What it is, is what it is

Tuppence-looking contraption Purge Assist has popped up this side of the pond cue predictable stupid.

The usual clueless double-think as people proclaim- "This is not the answer!" and pompously intone- "This is a symptom of quick fixism", seemingly unable to grasp dieting is a quack fix that turned into an open-ended fail due to the neurotic rejection of that fact. The latter is of course played off as long term commitment.

It's enough to make you puke.

Then there's the straw set up of this as an argument between willpower versus dietary indoctrination. [In what way does "eduction" alter the functioning of your metabolism?] The dim-wit pretension of, "Don't remove energy, you've got to find the cause of 'overeating'". Really? What happens if you don't Nancy Drew?

There's a "We've got to do something, so this is okay", pointing to the legacy of science-blockingand even as the powerful motivator of people's desperation and even a "This demonises food." Referencing CRIWL's attack on hunger. 

After that comes the eating disorders fraternity, terrified their citadel of flummery may be upset by the sunlight of unmanaged fact,

Dr Richard Sly, the medical advisor at the B-Eat eating disorder charity meanwhile warns that comparing the procedure to bulimia in an unhelpful stance.

It's not "comparison" it's observation. Voiding the contents of the stomach before food is fully digested is the purging part of bulimia nervosa. Hence purging with exercise is called exercise bulimia.

Like anorexia and other eating disorders, bulimia is a serious mental illness with physical manifestations.

They've also been the prescription for fat people for the last four decades, how long is it going to take the ED fraternity/sorority to absorb this? You don't own these and you cannot (any longer) get away with preventing people from observing fact. 

In and of itself, the equipment does not amount to medical bulimia, he says. On the contrary, the AspireAssist is a highly medicalised process.

The equipment is what is used to induce bulimia. Instead of sticking your finger down your throat, et al. It takes another direction to achieve the same ends, it is bulimia. If you don't like that, be sure to mention that to 'obesity' wallahs.

Whether bulimia is 'medicalised' or not makes no difference to what it is. Terms mean what they mean, not what you associate with them.

This would change if the person was using it to cope with psychological distress, he argues.

It's worth pointing out that the main means of trying to force fat people into proto-anorexia has been "psychological distress" and the threat of it. The extremes to which people will go to lose weight or merely avoid gain are testament to the distress involved.


Slim people are terribly ashamed of being seen to be too invested in calorie restriction dieting. Consider what it means for them to insist this should be what our lives should revolve around. 

Something of the Occult......

This sense is only getting stronger as increasingly people refuse to heed wise words;

Other people's opinion of me is none of my business.

Years ago, I mentioned that I come from a background where Black magic/witchcraft and such are seen as real forces. Growing up, I figured this was an anthropology of control and manipulation of self, of others and of one's environment.

What I never could feel was any sense about what it felt like internally to be under the influence of such. It felt totally outside my internal landscape, despite me knowing that wasn't plausible. I put it down to cultural disconnect.

The 'obesity' crusade has thoroughly changed that. It's now clearer how what you are constantly surrounded by seeps into you and (re)shapes your mind. Especially if there's little to counteract it. That is happening to people with 'obesity'. Nothing is really opposing it, so it just keeps rolling on, not because it has any inherent merit-it doesn't-but simply due to nothing really opposing its momentum.

I've seen people who are skeptical just succumb to it because it just keeps eroding anything that

Our sense that eating is a response to hunger has been undermined, if not severed in some cases. Our sense that weight is not a choice, we are not choosing not to be 900 pounds any more than we are choosing not to be 150, which for most of us is closer.

'Obesity' is really a cult concerned with gaining control of your mind, how you think, specifically to control how you live.  You can see this in its weird sociology-style presentation of contrived and dubious irrelevant statistics, Xtyx of % people are 'obese' compared with 5/10/40 years ago or hence.

'Obesity' increases risks for x, y and z, it's more associated (by us) with a,b, c, d, what has any of this got to do with a person reversing their weight? That's what this is supposed to be all about isn't it? Supposed to be, but not hardly.

If you point this out, people often struggle to grasp what you're saying. Of course statistics make you weight-manage your addiction, emotional problems, help you diet, lead to weight loss, leads you out of 'obese'. Despite that being the only strategy from before there was deemed to be a 'crsis'.

Any interruption of this, any questioning of this, any disinterest in such suspension of disbelief is spoiling it. Is why its not working. Those most voceferous and noisy in their complaining about extent of 'obese' are the ones insisting nothing but what has failed must be even looked for.

Yes, there's fun and profit in the mix, isn't there always? But there's undoubted collusion from the public. Who've found a deeper connection with these notions about weight than could have been predicted.

Fatness has come to be a reference point for mindless consumption and the wages of.

The real urge is to force fat people specifically to battle with hunger, representing unecessary acquiring of goods. Hence 'overeating' is the "cause" of overweighty. Eating is unmored, a mere habit acquired and gotten out of hand, like addiction.

Pointing out that hunger is generated by your body as a whole, and you either get denial of the role of hunger, or assertions that people eat without hunger. Despite that actually being the target of 'weight loss'. 

'Obesity' claims to be science, but it mostly uses that in the way ISIS or w/e it's called today, uses Islam, to enable it to do what it wants to do anyway, ultimately to gain power over others. Is Islam to blame for ISIS? Is science to blame for 'obesity'? Yes and no.

Both ideologies use their chosen doctrines or should I say, the appearance of them as a means to bypass not simply the critical faculties of others, but their own too, thus enabling a continuation of ideas and actions that conscience would derail.

How many times is the hold of these crusades broken by a person gaining a rational and truer understanding of what was being abused to scupper their critical faculties?

Even the grotesque practise of cutting a person's healthy stomach out feels oddly like an urge toward sacrificial appeasal of the unseen universal retribution people fear. The pretext of "making people feel fuller quicker" is risible, that's well within the functioning of hunger/ appetite. Think of the last time you were hungry and saw something disgusting and lost your appetite.

The hideous and wicked female genital mutilation has a similar underlying logic given for it, ultimately, it tries to put women off the feeling and pursuit of sexual gratification by using pain and discomfort. Rather than finding ways to reduce the sexual impulse, for either men or women.

The constant media reportage of 'obesity' is culiminating in an unwholesome media blitzkreig leading some people's minds to drift further away from the shores of reality. It can be quite disturbing to be around.

There can be something ugly, clawing and desperate about it.

The development of a compulsion diagnosis can be just like this. When thoughts or actions are made to mean or do more than they can deliver, the person can descend into compulsive repetition as the need for fulfilment continues to elude.

Increasingly people are being goaded into crossing the line-or thereabouts-where they are no longer in charge of their thoughts, instead their thoughts are in charge of and are leading them. Even before compulsion reaches this take-off stage, these urges can be at the helm of the person's mind doing the steering. That might explain how anyone could possibly think millions of stomachless people sounds anything approaching sane.

A sub-Frankenstein effort of epic delusion.

All one can say to fat people who are atheists when it comes to 'obesity' constructivism and its crusade is that if you know what it feels like to not share the faith of others, now's the time to let 'obesity' cultists have it, if they get too presumptuous. 

Stand back mentally and physically if necessary from their neurosis.  It's theirs and you are not responsible for it. You are not a cult-whisperer.

No matter who it is, do not feel any compunction about switching off and disconnecting when anyone tries to pull you into their mental orbit. You do not have to meet them halfway, flatter them, or tell them they're well meaning. Just establish clear boundaries on any nonsense, such as mindless litanies of future health and death threats.

No means no and doesn't have to be explained or justified.

Freedom of faith is also freedom from faith.

The Privilege of Being Fat

The venerable Stephen Hawking has decided to weigh-in [geddit] on the subject du nos jours.  

Witness agog,

 Stephen Hawking-Bigotry can dim brilliance

At the moment humanity faces a major challenge. And millions of lives are in danger.....I am here to address one of the most serious public health problems of the 21st Century.

Really? I'm sure scientists are working night and day to come up with the most efficient and effective solution to avert this crisis... no?

As a cosmologist, I see the world as a whole.

I'm sure you also view the human body in the same holistic way. How does the body create its own mass? Why would a person withdraw fuel, rather than adjust mechanics that exist to be adjusted?

Today too many people die from complications related to "overweight" and 'obesity'.

That would make even more of an incentive to find the most effective and efficient means of manipulating the function that creates and regulates body mass. I'm sure "obesity science" is desperately at it right now.

We eat too much and move too little. Fortunately the solution is simple....

Hey, anyone can fast/ starve or run around as they wish or are able, but real control of weight, requires pushing at the frontiers of current knowledge. I'm sure that's what's happening as we speak.

....more physical and a change in diet.

Yep, he said that, more physical activity. It gets better/worse though;

For what its worth, how being sedentary has become a major health problem is beyond my understanding.

I actually laughed out loud at that point.

