Saturday, 28 February 2015

Forewarned is Disarmed: If you think you know Better

A new series called NHS £2 Billion a week and counting, is about what should and shouldn't be funded by the tax funded National Health System [NHS]. It asks the public to consider medical dilemmas related to the overall costs. What should be excluded from the NHS budget. Do I even need to tell you where this is inevitably going to go?

That's right, should 'obesity' be used as a blatant tool of rationing? Okay, they don't make it that explicit but we know that's what they mean. You just know "self inflicted" is going to be in the mix somewhere, don't you?

According to the first programme, the answer's yes it should. It featured a heavy drinker who needed a new liver and a fat woman who needed breast reduction-each was as big as two heads.

After much tooing and froing, the former was successful-he'd stopped drinking and was told if he began he would be off the list. The latter was not. The programme broadcast people's tweets live as the show was going out.

I'd like to say it was interesting, but it wasn't. It was pretty much predictable outpouring of judgmentalism for both candidates with islets of reason-you couldn't say one more than the other. Obviously, the main comment was the fat woman could solve her problem by losing weight-she'd already shed 70lbs/31kgs, though the actual principle was supposed to be whether cosmetic surgery should be allowed.

It is and it isn't- it varies.

In the end she paid for it herself, albeit at a reduced rate after going to the press. At a consultation before the surgeon told her, even if she managed a greater loss, she'd be unlikely to see much more loss from her breasts which were outstandingly large.

The whether a person should have weight loss surgery is a delight to come. I wonder if it will be mentioned that fat people have been telling people for decades that calorie restriction dieting was not cutting it. And that society chose to ignore this, that this was a gamble, which it lost and frankly, never tried to hard to win, on its own dictated terms and so anything that flows from that is called consequence.

Or even that no rigourous reality based pathway has been established-due to this mass elective delusion-so no real progression or learning curve has been established.

Or even that the social contract depends on you not attacking law-abiding people and casting them as villains, for your own personal gain. Or even-no taxation without representation/can't pay won't pay etc.,

We'll see..........

Friday, 27 February 2015

Skinny Bird Watching-Quelle Outrage

Hold the phone. Something terrible has happened.

What? Have people have had their humanity displaced by being defined as dis-ease? Epidemic? Is the medical machine trying to turn them into a silo for worthless toxic drugs, seeking to violate every piece of privacy a person has? Are they being denied medical treatment until they are able to overcome their bodies innate resistance to the imposition of pathology?

Non, nein and nope.

A new "plus size" fashion imprint decided to launch with a PR stunt it called #skinnybirdwatching trying even to get it trending on twitter. I can't be bothered to go into what this was supposed to be about-I didn't care then and I don't care now.

Luckily, even the type of fat women who would respond to this kind of crap-i.e. mainstream- are wising up. Unlike their slimmer counterparts who continue to ride 'obesity' bullshit as if its not dehumanizing assault on personal autonomy. They can whine though and act all hoity-toity as if they give a damn about anyone but themselves. They can really throw down some fake high dudgeon.

I hereby inform you that is supposedly a "body shaming" outrage. And this is what it looks like when slimmer women feel moved to get upset. Take a good look and imagine what it might look like if they gave half a damn about something truly outrageous.

Oh and by the way, fat women should be ashamed of this and should avoid it 'cos its a "bad move." And one fat person=all fat people;
The questionable move has inspired a collective disapproving reaction from people of all sizes, who recognize that skinny shaming is a bad move for anyone claiming to promote body confidence.
Oh really? Well the 'obesity' cult's still being worked by thin and slim women and they're seem happy with that. So each and every one who can only give a rats arse about themselves can shove their so called equally misplaced "outrage" where they think the sun shines out of. Some of us aren't remotely interested in their game of body size oneupmanship, that is not strategic that's ethics.

It's called, do unto others and I know how this system works, and I don't like it and want no part of it. How dare people take that for granted. People who don't feel they owe it to fat women and I certainly don't feel we owe it to slim women either, for that very reason. We abjure what is currently being embraced, because we don't believe in it. Not to be on our best behaviour as if we're on trial to be judged by those who happily partake of far worse than this fluff. When is that demanded of slim women by us? That they be perfect? That they always do the right thing?

We're still, how about you try connecting with some real feeling? I'd love to see that.

How Many Times: Bodies Do not Cause Eating Disorders

Here we go with another tedious installment of let's stay in denial and pathologize bodies as the source of anorexia, yahwn.

Repeat, anorexia is ultimately about susceptibility, meaning that you have to have some tendency towards it to succumb to it. But, the trigger of that susceptibility, i.e. how most find it out is through the hunger/appetite blocking practice of calorie restriction. Calorie restriction is the disordered and dysfunctional basis of all available weight regulation, hence people merely trying to stay the same weight find themselves inexplicably mimicking and triggering various disorders, including those of eating.

That includes more than anorexia or starvation disorders, it includes provoking the hunger/appetite (signalling) to go hyperactive too-the latter is a defense mechanism against potential starvation the former is a succumbing to the pressure of it.

What isn't the cause of anorexia is thin bodies who you'll find are thin people. Their appearance in the fashion meejah merely reflects the value accorded them by middle and upper classes, especially. The haute fashion biz is invariably chock-a-block with that strata. They naturally disseminate the currency and values of their class experience and milieu.

Until they are prepared for a genuine re-think, they need to stop this ridiculous pantomime of attacking the adolescent girls favoured to illustrate their fashion fantasies.

This combination plus the wretched 'obesity' crusade in overdrive is a ticking timebomb waiting to implode on those unfortunate enough to become "collateral damage."

Singling out a 16 year old weight outlier for abuse is not only bullying it's dishonest and no account. It seeks to criticize in a roundabout way, attitudes approved of by those doing the criticizing-which is why they enjoy being so virulent and nasty about it. Their own sense of guilt and shame.

I'm sorry that some with varying stages of anorexia etc., feel "triggered" by people, but, they'll just have to get over that. It's outrageous to demand the banning of bodies because of your personal problems. No one with "low-self esteem" would dream of such an imposition. You can't dump that amount of responsibility on someone who has no control over you, apart from anything, it doesn't address the problem.

Part of recovering from ED desensitizing overactive reactions - you might as well get on with that. In fact, this might be a cue for those who provide treatment to make this more important. Sending people out there who can barely tolerate the sight of another strikes me as somewhat of an oversight.

