Monday, 28 September 2015

Another Metabolic Outlier Pays the ultimate price for the 'obesity' crusade

Samantha Packham died in hospital this July. She was 20 years old, weighed 40 stones/560lbs/254kgs. She had fierce hyperphagia at 8 years old according to her parents Jan and Michael,
“She would eat her dinner and then she would just go to the fridge and help ­herself to more food. “We tried to tell her she’d just had her ­dinner and didn’t need anything else, but she would fly into a rage. “She would swear and once she even pulled the hinges off the doors – she was that strong at the age of eight.
That 'rage' by the way is a profound distress that jumps out at you from your very nerves, your mind becomes aware of it. So what next?
"We took her to the doctors but they did absolutely nothing.”
That sums up what the 'obesity' crusade is all about. Put tremendous pressure on people to do something they aren't designed for and give them no help to even give it a good go. If you want people to deal with hunger of this magnitude, why not work on switching hunger down? Meaning doctors could have demanded this of researchers.

They've gone out of their way not to. The whole 'obesity' crusade and its acolytes have consistently argued against objective research, claiming that just gives people "excuses". It "over-complicates" things, yes you read that. More knowledge of something you clearly no little about =over-complication.  The only thing left is spontaneous recovery.

This should all be getting a tad familiar. Samantha also had learning difficulties and went to special school like Carl Thompson. Her body's level of energy conservation seemed to be even worse than his.

There's no doubt the 'obesity' is slowly being encroached by the voices of experience. There's a slow dawning realization of the mess we have been put in by this 'obesity' narrative. The Mail's original headline was,
obese daughter who weighed 40 stone and was put into care as a teenager because her parents could not control her eating dies aged 20
First off, when you write 40 stone in a sentence, you do not need to write 'obese' or 'overweight', as it was subsequently altered to-'cos that's supposed to be more polite. It isn't. I'm sure DM journos are expensively educated enough to recognize the difference between a problematic moniker and a problematic construct. I'm guessing, they expect their readers to be too low in reason to notice the difference.

No joking about the Mail readership now, that is quite contemptuous, well, why should that all be on fat people? To reiterate for the peanut gallery, it doesn't matter what you name this weight construct, it is what you are naming that is the problem. Changing terms makes no difference.

Back to that headline, how defensive is it?!
.......because her parents could not control her eating
Someone doth protest way too much. Samantha was snatched by a state agency because her parents could not control her eating eh? Now you know that is disingenuous, none such is said to the parents of children/teens wasting from anorexia nervosa. The hunger of a human being, child or not is in the body of that person, not in the head of others, whether parents, a societal bullying campaign or strictures on industrial food.

This extent of defensiveness makes it clear to me that they know on some level or t'other that the overall insistence on diet or death is the real killer here, not Samantha's parents. She was described as the youngest victim of the 'obesity' crisis. In a sense that is correct, when you consider this conceit of denying people any real means to alter the regulation of their weight, regardless.

That sets up a diet or death scenario, as I've made clear this is the latter part. I wasn't hyping, I was pointing to the obvious implication of describing something as lethal, then denying any means of altering that course.

It's called consequence, something fat phobes so shield themselves from that they've lost all sense of their own actions creating effects of their own. There's no guarantee that Samantha would have made old bones, but, there's no question that the greatest avoidable responsibility lies with those who use their hold over the discourse on weight to argue against proper scientific investigation of metabolic function.

That is those who are fixated on trying to trap people into a life of starvation and hunger blocking. All those who insist weight is "your fault/ your choice/lifestyle choice"-'obesity' wallahs, medics, amateur fat phobes, yep, you've hastened the end of people like Samantha who could not defend themselves from your self indulgence.

You are also why there was little her parents could have done except contact a specialist in a condition that they may have had no idea their child might potentially have had.

Her parents were not given a fighting chance at helping her is the truth. And not because of 'healthy eating', no one should die for following or not following someone else's ideas of a pure diet. The idea of a correct diet equalling a correct weight is just another of many facile attempts to save calories in/out model.

