Tuesday, 16 December 2014

Danish Takeover

Jens Christian Holm, a Danish doctor (usually is) has "cracked" fat children via the innovation of treating eating as if palliating an eating disorder-along with exercise bulimia. This has been hailed as the second coming of defeating the "epidemic" of fat children. The good doctor claims out of 1,900, he's helped 70%, not to be fat, over 4 years, by tackling "all aspects of the children's lives."

This means diddly squat. The medical profession does not exist to take over anyone's life- neither child nor man. That kind of passive dependence is what is really tapping out health budgets, that and the profiteering of big pharma.

Even if you wished doctors to be a doctors puppet, you'd at least be expected to screen out those bent on indulging their doolally compulsion to force all fat people into proto-anorexia at any price.

The whole thing raises such a continuous string of alarm bells, it becomes like a police vehicle testing site.
In general, obese children are neglected. They are often lonely and many of them don't participate in activities with their peers. They lack self-confidence.
So bring them out of their shell. Liberate them from the social and mental constraints that are undermining their instinct to move freely in tune with their soon-to-be fully restored expressed will....?
With this scheme there is a real hope they can lose weight and have a good quality of life.
That'll be a no then. Instead, lock them into that neglect, isolation and loneliness, insist they try to dig their way out, every. single. day. It's all about you.
Obesity is an illness that is very hard for children to fight on their own, he says.
But they are totally on their own. As usual, children are being taught their neglect and abandonment is how they (not others) are cared for. The only "togetherness" here exists to facilitate the implementation of 'lifestyle' disorders, not to invoke a sense (re) connection with self or others. Any sense of isolation is intact.
Their entire life needs to be changed, because they tend to be lonely, tend to be ashamed of themselves so they need to do this, and to interact with other children in their daily lives.
No actually its you that wants to do this. Teaching them to be at ease in their own skin and challenging unprovoked ill-feeling directed toward them-situating it firmly where it is-within that person relates more to their needs.

Feeling freer to move and nourish yourself well is rooted in the default embrace of themselves as whole beings. Moving according to our own dictates, requires being in touch with and read their own feelings and moods better than before. This is more about knowing your place-contained within this kind of mindset.

Outrun your inner feelings, don't deal with and/or dismantle them. Separate physical from spiritual holding the pursuit of the physical as solution to the spiritual. This could be a chance to renew ones idea of self turning it back into a positive self-sustaining nourishing one.

Then there's the entrenchment or creation of over-responsibility, that can do a lot of damage to a person's ability to assert themselves and avoid getting into the kind of abusive relationships modelled here.

This clear signalling of the emotional basis of starvation disorders, linking the solution to personal problems to exercise bulimia and control of food. There's even the symbolic identification of fatness =problems. I think this was missed because every single case study used in this is male;
Mike Nelausen, 14, has become a standard bearer for the Holbaek project. He used to weigh 85kg (13st 5lbs), but having embraced Dr Holm's evangelism, he has slimmed down by 23kg (3st 8lbs), and is no longer the target of playground bullies.
This taking over of a child's life starts in hospital with a battery of tests-from body scans to having their blood examined. During this 24 hour period they ".....answer a detailed questionnaire about their eating habits and behaviour patterns."

Behaviour patterns?

Along with having the food they eat dictated-i.e. bland, tasteless pap, and how they eat it, wait 20 minutes for more of it. No thanks. Their daily "screen time" is rationed to no more than 2 hours [Oh, really?], plus they have to go to bed at a set time.

Teaching a child to respect their own natural rhythms including the importance of rest, is fine. And even encouraging them to depart from the screen on occasion if its become a substitute for other activities they might enjoy. But this context of everything for weight loss is a diversion from the idea of balance.

Adults who "feel sad" get pills or talking therapies. I'm not recommending the former, just saying this at least fits around the demands of their responsibilities. How does this approach set a child up for the demands of adulthood?

It neither makes them more resilient nor gives them a convenient sticking plaster. There's something truly ominous about this doctor's lack of any sense of overreach and what it says about the state of that profession is increasingly going.

The sex divide of FA is down to the relative lack of boys involvement dieting, compared with girls. Here is potential changing of that waiting to happen. I know the burnout waiting for these children after a decade or two of being pressed into running/cycling miles every day merely for acceptance rather than internal desire. That's what these people can never seem to grasp, there's a difference. 

