Diabetes Trippy

I'm not even going to pretend to care about Rob Kardashian or the rest of his family. I don't get what they are for and I'm as okay with that as I am with others totally getting the point of them. But it seems Rob has got the diabetes.

The fat kind. The naughty, type 2 diabetes. The one you get for being guilty.

The twist here is he's basically a bit of a five minute fatty. Unconvincingly so at that.

According to reports, this man gained over 100lbs in one year. He was also depressed, seemingly hyperphagic and having problems with alcohol.

From my own point of view of no medical expertise whatsoever. I'd say such a cluster of symptoms, along with such ferocious weight gain signalled RK's incipient diabetes. This could be totes wrong of course. That a slim guy decided apropos of nothing to force feed himself, turn down thermogenesis and chub up by a nice round 100lbs (why not 50 or 150?) because erm, "fat logic" is far more plausible.

After choosing to enter "fat logic" whilst slim, he became depressed about it, because he was getting what he planned, yes, that sounds the ob construct mal-logic to me. Never knowingly makes sense and no-one cares because it serves a purpose, nothing of which is to be of use to any fat person whatsoever.

Interestingly enough, he was taken to hospital suffering diabetic ketoacidosis, something most indicative of type1 diabetes, the innocent, unimpeachable kind. Alas for Rob, his problems made him fat, so, the obstacle that is the 'obesity' construct will have to be negotiated.

In my strictly non medical judgement.

The ob construct is increasingly forcing medical segregation by body size. From the nonsense of "obesity-related" to this progressive cleaving of diabetes along weight lines. I'm not entirely surprised to learn that diabetes tends to be the classification for chronically elevated blood sugar. Like others, I'm not particularly convinced that they are related to each other enough to bear the same tag.Though I could not swear against it either.

However the issue here is not about weight, it's about metabolic function and whether the angle we are viewing it from is the most useful or accurate. I didn't get those suspcisions from the good doctor, I've said forever that the term "insulin resistance" has always thrown up a conceptual red flag for me. [I can't help a wry smile when I hear "auto-immune" too.]

In a way, the addition of "leptin resistance" seems to confirm my suspicions about the nature of cross over between type 2 diabetes and weight.

As will be of little surprise to you, Rob has been told his diagnosis, rather than being shock of mortality, a challenge to his personal sense of self, or a potential light bulb moment for what he may well have assumed was wholly "emotional" is simply a "wake up" call for him to stop being fat etc.,Yes, heaven forfend any fellow feeling on the impact of finding out that you have an illness.

"Everyone knows," fat people get ill solely due to the wages of sin, in order to motivate them to an anorexic triumph and the approval of people who think that's an apt response. The criterion for diagnosing diabetes has been lowered to that end. And why not? It is frequently said, that medicine is an art not a science.

RK's apparently off to rehab for the etc., part of which is probably indicative of his underlying condition. The best comment on rehab was made by the late Amy Winehouse. She was much mocked for this, but all she said was the truth, rehab is mostly hot air. Unless you count attention and time away from your normal existence.

That's usually called a holiday. 

Golden Thread

Dame Sally Davies.....who is...wait there........The Chief Medical Officer of England [the rest of the UK have been mercifully spared?] reckons 'obese' ought to be added to the UK government's list of.... hang on a sec....... "national risks". A list usually reserved for stuff such as war, terrorism, flood, pestilence etc.,

This is because... hang on let me get this right..... "the biggest modifiable risk factor now for ill health in this country is obesity." And the extent of this purported fact is thus far insufficiently appreciated by um everyone from hoi polloi to the political and social elites.

How can I put this (again), if you declare something a health crisis, yet trivialise the most affected, those most in need of scientifically sound enquiry, often erasing and blaming them, leaving them to die using them as cautionary tales. You're premise will have a permanent gaping whole at the heart of it, even in a world desperate to pretend you're making a jot of sense.

Witness the grotesque spectacle of "Doctor Dawn" with attendant media dropping in on the late Carl Thompson, shortly before his death, to humiliate and shame him to know purpose whatsoever. Failing to hear what he was trying to say, or even describe let alone illuminate his problems. The bit where they get him to tell youngsters not to be like him and not eat fast food is absent from this clip. It should be no surprise then that this did absolutely nothing for him. 

This was a learning disabled man who was found at the age 3 years old trying to get into his neighbour's fridge. The most telling thing about this was in the telling of this incident, he said, he didn't know why he was doing it. He was just driven as if on auto pilot. Imagine doing something akin to a kind of sleep walk and being forced to believe you were consciously choosing this.

I know exactly how he felt, how that feels. People find it hard to grasp. Your nervous system is like your body's information superhighway, enabling you to sense, feel and think. It also enables the messages to pass that enable your movement at its most instinctive as well as consciously willed.

That's why people become paralysed when their spinal cord is severed. The channel to deliver this messaging is cut.

It means that if something that uses the nervous system is oversensitized and/or overactive, it has the capacity to drive movement- bypassing your conscious intent. This is at the more extreme end of nervous imbalance. It is not "mental illness". Any more than an oversensitive bladder that makes you feel you must go to the toilet, even when you know it is virtually empty is "mental". It's physical.

The way to change any of this is to change physiological function......

Oh yes, I was talking about Dame Silly wasn't I? It's half a world away-as the song says isn't it? That should explain why the purpose of 'obesity' is to trot out bozo stats, threaten everyone will be faat, thunder against fat, then pass the hat (i.e. 'sugar tax') repeat ad absurdum.

Here's Sal's annual report on the health of women which some feel contains some worthwhile things, mainly overlooked by her publicity grabbing spiel.

Her insistence on the need for more attention is instructive.

The 'obese' construct-the idea that fatness is a thing attacking a slim body, [rather than the physiological actions of a whole body], has for decades enjoyed absolute dominance. It has not simply displaced, but is there in place of fat people's experiential inner narrative. To illustrate how mindbendingly dumb it is, Dame Sally mention fatness assaulting women's fertility.

It took me a while to realise that was largely an oblique reference to PCOS.

It goes nowhere because it is about nothing but what is in the minds of 'obesity' purveyors and they delude themselves about that most of all. Insisting lifestyle anorexia must work, so the fact that it hasn't means it hasn't been tried.

That could go on as long as people have the patience.

 The essence of reality is absent here. It's really about metabolic function. Instead of an instinct to stabilise weight and alter physiological function, we have weight categorisation and way beyond disordered fetishization of eating and food. The begging hat that is the proposed 'sugar tax' speaks to this directly.

At one point Davies mentions weight as a "golden thread" running through women's lives. She is really describing metabolic function. The way the body regulates its own cell regeneration and culling could indeed be described as such. All the issues she describes are about the effects of the vagaries of that function.

Having the ability to manipulate this could be a golden thread in terms of health and well being. The possibilities it opens up could go some way to rivalling the touted promise gene therapy-who knows? Our cells make up our material being.

People unused to mindless hate are beginning to get bored of this rubbish.

Using Dead Infants to Promote Calorie Restriction

Using percentages

The headline reads;

"Weight gain between pregnancies linked to stillbirths and infant deaths"

Linked is always a word to watch out for when it comes to "obesity related". It usually means-linked to being noticed in a fat person- (it only takes one). The sub-heading is;

Swedish research shows women who put on weight after first pregnancy increase risk of stillbirth by 30-50% and likelihood of infant death by up to 60%

There's the use of percentages. It means the starting figure is not impressive enough even for 'obesity' wallahs, used to speaking with at best a microscopic level of critical scrutiny. 

To be fair, they know some of us are wise to their phoned-in manoeuvres;

Because infant death and stillbirth are relatively rare, the increased risk does not equate to large numbers of deaths.

You know it.

Carry on bullshitting in the face of fact

Next we have carry on regardless.

But experts say stillbirths and infant deaths are already unacceptably high and that it is important to look for ways to help women who become pregnant keep their weight down.

That's a big "But".

The death of an infant is tragedy, though not enough to overcome the urge to control people's eating. These tragedies are to be prostituted for the purpose of dieting, same as anything. Despite the fact that it usually increases the effect being reported. Women should be anorexic a lot anorexic, though not to the extent of dying, because that would be "going too far."

Back to metabolic function

Let's go back a tad.

If I'm understanding this correctly, the study is referring to women who gain weight after their first pregnancy.

They're said to be more likely to have a subsequent child whose stillborn or dies within their first year- whatever their starting weight.

This is genuinely intriguing.

Pregnancy is a time when many if not most women find they gain weight easily. This is due to the body often increasing its energy conservation-rather like when re-gaining weight after diet induced weight regression. The body instinctively lowers its output in order to protect the energy supply, in this case, to the foetus.

