We are born moving and have instincts to move that are rhythmic. At certain times it feels better for us to move than others. Like at times it feels better and easier to get to sleep than others.
This article, "Lack of Exercise can disrupt the body's rhythms" is talking about exercise helping us to know optimal times to move. It feels like its conflating exercise with movement, which sometimes happens. They aren't the same. The peaks of your natural instinct toward movement is something you should be able to pick up on at any state. If anything, I'd say exercise isn't a good way to achieve this for most people. Especially if you aren't in to it.
It's a bit like demand feeding/normal eating/intuitive eating. You have to clear psychological obstacles out of your mind-like identifying your body as inherently incompetent or yourself as forever physically incapable. Adopt a new more neutral open-minded stance, if positivity is too much of stretch.
Put your mind on alert for optimal times to feel the urge move at its most strongest, then above all, respond to those feelings/urges, freely. Act on them, no matter how short in duration-seconds even!
Follow through with that impulse as long as it feels good to you, stop promptly when it ceases to- at least at first, until you get into the swing of things, later you'll gain more flexibility.
With consistent practice and patience these urges should become stronger and more distinct, longer lasting and more satisfying to engage with.
The key is learning to perceive and go with rise in your instincts to move, synchronize impulse with a positive response. Avoid overburdening them with excess desire, guilt or shame about seeing yourself as inactive, or needing to make up for lost time.
Now's the time to learn patience and love for yourself. Go at your own pace.
You can do this outside the movement you need to make to go about your normal affairs. It will feed into that at some point.
Make a point of shifting your consciousness away from any negative or forcing to a more coaxing wait and see what you can do, type stance.
If at first you can't feel any sense of an urge to move, then try for least disinclined/most easeful of all. And take it from there.......
Friday, 29 May 2015
Wednesday, 27 May 2015
Managing What Exactly?
The deal's supposed to be, medical professionals HATE fatness and want it desperately to end, right? A fat body is inconvenient, tiresome work making indulgence AGAINST THEM;
The deal's supposed to be, medical professionals desperately need the existence of fatness to cease, m'kay?
So what's this about?
How can you "manage" what you only wish to get rid of?
There are two main ways of looking at the concept of treatment. A cure that takes time to implement, hence whilst you're receiving say a course of anti-biotics, you are receiving treatment- that is, the cure.
Then there’s when you have no cure and take substances and/or use techniques to palliate or suppress the symptoms of an ever present pathology.
The latter fits into "management," because, no cure so you have to manage the pathology, but what could this possibly translate into when it comes to the fiction of fatness as dis-ease? The issue is tissue- what would palliating or suppressing that after the fact amount to? You can only stop the formation of said tissue or reverse it.
Seeking to stem further gain, has never been an aim of the crusade and anyway, what's the method going to be? Calorie restriction. Using that to stem gain is a further admission of the impotence of that strategy.
The current situation has been arrived at in thrall to theoretically trying to stop formation of adiposity with dietary restriction or much more attempting to starve it out of existence after the fact.
Continual denial of this a continuation of the same delusion.
You cannot “manage” adipose "like blood pressure or diabetes," what's that going to be, yo-yoing everyday, from 400lbs to 200lbs? Do the authorities have a way to do that up their sleeve? Or how else to guarantee any lowered weight will be synchronized with need for medical attentions?
Managing risk of what people choose to link with fatness would not depart the advice given generally for diet and exercise. Medics issue is not with those association which they mainly use the threat of as a lever of influence, it’s with bulk.
Managing bulk aggressively is an oxymoron, you either stop or reverse, or you do nothing. That's has been up 'til now, aggression leads to aggressive fall-out. More weight gain for everyone overall, along with more eating disorders and neuroses too.
One of the sadder research and development aims of big pharma in recent decades is their propensity for rent seeking. Leaving pathological conditions in play in order to sell temporary relief/reversal-to maximize profit over the long term, if not a person's life time.
As bad as that is, at least it tends to be in the form of pills or some contraption or other. Expecting people to be on a perma diet, i.e. lifestyle anorexia is not a viable option. Hence the whining. And segregation of fat people? Seriously? Where will the dividing line be? How will you measure who goes to the normal or the fat hospital?
No, you actually have to do the work and find a way to get the body to cool its heels vis-a-vis storing lipids. That means you either deal with the mechanics or you don’t.There are no short cuts. No easy routes, no old faithfuls, this needs to break new ground.
White coats need to get it through their heads, fatness is too honest for the old sleights of hand. Their silly attempts to keep trying to pressing it into categories that give them scope for the usual mess around, neurosis, eating disorder, addiction, psychological booboo etc., aren't there.
Dream on or get on.
Just moving her onto the operating table required an additional team: the table was too narrow and the straps too small. One even dislocated his shoulder while performing a cesarean on a 400-pound patient.And blah, blah, we've heard you.
The deal's supposed to be, medical professionals desperately need the existence of fatness to cease, m'kay?
So what's this about?
But we should be managing obesity even more aggressively, as we do elevated blood pressure and diabetes.What this “managing obesity” Let alone ‘aggressively’ to consist of?
How can you "manage" what you only wish to get rid of?
There are two main ways of looking at the concept of treatment. A cure that takes time to implement, hence whilst you're receiving say a course of anti-biotics, you are receiving treatment- that is, the cure.
Then there’s when you have no cure and take substances and/or use techniques to palliate or suppress the symptoms of an ever present pathology.
The latter fits into "management," because, no cure so you have to manage the pathology, but what could this possibly translate into when it comes to the fiction of fatness as dis-ease? The issue is tissue- what would palliating or suppressing that after the fact amount to? You can only stop the formation of said tissue or reverse it.
Seeking to stem further gain, has never been an aim of the crusade and anyway, what's the method going to be? Calorie restriction. Using that to stem gain is a further admission of the impotence of that strategy.
The current situation has been arrived at in thrall to theoretically trying to stop formation of adiposity with dietary restriction or much more attempting to starve it out of existence after the fact.
Continual denial of this a continuation of the same delusion.
You cannot “manage” adipose "like blood pressure or diabetes," what's that going to be, yo-yoing everyday, from 400lbs to 200lbs? Do the authorities have a way to do that up their sleeve? Or how else to guarantee any lowered weight will be synchronized with need for medical attentions?
Managing risk of what people choose to link with fatness would not depart the advice given generally for diet and exercise. Medics issue is not with those association which they mainly use the threat of as a lever of influence, it’s with bulk.
Managing bulk aggressively is an oxymoron, you either stop or reverse, or you do nothing. That's has been up 'til now, aggression leads to aggressive fall-out. More weight gain for everyone overall, along with more eating disorders and neuroses too.
One of the sadder research and development aims of big pharma in recent decades is their propensity for rent seeking. Leaving pathological conditions in play in order to sell temporary relief/reversal-to maximize profit over the long term, if not a person's life time.
As bad as that is, at least it tends to be in the form of pills or some contraption or other. Expecting people to be on a perma diet, i.e. lifestyle anorexia is not a viable option. Hence the whining. And segregation of fat people? Seriously? Where will the dividing line be? How will you measure who goes to the normal or the fat hospital?
No, you actually have to do the work and find a way to get the body to cool its heels vis-a-vis storing lipids. That means you either deal with the mechanics or you don’t.There are no short cuts. No easy routes, no old faithfuls, this needs to break new ground.
