Shape Backlash

Since the beginning of the internet imprint of fat acceptance, a lot of slim/mer women seem to have struggled with an overwhelming bitch of a fact. Being caught out in their collusion with the official objectification of other women.

This has emphasized the objectification of all women.

They didn't care because they accepted their elevation by weight.  Being crowned with a (slim) halo obviously felt, feels uplifting.

Humans keep falling for this faux superiority elevation act. I suppose the hook is rooted in the optimist bias of our minds. Positive objectification feels positive, even when you are ultimately losing by buying into it as slim/mer people have.  

Witness spectacles such as women calling themselves feminist, insisting fat women we are "unscientific" by referring to the ways our bodies actually work in reality because that's not women's place. Men are the only one's qualified to decide that. How arrogant of us to "forget" [i.e. assume we were just self reporting].

Deviating from established fictions ballasted by male privilege has shown that women don't feel they have any real innate credibility in describing what it is to be human. We're more qualified in testing matters of the intellect like housework and crafts.

This has been one of those sneaky tests for women, one that has shown us up very badly indeed and no, I don't mean being competitive. Invoking banal misogynistic expectations of women under the guise of feminist analysis as distraction ain't cute. This is about women's conviction that reality is something outside us-something we receive, unless its fashion or something.

Proving our own unnecessary levels of disgust and contempt for ourselves as female human beings. Rather than worry about fat/thin shaming or what, let's just try and have the (feminine?) grace to end this farce shall we? It's dragged us all down.

And no, class-male is not to blame for this. This ones on us.

Nevermind, no-one's perfect right? Let she who's without sin cast the first stone and all that.

In the end, we all know: "Putting other women down doesn't lift you up." "Shaming thin bodies isn't helpful to fat women." We can see that now. What have slimz got out of this really? The media aimed at women is deluged with their multiple insecurities. They've not gotten away from their "internalized misogyny" by trying to dump that on lesser status women, it's just stirred it up. So why didn't they say any of this to themselves during their gathering enthusiasm for the crusade? Come on now.

We can see you!!!

And wouldn't you know who's currently fuelling this fire?

T/W: Contains lots of swears. 

 

spot any fat chicks up in this beatcch??!!

Enter Mz Minaj.

This piece of fluff is pretty crude in its erm storyline, featuring what Mz M's "anaconda" does and doesn't like.  But an aspect of its overall message touches on something quite interesting.

First at taste of the nontroversy;

Why are we publicly deemed "skinny BITCHES" if we're naturally smaller than sz 6? Horrified i'm considered a bitch for not being overweight
— NATALIA KILLS (@NataliaKills) August 27, 2014

Minaj actually raps; "Little in the middle but she got much back" "Yeah, this one is for my bitches with a fat ass in the f***ing club." "I said, where my fat ass big bitches in the club."[I'm being delicate tuhday.] Then she says "f*** skinny bitches.."

Inevitably;

Larger framed women need to stop bullying/victimizing girls with small frames, less voluptuous figures as if they're unattractive/anorexic
— NATALIA KILLS (@NataliaKills) August 27, 2014

Ouch to the [thin] anorexics. Minaj is mostly talking about shape and how having one associated with femaleness is totes the best. It's a bit like the idea that slim is the only way to be human, just without the backing of the medical machine.

This kind of shape has been deemed a liability in the feminist era. In the aura of FA, plus Black women's necessary self assertion, she's proclaims the integrity of having an outstanding tush-on a small frame.

One irony is her (supposed) current arch nemesis's most startling physical feature is her very prominent hips, on a small frame. 

Feeling duly inspired she squeals; "fat ass big bitches" and then eff "skinny bitches", managing to prod the genesis of fat phobia in the feminist movement. Before you pseud me.

The way that a female identifying shape; big bust, big butt, big hips, big thighs goes against feminism's much favoured straight up and down/ muscular androgyny. Downplaying anything seen as emphasizing femaleness.

What these lady features have in common is fat mass. This is how "fat" has become such a devastating put down to women. It is the humiliating reminder of woman=lesser. Hence feminist's problem with fat and why women are called fat merely for not being straight up and down AND thin. Whether conscious or not Minaj slips from fat arse to big bitches.

