Wednesday, 27 July 2016

The With Slims

People can be so bitchy. In order to avoid bad form, take care with your terms.

Just because people around you talk crudely of 'slim people', doesn't mean you have to stoop to their level. That doesn't make it okay.

In order to be a kind and nice person, call 'slim people', people with slim-PWS. They are people first, you remember that.

Calling folks 'slim people' degrades their humanity. The fact of their slimness isn't more important than their personhood. They are more than just slim. They are people with lives, jobs and a feisty attitude you wouldn't believe. 

They are special, they are normal. Some of them are freaky, but we won't let on. Slim people are not what people say they are. They are good peopole, living with slim, and I really think they deserve some respect for that.

So please, if you see a with slim, be sure to help them out, whether they ask you for it or not.

And if you're a slim person reading this, never forget: You have slim, you are not slim.

Monday, 20 June 2016

Real Clean Eating

Here's one for the clean eating brigade......Japanese cafe chain apologies for using detergent instead of oil to fry their doughnuts. Now that shows real commitement to dietary cleanliness. And as everyone knows, cleanliness is next to go(o)dliness.
Afternoon Tea...is recalling the affected batch of fried items after customers complained of numbness in their tongues. 
How interesting. Usually the numbness of clean eating centres its affects on undermining cognitive function. Mind you, having a numb tongue could be of assistance. Throughout history, accident has become serendipity, sparking unforeseen human advance. 

Perhaps you can whack some washing powder over the salad leaves you saw at as you would a steak. Wash it down with a shot of washing up liquid, with no feeling it your tongue it could pass as a clean creme de menthe.

Hey, if a person can 'use' food as a drug, then there's no reason detergent cannot be 'used' for food in the same way. As in not.

Wednesday, 15 June 2016

Putting 'Obesity' First

The chiefest mortal foe of 'obesity' wallahs and their fund sucking crusade is TRUTH.

Though it has been kept pretty quiet, the flatulent puffery of 'costs of obesity' has always been dwarfed by the UK healthcare costs of malnutrition. Estimated in a bapen report as being around 14.4 billion, 2011-12. 

In the developed world, malnutrition is mainly a province of the old. Appetite and hunger often decline in function with age, bad health and infirmity. Older people can struggle to feed themselves due to these and other issues from lack of funds, to loneliness-if they're used to eating as a communal practise. Far too often, it occurs from neglect of feeding during stays in hospital.  Either patients are admitted for malnutrition itself or illness separate and related to it. 

In less developed countries, its among the majority poverty stricken populace, hitting children especially hard. Undermining their physical development, in terms of stature and intellect.  Even killing them before they've had a chance to live.

A lesser stated fact of malnutrition is that it can increase the mental health burden by reducing the energy available to a growing brain and nervous system, leading it to be more fragile, less able to recover from emotional knock backs, of which there are far more of in society with puny infrastructure and systemic corruption.

Malnutrition refers to too few calories for the maintenance of basic health. A hangover from the time when it was recognised without phony argument that energy is a basic requirement of human existence. It is the primary nutrient, one which cannot be done without. Hence, malnutrition the absence of sufficient nutrition or energy. Badly nourished.

It should be obvious that this is too important a concept, responsible for a yearly death toll of 300,000 children under-five, to be cluttered with a self-involved Western theatre of contrivance that is the ob crusade.

Enter public health jockeys, oblivious to the grotesque comparison with their self-indulgent play-acting,
Professor Corinna Hawkes, who co-chaired the research, said the study was "redefining what the world thinks of as being malnourished".
Is that so? I mean why restrict yourself to meaningful use of terms? Common meanings enable folk to communicate with each other. The report is portentously called "from promise to impact, ending malnutrition by 2030." Jamie Oliver, amongst other bigwigs, turns up briefly-listed as "chef and campaigner".....[not going there].

I hope this includes agitating for trade rather than exploitation then "aid" out of the profit of that.
"You have outcomes like you are too thin, you're not growing fast enough… or it could mean that you're overweight or you have high blood sugar, which leads to diabetes," she said.
Too thin?!? Malnutrition is capable of leading to actual illness like Kwashiorkor, its not "body image" trivia. Disease and illness itself can lead to malnutrition.

