Monday, 12 October 2015

World 'Obesity' Promotion

World 'obesity' promotion day has passed without much ceremony. Let's face it, everyday is 'obesity' promotion day. In case of any confusion. The term "obesity promotion" is one of those blurted confessions fat phobes sometimes leak out.

It's when you promote the ideology that focus on the false construct of 'obesity' somehow makes sense, rather than it being a toxic pathology inducing cul-de-sac that circles round and round leading nowhere, acting purely as distraction from real knowledge and better ways.

Barely reading a phoned-in farticle containing the usual, how fat everyone is definitely going to be in a few years hence, because there is not a cat in hells chance that "obesity research" will be interrupting that, in the ever fat phobic guardian.

I was stopped in my hazy tracks by this,
“Like climate change, we know the answers to the obesity crisis. We know that tough policies will need to be implemented, and we know that such policies are challenged by powerful commercial interests. But we have no choice if we hope to meet those 2025 targets.”
That's was Tim Lobstein The World Obesity Federation's Director of Policy (lols). Just before that he's quoted as saying,
“Preventing obesity means tough government action to limit the promotion of junk food, especially to children, to ensure healthier food is offered at work, in schools and institutions, and to encourage physical activity through better urban design and transport systems.
We of course do not know how to alter metabolic function so it reverses weight and "maintains" that state itself. Cos we can't impose that through the anorexia method. 

The article includes the entirely predictable fact that weight is also increasing in developing countries too (the clock is ticking on praising black and brown people for their extremely moral hunger). It's a side effect of progress.

Certainly in Western model countries, a lot of these conditions existed and were undermined or jettisoned during the crusade. Indeed, often using the crusade's folklore of individuals design and make their bodies, to do this. This now looks bad even among the most shameless 'obesity' wallahs.

The "policies" he speaks of have been and gone. They used to be just the way life was. Now he wants to bring them back, despite people chosing to get rid of them/bring them in on the grounds of cost. Either saving money or making it to fill in the cracks of funding cuts.

Now that too many people have washed-up on the rocky shores of a dieting career to sustain that delusion....for a while, it's assumed by slim people that all fat people want is for blame to be directed at someone else, instead of us.

Don't be fooled, that can't happen as long as calorie restriction induced weight loss (CRIWL) is the only way and that is what a lot of this is really all about. Blaming "Big Food" can make little dent in the culture of blaming fat people.

As long as we're expected to starve, we'll be to blame. What would happen if they said, "It's not your 'fault' you're fat" or that "We've deliberately not bothered with any better means to lower weight. But starve anyway."

Whaddya say, self hating fatz, would you be so up for that?

Industrial food has benefited hugely from the 'obesity' crusade and its calories in/out insistence. Not simply due to its money-for-nothing slimming industry that was not only held up and legitimized by the medics/"obesity science" axis, it was saved from going under  by the same too.

It's also profited from entering seemingly every nook and cranny of the public environment on the back of weight = "personal responsibility." Bullying and profit motive. Why should fat phobes ever deny themselves?

Blaming industrial food for "causing obesity" is an attempt at window dressing for susceptible fat people. They're actually trying to get us to blame the food industry for doing our bodies to us!!!! The notion that this incredible entity called the human body, one that grows from a speck to yourself or myself, following its own innate pathways is not one to be deemed blameworthy, doesn't compute.

Another pathetic attempt to prop up the legitimacy of CRIWL which can be seen in itself as the supreme avoidance of learning how to tweak metabolic function. Something that's being studiously [geddit] avoided.

The reference to climate change cannot be taken as read or even seriously. 'Obesity' wallahs are always desperate to legitimize their credo, despite saturation acceptance and an eye watering level of hegemony. I swear dictators would not expect this level of adherence.

But it is quite a take down of climate change to raise it in such comparison. The so called "tough action" flies in the face of a lot that is in the economic model. It was obvious which suspects would struggle with the required collective action required to put cals in/out to the fore. Though that wouldn't have stopped fatness it could have at least slowed its course.

Nor would it empowered individuals to regulate their own bodies. Something usually absent from this. 