And if especially privileged middle and upper class people are too silly or brutish to tell their children-models get paid for their size, for the way they look, you do not-your job is to look like yourself, then they'd better do what they usually do, employ someone to do it for them

Wednesday, 25 February 2015

This is what Progress Looks Like

Here's some good news, Truvada an antiviral, has been found to reduce the spread of the HIV virus in a recent test. Though its not a particularly large scale study, the results on the face of it seem impressive and could be life changing for people, including the most marginalized, if not more so for them. This drug, which can be taken daily also treats HIV/AIDS, containing the virus.

It's always instructive to note what happens with genuine diseases. Those engaged in those respective fields of study look for real treatments, cure/s, plus even vaccines too boot-if apt.

Unlike the so called life threatening condition of 'obesity' which seeks only "prevention" i.e. don't "get it"/give us any work. As if that were all, don't forget, most medical science tends to start by dealing with those who have the most and acute pressing problems. In trying to grasp the nature of what they're dealing with more clearly. Because that would obviously be more important than people outside their field of study. 

'Obesity' pays little heed to this seemingly rational course. Turning it on its head, it seeks to center its attentions on people who aren't even its supposed target audience. Turning and using them only as cautionary tales, whilst all the while braying ceaselessly about the damage done being "evidence" of why those outside its cross hairs would do well to stay that way.

The reason why truvada and such happen is not because people liberate, stoke up and fully indulge their most bigoted urges. They happen because those in the field are totally invested in relieving suffering, avoiding ill health and death of those it exists to serve, regardless of their purported "moral" or perceived societal value or even how supposedly "easy" it is to avoid the real or imagined dis-ease.

Take HIV/AIDS. In the main, we're talking about avoiding sexual intercourse, not sex, nor even sexual gratification, no, we're talking penetration. Compared to what some of us are being asked to avoid, that hardly seems like a thing.

No matter though, that is of no concern. It becomes a thing, if, as in this case, people are trained that sex =sexual intercourse and well, it doesn't matter anyway, because the job of medical science is not moral philosophy and they aren't interested in that. Or they'd be in a different field altogether.

That is why real medical science doesn't piss away 40 years of effort on diddly squat. It makes progress and it works. Progress works and bullshit remains bullshit.

Friday, 20 February 2015

HAES is not the Paradigm Shift

HAES- "health at every size" refers to making wellbeing/ health decisions according to what works and makes sense to you-which is the norm for all humankind. Those choices go according to what best facilitates your ability to function, what suits you best and what is most sustainable for you. HAES came from fat people's own desire to re-assert a normalcy that had been derailed by official interference from medical healthcare influence and society as a whole.

In other words, its (fat) people behaving normally. 

The real paradigm shift happened when fat people were diverted from that cause in order to adopt calorie restriction as a way of life. That wasn't the initial intent, which was temporary. It spread to take over people's lives because its dysfunction and profound inefficacy did not act as a break on its imposition.

No "evidence" was produced to show that this made sense or even what it was supposed to achieve.

The instigator of this counter-intuitive, self harming and futile behaviour was people considered to be scientists and the actual medical profession. Via cultural imposition of discomfort and unease they sought to make good the idea of being as disease.

In other words, the main driver of calorie restriction dieting-which is repulsive to most people was escape at any cost, not a positive embrace of the foul. 

No "evidence" was produced as to show how this improved health or even would succeed in these purported goals. Which were supposedly slimness but look far more like deepening and containing a person in a no-man's land between discomfort and self abuse. What would be the point of seeking to ghettoize people as a class-by weight-in order to liberate them from said ghettoization?

No plan was made of how this was to work out. 

The basis of excusing this behaviour was pathologization of fat people or 'obesity' which posited people as slim with or without the imposition of an adipose suit that is a disease, a dis-ease generating organ etc.,

No proof could be advanced for this as it doesn't accord with anatomy. Declaring slim people as shrunken failed fat people cannot be proven as the premise doesn't hold. The human body is not ideology, its anatomy that's objectively observable.

No evidence advanced for which pathways would turn this kind of stress into health-in those above a certain body mass. No one would expect pathologizing (slim) people, defining them no longer as human but as dis-ease as leading to health benefits. So at least explanations would be required to explain why that changes.....

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

None was proffered. 

The reason I have difficulty with haes is, I have little idea why normality is being touted as a paradigm shifting novelty. This continues the learned habit of defining anything that comes from people as case for the defense. When actually, the prosecution has not proven its case.

In case of any undue excitement, its lack of such does not mean either the process of weight and weight itself cannot be a problem. I shouldn't have to mention that though, because its obvious the 'obesity' has little interest in dealing with that. Their case is solely about social engineering and doleing out punishment.

Deliberate intent to contrive unnecessary pathology goes against all the rules of health. Even a snake oil salesman or a quack knows better than that. This could be easy to miss in the case of 'obesity', because we're used to treatments for life threatening conditions, i.e. chemotherapy for cancer being almost as rough as the disease itself.

That is a by-product, a side effect of the treatment not its aim. That's the difference between real disease and 'obesity'- the former is a problem which treatment seeks to relieve whilst the main aim of cure is at the helm. 'Obesity' wallahs own estimation of 'obesity' is its nowhere near disease enough.

It doesn't Cure, it Vaccinates and Treats tho'

This should be good:
Diet and exercise alone are no cure for obesity, experts say.

The headline appears to be a recognition of what we've been reporting, restricting calories is both the wrong target and the wrong end to deal with underlying metabolic function. That one word though says something else instead. That impersonating an anorexic, whilst pretending to be a professional athlete-without said profession-isn't enough.

More is demanded of on top of that.

Slim people should step back in awe. They're a world away from being asked for so much, to so little end [not a pun]. In a context where a headache pill is currently selling itself on relaxing the muscles in your scalp-because that's such hard work, even an the age of "mindfulness."

Where people think nothing of receiving pills to get to sleep-despite their checkered history. Pills to regulate their mood- because learning to change those simply isn't conscionable, moods are sacred. Moods are pweacious, like fee fees (well some people's anyway.)

Pills to suppress hyperactivity-i.e. calm down, because how can anyone be expected to learn to do that? Ironic given that we're being asked to suppress a basic primal signal, by being told, "It's not real hunger." Why don't they tell others that just isn't real too? Would that spare healthcare coffers also?

