Friday, 29 April 2016

Binge Eating Disorder is not Hyperphagia Nervosa

It's finally clicked! *Binge eating disorder-BED is a bulimic cycle without the vomiting. Instead there's calorie restriction/starvation with or without exercise bulimia [that's exercise to induce weight loss] in response.

This cycle seems to run over days, at least, rather than the more condensed bulimic initiation and response of bingeing [consuming a high volume of intake/calories in a very short space of time] and more or less immediate purging.

Like all hunger/eating disorders, its mainly initiated by dieting. 

I've struggled in the past to grasp exactly what BED is. Not that it wasn't explained to me, the explanations just didn't add up to much in my mind.

I thought of it as a mild version of hyperphagia nervosa, which brings me what needs continual reiteration. BED is not hyperphagia nervosa. Hyperphagia nervosa does not fit into the convention anorexia model of 'eating disorder'. It is not an ED, it's a hunger disorder.

That is extremely important in this context. Hyperphagia nervosa is not 'food addiction' it is not 'eating addiction' it is hunger function that is hyperactive, hypersensitive, achieves high momentum that's takes longer to bring to a halt. It can be a combination of some or all of these things.

It is aggressive, invasive, unneeded hunger. Sometimes accompanied by other disturbing symptoms. It feels like your (nervous) system is under pressure. Not like you're trying to get drunk with food or whatever people with BED are supposed to feel (I'm not trying to go there anymore).

The difference is that with HN its usually a more constant fight, as in moment to moment. Rather than cyclical and seemingly initiated by the attempt to lose weight via dieting, as is likely with BED. For some its a moment to moment basis. The term binge eating appears to be modelled after binge drinking and applies the same assumptions about that to food.

HN is body led, and seems to be bound up with the functioning of the hypothalamic region of the brain/endocrine system. Often its trigger seems to be related to the endocrine systems efforts in regulating human growth. 3 years old keeps coming up. So I'm wondering what chemical milestone/s happen thereabouts.

7 give or take a year either way is another one. I think its safe to say this is the lead up to puberty. The process of triggering the hormonal change/increase/surge happening around then, can disrupt hunger functioning. It seems related in some way to hyperphagia/hyperhunger from lesion to hypothalamus but without any obvious sign of such injury.

I use nervosa as altering my nervous system's tension relieved it. So my guess is that although it may caused by a wonky hypothalamus it can be amenable to alteration through the nervosa system, hence nervosa which is a reference to that system.

I realise that's a case study of one, but that's what happens when people refuse to produce anything close to objective study. You're forced on to what you have. Any one wishing to conduct a genuine study is welcome to. I'll happily cite their efforts.

From what I've gleaned over time, BED yields more readily to manipulating your response to food. Like a lot of anorexia, it doesn't necessarily have to be gotten over or gotten over fully. You can work around it, as the guy described in his video. This may lessen hyperphagia but to really take a lump out of it, you have to alter the default way your body functions. Rather than chase it after the fact.

I know slimstream researchers are trying to shove hyperhunger into their little empire, as they feel they can puppet fat people and that we all think they're the wind beneath our wings etc., Theirs and the general fixation with eating is a product of an anorexic mindset and sensibility. Those who believe weight =calories in minus calories out tend to develop this compensatory fixation with food and eating.

They lack self awareness about how glaringly clunky it is. If your idea of weight is instead rooted more around metabolic function, this symptom is not invoked by this. So it just reads like a superficial, irrelevant imposition. An unwanted one.

It's key those experiencing excessive hunger make reducing that their focus rather than food which is what others want to focus on. Especially if they're seeking to involve others. If what I'm saying makes sense to you, keep their focus on what you need.

* Not recommending this video, it just happened to trigger realisation. 

Wednesday, 20 April 2016

The Elephant in the Room

More good news from yesterday. Dementia diagnoses experienced an unexpected drop, over the last 20 years. The study authors didn't engage in speculation as to why, except when they did;
The findings are potentially significant because they suggest that it is possible to take preventative action, such as stopping smoking and reducing cholesterol, that could help avoid the condition. “Physical health and brain health are clearly highly linked,” said Carol Brayne of Cambridge University, who co-authored the study.
You can do all those things and still be chubby, or fat or putting on weight. Which brings us to the elephant in the room. The crisis of weight.  Just as sure as this would have been prominently mentioned if the findings were negative, its only right that society's increasing weight should be mentioned as a possibility for the reduction in dementia.