This is not motivated by an anti-capitalist desire to remake society-that's looking at it the wrong way round. Calories in/out makes this "anti-capitalist" head on collision inevitable. Targeting eating must be about curbing those who produce, make and sell food. Whether indirectly through potential customers or directly by government regulation.

It's the same source (ideology). It's not either government regulation, or "personal responsibility". It's find the right way to do it, or don't. What we have now is the latter and what is being proposed is more of that.

Either you suppress aspects of the food business, or you put people out of business. You may say that healthy eating can make lots of money. So what explains industrial food's reluctance? It has bought up and destroyed numerous wholesome products in order to get more milk out of its cashcows.

It is extraordinary that people have been sold a personal problem that's solution requires the co-operation of people whose rampant hostility has been stoked up almost beyond their ready control. One that involves perfecting society along your own lines.

The question is, is this at all the case for proposed policies to fight climate change?

Are we being sold an activist utopia at the expense of the most practical workable, accessible ways that could be discovered?

I hope not. 

Saturday, 10 October 2015

Missing METABOLISM arrives when pseudo-science leaves the room

For years, I've been banging on like sister from another planet about weight being all to do with METABOLISM?


All WEIGHT is produced by such. 

And no, that does not refer specifically to disorders of, or disordered metabolic function, it refers correctly functioning metabolism, its anatomy, function, physiology.  Just as referring to the anatomy and physiology of your limbs is assumed to be about said limbs, rather than disorders or diseases that can affect those limbs.

Just as the pathologization of fatness has merged somewhat with physiology of fat bodies, therefore of all bodies, and as it is also conflated with diabetes. Increasingly, metabolism has become suggestive of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance (whatever the latter two especially actually are) and so on.

Nor is it another way of presenting digestion or nutrition.

It is,
Now if this seems all encompassing to the point of becoming indistinct. Science to the rescue. Here's an example of how obvious and easy it can be to grasp the role of metabolic function.

Did you dare to dream for a second that I was going to link to something about 'obesity'? Lols. If you can delay gratification no further, give yourself a mental massage by putting weight in place of height, or more specifically, fatter in place of taller.

Here's what stood out,

The creation of height is automatically acknowledged as METABOLIC
.....taller people have a larger number of cells in their body......
Metabolism is in essence, the anatomy, processes and pathways that create maintain and destroy the cells of your body. Weight is just a more active aspect of metabolic function, so it is even more apt that it should be centered around what creates and maintains it. Like hunger though, this erased by 'obesity' promotions inc.

Metabolism is referenced in a very accessible way.

It is gradated for hoi polloi. First mentioning that tall/er people have a greater number of cells. Then onto the processes of the production and growth of those cells, honing in on an active aspect of that- growth hormone.
“We know that in humans growth hormone not only stimulates bone growth during our growing years, but stimulates cell growth in general and blocks cell death. So the level of growth hormone someone has could affect cancer risk by pushing up cell numbers,” 
 My emphasis. Four lines is all it takes.
An earlier study showed that people with genetic dwarfism had very little cancer. “People with genetic dwarfism have a mutation in their growth hormone receptor and we know that growth hormone and growth hormone receptor are critical to tumour growth too,” he said."
A study on mice where their genes were manipulated to make a high or low level of growth hormone was said to increase and decrease their cancer rates accordingly. Which brings me to another fundamental point.

Height is easily acknowledged as a SCALE

Each end of any scale informs understanding of either by comparison and all in between. "From 100cm (3ft 3ins -225cm 7ft 6ins)", one scale produced by the same anatomical processes. The shortest i.e. dwarfism automatically informs the taller end. Weight is the same, the thinnest informs the fattest and vice versa. Segregated focus creates an obstacle. There are bound to some at one end and some at the other.

Immediate and repeated reassurance

Taller men and women need not worry.
Swedish study sheds new light on link between height and disease – but smoking, obesity and poor diet are still greater risks
Indeed they need not. That would only do them harm. Don't be put off by the usual false equivalence. The point is to note is the keen desire to avoid upsetting tall/er people.

