Seriously, do.
If you have the nerve to respond to objections to your discourtesy, hating and wretched stupidity with "lose some weight" because you think that in some way justifies your attitude or removes your responsibility to know how to comport yourself in a civilised manner, then BITCH, you need to lose some hate.
If you wish to hate, have the guts, have the self respect to be culpable and accountable for that hate, rather than kidding yourself that you are somehow forced into it by people being fat at you.
Or the bogus propaganda the cynical feed your easy little head with.
Not being able to accept you choose to hate is a sign of conscience salving, it means you need to misrepresent things to yourself, so that you don't feel being mean and nasty makes you a bad person.
You are pathetic.
When we fatz thought we were bad, we thought it all the way, we didn't cling on to or hide behind others, we took it full on, often as children. That you can't manage shows exactly why you are involving yourself in hatred in such a cowardly and self deluding way.
In your mind blunted by your own disappointments, all this makes your sorry little selves come alive, well done in finding some way to feel like your miserable existence matters. It won't do you any good though, because it shows you have lost hope in achieving that in a positive manner. You know yourself.
Way to advertise your despair.
Your greatest punishment is being stuck in your bone head 24/7.
Poor you.
Thursday, 19 May 2011
Wednesday, 18 May 2011
Obesus physic
Physics has for some time required a new branch in order to fully contain all the observational data on how energy functions coming from 'obesity'- i.e. fatness in a Latin fright mask - that wisdom must not be lost in the ether of random speculation.
There's the base of what's known as the 'fat contagion' hypothesis. That's when a fat person close to you is able to provoke your body to start storing more fat. The free floating energy of their presence is converted into stored energy in your body.
This process can be so powerful, that it can have a kind of placebo effect. The mere existence of your friendship, getting in contact via e-mail or phone, or even just thinking of them, as in, "I wonder how my (fat) friend so and so is doing".
All pose dangers of energy conversion for the unwary.
You'll only win if you're a 'fast burner' as your system draws progressively more of this 'free energy' increasing its release leading to weight loss among your family and social circles.
None of this is scientific, it is based on science.
The fat transference phenomenon. As we know, energy (in this case fat) can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change form. In this case, as someone (the non specieist definition, natch) releases fat from their stores in the form of heat, that then turns back into fat in someone eles's body.
The amount probably depends on some process of entropy.
This explains the seeming incongruity of successful weight loss industries along side society's upward weight drift.
I hope those encouraging fatz to lose weight are aware of the risk. More importantly though, this is no excuse for fatz to relent in their efforts to lose weight. If it ends up on someone else, you'll/they'll just have to live with it, dog eat dog is apt here.
We all know that we are surrounded by energy dense foods, what people don't realise is that these are not 100% stable. Although minuscule, some atoms of energy can escape into the air. This is mainly a problem for the susceptible who act as a magnet for them, a bit like this.
Hence the much touted, "I only have to see food to put on weight"etc.,
All this insight must be logged and collated. If studied, for its underlying meaning it could reveal missing secrets of the universe.
There's the base of what's known as the 'fat contagion' hypothesis. That's when a fat person close to you is able to provoke your body to start storing more fat. The free floating energy of their presence is converted into stored energy in your body.
This process can be so powerful, that it can have a kind of placebo effect. The mere existence of your friendship, getting in contact via e-mail or phone, or even just thinking of them, as in, "I wonder how my (fat) friend so and so is doing".
All pose dangers of energy conversion for the unwary.
You'll only win if you're a 'fast burner' as your system draws progressively more of this 'free energy' increasing its release leading to weight loss among your family and social circles.
None of this is scientific, it is based on science.
“Carson gets fatter as his dog gets thinner from diet and exercise”.
The fat transference phenomenon. As we know, energy (in this case fat) can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change form. In this case, as someone (the non specieist definition, natch) releases fat from their stores in the form of heat, that then turns back into fat in someone eles's body.
The amount probably depends on some process of entropy.
This explains the seeming incongruity of successful weight loss industries along side society's upward weight drift.
I hope those encouraging fatz to lose weight are aware of the risk. More importantly though, this is no excuse for fatz to relent in their efforts to lose weight. If it ends up on someone else, you'll/they'll just have to live with it, dog eat dog is apt here.
We all know that we are surrounded by energy dense foods, what people don't realise is that these are not 100% stable. Although minuscule, some atoms of energy can escape into the air. This is mainly a problem for the susceptible who act as a magnet for them, a bit like this.
Hence the much touted, "I only have to see food to put on weight"etc.,
All this insight must be logged and collated. If studied, for its underlying meaning it could reveal missing secrets of the universe.
Monday, 16 May 2011
In the event of crisis PANIC!!!!
Or perhaps, not.
Because that's total nonsense, isn't it?