Insisting children do overly rigourous phys ed, in all weathers, created generations of people of all sizes who were implacably hostile to P.E. That precipitated and enabled its decline, amidst a purported crusade against fattening that traded on activity as an obstacle to that. 

To explain a bit more why this approach is by its nature invasive, expensive and ill conceived and disorder generating, let's take a real genuine, actual disease.

Imagine dealing with HIV/AIDS, by seeking to prevent sexual intercourse- vaginal, anal, oral. Note intercourse, not SEX. Everyone can still get their jollies, just not via penis in vag, anus, mouth.

Conception would be through IVF. Anyone wishing to have a child, would get a referral from their GP.

Hugely invasive by nature because, wrong target.

Intercourse is rarely a necessity, less so than responding to hunger. Yet even if invasively policed and punitively strictured, running counter to a certain strength of desire is a foolhardy waste of effort, even with the threat of death. Trying to divert attention from this, by talking nonsensically about "addiction" is like saying human beings struggle against bondage is addiction.

No, it's instinct. Attempting to constrain too strong an impulse will simply result the re-routing of its expression, often into pathological tics. Establishing safer sex as a practice has been the preferred approach.

The invasiveness of the calories in/out approach is inherent in its targeting of hunger and appetite and is an obvious sign of its dysfunction and how it produces more.

Singapore already tried a similarly invasive, energy wasting school based slimming campaign called "Trim and Fit." This reckless programme singled out plump and fat children for special attention. Giving them lunch tickets with designated calorie limits in addition to extra phys ed during what should have been their free time.

Slim children got to wear wristbands with "I am Fit and Trim" on them, for just being. Fatter children were easily identified and discrimination, bullying an teasing became open and endemic.

Parents eventually stopped this mess 15 years later when the psychological and physiological burden on their children became too high. It too was "effective," if you ignore the extent and variety of distress it  produced.

Calorie restriction dieting is inherently disordered, so's exercise for the purpose of wasting energy. I'll repeat for the slow-witted, that is not CORRELATION that's CAUSE. Dieting is capable of causing every know eating disorder via its assault on and denial of hunger-though that doesn't mean all instances of ED have been caused by it. Which disorder is provoked depends mainly on individual tendency.  

When some of the children who went through trim and fit were caught up with in their late teens. Many of them were fat and levels of depression where higher than normal. Which despite propaganda is not the norm for fatter people. Testament to how damaging this way of life can get.

What's saddest of all is the betrayal of trust. Isolation and loneliness in a child could be an opportunity to empower. Ultimately, its one way you can teach a person not to be slayed by various slings and arrows;
As she scrapes and shreds carrots for a low calorie dish with minced beef, his mother Karina breaks down and weeps. "It was extremely hard to see him like that. We tried everything but he just kept on gaining weight. So when it finally started to work, we were really happy.
We will all have to learn how to overcome challenges, to recover, why shirk an opportunity to really teach a child this?

Wednesday, 10 December 2014

Baroness Pennywise

I wonder if the schizoid refuge is just a normal cognitive deficit. A Tory politico called Baroness Jenkin got herself into bother. She blithely insisted the growth of food banks, was down to poor people not being able to cook.

Food banks are places people go to receive a weekly supply food donations because they can't afford to feed themselves-in part or whole. Many recipients-recommended by various agencies- are in work. The culture of austerity policies, high rents, low or zero hours contracts-where no work at all is guaranteed yet the person isn't allowed to take on something else to try and cover that, is taking its toll. 

"We've lost a lot of our cooking skills" she exclaimed bubble headedly. As if those skills where carelessly dropped along the way without oversight.

Predictably and rightly she got a stinging backlash and to her credit, apologized and corrected herself. It wasn't that her words had no merit. It was that she identified a generalized outcome/trend through the impoverished and marginalized as if it was specific to them-and absent from others who are better off.

That particular sentiment is prevalent, amongst the better off classes, regardless of their politics. They simply cannot come to terms with the fact that it takes far more skill in virtually every area you can think of to survive as a poorer than a better off person.

Their mind then has to keep making this same faux pas. I'm sure it's been pointed out as a particular form of dishonest self service, but I can't call to mind any metaphysical term.

She didn't mention her own party, headed by one Margaret Hilda Thatcher decided for no earthly good to take cookery lessons out of state education. Honesty would have forced her to say, "We/they got that wrong and now we are seeing the consequence." It's never a good sign when these links aren't made. Making them is the best way to guard against them being repeated.

