Bad habits of self appointed calorie police

The conviction is someone made this person an expert in diagnostic medicine with the right to shout like a drill sergeant on crack, merely due to the level of his disgust of fatness? When did that happen?

Solution; Permission rescinded, you are now just a random arse who really needs to pipe down. People like this;

Presume to be above their own standards

Our hero insists "I'm tired" 3 times in his first two line paragraph (not for the last time in the article) yet admonishes;

You have an energy drink for breakfast. How many people do you see walking around with a jumbo can of fizz thinking they are providing 'energy' for their morning? These drinks are loaded with strange chemicals, sugar, and caffeine.

I'm presuming our hero has none of these in his pristine body yet seems as knackered as a retired stud horse.

Solution; Understand the energy hate drains.

NOTE: Inability to apply your own standards to yourself. I quoth;

It is the dumb choices of unhealthy people that make me angry

Solution; Acknowledge you are not "made" to do anything. Your anger, your choice. Be sure to audit yourself with your own standards.  

The incontinence of your loathing.  

You say things like: "But I hate broccoli". Guess what? So do I. But I eat broccoli and other fresh veggies because they contain nutrients my body needs.

Which relates to the previous. You've chosen lifestyle hate and yet cannot contain it within yourself.  Because you do an injustice to yourself-forcing things on yourself in a angry aggressive manner, you resent those who either aren't or appear not to be doing the same.

Solution; Recognise this leads you to feel like doing the same to others and treat yourself better. Your arrogant conviction that everyone sets as low a standard as you.

And it isn't only the overweight that get me ranting and raving. I'm also tired of hearing about skinny model wannabe's surviving on ciggies, energy drinks, and vodka-soda-fresh limes.

Get this, leave our skinny brothers and sisters alone. You do not endear yourselves to us by picking on them. We don't want you to spread your disgust, we want you to stop it.

Sensitizng yourself needlessly in this way is not a thoughtful stance;

I'm tired of obesity. I'm tired of the whinging and excuses. I'm tired of hearing about hospitals full of self-inflicted illnesses.

Solution; stop winding yourself up about it. This over stimulates your nervous system tiring it out unnecessarily. 

The addiction to junk food is one thing – but if you think adding diet cola will make a difference you're kidding yourself.

Get this, compulsive eating disorder is an eating disorder, not a weight.

Solution; Say over and again, eating disorder isn't weight. Until it becomes automatic.

The injury fat haters do to themselves cannot be contained within them. Many feel entitled to spread their misery. They are not. Entitled that is.

There's something unwholesome about witnessing someone in this amount of distress. The lack of self awareness, or awareness that others have done far more to far less effect and the vitriol aimed at others, because you're hurting yourself makes it hard to be sympathize. 

Join ends

The chimera turned weight into seems to prevent people's ability to rationalize at sometimes the most basic level. Even those usually rigourous in their reasoning and compassionate in their mental tone.

In terms of "risk" weight is a U-shaped curve. That means either ends of the spectrum have a similar level of risk.

No body as far as I know is directly disputing this, despite the reports of those determined to get it twisted-due to the quality of their own arguments. It's a general rule of biological function that outliers are displaying a more pronounced function of some kind or they would not be outliers.

There is a lot of straw being thrown about. For good people to take liberties with one another conscience must be stopped from getting in the way.

To get around this, it helps to compare the fattest, with the thinnest ends. Is there a nobesity crusade to mentally beat up v. thinz?

Nope.

Because whether at death's door or in rude health, that would only add known pathology, mental demoralization/disintegration, stigma etc., to any underlying state of health, good or bad.

That would make it malicious.

Though similar in prognosis the thinnest are not subject to the same level of scrutiny (rightly so), because even though many people die due to wasting away, that has no relationship to any desire to attack their self respect.

So when a fat person advances the argument that fatz should not need any harassment, abuse or aggression directed at us to tell us anything, ever, they are advancing the same notion the authorities have openly made; about the thinnest.
 
It's a default position for everyone-don't add insult to injury/ rub salt in the wound, because malice is malice and we are moral creatures who know what that is.

If it is "extreme" for fat people to now continue making this argument about ourselves; a typical expression of fat people's intrinsic untrustworthiness seeking to evade the consequences of what we are doing to ourselves yakka yah, then that is equally true of the authorities and their split emphasis.

Those who've taken this pose are showing they are not thinking, taking on the authorities hypocrisy lock stock and barrel, compromising their own morals because pater's doing it.

We all know where that can lead.