White coats need to get it through their heads, fatness is too honest for the old sleights of hand. Their silly attempts to keep trying to pressing it into categories that give them scope for the usual mess around, neurosis, eating disorder, addiction, psychological booboo etc., aren't there.
Dream on or get on.
Monday, 25 May 2015
Jamie Oliver's Food De-evolution
Committed self-aggrandizer Jamie Oliver has taken it upon himself to launch what he calls a "food revolution." What does this explosive rearrangement of tectonic plates of history consist of I hear you ask?
Insisting the G20 adopts resolutions to teach children to grow and cook fresh nutritious food at school. Well....
It used to be thus. I'm in favour of it. I was all in favour of it maintaining it, when that was stopped for the cause of making savings some decades ago.
What I will never ever support though is anything that uses and abuses people to sell anything. Anything that uses the toxic 'obesity' cult in any capacity will do without my support, even if I agree with any proposal.
What people like Oliver don't seem to have a hope of grasping is that what he thinks of as a solution is an expression of an underlying problem. An indifference toward food but above all, a profound contempt for humanity.
We were joined in an on-line discussion by some throwing around healthy eating/child 'obesity' about the place. I explained how I felt that children should be given knowledge of how to feed themselves well for its own sake. Because that's a good thing to do in itself. Skills in general and self care in this instance, give confidence to us all, moreso in children.
I might as well have been speaking martian. It didn't compute with them. That food is a potential source of pleasure and joy in itself and that poor, along with better children are worthy of having that joy passed on, because they are inherently worth it. Indeed as an exposition of that worth.
They actually laughed at me, indicated that I was talking gibberish.
I'm not hating. I already knew this. Not everyone cares that much about whether people can take care of themselves well, or not. The reason cooking was taken out was to remove barriers in creating increased reliance on ready meals.
To create that market.
It's called "wealth creation."
So rather than bothering to overcome an indifference that those who possess it are oblivious to. I concluded, leave them to make up their own minds and find direct means reverse weight, through science.
If people like Oliver were really interested in the well being of children, they've had their chance. Teaching children to cook is not a "human right", it's just something they should expect from those there to give them guidance.
I'd say it is their human right though not to be degraded, demeaned, stripped of their humanity by those they trust implicitly, branding them with some toxic pseudo-identity of size. Certainly not in order to provide an entry point for permanent dominance by others, or to give certain people a sense of importance they so clearly feel the lack of.
Insisting the G20 adopts resolutions to teach children to grow and cook fresh nutritious food at school. Well....
It used to be thus. I'm in favour of it. I was all in favour of it maintaining it, when that was stopped for the cause of making savings some decades ago.
What I will never ever support though is anything that uses and abuses people to sell anything. Anything that uses the toxic 'obesity' cult in any capacity will do without my support, even if I agree with any proposal.
What people like Oliver don't seem to have a hope of grasping is that what he thinks of as a solution is an expression of an underlying problem. An indifference toward food but above all, a profound contempt for humanity.
We were joined in an on-line discussion by some throwing around healthy eating/child 'obesity' about the place. I explained how I felt that children should be given knowledge of how to feed themselves well for its own sake. Because that's a good thing to do in itself. Skills in general and self care in this instance, give confidence to us all, moreso in children.
I might as well have been speaking martian. It didn't compute with them. That food is a potential source of pleasure and joy in itself and that poor, along with better children are worthy of having that joy passed on, because they are inherently worth it. Indeed as an exposition of that worth.
They actually laughed at me, indicated that I was talking gibberish.
I'm not hating. I already knew this. Not everyone cares that much about whether people can take care of themselves well, or not. The reason cooking was taken out was to remove barriers in creating increased reliance on ready meals.
To create that market.
It's called "wealth creation."
So rather than bothering to overcome an indifference that those who possess it are oblivious to. I concluded, leave them to make up their own minds and find direct means reverse weight, through science.
If people like Oliver were really interested in the well being of children, they've had their chance. Teaching children to cook is not a "human right", it's just something they should expect from those there to give them guidance.
I'd say it is their human right though not to be degraded, demeaned, stripped of their humanity by those they trust implicitly, branding them with some toxic pseudo-identity of size. Certainly not in order to provide an entry point for permanent dominance by others, or to give certain people a sense of importance they so clearly feel the lack of.
Saturday, 23 May 2015
Traci Mann's Secrets
It's usually worth reading the admirable Traci Mann on diets especially, as she's one of those rarities who has the moxie to just go with the truth about eating and weight. She has a new book out, "Secrets from the Eating Lab", I'd definitely have a look. This article and interview contains some telling details.
A few points first. Diet-as in what you eat-can have "types", weight loss dieting though is purely singular. It is one thing and one thing only-consuming too few calories for your body to sustain its [current] mass. Anyone who says otherwise is pulling your pin.
What we’re told are “types” of [weight loss] diet are mainly about desperate attempts to increase the body's tolerance of diets. For example by manipulating appetite- the ratio of macro and other nutrients you eat.
High-protein [weight loss] diets appeal to those whose appetites favour protein rich foods. High carb diets make use of those whose leanings are towards carbohydrate rich foods and so on. The aim is to increase moral. Dieting is very morale sapping due to it usually being so unpleasant.
Mann says something amusing “no one has any willpower”. I’m presuming that references dieting’s failure of everybody. Some favoured bull is spread around-that above a certain weight you’re unlikely to lose enough to become slim.
That's misleading, it's equally true of all weights, including thin people repeatedly shedding and re-shedding a few pounds. Obviously, if you're always thin/slim then that failure isn't apparent. The same mechanics in all of us is producing the same outcome, restoration of each size's starting mass or thereabouts.
Willful delusion forces such obvious failure to be cast elsewhere, in this case onto the dieter. That also distracts from questioning the principle of hunger-blocking as weight regulation.
Dieting becomes like god, it can never truly fail, only sinful humans fail it.
Actually, dieting via its inherent dysfunction demands and uses up tremendous amounts of will power, it's a-lead your horse to water but can’t make it drink-type situation. Merely leading [and holding] the horse, i.e. your body to starvation drains will power to little productive end.
Dieting is broken and pretty much unfixable, certainly as a general technique, its existence doesn't even make sense. If weight is all about conscious decision-making, then stop making that decision-the end. No need for a plan beyond that.
The plan reflects the fact that hunger is not generated in the conscious mind.
It’s worth remembering not to think in terms of [why] the body fails diets, when it’s the other way around. Diets fail the body. The primacy of the body over dieting needs to be reasserted. The body does not have to answer for it's failure.
You may also remember that this feature was identified as one of the problematic eater types in that BBC Horizon doc. And that I had this exact problem as one symptom of a hyperphagic eating disorder. I would be surprised if this wasn’t a facet of Georgia Davis’s metabolic problems-and others like her.
Mann describes this as increasing [eating’s] “reward value”. I disagree; it increases the imperative to eat. In other words, it’s like having the munchies when you smoke a blunt, or the action of an overactive bladder where the urge is overpowering, even when your bladder is empty.
It’s not that eating becomes more enjoyable-it doesn't necessarily at all-it’s that the urge continues to recruit more and more nervous circuits in your brain-in other words the urge takes it over. Your will is literally overpowered and it becomes too uncomfortable to the point of distressing not too go with it.
Relief of such discomfort is hardly about pleasure. It feels way more compelling than normal hunger. Though I get that's a difficult concept for many.