Omitting this not only shirks the responsibility commentators keep using as a stick to beat their quarry with. It shows a lack of concern about stopping a repeat. You could say that is happening now.

No-one thought ending culinary education was a good idea. They either didn't care or protested yet it still went ahead, purportedly to "save money." Worse still, they replaced these useful lessons in self care with things like "food technology." Something I've quite never got, but consisted in large part of studying the design of commercial packaging. Usually the kind of ready meals that then really took off.

Entirely coincidentally I'm sure.

The Conservatives also put the provision of school meals out to tender to the kind of outfits that brought the kind fast food canteen culture food nutrition fanatics bemoan as the creator of their fevered lipogeddon scenario.

It was as if the politicians did everything they could to undermine people cooking for themselves, prepped their taste buds via school meals. Then normalized ready meals as a main focus of eating. Education eh?

It's reminiscent of a similar strategy happening with the attempts to privatize UK health by stealth. Dismantle the things that stop people being dependent on ready made commercially engineered product of whatever kind. 

It was this sustained line of policy and the lack of any strong opposition to it that made me see through the mirage of any kind of common cause when it came to food, weight and health. The truth about the food fanatics who opine about 'obesity' is they have no intellectual base or backbone or heart. They attack only those who are undefended leaving aside anyone who will remotely answer back.  

I realized that equation didn't add up. People hate fatness and insist how/what we eat is the answer. Then do little about the very things they say causes fatness to advance, because their fantasies of weight as identity i.e. slim people don't eat this kind of thing takes precedence over everything. They can't constitute a cogent defence, they don't truly care.

I said to myself, my poor old mind can't take this level of underhand bullshit. I actually did give a damn about how children are fed and felt it mattered for its own sake. But I had to accept this is in the hands of people like BJ. Who criticize only outcomes in specific groups. So, let the chips fall where they may, no pun intended, and let science give people the ability to manipulate their own signals. And let people eat what they really eat.

Whether food was the route to "weight management" or not was irrelevant to me anyway. Science has a job to do, either way

Those who shout about 'obesity' never fight the kind of policy their own complaining requires. The concentrate all their fight on attacking people. When tired of their bullying aggression, they nonsensically applied their pet viewpoints; "personal responsibility"or "boo big business."

Sorry, but porridge is hardly "cookery" the instructions invariably come on the packet. And, nor would everyone who can cook dream of putting it past their lips. I've heard the raw stuff makes a good body scrub though.
People have always gone hungry or hungrier because of lack/absence of cookery skills. It was mentioned in Orwell's famous book, the "Road to Wigan Pier." At one point he referred to a study that found a family amongst the poor and emaciated that were healthy and robust. Turned out the mother was some kind of nurse (I think). She was well trained in nutrition with a high degree of culinary skill, (she also happened to be fat by the way.) Today her success would be pathologized as 'bad lifestyle' she'd be deemed 'obese' and "unhealthy."

Tuesday, 9 December 2014

No word for Snow: Why Hyperphagia Nervosa

The word anorexia means-without appetite, an- + -orexia. Hyperphagia means an excess of eating. It refers to both that and an excess of hunger/appetite signalling too. It's used for both. Anorexia experientially isn't what the word means. 

Still, we manage to learn from anorexics that it refers to a compulsive cycle of extreme (food) restriction. I hope others can dig deep and show the same grace with hyperphagia nervosa, even though its associated with being greater than slim. Though it must be said, not all with this condition are plump/fat.

Apart from because I say so, there's a specific and very important reason to locate the problem where it is, with hunger/appetite mechanics, rather than where disinterested others want it to be, with food.

It's not ego or shame. It to understand and grasp the underlying problem. In order to identify and formulate strategies to reverse and be relieved of substantially if not wholly of it. Something that has been left to lay people with this condition to do, given the uselessness of the usual ]professional] suspects and their tiresome fat phobia.

In the wake of 'obesity' panic neurosis, there have been many assertions that humans are naturally inclined totally towards fattening. That's construct related paranoia. Fatness is mysterious precisely because it happens whilst body's homeostasis is doing many things to arrest gain and/or stabilize weight.

A possible sly example of this is the unrecognized grip the use of starvation has on our consciousness. We all hate dieting. The very idea of restriction invokes repugnance and disgust in many across the weight spectrum. Strangely though, this doesn't affect the strength of the hold calorie restriction/ counting and such can gain over our minds.

