Wednesday, 21 June 2017

Children Seen as the Weakest Link

So the burgeoning 'obesity' industry continues to target the softer route of using children to advance its increasingly profit-dredging soulless cult,
These types of interventions were often delivered by multidisciplinary teams, including pediatricians, exercise physiologists or physical therapists, dietitians or diet assistants, psychologists or social workers, or other behavioral specialists.
I'll bet, a veritable bonanza for middle/upper class professionals. Well, we owe them a living don't we? And so do children, donating their minds and bodies for the effort.

Ob industrialists are wont to tell us of the purported percentage increase in this or that version of their stupid term 'obesity' so they shouldn't be shy about the percentage increase in the diversion of funds into this money-for-nothing slush pile. I'll bet its epitastic.

In order to collar more unwilling vics, the industry wishes to "screen" children from ages 6 years upwards to see how many it can requisition for what it dubs, "Comprehensive, intensive, behavioural interventions".

Don't all rush at once.

Basically it's,
...individual sessions (both family and group); provided information about healthy eating, safe exercising, and reading food labels; encouraged the use of stimulus control (eg, limiting access to tempting foods and limiting screen time), goal setting, self-monitoring, contingent rewards, and problem solving; and included supervised physical activity sessions.
"Reading food labels" demands a serious education. And stimulus control is not "limiting access" to anything, it's altering your ability to switch off or curtail your response to stimuli. That suggestion is about removing the stimulus, without addressing the potential for response. You'd rather get rid of say a phobia that just remove or avoid the trigger/stimulus.

This is all too familiar, like 'obesity' cults favourite attack the response to hunger, but not the hunger itself.

The reason they give for insisting on a minimum of at least 26 + billable hours is their "evidence" [lols] shows any less is even more useless than the minimal effects they have the effrontery to claim make this all worthwhile.

The proper response to this would be come up with stuff that actually works, but if they were interested in that, they wouldn't be in this.

That's not all though, the real jam in the doughnut is turning your kid on to drug abuse or "phramacotherapy" as they prefer. Clearly shy of their own actions. The prospect of targeting ethnic minority children is something folks need to pay attention too.

Pass that on to the unsuspecting.

I don't know about you but six years old was around the time I was beginning to become aware of eating and weight. The notion of me being put on drugs at that age is staggering to me. There are two aspects to falling prey to drug abuse, now or in the future. One is susceptibility the other is the worship of pills as something to take as some kind of holy sacrament regardless.

Drugs are introduced in any instance possible just for the sake of it.

Drugs impose strain on the liver. Their wild mis-use sets people's minds to that direction and is a long-term risk factor for organ damage. 'Obesity' wallahs are fond of invoking 'addiction', they seem desperate to make manifest their favoured legends about fat people-as they always do.

Weight is an issue of anatomical function, neural and endocrinal. The real answers lie in altering metabolic processes through pathways we can create/connect/exploit through conscious access. The focus is on physiology not 'behaviour', character or intangibles.

This is an idea that is still in advance of our current expectations.

So alternatives?

Well, teaching children to meditate is a good idea, for their general neural and physical health. Teach them to clear their minds of all thought, pick a spot on the wall/ceiling and focus on it. The key is to return attention to that spot when it drifts, without force or frustration. A couple of minutes a day to start off with is fine-if they are jittery.

Up to 20 minutes is fine. Meditation is not a treatment by the way, its a practice that tends to help support health, its a form of mental hygiene.

Gaining control of your mind is good for resisting definitions others may seek to impose for their own gain. It also can help with lifting and resisting excessive demands on your child's energy, something that can distort hunger, especially at times of hormonal flux.

Do not under any circumstances identify your child as 'obese' or 'with obese'. Your child is always a child. A little human person, never, ever, ever a disease or "person with their own body mass." If you feel up to it, make that clear to any professionals that you do not wish to support or be involved in such terms or pathologising your child in any way- whether you use their help or not. 

When it comes to hunger teach children to respect theirs by not forcing them to override or cheat theirs. Encourage them to try various things in a spirit of adventure, but don't bribe or make them eat things they really don't want to. If its about things like veg, make them tastier.

