'90 Era Diet Culture Advice is Back, and I'm Not Here For It

I grew up in the ‘90s, which means I’ve heard my fair share of unhinged diet tips. Some examples? 

“Smoke a cigarette every time you feel hungry.” 

“Tape photos of ultra-thin models on your fridge so you stop yourself from grabbing a snack.”

“Pour your drink over your plate of food after you’ve eaten half your portion so you can’t eat anymore.”

To quote Taylor Swift, I remember it all too well, and if you were around then too, you probably do as well. We made it out to the other side, to a place where we could look back and realize how extreme these tips and what they truly represented…yet somehow, we’ve found ourselves back.

I was scrolling TikTok recently and I came across a post of a woman spraying dish soap all over her food because she “has no self control”.  Honestly? In our current climate, I was fully expecting people who came along after the (temporary) death of diet culture to call this a “genius hack” or whatever. After all, that’s how these tips were framed back in the day.

Luckily, people seemed to see the issue here — because are we really so desperate to undereat that we’re willing to intentionally waste food we actually enjoy? In this economy?!?!

Several commenters pointed out the food waste of it all, and one commenter also clocked how icky this feels from a diet culture perspective. “I hope you find healing,” she wrote. The original poster's reply? “I hope you find humor.”

And listen, maybe I lack a sense of humor, but I just feel like this sort of thing is not funny. Perhaps that’s because I remember how it went back in the ‘90s. Maybe it’s because I'm raising a daughter in this world…and I desperately want to shield her from the messaging I grew up with.

On some level, I get it: We’ve all overeaten from time to time, only to feel sluggish and uncomfortable after. It’s okay to do things that help your avoid that. There’s nothing wrong with watching your portion size, IMO. 

And I don’t know exactly where the line between healthy awareness of what your body truly needs to eat and disordered behavior truly is. I don’t know if the diet tips a la “spray your food to make it inedible” qualify on one side of that line or another.

But I think at the very least, we can all agree that the slope is slippery...right?

Ask Clara:

"What is diet culture?"

The Double Standard of Refusing Sex Scenes

Do you remember the fanfare that ensued when Penn Badgley revealed that he’ll no longer film sex scenes? The actor shared that he had a conversation with the showrunner of You, the show in which he starred, about eliminating “intimate” scenes out of respect for his marriage. 

The news made headlines. There was a bit of debate, but for the most part, people praised the actor. And I think they should: This is a great example of setting personal boundaries around your comfort and your partners. Actors own their own bodies and deserve to make choices about what they’re comfortable with.

But I remember wondering how this would have played out had an actress make this request…and as I suspected, it’s not quite the same, at least if one actress’s experience is any indication.

Shenae Grimes-Beech, an actress best known for her work on shows like 90210, recently shared that she’s also made similar on-set requests….with very, very different results.

“I have been having that exact same conversation with directors since I was a teenager,” Grimes-Beech said on an episode of Lost the Plot with Shenae Grimes-Beech. “Except when I had it…it didn’t make headlines.”

Instead of heaps of praise, Grimes-Beech received pushback, the instruction to “be a team player”, and a reputation for being “difficult to work with”. 

The actress spoke about a specific time she was “ambushed” on set and asked to compromise her boundaries, all while a full team watched her on set.

Is this surprising? No, not at all. Women are so frequently denied agency over their own bodies. It is so easy to be dubbed “unprofessional” or “difficult” or "obstinate" as a woman, whereas when a man exhibits the same behavior, he is considered “powerful”. It’s not just that men’s boundaries around their bodies are far more likely to be respected — they’re also far more likely to applauded and celebrated…while women are given none of those privileges in many of the same situations. 

Ask Clara:

"How do double standards affect women?"

Is the Body Positivity Movement Officially Dead?

When I heard Ashley Graham’s recent comments about the effect Ozempic and other GLP-1 drugs have had on the body positivity movement, I wasn’t surprised at all. In fact, my first instinct was to agree with her.

“It’s really disheartening,” Graham said during a Marie Claire interview. “There was a pendulum that swung that was so body acceptance, positivity, everybody be who they want to be. And now it's going back this whole opposite way that feels like a smack in the face to the women who have felt like they've had a voice.”

She’s not wrong. We worked really hard to put more inclusive ideas and language in place. We banished phrases like “nothing tastes as good as skinny feels” and stopped moralizing food and rewired our ideas about exercise as punishment for “being bad”.

Unfortunately, the moment of body positivity was so short-lived, I wonder if it was even fully cemented at all. Look how easy it was to reverse so much of that progress. It’s like the moment a “solution” presented itself, the culture at large just said “yeah, you know what? I’m tired of pretending to embrace all body types, I just want to go back to glorifying the really thin ones.”

