Saturday, 27 February 2016

Dieting Bug

Confusion about calorie restriction dieting still reigns. Due to "obesity science" and medical professionals,  we're led to believe that there's such a thing as healthy weight loss dieting. Along with the slimming industry which has widely disseminated the falsehood that weight loss is weight loss dieting.

It is not. Dieting is the route by which weight loss is to be pursued, we are given no choice on this. Weight loss is a natural bodily process that's a side effect of the body's use and regulation of its energy.

Another point of confusion is the unthink that if something is "unhealthful" i.e. being fat, that this somehow automatically makes calorie restriction dieting healthy. This appears to parody the cost-benefit ratio. Where something that is unpleasant can become acceptable or even a good thing, due to a comparatively greater risk of what it seeks to alleviate or resolve.

Throwing water over your furniture is something you avoid, unless its on fire. Then, not doing something that would normally ruin it becomes a very good thing in the cause of stopping an inferno. 

Of course a cost-benefit equation does not remove consent, nor pretend that the most toxic and unpleasant route is a must if you can pretend that what it is attacking is the worst most deadly health threat ever i.e. 'obese.'

Dieting is inherently volatile and pathological because it attacks hunger which is there to maintain the body's energy supply. Including to that of your brain. Sufficient energy deficit there would not make for a happy ending.

Hunger is something diet and 'obesity' peddlers like to undermine the existence of, tellingly. That is why we eat, and not hedonism as the current wishful thinking goes.

If it cannot prevent you embarking on this course, it will try to stop any halt any assault you manage to inflict on it. If it cannot manage that, then it will wait until there's any lapse in stentorian resolve i.e. through life happening and shizz. And if you manage to get past that, it will keep trying to reverse your regime of restriction, any chance it gets.

Think of those inbuilt defences as being like the body's immune system (IS)function. Dieting is like an infectious pathogen you're told to infect yourself with to achieve the side effect of weight loss.  That's crazy, but it may not feel like it if those with scientific or medical authority tell you that's a perfectly rational aim.

Now in order to succeed, you need to keep exposing yourself to this pathogen and allow it to develop, your IS keeps fighting it off. In response to this, you are told you need to turn the attempt to infect yourself into a long term infection or "lifestyle"-dieting is a life sentence without any parole for good behaviour.

I'm sure you  realise this means your aim flies in the face of your body's in-built survival instinct. But 'science' and doctors insist-its that way and that way only. Of course it isn't, but they tell you it is.

Your failure to become or remain infected is really the success of your immune system function. Not to mention that this particular bug is unpleasant to be infected by, for a short time, let alone a lifetime. 

That, my friends is a way to grasp the nature of calorie restriction induced weight loss.

Surgery is more effective because it can overcome the body's self preservation instincts which tend to stop you being able to continue self harm if there's the slightest hint of a way out. Surgery cuts that out for you, by cutting out your stomach and rearranging what's left.

I suppose the equivalent to that would be immno-suppresant drugs, say after transplantation, to stop the body rejecting the new organ. In the case of weight loss surgery, it would be to stop your body rejecting the pathology being imposed on it.

Friday, 26 February 2016

Sweet Drinks Tax on Ice

Ooooh, seems multi-millionaire Jamie Oliver's first strike to starve the poor by taxing the food out of their mouths has hit the buffers. It could only be temporary, but I don't care. Dare to dream as they say!!!

Who'd have thought David Cameron would be so skittish about acceding to the demands of these pious wing-dings? I don't even care if its to do with his business cronies. The grip food paranoiacs have  on the national psyche makes this a hook or crook situation.

I repeat, government strategy should be a return to science. Drop "obesity" and its dizzy factotums; phoney research, pseudo-science, quackery and increasingly now, psychobabble. It's all in service to a literal dead end.

The issue is supposed to be weight reversal. That is what is being demanded of fat people, and that is what fat people almost to a person signed up for at one point or another.

See Oprah for evidence of this.

Anything else; the weight categorization, the food fixation, the ad hominem hatred, the endless death threats, the general empire of falsehood, wrapped up in a performance of science (and/or reason) is all irrelevant distraction.

Get past the fact that calories in/out is not the be all and end all of weight. What stops that working is not will, its the body's own design. Calorie restriction dieting is not a viable strategy, as is evidenced in the whining about how fat everyone is, in the midst of its tyranny.

Instead, start with the system that produces weight, the metabolic one. As well as mapping it more fully, find out other targets to alter its course. Ones that don't fight with it, but use its ability to alter itself.

The government should not be funding the research of anyone who cannot accept this, no matter how eminent the institution. No more hypothesis, anatomy instead. Diet fanaticism has done enough harm already.

Focus on people with conditions that produce aggressive weight gain and/or hyperphagia along with other outliers.They are the most important here. They are the reason answers must be found to how to stop and reverse weight gain. They're left to flounder due to this derailing of science, all anyone is interested in is what they eat. No attempt is even made to reduce hunger if that's an issue.

If they cannot acheive the demanded level and duration of starvation, they're told to "diet or DIE." It would be unbelievable if it wasn't actually happening.

No more should they be left in the shadows to be mocked ridiculed used cynically as cautionary tales then left to their fate due to the lack of interest the "obesity" field has in their suffering.

Whilst I'm at it, stop all of this costing the NHS agit-prop, this is a deliberate incitement of hatred and ill-feeling towards fat people, using the cover of "obesity" to pretend that's not ad hominem.

