Tuesday, 31 March 2015

There's no alternative to what you're told there's no alternative to, except there is....

Well, well, well. There I am perusing the Establishment by Owen Jones, it's about the power elite that run Britain. Barely do I get into the foreword and he writes this;
The modern Establishment relies on a mantra of 'There is No Alternative': potential opposition is guarded against by enforcing disbelief in the idea that there is any other viable way of running society.
This reminds me of there is no alternative way of reversing weight but the one that doesn't really work, and is a brutal, time-sucking, disordering, self abusive, waste of energy, literally. Though we're focused "weight loss," it so often ends in gaining that back, plus. So you are fat and remain so, whilst being told you're doing otherwise.
The illusion of viable escape is another facet of this kind of class hustle. What really makes this trap is weight loss and dieting as one and the same. That there's only one way to regulate weight, as this one doesn't work, it's assumed there's no way. Why wouldn't there be?

Do you know how many ways there are to regulate fertility? Any system of any complexity has numerous avenues for changing outcomes.

How many ways are there to deal with mental health? Drugs-how many drugs? Talking therapies-how many of them! Gestalt, primal scream, psychoanalysis, psychotherapy, cbt, aversion, that's just off the top of my head.  Not only different kinds of things, many varieties and they're still looking. Who ever heard of one way, that doesn't even work is all there is and all there must be due to erm "morals"?

Doesn't the contraceptive pill work? The 99.9% effective pill? Why wasn't that the be all and end all of contraception then? Even if dieting did work, so what? Why would that stop anyone looking for something else if there's so much to be gained?

Acceptance is noble, it is and can be a positive choice and a liberation, but we are being blocked into it. Why? What is the point of insisting on this route? And it doesn't help those who need help, progress has to be made for them alone. Why don't they come first? If they did as they usually would, this whole crusade would be seen as untenable.

Why is this trap tied to social engineering, micromanaging people's lives?

A better grasp of metabolic function hold far more promise than weight. Better control of  things like mental health along with obvious metabolic problems that can be hard to manage, diabetes, pcos....

Metabolic function is too fundamental to us to be left unknown.The brain is being mapped, the bacteria in the gut is being mapped. What's so special about metabolic function? It isn't as discrete, it's multi-system, but, isn't that interesting to ptb? If not, why not?

There is no alternative, especially if we're not looking for one. Why not though?

Monday, 30 March 2015

Straw Police

The first line says a lot: "There is a difference between coddling and compassion." I've been trying to get this across since I got to the internet fatsphere. Those who pander to the 'obesity' agenda and its idiot mal-logic, unnecessarily reduce the level of their own ideals.

People insist, we must join the mainstream, answer their charges, normally I might agree, but the m/s defined us out of the picture. If I do not acknowledge your humanness by definition, you cannot argue with me because I've been prepared to suspend disbelief to pretend a human being is not sentient in the first place!

Responding to that, ignores this, immediately making you seem soft.

At the time I just came across like fists of fury. It still stands though. Until people like James Fell are given the chance to see exactly what they're saying and what it does or doesn't mean, they'll continue to embarrass themselves but more importantly, hold our minds in their mess.

They insist routinely, fatness is unhealth, fat people are unhealthiness in human form. Leading us straight to zomg let's get the best scientific minds on it like all other unhealth problems-to see off this deadly threat!!!

Have at it science, the floor is yours and I'm sure there's a Noble Prize or two in it, there are some fatties in authority.

The Chicago Tribune, which had published an article by Fell critical of Linda Bacon. I haven't read it, [the Trib insists the e-mail I've been using for years is invalid]. It published this correction, which to be fair, Fell reproduced himself;
… James S. Fell paraphrased nutrition professor Linda Bacon of the City College of San Francisco as saying “that being overweight is healthier.” Bacon did not say that; she said that most epidemiological studies on longevity have shown that overweight people live longest. The column also said that Bacon cited 5 percent as the number of people for whom weight loss would be sustained if they attempted it. She did mention the 5 percent figure in the discussion but did not make that conclusion. A paraphrase suggesting that she believes “burning fat causes inflammation” differed from her statement, which was, “Even during short-term dietary restriction, while people are on a diet, there is increased inflammation in the blood.”
Clear enough for you? He says he's no idea why they did this.There's nothing rough about showing Fell up for exactly what he is. For once, someone decided to apply primitive critical scrutiny to this kind of pretense of debate. I don't blame him for being surprised it wasn't quite the same bullshit as usual. Well done Trib staffer/s whoever you are!

Eeek energy that's been wasted on the Fell's of this world. They are largely irrelevant. All the patience, resilience, discipline, thought, extended to these sinkholes was needed for fat people to break down the barriers of difference between each other. Here's where the fuel needed for "intersectionality" goes/has gone.

The trouble with 'obesity' is if you accept this construct as a valid definition, your brain ends up defaulting to fat people are all the same (pathology). Your brain behaves as if real differences don't exist, it performs the same erasure as it does in others, even if you yourself are fat.

Those who seek to engage on these terms tend to be acting in bad faith (those less so tend to be quiet i.e. the silent majority), insisting the only way is to engage them constricts you into their limited illogical setting.

That ends up distorting a lot of the good sense. Fell is quick to note that "weight loss doesn't work" doesn't really scan [though not for the reasons he claims]. That's true, but the idea that calorie restriction is the same as weight loss comes from your frame Jamezzz.

If you replace "weight loss" with calorie restriction and see the former as the intended outcome, not the process that's supposed to bring it about- you get a clearer picture. It's not so much about whether weight loss is or isn't good for health. The issue is the only means chosen to bring it about not only doesn't deliver, it generates its own problems. That may have been the source of the "inflammation" or inflammatory markers LB mentioned.

If you could manipulate metabolic function so that reversing weight came as a natural consequence of that, just like it normally does everyday, you'd be able to measure the effects either way. Remember all those slim people with mental health problems, who end up stablized and fat/ter?

Metabolic function seems at times like a draw bridge, it doesn't just allow one thing through. And as ever, its context is often individual.

On the other hand, we know having histories of having calorie restriction as an ever present threat plus the energy conservation during calorie restriction can affect the way you feel. Ditto, weight gain as a product of such. There's SAD where your body goes into more of a hibernation mode, its deemed a form of depression. It's context.

What's intriguing about all this is the hostility towards HAES. Listed there as; weight Inclusivity, health Enhancement, respectful Care, eating for well-being, life-Enhancing Movement. Where's the devil's work in that?
“HAES has not done good things in terms of size acceptance. Unfortunately, HAES is like the choir talking to itself. It isn’t about dialogue and discussion, but instead confrontation and anger. That shuts down conversation. It alienates people. And it gives people who feel negative towards HAES to begin with more reasons to feel negative. There is zealotry involved. You’re not furthering your cause. You’re preaching to the converted so everyone can clap their hands, but they were already the hands that were clapping. There are no new hands there.”  ~ Yoni Freedhoff
How exquisite. Never has the crusade spoken politely, never did that make a jot difference to fat people. Watch the BL and virtually every other dieting programme. Now, apparently, we aren't able to match the delicate sensibilities of those who were and still are perfectly happy to abuse us without end.

I tell you fat people are spectacular. When fatz wise up it could really be something. The problem for Fell and his ilk is that they're in favour of fat people seeking to diet and exercise their bodies away [and mostly fail] only.

They feel debunking haes debunks FA, when in reallyy it debunks the healthism they're supposed to represent.

Fat=unhealth and healthy habits=creation of health plus slim=health.

If what are deemed healthy habits can't turn unhealth into health, that means those healthy habits don't create health. If folk don't believe restrictive diets and exercise habits create health, why act otherwise?

I must admit, I've become a tad skeptical about this myself. Even the idea that exercise is good for you, is also the reverse, the more you are able to move without that generating unpleasant feelings, the less likely you are to have had an easier life.

I used to strain to follow a healthist, healthy eating diet-as it was at the time. Whole grains, low-fat, a little lean meat, lots of leafy high-water veg and fruit, then later, less fruit. Low sugar, low-salt..... Now I know what people are going to say.

This is terrible, this is responsible for the @besity crisis, yes thanks I get it.

Please save it for the birds, IDGAD.

I'm done with the rigour which became orthorexia induced hyperphagia nervosa and this circular non-argument about diet, don't you get it, you're just going round and round in circles. Diet isn't the answer to regulating weight.

I called it a twin-track or parallel appetite. I endeavoured to eat my healthy diet and ended up with an appetite leak for what I was avoiding. I had a schzoid appetite.