Weight is not really an issue of diet anyway. It's mainly an issue of metabolic function. It is turned into an issue of diet at the behest of those invested in peddling that as their career. The "obesity crisis" is a contrivance of science-blocking.

It has delayed by misframing, misdirection, distraction, hype, hysteria and obfuscation a truer grasp of how our bodies regulate weight. It is intrinsically regressive, denying people real power and more tangible dominion over their own bodies.

Seeking only to put it in the hands of drug manufacturers and dubious professionals. No wonder the likes of Hawkes finds this rather exciting, as in ££££xciting. I find it a sickening waste of human resources. Nor is weight about the injustices of food economics and systemic corruption of power elites. On the contrary, corporate reach has been aided by the crusade's insistence that weight is an issue of individual dietary restriction. Using that as an excuse to give industrial food carte blanche to shape our environment.

Weight is still cast as an individual fault, only the casting of phony individualism, has changed to phony liberal leftism of, a problem with food systems, plays both ends like a fiddle, until they're inclined to take a closer look.

"Weight management" has replaced weight loss dieting with a far more invasive and intimate management of people. Insisting on control of diet, appetite, activity, habits and interests as well as minds, emotions, thought processes.

Along with directing people to become drug dumpsters for useless and yet toxic meds Big pharma struggles to flog anywhere else. Does that sound like an enterprise that has an answer?

This spectacle has also put the developing world on a countdown to add this expensive mess to old unsolved problems like malnutrition, so they overlap in a nice double whammy effect that so often plagues the world's poorest citizens. 

Well done Western 'obesity' wallahs and its white coat mafia, you must be so proud.

The other co-chair of this report, Lawrence Hadda did amuse me though,
"We now live in a world where being malnourished is the new normal.

"It is a world that we must all claim as totally unacceptable." 
Does he sound in any real anguish to you? They never do. They still can't find a way to fake sincerity, the old Hollywood axiom of the key to success in showbiz. Public health, showbiz for people who would otherwise have been sociologists, priests, successfully eating disordered. Ob always was a kind of rogue sociology.

One can only hope this doesn't further obscure an issue of genuine significance.  It was a little disconcerting to read Tulip Mazumdar's byline, frequently seen reporting various traumas and events in Africa.

 Note how 'obesity' comes first.

Tuesday, 7 June 2016

Hormones

There's a programme on tonight called "Horizon: Why Are We Getting So Fat?" Some guy in the guardian commented thus,
Dr Giles Yeo is the charming host of a fun but flabby grab-bag of theories on obesity......Yeo investigates the genes that make excess fat more likely, and looks at whether hormonal appetite suppressants might be the future. It’s meant to deflate demands to eat less and exercise more, but that often does prove to be the answer. Meanwhile, our emotional relationship with food is touched on too lightly.
Oh is it really you "flabby"-minded knobend? Well, that's tremendously in its favour. The mere prospect of this flatulent idiocy of emeaushuns being parked in a ditch of irreverence fills my heart with glee [that's an emo right?]

Yeo's article in the DM [don't click if you hate them] goes into more detail. The headline's instructive, "The jab that's almost as effective as a gastric bypass: Hormone injection 'tricks the body into thinking it's full'" I asked again to butch impersonating scientists, why go all Loki with physiology? Are you tricking it, or are you switching features up/down? Hunger is on a scale that must register anything from normal daily energy needs to environmental famine level ravaging. That's range.

According to himself, cutting out numerous stomachs has yielded,
.....that while gastric bypass reduces the absorption of some nutrients, the key reason for patients’ change in appetite is hormonal; because food is delivered farther down the gut in a form not normally seen, the gut responds by releasing a different mix of hormones, which then trick your brain into thinking you are full.
Sounds like Dr. Francesco Rubino,
Dr. Rubino's prior research has shown that the primary mechanisms by which gastrointestinal bypass procedures control diabetes specifically rely on the bypass of the upper small intestine — the duodenum and jejunum. This is a key finding that may point to the origins of diabetes. "When we bypass the duodenum and jejunum, we are bypassing what may be the source of the problem," says Dr. Rubino, who is heading up NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell's Diabetes Surgery Center.
Interesting, [genuinely!] It doesn't explain though, why both the loss and the effect can go into reverse in some who've had GBS. I wonder as I have for yonks whether this is part of a larger process-instigated by metabolic function, which works by altering the tissues, as a primary device or as a side effect.