Rebounding to the mean

The body can vary tremendously in its ability and extent of reverting back to pre-pregnancy levels of expenditure and storage (of fat and supporting tissue). Restoration to the (prior) mean can happen partially, or (seemingly) hardly. Ditto the period of time over which any metabolic reversion occurs.

Women who lost weight between the first and second birth were at lower risk of having a stillbirth or infant death.

If this is as read, reversion is likely to signal the body's sensitivity to calorie restriction, which is also dependent on the state and response of ones metabolism. As readers of this blog know, weight is all about metabolic function-basically, the rate at which the body generates/replenishes and destroys its own cells. This stillborn/early death effect appears to be related to those bodies whose metabolism is less exact in its restoration of pre-pregnancy function. Potentially reducing the stream of energy available to the developing foetus and/or its ability to meet any extraordinary needs.

Energy conservation

It's somewhat speculative, but the energy conservation displayed in this weight gain could conceivably deny a subsequent foetus a high enough degree of sensitivity it may require to be fully viable at birth or up to its first year. That could also include an issue of timing in that the (slightly?) inexact energy stream may tell at some points of foetus's formation than at others, as in affecting some body systems more than others.

Metabolic manipulation

I used to say back in the day that if men got pregnant, they'd be a whole discipline dedicated to restoring them and their function to pre-pregnancy states. I was thinking as much in terms of appearance as anything.

Why some women, if not many or most women do not "snap back" more readily to their pre-partum state, has always puzzled me. In the same way that the overwhelming majority of people's bodies, thin to fat alike, return to their pre-diet weight over time. So too should women bodies return more to pre motherhood state with such momentum. Perhaps they do more than appears from our vantage point.  Homoeostasis if you will, works both ways.

It exists to maintain a consistency of function. The expected completely different looking body after giving birth is yet another example of the rules being made by a lack of intervention, rather than some assumed hard and fast rules of nature-as in "I'm meant to be 12/15/ 25 stones." Too deterministic, there's just no clear route to reversing weight.

The price of anorexia worship

This could well be, along with the much forgotten people who cannot retain weight, yet another example of the price paid for refusing to approach weight honestly, as a metabolic issue, rather than via a stupid crime and punishment angle. You must serve a life sentence of anorexia for your crime of in this case, mere weight gain.

If the white coat mafia could have just treated fatness via metabolism, heaven knows what they could have achieved by now.

As this list grows ever longer, we have to marvel at how much knowledge we are sacrificing to the dominance of these lifestyle anorexia promoting wing-dings. 

Hand In Glove

"Overweight haters Ltd" are the product of 'obesity' lies

Here's something we can all pretend not to have noted;

The cost to the NHS of obesity is estimated to be £5.1bn annually, and treating diabetes accounts for about 10% of its entire budget.

[Dr] Sarah Wollaston.

Our organisation hates and resents fat people. We disapprove of your wasting NHS money to treat your selfish greed.

Overweight haters Ltd.

Very limited indeed.

The original and primary "shitlords"

According to the latter report, the name for a person who doesn't accept the existence of fat people is a "shitlord". I'm no expert on that matter, but colour me dubious, I always thought it a term more general than specific. Either way, if we accept that posit, Dr Sarah Wollaston, her profession and too many who've donned the cloak of "obesity science/research" are the primary SHITLORDS.

Now a cursory mention ought to be given to the extreme reluctance of any quarter, led by the FAM to accept the patently obvious fact that this whole 'obesity' fandango was invented, contrived, led, disseminated and propped up by said "obesity science" persons, including "nutrition researchers" and the sainted MEDICAL PROFESSION.

The unhinged rage that is the regular default when talking about 'obesity', the boundary violated aggression COMES. FROM. THE MEDICAL PROFESSION. They used their office their kudos, the deep trust invested in them-remember we trust them with our lives- to ballast the absolute onslaught of bullshit that is the ticking timebomb of the 'obese' construct.

Pseudo-science and medicalization lies have set fat hate as the standard, not bigots

The latter have deliberately been given their head by the former. So the former can sit back and pretend to be decent in comparison. 

There's always been prejudice against fatness. As we frequently hear, everyone gets teased about something. The point is, no matter how unhinged fat haters could be in the past, they could be backed down. They had reason.

When a targeted fat person was short for a response a slim person might well step in and provide one and the hater would back off, even if in a huff. Just like when someone else is being abused about something close to home, you step in and defend them, because you don't have the emotional vulnerability.

What took that away was the medical profession's consistent decades long promotion of 'obese'. Fat haters became like a runaway train. Medical promotion of fat hating took away their reason, it smashed their internal sense of decency about the matter.

That along especially with the dehumanization of fat people has meant these people have lost any internal cues to control themselves. Even if I hate your guts, your humanity will control me at some point. Everyone has lost that with 'obese', the most receptive to mindless hate most of all. The best example the comes to mind is the sense of legitimacy and ballast homophobes get from Leviticus.

Everyone knows that is bullshit, in their hearts, they know it is bullshit, but the investment of sanctity in the Bible means they can cling to fathoms of bigotry, way beyond having to stand alone with their abstracted hate.

Not to mention, pseudo-science's perverted premise means everyone's vantage point is rooted in being a "shitlord" troll and arsehole, the 'obese' construct leaves you no other option. No it doesn't just refer to your height/weight squared. It is a term used for the definition of a particular ideological stance on weight.

Professionals want to be seen as doing good, whilst directly creating harm

At least the amateurs often are able to state openly, loving the game. That means they sometimes manage to display a bit of honour about the business. The medical profession never have any of that, unless they tell the (full) truth.

In this particular instance, Wollaston things that her kidding herself is the same as persuading others. Wishing to brand, label and abuse children-it's currently the thing for these people to direct their attentions on children-is for their own good. She wants to save the poor po' childrens from the life of bullying and destruction her increasingly tiresome profession have bent over backwards to stoke up and impose. No way could the bullies control themselves and STOP BULLYING. Wollaston and her ilk DON'T WANT THAT. So they behave as if it isn't earthly possible.

Leaving aside that this proposed 20% sugar tax on soft drinks, doesn't give an individual personal control over their own body or its function.

One of the reasons why dieting is so difficult to let go of  as an idea is its promise of independence from that. The promise that its all down to you, count on the fingers of one hand anyone who doesn't love that. That particular aspect is inspiring and energizing. 'Obesity' wallahs are happy with that only because they know its a low returns game.

Now this is being rumbled (again), they've switched to another means of denying individuals any control. If you have a heightened temperature. What do you expect a medic to try and achieve first? Stabilization/ lowering of your individual temperature. Or a campaign to impose taxes on hot drinks on the grounds that it may well raise  a person's temperature?

As you may know, I reversed a genuine hyperhunger disorder-of the kind all fat people are supposed to have but don't. That had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the amount of macronutrients, fat, sugar, carbohydrates, whatever in food. The issue was function, not food.

Divide and conquer

I'm second to few in impatience with amateur 'shitlords', but I cannot forget who's pulling their strings.

In fact, take a step back and what does the reaction to these mentally limited haters add to this picture? That's right, the fat public are blamed for tanking the NHS. And the fat hating public, slim or not are blamed for the hatred of the fat public.

Divide and conquer.

As if stupid hoi polloi just set about each other, because that's just what these mindless puppets just mindlessly do. Nothing to do with the lies we are directly feeding [ha] them.

The cheek of these establishment blighters. They're not even hiding it. NHS is dying because of fatties 'obesity'. We hate you because the NHS is dying you fat ugly w/e's. They're using those who are prepared, in this case to use 'obesity' as a cover for their misogyny. And medical professionals etc., secretly rub their hands as they feel another lot of people will recommit to the diet whirligig and they can continue this theatre forever.

Trying to get us suckers to pay for it through demanding money with menaces. 

Maximum Weight

Every now and again (well, actually all the time) certain unexpected anomalies are thrown up in the miasma of lies flying around fat 'n' slim wishful thinking.

I cannot pretend to speak for fat people in general, but I'm wondering how many fat people have a maximum weight. If that doesn't ring a bell, I'm referring to the way many slim people have some kind of weight limit above which they will reign their body's in via restriction, anything from outright (usually brief) fasting to cutting out certain food items for a little bit.

The reason I and I suspect many other head scratching fatties missed out on this joy is a side effect of our 'obese' role. This you may recall requires us to "admit/confess" we are failing to be slim-in order to change,  BAHUUUUTTTTTTT at the same time, demands we reject our weight as well, sort of unaccept it. Hence fa(c)t acceptance.


Oh my. Fat Acceptance =Fact acceptance, lmao.

