their fertility…and, and we don't know if I'm not trying to insinuate that people's infertility is necessarily related to their eating disorder or not, but I hear what you're saying is that you were promised this prize at the end of, of eating disorder recovery and it wasn't there for you.And that in and of itself must have been so painful.Colleen Reichmann: It's so painful. There was a specific instance that stuck in my mind. When I was in, I think it was high school or maybe like early college, but really young and I was sitting with a therapist who was also trying to kind of like leverage fertility or I would say trying her best to motivate me, in a way that backfired because I was overly, I was just not in a place to be motivated at that point.But she asked like, do you want to be skinny or do you want to be able to have kids one day? And I remember like…yeah, I remember just saying “skinny”, like looking at her and, it haunted me for like all those years of infertility. I had that in my mind, that like session and that exchange and I was like, I did it.I guess I brought this on myself and I, you know, I said that and I…just like the whole thing was just very complex and painful, and it felt like, yeah, just a twisting of a knife and I… but also like I did it to myself, and it was just a really, they were like devastating years, the years of infertility.Laura Thomas: And it sounds like so much self blame there as well. It's no one's fault yet I can imagine that that adds another layer of sort of pressure and complexity and pain to the situation that was already really upsetting.Colleen Reichmann: Yeah,Laura Thomas: So how did it play out from there? What was the sort of next step, if you will, through these years of infertility?Colleen Reichmann: Well, once I started the IVF process, I ended up actually getting what's called ovarian hyper simulation syndrome. So,  I produced like a lot of eggs and then got really sick after IVF, I was actually hospitalised. I then had a lot of embryos from that, which is like, such a great thing, but also was arguably, like, a little bit aggressive, the IVF treatment that I got. But anyway, so we went through the process of several failed frozen embryo transfers and then several transfers that ended in miscarriage and then ended up at some point – after I moved to Philadelphia, because we, I was doing all this while I was living in a different state and then we moved and relocated – and I remember saying, I'll do it. I'll try one last transfer and then I think I need to either pause or just stop this for right now and find another way to pursue happiness. Like, I have to…this is consuming everything. I'm becoming like a husk of a person, like I'm just infertility. And so then that transfer ended up being my now three year old son, Ezra, but I was so burned out by that point that I, when I took the pregnancy test after I had the, like, the two week wait and everything, I left it on the bathroom sink and went to like fold laundry because I was just so sure that it wasn't going to be positive. And then I remember when I came back and saw it, I didn't…my mind after just like years and years and years of only negatives was like, I can't, it must have been a full 60 seconds where I was just like, What's this? Like, what? I could, I could not compute.And then, yeah, after I had him, I did another embryo transfer, another miscarriage, and then my now one and a half year old daughter, Marigold, came after that. Laura Thomas: Wow. There's such a lot to process in there… such a wild, wild roller coaster by the sounds of things. And I can, yeah, I can totally see why you would be in that state of disbelief and kind of not allowing yourself to really let it wash over you, that this thing that you'd longed for for such a long time was, was real.I could imagine that there was a kind of sense that it could be taken from you at, at any moment. And so allowing yourself to just get in touch with that must have been, yeah, putting yourself out there to, to let it be real. You also mentioned, in amongst your IVF journey that there were some losses, some pregnancy losses. You've written really beautifully about pregnancy loss, body image and grief, and specifically about miscarriage as a form of ambiguous loss. This is a concept that I find really helpful just in body image work, body embodiment work generally. But I wondered if for anyone who was unfamiliar with that concept, if you can share that, what that is and what that means and looks like in the context of pregnancy loss.Colleen Reichmann: So ambiguous loss…I guess the simplest definition would be loss without any real closure, loss where there's not…not that there's ever a clear cut path, but where there's a less, even less of a clear cut path than normal from loss to acceptance. And I definitely think miscarriage and pregnancy loss falls underneath that  umbrella, for sure, just because there's often loss, with no tangible evidence of ever having anything.Other things, of course, in our society fall under ambiguous loss, like loss where it somewhat, it feels like a death, but the person is still physically present, like if somebody has dementia or, if you're estranged from a family member, things like that. But with miscarriage, I think the concept of ambiguous loss also really connects with the concept of disenfranchised grief, which feels so