Keep a relaxed and positive attitude around eating and food. Explain that it supports the greatness that is them *grin*. You don't have to be a godbotherer to say some form of grace-expressing gratitude for your food before you eat it. And do not get them involved in this good/bad food or talk about food as 'junk' or 'shit'. Some food is fun, silly food for snacks other food is more nourishing sustaining food.

Still other food is about celebrating occasions or seasons. 

Explain to them in terms of useful, appropriate times to eat this or that kind of food. Tell them about where food comes from, about things growing from the earth, point to plants you see around, even weeds in the pavement/sidewalk, to help explain.

Talk about how food gets turned into the state you buy it in. 

Check out people like Ellen Satter, food justice folks who work with children and urban (and rural) gardening. Most of the good ones don't harp on 'obesity' its irrelevant to people who care about real things. Put food into context, its ultimately just food, fuel, it's not physiology. It's certainly nothing to fear. Altering the body shouldn't depend on it.

If a child genuinely seems to have excessive hunger-check by observing them and gently questioning how their hunger feels before, during and after eating. How do they feel about being and not being hungry?

Explain that some people's hunger function is more excitable than others, and that you will work together to help their body bring it down to a proper rhythm. 

Don't label them 'eating disordered' or pathologise them or anything like that. Talk about their fears and reassure them that you support them in finding ways to check it. Dispel anxiety, don't create it.

Teach them to calm themselves before, during and after they eat-on top of in general, even if its just something like counting down from 10-1.

Deal with other anxieties or worries they may have about themselves and life in general help them achieve a better state overall.

In case it needs saying, don't allow your child to be turned into a little pill popper on the orders of those who are clearly no longer in charge of themselves on this issue. Be prepared to be the voice of reason, defending your child against fanaticism.

I genuinely cannot see how they will get away with this sort of quackery without being sued at some point, but that's a risk factor they need to consider. 

Remember, all any of us signed on for was to become slim nothing more and, many fat adults are ex-childhood 'obesity' cases. It didn't work then and it won't now. 

Tuesday, 13 June 2017

"Weight as Disease" = Munchausen's-by-Proxy

"Accepting the concept that obesity is a chronic disease process is important for several reasons,"
Oh what a tangled web is being woven.

There's far more to being asked to swallow a false "concept" than meets the eye [is that noshing on ya fees?] You are being asked to pretend you are a disease/sick when you aren't either. How could you even be the former, you might ask? May I remind you of "food/eating addiction".

A refresher- the American Medical Association's attempted declaration;
That our AMA: (1) recognize obesity and overweight as a chronic medical condition (de facto disease state) and urgent public health problem
It should be said that even if the latter point were true, it would make no odds. A disease is a disease whether it's a purported "public health crisis" or whether it's affected 5 people in the history of record.

Terms, medical ones certainly do not exist for their potential to warp minds and manipulate emo's. Pretending to be sick/unwell/unhealthy when you aren't any of those things is not only a lie, it's a diagnosable condition. It's called Munchausen's Syndrome, more recently named factitious as in presenting fiction as fact.
Factitious disorders are conditions in which a person deliberately and consciously acts as if he or she has a physical or mental illness when he or she is not really sick.
This is of course what the AMA is in effect demanding of every person above a BMI of 30 actually 25 as it includes the term "overweight". They never thought of this, there's little to no sense of consequence when entering this particular playpen.

The interesting rub here is that it is in a sense 'obesity' crusaders, the AMA included, who have the Munchausen's, what they're seeking to do is to force people under their influence and charge to act this out. That puts them under the influence of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy.
Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSBP) is a mental health problem in which a caregiver makes up or causes an illness or injury in a person under his or her care, such as a child, an elderly adult, or a person who has a disability. Because vulnerable people are the victims, MSBP is a form of child abuse or elder abuse.  
Holy Farka Touré. How much does that not sound like this imposition? That's it in a nutshell! Mental health problem eh? Ha, ha, they said it!

Difference is instead of developing MS personal inclination or neurosis, you're having it forced on you, which is even more peculiar. MSBP has always been a tad controversial. The typical scenario-though this makes me think that's a stereotype-is a mother pretending their child is sick by manipulating them physically or injuring them to produce what could be deemed symptoms.

In that case it seems to be the extension of the womb, lack of separation between mother and child, whose being deemed an object that belongs to her, even still a part of her. In the case of 'obese' because that's wholly a creation of slimz, it's as if we are in their heads as a product of their imagination.