Despite this, my hunger gradient still rose to highs I never imagined possible. I had episodes when it felt like the power of it was gripping my brain like a fist. 

All this came from attempts at both dietary and calorie restriction.

Though I'd never bought the idea that if I did x, y, that would =health. It was too pat. I'd seen too much as a child of what life does to people and their health to believe that. But I did feel, I'll doing my best to be healthy and this would make me slim.

Even that seemingly reasonable aim went screwball.

Investing fat people with pathology means we are seen as not healthy. Yet, haes is either no good or no one could possibly be fat and be living according to the rules, don't try it, give up, its hopeless, no chance, no way, no how....only dieting or nothing will doooo.....
Where Should HAES Go From Here? Perhaps it should just go away, because it doesn’t appear to be helping.
"Perhaps"? Oh surely, don't be so coy. This is what all FA's detractors want. It's all they've ever wanted from day one and its all you really ever want. It shows how out of touch they are that they think people who have spent years dieting would give up on their says so. I keep saying to fat people, bullying aside, you ultimately made the choice to diet and continue dieting. I know I did. And when I had to stop, I made that decision too. I did not consult any of these critics.

FAT ACCEPTANCE is still here, so I guess their requests aren't doing a lot......

Saturday, 28 March 2015

Wish Fulfillment

Good for Yoni Freedhoff. He was reading the book Princess Bride to his children and decided to stop when he reached the passages he quoted, read them in full but in case you're feeling link-fatigued/lazy;
The year that Buttercup was born, the most beautiful woman in the world was a French scullery maid named Annette......Annette worked in Paris for the Duke and Duchess de Guice and it did not escape the Duke's notice that someone extraordinary was polishing the pewter......the Duchess set about studying Annette and shortly found her adversary's tragic flaw.  

Armed now, the Duchess set to work. The Palace de Guiche turned into a candy castle.
Annette never had a chance. Inside a season, she went from delicate to whopping, and the Duke never glanced in her direction without sad bewilderment clouding his eyes.
Isn't that the dream? Weight as a lever of total control?

YF goes with "weight bias," in doing so inadvertently demonstrates sadly his 'field' is the genesis and the heart of liberating this kind of mal-feeling. His and other @besity wallahs credo for "weight loss" attacks the same target as the Duchess, hunger and appetite. Indeed, it sees fat people in the same way as the Duchess sees Annette, but in reverse......... (or not? Looking at all the slim people plumping up, you have to wonder.....)
And so right out of the gate The Princess Bride is teaching kids that obesity is consequent to gluttony,
Interesting. To me its telling people that weight is a lever of controlling people. A means of being able to destroy them. It's how women can beat up and degrade other women, depriving them of the ultimate prize of competition, not the male gaze, wealth.

The class element plays out too. Annette's weakness was hunger-which is always hidden by drawing the eye to food or "gluttony." She started off slim though. She was provided with food and she just couldn't resist-probably because she was common.

And of course for "chocolate" you could read how's your father.

And, @besity, so glibly off the tongue reminds us of the keying of brains everywhere into this artificial creation called @bese. This depersonalized yet deeply personal classification/prison so easily stands in for person or blocks person/ people  or individual from standing alone.

It is the wish fulFILLment inherent in this little fable that demonstrates what a turn-on the @bese construct is for so many. A lot of them feminist, who like to collude with this, overriding their principles. Competition, power getting other women out of your way.

I suppose this is the price paid for the participation called "survival"-you know when you say you dress up to survive, maybe. But it keeps alive the code that is its basis-in your mind, undermining your urge toward liberation (assuming you indeed have one). What you invest in marks you, whatever your rationale for it. 

In an age of democracy, where everyone's supposed to have a say.

People love the idea that they can run or ruin a person at their whim, just like this story. No wonder there's no urge to find resolution for what's claimed to be the greatest threat to civilisation evah.

Thursday, 26 March 2015

Post-Partum Rebound

We're all stuck in the 'obesity' calories in/out mindwarp-some are just trying to escape it. It's like being brought up in a faith then becoming ex-muslim or catholic.

The same issue inevitably appears in the issue of post-pregnancy self image. Some women- they may or may not be a small percentage but they definitely exist and are a distinct group-have bodies which instinctively re-assumes its pre-pregnancy shape on its own, give or take.

This is homeostasis, the body's self regulatory instincts, restoring it's own equilibrium. The same thing that makes their bodies snap back on their own, is what makes most people regain weight after restriction induced weight loss [RIWL].

From the outside their bodies resume an unaffected look. Either they looked like a normal post-partum and yet regained a pre-partum size/look, or straight after giving birth. Some women only look pregnant from the front. I'll never forget a fleeting glance I got of a woman from the bus. I first saw her back, slender curved in waist. Then she turned around and she had a stand out fully pregnant belly.

Human variety is intriguing.

Pregnancy marks every woman from the inside and out- if only minimally for some. Pathologists can tell if you've been pregnant post-mortem. The expectation is pregnancy should substantially and visibly affect your body, and should have to make huge effort to recover prior size and shape if at all. 

Typically, many formerly slim women have allowed themselves to become so self righteous about what could for them quite pronounced changes-when you consider the fetid air of body hierarchy. They can be careless, displaying hostility toward those whose bodies respond less dramatically. The thin/slim ones obviously, though some fat women's bodies also barely change or not much.

Celebrities, rather like models get paid for their appearance. They employ staff to coach them through strenuous work outs, have nutritionists on call and often personal chefs to prepare those recommendations.

It's like insurance for their earnings. They're less likely to take a chance waiting to see how their bodies respond, if they can help it. They need to restore their pre-pregnancy image quickly, often its as much about image as anything. They do not wish to appear to weakened by anything, they wish to have a sheen of being unaffected by anything associated with ordinariness. It can ruin their expensively cultivated aura.

Letting go of that must be something like one of us letting go of a lifetimes investment in (internalized) fat hating of ourselves.

Post-partum is especially a time to be kind and gentle with yourself and other women in the same situation. No look is more authentic than others, that kind of thing is unnecessary, the envy and resentment is all too obvious. It's not however the fault of the thin rebounder their body is as responsible for that as yours is for the way it is.

I suspect it's entirely possible that they are how bodies are supposed to respond and those getting pompous are more anomalous- though they may seem more prevalent. Trying to almost cast quick rebound as bad form is silly.

Often its a question of time anyway. Many recover more slowly, some much more. It's probably another example of forgotten/lost knowledge of how to help the body's natural restoration process along.

Wednesday, 25 March 2015

Magic Fat

I am not currently ill. But I cannot say, I'm healthy-to mean I am not unwell, despite it being fact, because 'obesity' construct.  I am classed as disease, not diseased dis-ease. Diseased is when you a human or other being are affected/infected with disease, the idea of you is distinct and separate from the disease. People cannot be separated from themselves. Check out this story about extending the plain packaging from cigarettes to food:"Big Mac's make big children."

The distinction is unprecedented. No one else is classed as disease because no one else is subject to such uninterrupted stupidity-which I consider to be a hidden but prominent object of repression.s

Enforced stupidity.

For the sake of their integrity, I'd advise all fat people to consider developing the more arch slightly removed aspect of their personality. Such a notion should have been stopped before it could get off the ground. By any proposer's inner critic or by someone around them saying WTH?

Some are trying to do a "people first," that is, people with 'obesity', which is like "people with thin or slim." 

Being so bestowed, I cannot assert the objective truth. I am not ill. I also cannot assert that I am actually ill, in the fullest sense.

The unprecedented truth is that if you're dis-ease, you cannot become diseased. A disease cannot have a disease. You can only have a related outgrowth of the dis-ease of you.

I'm sure you've heard electronic scooter users-who are fat, are deemed not disabled, but sitting down. These cognitive errors are a product of cognitive errors (delusions) in definition, in construction of terms. And of refusal to stop before a term or even metaphor has utterly exhausted  itself.

Fat/ness fat people has/have become magic! Sort of uberuntermenchenfrauen-the demand is that we must play both-'cos this is about role play after all.  Weak  and sickly but somehow neither and both. Invincible and dead person walking, corrupt but pure and untouched by genetic lottery, hazard, eccentric function, accident or life itself.

Innocent, yet blah, blah, blah you get the picture, maaaaagic.

[It's only a matter of time before people touch a fatty for luck. I'll bet they already are. ]

Tuesday, 24 March 2015

Don't make Weight Laws-Dismantle Weight Divisions

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to think about Dr. Sarah Jackson insisting weight should become a protected category included in anti-discrimination law. You may say, brava, well meaning. Jackson tells everyone including doctors to stop the hate against fat people.