That of course would also be speculative, though lower weight was surprisingly [to fat phobes] uncovered as a 'risk factor' for an increased risk of dementia-much to many people's bitterness. There's been a long term desperation to insist fatness and dementia go together like venereal disease and unguarded sexual activity. 

Not that I would dream of insisting people try to put on weight, heaven forefend such flagrant degeneracy as obstructing weight reversal. This is just a reminder that health is a complex overlapping business. Imperatives clash and choices have to be made, others eschewed as they do not suit nor make sense on an individual or even community basis.

That for me is the reason why we have no duty to be 'healthy' according to the dictates of self-serving authority. Rather than any kind of abstract libertarian-style ideal of disposal of body as one wishes. Yes, as long as it's clear that it is inherent in human agency and self realisation to-seek to maximise your function-to the best of your ability. Or pursue health as others would call it.

To me, the language of "self destruction" is nonsense, a slander healthists love to build their shady empire on. The idea that we don't care about our health. Yes we do. There's rarely such as the banal "self destructive" tag. Most placed in that category are either doing things because they feel that is what they need to do to keep going or do themselves good. Or they may be punishing themselves.

That's as self destructive as; fat people need to be brutalised to 'lose weight'. They believe they deserve it, due to their beliefs about themselves, or that it will do or produce good.

Healthists like to convince us we don't care, presenting themselves as having the solutions as long as we do whatever they demand. They claim to be the ones that truly care about your health, more than you obviously. The view that some of us wish to trash our bodies for the heck of it is not a convincing one. 

There is no rigid healthy standard as is too often asserted even by those opposing it. We need to watch the setting up of standards that may seem rational in our heads only to fail spectacularly in reality. Look how rational eat fewer calories than you use seemed before we chucked away so many years only to be left to repair the resultant mayhem.

That's why science has clinical trials, very little can be taken for granted when it comes to our ability to conceive of what is possible, versus what is.

I've not been so sure of 'healthy' since having to step back from adherence to living that way. I always had a suspicion that activity + certain dietary dictates =health was a simple reversal of, the more rewarding your life is, the more likely you are to emerge with your inborn instinct to move alive and kicking.

Few things represent the constraints of a more stressful life better than the need to disregard your urge to move due to the constraints placed on them and you.

Nor is healthism so sure of itself. I'll remind you of the thrust of much ''obesity' research' is healthy living is little use to the fat. Though these sound suspiciously emphatic, sprinkled liberally as they are with wishful thinking, drowned in bitterness sauce.

Many fat phobes fall into that trap thinking this debunks fat people's self realisation, actually, 'tis healthsim debunking healthism. If healthy living is only good for the purportedly healthy, then it does not produce the health claimed, ergo cannot be described as healthy.

Above all, we must be meaningfully ourselves.

Our bodies have their own rules.

Tuesday, 19 April 2016

Human Metabolism's Plasticity

No-brainer news;
This study shows that if an overweight person is able to maintain an initial weight loss – in this case for a year – the body will eventually ‘accept’ this new weight and thus not fight against it, as is otherwise normally the case when you are in a calorie-deficit state,”
If an o/w person-or presumably any person including slims, 'cos they're people too-keeps starving themselves, after a year, their metabolic function may reset itself to that level of hunger.
The interesting uplifting news in this study is that if you are able to maintain your weight loss for a longer period of time, it seems as if you have ‘passed the critical point’, and after this point, it will actually become easier for you to maintain your weight loss than is was immediately after the initial weight loss.
I beg to differ. Its the other way round. Adjust metabolic function (first) and that will alter outcomes insomuch as your body responds to any particular [metabolic] alteration, as I've been boring on about for it seems like aeons.

If she plays her cards right, Professor Signe Sørensen Torekov  the head honcho of this study-she could be on course to be the second most famous Dane after himself

Isn't this magnificent? No more enforced starvation for anyone; whoo hoo: Paaaaartay!!!