Fat people have never stopped science from coming up with ways to make us slim. We said for years that dieting isn't cutting it, we were doing it. We were told to shut it by both 'obesity' peddlers and the general chorus of vitriol.

We are not costing anything, this hatred is though. Anyone who doesn't want to pay that should stop blocking science.

Find out how to deal with excessive hunger, like you'd deal with excessive temperature. If society insists people weight less through eating less then it must learn to lower hunger further than par. If that feels unethical, that's kind of the point.

Anything can be demanded, when it comes to 'obesity' nothing has to be proved. 

No one's hunger should have to be lowered much below norm, like with stomach removal to induce starvation, bulimia and mal-absorption.

Find out how the body actually produces weight, through the metabolic system. Find out how and why many people's bodies store weight at a rate higher than the average slim person, its like they are physically hibernating, whilst eating perfectly reasonable amounts. Find out how to alter that.

Find out how to stabilise a person's weight. To stop it where it is, rather than allow it to continue up for want of any technique to manage it-beyond dieting. End this all or nothing culture of starvation induced weight loss or your body can go where it may.

This should also be applied to localized areas of adipose storage, like the breasts or chest for men. If science had gone down that route before, people wouldn't need these breast/chest reduction operations. All this feeds into metabolic function, which is reponsible for many aspects of our state of health. A lot of the things blamed on fatness are metabolic, so there's no need to slim people if there's focus on alleviatng those.

If Cameron merely re-establishes a scientific standard in the study of weight as part of metabolic function, he will set a standard others will follow as they will be forced to see the error of their course.

We have to get out of this stupour of misanthropy. The ball's in your court Dave.

Tuesday, 23 February 2016

Root Cause Fallacy

Before following the last post on slimming/'obesity' industries conceptual flaws, I'd like to mention another cognitive flub. This is Jacquie Lavin again on weight loss surgery,
The message we are giving to young that they don’t really need to do anything, so long as they get to a certain weight, because it will be solved for them. 
That's exactly what it's like to be slim!

The whole reason cutting a person's stomach out is a more effective means of enforcing starvation is precisely that it is a step closer in impersonating a body maintaining its own weight. Though choosing to damage bodies rather than alter function.

Dieting is wholly artificial, another one of its multi-layered dysfunctions. That's not how the overwhelming number of slim people are slim. If this offends as a slur against the shift slim people put in to retain their figures. It may make you feel better to know that fat people put just as much if not way more effort whilst remaining and re-gaining fatness.

No? Doesn't cheer you up at all? Tough crowd.

Slim people responding with aversion and disgust at any mention of dieting, along with audible groans shows our shared antipathy toward dieting. When fat people show this, 'tis another "that's why you're fat" trope.

If slim people already lived on a diet, their aversion to any aspect of calorie restriction would not have aided a society determined to fill itself with exactly the kind of things that counter the calorie restriction contrivance. 

A central fallacy of the current 'obese' crusade is that fat people are slim people plus a carelessly acquired excess. In truth, fatness is to fat people, what slimness is to slim people.

The(ir) norm.

To make a fat person slim via this abnormal and pathological means requires the disruption of normal with the abnormal not the removal of pathology as is presented. That applies more or less the same whether a person is sick or well.

If you want to make a fat person slim, you need to recruit the body's metabolism instead of launching an assault on it.

So, about this fallacious notion of "a root cause of obesity"
Nor does it address why you’re overeating* in the first place.”
"It" refers to surgery.

Williams too backs this fanciful idea of root cause,
Surgery, of course, doesn’t get to the root cause of why so many young Britons get fat in the first place: the proliferation of fast food outlets in deprived areas, sugary drinks and high-fat, high-sugar foods, poverty, fall-off in physical education in schools, the rise of a sedentary lifestyle and the allure of computer games and laptops.
Most of this is systemic or part of a societal drift. None of it offers the individual power to affect the functioning of their own body. This is integral to the calorie restriction/'obesity' politic.

I'd describe the root cause fallacy here as the assumption that something has a direct provable cause and that any purported reversal or treating of this root cause will undo said thing. In this case weight.

The variables involved edge it out of the realms of scientific legitimacy, whether its the cause, the treatment of it-let alone whether that can be said to work in any objective or measurable way. Proposers of this could make a case if they tested it on people. Identify this so called root cause in them, treat it according to what is supposed to treat that,  then record weight as it goes into reverse, as a result. Without the imposition of calorie restriction.

The real motive for this is to excuse away the failure of calorie restriction. You're struggling with dieting because you want to be fat in order to avoid rape/because you're afraid to be slim/because you eat your feelings etc.,

In case this is overlooked, the idea of insisting people can only change their bodies as a side effect of societal change is wholly objectionable.

This idea of cause comes from fatness as a construct not as a reality. There's no singular isolatable "root cause" of being fat. It is not a fat suit on a slim body. Weight is the outcome of mechanics.

The usual story; precursor to fat =cause. i.e. "Circumstantial change meant less activity, and I gained weight" is typical. Yet, if the same happens and you stay the same weight. You don't feel, "I've maintained my physique due to becoming less active."

When builders are fat, they don't say, "My active job has put on weight"

Any precursor that doesn't go; did less and/or ate more and put on weight, is nowhere. Despite the opposite often being a precursor to gain. How do you prove this apart from after the fact fitting into the 'obesity' narrative as usual?

And the reverse to loss. i.e. You stopped working so hard, doing so much, caring so much and weight reversal followed.