Except that this trivializes racism and other discrimination, whilst mostly overlooking the root cause promoting discrimination against fat people.

If you want to end discrimination against fat people, stop telling lies about human biology. Stop making this a question of humanities rather than science. Weight is product of a process you don't understand nor can reliably manipulate to reverse said outcome.

Concentrate on getting that done, start with those who's weight gain is linked to things like brain tumours or chronic conditions and remember this is not only about them. It's about better treatments for all sorts of things, given the wide-ranging nature of metabolic function.

Stop defining people as disease or with fake "identities" such as @bese and @overweight. And stop conflating weight loss with weight loss dieting and claiming the latter works- it does not.

All this will do more than any law.

In fact, dismantle the construction of 'obesity' as a field of study-it's clearly divisive and pointless. Stick to studying weight as part of metabolic science as that is what this is really about. Its the crude social engineering that's creating division and discrimination. The rogue sociology.

The pretext for this sounding is the second of couple of uh....studies, you may remember the first.

The upshot is shaming fat people should now stop. Not because its ethically wrong, causes harm to human beings, cheapening those participating in bullying, but because it "doesn't work". Meaning it a) doesn't enable proto-anorexia and b) it (purportedly) increases instances of eating calorie dense grub, and the likelihood of future fatness.

So there. 

I can see that this could be seen as a more effective appeal to fat phobes motivations. Undermining fat people's mental and physical health could never have been solely about making fat people slim. In order for something to be for a certain end, you must have a clear idea of what that end is. Seeking to use and generate negativity cannot be for positive ends. The momentum and power of negativity takes on a life of its own, takes over the wheel and ends up driving you. It becomes the end.  

The identity of slimness with its attendant halo also gets in the way. If anyone can be slim, that loses currency. The urge is to sabotage reversal of weight. Maintain an increasing source of vanity. This is hardly predictable, but it has been evident enough for a while.

Replacing opprobrium with "support" i.e. coercion is the same mis-use of terms, legal protection which would entrench this faux identity of weight. What's required is genuine application of objective science and intellect a removal of lies and falsehoods. We need rational thought to be restored.

If this campaign for anorexia-by-proxy was about weight reversal, it would have been stopped decades ago without much say so from us. Science would have made way more inroads in how to actually achieve this properly. It may have done it by now, though nothing is promised. It just strikes me as doable in a way that other things that have been done seem less so.

i.e. In real disease news there was recently a drug was being publicized that decreased sharply the transmission of HIV from positive to non-infected partner in certain conditions.Who would have predicted that when we were reminded, no virus has been cured?

That didn't come about by insisting people wear condoms for sexual intercourse.

Objective science, not social engineering. Is anyone really going to tell me that finding a 'vaccine' against HIV is easier than stabilizing a person's weight? Or reversing hunger? Let alone weight? There's a clear lack of desire at the heart of this. 

The picture being shouted against-'obesity' timebomb zomg is exactly what is being perpetuated. It helps if instead of seeing this as a position-@besity's bad let's get rid of it, versus a target, all people slim. Step back and see the whole as a tableau. It's all part of parts. The desire is to keep this going, with no endpoint, just continued repetition of the same as the last 40 years.

On the one hand fat people are treated as a distinct class-a wholly bogus confection (yes) of the 'obesity' crusade which depends on the absence of genuine weight reversal. At the same time as being a staunch advocate for "weight loss" meaning calorie restriction which equals the same as up to now.

The previous very weak study in describing "obesity promoting behaviours" listed "refusal to diet" that's right, saying no to neuroses; increased energy conservation, rebound weight gain, hyperphagia, binge eating, bulimia nervosa, depression and possibly bringing on some forms of diabetes, is what promotes 'obesity'.

Now I recognize this sentence: "Instead fat people must restrict calories and waste energy, because that will ensure a continued fat class to be discriminated against" might sound "eliminatory." That's something I can't answer fully here. All I will say is that if you use the framework of  the 'obesity' construct to decide your views, no matter how FA you are, you'll end up with a weird symmetry of agreement with it. 

Fat people are not the "opposite" of slim people.

I just saw someone who wrote that she argued with someone else for praising fat women's sexual abilities. This was interpreted as a slight-bullying against slim women. Polarity. Like male being seen as the "opposite" or female.

I long since left the latter behind and I'm not on board with the former either. Fat people are not as different from slim people as we can seem from the outside. That might be behind "headless fatties" tending to be outliers. The majority of @beses let alone @verweighties do not look "opposite" what's defined as the norm, which is also not as slim as it imagines

Just because words are in opposition, doesn't mean those words used to define human ( or other animal) traits that people are by that, set in "opposition" to each other.

Being fat or slim makes little difference to the essence of you. How we define each other does because it often dictates how we treat each other. Weight division is a tool of the crusade. Some in FA are perhaps inadvertently taking that on, as that's where their heads have been put by that very crusade's mal-logic.

My attitude is and has always been differences don't fall across any weight categorizations. "Weight loss" as in calorie restriction dieting and its epic failure just adds a sense that we are looking across a massive biological chasm.

We aren't.

Far from wishing to eliminate us the 'obesity' cultists are in two minds. Their actions though speak to wishing to establish division using weight.

Always note, does this differ from anything they've been telling us to do before?

Though the approach may change on the surface, the answer is no.

Sunday, 22 March 2015

Useful Humiliation

During one of the recent tawdry non-discussions about 'obesity' from the anorexia worshiping classes, humiliation was proclaimed a time honoured technique to control unwanted elements and that it actually works.

And indeed it does. It clearly worked to suppress gayness. Which illustrates the point, the ends don't justify the means.

It's an often heard cry from fat activists that bullying and stigma don't work. This is of course untrue, they did. It's what people were being bullied into sticking with that didn't. Fat people willingly participated in dieting. Like everyone else we thought it would work.

Fat people started off dieting with crusaders zeal. We had no reason to doubt. Whether we were put on diets as children, many of us, or chose to in childhood like myself to, as often our first masterplan of continued self will.

Though they don't necessarily state it clearly, religious fundamentalists are aware that being gay is a pronounced, unconsciously directed orientation. They didn't care either about the damage repressing people into self repression and staying their does.

They too wish/ed to punish gay people for being gay.

Punishment is a powerful urge, when it is allowed to lead it will overturn into compulsion. It will become the end.  Ditto humiliation.

Yes, it's probably the case that humiliation can reset a person's ability to stick with starving themselves for longer, or any other action they're body is fighting. But dieting is inherently undesirable and goes nowhere.

If everyone's so desperate to reduce anyone's eating, whether normal or not, then humiliation should be scientifically tested. The right kind should be clearly identified and the ability to provoke it should be exact, repeated over and over, to get the same results in experiments.

Of course humiliation is unlikely to stand up to such disciplined inquiry, assuming it was ethically permitted. But if even if it did, you know what? I'd still say shelve it. 

Saturday, 21 March 2015

Blinds Up

I like my window allusions, so.....continuing with that theme-or not...just a word on why fat phobes/those with inured with the conventional take on weight are so messed up in the head with it.

The first critic is your inner one. If I say; "The UK Prime Minister is an expert on metabolic function." I know before I've got to the end of that sentence, whilst composing it in my head, that this doesn't appear to be so.

I have other knowledge, understanding, information, already that my minds checks through to make sense of what I'm thinking. Like when you sound out your friends for their response.

Your mind attempts to run info coming it and going out, via the relevant facts it already knows. So quick and brilliant is the-organ-that-seems-to-be-you, that often before you've finished thinking a thought, it's already worked out how much sense it's made.

The amazing thing is not the extent of our cognitive errors, but how few of them there are compared with how many there could be.

Anyway, the conscious mind is like the blinds covering a window, to your greater mind. Blinds adjust to let the light in i.e. being receptive to incoming information, open minded. Or they can keep it out and you become unreceptive to info, closed minded. When the blinds are down obviously.

Then you can just have the blinds right up, in order to let something in that wouldn't otherwise pass muster in your conscious mind. You suspend the sense that would activate your bullshit detector. The other knowledge you have in your mind would stop it.

In order to accept the mindrot that is the 'obesity' construct and its attendant bullshit, one has to have the blinds up. That is why those who accept it  can make little sense. i.e. let's pretend bodies are disease and the workings of those bodies are disease in action.

But, though its disease its also a choice, but a bit genetic, but mostly passed on through "bad habits," it can be totally prevented but not cured and no cure/resolution is possible, we aren't looking for or advocating for one either, our failed strategy's failure is depressing, but we'll keep it anyway, it's treatment, but you have to do all the work and it does nothing, so isn't treatment...............