I must admit, on first hearing, I dismissed it on sight as a form of abuse given a fancy name. I can't remember when I caught on, though I can say the crusade brought it to mind. The enigma has always been motive. The motive for MS has been to draw the kind of sympathy and attention we associate with being unwell, but what's gained by using a proxy as a vehicle for fake illness?
Factitious disease is defined as the intentional production (or feigning) of disease in oneself to relieve emotional distress by assuming the role of a sick person.
Which is exactly the payoff that's being sold to BMI 25+. 
"First, it removes the feeling that patients alone are responsible for their excess weight.
That's what they've got from years of the fatsphere, desperation to evade responsibility, despite spending a lifetime going out of our way to accept it fully in the most painful and ego-immolating ways.

They cannot see further than what they want. See all the insistence that doctors are not at the head of promoting this mess along with "obesity researchers". They are just affected by society's bias, rather than their professional standing helped legitimise and increase the state of rage that is the norm. Without the medical profession 'obesity' would be the joke it is.

I can say this confidently having predicted they'd weasel out of their responsibility for this ordure. Once the stank gas is loose, they claim only to have smelt it not to have dealt it.  

So in addition to being asked to adopt anorexia, exercise bulimia, body integrity identity disorder we are being asked to pretend to be sick, 'cos people will sympathise with us.

Trashing the worthless 'obesity' construct and getting back to concentrating on a proper science of metabolic function would do that far more completely. 

Not that I believe people will sympathise with fat people. You cannot feel for an object. Anyway, fat people don't need sympathy, they need people to stop being raving arseholes.

Subtle difference.

Now you may doubt this sort of diagnosis. I think that's a fair and valid instinct. Amateur diagnosis is almost invariably a bad idea. In this though, you have to recognise an unprecedented uniqueness.

You've got a group of people who have little real interest in their already contrived subject, who have other agendas, who refuse to ground it in the science of physiology and are openly disinterested in resolution. Instead they impose their peculiarly alien subjectivity on those who have no real desire for it.

Ergo, that's all that's on show, virtually all the time. 

The constant airing of their psychological hang ups without proper science and progress to distract from that ensures glimpses are hardly fleeting.

The refusal not simply to do the science, but also to completely impose whatever's knocking around in their heads on others, also means those 'others' have the right to say, this is what you are telling me about yourself. This is why you are wrong, this is why people change course when something doesn't work. Not doing so ends up with this sort of thing. The thing that might moderate that being absent, personal cost.

That's using proxies for you.

Thursday, 8 June 2017

Appropriating Addiction

I'm having a bit of a Diane Abbott interlude right now. The crude ambushing of an intelligent, highly accomplished Black woman, to put her in the place assigned for her by the British establishment and its hmv media has been as brutal as it is bracing. It's easy to forget yourself, getting caught up in making yourself a safe space for others, only to find that you suddenly cannot defend yourself against them, as effectively as you know you can.

Whether you are targeted and surrounded or no, it's not enough to be on your game. You've got to be on top of it at all times, one chink in the armour and you are a piñata.

Anyway, back to more trivial matters.

"A food addiction has defined my entire life. And it is slowly killing me"
Here’s a list of things I’ve done to try and fix my obsession with eating: four psychiatrists, nine psychologists, two hypnotherapists, three meditation workshops, one hospital stay, 10 dieticians, 18 personal trainers. I’ve moved house 28 times, countries twice, states six times, I changed schools four times. I’ve been on Weight Watchers so many times I’ve lost count, Jenny Craig three times, Dr Cohen’s diet twice, Atkins three times, Mayo Clinic diet once, vegan diet five times. 
This list displays a refreshingly direct grasp of efficacy for this area. You have a problem-real or perceived. You apply a solution to said issue, if said issue remains, you judge the [prospective] solution to have failed, end of story. You then move on.

In the case of calorie restriction, this basic rule is comprehensively rejected. The issue is weight-light or heavyweight- you apply the purported solution to it-calorie restriction dieting. Either you remain the same, or its temporary effects rescind themselves ending with you being back where you started. Ergo-this 'solution' has failed.

That's it, move on to a more righteous path. 