important, to me, in the discussion of it all.Laura Thomas: I haven't heard that term before. I would love to unpack that a little bit more.Colleen Reichmann: Okay, so disenfranchised grief is essentially…it's grief that's not, like, publicly accepted. It's grief that's not sort of socially acknowledged and interpersonally and socially mourned. So, a lot of times, I like to call grief, like, if you lose a family member, sometimes I'll call it ‘Tupperware Grief’ because people, at least at first, hopefully, like, show up with tupperware containers and dinners. Then disenfranchised grief, like that of a miscarriage is more, like, there…oftentimes there's no big show of support. Like, there are no, like, tupperware dinners or people showing up. People don't know how to talk about it even, even less than they know how to talk about just…Laura Thomas: Regular death.Colleen Reichmann: yeah, like, normal grief.And oftentimes when you have a miscarriage, there's also that added component of not having even shared, if it was an earlier miscarriage that you were pregnant. So you're going through this, like, life altering, awful grieving process alone, but you know, you haven't even shared that there's something to grieve and it's just confusing and sad and it's a really specific form of grief, I would say.Laura Thomas: Yeah, I think as a collective, we do so poorly with grieving, you know, as a society, it's privatised, it needs to be neat and tidy and, for example, if somebody dies or if you have a miscarriage or, you know, there are any of these types of life events. We rarely get time off work or leave or anything to just have the space and the time to process some of what's happened to us.I think, you know…what you're saying is there's a sort of additional layer to it where if it's an invisible loss or it's…I don't know, something that, yeah, intangible, I suppose to, to other people…where does that grief belong? There's nowhere to put it really. Colleen Reichmann: Yeah, and so much of grieving that's helpful, like so much of what I think helps grieving people is like physicality and like the presence of others and showing up… Laura Thomas: Community, yeah.Colleen Reichmann: Yeah, like, and I'm, I'm not going to take this from you, like the sadness. I'm going to sit with you in it and I don't have the right words because normally there just are no right words.So, like, let's let you feel the sadness and I'll be here next to you. And with disenfranchised grief, that's almost, like,  gone. Like, there is just none of that. Laura Thomas: Yeah. Going back to this idea of ambiguous loss, how do you think that can help us, you know, understand or process our experiences in some way? Colleen Reichmann: You know, I think even the term . Like, even when I just had that knowledge that there was a word for it, that felt so affirming. So just, even understanding, like, that's what you're going through and maybe letting that sort of propel you to reach out, if possible, to people who feel really safe, even just one or two. I can't think of anything just more important for the grieving process of pregnancy loss than some, like, I don't know, catalyst to reach out and share to people who feel safe because that was something I definitely…at least two of the miscarriages just totally had an in silent, like, didn't really share with almost anyone and then changed my process for the third and I had…I remember it was just awful like they always are, but like, I had really beautiful showings of support from friends, like, cards and…I remember one friend sent flowers and then, like, two months after sent another bouquet and was, like, still thinking of you. And I was really touched by that because I was like, oh, it's like, not only is it, would it be a grief that's, like, totally unseen, but even with normal grief, a lot of times you get, like, the initial show of support and then it phases out and this person just is, like, still here, I still love you, you know, like, I know it still hurts. And that was all because I just tried to navigate it differently and asked for help that last time.Laura Thomas: Yeah, I think what…you know, what you're speaking to is this idea around grief that we have to follow a strict protocol, right? Like there's that initial period where you might be allowed to, you know, completely fall apart at the seams, but then you are expected to, you know, do that within the, I don't know, the two to three days that your boss allows you off of work and then afterwards you have to contain your grief, or at least make your grief more palatable to people. And what you're saying is that – I'm sort of reading between the lines here, but there is no timeframe for grief and when it's…when you've had a chance, well, it's never going to go away, is it, but you know, what you're saying is that, yeah, two months down the line, just having someone acknowledge that your pain is still there, that it's still valid, that it's, that someone sees you and is, is holding you. That's so powerful to have that, but in our society, yeah, like you have your allotted time frame for grieving and after that, sorry, no more flowers, no more cards. No one's going to check in on you or give you time off work. I don't know why I'm so like, hellbent on the work thing. Colleen Reichmann: It's so real though. Like, I think during one of my miscarriages, I remember there