As for the hormones, I’m not hot on them, but that seems more a register of your depleted energy, framing them as cause. Iow, if I jumped out at you-shocking you, your feelings would be expressed by chemical release, that didn’t cause your fright; that’s how your body both signals and registers it.
These hormones don't stop diets working, they're signalling your body's defensive response to deprivation.
Energy conservation-the body adapting to less by using less energy to function-is yet another defense-they are multifarious, showing the body is really designed to resist starvation and why it so often succeeds. This is often put down to saving you from famine, it could just as well be a defense against anorexia too, as that is a build up of a compulsion to starve, which can also takes over a person's brain.
One of the things stopping anorexics perishing ever more quickly is this energy conservation.
“How could it [work]when you have to fight against all of that?”
Exactly. When we are this designed against proto-anorexia, it is definitely the wrong way, [not the only way].
There is absolutely no reason why reversal of weight must only occur through hunger blocking, unless that in itself is the true aim.
She makes a brilliant observation about the experience of dieting in a way that I hope becomes the norm.
Isn't that extraordinary?
Totally unexpected. This is what we want to happen when we are trying to master a skill! Who'd have thought it could ever spontaneously self-trigger toward such a devastating end?
That could explain why many PWA can get to feeling agonies of hunger, but somehow cannot act on that. Continual blocking builds a wall between the feeling and its response.
It’s like resisting the urge to sleep. No one feels it’s purely about self control to miss sleep to do other things. It’s recognized that there’s a trade off in terms of tiredness. The absence of a sense of consequence from thwarting hunger, produces unnecessary misunderstandings.
Nor is it "impossible" to reverse weight, this simply isn't the right channel.The assessment of dieting's efficacy [or lack of it] is probabilistic. The odds of achieving it via calorie restriction dieting is very thin [yea]. If people want better, they'll have to lobby for genuine ways and means which are entirely possible.
A few points first. Diet-as in what you eat-can have "types", weight loss dieting though is purely singular. It is one thing and one thing only-consuming too few calories for your body to sustain its [current] mass. Anyone who says otherwise is pulling your pin.
What we’re told are “types” of [weight loss] diet are mainly about desperate attempts to increase the body's tolerance of diets. For example by manipulating appetite- the ratio of macro and other nutrients you eat.
High-protein [weight loss] diets appeal to those whose appetites favour protein rich foods. High carb diets make use of those whose leanings are towards carbohydrate rich foods and so on. The aim is to increase moral. Dieting is very morale sapping due to it usually being so unpleasant.
Mann says something amusing “no one has any willpower”. I’m presuming that references dieting’s failure of everybody. Some favoured bull is spread around-that above a certain weight you’re unlikely to lose enough to become slim.
That's misleading, it's equally true of all weights, including thin people repeatedly shedding and re-shedding a few pounds. Obviously, if you're always thin/slim then that failure isn't apparent. The same mechanics in all of us is producing the same outcome, restoration of each size's starting mass or thereabouts.
Willful delusion forces such obvious failure to be cast elsewhere, in this case onto the dieter. That also distracts from questioning the principle of hunger-blocking as weight regulation.
Dieting becomes like god, it can never truly fail, only sinful humans fail it.
Actually, dieting via its inherent dysfunction demands and uses up tremendous amounts of will power, it's a-lead your horse to water but can’t make it drink-type situation. Merely leading [and holding] the horse, i.e. your body to starvation drains will power to little productive end.
Dieting is broken and pretty much unfixable, certainly as a general technique, its existence doesn't even make sense. If weight is all about conscious decision-making, then stop making that decision-the end. No need for a plan beyond that.
The plan reflects the fact that hunger is not generated in the conscious mind.
It’s worth remembering not to think in terms of [why] the body fails diets, when it’s the other way around. Diets fail the body. The primacy of the body over dieting needs to be reasserted. The body does not have to answer for it's failure.
When you are dieting.......your brain becomes overly responsive to food, and especially to tasty looking food. But you don't just notice it — it actually begins to look more appetizing and tempting.This is an action of your nervous system-your brain is the primary hub of that of course. People seem to find it hard to grasp that because all this activity operates through your own information superhighway-your nervous system-that the action of dieting, more specifically your body's response to it, can literally change the way you see, perceive and even seeming to put thoughts in your head.
You may also remember that this feature was identified as one of the problematic eater types in that BBC Horizon doc. And that I had this exact problem as one symptom of a hyperphagic eating disorder. I would be surprised if this wasn’t a facet of Georgia Davis’s metabolic problems-and others like her.
Mann describes this as increasing [eating’s] “reward value”. I disagree; it increases the imperative to eat. In other words, it’s like having the munchies when you smoke a blunt, or the action of an overactive bladder where the urge is overpowering, even when your bladder is empty.
It’s not that eating becomes more enjoyable-it doesn't necessarily at all-it’s that the urge continues to recruit more and more nervous circuits in your brain-in other words the urge takes it over. Your will is literally overpowered and it becomes too uncomfortable to the point of distressing not too go with it.
Relief of such discomfort is hardly about pleasure. It feels way more compelling than normal hunger. Though I get that's a difficult concept for many.
As for the hormones, I’m not hot on them, but that seems more a register of your depleted energy, framing them as cause. Iow, if I jumped out at you-shocking you, your feelings would be expressed by chemical release, that didn’t cause your fright; that’s how your body both signals and registers it.
These hormones don't stop diets working, they're signalling your body's defensive response to deprivation.
Energy conservation-the body adapting to less by using less energy to function-is yet another defense-they are multifarious, showing the body is really designed to resist starvation and why it so often succeeds. This is often put down to saving you from famine, it could just as well be a defense against anorexia too, as that is a build up of a compulsion to starve, which can also takes over a person's brain.
One of the things stopping anorexics perishing ever more quickly is this energy conservation.
“How could it [work]when you have to fight against all of that?”
Exactly. When we are this designed against proto-anorexia, it is definitely the wrong way, [not the only way].
There is absolutely no reason why reversal of weight must only occur through hunger blocking, unless that in itself is the true aim.
She makes a brilliant observation about the experience of dieting in a way that I hope becomes the norm.
Let's say you're in a meeting, and someone brings in a box of doughnuts. If you're dieting, now you need to resist a doughnut. That is going to take many, many acts of self-control. You don't just resist it when it comes into the room — you resist it when you look up and notice it, and that might happen 19 times, or 90 times. But if you eat it on the 20th time, it doesn't matter how good your willpower was. If you end up eating it, you don't get credit for having resisted it all those times. In virtually any other arena, that would be an A+, but in eating that's an F.Yes! Not only is this an acute representation of dieting’s flawed hypothesis, it helps tells us what anorexia is. You aren't simply saying no repeatedly, you are repeatedly blocking an impulse-that of hunger. At some point, this repetition becomes varying degrees of compulsive in certain subsets.
Isn't that extraordinary?
Totally unexpected. This is what we want to happen when we are trying to master a skill! Who'd have thought it could ever spontaneously self-trigger toward such a devastating end?
That could explain why many PWA can get to feeling agonies of hunger, but somehow cannot act on that. Continual blocking builds a wall between the feeling and its response.
It’s like resisting the urge to sleep. No one feels it’s purely about self control to miss sleep to do other things. It’s recognized that there’s a trade off in terms of tiredness. The absence of a sense of consequence from thwarting hunger, produces unnecessary misunderstandings.
Nor is it "impossible" to reverse weight, this simply isn't the right channel.The assessment of dieting's efficacy [or lack of it] is probabilistic. The odds of achieving it via calorie restriction dieting is very thin [yea]. If people want better, they'll have to lobby for genuine ways and means which are entirely possible.