What about pills/ gizmo's to regulate slight bladder dysfunctions-is the idea of an adult relearn what children have to learn that beyond the pale? Pills and operations for stress coming out in people's backs et al (oh there's so much more). If anything that requires training, restriction or interruption of your life is just too much. Everywhere you look further investigation comes only after convenience has been utterly exhausted. That's not any kind of position to instruct others to become ruled by the voluble absence of any such notion.

The thing with this is not to show up the abject docility (i.e. lack of "personal responsibility") in the usual doctor-patient relationship, in comparison with the absurdly unrealistic demands of "weight management"* no its to repeat that this vast chasm of expectation means those asking it, have no grasp of what they're asking, because they never ask nor expect it of themselves.

[*Actually it's, energy manipulation. The body already manages its own weight-that's what you've failed to overrule. And why everyone who's "careful" isn't 100lbs and the supposedly carefree piggy gluttons aren't all 900lbs.]

Only when you have say an internal narrative like..... "I've got a headache, okay, I'm letting go of tension in my head-not enough, okay in my neck, shoulders, upper back....? Now I have a period cramp, ditto-that's part of my on-going programme of retraining my body to get less tense, so for now, I'll just have to change the way I view this pain, oh, my back, okay, what's been happening lately, okay, so certain recent situations have had more of an effect on me than I imagined, okay, how can I change my perspective/pov to relieve this pressure and therefore the pain in my back.....if indeed that does turn out to be the decisive factor....."all whilst continuing to participate in everyday existence of course.......

Only when you demand this kind of thing of yourself, does what you're asking of people, begin to really come into meaningful view. You can more likely see things like, you're asking people to block hunger/appetite signals-obviously. You've stopped this weird anorexic pretense that this doesn't exist or is somehow "false." To stop having emotions 'cos "emotional eating" [hey, I don't know] no more  sacredness of emotions then.

It's only a matter of time when you start realizing, block hunger constantly-why not just adjust it at source-so you don't have to keep wasting time blocking it after the fact? That gives something to pose to those daring to call themselves "weight loss/management" smeckperts.

Eventually its realized this won't necessarily produce significant weight change so, several things can become apparent, though intake and weight can sometimes be in tandem, they can also be divergent to the point almost of disconnection. So, then it becomes, what do you focus on? Where do you apply that to adjust weight? Then our ignorance of metabolic anatomy and physiology becomes clear.

If I ask nothing of myself, and everything of you, and I'm in charge, you are contained within my ignorant, incompetence and low-ask standards. Indeed the extent of extraneous effort  comes straight out of that limitation and ignorance, facilitated by the dehumanization of characterizing people not as people-like yourself-who you'd apply your own standards to, but disease-like pathogens that can be poked, prodded manipulated and owned, like in a lab.

Like lab rats? Made to do this, made to do that. Filled with this or that substance, see what happens, after 12 weeks-a rodent cycle-nothing? Pump something else into it. All whilst controlling/dictating its feed and activity. There's an open ended time limit on energy manipulation though, despite;
"We all want a fix for obesity, a cure for it," Ochner said. But "eat less, move more" is not it, he said.
I'm sure you do, that would put you right out of business.

This is named by this mindset as both "prevention" and "treatment", so tis the same as the last 40 years,  just, even more is required;
[Physicians].... should discuss with obese patients the range of medications, surgery and device-based treatments approved by the FDA to supplement diet and exercise in promoting weight loss. And they should make weight-loss maintenance--an aspect of obesity treatment that is neglected--a part of their treatment plan.
More officially enforced, will win the day eh?** These demands from people who feel its beyond them to start and end the sentence with-calorie restriction doesn't work. "Calorie restriction doesn't work, its 'vaccine' and 'treatment' though" This folding a thought/sentence back on itself is a real doozy of a cognitive distortion. I'll let you know if I find out what its called.

Even if that made any sense, those who find it too much effort to get beyond clinging to their bankrupt and broken hypothesis, who are prepared to subordinate millions to that outstanding inability, wouldn't be the ones to head that charge.

This boomerang effect really isn't a change. It's been known from the start of the crusade that diets are not going to be meet the challenge asked of them. 'Obesity' wallahs and medics convinced themselves  that **forcing it on people, using social opprobrium, then health fears, now added to that the momentum of the medical machine, would somehow make it work.

In societies where capitalism and individual freedom are articles of faith- the very antithesis of what this approach demands was overwhelmingly promoted, by those leading the charge as well as anyone. They helped put the industrial food companies they're now whingeing about in their own hospitals, including paedatric ones too. Up till recently.

All ci/co adherents say: "Of course diets don't work, they have to be for life. " One of the ways they don't work is that they can't be tolerated for long if at all. You can see this mental fillip is in essence delusional. I have no idea why calorie restriction develops this hold over a mind that can also see right through it. That does seem to be the seed pod of the same vice grip anorexia can gain over those susceptible to that condition. Along with its scrambled thinking.

By the way, the failure of the diet-weight hypothesis is not remotely "depressing" on the contrary, it's just the amazing way the body works. It's design is cleverer and better than a miniscule product of one its organs (the brain), which should be no shame to us. That sounds more like creationists disappointment with the impact they fear science has on their respective faiths.

This surprise of function is genuinely more interesting than fiction. When we can grasp some proper understanding finding ways to use its abilities-which are gifts to us- that promises to be fertile ground for changing the course of health physically and mentally.


Tuesday, 17 February 2015

Limited Horizons

Didn't expect to bother with the other two episodes of this. I completed the trio, in spite of myself and felt certain things were worth noting (my hand accidentally typed that as "nothing").
The premise, to apply a scientific approach to calorie restriction dieting (CRD) was laughable. That would obliterate the practice. It turned out really to be another desperate chapter of-operation save calorie restriction dieting. The prime motive as ever isn't to slim fat people but to keep us dieting.

At the start of each part the presenter asserted: "We know 'obesity' is caused by overeating." Tell that to the surgeons cutting stomachs out-along with added mal absoption! They clearly see the "cause" as an absence of starvation.

The programme's USP was "tailoring" diets to a person's eating [faults]. WW arrived at the same place for the same reasons with their points system. Both are an instinctive drift- realized or not- toward aping normal eating, a tacit admission of failure.

And if "overeating" i.e. an excess of hunger is the problem, why not apply a scientific approach to reversing that? Temperature too high, reduce it. Too many hunger signals? Reduce their extent and/or range, simple. Yet not a dicky bird was said about such.

Just to clarify, this would be more or less the same whether a person had normal hunger or not. Its just reducing normal hunger might lead to pathology and be rather unethical-given you'd be imposing loss of function rather than healing. [Sound familiar?]