was a country that happened to grant, I think it was three days off to people who had pregnancy loss. I don't…do you know what country that is? Because I remember it was like in the whirlwind as it was all happening to me, and I was so like in a haze, but also aware of like, that's awesome.And three days, like, and I can't believe we don't even have, there's no three days here. That's for sure. But also like, yay. That's really nice. That's being acknowledged. But three days is nothing like it's an…I don't know, it was just, but the work thing. So it's so real that it's just incredibly difficult to show up to things like work when you're, like, in the haze of grief.Laura Thomas: Well, and I think it just, it speaks to how much society under capitalism dehumanizes our experiences and we are given our allotted time to grieve then you're expected to get back to work and be productive and if your grief spills over into your work, then you know, you're going to have to say something about that. I, I don't know which country it is. I know that they've had conversations about it here in the UK, about having some sort of leave for pregnancy loss and other kinds of losses, but  nothing that I know of that is formal at this point. But also again, yeah, like really a few days off work is probably not going to cut it for most people.And you know, alternatively, some people might actually find it really helpful to be at work and be around people and, and kind of taking their mind off of it. So yeah, it's not… there's no one right way to, to mourn or to grieve. Colleen Reichmann: Yeah, so true.Laura Thomas: I also did an episode a little while back with Jennie Agg, who wrote a book about pregnancy loss called Life Almost, and just kind of how there are a lot of unanswered questions around pregnancy loss and infertility.And I'm going to link to that in the show notes for people who haven't heard that, because I think that's also a really helpful resource if yeah, if this is something, a conversation that you need to have more of in your life right now. I also wanted to talk to you a little bit about…I guess you called it body loathing. You talked about this sense of really loathing your body that you had in relation to miscarriage. And if it's okay with you, I'm going to read out something that you wrote as part of a Substack post and I will link to that as well. And you wrote: “The only thing that makes sense, to me at least, is to allow all of these emotions and thoughts to wash over you. Yes, this includes intense body loathing. Don't try to fight it or even shake free from it, at least at first. Honour that these feelings are because this loss, the loss that many others won't even know about is real. It's real and it's excruciating and it's evidence of love.And sometimes when grief is this big and things hurt this badly, we need a place to funnel the pain. If body loathing is the place for you in this moment, that's okay. That has to be okay.” Can you speak to why this idea of allowing body loathing is so crucial because I think it's so counter to the narrative that we are told whether that's about body image in relation to like weight and shape concerns, or, you know, where we're told like, you know that you have to come up with like positives that you like about your body or even in the context of pregnancy related body changes, pregnancy loss, we're told like, well, your body did this amazing thing even if you didn't, give birth. That, oh, well, at least you know, you can get pregnant or like, you know, there's always this like positive spin put on it and, and so it just felt really refreshing for me to, to read, like, no, you're allowed to hate your body and you're allowed to just be really angry with it, and feel let down by it and feel betrayed by it.So yeah, I just wondered if, you know, from a therapist's perspective, if you could explain why that is so powerful and crucial.Colleen Reichmann: Yeah, that, that positive spin felt so offensive to me, especially through that journey in fertility and then pregnancy loss. Like and it just felt like everyone, like, and people were, of course, coming from a good place, but a lot of times it almost felt like…but you will, like, keep going, and I have so much hope for you, and, and, which is, like, maybe sometimes what I needed it, but a lot of times I was like, this is just so painful and like devastating and there's a lot of fear here that my whole life something that I've like wanted is not going to happen and I almost feels like you, you cannot tolerate sitting in it with me.And you're not the one going…like, I'm the one actually like, so if you can't tolerate even being a bystander, you know, that's so upsetting,  , and that the idea of, like, allowing yourself to just hate your body and be really mad at it, when it comes to infertility and pregnancy loss, it almost reminds me of, like, the…the chronic illness community often talks about, like, the eating disorder messaging on social media about, like, appreciating your body and loving your body and the function of it and how that feels really invalidating because, like, if my body…if I…what if I don't I appreciate it?What if I'm like, it feels like it's failing me? What if it doesn't function, “like it's supposed to”? Where do I fall in all of this? I feel like I related to that a lot during this process of like, and I'll speak for me