It could be seen in two ways, the first is obvious, the other as an ironic statement-if read literally-on his own condition.

Here is a man who survived 50 + years past his own initial prognosis supposedly accepting the notion that being sedentary is the world's 4th largest killer, without it seemingly raising any red flags in his mind.

Why isn't he dead then? The man's 74 years of age.

Not only does he have some form of motor neurone disease, he counts as "sedentary," because that's measured as people who do not exercise. 'Obesity' wallahs exclude work and physical circumstances be damned. Ableist and classist, amongst other things.

He's also not exactly packing timber himself, so him claiming without irony, that the "answer" is to get off your arse feels like a spoof. This signals the real echo chamber that is 'obesity' it is imposed on others and has little to do with reality.

This shows us again that anyone who accepts 'obesity' is a thing, dies a death of the mind. I've said this times without number-it is a concept that is incompatible with rational thought.

If you want to avoid looking like a tool, abolish 'obesity' from your vocab. I think I've been very nice in giving folks the heads up on that one. But if they wish to keep showing themselves up, that's on them.

You'd think given that he is an actual physics master, that he could see through this at some point, but he either doesn't, or is feeling the "noble lie" horseshit authority tells itself. This is for youth, so it's mis-using authority to hoodwink them.

The real lesson for them to learn is-apart from SCIENCE WORKS dieting doesn't- it doesn't matter how much brilliance you have, you still have to apply it. You still have to exercise judgement. Plus it requires humility enough not to be convinced by the notion that other people are really are too stupid to grasp ELMM.

This is the privilege of being fat. Seeing the limits of human intelligence and character exposed before your eyes. I'd have to be far cleverer than I am to see this. Ironically, Hawking is supposed to have the kind of brain power that has left him in the position often in his life.

Not this time. This time he's been suckered.

From someone who has for so long defied medical prediction and platitude to fail this test is perhaps more forgivable than many.

Thin and Slim People's Internecine Body Politics

I wonder what you make of the increasing and crude use made of fat people's self acceptance to shield thin bodies or anorexic people from attention that's coming from either other thin people and/or slim people. First an example of attention given to slim bodies. 

Check out the words of this headline, "stop demonising thin women like Bella Hadid-the body positive movement doesn't just apply to plus size women" by Jacqueline Hooten.

The whole point of "body positive" was that it about any bodies targeted for negative attention, for example disabled bodies. It exists precisely to de-centre fat activism. What for instance is "plus-size"? It's plus Jacqueline Hooten, Bella Hadid size, is what it is. The play on innocence also attempts to hide slim people's aggression towards thin bodies by cynically invoking the old stereotype that fat women are inherently jealous of thin/ner women.

Let's go back in time

Back to western teens sprouted in the post WW2 era. In their youth, women like Twiggy expressed the physical ideal for many of that generation. Many sought to be that size, regardless. This proved to be a historical turning point in the western body aesthetic, one that's continued more or less to the present day. In spite of an increasing challenge from the failed "weight management" strategy.

A couple of decades or so ago, anorexic activists-white coat professionals/academics, people who had previously had anorexia/ currently had it-often these overlapped -decided anorexics needed to be saved from anorexia via the public's personal intervention.

It was made to seem obvious when a person had this condition. Emphasis was made of what appears to be a determined refusal of an anorexic to accept they have the condition-when it has got a hold of them. These activists trained real reticence out of people, insisting they bore a burden of responsibility if they didn't confront anorexics vigorously-to save their lives. Anorexia then was defined and diagnosed by low-weight.

This automatically made any woman who looked like they might be wasting from a target. I only found out through the fatsphere that many who had anorexia weren't thin. This was often and still is rejected by many who insist you can only be anorexic if you are of low weight regardless of your behaviour or even symptoms.

No doubt the fact that proto-anorexia is the prescription -now to be enforced by whipping your stomach out-for 'obesity' is part of that reluctance.

Though official channels have shifted diagnostic criteria away from weight, the damage was done.  Later on, slim women began to seize the opportunity to hide their long gestated resentment of thinness behind a veneer of amateur diagnosis. This is the source of a lot of the heat thin bodies get. A lot of slim women feel so close to being thin and have often tried to be but haven't managed it.

Maybe there's a sense that if thin women are pressured to gain weight and become at least slim that will make slim women feel better about not being more twig(gy) , Naomi, Kate, Lupita, Bella or whomever -like. Like vanity sizing, its hard to see how much of the impetus for this can come from jealous fat women, given it wouldn't make much difference whether a person is thin or slim.

I'm not saying fat women never stray into in this nonsense. It's still policy of many official/medical agencies to blame anorexia on thin bodies. Most fat people still have a conditioned and unquestioned belief that whatever slim women say is the rules of how to be. Whatever slim women say, is what's to be said. If slim women, shout at thin bodies, that's what you're supposed to do.

I've already busted those using anorexia to confidently attack thin bodies, I know that hasn't been ignored, yet the main, driving force behind this has.

Slim women need to learn to deal with mea culpa and re-think their attitudes without continually dragging fat women into things that are little to nothing to do with us.

Plus size models like Ashley Graham and Tess Holliday are credited for empowering a new generation of women to embrace their curves whilst challenging the notion of an ‘ideal body’. But somewhere along the way thin women have become the enemy and that’s not okay

If I was either of those two, I'd not take kindly to any suggestion that I was in some way responsible for the cynical and brazen attacks on thin people's bodies.  And what about this,

In September, The Women’s Equality Party launched the “No Size Fits All Campaign” aimed at tackling the fashion industry’s influence on body image. The campaign calls for a change in the law to ban fashion models with a BMI below 18.5. While the campaign’s aims appear laudable, by failing to define an upper BMI limit the WEP are effectively looking to legalise the demonisation of “thin”.

WTH, "failing to define an upper BMI limit"? Wow, if these women can't see a bus to throw fat women under, they go to the bus garage.  There is no equivalence between someone wasting away from anorexia, effectively dying from starvation and/or someone being forced to starve so they can work and someone who's merely fat, however fat.

Anorexia starts with wilful actions that are able, in a minority of people, to outstrip the natural in-built defences our bodies have against anorexia nervosa. It's not so much about weight as its about an unusual reaction to the stimulus of self-inflicted starvation.

The problem here is with the diagnostic attitude the women's equality party has picked up, and its inability to distinguish between the merely thin and those who are actually anorexic. Those involved in that field also need to say more about this sort of thing or they may find that the mis-use of fat people will give everybody more problems than they bargained for.

I don't mindlessly fall in line with anorexia activists when they are bullshitting. Conflating fat bodies with anorexic bodies is really not a good move. When it comes to advancing the cause of their own self-denuded sense of superiority, fat phobes rarely put anyones health first.

Fat Handbags Have Already been Stopped

Continuing on from yesterday's post and the noteworthy attempt of 'obesity' promoters to decry any possibility of blocking a cell that has already been blocked. Looking back at research indicating the maturation process of our fat handbag adipose cells, can be stimulated to completion by a hormone called Adamts1.

Sentiments expressed by Dr. Brian Feldman-part of the research team concerned-about the purported implausibility of slowing fatty tissue genesis was backed up and emphasised by an NHS website,

The coverage by the Mail Online was generally accurate, highlighting the important fact that this research has not necessarily identified a target for anti-obesity treatment options.

"The important fact" eh? Why would that be either? Important to whom? It's not even about expectation management. If you say, eventually it seems like they'll be a means of stopping adipose tissue from increasing, you can go on to say, but not for a while yet if you want.

It's the enthusiasm for shutting that avenue down that is a red light.

If one steps back from puberty, it could be seen purely as an increase body mass. In healthy cells; bone, muscle and FAT [etc.,]. By dint of that, blocking or slowing puberty effectively does the same for adipose as part of that repression,

Initiating the treatment early for a child who experiences gender dysphoria has greatest effect; the body of the patient is less developed and later, the need for surgery such as mastectomy or “reduction thyroid chondroplasty and voice modification therapy” is avoided.

Avoid mastectomy? Okay, this is the brotherhood of wikistan, I haven't looked further into it yet, still, I think we can confidently state the human breast has fatty tissue.

Puberty blockers supposedly work by suppressing the release of chemicals that launch the process of puberty into effect. They are released from the pituitary gland. Incidentally, one of these hormones is called "follicle-stimulating hormone" or (FSH), yes, that relates to the troublesome, poly-cystic ovary, follicles. This could go to explain why PCOS can now seemingly be diagnosed without the presence of challenging follicles.

I'm not here to recommend nor decry puberty-blocking, initially a treatment for precocious puberty. This is really about being told what isn't supposed to be possible or likely, when it has already happened however imperfectly.

Even if it hadn't, it would hardly be an outlandish possibility to be able to modify the extent/speed of one cells proliferation, given the body already does this. If you've ever dieted for any period, you'll know that it can speed up your body's capacity to gain weight like no-ones business. How can that happen if gain is all one speed?

