.......This can be part of a "peace of mind" solution...... BUT

the bodies of people who've spent a lot of time
in morbid obesity
apparently see "nourishment" as a means to
stay at, or return to, the state of morbid obesity.

"Trust Your Body"
can be great advice for people who've always been
"normal" weight, or merely "overweight",
  and have bodies that are willing
to maintain that status quo.

See Video Below

Health is not an obligation.  Nobody owes anybody else “health” or “healthy” behaviors by any definition.

Health is not a barometer of worthiness. Everyone deserves basic human respect. 

Health is not completely within our control. Health is multifaceted and includes genetics, environment, stress level, access to healthcare, behaviors such as food, movement, sleep, etc. Nobody is completely in control of all of these factors, and we overestimate the amount of control we have over our health outcomes.

Health is not guaranteed under any circumstances.  No behaviors guarantee a specific health outcome.  People get all kinds of illnesses regardless of their behaviors or body size.  Thin people get all the same diseases that are correlated with being fat, so being thin is not a sure preventative or a sure cure.

Here in 2015, much of our culture assumes that "Health" is a monolithic, universal good.  As Anna Kirkland says in her book: Against Health: How Health Became the New Morality (2010):

"You see someone smoking a cigarette and say: "Smoking is bad for your health", when what you mean is, "You are a bad person because you smoke."  You encounter someone whose body size you deem excessive, and say "Obesity is bad for your health," when what you mean is "You are lazy, unsightly, or weak of will."  You see a woman bottle-feeding an infant and say, "Breastfeeding is better for that child's health", when what you mean is that the woman must be a bad parent.

You see the smokers, the overeaters, the bottle-feeders, and affirm your own health in the process.  In these and countless other instances, the perception of your own health depends in part on your value judgments about others, and appealing to health allows for a set of moral assumptions to fly stealthily under the radar."

The following article also addresses this issue.

Important note on
“healthy is the new skinny…”
                by Isabel Foxen Duke

In many ways, healthy IS the new skinny — in the sense that, for some, it has become a new, politically correct way for women to shame, judge and fear themselves (…and others).

Unfortunately, this is to the detriment of a growing list of women I hear from regularly saying things like “I don’t hate the way my body looks, but I hate myself for eating the wrong foods — I hate that I can’t ‘treat my body right’.”

Moralizing “health”,
that is,
allowing our health choices to dictate our self-esteem,
or attaching our worthiness as humans to our ability to make “healthful” choices,
is not really all that different from allowing our weight to dictate our self-esteem,
or any other material circumstance, for that matter.

What we allow to prove or disprove our “failure” or “success” in this life,
will inevitably drive us into obsession.

How could I not become obsessed with what dictates my self-esteem?
How could I not become obsessed with what I believe makes me a worthy, lovable, and righteous human-being?

Like with body image,
the only way to stop feeling “crazy around health,”
is to remove the morality from our heath choices.

To learn to see our health choices as true choices,
rather than as tests of our righteousness as human beings.

Isabel Foxen Duke blogs at How To Not Eat Cake... Really Fast, Standing Up, When Nobody's Looking.  Isabel is a young, normal-weight, internet-based, positive-body-image, “Life Coach”.  She has a BA in sociology from Tufts University, and a health coaching certification from the Institute for Integrative Nutrition. 

Interesting article by
Dr. Arya Sharma, M.D.
who blogs at
"Dr. Sharma's Obesity Notes",
and
who is a Source that I respect.

 Do Low-Calorie Sweeteners
Affect Energy Intake
Or Promote Weight Gain?
by Dr. Ayra Sharma, M.D.

"Yesterday, I posted about the interesting study by Madjd and colleagues suggesting that drinking water may be better for weight loss than drinking diet beverages.

But what exactly is the evidence that low-calorie sweeteners (of which there are many) may actually have non-caloric effects on energy intake or body weight?

This is the topic of a systematic review by Peter Rogers and other members of the European International Life Sciences Institute published in the International Journal of Obesity.

The authors assessed both animal and human studies involving the consumption of low-calorie sweeteners in conjunction with an ad libitum diet.

In 62 of 90 animal studies exposure to low-calorie sweeteners did not affect or decreased body weight. Of 28 studies that did report increased body weight, 19 compared compared low-calorie sweeteners with glucose exposure using a specific ‘learning’ paradigm.

