Tuesday, 31 December 2013

The Scent of Cray Cray

What are the triggers of fat people's self-acceptance? Science, reason, logic? Clearly diet's don't work, self hatred is pointless (it only means you'll hit a point where you have to go into reverse) and punitive etc.,

Is it being loved and supported by family, friends, a significant other? Discovering that you are desired by potential lovers? Feminist analysis of how the position of women takes a toll on how they perceive their own bodies. Humanism and so forth?

All these. 

The other could be catching the scent of cray cray. Or, fat phobia is actually unhinged.

Now, this terminology may be upsetting for some people.

We make basic errors of reasoning all the time. One of them has been to identify craziness as purely in the symptoms of mental disorder. This I think is an error. "Craziness", biochemical imbalance in the brain and/or nervous system, produces certain symptoms; mania, hallucinations, incoherent addled thinking, mood disorder, delusions-not being able to tell reality from fantasy.

It is not the only possible creator of many if not all of those symptoms though. That's may also be why sane people are called crazy, rather simply using mental illness as an insult.

Wrong thinking, that is uninterrupted and continues on and on. Ideas that should be rejected by our basic critical faculties, but are instead accepted and extrapolated from can if persisted with produce symptoms more usually associated with underlying imbalance. Even if you have none.

Hence terms like "wing-nut" for those who's political or religious views are an implosion of any discernible kind of rationalism.

Now, the habit of calling the sane on their crazy has been deemed stigmatizing those with mental or intellectual disorders. I've no pressing desire to revive calling sane people this 'c' word on the basis of them being genuinely batso in some specific area or areas. It must be said though that this assumption is incorrect.

It also must take some responsibility for the recent and swift conflation of criminal mass killings for instance as the product of mental illness. Indeed, it has almost made evil and madness interchangeable. I've always felt this was the beginning of a lot of modern stigma against the mentally ill. Along with other things that aren't mentioned.

The madness of sane people can be worse than that of those who's symptoms are from an underlying biochemical imbalance. Their sanity makes them more able to act on their deranged thoughts more effectively. They are less likely to be stopped by intervention of others as the disabling effects of internal imbalance tend to derail someone who's mind is not functioning properly. There may well be a lack of intent too.

There is of course overlap. Wrong thinking of all kinds, often brains scrambled by trauma can add to momentum dragging someone toward mental crisis and be reflective of it.

But there's no doubt, that we can all become unbalanced by pursuing lines of irrationality way beyond all reason and there needs to be a way to acknowledge this. Reserving this only for those who are unwell, further others their experience.

I've learned more about mad logic from those advancing the 'obesity' construct than I ever have from someone who's mind isn't working properly.

For years, like many, I accepted what I was told about being fat. About that being my direct deliberate choice, despite knowing it wasn't. I accepted what and who that made me, despite their being little evidence that it was, I thought it must be.  I acted on that. I harmed myself in different ways. Yet never did it occur to me to question it, I saved that for looking at others, I didn't think of them in the way I thought of myself.

Only when I finally got a real sniff of the sheer unhinged nature of what investing in the construct of 'obesity' does to people's minds, did I come to my senses somewhat. You know the scent I'm talking about?

Ever been near a really volatile person who's holding it all in? Your animal senses feel they kick off at any moment. Have you smelt that edge? That's the smell I'm talking about. The feeling that if this takes off, it won't be easily stopped and take down much in its path.

When perfectly decent people started to saying, yes, fat people deserved to die because they were fat. That was the final awakening for me, that's when I had to face the fact that no, this wasn't right after all.........

Monday, 30 December 2013

Because it doesn't work and we all know it

I couldn't help but be amused by the latest weight watchers ad campaign running over here in the UK. The tagline is; "Because it works", puh-leazzzze.

I don't know what planet the slimming industry is on, if they think they can pull that trick again. Of just asserting that dieting does work, when it has clearly failed and millions of people are learning to recognize that.

They no longer have the medical card to pull, or do they? The profession has sold its patients out on the pretence that they're the experts on weight loss. Surely they can only get away with saving the weight diet industry once?

This is effort is partly a tribute to fat acceptance, but it's mostly tribute to the good sense of fat people who've finally woken up to a dud. I don't doubt that it helps that we're surrounded by people who feel its acceptable to take pills to turn their smiles into frowns. Sorry, but if you rely on sunshine or calm out of a bottle, you can hardly tell people to struggle with a primary element of their life force as if that would be less unfeasible.

Though weight watchers has long since relegated its fatter clients to the background, featuring chubbies. Five minute fatties who are basically slim but temporarily expanded due to child birth, grief, depression and other things people expect to get stuff from their doctor for. It can only get away with so much with them too. Despite the fact that obviously they know what is like to be slim, so, know what they're losing/have lost.

Like all slimming lore, it requires fat people to be under the cosh to motivate, read scare others, tragic sad, hunted and haunted, aspiring to anorexia in order to keep the fat phobic engined chuntering on.

I don't believe it is necessary for fat people to hate themselves to keep dieting going. But its certainly felt that the nature of dieting makes it incompatible with self love and kindness towards oneself.  It also help dieters who's too often bitter self denial and reproach finds relief in beating up on fat people.

Fat people are increasingly refusing to go along with this, messes up this equation.

So, keep pretending people can't see their hard won semi-starvation induced weight loss snap back in their faces in a half or a third of the time it took to grind out that loss. And we'll keep questioning why there's nothing better for those who need or want it.

Nope, not like cancer

Apparently, people have a lot of trouble grasping why the 'obesity' construct is defunct, useless, doa. Just to recap I don't mean 'obesity' to refer to fat, fatness or fat person/people, though that is who it refers to. I mean the idea that it is disease.

Not "a disease" because that's its first fundamental flaw. It ends up defining bodies therefore people as disease. By defining humanness as slimness and fatness as a covering, it tries to pretend that all people are slim and fat people are slimz with a fat suit of disease. This doesn't work because we are whole.

You can see this through what happens when people try to lose weight. Their mythical slim bodies do not yield the foreign fat. The body reacts as a whole and when the body shrinks, it still behaves as if it is fat, whilst not being that size.

What we describe as the almost inevitable "regain" is actually the reassertion of a size that was never really lost. Only attacked and overwhelmed, only for it to strike back with a vengeance as time goes by.

Part of the legacy of the religious separation of soul-seen as the essence of self- from body means the idea that we aren't our bodies is deeply ingrained. Even secular folk claim to be "living in" their bodies, as if they are a tiny little essence that lives somewhere within the larger structure that is their body.

This melds with the fact that our mind is self reflexive-meaning it can observe itself, in action. This gives the impression of two. Imagine if your mirror image could observe you observing yourself.  

Whilst I don't seek to abolish that, we must remember than objectively speaking-we are our bodies, whether that feels right or not. We are. When someone defines us physically as disease, they define us as disease.

This is not a viable proposition. It's one that should be rejected on hearing. It isn't though and this is causing a lot of conceptual problems.

I'd say it is the basis of why fat people aren't "taken seriously". If you know anything classed as neurosis, it will eventually take over your mind. If it becomes serious enough, you will start to become as much or more the voice of it as much as you are yourself.

This is how fat people's first person testimony is viewed, there can be no distance between them ,and the disease of themselves.

In psychological terms, this kind of mess is usually only experienced by people in extreme states or out right mental illness. There's something rather schzoid about it. You are yourself but psst, some of you isn't-don't tell that part I said so!

Only those with the kudos to get people to accept ideas uncritically could get away with inserting this kind of nonsense in everyone, including the self respecting. As well as fat people themselves. That's why FA is recovery. It's when you realise how crazy this shit is. And yes I said crazy.

It's a vicious cycle being seen as the voice of the disease of you. you cannot be taken seriously, because you're disease. And no, that doesn't happen to people with cancer, though they have their own crosses to bear.

Nor is it like alcoholism or drug addiction. Neither of which are diseases either, but they're habits anyway,  not bodies.

Of course it must be said, fat people should not take most criticisms of their self acceptance seriously either. 

Monday, 2 December 2013

Speaking for himself

A too rare voice is welcome. Billi Gordon is a 500 lbs plus man, whose top weight was 970. He's a PhD in neuroscience who has compulsive overeating disorder (CED) as he might call it, or hyperphagia/polphagia nervosa (HN) as I probably would.