Imagine being told you have to get over some adverse experience in order to be allowed any medical procedure? No doctor would dare demand such, few would want to.
.....the search for a root cause is usually a witch-hunt in disguise, trying to find someone or something to blame. If you think there is really a single cause, you eventually must identify a single person. If you stop short of that, everyone knows the process was a farce. But blaming a person is also a farce. Everyone knows that someone’s being thrown under the bus and that wasn’t the real problem.
Ain't that the truth! 

Check out the solution,
There are several solutions to this dilemma. One is to stop looking for a single root cause, and instead identify the system of conditions or dysfunctions that jointly caused the observed problem.
Systemic, understand the way the system supporting the thing observed creates it. Funny how that's almost never an "obesity research" goal. Always the bad sociology.
This allows something constructive to come out of the postmortem, instead of inexorably bringing pressure to bear on a well-meaning person who will then be sacrificed to appease the false gods of reductionist blame-gaming.
 Tell us about it. 

* ["Overeating" has no meaning beyond whatever any fat person eats whether that's famine or feast.]

Monday, 22 February 2016

Continous Penitence

Last year, Sally Williams wrote an article about young people undergoing weight loss gastrectomy, called: 30stone at 13. It was worth reading, though not necessarily for the obvious assumptions and conclusions.  Her article's premise was to ask why so many youth, some still teenagers, were having gastrectomies to lose weight.

The quick answer is the trap set for fat people in general. That runs on a pseudo-scientific pretence around an obsolete construct that aims to force fat people to starve themselves, by whatever means.

To this end, weight gain is not only defended by the promotion of the punitively ineffective, it is again actively promoted, via things such the insistence on nothing but disordered eating and activity. Then deliberately leaving the course set as uninterrupted by any competent intervention.

Before responding to the meatier aspects of the article, I felt a keen sense of the need to alight on couple of things as they keep coming up. I'll start with this,
Young people should be given the chance to control their own weight, argues Dr Jacquie Lavin, head of nutrition and research at weight-loss company Slimming World.
This sort of flip mode comes up a lot in 'obesity' cult unthink. Where a fundamental truth about its own dysfunction is projected outward to appear as if its coming from somewhere or someone else. Usually its chosen target. I actually agree with the statement prima facie.

 All people should be given the ability to regulate as many of their own bodily functions as are reasonably and feasibly possible. Weight could be included in that, as an aspect of metabolic function. 

Jacquie Lavin then goes on,
 “Surgery takes it out of your hands. 
Nah haaaah! What takes balance and the prospect of control out of your hands is everything she represents.  The whole calories in/out hypothesis, which still totally dominates our grasp on hunger/eating and weight.

She like a lot of die hard fat phobes works on the assumption that surgery to induce a state of starvation is somehow completely different to "willpower" to induce a state of starvation.

As the aim is exactly the same, why would the means create such a cleave? This is another mental filip present in the 'obesity' cult psyche. We hear of "different types of [weight loss] diet" and how "lifestyle change" is totes different from weight loss dieting. And how, diets don't work, you have to permanently diet to lose weight.

To go back to that first question, this distinction between starvation induced by repeated acts of will-i.e. practising anorexia and just being cut into anorexia, so you are forced to act it out, displays something fundamental about the whole 'obesity' crusade mindset. Which truly isn't motivated by an urge to make fat people slim. It just uses that premise to hide behind.  It's effective distraction though isn't it? [You believe it don't you?]

Insisting starvation must be through repeated conscious acts is difficult for me to grasp, I don't get it. It seems to come from the construction of fatness as the outcome of a continued pattern of sinful/quasi-criminal acts.

Like with sin, amends must be made, [the idea of] continuous acts of penitence must take place. Until the "debt" is paid off, i.e. one is slim.

Though an operation achieves starvation in a far more efficient though destructive manner-we know this was never about improving health- it is unacceptable to many fat phobes due to the feeling that being held into starvation cheats an act of penitence for an act of sin. Though you can suffer greatly, indeed die from this wretched (mis)use of surgery, that doesn't satisfy the urge.

This persnicketiness is a signal of people who've not had to temper their indulgence one iota

Then there's "Root Cause Fallacy".

Wednesday, 17 February 2016

Do Meditate

I see from Ragen that Deepak Chopra is recommending meditation in support of starving yourself. Calorie restrictionists cannot accept directly that their 'weight loss' is through starvation. They do when people complain about the 'obesity' cult potentially encouraging anorexia-"We have an obesity crisis!!!" is the oft said comeback.

They admit it when they tell you the liberation of Auschwitz revealed a picture of successful dieting, or something to that effect. Dieting is not "based on physics" it's based on starvation inducing weight loss.

'Obesity' wallahs induce you to starve by constant negative and abusive pressure, both internal and external. However, this lowers resistance to any adverse experience, like self inflicted starvation, even further.

They could get away with this nasty game before because fat people accepted this. Experience schooled us in the flaws of this deranged contradictory approach, so diet/'obesity' wallahs feel forced to admit that their lifestyle anorexia prescription requires as much self esteem and healthy robust mental health as possible, to cushion you from the physiological and psychological distress of denying your body the energy it needs to function. 

The even deeper conundrum is of course, robust mental health and self esteem mitigates against abusing yourself in the first place. Given this is suicidal.

You could call that the weight-loss diet paradox.

So I say please do take up meditation if you can. It doesn't suit everyone. You can meditate in a lying or sitting position-the latter is better so you don't drift off. If you wish to do the former, try keeping your legs bent at the knee with your feet flat-on whatever you're laying on, to stop yourself drifting off.

