In the mediocre film "Lunch Line," which I saw a week ago Sunday as part of the Museum of Science's "Let's Talk About Food" series, famed "lunch lady" Ann Cooper makes the observation that "many registered dietitians don't have a strong background in cooking and food."

In a Q&A with a panel that included a nutritionist and a dietitan after the film, I shot my hand up to ask: "How can that possibly be?" Isn't like a steelworker who doesn't have a background in metal work, or a banker who doesn't have a background in finance? (Their answers: Tacit acknowledgement, by saying "it's getting better.")

I hopped onto that issue because the comment reflected my long and vivd experience, both in RDs I visited early in recovery and what I heard, and continue to hear, from others with food problems similar to mine. That's why, whenever I meet an RD who understands food addiction, I enshrine her in a resources list at fatboythinman.com. (I'm up to five.)

One distinguishing difference they share is that they are willing to advise clients not to eat certain foods. The vast majority of dietitians I've met, heard about, and read about are loath to do that because clients would fixate on what they can't have, feel deprived, and give up.

Is that what trusted advisers do — sanction unhealthy behavior because that's what their wards want? Can you imagine declining to advise an alcoholic not to drink because she or he would feel deprived?

The analogy is right on, too: A sizeable chunk of the 145 million American adults who are obese or overweight are, indeed, addicts. No, mainstream medicine — and the mainstream dietetic community, of course — doesn't acknowledge that, but just consider: Two of every three American adults are overweight or obese; is it only that they're all just lazy slugs, with nothing more significant, more biochemical, going on? For any of them? 

It's just common sense. But if it's science you want — and I believe in science — a vast body of science backs this viewpoint: This link, for example, cites 11 articles by the cream of obesity researchers, including Joseph Frascella (note his endorsement of my book over in the left column), Mark Gold, and Nicole Avena. This one cites about 460. This one, more liberal in scope, has 2,700.

Though I self-identify completely today as an addict, I vehemently rejected the suggestion the first times it was broached. But as the pain of addiction mounted, my resistance melted, and I began to try on new treatments, practices, and attitudes. Today, I choose not to eat refined sugar and flour, for example, —  as well as peanuts, popcorn, dried fruit, and other foods — because, in short, my life got materially better when I gave them up.

No, really.

Why I else would I have tried life without them, and then chosen to stay on that path? Had I discovered differently, I could have gone back. And you could too, but you'll never know what's best for you if you don't try it first.