One of the many objectionable things about 'obesity' has been the way it attempts to formulate some kind of understanding, without the human angle. something that's unprecedented for something to do with human biology.

As has been proven again, the more you hear from fat people-of all types and states- the more fatness makes sense.

I wish him well.

Sunday, 1 December 2013

Your thin or slim body is no insult to mine

See, this is the kind of thing that gets fat people into even more unnecessary trouble than we already have. In short, a Norweigan health 'n' fitness trainer-who happens to be the girlfriend of footballer-posted a selfie of her abdomen four days after giving birth. She is thin and it is flat.

What do I think?

People's bodies are not statements of meaning.

Positive objectification is still, objectification.

People's bodies are not against your own.

Nub: Bodies are not talking to your dumb arse.

If you think so, that's likely because you see weight solely in terms of calories in calories out. This means that if a body is fat, its overate. If a body is thin, its underate. The two only diverge if you're the type that cannot sustain an underlying thesis-which is-bodies = calories.

Luckily, I know this isn't true. From observation of others, even more than personal experience, though that has been instructive enough.

Therefore I know that some women's bodies appear largely unadjusted by pregnancy. This is relative of course. This woman Caroline Berg Eriksen's life is exercise and fitness. The women I've known were just living their lives, yet, their stomachs flattened themselves. Presumably, on the face of it, they're even more "lucky" than her?!

It's not unheard of for a (thin/slim) woman to double her weight in one pregnancy, yet others already fat, put on nothing or a fraction of the (previously) acceptable 21 pounds.

I personally know of a few women who left the maternity ward-after a couple of days, in the clothes they wore before they were pregnant/were showing. I know women who lost weight after having children, one quite dramatically, she used to be fat and became thin, not slim thinnnn. I've seen women beat up by pregnancy, age 10 years, look like they've had the life sucked out of them. Ended up thin of hair. Oh, that's just visuals.

It's turned inside out and out of their minds, never to really recover them. Trust me, "luck", is way more than appearance.

I've no sympathy for the whining "because I've hated myself since I was twelve". That is not the voice of those trying to reclaim their humanity. That's the voice of hustling the body hierarchy. People like that can have it.

For years, now I've watched as mostly slim to plump women have insisted on turning thin women's bodies into some kind of insult against them. Framing them grotesquely as being the cause of "eating disorders"-anorexia. Using that as a crude way at undermining the currency of thin, they themselves largely supported by desiring to be thin themselves. Happy to buy into the abuse of fat ones which they also turn into an insult that bites them on the arse if they fatten a tad too much.

I used to wonder why thinz never seem to tell them baldly to stop riding them like this. To the extent that I began to wonder if they perhaps didn't care in some way. To my astonishment, it was when fat acceptance revived on the nets, that the missing critique was dumped on us. Yes, apparently this mis-use of slim bodies came from fat people hating thinz!!! That was ironic given some many fat, myself included actually identified more with the plight of thinz and not with the women misusing them/their bodies. After all, we know how that feels even better than they do.

I realized, they're playing some kind of tag team on this. Snooze. 

Since then, fat acceptance often via "body positivity", has been lumbered with this crude attempt to undermine the false value accorded to women who are less than slim. Especially with the endless squawking about this unconvincing  "real women" meme that travels purely on the currency of the halo effect of class, race and slimness.

I will say this again fat people cannot solve slimmer people's petty positioning, hatreds and resentments. We've got enough on thanks. And if thinz aren't going to take it up with those dealing this, directly, naming and shaming exactly who's up to this, expect them to keep doing it.  

Friday, 22 November 2013

The macronutrient whirl

Too much fat, causes fatness. Fat's bad for the heart. No, a largesse of weight is caused by too much starch. No, not enough protein. No, too much sugar.

That's where it is now.

Been here before.

Round and round and round the macro nutrient wheel. In a dizzy whirl, never really getting anywhere.

Fat. Carbohydrate. Protein.

We have to keep going round and round in circles, just like we go round and round in weight loss dieting circles. Rooted as we are by the insistence that this is the answer. Dietary manipulation is the key to weight.

It causes all sorts of distortions. Rotten and absurd constructs like "food addiction," people as disease life lived as a treatment for the disease of existence, eating disorders as the treatment for eating disorders. All either created or shored up by the insistence that eating the right make up for foods, will lead to trim.

It sticks you in a corner and means you cannot get out of it. So are condemned to keep rustle the objects there. Picking things up and putting them down, like someone who's lost something they cannot find. 

But you know what? Even if this was the answer. Since when does there have to be one answer-for those who need/want it?

Why has this particular avenue become a monotheism?

Tuesday, 19 November 2013

A Grip on your Heart

There's a saying, the best way to create a bully is to bully someone. Equally, the best way to learn to be victimized, is to bully others yourself. Watching them for the signs of your impact of your actions on them, unwittingly trains that aspect of your own consciousness. You become ripe for someone else to exploit that in you.

The reverse of that is also true. Defending others from bullying trains your own defences.

You'd be surprised at how effective that can be. Seems, fighting back is more effective, from being in the ring for others. Defending others exercises your own defences.

It's harder from a standing start, let alone being wrong-footed by a sharp change of direction. The reason why I was so ready for FA, was not because of self absorption, in some ways, I wish! It was because a lot of the themes I speak of, I had witnessed in others before 'obesity' reached it's current pitch of impacted almost banal disdain.

Whether through race, sex and class. A lot of the consequences of its themes were not wholly unfamiliar. 

Even on a lesser more simplistic level. I'd noticed the way others on the medical shit list, i.e. drug addicts were pathologized. Then had many of their thinking, reactions and behaviours, pointed out as evidence of their innate pathology. Yet, a lot of this turned out to be just them displaying the human nature that's in all of us.

Sound familiar?

I noted the overwhelming defensiveness of "normalcy" which increasingly seems a construct born of the kind of big tent conglomeration of factions you see in political parties. What's surprising is its viciousness. Being "normal" is seen as boring and everyday. Underneath that, it reveals itself to have a vicious and visceral thuggishness, violence generating, constantly on the prowl for potential threats of revelation of its not quite so natural as all that -ness. Many artists have explored that in books and films.

I'm sorry, I drifting a bit into the purple.

People are slowly beginning to wake up to the implications of 'obesity' or, defining being human as a disease state, whether they realise that or not. It's a cliche that the way unchecked power can manage to get one over on people, is to start with those who are seen as worthless and deserving of any old treatment.

One of the many downsides of creating excessive and unnecessary social hierarchies is that authority's bad behaviour cannot be so easily seen, let alone assessed until it gets to those who's value is taken more for granted. At that point, much time has been lost-if it isn't too late. Even then, the ability to return fire has been stifled, if not stymied.

The American Heart Association just published new set of guidelines for defining risks of heart disease.

After another group of medicos defined humanness above BMI 30 as disease. The AHA are now staking their claim to interfere in people's lives on the pretext of prevention. As fat activist types have repeatedly tried to point out, heart disease as "obesity related" is disingenuous. This is where  'obesity', heart disease collide.