You can do a walking/ in motion meditation, where you say, maintain constant focus on one aspect of your walking action i.e. concentrate on your foot striking the ground. Or you can scan your body for tension and focus on adjusting your body until it is relieved, over time this practise can improve your gait and movement.

You can also learn to focus on moving with maximum ease or flow.

I've told already how meditation inadvertently resolved my hyperphagia/hyperhunger, which had been been made intractable by 2 decades of trying to restrict calories. It did this because after a time, the release of nervous tension that it induces became systemic. It was wholly unexpected.

That is, meditation first releases the tension in your muscles and nervous system, which then starts to reassert itself after a session, as you go about your business [due to that requiring use of the nervous system]. It's a lot like when someone corrects your posture as you stand still, as soon as move, your posture goes back to your normal bad posture/mis-use reasserts itself.

Only with regular patient practise does correction become your (body's) default.

I don't even care if people try it to sustain dieting. It's the right way around to deal with any issues, soften them, reduce their power or remove them, rather than keep them in play and then force pathologies on yourself as "treatment".

That 'obesity' wallahs are now bringing out more and more palliatives reveals just how far they set fat people up for failure and how careless and reckless they were with our health and well being. It's also quite amusing that virtually no "alternative" practitioners have manage to get beyond weight loss dieting.

Proving they are not really the alternative to more conventional medicine. The body's capacity for self healing, repair and restoration is. The body can right its impulses and urges better than pharmaceuticals, if given the chance and the right ways and means.

The use of our conscious focus to alter our body's function is a true alternative. What one brilliant humane doctor referred to as the "doctor within".  He also pointed out that was the one the medical hierarchy wants to stop. I've had little doubt that this is some element of why medics don't really want to "solve obesity" as they pretend and are desperate to drag us all down "lifestyle" alley.

The more you meditate, the more your consciousness is released from other people's impositions of [self ] loathing, the less likely you are to wish to starve or otherwise abuse yourself. The pressure on you and the tension in you affects your taste buds, appetite and hunger. You may well find what you eat changes, that you wish to eat less without any conscious effort. Which is why you shouldn't really meditate to support starvation.

Don't put any expectations or demands on it. Just go on an adventure with it.

Use meditation to unlearn being on trial by fat phobia every moment of your existence. Use meditation to unravel your practise of fat hatred and recover your subjectivity, your mind even. Use meditation to get over the idea that being slim is an achievement. Use meditation to experience your body, without the baggage of fat hate. Which of course not only enables you to appreciate what a wonderful eco-system it is.

It also enables you to experience your existence without a fat phobic tape loop playing constantly. To experience this frequently, is to realise that you only want to get out of "this body" because of that fat phobic tape loop.

Which is the whole purpose of the 'obesity' construct and fat hatred.

Thursday, 11 February 2016

Rape Prevention

Before I forget, if you saw the last post, you may have clicked this link [before I edited it substantially, lols]; "the NHS helped me lose 24 stone and get my life back", that's 336 lbs/152 kg. If so, you'll already know that it deserves mention. If your mind was a horse, it might well have refused this fence,
Chisholm ate and ate to make herself unattractive to men.
Sounds like the beginings of a self-writing joke. The subject of this piece, Caroline Chisholm, by this account a hardworking tenacious woman with real gumption, "ate and ate to make herself unattractive to men" because she'd been sexually abused for some months by her landlord, an awful experience. One she escaped through her own actions.

She continued her weight-gain diet though, in order to ward off men/rapists. We all know sexual assault happens when people are so overwhelmed by the attractiveness of a person that in their enthusiasm, they neglect to gain consent.....
She knew it had gone too far when she had to resort to ordering her clothes from the US. It was costing her a fortune.
So, she ate and ate despite becoming a "virtual recluse", despite being unable to take her daughter to school, despite her swollen legs and other pains, despite being unable to get clothes in the UK. She was haunted by the fear of sexual assault you see....

Until she got the clothes bill. Then she said, "I'm haunted by the fear of sexual assault, but at these prices? I'll take my chances!"

Now, I know what you might be thinking, I've gone too far, but this really isn't about me. It's about the mindset of middle/upper class feminist literate women who are so keen on directing fat people into calorie restriciton and to keeping hold of their dominance of fatness, that they'll use anything in service of it.
Matilda Moffett, the psychologist at the bariatric unit in Monkseaton medical centre belonging to Northumbria Healthcare trust, helped her talk about the abuse by her former landlord. “I thought the only way to deal with that was to get so big and disgusting that he wouldn’t come near me,” says Chisholm.
Oh I'll bet she "helped".
Chisholm struggled, though, until she saw Matilda. “I was scared to lose weight in case it [abuse] happened again,” she says. “I had to deal with that. She listened and asked questions which helped me understand it. I realised it was not my fault and it was nothing to do with the way I looked.”
Experiencing any kind of assault can lead us to experience feelings of culpability. Those feelings come from the injury not only to ourselves, but our sense of autonomy. Questioning of ourselves tends to centre on examining our actions, attitudes and reactions. People do not usually seek to damage themselves, they tend to resolve to change some aspect of their behaviour. Even anorexics might say, "I wanted to disappear." I'm not saying I believe that is the right or wrong interpretation, I'm talking about what people themselves say.