This particular study's topsy-turvey findings came by measuring the levels of two chemicals GLP-1 and PYY 3-36, said to be present, in the blood, when there's "appetite inhibition". The levels of both were measured after meals in people who had lost 13% of their weight. Three measurements were taken; before they'd lost the weight, just after their weight loss and 52 weeks after sustaining said weight loss.
These chemicals increased after the 52 week period to a level reflective of a lack of unwanted hunger. According to this study, the body finally "accept(s)" lowered intake, in theory of course. That's great.

It should be simple to confirm whether these pointers are simply present along with, or are hunger cessation in action. Find a way or ways to reduce/inhibit levels of GLP-1 and PYY 3-36 directly, stand back and watch people's hunger/appetite fall without any need for privation. It will be sensational-given the desperation to stave off the global adipocalypse.

Significantly altering hunger/metabolic is nothing new. Having dieting career or merely the threat of one hanging over you, can and does significantly adjust hunger/metabolic function. Yes, merely contemplating springing a diet on yourself day after day for years is enough to trigger some of the delightful adjustments of your metabolic function and nervous system.

Repeat, some people are going to discover that what they thought was a neurotic flaky nature is actually a side effect of long-term calorie restriction or the threat of it.

I altered mine back albeit accidentally. I barely altered in weight, tricky though it undoubtedly is, altering hunger seems way easier than altering the extent to which the body stores fat.

I'm sure I've said enough times to bore people almost as much as I'm bored with saying it. There's no way bodies can only gain weight. That nonsense has been put about solely via the calories in/out assertion. All that's lacking is the means of adjusting the metabolic mechanism to trigger or set that off reversal.

Each and every force must have an equal and countervailing force.

It's obvious in the way even that weight gain does not happen at the same speed. If your weight goes up one year and less or nothing the next. That's a downward adjustment, a theoretical reversal in terms of absence of gain. The body does this without pain, privation or punishment. Suggesting all that's necessary is making adjustments at source.

If what's missing is  reducing the levels of a couple of chemicals, then vamos, let's go kiddos.

If this had been done in a timely fashion, 8 year old, Hana Tarraf wouldn't have had to have a gastric band fitted merely to try and arrest hypothalamically induced weight gain. The originator of this, a tumour, may not be so simple to permanently vanquish, but she could have been spared from the unnecessary anguish of agonising hyperphagia.

Hyperphagia-genuinely excessive/heightened hunger functioning is distressing enough to be relieved with or without weight loss. Never forget who's paying for this bizarre obsession with getting fat people and therefore everyone else, to starve themselves.

I hope this is helping you to see how that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There is no point I can see to it, but I'll stand correction. Feel free to explain why the cart must be put before the horse, instead of the right way round.

I don't give a damn where you are coming from on this, ask yourself; Why are ob researchers avoiding directly adjusting metabolic function?

Even more fascinating still; What is it are they avoiding?

That's more of a mystery than the plasticity of metabolic function. 

Friday, 15 April 2016

Society's A Gastric Band

Susan Jebb's recently said weight is genetically inspired and worked on by the (food) environment. It's another incarnation of the 'obesogenic' notion.
“You need in some cases a superhuman effort to reduce your food intake. Is that their fault? I don’t think it is.”
What demands superhuman effort is that our bodies are designed to fight this withdrawal of nourishment. The effort is required to defeat your body's organization. Like a football team trying to win by aiming only to score own goals, you are working hard merely to play against yourself.

Better still, it would require little to no effort if a person's hunger was reduced first. That would then led to the person eating less without any need for inefficient "willpower". Whether this would make a person slim or not, is another story but it must again be noted that Jebb doesn't mention this. 'Obesity' wallahs rarely do.

They continue with the wrong way to implement their own demands, so desparate are they to head off the end of civilization as we know it. The idea of the environment acting on a person's weight differs little from- public opprobrium (supposedly) acts to repress a person's weight.

Note the constant of the general contains the individual. This denies said individual any real control over their own body, such as altering hunger, use of energy and so on. This weird, locus of control as outside and wholly inside, keeps your open to interference yet dumps the dysfunction at your door. Jebb hardly departs from this mode. She's just positioned towards the other end.