Apparently, hyping up risk to brand people as sick, in order to gain a control over their lives, thoughts actions and behaviours, is somehow a bad thing. Imagine that! It isn't when its people you don't care for. It's increasingly clear that between the grotesquely indulgent hate-fest that's been going on, no real discussion has been had about some of its more major themes;
  • Using health dangers, realistic or contrived to gain a hold over people's lives in a way that is as invasive as any devout religion.
  • The seeming irrelevance of basic notions of medical consent
  • Reckless hyping of health risk, use of panic to unseat people's ability to engage with information on a rational basis. iow, getting people to act from a place of fear rather than reason. [Often by trading and manipulating deepest fears].
  • The undermining of  the promise to "Above all do no harm."
  • The ability of science and medical professions to bypass public accountability and eschew consultation
  • Turning the process of being human, from biology to behaviour into disease processes
  • The increasing blurring of sanity with insanity, health with ill health
  • The use of the physical/physiological to define character, morals behaviour and thinking
  • Framing illness and disability as individual choice and as cost
  • The reintroduction of sickness as the wages of sin/incorrect behaviour etc.,
  • Turning human behaviour into something that can or should be dictated to by med professionals
  • Infantalizing adults with the irresponsible bandying around of the mis-used terms such as 'addiction', 'illness' 'disease'.
  • Pathologization of childhood and children through this
  • The irrelevance of privacy, from employers, society in general as well as other professionals
  • The promotion of disordered eating and eating disorders, mutilation, drug dependence.
  •  Being judged in a legally binding manner outside the aegis of jurisprudence, therefore the absence of access to professional, expert defence
  • The taxing and potential impoverishment of you on said basis
  • The pathologization of human basic needs, food, eating, and so on.
  • Depoliticization of inequities and social pressures. Re-framing societal hierarchies as individual concerns i.e. things out of ones control, being defined as within ones control and the responsibility of those on the receiving end. 
Some of us have tried hard to get a discussion going but our spoiled identity (shockingly so), got in the way. When you are the disease, your voice becomes obscured to the point of silence or are perceived as an atonal whine of pathology. Now others are getting to share in such attentions.

We shall see.

This is happening in America, so I should feel removed by distance. But it's not that simple. These kinds of decisions creep elsewhere, insidiously. The places where discussion usually happens are still stuck deep in the cult of anorexia worship and 'obesity' quackery of the crudest kind. Little to no worthwhile discussion of this has been able to happen. No deviance from the 'obesity' construct and its trail of false or inflated pathologies is permitted or able to occur in terms of where people are psychologically.

Which means that this sort of thing flows into that.

I am feeling tired of this shit right now. It don't think I've ever experienced a situation that's so easy to grasp, so easy to stop from getting out of hand, where it has been made almost impossible-artificially so-to get people to consider the implications of the direction this is all taking.

Right now, I just don't care. I feel, to heck with it and everyone concerned.

Tuesday, 12 November 2013


It's the 30th Anniversary of the US publication of a book called "Shadow on a Tightrope" this Friday. For many its an inspirational and seminal FA text. It's a collection of all sorts of writing, personal testimonies to poems on being fat. I got a hold of it at some point, it wasn't for me to be honest, but its worth a look. Maybe I'll peruse it at some point.

I do remember reading a horrible piece that felt like it went on forever, about a woman who had, I think, more than one weight loss operation. In those days, progressing to a figure of 1- 2 in 100 deaths-post surgery had yet to be reached.

It was horrible in so many ways and totally convinced me of what an insult "weight loss surgery" is to human beings. Even writing the term disgusts me, surgery for weight loss. Unbelievable. There's no doubt in my mind that there are potential avenues (always have been) for reversing or advancing weight. Such as manipulating gut bacteria. The issue with that is the same as that of calorie restriction; homeostasis overruling it. However, barring any problems with infection, it doesn't hurt, seek to attack the body, or cause pain. I really don't give much of one about those who think everyone should just live with being fat or thin. That's not really for anyone else to say.

The problem as I keep saying is the calorie restriction/wastage strategy. 

Not only that, it doesn't make sense. Human metabolism is a biological function. Understanding it and being able to manipulate it must occur, even if weight woes didn't exist, because of metabolic disorders like diabetes-all types, PCOS. And even mental disorders from neuroses like depression, to eating disorders. Even psychotic conditions too, given some anti-psychotic meds can also cause weight gain. There's no doubt that there's a relationship between metabolic function and mental health. Understandably, as its the basis of our bodies regulation and restoration of our material selves.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's potential for some resolution for something like alcoholism perhaps some ideas on correcting the underlying dysfunction of drug addiction too. Because that's caused by the body's reaction to ingesting an external supply of chemicals (drugs) that it makes itself. The body reduces production, to avoid overdose-when drugs are taken.

The key to reversing addiction more successfully, is to get the body to restore normal levels, which may have been compromised slightly in the first place-leading perhaps to drug seeking behaviour in the first place.

Alcoholism is different, but there too, metabolic rebalancing could assist even the more chronic and intractable cases. Anyone who's seen long term alcoholic decline even its dementia knows how much suffering that could end.

For many, especially the archetypal story of a traumatic upbringing, it's really a cycle. Manipulation via nervous system and/or metabolism, could aid recovery from such and other kinds of trauma. Grief that becomes impacted and even things like PTSD.

I'm getting ahead of myself, but the point is, metabolic function is either resolution or a stepping stone to getting closer to resolutions of many conditions as it is central to maintaining our existence. As you know, sometimes, a development doesn't in itself provide answers, but becomes a stepping stone to putting you in a position to see what you couldn't see from your previous position. Even if you cannot quite reach from there.

So, the idea of treating being fat as like being gay in that it's offensive to even go any where near changing it has never been tenable for a second, though I understand why some feel that way. And shocking though it may seem, I'm not even convinced gay people will avoid options on that score either.

It just doesn't work like that. Things are discovered often because they're needed for something perfectly innocuous or righteous, only for the underlying mechanics to be applicable elsewhere. Because guess what?

Biology is biology and it doesn't give a damn about any ideology of offense. No matter how justified.

Monday, 11 November 2013


Reading around things like the NSA, wikileaks and big data. One thing we can say is that those with power and influence love the idea of getting to know us intimately. Whilst of course being repelled by us being able to do the same, with them.

They don't simply wish to know us, they wish to see right through us in microscopic detail. How we think, feel and behave. It's amusing that there's an open desire to read our brains/minds and few can seem particularly exercised by the prospect of having no privacy, from the PTB even in your own skull! I like the way they talk about scientists, because this would so not find itself in the hands of commerce* and politicians?

Of course, fatz are already experiencing an earlier, primitive and somewhat skewered incarnation of this urge. I'm sure I've said before that being fat is often like being straight out of the 1950's, (at times, more like the 1850's.)

Given this, the 'obesity' construct, being ahead of the information age, turns this wishful thinking on its head. Instead of finding everything out about a generic fat type-there isn't one, but that's one of the wishes-it saves effort by making it up and projecting it on to its fat template.

The parodic elements are you are the disease to be studied like life forms are under a microscope. Oh humans are a "complex" disease. 

Instead of spying on your actions and nosing in and reading your own actual words and thoughts. It cuts out the middle man-you- helpfully, making up what's supposed to be going on in your mind. Expecting you to act according to this. Yes, you're expected to act out this is, you're admonished severely when you deviate and report your true experience.

Having established falsehood as reality. Real reality becomes the falsehood, the delusion. You are the deluded/in denial. The latter assertion, especially, is notoriously hard to refute. As that is itself seen as evidence.

The 'obesity' canard is wish-fulfillment of a certain type from a certain class born to administrate, if not rule. The desire is for them to know anything and everything about us, through any means. It's also the similar for the specific type who wish to participate in something accorded the scientific moniker, without the same mood eviscerating rigour of the real thing.

Not for them is following the truth without fear or favour, examining failure because that leads to knowledge, understanding, progress and mastery. They prefer to have all the answers beforehand. So they know what they're seeing.

*probably working on their own version/funding research as we speak

Friday, 1 November 2013

Reclaiming the (Waste) Land

Urban farms and gardens seems to be part of the way forward for food deserts. Things begin to make sense. The issue presented as privileged access versus lack hasn't quite in the past. Where I come from, that "privilege" didn't get there by grace of the powers that be. It got there due to the efforts of ordinary people, many immigrants who wanted to eat the foods they liked. I felt sympathetic, but couldn't see how that wouldn't have to come from people's desire to find ways to bring it about.

 Nikki Henderson-of People's Grocery

I knew that it wasn't long ago that African Americans and PoC and/working class people had a similar taste for fresh food, many of them still do and that I believe is probably underrated. That had slipped away due to various pressures-from marketing to the economic model adopted for supermarkets, which ceased to make sense for some inner city locales.

Growing food in the urban environs is an inspiring and effective way around this, where appropriate. Reclaiming disused land, putting front/back yards into use, as has been noted, what you grow you eat. We are designed to eat from our environment, what our eyes see. Though culture does play an important, sometimes overwhelming part. A grafted on one, created from sub-religious healthism isn't that. Itself an artificial additive, another side of the food hating culture of big business that puts profit before pride in its products and respect for ingredients.

