As I gravitated toward a professional phase of the obesity thread of my life, I recall my friend Scott Heller advising me to check out The Biggest Loser, so that I might potentially graft onto its burgeoning following. He had the right sense, but I declined then and have been declining ever since.

My whole thing is that diets — or shame-spewing personal trainers combined with diets — aren’t sustainable measures for weight reduction, and concoctions like TBL should die under their own weight. I still think that, even if I have once again misjudged the public’s insatiable hunger for unhealthy crap.

But a couple of “developments” this week have lured me into the muck. The higher profile one is Rachel Frederickson’s (1.4 million hits, 0.22 seconds). Apparently she just revealed her new body, 105 pounds down from 260, making her the littlest Biggest Loser, and the highest loser by percentage, in the show’s history. Tongues wag uncontrollably: Did she lose too much? Is she healthy? Did she really “win?”

Her fooferaw caused former contestant and Aussie Andrew Costello to dish to news.com.au about his experience: Three of every four from his season have gained back all their weight. One in every four have resorted to surgery. He himself has gained back half of what he lost.

Anyone can lose weight in a controlled environment; I'd say it's almost impossible not to lose weight on the Biggest Loser. But the show doesn't address the reasons why people like me are so obsessed and addicted to eating excess amounts of food; it doesn't get to the root of the problem.[Emphasis added.]

You said a mouthful, Cosi! Weight is “a” problem, but it is hardly ever “the” problem. Practically no one gets to be a hundred pounds or more overweight without underlying issues. The show is an analogue for so much in our culture: The people who need help — both the contestants and those at home — are getting less than none. Not only do few end up sustaining weight loss as a result of the show, but they’ve been through a wringer to nowhere and are therefore less likely to try the next time.

But the forces that perpetrate this misery are getting stardom and riches, on the backs of others. Quite like manufacturers of junk food, they can say, “Hey, no one made them come to us. It’s not our fault.” I think the law calls this “attractive nuisance.”

Here’s NBC’s response to the Frederickson story:

"We remain committed to helping contestants achieve healthy weight loss and live healthier lifestyles, and to inspiring viewers to do the same.”

I don’t know what’s worse: Craven issuance of pure pap, or really believing that that’s what they’re doing.