And where you can slow, you can look to stop, or at least slow even further. So if any 'obesity' wallahs are struggling with this concept, why don't they mosey on over to those working in the area of arresting puberty and ask them for a clue?

It slightly recalls the suggestion that "weight loss" is supposed to be hard, when the body already goes down (and up) in weight, daily, with consummate ease. One might humbly imagine attempts to figure out the ways it manages this impossibility/immorality/unlifestyle generated action. Only for that also to be mysterious improbable.

As I've repeatedly stressed (oops), "obesity science" doesn't actually have to reverse weight. It can merely settle for subduing replication of cells. The spluttering response...

'If you block fat formation, extra calories have to go somewhere in the body, and sending them somewhere else outside fat cells could be more detrimental to metabolism.

...when confronted with this notion fails to grasp-stopping a person's weight/fat mass where it is. Which is the norm for most people fat to thin alike, it's homoeostasis, all you're doing is seeking to help that along. When it comes to blocking fat, of course we are talking about the activity that promotes its genesis /proliferation.

We are talking here about outliers who are enduring aggressive symptoms that include/lead to swift unending gain. 

And blocking or suppressing adipose cells can equally have an affect on other metabolic features including hunger and appetite. Because fat cells are "metabolically active" sending as well as receiving messages.

You may be asking why in the midst of a supposed adipocalypse of urgent proportions, is there this continual urge to deny possibility of the obvious target to save us from this impending hellacious fate? In favour of such cutting the sugar in soft drinks.....no less....

Idle 'Science'

I happened to be reading "Why stress can make you overweight" because I'm a glutton for punish... oh look, I've finally faced the truth, now I can take action against the terrible addiction to what humans cannot live without...

The article is about stress triggering release of a hormone called Adamts1, I don't know why that sounds cute to me. Apparently, this chemical is contained within fatty tissue sites and has the power to influence stem cells contained within- to become* new fat cells.

Now you may have noticed certain researchers are going around telling everyone within earshot that they now know fat cells aren't just handbags to keep your spare junk in, oh no, they're cells that interact with the brain, nervous system and metabolic function,

It was once believed that fat cells were just passive bags of calories, but recent research shows they send and receive important hormonal signals.

Note the phrasing "It was once believed..." More like assumed. It was once assumed, by scientists and researchers [they're the "it" bit], that fat cells were greedy and lazy, did nothing, because they were fat cells. I was even told this myself by a certain person on this site,

A lot of FA people seem to express they believe their fat is just there, a blob sitting on their body without consequence. This couldn't be further from the truth. Fat is metabolically active. It alters hormone levels, releases inflammatory cytokines, disrupts leptin signalling. The more fat you have, the more hormonal imbalance and inflammation, and the more likely to have diabetes, insulin resistance, and heart disease (from inflammation). 

I parked my suspicions there, though the scent of bull was on this. Fat people having embraced the notion that our bodies are whole not slim + and act in concert were ahead of a lot of these researchers. When this happens and your tormentors straw version of you allows no honour, they just lecture you with their new found sense of reality, as if you were insisting on the fibs they strenously advocate.

Any fat person who believed/s in the handbag cell would have got it from 'obesity' constructivism, same as the assumption that weight loss and CRIWL are one and the same. Anyway, I assumed the attempt expressed here to represent the fat cell as if it was some kind of rogue cell had enabled 'obesity' wallahs to finally let go of their silly emotional dependence on adipose handbags. Subsequently, it is clear that they haven't managed this at all, still, because of this Adamts1, I thought this might have been a new dawn for at least the duration of this article,

So when I read this, I was genuinely taken aback,

On anti-obesity treatment options, Dr Feldman said: 'That won't be a simple answer.

'If you block fat formation, extra calories have to go somewhere in the body, and sending them somewhere else outside fat cells could be more detrimental to metabolism.

Back to fat handbags again!!!!

That's not the half of what makes this shocking. Not only is has the research concerned already suggested you can block the formation of the fat cell by being less stressed. Formation of the fat cell has already been blocked and is out there.

* Correction: according to NHS Choices, "they had already started to become fat cells and the hormone [Adamts1] finished the maturation process."

Saving 'Obesity' Crusade Delusions

If you're overseas you may not know UK TV station Channel4 still thinks it has a bit of a reputation for edgy forward thinking television-out of the other big 5 terrestrial channels. Despite this, the furrow it ploughs with fatsploitation is brain dead standard issue at its most banal.

As with a lot of middle class metropolitan types, station honchos are on board with 'obesity' construct agit-prop. Tonight they're airing an episode of their long running 'Dispatches' series called "The Secret Plan to Save Fat Britain".

Indeed. 

That could be read with an unfortunate-for them-literalism, as an assessment of the last 40 years of 'obesity' campaigning. To not only save fat people from not exiting fatness, but to add to and ballast their number. Think about it, if fat people had succeeded in their plans to 'lose weight' all these decades (centuries), this wouldn't be a thing.

The calorie restriction model has saved fatness from extinction-against the will of fat people themselves.

Anyhow, this programme is apparently an 'investigation' (plz) into how the current prime minister Teresa May has "watered down" the government's scattergun grand plan to regulate metabolic function from the outside in.

This grand stratagem is driven by increasing the encroachment of the organising principle of our era-lifestyle anorexia. Stuff like making restaurants include calorie counts on their menus, stopping supermarkets from offering certain promotion deals, getting them to remove sweets from checkout areas, reducing advertising an marketing calorie dense foods and other measures to reduce intake.

Anything but the most obvious and scientific, which would be to give people the ability to lower their hunger. And no, that doesn't require drugs, just more experimentation with using our thought processes to affect our function. An area of human capacity that's sorely underdeveloped.

It needs to happen for those who have an excess of hunger function. Contrary to assertion, its relatively rare, so people do not get how disturbing it is- including fat activists and some who claim to have something called-binge eating disorder. I'm not talking about binge eating, I'm talking about excessive hunger.

After finding efficient ways to bring this about, that can be applied to normal hunger. Whether that's a good idea or not I'll leave up to the individual, but that would be the best, easiest, healthiest way to reduce intake. However, this reducing of hunger, leaves control of what you eat with the individual, clearly that's an important target for those who feel everyone else's hunger/appetite is an extension of their own.

And should therefore be under their diktat. 

The programme implies it will dig deep to uncover food industry machinations to expel policies from the lifestyle disorder manifesto. I'd be amazed if they hadn't lobbied their cause. Having been used to fat people the "obesity community" are struggling to deal with their own levels of cynicism and intransigence.

Its amusing to see the mainstream media-often bellyaching about social media's encroachment on the news agenda and how its a disaster not to leave the news agenda to metropolitan know-it-all classes.....- bending this into a conspiracyesque form.

The intimation is fat phobes would be "do something" about 'obese' if it wasn't for those pesky industrial food varmits and their underhand nefarious tactics.

In truth, this whole shebang depends on the inherent dysfunction of the calorie restriction model. The upshot of that being a success would decimate industrial food as we know it. Along with that, a lot of the transfer of employment from the heavy industries of yore.

Even this far into that process that bottom line hasn't slimmed down. Indeed, it would reverse what is keeping many millions going financially. Whether you insist fat ='overeat' or no more than anybody else, the permanent state of semi-starvation required by this method, would strike a massive blow to the food economy. Not to mention the cultural impact of a quarter, more or less of the adult population in a permanent state of hanger.

This doesn't tend to come up in these discussions. Instead you get repetition of the have cake and eat it too fantasy. Food needs to be restricted for the 'irresponsible' people who can't control themselves, but not for those who can.

It's been pointed out that if the latter are so sparing in their intake of popular calorie dense foods- they'd hardly miss them-especially given their massive self control.

The calorie restriction model is especially unsuited for liberal capitalist society. The nature of it requires a dictatorship like control/mismanagement of the food environment. Its invasive outer dictation, need to interfere with commerce and to dismantle a lot of what provide incomes for those who'd otherwise struggle gaining employment pits it against forces societies want to beat it. The almost complete lack of real opposition means no one has to face up to this. The failure of restriction is an integral part of sustaining most people's 'obesity' crusade delusions.

Settled Points

Whilst trawling for something else, I landed on a blog representing a notion that epitomises the divide between the fat standard and what the mainstream applies to itself.

This blog was going on about how set point theory was ultimately condescending and infantilizing to, in this case, women. Keeping them from taking responsibility for their weight (and this was part of why fat acceptance was losing its way).

Another one of her posts spoke about a certain neurotic condition, in the usual way, as if it was an illness.

That represents nervous imbalance as a set point. And that looks exactly as condescending, infantilizing, shifty and vanity serving as you think acknowledging CRIWL is not the right way to achieve weight loss does.

In case of any need of a reminder, as CRIWL is the only route to weight loss. Most people will have to accept the size they are.