Even if you barely diet a day in your life, deny yourself little, do less than a lick of exercise, it seems if calories in/out forms the basis of your understanding of hunger, food, eating and weight, that's enough to trigger one of the body's more prominent defenses against calorie restriction, becoming overly fixated with food.

As we've all been inculcated with ci/co as the default premise, we're all labouring under this fixation to some degree or another. Only when you begin to exit the pursuit of lifestyle anorexia, calories in/out and it unravels sufficiently enough, can you really appreciate the depths of this neurotic tunnel vision.

If that's not entirely clear, I'm saying that when you consider going on a wld, your nervous system averts your focus to food. People cast this as "rebellion," or "you feel like thinking about food" no, that is your nervous system directing itself and therefore you there. It is not conscious decision making. It's involuntary.

From throwing up visions of food into your conscious mind, like pop-ads. To making you gabble ceaseless paeans to your thwarted desire for _________ [insert verboten food]. This internal directive is defense by constant evocative reminder-against your imposition of lack. I'm saying, this occurs even with the potential for you doing this, it happens as a result of ideology, including your desire to impose restriction on others.

Thinking often is a tiny fraction of doing. And an action is often the power of thought in motion.  This is what the placebo effect is rooted in.

To think something is microscopic action, a form of activity in itself. If strongly charged enough, it can propel (you) straight into action, without much engagement of conscious thought.

Usually this is infinitesimal and leaves a certain mood or feeling in us, depending on our interpretation. But we know especially after, it often directs and leads to actions and influences our behaviour, responses, attitudes, expectations etc.,

This food fixation psychology seems to be why everything is focused on food and eating. Bodies come to = amounts of food. Fatter bodies, lots of/ too much food. What's effectively a starvation disorder-anorexia- is called an eating disorder.

And why a disorder of hunger/appetite mechanics, hyperphagia is called "compulsive (over)eating" and latterly "food addiction."

Hunger, not will is the cue to eat. Eating is the normal response to its anatomical signalling, not an elective decision apropos of nothing. To not eat when you are-at the right level of hunger is abnormal. 

Because hunger is generated by your anatomy, the more heightened a level it is performing, the more powerfully your body is functioning physically. And;
  • the more there's an excess of physical function/tension in your body and/or nervous system-like a fist being tightly clenched 
  • the more likely it is to be capable of animating/generating behaviour  without conscious input
  • there more likely there are to be consequences from the energy diverted into all this excess of function, i.e. potential damage from overuse and/or exhaustion.
Shifting the focus to where the problem is, with the functioning of certain parts of your nervous system (concerned with eating), clarifies perspective to a more accurate and useful one. If I had ever seen hyperphagia only in the way it has been alluded to, I would have struggled to free myself of it to the extent that I've been lucky too.

I'm leaving binge eating disorder alone, because I'm not entirely sure of its distinctions. Nor do I claim to know for sure whether my experience is definitive. But I can describe my experience as accurately as possible, to be part of a resource for others who are going through this.

Constructive evaluation and criticism is welcome. At the same time, trying to understand those with the experience-not just me- is more important than reasserting the status quo.

Monday, 1 December 2014

Liberation Posture

If those running NHS England and other health politicians, medics et al are solely motivated to elevate people from a passive infantile attachment to the healthcare machine. They might spare some focus for poor posture.

After years of seeming to belong to some quaint past, people have been instinctively picking up again, with nary a peep from from our unquestionably benign patrician establishment.

Sports people increasingly use posture braces and wear t-shirts with built in aides to hold the body in better alignment, whilst on the move, which is a step on from the adjustment of standing or sitting. That gives a potential public face to raise awareness among people, without the necessity for coercion of either party.

I remember cottoning on to this many years ago. It came into play when too much of my rather overwrought desire to improve/support my health was going down the drain, due to the cul-de-sac of weight loss dieting and exercise as a vehicle for it. And whilst I do not claim to be an exemplar, far from it. I'd say without the level of awareness I have, I'd be palpably worse off for it.

I know other fat people (as well as others) arrived at the same point for the same reason. Depending on how your body's shaped, higher weight can make it seem more of a challenge, due to the pull weight can exert but don't let that put you off. It's possibly more rewarding for fat people to take care of their posture.

It's one defense against succumbing the burden of the 'obese' construct, which exerts a physical as well as mental toll. A lot of the things fat people are supposed to have, bad knees, hips even things like joint pain are often the cumulative effects of bad posture and mis-use, ditto for others including thin people. Consider why so many people require one hip or knee to be replaced.

