Hot Hot Hot

Arrow-Hot Hot Hot

We're in the midst of a hot spell over here in the UK, comparatively speaking. Citizens of really hot countries would probably say- "Pish! You call this hot?" Enough yes. Temperatures have varied, but the day before yesterday seemed hotter than hot prior to it; and guess what?

Even those around me with rather robust hunger [function] found that had petered out significantly. And you know what happens then don't you? People don't eat or don't eat much.  Barely do they notice this absence half the time. If any weight loss will occur from it, they will not feel starved. They will not "battle". No plans are required. No conscious intent. No portion control. No "willpower" no "self control" no "discipline". No weight management thought-control. Nothing nada. Just, existence.

Kind of like being a slim person. But without the pretence that your size is a product of non-stop workin' nowt.

The best way to eat less is to reduce hunger function. It's not rocket science.

Not might I add, "hunger suppression", not cranking up metabolic function until it destroys your organs. I'm talking putting hunger on its standby setting. The difference between the two is like the difference in reducing your temperature, heightened or otherwise, or seeking to reduce body heat by raising your temperature so you sweat more.

Because sweating cools you down.

Though raising your temperature could sicken/kill you, so what?! It's the principle, not how principle plays out in reality, isn't it?

Contrary to reports of natural selection and evolution hugely favouring 'overeating' and weight gain in us; this is how much of a hold eating has over you.

Something you've done your whole life. Something that is fundamental to your every day existence, something you are designed to ensure is done regularly-that my friends is how much of a hold eating has over you, without hunger.

That's how 'addicty' eating/food is without hunger. That's why hunger is such powerful feeling. In its acute phases it gives off a kind of psychic, as well as physical discomfort/pain, such as we fear that distress enough to make the advanced preparations necessary to keep access to a ready energy supply.

Without hunger food can so easily become irrelevant. The speed of this is salutary. From irresistibly compelling to, fuhgedaboutit.

The latter means we would hardly be inclined to prepare for times when hunger will come, unless the distress was of a kind that created anticipatory activity. Extraordinarily clever and effective design. If you doubt, take a look at trashy tat bulimia facilitator.

Pain can be surprisingly uncompelling when its not there. But the nature of the distress of more acute hunger combined with the nature of our own mind's memory of distress is enough that we can commit to extensive preparations for the need for energy, whether we are experiencing it or not.

This is true insight into how "rewarding" eating is without the primary driver of hunger/appetite. That's:

H-U-N-G-E-R. 

Not emotion, not thought, not allegory pathology or narrative metaphor, repeat after me:

H-U-N-G-E-R......hungerrrrr!!!!!!

We gain clear insight into how easily adjustable hunger/appetite could be if that had been a proper investigation point, rather than the pointless mind block that is the 'obesity' construct. Though it should be pointed out that reduced hunger goes with reduced levels of activity.

To be sure, a rise in heat and/or light can decimate hunger.

Why and how though?

Handling Hatred

The School of Life - On Being Hated

This reminds me a lot of the real issues fat people have with detaching psychologically from the purveyors of fat phobia. It's politically pertinent too. The hatred is not personal to or indicative of you, it is a tool for others to do what they want.

You simply do not have to believe those who sell 'obesity' have any interest in your well being at all. You are not responsible for their mindset. You are not responsible for leading them out of the false consciousness they've built. Your only duty is to yourself. Not because you are not your sister's/brother's keeper, but because you can only help them through helping yourself. 

You can only change them by changing yourself. That may seem hard, but it is more punishing to seek to 'persuade' them than it is to acknowledge yourself and your own experience.

People who would rather cut you, drill holes into you, seek to bend your psyche to increase your tolerance of their imposed pathologies, rather than change the way they think are not to be trusted to act in your best interests, no matter their medical, scientific or social status.

"The Economy Must Take Priority"

The current Prime Minister Theresa May recently released a paper on her government's policy on "childhood obesity". It was much criticised as weak and she was effectively said to have bowed to the pressure of big fud rather than to the plucky quangocrat public health grifters.

That's suppose to be choosing ill over good if you're unsure.

I simply cannot make myself give a fleck about that mess, but I was mildly diverted by her comments. I decided to read them in context, to get a feel of what made her back peddle even on plans already deemed by 'obesity' wallahs to fall short of their demands.

I can't pretend to have a secure sense of what Theresa May's about, but one thing I do get from her is she appears to be nobody's fool.

I trotted off, still ropey search skills in hand and was justifiably taken aback. I could find no further comment from the UK Prime Minister in any of the numerous farticles I had to hold my nose through.