If that's confusing, I'm saying that the idea that an imbalanced nervous system is some kind of an illness is in the main, vanity serving drivel. Remember, one of the chiefest foes of dealing with neurosis=vanity.

Yes, there are a minority of people who have functional disorders of some kind, that make them more likely to become mentally unbalanced in this way. Either in terms of the formation of their nervous system, or their organs.

Mainstream therapy culture has advancing this comforting gesture of a set point, for decades. Therapy's efficacy is, shall we say, someone moot [tact-c'est moi; today]. Ergo, someone has to explain why, someone goes into therapy, on the premise that they have an issue, therapy is supposed to solve this. It how shall we say, doesn't. How to explain that?

Therapy doesn't work?

The decision was made to define neurosis as something that is like an infectious disease. Things like depression etc., can make you feel very unwell, they can actually make you sick, but they aren't like illnesses. They aren't a set point, they're more a settled point.

It's often strange when others see in fat people how they themselves act all the time, but don't seem to notice, or remark on. Probably as they know they'd be challenged.

If anything, it was this attitude that was belatedly applied to fatness-which is why its named and why its so contested. Fat people are not subject to the rules applied to others. Whereas those rare people who have a neurosis based on internal fillips become the template for anyone diagnosed with that condition, no matter how far away they are from there.

Fat people are defined by people who are ill and fat, and they're defined as people who would be well, if they weren't fat.

And before those who are fat and neurotic and think this is an outrage get excited, you have already accepted what I'm saying, you just don't apply it to your neuroses-same as everyone else. Anyone accepting the notion that weight or health can be controlled by changing your thinking, eating and activity has accepted the idea that a settled point is not a set point. That your neurosis is open ended and can change in an instant and/or remain for a lifetime. Potentially by your own actions.

The biggest noise made about neuroses is not; just calm down is wrong, its that just calming down is real hard when your nerves are in that state. You do actually have to calm down, cheer up, stop checking, etc.,

You can be fat to thin for anything from a lifetime to a short or no time. Ditto your nervous/mental state. You've all already accepted this, via the fat standard.

BMI Reparations

Hands up if you think reparations-that's compensating Black people for the consistent open ended robbery that is systemic racism, colonialism, etc., is super unspeakably radical/militant? Well, in the words of our US bretheren, you can just sit your punk ass down.

I've just caught up with an attempt by certain outfits to construct another fatty reparations model.The inversion being fat people will end up paying to be discriminated against-discrimination is robbery- as usual. Few pay more for being than fat people. We've paid and continue to pay; mentally, psychologically, physically, financially, healthwise, socially, in terms of quality of our relationships, and with our own self esteem and so on and so on. We've enriched liars and grifters at every level of society, professional and charity, governmental and private sector to degrade, butcher, mutilate and starve and run us ragged, only then to be blamed for the failure of the noose around our necks.

That's not enough though, now we have the prospect of being traded as a sort of loss commodity through a proposed system of rating companies by certain purported health measures, majoring in BMI measurements. Specifically, how many employees are in the "at risk" category, given the agit-prop produced by "obesity researchers" associating fat/ter people with lowered productivity.

The consistency and unchallenged nature of this wretched cult and its complete failure of a strategy- CRIWL means increasing the avenues to monetise discrimination. A huffpo article states this move by the "wellness industry"-yet another industry created off our backs- taxes business but that will be passed on to fat people, it already has.

You get robbed, then you get taxed for being robbed because everyone supports the construct making this possible,

“It does inadvertently put a target on employees’s backs who are dealing with obesity,”

Always accidental isn't it? In fact it is the 'obesity' construct which put not only a target but imprisons people in discrimination-full stop. I'm sure you can tell from the "dealing with obesity" where that's coming from. Those who also support the construct causing these problems. It's a tribute to the barely challenged nature of 'obese' that you can present yourself as on the side of fat people, whilst upholding the basis used to royally fleece them.

Furthermore, if you're interested, this target is being painted on all our backs using this as the entry wound. Those fat people who claim to adore slimz need to start thinking very carefully about allowing themselves to be an instrument in their downfall,

[The]....federal government is already taking the first step towards endorsing this Fat Tax by allowing companies to require employees to hand over genetic information as part of wellness programs.

When I first got into the fatsphere, I made the observation that 'obesity' was a threat to all our civil liberties. Increasingly that poison is spreading. All fat people need to start taking this into account. It's not simply about you anymore. Similarly for slim people who feel immune to the discrimination they're supporting for others, its going to bite your acceptable behind too.

Anyhoo, reparations, eminently mainstream, until it comes to certain folk obvs......

The Beautiful Truth

I've had cause lately to consider again the difficulty of truth if you are a fat person. Whereas for other people telling the truth is mainly a question of reporting the facts as honestly as possible, the big, perhaps the biggest challenge of honesty for a fat person is to have the mettle to avoid telling the false truth dictated to you by others.

And to not be shamed by the avoidance of that.

I recognize that I may come across as a bit shifty in overly careful talk about fatness, weight etc., But I have to tame my vanity enough to press on regardless. I'm trying to reach for an elusive narrative of consciousness that's not only not available, it rarely appears except in glimpses.

I'm not sure I know what it would look like as a consistent force, as I've never knowingly come across a fat person who can speak about fatness unadulterated by the lifesapping falsehood that is the 'obesity narrative'.

Shaunta Grimes's piece is lovely, honest and everyday act of bravery in its way, but I feel the typical failure of nerve when it comes to claiming to be drunk on that which simply cannot make you drunk. It's a tribute to her skill as a writer that this doesn't deliver her tale into the usual pit of boredom waiting for the same old same. It doesn't break new ground available to a writer of her talent.

We always allow ourselves to submit to and be interrupted by others who are unworthy of such and are not fighting the same fight no matter what they assume. There comes a point when we have to ask ourselves what is our duty to the truth. How can any of us really complain when we decline to push ourselves beyond the trite handed to us merely because it means we connect through meanings that don't fit? If others hadn't done better than us, what would we have to crib and plunder?

Fat people need to take up the space of our own truth and stop waiting for permisson for that. No one will give it to us, I'm not even sure anyone can. So what if haters think our reaching is "useless" who are they to say what is useful to us or anyone else? Their talk is so dead and they don't even feel it. How would they know? They know nothing. 

We understand clothes that don't fit, why do we settle for worthless ideas that don't fit? The title is "Here's how I got fat" and it delivers on its promise to tell the same old story expected and praise is given, moving, honest, well done in using your voice to tell our version of what honesty is for you etc.,

Having most of your stomach removed is no resolution of any things that shouldn't need to be said. What is so difficult about acknowledging that? Why do the need to pretend whatever this isn't a different pathology, a more acceptable one? What is blocking that, is it vanity? Is it the need to be seen as good or healthy? If you are prepared to state you did damage to yourself with food, why aren't you able to say you damaged yourself to try and escape the trap set for all of us?

You rightly said;

I wasn’t required to live forever with the physical consequences of what I did to survive those mean years.

But it is not political consciousness that's trying to keep you stuck in what you call "physical consequences" its those waging a phony crusade. That's their trap. It's reminiscent of those who complain to activists that they want to lose weight. Activists did not create dieting. They did not promote its failed strategy as the only, the must be, the be all and end all.

Why can't we screen out those who would give praise for repeat their tired talk? Who have been happy to lead us and leave us to our fate. Haters didn't pull us through or pull us out, they've no right to regard at our own expense. None at all.

If you wish to frame your situation as substance abuse, at least impersonate many of the more admirable amongst them and their capacity to state boldly, "These are my options, they're shit, but them's the breaks", rather than cowering under them-because they're my options, they are righteous, they aren't.

They are what is deemed worthy of you. Authorities have endeavoured to leave fat with nothing but brutality and mutilation. It's not the best they could do. It's not guided by healing, its guided by the opposite of that.

Middle Class People-Have Your Long Overdue Examination of Your Own Drug Use Now Please

Ludicrous attempt at talking up the pretence of a gigantic plot by sinister agents of industrial food to addict the US, no the worldwide populace to 'sugar' in a sort of repeat of the Chinese Opium wars, except without the imperialism, bloodshed, or opiate drugs.

The b'stards!!!

And do you know what else they've probably done too? Yes, they've prevented anyone from coming up with a viable model of human metabolic function. These dastardly biscuit peddlers have made off with our ambition nay our ability to find ways to adjust our own bodily function.

Bring it back right now, cake wallahs*?!*

It's all too horrifying. I daren't look........but I must. For you dear reader, I'm prepared to sacrifice moi-meme.

"Put down the donut: When Americans became hooked on sugar instead of natural fat, obesity balloned," by someone called Michael Joseph." Originally printed at AlterNet,

AlterNet’s aim is to inspire action and advocacy on the environment, human rights and civil liberties, social justice, media, health care issues, and more

You have to wonder who exactly is behind these efforts and why such as AlterNet with their stated aims of giving voice to alternative sources of information- are keen to give this a platform. Mickey's breathless page shows what he's about, claiming his opinings are "backed by the latest science" ah if ever such a mighty term were not so debased as science is right now.