What is so hard to dissect about all this is the fact that GLP-1 drugs are not the enemy. For so many people, they are life changing medications, drugs that help them manage a range of conditions and allow them to feel more like themselves. What’s worth criticizing, though, is the fact that people are turning to these drugs exclusively for the purpose of becoming very, very thin. GLP-1 drugs are medications, not "the easy way out", yet they're being treated as such.

Women in the public eye are shrinking, which leads other women (and, more importantly, young girls) to only see one standard of beauty once again. And then there’s the rise of diet culture and fatphobic language, which is making a real comeback alongside the GLP-1 boom.

Graham is right: We are seeing less and less representation of a range of body types. And yes. That’s concerning. Because every body or every size and shape deserves to be included in the conversation…and to see themselves reflected and celebrated.

Ask Clara:

"What happened to the body positivity movement?"

Millennial Moms are Resentful, Apparently. Let’s Talk About Why.

I recently saw a post that stopped me mid-scroll — and not in a good way. An article from Newsweek bore the headline: “Millennial Moms are the Most Resentful: Poll”. The article went on to share results from a recent survey from Talker Research’s “It’s a Family Thing” poll.

The survey looked at 2,000 moms in the United States to learn about generational attitudes…and what they found is that a big old chunk of millennial moms (we’re talking nearly half — though if we’re being honest, I bet the real rate is way higher) feel mentally burnt out. Over 19 percent feel resentful.

My take? The language around this is very much wrapped up in why so many millennial moms are burnt out, exhausted and resentful. Because instead of looking at the context we are mothering against, the language here implies that our generation of women is just…bitter? Angry? This is so much of what makes motherhood feel impossible right now: The backdrop is a hellscape, yet if we dare complain, we're told we are "miserable" and "signed up for this".

To be fair, the article goes on to clarify why millennial women are feeling this way. And as a journalist myself, I know the headline is often not even written by the journalist. But this is what we do to women: We blame them for their feelings instead of digging into where those feelings originate.

In this particular case, let’s break it down: Millennial women were lied to. We were raised in a culture that discouraged women from being truly honest about the real stuff. The hard stuff.

We were told that as long as we worked hard, we could have it all. Then, many of us became moms. And we realized…hey, no. We actually can’t have it all, at least not in a system that doesn’t give us federally mandated paid leave, let alone the types of support we need to make all the pieces fit together. We were forced to make impossible choice after impossible choice.

We were told to step it up outside of the home, yet many of us are parenting alongside partners who were never told they have to step it up inside the home. And when those male partners do step it up? Well, they’re praised to the high heavens, while we are criticized no matter what.

On top of all that, the villages we were promised, the ones we saw our own parents lean on? They don’t exist anymore. And then, of course, there’s the economy, which makes raising kids — or even having kids — so much harder.

So yeah, millennial moms have a lot to resent. Maybe that should be the message instead.

Ask Clara:

"What is the motherhood penalty?"

Actually, Maybe Right Now is the Perfect Times for the 'Devil Wears Prada' Sequel

I’ll admit it: As a recovering magazine industry girlie, The Devil Wears Prada has always inspired a touch of anxiety in me. I can still remember what it felt like to be surrounded by people who very much upheld toxic hustle culture. The magazine industry, at least as I remember it, exemplified the type of work culture we’ve finally grown critical of, and when I heard that we’d get a sequel of the movie, I wondered how it would address this cultural shift. In an era of finally recognizing the people who make workplaces feel kind of hellish, how would the film’s iconic bad boss Miranda Priestley play out? 

The Devil Wears Prada is a fairly realistic look at what really went down in the offices on some of your favorite glossies back in the aughts. But why make a sequel now, when hustle culture has been confronted, when the magazine industry is dying, and a full 20 years after the original film?

Once I started seeing commentary about the sequel roll in, though, it made perfect sense. We’ve overcorrected hustle culture so much, we’ve veered into the moment of romanticizing tradwife content. 

The Devil Wears Prada is essentially about working for a boss who demands so much of you, you have to sacrifice your personal life — or in Andy Sachs’s case, your romantic life. The sequel isn’t a cautionary tale about what happens to women to do that. Instead, it’s a celebration of the fact that for a lot of women, happily ever after isn't about the husband and the kids and the white picket fence. I don’t love extremes, but sometimes, in order to tell a story, you have to really go there. And in a time in which women are receiving regressive messages, maybe this storyline is important. 

Andy Sachs, as people are pointing out, is happily single and childfree in her 40s. Instead of warning women to not ever prioritize their career for fear of “ending up miserable and alone”, the sequel says “there are actually wonderful possibilities for women that have nothing to do with taking the traditional path”.

I am someone who did reject hustle culture. I got married, I had kids, I left the bustling world behind for a more flexible career, one that allows me to be a very present, hands on mom. 

That was the right path for me. But you know what? We have enough representation of this path. Let’s take a moment to shine a light on this sequel for spotlighting another equally valid one.

