Diabetes Trippy

I'm not even going to pretend to care about Rob Kardashian or the rest of his family. I don't get what they are for and I'm as okay with that as I am with others totally getting the point of them. But it seems Rob has got the diabetes.

The fat kind. The naughty, type 2 diabetes. The one you get for being guilty.

The twist here is he's basically a bit of a five minute fatty. Unconvincingly so at that.

According to reports, this man gained over 100lbs in one year. He was also depressed, seemingly hyperphagic and having problems with alcohol.

From my own point of view of no medical expertise whatsoever. I'd say such a cluster of symptoms, along with such ferocious weight gain signalled RK's incipient diabetes. This could be totes wrong of course. That a slim guy decided apropos of nothing to force feed himself, turn down thermogenesis and chub up by a nice round 100lbs (why not 50 or 150?) because erm, "fat logic" is far more plausible.

After choosing to enter "fat logic" whilst slim, he became depressed about it, because he was getting what he planned, yes, that sounds the ob construct mal-logic to me. Never knowingly makes sense and no-one cares because it serves a purpose, nothing of which is to be of use to any fat person whatsoever.

Interestingly enough, he was taken to hospital suffering diabetic ketoacidosis, something most indicative of type1 diabetes, the innocent, unimpeachable kind. Alas for Rob, his problems made him fat, so, the obstacle that is the 'obesity' construct will have to be negotiated.

In my strictly non medical judgement.

The ob construct is increasingly forcing medical segregation by body size. From the nonsense of "obesity-related" to this progressive cleaving of diabetes along weight lines. I'm not entirely surprised to learn that diabetes tends to be the classification for chronically elevated blood sugar. Like others, I'm not particularly convinced that they are related to each other enough to bear the same tag.Though I could not swear against it either.

However the issue here is not about weight, it's about metabolic function and whether the angle we are viewing it from is the most useful or accurate. I didn't get those suspcisions from the good doctor, I've said forever that the term "insulin resistance" has always thrown up a conceptual red flag for me. [I can't help a wry smile when I hear "auto-immune" too.]

In a way, the addition of "leptin resistance" seems to confirm my suspicions about the nature of cross over between type 2 diabetes and weight.

As will be of little surprise to you, Rob has been told his diagnosis, rather than being shock of mortality, a challenge to his personal sense of self, or a potential light bulb moment for what he may well have assumed was wholly "emotional" is simply a "wake up" call for him to stop being fat etc.,Yes, heaven forfend any fellow feeling on the impact of finding out that you have an illness.

"Everyone knows," fat people get ill solely due to the wages of sin, in order to motivate them to an anorexic triumph and the approval of people who think that's an apt response. The criterion for diagnosing diabetes has been lowered to that end. And why not? It is frequently said, that medicine is an art not a science.

RK's apparently off to rehab for the etc., part of which is probably indicative of his underlying condition. The best comment on rehab was made by the late Amy Winehouse. She was much mocked for this, but all she said was the truth, rehab is mostly hot air. Unless you count attention and time away from your normal existence.

That's usually called a holiday. 

Golden Thread

Dame Sally Davies.....who is...wait there........The Chief Medical Officer of England [the rest of the UK have been mercifully spared?] reckons 'obese' ought to be added to the UK government's list of.... hang on a sec....... "national risks". A list usually reserved for stuff such as war, terrorism, flood, pestilence etc.,

This is because... hang on let me get this right..... "the biggest modifiable risk factor now for ill health in this country is obesity." And the extent of this purported fact is thus far insufficiently appreciated by um everyone from hoi polloi to the political and social elites.

How can I put this (again), if you declare something a health crisis, yet trivialise the most affected, those most in need of scientifically sound enquiry, often erasing and blaming them, leaving them to die using them as cautionary tales. You're premise will have a permanent gaping whole at the heart of it, even in a world desperate to pretend you're making a jot of sense.

Witness the grotesque spectacle of "Doctor Dawn" with attendant media dropping in on the late Carl Thompson, shortly before his death, to humiliate and shame him to know purpose whatsoever. Failing to hear what he was trying to say, or even describe let alone illuminate his problems. The bit where they get him to tell youngsters not to be like him and not eat fast food is absent from this clip. It should be no surprise then that this did absolutely nothing for him. 