The combination of fat phobic misogyny, plus feminist androgyny means women "feel fat", for being anything more than a gender pranging beanpole. 

I noted the "Buns of Steel" era with confusion, 'til I worked out what was happening. Having an andro, though fat shape myself, I didn't get the hip / butt anguish. Women, many of whom did not even see themselves as feminist let me in on this via their actions.

All kinds of women are in on this shape trouble. Having a female identifying shape has been almost a faux pas for a while. Hip and thigh whittling dominates the slimming and fitness industries. In the era when the un corsetted stomach has been a seat of profound disgust, we have been deluged with slim your hips/ buns of steel, slim/tone those thighs.

I knew it was inevitable that there would be some swingback from such an extreme position. Just never thought FA would help create the spark for it.

"Obesity Denial" Really?

Something I've never been able to take seriously is the incontinent application of terms relating to "denialism," whether referring to the form coined for those who would seek to deny the Holocaust or the delusions of grandeur therapy mess form.

Despite having total control of what is the mainstream narrative on fatness, that's still not enough to satisfy the insatiable hunger for what.............? Fat people's pain, humiliation, stigmatization, pathologization? I really don't know, do you?

Now we can add to this meaningless word generator of "obesity denial", referring to anyone not seeing things in the same loony tunes manner.

I happily refute the idea of people as disease. They obviously aren't and cannot usefully or indeed ethically be construed as such.  And, need I say, though fully on board with the lipogeddon scenario, the AMA's scientific committee-to their very great credit-felt impelled to point out no "disease" has been coined.

In case that's confusing. 'Obesity' wallahs can't define the "disease of obesity" because it doesn't exist, nor does what they're pissy about lend itself to that metaphor.  Either they have to define metabolic deviance or people's weight, they cannot collapse the two togehter. As they don't accept this reality and no one's going to make them, they've ended up just pointing at people and asserting "disease." Few feel to query that. Not because they have any respect for "obesity science" or the medical profession-the way they sue the latter to dirt, creating not a little of the bitterness they're working out on fat people.

Inevitably, this neuromush has been applied to any thoughtful unashamed fat person- as in they are engaging in...... "obesity denialism", dun-dun-duuuuuuhhhhhhr!!!!

This charge intends to shame by association with creationists and more latterly, those skeptical of climate change and/or the nature of.

Leaving aside rejection of the construct 'obesity' has come to brand.

This unspoken but obvious comparison exposes something fundamental about the nature of the delusional constructed view of fatness.

Climate, happens outside us all. 

Theoretically, it is equally observable (or not) by anyone, objectively so. We don't have those advancing climate change experiencing climate change as their physical being, versus those disagreeing not experiencing it as their physical reality.

That isn't the case with being fat. A fat person is experiencing their existence as an on-going physical, spiritual, emotional and intellectual process.

A person who isn't fat, isn't sharing that.

Casting fatness as if it's available to all equally, reveals the creepy extent to which fat people's boundaries have been eviscerated by those who seek to own and direct that. Here's 'obesity' folklore naked with its failure to write fat people as discrete sentient beings. This, not "looks" undermines if not cleaves other people's ability to relate to fat people as real. That definition becomes a mental block.

It also reflects the dream of the power elite working itself out in metadata surveillance controversies currently playing out. The desire is to know everything about you at a glance. Whilst they remain in the shadows.

Those protesting the loudest about privacy, are too often on board with this view of "science" turning others into powerless puppets. Imposing fictional roles of what they're supposed to be and/ or stand for.

That the difference between climate and being/not being wasn't immediately spotted by at least those who have some awareness of what fat acceptance is about, is a sign of how completely comfortable we all are with the idea that fat people are neither conscious nor autonomous.

That we could possibly be informed any by our own experience of being. This is the kind of thing I'd point to when people regurgitate such sj platitudes as "We don't have to change society does." Are you sure you don't want to change this? Because I'd say its desirable, in fact necessary.

No one deserves that to happen more than those who really thought could replace human consciousness with a puppet version and get away with it forever. That's what I call motivation.

How about it fat people?