To be fair the press including the DM have been increasingly making a show of playing both ends, featuring fat acceptance 'role models' and such. Face it though, FA was not the answer here. FA's for removing iatrogenically induced problems. It's not a cure for true metabolic derangement, hyperphagia, overriding energy conservation, hypothalamic disorder- require actual study and unravelling.That means letting go of blame culture and putting this aspect of the body's self regulation back on a completely objective footing.

What is required is proper full investigation into metabolic function, free of the tiresome irrelevance of the 'obesity' construct. 

Heavily featured is the so called guilt of the parents who predictably blame themselves and confess to their negligence. What half decent parent would not be wracked with feelings/wishes that they could have done 'better'?

To help illustrate a truer valuation of this, I hereby confess to being the one on the grassy knoll. Despite neither being male, being able to shoot a gun or even being born. It is of course not even being accepted fact that there was a second gunman. Anyone can confess to anything, ask police investigating murders. Stop tormenting people who are dealing with the horrific situation of burying their own child.

If anyone bothered listening to them, they knew the score,
“It was like an eating disorder. 
An understatement of epic proportions. A hunger disorder isn't quite that, you could say it disorders eating-obviously-by signalling excessively, it was undoubtedly a malfunctioning that needed relieving. Forget the supposed consequence of weight, experiencing an constant excess of hunger causes unnecessary suffering of its own.

For example, ask anyone who's developed a hyperactive bladder how they feel about the excessive signalling and feeling the process at a much earlier stage, or never feeling they've emptied? 

Nor is using people like Samantha as a poster for 'obesity' justified in anyway, except to illustrate just how out of control people can get when they get drunk on the ability to abuse people at their will.

Sober up fat phobes.

Tuesday, 15 September 2015

Your so-called sympathy is not required

Sympathy, sympathy, I've heard that one too many times lately as in "I've no sympathy for fat people." Thanks for that nugget, I can assure you, everyone really gives a shizz.

This particular response to any request for reason in the area of weight has always been real irritating, setting up failure to be a smidgen less than an absolute raving arsehole to fat people as some kind of extravagant act of kindness. Typical nauseating self flattery du fat phobes.

I also dislike it when fat people themselves ask for 'sympathy', using this exact framing, allowing  grotesque impudence to be(come) a 'neutral' stance, whilst acknowledging it as far from by requiring something as elevated as (true) sympathy to mitigate it.

Lucky I'm not a particularly suspicious character, or I'd have to wonder a lot more about that sort of thing. It seems so obvious and so easy to stop once pointed out, even if it isn't so clear beforehand.

No, people do not "deserve sympathy", we all require courtesies and rights. They are not "deserved" they are part of the mechanics of how we wish to run society. That's why we observe them with those who most certainly do not deserve them. Like people who do hateful stuff.

If we deny them fundamental courtesies and rights, we risk undermining them from the rest of us.

'Deserve' is for the birds.

Don't ask for courtesies, take them for yourself. Be courteous to yourself. Respect your energies and your time. Do not waste your heart and nerves setting up fat acceptance as a vehicle to fly in the face of freely chosen hate. Stop pretending people don't choose to participate in fat phobia of their own free will.

After a recent fit of exasperation with this wretched mis-use of the term, I realised I don't remember that being a consideration in seeking to uncover the best answers. Did I have this self important need to feel "sympathy"? I noted that I did not.

I feel sympathy for those who find they have faulty wiring that brings repeated episodes of psychosis. What do I think is the best route to a solution for them? Objective study of their condition to find the best way of relieving, treating or blessed be, curing it.

I don't feel sympathy for paedophiles, not even those whose perversion is developmental.  What's my view on the best route to stopping them from hurting others? Objective study of their condition to find the best way of suppressing, or resolving it permanently.

If you believe fat is the devil that needs to be gotten rid of, your sympathy for fat people is not a consideration.

Wednesday, 9 September 2015

TV Cooks on the Rampage

What the everloving heck, cooks on the rampage? First some guy called Alton Brown who's rather late and therefore false in claiming that if the US succumbs to the idea that chucking calories down your neck=disease, it will signal the end of the republic as a cultural entity.

