The Morris Plan

In All Things, Moderation -- Vegetarianism As An Eating Disorder

I’ve always considered vegetarianism to be an eating disorder in many. And while I haven’t yet convinced the American Psychiatric Association to include vegetarianism in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), I now have research to support that vegetarianism is a strong indicator of a possible eating disorder.

Stay with me and I’ll explain.

A recent dietary study was led by nutritionist Ramona Robinson-O'Brien, an assistant professor at the College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University in Minnesota. The study concluded that adolescent and young adult vegetarians were four times more likely than their meat-eating peers to binge eat and engage in extreme weight-control measures such as taking laxatives and forcing themselves to vomit. The study further concluded that teenage vegetarians as well as young experimenters — those who try it but abandon it — may be at higher risk for other eating disorders compared with their peers.

The study authors suggest that parents and doctors should be extra vigilant when teens suddenly become vegetarians. Although teens may say they're trying to protect animals, they may actually be trying to camouflage some unhealthy eating behaviors.

This is why I’ve always been suspect of vegetarians. I have no beef with the dietary choice, it is the reason for the choice.  In all things, moderation. True, if the stated reason for the diet is not to eat God’s little creatures, then it’s basically an all or none proposition.  I can respect that; I'll order a steak when we meet for lunch, but I can respect that position (although I love all the conditions – "I’m a vegetarian, but I still eat fish, dairy and eggs.")  But if the stated reason for the diet is health, then that’s a potential disorder. There is no net health gain by skipping an evil Whopper Jr. with 290 calories and 12 grams of fat, only to then drink a Starbucks Venti Frappuccino with 680 calories and 21 grams of fat while singing the vegetarian song (Incense and Peppermints by the Strawberry Alarm Clock, I believe).

The rational dietary response should be, "meat contains fat, so I’m going to keep my consumption of meat to a minimum." Not, "meat is evil and I’m going to remove any chance of it from my diet, to the point that I don’t want to eat something cooked in a pan that might have previously been used to cook meat." The latter shows too much fixation on one component of a diet, and that dietary fixation explains why the study reached the predictable conclusions.  For an interesting first person story of using vegetarianism as a means to mask an eating disorder, go here.

Radio doctor and author, Dr. Dean Adel, who I have always found fairly reasonable, will lecture you on the dietary problems with eggs and cheese, but acknolwedges that his weekend ritual is to make himself a big cheese omelet.  Wine is bad if consumed in excess, but a single glass offers health benefits.  Even drinking too much water can be deadly, but does that mean it should be avoided?

In all things, moderation.  Even your dietary limitations.

Practice Makes Permanent

I was watching a humorous video of a race car driver, apparently competing in a cross-country race. The car was equipped with an inside camera to permit watching the driver and where he was going. The driver lost control, left the race course and ended up in a lake. As the car slowly sank beneath the waves, you see and hear him reach down and set the parking brake. Obviously it made no sense to set the parking break on a sinking car, but that was what he had always done when his car came to a stop, so practice had made that response permanent, regardless of the circumstances.

This reality is not always humorous. When I attended the police academy, we studied what had come to be known as the "Newhall Incident" wherein four police officers were killed by two criminals. Four trained officers in two cars pulled over a car containing two suspects, knowing it was a high risk stop. The suspects exited and opened fire, all four police officers returned fire, yet the suspects were able to rush the position of the officers and kill them. How was that possible?

For context, this was back when police carried revolvers, so after firing six rounds the officer had to dump out the shells and reload the weapon. Most officers carried "speed loaders" which were a little device holding six bullets in a circle so the gun could be reloaded with one click instead of one bullet at a time. In a full-on gun battle the reloading time is crucial; that’s why most officers now carry semi-automatics, so they can just slap in a new clip.

In the Newhall Incident, when the pockets of the slain police officers were checked, one or more of them were found to contain spent shell casings. In other words, in the heat of a gun battle, when the time spent reloading could mean the difference between life or death, time had been spent pocketing the spent shells before reloading.  Why would they have done that?