Isolated kinship

It's often said that fat people feel no kinship or identification with each other but that isn't so. Fat people often spontaneously commiserate with one another.

I remember this starting as a child. In more recent years way before fat acceptance, it was in confusion and puzzlement. There must be more to this, something just isn't right, it just can't be like just they're saying. What are they missing from the picture?

Fat people's situation seems to show that a kinship based solely around the kind of negative tropes wrought on us all, doesn't make for feelings of deep connection.

Although they say, misery loves company, it often seems more to imbue people with a sense of being isolated in their own private hell. When you feel in the wrong it's as if you're the only or worst one in the world.

That must be in the nature of intense negativity, it repels. Only when there is some positive spark does any real sense of connection or togetherness occur. Feeling in sympathy and in sync with others makes you feel blended in, you are no longer just one but part of a greater whole which has it's own dynamic and that can become an entity in itself. More than the sum of its parts.

When you are artificially lessened and reduced.You shrink inward and away from others. That process of a connected extra dimension doesn't occur. You do share that sense of disconnection though.

I was a bit surprised by those who say they don't know how to raise fat acceptance with fat people, now they've seen the light. I was raising it and others were raising it to me as a matter of course. At some point if anyone said something like "Oh, my diet's hard" I'd respond, "More than usual?"

That's usually all it takes for it all to come pouring out, the things so often unsaid. People say what they feel they're expected to say and if they know they don't have to, they can make it a choice for once. I don't know if I ever met anyone who hasn't chosen to discuss the facts, even some who've lost a lot of weight and are still in the "honeymoon phase".
  
With any aim or ambition you have to work for doubts are inevitable, despite those who succeed against the odds with their "I never doubted it for a minute". I rarely have no doubts. You set them aside in order to pursue your designated course. It's an act of will(power).

It's only after time when you see how things pan out and aren't working the way you assumed, that those questions creep back in. I say questions rather than doubts, because it's true. An extreme suspension of disbelief is required. It is therefore seen as a meter of good faith, so that was one of the last things to go. Doubt is the enemy.

Extreme negativity finds fellow feeling mostly in an individuated loneliness rather than connection beyond the self to a larger corp or group. Even when you get together that is carried with you until you rid yourselves of that extent of negativity.

Clueless

Much of the world has weaned its children via a method that inspired this. Pre chewing especially more challenging foods like meat or fibrous vegetables and fruits for instance, breaking them down enough to give an infant used to the breast a chance to manage them is probably still an international norm.

An infant has to get used to co-ordinating its teeth and mouth to chew properly on its own. Before the advent of things like blenders bypassed the need to turn foods into mush this way, it was probably the way.

Though hygiene may seem to be an issue, there is some evidence that in the womb and through being breast fed-if so-gives some kind of protection through a child being attuned to the mother's chemistry including that of her mouth, though it would be a clear route for the potential transmission of disease.

I love the ever so subtle pun on Alicia Silverstone's most famous role when this tiresome parochialism with attendant prissiness is the real cluelessness. Predictably they managed to get "experts" to insist danger, danger, red alert though actual quotes from actual experts were elusive, over and above someone in dentistry and a nutritionist.

It's about food and parenting isn't it? We have a policy to go ape whenever possible.

Though I'll say food can be chewed with the front teeth and then removed and put in the child's mouth by hand. Not that this would necessarily be more hygienic, but it doesn't always have to be passed mouth to mouth.

As the purpose is to soften and break down the food, not to reduce it to drool then "French Kiss" it to your kid. Which neatly brings me on to, what do people think the genus of that is?

Are we all still not supposed to notice the extensive overlap between sexual intimacy and certain themes of early childhood? Look at the absurdity over breast feeding and how tits are like only about sex and we're offended to see lactating milk ducts used to feed babes.

I don't wish to put this post click to agree to get naughty, so I won't spell it out any further. A cursory examination of the last time you got jiggy will I'm sure be enough.

I'm not trying to hate, if you're steeped in the parts of Western culture that elevate pointless squeamishness to an almost moral pose, it's not surprising that you may feel you don't know where to look.

But believe it or not, you can just decide to try and get over it, rather than invest it with an unnecessary permanence.  Breasts are designed to feed infants, men too can comfort infants.

What irritates in a so called global village is why so would it be so beyond the media to know or even sense enough to do a little research beyond going with ewwwwuh? All of this it's so out there so beyond yanno norm; well actually for many of the people who might be reading you, it isn't.