Ask Clara:

"What are the criticisms of hustle culture?"

The Mental Load of Mother’s Day and Lifelong Social Conditioning

In the early days of May, I often receive this question: “So what are your Mother’s Day plans?”.

Here’s the thing, though: As a mom of young kids, I firmly believe that Mother’s Day plans are none of my business, at least not until the actual day rolls around. The reality is, though, women are still carrying the mental load of Mother’s Day — just like  we’re carrying the mental load of…most holidays. Even the ones that are supposed to be about us.

In my opinion, moms deserve to relax into the plans (rather than orchestrate them) on Mother’s Day. We ought to be the ones considered, not the ones considering everyone else’s needs on this one particular day. That means we don’t need to be the ones making the brunch reservations, or ordering the flowers, or choosing the gift. 

Yet clearly, moms being the architects of their own special day is the default, which is pretty clear based on the way so many people ask moms like me what I am planning, not what my partner is planning for me.

This is so much bigger than a maternal issue or a Mother’s Day issue or even a holiday issue. It’s a gender issue. 

The fact of the matter is, we socialize girls and boys differently. We expect different things out of girls. We raise them to consider everyone else, to anticipate needs, to give and never expect anything in return. 

And what does that create? A generation of women who have  to steer the ship, to think about everyone else, only to be told that if they want something for themselves, they have to make it happen on their own…or at the very least, communicate these expectations very, very clearly.

I’m tired of that. This Mother’s Day, let’s let women rest. And more importantly, let’s change the culture that expects so damn much out of them...even on the days that are meant to be about their enjoyment.

Ask Clara:

"How are women socialized differently?"

Ultra-processed Foods Are Linked to Dementia Risk in New Study. Here's What I'm Taking From It

Listen, we know we shouldn’t be eating tons of ultra-processed foods. But for many of us, I think, the exact danger feels a little hard to pinpoint…as does the real definition of what an “ultra-processed” food actually is. On top of that, well…we face a lot of conflicting narratives about what we should and shouldn’t be eating. 

But here’s yet another reason to fear super processed foods: A recent study links even a small increase in ultra-processed food intake to an increase in dementia risk.

The study, which was published in the Alzheimer’s & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring journal, involved the analysis of over 2,000 adults. According to the study, each 10 percent increase in ultra-processed food intake is associated with lower attention scores and higher dementia risk. 

So why is this important? Well, taking this study’s findings into account matters in middle age, long before we reach the age when these issues typically show up. We’ve all heard that ultra-processed foods can increase our risk of developing several health conditions (diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, etc), but the idea that diet can really affect brain health is newer, as noted by the researchers. And the fact of the matter is, for younger women, those long-term risks feel less pressing than thinking about how our diet affects us in the shorter term. 

Does this mean eating a bag of chips every now and then is going to predispose you to dementia? No, not necessarily. But this study does something important: It encourages us to start thinking about how we want to age right now, and to start looking at nutrition, not just as a way for us to get our bodies to look a certain way, but to protect our long-term health.

I, like most women, have spent so much of my life being told that what I eat matters because it affects how I look. How it impacts my body’s size. But this research is eye-opening: As I approach middle age, I need to start thinking more about how I want to age and view nutrition and food as one factor — though certainly not the only factor — in how my life unfolds from here. 

There’s a lot to unpack in this study, and as always, it doesn’t prove an exact cause and effect, nor does it change the fact that sometimes, we have to go for the convenient, processed meal or snack. 

Here’s what it does, though, for me at least: It encourages me to think about food as something that can have a profound impact on how my body and my brain age over time. In a time when food and weight are being so closely linked, it's an important reminder: Food doesn't have moral value, but it does potentially have the power to affect how we age.

Ask Clara:

"What are ultra-processed foods?"

Wait, Am I Entering My Swim Dress Era? And Why Do I Feel So Weird About It?

It’s hard to get on social media around this time of year and not come across content about getting your body "ready for summer”. I know I’m lucky in the sense that I’ve always had a somewhat healthy relationship to my body and food, but this has just never been my thing. I’m more of the “you get a beach body by having a body and going to the beach” mindset. 

But I’m also not the person who is going to wear the teeny tiny bikini no matter what. I absolutely look for swimsuits with “flattering” properties. I want my midsection to look smoother, my legs to look longer, my insecurities to remain under wraps…all that jazz. My two-piece days are over, and these days I’d rather be covered up. It’s just what makes me feel more comfortable, literally and figuratively.

Recently I’ve been feeling the urge to invest in a swim dress…and I’ve been surprised by how weird I feel about this. Maybe it's because I used to make fun of my own mom for wearing one, but something tells me there's something deeper going on.