As it turned out, this particular police agency liked to keep its shooting range free of clutter and debris. When the officers were trained to shoot, and every time thereafter when they would return to the range to train or get their annual qualifications, the practice was to dump the rounds into their hands and put them in their pockets so they didn’t end up on the ground, messing up the shooting range. This practice had become so permanent and instinctual, that even in battle the officers could not deviate from this pattern.

You probably won’t be involved in a gun battle any time soon, but the example shows just how firmly ingrained your practices can become. The question for you is, how much of your life is being lived on auto-pilot, following practices that have become permanent, even when they are counterproductive or even self-destructive?

People that come to my office often can’t answer what should be the most basic of questions about their lives. Someone will tell me that they just got fired from a job that they have hated for the ten years they worked there. And they want to sue to get that job back! When I ask why they would work at a miserable job for ten years, I get that deer in the headlights look. When I ask why they didn’t try to find another job during those ten years, they either can’t answer or mumble something about family commitments. The real answer is that they were on auto-pilot the entire time and never had the initiative to switch it back to manual and direct their own lives.

Spend a few days aggressively questioning everything you do in order to uncover all the "auto-pilots" you have adopted in your life. Why am I working at this job, why am I forcing myself to live with this commute, why do I always have lunch with these people, why am I really not doing anything to make myself more employable or to start my own business?  If there are no good answers, change the practices. 

You Do Not Need a Special Diet

Myth: You Need a Special Diet Because You are Overweight Due to Your Gender, Genes, Parents, Hormones, Metabolism, Insulin Levels, Age, Blood Type, Carbohydrate Addiction, etc.

We all have the need to feel special. Even when it comes to the issue of weight, we want to feel that our situation is unique; that we are overweight for some special, obscure reason. That way, we don’t have to feel like a failure for our past attempts to get in shape. After all, how could you possibly have been expected to know that your problem wasn’t eating too much, it was your cursed blood type?

Forget all these diet crazes. Most of them are just nonsense, and even the ones that have some validity don’t bring much to the table. For instance, what good does it do to blame your weight problem on your genes? Does it make you feel better to know that you are predisposed to being overweight? That may be relevant to keeping the weight off (and I will show you how easy that is to do), but to lose the weight in the first place you must do what everyone else must do – burn more calories than you consume.

Let me give you a slightly crass hypothetical to illustrate the point. We are going to take a group of 50 overweight volunteers, all needing to lose about 30 pounds.  We lock them all up with nothing but water for two months (the outer limit of how long you can survive without food). So that our volunteers will burn a few calories during the two months and not just lay around moaning, we install treadmill-powered televisions. The only way for the volunteers to escape the boredom is to walk on the treadmills.

After the two months we throw open the doors and our volunteers stumble out. What do think they would look like? Do you really believe that some would emerge, plump as ever, due to their gender, genes, parents, hormones, metabolism, insulin levels, age, or blood type? I have this comical image of one rotund woman, standing among 49 thin people, saying, "I told you no diet would work with me; I am predisposed to being overweight because of my metabolism."  The only way that could happen is if she ate one of the other volunteers.

Every time I think a fad diet has run its course, it reappears.  I would have thought for certain that with all the information available, no one would ever again be foolish enough to fall for the "blood type" diet.  Now I hear that it is back.  The reason that these diets never die is because just about any diet will work if it consists of lowering your caloric intake.  Let me give you an example.

The Vowel Diet

I’ve just discovered the secret to weight loss. It’s called The Vowel Diet. Studies show that your body cannot properly process and absorb any foods that contain the vowels "E" and "I" in their name. This is a secret that was known by our ancestors – that’s why they put these letters in all the bad foods when they named them. But this secret was lost over the ages, and that’s why we are now fatter than at any other time in history. The medical world knows about the vowel diet – that is why most doctors are slimmer than the public at large – but they have kept the information secret so they can make a fortune treating diseases caused by excess weight.

