Friday, 4 September 2015

No Duty To Eat Greens

Now here's a really good article containing many points worth making about the current fat hating food paranoia. Can't say that everyday. Writer Stephanie Convery calls for an end misplacing "Judeo-Christian" virtue in salad greens. It's pitiful seeing Dawkins-type atheists rounding on Xtians, then channelling the same via food paranoia and fanaticism.

At least believers are self-aware enough to be honest about their need for religion.

She makes the point that this is not the right angle for examining the ethics of food.
That’s not to say there aren’t ethical, environmental and political questions to be asked about food, such as: under what conditions is it farmed? Are the workers paid fairly? Are there less resource-intensive and more sustainable ways to organise food production? But these aren’t questions that can be solved with personal angst over a dinner plate.
Personal is right. It's all about moi.

The article also notes that the highly recommended du nos jours green, watery veg are nutritionally speaking, pretty useless, as we run on energy. If that wasn't enough, some of it is toxic at high levels, which is one reason 'no-one' craves them like calorie dense food. Not completely, I once had a craving for lettuce so strong that I could get no peace until I went and got some. I sprinkled it with balsamic vinegar and a few shavings of Parmesan. Divine.

Purely because my body demanded it for some reason. Once.

As SC mentions, the ridiculous nay hysterical elevation of this kind of produce is topsy turvy wishful thinking driven by the insistence that "weight loss" must happen via calorie restriction. This makes first hunger then food its target. The hunger is usually silent, buried under "choice" as if an abstraction outside of bodily need.

What makes this special though is this,
Over the past decade or so, the Health At Every Size movement has been building momentum against this kind of “fat-shaming” culture that contributes to the development of pathologies about food,
 Whoo-hoo!!! Such confidence. Direct mention, free of shame or "obesity is teh bad" type apologia. Just factual acknowledgement, HAES (in the context of fat acceptance) has led the way in reversing this tide of pathological cultism, not to mention its companion pseudo-science.

Pretending nature's real "junk food", as much as I like it, is somehow the epitome of human health is that.

Friday, 28 August 2015

oac ABOLISH the 'obesity' construct instead

You're going to lurrrve this.

An organisation calling itself the "obesity action coalition" (oac) launched a campaign on the 6th of July this year to "Ban the F word", not the one that rhymes with yuck, they mean "fat". Why says you? It is purportedly to end "fat shaming." Or "weight bias".

 Fat shaming being the term for the referencing of fat people's lowered social status-caused by the 'obesity' construct, heavily sold by its wallahs-via insults developed on the theme of the insulting and dehumanizing 'obese' caricature.

Something neither (real) scientists nor medics have any business involving themselves in the creation of.

I'm sure I don't need to tell you how cheeky these industry grifters are. If they do not like that, I'm sure they can take action. The oac claims as one of its victories, the taking down of the video put up by Kevin MD "Healthcare not fair-Dr. Sorry Ms Fatty." According to reports, they and 'the obesity society' (toc) had a word, which probably explains its prompt removal. Another one they claim is the seeing off of a rule to IQ test bariatric patients pre-surgery.

I don't have enough capacity to look that up, but I'm guessing it refers to an attempt by the bariatric industry itself, to stop people with intellectual disabilities from being butchered by bariatrick cutty men* was removed by their "advocacy". They're so helpful to fatz.

Though that could come back to haunt someone.

What intrigues is why KMD didn't bother to mention this advocacy, indeed, he lead us all to believe that it was down to more general complaints.
Physicians needed to hear from patients on this issue, and their voices came through loud and clear.
It would be overly coy to ask why front organisations featuring professionals can get heard with the speed of light. So I won't bother. It does illustrate something I've been pointing out for years, that the support of the white coat mafia is the reason for the windchill factor level of abandonment and hazing fat people have endured (and still do albeit to a vaguely lesser extent). Not the (slim) fat phobic public, nor your family, school yard bullies or even the slimming industry.

