Friday, 29 May 2015

Rehabilitating Your Urge to Move

We are born moving and have instincts to move that are rhythmic. At certain times it feels better for us to move than others. Like at times it feels better and easier to get to sleep than others.

This article, "Lack of Exercise can disrupt the body's rhythms" is talking about exercise helping us to know optimal times to move. It feels like its conflating exercise with movement, which sometimes happens. They aren't the same. The peaks of your natural instinct toward movement is something you should be able to pick up on at any state. If anything, I'd say exercise isn't a good way to achieve this for most people. Especially if you aren't in to it.

It's a bit like demand feeding/normal eating/intuitive eating. You have to clear psychological obstacles out of your mind-like identifying your body as inherently incompetent or yourself as forever physically incapable. Adopt a new more neutral open-minded stance, if positivity is too much of stretch.

Put your mind on alert for optimal times to feel the urge move at its most strongest, then above all, respond to those feelings/urges, freely. Act on them, no matter how short in duration-seconds even!
Follow through with that impulse as long as it feels good to you, stop promptly when it ceases to- at least at first, until you get into the swing of things, later you'll gain more flexibility.

With consistent practice and patience these urges should become stronger and more distinct, longer lasting and more satisfying to engage with.

The key is learning to perceive and go with rise in your instincts to move, synchronize impulse with a positive response. Avoid overburdening them with excess desire, guilt or shame about seeing yourself as inactive, or needing to make up for lost time.

Now's the time to learn patience and love for yourself. Go at your own pace.

You can do this outside the movement you need to make to go about your normal affairs. It will feed into that at some point.

Make a point of shifting your consciousness away from any negative or forcing to a more coaxing wait and see what you can do, type stance.

If at first you can't feel any sense of an urge to move, then try for least disinclined/most easeful of all. And take it from there.......

Wednesday, 27 May 2015

Managing What Exactly?

The deal's supposed to be, medical professionals HATE fatness and want it desperately to end, right? A fat body is inconvenient, tiresome work making indulgence AGAINST THEM;
Just moving her onto the operating table required an additional team: the table was too narrow and the straps too small. One even dislocated his shoulder while performing a cesarean on a 400-pound patient.
And blah, blah, we've heard you.

The deal's supposed to be, medical professionals desperately need the existence of fatness to cease, m'kay?

So what's this about?
But we should be managing obesity even more aggressively, as we do elevated blood pressure and diabetes.
What this “managing obesity” Let alone ‘aggressively’ to consist of?

How can you "manage" what you only wish to get rid of?

There are two main ways of looking at the concept of treatment. A cure that takes time to implement, hence whilst you're receiving say a course of anti-biotics, you are receiving treatment- that is, the cure.

Then there’s when you have no cure and take substances and/or use techniques to palliate or suppress the symptoms of an ever present pathology. 

The latter fits into "management," because, no cure so you have to manage the pathology, but what could this possibly translate into when it comes to the fiction of fatness as dis-ease? The issue is tissue-  what would palliating or suppressing that after the fact amount to? You can only stop the formation of said tissue or reverse it.

Seeking to stem further gain, has never been an aim of the crusade and anyway, what's the method going to be? Calorie restriction. Using that to stem gain is a further admission of the impotence of that strategy.

The current situation has been arrived at in thrall to theoretically trying to stop formation of adiposity with dietary restriction or much more attempting to starve it out of existence after the fact.

Continual denial of this a continuation of the same delusion. 

You cannot “manage” adipose "like blood pressure or diabetes," what's that going to be, yo-yoing everyday, from 400lbs to 200lbs? Do the authorities have a way to do that up their sleeve? Or how else to guarantee any lowered weight will be synchronized with need for medical attentions?

Managing risk of what people choose to link with fatness would not depart the advice given generally for diet and exercise. Medics issue is not with those association which they mainly use the threat of as a lever of influence, it’s with bulk.

Managing bulk aggressively is an oxymoron, you either stop or reverse, or you do nothing. That's has been up 'til now, aggression leads to aggressive fall-out. More weight gain for everyone overall, along with more eating disorders and neuroses too.

One of the sadder research and development aims of big pharma in recent decades is their propensity for rent seeking. Leaving pathological conditions in play in order to sell temporary relief/reversal-to maximize profit over the long term, if not a person's life time. 

As bad as that is, at least it tends to be in the form of pills or some contraption or other. Expecting people to be on a perma diet, i.e. lifestyle anorexia is not a viable option. Hence the whining. And segregation of fat people? Seriously? Where will the dividing line be? How will you measure who goes to the normal or the fat hospital?