When all that's required is-let's find out how the system/s concerned work. Then let's find out how to manipulate it to change its outcome/s to what we demand.

That's the least you can do, if you insist.

From there we can see how those manipulations affects problems with that system and have an idea on further potential for solving them completely or partially. And so on. You'd think they'd want to help those they haven't cast as villains.

Only with the blinds up, could you be trying desperately to 'prove' what you don't believe in order to claim that leads to everyone submitting to a failed modus operandi.

Thursday, 19 March 2015

It takes a hell of a lot of effort to be an 'obese'

Celebrity response to fat phobia are something I've never been invested in. Overwhelmingly, no matter how honest and positive they can be at any one moment about being human whilst fat. They'll likely be examples of them being otherwise.

Millican once make one of those execrable paedo [fat] phobe remarks about a fat boy's chest being more greatly endowed than hers. Word to the wise, never again.

I don't feel 'betrayed' by weight reversals, along with the societal pressure on everyone, the business they're in but more importantly the fact that they tend to become wealthier if not outright rich makes that pretty much an inevitability at some point-to whatever degree/time frame or other.
Mindy Kaling on wasting energy merely to remain 'normal'/chubby  

Overall, Kaling has a pretty much mainstream attitude to weight. The specific point she's making seems to me to be refutating the default brainwart that if you are anything above thin-you don't engage in calories in/out style wasting. Though the context it was said in was fat =bad. Ragen felt it was a good fatty thing [I'll get onto that later].

As some of us can see, such is the bankrupt dysfunctional inefficiency of wasting energy to supposedly regulate/ lose weight-or "weight-management" cannot reliably be expected to consistently/ permanently reverse anyone's weight, no matter their starting point. It's not an 'obese' thing as is being sold by 'obesity' quacksters and restriction diet shills. 

Common or garden "working out" and having a healthy or restrictive diet leaves most people above thin remaining pretty much where they are, give or take and those who are thin do not have to take breaks because they're dematerializing.

In fact, many of them start to gain bulk from the former, for the first time. Part of the so called "French secret" and why you don't see as many of the size that is being sized-out for being small as you did pre 'fitness culture.'

I've always wished women would come out of the closet and own up to how much cals in/out they actually practise. Regardless of weight. It might make it make more sense for fat people to say what they do also. And what some don't. Because fat people are not a monolith.

Oh!Bese etc., is convenient fiction.

Some fat people do as much as slimmer people who say they "do nothing" or do lots-the latter possibly cut down on activity elsewhere too-who knows? Polarity of slim/fat is false. Fat people vary as does everyone. The more people speak honestly, being widely varied in habits and approved effort, at the same or similar weights the better.

If that's "confusing" tough.

Fat people haven't just dieted in ways that could make honest people weep. We've also expended and suppressed a tremendous amount of energy play dehumanizing dis-ease-which of course you have to blunt yourself with insult to achieve said effect. There's having to suppress your most basic critical faculties and ultimately intelligence-to repeat the same folly over and over, expecting some other outcome as well as "fitness" and dietary restriction.

It takes most effort of all to be an 'obese' its draining and unrewarding for the effort expended. Which is of course roundly denied by all and sundry.

Often led by the fat person most of all.

Tuesday, 17 March 2015

The Unbearable Emptiness of Weight Loss Diet Shills and @besity Wallahs

"Tobacco can show us the way to tackle our obesity disaster", so says Susan Jebb in "the newspaper of the year." Now I get why some don't bother with the press. They're both hosting a groundbreaking or path fracking lecture on it. Whoo hoo.

Hope springs eternal and you think; "I know diet shills have lost control of themselves and there's no one around to properly restrain them. But surely there's a level beneath which they will not stoop?" Then they just go ahead and do it again!

Yes Jebb claims deciding to no longer put lit tubers of tobacco in your gob, inhale and breathe out the smoke has some connection with engaging in a titanic battle to stop responding to your innate hunger and appetite properly- declining to eat what you wish, at the same time as engaging in the selective gluttony of making yourself eat things you may not wish in quantities you'd prefer not to anyway.

Plus, wasting time on activity you'd rather not engage in, denying yourself that time to do things you want to;
We encourage smokers to quit smoking whilst recognizing that some people may need to try several times before they succeed, yet hold back from encouraging people who are overweight to diet. 
So that's not inhaling /exhaling smoke, versus, repressing your real hunger, in favour of faking hunger you don't have and wasting the time you doing things you don't wish to whilst not doing the things you would like to do, with the people you'd like to do them with;
We're constrained by an outdated pessimism about the effectiveness of obesity treatments.
Research shows...many different kinds of interventions do help people lose weight.....from bariatric surgery right through to behavioural weight management services or even self help programs. 
Self help eh? You mean what most of us spent the decades of slimming madness engaged in? The efforts folks like you deny? And seriously, stop with this different kinds. Whatever you're doing it is to bring about the same end. If perfect mental health =slimness, you won't need the restriction.

Oh and prove it first in a mass long term trial, just for once.

Not doing one direct action is the same as doing multiple indirect actions, none of which is directly the thing she is complaining about;
 "The public are confused." "We may think we are rational people, but more of our behaviour in relation to food is an automatic response.
You don't say? It's as if no-one told this "nutritional scientist" that this is the way eating-the response to hunger- works. You get hungry enough, you eat. You require energy, you get hungry, you eat. Not just for people, but for other animals and many other lifeforms in some way or another.

Not smoking is natural, suppressing hunger is unnatural and causes distress, discomfort and at times disorder in response. If hunger is excessive that needs to be righted. If normal hunger is supposed to be suppressed, that is a pathology, which  also requires a functioning method. Imposing restriction isn't anything, it just puts the cart before the horse.

Trying repeatedly is how many picked up ED's that weren't as close to the surface as they should have been for the trouble they caused.

All this is no longer enough, keep up. Being "behaviourally" coached like one of Pavlov's dog-by people who clearly don't know how to behave-and having your thoughts rejigged by people who cannot tell the difference between thought and responding to biological signalling.

How does anyone really need to ask why no society can make this work long-term? Those who've come closest have a different sense of individual rights-shall we say- and merely engaged neuroses that derailed those efforts in relatively short time. It's so obviously not the right approach.

Ultimately, this message is about the conflation of two things. Reversing/advancing body mass and a desire to make people eat the way you think is right-rather like many vegetarians, carnivores insist everyone else eat as they.

Jebb thinks its okay to "nudge" and "nanny" people, telling them how to live their lives, because someone died and made her god/she has an emptiness inside she's trying to fill. It's the only pleasure she has left, now that she's squeezed it out of her own life.

Unsurprisingly, she can hardly sell this bill of crap on its own [lack of] merit, she requires the strong arm of the same stress, abuse, bullying and social exclusion that's already failed.

Failed to stop the very things she claims need to be done to reverse the "disaster" made during the 'obesity crusade' she represents. In fact they advanced on the back of "weight is an individual matter." If one were cynical, one might say she and her ilk permitted this, so they could gain a better grasp of people's lives. After all, they know all about nutrition.

@besity wallahs mention QALY's whenever you point to life expectancy. Life isn't just about quantity, it's about quality. Though the prospect of even more harassment, nagging, bullying and abuse has undoubtedly been "motivating" having to live by the dictates of others also reduces quality of life too. 

Running around suppressing hunger in order to lose and keep weight off, assuming you can even manage that, is draining to the nervous system. The grind wears out something in you, if you even can get to that point (which is why many can't). It's like spending years chasing illicit drugs and the money to buy them.

People can fake "endorphin rush" exercise-gasm all they like, when you look into the eyes of the rage, hatred and full bodied desire for the suffering and death of fat people, it speaks otherwise.

Decades of rigid investment in calories in/out as the one and only way to alter weight has done something to these people's minds. They're so mentally and emotionally dependent on this, that they'd rather harass, bully, tax and impoverish others- change whole societies- to fit align with it, rather than move on to something better suited to their [purported] aims.


She ends her unconvincing agit-prop by stating "A serious look at the preventative and treatment of 'obesity' and diet-related diseases is long overdue." Yeah, that's called science into something you've never mention.

Starting by focusing on what that's really referring to; metabolic function. Finding out how to tweak that and you can leave people to eat/not eat and do/not do whatever the heck they want-as long as its legal and doesn't hurt anyone (else).  Jebb and cohorts really need to find something else to fill the vacuum left by the way they're living.