It's clear about the source and quality of the information.
despite taller men and women being more likely to develop cancer, according to this study of 5.5 million people born between 1938 and 1991
No declaration of "proof" from a dozen people. No confounding factors were included in the study, so how good this is, may be up for some question. That's made clear. If you are making emphatic claims, quality is requisite

Tallness is not framed as some abnormal growth happening to a 'normal' body

a) That is the construct that is 'obesity' and b) Tallness could lend itself just as well to such a faux pas, or not.

No false moralism is invoked

I include concern trolling about "stigma". The real and apt sense of morality is in the reverence for any potential impact of this news on tall/er people. This sense of potential consequence is very humanistic. Despite mentioning "higher energy intake" they go out of their way not to mention food showing how pronounced that obsession is elsewhere.

It is possible to mention higher intake without invoking that great meter of objective diagnosis- the 7 deadly sins

Perhaps the acme of this for me is,

The current state of knowledge is freely acknowledged along with the need for MORE RESEARCH 

And of what kind.
The mechanisms for this effect are not clear and are worth further study. They may relate to the fact that the growth hormones related to height also are in some way stimulating cancer cells, but details are lacking.”
Not junk science such as increased risk according to your bedtime, but not hours sleep. WTH? Obviously not designed to be of any use. Except to those getting paid [well done].

The findings are properly contextualized.
Dr Jane Green, clinical epidemiologist at the University of Oxford, said: “In general, I would caution against interpreting a link as causal – however for height and cancer there is considerable evidence that suggests that the link is not explained by other known factors.
Context also lends itself to pacifying potential anxieties. Special mention to,

No problem with paradox
“ is worth noting that taller people have lower risks for heart disease and a lower risk of death overall."
Paradox is often a fundamental part of reality fact and truth-it doesn't require special categorization.

The effort to jettison potential false causality
Clearly, adult height is not itself a ‘cause’ of cancer, but is thought to be a marker for other factors related to childhood growth.
Rather than the use of this to continue pathologization. Nor is there any pretense that a generalized catch all risk relates the same to each individual-innumerate as much as anything. 
just because a woman is tall, doesn’t mean they will definitely develop breast cancer,” said Carolyn Rogers, clinical nurse specialist at Breast Cancer Care.
For the record,
“We must stress that the biggest risk factors for developing breast cancer are being female, getting older and for some, a significant family history of the disease.”
This is pretty much how I see weight. It is 'obesity' that is deviance from basic rational standards. It doesn't take genius to work out that the absence of the above standards are malicious in intent.

Friday, 9 October 2015

Obese Extremist

A priceless lesson in how the fake evil of pathologization punctures perception of true evil. If you turn people into a joke, you cannot become serious about what them via the same source.

Perversely, only through re-humanizing them-dropping the 'obese construct' -can the truth of the evil a person does come to the fore unimpeded by slapstick.

Witness DM's extraordinary ability to do something I didn't think possible. To make 'obese' sound cool.
Every single one sounds like one of those fascinating anti-heros.

I stand corrected.

Up until this point the evil acts of ISIS have only chilled me to the bone. That is now over thanks to the DM who've managed to contrast themselves with a pre obese-stimming consciousness. Terrorists apparently nicknamed this "tubby" executioner the "Bulldozer".

A mainstream news organ ends up sounding like those who sark any horror.

Strangely this is one of the first times the DM has failed to redundantly insert 'obese' into its headline. The need to disconnect you from this person is removed by their own actions. It reads: "ISIS's masked 20st monster."*

Now I don't know about you, but that doesn't provoke much emotion. The whole point of neuro-typical obese stimming is to present fat people as monsters, beasts. I've been called that numerous times, not to mention the frequent terminology using large mammals (such as mammoths) favoured by banal trolls.

To make it clear this particular "obese extremist", who has tortured and murdered people, execution style. It's not the usual reference to a self aware kind of "obese extremist". This terrorist amputates the healthy body parts of those who do not fit into his particular worldview. He and his cohorts feel they need to have parts of them missing in order to fit in. 

How extraordinary.

He's also described memorably as "one of ISIS's most unsightly executioners", there was a beauty contest to decide: Mr ISIL? Note the order in that quote and tell me again that "body dysmorphic disorder" comes out of nowhere like a 'disease' or is induced by how many likes your selfies garner.