Anyhow, this ban the fat word mess is an obvious and crude attempt to co-opt fat acceptance, note the fat fist thrust into a militant salute (they know where that can go). The cheeky blighters deserve to have that nicked for thorough subversion. This organisation who states is purpose is "giving a voice to the individuals affected by the disease of obesity" wants to erase the word "fat" to give 'obesity' a clearer run. They insist weight is disease.

It is 'obesity' that needs abolishing. The actual underlying construct needs to go. It's not the word its the conceptualization it conveys.

Its existence is a cynical agenda laden ideological construct made for the benefit of professionals and people who wish to sell you things. Whilst weight outliers who often have something seriously awry are permitted to perish in the margins. Unheralded by these beneficent "voice givers." People who do not need "support" in their "journey", they need an actual scientific grasp of how to deal with the metabolic dysfunction erased by the existence of 'obesity' and its bullshit.

The cause of "weight stigma" is this misdirection and the measures taken to attempt to interest people in what would otherwise have no earthly interest to them. How much do you care about slim people's weight, now you've withdrawn from the imposition? No really, how often do you spend looking at slim people and thinking, "Your weight, your weight?"

No one is interested in weight, people are interested in being able to regulate and control the functioning of their bodies. Diet and exercise is the opposite of that. It is not only ineffective, regularly creating and/or increasing the "problem" its supposed to be solving/preventing. But it also makes you a servant of it. Your so called 'journey' is a life based around it.

Only people with serious malfunctioning of organs are expected to piss away so much mindspace, spirit and energy on a dishonest abstraction. And they at least have the prospect of imminent death to "motivate" them. By that I mean, they can die within the day without certain interventions.

If you look at a set of weighing scales, the ones for instance where a balance slides from one end to the other to measure a person's weight. That's  the same the breadth of human weight. Now imagine that a line was drawn at a certain point on that scale rule and it is announced that past this line is something different from what has come before.

You'd be incredulous. You can see with your own eyes, its a question of what point on the same scale. The mechanics that produce weight are rather like that, its a question of finding out how/where to alter that to stop weight from increasing or decreasing at a certain point.

Weight, as in "weight bias" is not " disease" at any point, though forces pushing it up or down the scale may well be. Like fertility before birth control, the issue with weight is there is no known effective means of stopping it unless your body does instinctively. Or it yields to starvation/forced eating.

In any other aspect of human functioning, finding out how to achieve that directly and efficiently would be recognized as the overriding aim. Instead 'obesity' an obsolete creation lost in the mists of time, an artificial derail has rooted itself in place like a useless stinky weed that keeps re-sprouting to cause confusion even to those below the Maginot Line of weight respectability, wishes only to perpetuate its own outrageously useless existence.

Its long since outlived any imagined usefulness.


Replace it with proper wholly objective investigation into the anatomy and functioning of human metabolism and homoeostasis. This bitty-birth order, Internet use, ice cream fancying gives "greater risk for obesity" bollocks needs to end. This 'obesity', puts you at greater risk of x, y, or z illness-as if that does anything, needs to cease. By finding out what something is all about, you find out how good/bad or indifferent it is or can be. All is required for understanding. No-one understands any condition/state etc., via trying to make it an unimpeachable villain.

Instead, we need to be concerned with a sense of what parts are involved in recreating our cells and tissue, our meat and marrow and a sense of its physiological dynamics. That in and of itself would decimate "weight bias" more than any laws on the statue, pleading, social justice efforts or janus faced "advocacy".

I'll repeat, the issue is not the words used, it is the concepts they're transmitting. Defining fat people's bodies as slim ones suffocating in an adipose suit that is their own bodies, is not only stupid, mindless and pathological, it is and can only be a hopelessly biased dead end that will continue to go nowhere slowly.

Think of those thin people who think everyone fatter than they ="fat", including slim people. Now imagine these thin people insisting that slim people define themselves as thin people wearing a padded onesie.


Altogether again,

Plus its attendant pseudo-science. Fat people are not an employment scheme for the lumpen bourgeoisie.