Obesity Junk

There's a new 'obesity' drug on the market. You may not have heard of it because really, wgad? Gig Pharma's slimming drugs have been universally execrable. Toxic, of barely perceptible efficacy, possessed of a cornucopia of harm generating effects, many of which uncannily turn out like those "associated with obese."

This one looks just as cute. It's a mixture of this and that. Results exceeded the placebo by 4.1% (as much as that). So much for 'obesity' is addiction.

Businessweek seem surprised by fat people's seeming indifference to toxic, useless prescription tabs. Rightly so, none of this has stopped this kind of crud from getting takers in the past. That probably aided the reluctance of insurance companies to pay out for this crap now, which is a hurdle in the US.

Pill taking has ceased to be a mere act. The act's become an article of faith. In more quack riddled areas of soft science. We've learned to take drugs not simply because they work, but also, because the idea of them working works, like weight loss dieting. That can release the placebo effect in us. The placebo effect is hard to perceive when it comes to reversing weight though.

There's placebo, where there's room for it. 

Fundamental levers of human metabolic function are not known to be located in the conscious mind, the relationship between them and the mind are more indirect and unknown.

Neurosis is different, people are haunted by the notion of- you can pull yourself together at any time. So, insisting it is illness has a different context to what people feel are issues with weight.

Of course, 'obesity' is cast along with neuroses such as; depression anxiety, eating disorders. Actually, fatness is cast as just about everything; a decision, an eating disorder, mental illness, substance ab/use, neurosis, gluttony, pleasure seeking, a sign of trauma, unhappiness, a way of exiting the sexual meat market, a physical micro aggression, a way of insulting your spouse, child abuse/rape prevention.....

Versatile ain't it?

You'd think people would be tired enough with this to just knuckle down and accept, you find out what something is by studying it, objectively. Fact gets in the way of the imagination though.

The placebo effect in neuroses can be breathtakingly effective because there is a direct relationship between your ability to think and your ability to alter the course of your own thinking. Put it this way, your mind is a self healing entity. Your whole body is. Think of cutting yourself and the way your body stems the bleed, forms a scab and if serious enough a scar, then that fades perhaps completely.

In your mind this is complicated by the trickiness of manoeuvring your mind, using your mind. You in the form of your conscious awareness, are part of the process. 

People often prefer the [promised] reliability, convenience, and depersonalized ease of a magic bullet-or the idea of and are ashamed of both. We are increasingly secular. Faith healing's a bit of a no-no.

Now this process as a whole has become a placebo for bringing about weight change, which is being crow barred into this mould.

Weight is has never yielded to this. It can't be bullied like people. Ethan Lazarus, a Colorado obesity-medicine [lol] physician;

He likened the country’s current view of obesity and its need for treatment to that of “depression back in the 1980s,” and said it would take some time to change attitudes.

You have been warned. Expect docs to be riding your fat arse to take this junk soon.

Clearly, the whole let's make people as disease official is supposed to bypass fat people's sobriety. It's of course overlooked that fat people tend to more sober than the average non-fat person.

Fat people tend to drink, drug and smoke less than those who aren't. Sorry if you're a fat drug and drink loving smoker, not meaning to leave you out. But, overall, sobriety tends to go more with higher weight.

That's one for those who've decided in their wisdom to cast fatness as 'substance abuse' I used to joke about turning fat people into slim junkies, but it seems to be on. The whole crusade is about turning fat people into slim people. With that though, you identify some real things about slim that don't appear in advice lists entitled "How to think slim"

When people stop drugging, drinking and smoking, there's a tendency to fill out.

Yes it's true there are fat junkies, and a binge-drink habit can fatten a person substantially, especially over time. And some smokers are fat.

Overall though, the relationship is thinner user, fatter sober.

There's an interesting balance at work. Fat people's overall risk of liver disease could be slightly elevated in comparison to others. Sobriety could take pressure off the liver. It seems a good idea, and is something to keep an eye on if fat people get junky.

I have never been convinced myself that weight reversal requires drugs, just a more intelligent way of seeing things and a better target. I wouldn't rule out drugs, but they'd have to be short course not long term rent seeking, that's currently the holy grail.

Like most lies, those telling them are most convinced and aim an onslaught of in person persuasion to get us on board popping pills. There will no doubt be takers for this nonsense. Neglected people desperate for positive input will submit to abuse of all kinds if it comes with the appearance of care.