The "unsightly" nature of this "obese individual" is used to serve as reflection of his evil. As with Bond villains, there's confusion here. And no, I'm not going to act like I need to prove anything by hastily adding how deeply against this or that I am. That too has been debased. I'll take for granted that you can tell.

If only I hadn't reacted so much to the insistence that Freud was science all those years ago, then I'd be able to say with authority rather than instinct that this reads Freudian-like with the shadow of size=beauty (or absence of)=morality replacing sex or the pleasure principle as motivational subtext.

This conflation of morals with size doesn't explain "healthily weighted" ISIS.

It brings back the way 'obese' finally alerted me to one way socio/psychopathy can be invoked in a person. By convincing a child that they're evil, when later child catches on that they aren't, their feeling about real malice and evil can be undermined, blunted. Because they believed they were evil and now they know that real feeling wasn't

Like exposure to constant friction creates a callous that numbs the area.

I'm neither, but I must confess, evil doesn't feel quite the same as it did before the extent of fake evil became obvious. If that sounds odd or even a little shocking, that's because it hasn't become so to you.

The person writing this article couldn't find a way to talk about a fat person any other way. Seems they felt that this because this person was actually bad, saying their worst would be apt. That 'worst' is not what hurts people.  Fat phobia causes hurt because people are upset that you are upset with them. They hurt because you appear hurt. They hurt because of love not hate.

Remember fat isn't evil.  It's not even a misdemeanour. Hatred is a product of the mind of the hater, not a reading of truth. It's an act of imagination.

This maniac is not.

Only in the last two paragraphs does this article retain gravitas commensurate with the of evil it reports, when it focuses on one of this man's victims. A 14 year old boy who had both his hand and foot cut off with a sword, in front of an audience.

Its final paragraph forgets weight all together and concentrates on a murderer, killer and psychopathic zealot. Something those who aren't can only yearn for. 

More ironically still, the comment section is not unpleasant to read, featuring only one attempt at humour. 

* This has been subject to subsequent amendment the whole headline now reads
ISIS's masked monster: Revealed, the tubby jihadi executioner dubbed The Bulldozer who's part of terror group's 'Chopping Committee' bringing horror to captured Iraqi towns
Again "tubby jihadi" derails the seriousness of what the headline is talking about. The history is indicated in the address bar.

Monday, 28 September 2015

Another Metabolic Outlier Pays the ultimate price for the 'obesity' crusade

Samantha Packham died in hospital this July. She was 20 years old, weighed 40 stones/560lbs/254kgs. She had fierce hyperphagia at 8 years old according to her parents Jan and Michael,
“She would eat her dinner and then she would just go to the fridge and help ­herself to more food. “We tried to tell her she’d just had her ­dinner and didn’t need anything else, but she would fly into a rage. “She would swear and once she even pulled the hinges off the doors – she was that strong at the age of eight.
That 'rage' by the way is a profound distress that jumps out at you from your very nerves, your mind becomes aware of it. So what next?
"We took her to the doctors but they did absolutely nothing.”
That sums up what the 'obesity' crusade is all about. Put tremendous pressure on people to do something they aren't designed for and give them no help to even give it a good go. If you want people to deal with hunger of this magnitude, why not work on switching hunger down? Meaning doctors could have demanded this of researchers.

They've gone out of their way not to. The whole 'obesity' crusade and its acolytes have consistently argued against objective research, claiming that just gives people "excuses". It "over-complicates" things, yes you read that. More knowledge of something you clearly no little about =over-complication.  The only thing left is spontaneous recovery.

This should all be getting a tad familiar. Samantha also had learning difficulties and went to special school like Carl Thompson. Her body's level of energy conservation seemed to be even worse than his.

There's no doubt the 'obesity' is slowly being encroached by the voices of experience. There's a slow dawning realization of the mess we have been put in by this 'obesity' narrative. The Mail's original headline was,
obese daughter who weighed 40 stone and was put into care as a teenager because her parents could not control her eating dies aged 20
First off, when you write 40 stone in a sentence, you do not need to write 'obese' or 'overweight', as it was subsequently altered to-'cos that's supposed to be more polite. It isn't. I'm sure DM journos are expensively educated enough to recognize the difference between a problematic moniker and a problematic construct. I'm guessing, they expect their readers to be too low in reason to notice the difference.

