Tuesday, 9 August 2016


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. Communiqu├ęs 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.

No comments:

Post a Comment