The tired old Blame Game-And how we yawn

Aye, Aye, from-the top ten reasons why [certain] classists couples argue;
One thing most of us don’t grow out of is that when things go wrong,* we need someone to blame. We find the force of circumstance too threateningly random an explanation. Introverts blame themselves. Extroverts blame other people. This is why they often end up together.
* Or we think/convince ourselves they have. 

You're telling me.

Well you know what? Grow out of it because its, yahwn, messed up, self indulgent and very, very old. Instead, let's go from (I'm assuming) a more religion inspired preachy, sound and thunder, spare the rod spoil the child, "tough love" horseshit, to one more in the spirit of the age objective one.

Let's move on to a a more selfless, ego-suspend, active listening and really hearing the other one-under scrutiny/in trouble.

Our old, default pulpit inspired one tends to start from a position of one as the all conquering wise "normal" one and the other as the "sinner". Anyone with even a "blameless" illness will attest to how many people ask them "Can't you just, stop/get up our of that wheelchair/throw away those crutches/visit Lourdes, etc., guilty tripping.

The problem is inherent in the construct "normal" which is as they say a big tent. It forces people on the defensive. Thrusting them into a permanent state of continually re-establishing their authenticity of normal. This  neurotic state of is inherently anxiety-promoting, the feeling is, I might not to be. Feelings of panic emerge from the subconscious hinterlands.

Leaning toward a tendency to create a faux demarcation between normal/ abnormal-see how that's defined in relation to, rather than in its own right- then to create as vast a chasm between those two as possible.

Leading to the inability to see the normal in the abnormal and often, vice versa, to see the extent of the abnormal in the normals. This in itself is responsible for as much suffering up to and including death as many actual problems in themselves.

A more mindfully inspired let someone else's thoughts flow without you interrupting with your (dumb) ego giving your less obvious brain a better chance of sending you some wisdom unencumbered, might be a leap forward in society's/societies collective consciousness.

Like a bit of group therapy or even temporarily sponsor where you are like the person's clear, extra brain for a while. Only prodding gently if they're bullshitting-can sometimes tell because they're either boring the pants off you or just seem fake.

What's in it for you? Well, clearing your mind, listening, not only gives your wisdom a chance to poke through-which is heartening-it gets easier to put your ego aside, something that can easily be of immeasurable value to anyone. 

Hurry up, some of us need the flamer-blamers in positions of influence to "grow up."

Sunday, 15 March 2015

There's NOTHING Remotely "depressing" about the failure of calorie restriction dieting

The depressing fact, said Ochner in an interview, is that "the average adult with sustained obesity has less than a 1% chance of reattaining and maintaining a healthy body weight without surgery." These discouraging facts about the body's response to weight loss are well known to obesity researchers: Drug developers wrestle with the fact that even when their treatments induce weight loss by one means, other mechanisms spring up to limit or reverse that weight loss.
That should really be the body's response to weight loss dieting. Weight loss is outcome, WLD is the method that's supposed to bring it about.

And no there is nothing remotely, microscopically depressing in any way shape or form about the failure of weight loss dieting.

The body's triumphant refusal to yield to the stupid yearnings and desires of self abuse is inspiring. It's wonderful that an ugly degenerate pathological abusive code has failed. We are often told we're unlucky, dieting is "hard".....Bollocks. It's dysfunction.

Hard as in challenging is mastering a new language in adulthood. Getting slapped around in a relationship-that's dysfunctional not challenging or character building. Dieting isn't, on the contrary, its character dismantling.

How many people do you know who've gone from having no interesting in weight loss dieting to being all about that, whose character's improved? I don't know any. Not only that, some of the most decent lovely people I've ever meet reveal an ugliness of character that's demoralizing in a way that it isn't from shallow, hollow, follow-fashion types.

Haters are fond of saying we're "unlucky," actually its they who are. They thought they had it made. They thought their cowardy custard souls could step off their pompous self importance plunge head first into revealing themselves as thieving, scumbag, bigots and still get to pretend to be good because their emotional thuggery was all for "weight loss."

Nope shitheads, turns out nasty produces more nasty so you can piss off your soapbox and take your vile hateful credo with you.

The body's our remarkable gift. We get it for free dammit. Homeostasis defeats the crude, stupid and brutish attempt to disrupt its functioning via starvation, which some simply cannot grasp is disgusting and abusive. That is why it has been used as a weapon of genocide and war against millions.

"The Auschwitz diet" is only a "weight loss" in crass hateful heads arbeit doesn't macht slim.

Getting in sync with and using the body's amazing capacities will enable us to move forward to a new era of adjusting our own function, without drugs and/or torture equipment.

That should shut down some asinine whinnying of medical professions who feel fat bodies are infra dig.

When we get the means of reversing weight right and we will, if quack ridden "researchers" don't step up, some of us will use what means we can to help the truth along-homeostasis will regulate change as a matter of its usual course. That's why its so strong. It needs to see off all comers-unless there's something very wrong.

The fact that CRD can't regulate itself is proof in itself that its the wrong method, for everyone. Even slim people who want to be slim could do better. When we have the right method, that'll produce less, if any disorder. It will have a whole different effect.

So the answer is get on the right side of what is designed to do things properly. Stop fighting the body you're outgunned on this score.

Allow it to do what it is designed to do, what it does best, what no human has matched. Luckily, we don't have to. We just have to be a bit sneaky and use what's there

Saturday, 14 March 2015

Nutritional Vanity-Buster

Oh, it turns out that people of low socio-economic status (LSES) know as much or as little about nutrition as middle/upper class folk and eat just as well too, if not better?

I've been saying this forever, but, of course when it comes to dieeet, people won't be told. It's not what is true, it's what's supposed to be true that rules. And middle/upper class folk should know more in general than the degenerates unfortunates who aren't economically secure. Otherwise, why else are they more favoured?

It must be virtue.

The self declared know-it-alls put fast food in all they run, from localities to schools and hospitals within them- if they knew so much, why did they do that? Long after the crusade was in full force? If as they've asserted continually 'obesity' costs so much in health? Clearly not enough.

Diet or should I say appetite is no more about studying nutrition than weight is decided by counting calories. Apart from basic nutrition, which could be covered by teaching people to cook a variety of produce, we just need to know how to put things together well. Enthusiasm, imagination, I was going to say love, but food + emotion is verboten.

Let's just say, we need to learn balance. In fact, at a certain point-when nutrition takes the path of healthism, it can get in the way.

"Nutritional knowledge" [doesn't that convey such pretension?] is yet another self-denuding place holder, to [haute]bourgiesplain why their class/es are healthier, slimmer (if they are) better than others. Men are still more uniform in body size across most class race etc.,

The answer is that the easier, more fulfilling your life is, the more your needs have been met, the safer more secure your environment has been-the less likely your various energies are to have been or be repeatedly taxed beyond your available resources.

That's too much of a vanity buster. 

Friday, 13 March 2015

Let's try this: Weight-Gain Doesn't Work

Unbelievable though it is to my brain, this is still happening. Folks are still conflating weight loss, with weight loss dieting-repeating the bizarre; "Weight-Loss doesn't work."

Now I realize I'm at a disadvantage in pointing out the blatantly obvious to the world. I'm not a reality diviner.

Despite going out of my way to accommodate this tedious pretention- by quoting white guys, people are still clinging to a convenient falsehood transmitted by the apparently eval slimming industry.  So why oh why, oh pretty please, pray tell must you continue? Is it an in-joke, am I out of the loop, whaaa?

Permit me take a different tack.

What if I say "Weight-gain doesn't work" how does that sound?

I'm sure you'll note that weight gain is an outcome, not a singular plan. I'm sure you'll note that weight loss is an outcome, not a singular plan. Weight gain happens spontaneously or it can happen as the result of deliberately planned contrivance, i.e. force-feeding. Weight loss happens spontaneously, or it can happen as the result of a deliberately planned contrivance, i.e. weight loss dieting.

Despite this, you can tell that force-feeding is not the same as weight gain. Despite this you can tell that weight loss dieting is not the same as weight loss. You'd know immediately that if force-feeding was conflated with weight gain, that would be odd. You'd know immediately (if not for the slimming industry et al)  that if weight loss dieting was conflated with weight loss, that would be odd.

I'll bet you get that force-feeding is not the same as being in a heightened state of hunger-i.e. when you haven't eaten all day and that this is not the same as having excessive hunger signalling. I'll bet you get that weight loss dieting is not the same as having no feeling of hunger-i.e. after you've just eaten to your desire and that this is not the same as feeling unable to act on your hunger.