What made me truly sit up though (and sit through to the end) was beneath the-anyone can change their weight demeanour-lay a boneheaded genetic fatalism I'd not imagined. Even I gave them way more credit than this. They literally said, whatever problems you do (or don't have) as a fat person are created by your genes and you're stuck with them.

The paucity of this vision staggered me.

I know it's become the thing to turn to genes as the explanation for and answer to everything including stigma-not so. But post neuro-plasticity and given all the insistence that fat people facing reality were "giving up", well, I hardly imagined this would be applied to weight.

This weird genetic fatalism has advanced in the mainstream without touching fat people much. Seeing it applied to aspects of this area showed it up afresh. Though I've not been backward in declaring dieting pretty much worthless, I've never doubted for a second that there are ways to properly and gently re-direct metabolic function and weight-don't conflate weight loss with calorie restriction dieting. There is just not enough real drive to find alternatives.

To recap, they'd split pre-chosen candidates into three groups of eaters; feasters- whom they said couldn't stop eating once they'd started. iow, their eating travelled from 0-100 mph but had faulty brakes. Emotional eaters-appetite was stimulated by stress etc., and constant cravers-who felt like picking at food most of the time. 

I had all of these problems and more, I had to rid myself of this.

They explained that feasters had a surfeit of a gut hormone (it was GLP-1) which was supposed to tell their brain they'd had enough. Okay, but, their attitude was this was some kind of unbending trait, that you were just supposed to live with!

I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

It was at times achingly poignant to see these people dealing with these issues, whilst on a calorie restriction diet. I too spent years fighting myself and unwittingly stoking my problems further. That direct relationship wasn't mentioned either as I recall.

More than this though not even the remotest possibility of relief was alluded to, can you believe that? Imagine being told your bladder is hyperactive, its genetic, bye. Even if they've got nothing, you'd expect them to mention that was something to investigate, but no. They got no further than a fixation on fatalistic interpretations of biochemistry.

The cruelty of total blame is often mentioned, but this hollowing out of having anything to go on is overlooked. Wanting to help people deal with their people problems is key to progress. Solving problems or merely trying to leads somewhere, even if its just-that's not the way. In the absence of any need for that, there is just this kind of emptiness.

The longer this void goes on, the more self perpetuating it becomes.

This unresponsiveness reminded me how removed so many of those involved with 'obesity' are from having a true understanding of vocation.  Serving the people concerned is what ultimately propels a subject forward, without that it can't really go anywhere.

I was touched by the gratitude of the participants. Though obviously prompted they spoke in terms of the "this knowledge that has been given me." How it (finally) gave them something to go on which promised resolution, which is all people want. To be able to solve any problems they do have. It is the crusade that leaves people in this weird state of passivity, underneath the flurry of futile disordered recommendations.

People spend aeons stuck in this cycle of repeating failure. It is responsible for a lot of decline in people's attitude towards themselves. Not things like the so called "tyranny of thin."

This stymieing of people's intelligence also contributes to the sense that fat people are somewhat lacking in intelligence. Fat people are left exposed by this lack of information. Usually, people can tell you more about their state of being than others know. Not fat people as we're imprisoned in the level of disinterest others anchor us to.

There was talk of "hungry genes" being "obesity genes" and I just felt this kind of assertion has not aided progress in so many areas. And even those using it to hide behind-despise it as a cop-out. Fatz are routinely taunted with accusations that we blame genes. Now we're to be taught to parrot this trope to little useful end.

They did give an arresting coping mechanism for dealing with hunger or cravings-they're the same thing in fat people don'tchaknow-blame the food companies. For putting temptation all around you.  Hereby recruiting fat people into fat phobes phoney war against industrial food. 

It was said openly this was a way of taking some of the burden of blame off yourself. I suddenly understood more about this kind of psychological outlook. I'm not meaning to sound like a goody-two shoes, but this really feels rather clunky in the area of fatness. The idea is fat people do this anyway. But the reactions of those advised to do this- spoke to the novelty of its application.

Industrial food's hold over our environment has advanced off the back of the individuation and blame default of 'obesity'. I have my issues with IF, but ultimately the problem lies in the CR approach, which stupidly targets hunger. Treating it as an "addiction" to be erased. It's a bad target as it is designed to fight back. If enough of these defenses fall short or fail, anorexia beckons.

The "emotional eaters" were supposed to be subject to a psychological approach. This consisted of abseiling off an abandoned lighthouse-to make them see they could channel strong feelings into motivation for action. I could not see the connection. Added to that was group support in the form of a slimming club. They mentioned CBT, but didn't deign to tell us what this consisted of.

Training the nervous system to remain calmer overall, stopping activity triggering hunger/appetite would have achieved a more direct and controllable result. That along with, if necessary, dealing with traumatic events-which helps to stop further stress impacting on your energy (which can also trigger appetite in the susceptible).

It's as if the decades of dieting failure has hollowed out potential layers of expertise and the whole has regressed. Complete dependence on CRD has inflicted the same intellectual damage as occurs in others dependent on a compulsive, repetitive habit that has dominated their life. After withdrawal they go back to it because life no longer makes sense without it.

That's why these people cling to ci/co. 

It was hard not to laugh at another demonstration of how the body compensates for artificially bolted on activity-i.e. exercise. Between sessions its well known the body instinctively compensates by curtailing output-or you "slob out" as the programme put it. 

As usual its up to you to police yourself into undesired, taxing, artificial behaviour because its so logical that anyone will sustain that for the rest of their lives.

There was a ludicrous bit where a make-up artist was put through his paces on an exercise bike and told getting off the bus a couple of stops early, standing up whilst talking on his mobile and going to the shops and carrying cans in a basket (not a trolley) would waste as much energy as 30 mins hard peddling.

Yeah, perhaps after four hours! It was farcical. Later we were informed metabolic expenditure falls as you lose weight, so you'll have to reduce your calories as you lose weight. How quickly would this exceed your allotted intake, if you could sustain this long enough?

The participants were followed through the first month of the usual, initial biggest weight loss, euphoria-why has this been all my life, to the disappointment and disillusion of week 4, I'm doing all this, feeling like crap and not losing/gaining weight, through to the final weigh-in after 3 months. Collectively, they'd lost 8% of their weight, the target was 5%.