And does this restoration mean where the food hits (the ilium?) also becomes changed like the bypassed parts of the gastrointestinal tract? And why would that change have stopped before that point pre-operation? Is that because that tissue also alters similarly as part of the body's inherent drive to restore CRIWL?

And what about the virtually missing stomach? It has also been stated that cells/tissue that most communicate with the brain are cut out (unsurprisingly) and that this is responsible for the loss of hunger. Is either or both responsible for the dampening of hunger?

Yeo's take that fatness is genetically mediated will please a lot of people. I wouldn't get too excited though, the key underlying question has always been that of biological mechanics. The emphasis on genes seems more about cementing the strange determinism underlying 'obesity' despite its much touted insistence that fatness is a temporary state.

He even says himself as they often do as a qualifier that genes don't matter when it comes to the law of slim and I agree in the sense that this doesn't answer the question of why the mechanics of the body-which produce all these chemicals can't produce them to alter metabolic function.

To put it another way, why must people be injected when there's no explanation as to why the body cannot be made to up or reduce its production of whatever hormones are required to prompt a change of outcome.

And don't bother to tell me it's genes, it isn't.

Monday, 6 June 2016

Don't Punk the Function, Change the Destination

I was somewhat aghast at gaining insight into Dr. Sharma's current perspective on metabolic function. Using the spring in elastic as an analogy for the body's resistance to calorie restriction induced weight loss-CRIWL, he tells us again why a failed strategy's failure is the fault of the body,
No matter how hard or how long we pull, the rubber band keeps wanting to bring our weight back to where we started. 
That 'resistence' is homoeostatic in nature, part of the body's own self regulation. It is why though your cells replace themselves many times over your life (cycle), you still remain a recognisably human form.

Fighting that is like fighting the body's instinctive design to restore itself properly. You don't fight your body's natural abilities to self regulate, you use them. If Sun Tzu was here he'd tell you, even if you insist on going to war, that's fighting to lose. The rise in weight over the last 40 years of multi-gazillion ££$$'s slimming, fitness, etc., industries has demonstrated that ably.

That answers "....how do we take the tension out of the rubber band?", we don't. That "tension" is exactly what keeps a person at 8 sts/110 lbs/50 kilos. It isn't the issue. What we do instead is to reprogramme its destination, so it this 'resistence' can deliver and repeat that outcome.

Later, Dr. Sharma explains why CRIWL is more retainable in the longer term, without an intact stomach,
......and we now understand that this has little to do with the “restriction” or the “malabsorbtion” resulting from these procedures but rather from the profound effect that this surgery has on the physiology of weight regain.
I took a WTH take,
.......the profound effect that this surgery has on the physiology of weight regain.
And a third,
...the physiology of weight regain.
Got it. Being cut into starvation makes it easier both to achieve CRIWL and to sustain more of that loss, for longer, though he again puts it with more of a flourish,
.....many of the hormonal and neurological changes that happen with bariatric surgery, seem to inhibit the body’s ability to defend its weight and perhaps even appears to trick the body into thinking that its weight is higher than it actually is.
Yes, surgery hampers the ability to respond to your body's signals even in their acute phases (hello anorexics). That latter reference is interesting, why would the body thinking it is heavier than it is lead it to lower its weight, or assist in that?

Not many "fields" would frame amputation as "hormonal and neurological changes". I don't know much, but I'm sure if you lop off someone's leg, you'll reduce their body's protein and calcium, because a leg has muscle-that's protein and it also has bone and that contains calcium, geddit?
...bariatric surgery helps maintain long-term weight loss by reducing the tension in the rubber band, thus making it far easier for patients to maintain the “pull”.
It increases the tolerance of starvation, yes.  It can also reduce hunger dramatically, until the body heals enough for it to recover. Fat people especially have to waste incredible amounts of self control on CRIWL. Surgery, saves a little bandwidth enabling  that to be invested in maintaining a state of lack. Allowing an outstanding level of discipline to pay off better than intact bodies can usually manage.

