Wrong way around

I was intrigued by reading a post which brilliantly exposed the genesis of the "eating addiction" trope. You start with the assumption that dieting is absolutely viable, in total opposition to reality;

“Initially I tried to crash diet and even spent three days nibbling my way through just one can of tuna.

You then posit its almost inevitable therefore failure as defining you;

“But I quickly realised that I couldn’t diet as I love food far too much.”

That right there is the basis for the idea of addictive eating. Okay, this is an extreme version, but what people don't understand that even unextreme respectable dieting is likely to be surprisingly similar in terms of failure that people become convinced there is something very wrong with them.

There must be if they cannot 'stick' to this perfectly balanced, nutrient rich, tasty full of lovely fruit vegetable brown rice whole wheat goodness. There must be something awry. Even more than whilst eating this way, their appetite becomes really really big their intake, lots.

That's often how people diagnose themselves and how the professionals who still invest in calorie and dietary restriction, not because  they believe it works but because they feel they need something.

I get it, the latter is how my appetite rose unmanageably and in a way both it and hunger started to break down in terms of functioning in a meaningful way.


Strange the way the idea of the way our bodies are supposed to work, defines as pathological, the normal response to that, even stranger, the status of the subject is what makes it this way round.