Under The Vowel Diet, you cannot eat any dairy (certain dairy products are doubly bad as evidenced by their vowels, such as ice cream). Do not use the broad category of "meat" to exclude that entire group, rather look to the individual names of the meat. For example, beef is not permitted, but pork is okay. Note the wisdom of our ancestors. Even if you go to the subgroups, the rule still applies. Hamburger, a form of beef, is out because of the "E", while ham, a form of pork, is still acceptable. Similarly, for fish, you should use the specific name of the fish. In other words, salmon, trout and tuna are permissible, but halibut is not. The same rule applies to fowl; chicken and turkey are out, but you can eat all the squab you want.

As silly as this fictional Vowel Diet may sound, it is no more nonsensical than most of the garbage that is being foisted on the dieting public. In fact, it would be far more effective than much of what is being offered. It would eliminate a lot of fatty, caloric foods from your diet (beef, ice cream, milk, etc.), and almost certainly people who followed The Vowel Diet would lose weight as a result. Joy Behar would mention on The View how she had lost weight on The Vowel Diet, and zealots would take to the streets to proclaim how the ancient food code had finally been broken.

Don't fall for all this nonsense.  If someone loses weight on the Blood Type diet, it's not because the idiot author proclaimed that people with A positive blood should not eat Snickers bars; it's because they consumed fewer calories.  The next time you hear the latest rationalization for excess weight, keep in mind the image of the 50 people emerging from lock-up.

Lose the Weight First, Eat Healthy Later

Myth:  Whatever Diet You Choose, it Should be Healthy

The self-proclaimed diet experts will tell you that the diet you choose should consist of a healthy assortment of foods, so you should shy away from fad diets that emphasize too much protein or limit you to one type of food.

Let’s think about that one for a minute. As a general proposition, I will except the premise that you should not choose a diet that affirmatively harms your health. So, you should take a pass on "Dr. Barnburner’s Bacon and Broken Glass Diet." I am also not big on diets that completely turn a blind eye toward common sense, such as high-protein diets that give you the okay to eat all the fat you want.

With that said, keep in mind that you are already in an unhealthy state (being overweight) and on an unhealthy diet (eating whatever it is that made you overweight). Your goal should be to move as quickly as possible from your current unhealthy state (fat) to a far more healthy state (thin).  Rather than to subscribe to the dogma that your diet must be healthy, you should apply your common sense.  If eating unhealthy for two months would allow you to drop, say, 50 pounds, that is better than taking six months on a healthier diet to reach the same result.

Remember most of all that a low calorie diet is not unhealthy. Indeed, as discussed more fully in The Morris Plan, reducing caloric intake is the only definitive "fountain of youth" that has been discovered thus far. It is true that with any low calorie diet, it is very unlikely that you will receive all the appropriate food groups, vitamins and minerals. But guess what? You’re not receiving all the appropriate food groups, vitamins and minerals now. Why are diets required to be healthy when our "normal" eating habits don’t even achieve that standard?

Don’t worry that the diet you choose may not provide the daily minimum requirement for selenium. That’s why God invented supplements.

Save the Behavior Modification for AFTER Your Diet

Myth:  A Good Diet Must Include Behavior Modification Or You Will Put All the Weight Back On

Here is how the logic goes for this boneheaded statement. If you need to lose weight, then obviously you have an eating pattern that is causing weight gain. A diet provides an artificial eating pattern, telling you when to eat your grapefruit and dry toast. This artificial eating pattern will result in weight loss, but if you go back to your old ways after you lose the weight, you will put the weight back on.

That’s all fine, but there is no reason to start your behavior modification campaign during the diet. In fact, that is the worst possible time to do so. Any diet is by definition an artificial situation. Let’s say you decide the follow the Slim Fast plan – three shakes a day and a sensible dinner. How much behavior modification can you accomplish while following this plan? Well, you could learn to put the shake down after every swallow, savoring each one. You could learn that blending your drinks with a little crushed ice makes them more like a milk shake, but that too much ice makes them watery. You might even learn that a 72-ounce steak does not qualify as a "sensible dinner" even if you skip the garlic toast.

