Monday, 14 October 2019


Just a quick note for slimz and those who love them😆. You are sinking......

Up until recently, slimz routinely maintained that attitude to nourishment that probably comes in the womb. You know young children just eat, in accord with their own needs, tastes and preferences? They'll leave anything. Doesn't matter what their society or culture prizes, they'll bypass it or barely trouble it, if they don't need to. 

The basic difference between fat and slim is the latter retained more of this aura of freshness, confidence and eating (or response) clarity. Obviously, it was a case of it being less interrupted by the demands of anorexia-by-proxy et al. My firm feeling is this is more than just a feeling. I think it goes down to a biochemical level. Something comes with it, a kind of protection from the vagaries of having your dieting invasively managed by others, but also as much a potential threat to your nutrition as any dieting mayhem "Gym, eat, repeat: The shocking rise of muscle dysmorphia."

I suspect it is part of your metabolic function. I don't know if we can get it back. I used my slim friends as a marker, post orthorexically induced hyperhunger. That wouldn't be possible now. Whenever you talk to slim people about food you're deluged by the tedium of nutri-bollox, ugh.

What effect this will have on the bodies and minds of slim people, is anyone's guess. I've little doubt we'll find out and it may well identify another part of the puzzle of what the 'obesity' mess does to a person.

Tuesday, 8 October 2019

The Harassment of Fat People

For some reason, I've only just caught up with this,

The situation fat people find themselves in isn't good, but the issue is not comparison, its what is going on and who and what is behind it.

The main trouble starts with the insistence, from doctors, research and other health care professionals that everyone who is above a certain body mass index 25+ or 30+ dubbed 'obese' must engage in bringing about weight loss through a restricted intake of food, along with exercise to purge energy.

I know people want to make it more important than this. It probably should be. That it isn't is somewhat testament to how certain stratas of society indulge each other.

The body will not comply with this request to shed mass on the demand of calorie restriction, though people most certainly have complied with trying it, extensively over numerous decades. The body is designed to maintain an adequate energy supply. Attempting to short this, doesn't disturb it from its course which is to thwart anything that will upset maintaining the energy it needs. It's simply the wrong way to achieve this purported end.

For some reason, the white coated ones refuse point blank to accept this reality. Rather than follow the old dictum of; "If the hypothesis doesn't match reality, change the hypothesis", they've preferred to have a go at changing reality, rather than their obviously defunct hypothesis. 

So where does the energy of insisting people must do something, in a way that doesn't work, go to? In this case, seeking to press them into a cycle of compulsive repetition. The method used to press people into doing this to their unwilling bodies, is peer pressure. Using it to make being whilst fat, so unpleasant that people seek to flee it, regardless of the cost.

This is most of what people are framing as social injustice. It's ubiquity serves as evidence of "oppression". 

Most of this doesn't really make sense, reality will not yield to this. During the learning process, it maybe necessary to suspend what you know in order to grasp an idea. When you've grasped it, you can return to a normal state of engaging critically with the subject.

With 'obesity' the first part has happened, but not the second. This crusade's propaganda cannot stand up to minimal scrutiny and is not subject to it. Instead all the criticism is laid at the door of fat people who are expected to answer for other people's refusal to stop other people's exercise of power. People are usually uncritical of what is said to them under the aegis of 'obesity' and that needs to stop. Engage your normal standard of critical evaluation.

When you are told' obesity is epidemic, ask yourself, who or what has failed? Why do professionals keep promoting the same thing as if it works, whilst effectively complaining about its failure and pointing fingers elsewhere?

Recognise the failure of dieting to make people slim.You don't have to "believe" fat people, slim people are dieting, they're not getting lighter overall, either.  You all know the truth, stop colluding in the denial of it. That is cruel, people can't get closure on what was a substantive and sustained effort. Think of them for once.

This is most of the harassment of fat people. Though people can pick on differences between each other; weight, height, hairiness/hairlessness being some traits people pick on. Ultimately, the aggression and nastiness comes from the legitimisation of the white coated ones.

People aren't harassing us because they've been told we're lazy-they give that reason-they've been told to disturb us, to permanently knock us off our stride, so that we'll be desperate enough to keep trying to repeat failure. Which is presented as "getting healthy" and the like.

Weight is being used to introduce the notion of fault as a factor in health and treatment which it isn't, or wasn't. That's a particular mindset manifesting where it wasn't before. Much ill health can be laid at the door of the sufferer, it's not a thing unless it relates to information needed to treat the condition better.