No joking about the Mail readership now, that is quite contemptuous, well, why should that all be on fat people? To reiterate for the peanut gallery, it doesn't matter what you name this weight construct, it is what you are naming that is the problem. Changing terms makes no difference.

Back to that headline, how defensive is it?!
.......because her parents could not control her eating
Someone doth protest way too much. Samantha was snatched by a state agency because her parents could not control her eating eh? Now you know that is disingenuous, none such is said to the parents of children/teens wasting from anorexia nervosa. The hunger of a human being, child or not is in the body of that person, not in the head of others, whether parents, a societal bullying campaign or strictures on industrial food.

This extent of defensiveness makes it clear to me that they know on some level or t'other that the overall insistence on diet or death is the real killer here, not Samantha's parents. She was described as the youngest victim of the 'obesity' crisis. In a sense that is correct, when you consider this conceit of denying people any real means to alter the regulation of their weight, regardless.

That sets up a diet or death scenario, as I've made clear this is the latter part. I wasn't hyping, I was pointing to the obvious implication of describing something as lethal, then denying any means of altering that course.

It's called consequence, something fat phobes so shield themselves from that they've lost all sense of their own actions creating effects of their own. There's no guarantee that Samantha would have made old bones, but, there's no question that the greatest avoidable responsibility lies with those who use their hold over the discourse on weight to argue against proper scientific investigation of metabolic function.

That is those who are fixated on trying to trap people into a life of starvation and hunger blocking. All those who insist weight is "your fault/ your choice/lifestyle choice"-'obesity' wallahs, medics, amateur fat phobes, yep, you've hastened the end of people like Samantha who could not defend themselves from your self indulgence.

You are also why there was little her parents could have done except contact a specialist in a condition that they may have had no idea their child might potentially have had.

Her parents were not given a fighting chance at helping her is the truth. And not because of 'healthy eating', no one should die for following or not following someone else's ideas of a pure diet. The idea of a correct diet equalling a correct weight is just another of many facile attempts to save calories in/out model.

To be fair the press including the DM have been increasingly making a show of playing both ends, featuring fat acceptance 'role models' and such. Face it though, FA was not the answer here. FA's for removing iatrogenically induced problems. It's not a cure for true metabolic derangement, hyperphagia, overriding energy conservation, hypothalamic disorder- require actual study and unravelling.That means letting go of blame culture and putting this aspect of the body's self regulation back on a completely objective footing.

What is required is proper full investigation into metabolic function, free of the tiresome irrelevance of the 'obesity' construct. 

Heavily featured is the so called guilt of the parents who predictably blame themselves and confess to their negligence. What half decent parent would not be wracked with feelings/wishes that they could have done 'better'?

To help illustrate a truer valuation of this, I hereby confess to being the one on the grassy knoll. Despite neither being male, being able to shoot a gun or even being born. It is of course not even being accepted fact that there was a second gunman. Anyone can confess to anything, ask police investigating murders. Stop tormenting people who are dealing with the horrific situation of burying their own child.

If anyone bothered listening to them, they knew the score,
“It was like an eating disorder. 
An understatement of epic proportions. A hunger disorder isn't quite that, you could say it disorders eating-obviously-by signalling excessively, it was undoubtedly a malfunctioning that needed relieving. Forget the supposed consequence of weight, experiencing an constant excess of hunger causes unnecessary suffering of its own.

For example, ask anyone who's developed a hyperactive bladder how they feel about the excessive signalling and feeling the process at a much earlier stage, or never feeling they've emptied? 

Nor is using people like Samantha as a poster for 'obesity' justified in anyway, except to illustrate just how out of control people can get when they get drunk on the ability to abuse people at their will.

Sober up fat phobes.

Tuesday, 15 September 2015

Your so-called sympathy is not required

Sympathy, sympathy, I've heard that one too many times lately as in "I've no sympathy for fat people." Thanks for that nugget, I can assure you, everyone really gives a shizz.