Now people are seeing through dieting (again) fat people are still trapped in and dragged back to the low expectations of those demanding of them, things they don't even know they don't ask of themselves.

Monday, 16 February 2015


Red alert! Red alert! Someone's mentioning the biggest unmentionable in 'obesity'.  No, not that fat phobic hate tropes are a (self hating) critique of mainstream's own bullshit, that fat phobes wish to re-create fat people as an underclass or even that there's a real charge of joy for good people feeling they're puppeteering other humans and want to play with them i.e. see pain register in a fat person's face etc.,

Nope, CURE.

Think about the last time you heard about a cure for 'obesity' that isn't "personal responsibility" or calorie restriction dieting? How many 'scientific papers invariably start off something like;

"Obesity' is a very serious health condition that affects 690 million people around the world." 

No mention of cure, strange given we're supposed to be pretending to be dis-ease or at least a "serious health problem". Why not at least bother with the pretense of seeking a cure? What's the point of all this fuss if not to drive a cure for said perilous affliction?

That question is being asked, not openly though. I'm hearing a lot of those involved in health insisting: "We must take this seriously." They won't directly state. " Let's start looking for that works."

When's the last time you heard people making a fuss about a disease but, no, we don't want no cure, heck no, we just want to treat it. Why so coy?

There absolutely must be a prospective cure for every disease or serious health condition that is the law of scientific medicine. Indeed, whole fields of such have that as their guiding aim. Cure. "Cure for cancer" was a phrase that entered the lexicon, not treat cancer, that's what you do whilst you're looking for a cure. That's a given.

How could such an incidental possibly be the endgame? The overriding aim?

Whether we agree with what people say or not, we can take their assertions on their own terms and ask do they make any more sense on their own terms? The absence of cure, metaphorical or otherwise is enough of a departure-and an ominous one at that-to raise questions.

The media has seen fit to let them off that too though;
Because obesity isn’t a disease.....
Wow, journalism lives.

You'll not be surprised to learn such off message talk comes from outside "obesity science." He has no surprises though. He wants to take an "appetite suppressant" based on a chemical found in the colon, cut down/suppress its flaws and unleash it on the willing public. 

Let me tell you a little something about appetite suppressing. By re-training my nervous system into a palpably calmer state-through use of various mental techniques, my body became more balanced and that allowed the excess function in my appetite/hunger mechanism to reduce to a normal range. In other words, it's not a good idea to suppress primal anatomical signals, even when they're in excess -the necessity of them tends to make them fight back. Instead, seek to reduce the production of them. Don't run around trying to deal with them after the fact. 

Feel free to use that old chap.

Saturday, 14 February 2015

"Dr" David Cameron

Oh boy. Just as I was talking about [neurotypical] stimming compulsion of repeating 'obesity'/'obese' manically-to anchor yourself in the feelings those terms conjure up- a story comes along [doesn't one inevitably?] illustrating that this nervous tic is becoming increasingly useful. The Guardian;
David Cameron calls on the obese to accept help or risk lose benefits.
"Help"? You're calling slimming clubs "help"? Even the Mail says;
Go on a diet or lose your benefits........ The obese, drunks and drug addicts will have to seek help or lose benefits.
Direct if nothing else. The Independent;
Obese could be ordered to 'lose weight or lose benefits' if the if the Conservatives win general election
The BBC;
Obese could lose benefits if they refuse treatment
Yeah, keep being a docile mouthpiece for your political establishment chums.

This concerns a state benefit-Employment Support Allowance [ESA]-for those judged, and I mean officially examined by a medic, too sick and/or disabled to work. This proposal aims to target roughly 100,000 people said by the PM "Dr" David Cameron, to have "treatable" conditions. Okay? Right.

Those with such "weight problems" number around 2,000. Despite making up such a small percentage of the total, 'obesity'/'obese' was at the forefront of coverage. Cameron is quoted as saying;
Some [people] have drug or alcohol problems, but refuse treatment. .......In other cases people have problems with their weight that could be addressed - but instead a life on benefits rather than work becomes the choice.
'Obesity'/'obese' seems to be an easier more emotive target than drug addicts or alcoholics. A sort of human shield in reverse, setting the mood to view (contaminate) the rest. Also 'obesity' references more people, though the targets of this are a statistically infinitesimal subset. It's also part of the idiot bourgeoise self-dramatizing love affair with faux addiction and their insistence on imposing a false consciousness on fat people.

The biggest question mark of  all is that anybody could receive sickness benefit merely for being fat. I'm going to need direct evidence of that. An excellent comment from maple5 picked up on this;
No one would be able to be signed on to ESA with the current descriptors, simply for being obese. Even those unable to walk far would not pass, as for ESA the test is for "mobilising - which incudes the use of a wheelchair. In order to claim ESA or PIP the person would have to be so obese that they were unable to care for themselves/bedbound.
If you can't get about unaided, your problem is mobility. If actual problems were dealt with it would open the way for more of the same. Unsurprisingly, the media didn't elect to pick up on this, presumably, going with their feelings-don't worry though, there's "treatment" for that.You can tell a lot by the euphemistic use of that word, and 'therapy' as in "pharmacotherapy" in place of diet/ semi-starvation.
In deciding disability, Social Security will consider obesity only if it causes or contributes to listed impairments or severely limits your functioning.
I can see a few things on that list that are easier to reverse in more enjoyable, healing ways than anything available to go to war with metabolic function. I wouldn't rule out anyone being on benefit purely for 'obesity'. I'd have to see every single diagnosis-in full, which would be a violation of privacy-to accept such dubious assertion. But even this cant surely can't survive - fat people can get sick, or be/come disabled. Unless fatness is immunity from either-the ultimate "obesity paradox".

I'd also have to cast a beady eye on the other targets, are they really simply addicted to drugs/dependent on alcohol, or do they have sickness and/or disabilities too? There seems to be the same self delusion we see in the ludicrous "obesity cost" hype.

There's of course no "treatment" for 'obesity' as it isn't sickness-ironically, if it were it might give those trained to investigate pathology more to go on. Who's actually looking for what would be needed for these people to re-set the course of their metabolic function, regardless of outcome?

Permissive punitiveness doesn't go with scientific or medical progress. It proliferates as if an intellect sapping fungus. Once allowed to get hold, it is a compulsion rolls over everything, creating a regression that becomes self perpetuating. Eventually, nobody knows anything but the lies that feed it. 