 It's true though.

Only recently did the realisation of this difference kick in.

Some FA's may find this a bit unsavoury,  but I have wondered how many people would/could have stemmed or slowed an upward drift by employing this strategic defense of the status quo. I could only guess at how much this could have arrested any gain. I had a hunger disorder that was worsened by most aspects of living the 'obesity' canard lifepath. The one that ends with the removal of your stomach possibly along with some other weight loss dieting induced "obesity related disorder."

But I do know that at every point I found fasting piss easy in comparison with weight loss dieting. Number one, I was always "fasting" because my level of hunger was quite bestial and I was permanently trying to fight this. So I was spending a lot of time being hungry in this ferocious blizzard of urge overkill. 

This constant advance and reversal shows the failure of calorie restriction in slim people-or they'd be going backwards, not back and forth and back again. The bitterness of it informs their anger towards fat people and their game of zig-zag forms a lot of the basis of their model of how it is with fat people.

A sugar tax is to pay for quacks, fund SCIENCE instead

The slimstream got what it wanted over the term of the current 'obesity' crusade. What all humans want, for food that it likes to be widely available, amongst other things. Its very own 'obesity' construct helped, there's much citing of "personal responsibility" as being the locus of weight control-for fat people anyway. Therefore acting in the face of requiring an evisceration of calories was fine until......getting what they wanted brought them a greater sense of clarity. 

Slim people previously allowed themselves to believe their slimness is down to some vigourous yet invisible exercise of self control on their part.  Now they're concluding their mythological will isn't what's keeping them slim or enabling them to become as thin as they wannabe, after all.

What do you know, its time to control the food environment via the proposal of a sugar tax. Apart from laughable cries of faddiction, they advance this volte face behind their beloved conceit.

I say suddenly sugar, but way back in the day it fat was the enemy, on the grounds that fat in your food meant fat or your arse: pause and let the elegance flow through you again. Fat was to be reduced from an horrific 30% or thereabouts of one's intake, to half that and even 10% when of course that didn't make fatz low-fat.

This caused industrial food to obey by accelerating its mis-use of sugar to compensate for qualities lost by the removal of fat. It has also obediently reversed this. It's accused of doing nothing as fat people are, due to it not having the demanded effect.

This morality play is presented by the slimstream as dirty tricks upon its poor innocence (i.e. belief it can walk on water when it comes to weight) as if taste is not in their mouths. Et voila we have another little turn of the macronutrient whirl. 

If you want to talk about the so called 'evidence' in favour of this nonsense (give me strength). I haven't had the heart to abuse my brain with it anymore. There's no more appalled, hate reading style fun, its just risible. I do not like to make a habit of not reading what I criticise. In spite of this, I can confidently sum up from the premise laid out is that it consists of; lots and lots and lots and lots of sugar in your diet is 'bad' for you ergo sugar is {{{{poison}}}}.

Look closely at anything written about this currently and I think you'll find that summation punches way above its little weight in doing justice to the sugar ist poison hoodoo.

Suffice to say this will "work" just as well as any other intention of the 'obesity' agenda, but the most salient and sinister fact is the real agenda behind this tax is to establish funding streams (this would just be the start) to promote and enable even more invasive interference in people's lives.

Not being able to thus far has held them back. Heaven help us all-regardless of weight- if they get their grubby mitts on a steady stream of filthy lucre. 'Obesity' quackery has always struggled to gain secure funding so that it can abuse people in a more sustained all encompassing way.

Whatever nonsense is spoken about Mexico, France and Scandinavia, countries like the UK and America aren't them. Even if shame taxes did the job which they don't, the will just isn't there.

Permitting people to perish trying to trap and keep any and all [fat] people trapped into starvation either free form or surgical, but that too has trapped these societies into a certain course.

Science.

Certainly it would not only have been he right thing to do, it would have been far cheaper than tormenting people with lifestyle anorexia, butchering and mutilating them and leaving their weight unchecked to go where it may, whilst vigourous attempts are made to block, block, block things that would seem just as challenging on the face of it.

Why is their no means to block weight from getting higher if that's oh so offensive "unhealthy"? How much of this 'obesity' fuss would not have been if that was available? Oh right I'm answering my own questions again aren't I. Taxing food does not give anyone personal control. 

The locus of control of shame taxes is firmly in the hands of those proposing and seeking to gain from them.

Just as there's a pretense that becoming fat as a child must seal your fate, so should the insistence on allowing industrial fast food into schools, hospitals, every nook and cranny should been seen as having sealed the actual fate of the 'obesity' lobby.

Quackery has run its course, truth is the only way out of this false consciousness.

Fighting to get money to interfere with the big business you liberated, the reasons you went along haven't really abated, is frankly a futile waste of time. 

This has all gone way beyond anything but progress through objective research into metabolic function. So remember to give the 'obesity' industry, public and private what it desires so much to give to especially to fat people. Starvation.......of funds.

Starve the bastards of funding, what they call "the costs of obesity" (i.e. them).  Remove any being given to the worthless slimming industry and instead fund teams of the best and brightest minds to help us all grasp how our bodies produce weight.

Stumbling on how my body produced excess hunger was the way I ended the tyranny of hyperhunger. That was effectively a rebalancing of a certain aspect of metabolic function.

The control must be put in the hands of people. If you wish to campaign to control the food people eat, do that in the open. It's interesting that some openly say they wish to abolish tobacco products, but wouldn't have said that from the start.

The logic of low fat and/or low sugar was actually the end of the food industry as we know it.

The advice to cut fat was intended to direct us to the naturally low-fat foods that existed at the time, namely vegetables, fruits, beans, lentils, whole grains, and lean meats.

Whether you think that's good or bad, that has to be the endgame. That and the insistence that weight is "behavioural" is at the heart of the why of micronutrient whirl really.

Metabolic manipulation is entirely feasible, logical and achievable, to manipulate it more effectively and painlessly. It's also potentially good for way more than mere metabolic function. It simply requires honest sustained effort. Something no one involved in such as 'sugar taxing' should be allowed anything to do with.

That in itself would be a refreshing change. 

World 'Obesity' Promotion

World 'obesity' promotion day has passed without much ceremony. Let's face it, everyday is 'obesity' promotion day. In case of any confusion. The term "obesity promotion" is one of those blurted confessions fat phobes sometimes leak out.

It's when you promote the ideology that focus on the false construct of 'obesity' somehow makes sense, rather than it being a toxic pathology inducing cul-de-sac that circles round and round leading nowhere, acting purely as distraction from real knowledge and better ways.

Barely reading a phoned-in farticle containing the usual, how fat everyone is definitely going to be in a few years hence, because there is not a cat in hells chance that "obesity research" will be interrupting that, in the ever fat phobic guardian.

I was stopped in my hazy tracks by this,

“Like climate change, we know the answers to the obesity crisis. We know that tough policies will need to be implemented, and we know that such policies are challenged by powerful commercial interests. But we have no choice if we hope to meet those 2025 targets.”

That's was Tim Lobstein The World Obesity Federation's Director of Policy (lols). Just before that he's quoted as saying,

“Preventing obesity means tough government action to limit the promotion of junk food, especially to children, to ensure healthier food is offered at work, in schools and institutions, and to encourage physical activity through better urban design and transport systems.

We of course do not know how to alter metabolic function so it reverses weight and "maintains" that state itself. Cos we can't impose that through the anorexia method. 

The article includes the entirely predictable fact that weight is also increasing in developing countries too (the clock is ticking on praising black and brown people for their extremely moral hunger). It's a side effect of progress.

Certainly in Western model countries, a lot of these conditions existed and were undermined or jettisoned during the crusade. Indeed, often using the crusade's folklore of individuals design and make their bodies, to do this. This now looks bad even among the most shameless 'obesity' wallahs.

The "policies" he speaks of have been and gone. They used to be just the way life was. Now he wants to bring them back, despite people chosing to get rid of them/bring them in on the grounds of cost. Either saving money or making it to fill in the cracks of funding cuts.

Now that too many people have washed-up on the rocky shores of a dieting career to sustain that delusion....for a while, it's assumed by slim people that all fat people want is for blame to be directed at someone else, instead of us.

Don't be fooled, that can't happen as long as calorie restriction induced weight loss (CRIWL) is the only way and that is what a lot of this is really all about. Blaming "Big Food" can make little dent in the culture of blaming fat people.

As long as we're expected to starve, we'll be to blame. What would happen if they said, "It's not your 'fault' you're fat" or that "We've deliberately not bothered with any better means to lower weight. But starve anyway."

Whaddya say, self hating fatz, would you be so up for that?