just personally, because I also don't want to say other people feel this way, but I felt like my body did let me down.I wanted those babies. Like, so much, and it didn't do what I wanted to do. I can't imagine anything more important in my life than that, and it let me down, like, repeatedly. And I was just, like, I had such rage. And I was like, I just felt like it, it needed to be felt and I needed to be like, no, I don't, I don't need to connect with it right now.Like, I am at this point, just like any relationship we have with like a spouse, for example, your points where you're going to be just so angry and need space from your spouse or your partner. And that's how I felt during that period. And if I didn't want to be, like, pushed to, like, reunite at that time, I was like, no, I want to sleep in different bedrooms.I want time away. I want to, like, hate you. And I do. And that's, that is allowed, at least for me. And then, you know, some of the people that I work with, it's…there's something, like, affirming about that being just full permission, legalise hating your body.Laura Thomas: Yeah. I think, you know, we talk a lot about the concept of being sort of positively embodied and, kind of having this mind-body connection and being attuned to what's going on in our bodies. And I also think that there needs to be space for the fact that sort of disengaging or being disembodied is also protective and powerful and is a coping mechanism.And okay, maybe it's not sustainable forever, but there are times where that, where you just need to be able to check out. Just disengage and it sounds like that was part of your, your process at least, and, and it might be a helpful thing for other people to hold on to, especially in the face of like messaging around…appreciate your body and think about what it can do and, and so on.Like I can, yeah, totally see how that reads really badly when you're in something like that.Colleen Reichmann: Also, I do think some people might find that helpful for pregnancy too, so that it's helpful maybe in pregnancy loss, but also pregnancy can really just be an awful time for, like, to live in your body for some of us, so…that was another time in my life, which is interesting, because I just, there's so much devastation about the losses, but both pregnancies that were completed. I white knuckled it, is the best terminology I can use. I just, like, got through and they were just really hard experiences, probably the hardest physical experiences I've ever had in my life. Like, far beyond, you know, more challenging and uncomfortable than when I was in, like, the depths of the eating disorder.I felt like it was helpful. And I know I've heard other people say this too, to like, be allowed…which is an interesting dichotomy, because I was so grateful, like, I wanted the…I was like, everything in my life had led up to that moment, and I wanted those babies so much, and so, like, hated all of it, pregnancy was just so hard in my opinion. So allowing people to really – if they need to, be really, like, unhappy and disengaged from their body during that time, too, feels like an unpopular message, but one that I think is, like, kind of important.Laura Thomas: Yeah, I completely agree. I think it can, I mean, I know that there are additional layers if you've experienced, you know, pregnancy loss and gone through IVF because, you know, all of that trauma is stored in your body, right? And then you're adding something that is so desperately wanted and at the same time it can feel…I guess it can kind of be activating of everything, all of those other experiences that you've been through emotionally as well as the physical toll that that pregnancy and birth and, you know, everything that goes on in that sort of, especially first year or two years afterwards. It's, yeah, it's so much and…similarly to baby loss. Pregnancy loss or baby loss, we're not given space to grieve…for the grief that I think is an inherent part of pregnancy and childbirth and being a parent in late stage capitalism, like, just all of it.Because, yeah, you know, you have your kids. So Colleen, why are we still talking about it? You should be happy and just getting on with your life. That's the message that we're so often given. Oh, your body did this amazing thing. That's true. And that was a very difficult experience. Colleen Reichmann: Yeah. And people say like, for things like birth trauma, so often you hear again, this is, I guess, goes with that toxic positivity, but like, well, as long as you got your baby, as long as you got a healthy baby, and I'm like, that's so dually insulting to both parents who don't have “a healthy baby” at the end, like, whose babies have, you know, physical or medical issues, and then also to people who did experience, like, trauma, or it was like, you know, they're just things didn't go as planned are also allowed to feel things and to have grief. The main theme here is toxic positivity is, like, really problematic for this stage of life.Laura Thomas: It doesn't serve anyone. And I think that connects back yeah, back to kind of what you were saying about being given permission to just loathe your body in the face of, you know, otherwise messaging that, just tells you to love your body and appreciate the things that it can do. I think we need to make a lot more space for these tensions, these complicated feelings.So