And any harm done can be turned into proof of the harms of 'obesity'. I'm looking at the pushing of surgery. Just like the impact of stigma became the harm 'obesity' does.

I truly hope fat people can maintain their lack of enthusiasm for to the culture of junk. I honestly think everyone needs us to. 

Weight Stigma

It's Weight Stigma Awareness week from the 22-26 September 2014. it's the third of an annual event from an organisation called BEDA-Binge Eating Disorder Association. It's purpose is to raise awareness about binge eating disorder [BED]. Sounds ominous.

The last grand push for eating disorders awareness was anorexia which started thin people getting harassed and accused of being anorexic on sight. Similar may happen with fat people being defined as binge eaters on sight. As has already happened with the risible "food addiction." Plenty of fat people will "confess" to it too, whether they have hyperphagia or not. There's the definition of fatness as eating disordered and the indistinct diagnosis.

I couldn't diagnose shit with this sort of thing. Nor am I sure I can grasp or be sure of what binge eating disorder is as distinct from hyperphagia nervosa or compulsive eating disorder though I do see there does seem to be some kind of distinction. I get its eating a lot in a short time. What I mean is a deeper sense of its specific discrete momentum. All of the major ED's have them.

It's absurd that its in the DSMV, but as ever "millions of people are now recognized and validated" is the reason, not fact. I'd prefer explanation and an accurate grasp of my condition. No one should look to psychiatry for validation, that's giving it even more power than it already has.

They have a twitterstream going right now @WSAW2014, which is where I saw this;

Weight Stigma Awareness Week 2014 is only three weeks away. Tweet me your best idea to discourage weight stigma. #WSAW2014
— Karen R Koenig (@KarenRKoenig) September 3, 2014

Weight stigma could be said to be just another way of saying fat stigma. Discouraging that requires people to stop stigmatizing fatness. To undergo a process similar to neurotics seeking to re-train their nerves to a calmer state.

Know What Bluffing Looks Like?

Check this premise;

A study suggests that African American women in the US have a different picture of what unhealthy weight looks like than medical experts, prompting suggestions that pictures should be more widely used with health messages to counter the new normality of excess weight

Lipophbes got everything they wanted and more yet everyday is a tendentious groundhog day with them. They got it wrong and cannot acknowledge this to themselves, instead they have what a friend called "point-finger disease".

Society's shift to the right of the weight graph was entirely predictable. I saw there was nothing to stop it continuing. Given the investment in individuated calorie restriction experiment and the refusal to accept its results. All eggs in that basket + doesn't work="new normality" ahoy.

I've no issue with showing what BMI 30 + really looks like. But why so sure Black women are wrong and Medical professionals must be right? Lol [so comedic.]

Seriously, how do they know this doesn't reflect some extent of overall physiological difference in comparison to other races? Fat and muscle percentage differences vary between as well as amongst races. Black people seem to be at the higher end compared to others. That's probably true-though not necessarily in the same way-of others like Pacific Islanders or the Maori of New Zealand.

This nark swerves those advocating for people with anorexia. They tend to get antsy when the line is drawn at the more prevalent "stage 1 obesity." It doesn't match the barely interrupted death threat hype of 'obesity' promotions Inc. It can at times look eerily close to the acceptably weighted even chubby people closer to the majority of PWA. The emaciated poster children seem to be more acute phase than everyday, how typical.

Always looking for an extreme to illustrate the mean.

The media itself has veered towards fat outliers. Those with a BMI often way above 40. I get the sense this is an instinctive lean towards matching the quel horreur tone of the crusade. A lot of people feel this way, often not perceiving themselves to have crossed that line, considering themselves: "Nowhere near obese." Having preceded by announcing they're; 'overweight'/chubby/plump/could do with losing a couple of stone.

Do the math/s as they say.

They seem underrepresented in surveys. In this case a sample size of 69.

The researchers point out that there is a long history of African American women feeling more satisfied with a large body size than non-Hispanic whites.