I know you also get why saying "weight gain doesn't work" makes nooo sense whatsoever. I know you too get why saying "weight loss doesn't work" makes nooo sense whatsoever. Because weight gain is the outcome, force-feeding a method of achieving that deliberately. Because weight loss is the outcome, weight loss dieting a method of achieving that deliberately.

Weight loss, two words, is an outcome. Weight loss dieting  note three words, is supposed to lead to that.

I know you get it really.....

Thursday, 12 March 2015

Is Loneliness a Disease?

An enduring enigma at the heart of the 'obesity' cult, including this notorious brainfart is any assertion that though there's a field supposedly dedicated to the study of it, people must become 'disease' in order to prompt what should be that field's whole reason for existing.

The real issue is simple, there's no sure, direct, predictable, way to halt and/or reverse the process of weight gain. That is all that is needed, that's most of what should have been the central vocation of "obesity science."

It's dodged this forever and it can either see how long it can drag that out, or get the hell on with it. 

This paper looks at loneliness and the potential effects of a mindful approach on what is said to be negative health correlates. It explores mindfulness meditation to see if it can palliate these effects. Wait though.

Has loneliness been declared (a) disease? 

According AMA docs that's the motor of seeking to improve people's health in accessible ways. Not the intentions of those involved in the field, or anything.

It's a small study starting from the basis that loneliness is deemed to provoke potentially serious negative health effects. Focusing on the elderly population who tend to be more vulnerable to social isolation for a variety of factors.

They concluded mindfulness- maintaining focus in your present experience, allowing your thoughts to flow calmly, without becoming emotionally entangled with them-not only reduces the chemical markers associated with the health risks they were interested in.

The signs from the results were that it not only promises to lessen those risk factor markers, it also can reduce people's feelings of isolation.

This raises a question about how we see loneliness. On the one hand we think of it as aloneness-so how could that be lessened from within? Unless that concerned training on how to make friends or something like that.

It brings to mind the old axiom that you can feel lonely in a crowd yet not so on your own. Suggesting more (potential) harm is done, not in being alone so much as the habitual quality of your internal state and your (habitual) reaction to that. Or how you feel on the inside. Being alone, leaves you with that.

This can easily become a continual vicious cycle of negativity can help to wear you(r body) out. I note this so easily because let's face it, that's the 'obesity' strategy. To create a permanent state of negative feeling so acute, that one will do anything to escape those feelings.  The agonies of semi-starvation and overexercising are supposed to seem more tolerable than that.

The process of starting this, gives you permission to stop polluting your mind.

If you're asking, how can you participate in something so seemingly fake? In short, its pretty much boiling frogs. The first (unseen) hook is you accept it is wrong to be fat. Things roll on from there. Ultimately, you feel unethical not to keep participating in this scenario-which is actually very real whilst you are. Trying to stop this is like trying to stop feeling bad about being unfaithful, if that's an absolute no no in your mind. It feels unethical.

Any damage this exhausting cycle inflicts can be put down to 'obesity'. Which is why 'obesity' wallahs hate HAES or anything that remotely reports the reality of the weight/mortality graph.

Mindfulness is in essence, learning about detachment. I'm sure many people done with the cult instinctively start with a form of mindfulness. They learn to try and disengage from the internal cycle of negativity-as well as the external. If they either know or discover to really step off it, that begins to fade and they'll realize underneath this is-"self love."

If it is deemed;
People suffering from chronic inflammatory conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease and asthma - in which psychological stress plays a major role - may benefit from mindfulness meditation techniques,
Then why wouldn't the field and its touting of "minor inflammation" be falling over itself to see the effects of something that can potentially lessen that level of said inflammation/response? Where are the numerous studies devoted to seeing if freeing people from the debilitating 'obese' mindset cultivated over such a long time improves health?

Oh, have I just answered the question?!

Follow up studies are needed. This is sort of like a guide for directing more a more fundamental search for underlying pathways of reversing inflammation and inflammatory response. It would be fascinating to see if this effect could be zoomed in on, intensified, made more direct, predictable and controllable. Perhaps with specific techniques, who knows?

It's the kind of approach that puts people in the driving seat helping us bypass the very professionals, some of whom affect disdain for certain bodies, oh boo hoo. And plus, no wretched nagging about what you eat.

This is my idea of "increased access" people doing stuff we can for ourselves, leaving the rest to the professionals. Rather than always being centered on dragging people into a healthcare system that isn't able or doesn't necessarily want to accommodate them.

Because someone gives a damn about the suffering of others, we can all potentially benefit. All who are lonely/isolated could benefit from this approach, let alone those with inflammatory conditions of all kinds, including of course mental health problems. Yes, inflammation's a bit of a buzz term right now, but I do think there's something in this.

Over time, practise of mindfulness can lead to a different consciousness which can lead to a kind of partnership between professionals and lay, where the latter get to use the deep desire to "take responsibility" denied by a pill for every ill.  Which of course could have started with fat people and our unusually high level of commitment to such cost for such minimal returns. But whatever. 

This is what I mean by "obesity"quackery has cost us all opportunities to learn more and do more about ourselves. 

Wednesday, 11 March 2015

Scared to Let go

I see professional ex-anorexic Emma Woolf has emitted a new more spiritual seeming tract; "Letting Go: How to heal your hurt, love your body and transform your life." I'd be happy to suspend disbelief, alas I don't believe a word.

A look at the contents and oh golly gee: "Chapter 6- Supersize v Superskinny." Spending 20 years in unwitting pursuit of lifestyle orthorexia/anorexia has acclimatized me to vain hopes repeatedly going down in flames, but even I can tell what's coming......
If its attacked for being shocking, it is - because they show shocking realities. They show the reality of the morbidly obese, gruesome weight-related illnesses, even supersized mortuaries -but this is fact, not fiction.
So achingly predictable, I can but laugh.
....many viewers credit Supersize with shocking them into making positive, healthy changes to their diet and lifestyle. In that way, it's an important -if brutal- wake-up call about the causes and consequences of obesity.
Funny how Zuperskinny just fades into the ether when there's any opprobrium about. In the spirit of the programme itself which obviously uses the thin to cover its "healthily-weighted" arse.

But wait a mo, be fair, how does she speak about anorexia-the most deadly psychiatric blah, blub, blurrr?
'Here are the ingredients for my special serial mix.' Pauline opens the kitchen cupboards and unloads an assortment of packets and jars.....
Excellent, we begin with a subject speaking in her own words. We are given her name. She's very much a person, not an amorphous dis-ease branding. It takes Pauline an hour to assemble her special brekkie mix, described in careful detail and an hour to eat it. Which, leaving this context aside, is a great tip for you fatz who keep woolfing down your grub, apparently..... What about "gruesome" effects?
The woman in front of me is beautiful but ravaged, her skin etched with lines, her long blonde hair dry as straw.... 
Awwww.....So far so muesli commercial. Be honest, if I hadn't told you what this was about, how long would it have taken you to guess?

Pauline goes on to speak of the impact anorexia has had on her life. She feels it has been stolen by it. Oh how many have more than an inkling of what that feels like! And, round of applause, she appears to manage all this, without leavening it with how repulsive and vile fat people are, [wait perhaps that's about recovery.] EW should take notes.

Woolfie goes on to tell us about Pauline's character, "warm and friendly" such as you wouldn't guess she was going through such "torment"....... Her time consuming eating rituals are punctuated by a "pointless punishing exercise regime." Yeah, tried that, just didn't have the 'discipline,' luckily.

What to say about the odd way 'obesity' acts again as a sort of mental colostomy bag for "honesty and bravery" about any chosen topic, in this case anorexia? The things Woolf is repressing about that is coming out in the way she speaks about fat people. There's a quite distinct split. That she cannot seem to talk about AN, without putting the boot into fat people is some kind of symptom-and it doesn't spell recovery. 'Obesity' is acting as a buffer zone, it's where her other feelings are being re-routed to. A nice comfy shield so she doesn't hurt herself in treacherous terrain.

She's right to be overwhelmed and scared, but she has access to resources and professional and other support. If she can't manage it........

This kind of peculiar displacement- and there's lots of it about-is far more insidious than slimz parading around in ridiculous fat suits, trying to re-take ownership of other people's experience.

When or if you ever do let go of your utter disgust, contempt and hatred for those who do not display anorexia's most associated trait- and have the boldness to integrate the feelings you're running from Emma, I'll be the first to cheer.

Tuesday, 10 March 2015

'Obese' Trojan enables Politicized Bullying

Genuine sympathy brings home the hollowness of four decades of circling round a thought-terminating void. Intelligent and compassionate people like Clare Allan are in such a muddle about fat people. And well done sub-editor for so ably reflecting her tone, with a photo of chips + curry sauce-pure class.