This is usually more like it. In the context of a declared crisis this ideal is made more compelling by considering the track record and motives of those trying to stoke us into a state of panic and keep us there.
They know full well that beyond a certain point, that state is incompatible with higher forms of reasoning.
Which is exactly why when there really is an emergency, the thing to do is to remain as calm as you can, so you can deal with it as best you can, without succumbing to any rising feelings of fear and doom.
You know, from the emergency.
In fact isn't the ability to try to get oneself exciting a sign that there is no emergency?Although who knows, if we can panic, we might be about to create one by rushing around manically not looking at what we are doing and what our efforts are actually achieving.
Because that's total nonsense, isn't it?
This is usually more like it. In the context of a declared crisis this ideal is made more compelling by considering the track record and motives of those trying to stoke us into a state of panic and keep us there.
They know full well that beyond a certain point, that state is incompatible with higher forms of reasoning.
Which is exactly why when there really is an emergency, the thing to do is to remain as calm as you can, so you can deal with it as best you can, without succumbing to any rising feelings of fear and doom.
You know, from the emergency.
In fact isn't the ability to try to get oneself exciting a sign that there is no emergency?Although who knows, if we can panic, we might be about to create one by rushing around manically not looking at what we are doing and what our efforts are actually achieving.
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
Musical Youth
I loathe campaigns to teach fat children to know their place or "obesity prevention" as they are creepily tagged. I've already said how unimpressed I am with Michelle Obama's insistence on taking this stance, I have to say though, I quite enjoyed this video and found it unexpectedly uplifting.
If anything that again shows how pointless and unnecessary it is to target fat children, rather than concentrating on building on the joy of movement and physial expression in children. Something we actually owe them for its own sake.
Teaching children to take possession and direct themselves physically, has a spiritual element. Not only is it an avenue of expression, release and sense of freedom, it can increase their sense of confidence.
Apart from natural highs, this helps to ballast their mental health and decrease the neuroses that seem increasingly prevalent among them.
Watching it made me wonder if someone has gotten through to those running the campaign as it features a noticeably fat child very prominently from the start, something I can't easily recall in the usual mainstream efforts to invoke child activity.
Although it's as likely to be in part cultural expectation, fat people are not by necessity excluded from movement like they are in those led by commercial interests, who see fat people exercising as tthreat to their delusional pretence that fatness is incompatible with (any) activity.
When it comes to dance its almost a mode of conversation, a bit like some cultures associated with gesticulating to make, support and underlie verbal expression.
As with those cultures he is expected to be part, keep up and express himself in his own style, included along with everyone else. I note the featured routine is a mix of running on the spot, alluding to skipping and certain kinds of dances that have relevance outside the usual context of 'exercise'.
I also suspect that might be behind Beyoncé wearing heels, if you look at her beforehand you can see she changed from trainers. I think that's about the constituent of teen girls who tend to stop a lot of physical activity quite abruptly at a certain age as part of defining themselves as women.
Hence singing pointedly about "a little sweat never hurt nobody".
A fraught sticking point with those not wanting to mess up their hair by getting sweaty.
Very important.
It does occur that it's a bit jump heavy and although one might dance vigorously in a club, I would not advise anyone to be jumping up and down on a regular basis like that in heels.
The spectre of things such as "Shin Splints" hover in the air.
But then, that's as much a defect of trying to use calorie wastage via activity to regulate weight, it's fundamentally flawed notion at the best of times.
The routine also reflects current fashions in the fitness industry, conditioning the body from a standing position, fewer gaps in shorter routines and using the whole muscle groups together to increase energy expenditure.
In other words, exercise has had a slow drift from punishing de-contextualized repetition, to more and more imitate real and/or pleasurable movement. So predictable and so funny. When I think of the people they've written off who struggled manfully with their more ill conceived efforts.
No matter, as long as kids of all sizes can be given more options to express themselves physically, as phys ed has virtually been jettisoned in favour of sitting kids at desks to make up for inadequate teaching and fulfil parental ambition.
This campaign may not do quite as much harm as I feared.
But I'm keeping my eyes wide open as it is very much a hope.
If anything that again shows how pointless and unnecessary it is to target fat children, rather than concentrating on building on the joy of movement and physial expression in children. Something we actually owe them for its own sake.
Teaching children to take possession and direct themselves physically, has a spiritual element. Not only is it an avenue of expression, release and sense of freedom, it can increase their sense of confidence.
Apart from natural highs, this helps to ballast their mental health and decrease the neuroses that seem increasingly prevalent among them.
Watching it made me wonder if someone has gotten through to those running the campaign as it features a noticeably fat child very prominently from the start, something I can't easily recall in the usual mainstream efforts to invoke child activity.
Although it's as likely to be in part cultural expectation, fat people are not by necessity excluded from movement like they are in those led by commercial interests, who see fat people exercising as tthreat to their delusional pretence that fatness is incompatible with (any) activity.