Industrial food has benefited hugely from the 'obesity' crusade and its calories in/out insistence. Not simply due to its money-for-nothing slimming industry that was not only held up and legitimized by the medics/"obesity science" axis, it was saved from going under  by the same too.

It's also profited from entering seemingly every nook and cranny of the public environment on the back of weight = "personal responsibility." Bullying and profit motive. Why should fat phobes ever deny themselves?

Blaming industrial food for "causing obesity" is an attempt at window dressing for susceptible fat people. They're actually trying to get us to blame the food industry for doing our bodies to us!!!! The notion that this incredible entity called the human body, one that grows from a speck to yourself or myself, following its own innate pathways is not one to be deemed blameworthy, doesn't compute.

Another pathetic attempt to prop up the legitimacy of CRIWL which can be seen in itself as the supreme avoidance of learning how to tweak metabolic function. Something that's being studiously [geddit] avoided.

The reference to climate change cannot be taken as read or even seriously. 'Obesity' wallahs are always desperate to legitimize their credo, despite saturation acceptance and an eye watering level of hegemony. I swear dictators would not expect this level of adherence.

But it is quite a take down of climate change to raise it in such comparison. The so called "tough action" flies in the face of a lot that is in the economic model. It was obvious which suspects would struggle with the required collective action required to put cals in/out to the fore. Though that wouldn't have stopped fatness it could have at least slowed its course.

Nor would it empowered individuals to regulate their own bodies. Something usually absent from this. 

This is not motivated by an anti-capitalist desire to remake society-that's looking at it the wrong way round. Calories in/out makes this "anti-capitalist" head on collision inevitable. Targeting eating must be about curbing those who produce, make and sell food. Whether indirectly through potential customers or directly by government regulation.

It's the same source (ideology). It's not either government regulation, or "personal responsibility". It's find the right way to do it, or don't. What we have now is the latter and what is being proposed is more of that.

Either you suppress aspects of the food business, or you put people out of business. You may say that healthy eating can make lots of money. So what explains industrial food's reluctance? It has bought up and destroyed numerous wholesome products in order to get more milk out of its cashcows.

It is extraordinary that people have been sold a personal problem that's solution requires the co-operation of people whose rampant hostility has been stoked up almost beyond their ready control. One that involves perfecting society along your own lines.

The question is, is this at all the case for proposed policies to fight climate change?

Are we being sold an activist utopia at the expense of the most practical workable, accessible ways that could be discovered?

I hope not. 

Missing METABOLISM arrives when pseudo-science leaves the room

For years, I've been banging on like sister from another planet about weight being all to do with METABOLISM?

METABOLIC ANATOMY

Yes?

All WEIGHT is produced by such. 

And no, that does not refer specifically to disorders of, or disordered metabolic function, it refers correctly functioning metabolism, its anatomy, function, physiology.  Just as referring to the anatomy and physiology of your limbs is assumed to be about said limbs, rather than disorders or diseases that can affect those limbs.

Just as the pathologization of fatness has merged somewhat with physiology of fat bodies, therefore of all bodies, and as it is also conflated with diabetes. Increasingly, metabolism has become suggestive of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance (whatever the latter two especially actually are) and so on.

Nor is it another way of presenting digestion or nutrition.

It is,

The sum of chemical reactions that go in inside your body:a. Metabolism b. catabolism c. anabolism d. canabalism 

Now if this seems all encompassing to the point of becoming indistinct. Science to the rescue. Here's an example of how obvious and easy it can be to grasp the role of metabolic function.

"Taller people more likely to get cancer, say researchers"

Did you dare to dream for a second that I was going to link to something about 'obesity'? Lols. If you can delay gratification no further, give yourself a mental massage by putting weight in place of height, or more specifically, fatter in place of taller.

Here's what stood out,

The creation of height is automatically acknowledged as METABOLIC

.....taller people have a larger number of cells in their body......

Metabolism is in essence, the anatomy, processes and pathways that create maintain and destroy the cells of your body. Weight is just a more active aspect of metabolic function, so it is even more apt that it should be centered around what creates and maintains it. Like hunger though, this erased by 'obesity' promotions inc.

Metabolism is referenced in a very accessible way.

It is gradated for hoi polloi. First mentioning that tall/er people have a greater number of cells. Then onto the processes of the production and growth of those cells, honing in on an active aspect of that- growth hormone.

“We know that in humans growth hormone not only stimulates bone growth during our growing years, but stimulates cell growth in general and blocks cell death. So the level of growth hormone someone has could affect cancer risk by pushing up cell numbers,” 

 My emphasis. Four lines is all it takes.

An earlier study showed that people with genetic dwarfism had very little cancer. “People with genetic dwarfism have a mutation in their growth hormone receptor and we know that growth hormone and growth hormone receptor are critical to tumour growth too,” he said."

A study on mice where their genes were manipulated to make a high or low level of growth hormone was said to increase and decrease their cancer rates accordingly. Which brings me to another fundamental point.

Height is easily acknowledged as a SCALE

Each end of any scale informs understanding of either by comparison and all in between. "From 100cm (3ft 3ins -225cm 7ft 6ins)", one scale produced by the same anatomical processes. The shortest i.e. dwarfism automatically informs the taller end. Weight is the same, the thinnest informs the fattest and vice versa. Segregated focus creates an obstacle. There are bound to some at one end and some at the other.

Immediate and repeated reassurance

Taller men and women need not worry.

Swedish study sheds new light on link between height and disease – but smoking, obesity and poor diet are still greater risks

Indeed they need not. That would only do them harm. Don't be put off by the usual false equivalence. The point is to note is the keen desire to avoid upsetting tall/er people.

It's clear about the source and quality of the information.

despite taller men and women being more likely to develop cancer, according to this study of 5.5 million people born between 1938 and 1991

No declaration of "proof" from a dozen people. No confounding factors were included in the study, so how good this is, may be up for some question. That's made clear. If you are making emphatic claims, quality is requisite. 

Tallness is not framed as some abnormal growth happening to a 'normal' body

a) That is the construct that is 'obesity' and b) Tallness could lend itself just as well to such a faux pas, or not.

No false moralism is invoked

I include concern trolling about "stigma". The real and apt sense of morality is in the reverence for any potential impact of this news on tall/er people. This sense of potential consequence is very humanistic. Despite mentioning "higher energy intake" they go out of their way not to mention food showing how pronounced that obsession is elsewhere.

It is possible to mention higher intake without invoking that great meter of objective diagnosis- the 7 deadly sins. 

Perhaps the acme of this for me is,

The current state of knowledge is freely acknowledged along with the need for MORE RESEARCH 

And of what kind.

“The mechanisms for this effect are not clear and are worth further study. They may relate to the fact that the growth hormones related to height also are in some way stimulating cancer cells, but details are lacking.”

Not junk science such as increased risk according to your bedtime, but not hours sleep. WTH? Obviously not designed to be of any use. Except to those getting paid [well done].

The findings are properly contextualized.

Dr Jane Green, clinical epidemiologist at the University of Oxford, said: “In general, I would caution against interpreting a link as causal – however for height and cancer there is considerable evidence that suggests that the link is not explained by other known factors.

Context also lends itself to pacifying potential anxieties. Special mention to,

No problem with paradox

“......it is worth noting that taller people have lower risks for heart disease and a lower risk of death overall."

Paradox is often a fundamental part of reality fact and truth-it doesn't require special categorization.

The effort to jettison potential false causality

Clearly, adult height is not itself a ‘cause’ of cancer, but is thought to be a marker for other factors related to childhood growth.

Rather than the use of this to continue pathologization. Nor is there any pretense that a generalized catch all risk relates the same to each individual-innumerate as much as anything. 

just because a woman is tall, doesn’t mean they will definitely develop breast cancer,” said Carolyn Rogers, clinical nurse specialist at Breast Cancer Care.

For the record,

“We must stress that the biggest risk factors for developing breast cancer are being female, getting older and for some, a significant family history of the disease.”

This is pretty much how I see weight. It is 'obesity' that is deviance from basic rational standards. It doesn't take genius to work out that the absence of the above standards are malicious in intent.

Obese Extremist

A priceless lesson in how the fake evil of pathologization punctures perception of true evil. If you turn people into a joke, you cannot become serious about what them via the same source.

Perversely, only through re-humanizing them-dropping the 'obese construct' -can the truth of the evil a person does come to the fore unimpeded by slapstick.

Witness DM's extraordinary ability to do something I didn't think possible. To make 'obese' sound cool.

• Obese executioner
• Obese extremist
• Mammoth Extremist

Every single one sounds like one of those fascinating anti-heros.

I stand corrected.