The outcome of millions of individuals eating as sparsely as would be required, is to turn big food as we know it, into small food. The possibility that this will be replaced with companies that produce acceptable food is undermined by the impossibility of pleasing the food-is-weight regulation crew.

Whether its their phoney tussling is whether sugar or fat is the culprit. Or "plant-based" is everything. [Followed by corrections with titles such as: "This is why you're putting on weight on a plant-based diet.] Who can follow their hypothetical assertions?

To regulate the food of people versus regulate the food business that will be regulated anyway by the regulation of millions of individual people, is the same "side", all inside calories in/out. Not facing up to the implications of mass "lifestyle change" has depended on the untenability of dieting, which is then blamed on individual failure, to keep it going.

Recognizing the extra obstacle of trying to diet individually in the face of an onslaught diametrically opposed to it, was always likely to be the, when slim people felt threatened enough to start behaving like fat people have done for ever. 

The purpose of individualizing dieting and weight, was to try and keep this away from slim people, when they felt dieting had nothing to do with them, not because it was any way to implement mass dietary restriction.

I already made the point that in a society, the thinnest/least weight retentive need to swap roles with the so called 'morbidly obese'. They will have to be the ones scrambling uphill to maintain to their weight up as deathfatz have to run around trying to repress theirs. Calories in/out as the default weight regulation, pits the needs of those least able to gain weight, against those most able.

You can see a bit of this when people complain about food taxes; "Why should I have to pay more for those who can't control themselves?" Clearly they are dunces, but the point is, they voted for it by going along with the insistence on CRIWL. 

Constant warnings about how fat every will be have finally helped to slowly erode slim people's confidence that they just choose slim. This set-up was always waiting for that particular penny to drop and it is. 

The origin of fat people's sense of guilt and protectiveness towards slimmer people is based on feelings of: "We don't want to drag you into this." But that was a conceit. It wasn't up to us.

Those clinging to the status quo pretense of this is an issue of "individual responsibility" simply wish to continue this particular sort of fiction. They're ignoring that this would probably allow the clamour toward dismantling invidual rights to increase, the one that has enabled this taxing of sugar in the first place.

Such is no longer restricted to fat people.

And so it goes. 

Thursday, 14 April 2016

Bodies Must Not be Made Obscene

Do not pathologize bodies. Pathologizing bodies, pathologizes people. Size is not a diagnosis nor the absence of one. Over and again rinse repeat.

The advance of this body politicking where the let's face it envy of those who do not feel they're slim or thin enough is barely hidden behind concern-trolling oneupmanship of calling thin people, "unhealthily thin."

Save any thin tears though. This is aided and abetted by the insistence that weight is a choice, this easily slides into one you need to answer for. If you insist that is so for fat people, then you define it as being so for anybody thin or otherwise. The surprise for thin people was that they thought it had been agreed this was only for fat people.

But an idea this dominant-one made to explain everything about weight- is bound to spread, resentments and jealousies drive it to be "weaponised."

I expected this experience to put off most thin people. Apart from an admirable minority nope. Most of them keep on with this 'obese' is bad, failing to see the noose they're making for their own bodies.

Encore un peu, the fashion industry is peopled by certain classes. Any implied or actual worship of thinness or anorexia has its basis in said classes. They are the producers and the disseminates of both, required slimness and anorexia as the route to achieve it.

Ergo, pointing to the rag trade/advertising and its more glamourous workers as causative of middle/upper class mayhem is a way of evading this reflection of avoiding social (class) and often personal commitment to the thinspo ideal.

The desire is to salvage this standard whilst wanting to appear to distance oneself from it real life consequences. A bit like when we're told we must strive endlessly to "lose weight" but not to go to extremes.

The brutality of supporting something associated with harming the daughters of such groups is worth pointing out, especially when no one seems to have any trouble with the idea that working class people are carelessly killing their children with fatness.

A lot of apocryphal ob-related accusations are just confessionals bursting forth. The infamous "promoting obesity" springs back to mind.

This whole currency of thin is pretty ruthless, trying to turn certain bodies into obscenities is part of that mess. The Muslim world is supposed to be so inexplicable in its cloaking of the female body. What then is expected of thin and fat bodied people, apart from cover up and wear baggy clothes? Or presumably go into hiding until they fatten up/slim down?