Now the neocon overture is extending increasingly into health care. That's not for any good reason. 'Obesity' predates this, it was a soft spot waiting to be exploited.

People are harassing us because they are told by HCPs et al that it is a medical necessity.

It's a bit like being told by a charity which deals with homelessness that you shouldn't give money to homeless people. It would feel cruel, but you might stop if you assumed charities would never tell lies against those they're in existence to help.

It's that sort of allowance that's being made. People know this is horrible. They go out of their way not to be linked with fat people, in hopes of avoiding this particular response, to the extent that this often reminds you how badly the caring professions are behaving.

It's like there's no "debate". The notion that there is, keeps people from acknowledging that the failure of cal res is a scientific fact, not an opinion or belief. Miring them in a useless back and forth, where the arguer has conceded the argument as a basis for their position.

An agenda to equalise structural oppression expressing itself socially, with social peer pressure appears to have wrapped itself around fat acceptance. Who benefits from the notion that racism, sexism etc., are merely about social niceties, requiring only good behaviour? In other words what some call PC. You heard it in Bill Maher's screed, claiming people are being shamed out of racism.

Racism is presented as not about economics, but about bad manners. 


P.S. Just a word about medical negligence, refusal to treat. That has also come largely from seeking to leverage whatever HCPs have to get fat people on restrictive diets, which continue to fail, ergo, the ante is upped, until they're refusing to treat people or "misdiagnosing". People say, they're not believed, but if you listen to what they're saying, the HCP is trying to get them to diet. Dangling the prospect of treatment as a reward.

The alternative is to find the correct way to alter weight, or to drop the whole forcing people to lose weight this way and accept fatness. They do not seem to wish to do either.

Thursday, 26 September 2019

What You See is How it's Going

The dust appears to have pretty much settled on Bill Maher use of fat people to attack the #M4A/single payer campaign going on in the US. Rather than go to that again, for the moment, I'll start backwards in a sense, with James Corden's response. It was pretty much couched in the de rigueur fat person trying achingly to make themselves safe for slim people. We're frightened that people who get this hysterical over nothing will completely meltdown if we let on.

His monologue could be read doubly. I must admit I was more taken by being irked about by the more ingratiating than the not so. I'm going to ignore the former for what stood tallest in the other,
I’ve struggled my entire life trying to manage my weight and I suck at it. Right? I have had good days and bad months. I’ve basically been off and on diets since as long as I can remember, and, well, this is how it’s going
Everybody "sucks" at it that's why neither thin, slim, nor fat are getting any lighter (overall). Struggle is the name of the game when it comes to the response our bodies have to pathological instruction. We've already done and completed several rounds of 'obesity' crisis contrived out of this failure of the only means made available to us-weight loss dieting.

Weight has been in absolute mortal crisis for decades. Clearly it isn't worrying authority at all, or when I suggest cutting to the chase, well, I wouldn't even have to do that, would I? The only game in town for them has been and seemingly will always be;

What. we. have. already. done.

The "obesity epidemic" headlines, is the after picture, not the before. Like Corden, millions of the targets of this noise have dieting in an endless round robin of hell their whole lives. Slimming and related quackery is worth $168.95 bn. I know folk love insisting this is the motive for pressing fatz, but how much do you think a slimming pill that worked [without destroying/killing] would be worth, on its own or by comparison?

Clearly, saying dieting doesn't work, hasn't reached the definitive. Especially for fat activists who still appear to think the evidence of their own bodies clearly seen by all requires any "belief".

When a functioning method is applied to a system to change it and it works, it is unmistakable. Talking of real rather than fake disease, medicine is for disease not harassment and moralising. When the first effective treatments for AIDS were given to patients some almost at death's door, rose from their beds almost as if rising from slumber, it was described as a Lazarus effect, after the biblical chappie who had the Deus put back into said machina.

Witnessing a thing that has efficiently and effectively altered something as evident as people's body size can be like seeing part of a cliff face fall into the sea. You become aware something is missing, then remember, there used to be more of this, the picture changes almost as your eyes are adjusting. Not surprising that cargo cultism is central to our ideas about science when it finds effective pathways it totally re-writes the rules that draw up our mental landscape.

Most people seem to think weight loss is hard and that we are destined to be fat, replacing destined to be slim. But I just can tell, from my own experience of applying the diet-weight hypothesis that is merely acceptance of what you can see as all there is. People get upset with me because I don't, in this case there's no reason to.