Up until this point the evil acts of ISIS have only chilled me to the bone. That is now over thanks to the DM who've managed to contrast themselves with a pre obese-stimming consciousness. Terrorists apparently nicknamed this "tubby" executioner the "Bulldozer".

A mainstream news organ ends up sounding like those who sark any horror.

Strangely this is one of the first times the DM has failed to redundantly insert 'obese' into its headline. The need to disconnect you from this person is removed by their own actions. It reads: "ISIS's masked 20st monster."*

Now I don't know about you, but that doesn't provoke much emotion. The whole point of neuro-typical obese stimming is to present fat people as monsters, beasts. I've been called that numerous times, not to mention the frequent terminology using large mammals (such as mammoths) favoured by banal trolls.

To make it clear this particular "obese extremist", who has tortured and murdered people, execution style. It's not the usual reference to a self aware kind of "obese extremist". This terrorist amputates the healthy body parts of those who do not fit into his particular worldview. He and his cohorts feel they need to have parts of them missing in order to fit in. 

How extraordinary.

He's also described memorably as "one of ISIS's most unsightly executioners", there was a beauty contest to decide: Mr ISIL? Note the order in that quote and tell me again that "body dysmorphic disorder" comes out of nowhere like a 'disease' or is induced by how many likes your selfies garner.

The "unsightly" nature of this "obese individual" is used to serve as reflection of his evil. As with Bond villains, there's confusion here. And no, I'm not going to act like I need to prove anything by hastily adding how deeply against this or that I am. That too has been debased. I'll take for granted that you can tell.

If only I hadn't reacted so much to the insistence that Freud was science all those years ago, then I'd be able to say with authority rather than instinct that this reads Freudian-like with the shadow of size=beauty (or absence of)=morality replacing sex or the pleasure principle as motivational subtext.

This conflation of morals with size doesn't explain "healthily weighted" ISIS.

It brings back the way 'obese' finally alerted me to one way socio/psychopathy can be invoked in a person. By convincing a child that they're evil, when later child catches on that they aren't, their feeling about real malice and evil can be undermined, blunted. Because they believed they were evil and now they know that real feeling wasn't. 

Like exposure to constant friction creates a callous that numbs the area.

I'm neither, but I must confess, evil doesn't feel quite the same as it did before the extent of fake evil became obvious. If that sounds odd or even a little shocking, that's because it hasn't become so to you.

The person writing this article couldn't find a way to talk about a fat person any other way. Seems they felt that this because this person was actually bad, saying their worst would be apt. That 'worst' is not what hurts people.  Fat phobia causes hurt because people are upset that you are upset with them. They hurt because you appear hurt. They hurt because of love not hate.

Remember fat isn't evil.  It's not even a misdemeanour. Hatred is a product of the mind of the hater, not a reading of truth. It's an act of imagination.

This maniac is not.

Only in the last two paragraphs does this article retain gravitas commensurate with the of evil it reports, when it focuses on one of this man's victims. A 14 year old boy who had both his hand and foot cut off with a sword, in front of an audience.

Its final paragraph forgets weight all together and concentrates on a murderer, killer and psychopathic zealot. Something those who aren't can only yearn for. 

More ironically still, the comment section is not unpleasant to read, featuring only one attempt at humour. 

* This has been subject to subsequent amendment the whole headline now reads

ISIS's masked monster: Revealed, the tubby jihadi executioner dubbed The Bulldozer who's part of terror group's 'Chopping Committee' bringing horror to captured Iraqi towns

Again "tubby jihadi" derails the seriousness of what the headline is talking about. The history is indicated in the address bar.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3263008/ISIS-s-heavy-weapon-fear-Revealed-20st-executioner-dubbed-Bulldozer-s-terror-group-s-Chopping-Committee-bringing-horror-captured-Iraqi-towns.html

Another Metabolic Outlier Pays the ultimate price for the 'obesity' crusade

Samantha Packham died in hospital this July. She was 20 years old, weighed 40 stones/560lbs/254kgs. She had fierce hyperphagia at 8 years old according to her parents Jan and Michael,

“She would eat her dinner and then she would just go to the fridge and help ­herself to more food. “We tried to tell her she’d just had her ­dinner and didn’t need anything else, but she would fly into a rage. “She would swear and once she even pulled the hinges off the doors – she was that strong at the age of eight.

That 'rage' by the way is a profound distress that jumps out at you from your very nerves, your mind becomes aware of it. So what next?

"We took her to the doctors but they did absolutely nothing.”

That sums up what the 'obesity' crusade is all about. Put tremendous pressure on people to do something they aren't designed for and give them no help to even give it a good go. If you want people to deal with hunger of this magnitude, why not work on switching hunger down? Meaning doctors could have demanded this of researchers.

They've gone out of their way not to. The whole 'obesity' crusade and its acolytes have consistently argued against objective research, claiming that just gives people "excuses". It "over-complicates" things, yes you read that. More knowledge of something you clearly no little about =over-complication.  The only thing left is spontaneous recovery.

This should all be getting a tad familiar. Samantha also had learning difficulties and went to special school like Carl Thompson. Her body's level of energy conservation seemed to be even worse than his.

There's no doubt the 'obesity' is slowly being encroached by the voices of experience. There's a slow dawning realization of the mess we have been put in by this 'obesity' narrative. The Mail's original headline was,

obese daughter who weighed 40 stone and was put into care as a teenager because her parents could not control her eating dies aged 20

First off, when you write 40 stone in a sentence, you do not need to write 'obese' or 'overweight', as it was subsequently altered to-'cos that's supposed to be more polite. It isn't. I'm sure DM journos are expensively educated enough to recognize the difference between a problematic moniker and a problematic construct. I'm guessing, they expect their readers to be too low in reason to notice the difference.

No joking about the Mail readership now, that is quite contemptuous, well, why should that all be on fat people? To reiterate for the peanut gallery, it doesn't matter what you name this weight construct, it is what you are naming that is the problem. Changing terms makes no difference.

Back to that headline, how defensive is it?!

.......because her parents could not control her eating

Someone doth protest way too much. Samantha was snatched by a state agency because her parents could not control her eating eh? Now you know that is disingenuous, none such is said to the parents of children/teens wasting from anorexia nervosa. The hunger of a human being, child or not is in the body of that person, not in the head of others, whether parents, a societal bullying campaign or strictures on industrial food.

This extent of defensiveness makes it clear to me that they know on some level or t'other that the overall insistence on diet or death is the real killer here, not Samantha's parents. She was described as the youngest victim of the 'obesity' crisis. In a sense that is correct, when you consider this conceit of denying people any real means to alter the regulation of their weight, regardless.

That sets up a diet or death scenario, as I've made clear this is the latter part. I wasn't hyping, I was pointing to the obvious implication of describing something as lethal, then denying any means of altering that course.

It's called consequence, something fat phobes so shield themselves from that they've lost all sense of their own actions creating effects of their own. There's no guarantee that Samantha would have made old bones, but, there's no question that the greatest avoidable responsibility lies with those who use their hold over the discourse on weight to argue against proper scientific investigation of metabolic function.

That is those who are fixated on trying to trap people into a life of starvation and hunger blocking. All those who insist weight is "your fault/ your choice/lifestyle choice"-'obesity' wallahs, medics, amateur fat phobes, yep, you've hastened the end of people like Samantha who could not defend themselves from your self indulgence.

You are also why there was little her parents could have done except contact a specialist in a condition that they may have had no idea their child might potentially have had.

Her parents were not given a fighting chance at helping her is the truth. And not because of 'healthy eating', no one should die for following or not following someone else's ideas of a pure diet. The idea of a correct diet equalling a correct weight is just another of many facile attempts to save calories in/out model.

To be fair the press including the DM have been increasingly making a show of playing both ends, featuring fat acceptance 'role models' and such. Face it though, FA was not the answer here. FA's for removing iatrogenically induced problems. It's not a cure for true metabolic derangement, hyperphagia, overriding energy conservation, hypothalamic disorder- require actual study and unravelling.That means letting go of blame culture and putting this aspect of the body's self regulation back on a completely objective footing.

What is required is proper full investigation into metabolic function, free of the tiresome irrelevance of the 'obesity' construct. 

Heavily featured is the so called guilt of the parents who predictably blame themselves and confess to their negligence. What half decent parent would not be wracked with feelings/wishes that they could have done 'better'?

To help illustrate a truer valuation of this, I hereby confess to being the one on the grassy knoll. Despite neither being male, being able to shoot a gun or even being born. It is of course not even being accepted fact that there was a second gunman. Anyone can confess to anything, ask police investigating murders. Stop tormenting people who are dealing with the horrific situation of burying their own child.