When we hear a report of Roxane Gay talking of the aftermath of the horrific rape she endured,
She began to put on weight quickly, gaining 40lb, and her parents sent her to fat camp, where she lost the weight, and then regained it. Putting on weight was "an intense form of control", Gay says. The boys in the woods had taken her body, "and they broke it. I will never get that body back, and I hate that, because it was a good body. But they took it; they ruined it. And so, when I ate, I got to make my body into what I wanted it to be, which is a fortress."
No matter what you think of the tenor of this piece, Gay said, a fortress.

When people speak of wanting to do something to protect themselves from sexual assault, they tend to speak of empowerment of some sort. Of making themselves look or seem bigger and/or more threatening. Being fat doesn't make you rape-proof, though it may well make you less likely to be raped than others of a slighter stature.

Though its hard to say this, many rapists and sexual abusers are cowardly. They feel encouraged only by what they perceive as weakness. Like any criminals, they have a process of selecting their targets. A small/slim person can be lifted off their feet. Fatness may well present a greater challenge on the face of it than slimness enough to put off someone looking to assert themselves at the expense of someone else. 

As for the perception of choosing weight, you can consider what that means for those who are raped and do not gain weight. Are we really expected to believe they're not as keen on avoiding futher assault? It seems to establish a hierarchy of reluctance to be raped. That's not only unsavoury, it doesn't ring true.

So where does the idea that sexual assault is a complement to your looks come from? Rapists and child sex abusers, another vehicle for this line. Always looking to minimize or excuse their actions, if only to themsleves, often by invoking some idea of collusion from their victims. They've been known to say that if the person or child wasn't so attractive, they'd have left them alone, to their victims, whilst assaulting them.

There's a steady stream of people getting involved in fat acceptance who insist, fat people keep slimmer people away by not being sufficiently willing to take on board the criticisms of others, thereby alienating them. Well, here's agreement between sex abusers and feminists.

What a kumbaya moment. If only we could all just get along indeed!
Chisholm is one of the vast majority of morbidly obese patients who have psychological issues that urgently need to be addressed.
Everyone has "psychological issues" of one kind or another, and virtually everyone's health would be improved by dealing with them effectively. It's tendentious to cite this as the 'cause' of "obesity/morbid obesity". And no, that's not a facile, "everyone's bisexual" kind of point. We all have to knock something out of ourselves to fit into whatever society is ours. That's the nature of existence.

Now bariatric surgery has entered this Maoist re-education phase, who's sanity do you feel is most in question here?

Another fundamental problem is the continued refusal to diagnose according to the symptoms of the actual problem, rather than imposing desired thinking. Inaccurate diagnosis stifles self perception. There's something cruel about blocking a person's ability to understand themselves properly, for the sake of your own gratification. Instead inserting what you want them to believe into their heads.

Chisholm is called a "binge eater", propagandising for the idea that people "use" food like a drug, eating when they're not hungry in order to eat/deal with their fee fees and boo boos. From reading her story I'd say CC probably had hyperphagia nervosa. That's when excessive or hyperhunger is present, with no known physiological injury and is instead partly or wholly caused by imbalance in (the functioning of) the nervous system. For example too much strain, pressure, stress reverberates through the system, triggering, heightening, sensitizing excess functioning in many areas, hunger inclusive.

In the case of hyperphagia, I feel it's like certain forms of chronic pain syndrome-where pain is caused by the body's (lowered) levels of pleasure chemicals. The pain of our bodies functioning, normally masked by the right chemical mix, starts to come through. Like when a person isn't given enough anesthetic for an operation. Hunger seems to function in a similar way (this may or may not affect levels of spontaneous thermogenesis). Hence why it feels like eating before this acute stage is eating in the absence of hunger.

CC would seem to be case of this supposed eating without hunger;
Breakfast was toast and cereal. She would get through 10 packets of crisps at work and order a jacket potato for lunch which would be delivered if the order was over £10, so she would add a sandwich as an afternoon snack. On the way home she bought a large Big Mac meal with chips and a drink, a large McChicken sandwich meal, a double Cheeseburger and a wrap. She began eating them in the taxi and finished them at home. Around 8pm she would have two 12in pizzas delivered – buy one, get one free – and eat both. “I did that every single day,” she says.
I'd be surprised if you got much change from 10,000 calories, if its not more. Post gastric sleeve,
She physically cannot eat more than a few mouthfuls at a time. Some foods, such as bread and chewy meats, are hard to get down. She feels full very fast and cannot eat within half an hour of drinking anything.
Doesn't that sound the picture of health? More like someone who's dying. Anyhow the message is, lack of hunger is why she lost over 300lbs and more than 150kgs. LACK OF HUNGER. Because she had HYPERPHAGIA, which is an EXCESS OF HUNGER.

Assertions of eating without hunger are purely for the convienience of support the notion of eating as simply a conscious decision based on habit or faddiction, rather than a response to an innate life sustaining urge.

That so many fat people are convinced of this too, "Overweight people don’t eat because we’re hungry" suggests fat people's eating and hunger function is mainly pretty average. The difference between a fat person and a slim one is the latter can have an eating/hunger disorder and not know it, whereas fat people tend to assume they have a eating/hunger disorder until they happen to find out they don't.

You can tell there is zero critical assessment going on-when these people effortlessly nuke their own wishful thinking and don't even realise it. They all think exactly the same way, including this journalist. The downside of pursuing the falsification of biology, is you don't always know what you've got. Seems you need knowledge of the truth, to hide it properly. 