I must also say, surgery adjusts the body before which is as I have been saying for years is the right way around to do this.

Metabolism is a bit more like a self driving car. If you want it to only go so far , then do not leave it programmed to go much further out. Alter its destination.

Don't deprive it of enough power to reach its destination, i.e. starving it, hoping it breaks down before it can get (back) to its destination-your starting weight, use its ability to regulate itself.

That can go either way as they say. Further in or further out, depending on where you want the body to end up.

The insistence on achieving weight loss or gain via starvation and forced feeding is unnecessary. Though Sharma gives ample clue as to where this is going,
For example, daily injections of liraglutide, a GLP-1 analogue approved for obesity treatment, appears to decrease the body’s ability to counteract weight loss by reducing hunger and increasing satiety, thus taking some of the tension out of that band.
For example, daily injections of liraglutide, a GLP-1 analogue approved for obesity treatment, appears to decrease the body’s ability to counteract weight loss by reducing hunger and increasing satiety, thus taking some of the tension out of that band.
GLP-1 or glucagon-like peptide 1 is produced in our own gut. I was led to believe that it acts as some kind of break or counteracting force on hunger. Hunger is a metabolic function, it is both affected by our internal environment and the state of our metabolic function.

Though its hardly straightforward to tease out, affecting hunger, will potentially affect the state of overall metabolic function.  What I don't get is why the amount of GLP-1 cannot be increased without introducing it, which runs the risk of compromising internal levels of production. The body is wont to react that way to outside sources of what it produces inside.
Hence why real addiction happens and why substance/drug use is something to be avoided, not courted. The medical profession used to understand this.
Think of it as sprinkling “magic dust” on that rubber band to reduce the tension, which makes it easier for patients to maintain that pull thereby helping them keep the weight off. Of course, both surgery and liraglutide only reduce the tension as long as you continue using them. Undo the surgery or come off your anti-obesity meds and the tension in that band comes back as strong as ever.
Is it just me or does that, especially, the last bit sound like a drug pushers patter? I have to ask for the umpteenth time, why are doctors increasingly determined to turn the public into drug dependents?
Think of it as sprinkling “magic dust” on that rubber band to reduce the tension, which makes it easier for patients to maintain that pull thereby helping them keep the weight off.
Of course, both surgery and liraglutide only reduce the tension as long as you continue using them.
Undo the surgery or come off your anti-obesity meds and the tension in that band comes back as strong as ever.
- See more at: http://www.drsharma.ca/stretching-the-rubber-band#sthash.cUDb5a1j.dpuf
Think of it as sprinkling “magic dust” on that rubber band to reduce the tension, which makes it easier for patients to maintain that pull thereby helping them keep the weight off.
Of course, both surgery and liraglutide only reduce the tension as long as you continue using them.
Undo the surgery or come off your anti-obesity meds and the tension in that band comes back as strong as ever.

Wednesday, 1 June 2016

Fat Finger

After yesterday's awfulness, which I shall be returning to at some point, here's a real laugh for the fat cognoscenti especially. Straight in,
a presentation by researchers in Liverpool and Florida at the European Obesity Summit in Gothenburg, Sweden, has found that, no matter what the child’s weight at the age of four or five, if the parent perceives them to be too heavy, they will on average put on more weight, not less, than other children. That was the case whether the parent was right or wrong in thinking they were overweight.
Please my sides......pick me up off the floor.....

You'll not be surprised to know, that WE KNOW THIS. So why, some may ask, do we not say this when this sort of thing is being said?
It has been assumed that parents who realise they have an overweight child will help them exercise and follow a healthier diet.  
Oh sorry, you must be a clueless person who thinks fat people can tell the 'obesity' cult anything such as our real as opposed to imagined experience.

Wrong.

Until reality is stumbled upon and then its all a great shock.....