"Long history" eh? There hangs resentment. The 'dissatisfaction' of especially middle/upper class White women is not all it seems. Humble bragging has greater cultural currency. Women know their assigned worth and it doesn't tend to match what survey says. Looking at your body and saying "What, this old thing?!" is not the same when you are surrounded by constant validation of its image.

And no, I'm not going to be popular for saying that. WM/UW's bodies also have a different currency in their own race/class milieu than others deemed below them socially has in theirs.

Anyway, this rather obtuse mis-reading of Black women has been a big bone of contention [have at the puns] for oh, just about everyone. That includes professionals who seem to have trouble not assuming they must be right about everything in this area, despite their desultory impact. Such an extent of taking themselves for granted as the standard by which all should be measured, is bracing.

How can I put it, not everyone has to agree with that. Even if AAW aren't on the same page, what basis of presumption makes that a good idea?

You've heard of double consciousness? When the imposed cultural pretense of universal rules for good citizenship gets kicked in the nuts by the needs of one's position in society's hierarchy. Basically, a lot of people have to go along with the idea of a universal set of ethics, skills, attitudes, but then have to live the way that will enable them to actually live, capice?

Resistance to outer dictates of supposed inferiority are a necessary facet of mental self defense. That's a triumph, not a pathogen. Black women are affected by this surround though. Self value is personal, but it also merges with the political at some place.

Black women's self assertion merges with their ability to survive and thrive within that. It's just the time of take responsibility everyone claims is sorely lacking. Do clueless professionals really want to tear into that? To achieve what exactly? Fanciful notions that might not even be what they seem at face value? This is one of the reasons why they don't always get far with this kind of effort. They aren't listening and paying attention to the needs of the people concerned, preferring instead to pontificate.

That all these women accepted the premise of ' a healthy weight' tells you they're not uncaring about weight, they just haven't reached the deranged levels achieved elsewhere. There's a big question mark over the purpose of the 'obesity' crusade. Slimming fat people is a mere a potent entry point for influencing behaviour.

Yet, those demanding this right to interfere in people's most private beliefs, thoughts and habits tend to go apeshit if others demand close to that level of self examination from them, if not at their instigation.

White America takes more drugs and has more anorexic/bulimic eating disordered behaviour as part of its weight regulation strategy. Though that's a highly charged point. Black women also seem less inclined toward alcohol and cigarettes.

I can't say for sure that repressing weight aggressively would lead to a rise in some or all of these areas, but it's worth bearing in mind context, when making comparisons. Put it this way, I wouldn't bet against it. It's worth noting there's a discrepancy between the weight of middle/upper class men and women, why?

It doesn't feel like much of my business-though I'm ever curious-but hey, if they're to be held up as the standard to attain, these things need to be out in the open. Are they ready for this?

I'd be a tad more wary of trying to match the weights of either Black women or indeed working class women of all races to those of White middle/upper class women and concentrate instead on increasing well-being and health. Try matching habits to actual context and the demands made on people. Don't presume.

I don't doubt something's gone awry with some AAP's diet. A better focus would be on reviving cooking skills of the near past, history lessons, connecting with older relatives and such. Seeing which still remain, encouraging the obvious ingenuity and skill that's still out there. And spreading it as necessary.

Dietary content does not lift the weight of society off you, nor does it free you from the constraints that your body just has to adapt to. Attacking what may be defense is not a good move, people aren't willingly "self destructive."

Repeat, real ways to reverse the body's weight must be found-it's been done. Things that don't require the whole of society to go on a diet. Come up with genuinely individual solutions- the extent of persistence with defunct wld shows how popular that idea is.

People don't want their lives and heads managed by others just to alter their weight. They want to do that directly. Nor do they want to their fate to hang on the reluctant, those whose bodies are unsuited to a low-cal existence or those who are hostile to their bodies, culture or lives. Sooner or later we will need to grasp the nettle on how metabolism truly functions.

Let's not forget the outliers, those who have actual metabolic problems. They should not have to be cut into the mainstream's obsessive compulsion with anorexia.

Liberation Gainer

When a dieting/gym bunny type elects to take a gainer holiday [or path], it's to satisfy their own desires, rooted in fatigue with the diet and exercise strictures they impose upon themselves. Spurlock's excuse was to show the supposedly typical 'merican obese's habits that he made up. Well who's going to argue? This enthusiastic carnivore had long adhered to a vegan diet to fit in with this amoureuse.