Bryant Terry-Chef and Author

The only excuses are for calorie restriction

Aye, aye, take a look;
The use of the term food addiction is a step towards medicalisation and implies that normal human social behaviour is pathological. Forms of eating therefore become an illness. This attitude is not helpful and has huge implications for the way in which people view their own behaviour and their lives.
Well, it's weird when someone partially gets it. That happens when the mainstream 'obesity' view is your basis of opinion. its nice to catch someone else saying this. Still, this is right! This has profound implications for pathologizing eating to the point where children learn to feel as ashamed and disgusted about eating as generations have felt about their sexual organs. 

Sugar is what most of your food is turned into before it can be directly absorbed into the cells. So, eating it means that it requires little to no processing. It's very quickly is converted into energy. That makes it not "addictive" but highly efficient, useful. Addictive is what they're using to explain this ease of conversion. 

"Overeating" is mainly defined as what fat people eat. It has no objective definition. No slim person can be said to overeat per se unless they want to. Medicalizing what fat people eat just changes the terms from Dante to the current craze in pseudo-medicalization/science.
I am concerned that many people may potentially latch on to the concept of food addiction as an excuse to explain their overeating - the premise that it's "not my fault" and therefore, "I can't help it".
Yeah, not because that's false, but because that's already happened time and again. Notice he gives no specific examples, he daren't. There's solidarity in favoured identities. And also fear.

Warning others that fatz will use this as an excuse (to do what?) is a bit rich though. Whatever it is we supposedly make excuses for, but actually rarely have had. Reporting calorie restriction failure is not an 'excuse' because you're on a thin rope with your investment in it.

It is fat haters who accuse us of this to protect their weight loss diet dirtbaby. Projecting their own excuse laden mentality to privilege themselves, and use what they say to fat people to reach their well barricaded (from critique) psyches.

Because not a hair on their heads must be touched by anything so unpleasant as-what they've repressed out of sight-but clearly their deeper mind hasn't forgotten.

That happens when you run too much from yourself and feel at liberty to have an open-ended critique of others.  The thoughts you repress escape shouted at those you criticize.

Monday, 21 October 2013


A little word on this Maria Kang incident. To sum up this non-event, Ms K decided to post a picture of herself and her three children, aged 8 months, 2 and 3 years on her f***book page topped off with the headline; "What's your excuse?"

This triggered a kerfuffle, cries of fat shaming plus defence of her. My response was indifference to the image. I was going to ignore the whole thing, buuuuut (yet again), I was exercised a bit by the response.

I must admit, fat shaming has never been my favoured way of representing the trouble with being fat. Its become the lingua franca for expressing it and that's that. Its popular as it is one of the few things the fat hating world can seem to understand (fat hating mashes the IQ) and that fat people also can grasp so makes them feel how they should but rarely feel. In charge of defining their own experience.

It doesn't convey that the real issues are about a cultural hegemony that is supported and fuelled by the influential medical establishment. Rather than simply emotive.

I'm not particularly sympathetic to those who moaned about people like this. It features something I detest and has no name, when people who would count as having disabilities, use them as a get out clause for being hated. As if it's somehow okay to hate those who do not have disability induced fatness.

People should be able to tell the truth about their situation, without implying that their disability is some kind of exemption pass. Though its not quite as bad as those who list their litany of good behaviour, it runs.

The best thing to do with people like Ms Kang is to laugh or pity them, not get on the defensive- when there are truly things to get on the defence about. Like being cast as disease. That's something everybody should be up in arms about.

The premise of "excuses" is something central to the whole 'obese' bogey. You are supposed to lose weight through dieting. That doesn't work. Because that truth is rejected, your placed the back foot if you cannot assert that. Reality being cast as "an excuse." We need to learn to stop falling into this trap, making it clear we know assertions about weight loss diets are mainly about belief.

Belief does not an argument make, as it depends not on reason, but the suspension of it.

I find this kind of mentality peculiar. It loves itself in a way that erases all faults, requiring them to be shifted onto others and expected to be borne by them. It's a kind of love I would neither wish to give nor receive. That kind I need is that which recognises faults and loves anyway. That to me is true tolerance.

A word much assailed by the type of brats who've not yet seen past their privilege, but when done properly, is a true state of grace.

You need a love that can tell you to stop being an arse when necessary and one that understands that your faults are just the other side of your strengths and that you can't really have one without the other, no matter how desirable that seems. Not one that's so disgusted, that it as to pretend they don't exist, only to see them in others. Because that's not how we are.

The kind of love represented by Kang's mentality used to just unnerve when I was locked into trying the calorie wastage game. It now repulses psychologically and physically, now I've had a chance to truly examine the cost to those who are dumped on by its incontinence. There is no separation now, I can see it all too clearly now.

I don't envy her or her kind and I'm sure she's not bothered one bit by that.

Which is okay because I'm sure my kind repels her, and that's okay by me too.

Saturday, 19 October 2013

Personal Responsibility II

This idiot's obviously referring to the AMA's recent mind numbing decision, so why didn't he say that? It's just has to be the "fault" of fat people. Even though its obviously the fault of his own profession. That tangle is courtesy of the absence of criticism of fat phobia. Slim privilege doesn't like to confront itself, even when it is disgusted by itself.

Producing the weird phenomena of people who disagree defining mood disorder as disease, refusing to state that openly. Yet critiquing it all the same, by projecting it onto fat people. Weirder still, you've got people who do agree with defining mood disorders/neuroses as disease also dismantling that trope in fat people. Suggesting that they're agreement with is purely predicated on the amount of sympathy they feel for a person.

To put it in their favoured allegory, if two people broke their leg, they'd put the one they liked in plaster and tell the one they didn't to take "personal responsibility".

The suggestion here is of fatness = mental problem + eating because of said mental problem. As mental problem is supposed to equal something you can't just get rid of-its a chemical imbalance/"disease like cancer".

You get a totally different attitude to the same thing. Though fat people are supposed to have two parts, mental and its physical marker. By some magic, two are supposed to be more soluble than having just one mental part. These people have become bootstrappers. They would bitterly decry this as the ultimate in stigma.  They're forced into this ludicrous position, that goes against their grain, due to their refusal to acknowledge the truth about calorie restriction.

 I've said this so many times, it beggars belief. Well, it should.

This is all set in the refusal to study fatness and/or fat people honestly. Instead, it's forced into categories that already exist for other purposes.

It does not fit any of them. Nothing truly fits a category until properly define it on its own terms. Then you can see where it fits, overlaps or neither. Because fatness, weight doesn't fit, it ends up being a suggestion of all things and none.

A further nonsense is it's been defined as 'disease' for ages. That never came from studying fatness objectively, but from deciding it was all bad. It never bothered with underlying process, until most people were on board with it as disease and could see it only in those terms. Unlike other abuses of the word, it was used precisely to stigmatize and de normalize being fat. To suppress it, by forcing people to diet.

People compare it to things like alcoholism, but that's not a person. Ditto smoking, drug taking. Seeing bodies as excess calories, still cannot do it. Its really the absence of sustained or rigorous critique that allows that.

On the one hand, you have "obesity researchers" and medical professionals claiming people are disease, others raging against excess calories being seen as anything but conscious volition. But, instead of having it out with each other, both sides keep addressing their arguments to fat people. Not to persuade or charm, but as if we're the ones making the arguments they're objecting to, without addressing the source. This is unusual.

Parts of their arguments fall over each other. Fat is sick, but not disease- because that could slip it into the 'behavioural disease/addiction' category, which would mean the onus of doing something would go where it usually is, on those who get paid for that.  For some reason, they seem to think that's over the top.

I'm not sure there's much point in saying fat people should consider pointing this out, especially to those who apply different rules to themselves. Anyone who talks this version of "personal responsibility" should live by it.

We also ought to make clear that fatness doesn't fit any of these categories. Not disease, addiction, neurosis, mental/behavioural disorder. It is metabolic, it is lead by the body. Yes, other things can be too, no doubt, however weight is more so, we can see this by the low efficacy of calorie restriction. It just doesn't make sense that this would be so if fatness was all in the mind. 