Think of how women saw their fertility before the pill. The pill, you don't even have to say which one you're talking about, that's impact. People who accept weight as dictated by professional 'obesity' peddlers are like pro-lifers. Don't have abortion or contraception, just let nature take its course. This is nonsense, it's not the way any human beings live and is hardly the anti-thesis to the pursuit and abuse of fat people. Humans use nature to shape things in a means conducive to our desires. As nature itself uses its own forces to achieve different things.

The picture we see is contrived by determined failure, which a choice one increasingly systematised and financialised to keep everyone locked into it. Sorry, I just cannot believe in accepting this, it is collusion unwitting or otherwise. We'll have to agree to misunderstand each other.

Those promoting this 'obesity' mess should bless themselves with the gift of shame, actually, they do. Hiding cringing behind euphemisms all the way.
And I will, I will keep trying. All the time. I am aware today that this is going to be a struggle that I will face for the rest of my life.
That's 12 step bilge that we're expected to pretend has something to do with being fat. Life-long recovery means you haven't and will never; recover. If recovery, in this context equals slim, then you'll never be slim😵.

There are perhaps more pointed signs,
But the truth is, you’re working against your own cause.
Ain't that the truth, never for, always against. That is their cause, by what other standard does Corden judge himself? By his continued fatness, well their continued failure is their intent similarly. 
And here’s a fun fact: If you shame the gene, it actually fixes itself. I’m kidding, that’s not how science works.
Oooh! That's some real anger isn't it?

Science, the thing that leads real but not faux health campaigns and actually works, quackery doesn't. 

Tuesday, 17 September 2019

Disease - Infection by a pathogen or the degeneration of an organ or system


There is nothing to debate "What exactly is disease?" It's how words work. You use them for the meaning or definition you have attached them too. When you break this rule, words cease to work. You end up asking "What does x word mean?" The inability of medics to clearly define a term as central to their practise as disease is not simply a philosophical back and forth it is a genuine crisis.

One which should lead to an immediate reversal of the conditions that created it, which as far as I can tell is the application of said term to that which it does not define.

As for 'obesity'. The meaning of that term is in the mind of the beholden. It could pass for an opinion, but it is not a fact,
The Council on Scientific Affairs (CSA) previously addressed the issue. Based on its interpretations of definitions of disease in common use, the Council argued that it was premature to classify obesity as a disease, citing the lack of characteristic signs or symptoms due to obesity, as well as evidence of any true causal relationships between obesity and morbidity and/or mortality.
It is variously defined by its adherents as having a body mass index of 30+, weight increase, fat tissue, "excess" fat tissue with sometime addition of  such as "fat accumulation" and "that presents risk to health" et al. The real 'debate' around that remains, is this a thing? [Answer: Hardly!]

This balderhockey does not even sound like a disease, even if there was something to fit up. Promoters of this like to try to accumulate meaning into this void by seeking to pretend that there's some aching-agonistes around other actual diseases and/or they cite preceding faux diseases-the very ones that have led to disease's loss of meaning in the first place.

Psychological disease presumably-mental illness, is not disease, it's more metaphorical. I only got used to using the term on the Internet, when it became too hard to dodge. Cardiovascular disease, refers to the degeneration of an organ. Cancer is obviously a disease, but given my ignorance and that its coinage is in something of a flux,  I can say little more than it is a pathological process or processes that produce mutated cells, destroying tissues and organs, leading to their removal-like bariatric surgery does-except in the absence of any disease.

Risk factors like hypertension are not diseases, they are symptoms, one that's cause(s) are often obscure. "Frederick Akbar Mahomed". Nor is there anything "difficult" about the difference between high blood sugar a symptom and that which it is used to diagnose-diabetes, a disease. As for osteoporosis that presumably is the degeration of certain bone tissue.

Conclusions, cease and reverse the instrumentalisation of disease. Respect the importance of the term and do not give in to any entreaties to mis-use it. The term does not exist to 'recognise', validate or manipulate feelings.

Body mass is not disease, nor does it lend itself to disease as a metaphor. It cannot even be described as a symptom, unless possibly, if it is as a result of a specific pathology. Whether any amount of it can be dubbed 'healthy' or no, makes no odds to what is supposed to be the required response and that is to halt and/or reverse it.

This requires no pathologisation, medicalisation, assault or brutality. It requires a truthful understanding of metabolic function and gentle resetting of relevant functions.

Arguments come from the refusal to focus directly and solely on this rather than fiction. There can be no separation between a person and the size of that person. To pathologise weight is to pathologise the person. A person suffering from such a pronounced self-pathology would be diagnosable as suffering from a mental pathology.

This is cannot be diagnosis, this is iatrogenic or doctor induced injury.

People go to their doctor to relieve suffering, not to induce it.