Found a deluge of Jamie Oliver though. The sorority might want to consider the potential for knicker-twisting, revealed by journalistic standards.

Every article, at least the early on in a story's life-cycle should quote the PM's comments on her own government's policy before responding to them with opinion and editorial. No-one needs the whinging of mostly male "experts"who had nothing of any real value to say.

Especially as this fragment rose above the senseless dirge as an actual cogent response-share it or not. The economy comes before "childhood obesity". Now maybe the context was more conciliatory, I wouldn't know.

Does she know what a lot of child hating shit 'childhood obesity' is? Or is it just her pro biz instincts speaking? Either way, she's giving voice to what people call "real talk".

It's a bit like gyms who have more subscribers than they could accommodate if they all turned up at once. Continuation of the 'obesity' contrivance depends on not acknowledging the unviability of its failure of a 'cure'- that failure being defined as the failure of the individual.

Even the astute Gina Kolata's recent interesting piece on that biggest loser study was framed as "...why so many people fail to keep off the weight they lose."

May's response is why even if you saw things only in the mainstream way fat people are and have always been set up to fail and blamed for both that and the failure of the means of regulating weight.

Usually what appears to be sides of 'obesity' debating are phony polarities. In this case, those who demand calorie restriction comes about through "individual responsibility" and those who demand the regulation of business.

It's a faulty distinction, regardless all the real toxic stress falls on the individual. It's just anything less than 100% assault on the mind's and bodies of people, including children, is deemed soft. An unacceptable let up on the unconscionable. Like complaints about criminal justice; prison's are too much like holiday camps, if they do not grind the person down with systemic punishment.

May like others of her political cast responds to entreaties to regulate business as they would an assault on a person. I cannot say the reverse is true of those who are seeking to curtail business, they're too disconnected by their use of the de or should I say, unhumanizing 'obesity' moniker.

They just feel it might be more effective to price people into starvation rather than persuade them that anorexia performance isn't the acme of personal and parental achievement.

Neither are bothered by the notion of a life of battling self induced starvation.

May is correct in letting that cat out of its bag. The food and restaurant industry replaced heavy industry. Dismantling the former to replace with the expanding service industry has been the policy of many governments. Without it, it is hard to imagine how many even well off economies could have embarked on this course.

That is why no government, Labour or Conservative is stupid enough to go down that road. They're happy to talk the talk though.

Setting pathologized bodies, devalued bodies against these odds explains a lot of why fat people cannot get out from under being pathologized in the style of rage or phony pity. Blaming fat people holds this together.

It's called having your cake and eating it too. Keep the (de)industrial strategy encourage its replacement, yet insist on something that would require a curtailment of its replacement that would be economically speaking an unknown quantity. Whilst I know beyond doubt few give a damn about fat people, young or not, I doubt the economy could have stood it at any point. Even now, what seems doable only seems that way due to allowing food-commerce to get the hold it has. 

That is what Theresa May means when she says, the economy comes before any pretence of concern about child welfare. It always has and it always will. Forcing that into capitulating to business interests convinces only those who want to kid themselves that they don't know this.

There's not and has never been any reason why children need to be exposed to the psychological conditioning of scotty burger inc. That was about selling the children for the economy, stupid.

Pro-biz or more pro-prospect of employment for people who would otherwise be even more employment-challenged than they are?

Keeping society together right now depends on what the 'obesity' activists are attacking, precisely because they know neither fat children nor adults matter.

That my friends is the class angle on 'obesity' and the food industry.

Fat phobes dream of people under eating in a thriving food sector, through "willpower" or "discipline". Public healthists think they can have both if the calories get stripped out of prepared foods. Ironically the business friendly right are too dizzy on punishing someone to even make that airy-fairy concession to reality.

The economy will always take priority.

Britain's nuclear weapon system recently came up for review. Arguments where openly made that not renewing nuclear weapons would cost jobs. Never mind any other consideration of having those weapons.

On the one side fat people are boxed in by the desire of white coat brigade to evade what will have to be a professional reckoning. On the other, by people who've developed a neurotic compulsion to starve fat people, of any age.

Behind Our Backs

Here's something for you, "Well-toned Hollywood stars tackle obesity epidemic in Philly" no pun there as far as I can tell. This concerns certain Hollywood folk hanging out in Philly to talk about the "obesity epidemic";

Along with policy makers, physicians, and health advocates, a half-dozen screen stars attended an anti-obesity luncheon in Old City Wednesday, funded by drug company Novo Nordisk.