I said earlier that looking at the mental state of fat people is an unknown quantity. Many of us have experienced changes mental and physical through letting go of the 'obese' mentality. I always felt if everyone received good life counselling, we'd increase the health of the population, manifold.

So yeah, if you pick out a randomn group of people and improve their mental health, you'll probably do that. I doubt you'll make them all routinely slim, effects may vary and may be minimal to most.

As usual, no trials have been done, that's the way to find out. That's typical assertion without foundation.

If society wants those of us who wish to divest ourselves totally of negativity it has put on us to find this out, then it will have to be open about that.

I used to criticize FA by saying if we fat people haven't told people how we feel, how will they know what we think? Equally, if fat haters want us to take "personal responsibility" i.e. beyond where they've left it. They'll have to have the guts to out their privilege and tell fat people that directly. They'll have to say, "You have to do better than this." Or how do they expect most to know?

 Not only do many of them not have the guts. They don't wish to lose that protection and they're under no pressure. Though they may drop themselves in it out of sheer stupidity. Their trap has been built by ego. Defining fat people as inherently inferior is the kicker here, it means they cannot tell us to better their standard, without that being a painful psychological blow.
All for keeping up worthless fantasies.

Anyone claiming fat haters personify human intellect, personal responsibility and a superior sense of consequence, should consider this.

Personal Responsibility

The aftermath of seeing the low probability diet success won't rise in the face of willpower is becoming curiouser and curiouser. It is predictable that if your crusade is predicated on a falsehood, you need to keep that going, to keep it going.

If that's busted, keeping things the same means, re-arranging the surface. So that things 'change' but remain the same. The phrase "personal responsibility" is currently being bandied around to bring to achieve this. On the face of it reasonable. We should all take responsibility for ourselves right? In this instance it has little meaning. It's purpose is to erase action in order to deny the outcome of said action. Which is undesired.

Thus re-asserting calorie restriction as dependable and up to fat people to make the necessary effort to make it work. Rather than accepting the truth that this is highly unlikely, due to the way we as humans are made. Let me repeat this is not about being fat, its how our metabolism is designed. To return weight more or less to where it started after loss.

You can see it in fat people, you can see it in thin people repeatedly losing 5 pounds over  and over again. So for now supporting and increasing well-being and health is needed. Plus more research into how to alter human metabolic function. As this isn't just about weight, it ties into dealing with actual metabolic problems. And yes that includes for some people, matters of bulk and mobility. 

Anyway, this attempted flummery is bad enough, but ironically, what makes the unknown quantity of insisting lay people do some self-experimentation awkward, is this level of responsibility is simply not the expected norm.

This is something that is consistently alluded to, not often openly. Contained in such phrasing as, "Nobody takes any responsibility anymore." Ahhh, that old chestnut. It ironically critiques the-effectively-thin privilege enabling conscious actions to be declared, disease/illness/nothing to do with me guv, when they're troublesome. i.e. They're hard to get rid of or even bad for your health.

Well, riding a motorbike can be deadly if you're unfortunate, we know this and are able to state it without calling it disease.

I repeat the weird thing is a group who've left themselves and been mostly left out of this is fat people. At the same time, we have been made to epitomise the very lack of responsibility being complained about, which is really anchored in the social kudos of slimness. And the respect for its little fee fees, up to and including taking over fatness to use to create a bogus identity of false superiority.

In the guise of health.

It's not even unusual, it's just a more obvious microcosm of what goes on whenever there are race or class structures of contrived inferiority and superiority. The two become half of the human character. The latter get the good half, the former the bad.

What tends to happen then is the "bad" becomes the route to expressing what is deemed wrong about human nature-personal or general-and vice versa. If you're a baddie and wish to express your goodness, you tend to have difficulty. If you're a goody and wish to express your badness, you tend to project it onto the baddies and deal with it in them. Often beneath your conscious awareness, which is the point, this allows you to be all good. And being all good is in its way as dehumanizing and unsustainable as being all bad, though less damaging.

The general personal responsibility set by privilege- and deemed not good enough- is being projected onto fat people and critiquing slim people and their privileging, indirectly. There's a stupid hack piece, which I wouldn't bother to read unless you wish to soil your brain, but it does display this mind-altering effect;
‘Well, what diets have you tried so far?’ asked the GP, flicking through the patient’s notes. I was an innocent trainee doctor on my general practice placement at the time and watched the interaction carefully.‘Look, I don’t want to go on a diet, I want you to prescribe me these,’ snapped the patient, bringing out a neatly folded page she had torn out of a magazine. The GP, rolling his eyes at me, took the paper but didn’t read it. This was yet another example of what’s becoming a very British epidemic: obesity being self-diagnosed as disease.
Being fat has been defined as disease by researchers and invested with medical authority. Requesting pills for every ill is de rigeur and has been embraced by medical professions. As much a product of psychiatry as anything. Defining habits of thought, mood and behaviour as disease is perfectly mainstream. Even taking fatness as behaviour, which it isn't, if asking for pills for it is degenerate, so's the rest.

Friday, 18 October 2013

Power and Status

Rather sobering article by a practising medic on a survey revealing the extent to which doctors suffer from mental illness. It seems like an emergency to me. Something requiring thoughtful action. IMHO the situation is exacerbated-if not created- by some long term structural conundrums.

It more or less comes down to this;
Our patients are defined by their illness, while we are defined by our ability to cure their malady.
"Defined" by them, the doctors of course, not by the patients themselves. And isn't it amusing that this describes 'obesity', almost to a tee, except the other way around. The illness is defined by the patient because they are "it". (As we used to say as kids playing tag.)

It's a model that came into being in the era when contagious diseases held sway. For many countries that is still the case of course but as they progress, they too will experience this shift. It's never been as suited to chronic disease, the diseases of ageing and nervous disorders that have come increasingly to the fore. Those require a different model of patient doctor interaction. That's the rub. 

There seems a desire to cling to the increasingly obsolete codes out of a sense of entitlement to the sense of power and status it brings, i.e. "defined by our ability to cure their malady."

This is helping to overwhelm the energies of the medical professions. Instead of using preventative medicine as an avenue to liberate both lay people from our abject passivity and them from being overburdened and drained by it. The docility remains but the responsibility is piling on. When there's little prospect of relief of the burden of that, despite ones efforts, burnout ensues.

Something has to give as some of us know only too well. 

The combination leads to a culture of invasive encroachment that causes as many problems as it solves for both.

We all need to adjust to this new era.The professionals must relinquish control and lay people must step up without having to be dictated to by ill conceived "wellness programs" and the like with their bullshit standard of quackery. Fat people have demonstrated this to an extraordinary extent already.

It's the methodology given to us that let us down, not our sense of responsibility which we followed through with rigourous and sustained action. Efficacy of method is a key point. Standards of scientific endeavour should not drop just because the professionals are in two minds about letting go. That kind of quackery also a sign of the contempt encouraged by the overall passive countenance of lay people and patients, before you consider us being set up even more for failure through an extensive campaign of stigma.

It's not so much that we were consciously set up by others for failure. It's more mixed feelings invoked sabotage. Such an unresolved and overwhelming desire to retain control will not go quietly unless openly addressed and explored. The pushmi-pullyu effect of dumping everything on lay people, but at the same time realizing on some level where the logic of that might lead (not so much voting for Christmas as creating it) meant there was an instinctive inhibition to commit to it. Not sure there was ever that desire, only to relieve themselves of the burden of an issue they could not resolve-and knew it.

If its up to us, then we have to be fully empowered. That means what we do has to be properly and objectively monitored, and the results properly tabulated. No weird denial of reality, because fantasy satisfies the desire for total responsibility with active dis-empowerment. That combination of even lower status than the pathetic norm, plus responsibility far beyond anyone has been a psychological disaster for not only fat people but for the medical profession's chance to graduate from their attitudinal funk. 

The whole direction of research needs to change to facilitate more self/inner directed healing. Leaving the professionals free to deal with more medically complex cases. Yes, that has potential problems. But it's certainly worth trying, this time in a rigourously and properly scientific manner. No quack BS of the "Those who spend more than 5 hours a day on a computer are 15% more likely to be obese" type. This is bollocks and of no earthly use. Even the AMA suggested in its recent repellent decision that research needs to be done, an honest judgment on the worthlessness of the millions spent producing this kind of garbage.