* Interestingly, obesity and its associated co-morbid conditions are prevalent in patients with cognitive impairment, but the risks and benefits of bariatric surgery in this complex group are not well known.

Studies examining outcomes have been limited to case reports, and thus most bariatric programs do not consider patients with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities to be surgical candidates. At more severe levels of impairment (Intelligence Quotient [IQ] 50-70), only 6.2% of programs do not consider this a contraindication. Furthermore, published guidelines, such as the 2013 AACE/TOS/ASMBS guidelines on perioperative management of the bariatric patient [2009 version], note the importance of a clear understanding of the risks, benefits, outcomes, and alternatives to surgery, and this ability to consent may be compromised in those with cognitive impairments.
 NB A study of 169 prospective bariatric surgery patients
Morbidly obese individuals seeking bariatric surgery were similar in education, income status, and IQ compared with normative data.

Sunday, 16 August 2015

Nervous System Conference

Another day and another conference. This one sounds like a breath of fresh air though. It's tag reads,
Nervous system, From stem cells to behaviour in the normal and diseased.
In my head that became-the nervous system, from cells to the way their function translates directly into behaviour. In other words, seeing the nervous system in the same kind of way we see the liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc., anatomy as function and function as anatomy.

Rather than as if our behaviour is somehow different from the anatomy that enables the transmission of the impulses that become said behaviour/s.

This also added to the sense of bonhomie [which is of course transmitted, felt and perceived by my nervous system.]
...this meeting will include a balance of topics on human and animal models of neural development and disease:
The prospect of real science feels fresh and friendly in comparison with the stale hatefest wrought by pseudo-science. Hopefully this means/includes mapping more fully the healthy anatomy of the human nervous system. The nervous system is the system of the era we are living in. It is where many real battles around health, bodily autonomy and our understanding of ourselves and other living beings will be fought and we've barely begun to get to grips with that.

When it comes to function and health, we need to learn better how to make the nervous system interrupt itself. That, not drugs will be the way of the future. Medical and scientific professionals have failed to come to grips with this, or actually, some of them probably sense this and want to smoother any possibility out of existence.

Big pharma suits many of the way they wish to continue practising medicine.

It would be nice if this conference led in some way to the end of the tiresomely redundant Cartesian-dualism age, where people behave as if the brain is some kind of ethereal imperceptible essence of self and the mind isn't part of the body-even to the extent of at times seeing it as separate from the brain!

This all feels a bit Stone Age. I have to keep reminding myself that it still has currency.  Even to the extent that folks argue about things in an either/or way, rather than it isn't quite the right frame. i.e. "Either ladies should be able to cross their legs when they sit down, or they should keep them together without such."

That framing of women isn't a given is it? I mean, "ladies"?!

The internet is a surprise in that way. I expected it somehow to be ahead of the meatspace mainstream opinion. Perhaps due to the appearance given of constant technical innovation. Uncommonly heard rationale does feature on the nets and that makes the news to the extent of re-shaping consciousness about it.

When you actually get on it, what hits like a wall is how much of the time the opposite is true. The sheer extent of parochial idiocy and mental indolence is at times, thought-stopping. Vast oceans of people who cannot be bothered to invest a breaths worth of energy in understanding their own "opinions" let alone grasping anyone else's.

Yet do not let that stop them from disagreeing virulently with what they haven't even perceived correctly if at all, behaving like children learn to get out of in kindergarten [or should], that other people exist who work to whole different rules than they. Instead, everyone is exactly like them, thinks exactly like them. At the same time they think anyone who they perceive as differing from them is a space alien from a planet far away. Who lives only to try and knock a modicum of the most obvious reason or sense into their bone heads.

I'm digressing.

The "I live in this body" orientation could be on the long or short road to being put in its place, i.e. quaint obsolescence. That's not yours or my decision. It's that of those who'll be going to this conference and similar.

It's when they're ready.

So watch their space.

