There's a very silly piece in the NEW YORK TIMES by Tara Parker-Pope today that asks (of women readers, presumably) "would you rather look like Dana Torres (sculpted 41-year-old Olympic swimmer) or Estelle Parsons (a peppy 80-year-old stage actress who exercises regularly and from all reports, is happy and healthy)?"

It's a leading question, of course.  Parker-Pope wants her readers to say that Torres' body is "too muscular," "too ripped" and "too hard to maintain" (she writes that the Olympian spends $100K a year on massage therapists, coaches, nutritionists and the like), and that Parsons, who beams at us amiably while she curls tiny plastic weights, is sensible and moderate, and we'd all be better off and happier and get along better with others if we settled for Parsons' physique than if we were extreme and narcissistic enough to pursue physical perfection. 

This moralistic view of exercise and fitness just won't die, and it makes me want to barf.

As an Olympic athlete, whose livelihood depends on her body's ability to perform, and who spends vast amounts of time and money honing her body, Torres looks like that NOT because she fretted over every little ripple and bulge, but because she has trained her body to function optimally.  If gaining 20 pounds of fat would help her to improve her times in the water--as does with the long-distance cold-water swimmer Lynne Cox--I have no doubt she'd willingly do it.  So asking, "Would you like to have abs like these?" is a little like asking someone if they would like to have fingertip callouses like a guitar virtuoso's.  As with Torres and her abs, the guitarist needs his callouses to to his job, and they're an indirect result of his pursuit of excellence at that job.

Torres' sculpted musculature is also a reflection of her dedication.  We can argue till the cows come home over whether or not we find her body attractive or overbuilt, but the hard work reflected by that physique is virtually impossible NOT to admire.  Her body isn't a fashion statement, it's a finely-honed instrument.  To compare her to an average, diligent exerciser like Parsons isn't just comparing apples and oranges, it's comparing apples and nuclear-powered rockets.

(There's a lesson in this about the superior effectiveness of performance-based training over looks-based training in here, but I've played that old saw many times before).

As to the question of whether we'd want to look like Torres, the real question should be, would we like to spend 9 hours a day working to be able to do the things that she does?  Indeed, do we have that kind of commitment to anything in our lives? Even if money and time weren't a factor, most of us would shrink from even a fraction of this kind of effort.  

It's ridiculous, of course, to shake our heads at Torres' "extreme" behavior:  she's expected to go to extremes because she's representin' in Beijing.  But I'm going to take it a step further:  I'm going to go ahead and defend ANYONE who wants to take up a sizable physical challenge, and tell those naysayers who tsk and whisper and scold to pipe down.  If a friend wants to learn a new language, or take up pottery, or learn to sing opera, or get a CPA, NO ONE criticizes her.  But if she decides she wants to do the Ironman, or compete in a bodybuilding contest, or win her division at a power lifting meet, all we hear are cries of "unhealthy," "extreme" and, most especially, "Well I wouldn't want to look like that." 

For the people who say, or mutter, or even THINK these things, I have four words:  Sow.  Wer.  Gra.  Ypes.