There's a back up of certain themes that were unloaded into the fatsphere and this was one of them. Along with other fatz, it puzzled me for a long time.

To put things in the right perspective, this study with its grinding obesideology thought branding children "fat" would lead parents to impose an obesopunishment of thin gruel and hard labour.....that sort of thing. And the research would seem to go against that.

That's not where we were coming from at all. Nooooo.

What we noted is that there is some strange hudu shit flying around, with some parents who for want of a better way of putting it. Put the fat finger on their child/ren.

I don't know what's going on!!!

I'm saying that some children seem to be marked out as fat before any visible signs of fatness or even chubbiness are present. Now, don't think this is about comparison, as in; "I thought I was sooo fat when I was 6/8/10/13 etc., Looking back at pictures of myself, I realise, I wasn't."

Though that isn't necessarily untrue, it can be removed from the context of past times. I truly mean that even in that context, certain children are told, "You're fat", before that could possibly be known and its often a big laugh-to others. It's been said to those who (were) stick thin. It's almost like being told, you're the pretty/clever/cheeky one or whatever.

One time this was touched on. A slim woman piped up, to the effect of "Yes!" You're supposed to shrug it off and be like, "No way." Show character. 

Thanks for the tip, too late. Lols. It was apparently 'done' to her.

The point is, I have no idea what its about. Whether its part of the dark arts of the family, where people love each other and yet do all kinds of strange things to one another.

But there's something going on. Is it prescience? Or is it like that woman said a sort of test of gumption? Or is it like being marked as the family sin eater, one to be kicked around? For me the most interesting question is is it something about you? I don't mean that you are fat, but something about you that lends itself to a greater possibility of?

I don't know. But it is nothing to do with health or warning you or observation or anything like that. It's almost like being assigned a role. Like back in the day when kids were picked out to be eunuchs or something.

This probably underpins the charge 'fat' has acquired. And why fat people are always accused of not knowing we're fat. And why people are desperate to tell us.

I know there's more knowledge of why people get fat than everyone's letting on. Unless its about  prediction which cannot be ruled out in some cases, but by no means all, it suggests an instinctive knowledge of how you can test the fatness of certain people.

Sadly we're stuck with the shallow tedium of obesology. Probably to stop from talking about stuff like this.

And now I can say how I feel about duty of health. It's not simply we do or don't owe society 'health', its one of those bogus arguments only used on fat people anyway. I'll say though that people often reject what purports to be "health" through instincts that often cannot be voiced. The owe health assumes health is always known or being advanced. A lot of the time, neither are true. The crusade is about promoting 'obesity' [repeat, that 'accusation' is one of many crusade confessions].

Back to McLuhan's "The Medium is the message". I wonder if he isn't talking about us, or to make it clearer, our brains. The medium-our bodies (their design) transmits itself to its own conscious aspect in dribs and drabs, by the very act of its [our] continued existence. 

And to those of you activists who keep on with this line about the crusade is all aimed at making fat people slim. I beg to differ.

Tuesday, 31 May 2016

Surgical Experiment

"More obese patients in the UK should be offered weight loss operations, say surgeons". This threw me for a loop the other week. I was unsure why all this push now?
In a joint statement, 45 international organisations, doctors and researchers in diabetes say surgery should be considered as a treatment option for anybody with type 2 diabetes who is obese or even mildly obese (with a body mass index of more than 30) if drugs and lifestyle changes – diets and exercise – do not succeed in keeping their glucose levels under control.
Pocket billiards to that. Weight loss gastrectomy is one big experiment. A follow on from the diet or die. Where are these people when weight outliers are being cut out of their homes, being humiliated and defenceless in plain sight for everyone to have a pop at? Where they to direct humane considerations, dignity and privacy for those people? Where are they to inject a sense of objectivity into people's perception of metabolic function?

The opposite of where they are when its about hacking the vital organs out of bodies their professions have had primary role in devaluing.......for mucho £££'s.