Some personal training types hanging out with fat people, start building up enticingly verboten impressionistic curiosity. The usual projections of what a fat person is surreptitiously becomes a vehicle for fantasies of what they feel they aren't. Eventually the need for release comes through their tried and tested yen toward a body modification solution. There's the added sensual/ sexual thrill of feeling their own [self generated] adiposity. I mean, really feeling it.

We query why folks don't listen to what fat people say about being fat. But overlook that the construct is as much if not more of a mindwarp to others as it is to fat people. They can't hear us. The disconnect of fat people as disease blocks comprehension. If you are the only ones who are fully human, you become the only valid vehicle for human experience.

Katie Hopkins wishes to teach fatz all about taking responsibility. Wishing to “prove” it’s easier to lose weight than some [fat] people say. I'd say its more dysfunctional, stupid and degenerate.

Is her ability to support her chosen attitude to fat people flagging? Just how much unquestioned security does a person need? It’s her choice; if she wants to use the sight or thought of a fat person to feel any feeling, that’s her business and nothing to do with any qualified fat person applying any job she may have on offer in any of her enterprises.

That's the trouble, people like this can't keep their boneheaded mental grunts to themselves. They have to void their problem with "fat people", onto fat people. 

It's known that her body can shed weight. She was shown in The Apprentice, looking plumper than she subsequently dieted down to, though not in quite the same way as now. Her body extended beyond her usual equilibrium to accommodate her circumstances, then deflated making her expert in human metabolic functioning. This lack of humility can at times, be moderately amusing. 

But hey, don't milk it!

In terms of the position fat occupies for her, emotionally. It seems a space to toy with her own feelings about being branded "ugly" by those close to her. She, like certain self hating fatz boasts of her strength of character in accepting this. Despite her actions not exactly backing this up. She can become "pretty" i.e. slim, this time, the judgement isn't so damning.

I daresay she feels fat people don't appreciate the sheer immutability of other judgements. When all we have to do is swerve the bacon.

Though she's getting paid, she would have said no if she didn't want or need to do this.

Usual odd features of this fat for pay feeder sub-species apply. The urge to define the experience of being fat is in order to impose it on fat people. This time with added sob; addicty, complex mental pwablems= 'overeating' leptin da de dah, instead of lazy and greedy. @besity's a construct all about its architects and adherents. Their instinct is to uphold their own tedious fiction.

More interesting is the speedy weight gain, faster than even than many fat people at the top of the weight tree averaged out. 3 stones/42lbs/19.5 kg in three months! Imagine putting on that x4 on every year. On she says 6,500 calories a day.

At that rate, most people in the 'obese' category would've taken between 2 and less than 6 months from her 8st/112lbs/50.8kg starting point. Doubling from that would have taken less than another 3 on the end of that. This might give insight into the much touted gluttony of obeses.

It also tells you if you don't know that being fat isn't about-this. In the main dieting up as I call it is more fetish. That's probably the best lens to view this kind of irrelevant sideshow. Normally, gain is metabolically led. And, despite doing exactly what fat people are accused of but we can see, rarely do-mindlessly choosing to be greedy and get fat, and freely admitting it, praise ensues.

Anyone still want to insist fat people are hated because we are/are seen to be greedy? 

Anyway, this begs repeat of the observation, these weight managers on a break, can really pack it on. Leaving aside things that usually provoke this rate; drugs, hormonal flux-puberty, menopause, rebounding from weight loss dieting/ drug abuse or some other metabolic overture. This kind speed of rise shouldn’t occur.

How is it this possible to just mechanically eat without the apparent response to hunger?

Remember all those thin/ner who complain bitterly about the impossibility of putting on weight [via dieting up]? They aren’t lying. Imagine having sex without desire for it. Not impossible, but sustaining it several times a day for months?

Food should quickly become unpalatable with nothing more than conscious notion. That's how my body was able to recover from hyperphagia. One of the last diets I tried was high protein. It was an unserious last throw of the dice, no pressure to restrict calories. I lasted two bites of meat before it turned to an unpleasant tasting rubble in my mouth. That was an example of the disgust reflex. Your body's reaction, thwarting the prospect of any narrowing of its ability to meet nutritional needs.