Will any of this have much application when you go off your Slim Fast regimen? The far better approach is get on a diet that will allow you to lose the weight as fast as possible, and plan your behavior modification for after the diet when you are back to eating real food.

The best known diet centers – Jenny Craig and NutriSystem – both claim their success comes at least in  part from the behavior modification they teach. Jenny Craig calls the plan "a comprehensive approach to Food, Body and Mind." I have no beef with these two reduced-calorie diet plans, beyond the fact that the plans are too much work and the weight loss is far too slow. I’ve tried both plans over the years. But don’t for a second think that these plans offer any practical behavior modification. While on the diet, you look at the chart, see what you are supposed to eat next, pull out the proper boxes and prepare the food. True, you are eating smaller portions and are probably eating a much more balanced diet, but that is only because you are eating what you are given. If anything, the lesson you learn from Jenny Craig and NutriSystem is, "eat everything that is put in front of you."  Not a behavior modification you want to adopt.

Forget the myth that a diet should include behavior modification. Indeed, it is far better to save the modification until after the diet. If you have any dieting experience, then you know that food starts to taste really good when you are depriving yourself. After five days of consuming nothing but green tea, a saltine cracker dipped in pasta sauce tastes like ambrosia. Thus, after a diet it is actually far easier to modify your eating habits since you’ll gladly accept any type of real food. Your old, unmodified self may have fallen into the ritual of ordering a large double-cheese, double-pepperoni, stuffed crust pizza every Friday, but the post-diet you will be very happy with the prospect of chowing down on something far less caloric.

Whether you elect to follow The Morris Plan or some other diet, get rid of the all-or-none mentality.  Use a transition diet when you end the rapid loss diet, and save your behavior modification for when you go back to unrestricted foods.

Fast Weight Loss is Better than Slow Weight Loss

Myth:  You Should Strive to Lose No More Than One to Two Pounds Per Week

Dogs have four legs. Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer has four legs. Rudolph is a dog.

This is the common flaw in logic that has led to the ridiculous claim that you must limit yourself to losing no more than one or two pounds per week while on a diet. It is also a perfect example of the basic assumption made by most of the so-called experts: that you cannot be trusted to apply some common sense to your dieting efforts.

Here is what has led to the slow weight loss nonsense. Statistically, people who lose weight very rapidly are more likely to put it back on. This is because such rapid weight loss is usually accomplished with a very low calorie diet, and the dieter, feeling deprived, goes back to his or her old ways and lets the weight creep back on. Dieters who lose the weight more slowly have the time to assimilate to the new regimen, and do not feel as deprived at the conclusion. A slow dieter does not feel compelled to reward himself with a week at the Bellagio Buffet in Las Vegas as a reward for losing weight.

But this is where the logic breaks down, because the connection between cause and effect is blurred.  The diet gurus reason that if dieters who lose weight quickly tend to put it back on, then dieters should be told to slow down their weight loss. In fact, this belief is so strongly held by some that they suggest you sabotage your diet if it is working too well. On the Slim-Fast web site, you are told that if you find yourself losing more than the maximum two pounds per week, you should find ways to add more calories to your diet. It is suggested, for example, that you might want to add Parmesan cheese to your Slim-Fast pasta. In Weight Loss, Dr. Art Ulene finds even that rate of loss to be too much, suggesting just one pound per week.  But the rapid weight loss is not causing the problem, it's what the dieters do after the rapid weight loss. 

Let’s apply a little logic here (understanding that logic to most diet "experts" is like Kryptonite to Superman). It is true that if you starve yourself for several weeks, it’s like throwing chum to a shark when you return to regular food. But why does everything related to dieting need to be an all-or-none proposition? Here is a shocker for the industry: you are not limited to one diet. Why not plan a diet that allows you to dump as quickly as possible 90 percent of the weight you want to lose, and then switch to the sort of slow loss plan the other experts suggest?

