a presentation by researchers in Liverpool and Florida at the European Obesity Summit in Gothenburg, Sweden, has found that, no matter what the child’s weight at the age of four or five, if the parent perceives them to be too heavy, they will on average put on more weight, not less, than other children. That was the case whether the parent was right or wrong in thinking they were overweight.Please my sides......pick me up off the floor.....
You'll not be surprised to know, that WE KNOW THIS. So why, some may ask, do we not say this when this sort of thing is being said?
It has been assumed that parents who realise they have an overweight child will help them exercise and follow a healthier diet.Oh sorry, you must be a clueless person who thinks fat people can tell the 'obesity' cult anything such as our real as opposed to imagined experience.
Until reality is stumbled upon and then its all a great shock.....
There's a back up of certain themes that were unloaded into the fatsphere and this was one of them. Along with other fatz, it puzzled me for a long time.
To put things in the right perspective, this study with its grinding obesideology thought branding children "fat" would lead parents to impose an obesopunishment of thin gruel and hard labour.....that sort of thing. And the research would seem to go against that.
That's not where we were coming from at all. Nooooo.
What we noted is that there is some strange hudu shit flying around, with some parents who for want of a better way of putting it. Put the fat finger on their child/ren.
I don't know what's going on!!!
I'm saying that some children seem to be marked out as fat before any visible signs of fatness or even chubbiness are present. Now, don't think this is about comparison, as in; "I thought I was sooo fat when I was 6/8/10/13 etc., Looking back at pictures of myself, I realise, I wasn't."
Though that isn't necessarily untrue, it can be removed from the context of past times. I truly mean that even in that context, certain children are told, "You're fat", before that could possibly be known and its often a big laugh-to others. It's been said to those who (were) stick thin. It's almost like being told, you're the pretty/clever/cheeky one or whatever.
One time this was touched on. A slim woman piped up, to the effect of "Yes!" You're supposed to shrug it off and be like, "No way." Show character.
Thanks for the tip, too late. Lols. It was apparently 'done' to her.
The point is, I have no idea what its about. Whether its part of the dark arts of the family, where people love each other and yet do all kinds of strange things to one another.
But there's something going on. Is it prescience? Or is it like that woman said a sort of test of gumption? Or is it like being marked as the family sin eater, one to be kicked around? For me the most interesting question is is it something about you? I don't mean that you are fat, but something about you that lends itself to a greater possibility of?
I don't know. But it is nothing to do with health or warning you or observation or anything like that. It's almost like being assigned a role. Like back in the day when kids were picked out to be eunuchs or something.
This probably underpins the charge 'fat' has acquired. And why fat people are always accused of not knowing we're fat. And why people are desperate to tell us.
I know there's more knowledge of why people get fat than everyone's letting on. Unless its about prediction which cannot be ruled out in some cases, but by no means all, it suggests an instinctive knowledge of how you can test the fatness of certain people.
Sadly we're stuck with the shallow tedium of obesology. Probably to stop from talking about stuff like this.
And now I can say how I feel about duty of health. It's not simply we do or don't owe society 'health', its one of those bogus arguments only used on fat people anyway. I'll say though that people often reject what purports to be "health" through instincts that often cannot be voiced. The owe health assumes health is always known or being advanced. A lot of the time, neither are true. The crusade is about promoting 'obesity' [repeat, that 'accusation' is one of many crusade confessions].
Back to McLuhan's "The Medium is the message". I wonder if he isn't talking about us, or to make it clearer, our brains. The medium-our bodies (their design) transmits itself to its own conscious aspect in dribs and drabs, by the very act of its [our] continued existence.
And to those of you activists who keep on with this line about the crusade is all aimed at making fat people slim. I beg to differ.