But no, we aren't allowed to. We must not see this failure, we must only see ourselves or our bodies as having failed this godlike principle. This refusal leads puzzled indoctrinates to ask themselves; "Why can't I starve?"
About a decade ago, a group of American psychiatrists studying obesity decided to look into whether some people's anecdotal claims of food addiction could be proven.
Answer; "[It's as if] we are physically dependent on food!!!" Round and round in the same circle. You simply cannot get away from a reality that stark and unyielding. Some of us aren't used to being told no, even by nature.

The attempt to distance the professionals is palpable here but distinctly implausible. Since when do these give a damn about what fat people enough to attempt to illuminate their experience? Unless it can be twisted to fit their agenda- see this is in the number of their pointless and ill conceived rat studies.

Even if you employ metaphors, the comparisons you make must be apt enough to be worthwhile. There's no use in saying I think the term 'football' is "too narrow". It should be broadened to include round fruits like watermelons, later on, if not melons, why not oranges and apples etc., "You hurt me if you don't allow apples in, I like apples. It feels like a football to me, who are you to say otherwise? etc.,"

Subsequently football becomes things that aren't footballs. Rather like disease no longer has an agreed definition due to its promiscuous emotive misapplication.

Real addiction happens because exposure to an outer supply of chemical agents disrupts our body's inner production of chemicals with a similar structure. That inner supply is made totally within us and is sufficient for us, all things being equal.

Even if you ignore the debate ending fact that we have an innate physical dependence on food, addiction doesn't work as a replacement/ metaphor for dependence because our bodies do not make the energy we need to survive, internally.

On that basis, the notion of food as an addiction appears to fundamentally violate the laws of physics, lmfao.

Hunger is the thing ob wallahs are desperate to phase out, denial of fact doesn't end it. The basis of their empire of falsehood is eating is purely a conscious act, like taking drugs or alcohol. No matter how much they seek to reformulate that using different terms.

Making people feel like addicts not only demoralises, depresses and disempowers them-the opposite of what is claimed-it makes it easier to sell them drug abuse. Food is the gateway, we've got better drugs for you.

Like your average neighbourhood junk peddler-but without the honour of not pretending its concern for your health.

Ironically, a more apt example of the unbalancing of internal function, by the introduction of an outer dissembler appeared in that proto-anorexia/anorexia editorial of the other week,
In their article, Gianini et al (2017) report that both individuals with anorexia nervosa and individuals on the NWCR:....Are physiologically primed for weight regain. Both groups have lower resting energy expenditure... than non-weight reduced BMI-matched controls.
Lower expenditure is the product of disrupting your energy metabolism through the bolt-on of extra energy wastage. It's like you've sprung a leak and your body is finding ways to slow down the rate of [energy] loss.

Compulsion on the other hand refers to neural posture that has been assumed by the conjunction of nerves used to carry out various actions and behaviours, to the extent that the action/behaviour is not as voluntary as before. It has become compulsive or a compulsion. That posture requires dismantling.

Again, eating starts from being naturally compulsive. We all in the main, eat the same way, we respond to our body's calls for energy. Hunger is the body's demand for energy, eating is the response to that demand for energy. Notion of 'addiction' to responding to your body's energy demands is redundant. Needing to respond to you vital needs is a given.

The best way to reduce intake of course, is to reduce hunger, thereby reducing the need to respond to it.

As for Melanie Tait, what are we to make of her utterances?
Astonishingly, the jury is still out on food addiction.
She expected this all to be a typical mindless phone-in that makes no sense but that we all submit to unquestioningly as if lies are the same as truth when it comes to certain quarters.  What does she even think 'food addiction' means?
...“substance-use disorders”. Twelve-step programs say an addiction is a physical compulsion, coupled with a mental obsession. Whatever addiction is, an addiction to food has defined my entire life.
How can a "whatever" define anything, let alone your life?
Food is killing me, slowly, clogging my arteries and raising my blood sugar. Increasing my risk of Alzheimer’s, cancer and diabetes. Still, I can’t stop.
Um, you can feel 'obesity' agit-prop in your body can you? Food does not "clog arteries" that's biological myth, but this isn't really about Tait's experience. It's more about selling this to the impressionable.
They [her parents] don’t believe I have a food addiction. They think I’m weak. That I can’t control myself. That I’m lazy. 
This is an ignorant person's idea of what they think a drug addict would talk about their experience. She even tries the old part of the addict narrative of stealing to feed their habit. In this case, Mel says she stole food from her parents so many times, why?
Most of the time I think they’re right; they know me better than anyone else. Why can’t I just stop eating?
All through this, she keeps clunkingly inserting aspects of the 'binge eating disorder' playbook, hilariously emphasising the ludicrous insistence on 'secret eating' and shame being the biggest telltale. Virtually every fat person feels ashamed to eat at some phase or other. Which calls to mind the desire in this to separate the failure of dieting in fat people from the failure of dieting in everyone else.