Though reports differ, the AMA declared alcoholism a disease in 1959 that's only 55 years ago, so Brown needs more time to take in the implications. He's perhaps a historian. One can say many things about the US but it appears to have weathered that storm. Clearly he knows little about either civilization or the US.

I can agree with him though that this was bunk, as is the same lie about weight. Both were/are more about siphoning health insurance $$$$'s than anything else, note he doesn't bother mentioning this genesis. Haters often don't. How many times have you heard "FGS medical profession/scientists don't call 'obesity' disease!"?

Though wiser among them have stopped trying to pretend that came from fat people [I wouldn't]. On the whole fatz don't give a sweaty armpit for that. Makes me proud.

Then there's Jamie Oliver, wait, I can't hate. Oliver is more pathetic than he is tiresome, though he is undoubtedly that with his construct related blunderings. I caught the last 15 mins of his documentary called "Jamie's Sugar Rush". 'Twas about 15 too many. I can't make myself care enough to do some digging (please) but what I saw contained a dubious-though somewhat ironic-commentary on indigenous Mexicans consumption of fizzy drinks.

In conversation, he made out that this really required some compelling explanation, which turned out to be, they saw fizzy pop as some kind of sacrament [no, I'm not exaggerating]. This from someone peddling secondhand mythology about sugar as the devil's dandruff [ha, ha, bet that gives you pause] responsible for whipping off a leg near  you. All this within a background of a baby on the breast and food cooked from fresh and wholesome ingredients.

Mexico has instituted a sugar tax the programme claimed has reduced 'obesity' by I think he said, 50,000 people. Yep, 'obesity' reduced by x people. That slipped through. I told you 'obesity' has been deemed 'disease' not 'a disease' as folks tend to insist. The distinction is made by what 'obesity' refers to. It defines people as disease in human form. That's clumsy etymology based on the identifying fatness from the eyes of an ignorant slim person imaging what it would be for them to be fat.

That is not what it is to be fat. 

It's a failure of cognizance. It is someone reaching beyond their intellectual capacity and falling flat. That fat people have borne it at all, let alone for this long, shows who's being allowed the controlling influence here.

The context of calories in/out making hunger and food targets put cooks in the firing line as culpable. Their fat phobia is defensive. That framing makes them feel bad, they take it out on fat people. Seeking to distance themselves. You are responsible, not us for making food that is (nominally) delicious.

It also gives somewhat of a taint. Interest, if not obsession with food doesn't make someone pathological, or bad. Hating fatz exonerates this interest.

Then there's what Oliver represents, a keening for gravitas. Cooking is seen as trivial and he is often seen as a dim but eager type. He's like those pop musicians, he wants to be taken seriously, do something important.

'Obesity' has lured him into thinking that's possible for him or necessary in this way. Everyone ought to be appalled at the lack of investigation into metabolic function. But not with the lack of policy formed around food fixated paranoia. You can never have too little of that. The documentary featured a primary (elementary) school where children grew their own veg and knew what various kinds were and like them. They also learned to cook, ace.

All these things were in many schools if you go back far enough. They were mainly removed during the crusade itself. Indeed its emphasis on individual choice in place of hunger was the most uniform agent in that and other things that mitigate implementation of the starvation strategy.

Though 'obesity' is a surface trivial irrelevance, it manages to be a poisoned chalice, splitting focus away from what is worthwhile and doable. If he'd just sought to re-establish a hot balanced meal for dinner in every school, he might have succeeded. Instead, it had to be a certain amount of calories and that just imposed one demand too many.

(Re-)establishing a gardening area in every school, teaching children about produce and wholesome ingredients, plus cookery lessons are laudable enough aims in themselves.

Enough to achieve everything Jamie yearns for, with the addition of fondness from those who might not have rated him. Though many support him-it is due to their fat phobia, not because he has truly impressed.

I understand the programme peddled the usual pseudo-science, conflating 'diabetes' with sugar consumption, the latter as causal agent.