Looking at the subtitle of that article,
Guidance says operations to shrink stomach should be offered to anyone with condition who is obese if other methods have not succeeded
The stomach is a muscular organ, why can't it be shrunk without mutilating it? Forests of worthless "obesity research" drivel is published. Why can't any spare the effort to use anything from the mind to some kind of electronic stimulus shrink the stomach, or turn down the function of the part that they cut out?

If you are going to starve people at least have the decency to turn their hunger to a less than normal level. Or would that prevent weight loss? Hunger is a metabolic function. It seems to run parallel in some way to where metabolism is at in terms of maintaining the body. If you turn hunger down, does that have a knock on effect that reduces body's ability to use up its fat stores?

There are no "other methods" of achieving weight loss on offer. Only various means of going about the same one- calorie restriction, with less or more assistance from such as powerful yet strangely useless drugs or thought re-education.

Ironically, one thing this butchery does get right is adjusting function first with results flowing from that. Whereas willpower only dieting leaves things as they are and just expects you to hurl yourself into the abyss that is a body's superior ability to outsmart your intentions. Rather than adjusting function, it leaves that to strangle or fully/ partially amputate the stomach.

The problem with calorie restriction induced weight loss or CRIWL, is that it is the wrong means of bringing about the purported aim of weight loss. Weight loss is not a technique, its an outcome of other things. The body knows how to do it and does it all the time with ease.

What we need to do is find out how and find the best means of making adjustments to metabolic anatomy to set its mechanisms to a different end or set point. If it can be done in part or whole through the stomach, then find the means of doing that in healthy ways. If we can alter the level at which the hypothalamus is cranking out its various duties, then do that.

In other words, tweak or reset the body in ways that change its set point-then let homoeostasis take aim at that and regulate it. Don't attack the body, use it.

The right means of adjustment will not hurt, cause major discomfort, nor will unravel back to where you started, because you will have changed the start. Regain happens due to the target of homoestasis remaining the same, unless it has shifted spontaneously before, during or after the diet began.

If weight loss was dieting, you'd feel the body's constant back and forth, reversal/advance of your weight all the time. Indeed, it wouldn't happen would it? Another impossible imposed by the phony conflation of dieting with weight loss.

Surgery doesn't remove calorie restriction's imposition of "willpower," or conscious direction, it just lessens it, which is why it tends to succeed better than dieting without surgery. The thing I didn't really grasp was that the more invasive surgery tends to decimate hunger too, at least until healing has (partially?) restored it. This can vary from days, weeks, months years, though the average seems to be between a year and a year and a half. Roughly in line it seems, with the period of greatest weight loss.

A pointer to the extensive and studiously avoided adaptability of the nervous system. Also an example of how hunger doesn't come from one source. I still missed this though.

Its not that hunger is all in your stomach. It's that your whole body is to some degree involved in energy metabolism, all your body's processes run on it. All things being equal-i.e. sans; eccentricities, quirks, malformations, etc., Hunger is unlikely to be solely about the brain.

Nature usually has at least one back up, if not more, especially for things that are this central to survival.

Hunger is overseen in some way by the brain, mainly the less conscious parts, but there are other sites that can have a significant contribution to its tone, tenor and pitch.

The digestive system as a whole is so rich in nerves that it makes a kind of (relatively) primitive brain itself. Other parts of it may also be capable of altering hunger/appetite function.

Such aggression towards the body is not necessary. Its desired by those who wish to insert themselves in between people and their ability to manage their own functioning. A big lever being their on-going refusal to do much about arresting weight in any non-invasive way. No matter what, if you cannot stop a process, it's likely to cause problems at some point.

No one should have to just wait and hope their body stabilizes. It's well within our capabilities to achieve. The will(power) is just not there in sufficient amount. More powerful than that is the urge to block that.

There's been a lot recently about how weight loss gastrectomy provides some great insight into finding out how to make dieting stick. These experts find it easier to mutilate millions and stand by with their algorithms, clipboards and laptops making notes, rather than getting more of a clue about the workings of metabolic physiology.

Like children pulling the legs off daddy long legs and pushing them to see how or if they can walk, so its just so easy to go down this route when you have such a grip on others. To honour and preserve healthy organs is still too much to expect.

It all has a scent of the path of least resistence.