How can they be so out of touch that they think this is weird or somehow deeply eccentric? And note how it's invented by Silverstone, does it really look invented?

Absurd.

If you're sort of waiting for a goodbye note....

....so am I.

I just can't seem to quite get my thoughts together-in a way that has half a chance of making sense to anyone else anyway.

I'm just glad to be out of an atmosphere that has never been conducive to me at all. At first I was just happy and relieved to have lifted a burden off myself, now I'm finding that I'm starting to recover a sense of myself that I was losing. I'm getting caught up in that too.

I'm not sure about what I'm going to do with this blog, it just depends on whether all this leads to my mind clearing enough to sort out past and present posts.

What I planned with this blog was to give my best and if I can find ways to really make good on that, I most definitely will.

I haven't felt this good in ages though, so I'll hopefully see you over the other side of making some sense. Either way, I will address the situation as I feel it's only fair to let those of you who care at all know what's going on.

Thank you for all your support over the years.

Fat poppies

Looking at a definition of "Tall Poppy Syndrome" prodded feelings of recognition. There is some kind of fat mystique that is hard to read if you are fat especially as it is rarely referred to directly.

Usually TPS is seen as about "the politics of envy". For example people seeking parity are suggested to have a secret agenda of cutting down those who excel above the median out of aggressive insecurity.

In the case of fat people those usually complaining about cutting people down out of jealousy, feel angry when we cease to be defeated and beaten down by loathing. Instead of congratulating us for our triumph of trying to recover. There is real rage that our casting as inferior now makes us seem uppity.

Clearly we are to be cut down to size by being inveigled to define ourselves as "overweight" framed as having exceeded acceptable parameters, or the parameters of others. We are encouraged to disassociate from that which ends up with us rejecting our whole bodies because it's actually indivisible.

There is and has always been something disturbing threatening about fat people to those who aren't. Some clues are in the way 'obesity' is framed. The risible strong4life is an obvious example. Our potential strength is feared. We must be cast as weak. It's been a clever strategy to turn that into an attack. Recruiting us to attack and become detached from ourselves.

If you haven't experienced it and wish to know it's effects, try it seeing your body as weak and pathological, find out. It weakens you not only physically but mentally too. In terms of intelligence as well as emotionally. Helping to neutralize any extra strength, keeping it dissipated and unfocused.

 "Strong" through lifestyle anorexia and exercise bulimia. Strong through depriving oneself and using up one's energy to rigourously self police.

As you may know, the popular line of the 'obesity' crusade wishes to end fat people is not one I share. Though that looks like the promise, I don't see action backing it up. I think that the end is to get fat people to waste ourselves through wasting our time and energy. I believe that is the end, to keep us fat and exhausted  preferably sick. We've already been set up to be.

Is it ever right to tell someone how foolish they're being?

If anything lands slap bang on the mental jumble that is fat hating it's asking "Is it ever right to tell your child she's fat?" Oh I don't know, is it ever right to tell her she's slim, associating her with a small petty mind that seeks disconnection and dehumanization of others in the hopes of gaining some modicum of advantage in this scary cruel world? Of feminists trading in mysogyny of black people in "black shame" and equalist in classism? Is it right to associate a nascent female psyche with that motherload of sad small disappointment and hopelessness?

Wait, what if I change it to recognising some people are slim and there's nothing wrong with that? Yes, then I've side stepped the invention of a non issue born of my base idiocy and rank bigotry! I'm so lucky to be able to self improve at will, rather than to try it at the expense of others.

Willpower is a great thing indeed.

It's one thing to comment on the idea that fatness is so loaded with negativity that the impact of it has become a physical and psychological insult and quite another to behave as if that is the truth. Meanwhile it is this self inflicted presumption that is used to claim that we fat people are in deep denial or "not talking" about child 'obesity'. Remember, we only live in their heads.

Those who talk about what an F-word fat/ness just happen to be stroking their own battered egos. That they need to so much tells you just how wonderfully well managed their own state is. They go around saying how fat their thighs are, how bad their hair is, cutting down themselves and their minds to bond with other women or as a product of subservience to what women are. Then seek to stop themslves from drowning by leaning on our heads. Which is okay, we should just be prepared to sacrifice ourselves, rather than they looking at the way we are all including them socialized to cut ourselves down to fit in.

The parody of 'objectivity' in the title which just so happens to take for granted that fat is such an insult, is so unconvincing, it's like a bad joke. The sentiment reminds me of the arseholery of the past, when people affected to be offended by being called a lesbian. Until they enlightenment came and we all realised that being offended by being assumed to be a lesbian made you just as much of an arsehole as anyone who would try to use that to insult you.