Wednesday, 12 August 2015

You hopeless addict you

Well wouldn't you know. After years, of slowly being forced to get off the anorexia/'obesity' train, 'obesity' cultists are going with this angle. We're still disease, sick, unsane objects with nothing to say nor sentience to consult, but, wait for it, we're hopeless addicts who can't help it! Good-o, that's a step up socially isn't it? Everyone with an acceptable body wants to be addicted to something, so, we must be jonesing for that too right?

Altogether with your fake pity, awwwwwww.

Here's why Monbiot et al are sticking with the 'obesity' spiel,
The crucial task is to reach children before they succumb to this addiction. As well as help and advice for parents, this surely requires a major change in what scientists call “the obesogenic environment” (high energy foods and drinks and the advertising and packaging that reinforces their attraction). Unless children are steered away from overeating from the beginning, they are likely to be trapped for life.
Yep, it's all about the control, in this case of big business via what folks think can be turned into the softest target, the food industry. Getting your own way, not through persuasion, you feel your ideas are that attractive. But via stealth, through unguarded borders [so topical.]

Whether its greens/leftists or whatever he is like GM who wish to use fat people as a pathway to checking capitalism/big biz, or rightists like those he critiques. David Cameron and his mate Dame Carol Black, who wish to use fat people as a way of forcing people into the kind of punitiveness, rightists find so emotionally satisfying, no matter how costly, self defeating and oh erm, immoral it is.

Monbiot's whole farticle is as pitiful as to be expected, but even he excels himself for sheer pissweak attempts at unfelt "sympathy". Read the whole thing as its a study in it, but I think this takes the yam (no cake) for sheer bottom feeding cringe worthiness,
It causes a range of hideous conditions, just one of which – diabetes – accounts for one sixth of NHS admissions and 10% of its budget. In what looking-glass world is this acceptable? If smoking demands fierce intervention, why not overeating?
Hideous I tell thee! Worse even than wearing last season's three-quarter length trews!!!! The answer to the emphasized question is of course, when folks of your kith and kin want to get their own way. I said 'obesity' wallahs are happy for you to sicken and die as long as you're happy to accept this is okay. People can see it, but there's a step between seeing and believing.

That includes fat activists, singing about social justice, but saying little about being openly told either you diet or you die. The unacceptability of that does not hang on the 'healthiness' or otherwise of fatness. The PTB don't do it out of hate, it's how they roll, how else are they going to get you to do their bidding without these shenanigans?

No-one should be told, you are ill, and are dying and that's okay, unless you can do only this (useless), punitive thing. Think of the subliminal message. It's never been acceptable and that it goes largely unchallenged has in itself degraded fat people and encouraged an abusive attitude towards us. That it is said at all is reflective of such also.

Neither of course is a fuck you, prevention only any better, that's primitive in its barbarism. How can you value or respect anyone who its openly acceptable to give up on? I say openly, as that has always been implicit.

Do some of you now see why "sympathy" is hogwash? Isn't this crapulence (simulating) "sympathetic"? I've always hated this assertion that what I used to call "professional sympathy" is some kind of panacea for anything.What is required is fat people to value ourselves and truth. Fact, objective testable understanding of how our bodies work, or science as we still manage to call it.

I hope some of you sentimentalists are seeing that there's nothing more sympathetic than a desire to understand, genuine science is deemed progressive largely for that reason.

But even that is not going to come without direct intervention from those who desire or are capable of it. 

Therein contains a serious point though. The [prospective] ill health of fat people is being used as a lever for others to get their own [political/social] way. In the case of the right, it's undermining consent/ imposing punitive no strictures, no matter how useless or pointless. That satisfies something deep within them.

No wonder there's been such extraordinary apathy on the part of dealing with most things deemed "obesity associated." Usually, if there's a problem associated with any issue, genuine suggestions of how to deal with them flow.

Years before fatsphere, I expected there to be 'obesity' physiotherapy to come into being at any second, that's why I virtually had a thoughtgasm, when I heard of HAES. That was what amateurs [and truly humane professionals] created in lieu of being left for their bodies to go where they may. Time after time, I've stumbled over ways of dealing with things 'associated' with fatness, that obviously occur in slim people, where there are ideas and advice available, that are rarely heard in context of 'obesity.'  It's all, point out how fat people are doomed, stand back willing it to happen.

