I define radical as the extent of which an idea or credo can go, ie radical Islam or an idea which is as far as thinking can go say eugenics.
Radical can be morally good or not, it depends on the idea itself. The reason why radical has acquired a good reputation is because so many ideas at the heart of society have been shown to be vile and nasty, and it turned out that the so called radicals were the real moderates, who didn't hold with being inferior because society said so.
At the time, I said that in reply to what I consider to be disgusting cynicism from diet ideologues, who pretend that all they want is moderation, when really their aim is clear to derail FA into yet another cul-de-sac.
Some of them have cottoned on that some people in FA have been and are involved in other movements that may be described as radical and are invoking that theme. They are trying disorientate us, if you are at the edge of a cliff, how do you behave compared to if you are not? The former, you tend to stop and tread very carefully, that's what they want.
I am not underestimating the journey from self hating fatty to FA, it is a long, in fact that shows how radical diet culture is from the norm and indicates how bankrupt it is, so many of us have travelled so far into it and not even looked like becoming slim.
It is restrictive eating that is truly radical. Calorie restriction, healthy eating less so, the latter is noun not adjective. It was ever thus, this is a case of an idea extrapolated from people who have to monitor their diet for reason of chronic ailments or things such as allergies etc,.
This is a practice that has to be treated with the utmost caution, and in this case especially, hasn't been. It is about as far as you can go with eating, it is radical. The reasons why people fear radicalism, is that it can be unnatural, restrictive, uncomfortable painful and costly. Leaving a trail of destruction that takes a huge amount of energy to undo.
Sounds like dieting culture to me.