Thursday, 21 May 2015
Don't want to be your kind of slim human
Reverse thinspo seems to be going mainstream. That's when a person, often slim but also not, uses their negative reaction to fat people to ward off weight gain. It's all very superstitious.
In some ways I get that, I too never want to develop the slim haloed/thin privileged mentality.
I discovered this by the time I was about 14, despite feeling I could have considered giving up a limb to be slim [yez].
Though there's much collusion on the pity party versions of fat experience. I'm quite thankful for having been fat, because it's meant I don't have to participate in all sorts of odd and tedious hookum that we will all have to get over at some point or other.
E.g. I don't have to unconvincingly pretend that situations/states of being are diseases when they aren't.
Nor do that most people don't have a hand in their own neuroses. And that's okay, we aren't perfect, we mess up in ways we don't intend. Just as we slip and trip over and break, sprain, twist whatever.
I don't have to pretend no solution to a health issue =incurable that's given me quiet hope at some crucial times. I don't have to get caught up with status games with various neurotic ailments, treat them with any reverence. I don't have to indulge in breathtaking insensitivity toward those suffering with cancer.
Invoking them in grotesque games of false equivalence.
I have a greater tolerance for being unsure, imperfect, human, sublimating this disbelief into convenient lies so completely that I don't realise its there, until it leaks out onto some random group of people assigned false inferiority.
I don't have to overrate 'innocence' as some kind of gold standard of human worth. Don't have to give a shit about the weird currency 'addict' has somehow picked up either.
Being slim is fine. I spent a long time trying to slim down and I've made no secret of that. What curls my gills is the mentality that too many slim people allow themselves to develop as a side effect of their place in whole 'obesity'/weight-as-identity melange.
This undoubtedly demeans and shows them up, exposing a neediness that isn't apparent to them.
You can keep all that with my complements.......
In some ways I get that, I too never want to develop the slim haloed/thin privileged mentality.
I discovered this by the time I was about 14, despite feeling I could have considered giving up a limb to be slim [yez].
Though there's much collusion on the pity party versions of fat experience. I'm quite thankful for having been fat, because it's meant I don't have to participate in all sorts of odd and tedious hookum that we will all have to get over at some point or other.
E.g. I don't have to unconvincingly pretend that situations/states of being are diseases when they aren't.
Nor do that most people don't have a hand in their own neuroses. And that's okay, we aren't perfect, we mess up in ways we don't intend. Just as we slip and trip over and break, sprain, twist whatever.
I don't have to pretend no solution to a health issue =incurable that's given me quiet hope at some crucial times. I don't have to get caught up with status games with various neurotic ailments, treat them with any reverence. I don't have to indulge in breathtaking insensitivity toward those suffering with cancer.
Invoking them in grotesque games of false equivalence.
I have a greater tolerance for being unsure, imperfect, human, sublimating this disbelief into convenient lies so completely that I don't realise its there, until it leaks out onto some random group of people assigned false inferiority.
I don't have to overrate 'innocence' as some kind of gold standard of human worth. Don't have to give a shit about the weird currency 'addict' has somehow picked up either.
Being slim is fine. I spent a long time trying to slim down and I've made no secret of that. What curls my gills is the mentality that too many slim people allow themselves to develop as a side effect of their place in whole 'obesity'/weight-as-identity melange.
This undoubtedly demeans and shows them up, exposing a neediness that isn't apparent to them.
You can keep all that with my complements.......
Tuesday, 12 May 2015
The Obesity Construct is Blasphemy is it not?
Anything and everything is prostituted in service of seeking to justify re-defining human beings as disease. And why this is the way to alter metabolic function to produce desired outcomes. Go figure.
Now I'm atheistic, but one thing I've wondered for a time is why god-botherers don't find the construct of @besity blasphemous, basically outraging against a sacred entity. I have to admit, I don't really care. It's more academic on my part, but I have to wonder whether this is another example of people who talk the talk and are even into and have an emotional attachment to their ideology/set of ideas.
But somehow don't actually think about, through or with them.
i.e. the old the death penalty for even heinous crimes is an abomination. The death penalty without trial for your metabolic function/not being able to tolerate a life of starvation? Fine! Or child welfare is my priority, let's brand children subhuman targets and encourage them to avoid bullying by starving themselves and so forth.
It's none too surprising then that some feel the need to try "@besity is against x holy books sanctity of the human body" etc.,
This is a weak effort I must say. It's clear that the culture of fitness is flagrantly idolatrous. Xtians and others I fancy believe they're made in the image of him upstairs. If they're disease.....well....need I say more?
I'm genuinely curious.
Now I'm atheistic, but one thing I've wondered for a time is why god-botherers don't find the construct of @besity blasphemous, basically outraging against a sacred entity. I have to admit, I don't really care. It's more academic on my part, but I have to wonder whether this is another example of people who talk the talk and are even into and have an emotional attachment to their ideology/set of ideas.
But somehow don't actually think about, through or with them.
i.e. the old the death penalty for even heinous crimes is an abomination. The death penalty without trial for your metabolic function/not being able to tolerate a life of starvation? Fine! Or child welfare is my priority, let's brand children subhuman targets and encourage them to avoid bullying by starving themselves and so forth.
It's none too surprising then that some feel the need to try "@besity is against x holy books sanctity of the human body" etc.,
This is a weak effort I must say. It's clear that the culture of fitness is flagrantly idolatrous. Xtians and others I fancy believe they're made in the image of him upstairs. If they're disease.....well....need I say more?
I'm genuinely curious.
Friday, 8 May 2015
If David Katz Really Wants Children to Reverse Their Weight, He Should Find Effective Ways
Self important medical preacher, David Katz, who wishes to get doctors into every nook and cranny of your existence in order to rule you better, wishes to advance the failed strategy of calorie restriction, via the usual dumping of blame on anyone else but people like himself.
It's got to be someone else's fault, or people like himself would have to be wrong.
How to get specifically him in the news? Coin a phrase "obliviobesity" geddit?? That's oblivion + 'obesity.'
Or parents' failure to see their own children through the eyes of weight. This says Katz, is why 'obesity'. Those parents who brand their children disease, and allow people like him to dictate their parental relationship-have children who are more likely to "try weight loss."
That means weight loss dieting, which of course has little guarantee of success. Often commitment to keep trying weight loss dieting, creates depression and other neuroses, i.e. eating disorders. You often end up with a mish-mash of them together. At times as a result of the mere threat of it and/or its regular aftermath of increased storage of energy.
After spending years in this cycle. I had to undo it all, as it had become intolerable to my nervous system. I had to restore some semblance of balance to it. Without help from the likes of him.
I was able to, because I stumbled over something that worked. Though it wasn't easy, that didn't matter, I was used to trying hard and what I was doing was restorative, so rewarding in itself. What I was doing made sense to me. I found an option that wasn't provided by the medical establishment such as himself. That was empowering in a way what he's promoting never was.
Which is another thing any parent should always take into account.
Here hangs a lesson. Find non-invasive, non social engineering, individual ways to reverse weight that's effective not punitive. And people of all ages, from child to aged will do it, on their own, without any need for any interference from him.
It's got to be someone else's fault, or people like himself would have to be wrong.
How to get specifically him in the news? Coin a phrase "obliviobesity" geddit?? That's oblivion + 'obesity.'