not to be like, well, you have your babies now! But also I did want to talk to you a little bit about parenting from the perspective that, you know, you are someone with lived experience of an eating disorder and also an eating disorder therapist raising these children and, I love the messages that you put out around, you know, protecting their embodiment and their relationship with food.And I'd really love it if you could share, you know, a couple of the messages that you feel are most important to pass down to your kids to, I suppose, help disrupt that intergenerational transmission of body shame and disordered eating. Colleen Reichmann: I think about this every day. One thing that I do want to make sure I say, because I just…I feel really strongly that there's a lot of pressure around this generation, like our generation of moms, to break intergenerational toxicity or messaging, and I just feel really strongly that you don't have to be perfectly healed to do that.Laura Thomas: Yes, 100%.Colleen Reichmann: You can be, like, still really struggling and be breaking, like, those intergenerational messages. I think that's really important to know. And also – this might even be, like, a less popular take – but that to not put too much pressure on yourself to break, like, all, like, maybe your role is breaking, maybe you break these ones, and then over there, you're still working on that, or those are, like, you're, like, just, I don't know, I think there's a lot of weird pressure now to be these, like, totally healed mothers.Laura Thomas: There is. And I'm so glad that you said that. I think not only is there a lot of pressure in the form of often, like, you know, things that we should say or do or these, like, scripts that you often read on social media. There's a lot of those and some of them can be really, really helpful. Some of them less so, but I've been thinking a lot about this idea of how sometimes we need to say and do a lot less.Colleen Reichmann: Mm hmm.Laura Thomas: And how that's also okay. You don't have to, like, you know, do like, have all the little scripts memorised. But what might be a good starting point is if you don't talk shit about your own body in front of your kids. Like, if you just don't do that, that, that might be all that is needed.There are helpful things that we can do, of course. But, yeah, I really appreciate you just kind of giving that…that caveat that, yeah, you, you don't have to be all, have everything all figured out. It's enough to be kind of thinking and reflecting and and not saying the shit things.Colleen Reichmann: Yeah, and that…I feel like that is huge. That alone is just so monumental, the shift of like not saying negative stuff about our bodies or other people's, like, it's actually pretty easy once you get…like, it's easy to start to not like, comment on people's bodies, like, once you really get into the hang of it, like, in any direction, like, not comment…compliments or negative things.So that's huge. And at this point, I do also want to say they're one and three, so I'm probably so freaking annoying to, like, parents of older kids. Like, I think I know what I'm talking about or something when I’ve been in this for like three years.Laura Thomas: You and me both. You and me both!Colleen Reichmann: They're like, what do you know?But for right now, my feeling from what I've seen is that it's almost, like, away from bodies and food. There's messages that are, like, more important. Like, than even the things you say about bodies and food, like, one of the ones that I feel most strongly about, and I say to them, I try to say it every day, is like, I'm so happy you're in this world.Like, I am so happy you're here. The things that you add to my life, I, like, can't even put into words, because I just feel like that's a really, like… there's something very protective about that message, like at least one person in this world is like, thinks like the sun rises and set, like, like, she is just so happy that I'm here, like, that's…and that's also, I like to tell people that because I feel like it's really also easy, like, instead of being perfectly healed and the, you know, the most knowledgeable about all the body positivity things, like, focus on making sure they feel like your just delight in their presence that doesn't have to do with their appearance, you know.Laura Thomas: Yeah, that idea of taking delight in the fact that they're there and they're in your life and, you know, they're gonna absorb that energy as it were. I love that.And also I was just gonna make the caveat that I'm also sometimes displeased to see my child and that's also okay if you have those. Especially at like six o'clock in the morning when I'm like, you're supposed to still be asleep. So yeah, I didn't want that to sound like, uh, an imperative.Colleen Reichmann: I think there was this research, I could be wrong, but I thought there was like research that you just have to do it for like 5 or 10 minutes a day, and that can be fundamental to self esteem building, but I also don't know if that's true. I feel like I could have made that up, but I think, so it doesn’t have to be all day long.Laura Thomas: Don't fact check, Colleen.Colleen Reichmann: Yeah, just trust me. But, like, in a similar sense to that, I also think another thing that's just so helpful for, like, our kids and their bodies, is the way we