And yes, this is obviously the easier way to diet. That's not judgement of the person, it just tells you what dieting is. So untenable that it requires you to be cut into it, to have any real chance-temporarily. For this is only an aid to get you started. They make it clear that the amount you lose or re-gain is solely down to your own efforts. The latter especially is the same old nasty line.
The first 2-4 weeks following surgery can be challenging. It may be uncomfortable or painful to eat, but this is a normal part of the healing process.....
That's from a support site for people undergoing full gastrectomy-stomach removal-not "a stomach-reducing operation".  Note what's presented as "weight-loss surgery" for fat people is presented as what it is- the body's healing process after a major insult......
The goal after surgery is to work toward settling into a “new normal”, allowing the body to heal and adjust to the loss of the stomach over time. At the same time it is important to try to consume as many calories as possible to minimize rapid weight loss in the first few months following surgery, and to take in nutrients that the body needs to aid in the healing process. Starting to eat and drink again can be difficult, requiring a determined effort. It’s a lot of work, and sometimes feels as though life suddenly revolves around eating and drinking – what, when, where and how much. Familiar sensations of hunger may be lost, replaced by feelings of weakness and emptiness. In the beginning eating and drinking is out of necessity, soon to become habit, and eventually the desire to eat and enjoyment of food returns.
My emphasis.

It also says, "It may a year or two, but eventually the body seems to adjust quite well to the absence of the stomach." That's the so called life saving weight loss surgery, but worse. The aim for fat people is to behave as if they haven't healed.

Despite having weighed, 40stones/560lbs/254kgs, Chisholm's metabolic function was amenable to alteration. The establishment refuses to support and push for the correct and therefore humane way/s to bring this about. Insisting on sticking everyone in the prison of calorie restriction at all and any cost.

All she needed was means to restore the balance of her body and/or simply to dial down her hunger. If they'd just been able to bring that down, the situation would have been arrested at an early stage. Instead she was 'advised' to lose weight. By being told to "lose weight". As she didn't "lose weight" by magic, this counted as "ignored advice to lose weight."

What that 24 stones/336lbs/152kgs represents is how the 'obesity' cult deliberately holds you ransom to your bodies ability to gain weight, using susceptibility and personal misfortune as allies. Then has the nerve to claim treating you like a ventriloquist's dummy before butchering your organs is "life saving".

Again I ask, does this feel like the influence of sanity to you? The very thing that is provoking anxiety, lack of means of controlling weight, is being maintained by the very people with the greatest urge to act out this anxiety, on other people's lives and bodies.

Here are people who have done something we've all done/will do and that is to kid ourselves that something we either know or suspect doesn't work, will work if we just force it hard enough. There's no one to tell these people NO, STOP or simply, GET A HOLD OF YOURSELVES. They're all on the same page so they just keep on trucking.

I think you'll find all this more than meets their definition of "behavioural addiction", except with fat bodies and minds as the vehicle for their compulsions, rather than their own.

Friday, 5 February 2016

Got Fat

The Guardian started a series of reports on the National Health Service (the NHS). Last Thursday attention turned to 'obesity'. You can imagine how well that turned out.

The headline [article] goes "How Britain got Fat" no question mark. In short, lots of calorie dense food, represented by the proliferation of fried chicken shops. A pre-clusion undermined by its own subtitle.
With cheap and fattening food everywhere, there has been a shape shift that means people do not recognise obesity when they see it in the mirror
Shapes shifted before Britain went clucky. Depending on your historical perspective, societies fattening started; after WWII, from 1960/ the mid-1970’s or 1979/80. Hilde Bruch started her studies on US children in 1937.
As Bruch later told it, her inspiration was simple: she arrived in New York in 1934 and was “startled” by the number of fat kids she saw—“really fat ones, not only in clinics, but on the streets and subways, and in schools.”
This was during the Great Depression, this extended to the UK, Orwell wrote the diet of working class people at the time.

The "does not recognize you are fat is why you are fat" theme typically reveals the only model for reversing weight is drawn from [ideas about] anorexia.

See you are fat ="feel fat".

Feel fat =starve self.

Not starving oneself whilst fat = thinks [one is] thin.

If you felt fat you'd automatically starve yourself-and presumably, wouldn't be fat anyway. This kind of nonsense is replete in 'obesity' cultism.

The short answer to the headline statement is: Deliberate stimying and derailing of proper investigation into useful means to reverse weight. Not as snappy as-too much fried food.

The whole focus on the person-ad hominem -and food/eating is wholly unnecessary, an irrelevant distraction from the objective pursuit of knowledge. The issue is, you want people alter their weight. That is where the focus should be. When trained scientists have found an effective efficent means, they can after testing, present it to the public.

There is nothing mysterious or frightening. It's not like quantum physics, the body already knows how to vary its weight and does so on an every day basis. Finding out how it does this will be a useful course, one calorie restriction and character assassination can never match.

In spite of an unswerving devotion to making a show of a solution to an "obesity crisis” mention of metabolic function is absent, though an immediate central theme in rare mention of the mechanics of another metabolic outcome-height.

No one is or has ever been stopping the white coat science and health establishment from genuine pursuit of means to reverse weight effectively and effciently, but they. The way is open for the resumption of objective inquiry any time they feel like.

Which doesn't appear to be quite yet. 

The only people truly and honestly devoted to making fat people slim have been fat people.

see Oprah as the patron saint of this yearning...

None too ironically the ones most accused of the disengenousness of their tormentors.

The phony dog and pony of eat less, do more, ELDM-which manages to be both outstandingly toxic and useless, makes intrinsic demands number one being the prioritization of those who are more prone to gain, at the expense of those less able to.