Or parents' failure to see their own children through the eyes of weight. This says Katz, is why 'obesity'. Those parents who brand their children disease, and allow people like him to dictate their parental relationship-have children who are more likely to "try weight loss."
That means weight loss dieting, which of course has little guarantee of success. Often commitment to keep trying weight loss dieting, creates depression and other neuroses, i.e. eating disorders. You often end up with a mish-mash of them together. At times as a result of the mere threat of it and/or its regular aftermath of increased storage of energy.
After spending years in this cycle. I had to undo it all, as it had become intolerable to my nervous system. I had to restore some semblance of balance to it. Without help from the likes of him.
I was able to, because I stumbled over something that worked. Though it wasn't easy, that didn't matter, I was used to trying hard and what I was doing was restorative, so rewarding in itself. What I was doing made sense to me. I found an option that wasn't provided by the medical establishment such as himself. That was empowering in a way what he's promoting never was.
Which is another thing any parent should always take into account.
Here hangs a lesson. Find non-invasive, non social engineering, individual ways to reverse weight that's effective not punitive. And people of all ages, from child to aged will do it, on their own, without any need for any interference from him.
Thursday, 7 May 2015
Dr. Sharma Says: Get off Your Knees Fatz
Well, well, well. Here's one for you self hating fatz types especially. Your friend Dr. Sharma is finally admitting that if you do not stop playing 'obese' and divest yourselves of unremitting shame, you'll continue to get what you've already gotten-the sharp end of a very long pole up your posterior end;
We tried to tell you! Fat people's acquiescence to abusive handling is why we are in the dirt and continue to be, not due to any occasional outbreaks of resistance. If you've spent your life in abject surrender-and that brings you wrath-then surrender is the problem not the solution. No matter the dissonance that provokes in those who can't tell the difference between what feels right-because they're doing as their told-and a more rational take.
The cheeky buzzard even has the nerve to say;
Oh rilly? How did that happen pray tell? Following the advice of 'science' that's how. Never being able to accept true outcomes, that's how. The disease-mongering lying that's the 'obesity' cult is how.
'Obesity' has laid waste to even the most no-nonsense large and in charge fatty's self conceptualization, to some degree or another. Does anyone really think people can endure an enforced state of body dysmorphia, panic syndrome induced by insisting we permanently catastrophize to "motivate" ourselves, whilst existing in an often permanently excruciating state of discomfort and shrug it off?
I'd love to see Sharma try that. Actually, no I wouldn't, because I wouldn't wish it on anyone but the truly wicked and I mean that.
I'll let him into a secret, he couldn't have come out of this any better than us, don't doubt it. He hasn't a clue, because like a lot of his cronies, he's out of touch with fat people's deepest thoughts and feelings.
As much because fat people are too-when it comes to the experience of being fat, as the on-going lack of objective observation.
The only reason for such absurd expectation is fat people's incredible grace. I've said it before, fat people should be studied for the amazing extent to which we have withstood such relentless and ruthless assaults on our character and person, over such a sustained period. Sometimes from a very young age.
Living the 'obese' persona turned me into someone I despised more than the most wicked people who've ever lived-for long stretches. This damaged me, and yet, somehow......resilience. The psychopathologies-cognitive distortions etc., caused by playing 'obese' are sometimes quite noticeable. Some are easily as bad as what is diagnosed as separate neuroses in those who aren't fat.
On some level I almost guffaw at this. We are walking around in plain sight with these, yet many aren't downed by them. And don't expect the 'obesity' crew to know anything. They've so pathologized people-including their odious pity-they can barely tell.
Honestly, they're like a monkey on your back.
Intriguingly, this suggests not that its better not to know [you have a neurosis], but that the burden imposed by portentously focusing on neuroses, can be the last straw for your mind. Rather like playing 'obese' disrupts metabolic function often in the ways fat people are caricatured.
'Obesity' in modern times, though perhaps not always, has got to be one of the most useless that ever passed for what? Scholarship (?) [Oh please, I'm on the floor]. It's supposed to exist to serve fat people. How odd a notion is that?
It's supposed to be driven, unbidden, to acquire knowledge of metabolic anatomy, function in order to uncover new pathways to improve health and well being of those who need it most. It's supposed to be fully engaged with fat people's bodies, how/if they function differently and how to make the most of that.
They'd engage with fat people too, get to know them. You get to know people best by looking after their needs.
Instead, this discipline [snigger] is filled with food fixated zealots, putative social engineers and those who wish to advance the interference of the medical profession in areas many do not want them to be in.
No other has ever trashed its own supposed vehicle for study. Not people engaged in studying paedophiles, psychopaths, violent criminals. NONE.
Every single one of those fields have humanized their subjects by default due in some part to the outcome of academic rigour. If not some fellow feeling for, or some desire to do some good. Not 'obesity.' Remarkably its recent outpourings have managed to introduce a remorseless dehumanization of those it should want to help.
That muppet Yalom says he finds it easier to connect with those convicted of heinous crimes more than fat people. He said that with more ease than most 'obesity' wallahs could show to fat people, even when they're sweating to pity fat people. Which is not at all apt.
It is truly monstrous to have a field filled with so much hatred for those its supposed to be caring for. I honestly cannot think of any other where so many involved openly want fat people to suffer, or even to die.
I mean we hear about the fattest all the time in the media and television. Where are the Dr Sharma's, the Karen Hitchcock's, the Yoni Fredhoff's to give the benefit of their objective expertise? Name one field where that would not be the case? These might as well be in hiding.
That is why areas of knowledge about health progress. Experts in any other field would lose their shit if any hack misrepresented their area of expertise in the way the media routinely does to fat people. Private words would be had with the programme makers, broadcasters, newspapers etc., and it wouldn't be nice.
So after decades of silencing you and getting others to enforce this. You're expected to emerge pristine and presumably ready to give suitably simplistic sob story of "living with this disease." As usual, it's somehow always down to the fat public to do the professional's jobs for them.
Because suddenly behaving like a true academic discipline is so far out of sight, they can't imagine it.
They'll have another conference though.....
the only thing that will change this is when people living with obesity stand up for themselves and get “engaged”....Got that?
We tried to tell you! Fat people's acquiescence to abusive handling is why we are in the dirt and continue to be, not due to any occasional outbreaks of resistance. If you've spent your life in abject surrender-and that brings you wrath-then surrender is the problem not the solution. No matter the dissonance that provokes in those who can't tell the difference between what feels right-because they're doing as their told-and a more rational take.
The cheeky buzzard even has the nerve to say;
It is evident that the bias, shame, blame, and discrimination that surrounds obesity is so pervasive that very few people living with this disease apparently have the courage to stand up and publicly share their stories and “demand” help and support for dealing with this condition.There you go. Fat people have no courage. We are so weak, we can't even stand and pretend to assert the undermined connection with our intrinsic humanness.
Oh rilly? How did that happen pray tell? Following the advice of 'science' that's how. Never being able to accept true outcomes, that's how. The disease-mongering lying that's the 'obesity' cult is how.
'Obesity' has laid waste to even the most no-nonsense large and in charge fatty's self conceptualization, to some degree or another. Does anyone really think people can endure an enforced state of body dysmorphia, panic syndrome induced by insisting we permanently catastrophize to "motivate" ourselves, whilst existing in an often permanently excruciating state of discomfort and shrug it off?
I'd love to see Sharma try that. Actually, no I wouldn't, because I wouldn't wish it on anyone but the truly wicked and I mean that.