Don’t let false logic cause you to stay overweight a moment longer than necessary. Excess weight is not just a matter of aesthetics, it is a health issue. If you discovered a possible skin cancer on your arm, you would not wait a year or two to deal with the situation. If you are overweight, you are unhealthy, and you should not listen to anyone who tells you to take your time in dealing with that health issue. The slow weight loss proponents are saying, "losing weight too fast is unhealthy, so stay fat and unhealthy longer so you won’t be unhealthy." Could the logic be any more tortured?

Dr. Art Ulene tested his weight loss program as part of NBC’s Today Show, using 20 volunteers.  Two or three of the volunteers were very overweight, but most just had the 40 pounds or so that creeps on with age.  Dr. Ulene is a card-carrying member of the slow weight loss club.  After six months, following the good doctor's slow loss approach, the average weight loss among the 20 volunteers was 18.5 pounds (around three-quarters of a pound per week).  Since larger people drop more actual pounds as a percentage of total weight, I'm confident that the two or three very obese volunteers skewed the results somewhat, meaning that the remainging volunteers probably lost less than 15 pounds on average.  Dr. Ulene proudly displays in his book a picture of the volunteers, taken at the six month reunion.  Sadly, while the volunteers are all smiles, you can see that they are all still overweight, most of them very much so.  In other words, they have been depriving themselves for six months, and are still fat.  Who wouldn't find that discouraging?  Think how much happier and healthier these people would have been if they had followed The Morris Plan, dropping an average of 50 pounds during that same six months (or at least a far higher percentage of their weight if they didn’t have that much to lose).  In that same picture, all but the three heaviest would have been completely trim, already living their new healthy lives as lean, attractive people.  Should they be deprived of that because statistically they might put it back on?

Don't fall for the slow weight loss nonsense.  Rapid weight loss affords instant gratification, you are healthier faster, and following The Morris Plan, you don't have to worry about putting it back on.

Diets Absolutely, Positively DO Work

The Claim that "Diets Don’t Work" is Absolute Nonsense

The statement that "diets don't work" is the biggest load of crap that has ever been dumped on the overweight community (i.e., just about everyone in America). This unfortunate phrase has become a part of our lexicon. Mention you are dieting while in a group of people, and inevitably some yahoo will chime in with, "you shouldn’t diet, diets don’t work."

This phrase was popularized by Bob Schwartz, author of Diets Don’t Work (as well as The One Hour Orgasm, if that tells you anything). The statement is fallacious for a few reasons. First, it really doesn’t even make sense. Every human on earth is on a "diet" because that word simply means "food and drink regularly provided or consumed." If someone is in the habit of lunching on two Big Macs and a large chocolate shake, then that is their "diet."

But let’s give Mr. Schwartz the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he was using "diet" in the colloquial sense of limiting one’s food intake in order to lose weight. He takes the position that diets don’t work because, according to him, only one out of every 200 people that loses weight on a diet manages to keep it off. And even that one person, he asserts, only manages to keep it off because he or she is "compulsive." So, according to Mr. Schwartz, a diet is a failure unless the weight loss is permanent.

To what else in life do we apply such a standard? I washed my car a week ago, and now it is dirty again. Watch for my new book, Carwashes Don’t Work. When I was in grade school, I could rattle off every State capital, but as I sit here now, I can’t recall the capital of South Carolina. This means, of course, that Studying Don’t Work. And finally, you can work your whole life with no problem, but just try to stop showing up and that lousy no good boss of yours will stop paying you, meaning that Work Don’t Work.