I said myself, that if I hadn't searched for alternative ways to restore some well being, I'd never have stumbled over a way to quell a rampaging hunger disorder, one very much provoked by calorie restriction.

Suffice to say, fatness is not diseasiness. Weight, no matter what, is an outcome of metabolic function and no doubt can be adjusted, altered at some point there. And yes, calorie restriction is useless for everybody in the end. The issue here is not that it's impossible to change weight properly and permanently, but that the wrong target is being used to alter it. That's way too simple for all this nonsense to carry on.

Now we can see the determination to be wrong is really about continuing to make use of fat people as a means to an end, rather our health and what can be stolen from it.

The only way round this is for fat people to get involved in the area of metabolic function and weight. And literally elbow out this mentality for good. I go back to what I said at the beginning of my fatsphere sojourn-These people (obesity wallahs) are not going to stop themselves, they have to be stopped.

Even I didn't know how quite how right that was and why. 

Wednesday, 22 July 2015

Fat people must starve, themselves

Seems that bulimia device, Aspire Assist is out there. And-how could I have missed this-the most popular post on this blog is "Proto-anorexia, my mandated aspiration" and this assists it! ¿Qué pasa?

Now you may be aware that there's a belief among some FA's that the 'obesity' crusade is eliminationist toward [against?!] fat people,
Eliminationism is the belief that one's political opponents are "a cancer on the body politic that must be excised — either by separation from the public at large, through censorship or by outright extermination — in order to protect the purity of the nation".
This term is one that has passed me by, so I've no depth of grasp beyond what I've just copied. My impression is said definition seems to fuse a whole lot of things that don't really belong together- in terms of their seriousness. Not saying it's a bad definition, so much as its putting together things that don't usefully go together.

The most obvious thing it calls to (my) mind is genocide. But seeking to suppress political opposition, doesn't belong with that in any useful way that I can see. The latter is too interesting a phenomena to be overshadowed by the horror of seeking to wipe out a whole group of racial, cultural and/or social group-that has too much gravity.

In the context of fat people the point goes something like, because fat people are whole people, like anyone else and not slim people wearing fat suits, wanting us to "lose weight" is a desire to eliminate us.

We are whole becomes we are only in existence because we are fat. I differ in that I've said from the beginning that I neither believe I had or have to be slim or FAT.

I am what I am, and the weight I am is neither here nor there. That would find different expression if I had been thinner. Ditto, if I'd been born 20 years earlier/later than I had been. I don't accept the idea that a slimmed down fat person ceases to be, anymore than a fattened slim person [there are some] becomes a non-entity.

That must be how slim people feel! I didn't get that up to this point. I've been wondering for years, "Why/how do they manage to take being slim this seriously?" Now, perhaps I know! *

Fat people, we are best off out of that mess though.

Weight doesn't define your being, its an expression of the interplay between your own personal physiology and your own specific history. If the latter had been different, it's entirely possible that you or I or anyone could have been slim or even thin and been unable to imagine yourself fat/ter.

That isn't true of all fat people, nor all slim/mer people, but it is probably true of the overwhelming majority of people, given that number fits within a BMI of between 20-40, most between 20-35.

Though that seems like a lot of difference to us consciously, metabolically, I don't feel it is. That points to flexibility rather than a set point. We don't need a particular set point, because unless multiple things are interrupted, we don't differ much in range. The efficiency of our self regulation may make it seem as though we are destined to be the weight we are. Our bodies do an incredible job of self maintenance.

What we call fat and slim are actually not that far away from each other as we think they are. I've said time and again, I do not feel distinct from slim people, it is they who wish to set themselves apart from fat/ter people.

When we stumble on a way or ways to reverse/advance weight properly-with ease and efficiency-doing as the body does now, all but a few could probably fit within an even narrower space that than. There's nothing sacred about weight. If there seems to be, that is a contrivance of the refusal to pursue real ways of altering weight.