We need actual research into how we can link conscious thought and intent to change the functioning of our bodies, via our nervous systems i.e. our minds. We are at the early stages through using ancient techniques of meditation and more modern imprints of mindfulness-a different awareness of our (major) inner signals and rhythms. And physically through again ancient techniques that can promote the body's self healing capacities.

This shows we are in a way, coming full circle. It could be said that the magic bullet model that was perhaps the real departure, though brilliant, effective and necessary. Great though that is, contagion will always be with us in some forms, it's demands have somewhat distorted the profession and our relationship with ourselves and our bodies. We cannot afford this model in terms of our own health, gaining and sustaining widespread access and healthcare costs.

I don't care what anyone says, drugging our moods, is so not the way to regulate them. Useful though that might be, it's not a long term solution. And some of us just don't want any part of it. There needs to be more catering for that. I'm not saying that from any bullshit bootstrap mentality but from my understanding of how we function.

And when the methods are not working, that has to be properly acknowledged without any rage or violent assault through surgery. People have to become part of this experimentation process. If drugs are not to be at the heart of it. Lay people being part of this kind of large scale natural experiment in public health, can work and be effective and have genuine scientific merit.

It can become another route to advance health and science.

We all have to adapt to it though. As we see in the case of fat people, the public can. But, it doesn't matter how much effort lay people put into their health, if professionals have the power to slander people, deny reality and derail the process. If they dig their heels in, no matter how responsible and honourable you are, ultimately can bring your efforts to naught.

Thursday, 17 October 2013

Weight as Opinion

Looking back and wondering, how did some weird historical phenomena get ahold? Why some and not others? The best I've come up with is the ones that took were capable of being all things to all people. They were able to absorb projections and fulfill needs unsatisfied elsewhere in their respective cultures. 

Being on the wrong side of these can be very hard work. One learns how much we rely on taking common premises/understandings for granted. It's not just not sharing terms, it not sharing frames. Then you can easily be cast into an oblivion of mutual imperceptibility.

Difficulties are often surprising and hard to read or fathom. One of the more simple ones is that we, fat to thin alike, were taught exactly the same ideas about being fat and slim. About weight, eating and dieting.

We absorb it in exactly the same way. So, imagine thin shaming being the law and all slim people not realizing there's anything untoward about that. Like, there is one consciousness that is shared regardless of weight.

The key differences came about not through fat people being on their own side and slim people being on their-which would be the same thing as the mainstream.  It came through the reality of being fat and not slim.

This is something I thought was patently obvious. Apparently no. Not only to many slim people, which at least makes some sense, but to many if not most fat people too. Ironically, due to seeing through the same frame.

What's freaky, is that so many slimz and fat hating fatz especially, behave as if this was not so at all. They act as if fat people have always put up a ferocious fight against this shared consciousness. This non-occurrence should have happened. That would have been normal.

It just didn't. 

Fat people did not behave that way at all. Suffice to say this was all underwritten by scientists who cited 'physics' so it was "truth". There was nothing to oppose, it wouldn't have occurred. Still, it's perfectly expected that one would defend one's honour, regardless, even if its to say; "We're not all bad." Or "Consider our good points." How about, "Let the punishment fit the [non] crime"?

Even psychopaths, caught in acts of real badness will sneakily make a case for the ordinary/good people, being as bad as they are. Perhaps lacking the(ir) moxie to follow through. Given recent experiences, a bit more believable than before.

This merging of fiction over fact is typical of the cavalier way with truth that characterizes this crusade. Virtually anything they assert goes unchallenged. Not because of bullying, but because of what? Brainwashing? Nope, that word doesn't work, Stockholm Syndrome? Nah. Not quite. I really don't have a word for reality that becomes false through the reality of your existence.

There are similarities, we are like the lapse ex-religious living in a theocracy. Yet, like so much about the experience of being [fat], it doesn't quite fit other descriptions. Science is not a religion. (Not yet anyway.)

The key to this, as ever, is realizing what being weight represents in this particular scenario. It represents opinion. Your opinion. Your weight, is your point of view, it's your argument. Fat (body) must therefore be versus slim. Despite the fact that it never really was. Except in mainly isolated corners. Your body is your fightback that never happened.

Porous People

Here's why men complain about fatness "feminizing" them. It can share the archetypal trait usually attributed to femaleness, porous if not non-existent boundaries;
Albert sees nothing wrong with his size. He feels no need to pin the blame on his genes or an overactive thyroid.
[The character's played by the late James Gandolfini.]
He's not going to change; why should he? It's Marianne who's got to learn that what really matters is the man inside the bloat.
That's his love interest played by Julia Louis-Dreyfus, who's increasingly attracted to that man inside, but increasingly irked by his bigger body. Opinion/physique, comparable right? She's a slender masseuse who therefore has a body that is actually her;
Insofar as the pair of them sort it out, it's on his terms
In other words he no more changes than he (presumably) asks her to. Yet that's still a loss to the whiny hater writing. "Sort it out", should mean, she gets over herself and that's a good phrase to invoke, because his fat body seems to be more malleable than the insistence on making his body an issue. Rather like a woman's often is;
He's no more going to alter his eating habits than his unlovely bedroom furniture. Fortunately..... a bigger feller can after all be "kinda sexy", so long as his perfectly proper shape isn't held against him. 
Well, the character has the tedious history of weight loss dieting. And that observations kind of obvious. If you want to enjoy someone, cultivating disgust for them isn't the best way. Not to forget another fat dis-embodiment trope-the elision of food eating and weight. The body as food and food as your body waiting to be;
While the story is unfolding, this approach seems perfectly in order. After all, we've been educated to understand that it's wrong to question the life-choices of the generously proportioned.
I think this's probably the one that renders me almost speechless. I should know better, but I'm thinking, is this really how you see totally erasing someone's body? "Questioning their life-choices?" What the hell is wrong with people? It's at times like this when I feel I just can't stand much more exposure to this kind of mindset.

This plank actually invokes comments about Keira Knightley as if that must somehow be from fat people. Though there's a long tradition of slim women using that hook to dump their own resentment about not being even slimmer on thin women.

Putting aside the presumptuous sense of ownership about someone else's body, its the invasiveness that's so creeptastic. How does someone allow themselves to get such a sense of entitlement over other people? I've spoken before about the way fat bodies are put up for nonsensical "debates" by all and sundry, pitted against the opinion that they're a problem, as if there's parity. Goodness forbid anyone should question the mechanical acquisition of desire for a body that doesn't actually exist.

People are asked to do "body maintenance", but mind maintenance for those picking up society's detritus is some kind of heavy imposition. Everything must run around their opinion, that a lot of the time is barely even theirs. Just part of an impersonal drone of a campaign that has attacked the mental health of millions, for their health. Including those who allow themselves to be its bitter tools. Yeah, why the bitterness?

The author then goes on to mention the death of JG this year at 51, using him as a 20 stone (280 lbs/125 kg) morality play for "the obese".

He did put on weight at an accelerated rate during his latter years. At the time of his death, he looked to me, not just fatter but bloated, especially around the face. We are taught to see weight as the product of indiscreet conscious acts, but it seems to me that gain and it's type and speed, may well have been signalling a body under duress.

Fat people are people, we're individuals, we have lives. Whilst I'm not interested in judging he was said to participate in habits that may well have damaged his heart. It may have been some weakness that meant an intervention would have been necessary anyway. He never had the chance to find out.

My suspicion as in other cases is that if weight was seen in a level headed and objective manner, the sense that not all gain is the same, even in one person, might be more obvious by now. An investigation may have brought an intervention that could have prolonged his life.

As it was, he was just a man who had too big a middle aged spread caused by his pasta consumption, who knows, that could have been a side issue. Hunger and appetite are functions of metabolism, not character or personality. Changes in them could well be warning signs too. But how much of that observation is being done? Fatsphere denizens have spoken much about how this strange de-materialisation of a fat person's existence renders things that could be observed, imperceptible and overlooked.

That's a genuinely valuable lesson. 