No, you actually have to do the work and find a way to get the body to cool its heels vis-a-vis storing lipids. That means you either deal with the mechanics or you don’t.There are no short cuts. No easy routes, no old faithfuls, this needs to break new ground.

White coats need to get it through their heads, fatness is too honest for the old sleights of hand. Their silly attempts to keep trying to pressing it into categories that give them scope for the usual mess  around, neurosis, eating disorder, addiction, psychological booboo etc.,  aren't there.

Dream on or get on.

Monday, 25 May 2015

Jamie Oliver's Food De-evolution

Committed self-aggrandizer Jamie Oliver has taken it upon himself to launch what he calls a "food revolution." What does this explosive rearrangement of tectonic plates of history consist of I hear you ask?

Insisting the G20 adopts resolutions to teach children to grow and cook fresh nutritious food at school. Well....

It used to be thus. I'm in favour of it. I was all in favour of it maintaining it, when that was stopped for the cause of making savings some decades ago.

What I will never ever support though is anything that uses and abuses people to sell anything. Anything that uses the toxic 'obesity' cult in any capacity will do without my support, even if I agree with any proposal. 

What people like Oliver don't seem to have a hope of grasping is that what he thinks of as a solution is an expression of an underlying problem. An indifference toward food but above all, a profound contempt for humanity.

We were joined in an on-line discussion by some throwing around healthy eating/child 'obesity' about the place. I explained how I felt that children should be given knowledge of how to feed themselves well for its own sake. Because that's a good thing to do in itself. Skills in general and self care in this instance, give confidence to us all, moreso in children.

I might as well have been speaking martian. It didn't compute with them. That food is a potential source of pleasure and joy in itself and that poor, along with better children are worthy of having that joy passed on, because they are inherently worth it. Indeed as an exposition of that worth.

They actually laughed at me, indicated that I was talking gibberish.

I'm not hating. I already knew this. Not everyone cares that much about whether people can take care of themselves well, or not. The reason cooking was taken out was to remove barriers in creating increased reliance on ready meals.

To create that market.

It's called "wealth creation."

So rather than bothering to overcome an indifference that those who possess it are oblivious to. I concluded, leave them to make up their own minds and find direct means reverse weight, through science.

If people like Oliver were really interested in the well being of children, they've had their chance. Teaching children to cook is not a "human right", it's just something they should expect from those there to give them guidance.

I'd say it is their human right though not to be degraded, demeaned, stripped of their humanity by those they trust implicitly, branding them with some toxic pseudo-identity of size. Certainly not in  order to provide an entry point for permanent dominance by others, or to give certain people a sense of importance they so clearly feel the lack of.

Saturday, 23 May 2015

Traci Mann's Secrets

It's usually worth reading the admirable Traci Mann on diets especially, as she's one of those rarities who has the moxie to just go with the truth about eating and weight. She has a new book out, "Secrets from the Eating Lab", I'd definitely have a look. This article and interview contains some telling details.

A few points first. Diet-as in what you eat-can have "types", weight loss dieting though is purely singular. It is one thing and one thing only-consuming too few calories for your body to sustain its [current] mass. Anyone who says otherwise is pulling your pin.

What we’re told are “types” of [weight loss] diet are mainly about desperate attempts to increase the body's tolerance of diets. For example by manipulating appetite- the ratio of macro and other nutrients you eat.

High-protein [weight loss] diets appeal to those whose appetites favour protein rich foods. High carb diets make use of those whose leanings are towards carbohydrate rich foods and so on. The aim is to increase moral. Dieting is very morale sapping due to it usually being so unpleasant. 

Mann says something amusing “no one has any willpower”. I’m presuming that references dieting’s failure of everybody. Some favoured bull is spread around-that above a certain weight you’re unlikely to lose enough to become slim.
That's misleading, it's equally true of all weights, including thin people repeatedly shedding and re-shedding a few pounds. Obviously, if you're always thin/slim then that failure isn't apparent. The same mechanics in all of us is producing the same outcome, restoration of each size's starting mass or thereabouts.

Willful delusion forces such obvious failure to be cast elsewhere, in this case onto the dieter. That also distracts from questioning the principle of hunger-blocking as weight regulation.

Dieting becomes like god, it can never truly fail, only sinful humans fail it. 

Actually, dieting via its inherent dysfunction demands and uses up tremendous amounts of will power, it's a-lead your horse to water but can’t make it drink-type situation. Merely leading [and holding] the horse, i.e. your body to starvation drains will power to little productive end.