Uh huh, using food as focal point at a gathering-how unhealthily emeaushunal. I hope its not eating disordered. Discussing your(s and my) life-funded by junk peddlers. Divine. These thoroughly respectable pushers make "an injectable medication to treat obesity".

Truly surprising given weight doesn't require "medication". Adjusting body weight up or down properly requires correct alteration of metabolic function.

I reckon it's more like adjusting your posture i.e. the set of your hips, the carriage of your shoulders, positioning of your head. The issue is not so much a 'set point' as sort of a settled point. Like with your posture. That settles into a certain countenance. This doesn't mean it was destined to be that exact way or that bits of you have to be hacked off or you drugged to alter that.

What you need is an effective approach or technique to reset/retrain aspects of or the whole of it, to unravel the way your body has settled into its default position/ing. We can see our posture in the mirror. Our interventions have a more direct influence on restoring a more vital stance.

Correcting gait by learning to "scan" our bodies internally, for sites of tension, adjusting slightly until it is eased or gone.

Not only can we slowly alter the way our bodies not only look and feel but also, the way they function. When your body is less "collapsed" downward, circulation, flexibility can improve. The efficiency of our digestion and breathing to -reducing tiredness/increasing energy.

The failure of calorie restriction does not herald any need for disease as a metaphor. It signifies diet 'n' exercise is the wrong way to adjust metabolism.

Nor is individual control an issue, any more than in the above. The real issue is the sense that something more than usual is needed. The use of our conscious mind/intent to create effects that then alter aspects of our bodies functioning.

This fundamentally challenges notions of what is within our conscious control. And that has always been a real hurdle.

But that's tough right? Because we fatz have been put in this trap to somehow achieve just that, surely.

Seeking to do things with drugs that you could do with your own mind is deemed "drug seeking" by the professionals. Us fatz are so lucky, we don't have to drug seek, the pharmacorp wish avidly to turn us on.

Isn't that nice of them?

Must be on account us being too lazy to bother with it ourselves. I think we can change or add to the meaning of 'drug seeking' to mean big pharmacopoeia and medicine desperate to get people hooked on junk, whether they like it or not. And believe me, that is the real JUNK here.

So what do they think is the point of all this gassing behind our backs?

The main point of the event, said actress Alison Pill[?] of HBO's The Newsroom, was to emphasize that obesity is a disease.

Slim people love calling stuff 'disease' don't they? So they assume we must love it too. We must have felt so left out all these years watching them doing it, stuck with the seven deadly sins diagnosis. I like the way they think they're throwing us a bone (ha), don't you? Like we get to call ourselves disease. Isn't life grand? A promotion. No longer are we gluttonous parasites, now we're "disease."

Yippee ki-yay. Lets paaaahrtay!!!

Actually not. And people like Ms Pill et al probably cannot absorb this, given we're supposedly always on the hunt for "excuses." You could say, we are highly resistant to their pathologization.

Yes, you might get some fat people to go along with this thinking that its somehow free them from abuse-that's a cheap trick-but you will also have a lot of very underwhelmed people who won't be quiet about that.

Honestly, your love affair with calling things, disease and illness for effect, is stupid and always has been.

Pill continues;

"It's an opportunity to change the narrative about what it means to be fat," Pill said. "It's not a moral failing."

As if 'disease' and 'moral failing' are opposites. Weight is neither moral failing nor disease. Goodness slim people allow themselves to get stupid on this issue.

That "changing the narrative about what it means to be fat," is going around. An attempt by those who aren't to adjust to the distance between real experience and what they seek to press on others. Heaven forfend real live fat people get to say what being fat is about, according to our experience like slimz fully expect to.

I did laugh at this though,

Physicians on a panel at the event said one effective anti-obesity tool is nutrition counseling, but they lamented that health insurers often do not pay for it.

Lol, awwwww. No money to 'treat' food deserts and genes with old rope.

Bulimia is Weight Management

As I like to asy, fat people breaking furniture is the least of the things we're breaking. Attempts to manage us-post FA-are becoming increasingly fevered. To help illustrate, did you know bulimia is a way of cheating the consequences of gluttony? That it's a "quick fix" substitute for a healthy lifestyle? That it's the easy way out? Irresponsible? That bulimics require a firm "deterrent" to prevent their reckless indulgence?

No you wouldn't. Bulimia is seen as something affecting slim people.

No any more! Thanks to the medical doctors who created the bulimia facilitator-Aspire Assist the usual requisite "sympathy" demanded is refreshingly, no more. This let's us see bulimia sans the halo of slim.