Tuesday, 15 October 2013

Weight loss is not Difficult

Yep, that again. There are a lot of people who like to explain why people-its slimz too-can't lose weight and have it stay lost. These people are choosing to stick with stupidity and that's a lot easier to change than weight. They won't, because they like to make the barely possible seem everyday and the absolutely nothing appear impossible.

That they could give up their figment of their imagination, their belief in calorie restriction, is an outrageous demand compared to insisting people who are not anorexic impersonate that. Against their own design.

Again, for those of you atheist types. It's like those who believe in gods. Those are a product of the human mind. So's the idea of weight regulation through maintaining calorie deficits.

Adherents of both, believe in what's in their head more than the reality of flesh and blood people. Except that's somewhat unfair on the former who believe in the two equally. They don't pretend people are non-sentient 'disease' whilst addressing the very sentience their stupidity requires them to deny.


Weight loss is not "difficult". It's just that we only have one way to pursue it and it's the wrong way. I dare anyone to tell me FA's are paranoid or extreme. Many of them cannot accept the obvious fact that there have been many avenues to weight loss that have gathered dust over many, many years. Weight loss dieting has been picked out. It is not 'weight loss' it's an idea of it.

Yes of course those other potential routes have hit what seemed to be dead ends.

As opposed to something that has always been a dead end that just flattered to deceive. If as much effort had been put into them as 'obesity' bullshitting, something might have yielded by now.

Weight loss would be piss easy if we had the right way/s, I'm guessing there's more than one, due to the multifarious nature of human metabolic function. You know how it is when you have the correct technique, it just feels right? Like that.

Objectively speaking, dieting feels all wrong, because it is all wrong. There is nothing to be said for it. Except possibly that an honest study of why it fails would yield an understanding of something central to our function.

Slim people are slim without running marathon's and starving themselves. Apparently, some deign to be upset that their mere existence isn't evidence of their superior ubermenschen discipline. Let me give those slimz a tip. That's a sure sign of needing to return to your birthright, which is to believe you are wholly worthwhile, merely because you exist. No other reason. That's where its at, for all of us.

Sadly, we become detached from our innate assumption of self worth, all of us, in the process of learning how to exist on this earthly plane. We learnt to 'motivate' ourselves by behaving as if we're incomplete, unless we achieve this thing that will complete us (familiar?) Dieting takes this too far, there's just no function to squeeze out of the motivating incompleteness of being fat. If we can use this weight farrago as an excuse to see if we can right this misstep, we can really stick it to those who are just so sure we will always miss the greatest prizes, settling instead for competing hatred of each other.

Sunday, 13 October 2013


Ever considered the seeming imperceptibility of society's mechanics? Like the layers of convenient fictions arranged over one another, like a soon to bud flower's petals.

Society attempts to regulate its citizens-and therefore itself.

There's a fondness for pointing out that fatness has increased dramatically over the last 30 years or so. This is supposed to be the acme of evidence.......... of what? The mickey mouse quality of being fat? The essential choosy, choiceyness of it?

Unlike sexuality, which is not a choice-though it too has increased over the last whatever decades.
Of course that's not so, is the response. People were always equally whateversexual as they are now, just certain sexualities/gender presentations were suppressed.


That's how it's done.

Those who wish to suppress sexuality know what sexualities exist. They know.

They use the idea of non bona fide /choiceyness to create layers of suppression, making sure that as few people can negotiate those hurdles as possible. They don't expect what they're suppressing never to exist, though they'll try, they just want it to be as difficult and minimal as possible.

They use a layering effect of channeling the most prestigious belief systems and levers; religion, the law, scientism, peer pressure, bullying, violence, intimidation, mental and economic pressure to achieve it.

It's less said outright that this is the aim. That would be an admission that it is known that different sexualities exist.

That the purpose is to hold it down. This would make people feel bad about themselves. Make them aware of their participation in cruelty.

Which would undermine resolve, odd though that is to say. Awareness that your own conscience is an obstacle to your chosen means of enforcing your "morality." It means you've decided your morality requires immorality.

Admitting that the point is to break the will of the person to act according to what feels true to themselves undermines the stated premise that such sexuality is mere choice. The choice thing is what suppression turns it into.

When people say, "You can't hate yourself slim". I doubt that's ever been the point.

It's already known that hatred doesn't make most people slim-that would be the response of your metabolism. But a sense of conviction that it may make a person less fat?

That can be sustained.

Saturday, 12 October 2013

Factitious mayhem

I was amused to read a story about a con artist who duped hospitals through faking numerous ailments. He was finally caught and has now been jailed for four years.

Isn't that awful?

What made me chuckle was the subtext of experiencing being pressured into faking illness by professionals. Or a role reversal of this. Perhaps that's what's so outrageous about this guy. He didn't have permission. Though I notice he looks somewhat portly, perhaps he could have just set a new standard of 'obesity' related maladies?

Clearly, that starts with you seeing yourself as disease. Once you do that, anything negative about your existence can serve as 'evidence'. This kind of thing is somewhat unconvincingly called factitious disorder.

Listed in the DSMV;
  • The symptoms are inconsistent, changing markedly from day to day and from one hospitalization to the next.
  • The changes are influenced by the environment (as when the patient feels observed by others) rather than by the treatment.
  • The patient's symptoms are unusual or unbelievable.
  • The patient has a large number of symptoms that belong to several different psychiatric disorders. 
Whoah, some of that's like the performance of 'obesity'. Now, I know that some fat people have genuine health problems. I'm not commenting on that. I'm talking about being expected to contrive to feel and even make yourself sick. Being surrounded by the palpable sense of expectation/desire of others that you'll succumb. And their insistence on informing you of this supposed promise/ inevitability with compulsive repetition.

Partly for the good of fatz as a whole of course-well meaning as ever. If some of us can just die off dramatically, the fear that has been dissipated to some extent, by seeing through the hype can return in a visceral form that's hard to contrive, without the wholesale collusion of fat people.

Fat people are expected to make ourselves feel bad, tired, drained. To focus, dredge it up and spin it to a growing web. To make any aches or pains represent evidence of the premise of this performance. Mentally, we're supposed to be depressed, anxious, have body dysmorphia, though its not what it would be called. And none of the other neuroses are seen in the same way as they would be seen in a slim/mer person.

Its hard to get across that this performance eventually exhausts bores but above all, embarrasses. What business does anyone have in behaving as if they're sick? Given there are people out there who actually are.

There needs to be a name for this disorder of doctor induced factitiousness. 

Friday, 11 October 2013

All from one..........

Two cells meet and become one. After the sperm cell fertilizes the ovum it becomes a zygote or a single cell(ed) embryo. It then divides into two, doubles, again and again and again and becoming multicellular.

That's the beginning of all of us. How we are formed and grow. In essence it's similar to how your body continues to (re)grow and renew itself throughout your life. The breakdown of cells to complete their life cycle and the creation of new cells is the basis of your metabolism.

It makes and restores what is you.

This self generating, self regulating process is what we attempt to alter when we seek to change weight with our humiliatingly crude tactics. It not under our direct volitional control.

We can only influence it. It would be bad news if we could easily control it via our will, that's why we usually can't.

Our understanding of it is very basic and has been delayed, regressed even by the assumption that attacking cells, in this case adipose, is the way to control metabolic function, it isn't. It interrupts or fights with it. And overall function has to win, that is its design. We consider them "excess" from our point of consciousness, therefore of no value or interest to the body.

What we need to realise is that doesn't necessarily match the body's. What keeps us in material existence is the sweep that stops interruptions of all kinds from taking hold or settling in. Or homoeostasis, our metabolisms very self-directed, self completion. 

We were wrong. We went about making alterations the wrong way, we pressed our attitude into designing the way, many of us have learnt the inexactitude of that painfully in our own minds and bodies.  

The devaluation of this experience in order to continue believing in assumption is a delusion almost on a par with creationism. It's also as cruel and churlish as it destroys people's credibility as bona fide beings merely displaying human characteristics they did not design.

Those of us who've long been ready to accept this are being held back and degraded by those who refuse to get a hold of themselves, because they don't have to. They're entitled to their view, but need to start getting out of the way.

Without any pressure of scrutiny, these people feel no need to be rational for the sake of their own honour. Though they think to speak of their imposition of supposed dishonour on us.