Socially, the power has been with the latter. Inevitably, they just continue behaving normally, which means celebrating the food most useful to human kind -calorie dense food. Their joyful active pursuit of an environment filled with such food remains intact. They saw nothing wrong in with that-because there isn't.

Hence hospitals welcoming in fast food giants on long favourable contracts, decades after their own aggressive promotion of weight as a CRISIS. Calorie restriction makes food wrong [or right]. It makes human nature wrong. It makes the will to live, wrong, lack of desire to self harm wrong, because it sets itself against all these.

All this is easy to overlook, if no one’s demanding that you diet.

Such an against human nature route needs the dictatorship of minimizing energy to be organizing principle of society. To have a hope of implimentation.

In democratic societies that flow along the lines of consumer choice and freedom. Plus increasing accessibility for individuals i.e. removing heavy doors in favour of automatic ones, lifts for stairs and such-this reduces energy wasting.

And people making conscious choices toward less activity, i.e. favouring cars and other motorized transport and so on.

Science as the only route to pursue was set not only by the suffering of fat outliers, who have various conditions that scramble their metabolic function. But by historical precident and these societies socio-economic course.

The only type of society that could have a chance at implimenting ELDM would be the kind of dictatorships that make a show of huge open air displays of physical exercises and can control food production.

An extraordinary hegemony invested in this delusion means consequences can be dodged, in favour of incantation of fantasy.  The fundamentally hostile, stigmatizing and abusive framing of 'obesity' helps maintain this canard.

'Obesity wallahs and health profession got around humans innate resistance to starvation by presenting weight loss dieting as a solitary, wholly individual pursuit. Implying slim people could continue mainly unbothered by their invasive dictates.

The lie of slim people’s possibility of exemption from the rule of calorie restriction is increasingly breaking down. More and more restrictions, penalties and harrassments are proposed, in addition to food scares, guilt and taxes. As numerous slim people cry: "Why should I be penalized for those who cannot control themselves?"

Leaving aside the thinking behind this kind of judgement, such mission creep was inevitable given the staunch refusal to accept the failure of calroie restriction dieting as a failure of it, not the person.

Even if dieting was remotely viable, millions of permanent dieters would have acted as cultural enforcers of that principle. Hungry desperate dieters, versus those who wish to be surrounded by calorie dense food, who do you think would end up dominating?

The game is in there. On some level, there’s understanding that fat people have probably been set up for failure. At the same time, there’s been hope that millions of reduced fat people will do the work of reversing the tide of normal eating for them.

What’s expected from fat people is rarely spelled out explicitly. It’s obvious that what is required of them isn’t how slim people behave or they’d have nothing to fear-it would only be duplicating their own lives after all.

That is how Britain or anywhere else, "got fat."

Wednesday, 3 February 2016

Slim Women Diet.....

Now here's a story-which happens to relate to the last post.

To recap for your reading pleasure.

It has been engineered from on high- that the only possible means of lowering weight must be through restriction of calorie intake. It should therefore be evident that if you have any active desire to lower your weight-whether you weigh 100lbs or 1000lbs-you will have to do it by restricting your calorie intake.

If you want to know why, ask the producers of knowledge-and the dispensers of medicine. Good luck in getting anything remotely resembling truth. If that felt comfortable, it would be out in the open and there wouldn’t be this kind of storm-in-a-pissbowl.

The product at the heart of this claims to be a "fat binder". This is supposed to bind with fat in your diet, causing more of it to be excreted without being digested. This is supposed to increase the extent of weight loss during a regime of calorie restriction. Repeat, the only way to lose weight on offer for everybody.

The advert featuring this fat outcha whazoozy aid has been banned after numerous complaints, including from British Naturism- [I know, who knew?!] The ad had the barefaced cheek [yes, now I see the pun....] to feature two slim women.

Apparently, everyone’s supposed to pretend slim women don’t diet, even though the media is constantly filled with seasonal weight loss regimes and ideas to get you into your bikini. You’re supposed to fit your clothes, rather than they fit you.

I happened to catch the ad in real time. I was surprised to see it, not due to the nature of its content but the honesty at the heart of it. Two slim women talking about how they want to lose weight to "look good". That's not only what people say, the 'obese' generating establishment says the same thing.

Most slim women, girls, I’ve ever met have been concerned with their weight, dieting and remaining slim-using various means of dietary restriction/exercising.

The obvious key to all this is everyone’s desire to collude in the imposition of starvation on all fat people.


Whatever you weigh.

The company in defence of itself, included a hilarious reference this company made-in its defence to the current "obesity-related" meme of “prevent obesity only.” What is a “prevented obese person”?

Correct: A slim person.

“Obesity prevention” = slim people impersonating anorexia, in order to avoid the 'threat' of 'obese'. Something they've done as long as I've been alive anyway.

Obese prevention=calorie restriction/lifestyle change.

Child obese prevention=calorie restriction/lifestyle change.

Obese prescription =calorie restriction/lifestyle change.

Any alteration of get the picture.

I have never felt any different on this issue. Slim people, women especially wish to be slimmer, for their own reasons. Basic bodily autonomy of being able to change your own body/appearance. Fashion, because amongst women, being slim/mer carries greater kudos, etc.,

This is taken advantage of-but is not created by various agencies, profit-making or otherwise. Let slim women own their own desires.