Proper contraception cuts unplanned births drastically, regardless of overall fertility. Popping out infants is not integral to being female, is it?

If there's any eliminationism, its not in "weight loss", its in the insistence on starving fatness/fat people über alles. Diet or die is eliminationist through an element of a Tuskegee Syphillis experiment. They told those men they were getting a 'cure', when they were pretending, because they wanted to see how this syphillis thing would pan out on socially devalued bodies.

Our much touted and may I say too often yearned for deaths-just to motivate us of course, not out of any wickedness-would be incidental, not the aim.

As I'm sure we know, weight loss and weight loss dieting are not the same thing. That is not tricksy or glib, its quite crucial. I've always said 'obesity' wallahs are not motivated to eliminate fat people via calorie restriction induced weight loss [CRIWL], than they are starving fat people or getting us to starve ourselves, whether that makes us slim or not.

It's bound up with the sanctification of 'fasting' and repressed fears about our rampant consumerism.

The hegemony of disinterest in the abject and obvious failure of CRIWL is key to what clued me in years ago. If the crusade was about making everyone slim, it'd be concerned with the science of how to achieve that, like any other field. Its fixation on the irrelevance of weight categorization and food/eating betrays another urge.

See the response to this bulimia device. It should be, whoopa-de-doo, fewer fat people ahoy, after all, they butcher, mutilate and mal-nourish fat people happily, yet,
nutritionist Keith Ayoob at Albert Einstein College of Medicine tells ABC News. And as horrifying as it is, "it was only a matter of time before someone came up with" a machine that lets them "just eat and make the calories go away." The only healthy way to lose weight is to change your eating and lifestyle habits, but "once you put this in someone, they're never going to want it taken out."
Yeah, only a matter of time before your act started to wear thin, oh get me. And waitaminute, he's worried about mal-nutrition? Hasn't he heard of stomach removal? How prissy of this little prig to get offended by people emptying the contents of their stomachs into the toilet but not about mutilation. Him and his 'obesity' industry have set a trap for fat people. Four walls, body dysmorphic self  identification [the obese construct], social dis-ease [harassment/stigmatization], calories in/calories out and anorexia-by-proxy [enforced fasting].

Ayoob mentions everything that should and could be said constantly about gastric bypass surgery. Why now? One reason and one reason only. It threatens to circumvent the fourth wall of the trap, enforced STARVATION. Specifically, a fat person must be seen to be freely enforcing starvation on themselves-that's why the most wing nut fat phobes hate stomach removal, despite it giving them what they want-fat people deprived and often in pain.

That my friends is the only objection to this wretched device, by 'obesity' wallahs, who do not care if their own prognosis about 'obesity' =fat people die if they can't diet. It's a highly indulgent emotive response, born of the continual lack of challenge they meet.

All that guff about "changing your lifestyle habits " is just cover for saying, the sinner has not paid their penitence, [we're all doomed!!!!!]

Tuesday, 21 July 2015

Low chance of permanent weight reversal with calorie restriction induced weight loss [CRIWL]

That should be the headline, not quite as snappy though. Fat people have been pointing this out for lifetimes. It has been observable for aeons too.
The chance of an obese person attaining normal body weight is 1 in 210 for men and 1 in 124 for women, increasing to 1 in 1,290 for men and 1 in 677 for women with severe obesity,
Don't assume this admission is permanent, they'd have to drop the whole mess, that cals in/out is the end, that weight categorization has any scientific use, et. al.

The white coat mafia has known ddw for decades but chose instead to assert the delusion that if the collective unconscious insists, dieting works, this will become reality.

Nor is "losing weight impossible" as the DM headline has fatuously claimed. This is solely about the failure of Calorie restriction dieting, it is specific to that. CRIWL has a low probability of success, regardless of your weight. CRD is only ONE (purported) route to weight loss, it isn't weight loss.

Weight loss is the aim, the end product, the category. It is not interchangeable with calorie restriction dieting.