Dieting is broken and pretty much unfixable, certainly as a general technique, its existence doesn't even make sense. If weight is all about conscious decision-making, then stop making that decision-the end. No need for a plan beyond that.

The plan reflects the fact that hunger is not generated in the conscious mind.

It’s worth remembering not to think in terms of [why] the body fails diets, when it’s the other way around. Diets fail the body. The primacy of the body over dieting needs to be reasserted. The body does not have to answer for it's failure.
When you are dieting.......your brain becomes overly responsive to food, and especially to tasty looking food. But you don't just notice it — it actually begins to look more appetizing and tempting.
This is an action of your nervous system-your brain is the primary hub of that of course. People seem to find it hard to grasp that because all this activity operates through your own information superhighway-your nervous system-that the action of dieting, more specifically your body's response to it, can literally change the way you see, perceive and even  seeming to put thoughts in your head.

You may also remember that this feature was identified as one of the problematic eater types in that BBC Horizon doc. And that I had this exact problem as one symptom of a hyperphagic eating disorder. I would be surprised if this wasn’t a facet of Georgia Davis’s metabolic problems-and others like her.

Mann describes this as increasing [eating’s] “reward value”. I disagree; it increases the imperative to eat. In other words, it’s like having the munchies when you smoke a blunt, or the action of an overactive bladder where the urge is overpowering, even when your bladder is empty.

It’s not that eating becomes more enjoyable-it doesn't necessarily at all-it’s that the urge continues to recruit more and more nervous circuits in your brain-in other words the urge takes it over. Your will is literally overpowered and it becomes too uncomfortable to the point of distressing not too go with it.

Relief of such discomfort is hardly about pleasure. It feels way more compelling than normal hunger. Though I get that's a difficult concept for many.

As for the hormones, I’m not hot on them, but that seems more a register of your depleted energy, framing them as cause. Iow, if I jumped out at you-shocking you, your feelings would be expressed by chemical release, that didn’t cause your fright; that’s how your body both signals and registers it.

These hormones don't stop diets working, they're signalling your body's defensive response to deprivation.

Energy conservation-the body adapting to less by using less energy to function-is yet another defense-they are multifarious, showing the body is really designed to resist starvation and why it so often succeeds. This is often put down to saving you from famine, it could just as well be a defense against anorexia too, as that is a build up of a compulsion to starve, which can also takes over a person's brain. 

One of the things stopping anorexics perishing ever more quickly is this energy conservation.

“How could it [work]when you have to fight against all of that?”

Exactly. When we are this designed against proto-anorexia, it is definitely the wrong way, [not the only way]. 

There is absolutely no reason why reversal of weight must only occur through hunger blocking, unless that in itself is the true aim.

She makes a brilliant observation about the experience of dieting in a way that I hope becomes the norm.
Let's say you're in a meeting, and someone brings in a box of doughnuts. If you're dieting, now you need to resist a doughnut. That is going to take many, many acts of self-control. You don't just resist it when it comes into the room — you resist it when you look up and notice it, and that might happen 19 times, or 90 times. But if you eat it on the 20th time, it doesn't matter how good your willpower was. If you end up eating it, you don't get credit for having resisted it all those times. In virtually any other arena, that would be an A+, but in eating that's an F.
Yes! Not only is this an acute representation of dieting’s flawed hypothesis, it helps tells us what anorexia is. You aren't simply saying  no repeatedly, you are repeatedly blocking an impulse-that of hunger. At some point, this repetition becomes varying degrees of compulsive in certain subsets.

Isn't that extraordinary?

Totally unexpected. This is what we want to happen when we are trying to master a skill! Who'd have thought it could ever spontaneously self-trigger toward such a devastating end?

That could explain why many PWA can get to feeling agonies of hunger, but somehow cannot act on that. Continual blocking builds a wall between the feeling and its response.

It’s like resisting the urge to sleep. No one feels it’s purely about self control to miss sleep to do other things. It’s recognized that there’s a trade off in terms of tiredness. The absence of a sense of consequence from thwarting hunger, produces unnecessary misunderstandings.

Nor is it "impossible" to reverse weight, this simply isn't the right channel.The assessment of dieting's efficacy [or lack of it] is probabilistic. The odds of achieving it via calorie restriction dieting is very thin [yea]. If people want better, they'll have to lobby for genuine ways and means which are entirely possible. 

Thursday, 21 May 2015

Don't want to be your kind of slim human

Reverse thinspo seems to be going mainstream. That's when a person, often slim but also not, uses their negative reaction to fat people to ward off weight gain. It's all very superstitious. 