That headline; "When Americans became hooked on sugar instead of natural fat, obesity balloned". Makes no real sense and has history backwards. MJ says as much himself "As we replaced natural sources of fat for sugar." That's the as low as low-fat diet, unnatural.

Low-fat diets were heavily (yes) promoted by the usual suspects; "obesity science," doctors, public health bureaucrats, busy body quangocrats, the meejah.

Heavily.

There might be a story around how this conclusion was arrived at-fat makes you fat and causes heart attacks. We were told that fat sticks to the insides of your cardiac vessels, leading them to infarct and such. Now we're told similar happens due to sugar. Back in the day it was refined starch.

Do people really still believe so fervently that diet is the key here? Really? Because I would have thought it was obvious that we have all just been chasing our tails on that one. The idea of low sugar/low carb is high-protein repackaged again and again. Diet is not a starting point. It's part of a process. It's what controls the process that is key to improving function and preserving, improving or repairing health.

Again I ask, why can't we just stop dodging that? What's the problem? That is the real story here. That is the real way we have all been sold out. Who's behind that? What do they want? What are their aims?

Dr David Katz said more recently that his expectation in promoting low-fat diets was that people would eat lots of vegetables, fruit and grains, emphasis on the latter-despite what he's implying now. In those days no one would dream of telling people to live on hundreds of portions of veg. No-one would have dreamt of the starvation calorie counts people are expected to live on permanently. Only when you were going on a crash diet.

It was clear early on that people wouldn't just drop the foods they liked to eat on the say-so of the likes of him. The idea of having your diet intimately dictated to as a matter of course-not say on a diet would have seemed laughable to most people. We have come to accept the idea that people should tell us how to eat and increasingly how to live. [Gives a clue of the motive behind all this.] In the meantime companies replaced in part with sugar, in order to brand foods "low-fat".

Its fair to point out this is a-letter rather than a spirit of the law-type finagle but that's how the food business attempted to marry irreconcilables with its profit motive. Were they expected to go into voluntary liquidation?

Any fault with current sugar overload lies squarely with those who peddle low-fat diets as a must. Their meddling constantly blows up in other people's faces. The most obvious being the lack of any real control people have other making adjustments to the way their bodies are using energy.

Now they and/or others are entering a new phase of their theatre of the absurd, pretending big biz acted nefariously to faddict people to sugar [what for?] The article recognises the weakness of that point though by citing your morning orange juice, whether concentrate based or freshly squeezed by your own hand, it contains a lot of sugar. More at times than their supposed bete noir-fizzy drinks (should include beer and wine). 

No more of any of that for you. That's realistic isn't it?

Underneath the headless back fat(ty) photo used-which may not be down to Joseph is this caption;

International diabetes organizations are calling for weight-loss surgery to become a more routine treatment option for diabetes, even for some patients who are only mildly obese. Obesity and Type 2 diabetes are a deadly pair, and numerous studies show stomach-shrinking operations can dramatically improve diabetes.

That's right, an article on the perils of doughnuts is promoting the cutting out of healthy functioning organs, for the purposes of "stomach shrinking". Repeat; the stomach is a muscular organ.

It is a muscular, highly vascular bag-shaped organ that is distensible and may take varying shapes, depending on the build and posture of the person and the state of fullness of the organ (see the image below).

Shrinking is a natural action of muscle, partial or full amputation isn't required for that.

As for diabetes charities, how dare they recommend this reckless mutilation, have they pushed for better investigation, or questioned the lack of progress in this area? There was a time when charities where the voice of reason or kept out when they had nothing useful to say. Now they are clearly becoming infested with agitants spreading the message of brutalising bodies with hack-happy-quackery.

Unfortunately, the American (and worldwide) public are experiencing the consequences. As we replaced natural sources of fat for sugar (and excess carbohydrate in general), soaring rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and other conditions of the metabolic syndrome soon followed.

In real terms cardiovascular health has improved in the West as societal weight gain has progressed-whether health lovers like that or not. As for "metabolic syndrome", the clue is in the name. It might benefit most from the ability to alter the way metabolism is functioning. More experimentation of a different kind is where we need to go. Get off the drugs or surgery tip.

That will also be required to tackle type 2 diabetes in a more effective manner. Not to mention weight for those who need or want it and mental health problems, up to and including eating/hunger disorders.

Alternet shows a predictable profile of bourgeoisie self-repression about their love of drugs, poking through the hole torn by their bigotry and fat phobia. "We're all being used: No, it's not immoral to use illegal drugs." Um yeah it is.

I've queried this myself in the past. How can people allow themselves to be complicit in the deaths of so many poor oppressed people in the Americas, just in order to get high? At the same time as casting fatness as evidence of immorality or addiction then coming down on people like a ton of maggot infested shit. Can they not see that's a description and judgement of their own behaviour? It's not how I feel about it, its about how they feel about it, no matter how obscure it is from them.

This time the point is made from the horses mouth, a Mexican business graduate [NYT link].

I was born and raised in a midsize town in northern Mexico. As a child, I biked and skated in the streets. But these days, kids aren’t allowed to play outside. Everyone has a heartbreaking story of how the drug trade has damaged his life.

Folks prefer to talk about Mexican 'obesity' without too much mention of the effect of the drug wars tragedy and restraining of youthful impulses to move around. Another example of the way fatigue with serious structural problems migrates to 'obesity' which becomes a proxy for fixing life. I remember asking a fat phobe why he didn't know the health "costs" of paedophilia. He said; "We can stop obesity".

Stopping 'obesity' is like a living fable for the idea of being able to stop wrongs. There's an element of desperation about the need for us to believe we can and practise that on something. To others it feels like a safe space for our ability to right wrongs. The need to win at something simple is more valuable to others than any sense of what its doing to those its aimed at.

Note the way not bothering with coke is not seen as a reasonable ask. Instead of thinking about the damage Mario Berlanga speaks about firsthand, we're informed actually, this isn't about the blood in coke, its about the illegality of the drugs. You know they're illegal, so don't take them in the first place. If you do, own that. If you can't do either, don't use fat people to explore your repressed shame, it gives the game away that you know the score (lit.)

Violence — whether among cartels, or between cartels and government forces — plagues cities along drug trafficking routes. Shops and restaurants shut their doors, employees are laid off. Cartel members routinely steal cars at gunpoint. They take over houses and factories for shelter and fire automatic weapons in public spaces. My relatives have been forced to drop to the ground at home and at the supermarket to avoid being shot.

Guessing its not a comfort to know someone's feeling better from all this.

Food as drugs, eating only for pleasure, hunger is addiction is displacement. Its the pressing through the psyche that which is being heavily repressed.

So spare us your tedious symptomatic macro-nutrient paranoia. The only thing that has been hijacked is science-by pseudoscience. Increasingly, people are seeing that all too well.

Weight Loss is Neutral, It's Dieting That's Toxic

Fat activism.

Still getting itself in a tizz about whether dieting is feminist, body positive etc., or not. The short answer is dieting is pathological. It is self-abuse. To a purpose yes, but it is everything weight is supposed to be, inherently unhealthy. Now folks have the right to get involved in it if they chose, but they cannot claim it is positive in anyway, shape or form.

It is so obviously not the way to deliberately invoke weight reversal/loss that it is barely worth arguing over.

Dieting however, is not the same as weight loss. Dieting is a means of bringing about weight loss. This is and always has been the root of this contretemps.

 (Chanel Ambrose-speaking of her experience

with CRIWL)

Never mind any nonsense about 'physics'. Calorie restriction induced weight loss-CRIWL is probably based on the observing the body wasting away from poverty, sickness and punishing hard work.

The problem with getting your body to consume itself is that it is basically a way the body dies. When you decide to starve yourself to become slim/mer, your body is not "making a mistake". That would be the small cluster of the brain we call conscious awareness.

Our bodies work without that as a necessary input, ergo it stands to reason that the conscious mind's assumptions on how the body regulates itself is somewhat of an irrelevance.

The problem with the FAM from naafa to the fat underground, fat feminism and the fatsphere is that all have accepted the widespread conflation of CRIWL with weight loss. Calorie restriction being an artificial and toxic way to "lose weight" requires a surround of such carefully managed fiction and it still crap. One of those is that weight loss is dieting, when its clear that the body loses weight of its own volition any time it pleases.

Both fat phobes and fat activists are right and wrong, for basing their understanding on that selfsame fib.

Fat phobes know the body can reverse its weight, as it does in the course of everyday. That's a no-brainer.

Fat activists are also right, they know CRIWL of which dieting is the major plan is untenable. That has got to be one of the greatest unacknowledged proven scientific facts.