Whilst that barrier's been crashed ask yourself, is bulimia really sympathy invoking? Basically, its just people eating and purging food through various orifices, in this case through a tube passing through open wounds in the midriff and stomach, to engender weight loss or at least stability.

I wouldn't say it should invoke hate, but its hardly leaving you teary eyed is it? If it is, you're probably unable to exclude slim people from the picture. If you can, you're left with weight management ["increase calories out"] in action.

I've tried to make this point before but it gets tangled in the halo effect. There is little if any "sympathy" for bulimia, its for the person-it's ad hominem. What appears to be sympatico is merely the airing of what FA's call thin privilege. Without the poignancy of slim pain, you too can feel my usual sense of distance.

Predictably, some jokers have tried to deny this is an aide-bulimia. Just as they deny calorie restriction dieting is proto-anorexia. Resist their flummery, they know the score. This raggedy looking contraption, it looks like a really shit prototype, has been licensed by the FDA. A maximum limit of 30% of stomach contents has been declared. Its medic inventors know bulimia is triggered when purging leads to starvation or the threat of in those susceptible to it.

Generally speaking, there is bulimia-the use of purging to decrease the body's available energy and there's bulimia nervosa-when the practise becomes a compulsive, irresistible cycle. 

There is nothing wrong with calling bulimia, bulimia. Exercise bulimia is an example of why attempts to obscure what this is are thoroughly cynical.

The activities of ED activists with their continual spiel about how ED's are "complex" bio/socio/environmento/economico "illnesses" of the highest magnitude have made people unsure of saying what is. "You don't understand," they cry, "You couldn't possibly grasp the profound complexities of agony..." et al. You're just being handled.

Traditional bulimics do not wish to have this sort of 'enlightment' jeopardised by being associated with fat people thanks very much. That is the reason there's some throwing down of an increasingly tatty smoke and mirrors act.

No bother. Fat people have FA's to shrug that off and consider their interests right? It's in fat people's interests to know this though approved by medics, it is as unhinged as it is pathologically disordered.

Most real disease is spread by a combination of factors. Parliamentary acts to clean up the UK's water system helped wipe out epidemics of cholera-and other infectious disease. Environmental, political, social, psychological, economic etc., It should also give pause that being fat is creepingly described in similar weaselly cliche as ED's.

The mystique of slimz-not to be questioned only obeyed- means even those who grasp exactly what bulima is;

This is forced purging calories after eating, is it not? 

Stumble over the 'obesity' ideology lodged in their brain fugging up the lens of reality;

When many obese patients have received gastric bypass surgery, they have experienced bulimic effects due to the continuation of the same binge-eating compulsions; due to the fact that the stomach now lacks capacity to hold the same large quantity of food in so short a span of time, they find themselves involuntarily regurgitating the food. This happened so often, that the vomiting became habitual and a part of the process, thus the vicious cycle of bulimia is formed by way of medical intervention.

If you remove anyone's stomach, they're likely to vomit when they eat. A few spoonfuls is nowhere near a normal intake. That is one purpose of weight loss gastrectomy, to induce bulimia along with the cutting into anorexia. All this and more is required to make calorie restriction appear to be of any use.

You can plug the holes in a leaky boat-block response to hunger. If you cannot resist hunger, you can try throwing water out of the boat-that's bulimia. Actually, that's Aspire Assist.

It can also be noted that this scrap materials looking effort has provoked this extent of outcry because it spoils the cultivation of the usual bulimia narrative, not because it is an abuse of fat bodies. The petition against Aspire Assist started under the auspices of an eating disorders advocacy group, says with outstanding clarity;

This aspiration device legitimizes purging, encourages binging, undermines bodily autonomy, intuition around eating and fullness, and steps up fatphobia under the falsehood of 'obesity reduction.'

Wow. That is what we are missing from slim people. A small caveat; that's what calorie restriction (induced weight loss) does. It legitimizes eating pathologies, it is starvation and bingeing, it undermines autonomy-because it denies real control.

It is the insistence on that path and that path alone is why this madness of bulimia inspired weight. That path includes this hooey about how fat people need to live an imagined perfect life to achieve slimness as a side effect, that is the same rot. 

Its also clear that this is meant to help, by making vomit-purging more accessible. You don't even need to be bulimic to use bulimia. Do you realise that this is probably the only cal res aid/device/plan that actually says exactly what it does?

Such a lack of shame suggests the docs who came up with it recognize what calorie restriction is. It's inherently pathological and produces pathology. As well as being largely ineffectual. So again, why is everyone, along with fat people, being imprisoned in it? Why do slim people so desperately want us to be put through this mill, what is driving this messed up urge in them?

