Dartmouth College rarely encourages me to make decisions based on my happiness. Watching reruns of "American Gladiators" may produce more serotonin than my x-hour, but I am yet to successfully use that as an excuse for missing class. And when I tried to tell Parkhurst that my fourth hour of Tetris was vastly more appealing than filing my D-plan, I was met with the same cold-shouldered disapproval. It seems nearly uniform that Dartmouth does not consider my happiness to be the most important factor in my life, and that's why last week's No Diet Day has left me so confused.
In case you missed it, Eating Disorder Peer Advisors hosted a No Diet Day to raise awareness about the possible negative effects of dieting ("Students chow down for EDPA's 'No Diet Day,'" May 6). EDPA encouraged students to eat what makes them happy and to make a pledge not to diet for the rest of the day. Kari Jo Grant, coordinator of Dartmouth's health education programs, told The Dartmouth that "You discover that you don't need to diet because it can be harmful for you."
Dieting can be detrimental if done irresponsibly, but don't throw the baby out with the vitamin-enhanced, electrolyte-charged health water. When we condone unhealthy eating habits despite the mountain of medical evidence, we're doing ourselves a disservice. We pull no punches when showing cigarette smokers graphic pictures of how charred their lungs will become if they continue their addiction, no matter how glum they may be as a result. I don't advocate a Gelato Gestapo to patrol Food Court. People should choose food for themselves, but their decision should be based on logical advice.
Yes, inherent biological differences may make one healthy body curvier than another healthy body. Yes, it may be impossible to tell how healthy a person is by looking at him or her. Yes, it is inappropriate to discriminate against someone because of his or her body shape or type. But sometimes dieting transcends social theory. Sometimes, choosing not to wash down three donuts with 24 ounces of soda reflects healthy eating habits and not patriarchal beliefs that unjustly subjugate and objectify a person's body. I dislike "arbitrary normative standards" as much as the next guy. I draw the academic line, however, at prioritizing political correctness over health.
More fundamentally, sometimes we have to do things we do not want to in order to get the results we desire. Except for the most sadistic among us, no one wanted to study for the SAT. But we did. It was awful, but the expected benefits motivated us anyway. A plate of pasta may not make your day in the same way that 14 Pavilion cookies would, but you also avoid the paralyzing food coma that is sure to follow. If you are unconvinced, take your laundry money, find the Taco Bell in West Lebanon, and exploit the dollar menu until your veins ooze with refried beans. What will soon follow is a sickness that no amount of booting can transform into a rally.
No matter what the psychological benefits are, eating a pint of ice cream is unhealthy. But that does not mean it's unacceptable to indulge. If you're willing to accept the punishment that your body will impose, then stop reading now and make a beeline for Topside. But the ecstasy you feel while eating does not negate the nutritional nightmare. Harmful is harmful, and anyone who tells you differently is being dishonest.
If the logic behind No Diet Day were extended to academics, I'd be sleeping a full eight to 10 hours each night. Sleep deprivation can cause hypertension, weaken the immune system and, worst of all, increase irritability. Frankly, locking myself in the periodicals room is damaging to my psyche, and "American Gladiators" has just returned for a second season. I'd much rather study Phoenix's Power Ball technique than Rudolf Bultmann's contribution to existentialism, so that midterm may have to wait a couple of days.