Use. The way you use your body, your habitual posture, stance, gait. That goes for fitness related injury too. Usually the dominant side that goes first-i.e. if you're right/left handed. 

This is all challenging enough which aids mindfulness and patience, force is likely to cause harm or impose more strain.

It's pretty obvious that this is a big influence on the extent of back problems. Ditto those who keep getting the same injuries whilst doing sporting or other physical activities. That's usually a postural fault or a problem with the way you use your body, and/or even your mind whilst you are being active. Other times its a physical kink.

Seeking to restore, and improve posture and use is accessible for most people, regardless of physical status. It challenges and increases our awareness of our bodies, rather than shifting more locus of control to the medical machine under the guise of "personal responsibility". It reminds me a lot of the aims of HAES, which was a therapeutic desire to keep and restore function to fat people abandoned by the medical system. You have to start from a place of acknowledgement, preferably acceptance and work from there.

Above all, it's positive. It seeks to liberate rather than to constrict in preferred pathology. Even just  regularly visualizing pulling up a string coming through your spine and out the top of your head, is enough to help to begin the process of re-training the way you hold yourself.

Sunday, 30 November 2014

Body Promotion

So the British Plus Size Awards have been accused of promoting 'obesity'? From what I can see, they'd be more readily accused of 'promoting' whiteness, yahwn.

What happened to the much proffered notion that 'obesity' is separate from the 'obese' person? I've seen that accusation more than once from other fat commentators, bravely critical of people's self-acceptance. People's unselfconscious assertion of their continued and real existence, fat self recognition/acceptance of one's own fatness. A big fat consciousness.

They state with no little contempt, that we pathetically can't separate "our obesity" from ourselves. What's their response to this accusation that firmly reveals the indivisibility of fatness and person? Can slimness be seperated from a slim person and thinness from a thin person? Why not? Slim is to thin, what chubby is to slim. And chubby is to fat what thinness is to slim.

Don't think I'm trying to gain their precious agreement, but I offer this for their consideration.We may be picking up on this rather than expressing an internal cri de coeur. We may actually be listening to other people, unlike they, who are listening to their own, "promotion of slimness" mirroring slimmer fat phobes "promotion of obesity" in order to promote, to themselves, the idea of slimness as some kind of identity, akin to the traditional gent/lady thing. 

Try to remember the 'obesity' isn't and has never been fat people's. It really has little to do with us. The routine unrelenting imposition of it on us, requires us to read it. And we are not as stupid as your acceptance of your own assignment [though you of course dump it on us] leads you to assume, can't you tell that difference?

What is with this idea of promoting 'obesity' anyhow? You have to grasp just how alien and odd the very notion of it is. It so caught me unawares that it took me a while to place it. The best I could do was that it's an inversion of the idea that thin bodies in the media compel "young girls" to starve themselves.

An idea that's always been so utterly unconvincing that my mind discounted it without bothering with it. Like if you insisted: "Scooby Doo's POTUS." Despite moi, the idea has great currency, especially within the usual cod-feminism we're usually exposed to.

Women want to be thin/remain slim for its currency. Whilst there is a context of relatively stark cost-benefit, ultimately, they're not forced by anyone. Indeed, they're supporting the system because they feel they can win at it. White middle/upper class women most of all.

You can see this from the feminist response to fat acceptance. Rather than seeing it as a potential other front to the liberation of female consciousness. They see it as competition, feel jealous along with highly contemptuous. Above all they wish to kill it, without seeming to. They neither give a shit about the effect on fat women, or themselves.

That simply isn't convincingly about pure coercion.

If they were truly feminist and wanted out of this contrived marketplace, they'd feel more like myself. Yes, I realise how that sounds, but lack of eloquence etc., I basically feel, if women want to be thin/slim, let's get involved in the science/research/thought in how to bring that about and find the best possible way. Because we're freaking worth it. And this is about the desire to be slim right?

Ultimately I respect that extent of desire, and I don't care how 'trivial' that does or doesn't sound. It's not in and of itself harmful. And it just so happens that this leads to other things that definitely aren't trivial. It leads to 'nice'.

Women could have been in the forefront of this, propelled by our own desires, rather than majoring in being imprisoned in the shame of not being nice, important seeming person's, to make up for the trivialization of women. The truth is though that women could have and could still escape this, but prefer instead to play the game. Yes, I'm saying it.

That's why they don't care about the effectiveness of what we use to slim down any more than the ahem, patriarchy. 