Firing questions, why has type 1 gone up so much also, why do people who eat cook from fresh find 'empty' calories so acceptable to their palate, why isn't children growing produce and eating the norm and so on, just seem like they're aimed at the wrong person. Ultimately, its not Oliver's fault that 'obesity' has so uniformly drawn out the worst vanities in so many.

I would suggest to Oliver that he drop weight loss diet shill Susan Jebb and stick with his knowledge and love of good ingredients to create good food.

I'm not making any deep point, just saying, be aware cooks of sliding into this syndrome. Food is not the way we should be seeking to control our metabolic function. You are not guilty. So stick to what you are good at and be positive about it.

Fat People, not protected by secret lipophile cabal

Well, well, well. I had every intention of ignoring Nicole Arbour and her "satire"-fat shaming is not a thing, fat people just made that up. Fat shaming, what a brilliant idea, who came up with that?! Shaming people out of their bad habits, I'm okay with that, etc.,

Then I got to the bit where she claimed she'd been "censored" and that her youtube channel had been taken down after google had e-mailed her pointing to violation of terms of service. Automatically my brain activity went on a slight incline, who would have had the power to get google to act in such a manner? Few give much a shizz about acting on what fat people have to say, let's be candid.

So I went looking for who might be behind this, lo and behold I found nothing from the mainstream 'legit' media. On the other hand, these guys, calling themselves "Inquistr" seem to have come up trumps. They, in this case writer, Scott Hough, with the help of twitterers Boogie 2988 and (Rissa) @sandypear discovered some untoward activity. 

Seems La lipophobia "took down" her own channel- actually, she made it private. It was up the whole time. Censorship MFBA.

Fascinating that people want to press fat people into a typically braindead "PC gone mad" contrivance-that paedo "promoting" forum went straight for this as an assault on "free speech", without bothering to check. I'm sure their contrition will not only exist, but be as brave and as bold as their 'courage' in informing folks on the innate naturalness of seeking sexual relations with the underaged.

Not only is this denouement the real funny. It is the only way this works as a satire- on the continued assertion that fat people are protected by a fat apologist cabal, is this what Princess Punchdown meant? Yeah, you can have that excuse for free Nicole!

Friday, 4 September 2015

No Duty To Eat Greens

Now here's a really good article containing many points worth making about the current fat hating food paranoia. Can't say that everyday. Writer Stephanie Convery calls for an end misplacing "Judeo-Christian" virtue in salad greens. It's pitiful seeing Dawkins-type atheists rounding on Xtians, then channelling the same via food paranoia and fanaticism.

At least believers are self-aware enough to be honest about their need for religion.

She makes the point that this is not the right angle for examining the ethics of food.
That’s not to say there aren’t ethical, environmental and political questions to be asked about food, such as: under what conditions is it farmed? Are the workers paid fairly? Are there less resource-intensive and more sustainable ways to organise food production? But these aren’t questions that can be solved with personal angst over a dinner plate.
Personal is right. It's all about moi.

The article also notes that the highly recommended du nos jours green, watery veg are nutritionally speaking, pretty useless, as we run on energy. If that wasn't enough, some of it is toxic at high levels, which is one reason 'no-one' craves them like calorie dense food. Not completely, I once had a craving for lettuce so strong that I could get no peace until I went and got some. I sprinkled it with balsamic vinegar and a few shavings of Parmesan. Divine.

Purely because my body demanded it for some reason. Once.

As SC mentions, the ridiculous nay hysterical elevation of this kind of produce is topsy turvy wishful thinking driven by the insistence that "weight loss" must happen via calorie restriction. This makes first hunger then food its target. The hunger is usually silent, buried under "choice" as if an abstraction outside of bodily need.

What makes this special though is this,
Over the past decade or so, the Health At Every Size movement has been building momentum against this kind of “fat-shaming” culture that contributes to the development of pathologies about food,
 Whoo-hoo!!! Such confidence. Direct mention, free of shame or "obesity is teh bad" type apologia. Just factual acknowledgement, HAES (in the context of fat acceptance) has led the way in reversing this tide of pathological cultism, not to mention its companion pseudo-science.

Pretending nature's real "junk food", as much as I like it, is somehow the epitome of human health is that.