 To remind folk, I had a chronic disorder of hyperactive, hyper functioning hunger. When I first heard eating on your own was such a big deal I was genuinely stunned.

I had actually forgotten about eating alone, that's how much of an impression it made on me. If I was forced to name as many as 20 major bad things about hyper hunger function. I'd struggle with more than five obvious major ones, despite that, eating on my own wouldn't make the list.

And that ill conceived checklist consists mainly of, eating more than expected/wanted. So if you want to eat lettuce and you past the chippy and get a bag of chips, because you are hungry, that's supposedly a symptom of 'binge eating'.

But that's a 'symptom' of weight loss dieting. The reason you fail is not because you are 'out of control' its because your body is cleverer than dieting. You don't control your eating, that's a subjective interpretation of how you feel when your intake matches your outcome.

This is the norm, that's why people are so obsessed with telling fat people we're fat........ and greedy and lazy. We have to learn the harmony we feel is shameful and not acceptable. Yet this is the major symptom of 'binge eating'

The experience of genuinely hyper functioning hunger and nervous system was a real problem, not the imagined one fat hating puppet masters so desperately and strenuously want, sorry about that fat phobe Gippettos. There's something vain about this particular fixation.

This interaction is inherently abusive, with professionals seeking to gain such complete control of people that its easily to the extent of those relationship where one partner micromanages the other. What bugs these controllers is the notion that their handlee is doing anything independent.

The notion that you are eating away from their gaze is too suggestive of an inner life and will outside their control.

Fundamentally, the problem with all this the wish to impose their feelings on everyone else. The wish to pretend this is objective and universal. That this hasn't carried the day thus far is what's causing Ms. Tait's/her puppeteers "astonishment".

Binge eating disorder is a lot like 'obesity'. A construct that exists to be fashioned by the dominant fantasies of an already decided narrative. It appears to boil down to two things. Either the hunger generating aspect of weight loss dieting/calorie restriction-exercise bulimia disruption and blow back. It's still not routinely acknowledged that dieting deranges your metabolism and makes you feel like shit, not any "weight battle" with your greedy/lazy character.

When you keep dieting, and trying to diet, as fat people are more likely to, this can become a chronic disruption of its own. One that doesn't abate even between diets.  

There's not enough genuine detail to say whether she's referring to that or actual hyperactive hunger function. It shouldn't be but sadly lies are not conducive to sorting through sometimes elusive symptoms.

Mel has got some issues though. She makes a lot of her seemingly unwilling solitariness and mentions a sort of arrested emotional development. Together with the fact that she does feel her hunger is ferocious suggests she could have a problem with the centre of her brain-where the hypothalamus et al reside. Sounds to me like they could be the same source.

Maybe this is her brain/nervous systems way of pointing to this.

Wednesday, 24 May 2017

Dieting Has Proven You Can't Learn Anorexia Nervosa

"Long-term weight loss maintenance in obesity: Possible insights from anorexia nervosa?" was written by a group of "eating disorder researchers" led by Loren Gianini. It caused a kerfuffle some weeks ago. I've not had the privilege of reading it, they're shy. I'm going with the seemingly self explanatory title.

Its assertion, phrased as a 'question', rests on the ever present notion that anorexia nervosa is an acquired skillset which can be learnt. Weight loss dieting rests on that basis also, making it easy to cast the failure of weight loss dieting as a failing of the person.

This is also the logic of "pro-ana"-the desire to pursue anorexia nervosa as an acceptable lifestyle. The idea was always of a pathology to counter a pretend pathology [body mass].

Weight loss dieting is and has always been proto- or early stage anorexia.