In humans, 12 prospective cohort studies found inconsistent associations between the use of low-energy sweeteners and body mass index, with overall minimal effects at best.

A meta-analysis of short-term randomized controlled trials (involving 129 comparisons) showed reduced total energy intake for low-calorie sweetener versus sugar-sweetened food or beverage consumption before an ad libitum meal (about −94 kcal per day), with no difference versus water (−2 kcal per day).

These findings were consistent with energy intake observations in sustained intervention randomized controlled trials (10 comparisons), a meta-analysis of which (with study durations ranging from 4 weeks to 40 months) showed that consumption of low-calorie sweeteners versus sugar led to relatively reduced body weight (nine comparisons), and a similar relative reduction in body weight compared to water (three comparisons).

Thus, contrary to what is often stated in popular media or even by some experts, there is little if any evidence either from animal or human studies that the use low-caloric sweeteners has any measurable impact on energy intake (other than reducing total caloric intake) or body weight.

Thus, the authors conclude that

“Overall, the balance of evidence indicates that use of low-energy sweeteners in place of sugar, in children and adults, leads to reduced energy intake and body weight, and possibly also when compared with water.”

Obviously, even this analysis is not going to silence the sceptics, who will continue to claim that somehow low-calorie sweeteners are still messing up your energy intake or metabolism.

However, it may be fair to conclude that if indeed such effects exist, their magnitude is likely marginally and of doubtful clinical significance.

I will continue recommending that my patients do their best to replace sugar with non-caloric sweeteners if giving up their liking for sweet foods or beverages is not an option."

See
Article
Below

Diets of Exclusion
                    by Matthew Bowen - (Edited portions of an article written in 2012.)

Gary Taubes, Ray Peat, and Dean Ornish walk into a restaurant.

Taubes – “I’ll have a 18oz steak fried in butter, and a glass of water.”

Peat – “I’ll have a 6oz steak, and a coffee with 8 pounds of sugar in it. Also, bring me the dessert menu.”

Ornish – “I’ll have 150kcal of salad to start, a 4oz filet of fish, 300kcal of whole grain pasta, and hold the dessert”

They sat around for a bit longer, and when the food came they started to lace into each other.

Taubes – “Look at you two! You’re gonna get so fat because of insulin. Whole grains and sugar! LMAO! WTF!” (I assume Gary talks in acronyms in daily life, I don’t know why).

Peat – “Are you kidding me? Look at all that fat, protein and iron! You realize iron and mortality curves are identical, protein is inflammatory and fat suppresses metabolism! And you, Ornish, look at all those PUFAs – enjoy your lipid peroxidation!”

Ornish – “Look at your meals! Processed sugar and saturated fat! You two are headed for an early grave! Arterial plaque, cholesterol, etc.”

They finished up their respective meals while exchanging hateful glances. When they walked out the door together, a good Samaritan driving a bus smashed into the entrance of the building and killed them all. They all ironically died at the same time. And the world was better for it. The End.

Diets of Exclusion: Please Die. What exactly do I mean by diets of exclusion? Well, I’m talking about diets whose resounding message is that of restriction: Don’t eat these foods or you will die young/be inflamed/get cancer/grow a sixth toe/have an allergy/etc. A low-carber will tell you to avoid all carbs. A Paleo-er will tell you to avoid all modern foods. A Peatarian will tell you to avoid polyunsaturated fats. An IFer will tell you not to eat before your 18 hour fast is up. A Certified Dietician will tell you to not eat saturated fats and restrict caloric intake. The list goes on. All of these recommendations are those of exclusion. DO NOT DO (INSERT BEHAVIOR).

We look at two-thirds of the population and we see excess fat lining people’s waist. It’s no wonder our first instinct is “Holy crap! They need to restrict…. something!” I mean, being fat and unhealthy is a symptom of excess right? They ate too much of everything and got that way, right? Wrong.

When your resounding message is “Oh, you know that thing you love? Yeah, stop it” we’re bound to run into resistance.  Fear is a powerful motivator, but it’s hard to be afraid of a greasy burger and fries. Love is an even better motivator, and it’s way easier to convince people to love something new than to hate something they already love.

The author of this edited article is Matthew Bowen who, in 2012, did some bodybuilding while he was a university student and researcher for an endocrinologist. His research focus was on the reversal of inflammatory and endocrine progression through the states of obesity,  metabolic syndrome, and Type II diabetes – particularly the processes involved in iron regulation.