Physical inadequacy/body image issues comes from the idea of perfecting your body and means on offer-weight loss dieting. It does not come from adverts, they trade on the decisions made by individuals. 

The problem as I see it is not the urge of anyone to “lose weight.” It is the method insisted upon that is creating ALL THE PROBLEMS. There is not one problem I can see as being caused solely by the desire to lose weight-if you lose calorie restriction as the means and find other ones that are natural, non invasive and physiologically astute as well as truly effective. Which dieting isn't, never has been, never will be.

None of the guff spouted about poor old slimz, makes any damn sense. And yeah its profoundly patronising to claim slimz are docilely lead to starve and hate their bodies by slimming companies.

If you wish to reduce anorexia-amongst slim people-you’ll have to give up the psychological dependence on starving fat people. As long as you wish to hurt fat people, you have to sacrifice some slimz. At the very least, stop pretending the best trigger of anorexia isn’t calorie restriction.

No fat hater can be taken seriously as a pitier of thin anorexics or slim women’s so called body image problems.

Monday, 1 February 2016

They've got the Fear

Concerning Rachel Wiley's poem "For Fat Girls Who Considered Starvation When Bulimia Wasn’t Enough"

The title at least, was inspired by Ntozake Shange's famous 1975 "choreopoem", 'For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide/When the Rainbow Is Enuf'

Poetry and myself have never been more than occasional acquaintances, so I cannot speak to artistic merit. But the thing that's caused a bit of a kerfuffle is abandoning the absurdist pretence that "weight loss" insisted upon in the west isn't inherently eating disordered.

That calorie restriction induced weight loss-CRIWL isn't effectively weight loss through starvation. That the 'obesity' cult and anyone swallowing weight=calories in - activity expenditure, isn't recommending the impersonation of anorexia. 

That people stick their fingers down their throat and vomit up the contents of their stomach, primarily to manage their weight, ditto abuse laxatives, engage in exercise bulimia, starve, fast and do all sorts of other things to "lose weight." 

Part of this maybe the term "starvation". It's both the act and end point. In other words, if you starve yourself, it doesn't mean you are skeletal or emaciated and dying...yet. It means you are from wherever you are, eating little enough for your body to use up part of itself to tick over.

This is about minus calories as the only route made available to reverse weight. It's not simply inevitable, that is weight loss-the end. The difference between someone trying bulimia, anorexia etc, as a "lifestyle" aspiration and someone who becomes a fully blown bulimic/anorexic is susceptibility. A minority of people have systems that seem to submit to starvation, rather than keep countering it.

For a couple of decades, the rigid lie has been enforced, anorexia has nothing to do with slimming/dieting/weight loss. It does-it has everything to do with it. 

A bit like the difference between someone who's out of breath from exertion, to someone having an asthma attack. You can tell people are fronting because though it might be easy for someone in the know to immediately tell the difference, no-one would deny surface similarity.

Starvation denialists (lols) just outright deny any similarity between; Dieting to lose weight-cut calories until your body uses its own stores and you lose weight. They do this because they are that afraid of being linked with 'obesity'.

But are too embarrassed to say this.

Anyone who's encountered raving anorexics and their coterie may doubt this. But all slimz are terrified of any connection with 'obese'.

Perhaps due to it being the only category of anything remotely connected to health where the people working in the 'field' are hellbent on the misuse of what's nominally their concern. Their default is to erase the subjectivity of what's supposed to be their vehicle of study.

Even those who work with murderers and paedophiles do not behave in this way.

The insatiability of their urge to mess fat people up, with the power they have to do it is terrifying.  No one wants any of that.

Instead of saying this out loud, they pretend anyone failing this pretence is trivialising anorexia in some way. It's more the other way around. Anorexia is not trivialised at all, on the contrary its given an importance way above the numbers concerned.

It's just, that isn't the cure. Understanding exactly what's going on is. And few can do that, whilst operating from a false consciousness. The disconnection of slimming from anorexia has undoubtedly caused many people over the years to drift unwittingly into anorexia without knowing why.

Even after recovery, some former anorexics told me, they still didn't get what that was about. It's not just 'obesity' were lies abound, but for different reasons. The term "eating disorder" is in itself dubious. I cannot even explain what happened to me without abandoning it.

The disconnection of the obvious connection between starvation and starvation helps shore up the pretence that the failure of dieting is inexplicable. That [fat] people experiencing this uselessness are the ones that are in need of "psychological help".

The holding up of anorexia as a lifestyle you can acquire with sufficient motivation would offend these advocates deeply if their offence was real. It doesn't. Indeed many anorexic promote and agree with slimming and 'obesity' propaganda.

You can imagine why. 

The most shocking thing is the way they expect their drivel to be take on face value and repeated. Yet think nothing of challenging any personal testimony from a fat person.

Fat people are so often blasé if not resentful about/of their own fortitude, so it can be hard to believe that others are terrified not of being fat, but of the sickening taint of 'obesity' wallahs relentless aggression. That they wish not to run away from those they hate, but to go directly to them, take them over and direct their lives is deeply creepy. 

Many's the time when fat people are warned off all sorts of comparisons, though often valid, the explanations for warning off fat people aren't. It's a situation where what the person says is correct, but their reasoning isn't.

That tends to show they aren't giving their true reasons from this-fear of erased subjectivity.

The other day someone cited intersectionality in this mode. That they wished fat white people would recognize the classism inherent in their situation yadda yah. Yet as usual, they failed to mention intersectionality would have left the 'obesity' cult without any support from social justice warriors.