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.
No comments:
Post a Comment