If anyone bothered listening to them, they knew the score,

“It was like an eating disorder. 

An understatement of epic proportions. A hunger disorder isn't quite that, you could say it disorders eating-obviously-by signalling excessively, it was undoubtedly a malfunctioning that needed relieving. Forget the supposed consequence of weight, experiencing an constant excess of hunger causes unnecessary suffering of its own.

For example, ask anyone who's developed a hyperactive bladder how they feel about the excessive signalling and feeling the process at a much earlier stage, or never feeling they've emptied? 

Nor is using people like Samantha as a poster for 'obesity' justified in anyway, except to illustrate just how out of control people can get when they get drunk on the ability to abuse people at their will.

Sober up fat phobes.

Your so-called sympathy is not required

Sympathy, sympathy, I've heard that one too many times lately as in "I've no sympathy for fat people." Thanks for that nugget, I can assure you, everyone really gives a shizz.

This particular response to any request for reason in the area of weight has always been real irritating, setting up failure to be a smidgen less than an absolute raving arsehole to fat people as some kind of extravagant act of kindness. Typical nauseating self flattery du fat phobes.

I also dislike it when fat people themselves ask for 'sympathy', using this exact framing, allowing  grotesque impudence to be(come) a 'neutral' stance, whilst acknowledging it as far from by requiring something as elevated as (true) sympathy to mitigate it.

Lucky I'm not a particularly suspicious character, or I'd have to wonder a lot more about that sort of thing. It seems so obvious and so easy to stop once pointed out, even if it isn't so clear beforehand.

No, people do not "deserve sympathy", we all require courtesies and rights. They are not "deserved" they are part of the mechanics of how we wish to run society. That's why we observe them with those who most certainly do not deserve them. Like people who do hateful stuff.

If we deny them fundamental courtesies and rights, we risk undermining them from the rest of us.

'Deserve' is for the birds.

Don't ask for courtesies, take them for yourself. Be courteous to yourself. Respect your energies and your time. Do not waste your heart and nerves setting up fat acceptance as a vehicle to fly in the face of freely chosen hate. Stop pretending people don't choose to participate in fat phobia of their own free will.

After a recent fit of exasperation with this wretched mis-use of the term, I realised I don't remember that being a consideration in seeking to uncover the best answers. Did I have this self important need to feel "sympathy"? I noted that I did not.

I feel sympathy for those who find they have faulty wiring that brings repeated episodes of psychosis. What do I think is the best route to a solution for them? Objective study of their condition to find the best way of relieving, treating or blessed be, curing it.

I don't feel sympathy for paedophiles, not even those whose perversion is developmental.  What's my view on the best route to stopping them from hurting others? Objective study of their condition to find the best way of suppressing, or resolving it permanently.

If you believe fat is the devil that needs to be gotten rid of, your sympathy for fat people is not a consideration.

TV Cooks on the Rampage

What the everloving heck, cooks on the rampage? First some guy called Alton Brown who's rather late and therefore false in claiming that if the US succumbs to the idea that chucking calories down your neck=disease, it will signal the end of the republic as a cultural entity.

Though reports differ, the AMA declared alcoholism a disease in 1959 that's only 55 years ago, so Brown needs more time to take in the implications. He's perhaps a historian. One can say many things about the US but it appears to have weathered that storm. Clearly he knows little about either civilization or the US.

I can agree with him though that this was bunk, as is the same lie about weight. Both were/are more about siphoning health insurance $$$$'s than anything else, note he doesn't bother mentioning this genesis. Haters often don't. How many times have you heard "FGS medical profession/scientists don't call 'obesity' disease!"?

Though wiser among them have stopped trying to pretend that came from fat people [I wouldn't]. On the whole fatz don't give a sweaty armpit for that. Makes me proud.

Then there's Jamie Oliver, wait, I can't hate. Oliver is more pathetic than he is tiresome, though he is undoubtedly that with his construct related blunderings. I caught the last 15 mins of his documentary called "Jamie's Sugar Rush". 'Twas about 15 too many. I can't make myself care enough to do some digging (please) but what I saw contained a dubious-though somewhat ironic-commentary on indigenous Mexicans consumption of fizzy drinks.

In conversation, he made out that this really required some compelling explanation, which turned out to be, they saw fizzy pop as some kind of sacrament [no, I'm not exaggerating]. This from someone peddling secondhand mythology about sugar as the devil's dandruff [ha, ha, bet that gives you pause] responsible for whipping off a leg near  you. All this within a background of a baby on the breast and food cooked from fresh and wholesome ingredients.

Mexico has instituted a sugar tax the programme claimed has reduced 'obesity' by I think he said, 50,000 people. Yep, 'obesity' reduced by x people. That slipped through. I told you 'obesity' has been deemed 'disease' not 'a disease' as folks tend to insist. The distinction is made by what 'obesity' refers to. It defines people as disease in human form. That's clumsy etymology based on the identifying fatness from the eyes of an ignorant slim person imaging what it would be for them to be fat.

That is not what it is to be fat. 

It's a failure of cognizance. It is someone reaching beyond their intellectual capacity and falling flat. That fat people have borne it at all, let alone for this long, shows who's being allowed the controlling influence here.

The context of calories in/out making hunger and food targets put cooks in the firing line as culpable. Their fat phobia is defensive. That framing makes them feel bad, they take it out on fat people. Seeking to distance themselves. You are responsible, not us for making food that is (nominally) delicious.

It also gives somewhat of a taint. Interest, if not obsession with food doesn't make someone pathological, or bad. Hating fatz exonerates this interest.

Then there's what Oliver represents, a keening for gravitas. Cooking is seen as trivial and he is often seen as a dim but eager type. He's like those pop musicians, he wants to be taken seriously, do something important.

'Obesity' has lured him into thinking that's possible for him or necessary in this way. Everyone ought to be appalled at the lack of investigation into metabolic function. But not with the lack of policy formed around food fixated paranoia. You can never have too little of that. The documentary featured a primary (elementary) school where children grew their own veg and knew what various kinds were and like them. They also learned to cook, ace.

All these things were in many schools if you go back far enough. They were mainly removed during the crusade itself. Indeed its emphasis on individual choice in place of hunger was the most uniform agent in that and other things that mitigate implementation of the starvation strategy.

Though 'obesity' is a surface trivial irrelevance, it manages to be a poisoned chalice, splitting focus away from what is worthwhile and doable. If he'd just sought to re-establish a hot balanced meal for dinner in every school, he might have succeeded. Instead, it had to be a certain amount of calories and that just imposed one demand too many.

(Re-)establishing a gardening area in every school, teaching children about produce and wholesome ingredients, plus cookery lessons are laudable enough aims in themselves.

Enough to achieve everything Jamie yearns for, with the addition of fondness from those who might not have rated him. Though many support him-it is due to their fat phobia, not because he has truly impressed.

I understand the programme peddled the usual pseudo-science, conflating 'diabetes' with sugar consumption, the latter as causal agent.

Firing questions, why has type 1 gone up so much also, why do people who eat cook from fresh find 'empty' calories so acceptable to their palate, why isn't children growing produce and eating the norm and so on, just seem like they're aimed at the wrong person. Ultimately, its not Oliver's fault that 'obesity' has so uniformly drawn out the worst vanities in so many.

I would suggest to Oliver that he drop weight loss diet shill Susan Jebb and stick with his knowledge and love of good ingredients to create good food.

I'm not making any deep point, just saying, be aware cooks of sliding into this syndrome. Food is not the way we should be seeking to control our metabolic function. You are not guilty. So stick to what you are good at and be positive about it.

Fat People, not protected by secret lipophile cabal

Well, well, well. I had every intention of ignoring Nicole Arbour and her "satire"-fat shaming is not a thing, fat people just made that up. Fat shaming, what a brilliant idea, who came up with that?! Shaming people out of their bad habits, I'm okay with that, etc.,

Then I got to the bit where she claimed she'd been "censored" and that her youtube channel had been taken down after google had e-mailed her pointing to violation of terms of service. Automatically my brain activity went on a slight incline, who would have had the power to get google to act in such a manner? Few give much a shizz about acting on what fat people have to say, let's be candid.

So I went looking for who might be behind this, lo and behold I found nothing from the mainstream 'legit' media. On the other hand, these guys, calling themselves "Inquistr" seem to have come up trumps. They, in this case writer, Scott Hough, with the help of twitterers Boogie 2988 and (Rissa) @sandypear discovered some untoward activity. 

Seems La lipophobia "took down" her own channel- actually, she made it private. It was up the whole time. Censorship MFBA.