Monday, 2 September 2019

The treatment for BED? Stop Calorie Restriction Dieting and Stop Pathologising Your Body/Self

American Addiction Centre's page called "Compulsive Overeating". The question with binge eating disorder has always been what is it?
...absolutely no control around food. Since many binge eaters restrict food intake...
If you are restricting your intake, then that's,  by these people's notion "control".

The snake swallows its tail after first slithering toward something getting hold of it in its teeth. The intensity of pursuit narrows its peripheral vision until it ends up biting its own tail. The cycle is complete and is able to perpetuate itself.

With anorexia-restriction, circuitry around the response to hunger seems to weaken and /or the circuitry around blocking is activated and becomes powerful. An ever decreasing vortex of response ensues.

With binge/purge-restricting certain foods, increases appetite for them til that becomes irresistible creating panic leading to a salvaging action of purging stomach contents (aspire assist) this reduces/threatens to reduce energy intake, which increases hunger function to compensate for lack or prospect of it. A cycle is established.

Then you have binge eating disorder, 
...defined as consuming large amounts of food within a two-hour period at least twice a week without purging, accompanied by a sense of being out of control.
That's not a cycle. Also, the equivalent of "purging" is the restriction beforehand. It's a reversal of binge/purge, instead its restrict/restore. One step forward, one step back.

That this is not really an eating disorder like anorexia or binge/purge is confirmed by this startling piece of information: " issue that’s remarkably responsive to treatment.." EDs aren't remarkably responsive to what passes for "treatment", because that doesn't consist of any technique that does the job of restoring response to hunger.

Responsivity to "change the way they think about and consume food" is a voluntary action. The whole point of a disorder is it has become involuntary, that's why people ask for, or end up in hospital needing help.

I've usually struggled to grasp what BED advocates were getting at, the coinage contains different cross currents of hunger and other metabolic dysfunction. The addiction folk don't get it, for them-eating=thinking. They want to fit it into their model. "...they think of food in addictive terms."  "They’re obsessed with food..." Obsessed with food is those using the diet-weight hypothesis;
...unusual relationship with food. ...they think about food...they gorge on food... ...change the way they think about and consume food. ...a great deal of food.. ...hidden foods and/or food wrappers. ...unaware of the smell or the taste of the foods... 
That's the first 6-7 paragraphs, excluding all references to eat, eating and binge. 
Food. Food, food, food, food, food, food, ........................foooooood. Food. Dammit. Foooooood. Once you step back from all this and you really begin to feel the senseless obsessiveness of it all.
From BED advocates descriptions, I'd realised it's probably an effect of chronic calorie restriction dieting. As I said, there is no yo-yo dieting, dieting is the yo-yo. If it takes at all, this heightened hunger is one reason why it doesn't.  

I had to reserve judgement in case I was missing something. They also vigorously denied this link.
Since many binge eaters restrict food intake during the day and binge at night, the goal is to get them to eat three meals a day and a snack.
Those who treat eating disorders use duress and pressure to get some restoration of a person's hunger response. Getting someone to eat three meals a day is hardly that. It's more like someone who hasn't been eating properly.

Despite "diet culture" etc., people still cannot grasp that calorie restriction dieting is inherently unbalanced. Including if not especially people who should know better by now. This may come as a surprise given the insistence that "weight loss" is an absolute no-no due to continued conflation of that with cal res dieting. 

Seems (dieting induced) weight loss is totally bad, but dieting itself can be good, so much so, that this gets in the way of perceiving the unbalancing effects of dieting. "Good dieting" is when your body overcomes the assault, not the the nature of the assault itself.

If you smoked furiously for a few years, stopped and your body did not succumb to any related probs later. That's not "good smoking" that's your body's operations standing up to that pressure. As they are designed to do but cannot in every instance.

I've put it out there that the "obesity diagnosis" is not compatible with mental health, it is an assault on it, not the "drug addiction movement" [no such thing]. Freudian slippage on "fat acceptance movement" there. Addicts do not reverse their dependence, they go through withdrawal, that doesn't demand much transferable skill.

