.....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 somethingNow 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.