This particular response to any request for reason in the area of weight has always been real irritating, setting up failure to be a smidgen less than an absolute raving arsehole to fat people as some kind of extravagant act of kindness. Typical nauseating self flattery du fat phobes.

I also dislike it when fat people themselves ask for 'sympathy', using this exact framing, allowing  grotesque impudence to be(come) a 'neutral' stance, whilst acknowledging it as far from by requiring something as elevated as (true) sympathy to mitigate it.

Lucky I'm not a particularly suspicious character, or I'd have to wonder a lot more about that sort of thing. It seems so obvious and so easy to stop once pointed out, even if it isn't so clear beforehand.

No, people do not "deserve sympathy", we all require courtesies and rights. They are not "deserved" they are part of the mechanics of how we wish to run society. That's why we observe them with those who most certainly do not deserve them. Like people who do hateful stuff.

If we deny them fundamental courtesies and rights, we risk undermining them from the rest of us.

'Deserve' is for the birds.

Don't ask for courtesies, take them for yourself. Be courteous to yourself. Respect your energies and your time. Do not waste your heart and nerves setting up fat acceptance as a vehicle to fly in the face of freely chosen hate. Stop pretending people don't choose to participate in fat phobia of their own free will.

After a recent fit of exasperation with this wretched mis-use of the term, I realised I don't remember that being a consideration in seeking to uncover the best answers. Did I have this self important need to feel "sympathy"? I noted that I did not.

I feel sympathy for those who find they have faulty wiring that brings repeated episodes of psychosis. What do I think is the best route to a solution for them? Objective study of their condition to find the best way of relieving, treating or blessed be, curing it.

I don't feel sympathy for paedophiles, not even those whose perversion is developmental.  What's my view on the best route to stopping them from hurting others? Objective study of their condition to find the best way of suppressing, or resolving it permanently.

If you believe fat is the devil that needs to be gotten rid of, your sympathy for fat people is not a consideration.

Wednesday, 9 September 2015

TV Cooks on the Rampage

What the everloving heck, cooks on the rampage? First some guy called Alton Brown who's rather late and therefore false in claiming that if the US succumbs to the idea that chucking calories down your neck=disease, it will signal the end of the republic as a cultural entity.

Though reports differ, the AMA declared alcoholism a disease in 1959 that's only 55 years ago, so Brown needs more time to take in the implications. He's perhaps a historian. One can say many things about the US but it appears to have weathered that storm. Clearly he knows little about either civilization or the US.

I can agree with him though that this was bunk, as is the same lie about weight. Both were/are more about siphoning health insurance $$$$'s than anything else, note he doesn't bother mentioning this genesis. Haters often don't. How many times have you heard "FGS medical profession/scientists don't call 'obesity' disease!"?

Though wiser among them have stopped trying to pretend that came from fat people [I wouldn't]. On the whole fatz don't give a sweaty armpit for that. Makes me proud.

Then there's Jamie Oliver, wait, I can't hate. Oliver is more pathetic than he is tiresome, though he is undoubtedly that with his construct related blunderings. I caught the last 15 mins of his documentary called "Jamie's Sugar Rush". 'Twas about 15 too many. I can't make myself care enough to do some digging (please) but what I saw contained a dubious-though somewhat ironic-commentary on indigenous Mexicans consumption of fizzy drinks.

In conversation, he made out that this really required some compelling explanation, which turned out to be, they saw fizzy pop as some kind of sacrament [no, I'm not exaggerating]. This from someone peddling secondhand mythology about sugar as the devil's dandruff [ha, ha, bet that gives you pause] responsible for whipping off a leg near  you. All this within a background of a baby on the breast and food cooked from fresh and wholesome ingredients.

Mexico has instituted a sugar tax the programme claimed has reduced 'obesity' by I think he said, 50,000 people. Yep, 'obesity' reduced by x people. That slipped through. I told you 'obesity' has been deemed 'disease' not 'a disease' as folks tend to insist. The distinction is made by what 'obesity' refers to. It defines people as disease in human form. That's clumsy etymology based on the identifying fatness from the eyes of an ignorant slim person imaging what it would be for them to be fat.

That is not what it is to be fat. 