When it comes to dance its almost a mode of conversation, a bit like some cultures associated with gesticulating to make, support and underlie verbal expression.
As with those cultures he is expected to be part, keep up and express himself in his own style, included along with everyone else. I note the featured routine is a mix of running on the spot, alluding to skipping and certain kinds of dances that have relevance outside the usual context of 'exercise'.
I also suspect that might be behind Beyoncé wearing heels, if you look at her beforehand you can see she changed from trainers. I think that's about the constituent of teen girls who tend to stop a lot of physical activity quite abruptly at a certain age as part of defining themselves as women.
Hence singing pointedly about "a little sweat never hurt nobody".
A fraught sticking point with those not wanting to mess up their hair by getting sweaty.
Very important.
It does occur that it's a bit jump heavy and although one might dance vigorously in a club, I would not advise anyone to be jumping up and down on a regular basis like that in heels.
The spectre of things such as "Shin Splints" hover in the air.
But then, that's as much a defect of trying to use calorie wastage via activity to regulate weight, it's fundamentally flawed notion at the best of times.
The routine also reflects current fashions in the fitness industry, conditioning the body from a standing position, fewer gaps in shorter routines and using the whole muscle groups together to increase energy expenditure.
In other words, exercise has had a slow drift from punishing de-contextualized repetition, to more and more imitate real and/or pleasurable movement. So predictable and so funny. When I think of the people they've written off who struggled manfully with their more ill conceived efforts.
No matter, as long as kids of all sizes can be given more options to express themselves physically, as phys ed has virtually been jettisoned in favour of sitting kids at desks to make up for inadequate teaching and fulfil parental ambition.
This campaign may not do quite as much harm as I feared.
But I'm keeping my eyes wide open as it is very much a hope.
Saturday, 7 May 2011
Downward dodge
We all still start from the premise of thinness as the default and calories in calories out (CI/CO). The idea that human energy is a balance of what we eat and how much we use up in being active.
From this many fat people surmise we are efficient at storing calories.
But what if it makes more sense the other way around?
Starting from the very *(link contains weight loss dieting) fattest at over 1,000 pounds. Regardless of the amount eaten-that is part of your metabolic functioning anyway-the fact that anyone can reach that point requires a greater explanation than what someone eats versus their level of activity.
Fat people of all weights can tell you their weight is gained in stages, which means metabolic stabilisation occurs in between without necessarily changing eating or activity. So talk of "blowing up" or "ballooning" are a particular subjective take rather than a more balanced reflection.
No-one continually gains weight as people who've been on a weight loss diet for a while and 'take a break' do. They gain weight at a staggering amount a pound a day is not unheard of.
Rebound after loss often only takes a fraction of the time it took to lose it.
None of the fattest people ever recorded can have gained weight anywhere near that rate in a sustained manner from day one. To put that rate in perspective, it would take about 4 years for Mr Uribe to have reached his lifetime high.
What an extraordinary thought. That many who may be hardly fat or less have at certain points, gained weight at a rate which if continued would surpass the overall gains of the fattest of all time.
Which suggests the extraordinary pressure on weight is down, not up as we have been taught to think. And that's true for the overwhelming majority of us we are closer to slim than the fattest ever.
Phooey to 3,500 calories = every pound of your weight. Fattening is like the receeding of overwhelming force, rather than people jumping up for heady thrills.
As people get fatter we tend to expend more calories merely existing and in any activity. This seems like putting the lid back down, but not at the same point as when it was lifted.
A lot of fat people's weight reaches a stable point or range.
An explanation is required for why the receeding pressure is not being countered as well as why some bodies don't succumb in the first place. That is equally important and part of the reason why the idea of isolating fatness is unconvincing.
Slimness needs to be explained as much as fatness weight should be seen as a whole, which is why the segregation of 'obesity' requires explanation.
Rather than seeing fat people as efficient storers-we are just storing more, not the same thing-we can see slimness in terms of less upward counter to the overall downward pressure.
From this many fat people surmise we are efficient at storing calories.
But what if it makes more sense the other way around?
Starting from the very *(link contains weight loss dieting) fattest at over 1,000 pounds. Regardless of the amount eaten-that is part of your metabolic functioning anyway-the fact that anyone can reach that point requires a greater explanation than what someone eats versus their level of activity.
Fat people of all weights can tell you their weight is gained in stages, which means metabolic stabilisation occurs in between without necessarily changing eating or activity. So talk of "blowing up" or "ballooning" are a particular subjective take rather than a more balanced reflection.
No-one continually gains weight as people who've been on a weight loss diet for a while and 'take a break' do. They gain weight at a staggering amount a pound a day is not unheard of.
Rebound after loss often only takes a fraction of the time it took to lose it.