Fascinating that people want to press fat people into a typically braindead "PC gone mad" contrivance-that paedo "promoting" forum went straight for this as an assault on "free speech", without bothering to check. I'm sure their contrition will not only exist, but be as brave and as bold as their 'courage' in informing folks on the innate naturalness of seeking sexual relations with the underaged.

Not only is this denouement the real funny. It is the only way this works as a satire- on the continued assertion that fat people are protected by a fat apologist cabal, is this what Princess Punchdown meant? Yeah, you can have that excuse for free Nicole!

No Duty To Eat Greens

Now here's a really good article containing many points worth making about the current fat hating food paranoia. Can't say that everyday. Writer Stephanie Convery calls for an end misplacing "Judeo-Christian" virtue in salad greens. It's pitiful seeing Dawkins-type atheists rounding on Xtians, then channelling the same via food paranoia and fanaticism.

At least believers are self-aware enough to be honest about their need for religion.

She makes the point that this is not the right angle for examining the ethics of food.

That’s not to say there aren’t ethical, environmental and political questions to be asked about food, such as: under what conditions is it farmed? Are the workers paid fairly? Are there less resource-intensive and more sustainable ways to organise food production? But these aren’t questions that can be solved with personal angst over a dinner plate.

Personal is right. It's all about moi.

The article also notes that the highly recommended du nos jours green, watery veg are nutritionally speaking, pretty useless, as we run on energy. If that wasn't enough, some of it is toxic at high levels, which is one reason 'no-one' craves them like calorie dense food. Not completely, I once had a craving for lettuce so strong that I could get no peace until I went and got some. I sprinkled it with balsamic vinegar and a few shavings of Parmesan. Divine.

Purely because my body demanded it for some reason. Once.

As SC mentions, the ridiculous nay hysterical elevation of this kind of produce is topsy turvy wishful thinking driven by the insistence that "weight loss" must happen via calorie restriction. This makes first hunger then food its target. The hunger is usually silent, buried under "choice" as if an abstraction outside of bodily need.

What makes this special though is this,

Over the past decade or so, the Health At Every Size movement has been building momentum against this kind of “fat-shaming” culture that contributes to the development of pathologies about food,

 Whoo-hoo!!! Such confidence. Direct mention, free of shame or "obesity is teh bad" type apologia. Just factual acknowledgement, HAES (in the context of fat acceptance) has led the way in reversing this tide of pathological cultism, not to mention its companion pseudo-science.

Pretending nature's real "junk food", as much as I like it, is somehow the epitome of human health is that.

oac ABOLISH the 'obesity' construct instead

You're going to lurrrve this.

An organisation calling itself the "obesity action coalition" (oac) launched a campaign on the 6th of July this year to "Ban the F word", not the one that rhymes with yuck, they mean "fat". Why says you? It is purportedly to end "fat shaming." Or "weight bias".

 Fat shaming being the term for the referencing of fat people's lowered social status-caused by the 'obesity' construct, heavily sold by its wallahs-via insults developed on the theme of the insulting and dehumanizing 'obese' caricature.

Something neither (real) scientists nor medics have any business involving themselves in the creation of.

I'm sure I don't need to tell you how cheeky these industry grifters are. If they do not like that, I'm sure they can take action. The oac claims as one of its victories, the taking down of the video put up by Kevin MD "Healthcare not fair-Dr. Sorry Ms Fatty." According to reports, they and 'the obesity society' (toc) had a word, which probably explains its prompt removal. Another one they claim is the seeing off of a rule to IQ test bariatric patients pre-surgery.

I don't have enough capacity to look that up, but I'm guessing it refers to an attempt by the bariatric industry itself, to stop people with intellectual disabilities from being butchered by bariatrick cutty men* was removed by their "advocacy". They're so helpful to fatz.

Though that could come back to haunt someone.

What intrigues is why KMD didn't bother to mention this advocacy, indeed, he lead us all to believe that it was down to more general complaints.

Physicians needed to hear from patients on this issue, and their voices came through loud and clear.

It would be overly coy to ask why front organisations featuring professionals can get heard with the speed of light. So I won't bother. It does illustrate something I've been pointing out for years, that the support of the white coat mafia is the reason for the windchill factor level of abandonment and hazing fat people have endured (and still do albeit to a vaguely lesser extent). Not the (slim) fat phobic public, nor your family, school yard bullies or even the slimming industry.

Anyhow, this ban the fat word mess is an obvious and crude attempt to co-opt fat acceptance, note the fat fist thrust into a militant salute (they know where that can go). The cheeky blighters deserve to have that nicked for thorough subversion. This organisation who states is purpose is "giving a voice to the individuals affected by the disease of obesity" wants to erase the word "fat" to give 'obesity' a clearer run. They insist weight is disease.

It is 'obesity' that needs abolishing. The actual underlying construct needs to go. It's not the word its the conceptualization it conveys.

Its existence is a cynical agenda laden ideological construct made for the benefit of professionals and people who wish to sell you things. Whilst weight outliers who often have something seriously awry are permitted to perish in the margins. Unheralded by these beneficent "voice givers." People who do not need "support" in their "journey", they need an actual scientific grasp of how to deal with the metabolic dysfunction erased by the existence of 'obesity' and its bullshit.

The cause of "weight stigma" is this misdirection and the measures taken to attempt to interest people in what would otherwise have no earthly interest to them. How much do you care about slim people's weight, now you've withdrawn from the imposition? No really, how often do you spend looking at slim people and thinking, "Your weight, your weight?"

No one is interested in weight, people are interested in being able to regulate and control the functioning of their bodies. Diet and exercise is the opposite of that. It is not only ineffective, regularly creating and/or increasing the "problem" its supposed to be solving/preventing. But it also makes you a servant of it. Your so called 'journey' is a life based around it.

Only people with serious malfunctioning of organs are expected to piss away so much mindspace, spirit and energy on a dishonest abstraction. And they at least have the prospect of imminent death to "motivate" them. By that I mean, they can die within the day without certain interventions.

If you look at a set of weighing scales, the ones for instance where a balance slides from one end to the other to measure a person's weight. That's  the same the breadth of human weight. Now imagine that a line was drawn at a certain point on that scale rule and it is announced that past this line is something different from what has come before.

You'd be incredulous. You can see with your own eyes, its a question of what point on the same scale. The mechanics that produce weight are rather like that, its a question of finding out how/where to alter that to stop weight from increasing or decreasing at a certain point.

Weight, as in "weight bias" is not " disease" at any point, though forces pushing it up or down the scale may well be. Like fertility before birth control, the issue with weight is there is no known effective means of stopping it unless your body does instinctively. Or it yields to starvation/forced eating.

In any other aspect of human functioning, finding out how to achieve that directly and efficiently would be recognized as the overriding aim. Instead 'obesity' an obsolete creation lost in the mists of time, an artificial derail has rooted itself in place like a useless stinky weed that keeps re-sprouting to cause confusion even to those below the Maginot Line of weight respectability, wishes only to perpetuate its own outrageously useless existence.

Its long since outlived any imagined usefulness.

ABOLISH THE 'OBESITY' CONSTRUCT

Replace it with proper wholly objective investigation into the anatomy and functioning of human metabolism and homoeostasis. This bitty-birth order, Internet use, ice cream fancying gives "greater risk for obesity" bollocks needs to end. This 'obesity', puts you at greater risk of x, y, or z illness-as if that does anything, needs to cease. By finding out what something is all about, you find out how good/bad or indifferent it is or can be. All is required for understanding. No-one understands any condition/state etc., via trying to make it an unimpeachable villain.

Instead, we need to be concerned with a sense of what parts are involved in recreating our cells and tissue, our meat and marrow and a sense of its physiological dynamics. That in and of itself would decimate "weight bias" more than any laws on the statue, pleading, social justice efforts or janus faced "advocacy".

I'll repeat, the issue is not the words used, it is the concepts they're transmitting. Defining fat people's bodies as slim ones suffocating in an adipose suit that is their own bodies, is not only stupid, mindless and pathological, it is and can only be a hopelessly biased dead end that will continue to go nowhere slowly.

Think of those thin people who think everyone fatter than they ="fat", including slim people. Now imagine these thin people insisting that slim people define themselves as thin people wearing a padded onesie.

Exactly.

Altogether again,

ABOLISH THE 'OBESITY' CONSTRUCT

  

Plus its attendant pseudo-science. Fat people are not an employment scheme for the lumpen bourgeoisie.

* Interestingly, obesity and its associated co-morbid conditions are prevalent in patients with cognitive impairment, but the risks and benefits of bariatric surgery in this complex group are not well known.