Bodies are not the cause of anorexia or other hunger/eating disorders, but even if they were, that's got to be a matter for the afflicted person concerned. Even children must learn to live with different bodies. No one should feel they have to be protected from their personal response to other people's bodies, as if it is the fault of those bodies.

It's another example of the extraordinary extent to which slimstream can externalise its personal dramas, whilst claiming ob is where that behaviour is epitomised. Not so.

It's preposterous-and always has been-for the educated middle/upper classes to claim that they cannot explain to their daughters [and sons] that it is not up to them to attain the body of a (thin) model.That their duty to their body's and therefore their own needs supercedes any urge to impersonate others. That these models are often picked precisely for their genetic attributes.

That is what fashion pays them for. 

Admittedly, that's a whole lot harder if you insist on teaching them that weight is pure choice. And that proto-anorexia is "healthy weight loss." Why then shouldn't modelling [or looking like one] also be a choice for an achievement-orientated, social currency trading bourgiebot?

Tell them it is not a good idea for anyone, including them, to try achieve this artificially-at least until there's a way to reverse weight that is benign.

How's that harder than putting your whole family on a life sentence slimming and exercise regime?

As it is, I see nothing wrong with the models on show here, all waving their hands in the air like they just don't care, whilst being thin. Some people still genuinely are [no names]. They're hardly portraying the picture of youth expiring for want of energy.

They seem to be around that post-puberty, thinner than they maybe later stage.

Let them be

Thursday, 7 April 2016

Wishful Thinking

I sometimes find myself stuck between an appropriate level of offense and a certain pleasure tinged relief at a suppressed truth bursting forth. It all started with Glamour magazine's "Chic at Any Size" edition [see what they did there;-]

Amy Schumer appeared in a list of style inspirations with three other bigger contenders [let's get the body politics right here]. Melissa McCarthy, Adele and Ashley Graham. None of them were Gabourey or her size, so, clearly there were unspoken parameters.

This wasn't enough for AS though, she was offended at the mere possibility of inclusion with, whisper it (fatness). I can't find it in my heart to blame her. I suppose I sorta oughta, but I just feel well, she's just trying to dodge making a rod for her own back. She's the type that's walking a thin line [geddit] with her comedic persona.

No-one wants that kind of fire unless they're mentally prepared for it and she clearly isn't. What I like about it is the way this has exposed the not enough said fact of how many slim people think 'obese' is fatter than it is and more importantly (to them) that they are a lot slimmer than they are. It's about time these illusions were shattered as they're tiresomely intent to insist fatz don't know we're fat.

This kind of thing is called an unforced error in tennis.  All pretence of it not being upsetting enough to be deemed fat is exposed, if only briefly.

Touch.

Schumer alluded to the old, what will young girls (isn't it always) think when they learn someone of her petitehood could be deemed "plus-size"? The extent of wishful thinking involved in "obese crisis" conography, springs to mind. 

This whole rackus is clearly amped up by oddly awol at times 'obese' crusade. When you poison the well of weight the way that insists on, it cannot stay within certain categorization/s. It bleeds out like an oil slick. Of course people are desperate to avoid being in touch distance with such. That however, isn't possible.

It can be easy to lose touch with just how terrified slim people are of anything related 'obese'/fat/overweight etc., They know what's being done to fat people and do not wish to be on the receiving end of any of it. This can be forgotten in the continual pretense of how little jeopardy fat people are in and how the unfailing courteousness of slim people is killing fat people with kindness.

Wednesday, 6 April 2016

Target, Hunger

Intriguing news of a fresh attempt to defeat the menace that is hunger. That's not referring to ending hunger in the world. It's a reference to the vital business of ignoring hunger in order to prompt weight loss. This potential calorie restriction diet aide is something called "gastric artery emobolization".

It consists of injecting beads into those gastric arteries, reducing the blood flow to the stomach. That is intended to reduce the extent and power of hunger signalling, because eating is a response to (the provocation of) hunger, not emeaushuns.

Gastric artery embolization apparently targets the "fundus" or end of the stomach, said to generate a tranche of chemicals deemed to relate to/express feelings of hunger. That could explain why a slightly less radical weight loss surgery still seems as effective, as it appears to remove this part of the stomach too.