First off, what dehumanizes is constructing whole human beings as slim people wearing a suit of their own adiposity, or what's idiotically deemed-'obese'/ 'obesity'. The compulsive tic of using these tiresome terms to put a block on calling people, people is unwarranted and unasked for. To all and sundry, kindly cease and desist.

Fat people are PEOPLE, try using that again.

If anyone thinks they're better than people, let them call themselves something that reflects their presumed supernatural better-than-people superiority.

Secondly Cameron and gang are not bullying fat people, they're using the stigma of a construct to bully disabled people-who happen to be fat. Again, this habit of re-classifying people with a dehumanzing block in place of their humanness drops the mind into a pit it struggles to get out of.

Exactly who is claiming disability benefit/s for being fat? No seriously media mavens, fact check this. I'll bet, virtually no-one. Any more than anyone's claiming disability benefits for being slim. And even if they are, they deserve it. For decades it has been clear diets do not work for anybody. Not for 'obese' not for thin people losing 2 or 3 lbs over and over and over again.

A slim disabled person is claiming because they're disabled not because they're slim-though as you can see, you could say that if you wished to be silly. That this kind of bamboozle feels so right, shows just how much the catastrophizing etc., of the 'obesity' cult has warped judgement.

Folks keep making this basic error of allowing their minds to be directed to people's weight, rather than their state. Thus unwittingly enabling this kind of targeting. Disability doesn't only affect slim people, fatness doesn't give you immunity from the same disabilities as slimmer people.     

Even if you can say, this person is top-weight and not very mobile [that doesn't stop them working] discrimination might though, the issue is the "science of obesity" hasn't yet deemed it of interest to find ways to stem the process of adipogenesis-the creation of fat cells/tissue.

Weight is an outcome of a process, it is not "disease" nor is it an eating disorder nor "addiction" or  "mental illness." That people cannot tell this is proof of how loose those terms have become and how quickly this undermines civil liberties.

People do not "eat themselves up to x" anymore than they eat themselves into slimness.

Hunger is innate signalling-with respect, the urge for a smoke, alcohol, or drugs isn't. Whatever triggers of weight-gain a person has, can set off an underlying conjunction of metabolic processes. Eating is a normal response to a metabolic cue, not an addiction-that's your calorie restriction/proto-anorexia programming talking through you. Heightened hunger is symptom, not cause.

Everyone responds the same way to hunger, we eat. Normalizing hunger signalling is the way to deal with an excess of it. Just as normalizing the signalling relieve your bladder is the way to restore continence. Not sewing up the end of your urethra.

It doesn't matter what process you are talking about, if you cannot switch it off-at some point it will cause trouble, no matter how benign. 

Excess intake of water can and has killed people. Obviously, the off button on that is clear. This decision that's been consistently repeated, worldwide, in the face of unceasing evidence to the contrary means that people's only possibility of reversing their weight is via calorie restriction dieting, whether enhanced by drugs, surgery etc.,

The lack of efficacy of this approach has to stand as it is. That is not the fault of fat people. I think you'll find most fault lays with those who thought they knew better than fat people. They were wrong. They need to deal with that.

Mental health is a side issue for fat people-ditto for many drug addicts and alcoholics too come to think of it. What is required are effective rather than ineffective means of reversal of underlying states. If people want counselling after that, good luck. If counselling cured alcoholism, drug addiction and reversed weight, we'd have all noticed that by now.

What all these have in common is the punitive hatefuelled, stigmatizing approach has been willingly pursued. That approach is a pathology producing cul-de-sac [trans. arse bag.] All you can do is get out of it wash out the stink and start pursuing objective science.

If society choose to indulge the urge for endless ceaseless death wielding punishment- it will have to pay for the mess that creates. If it doesn't want to pay-excellent, cue the end of stigma, pathology, quackery and delusion- bring on the beautiful truth. 

More in need of mental health intervention are those who so need to punish others, that they cannot let go of that, even if it costs others their lives. There's something sick and sinister about them. I'd say if we spent some of the mental health budget on that, society could unchain the anchor of their bitter loathing and enter a new golden age of progress.

Monday, 9 March 2015

Context and Health

I don't know if I'm the only one who feels this but....those who respond to the charge of "You're unhealthy"-aimed at (able-bodied?) fat people-with "I'm unhealthy", because they're disabled, provoke a real sense of dissonance in me. I don't claim to have a clue about disability activism.

Nor am I one of those who sees other people's lives as a way of describing my feels. I do not consider that which is/can be disabling to be the same as being a disabled person. I feel this uses genuinely disabled people and obscures the true nature of neuroses i.e. depression, ocd's, eating disorders, phobias etc., whilst claiming to be trying to illuminate them.


I don't think it patronizing to say health has large component of individual context. If you have a disability/are disabled, that tells something about your health-which isn't the same as fitness. Within that parameter of disability, most have better or worse health same as anyone. An illness can be well managed, or less so. Imagine not being able to express this.

Ha, ha, that's 'obesity'! Strictly speaking a fat person is not permitted to acknowledge their health, that's truly-temporarily not sick. Fat people are allowed no ill-health other than the "obesity related."

A fat person riding a mobility scooter is a lazy so and so- a fat person cannot be disabled by anything but their largesse. All sickness in fat people is "obesity related"-if a fat person was slim, they wouldn't have the health problems slim people have (fat people are magic). And so on.....

I can't say I'm 100% sure on this, but I feel that the "unhealthy" constantly screamed at fat people doesn't refer to any "unhealthy" of a disabled person/ person with disability.

Not that I'm saying people shouldn't be made conscious of what they're saying, when they sneer in disgust at "unhealth", treating that as some kind of crime. It is also likely that the constant chanting of this is altering the atmosphere around ill health-how far this will spread is another thing.

For me though, when a person says a fat person is "unhealthy" they're locking themselves into the phoney ritualist sloganeering of 'obesity' which laughably pretends "unhealth" means that fat people must surrender control of their lives, rather than science urgently needs to pursue palliation/resolution/cure, which is the norm.

By continuing to accept such blatant false terms and responding as if that conclusion has any legitimacy, those seeking to oppose crusade rhetoric have unwittingly assisted the passage of the "unhealth" chant on its  mindless way.

Those defining themselves as "unhealthy" make me flinch. I get that some people have very bad health, I'm not denying that. But it seems odd to jettison the ability to perceive nuance or change.

It also feels like imposing an able-bodied, therefore de-contextualized standard of what health is for anyone who isn't. It says if you're not able-bodied, you don't have health. I've just realised, this echo's if you don't have slim you don't have health.

If you're disabled, how can able-bodied equals health be a meaningful description of what health is for you?

Saturday, 7 March 2015

Creating Biological Divide

This is interesting- Why rac(e)ism is not backed by science.
We now know that the way we talk about race has no scientific validity. There is no genetic basis that corresponds with any particular group of people, no essentialist DNA for black people or white people or anyone. This is not a hippy ideal, it’s a fact. There are genetic characteristics that associate with certain populations, but none of these is exclusive, nor correspond uniquely with any one group that might fit a racial epithet. Regional adaptations are real, but these tend to express difference within so-called races, not between them.
That's an excellent summation of how the impression of what you see doesn't necessarily describe physically function. Though I must admit, if you're like me, that feels quite dissonant if not a little bit shocking. Let me be clear, it's not that I'm rejecting it, it's that I'm talking about my reaction to it. Which is based on the impressions I've imbued. I sense its correct.

It's also the same with fe/male, if not more so. I have little dissonance about that. Indeed the term "opposite sex" has been grating on my nerves for most of my life.

Also note, this current attempt to set up a newer false dichotomy of biology;
"Once obesity is established, however, body weight seems to become biologically 'stamped in' and defended,"
I'm not singling this person out, this is simply a reflection of the whole underlying premise of the 'obesity' construct mindset and why I feel 'obesity' as a field-if it is one-needs to go. It can and should be absorbed into metabolic science, [even if it needs for some reason to be a subset of that];
Few individuals ever truly recover from obesity," the authors wrote. Those that do, they add, "still have 'obesity in remission,' and are biologically very different from individuals of the same age, sex and body weight who never had obesity." They are constantly at war with their bodies' efforts to return to their highest sustained weight.
'Obesity' splits people in an even more unscientific way than race or sex-according to mass. What that means in short is like saying if two people are six feet tall-one 140lbs the other 280 their height is produce differently, the latter via a pathological process or pathway/s.

Or that anyone above 5 feet in height is "overheight," and that this height is produced by a pathological process that somehow bears no relation to the healthy mechanics that produce a lesser height. And if you get sick, you aren't a person who's unwell, you have a "overheight-related disease."