We just have to keep learning the same lessons over and over again don't we? Just shift the same crap to a different form and we are at zero again. 

These people who've grown up with the idea that they own fat people, that we exist only as an extension of their imaginations and not in our own right are becoming inceasingly repellent in their venality. They are truly tiresome and unworthy of whole groups of us taking time to pander and explain the extent of their clowning to them. 

Going through the motions

Another example of how zeroing in on weight is a low percentage gain and easily goes way beyond it's usefulness. Instead leading to a rampant discourtesy too often bordering on dehumanizing.

Even if this woman;

[Aymeline Valade]

Ayemeline Valade has some kind of eating disorder or is going through some period of weight loss due to personal or even professional circumstances, shouting epithets such as "corpse like" is about the shouters.

Apart from a potential issue surrounding working conditions and industry standards, the appearance of weight concern is largely disingenuous. Part of the habit of using bodies as representations of the state of one's eating, in this case to suggest anorexia, rather than representing an actual person who's body happens to look like other people's bodies too.

The dogma of "thin models causing anorexia in young girls" has been undermined mostly by how children's weight is defined by the 'obesity' crusade. It insists the weight of children is caused mainly by parents. This expresses an underlying thesis of parenthood and childhood. It either works for all, or it doesn't work.

Babies are formed, nurtured and grow in the womb. After exiting, 'obesity' lore posits children as the product of a kind of extended ontological womb. They are formed as people, grow and are nurtured as an extension of this metaphysical womb.

What parents feel in their own bodies and think about is passed in some direct way to the child and in this way the parent is the main force in creating the weight of the child as an extension of their own attitudes especially if that is reflected in the parents own weight.

This also has to go for other things like mental function. Things like depression and other mental issues and so on. We aren't talking about being a little upset because the parent wouldn't by the latest toy, we are talking a child who's functioning mood is stuck in a dip. If the extent of a child's weight poses questions of family circumstance and abuse, the same must hold for a child who for a child's mood as this is more directly reflective of parental influence.

Those who accept the idea of parents creating the fatness especially defining it as a product of disordered eating, are defining parents relationship to their child and vice versa. Now I know there are separate lower standards applied to slim people, whilst being held to be better people than fat people. I know some feel they need to pay tribute to both this and the fact that fat people are held to a far higher standard of responsibility yet are held to be worse people.

I don't. Fat people set the standard for being human as much as any others. The standards set for them set the standards for everyone and vice versa. The rules applied to them apply where they apply to others equally.

I'm personally curious and believe in finding out all you can about potential cause/s. I am not motivated by blame and am interested in it, mainly in how it affects cause/s. So I'll leave those who are offended by what I've said, to be offended by having the standards they apply to fat people, applied generally.

Either way, It's past time to graduate from bodies cause other people's weight by now. Remember the 'obesity' contagion, accusations of 'promoting obesity' by merely posting pictures of fat people? Same line of reasoning mostly.

The weight of models is not what's fuelling the relentless rise of anorexia and other eating disorders. It's not even the desire for thinness as such, it's the route being pushed as the (only) way to attain it, restricting and expending calories. That is basically the same route as anorexia, increase the social and health value of slimness and you increase lifestyles that uses the same things as anorexia.

If anything the weight of models just reflects society's overall obsession from the top down and back again with slimness and thinness even better.

I'm sure we know this, but we have a desire to let some people off the hook, because understanding has become accusation and responsibility blame. It has become so toxic as to become a threat to the mental health of people.

The answer then is to leave it alone and look at understanding cause. If you trust people make available resources to help them understand, they invariably come to understand any part they may play in a useful productive and healing way.

Wishing to make that destructive is a desire to avoid actually dealing with the issues and an intent to allow them to get as bad as circumstances allow.

If it's acceptable to ask the parent of a fat child to transcend their food milieu, existence and life then it's hardly a trial to ask parents and other adults to explain to their children that models are professionals and are paid to be/remain rather slender.

They can admire them all they want, but as that isn't their life they don't need to look like them, what they need to look like is themselves because that is their life. It is unlikely that is too demanding therefore one has to conclude a lack of conviction and that is commitment to the crusade. And that comes first.

A certain mindset, part 1

Or the strange sensation of discovering (again) who you're supposed to be, in order for someone to be able to assert their case.

