I think something called the ‘Red Queen Effect’ beautifully demonstrates how this type of toxic relationship exists, even in nature. Also known as the ‘Red Queen Hypothesis,’ this idea was originally proposed by evolutionary biologist, Leigh Van Valen in 1973. His hypothesis was used to argue an idea based on co-evolution. When comparing two co-existing species, such as parasite and host, improvements for one another will lead to a selective advantage for each. This prompts further evolution in an attempt at further advantage. An improvement in one species implies it will gain a competitive advantage over the other, thus capturing a larger share of the available resources. However, in reality, the increase in one evolutionary system tends to lead to a decrease in the other system. Thus, instead of evolving into something better, each of the competing systems stays the same.

Imagine there are two trees. One grows a bit taller than its neighbor to capture more sunlight, and then the other tree grows a bit taller, so as not to be overshadowed. The other tree responds, causing further response in the other tree again, and so on. The net effect is that both trees become taller and taller, but still gather, on average, the same amount of sunlight, while spending more resources to sustain an increased height. This is what I witnessed in the diet centers; interactions between competing species, in which a great deal of energy was spent, but no forward progress was ever made.

The title of this effect comes from Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass. In the book, Alice is in a state of great confusion. In her dream, she finds that things appear backwards, as if viewed in a mirror. She climbs a hill, which appears to be a very straight path. However, when she follows the path, it leads her right back to the Looking Glass house. When she moves forward, she ends up back at her starting point. When she moves quickly, she comes to an abrupt halt. Talking flowers tell her about the Red Queen (a live chess piece) and she decides to search for her.

Friends are undoubtedly one of life’s greatest treasures. But, on the pragmatic side of friendship, they’re also valuable resources. When the world seems to cave in on us, and all goes wrong, there’s nothing better than the comforting voice of a trusted confidante.

Those of us that have the pleasure of a best friend know that a few encouraging words from someone you trust can make some of life’s worst moments palatable. Good friends can be medicinal. They can be encouraging and sagacious. They can round out our lives and make us feel someone has got our backs.

But not all friendships are healthy. In fact, some relationships, either with your significant other or a close friend, can be truly toxic. This is a problem that seems to, again, affect women more than men. It has been my experience that women take things more to heart than men. Women tend to be more trusting and believing than their male counterparts. Ronald Reagan once said, “Trust but verify.” And, when it comes to taking advice from others – that may well be a solid policy. At times, it is hard to believe that even people we care about don’t always have our best interests at heart. I have witnessed firsthand from the other side of the gender fence the ways in which women can be too duplicitous in their advice. Admittedly, this sometimes happens without intended malice and instead emanates from the advisor’s own lack of self-awareness. I have seen women tell their “friend,” “That guy is no good for you, he’s a jerk,” only to be dating the “jerk” themselves weeks later after the relationship breaks up. Even if women think the advice from their pernicious pal is suspicious, they still seem to dutifully accept it as true. In the arena of fat, this psychodynamic often plays out with adverse effects. One fat girl tells the other fat girl, “You look great.” After all, if her friend doesn’t look “great,” then what must she look like?

These bad-advice Möbius strips, which are often called feedback-loops, simply render two individuals less in total merely by virtue of their friendship.

At one point in my life, I was a lifeguard. From there, I became a water safety instructor, and, since then, I have taught water safety and basic life-saving skills as a volunteer with the American Red Cross. One of the first lessons my instructor taught me during my training was, “When worst comes to worst, the saver comes first.” I remember being so very confused by this mnemonic device, since we, as lifesavers were risking our lives to save another human. That indeed is our pledge. The instructor went on to explain that drowning victims can be very aggressive, doing all that was necessary in their panic to save themselves, sometimes taking the lifesaver down with them.

We were taught how to avoid being lunged at during a rescue as well as defense tactics to escape a death grip when latched onto by a panicked swimmer. The lesson behind these exercises holds meaning well outside the lifesaving vignette. We simply cannot save others if we are drowning too. The best way for us to help our spouses, our children, our employers, or anyone else, is to be strong and take care of ourselves as well-prepared and well-rested warriors and formidable soldiers. We all need to chant the mantra of “when worst comes to worst, the savior comes first.” I know, however, that this is can be a very difficult concept for many women to get their heads around. Again, going back to very early societal modeling, women are taught to be caregivers, to put themselves last. I certainly would not want to scratch that beautiful female attribute. I only wish to suggest you must also be a savior to yourself. Care for yourself so you can better care for others, if caring for others is your goal. Moreover, care for yourself just because you deserve good care.