None of this means that through observation, understanding and mastery, we cannot find ways to maximize our influence over our own body and its systems. I have never doubted for a second that we can influence and alter the course of metabolic function and therefore weight which is an outcome of that.

This has the potential to lead to a different form of medicine. Internal medicine, controlled by the interaction of you with the system that runs you and your conscious awareness. And not any health care systems.

No wonder those invested in that, insist on pursuing what doesn't work

Thursday, 10 October 2013

Fat foolishness in the media

Roll up, roll up people. There's another instance of fat people being idiotic abject sell-outs in the mejah.

If there's one thing I can't stand it's purveyors of this kind of foolishness. It is disgusting and abject. Trust me, if every group under any pressure gave way like these idiots, we'd know far less about what it means to be human.

All of us.

It is forgotten by these folk that not everyone is in as privileged a position as themselves, so their wretched po-faced arse licking is also a missed opportunity. Not to agree with me, but to be a human being whilst fat.

Tedious fat masochism of this sort is partly responsible for the regressive assault the 'obesity' cult has visited on fat people, by refusing to hold its quackmeisters to any account at all. Putting them on a pedestal by making fat people responsible for everything and everyone, including human biological design.

Many self hating fat dupes continue to insist that not behaving like a quisling house negro is a threat to getting science of any real value out of 'obesity'. When actually, the crusade has acutely derailed that.

Does anyone think pretending people are disease is science?

Even bitter ex-smoking fool Callahan admitted (hey, I can throw that word about too) that 'obese' was harder to deal with than real genuine serious disease. Something that should have woken everyone up. No doubt that's because those studying real diseases are pursuing real science. So they get real advances.
They'd not be able to get away with the reprehensible pantomime of fakery and flannel that useless "obesity research" has recently been cloaking itself in. Because a) people would notice and call them on it, because b) people value the genuine and dramatic loss of life that would be abetted by such quackery.

The wretched farce that is 'obesity' has achieving precious little for those who are in genuine need of relief-whatever their reasons. I stumbled over the cure for my own disorder which was if not created, certainly ramped up to quite intolerable proportions. The irrelevance of "obesity research" in this cannot be overstated.

I don't doubt for one second that I'm not alone in that. 

 Taking the kind of masochistic abjection that comes out of being discredited, having to believe in something that doesn't work, for granted has enabled them to stay worthless to those who really require genuine effort to be put in.

The "Eat as much as you want and remain slim" clickbait-which is just most thinz and slimz life right now- despite many of their somewhat deluded bullshitting- is a silly headline, borne of the messed up 'obesity' farrago.

Basically, its a report on an avenue for getting bodies to use rather than store energy.
Researchers noted the mice minus the gene ate less in comparison, moved around more and displayed other health benefits including smaller fat cells and better insulin sensitivity.
It refers to a gene called perililipin-2 which it is claimed regulates the storage of fat. Blocking it has said to have reduced fat storage in mice.

Turns out to be the fifty millionth incarnation of brown fat.
The genetically-altered mice produced more brown fat cells which, unlike typical white fat cells, have the ability to burn calories.
We are all born with this type of fat, dotted around our bodies in small amounts. In most it fades away somewhat, for some relatively early on. Apparently, this is responsible for a lot of sudden weight gain after a lifetime of slimness type phenomena.

How's finding out about how to replicate this immoral? It's a perfectly natural effect, the body will do it itself! As I've been saying for years, find out how metabolism works and use that to get the results you want. If you don't, how will progress be made?

This is so dumb. So utterly pointlessly abject and grovelling. This grotesque anti-intellectualist, faux moralising of those who reject religion without realizing that they still need its basic purpose is indulgent. Only the bourgeois classes could get away with flouting such utter stupidity.

It's also part of what makes fat people hate themselves and why we can be easy for others to have ill will toward.

No matter what fat phobes say, they know we are just as good as they are. Hence their repeated celebratory comparisons with us. If you feel someone is so beneath you, why would you be so inclined? Moreover, why would any such comparison be a cause for victory?

It's underwhelming when this extent of grovelling, refusing to stand up to any bullying at all, no matter the cost to the person. Refusing to defend ones honour at all is upsetting to others. It reminds them they could be put in that position too-see smokers. And they don't like that feeling at all. That's why they cheered that boy who opened up a can of whup-ass on a smaller bully.

They want to know they'd fight back to in the similar circumstances.

When we don't, even though we are yielding to them, it makes them feel they might be so defeated too. Then they lash out, trying to put as much distance between themselves and us.

Anything to do with using rather than storing fat has potential applications to type 2 diabetes, fatty liver and treatment of other metabolic disorder, such as PCOS. It is well needed. The current treatments on offer aren't nearly good enough.

Is that to be halted because of fat fools in the media, still down on their knees in arse lick bullies mode?

For goodness sake, get up.

Jay you are a man of no little charm and wit. Get a grip on yourself because NGAD.

Except perhaps those you're trying to impress and they're really not worth it. 

Sunday, 6 October 2013


Yep, finally......again.....and yet again it's being suggested that the weight loss dieting pretence is no longer sustainable.

I'm waiting for the international press conference where they announce this unequivocally, without rancour or emotionality, for good this time.

Not to mention apologizing to all fat people unreservedly, for deliberately choosing to make us look like liars who felt we couldn't even trust ourselves to report what was happening in our own bodies.

What's prompting this particular outbreak of reality is an example of the great saying;
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. ~ Abraham Lincoln
Typical rampaging hubris, this is pretended to be some kind of favour to the "public" who may be confused, by the imposition of falsehoods by those they trust to define absolute fact, the poor lambs;
the time has come to end the pursuit of the “ideal” diet for weight loss and disease prevention. 
Congratulations! You're taking the first step in breaking your chronic dependence nay *addiction to futile calorie deficits. We've been waiting.

I say beginning, because that of course would exclude the whole of "bariatric" surgery which cuts or ties off fat people's stomachs to a capacity of  2 or 3 tablespoons, or 45 mls (x 2 or 3). And sometimes throws in re-routing the intestines to induce mal absorption.

Or anorexia + bulimia as the rest of us know it.
The dietary debate in the scientific community 
Oooh, I'm going to have to add "debate" to the list of words that have been drained of meaning through continuous misuse. There has been no damn "debate". We have been told in no uncertain terms by boffins and quacks alike that weight loss dieting works. Don't even try to deny that. 

We have been lied to. Because those who think we are their puppets, felt that the truth would stop us trying to do something that doesn't work. Because like faith healing, homeopathy and putting your last penny in a fruit machine, it occasionally appears to work.

In a statistically insignificant sense. 

There have been whole swathes of what purported to be 'science' taking the workingness of diets as their starting conviction. It's still the basis of implying that fat people are mentally suspect and/or 'addicted'. 

The rationale is; it's simple, just stop eating. Still fat? Then you must have some kind of mental problem.
The only consistent finding among the trials is that adherence—the degree to which participants continued in the program or met program goals for diet and physical activity—was most strongly associated with weight loss and improvement in disease-related outcomes. 

If you continue to short change yourself on sleep, for the rest of your life, you too can prove sleeping your full allotment is a choice. Except it only is, if you do not mind sending your body's rhythms out of whack in the short term. In the medium to long term, pressurizing your mental and physical health to implosion;
“the brain literally keeps track of how long we’ve been asleep and awake—for weeks,” says Harvard Medical School (HMS) neurology instructor Daniel A. Cohen, M.D
Want to guess another balance of input/output your brain/body keeps full tabs on?
Progress in obesity management will require greater understanding of the biological, behavioral, and environmental factors associated with adherence to lifestyle changes including both diet and physical activity.
No, progress in understanding human biology will require boffins to quit their desire for religion level prescriptive interference in other people's lives and understand how human metabolism manages weight on an integrated level. Through this, finding ways to altering its underlying re-production of said weight, to either a lower or higher level. 

It would help if you deigned to finally truly acknowledge fat people as capable of observing their own lives, pointing out that this is what we've been trying to point out all these years.  

Apparently, noble lying means never having to say you're sorry. 

That's something only we fatz seem to have the stones to do. 

 *BS meaningless invocation of buzzword