It's a failure of cognizance. It is someone reaching beyond their intellectual capacity and falling flat. That fat people have borne it at all, let alone for this long, shows who's being allowed the controlling influence here.

The context of calories in/out making hunger and food targets put cooks in the firing line as culpable. Their fat phobia is defensive. That framing makes them feel bad, they take it out on fat people. Seeking to distance themselves. You are responsible, not us for making food that is (nominally) delicious.

It also gives somewhat of a taint. Interest, if not obsession with food doesn't make someone pathological, or bad. Hating fatz exonerates this interest.

Then there's what Oliver represents, a keening for gravitas. Cooking is seen as trivial and he is often seen as a dim but eager type. He's like those pop musicians, he wants to be taken seriously, do something important.

'Obesity' has lured him into thinking that's possible for him or necessary in this way. Everyone ought to be appalled at the lack of investigation into metabolic function. But not with the lack of policy formed around food fixated paranoia. You can never have too little of that. The documentary featured a primary (elementary) school where children grew their own veg and knew what various kinds were and like them. They also learned to cook, ace.

All these things were in many schools if you go back far enough. They were mainly removed during the crusade itself. Indeed its emphasis on individual choice in place of hunger was the most uniform agent in that and other things that mitigate implementation of the starvation strategy.

Though 'obesity' is a surface trivial irrelevance, it manages to be a poisoned chalice, splitting focus away from what is worthwhile and doable. If he'd just sought to re-establish a hot balanced meal for dinner in every school, he might have succeeded. Instead, it had to be a certain amount of calories and that just imposed one demand too many.

(Re-)establishing a gardening area in every school, teaching children about produce and wholesome ingredients, plus cookery lessons are laudable enough aims in themselves.

Enough to achieve everything Jamie yearns for, with the addition of fondness from those who might not have rated him. Though many support him-it is due to their fat phobia, not because he has truly impressed.

I understand the programme peddled the usual pseudo-science, conflating 'diabetes' with sugar consumption, the latter as causal agent.

Firing questions, why has type 1 gone up so much also, why do people who eat cook from fresh find 'empty' calories so acceptable to their palate, why isn't children growing produce and eating the norm and so on, just seem like they're aimed at the wrong person. Ultimately, its not Oliver's fault that 'obesity' has so uniformly drawn out the worst vanities in so many.

I would suggest to Oliver that he drop weight loss diet shill Susan Jebb and stick with his knowledge and love of good ingredients to create good food.

I'm not making any deep point, just saying, be aware cooks of sliding into this syndrome. Food is not the way we should be seeking to control our metabolic function. You are not guilty. So stick to what you are good at and be positive about it.

Fat People, not protected by secret lipophile cabal

Well, well, well. I had every intention of ignoring Nicole Arbour and her "satire"-fat shaming is not a thing, fat people just made that up. Fat shaming, what a brilliant idea, who came up with that?! Shaming people out of their bad habits, I'm okay with that, etc.,

Then I got to the bit where she claimed she'd been "censored" and that her youtube channel had been taken down after google had e-mailed her pointing to violation of terms of service. Automatically my brain activity went on a slight incline, who would have had the power to get google to act in such a manner? Few give much a shizz about acting on what fat people have to say, let's be candid.

So I went looking for who might be behind this, lo and behold I found nothing from the mainstream 'legit' media. On the other hand, these guys, calling themselves "Inquistr" seem to have come up trumps. They, in this case writer, Scott Hough, with the help of twitterers Boogie 2988 and (Rissa) @sandypear discovered some untoward activity. 

Seems La lipophobia "took down" her own channel- actually, she made it private. It was up the whole time. Censorship MFBA.

Fascinating that people want to press fat people into a typically braindead "PC gone mad" contrivance-that paedo "promoting" forum went straight for this as an assault on "free speech", without bothering to check. I'm sure their contrition will not only exist, but be as brave and as bold as their 'courage' in informing folks on the innate naturalness of seeking sexual relations with the underaged.

Not only is this denouement the real funny. It is the only way this works as a satire- on the continued assertion that fat people are protected by a fat apologist cabal, is this what Princess Punchdown meant? Yeah, you can have that excuse for free Nicole!