You may think you or anyone can just eat, but many people would be surprised at how hard going they'd find the mere thought of calorie dense food after a while without biological drive.

I'm not saying I couldn't eat as much myself, but it would have to be driven by hunger, disordered or not. That's why I keep saying the problem with HN isn't food-its hunger signalling.

The obsessive fixation on eating comes from those who deal in restriction, which they then project onto fat people-as we can see from their fantasy of being fat. Once that's gone there's little desire to eat for no reason.

Indeed I'm not entirely convinced of that proposition. Though I'm wary of appearing to contradict those with binge eating disorder.

Perhaps this long term diet and desire to gain illuminates binge eating disorder. The ability to diet, then reaching some kind of impasse then swinging back with bingeing. This might feel subjectively like a conscious elective choice to eat, of the "I use food" variety. Bingeing may well be that impasse, plus those signals re-awakening. You go from feeling in control to being swept away, so the latter feels willful in contrast.

Dieting requires you to ignore your inner signalling. That's likely to put you out of touch with it, which both undermines it's clarity and your ability to read it. This suggests that hunger is there but in some minds it is tuned out partially or wholly. A bit like, when you go for a massage and when relaxing, you begin to feel how tense you are. You were always, but you'd stopped being aware of it was your mind screened it out. 

Who knows what internal prompt could be operating here, translating into this subjective desire to walk on the fat side? The more it happens, the more one has to consider whether this could be prompted by some kind of internal crisis being reached.

How many of these types reach a point where they too just climb off the horse and stretch their legs for a bit? How rare is this among these people?

A constant long term diet and exercise regime where your average slim or a bit plump person, goes down to being.... slim is that it subjects their bodies to the same defences as any. But they're barely going anywhere, if at all. They aren't seeking to lose a 1/4,1/3/1/2 etc., of their body weight.

Metabolic conservation or slow down-accounting in part for this speedy gain and baggy indistinct, hunger and appetite signalling, is shown in this ability to eat by rote.

People overlook, eating requires digestion. It's not like taking a pill, where a drug quickly passes into the bloodstream ditto booze. With food, the body has to be prepared for it, in multiple ways. It takes effort to get it to that stage.

The ability to just eat, suggests a body in a ready to regain mode. Not much of anything to regain though. But, perhaps denial-of hunger- gives this greater capacity. They're sort of hungry and not always aware of it. They're out of synch with the feel of it. Hence this desire to eat mechanically without apparent drive.

Probably, this is how they eat all the time. From the head cutting across their bodies, not normally/intuitively. 

A fat person goes from fat to fat, a slim person goes from slim to slim. Why do people keep stating that once your 'obese' it's unlikely you'll become slim... Who's changing categories? Let the slim become thin. Let Katie's 8 st become 6 and stay there why not? That would replicate the experience better.

F4P's also to a wo/man pack it on much more around the middle than anywhere. This is arresting given this is the supposed metabolically active area. Though I do believe there is some truth in that, it's not in the way 'obesity' fans want. This is supposed to raise risk, not without doubt though.

Whilst this kind of regime lowers weight and is healthy making, it also seems to shift bodies towards metabolic activity around the middle, which we can't necessarily see 'til they put weight on it. Hum... could be the speed. Both forced eating and starvation tax the body. It's possible if they'd taken more time, they might've had a more even spread.

But, having seen a lot of these types gain due to being diverted from their course by personal circumstances. I'd say probably in degree only. So, the question is, how wise is it to go down this forcing route at all?

By that I don't mean dietary rigour and exercise, I mean the being this out of tune with your own signals?

I can't speak for all fat people but I could not do this. Nor would I attempt it for any money. Having spent years of my life with batshit hunger that wouldn't quit, this makes me want to chuck just thinking about it. I cannot eat mechanically as a notion, nor am I sure my body could gain that much weight that quickly. I also can't lose much without wasting a whole lot of time.

The lack of ability to lose + [compared to this] a lack of ability to gain fast. Versus fast gain, fast loss-also a sign of being "metabolically active." There's at least a symbolic equilibrium in both.