I'm aware that the mindset formed from the diet/weight hypothesis has trouble grasping anything outside its own rigid constructs. Anything which doesn't shore this up is a waste of its time because that takes up all its time. Its distance from a balanced view causes a chain reaction of distortion.

This is on top of my comment box;

try to understand exactly what it is you are disagreeing with.

I know anyone operating from this mindset can rarely manage it.

This is how commenter "anonymous" interprets the motivation of FA;

All this aside, if people just want to be happy with their bodies and feel they don't need or can't handle the stress of analyzing their diets/lifestlyles and making changes that's fine. I don't judge or think it's okay for others to judge. Being happy is a major part of health as well.

That's an example of the way that profound contempt cannot be covered by any extent of surface courtesy.

I can play;

If you need to fantasize to exert control over yourself and feel ashamed of that, its okay for you to impose them on everyone to stop any distance between you and reality jarring on your nerves. Feeling comfortable with yourself is part of health.

Not so good eh? That's a different cultural milieu for you. Where I come from, if you are trash talking, you are talking trash, no matter how "nice" your tone. You'd probably be called out louder for your 'failed' condescension and the presumption that those you're addressing are too stupid to see through it. Folks get more than enough of that from the impositions of their so called 'betters'.

Madness is somewhat defined by it's culture. A consensus of insanity effectively equals sanity. It takes on the appearance of it due to there being no contrast of views. We don't realise how much we perceive through mere contrast.

Similarly, if you can create and impose a consensus of agreed (or not) fictions, you can re-create 'reality' more to your liking. Those who have a genuine interest in function are told they are "in denial" because they refuse such an unbalanced view.

I doubt Anon has a clue what we've already "handled" and what we are still "handling"-Not. A. One.

The inability to assert a case without erasing the targets of your theories lives, experience, self connection, agency and sentience exposes the abject weakness of it.

I heart Gary Taubes

Those of you who aren't interested in weight and it's cause or function can look away for now. From the last post a commenter had some things on their mind.

I'd first like to address certain misunderstandings that tend to come up in these matters. I am aware that there is and has been  genuine study of fat human beings-Dr. Stephen O'Rahilly, springs to mind though he doesn't call his studies 'obesity'.

It makes it easier to see the last say 20 years have marked a shift from that towards dominance from a specific point of view.

'Obesity' for the main of its existence has been an extremely marginal subject. Mostly an underfunded backwater. If you look closely, it hasn't really emerged from this inability to combine sustained funding and genuineness. The idiological hype is formed by a need to surmount that, clearly, the question for what (motive) and to what end/s?

The blame for ignoring anyone's resarch goes solely to the field itself. It has taught everyone including myself how to see these matters therefore it is responsible for anyone within its corps being overlooked due to honesty that seems like lies- familiar no? Those who are genuine can also blame the same for their own struggle in isolation, I'm sure.

The idea of blaming the monkeys for dancing when the organ grinder has turned the wheel seems a reversal of noblesse oblige.

But there ARE people out there doing the research and helping thousands recover from diabetes, obesity, heart disease, hypothyroidism...modern diseases.

Leaving aside 'obesity', none of these conditions are specific to fat people. If they were, as much 'progress would have been made with them as has been made with leaving aside 'obesity', none of these have anything specifically to do with being fat, suggested by the fact that if they had no more progress would have been made with them than 'obesity' and weight change. And we all know despite flummery, nothing has been achieved. Calories in/out was discovered aeon's ago would have stopped  the adipocalypse before it started.

As for recovery from diabetes, I am intrigued, it appears to be incurable. What I know about type 2 is microscopic, but I'd say if anyone's recovered from it, it's likely they didn't have it. Recovering from 'obesity'doesn't require any assistance. You just stop play acting a poor miserable 'obese' and that tends to do it, though there is no defined route as yet. 

I also don't quite get this general point that these are modern conditions, as far as I can tell, only stuff like HIV are new and even there we are talking appearance or even context. There is nothing new about these conditions, they dominate more and more because certain infectious diseases are in the process of being vanquished, leaving more bodies to go along the courses they would have gone along in previous generations had there been a absence of pathogenic.

And, yes, it is something in our modern environment switching on genes that have always been there, dormant. genetic predisposition + modern "toxic" environment = modern diseases and obesity. This is especially true when people are nutrient deficient over many generations due to poor diet in their family history. It's a complex subject but there are answers out there.

The switching on/off genes/traits defines human function in general over time, how we adapt to our environs. You could say the same about any seemingly increasing human trait from asthma to autism-which is not an illness of any kind (that's the point) to homosexuality for different reasons or things like depression etc., which is a sign of distress.