talk about sex and their body parts, like, using the medical terms for body parts and not being…like, I talked in another podcast about how I recognised with my daughter when I was saying the word vagina, that I have felt, vaguely uncomfortable at first. And I was like, whoa, well, there's nobody in her life right now that's gonna like, show her how to feel comfortable and like that my body parts are all allowed other than me. I need to kind of step into that, own it.And so I got a book, like, uh, the Pop Out Vagina Book or something. And we, like, read it every day and I was like…that's another really kind of basic, easy way to show them, this is how to just feel comfortable and, like, safe in your body.Laura Thomas: I love that. I'm going to get the link to that book and put it in the show notes for anyone else who's kind of…yeah, because I mean, I think our generation, we were like given all of these kind of like cutesy code words for labia and vagina and of course it feels uncomfortable because it's the first time that we're really having to use those words in…and teach other people about those words.So, of course, it would feel uncomfortable. I love that you're normalising that. And yeah, there's tons of really cool books and resources that you can use to normalise that. I wanted to ask you just really quickly about one sort of food related message that you shared on, I think it was a Reel. This is a message that you want to instill into your kids where you've said that food is not just fuel. You're allowed to eat for boredom, for pleasure, to self soothe. Your appetite isn't scary for us. Ever. I just love this message so much and I just wanted to hear you kind of unpack that a little bit more.Colleen Reichmann: Yeah, I think my hope is to just make food a really… like, you're allowed to interact with food in the ways that are innate to all of us, and you're never going to be micromanaged, and, like, I will never micromanage you, and I hope that you don't feel the need to micromanage yourself as you get older. Because we all, like, that is a very healthy and okay, like, human drive is to use food we have for, like, you know, ever to, to celebrate, to mourn, to self soothe at times, or hunger, for things other than hunger, like it's.. just hope to be able to foster an environment where it's all allowed and it's never, like, there are never nonverbal or verbal messages that, like, your appetite's scary or, you know, I have a problem with you interacting with food. Like I just really want to be protective of their relationship with it.Laura Thomas: I think that the line that really, really resonated for me was that piece that your appetite isn't scary for us, ever. And I also just wanted to acknowledge that  for a lot of people I know listening to the podcast and who read the newsletter, their kid's appetite does feel scary and overwhelming to them.And I just wanted to say, you know, we see you and that is the soup that we're swimming in. So it's totally understandable that you feel like that. And something that, you know, when I'm doing workshops and things on embodied eating, I ask parents to look for the signs that you can trust your child, look for, you know, the signs that they know how to trust their own bodies and think about what we can learn from that. So I'll offer that. I don't know if that's helpful, but I just wanted to acknowledge that yeah, our kids' appetites can be scary sometimes. I'm with you, Colleen. Like, they shouldn't be, but it's the messaging that we've been indoctrinated into thinking.Colleen Reichmann: Like it is very counterculture to say like, your appetite isn't scary and you're allowed to eat to self soothe. So I totally empathize and understand why people do feel like that fear…and it comes from a place like think about the stakes that we feel like we're under with this, like, the stakes that they're trying to sell us are like you're not a good mom or parent if you don't manage food and…yeah in this way or their weight. And that's just scary for everyone,   so I have so much empathy for people trying to break free.Laura Thomas: Yeah. But even just again, you know, going back to what we talked about before about not having to be perfect with this stuff, but even, you know, saying to your kids, I trust your appetite, even if you're not 100% there yet. But I think there is something so powerful if you could at least, you know, in giving that message at least.Colleen Reichmann: Yeah.Laura Thomas: All right, Colleen, this has been so great. Like I said to you off mic, there are so many different ways that I felt like we could have taken this conversation. We could have just talked about parenting stuff. We could have just talked about the grief stuff, but we tried to squish it all in. So thank you so much for being here.At the end of every episode, my guest and I share what they've been snacking on. So it could be anything. It could be a show, it could be a literal snack, whatever it is. So can you share with us what have you been snacking on lately?Colleen Reichmann: Yes. Well, thank you for having me. First of all, this was such a great conversation. Okay. I have two. I have a literal snack. I've been loving is these Trader Joe's chocolate sea salt graham crackers that are…Laura Thomas: Stop. I'm so, I'm so like…last Christmas, my brother sent me, like, a huge care package of stuff just from