Establishing a compelling philosophical question: if scientists do not unequivocally accept a scientific fact, does it cease to be science?

Where fat phobes are wrong is that they think they can hide behind the idea of CRIWL due to it being perceived as the same as weight loss.

Where fat activists get it wrong is via the same assumption. Concluding that as dieting clearly doesn't work, neither does "weight loss". Weight loss is not a technique, tactic or method, it's an aim, an outcome. It requires something to bring it about. Dieting is supposed to be that.

It's CRIWL that is everything you think weight loss is. Weight loss is well, neutral. Or should be. Wanting to reverse your weight is not unpositive, it is not self abuse, it is not classist, sexist or whatever, that is calories in/out. Reversal of weight is just a desire. Like, wanting to be able to pay your bills is fine but robbing a bank on that premise is not fine.

Dieting is a story of ends not justifying means.

There just is no other means available but CRIWL. Test that. Think of all the routes to weight loss that you think are different and ask yourself what is the means by which they bring about the desired effect (weight loss).

All either decrease/block energy input or increase output-(i.e. exercise, vomiting, other purging). ALL of them. Whatever anyone says about any special diets tricks or secrets which the body processes a different way-etc., they aim to cut your cals end of.

Wanting to lose weight is not a bad thing, dieting is.

The only exception is when some technique or other is used to affect the body in a way that leads the body to reverse either its weight or certain metabolic signals. i.e. When people re-train their body to be in a greater state of calm, that can and does alter appetite, hunger function at times significantly. Lessening intake due to differing signals is not dieting, the latter has always been the wrong way around. A fetishistic practise that has become an end in itself. Similar to sacrificial ritual of quais-spiritual cleansing.

It really is the most absurd practise. Dieters think others shame them, when really they obscure their shame behind the kind of falisity I'm talking about here. Only when they meet anyone or thing that doesn't uphold their false consciousness, does the facade come crashing down. They wrongly identify that as being shamed, when its really being acquainted with the stupidity of what they're doing.

It should be said that it's not self harming for example, to lower excessively functioning hunger.  Or even to stop having too little sleep, if that then means the body to uses energy differently and that leads to weight reversal.

What we do affects our metabolic function. And this shows you dieting is not necessary.

These little glimpses show that reversal of weight is likely to be a gentle thing, a world away from the culture of CRIWL and everything that went into and comes out of the practise of it.

No calorie counting-a well known symptom of eating disorders- or enforced activity should be required. Fitness is not the same as wasting the body for weight loss. Metabolic function is designed to be plastic. It's incredibly adaptable.

Everything about dieting/criwl should be swept away. Whether people wish to "lose weight" or not.

Those desperate to lose weight need to learn to demand proper insight and means of inducing the body to reverse weight in a proper and humane manner, from the professionals and stop creating arguments amongst activists who've done them no end of favours.

Proper means of inducing weight loss will probably require ways of using our minds to alter our physiological function that are outside the culture of health care as we know it.

The Size of You

An enjoyable article on Substantia Jones and her Adipositivity Project in New Zealand made me consider a subtle difference in attitude to weight and identity. 

I'm glad she said that she wished to "demystify" fat bodies. I'm bored of others, especially the fat hating sisterhood, insisting TAP etc., are trying to force others to find fat people beautiful. Assuming they're covering their bitching with snooty sub-lectures about how they've appointed us miners of digging for women's value beyond beauty. As if they've they're too gorgeous for that.

Give. Me. Strength. 

We've already been forced to find slim people beautiful or else, regardless. I'll have more time for this noise when it finds injustice in that. Not that pretending slim=beauty keeps me awake at night, just that slim people need to learn that the complaints they aim at fat people are usually more apt commentary on their own unresolved issues-such as this. Clearly slimz are contemptuous of their own demands. The consistency of this doesn't bode well for self-acceptance.

When SJ was young, she was thin/slim, as a child she said she was nicknamed "bones". Later;

"I liked being thin. I freaked out about my body changing, and I started dieting very young."

Indicative of many if not most thin/slim people;

As she went on one diet after another, her weight yo-yoed. It was only when she embraced her fat body that Jones actually felt happy with herself.

Ummm, "fat body".

Of the Adipositivity Project she says,

"The primary goal is that I want people to love and respect their bodies."

"Their bodies" is right. 

Both fat body and their bodies reference the same thing........at the same time, there can be a subtle difference between embracing yourself and your fatness as part of that. And embracing fatness as a defining characteristic of yourself. It means something to be aware of what you are signing on for when weight becomes you.

I never have any desire anymore to be thin. It wouldn't be me."

It's all in those last four words (the prior sentence is quoted for context). I'm not trying to catch SJ out or nitpick. Many people aim toward this. I'm querying the urge to identify indubitably with weight, whether thin or fat. Your weight is not you.

You are yourself, your size is an aspect of that. 

SJ is no more inherently fat than she was inherently thin, what remained constant was herself. Same person, same life, same body-different stages, different sizes. That's how the body is. It changes. It adapts.

The point of FA is all bodies all people are always human. Always valuable, always the body you are going to do anything with.What is precious is you, not your girth. I honestly think that's what we are all avoiding.

Whatever your size, check your response to the reality that you are the value not your slimness or your valuation of fatness.

Before we plunge into defining ourselves as must-be-fat, we need to look at the mess of a crusade given life by must-be-slim and humbly ask ourselves why we'll make a better fist of weight as identity than slim people. What have we got that they haven't?

It's not the whole story, but if so many slim people did not struggle with the idea of not being slim, we would never have gotten in this mess.

Yes, if SJ woke up tomorrow as slim as she used to be, it might well be incredibly disconcerting, but you know what? She's already gotten over a far greater shock-the loss of a weight halo. She wouldn't stop being herself, even if it altered her character. She'd get over it, or get over not getting over it, same as any change.

As important as it is to value and as she says, demystify fat bodies, until we (re-)learn to really possess our thoughts, our perceptions our sentience, autonomy, agency, narratives and experience, size will not be enough.

Locus of Control

There are many arguments I thought fat phobes would never have the effrontery to try and make. One is asserting that fat people who tell the truth about CRIWL have an outer locus of control. Most think of us this way its fair to say.

Locus of control refers to where you tend to see control over you and your life laying. Having an outer locus of control means you are more fatalistic, you feel controlled/affected by people or events outside yourself.

Having an inner locus of control means you feel you are mainly the arbiter of your own life. The latter is supposed to show a better sense of personal responsibility. It's supposed to be a sign of a healthier personality.

I was reminded of l of c when the other day a woman spoke about her attempts to lose weight to conceive a baby; dietician, gym, psychologist, etc., CRIWL has always been sold as "personal responsibility"-inner locus of control.

And though this relied solely on effort from her, the real control is outside. Meaning she had an inner locus of control seeing it correctly as up to her, but the actual control is outside her. There should in fact be a match. The real locus of control should be inside too. This sums up what I've been advocating all this time.

Believing, indeed, knowing that your weight should be alterable by you isn't the problem, lack of the right means and tools to do it is. That's the ultimate distinction here. Forget what anyone else says, whether fat phobe or fat activist. The capacity is there, the willingness from fat people has always been there. It is the means that has been denied and is still being denied. In favour of control from outside. Whilst posing as the inner failure of people.

I finally managed to get through enough of the thick smoke of pro-anorexia spiel enough to identify a potentially shared symptom of all eating/hunger disorders-that sorts it out from an almost. When hunger function passes either too others-usually anorexia, or to ones conscious mind.

I'm not talking about concern with ingredient sourcing or meal preparation, I mean the actual urge to eat is no longer internal but has passed into significantly external or conscious.

Typically, anorexics reach a stage where everyone around them is acting as their hunger. As its replacement. Asking them if they want to eat- that's hunger. Offering them certain prized foods or stuff they might like-that's appetite.

You can see CRIWL/WLD matches that symptom exactly. Except in this case, dieting/CRIWL relies on seeking to pass your hunger function from physiology, to psychology. To the conscious mind.

It is one of the features of its inherent malfunction, things such as calorie counting, weighing food seek to teach this symptom. With hunger/eating disorders, that's more likely to be an unintended consequence.

Your Life as a Metabolic Adjunct

Adjunct adj; A thing added to something else as a supplementary rather than an essential part.

You may know that I've always said that drugging neuroses is not a good idea. By neurosis I'm referring to things like; depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorders and disorders of eating and hunger. Basically, imbalance in the functioning of the nervous system.

I recognise the need for drugs. There are a very small minority whose neurosis is a product of an abnormal nervous system, that malfunctions regularly. Their system needs to be brought up to par. Overlapping with them are those who's neurosis is at the most extreme end. At that point neurosis can become psychosis.

My objection is essentially that the nature of the nervous system is inherently self-correcting. The way it is working can be interrupted and altered by its own seat-the brain-which we have a conscious part under our charge. We feel that part of the brain is us.