Those who feel like winners, who feel like they can want to play-to win. And they'd rather win through privilege, position, and contrived scarcity, than find a way for everyone to access what they want, if they want it. If slimness was available at will, it would be something else with them. Otherwise why support class?

So bodies have to carry the can, so "we" don't have to discuss anything remotely uncomfortable. Whilst despising that about ourselves and shouting it at others, in this case fat people and our purportedly unique lack of "personal responsibility."

Which brings me to the way this weird charge is responded to, the now rote-like: "Fat people aren't necessarily unhealthy." "Fat people don't all get that way by sitting and eating x,y,z." You whaaa?

It's like watching two sets of dancers perform their own mutual idiom, one that makes little sense to me.

Saturday, 22 November 2014

No Death Penalty for Being Fat

No sooner did I write about the spectacle of a fat person losing weight, serving as inspo-porn for shamelessly empty-headed, does more construct-related grotesequerie rear its maggoty head.

diet or die

How about neither? Though one of them is guaranteed at some point or another, presenting them as two options together like that, I say no thanks to imposture. Even taking account of the sewer dwelling standards of 'obesity' bollocks, surely, surely this kind of taunting goes too far?

Apparently not. Its like an Invasion of the Brain Snatchers, sleep walking sickness. When it comes to 'obesity' the lights are on but people are switched off.

Nor is this any kind of warning. It's a direct threat. And to some, a promise

Again, I must point to this suppurating enigma at the heart of the crusade. Why insist weight must "prevented"/maintained or shifted via calorie manipulation rather than reversal/advance of the process (or processes) that led the body to attaining its size?

Why this route and this route alone?

What's so special, so sacred about it? The only other thing there must only be one thing of is god. Are you looking for a god bothering placeholder to believe in? Do you need a sense of certainty you feel is missing in your life? Do you want to return to a golden age of about 30 years ago? Or do you feel the need to unite with your fellow man on something you can all agree on? Why don't you buy something or get a real religion?

Fat people aren't yours. We aren't like a real life puppet show you can feel the frisson of excitement of staring into our eyes to see your handiwork register. We aren't your project.

There are reams and reams of every known product or service in an economy of any sophistication. Virtual duplication where things of the same kind differ barely, if at all. Anything to express choice even when its somewhat illusory. That's advertised as the shining path desire expresses itself through.

Can't find what you "want" because of the absence of some microscopic must-have?

Someone with a commercial interest will run around arms flapping like that really matters. Summon the best minds available on it. Inevitably someone comes up with something.... 

But the notion, that maybe there could possibly be another way of altering body composition and that is sacrilege. Entitled, spoilt, just for once, take responsibility, one strike and you're out.

You can see the displacement.

Because this of all places is really the place to draw the line. Whilst you put pressure on people to save you, healthcare, the earth, whatever. Consumer society is really tussling with it's own excesses. It just doesn't want to face that. Doesn't want the party to stop. That surfaces where no social graces are extended though. And so will remain until people face their own feelings about their own behaviour.

Like millions of others, I dieted, not because it made sense for most of the time I was doing it. I restricted because it was the only option to fulfill my stubborn aim. If I'd had an actual way, a better option or options I would have used those instead. Dieting only exists because there's nothing else and nothing coming. It is so shit that it needs to be the only game in town.

But the imposition of it being the only way has grown around the need many have for the idea of one way or the highway. Not the other way around.

It's not just that proto-anorexia is the seen as the way, the truth and the light, the saviour of all mankind, if not civilization as we know it. It's that its patiently such a useless, ugly mess. Everyone dreads and detests it. Contrary to the slimming related psycho-drivel, that's physiologically, not psychologically based.

Yes, I do know that mind is brain and brain is just a body part. I'm saying directly that this worldwide aversion is not a mental decision, it is the body's reaction sent to the mind to then be voiced.

In fact, our conscious minds seem rather susceptible to the merest suggestion of dietary restriction. Fasting, notions of clean eating, cleansing anorexia etc.,  is actually rather attractive to our minds.

Thin people are able to be the most vocal about this visceral disdain for obvious reasons. The centrality of energy to our existence makes our bodies recoil from being cut off from what sustains existence, for no good reason. 

Yet this is the way decided upon, no matter the upheaval, the invasiveness, the wastefulness, the,  jealousy, resentment, hate, disorder, the collateral damage and the continued failure this generates.