Similar has happened with alcoholism and drug addiction. The latter especially has been open policy. Either endure painful even life threatening withdrawal and potentially paralyzing cravings, or piss off and die. Knowing- its all your fault.

Though addiction as a metaphor is entirely cynical and not at all useful for anyone, those fat people who reach the highest weights have been placed in a similar position. The difference being that blocking hunger signalling is a pathology- whereas blocking an acquired urge for drink or drugs, isn't. Though the latter is mainly almost as futile and abstinence rather cruel and at times perilous. Which is why when your doc prescribes junk, s/he's a pains to tell you never to stop it abruptly. 

That doesn't apply to illicit drug takers though, 'cos whatev's. 

The prospect of contriving other people's death isn't enough relief for the urge to punish, punish, punish, a society tacit in this degeneracy is to be seen as the victim of it!

Real treatment requires consent. Indeed that's usually an integral part of the process, when its not based around medicaments-unless the person's a danger to themselves. This is a good reason why. So called "treatments" can be shockingly toxic and ineffectual. Missing from this is the sense that long term experience might have revealled this.


(In fact, the first calls for a slenderised body came not from fashion designers but from doctors who attempted to make a medical case for dieting from before the first world war.)
Um-hum, it's that easy to say, so why do so many have a problem with that? The medical profession have continually fanned the flame of any intolerance of fatness. They are not its victims.

I detest the pathologization of bodies on general principle, it matters not whether fat or thin. Thin people are entitled to walk about without being defined as "under"weight though I must admit I will use it in reference to that categorization mainly, because pretending its offensive, derogatory or stigmatizing seems a bit rich. I've always recommended that people consider not identifying as "underweight" though. I tend to think, define yourself as what you are, not what you are not.

As usual a wrong headed mindset keeps attacking the wrong targets; hunger, eating, food, bodies. This is the cause of a lot of the problems assigned variously to other things.

Models are professionals, they're paid because they look a certain way. The idea that this tyrannizes women of any age into self abuse and starvation is and has always been nonsense. The roots of anorexia are in attitudes that value thinness as aspirational and at least slimness as a necessary class/identity marker. Body size is framed as a statement of (your) intent.

The size of models reflects and monetizes this underlying value, it doesn't create it. If we didn't wish to objectify thin women as clothes hangers, they would not be deemed so essential to displaying clothes etc.,

This is still taboo. To say, women want to compete to be the slimmest. We aren't forced well, any duress isn't this irresistible. We have to take most of the responsibility for buying into it.  

Rather than jumping to condemn, the basis of this desire and the feelings entangled in it should be thoroughly and honestly examined. It would do women good to stop trying to run away from these feelings.

Thursday, 12 February 2015

The Harassment Effect

This person wishes to stoke up the recruiting of those who are close to fat people to continue the litany of remorseless nagging with health threats, death threats and negativity etc., He sees the mere beginnings of modest accountability for freely chosen misdeeds as a threat to his business interests.

Despite blowing hard about having the courage to abuse fat people, he unsurprisingly doesn't have the cojones to face what that makes him. Pathetically trying to hide behind the fat phobic weasel of "telling someone they're fat" for their own good, not for his own ends, natch;
'Is it OK to be fat?,' he asks. 'It's OK as long as you remember that you're not going to live as long as your slim and healthy friends and relatives. It's OK to be fat unless you want to be able to lead a full, active life and play with your grandchildren.' Remember, it's the slim and healthy people who pay for your treatment when your health fails. Why should we pay for your lack of self-control?'
Not PC you oaf just not threats to aim at someone who knows you. Fat people are the ones that have paid and are still paying;
'You know it's not OK to be fat when every time you look in the mirror someone you vaguely remember as being you when you were slim says, "Let me out you fat f*****. I've had enough". Listen to your inner voice.'
So very much about health then. And the poor lambkins is actually "tired of being called nasty." Awwww-why are these haters always so precious about their own fee fees? You'd think they could contain themselves enough to front temporarily whilst advancing on their dismissal of other people's feelings.

They're so used to being unaccountable they can't contain a whine about being told the truth. That really sums them up.

Anyhoo, let's just start from the fact that his kind don't give a damn/actively welcome the damage already done by this permissive atmosphere of lies, abuse and boundary violation. In the spirit of pandering to fat haters finding common ground perhaps there's another way of looking at this.

How about identifying the underlying principle of function that this abuse is supposed to trigger?

Which part of the brain and/or nervous system pathway does the creation of a relentless cycle of a bullying "motivational" atmosphere effect and to what specific end? That's how science works. Espying causal effects, seeking to follow them through to the basis of their underlying momentum.

When the part or parts of the nervous system reacting to this senseless harassment can be identified, experiments can begin to find way/s to trigger this effect directly, without the abuse. Though harassment is enjoyable and fulfilling to scum sucking maggots playing at being toytown sociopaths, it's ultimately inefficient and scattergun, creating more collateral damage that goes against the excuse peddled here-support of calorie restriction.

Once these effects can be repeated and predicted this can become the focus for clinical trial studies to decide rates of efficacy. All in all we shall have a more precise idea of what it's supposed to be doing and when it isn't succeeding. We can stop going round and round the same old ground.

One reason this cycle of trying to unnerve and even terrorize fat people is able to continue is the lack of any real effort to serve its targets. That means vague identification of issues, no solid techniques to deal with said problems-real or imagined, no standards for abusers to stand or fall by, little ability to discard their continued failures and above all, little hope of tangible progress.

Nice grift if you can get it. Imagine if no matter how shit your work was, you couldn't fail and could just bully others into pretending you'd succeeded?

This could lead to a whole raft of nervous system manipulation based on harassing and abusing people or whatever, not to mention violating their boundaries, ignoring their distress, seeking to crank up their anxiety, depress and even terrorizing them.

It could be called something like harass [you'd have to find the greek for that]-ology.  The study of the inducement of nervous distress and exhaustion in order to direct behaviour.

Even if you don't give a shit about anyone's feelings but your own, an atmosphere of rampant abuse  tends to create very chronic unrelieved stress state that lends itself toward fattening. As the body seeks to defend itself by attempting to balance out this cortisol laden state of attrition.

It's more than overdue for fat haters to get on with some real work. We've done enough with their useless, vindictive and bankrupt self indulgence.

Wednesday, 11 February 2015

Diet funk about to clear?