So why commit to drugs as the answer when we have/are not exploring the means to use our minds to adjust our minds/brains/ nervous system function?

This is inevitable. You cannot evade it. If drugs work, they achieve the same end, stimulating/suppressing malfunction in that system. Indeed, many of these drugs are as much vehicles for invoking the so called placebo effect as they are effective in and of themselves. The placebo effect here especially, is just the assumption that this are making you better.

That is an example of your mind, interrupting your mind.

So we might as well bite that bullet with real vigour.

Instinctive objection to drugging the nervous system into submission is normal. Drug companies use of the notion of neurosis as your "illness" which you needed "medicine" for, was used to bypass that.

When really a lot of it is about convenience. So what? No one needs to hide from that. In societies where we expect machine-like infallibility from ourselves and each other, having to do anything to keep going can become part of that.

Accepting that you are weighing up that need in taking drugs helps you to keep an eye out for when that changes. When a bit of space opens up for you. A chance to try and deal with underlying issues. Or when you're tired of crude chemical manipulation.

Lifestyle, which is really a euphemism for your life, is even worse than a pill for every ill. Drugs are at least convenient and trigger your mind to help itself, lifestyle brings nothing, it only takes. It's all your effort framed as if it somehow isn't.

It cannot be classed as "treatment" it brings no active ingredient. No technique, no help, just exhortations. Like the preacher in the pulpit. There's barely any discernible placebo either most of the time. Tellingly, it also avoids adjusting your nervous system. Just like careless drugging, it doesn't bother to make use of your nervous system's ability to self correct and adjust.

Which is just as necessary and inevitable as adjusting it for your mental health.

Lifestyle has pretentions that it is a life built around healthy habits, when really it is groundhog day. Every day recreating a failing strategy. Ending up treating your life as an adjunct, a metabolic adjustment. What is designed to adapt is left to continue whilst your life is pressed to be a switch for it, day after day after day.

Your. Whole. Life.

'Obesity' Promotion Drunkards

If you've ever tried to talk to anyone that's absolutely hammered, you'll know the difficulties in attempting to communicate with them. I do not mean someone who's squiffy, I mean falling down drunk. You cannot guarantee that they'll understand even a simple sentence like: "The cat sat on the mat."

Not because they lose language facility, but due to you being unable to know which if any of those words will register in terms of comprehension. They may understand "cat" but not sat, on the or mat. Furthermore, if you said that three times, you could not predict that they'd mis/understand the same things one, two or even three out of three times.

That is the nature of the mind of someone who's throughly sozzled and, someone who's under the influence of the 'obesity' ideology. 'Obesity' malarkey intoxicates minds,

“Obesity is costing the NHS £16bn a year. We at Obesity Action Campaign are alarmed by this. Obesity causes cancer, diabetes, heart disease and liver cirrhosis. It is the HIV of our age. It is killing millions of our patients,” he said.

That's Dr. Jude Oben. I left the link to his website as in the video featured on it-a 2012 interview with Sky-he can barely keep a straight face. The man has laughing eyes and nearly corpses at the start and especially the end of the interview- whilst trying to convince that millions dying, millions dying. Never once telling the interviewer that he is one of the costly dying ones. Which is lucky because he appears in on the joke too.

Oben goes on to tell us that he is raising awareness *puke*.

No one bothers to tease him about why he has to raise awareness of millions dying. Of why we wouldn't have noticed "the HIV of our age." It's the usual 'obesity' spiel, with one of my faves, predicting that in so and so years, 'obese's will be 50% of the population.

In other words people like himself will be just as much or even more useless than they are now. That is their plan of course and pretty much has been for the last few decades.

How much longer will we allow them to get away with this do you think?

Saving Money

Alcoholism like many other dependencies/compulsions is susceptibility + exposure. Some have a heightened susceptibility;

They had a nip, and then another. “It tasted horrible,” Blaise recalls. “But something clicked. I suddenly felt relaxed and at peace.

Samuel Blaise on his first experience with alcohol whilst bunking off with a school friend aged 12.

Others have greater exposure before their system succumbs.

Given alcohol genuinely exacts a toll in terms of healthcare costs, human misery and other social costs, you'd think any prospect of effective treatment for alcoholism would be leapt at by those in healthcare. You'd not be correct in that perfectly reasonable assumption though. The authorities dragged their feet despite lobbying from organisations representing former alcoholics. Plus;

...the backlash from the detox industry was swift and ferocious. There was also pushback from some members of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), which he says promotes a culture of total abstinence.

That goes even deeper,

“They function like a church.......suddenly, scientists arrive with a medication and rationally explain that a biological issue can be fixed. Suddenly, you don’t need abstinence, you don’t need a higher being. The very basis of the church comes crashing with it.”

Yeah, suddenly science.

Blaise says that while he greatly respects members, he has heard a sentiment akin to “you don’t deserve to be cured” from the AA crowd. This makes sense, he says, because to be in a constant state of craving is unthinkably hard. “You need to be at war with yourself to remain sober, minute after minute, day after day. AA people spend years, or even decades before they finally reach a state of indifference towards booze, whereas those of us who take Baclofen have to fight a mere few weeks.”

And there we have it. When a pathology is or is perceived to be caused/triggered by consumption it often becomes a vehicle for morality, like sports or art is for others. The people who go in for this cannot accept their own irrationality, so they cloak their urges in rationale calling it "debate" using (pseudo)science terms. This infestation by moralitis shuts down science due to it nurturing the urge to hold the quarry's feet to the fire. That fire being a fight with the unbearable.

I underlined that part becuase people are still resisting the observation that the desire is not to cure, it is to force them to be subject to the distress and pain of battling with their own bodies. To be imprisoned in their own selves.

In this case - the craving is for alcohol. If the moralists are able to get a hold of things, they pretend nothing is everything and the cure. That nothing being abstinence, which is literally not-a-thing. It's, "Stop drinking", ignoring that the very inability to stop- defines alcoholism.

Nothing predictably fails to work, which has to be the target's fault. It's their addiction, illness etc., and the aforementioned battle becomes the person's permanent state. They are deemed a "recovering" alcoholic etc.,  When really, that -ing indicates continuation of the problem. The evidence of it is the very craving that torments. Those sodden with guilt are persuaded this is somehow their penance for ever having the nerve to be susceptible to alcoholism.

It is "self-inflicted"

"Recovery" of this sort is merely the establishment of incompetence as the standard-in place of actual treatment, remedy or cure. Thus the appearance of doing something, whilst doing nothing is maintained.

In essence alcoholism is the template for phony baloney 'obesity' pseudo-science. With the same pretence of declaring 'disease', it seeks to set fat people up with a fight with hunger. No matter the cost.

Baclofen the drug in question is not without its problems, to put it mildly, however, the pursuit of real remedy means perhaps other genuine remedies for the horror that alcoholism will be found. Undoubtedly better than the falsely moralized degeneracy we have now.

Where people are permitted to die slowly, with a weeping chorus of loved ones strewn around, because the compulsion to lock people into futile battles with internal biochemical imbalance is allowed its head.

Caring saves lives and ££££'s people.

Stop Pricing People

It's been noted that the most self consciously racist of all usually love the fat phobic cult. The other day I happened to catch one of them claiming to the effect of "54% of Black women are 'obese'." Accompanied by its source-the bureau of bullshit stats division that always accompanies 'obesity' promotions inc.

A "field" that purports to be science yet pursues damage, over physiology, degradation over increasing well-being, mutilation over conservation. One that has achieved nothing in 40 years. In little more than half that time, proper scientists almost slayed a virus without figuring out the puzzle of that fiendish strain.

This master racial unit then cried;"You are paying for this" or somesuch unconvincing pretence "you"=White people. Women not men, because of course AA men fail to fit into the 'obesity' construct lifestyle cause fiction, by failing to match women statisically.

It brought home again that Black women are being put in the position of being price tagged thanks to this wretched up to no account cult.  One plenty of Black people don't have any problems with. 

Real Medicine

My attention was drawn to the story of Abdul Jabbar Tunio. He is a Pakistani vegetable seller who's been felled by a haywire metabolism. This has produced aggressive weight gain over the last 20 or so years of his life. Matters have come to a head and he is currently in intensive care having reached 42 and a half stones /595lbs/270 kgs.

Due to the factors that have produced this gain, Tunio has gone from being immobile over the last few months to a state of semi-consciousness.

What's quietly compelling about his story is the entirely sane, honest and apt responses of everyone concerned. His family are genuinely grief-stricken and have searched vainly over the last few months for means to remedy his condition.

Jabbar’s brother, Abdul Haleem Tunio, and his nephew stare at his body, lying in a bed in the ICU, with heavy hearts. “Jabbar has been unable to drink, eat or talk since the day he arrived at the hospital on Tuesday,” Haleem told The Express Tribune with tearful eyes.