When you look beneath these claims of weight loss without dieting, the truth is quite amazing. In his book Weight Loss with Dr. Art Ulene, Dr. Ulene states that his weight loss program "is not a diet, because diets don’t work." In fact, he claims his plan contains "no rigid menus or meal plans, no forbidden foods, no calorie counting, and no meal substitutes . . . ."  Quite a deal. How does he manage weight loss without a diet?  Sign me up.

It turns out his groundbreaking plan is two fold: He tells you to exercise more, and provides a low-fat diet plan. You are instructed to "count all of the calories you are consuming throughout the day, accounting separately for fat calories and those derived from protein and carbohydrates." Then you are required to determine which foods must be eliminated from your diet in order to reduce your total fat intake to no more than 20 percent of your total calories for the day.

But hold the phone, Maud. The good doctor promised that this was not a diet, and that there would be no calorie counting. As you can see, in reality Dr. Ulene and Mr. Schwartz are both just playing a game of semantics. They are defining a diet as a strict menu plan, intended for some limited period of time. Their weight loss plans, on the other hand, simply lay out the foods that you should eat, tell you which ones to avoid, and tell you to eat right for the rest of your life, with a little exercise thrown in. Follow these suggestions, and you should find yourself losing about a pound a week. But no, no, no, we didn’t tell you to diet, because diets don’t work.

This line of nonsense would be humorous if it weren’t so tragic. People have a hard enough time staying on a diet for a few months. Now they are being told they have to diet the rest of their lives. On top of that, they are told that they should lose weight very slowly, meaning that they will be carrying unhealthy weight much longer than necessary (assuming they even lose the weight at the suggested glacial pace), and they give up perhaps years of the tremendous satisfaction and self-esteem that comes with being fit.  Picture the poor sap that needs to lose 65 pounds and is unfortuneate enough to buy one of these "no-diet diet books" that tells him to lose 3/4 of a pound per week.  For three months he faithfully weighs and calculates the caloric content of everything he eats, and deprives himself of all the fatty foods he loves.  Assuming he never cheated and actually lost the promised nine pounds, he probably won't see much or any difference in the mirror, and he'll be facing another one and a half years of this non-diet until he loses the rest of the weight!

The truth is that a diet works if you lose weight, and the faster the better. I will show you how to lose weight incredibly fast. And as you will see, once it is gone, I show you a foolproof method that will keep the weight off forever.

It is Not OK to be Overweight

Hopefully with my last several posts I've shown you the wisdom of working for yourself.  While you work to get your financial life in order by seizing your own destiny, let's turn to your health.  Over the next few posts I'll be publishing some excerpts from my upcoming diet book, The Morris Plan.  I begin by fightning the concept that overweight people should just "accept themselves."

Putting the "accept your weight" nonsense to rest once and for all.

If bald guys (a club I will be joining if my father is any indication) want to start a club and shout from  the rooftops that "bald is beautiful" – more power to them. Baldness is a natural condition in many men, and it’s great that they can have some fun with it.  But if it should someday be discovered that heart disease and diabetes are caused by lack of hair, we would expect that the follicle challenged men of the world would be looking for ways to regrow their hair.  We would not deem such behavior to be narcissistic, nor would we tell them to accept the missing hair and all the health problems that come with it.  We would not write books telling them that they should just accept themselves and to reject the message being sent by the media, that thinks all men should have hair. (After all, no men really have hair like that; it’s all airbrushed.)

Magazines like Radiance (which thankfully has cratered) and BBW tout the wonders of being overweight. I’ve never actually caught them arguing that fat is better, but they make very clear that you should not be concerned about being fat. Here is a quote from a recent issue of BBW that nicely summarizes the position of the pro-fat crowd:

"As plus-size women, we have a tough row to hoe in this society. Stereotypes about us - we're stupid, we're lazy, we're unhealthy and we're unattractive - are so pervasive that they impact our education, our careers, our medical care and our relationships. Negative attitudes about people of size are so ingrained that preschoolers develop size prejudice before they exhibit any other kind of prejudice. There's an annual $33 billion dollar diet industry in this country that perpetuates those stereotypes in order to improve their bottom line."

