The Calories in/out Lens

Secret Habits of Anorexics.

Because we rarely hear this and when we do, it somehow doesn't seem to stick in people's minds,

Theroux meets one woman, Rosie, whose condition left her unable to walk at one point and led to her contemplating suicide.

Her parents reveal to Theroux that she spends hours scrolling through social media pictures of food on her phone.

This is the lens everyone is looking through; anorexia-calories in/out. This is coins, "eating disorders", why "binge eating", why 'obesity' comes from to devour/eat away, why fat people are seen as walking larders who have no legitimate hunger function, why food taxes, sugar phobia, food paranoia, clean eating, orthorexia, why everything is obsesses with food, controlling food, food is good, food is bad, eating is unhealthy, eating is healthy...........

It's even why anorexia/thinness is somehow seen as against left-wing /anti-capitalist and fatness as conservative/pro-capitalist.

My problem is I don't see sufficiently through this lens as others, including fat acceptance people.This leaves me cold. I don't care about food in this way because my notion of weight isn't based on calories in/out which as I've frequently said is incomplete. Nor is the focus of this point of view capable of properly defining or describing the hyperactive hunger function I experienced. It actually gets in the way.

Though both are about excessive hunger function, one comes from deficit, the other from attempts to impose deficit.

Communication problems are rooted in refusing to acknowledge not everyone sees as you see, nor wants to.

Absolute Neurosis

"A lesson from the biggest losers: Exercise keeps the weight off" refers to that study of former biggest loser contestants.

It claims the key to staving off the rebound part of any calorie restriction induced weight loss cycle [the calorie-weight deficit/restoration of calorie-weight deficit is all ONE cycle] is exercise.

"Hope"

I wish the NYTimes would make room for other types of articles on health, providing us with indepth insight into various genetic illnesses, diseases, and other conditions. These constant articles about studies of how to lose weight and keep it off are tiresome. Diet and exercise works, don't we know that by now? Let's move on.

Hope and I do not agree on the viability of cal res, but we both agree it's time to move on with endless portentous repetition of nothing. It's the professionals who don't want to. They are the ones wanting to keep going round and round in their circles as long as they can, postponing that inevitable moment when science must stop being pseud.

On average, those who managed to maintain a significant weight loss had 80 minutes a day of moderate activity, like walking, or 35 minutes a day of vigorous exercise, like running.

Compare this with stopping smoking. This is of course, after spending the weight. This is a life sentence of the wrong means to achieve ends.

On average is not for everybody though,

For the four years after the show, he exercised more than two and a half hours a day and gained back just 40 pounds.Then the injuries began, forcing him to cut back his workouts to one and a half hours a day. His weight crept up to 235 pounds.

The next year, “my body just started breaking down,” he said. “I had a foot injury, a wrist injury. I couldn’t keep it up.” And he was exhausted.

More than two [one!] and a half hours a day to gain "only" 40 lbs, not to be slim let alone thin.

Physically breaking down under the strain of exercise purging, with injury piling upon injury to the point where you have to stop - usually comes towards the hospitalisation end of a thin/slim person's anorexia nightmare.

It's also calls to mind neurological weight loss diet burnout, where your nervous system is unable to tolerate the provocation of restriction and you just can't.  I say that not to be fancy, but because you want to keep dieting, but something has changed, your body blocks you, it's a rather eerie discovery.

Yet this too is perceived as failure of the person, not the method,

It’s a difficult task for virtually anyone, Dr. Kerns said: “The amount of time and dedication it takes to manage one’s food intake and prioritize exercise every day can be an untenable burden for many people.” “It’s totally unfair to judge those who can’t do it,” she added.

Doesn't multiple injuries or nervous system exhaustion with fighting off restriction show dedication? How can you get any more dedicated that actually exhausting your body's ability to continue with what you are doing?

Cahill could do it. He wasn't a can't do it! At the very least should be where even the most raving calorie restrictionists draw the line. It should be "Okay, you all have to train like athletes and starve like anorexics, until your body breaks down, then you must stop."

But no, apparently, you still haven't done anything. It is an extreme version of how the ideology in people's minds erases recognise fat people's efforts.

As has been pointed out, these "biggest losers" are the success stories. They are outliers in success. Biggest loser type dieters are like anorexics without the madness, their behaviour, not anorexics, is driven by pure will.