This was a learning disabled man who was found at the age 3 years old trying to get into his neighbour's fridge. The most telling thing about this was in the telling of this incident, he said, he didn't know why he was doing it. He was just driven as if on auto pilot. Imagine doing something akin to a kind of sleep walk and being forced to believe you were consciously choosing this.

I know exactly how he felt, how that feels. People find it hard to grasp. Your nervous system is like your body's information superhighway, enabling you to sense, feel and think. It also enables the messages to pass that enable your movement at its most instinctive as well as consciously willed.

That's why people become paralysed when their spinal cord is severed. The channel to deliver this messaging is cut.

It means that if something that uses the nervous system is oversensitized and/or overactive, it has the capacity to drive movement- bypassing your conscious intent. This is at the more extreme end of nervous imbalance. It is not "mental illness". Any more than an oversensitive bladder that makes you feel you must go to the toilet, even when you know it is virtually empty is "mental". It's physical.

The way to change any of this is to change physiological function......

Oh yes, I was talking about Dame Silly wasn't I? It's half a world away-as the song says isn't it? That should explain why the purpose of 'obesity' is to trot out bozo stats, threaten everyone will be faat, thunder against fat, then pass the hat (i.e. 'sugar tax') repeat ad absurdum.

Here's Sal's annual report on the health of women which some feel contains some worthwhile things, mainly overlooked by her publicity grabbing spiel.

Her insistence on the need for more attention is instructive.

The 'obese' construct-the idea that fatness is a thing attacking a slim body, [rather than the physiological actions of a whole body], has for decades enjoyed absolute dominance. It has not simply displaced, but is there in place of fat people's experiential inner narrative. To illustrate how mindbendingly dumb it is, Dame Sally mention fatness assaulting women's fertility.

It took me a while to realise that was largely an oblique reference to PCOS.

It goes nowhere because it is about nothing but what is in the minds of 'obesity' purveyors and they delude themselves about that most of all. Insisting lifestyle anorexia must work, so the fact that it hasn't means it hasn't been tried.

That could go on as long as people have the patience.

 The essence of reality is absent here. It's really about metabolic function. Instead of an instinct to stabilise weight and alter physiological function, we have weight categorisation and way beyond disordered fetishization of eating and food. The begging hat that is the proposed 'sugar tax' speaks to this directly.

At one point Davies mentions weight as a "golden thread" running through women's lives. She is really describing metabolic function. The way the body regulates its own cell regeneration and culling could indeed be described as such. All the issues she describes are about the effects of the vagaries of that function.

Having the ability to manipulate this could be a golden thread in terms of health and well being. The possibilities it opens up could go some way to rivalling the touted promise gene therapy-who knows? Our cells make up our material being.

People unused to mindless hate are beginning to get bored of this rubbish.

Using Dead Infants to Promote Calorie Restriction

Using percentages

The headline reads;

"Weight gain between pregnancies linked to stillbirths and infant deaths"

Linked is always a word to watch out for when it comes to "obesity related". It usually means-linked to being noticed in a fat person- (it only takes one). The sub-heading is;

Swedish research shows women who put on weight after first pregnancy increase risk of stillbirth by 30-50% and likelihood of infant death by up to 60%

There's the use of percentages. It means the starting figure is not impressive enough even for 'obesity' wallahs, used to speaking with at best a microscopic level of critical scrutiny. 

To be fair, they know some of us are wise to their phoned-in manoeuvres;

Because infant death and stillbirth are relatively rare, the increased risk does not equate to large numbers of deaths.

You know it.

Carry on bullshitting in the face of fact

Next we have carry on regardless.

But experts say stillbirths and infant deaths are already unacceptably high and that it is important to look for ways to help women who become pregnant keep their weight down.

That's a big "But".

The death of an infant is tragedy, though not enough to overcome the urge to control people's eating. These tragedies are to be prostituted for the purpose of dieting, same as anything. Despite the fact that it usually increases the effect being reported. Women should be anorexic a lot anorexic, though not to the extent of dying, because that would be "going too far."

Back to metabolic function

Let's go back a tad.