It's well known. When so much as a squeak of concern is expressed about anorexia, the swift response is often, "We have an obesity crisis!!" In other words, anorexia is allowed as "treatment" for 'obesity', those (slim/thin people) succumbing to anorexia and wasted by AN are deemed "collateral damage".

It's tea and sympathy for them and likely a big bit of cake-to build their weight back up-plus some family or other counselling.

Apart from the illusory divide, the central offence of these researchers is the feigned innocence-presenting an inherent part of the 'obesity' playbook as a new possibility. This is typical of anything within touching distance of 'obesity' right now, things that have been around for ages are dubbed new developments just discovered by research, to save face.

You could be amused at this from those getting off on lecturing others on the value and necessity of facing uncomfortable reality head-on. It's positively monstrous of them to deny themselves the privilege.

Why oh they punish themselves?

Anyhoo, the connection between proto-anorexia as; prevention, treatment, cure of 'obesity' plus "maintenance" of nobesity and anorexia nervosa is where this begins to get [slightly] interesting, throwing up the so often self-defeating nature of "noble lying".

Anorexia nervosa [AN] is not a skillset. This is something we all nominally agree on, but we actually do not. Insiders bray, anorexia is not a choice. At the same time, they and their supporters think it is. 
Let’s spend taxpayer money to help fat people learn the magic sauce that people with anorexia have mastered.
Anorexics have not mastered anything, [perhaps you could say their body has]. AN is a susceptibility or tendency if you prefer, meeting the trigger of early stage anorexia. People don't practise and become perfect, something in the has to succumb to this pressure.

Something controlling/affecting hunger and eating's neural pathways implodes or fails.

You can be a lazy bum if you are susceptible enough. The ability to start and stay on the proto-anorexic/anorexic route is likely to be part of that tendency.

This postulate is fundamentally erroneous. It misjudges what's happening with anorexics, assuming fat people need to copy them better, when the whole of dieting 'n' exercise already tries to do that. It cannot create a tendency toward anorexia. We can't copy succumbing to anorexic stimulus. 
...further research be conducted to inform interventions to facilitate these behaviors in the higher weight group and interrupt the behaviors in the lower weight group.
You can do all the behavioural research you like-I actually assumed at first that they were doing biochemical research and were seeking to chemically trigger anorexia in some aspect.

This experiment has already been done and dusted, the urge to keep repeating it unceasingly is neurosis that should be dealt with the same as any other.'Obesity' promoters like to behave as if the past hasn't happened. Using our bodies in the way they are designed is the right way to achieve whatever metabolic outcomes are required.

As for the fat phobia of 'eating disorders', that's a no-brainer, they've always been that way, even the term "eating disorders" is a product of calories in/out modality and experience. If you are going to fit your experience into their notions you've already accepted that basis.

False disconnection of proto-anorexia or dieting from anorexia nervosa causes unnecessary confusion and suffering, making it harder to understand what AN is. Saying that anorexia nervosa is the exposure of an innate tendency shouldn't affect funding. People can't help being anorexic, but they can help dieting in the main.

This divide is the voice of people under the influence of anorexia nervosa.

Tuesday, 23 May 2017


Swallowing an inflatable device to take up room in your stomach so you can starve more easily, really? And the outcome of that would be different from just starving on your own, how?
At the end of the 16 weeks, the patients were encouraged to eat a Mediterranean diet to try to maintain their weight loss.
Maintain starvation, with what technique, procedure, process, stimulus? What modus, what pathway, what model? A placebo is defined by no active effect. This is all no active effect, just the acting out of how someone thinks metabolic function ought to work, but does not. And because they can't let go, we aren't allowed to.

No one really talks about how devastating it can be to regain weight loss so achingly slowly and punitively. It is literally Sisyphean;
In Greek legend Sisyphus was punished in Hades for his misdeeds in life by being condemned eternally to roll a heavy stone up a hill. As he neared the top, the stone rolled down again, so that his labour was everlasting and futile.
People know this though don't they? That's the whole point of it these days....punishment for sin.

Monday, 22 May 2017

Dead Dogma?

Well, well, well. Could we be witnessing the spread of terminal boredom with the useless, deranged and costly 'obesity' cult? Its stupidity, its sinister, psychopathic nature, dehumanises and objectifies. It has degraded us all in some way or other. 