I'd be lying if I said I cared overly right this minute. All I know is this makes it clear that "losing weight" isn't the object.  It's about, this, the way it is now and keeping it that way for as long as possible.

This mess in and of itself is fulfilling a function to those invested in it. 

That's freakish and truly embarrassing so, the same old excuses come thick (yes) and fast. 

It's about morality, personal responsibility. Why then wouldn't say the medical profession object to treating genocidal dictators, serial killers, child molesters first? People can be cynical about lawyers, but they regularly air the possibility of successfully defending the potentially guilty and convicting the potentially innocent.

Imagine the potential qualms about saving the health, the life of someone who has or would go on to kill or use that health to hurt and damage others?

D'you not think they might start with them before they got to mere fatness? What better way to impose a non-judicial death penalty than by letting them die from whatever bodily process medics can leave to just keep going where it may.

Oh what's the matter, is that barbaric? Are you against capital punishment? But its just capital for fat people isn't it?

One of the women in the above links, Jennifer Bodek had a brother die when she was 15, followed her mother at 18. Do people need to die because of what may be have been triggered by grief? And no, that's not a cue to turn hate into pity.
And what about weight that's been triggered partly or wholly by crimes committed against their bodies? They are to be ultimately accountable in a way those who committed crimes against them will not? Is that the morality being referred to?

Then there's the towering: "Fat people are ugly."

Have you seen disease in action? Plagues, pustulence, body disrupting bacteria? It's not pretty. The subtle: "Fat people smell." Medical professionals examine folks piss and shit, tend to suppurating wounds, pus filled lumps, encounter necrotic stench. 

Never remotely convincing. A lazy pisspoor effort all round. You get an F.....for fail.

Nor is it the case that there are no leads. It doesn't surprise me that adjusting something like insulin levels can not only undermine excess hunger triggering, but can also increase the body's use of energy.

You know they can block the onset of precious puberty?

How can that be oh so much harder than at the very least stalling adipogenesis for those people who are just relentlessly and aggressively gaining? Is fatty tissue acquisition really more complex than changing shape, internal organs, gaining actual parts and features you didn't have before and so forth?

Intractable depression is a metabolic problem, so being able to adjust it has the potential to be a treatment pathway for various neurosis as well as heart disease which is connected to depression and anxiety disorders. And no, not because depression makes you lazy.

My guess is that if your depression seriously abates due to diet and exercise, you didn't have it. It's effectively self diagnosed in the main. 

Even anorexia, in my view, should be reversed rather than making anorexics impersonate hyperphagia, that in its way is a cruel and unnecessary shock to their state of mind. Forcing them to be the battleground for their neurosis and their will.

And the two are intertwined, reversal and advance of weight have the same basis. Denial of alternatives to reversing weight has meant the death penalty for other than fat people.

And what about that? Wasn't support for it supposed to be unspeakably primitive and bigoted? I always wondered whether support for that-once unashamedly rock solid- ebbed through shaming or the progress of rational argument-which are what again? It's wrong for the state to kill etc.,

It's odd to see so many of those quick to issue a death penalty for being fat, are the same vociferous shamers of anyone supporting it for the most heinous of crimes. I can understand not recognising the form of something in another context, we all have that in some way or another-but with something so supposedly heartfelt, you'd think some part of the mind would recognize this intellectual faux pas.

Begs the question, does there always have to be something a person can do-or in this case be-that means they deserve to forfeit their life? And if that isn't the most unspeakable things, does that impulse inevitably drift elsewhere? In this case, merely an unpoliced area? Literally, fatness has become a criminal justice issue, without either criminality or justice. 

Some kind of thwarted urge to punish the guilty is at work here. Yet it is those same minds that felt the urge to stymie that in the first place.What gives"anti-death penalty" advocates? Did you know your deep ethic beliefs were shallow and that really, you're just a person who believes what's fashionable amongst your class?

That you're really moved according to what is and isn't shameful to those of your class who can really think (or dominate). Do you truly believe in anything at all? Do any of us? Or is it a particular state of being?

No more do evil acts decide the imposition of the ultimate penalty, but merely what's unguarded. And you wonder why people often default to the on the defensive even when they're in the wrong? Who can blame them? When a simple and consistent mea culpa can bring you the most capital of punishments?

I cannot support the DP, apart from directly, there's the inevitable race/class bias. Even I though I have had cause to wonder whether my objection is based ultimately on morality or squeamishness.