This sort of linking of fatness to various pathologies seeks to use your acceptance of terms supposedly embedded in our psyche. Usually to do with finessing professional failures as the way its supposed to be, up to an including letting people die -yes, what Michael Buerk said. 
Whether or not one can be fully cured of binge eating depends on one’s definition of “cured.” 
That'd be normal hunger function, which is of course not their aim because they're not charged with solving anything. What they've forgotten is the current targets of their theatre are. If something is "remarkably responsive to treatment.." treatment which consists of voluntary action of stopping cal res dieting and the pathologising of yourself and your body-should fully 'cure' it.
Treatment often begins with efforts to recognize distorted, all-or-nothing thinking .....
Normal people don’t consume 4,500 calories worth of food in one sitting, or order takeout for four when dining alone. 
Yeah they do, it's the function, not the person. See how journalist generalised from the specific, typical all or nothing thinking, like 'obesity', which because someone else feels some way about your size, the whole of you must be defined by that feeling.

Friday, 23 August 2019

Metabolism, Glands, Bones, Blood, Cells, Digestion, Nerves....

In its 'obesity' overview -"the term describes a person who is very overweight, with a lot of body fat", the NHS tells us;
"Risks of obesity" are,
Type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, some types of cancer , such as breast and bowel cancer and stroke....depression.
That should be post menopause breast cancer, but what's a small AM/PM detail?
"Other obesity-related problems" - "Obesity can cause a number of further problems, including difficulties with daily activities and serious health conditions."
breathlessness, increased sweating, snoring, difficulty doing physical activity, often feeling very tired, joint and back pain, low confidence and self-esteem, feeling isolated.....depression.
It continues, "Being obese can also increase your risk of developing many potential serious health conditions, including:
type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, atherosclerosis (where fatty deposits narrow your arteries), which can lead to coronary heart disease and stroke, asthma, metabolic syndrome, a combination of diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity, several types of cancer....bowel...breast...womb, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GORD), where stomach acid leaks out of the stomach into the gullet, gallstones, reduced fertility, osteoarthritis, a condition involving pain and stiffness in your joints, sleep apnoea, a condition that causes interrupted breathing during sleep, which can lead to daytime sleepiness with an increased risk of road traffic accidents, as well as a greater risk of diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease, liver and kidney disease, pregnancy complications, such as gestational diabetes
Got that? Metabolism, glands, blood, cellular reproduction, digestion, nervous system. Better watch out! Being human is a serious condition, it can cause all sorts of problems, difficulties and diseases.

Wednesday, 21 August 2019


Time after time over the years I have wondered, whenever I hear, usually a white middle/upper class girl/woman say of anorexia, binge/purge etc., stuff (exactly) like; became a coping mechanism.... a safety valve, a way to comfort and forget..
They call it an "illness", currently insist it is "a serious mental health condition" and so on. I just assumed it was a cultural mode of expression. I have never related, nor found it particularly convincing, but what was, was that these people really want to keep saying this. Okay. I am not every woman. The problem came when this particular stripe of womanhood decided that they could impose this as the universal human standard, regardless of whether it is alienatingly meaningless or not.

That's a problem.

To me, eating or hunger disorders, over and above spontaneous development, are some of the consequences of inducing weight loss via calorie restriction. This leads the body to react and adapt to this triggering if it's sufficiently persistent. It is this adaptation that takes the triggering from voluntary to involuntary status. Where it can't just be stopped, some or all of it has to be dismantled to break the dynamic or cycle.

I exclaimed loudly when I came across this;
Bruch has proposed that eating disorders (obesity and anorexia nervosa) are caused by an inability to differentiate between bodily sensations and emotional states
Obese persons are viewed as having a faulty awareness of physiological hunger, so that emotional states are mislabelled as hunger; this leads to an excessive intake of food.
Schachter's theory consists of two hypotheses. The 'external hypothesis' states: ....there is growing reason to suspect that the eating behaviour of the obese is relatively unrelated to any internal gut state, but is, in large part, under external control; that is, eating behaviour is initiated and terminated by stimuli external to the organism. 

His 'internal hypothesis' states: The relationships are quite the reverse for the normal subject; his eating behaviour seems directly linked to an internal state but relatively unaffected by the external circumstances surrounding the eating routine and ritual.
~"The Experimental Psychology of Obesity" Orland W. Wooley, Susan C. Wooley
There it is.

This is what people keep repeating, this is what 'binge eaters' want in on. All this self-declamatory insistence was the product of someone's hypothesising. I'm beginning to wonder if anything people say in this area is a more or less direct report and reading of their experience.

This never occurred, so heartfelt and emphatic are people. You must explain your experience this way, you're experience will be explained to you this way. Everywhere you go people up to the most virulent trolls, concerned and not voice this sentiment.

You cannot escape it, it is the lore, you must be; "eating your feelings" or "eating for comfort". Well here, it, is. Emotional eating, comfort eating. Here's the root.

Suffice to say, I'm no more impressed than before, but at least I have a better sense of the why.