Trader Joe's and it was all their, like, crunchy great snacks and we can't get them here. So, yeah, they sound amazing.Colleen Reichmann: They're so good. They have like, they have it down with the snacks. Laura Thomas: They're really on point with their snacks, yeah. Colleen Reichmann: And those are great for like, I like to have them, especially while I'm reading, which is the other thing I'm snacking on, which I wrote it down, so I did justice to the actual title. I'm rereading…it's called, Like a Mother, A Feminist Journey Through The Science and CultureLaura Thomas: Oh, it's Angela Garbes.Colleen Reichmann: Yes, yes.Laura Thomas: I haven't read that, but I've, yeah, I've read her follow up book, which is Essential Labor. I don't know if you've read that. Oh, so good.Colleen Reichmann: Yeah, I've read that one. I really like both of them. I honestly like, they're just…they're the type of thing you have to read. I'm re-reading this one because I'm like, I feel like there's so much amazing stuff in it and I, oh my gosh, I love. Yeah, her writing is just, incredible. And the way she writes about motherhood is so different than what I've seen elsewhere. Laura Thomas: Oh, man. Yeah. I know. I have thought about going back and reading her first book after coming to her through Essential Labor, and her Substack is great as well if, yeah, if anyone is…I'll link to that in the, in the show notes. So, okay. Yeah. You're making me think I need to go back and read that.  So my snack is an illiteral snack this time. So there is another Substack newsletter called that probably everyone is sick of hearing me talk about because I link to them like every week in our like weekly community threads. Ruby Tandoh is one of the writers for Vittles and she did this like deep, deep, deep dive into London ice cream culture and all the different kind of ice creams from…that are not just like gelato and ice cream and like the things that you hear a lot about. And she tried like, I don't know, something like 350 different kinds of ice cream all all across London. She narrowed it down to like a top 16. So this is a really long way of telling you that my snack is one of the ice creams that she talked, I picked, I think it was like number 14 or 15 on the list and it's called Vagabond ice cream. And they do these vegan, like, choc ices. I don't know, what do you call them in the States? Like, choc  blocks or some, I don't know, some like, Do you know what I mean? And then it's got, it's got like a layer of chocolate around it. What is that called in the States?Colleen Reichmann: Like an ice cream sandwich?Laura Thomas: No, because that's like, that's like a cookie, right? With cookies on the, on either side.Okay. Someone, I'm sure someone in the comments will let us know, but the flavour is like a peanut butter ice cream and then the chocolate has bits of pretzel around it. So you've got that salty, sweet, crunchy…like it's a textural delight, for anyone who is like a sensory seeker, that's yes, very, very good. Colleen, would you mind sharing just quickly where people can find you and your work?Colleen Reichmann: My website is just ColleenReichman.com and then I have an Instagram which is @DrColleenReichmann.  , I tinker around on TikTok under the same username. I struggle with making those, like, educational, though. A lot of them are just silly. And let's see…I started a Threads because everybody's doing it. So I jumped on the bandwagon. Same username. And then I have a Substack, which is Musings From A Mama, which I'm trying to figure out a way to write regularly because it just brings me such joy to write about the complexities of motherhood. And then my email is just [email protected] Thomas: Oh, cool. I don't know that anyone's ever shared, like, straight up shared their email before, but I love…Colleen Reichmann: Yeah!Laura Thomas: Just get in touch, everyone, just…Colleen Reichmann: Come on over.Laura Thomas:  No, I really love your Substack and I'm glad to hear that you're going to be thinking of ways to write more often. So yeah, I will link to all of that in the show notes.Colleen, it's been so great to talk to you. Thank you so much.Colleen Reichmann: Yes, thanks for having me. OUTROLaura Thomas: Thanks so much for listening to the Can I Have Another Snack? podcast. You can support the show by subscribing in your podcast player and leaving a rating and review. And if you want to support the show further and get full access to the Can I Have Another Snack? universe, you can become a paid subscriber.It's just £5 a month or £50 for the year. As well as getting tons of cool perks you help make this work sustainable and we couldn't do it without the support of paying subscribers. Head to laurathomas.substack.com to learn more and sign up today. Can I Have Another Snack? is hosted by me, Laura Thomas. Our sound engineer is Lucy Dearlove. Fiona Bray formats and schedules all of our posts and makes sure that they're out on time every week. Our funky artwork is by Caitlin Preyser, and the music is by Jason Barkhouse. Thanks so much for listening.ICYMI last week: How Do You Deal With Clothes That Don’t Fit Anymore?* The Audacity of Fussy Eating Advice* The One-upMUMship of Kid Food Instagram* Hey Ella’s Kitchen - Food Play Doesn’t Solve Systemic Inequity FFS This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit laurathomas.substack.com/subscribe