The most amusing reaction in some ways was our old chum Dr. Yoni Freedhoff. He actually spotted that a more natural reaction to bulimia; disgust, aversion, shock is an anomaly. Calling it "weight bias." Like those who bang senselessly on about "PC", he sees 'weight bias' in that light as a way to silence legitimate comment. So he's using it to try and shut down perfectly rational reactions to this outrage. Bias only in the sense that you cannot have thin privilege if you aren't thin/slim.

What a cheeky little scamp he is.

Slim-Baiting

I've just started reading an article, "Why bad ideas refuse to die". It mentions a young black man-a rapper-who's caught on to someone peddling flat earth. Yes, flat earth. That seems less bothersome than it should given people in white coats go around trying to force "food addiction" as a viable conceit, because they feel entitled.

And yes, I know its referring to certain phenomena, so why not define, describe and name that it veraciously? Isn't it important enough?

The @bese construct has never really a debate. It was cast that way in a knowing attempt to hide its irrationality. It's fat people who keep indulging this pretense-helping to legitimize the uncredible. Why do we feel the need to do this?

Are we looking for slim people to break down and say, "It's a fair cop fatz, we was wrong"? Not seeing them scratch that itch, nor would it be the catharsis of our past imagining. That sort of liberation comes from within us and is in our power.

Have some compassion for slimz, they're out of their depth on this one. Its up to us, whether we like that or not.

I'm asking you for a peer-reviewed study showing that a typical fat person can become sustainably non-fat through deliberate weight-loss

Would it be exaggerating to say, anyone who truly believes anyone can reverse their weight permanently with calorie restriction is up there with the flat earthers? Mostly, I'd say not. It's like asking for proof that someone's born again in JC. It's a suspension of disbelief thing, outside the remit of science-always has been.

It's worth mentioning a fundamental tangle at the heart of all this.

"Weight loss" is entirely possible and Calorie restriction dieting doesn't work. Communiqués go full on cross purpose. One 'side' knows weight loss and reversal of weight is attainable-they're right. The other knows dieting doesn't work-they're right too.

The bottom line is weight loss is not dieting, it is the means of getting you to that destination. It is the wrong means, full stop.

Metabolic function is as plastic, as in the brain and nervous system. It is responsive, malleable, adjustable. It has to be just to fulfil its purpose. Those gatekeeping research are more interested in using fat people as hostages to get dictate the way everyone eats. "...the fight to improve the American diet."

I don't hear manipulating metabolic function in that, do you?

These people are obsessed with controlling what other people eat. Imagine reading a self proclaimed specialist in hepatic medicine's blog, only to find endless screeds about alcohol manufacturers and what ingredients/percentage proof their liquour is. 

It would score high on the WTH meter.

Though some actually seem to have some interest in how to make use of this area of human physiology, the replete disinterest public faces of the "obesity community" as Dr. Arya Sharma calls it have, still dominates as much as their food fixation.

Their lack of curiousity alone is as remarkable as their irrelevance to those who need or want to alter their functioning.

The length of Ampersand's question reflects the conflation of a perfectly reasonable aim-weight loss, that has been torpedoed by being conflated with the metabolically deranging calorie restriction.  "Deliberate weight loss" refers to cal res induced weight loss, but it could and should refer to the painless trouble free weight loss our bodies experience everyday as our bodies convert food into and use energy.

Change would be sustained by that which sustains fatness within a certain range as the overwhelming majority of fat bodies do now-self regulation. They key is a method that doesn't force the mechanics of that to fight off and correct calorie deficit or starvation. 

Reactions to his inquiry have ranged from the usual faith healing standard-that is, if a million people pray for remedy and it happens for one, then one is 100% proof, to the point of describing it as an unreasonable request,

I cannot help but feel this post is a quintessential example of an isolated demand of rigor. Very very few studies in the entirety of the social and medical sciences will fit the criteria he laid out because studies like this are very very hard to do. If this is evidence he requires to be convinced that dieting and exercise for long term weight loss works, then he’ll probably never be convinced because it seems highly unlikely such a study will ever exist, even if diet and weight loss in the long term do work.

Does that sound like someone in charge of themselves? Doesn't anyone feel anything at all about seeing people in this condition? At what point do we become culpable by our indulgence of them? Behaving as if they have a case, rather than giving them short shrift?

Instead of asking slim people the question we know the answer to, let's stop getting them to show themselves up and focus on taking positive action ourselves.