They did not see him as just a "shut-in" or someone getting what he deserves. A political representative got involved and acted in a perfectly straight-forward way;

The 39-year-old patient suffering from morbid obesity was brought from Larkana to the JPMC on Tuesday on the direction of Pakistan Peoples Party chairperson Bilawal Bhutto Zardari.

[My emphasis.]

The response of the medical professionals has been what you'd expect from people who've trained for years to heal the sick.Though unsure what do, they are "trying hard to stabilise him". Guided by basic medical protocol. The lead doctor- Javed Jamali described him as "suffering from a rare medical condition".

Even the health minister got involved;

[The] health minister Dr Sikandar Mandhro also visited the patient on Wednesday and directed the hospital administration to constitute a medical board for Jabbar’s treatment.

That medical board will consist of,

....a general physician, general surgeon, nephrologist and chest physician to investigate the cause of the weight gain.

Medics, not dieticians, nutritionists, psychologists, social workers, but specialist medical professionals.

They did not have the means to accommodate his body, so,

According to Dr Jamali, they have ordered a made-to-order bed and mattress for Jabbar.

No whining and whingeing about the awful inconvenience of a very sick man, being brought to a place to treat illness and injury.

Now, not being aware of any back story, I've no idea if there's more to this than meets the eye, but in a way, that's kind of irrelevant as what rings true is the attitude of all concerned. They are reacting to someone who's sick.

I could barely find one bum note in any of the responses reported. Even the journalists talk of his "bloated body" though unnecessary, in such a rational context, it doesn't attain any edge. Talk of 'obesity' only troubles in the sense that it may get in the way of the mission. The only time I briefly snorted was when at an earlier hospital, the family was told he could only be treated at a prestigious big city hospital or abroad.

It's comparatively easy to keep pointing out that the foul idiocy that passes for a response to weight in the West has been deliberately engineered by a crusade involving health bureaucrats, researchers and medical professionals. It is quite another to see it this clearly by getting a sense of how it would look in the absence of such. Imagine all that could have been achieved.

We're currently at the point where some are trying to deny medical treatment and others are busily trying to engage in mass stomach removal. We are at that point because we chose to be and want to be here. People want to go along with excluding others from medical treatment.

It's a regressive backlash, the indulgence feeling we are too spoilt and need to feel life red in tooth and claw. That somehow it is immoral to attempt to avoid meaningless suffering and abuse.

It's worth noting Pakistan is a Muslim country, purported by crackpots to be a medieval throwback in modern times. Ironically, a lot of those types love the 'obesity' crusade and howl when it is challenged even though that's mostly weak and on terms dictated by it.

Imprisoning millions in a pathological and incompetence outlook will generate little but cost. If answers are found for Mr Tunio that will serve and/or inform others. Bigotry costs. Quackery costs. Mutilation costs. Mal intent costs. Regression costs.

Real progress saves more than lives. But people want it to generate costs to fulfil the idea of pricing individuals like cattle.

I'm sure many can see this now, but its still worth having a clear idea in your mind of how things could have been and still could be if people committed unequivocally to ending any collusion with such. I hope Pakistan can keep this up, they might even stumble over some real answers.

'Obesity' crusade degeneracy is the real contagion I find. People who start off with something like this level of decency can with enough effort by the influential, be turned into the sour hate fuelled trolls, we know and are bored by. 

A small detail. Mr Tunio's metabolic problems started when he was 18 and broke his leg.

Breaking a bone is a big shock to your whole body. It's normal for you to receive strong messages from parts of your body that aren't anywhere close to the fracture.

This reminds me of the late rapper Biggie Smalls,

He'd always been a somewhat husky kid, but at age ten he fell off a city bus and broke his right leg in three places..... His leg was in a cast for six months. Laid up in the house with nothing better to do, he ate, putting on pounds that stuck around long after his leg healed.

Along with a small but consist number of examples of people's metabolic derangement either starting with or being taken to a new accelerated level of aggression after breaking legs-other bones too, but given they're our biggest limbs....

Trauma, disrupted signals flying about, inflammation, could well surge through the system, setting this kind of gain in motion. In the West attention is fixated on increased intake of food or alcohol, but it should be relatively obvious that is an increased demand for energy.

Perhaps the need for healing and to make new cells is amplified excessively and that is added to the abundance of signalling.

The aim should be to calm that response as much as possible. One thing to try would be to calm the (nervous) system down overall, leaving the signalling needed for rebuilding to go on with less background noise.

It might be worth investigating teaching people techniques that relax their minds with meditation and from head to toe with something like guided relaxation, whilst their limbs are repairing. It's sometimes called guided relaxation.

That would be good for everyone, to relieve stress and aid healing. Experiments shouldn't be too hard to set up in hospital and with follow through in outpatient clinics. Something like this might prevent those who have this effect from getting to this stage in the first place.

I wish Mr. Tunio a speedy recovery.

Toytown Emperors

Shaw Sommers, a bariatric surgeon *eyebrow raise* has taken an opportunity to drum up some coin for his organ removal business. The occasion is an announcement by an NHS overseeing body called a CCG-Clinical Commissioning Group, that they wish to delay elective surgeries for those with a body mass of 30 or above.

The Vale of York to be precise has decided to put fat/ter people on probation for a year or however long it takes them to starve off 10% of their body mass-whichever period comes around first. No reports on what will happen to their organ amputation provision.

The excuse for this obvious attempt to leverage pain to bully people into starvation induced weight loss is excused as the; "best way of achieving maximum value from the limited resources available”. Oh go on Vale of York, we so believe you!

Sommers is quoted as saying this is like discriminating on the basis of their colour or religious persuasion, as wait for it, "obesity is an illness". We all know that's false, the AMA openly they were saying that to get paid.

This is nothing like racism. The discrimination is that anybody no matter their weight has to lose it via a pathological and ineffective means the body is designed to reject. This isn't acknowledged. Worse still it disregards patient consent, which is fundamental to the practise of medicine. 

Even if you are one of those invested in delusion about the efficacy of calorie restriction induced weight loss-CRIWL, you've still got the fact that much injury and illness is just as much the "fault" of the individual as fat is supposed to be, especially if you apply the same standard of judgement as used for 'obesity'. 

Whether its people injuring themselves to people having accidents-one that springs to mind was a wheelchair user who injured several of her friends, doing lasting damage and ended in being a quadriplegic through their own careless driving.

Self inflicted is an irrelevant concept in medicine. Or it was until 'obesity' became a verbal tic.

The urge toward deserving and undeserving unwell is as bigger bunk as is possible to imagine. Things you wouldn't dream of require far less effort to manage or even resolve than fighting your body's endless defences against calorie restriction. It would, will be a surrprise to us as biology hacks get more sophisticated, just how much we can do for ourselves.

The estimate amount of pscycho somatic illness would shock people.

That's the real discrimination against fat people and in this case smokers two very easy targets. It just so happens that both have vociferous cults aimed at them. Weight is especially bad. I don't wish to throw smokers under the bus, but there is no comparison between not lighting up and inhaling tubers of tobacco and fighting your body's survival instincts. Though I daresay many of them wouldn't see it that way.

CCG's are;

Led by an elected Governing Body made up of GPs, other clinicians including a nurse and a secondary care consultant, and lay members;

Um hum.

In keeping with that Summers isn't even against this punishment fandango, oh heavens to Murgatroyd no;

Shaw Somers, a bariatric surgeon from Portsmouth, said the move was a logical step and could save money, but amounted to discrimination because obesity was an illness.

A "logical step" huh? So would using racial religious discrimination to ration medical treatment be "logical" then? That would make the medical principle of treatment according to need, "illogical." Yet, no other criterion would appear to make more sense.

Then comes the laughable shilling,

“Just saying you can’t have surgery and there is no access to alternative treatments really doesn’t help anyone.”

"Alternative treatments" is reference to his bowdlerising chop socky or some other ghastly item on the iatrogenic 'obesity' repertoire. Neither alternative nor treatment. The sympathy pose is big right now with the 'obesity' promoters.

Sadly for them, cutting out people's organs isn't remotely sympathetic at all.

There's no question something has gone badly awry with certain elements of the medical profession's psyche. A feeling has grown that any action they may disapprove of-real or imagined-undoes their hard work and those who do deserve to be left in agony or death - serve them right. 

They consider medical training to have given them the power of life or death over others.

I personally couldn't care less. I'd just wish to remind them their practise is a monopoly. That fact has served them very well. It is over the moment they consider themselves too grand to treat anyone on the basis of their irrelevant prejudice.

Update: Vale of York is backpeddling;

Major surgery poses much higher risks for severely overweight patients who smoke. So local GP-led clinical commissioning groups are entirely right to ensure these patients first get support to lose weight and try and stop smoking before their hip or knee operation.

"Severely overweight patients who smoke" Really V of Y? You said BMI 30 + and smokers, don't try and fib, its in writing.