Monday, 20 August 2012


I was going to respond at the blog in question, then remembered, that's not going to work. 
It’s also a good reminder that Health at Every Size is truly a weight-neutral approach – sometimes people do lose weight as a side-effect when they are doing what is right by their body (a lot of the time not, but it does happen on occasion, usually when other physical conditions are in play.)
Ok, but this still implies weight-loss is not a rational/acceptable personal goal.
It of course doesn't, its "weight-loss" not weight loss dieting that HAES avoids. It's the difference between weight loss and weight loss dieting again. Though it seems obvious the conflation can't get past the programming. That's why the pathetically emotive pretending not to be "anti science" accusation is so risible.

If your mind is frozen solid on an issue-apart from what what others say, your pompous arse is going to be hanging out with that gambit. If these people were so "pro science", like pro life we all are, you'd think they'd have noticed how absent real fat people are from the 'obesity field'.

And note the fatuous condescension;
I get that this is super fraught territory with tons of toxic cultural messages surrounding it
Oh do you really, well spotted. Because when women kick off-and frankly the anger of fat women is nothing compared to the inchoate meltdown of anyone daring to query the use of bourgeois sweeties (anti depressants)-it couldn't be because their intellect is being blocked and shut down by sexist levers or the even to me surprising anger at the violation the basic principle that its not who knows but the quality of what is known?

No, its the eeemeaushun of it all. Everyone knows women are more prone to hurt fee fees aren't they? Principles are for the menz.

This is why I'm glad not to bracket myself with this demeaning attitude feminism has sunk to in its glorious "intersectional" phase; so easily led by the male lead fat phobia. Well, that's all inclusive isn't it? Why should patriarchal arseholery that can trade on its ad hominem reputation, not shine out and discredit a group dominated by women. 

Who because of that, need to constantly "prove" they are not crazzee and illogical for thinking; get this; that this existence of theirs, is actually happening to them.


The seeming implication that WL(D) is not a rational blah, blah, is the "fraught" effect the commenter mentioned but of course, in their own mind, projected onto fat people. 

People have a pronounced tendency to only be able to see their own issues in fat acceptance because fat people are always wrong, it just "FEELS" so right. Like being drawn into a well worn mental groove.

By the way, I don't believe in set point theory either, not that it matters because on the internet people look for what confirms their hobby horse so they can have a whine arse rodeo, rather than seek those they might agree with and move the dialogue somewhere.

Well, we've all done it. 

It's homeostasis, or the body's self regulation that stops weight loss dieting from being feasible.  Though yes, that may differ for low amounts apparently up to about 10% and /or recent gain after long term slimness.

And no, it is not about gaining over a long term, it's whether the underlying setting of your weight has shifted or is just a temporary response to something.

Sorry, but I'm so far beyond bored around the world many times with this now that its hard not to sound annoyed.

N.B. Love this explanation of badness of quackery which is so apt for authority supported dieting. Though the writer was talking about comp med.  

No comments:

Post a Comment