If I'm understanding this correctly, the study is referring to women who gain weight after their first pregnancy.

They're said to be more likely to have a subsequent child whose stillborn or dies within their first year- whatever their starting weight.

This is genuinely intriguing.

Pregnancy is a time when many if not most women find they gain weight easily. This is due to the body often increasing its energy conservation-rather like when re-gaining weight after diet induced weight regression. The body instinctively lowers its output in order to protect the energy supply, in this case, to the foetus.

Rebounding to the mean

The body can vary tremendously in its ability and extent of reverting back to pre-pregnancy levels of expenditure and storage (of fat and supporting tissue). Restoration to the (prior) mean can happen partially, or (seemingly) hardly. Ditto the period of time over which any metabolic reversion occurs.

Women who lost weight between the first and second birth were at lower risk of having a stillbirth or infant death.

If this is as read, reversion is likely to signal the body's sensitivity to calorie restriction, which is also dependent on the state and response of ones metabolism. As readers of this blog know, weight is all about metabolic function-basically, the rate at which the body generates/replenishes and destroys its own cells. This stillborn/early death effect appears to be related to those bodies whose metabolism is less exact in its restoration of pre-pregnancy function. Potentially reducing the stream of energy available to the developing foetus and/or its ability to meet any extraordinary needs.

Energy conservation

It's somewhat speculative, but the energy conservation displayed in this weight gain could conceivably deny a subsequent foetus a high enough degree of sensitivity it may require to be fully viable at birth or up to its first year. That could also include an issue of timing in that the (slightly?) inexact energy stream may tell at some points of foetus's formation than at others, as in affecting some body systems more than others.

Metabolic manipulation

I used to say back in the day that if men got pregnant, they'd be a whole discipline dedicated to restoring them and their function to pre-pregnancy states. I was thinking as much in terms of appearance as anything.

Why some women, if not many or most women do not "snap back" more readily to their pre-partum state, has always puzzled me. In the same way that the overwhelming majority of people's bodies, thin to fat alike, return to their pre-diet weight over time. So too should women bodies return more to pre motherhood state with such momentum. Perhaps they do more than appears from our vantage point.  Homoeostasis if you will, works both ways.

It exists to maintain a consistency of function. The expected completely different looking body after giving birth is yet another example of the rules being made by a lack of intervention, rather than some assumed hard and fast rules of nature-as in "I'm meant to be 12/15/ 25 stones." Too deterministic, there's just no clear route to reversing weight.

The price of anorexia worship

This could well be, along with the much forgotten people who cannot retain weight, yet another example of the price paid for refusing to approach weight honestly, as a metabolic issue, rather than via a stupid crime and punishment angle. You must serve a life sentence of anorexia for your crime of in this case, mere weight gain.

If the white coat mafia could have just treated fatness via metabolism, heaven knows what they could have achieved by now.

As this list grows ever longer, we have to marvel at how much knowledge we are sacrificing to the dominance of these lifestyle anorexia promoting wing-dings. 

Hand In Glove

"Overweight haters Ltd" are the product of 'obesity' lies

Here's something we can all pretend not to have noted;

The cost to the NHS of obesity is estimated to be £5.1bn annually, and treating diabetes accounts for about 10% of its entire budget.

[Dr] Sarah Wollaston.

Our organisation hates and resents fat people. We disapprove of your wasting NHS money to treat your selfish greed.

Overweight haters Ltd.

Very limited indeed.

The original and primary "shitlords"

According to the latter report, the name for a person who doesn't accept the existence of fat people is a "shitlord". I'm no expert on that matter, but colour me dubious, I always thought it a term more general than specific. Either way, if we accept that posit, Dr Sarah Wollaston, her profession and too many who've donned the cloak of "obesity science/research" are the primary SHITLORDS.

Now a cursory mention ought to be given to the extreme reluctance of any quarter, led by the FAM to accept the patently obvious fact that this whole 'obesity' fandango was invented, contrived, led, disseminated and propped up by said "obesity science" persons, including "nutrition researchers" and the sainted MEDICAL PROFESSION.