Neither are in control.

Nor is dieting hard its easy, it's the body blocking its action that gives it rigour, but that wasn't in the calculation. Ci/co cannot adjust to this.

What happened to Danny Cahill is what your defences are blocking, potential damage and injury. This erasure of fat people's efforts is a sign of deep neurosis. These people are hallucinating an absence, whilst looking directly at what is present.

I'll re-emphasise, it is normal for most of us to display signs that could be seen as or actually form part of a psychiatric diagnosis. Unless that's so pronounced as to pull other things out of alignment [or the reverse], the overall pattern is what makes up genuine diagnosis.

This should be enough of a warning sign though, even addicts going into rehab and coming out addicts will not be told-you didn't go there. Whether the failure is seen as one of those things or something the person did wrong, their presence is recognised.

Here's is a mindset which perceives doing purely on outcome. Do nothing + the desired outcome = activity, success. Do everything + undesired outcome = inaction, failure.

Calorie restriction has always been unlimited in this way, sure evidence of its inherent quackery. Every function has limits. Only in fiction are there no limits. In reality, not recognising any limits just puts pressure on your mind to erase the limits that will naturally manifest.

Dieting and exercise feel bad not because they are hard-they aren't-it's because they are bad. 

All this is also evidence of a profound failure of us fat people. Our refusal to set limits ourselves, on what we should expect to do is perhaps most shocking of all. What exactly is motivating us to allow such liberties to be taken with us? Why do we allow people to impose unending, unendurable labour?

Slim people, fat phobes maybe sinking under the weight [yes] of their own neuroses, but it is we that seem entranced by this. It is we that appear to be willingly sleepwalking to our own destruction.

I Don't Care How Much You Love Your Son, Your Fat phobia Will Curdle It

NB, if you are feeling delicate, you might want to give this a miss, frankly though, Giles Coren is not a person who is taken seriously so any anger is just missing the pointlessness. "I don't care what my son becomes as long as he's not overweight".

I've been at pains to point out that in spite of appearances, the 'obesity' industry are the ones blocking  the most efficient and effective means of altering weight. Science should deliver proper means of inducing weight loss for those who need or want it-and is free to, as it is to pursue any other methods or solutions it, or its paymasters decide.

It just chooses not to and will continue not to, as long as its under zero pressure to explain this decision. I recommend-as I always have-taking it up with them. If enough people do, that'll put some heat under their feet.

What's just as odd as that reluctance is the way fat phobes have followed the 'obesity' industry's lead in promoting failure ahead of that, no matter how desperate they claim to be or are for the same clear effective resolution fat people desire/d.

The suspense [lols] is seeing how long it's going to take for this penny to drop, amongst fat phobes and activists alike.

That's pretty much how I'm reading this offering for signs of mental fatigue. The article itself concerns Coren's attitude to his little son meeting those who wish to be the dis-ease of other people, like for instance, himself;

It's all very well to say that it's puppy fat.......but what if… IT DOESN'T GO AWAY?

Acknowledging the lack of proper method or approach, along with angst of knowing what we have is a whole lot of nothing- from someone who likes pretending otherwise. Home is where the heart is,

Adele's parents probably thought it was puppy fat too. And Paul Hollywood's. And Russell Grant's. No doubt Diane Abbott's family assumed that she would change shape when she was out of nappies. But the change never came. 

Wishing and hoping, oh the impotence, yet he still ventilates the trap people like him like to collude with;

It's reasonable to assume that the parents took their eyes off the ball, let their porky pups feast on a shitty diet and do fuck-all exercise into adolescence and now look at them: ostensibly successful, yes, but laughable to behold with their untucked shirts and stretched, shiny faces. The sort of people you want to follow down the street playing "Flight of the Valkyries" on a tuba.

Your eyes?

I'm worried as fuck that my little Sam could go the same way. Not only because of how it will ruin his life but because of how it will reflect on me.

I'll bet you are, you know the score. And ruin his life? That's a strong statement of the effects of being constantly surrounded by your mindset.

