The quick answer is the trap set for fat people in general. That runs on a pseudo-scientific pretence around an obsolete construct that aims to force fat people to starve themselves, by whatever means.
To this end, weight gain is not only defended by the promotion of the punitively ineffective, it is again actively promoted, via things such the insistence on nothing but disordered eating and activity. Then deliberately leaving the course set as uninterrupted by any competent intervention.
Before responding to the meatier aspects of the article, I felt a keen sense of the need to alight on couple of things as they keep coming up. I'll start with this,
Young people should be given the chance to control their own weight, argues Dr Jacquie Lavin, head of nutrition and research at weight-loss company Slimming World.This sort of flip mode comes up a lot in 'obesity' cult unthink. Where a fundamental truth about its own dysfunction is projected outward to appear as if its coming from somewhere or someone else. Usually its chosen target. I actually agree with the statement prima facie.
All people should be given the ability to regulate as many of their own bodily functions as are reasonably and feasibly possible. Weight could be included in that, as an aspect of metabolic function.
Jacquie Lavin then goes on,
“Surgery takes it out of your hands.Nah haaaah! What takes balance and the prospect of control out of your hands is everything she represents. The whole calories in/out hypothesis, which still totally dominates our grasp on hunger/eating and weight.
She like a lot of die hard fat phobes works on the assumption that surgery to induce a state of starvation is somehow completely different to "willpower" to induce a state of starvation.
As the aim is exactly the same, why would the means create such a cleave? This is another mental filip present in the 'obesity' cult psyche. We hear of "different types of [weight loss] diet" and how "lifestyle change" is totes different from weight loss dieting. And how, diets don't work, you have to permanently diet to lose weight.
To go back to that first question, this distinction between starvation induced by repeated acts of will-i.e. practising anorexia and just being cut into anorexia, so you are forced to act it out, displays something fundamental about the whole 'obesity' crusade mindset. Which truly isn't motivated by an urge to make fat people slim. It just uses that premise to hide behind. It's effective distraction though isn't it? [You believe it don't you?]
Insisting starvation must be through repeated conscious acts is difficult for me to grasp, I don't get it. It seems to come from the construction of fatness as the outcome of a continued pattern of sinful/quasi-criminal acts.
Like with sin, amends must be made, [the idea of] continuous acts of penitence must take place. Until the "debt" is paid off, i.e. one is slim.
Though an operation achieves starvation in a far more efficient though destructive manner-we know this was never about improving health- it is unacceptable to many fat phobes due to the feeling that being held into starvation cheats an act of penitence for an act of sin. Though you can suffer greatly, indeed die from this wretched (mis)use of surgery, that doesn't satisfy the urge.
This persnicketiness is a signal of people who've not had to temper their indulgence one iota.
Then there's "Root Cause Fallacy".