There you have it.  There is no problem being fat.  In fact, the idea that being overweight is bad is a huge conspiracy propagated by the "diet industry" and supported by our schools. 

No matter how much some people want it to be otherwise, seriously overweight people do not get a politically-correct pass. I hope I can finally make this distinction clear enough for everyone to understand.  A fat person is not a bad person, nor should he or she be subject to any derision because of their weight. Overweight people should not walk around in a state of depression because of their weight. Nor should they feel shame for being overweight (as long as they are doing something about it). At the local water park, I overhear comments about the fat people, such as, "how can that guy go out in a bathing suit in public like that?" It’s just stored fat for crying out loud.

But overweight people should never be told to "accept" their weight.  A fat person that is not doing anything about their weight is bad becasue they are being self-destructive, no less than someone who drinks too much.  Being fat is bad, and no one should ever argue otherwise or encourage someone to remain fat.  Here is just a partial list of the health problems associated with excess weight that have been confirmed through research: hypertension, cancer (especially breast, colorectal and endometrial), sleep apnea, osteoarthritis, hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol), gastroesophageal reflux disease (severe heartburn), diabetes, coronary artery disease and strokes.

There is a movement to remove all stigma from society. Stigma, when appropriate, is good. What the "accept yourself" crowd fails to realize is that a certain level of stigma is appropriate toward people that  engage in self-destructive behavior, and doing nothing about being overweight is self-destructive. Going back to the days when it was necessary to eject Og from the cave when he exhibited bizarre behavior, if society can use stigma to direct people back toward non-destructive behavior, that is a good thing. Smokers, drug users and people who drink to excess should be stigmatized, and yes, fat people should not be exempt from disapproving looks.  How many times have you heard a story about someone who, after being called fat by some jerk, finally got serious about losing weight?  A recent high-profile example of effective stigma involves the beach pictures of Jennifer Love Hewitt. Within two months of the release of the unflattering bathing suit photos, and despite her ensuing "real women have curves" protestations, she had dropped 20 pounds.

As The Morris Plan makes clear, there is no justification for remaining fat. The stigma that befalls fat people is based on the fact that they are failing to take proper care of themselves. Just as you would have a negative reaction to someone who refused to bathe, because it reflects a lack of concern over hygiene, it is understandable that people see obesity as a lack of concern over health. 

It is tragic that so much of our energy and money is spent treating the health issues caused by excess weight, instead of attacking the weight itself. When I hit my 40s, I started having severe heartburn problems. I spent an inordinate amount of time dealing with this issue, including more than one trip to the emergency room.  I chalked up all of this as a normal part of aging, because most of my friends were experiencing heartburn problems, albeit to a lesser degree. No doctor ever told me that losing weight might help the problem. If any doctor had offered surgery as a possible solution, I would have jumped at it.

When I dropped 50 pounds, the heartburn stopped. I’ve stop taking all the medicine. Words cannot express how nice it is to be able to go to a restaurant with friends and eat and drink whatever I want with no fear of heartburn. I also used to suffer from sciatica – a back related problem that causes pain (or sometimes numbness) to radiate down your leg. As an added bonus, that too has disappeared, although I also attribute that to exercise.

It is beyond dispute; excess weight is a serious health problem. In your weak moments, when Dr. Phil is telling you to be happy with yourself and not to fixate on your weight, keep telling yourself that the desire to lose weight is not narcissistic, it is an essential part of maintaining your health. Don’t rationalize to the contrary with anecdotal evidence. Yes, we all know or have heard of someone who was seriously overweight, ate a high-fat diet their whole lives, and lived to 100. Just as there are smokers that never develop any smoke-related health issues, there are exceptions to every rule. However, you cannot guide your life by the anomalies.

When you feel like quitting, or a diet saboteur is telling you that you look fine and should just accept your weight, remember that this is far more than a question of aesthetics. Your excess weight is literally killing you.