Why magazines should never change the size of a cover model's body
It's probably no surprise to anyone who reads the news that Shape got slammed months ago for "retouching the crap" (not our words; someone else's) out of a cover model's body. That couldn't be further from the truth, as we clearly stated (and showed) in our July issue. We took a stand and printed in Shape (July 2009) the actual photo from the shoot next to the controversial cover that printed; see page here. Well, the controversy is back---this time, with another magazine, which--according to all reports I've read--admitted to slimming down their cover model's body. This is not right. A star's body is on the cover (or at least on the Shape covers) for a reason: to inspire all of us struggling with our weight (me included) that we, too--through hard work--can get a body like hers.
We print the stars' workouts, their diet secrets, and their healthy-living and stay-balanced advice so women everywhere can incorporate those tips into their own lives.That message doesn't resonate if we shave 10 or 20 or 30 pounds off the image, create abs or toned muscles where there are none, or shave off a little flab here and there. That is dishonesty and unfair to readers. You won't find that happening at Shape. Ever.