You may smirk, but this is the kind of cognitive errors the existence of 'obesity' as a field is enabling. And most of it is down to the odd existence of 'obesity' as meaningfully separate from overall metabolic function. This speaks in part to how old the term 'obese' is. It goes back a few hundred years at least. It's an obsolete way of characterizing metabolic function though.

The kind of thing some would fancy as "time (dis)honoured."

By insisting that fatness is intrinsically pathological and made by pathology, with only pathological effects-how very kindergarten, like bad things happen to bad people because they are bad-they distort their own perception of human physiology, let alone lay people's. To no worthwhile end. It's unnecessary. If you want/need to reverse weight, then do it.

That is all you need to do. If that's was what this was about.

What is described in these quotes as "defended" is homeostasis, or the body's self regulation. I read somewhere that pre-diet hyperphagia [rise in hunger/appetite] was outside homeostasis because it begins before calorie restriction is commenced. When it isn't. I read that years ago. These people are actually regressing intellectually, even fat phobes need to consider squarely whether they wish to be dragged into a new age of ignorance. They may find that they'll increasingly struggle to understand their own body and its function.

This level of falsehood is not likely to contain itself to fat people alone.

The failure of calorie restriction/exercise bulimia or energy manipulation as a weight regulation strategy is down to the universal physiology we all have. Just as the production of height is too, at whatever level.

It has nothing to do with being "morbidly obese" as is increasingly being asserted by purveyors of 'obesity' cultism. By pathologizing fat bodies, they've ended up pathologizing the very anatomy we all have.

This is what the AMA's scientific committee alluded to when they told doctors, no disease has been coined. You cannot label disease when there's nothing to label. Disease is not an outward signal, it has something that is generating it. A bug, a malfunction, something. Medics went ahead in spite of this for reasons of getting paid for quackery and imposition. 

If it were the case that diets only failed for those with a BMI of 40+ or even 30 or 25+, slim people would be getting slimmer, they most definitely aren't. On the contrary. And I'd say, the real reason we cannot tell how erm robust we all are is just as likely that those who see themselves as slim-aren't as slim as they wish to be. They're more uniformly solid than ever.

We can from their reactions to genuinely thin people. They wish to ban truly thin bodies. They don't want to see them, knowing how they feel "skinny" and superior when they compare themselves with or stand beside a fat(ter) person.

When they see a genuinely thin person, they become the fatter person- and they cannot stand feeling on the receiving end of their own judgement. Behaving as if those thin people must think exactly as they, so they become aggressive.

A gap would be opening up between fat and slim if dieting was working for slim people. Focus on 'obesity' obscures this. There's no evidence diets work any better for anybody-restriction goes against the mechanics of our common physiology. That's just more obvious the fatter you are.

Friday, 6 March 2015

Talk Yourself Down

I was reminded of this when someone posted about something similar on another blog. They'd seen a report of a study that claimed those who'd been sexually abused were three times more likely to be fat by the age of 27 than those who hadn't. This refers to some kind of PTSD. PTSD is when your nervous system keeps reverberating with a traumatic event, or set of traumatic events causing  replays of said incident/s to continue on a self sustaining loop. It's also used for when the same cause your nervous system to enter into a state of hyper-reactivity which can be ever present or be activated under duress.

The person struggled with the fact that no mention was made of counselling for distress. It was all, how can we prevent this high risk group from becoming 'obese'. She was shocked by this, but it was inevitable. I called this the "nothing's going on but your fat" line of 'obesity'.

This from the emeritus professor of counselling;
(Dalgliesh mentions some research that found a third of obese women had been sexually abused.) "They haven't learned how to self-soothe, how to talk themselves down, 
"Talk yourself down" is interesting. It basically means that to recover from sexual abuse, you need may need to get your nervous system out of a PTSD hyperactive state. 

Only, she doesn't say that. She says fat women have failed to respond correctly to being sexually abused. Here's perhaps another reference to a hyperactive nervous system from a different angle;
This.....may be due in part to maladaptive stress responses within this group, including heightened low-grade inflammation and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA) non-habituation.” 
"Maladaptive stress responses." Now the thing is not all fat people have been sexually abused. Indeed, despite these reports, there's been evidence to the contrary, that fat women are no more sexually abused than their slimmer counterparts.

And this study is too small to make conclusions. Except to say the 'obese' mugging is itself is prone to leaving the nervous system shaken and stirred, it's part of its motivation or perish strategy. You're supposed to escape not being fat, but the treatment you receive whilst being fat- or decline in health under its assault.

It's always been a source of fascination as to how long medical authorities will persist/ get away with in a traumatizing strategy-for health. Right now they seem to be trying to slide into their old tricks attempting to ride two horses at once, by leaving the hate up to the social opprobrium they're still directly winding up. And then posing unconvincingly in their benign authority pose.

Of course, how you respond to sexual assault is not usually deemed a matter of success or failure. Assigning failure and fault to what is not necessarily a consciously led activity just shows how difficult it is to speak properly to a disease. For those lecturing on fatuous notions of 'addiction' how could people whose profession is health have allowed themselves to sink to this level? And this particular women wasn't even trying to hostile!

Whether fat people have or tend to have more reactive nervous systems or not, why isn't that addressed directly anyway? Always this suggestiveness without content. Content can be examined and tested.

Not only could techniques to calm the nervous system help all fat people, it could help all who have experienced sexual assault and many who have PTSD, including ex-military. That might actually make some of this seem almost worthwhile. If some good could come out of this mess.

'Obesity' wallahs continually forget how much we all gain from understanding the care of others, based on a genuinely to help. Something conspiciously missing in action in their case.

Thursday, 5 March 2015

Toytown Eugenicists

There's a certain odd kind of privilege-I mean the general not the political kind- to this 'obesity' crusade. To see the thoughts people normally keep in check dribbling out like a previously repressed oil slick. Few rules, few courtesies ensure 'obesity' is the point where that pressure lessens so much that what tends to be unspoken elsewhere bursts forth.

 Sadly all this "free speech" isn't leading to the intellectual advance we're usually promised. .

In this case, it hasn't become stimulating. It hasn't stirred everyone up out of their entrenched complacency -its all just dumped on fat people, like so much garbage. Instead of the unmentionable coming to the fore to be aired, discussed and perhaps some useful resolution emerging. It lands in the usual fat phobic cul-de-sac to fester and produce mal-air.

You've probably twigged that one of the central triumphs of western medicine is that it stops "natural selection"-which isn't quite a simple as is conveyed- from having quite such a clear run. At the same time natural selection doesn't simply or only kill off what's deemed unhealth/ imperfection, as much because that's often the other side of what's deemed perfection/healthy.

The extent that it does fly in the face of NS was supposed to be an admirable aspect of its civility and progressiveness- some think we've maxed out that courtesy.

Dr. David Archer an academic exclaims;
When a mother is inactive and obese, their baby grows massive. The baby can’t get through the birth canal, and the doctor has to perform a C-section. ‘That allows both the mother and foetus to survive, when previously they would have died.’
I'll bet he teaches a class and a half. Prematurity is more likely in lower weight women and in the now recommended low weight gain. Plus premature/low weight babies are said to be more likely to become 'obese' in adulthood.

Archer expands [geddit?]
‘The evolutionary consequence is we are getting much bigger children than ever in the history of mankind.’
I'm not an expert on evolution, but I thought it was supposed to happen over millions of years;
Professor David Haslam, a former GP specialising in obesity, said: “We have an epidemic now where we have mums who are fat having fat babies. In this way we are devolving as a population instead of evolving and that’s very dangerous.”
Fat women are devolving man actually woman kind? Wait till the 'pro-lifers' and the mra's get a hold of that one. It's one thing to hit the sherry, but when the sherry hits you back, cork it. I have this one as my favourite though;
Tam Fry, of the National Obesity Forum, said: “It’s a vicious circle because the fat mother is going to produce a fat child who is going to grow up into a fat adult who is going to produce their own fat child. It just goes round and round and round.”
Zomg, fat, fatty, fatso, fatastical, fatasmogoric, fattality, fattalistical fatness. It's almost as if there's........ some kind of......... connection. A tie between people of the same kin.... It's as if parents are passing something on to their children..... Not genes silly bad habits.

I can laugh at people under the influence as much as the next woman, but when folk start having intellectual breakdowns, busting out the toytown eugenics. Someone needs to stage an intervention-if some of you guys do not get a hold of yourselves-this isn't going to end well.

Time for a history lesson