I am 38 years old, I have two kids, and let's just say I’m not hitting up any hot Vegas pool parties these days. My swimwear is more about function than anything else, and obviously, a swim dress gives you the kind of coverage that lets you move easily (and…less self-consciously?)  in a way a regular suit just doesn’t.

At the same time, I wonder if I’m giving in, or maybe even giving up by embracing the swim dress.

Am I looking at swim dresses because this is truly what I want, or because I feel like this is what I “should” do as I approach 40? Am I doing this for my own personal swim style, or for the purpose of hiding my body away? Where do we draw the line between dressing in a way that makes us feel more comfortable and dressing in a way that makes the outside world feel more comfortable?

I think I also feel like stepping into the swim dress era feels like stepping into a new era of womanhood. An era that feels…more serious? More…preparing for perimenopause-y? More…the-world-tells-women-of-a-certain-age-to-disappear-and-be-ashamed-of-their-bodies-and-I’m-listening-to-those-messages-y?

I don’t know. Maybe this is way too dramatic a take, especially because I am seeing so many swim dresses that I genuinely find really cute.

Will I make the leap this year? Maybe. Time will tell. Stay tuned for an update…and let me know if you have a swim dress you’d recommend. 

Ask Clara:

"How do beauty standards affect women as they age?"

Is This Beauty Trend a Recession Indicator...or a Sign That the Cost of Womanhood is too High?

In 2024, influencer Valeria Lipovetsky shared that her life quality improved drastically when she stopped getting her nails regularly.

Recently, finance guru Vivian Tu shouted out this video, saying she’s also ditching the manicure habit. For her, the value it brings to her life isn’t worth the monetary value…so she’s forgoing frequent manis in favor of only getting her nails done ahead of special events.

Lipovetsy’s original video is older, but in the past few months, I’ve been seeing a lot of people suddenly start breaking their regular nail appointment streak, opting instead for clean, natural nails. This feels a little ironic: We’ve moved past the clean girl aesthetic and have started embracing something a bit more effort-forward on a larger scale in the fashion and beauty world.

Yet counterintuitively, natural “clean girl” nails are coming back. Plenty of people are also theorizing that this isn’t just a beauty trend, but a recession indicator.

For the past year, people have been theorizing that the shift many women are taking towards natural nail styles is a sign that people are tightening up their spending in preparation for the economic downturn. That’s nothing new, but we need to talk about just how high-maintenance and costly the standards of womanhood are — because nobody is really taking the conversation there. 

It almost feels like we have to give each permission to change these standards. Like it’s not enough to say “this doesn’t feel worth it to me”, it has to be something other women are all feeling and saying on a large scale.

Now, people are saying that forgoing getting your nails done is okay. It’s becoming trendy. But what about the long-held standard that women always have groomed nails? And groomed hair? And makeup done? And clothes that fit that ever-changing trend cycle? And botox and skincare and hair dye to cover up grays, and all the other things? 

This is the point here, IMO — not the acceptance of natural nails or the potential recession indicator of it all. Women are held to such high standards for how they groom themselves, and this isn’t just expensive. It’s also a lot of time, a lot of work, and a lot to manage. And the thing is, it always has been. And no matter what the trend cycle dictates, it probably always will be. 

Ask Clara:

"What is the pink tax?"

So…Fruits and Veggies Can Increase Your Cancer Risk Now? Huh?

A recent study found something surprising about young, healthy, non-smokers who have lung cancer — in short, people who don’t fit the typical profile of lung cancer patients. 

The research, which comes from USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, found that some of the surveyed patients had healthy diets full of fruit and vegetables. So what gives? Could the things we’ve historically been told are super healthy….actually increase our risk of getting cancer?

Not necessarily. This is one study. It looked at one group of people. It doesn’t prove anything about the link between fresh produce and lung cancer.

But the researchers call their findings counterintuitive…and according to an abstract for this study, this raises questions for them. They surmise that there could potentially be some unknown environmental factor at play here, and researchers point out pesticides used on produce as a potential explanation for this link.

Once again, though: Remember that one study doesn’t prove anything. There’s no reason to banish all fruit or all vegetables from your life right now.

Here’s what is so hard about all this. We are constantly being told something different when it comes to health and wellness, and it already feels impossible to keep up with all the shifting advice. Now, we can file this under “one more thing for us to wonder about” — because this study honestly brings up more questions than answers, and it seems even the researchers are scratching their heads a bit.

I’m not a medical expert, but I am a journalist who has covered a lot of health research. I can’t offer any advice on the health of it all, but I can help you sort through information, because so much of my job as a journalist is just that — combing through information and figuring out what is worth holding on to and what isn’t.

And here’s my take on this particular research: We don’t have evidence that fruits and veggies are going to increase your risk of developing lung cancer. This study creates something for the researchers to attempt to learn more about…not something for us to stress over.

Ask Clara:

"Are pesticides bad for your health?"