I'll let him into a secret, he couldn't have come out of this any better than us, don't doubt it. He hasn't a clue, because like a lot of his cronies, he's out of touch with fat people's deepest thoughts and feelings.
As much because fat people are too-when it comes to the experience of being fat, as the on-going lack of objective observation.
The only reason for such absurd expectation is fat people's incredible grace. I've said it before, fat people should be studied for the amazing extent to which we have withstood such relentless and ruthless assaults on our character and person, over such a sustained period. Sometimes from a very young age.
Living the 'obese' persona turned me into someone I despised more than the most wicked people who've ever lived-for long stretches. This damaged me, and yet, somehow......resilience. The psychopathologies-cognitive distortions etc., caused by playing 'obese' are sometimes quite noticeable. Some are easily as bad as what is diagnosed as separate neuroses in those who aren't fat.
On some level I almost guffaw at this. We are walking around in plain sight with these, yet many aren't downed by them. And don't expect the 'obesity' crew to know anything. They've so pathologized people-including their odious pity-they can barely tell.
Honestly, they're like a monkey on your back.
Intriguingly, this suggests not that its better not to know [you have a neurosis], but that the burden imposed by portentously focusing on neuroses, can be the last straw for your mind. Rather like playing 'obese' disrupts metabolic function often in the ways fat people are caricatured.
'Obesity' in modern times, though perhaps not always, has got to be one of the most useless that ever passed for what? Scholarship (?) [Oh please, I'm on the floor]. It's supposed to exist to serve fat people. How odd a notion is that?
It's supposed to be driven, unbidden, to acquire knowledge of metabolic anatomy, function in order to uncover new pathways to improve health and well being of those who need it most. It's supposed to be fully engaged with fat people's bodies, how/if they function differently and how to make the most of that.
They'd engage with fat people too, get to know them. You get to know people best by looking after their needs.
Instead, this discipline [snigger] is filled with food fixated zealots, putative social engineers and those who wish to advance the interference of the medical profession in areas many do not want them to be in.
No other has ever trashed its own supposed vehicle for study. Not people engaged in studying paedophiles, psychopaths, violent criminals. NONE.
Every single one of those fields have humanized their subjects by default due in some part to the outcome of academic rigour. If not some fellow feeling for, or some desire to do some good. Not 'obesity.' Remarkably its recent outpourings have managed to introduce a remorseless dehumanization of those it should want to help.
That muppet Yalom says he finds it easier to connect with those convicted of heinous crimes more than fat people. He said that with more ease than most 'obesity' wallahs could show to fat people, even when they're sweating to pity fat people. Which is not at all apt.
It is truly monstrous to have a field filled with so much hatred for those its supposed to be caring for. I honestly cannot think of any other where so many involved openly want fat people to suffer, or even to die.
I mean we hear about the fattest all the time in the media and television. Where are the Dr Sharma's, the Karen Hitchcock's, the Yoni Fredhoff's to give the benefit of their objective expertise? Name one field where that would not be the case? These might as well be in hiding.
That is why areas of knowledge about health progress. Experts in any other field would lose their shit if any hack misrepresented their area of expertise in the way the media routinely does to fat people. Private words would be had with the programme makers, broadcasters, newspapers etc., and it wouldn't be nice.
So after decades of silencing you and getting others to enforce this. You're expected to emerge pristine and presumably ready to give suitably simplistic sob story of "living with this disease." As usual, it's somehow always down to the fat public to do the professional's jobs for them.
Because suddenly behaving like a true academic discipline is so far out of sight, they can't imagine it.
They'll have another conference though.....
Tuesday, 5 May 2015
Leading Cause of Chronic Child and Adult Health Problems? ACE's
For years now there's been talk of how "poor diet" is a leading cause of (preventable) death more recently promoted to the top spot.
I don't feel entirely at home with this kind of competition. Something makes me skeptical about the construction of leading cause of deaths when it comes to the kind of chronic conditions most associated with wear and tear.
We will all die of something at some point. Not wishing to be ageist but how old does a person have to be before their passing is deemed, not preventable?
Anyway a more pressing reason to reject this assertion and its usual shallow agenda. The health effects of ACE's aka Adverse Childhood Experiences are usually absent from the overall picture. From parental, societal and peer sources. Whether abuse, sexual and other exploitation, bullying, assault, neglect and verbal aggression. All are being finally realized more recently as sources of more chronic ill-health.
Before the "toughen up"/get over it crew get going, this is what prioritizing health and personal responsibility really means. You cannot have any of that truly, without a comprehensive index of each and every, at least major, influence on each particular person.
If you find that an unnecessarily exacting thought then you are finally catching on to what your mindless rhetoric really refers to. The crusade has completely isolated fat people as if we have absolutely no contact with any other human being and transcend our era, time and place.
I've said forever that health can be affected by virtually anything that affects you, to the good or ill. The fixation on food and eating is an instinctive and sometimes quite conscious way to dodge this. Especially when it demands disciplined behaviour from those who like to feel free to impact on people and their health.
It also tends to quickly raise political questions undermining the deliberate intent to depoliticize people's existence.
I don't feel entirely at home with this kind of competition. Something makes me skeptical about the construction of leading cause of deaths when it comes to the kind of chronic conditions most associated with wear and tear.
We will all die of something at some point. Not wishing to be ageist but how old does a person have to be before their passing is deemed, not preventable?
Anyway a more pressing reason to reject this assertion and its usual shallow agenda. The health effects of ACE's aka Adverse Childhood Experiences are usually absent from the overall picture. From parental, societal and peer sources. Whether abuse, sexual and other exploitation, bullying, assault, neglect and verbal aggression. All are being finally realized more recently as sources of more chronic ill-health.
Before the "toughen up"/get over it crew get going, this is what prioritizing health and personal responsibility really means. You cannot have any of that truly, without a comprehensive index of each and every, at least major, influence on each particular person.
If you find that an unnecessarily exacting thought then you are finally catching on to what your mindless rhetoric really refers to. The crusade has completely isolated fat people as if we have absolutely no contact with any other human being and transcend our era, time and place.
I've said forever that health can be affected by virtually anything that affects you, to the good or ill. The fixation on food and eating is an instinctive and sometimes quite conscious way to dodge this. Especially when it demands disciplined behaviour from those who like to feel free to impact on people and their health.
It also tends to quickly raise political questions undermining the deliberate intent to depoliticize people's existence.
Saturday, 2 May 2015
Georgia Davis's Repeat Pause Repeat Ordeals
I'd wondered what was going to happen to Georgia Davis after she reappeared in the news a couple of years ago. The home she shared with her family was partially dismantled for her to be removed and taken to hospital to treat an infection.
She's surfaced again sadly for the same reason. Having recently become bedridden with water retention, an infection followed on from that. A pretty large logistical operation was set in motion, including a crane, to lift her from her home into a specially modified ambulance to take her to hospital for treatment. Not sure why she couldn't be treated at home or why so many police seemed to be involved.
That has predictably garnered the headlines. The usual phoned in cries of "self-inflicted" abound, though I detect signs this is starting to ring rather hollow. For no-one with a properly functioning brain can fail to see that there's something profoundly wrong when for instance, a person can gain 30st/420lbs/190kg in three years. Time and again cases stand out, especially when this occurs at a very early age, despite attempts to merge them with peers who are merely heavier than average. Often, other children in the same family have average weight. This I think is true in Davis's case, though I cannot find the documentary that told her story.