And the interminable nonversations about food. How many times, the person who's lost 5 stone 'cos they've gone on a diet/changed their so called lifestyle, clouds in the heavens, WTHGAD? Or is it just part of the 'obesity' industry's attempt to transfer healthcare funds to its own accounts, blocked its own rank hate campaign?

[I always wondered how they'd get around that].

Matt Ridley who describes himself as; "Author, rational optimist, Times columnist, Wall Street Journal contributor, Tory peer, Northumbrian. Keen on science, scepticism, genes, ideas having sex."


"Obesity dogma has done us a fat lot of good"
Some put on weight more easily than others and there is no point in being proscriptive until scientists are certain why
That last bit nearly sums things up. Scientists need to find out how to use the anatomy that's already regulating the body's cells and learn how to alter that slightly in the main. We are not talking about disease or pathology, we are talking about reinforcement of regulation.

We've been here many times before and Ridley has noticed the 'obesity' consistently fails on its own terms-blaming it on its quarry, so that it can keep failing and blaming it on its quarry.....

You'd think that would have been super obvious. But when we expect to produce truth-they volunteer- producing distortions and blatant fibs, with the collusion of willing pitchforking weight vigilantes, it's surprising what liberties can be taken.
At the weekend Tam Fry of the National Obesity Forum claimed implausibly that obesity now costs the state £24 billion a year. The Institute of Economic Affairs puts the cost at less than £2.5 billion, and argues that “while claims of a crippling cost are a good way to get media attention . . . they irresponsibly incite resentment of a vulnerable group”.
"Implausibly" understatement of the year.

The Institute of Economic Affairs is a free market think tank.  Even the political corner that generated established and promoted a lot of this rubbish is offering sceptical analysis off it and using language like "vulnerable group". 

How long will people tolerate these pompous bores and their joy stealing, freedom negating activities.

And note how they know full well that it is the 'obesity' industry generating this ugliness, aiming it directly the type of people who post violent pornographic images of women being tortured, in order to try and drive women off social media. 

But some fat activists are still tippy-toeing around this, parroting nonsense about how "obesity is complex", [unless complex now means a stupid time sucking waste] aping 'obesity' wranglers divide and conquer blaming of the [slim] public. Like they whispered in their ear and told them we the [fat] public are to blame.

I detest people who parrot ob trope, tripe, however, there's no question that they get permission, encouragement and support in the form of such as the so called study of no such thing as people who actually exist of last week. Followed by the offer of some more crazy shit they can stick into you.

This stuff is created for everybody, but especially trolls, haters and bitter psychologically damaged whack jobs prepared to do their dirty work of bullying people into feeling as bad as possible. And they duly oblige, behaving as if they've had a work promotion.

I remember years ago suggesting all the ugliness posted on spaces occupied by fat people on social media should be directly e-mailed to "obesity researchers" producing this ugly hateful crap, just to give them some accountability for their actions. 

I've never sent a death threat to anyone in my life but I'd be happy to send them the death threats fat people on-line get from these cretins, preferably linking to the trash references scattered amid their poisoned outpourings. Asking stuff like; "Is this incentivising enough do you think?"
Advising, hectoring and bribing people to eat less and exercise more appears to be ineffective. We have just about tested that idea to destruction. It isn’t working, and it probably will only work if it becomes fully totalitarian, with police raids on home kitchens to seek out and destroy secret stashes of biscuits.
And this might be a problem for 'obesity' wallahs, they effectively require the pursuit of inefficient calorie intake and upping energy expenditure to become the defining principle of society as well as fat people's lives. Without bothering with any open discussion of whether that should be a thing. So do they take for granted the sport of loathing fatz is an inexhaustible well.

Perhaps not?!

The other day, I saw an article on pregnancy, it totally grasped how so called advice has become a tightening noose around pregnant women's necks. With 'obesity' it has gone far further consent is not a thing. We are not expected to have any opinions feelings or views other than what we are told to by ignorant idiots who-to add insult to injury-have little imagination.
What should a government do when there’s great uncertainty about both causes and the right course of action? Experiment, of course. 
If he stopped there, he'd be bang on so I did that for him. A proper sustained science of metabolic function, concentrating on the anatomy concerned is what's missing from the picture. The 'obesity' construct needs to enter  the dustbin of history- NOW.