Spot the difference? The former is a [supposed] way of achieving the latter.

Weight loss happens everyday, as part of your body's cycle of self regulation, or homeostasis. 

I can hardly think of any slim person I know who has dieted a few times and stayed at a lowered weight without being permanently on a diet. I know of none who can stick permanently on a diet. I know of none who do not serially rebound, if given long enough.

Why do you think you've seen all those lose 7lbs for the bikini season, lose 5lbs for that special event, LBD diet, get into your size 10 jeans diet etc., your whole life?

Diet's don't work for anybody. It is a matter of physiology, not will, or body size. Turning this universal fact of physiology into a fat thing, creates ignorance. The next stage in this continuing idiocy is to claim a brand new emphasis on "prevention."

Do you still accept anything these jokers say on face value?

One of the first times I accidentally butted heads in the fatsphere-by that I mean said something I thought was relatively obvious and got unexpected blowback-was when I told shapely prose years ago that the 'obesity' crusade has always been aimed at slim people. Middle/upper class white ones to be precise, otherwise known as "the worried well."

Now, whatever you think of that, come to think of that, you must admit its a little odd that what has always been is now presented as brand new. Indeed, I said before that this was what I found so unnerving about that Daniel Callahan offering, apart from its phoned-in fat phobia, "It’s time to approach our public health crisis with an edgier strategy." said he. The same 'obesity' crusade presented as new. Notice how they did the same to fat people. When we started to wake up, it became, we need to start shaming fat people. I mean whurrt?!

Think about all these so called 'obesity' papers and 'studies' that are of little to no earthly use to fat people, but instead prop up its sagging tropes. When there was another more recent tranche of studies stating the obvious, fat people's health varies as much as anyone's. There were "studies" insisting that  in 20 years time, fat people will display signs they deem associated with health problems. Despite association not panning out automatically as [real] ill health.

Restriction/starvation is hardly going to 'prevent' anything your body isn't 'preventing' itself. What it will do is what it is doing, increase those discovering they have a propensity for eating disorders.

Using CRIWL as the means for weight loss means anybody of any weight who wishes to lose weight will have to travel that same route. And that happens to be the primary provocateur of every eating/hunger disorder so far known.

This idea that if you starve yourself when you put on a few pounds, you can stem or prevent weight gain and remain slim, for example, depends on your on how your body responds to that.

Fasting did not stem my weight, my body did not respond in that manner. But if 'obesity' wallahs think differently, let them for once show it in trials. So people know exactly what to expect and what's expected of them.

There's a real conceptual difficulty for those who've involved themselves in 'obesity' and they seem obsessed with starvation. Someone has to be a vehicle for that urge, if not fat people then slim.

Friday, 17 July 2015

Excuses, excuses.........

I used to think an excuse was simply an attempt to justify bad behaviour. So the dissonance of being told things along the theme of; "Fat people always have excuses" never goes. When it comes to being fat,  I don't see there being anything to excuse.

Like virtually all fat people, when I assumed I had something to excuse, I didn't. I said continuously, to myself and anyone who would listen, "Mea Culpa." I am to blame. Now I know that was incorrect, there's nothing to mitigate, nothing to defend. The accusation is myth and nonsense.

What I notice to this day is people accept remaining in the position of having something to excuse. FA just seems to mean, better, more scienterrific "excuses."

Those who like Maria Kang demand "What's your excuse....?" sound exactly like things that have been demanded of me often-as someone brought up by Xtians, best embodied by the assertive entreaty,
What is your excuse for not accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour?
Erm, I'm an atheist. 
They know this, but they sort of don't believe me. Well, it's not so much they disbelieve me, as they reject the concept of being outside their frame of reference. You're either with JC or the Devil- for something else, doesn't scan.

The trouble with either viewing yourself or allowing yourself to be cast purely as "anti the obesity crusade" is, you remain imprisoned within its terms, ones which do not allow for your sentience, whilst addressing it directly of course.

Clashing with that isn't enough to define you properly.

Better to stand for what you stand for.