But if I was to change my mind, it would not be mere slimness that inspired a change, that's for sure.

No death penalty for being fat.

Multi-Component Lifestyle Management

Simon Stevens, current head of NHS England has a five year plan for that arm of the National Health Service. High on the agenda of this epic fantasy word salad is;
...the prevention, identification, assessment and management of overweight and obesity in adults and children.
Hang on a minute.'Obesity' [type 2 diabetes] is costing the NHS "too much." In order to save money, it must spend more with a failed system that fat people have thus far mostly paid for out of our own pockets? Clearly "the costs of obesity"= how much money will flow into this area, away from others.

I knew once it was clear that enough fat people had seen through dieting, we'd be drawn into the mainstream fold. We did the dieting ourselves and this kind of move demonstrates this. I used to wonder why does anything to do with health seem to spring from the healthcare system, yet somehow fat people pay for something that is supposed to be a health issue?

Not sure whether the (nominal) notion is, close pressure of observation will be a key factor in slimming success. Or whether sufficient numbers of people who lean more towards slimness have grown plump or what to give the appearance of success. Have you noticed the way slimming companies success stories have gone more from fattest to plump?

No matter the obvious failure of calorie manipulation, the crusade keeps rolling on, regardless. Erasing our actions is part of the idea that your size is your discipline.  How will they dress this old rope? GP's must spot all 'overweights' and 'obeses' and direct us to;
..effective multi-component lifestyle weight management services for adults who are overweight or obese (aged 18 and over). ....weight management programmes, courses, clubs or groups that aim to change someone’s behaviour to reduce their energy intake and encourage them to be physically active.
Like this "obesity algorithm"? Basically the same disordered calories in/out based practices that have led us here, sometimes dubbed "behavioural." It's like breathing is "behaviour" because you can hold your breath. The influence of conscious control proves its fully under your conscious control right? The supposed pathway of savings is by helping to;
reduce the risk of the main diseases associated with obesity, for example: coronary heart disease, stroke, hypertension, osteoarthritis, type 2 diabetes and various cancers (endometrial, breast, kidney and colon).
None of which are not associated with a BMI of under 25, no matter the wishful thinking. Does this include the cost of the assault of drugs and surgery on the body, which we know are substantial.
The focus is on lifestyle weight management programmes that:
  • accept self-referrals or referrals from health or social care practitioners
  • are provided by the public, private or voluntary sector
  • are based in the community, workplaces, primary care or online.
We're to be harrassed wherever we go are we?

My first impulse to diet was about aged 7. It represented one of my first conscious, autonomous expressions of total initiative. As a child, you get used to being told what to do all the time, to being micromanaged. Changing my weight through calorie restriction, was my first attempt to design and execute a plan all by myself. With no outside input.

That was a very long time ago. But one thing hasn't changed is that this isn't about the involvement of others, it's about me and my efforts. I've never been to a diet club in my life and wouldn't dream of it. The idea has zero appeal.

What I signed up for-aged 7, till I crashed and burned years later was not at the behest of others, nor with their interference and prying even if that's called creepily "support."

And I think you'll find that's a general unspoken truth about dieting. Its rictus grip over the public imagination is to do with the prospect of avoiding doctors other medical professionals and any other health police. It's something you can do on your own. Everyone yearns to have a means to release the doctor within.

Now whilst I know diets don't work-from personal experience and well as observation. The idea of health in our own hands does.

And I want, we all want more of it, not less. More ways to change, restore alter the functioning of ourselves and our bodies. Marginalizing fat people from healthcare, has edged the medical profession out of the centre of my healthcare. Yes, I'm relatively healthy as in free of disease and that is a privilege.

But that's as it should be in my view. I don't share this desire for well people to keep going to the doctor, no matter the excuse. To me, that's for sick people. That drift is interesting, but I said no to religion and I repeat, my doctor is not my priest, end of story.

I'm even less inclined than ever having seen the sainted medical profession in its full ruthless inglory. As for those who've spent decades ragging fat people, looking down their nose at us can just skip on. I'm disinclined to be a vehicle for them to be rewarded for it.

Their assistance has never and will never be required for me.

So the NHS can skip trying to take hold of my life, unless I request it because its mine. I do not need to be named, to be categorized, told my experience or dictated to in anyway, thanks. And I say that as someone who believes in collective endeavour.

You do not own me. I am not your servant and no bullshit pre-text will allow me to knowingly give up the autonomy that was my first drive to alter my size.