Confusion about calorie restriction dieting still reigns. Due to "obesity science" and medical professionals, we're led to believe that there's such a thing as healthy weight loss dieting. Along with the slimming industry which has widely disseminated the falsehood that weight loss is weight loss dieting.
It is not. Dieting is the route by which weight loss is to be pursued, we are given no choice on this. Weight loss is a natural bodily process that's a side effect of the body's use and regulation of its energy.
Another point of confusion is the unthink that if something is "unhealthful" i.e. being fat, that this somehow automatically makes calorie restriction dieting healthy. This appears to parody the cost-benefit ratio. Where something that is unpleasant can become acceptable or even a good thing, due to a comparatively greater risk of what it seeks to alleviate or resolve.
Throwing water over your furniture is something you avoid, unless its on fire. Then, not doing something that would normally ruin it becomes a very good thing in the cause of stopping an inferno.
Of course a cost-benefit equation does not remove consent, nor pretend that the most toxic and unpleasant route is a must if you can pretend that what it is attacking is the worst most deadly health threat ever i.e. 'obese.'
Dieting is inherently volatile and pathological because it attacks hunger which is there to maintain the body's energy supply. Including to that of your brain. Sufficient energy deficit there would not make for a happy ending.
Hunger is something diet and 'obesity' peddlers like to undermine the existence of, tellingly. That is why we eat, and not hedonism as the current wishful thinking goes.
If it cannot prevent you embarking on this course, it will try to stop any halt any assault you manage to inflict on it. If it cannot manage that, then it will wait until there's any lapse in stentorian resolve i.e. through life happening and shizz. And if you manage to get past that, it will keep trying to reverse your regime of restriction, any chance it gets.
Think of those inbuilt defences as being like the body's immune system (IS)function. Dieting is like an infectious pathogen you're told to infect yourself with to achieve the side effect of weight loss. That's crazy, but it may not feel like it if those with scientific or medical authority tell you that's a perfectly rational aim.
Now in order to succeed, you need to keep exposing yourself to this pathogen and allow it to develop, your IS keeps fighting it off. In response to this, you are told you need to turn the attempt to infect yourself into a long term infection or "lifestyle"-dieting is a life sentence without any parole for good behaviour.
I'm sure you realise this means your aim flies in the face of your body's in-built survival instinct. But 'science' and doctors insist-its that way and that way only. Of course it isn't, but they tell you it is.
Your failure to become or remain infected is really the success of your immune system function. Not to mention that this particular bug is unpleasant to be infected by, for a short time, let alone a lifetime.
That, my friends is a way to grasp the nature of calorie restriction induced weight loss.
Surgery is more effective because it can overcome the body's self preservation instincts which tend to stop you being able to continue self harm if there's the slightest hint of a way out. Surgery cuts that out for you, by cutting out your stomach and rearranging what's left.
I suppose the equivalent to that would be immno-suppresant drugs, say after transplantation, to stop the body rejecting the new organ. In the case of weight loss surgery, it would be to stop your body rejecting the pathology being imposed on it.