One wonders whether the mind cannot be trained to achieve the same reduction in blood flow or even hunger. According to the study-this effect faded quickly over time.

Hunger is a scale. It has the capacity to be increased and decreased, like temperature or blood pressure. "Suppression" would be aimed at reducing normal hunger to the pathological low required for this means of weight loss. Suppression prompts continuing attempts to recover whatever level of performance hunger is set at, especially if that is  normal and therefore healthy.

Ask yourself why you need to suppress normal hunger or hunger full stop? Excessive hunger requires a mechanical decrease, i.e. one that maintains itself homoeostatically, most of all.

An attempt is made to get round this by aiming the procedure at those more talented in fatness than the average fatzo, or the 'morbidly obese' as they're called in hope and expectation by [disappointed] 'obesity' wallahs. Alluding to the assumption that they must all 'overeat', which would indicate that those of lesser weight eat less than they. Both are false.

It has been tested on the sum total of 7 people, so perhaps its value is more in the tacit admission of the real target of the crusade. If you wish to target hunger, you'd be better off attacking it, rather than people's mental and physical health. Though it has to be repeated, attacking hunger is an attack on health.

Repeat disclaimer: Whether hunger is excessive or normal doesn't matter when it comes to calorie restriction induced weight loss- CRIWL. 

This urge to deny reality is epitomised by a response from "fair2middlin" to the article. I can't relate enough to this mentality to do it justice otherwise;
Most morbidly obese people over eat to alleviate emotional/psychological issues, not physical hunger. Most eat long past the point of fullness - some eat until they actually feel (or are) sick. Nobody needs 10,000 calories a day to stave off physical hunger. If this works for some, then great! If it works long term, and is affordable for more folks than bypass operations, then even better.
This of course ignores many things. All weight loss has to be through CRIWL even for the acceptably weighted, who presumably have unimpeachable hunger (if not appetites). What really appals though, [yet again] is the sheer depth of self-absorbed presumption. That because you have not had nor can imagine an experience, that it must not exist.

It's just too stupid for words, yet many people have this assumption-that hunger has no meter. We're all feeling the same thing in the same context.

Hunger has to be able to go from the normal levels we mostly tend to reference, to unimaginable power. Starvation has caused people to eat all sorts just in vain hope of relief. That speaks to its capacity. The surprise is that such levels can be triggered erroneously.

That hunger is real. It's just that it isn't apt. This isn't hard to grasp. It's the exact pattern of medical (rather than social) phobias. Acute fear is triggered in the absence of real threat to the person.

The fear is real. Ending it is a question of disabling the misfiring of that response. Not in pretending because there is no sabre toothed tiger that the fear isn't there. That would not be credible. But then phobias happen to slim people. So does hyperphagia too, that is erased by ideology.

The eating until you vomit then even continuing to eat should give a rational person a clue as to just how powerful such a response has become. It's like a moving car with no breaks rolling over everything in its path, even vomit.

I've never experienced such myself, given that I like many hyperphagiacs had palpable emetophobia. As that was symptomatic, there must be different types of hyperphagia.

This-nobody needs w/e calories-is beyond belief. The issue is malfunction. Those who lose little time in telling us how wrong fat bodies are, have an extraordinary inability to accept malfunctioning hunger.

Bigotry does make idiots out of people.

Make no mistake though, I quoted that bilge because it's exactly the unthink 'obesity' wallahs have been hiding behind all these years in order to support their pretence that CRIWL is either a rational or viable means to manage weight.

Despite their wretched and favoured butchery providing a massive clue that the better way to starve is to minimise hunger. Their denial is their invocation of "healthy." If they just admitted they want people to lose weight in an unhealthy way, they wouldn't need to engage in these mental charades.

Not that any of this delivers much slimness. We know the majority of the gastrically assaulted do not exit heavyweight. The other (major) element of denial is even harder for 'obesity' wallahs to get over.

Metabolic expenditure. That lack of success in the-attack hunger model-is that it ignores the body's conservation of energy which is not only seems to be a greater factor in weight, it also seems to be a greater factor in metabolic function and health, full stop.

Let's see how long that admission takes.