The unhinged rage that is the regular default when talking about 'obesity', the boundary violated aggression COMES. FROM. THE MEDICAL PROFESSION. They used their office their kudos, the deep trust invested in them-remember we trust them with our lives- to ballast the absolute onslaught of bullshit that is the ticking timebomb of the 'obese' construct.

Pseudo-science and medicalization lies have set fat hate as the standard, not bigots

The latter have deliberately been given their head by the former. So the former can sit back and pretend to be decent in comparison. 

There's always been prejudice against fatness. As we frequently hear, everyone gets teased about something. The point is, no matter how unhinged fat haters could be in the past, they could be backed down. They had reason.

When a targeted fat person was short for a response a slim person might well step in and provide one and the hater would back off, even if in a huff. Just like when someone else is being abused about something close to home, you step in and defend them, because you don't have the emotional vulnerability.

What took that away was the medical profession's consistent decades long promotion of 'obese'. Fat haters became like a runaway train. Medical promotion of fat hating took away their reason, it smashed their internal sense of decency about the matter.

That along especially with the dehumanization of fat people has meant these people have lost any internal cues to control themselves. Even if I hate your guts, your humanity will control me at some point. Everyone has lost that with 'obese', the most receptive to mindless hate most of all. The best example the comes to mind is the sense of legitimacy and ballast homophobes get from Leviticus.

Everyone knows that is bullshit, in their hearts, they know it is bullshit, but the investment of sanctity in the Bible means they can cling to fathoms of bigotry, way beyond having to stand alone with their abstracted hate.

Not to mention, pseudo-science's perverted premise means everyone's vantage point is rooted in being a "shitlord" troll and arsehole, the 'obese' construct leaves you no other option. No it doesn't just refer to your height/weight squared. It is a term used for the definition of a particular ideological stance on weight.

Professionals want to be seen as doing good, whilst directly creating harm

At least the amateurs often are able to state openly, loving the game. That means they sometimes manage to display a bit of honour about the business. The medical profession never have any of that, unless they tell the (full) truth.

In this particular instance, Wollaston things that her kidding herself is the same as persuading others. Wishing to brand, label and abuse children-it's currently the thing for these people to direct their attentions on children-is for their own good. She wants to save the poor po' childrens from the life of bullying and destruction her increasingly tiresome profession have bent over backwards to stoke up and impose. No way could the bullies control themselves and STOP BULLYING. Wollaston and her ilk DON'T WANT THAT. So they behave as if it isn't earthly possible.

Leaving aside that this proposed 20% sugar tax on soft drinks, doesn't give an individual personal control over their own body or its function.

One of the reasons why dieting is so difficult to let go of  as an idea is its promise of independence from that. The promise that its all down to you, count on the fingers of one hand anyone who doesn't love that. That particular aspect is inspiring and energizing. 'Obesity' wallahs are happy with that only because they know its a low returns game.

Now this is being rumbled (again), they've switched to another means of denying individuals any control. If you have a heightened temperature. What do you expect a medic to try and achieve first? Stabilization/ lowering of your individual temperature. Or a campaign to impose taxes on hot drinks on the grounds that it may well raise  a person's temperature?

As you may know, I reversed a genuine hyperhunger disorder-of the kind all fat people are supposed to have but don't. That had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the amount of macronutrients, fat, sugar, carbohydrates, whatever in food. The issue was function, not food.

Divide and conquer

I'm second to few in impatience with amateur 'shitlords', but I cannot forget who's pulling their strings.

In fact, take a step back and what does the reaction to these mentally limited haters add to this picture? That's right, the fat public are blamed for tanking the NHS. And the fat hating public, slim or not are blamed for the hatred of the fat public.

Divide and conquer.

As if stupid hoi polloi just set about each other, because that's just what these mindless puppets just mindlessly do. Nothing to do with the lies we are directly feeding [ha] them.

The cheek of these establishment blighters. They're not even hiding it. NHS is dying because of fatties 'obesity'. We hate you because the NHS is dying you fat ugly w/e's. They're using those who are prepared, in this case to use 'obesity' as a cover for their misogyny. And medical professionals etc., secretly rub their hands as they feel another lot of people will recommit to the diet whirligig and they can continue this theatre forever.

Trying to get us suckers to pay for it through demanding money with menaces.