A few honorable souls are even beginning to mention the unmentionable, the most obvious term missing all these years.
That's perhaps a misguided reference to the coining of weight as disease, but the sentiment is correct. Resolution is required, fakery cannot even finesse this.Weight, neither thinness nor fatness passes muster as 'disease.' No process no matter how benign can go unchecked without being an expression of and/or a creator of problems.
The issue here is how to check and change alter this outcome via its source, metabolic function. Not allowing that and running around like headless chickens after the fact-for a lifetime and calling that "lifestyle."
Despite hearing all about the desperation of medics desire to avoid encountering fatness, we rarely hear the obvious need for a real understanding of what's going on. What we see here is the result of that total investment in calorie restriction as weight regulation-weight shouldn't need "management." Calorie restriction is not a treatment of any kind-it follows the trick perfected by psychiatry of replacing unacceptable pathology with an acceptable one, proto-anorexia. Everything is centered around enforcing this. Including increasingly the law and politics.
That's what the talk of "support" is about. Supporting the investiture and maintenance of this pathology no matter the cost, whilst pretending "support" is for the person.
And its supposed to be people like Georgia who have the mental dependence.
Bariatric [spellchecks as "barbaric"] surgery is more of the same. It's just a way of cutting people into an unnatural tolerance for what all our bodies are designed around fighting off- starvation.
What's needed are actual treatment pathways for dealing with symptoms, reducing an excess of hunger/appetite re-balancing hunger to a normal range. Along with ways to set the body on course to reversing its weight for those who require or wish it.
Not dieting, but something that directly changes underlying metabolic function, calorie restriction in any form is simply not up to the job.
What's needed from the white coats above all is a complete shift in their consciousness, back to proper investigation and rigourous study of actual biology. You cannot fake or front weight. There's an equation here that requires proper deduction. How long will this keep being dodged?
And let me make it clear, this is not simply about weight loss dieting being the only channel for changing weight. It is the absence of the stages of learning that come from treating actual people as opposed to pressing them into your rigid framework.
When someone comes to medical notice with anything unusual, the default medical instinct is to work with and observe that person and their symptoms closely and objectively. Monitoring if anything at all makes their symptoms -in this case excessive hunger/voracious weight gain-better or worse in any way. Then following up these leads to try and uncover underlying function, using that to invoke and strengthen positive effects.
Avenue after avenue is tried until a path can be found that's leads to measurable effects. At the side of that further investigations are mounted into the most crucial anatomy/physiology concerned. That doesn't seem to be happening or has been arrested by the extent of devotion to calories in/out.
The learning curve is extinguished.
As you can see from the link about Mandy Sellars, even going as far as cutting something thats growth is generated at a physiological level can leave that underlying cause intact, causing a restoration of the problem, to some degree or other.
Even more true of reducing weight via induced calorie deficit. Weight tends to restore itself according to its self regulatory or homeostatic design. This is inevitably dubbed "mental," by those invested in restriction. It has to be due to their denial of these physiological facts.
People predictably use blame to obscure fact. Her mother's the type that fed Georgia not the recommended baby diet, shall we say. Hate to inform haters but she isn't alone in that. And if it caused people to be cut out of their homes we'd have noticed.
Blame is not the way I seek to cast fat people and Davis is no different, however it has to be stated plainly that her case has been woefully mismanaged by authorities even given the abysmal standard that is the norm for 'obesity'. She's been given little chance to use her undoubted drive, willingness and energies productively. At every turn she's been mislead as to the nature of her problems, allowing her to cast blame upon herself, which is an act of cruelty.
It's been pretty noticeable that there has been something wrong with her body's functioning since she was a child.
She dates her accelerated gain from the age of 5, when her father died. That was 17 years ago. Parental bereavement has been cited as a trigger of high/heightened weight in childhood.
A subset of children body's manifest such reaction. I suspect it is a product some kind of developmental difference of the body, nervous and endocrinal systems, to be producing this extent of symptoms. I firmly see this as mainly physiological, rather than psychological. Though looking at it from a holistic point of view, the state and tension of your nervous system triggers biochemical and neural changes.
It's no good saying you can't find anything (physical) so its mental. If you are looking in mythical "disease" terms, you'll be even less likely to see what is there. The same failure that occurs with people at the top of the weight scale happens with those at the bottom who also regain minimal weight lost via calorie restriction regularly.
Only other day I was reminded of a potential insight. Perhaps adverse experience in some, can trigger the nervous system to strip away the usually dormant feelings as the body manoeuvres about measuring its need for energy. So a person can feel it all at a rather heightened level (to whatever degree). Like some forms of chronic pain syndrome.
Just a thought.
Which is more than a lot of people are having about this.
When she first came to medical attention she weighed 33 stones/ 462lbs / 209 kg she was told that she needed to lose 20 stones/280lbs/127.5 kg. In a matter of months she managed to lose over 14 st [196lbs/ 89 kg] at a US fat camp.
She rebounded to 40stones/ 560lbs /254kg. And so on, up to 60stones/ 840lbs/381 kg, down to 30 in hospital apparently, then back up to 60st and now supposedly 55st/770lbs/349kg.
When she first came to attention the aim should have been to try and stabilize her at 33st/462lbs/209kgs. See how good that looks now. Professionals need to learn to put their patients interests first and not their own desires.
Due to all the obsessive fixation on food-with a list of all she eats being de rigueur to stimulate the perennially disgusted, few can conceive of what it feels like to be subject to this level of hunger. The sheer discomfort of bearing what is propelling heightened intake gets ignored.
What I can say is my experience with excessive HUNGER was it felt like a powerful presence was pressing down through the centre of my brain.
Only recently did I realize this is around site of the hypothalamus/pituitary.When I was lucky to reverse it, my much yearned for weight loss didn't happen. But I would never have swapped that for liberation from maniacal hunger. It feels like being possessed and directed by a malevolent force at times.
Stabilizing a patient is not unique, after assessing a person, it's basic medical practice. The only thing that will bring good practice to this area is when people will no longer stand for this.
The medical establishment demanding everything and everyone change to their tune could also make such change of their own volition.
She's surfaced again sadly for the same reason. Having recently become bedridden with water retention, an infection followed on from that. A pretty large logistical operation was set in motion, including a crane, to lift her from her home into a specially modified ambulance to take her to hospital for treatment. Not sure why she couldn't be treated at home or why so many police seemed to be involved.
That has predictably garnered the headlines. The usual phoned in cries of "self-inflicted" abound, though I detect signs this is starting to ring rather hollow. For no-one with a properly functioning brain can fail to see that there's something profoundly wrong when for instance, a person can gain 30st/420lbs/190kg in three years. Time and again cases stand out, especially when this occurs at a very early age, despite attempts to merge them with peers who are merely heavier than average. Often, other children in the same family have average weight. This I think is true in Davis's case, though I cannot find the documentary that told her story.
A few honorable souls are even beginning to mention the unmentionable, the most obvious term missing all these years.
CURE
That's perhaps a misguided reference to the coining of weight as disease, but the sentiment is correct. Resolution is required, fakery cannot even finesse this.Weight, neither thinness nor fatness passes muster as 'disease.' No process no matter how benign can go unchecked without being an expression of and/or a creator of problems.
The issue here is how to check and change alter this outcome via its source, metabolic function. Not allowing that and running around like headless chickens after the fact-for a lifetime and calling that "lifestyle."