Government should gather together a specialist team contain only those that can think well and have zero committment to shoring up 'obesity' and its cult.  Give them a year or two to find out how metabolic function works.

I'm sure knowledge of that would "motivate" those straining every pore  to avoid finding out anything useful.

Thursday, 18 May 2017

The Real Issue

Following on from yesterday's non-debate pertaining to 'obesity' cult mythologising this is who the Independent decided to get to comment on a supposedly deeply significant highly important and definitive study consisting of 3.5 million GP records, no less.

A personal trainer cum fitness competitor, cum classic mod-elle cum fitness tutor. I think we can safely say the folks at the Indie are telling us the exact value they place on this supposed study. We hear you Indie *wink*.

So let us take a look at what this presumably scientifically minded mod-elle has to mutter on the matter.

"Yes, you can be 'fat but fit' - but don't expect to be healthy". Who expects fitness to mean health? No seriously, who does? A clue; those promoting the notion of a "healthy lifestyle".

So the whole fitness industry is worthless to anyone who is over BMI 30+? Okay, you said it. Healthy people are a "ticking timebomb" no-one is seeking to detonate. Why so desperate for us to explode? Why aren't you all running around trying to find means to manipulate our physiology into defusing the bomb that is us? 

I say this to you honestly I'm deeply disappointed. No I really mean it. By now, I genuinely thought slimz would be more into fake compassion but they can't even be arsed to do that. I'm getting quite annoyed just thinking about it.

How dare they not cry at the prospect of our passing! I keep saying this, I want, no I demand to see more tears, more hand-wringing, more mourning. Tell me what you'll miss about us, the contributions we've made, the way the world will be a poorer place with our demise etc.,

All this getting off on what you feel compels us to trying to starving ourselves again, a la TBL is disgusting.  I am not joking.

Geez, at least smack yourself in the head, pick at your face [trés dramatique for those who just have to go that extra mile]..... At least try poking your fingers in your eyes to bring on some actual fauxreal tears.

More effort at being upset all round.

When I think of the nonsense I've gone along with you lot, ....don't even get me started.

Ahem, back to Mz Thing tell us this explosion "preventable", how though? Fitness is a complete waste of time, so says she and 'obese' wallah puppet masters. The only thing left is innovation in reversing weight. Which you know is being blocked by the same people doing the shouting.

The flurry of these emphatic "It is not possible to be fat and healthy" headlines are on the basis that the pool of people above BMI 30 is more likely to contain people who develop, in this instance, 4 cardiovascular pathologies.

Starting from the basis of the 'obesity' construct, BMI 30+ = a slim person plus mass, this is meant to show the plus mass causes cardiovascular events, to acceptable mass.

But we don't all start from there. Some of us start from the universal human, indeed animal norm, that each being recognises itself as a whole entity. From that point, those who have cardiovascular fillips are more likely to be found amid BMI 30+ and perhaps under whatever "healthy people of a normal weight". That makes sense given that cardiovascular irregularities are more liable to interfere with your energy regulation and metabolic function.

The cardiovascular system plays an important role in helping to regulate energy.

Even if crossing a weight line upsets your cardiovascular system, the answer is still, benign weight reversal.

Certainly that has also been found in the past, so called 'underweight' people have been found to contain more people with vascular irregularities-I cite that because it went against the desire to assert dementia as a fat thing [which is still done regardless]. This of course does not mean all people in the thin group are going to develop dementia, simply the greater presence among them raises overall risk.

I'm not sure whether metabolic manipulation could interrupt this, I don't see why it isn't possible. The best way to gain a deeper understanding of the situation brings us straight back to finding a benign means of reversing weight. The only means we have now-starvation- is pathological and pathology inducing, that includes cardiovascular as well as metabolic problems. As well as not being fit for the purpose (supposedly) intended.

Producing these kind of studies is supposed to divert attention from this;
The real issue is whether you can be ‘fat and healthy’ and the simple answer is no
The REAL ISSUE is why isn't all this conviction isn't leading anywhere but; this is really baaad and there's too much of it, so people must do what's brought us to this point. Then we'll again complain that there's too much of it and 'prove' how bad it is in order to get people to do the same thing as ever, which means even more of this and then we'll complain about how baaad it is and insist on get the picture.