“It would be all but impossible to carry out a research trial where you controlled the diets of thousands of people over many years. That’s why guidance in the UK is based on a consensus of the evidence available not just on randomised controlled trials.” Victoria Taylor, senior dietitian at the BHF
...the obvious.
There is certainly a strong argument that an overreliance in public health on saturated fat as the main dietary villain for cardiovascular disease has distracted from the risks posed by other nutrients such as carbohydrates. Yet replacing one caricature with another does not feel like a solution.
It's clear that ones diet is designed to be a bit too specific to a person's needs for dietary advice to be generalized beyond a certain point. Whether its their physiological and yes psychological make-up, their preferences according mainly though not wholly to exposure. Environment, culture, region, etc., The best way to get beyond the general advice is to learn to fine tune the interpretation and response to your own hunger and appetite.

General guidelines often seek to minimize risk to those with genetic susceptibilities. It's a bit like weight loss dieting. The insistence on this as the basis of weight regulation and "health" has left those susceptible to virtually all ED's from anorexia to hyperphagia to blunder far too often into these tendencies unwittingly.

So sacrificing minority susceptibility for, in this case, a perceived good isn't necessarily ethical. In this case it's clear that the exact nature of dieting needs to be made abundantly clear. And nor should it be the basis of anything.

When it comes to general dietary guidelines, too many have been seduced by the idea of one perfect diet. It's one thing to diagnose vitamin C deficiency and another to say, there's a diet suitable for all, which everyone should follow.

I suspect this has been invested with the desire to enforce a somewhat imagined bourgeois standard on everyone. On the grounds that this will in itself uplift society.

Finding out how diet affects health isn't particularly amenable to scientific inquiry-way too many variables- I hope this spate of admissions will hold. Recognizing limitations may actually help boffins to identify and make use of what actually is useful.

The aim needs to change too. Instead of trying to control other people, try assisting them with making better use of what comes naturally.

Tuesday, 10 February 2015

Appetite Balance

Theoretically food is food or at least, energy is energy. However our bodies are designed with energy dense foods in mind as the centre-piece of our dietary intake.

It's entirely possible, I'd say likely, that we're designed with a certain percentage of major nutrients- fat, carb, protein in mind. Obviously that has to be reassessed and maybe overridden in the case of congenital defects or chronic disorder/ illness.

It's just occurred, is the paleo fad a reaction to following recommendations and guidelines to reduce the overall percentage of fat in the diet? Irrespective of health-fattening has coincided with a lessening of cardiovascular mortality, so despite claims thus far outcome doesn't appear support this being a necessary harbinger of harm.

I know many paleo types assert what I call the carb monkey hypothesis, i.e. that "too much" carbohydrate monkey's with your insulin and (apparently) causes people to fatten. I've never been particularly convinced. I'm disinterested in diet as the pathway for metabolic manipulation. Now I'm wondering if my dismissal of paleo hype may have been about not finding the explanation/s particularly convincing.

What though if the IMH just uses a biochemical model to explain what's happening physiologically as tends to be au courant?

What I'm thinking is if about 33% intake of dietary fat is about right-its a pretty universal percentage-leaving aside environmental issues. Can reducing it (much) below that in itself, provoke bodies to make good that loss by upping the fat percentage via bloodstream and/or storing it in our bodies?

Is this partly why some report feeling better and/or losing weight on a higher fat diet-their appetite and therefore their intake is simply a more suitable balance?

Thursday, 5 February 2015

Proto-Baby Killah!!!!! Er not quite......

Mystery corner headline;
I was so overweight, I almost killed by ["my"] unborn baby
You've got my attention, what happened? Was it that you, a "so overweight" woman were driven by this to almost end the life of your babe in the womb? Hurriedly reading the list of featured points...."Leila Mounji," for that's the name of the woman concerned, "hit" 15 stone/95kgs/210 lbs during pregnancy due to "poor diet" [hope it didn't hit her back] uh-hum, blah, blubh, blaarrgh.

Falls over next point-"doctors couldn't get the needle into the epidural space around her spine."

Whoah there horsey wh0000ah, say again;
doctors couldn't get the needle into the epidural space around her spine. 

Okay let me get this straight in my mind. Someone who trained for years for the specific purpose of administering anesthesia to patients-presumably an anesthetist-was unable to administer such because s/he couldn't insert tha needle into tha patient? This was said to have precipitated a chain of events which led to baby Bella ending up in some trouble;
Medics feared giving her a high-risk general anaesthetic because of her BMI, but felt they had no choice and performed an emergency Caesarean.....Because of the circumstances, baby Bella suffered breathing problems, which subsequently starved her of oxygen.
Because, because, because, not at all tenuous then. Twas the fault of the patient......for having a body. What do anesthetists usually insert needles into, cuddly toys? Perhaps this is a smart, opportunistic move. If it can be established in the consciousness that this kind of thing is to be the failure of the patient via the lackey media no less, that spares medics from having to get over the existence of fat bodies and stop all their churlish pouting about it.

This is in the end why doctors get sued. Because sometimes, if you do not set parameters, axes may grind on you. Let's be candid, that's simply human nature-Why should it be my failure, when it can be yours.

Also unseemly for me anyway, was the acceptance of the woman herself that she almost killed her own child.

Some might say poor fat person blaming themselves, but really? This experience was undoubtedly a shock. It could well have jolted her nervous system into a different countenance. That can alter you-and/or the way you function- even permanently. People have reported all sorts of effects after being shaken up in a car crash, including significant gain/loss of weight.

Weight tends to be somewhat spontaneous in its development-you cannot say precisely why it changes or doesn't, either way. No matter what most like to kid on.

Leila Mounji's reported reaction speaks to the mix of shame, collusion and volition behind self blame. She a rode a diet wave on her own and her daughter's trauma, with the coup de foudre of parental guilt to add extra sting-well, this kind of thing doesn't happen every day.

When it comes to promotion of slimming aka "health", no-holds-are-barred.

It is entirely possible that under the pressure of that ordeal something shifted inside her. And there's nothing wrong with expressing that. There's a difference though between honest reflection and willing (apparent) self abasement towards a certain end. That's most definitely her right, but, it feels unwholesome to witness. Are we this out of ideas?

This has always been at the heart of instigating calorie restriction-creating trauma through shame with added public disgrace. The old, "Someone called me fatty boom boom and I decided I just had to put down the yams." Often, it's for the sake of the children, so they don't get bullied for having a "fat mum"-proto-baby killah's one up on that.

Being ambushed by public humiliation can affect anybody deeply at any time -even instigating a permanent alteration. That's the nervous system, via our brains. It's what people yearn for when they say things like- "Why did no one tell me I was so fat?"