None of the fattest people ever recorded can have gained weight anywhere near that rate in a sustained manner from day one. To put that rate in perspective, it would take about 4 years for Mr Uribe to have reached his lifetime high.
What an extraordinary thought. That many who may be hardly fat or less have at certain points, gained weight at a rate which if continued would surpass the overall gains of the fattest of all time.
Which suggests the extraordinary pressure on weight is down, not up as we have been taught to think. And that's true for the overwhelming majority of us we are closer to slim than the fattest ever.
Phooey to 3,500 calories = every pound of your weight. Fattening is like the receeding of overwhelming force, rather than people jumping up for heady thrills.
As people get fatter we tend to expend more calories merely existing and in any activity. This seems like putting the lid back down, but not at the same point as when it was lifted.
A lot of fat people's weight reaches a stable point or range.
An explanation is required for why the receeding pressure is not being countered as well as why some bodies don't succumb in the first place. That is equally important and part of the reason why the idea of isolating fatness is unconvincing.
Slimness needs to be explained as much as fatness weight should be seen as a whole, which is why the segregation of 'obesity' requires explanation.
Rather than seeing fat people as efficient storers-we are just storing more, not the same thing-we can see slimness in terms of less upward counter to the overall downward pressure.
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
“Real fat women”
Although sceptical of actual advantage of privileging thin in the main, one of the more surprising things to come out of this thread is how insecure a people are about their own sexual prowess and attractiveness.
Seems that when it comes to things related to sexualness fat phobia is being seen as an opportunity to to offload those insecurities onto us to make us epitomize sexual pathology.
People just cannot stop being "shocked" that anyone could possibly... or some of us actually do, even though all we hear about is fat children and their fat parents.
This "shock" is like fatty contraception.
It seems many people really need fatness to represent ugliness, sexual rejection and as fat people can never not be implicated in this kind of projection, we are also sexual refusers. Through our bodies.
"Not saying fatness is fugly of course, just that everyone thinks it is so although it isn't, that means it sort of is."
Our fatness is always 'talking' to other people. Fat at ya indeed.
It’s a tribute to my own past as a “real fat woman” that I've failed to pick up on these insecurities in others, even though its not exactly hidden.
(And note how often we are told off for various mis appropriations of real women and yet constantly accused of being "false" or "PC" when we attempt to deviate from excoriating fat hatred).
Like general body hatred has become the authenticity of slim women, fat hatred is our version of this, great.
How has it come to this in the age of feminism?
Now I see this goes deeper than I realised considering it from the pit of loathing fat bodies can become mired in.
I never quite understood the intense identification of “real women” as devastating insult to slim women, as the original point was women in the flesh v women as image, as much as it is about weight.
Fat
See 4-FERTILE.
Slim.
Basically the stereotype of unsexualness speaks to a lot of people's deeply held fears, offloading theose onto fat people is a route to settling the issue, oh the irony. Our sexual insecurities are no different than anyone else's, but if we can be made to epitomise them, everyone else can be freed!
What this shows above all is how insecure we all are and how difficult that can be to perceive in others, unless we can all agree on who's, "sexually repulsive".
I had no idea.
Seems that when it comes to things related to sexualness fat phobia is being seen as an opportunity to to offload those insecurities onto us to make us epitomize sexual pathology.
People just cannot stop being "shocked" that anyone could possibly... or some of us actually do, even though all we hear about is fat children and their fat parents.
This "shock" is like fatty contraception.
It seems many people really need fatness to represent ugliness, sexual rejection and as fat people can never not be implicated in this kind of projection, we are also sexual refusers. Through our bodies.
"Not saying fatness is fugly of course, just that everyone thinks it is so although it isn't, that means it sort of is."
Our fatness is always 'talking' to other people. Fat at ya indeed.
It’s a tribute to my own past as a “real fat woman” that I've failed to pick up on these insecurities in others, even though its not exactly hidden.
(And note how often we are told off for various mis appropriations of real women and yet constantly accused of being "false" or "PC" when we attempt to deviate from excoriating fat hatred).
Like general body hatred has become the authenticity of slim women, fat hatred is our version of this, great.
How has it come to this in the age of feminism?
Now I see this goes deeper than I realised considering it from the pit of loathing fat bodies can become mired in.
I never quite understood the intense identification of “real women” as devastating insult to slim women, as the original point was women in the flesh v women as image, as much as it is about weight.
Fat
See 4-FERTILE.
Slim.
Basically the stereotype of unsexualness speaks to a lot of people's deeply held fears, offloading theose onto fat people is a route to settling the issue, oh the irony. Our sexual insecurities are no different than anyone else's, but if we can be made to epitomise them, everyone else can be freed!
What this shows above all is how insecure we all are and how difficult that can be to perceive in others, unless we can all agree on who's, "sexually repulsive".
I had no idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)