Despite hearing all about the desperation of medics desire to avoid encountering fatness, we rarely hear the obvious need for a real understanding of what's going on. What we see here is the result of that total investment in calorie restriction as weight regulation-weight shouldn't need "management." Calorie restriction is not a treatment of any kind-it follows the trick perfected by psychiatry of replacing unacceptable pathology with an acceptable one, proto-anorexia. Everything is centered around enforcing this. Including increasingly the law and politics.
That's what the talk of "support" is about. Supporting the investiture and maintenance of this pathology no matter the cost, whilst pretending "support" is for the person.
And its supposed to be people like Georgia who have the mental dependence.
Bariatric [spellchecks as "barbaric"] surgery is more of the same. It's just a way of cutting people into an unnatural tolerance for what all our bodies are designed around fighting off- starvation.
What's needed are actual treatment pathways for dealing with symptoms, reducing an excess of hunger/appetite re-balancing hunger to a normal range. Along with ways to set the body on course to reversing its weight for those who require or wish it.
Not dieting, but something that directly changes underlying metabolic function, calorie restriction in any form is simply not up to the job.
What's needed from the white coats above all is a complete shift in their consciousness, back to proper investigation and rigourous study of actual biology. You cannot fake or front weight. There's an equation here that requires proper deduction. How long will this keep being dodged?
And let me make it clear, this is not simply about weight loss dieting being the only channel for changing weight. It is the absence of the stages of learning that come from treating actual people as opposed to pressing them into your rigid framework.
When someone comes to medical notice with anything unusual, the default medical instinct is to work with and observe that person and their symptoms closely and objectively. Monitoring if anything at all makes their symptoms -in this case excessive hunger/voracious weight gain-better or worse in any way. Then following up these leads to try and uncover underlying function, using that to invoke and strengthen positive effects.
Avenue after avenue is tried until a path can be found that's leads to measurable effects. At the side of that further investigations are mounted into the most crucial anatomy/physiology concerned. That doesn't seem to be happening or has been arrested by the extent of devotion to calories in/out.
The learning curve is extinguished.
As you can see from the link about Mandy Sellars, even going as far as cutting something thats growth is generated at a physiological level can leave that underlying cause intact, causing a restoration of the problem, to some degree or other.
Even more true of reducing weight via induced calorie deficit. Weight tends to restore itself according to its self regulatory or homeostatic design. This is inevitably dubbed "mental," by those invested in restriction. It has to be due to their denial of these physiological facts.
People predictably use blame to obscure fact. Her mother's the type that fed Georgia not the recommended baby diet, shall we say. Hate to inform haters but she isn't alone in that. And if it caused people to be cut out of their homes we'd have noticed.
Blame is not the way I seek to cast fat people and Davis is no different, however it has to be stated plainly that her case has been woefully mismanaged by authorities even given the abysmal standard that is the norm for 'obesity'. She's been given little chance to use her undoubted drive, willingness and energies productively. At every turn she's been mislead as to the nature of her problems, allowing her to cast blame upon herself, which is an act of cruelty.
It's been pretty noticeable that there has been something wrong with her body's functioning since she was a child.
She dates her accelerated gain from the age of 5, when her father died. That was 17 years ago. Parental bereavement has been cited as a trigger of high/heightened weight in childhood.
A subset of children body's manifest such reaction. I suspect it is a product some kind of developmental difference of the body, nervous and endocrinal systems, to be producing this extent of symptoms. I firmly see this as mainly physiological, rather than psychological. Though looking at it from a holistic point of view, the state and tension of your nervous system triggers biochemical and neural changes.
It's no good saying you can't find anything (physical) so its mental. If you are looking in mythical "disease" terms, you'll be even less likely to see what is there. The same failure that occurs with people at the top of the weight scale happens with those at the bottom who also regain minimal weight lost via calorie restriction regularly.
Only other day I was reminded of a potential insight. Perhaps adverse experience in some, can trigger the nervous system to strip away the usually dormant feelings as the body manoeuvres about measuring its need for energy. So a person can feel it all at a rather heightened level (to whatever degree). Like some forms of chronic pain syndrome.
Just a thought.
Which is more than a lot of people are having about this.
When she first came to medical attention she weighed 33 stones/ 462lbs / 209 kg she was told that she needed to lose 20 stones/280lbs/127.5 kg. In a matter of months she managed to lose over 14 st [196lbs/ 89 kg] at a US fat camp.
She rebounded to 40stones/ 560lbs /254kg. And so on, up to 60stones/ 840lbs/381 kg, down to 30 in hospital apparently, then back up to 60st and now supposedly 55st/770lbs/349kg.
When she first came to attention the aim should have been to try and stabilize her at 33st/462lbs/209kgs. See how good that looks now. Professionals need to learn to put their patients interests first and not their own desires.
Due to all the obsessive fixation on food-with a list of all she eats being de rigueur to stimulate the perennially disgusted, few can conceive of what it feels like to be subject to this level of hunger. The sheer discomfort of bearing what is propelling heightened intake gets ignored.
What I can say is my experience with excessive HUNGER was it felt like a powerful presence was pressing down through the centre of my brain.
Only recently did I realize this is around site of the hypothalamus/pituitary.When I was lucky to reverse it, my much yearned for weight loss didn't happen. But I would never have swapped that for liberation from maniacal hunger. It feels like being possessed and directed by a malevolent force at times.
Stabilizing a patient is not unique, after assessing a person, it's basic medical practice. The only thing that will bring good practice to this area is when people will no longer stand for this.
The medical establishment demanding everything and everyone change to their tune could also make such change of their own volition.
Friday, 1 May 2015
Hunger Switch-Off
We're getting closer to the open admission that the real target of the only route to weight regulation insisted upon is HUNGER. According to that report a study has found in mouse brains-as usual-have a so called "hunger hub" where certain chemicals alight in order for its nerves to signal the need for energy intake, which is of course the point of hunger.
The promise here is that eventually, these chemicals can be blocked from landing on this particular "hub" in order to stop people feeling their body's need for energy, that is to switch off hunger. What a wizard wheeze. Never mind that the inability to feel hunger is associated with the very sick and dying.
Is it worth saying that hunger isn't the real issue, its the body's use of energy that's the real intellectual challenge?
This whole cult with its continual focus on decay, corruption and death is very much a death dealing cult. It's often been said in FA that @besity is about the fear of death projected onto fat people, using us as a shield for societies that are losing contact with direct experience of death.
But it would seem increasingly that in its constant seeking to mimic death, these societies are actually losing touch with what life's about. If you hate fat people you hate people and if you hate fat people's lives, you wind up hating life itself.
Now there's something for you to switch off.
The promise here is that eventually, these chemicals can be blocked from landing on this particular "hub" in order to stop people feeling their body's need for energy, that is to switch off hunger. What a wizard wheeze. Never mind that the inability to feel hunger is associated with the very sick and dying.
Is it worth saying that hunger isn't the real issue, its the body's use of energy that's the real intellectual challenge?
This whole cult with its continual focus on decay, corruption and death is very much a death dealing cult. It's often been said in FA that @besity is about the fear of death projected onto fat people, using us as a shield for societies that are losing contact with direct experience of death.
But it would seem increasingly that in its constant seeking to mimic death, these societies are actually losing touch with what life's about. If you hate fat people you hate people and if you hate fat people's lives, you wind up hating life itself.
Now there's something for you to switch off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)