Protein

One of the greatest challenges of modernity was always that that it afforded Man the understanding that there is no external arbiter of morality, indeed that there is no absolute right and wrong. This presents people with more problems than any of the products of modernity solve, if indeed we believe that such things solve any actual problems. As much as we may hate to admit it, we like to think our life has a 'direction', a place it is going other than the grave. Religion was always pretty helpful in that respect although in many ways a bit dumb also. I mean, what's the point in being careful with your life if it turns out it's just the appetizer for eternity. And an eternity spent doing what exactly? The classical definitions of paradise all centre around lying around doing not much but eating and drinking and maybe having sex. Whilst it all sounds very nice, I'd worry about getting bored of the endless eating, drinking and sex. Also, I think I'd struggle to stop thinking "if this was all so sinful whilst I was alive, why's it OK now?"
I digress.
Without the promise of eternal 'salvation', our lives require other sources of purpose as well as the associated moral absolutes that religion provided. Being fairly unimaginative beings, many of us have simply decided to combine our spiritual sustenance with our physical sustenance in a manner more literal than the symbolic bread and wine of communion.
I always find it odd when people say "oh I can't" when offered cake, when they are clearly perfectly able to eat cake, as if some invisible force (or unknown deity) prevents them. Perhaps stranger still is when they do accept cake, saying they'll "be naughty", as if someone is going to tell them off if they are caught eating cake. Such ideas of unhealthy eating as transgression are likely to be unhelpful, as in making something transgressive we instantly make it appear more desirable; and in most cases, it really isn't. The kind of mass produced cakes that turn up in most offices when it's someone's birthday have little objective appeal, but that doesn't dissuade us from eating too many of them. Anything with that much refined sugar in it is designated as a treat, even though eating too many will actually feel bad. So we avoid gluttony by saying "oh I shouldn't" as if it is in some way morally wrong to eat too much cake. It isn't, it is simply stupid. What we should be saying is "I won't, as from past experience I'm aware that eating too many cakes makes me bloated and uncomfortable" or "I'm choosing not to, as too much cake isn't very good for me". These are the kinds of things that sentient adults say. Sentient adults don't use terms that apply some kind of moral scale to eating habits, not because it is not possible to do so - it is easy - but because it is an irrational response. One can easily argue that gluttony is morally wrong when so many people are starving around the world, but as I have pointed out before, going to the gym to work off your excess is equally as morally dubious from that perspective. Fundamentally, the new morality is not about concepts of fairness, equality or social justice; it is about an aesthetic. The new high priests of this religion are the designers, magazine editors and bloggers of the small, odd world of fashion. However, I'm not saying we should blame these people entirely for the cult that they guide; whilst the ideals that they present are often unrealistic or entirely unreal, they do not (actively) ascribe a moral scale to the level of adherence. We have chosen to take the ideals of this world and make them our moral yardstick. As a society we are happy to see sin in the slightest show of fat on any body, but especially on the bodies of those who would otherwise be cannonised by the new religion: the celebrities who walk the moral highwire, hoping to attain some utterly impossible goal: immortality, eternal youth, endless cliche? Who knows? Who cares? Seemingly we all do, or at least we all appear to. Why else would we so readily subscribe to the fat as sin morality?
Ms P never tires of pointing out that one of the great things about being a grownup is that you can eat what you like and you don't have to clear your plate. I would add that implicit in that is the fact that you are competent in estimating your optimal food consumption and aware of the kind of dietary balance you need to maintain for a relatively healthy lifestyle, or at least are aware of the consequences if you chose to ignore these things. I guess what I'm saying is that freedom of choice only really works if you are willing to take responsibility for your actions. I guess that if we are willing to be told what to do by a diet then we are clearly not willing to accept responsibility for our actions. The Modern death of God freed us to be agents of our own fate, but diet fads and binge culture would tend to suggest that we're not mature enough to cope with that freedom. Modern life is complex and we would probably make a total mess of it if we didn't look to others for advice from time to time, but taking advice is very different from wanting compulsion.
After Adair Lord Turner's report into pensions, it was concluded that people are more likely to contribute to a pension scheme if they are compelled to do so. As a result, Auto Enrolment is currently being introduced in the hope that once forced into a pension scheme, people will not bother to leave. Whilst the intentions behind Auto Enrolment are good and the logic (that once someone realises that the contributions make little difference to their net pay, they probably won't cancel them) is sound. It's just a bit sad that we have to be forced to do this, like reluctant children. It means we feel forced and resentful and the less mature of us want to kick against that regardless of whether it is good for us or not, because compulsion is for children and we're not children dammit, so why should we be treated like children?
So if compulsion drives us instinctively to rebel, why do we  seek it out? Why do we invent compulsion where there is none? Perhaps if we invent a compulsion for our actions we can convince ourselves that we are not responsible for them. This may be of comfort if they fail, but it has the adverse effect of making them less likely to succeed.
With God dead, our best excuse for success or failure has disappeared, so it is perhaps not surprising that we diefy our diet: that way of we fail in the pursuit of our heavenly bodies, we have someone to blame.