In some ways I get that, I too never want to develop the slim haloed/thin privileged mentality.

I discovered this by the time I was about 14, despite feeling I could have considered giving up a limb to be slim [yez].

Though there's much collusion on the pity party versions of fat experience. I'm quite thankful for having been fat, because it's meant I don't have to participate in all sorts of odd and tedious hookum that we will all have to get over at some point or other.

E.g. I don't have to unconvincingly pretend that situations/states of being are diseases when they aren't.

Nor do that most people don't have a hand in their own neuroses. And that's okay, we aren't perfect, we mess up in ways we don't intend. Just as we slip and trip over and break, sprain, twist whatever.

I don't have to pretend no solution to a health issue =incurable that's given me quiet hope at some crucial times. I don't have to get caught up with status games with various neurotic ailments, treat them with any reverence. I don't have to indulge in breathtaking insensitivity toward those suffering with cancer.

Invoking them in grotesque games of false equivalence.

I have a greater tolerance for being unsure, imperfect, human, sublimating this disbelief into convenient lies so completely that I don't realise its there, until it leaks out onto some random group of people assigned false inferiority. 

I don't have to overrate 'innocence' as some kind of gold standard of human worth. Don't have to give a shit about the weird currency 'addict' has somehow picked up either. 

Being slim is fine. I spent a long time trying to slim down and I've made no secret of that. What curls my gills is the mentality that too many slim people allow themselves to develop as a side effect of their place in whole 'obesity'/weight-as-identity melange.

This undoubtedly demeans and shows them up, exposing a neediness that isn't apparent to them.

You can keep all that with my complements.......

Tuesday, 12 May 2015

The Obesity Construct is Blasphemy is it not?

Anything and everything is prostituted in service of seeking to justify re-defining human beings as disease. And why this is the way to alter metabolic function to produce desired outcomes. Go figure.

Now I'm atheistic, but one thing I've wondered for a time is why god-botherers don't find the construct of @besity blasphemous, basically outraging against a sacred entity. I have to admit, I don't really care. It's more academic on my part, but I have to wonder whether this is another example of people who talk the talk and are even into and have an emotional attachment to their ideology/set of ideas.

But somehow don't actually think about, through or with them.

i.e. the old the death penalty for even heinous crimes is an abomination. The death penalty without trial for your metabolic function/not being able to tolerate a life of starvation? Fine! Or child welfare is my priority, let's brand children subhuman targets and encourage them to avoid bullying by starving themselves and so forth.

It's none too surprising then that some feel the need to try "@besity is against x holy books sanctity of the human body" etc.,

This is a weak effort I must say. It's clear that the culture of fitness is flagrantly idolatrous. Xtians and others I fancy believe they're made in the image of him upstairs. If they're disease.....well....need I say more?

I'm genuinely curious.

Friday, 8 May 2015

If David Katz Really Wants Children to Reverse Their Weight, He Should Find Effective Ways

Self important medical preacher, David Katz, who wishes to get doctors into every nook and cranny of your existence in order to rule you better, wishes to advance the failed strategy of calorie restriction, via the usual dumping of blame on anyone else but people like himself.

It's got to be someone else's fault, or people like himself would have to be wrong. 

How to get specifically him in the news? Coin a phrase "obliviobesity" geddit?? That's oblivion + 'obesity.'

Or parents' failure to see their own children through the eyes of weight. This says Katz, is why 'obesity'. Those parents who brand their children disease, and allow people like him to dictate their parental relationship-have children who are more likely to "try weight loss."

That means weight loss dieting, which of course has little guarantee of success. Often commitment to keep trying weight loss dieting, creates depression and other neuroses, i.e. eating disorders. You often end up with a mish-mash of them together. At times as a result of the mere threat of it and/or its regular aftermath of increased storage of energy.

After spending years in this cycle. I had to undo it all, as it had become intolerable to my nervous system. I had to restore some semblance of balance to it. Without help from the likes of him.

I was able to, because I stumbled over something that worked. Though it wasn't easy, that didn't matter, I was used to trying hard and what I was doing was restorative, so rewarding in itself. What I was doing made sense to me. I found an option that wasn't provided by the medical establishment such as himself. That was empowering in a way what he's promoting never was.

Which is another thing any parent should always take into account. 

Here hangs a lesson. Find non-invasive, non social engineering, individual ways to reverse weight that's effective not punitive. And people of all ages, from child to aged will do it, on their own, without any need for any interference from him.