They want someone/thing to ((((shock)))) their system out of its rhythm in hopes that it will reset itself differently. Probably the basis of psychiatrists firing volts through brains and why everyone wants to tell fat people they're fat.

Trouble is the right kind of jolt isn't easy to locate or administer-rather like an epidural-attempts become part of an opposing effect. A surround of chronic unrelieved stress that more likely triggers all sorts of neuroses; anxiety disorders, OCD's, ED's. Permanently overstimulating and therefore draining so much of your available energy.

Wholly defeating the object. 

The nothing happens but you're fat-is in full effect here. At the time of reading, there were only four comments-not one commiserated with little Bella or Leila. It was all about shame there's too many like this or she must have ate more than the reported, good job and so forth. So one has to ask, was this a bad or a good thing given it assisted in there being one less fatty?

Is an ordeal only an ordeal if no one needs to get slim?

Suffice it to say, this reflects the extent to which the obsession with calorie restriction dieting has become the centre around which all concerns must become subordinate.

Tuesday, 3 February 2015

Process, Not Person, Not Disease

Seeing fatness i.e. 'obesity' defined numerously as a "phenotype" has got me wondering. A phenotype is defined as;
.....the set of observable characteristics of an organism that are produced by the interactions of the genotype and the environment,
Weight for me has the sense that it is a process. Definition(s); "1. A series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end." Um yeah, but not quite. 
1.2 A systematic series of mechanized or chemical operations that are performed in order to produce something
Now you're talking. I see it has used a computing context to define process. A multi-featured operating system "typically running in an environment that protects it from other processes." The latter "protective" part especially reminds me of homoeostasis.

The sense I get about weight, fatness specifically is it's likely to be, in the main, a correctly functioning process that delivers this undesired "phenotype".

One of the things that stood out in the Karen Hitchcock's creepily grotesque whinge about how much your fat body hurts doctors fee fees (we've noticed) and the attitudes/ treatment this extended sulk has produced;
Some of our patients have become so fat they can walk only five steps without needing a rest. Many are only in their 30s. My role at the clinic is to tighten up their diabetes control, make sure they don’t have a catastrophic hormonal condition that has made them fat (no one ever does)
But how would any such be perceived as causing, rather than caused by 'obesity'? Fat people don't seem to have anything apart from effects. At times we're barely allowed genes. Freelance fat phobe 'diagnosticians' of the internet have picked up on this- portentously announcing "Only 2 or 3% of fat people have a reason to be fat." That presumably means 97/8% of fat people have no pathogenic causation.

That's cheeky. Because something that isn't pathological has been labelled by you as such- to reflect your dislike-you claim that absence is not your fib, but having "no excuse". Pffutt.

How though can such a purportedly deadly dis-ease that kills/ravages virtually all known organs and parts, not appear to show its face anywhere? We've heard of (genuine) disease that is mostly silent and stealthy, but never one that doesn't appear to show any more in its acute phase than it does at any other point.

How can a disease be purely an outcome, a series of effects? Where is it located?

It apparently, doesn't even appear to show up in the functioning of the glands! Despite those playing a big role in regulation of metabolic features. Including hunger, appetite, rate of storage, body composition, reproduction, regulation of vital functions, etc.,

We are told all about effects of said dis-ease of "co-morbidities" and such, but it never seems to have been spotted inflagrante. Like a gang of vandals mounting a sustained campaign of damage, but never seen nor heard. Only leaving a fluffy calling card.

It must be restful to have the luxury of throwing around, "Fat cells don't just lay there." You're talking to the people who say our bodies are WHOLE, when you're the ones characterizing fatness as (someone like you, i.e. slim) wrapped in a fat suit. We are now told fat cells "Emit chemicals, they're like an organ."

Really? What like the microbes in your gut? They also function together as collectively and physiologically as one, they too aren't dis-ease.

This is down right peculiar unless, Occam's razor, we can take that as read, it's not (a) disease. An unchecked process of any kind, no matter how benign will ultimately require more and more adaptation and accommodation till it causes problems. Ending up dominating-rather like living a life of lifestyle anorexia-rather than serving. The point is to find ways to reverse said process.

Not to go all voodoo, with superfluous pursuit of hysteria.That's just making noise about effectively doing nothing.

Framing facets of growth, what's triggering/ facilitating it plus possible outcomes of that and of bulk itself as dis-ease is irrelevant to the point of raising a very big question mark about your real (unspoken) intent.

Ditto the sterile non-argument that dominates supposedly about health or unhealth. Pure distraction, surely, regardless of either get on and find out about the body and how it works. Get on and find out how to stem and reverse the process. That is the only issue.

Most things routinely associated with 'obesity' strike me as part of an overall process that's reached or is reaching a certain point/developing a certain branch. A bit like a river that flows with more or less force to a shorter or greater distance. Usually stabilizing itself by finding its meter, though not always.

This process seems to flow through the nervous system. The nerves throughout your body, including organs. This 'flow' has the capacity to affect shifts in the chemical balance of certain areas of the body and/or the body overall. i.e. like gut and even skin flora and fauna. It seems able to change some aspect of the formation and/or function of the tissue concerned. Vary the speed of function of a system, organ, or parts-for example, transit of matter through the digestive system, the emptying of bowels etc.,

Even things like pearls of fat building up in the liver- strikes as an aspect of a (potential) branch of a whole process, rather than some separate condition, though part or most of that must be susceptibility.

Whether that's an adjustment the liver tissue or of its mechanics, I can't even guess right now. The greater tendency to higher readings of various cardio and metabolic measures, feels like visible aspects of that overall process too. One even has to cast a beady eye on "inflammation." That's present in all growth, how much does that overlap-if at all-with any pathological swelling?

And let's not forget what we know to be capable of triggering inflammation; unyielding relentless pressure, being permanently open to abusive situations, negative self image, stigma. And do you know what helps to stem, reduce inflammation? That's right, calmness, relaxation and ease the opposite of 'obesity' and its dis-ease. But hey, any inflammation triggered by the crusade can be put down to 'obesity', so that's alright isn't it?

So the key point here is, an unchecked process and has no predictable, effective, non-pathological means of checking or permanent reversal. Any "unhealthfulness" makes that all the more urgent, not less so.  Mounting an assault on a "phenotype" that's inseparable from its characterization as (a) disease-is a whole other agenda.