Weight gain/fatness again is something else. It simply is a matter of personal inclination whether to interpret it as a pathology. Even if it is for pathological reasons it does not make it a pathology in itself. weight often acts to stop something more threatening to current conditions from happening, fusing those together just misleads. As we can see, those who deal in that have achieved nothing of any real worth and come up against the same brick walls of their own making. Recently this was 'solved' by yet again lowering the standard of surely a candidates for the most worthless drugs ever.

That will last until the current tranche mash up some or other organs-as believe me they will.

As I said, it could just be physical evolution given the way modern societies have progressed. iow, given the conditions, inevitable. So we can find a way to alter/manipulate actual function or we can leave well alone and accept it. Probably both.

What we cannot continue with (I'm speaking rhetorically because clearly "we" can) is this suspension of consequence that keeps people seeking to pretend to resolve this by beating up fatz.

Freaky...isn't

There's an intensity of desire to be "victimized" by fat acceptance-fat people in general for a similar reason. It's like FA's a wall and folks keep taking a long run at it hurling themselves hard, bouncing off and saying

"That wall hurt meeeeee!"

Still, certain things seem to irk FA detractors.  One is calling those who've managed to acquire anorexia, or long term dieters, "freaks of nature". Yep, this (still) has boo boo traction.

I wouldn't describe those who sustain a diet long term as "freaks of nature". It's not rude, just off kilter. It makes me think of those at the extreme ends of the weight scale.

I'm sure many of us assume they have some clear genetic predisposition to be at the top of the scale but it doesn't appear to be so simple.

Looking from the perspective we've been trained in, getting overexcited about people who's BMI is greater than 25, you'd expect those double that or more to have a more distinct sign, pattern or marker of difference.

Although some interesting possibilities and differing susceptibilities definitely lend themselves to weight gain, for various reasons. There isn't consistent uniformity over and above a propensity to gain (in some cases lose) weight. A spread of traits and/or genes of certain types more likely to congregate at certain points-like for instance the deletion mentioned or at the other point duplication, though they don't seem wholly deterministic in themselves.

The most unusual thing about weight outliers-of all types, including those of least weight, is that they are where they are.

Whether they're "reduced obese" or at the lower/ higher end, the most remarkably distinct thing about them, is that they are and they actually aren't "freaky" enough to signal why they as opposed to others who may (or may not) share their traits aren't.

That's an underlying truth of many conditions. So many more people fit the criteria for the activated state, but it's somehow dormant or inactive. The the trigger or spark or lack of it, is the real mystery.

Inside and outside genes (those who have genetic susceptibility to be lower/higher weights and those who do not), probability plays out. Low rate of chance means a relative rarity, has occurred. Yet probability doesn't have intent and the multifaceted complex and reactively nuanced nature of human metabolism is the closest thing to that beyond the interplay of environment and DNA.

Obesitay ay trez hard

If I ever hope to pray, I might include a request for just one thing that comes out of the 'obesity' chimera that doesn't get on my last nerve. Just how many times can a person say; FGS, FHS or even FFS?

I was reminded yesterday of course of this newish meme of "obesity is complex". Less than old because it was simple when it was all on fat people. Excruciatingly so.

When professionals hidebound by their reductive prejudice are in line of scrutiny it becomes really, trez hard.

Charmant, n'est pas?

As the current approach in this field is so extremely partial that it has painted it's own restricted view which doesn't make much sense, it is all that can be seen by most people, especially those who take it as gospel. Therefore a real picture is not accessible and cannot be accurately posited as "complex".

Weight and the metabolic function which produces it, could be complex. It could be challenging but accessible or surprisingly straightforward. Nobody knows as it has too often been woefully misconstrued from the beginning. Usually it's a case of to what extent.

The first point of studying anything is objectivity or as close to it. You can have a working hypothesis/theory, but that should be capable of taking on additional information as by what is revealed by the facts. Rather than an article of faith which the facts exist to be pressed into, in order to shore up your conviction.

You have got that backwards, you find out reality, you don't create it.

Calling a restricted and unbalanced view of fatness and weight in general that doesn't fit together properly anything is really a comment on your own point of view because that is so overweening.

If I give you the corner of a picture it's harder to describe the whole it is complex if you're trying to figure out the rest of the picture from that corner, rather than from looking at the whole. If anyone wants to find out whether 'obesity' complex or not.

They'd have to study it properly to find out.