Studies examining outcomes have been limited to case reports, and thus most bariatric programs do not consider patients with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities to be surgical candidates. At more severe levels of impairment (Intelligence Quotient [IQ] 50-70), only 6.2% of programs do not consider this a contraindication. Furthermore, published guidelines, such as the 2013 AACE/TOS/ASMBS guidelines on perioperative management of the bariatric patient [2009 version], note the importance of a clear understanding of the risks, benefits, outcomes, and alternatives to surgery, and this ability to consent may be compromised in those with cognitive impairments.

 NB A study of 169 prospective bariatric surgery patients

Morbidly obese individuals seeking bariatric surgery were similar in education, income status, and IQ compared with normative data.

Nervous System Conference

Another day and another conference. This one sounds like a breath of fresh air though. It's tag reads,

Nervous system, From stem cells to behaviour in the normal and diseased.

In my head that became-the nervous system, from cells to the way their function translates directly into behaviour. In other words, seeing the nervous system in the same kind of way we see the liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc., anatomy as function and function as anatomy.

Rather than as if our behaviour is somehow different from the anatomy that enables the transmission of the impulses that become said behaviour/s.

This also added to the sense of bonhomie [which is of course transmitted, felt and perceived by my nervous system.]

...this meeting will include a balance of topics on human and animal models of neural development and disease:

The prospect of real science feels fresh and friendly in comparison with the stale hatefest wrought by pseudo-science. Hopefully this means/includes mapping more fully the healthy anatomy of the human nervous system. The nervous system is the system of the era we are living in. It is where many real battles around health, bodily autonomy and our understanding of ourselves and other living beings will be fought and we've barely begun to get to grips with that.

When it comes to function and health, we need to learn better how to make the nervous system interrupt itself. That, not drugs will be the way of the future. Medical and scientific professionals have failed to come to grips with this, or actually, some of them probably sense this and want to smoother any possibility out of existence.

Big pharma suits many of the way they wish to continue practising medicine.

It would be nice if this conference led in some way to the end of the tiresomely redundant Cartesian-dualism age, where people behave as if the brain is some kind of ethereal imperceptible essence of self and the mind isn't part of the body-even to the extent of at times seeing it as separate from the brain!

This all feels a bit Stone Age. I have to keep reminding myself that it still has currency.  Even to the extent that folks argue about things in an either/or way, rather than it isn't quite the right frame. i.e. "Either ladies should be able to cross their legs when they sit down, or they should keep them together without such."

That framing of women isn't a given is it? I mean, "ladies"?!

The internet is a surprise in that way. I expected it somehow to be ahead of the meatspace mainstream opinion. Perhaps due to the appearance given of constant technical innovation. Uncommonly heard rationale does feature on the nets and that makes the news to the extent of re-shaping consciousness about it.

When you actually get on it, what hits like a wall is how much of the time the opposite is true. The sheer extent of parochial idiocy and mental indolence is at times, thought-stopping. Vast oceans of people who cannot be bothered to invest a breaths worth of energy in understanding their own "opinions" let alone grasping anyone else's.

Yet do not let that stop them from disagreeing virulently with what they haven't even perceived correctly if at all, behaving like children learn to get out of in kindergarten [or should], that other people exist who work to whole different rules than they. Instead, everyone is exactly like them, thinks exactly like them. At the same time they think anyone who they perceive as differing from them is a space alien from a planet far away. Who lives only to try and knock a modicum of the most obvious reason or sense into their bone heads.

I'm digressing.

The "I live in this body" orientation could be on the long or short road to being put in its place, i.e. quaint obsolescence. That's not yours or my decision. It's that of those who'll be going to this conference and similar.

It's when they're ready.

So watch their space.

You hopeless addict you

Well wouldn't you know. After years, of slowly being forced to get off the anorexia/'obesity' train, 'obesity' cultists are going with this angle. We're still disease, sick, unsane objects with nothing to say nor sentience to consult, but, wait for it, we're hopeless addicts who can't help it! Good-o, that's a step up socially isn't it? Everyone with an acceptable body wants to be addicted to something, so, we must be jonesing for that too right?

Altogether with your fake pity, awwwwwww.

Here's why Monbiot et al are sticking with the 'obesity' spiel,

The crucial task is to reach children before they succumb to this addiction. As well as help and advice for parents, this surely requires a major change in what scientists call “the obesogenic environment” (high energy foods and drinks and the advertising and packaging that reinforces their attraction). Unless children are steered away from overeating from the beginning, they are likely to be trapped for life.

Yep, it's all about the control, in this case of big business via what folks think can be turned into the softest target, the food industry. Getting your own way, not through persuasion, you feel your ideas are that attractive. But via stealth, through unguarded borders [so topical.]

Whether its greens/leftists or whatever he is like GM who wish to use fat people as a pathway to checking capitalism/big biz, or rightists like those he critiques. David Cameron and his mate Dame Carol Black, who wish to use fat people as a way of forcing people into the kind of punitiveness, rightists find so emotionally satisfying, no matter how costly, self defeating and oh erm, immoral it is.

Monbiot's whole farticle is as pitiful as to be expected, but even he excels himself for sheer pissweak attempts at unfelt "sympathy". Read the whole thing as its a study in it, but I think this takes the yam (no cake) for sheer bottom feeding cringe worthiness,

It causes a range of hideous conditions, just one of which – diabetes – accounts for one sixth of NHS admissions and 10% of its budget. In what looking-glass world is this acceptable? If smoking demands fierce intervention, why not overeating?

Hideous I tell thee! Worse even than wearing last season's three-quarter length trews!!!! The answer to the emphasized question is of course, when folks of your kith and kin want to get their own way. I said 'obesity' wallahs are happy for you to sicken and die as long as you're happy to accept this is okay. People can see it, but there's a step between seeing and believing.

That includes fat activists, singing about social justice, but saying little about being openly told either you diet or you die. The unacceptability of that does not hang on the 'healthiness' or otherwise of fatness. The PTB don't do it out of hate, it's how they roll, how else are they going to get you to do their bidding without these shenanigans?

No-one should be told, you are ill, and are dying and that's okay, unless you can do only this (useless), punitive thing. Think of the subliminal message. It's never been acceptable and that it goes largely unchallenged has in itself degraded fat people and encouraged an abusive attitude towards us. That it is said at all is reflective of such also.

Neither of course is a fuck you, prevention only any better, that's primitive in its barbarism. How can you value or respect anyone who its openly acceptable to give up on? I say openly, as that has always been implicit.

Do some of you now see why "sympathy" is hogwash? Isn't this crapulence (simulating) "sympathetic"? I've always hated this assertion that what I used to call "professional sympathy" is some kind of panacea for anything.What is required is fat people to value ourselves and truth. Fact, objective testable understanding of how our bodies work, or science as we still manage to call it.

I hope some of you sentimentalists are seeing that there's nothing more sympathetic than a desire to understand, genuine science is deemed progressive largely for that reason.

But even that is not going to come without direct intervention from those who desire or are capable of it. 

Therein contains a serious point though. The [prospective] ill health of fat people is being used as a lever for others to get their own [political/social] way. In the case of the right, it's undermining consent/ imposing punitive no strictures, no matter how useless or pointless. That satisfies something deep within them.

No wonder there's been such extraordinary apathy on the part of dealing with most things deemed "obesity associated." Usually, if there's a problem associated with any issue, genuine suggestions of how to deal with them flow.

Years before fatsphere, I expected there to be 'obesity' physiotherapy to come into being at any second, that's why I virtually had a thoughtgasm, when I heard of HAES. That was what amateurs [and truly humane professionals] created in lieu of being left for their bodies to go where they may. Time after time, I've stumbled over ways of dealing with things 'associated' with fatness, that obviously occur in slim people, where there are ideas and advice available, that are rarely heard in context of 'obesity.'  It's all, point out how fat people are doomed, stand back willing it to happen.

I said myself, that if I hadn't searched for alternative ways to restore some well being, I'd never have stumbled over a way to quell a rampaging hunger disorder, one very much provoked by calorie restriction.

Suffice to say, fatness is not diseasiness. Weight, no matter what, is an outcome of metabolic function and no doubt can be adjusted, altered at some point there. And yes, calorie restriction is useless for everybody in the end. The issue here is not that it's impossible to change weight properly and permanently, but that the wrong target is being used to alter it. That's way too simple for all this nonsense to carry on.

Now we can see the determination to be wrong is really about continuing to make use of fat people as a means to an end, rather our health and what can be stolen from it.

The only way round this is for fat people to get involved in the area of metabolic function and weight. And literally elbow out this mentality for good. I go back to what I said at the beginning of my fatsphere sojourn-These people (obesity wallahs) are not going to stop themselves, they have to be stopped.

Even I didn't know how quite how right that was and why.