Unsurprisingly Coren doesn't hold back on the usual brain dead fat phobe memes, one thing that is a surprise is the rank paedo-gaze I thought people had finally let up on,

You're looking at that picture of my son and you're thinking, "Fat little bastard". Sure, he's cute. He's got a nice little face. Except he's fat. Arse on him like Vanessa Feltz and a full frontal presentation at bath time that puts one in mind of a Gavin and Stacey-era James Corden or a well-waxed Christopher Biggins, all giggly on too much rosé.

Yeucch. I was thinking cute Giles. Cute. When does the average parent speak of their infant child in these terms? This and various other inappropriateness dogs people their whole lives. 

....each actual fat person is blatantly just a badly brought-up, greedy little son of a bitch committing the unforgivable sin of gluttony in a world where there is not enough food to go round. I'd kill them all and render them down for candles.

Capitalist goes revolutionary with their crude and crudely misplaced anti-capitalism critique, [along with upper-mid parental inadequacy fears]. Your frustration is aimed at the wrong target you airhead. And unforgivable compared with what? Cold-blooded murder? Paedophilia?

As for that last line, it may help to know Coren is Jewish. It feels like something spit up (somewhere) from his cognitive basement. If other Jewish people don't object to it, I don't really see why anyone else should take it to heart. He's desperate for the attention,

But it's hard to know what to do about it. 

Say what?

...it's hard to know what to do about it.  

What about the usual starvation and hard labour you usually recommend? Does it feel less doable when looking into the eyes of a little mite trusting you not to hurt him?

How very normal.

I'd put him on a strict diet and buy him a hamster wheel but my wife is not the moral absolutist that I am and she is the one who does the Ocado orders. And cooks most of the food. But is a bit of a lazy tart. Sorry — a busy working mother with many other important things to think about, who knows her way down the path of least resistance.

Hiding behind your wife? Isn't that major league cuck in your world? Moral absolutist, proto-anorexia + exercise purging = morality, rather than standing up for your boy against disingenuous fanaticism?

And come on Giles, the path of least resistance has a heck of a lot of overlap with the greatest efficiency. I see your laptop isn't a windup one, do you feel morally sullied by its efficiency?

I say, "Can't you give him a carrot instead?"

And my wife says, "If you want him to eat carrots, you try feeding him a fucking carrot!"

So I let it go. And I feel ashamed. But then I see these middle-class kids with their weekday screen bans and their steamed fish and vegetables and no chocolate or sweeties and 10 hours' oboe practice a day and it makes me want to puke. 

I'm glad he said this because fat and/or working class people aren't allowed to feel this way by middle class 'obesity' upholders. Either they're failing to be nutritionally educated, dupes of the food industry or are criminally negligent, anything but disinterested in someone else prescribing their way of eating (and life).

This is a culture clash. The 'obesity' cult is about dictating the way you live, feel and increasingly, think. You aren't allowed to choose that on the pretext that you must surrender yourself for thinness-through-calorie-restriction-induced-weight-loss. And the way they want people to live, and the things they want others to prioritise isn't attractive.

The focus on scare stories rather than the usual understanding dynamics and how to direct them is supposed to scare us into living their way and evidence of the lack of interest in the purported subject. They're like others who don't feel they need to take "no" for an answer.

Weight change should have nothing to do with dictating diets, or sequestering huge amounts of your time and mental bandwidth- that's up to the individual. The issue is functional dynamics and the alteration of them. 

I try to look on the positive side. Such as the possibility that having a fat adult son — who I will unquestionably continue to love with all my heart no matter what — might help me to lay aside my prejudices regarding fat people and bring me to a more respectful place vis-à-vis the fat and ever fatter future we unquestionably face as a race.

Fantastic, you do that, because if you continue with such cultivated loathing, it could infuse the deep well of love you feel and you wouldn't like the possible consequences,

.....being grotesquely flabby, sweaty, knock-kneed and impotent would mean that Sam was unlikely ever to have a girlfriend or any mates or be invited to parties

How would you feel about love if it was mixed up with the feelings expressed here? Exactly.
 Time to do what fat phobes rarely have to do, choose which is most important to you. Your fat phobia, or your son.

Ministering to Bodies does not Equal Ownership of People

A few weeks ago a certain health authority announced that it will breathalyse smokers to make sure they've stopped smoking for 8 weeks before they can be referred for assessment for "non-urgent surgery".

They said the changes were being brought in after 85% of people who responded to a public consultation agreed that smokers should be required to quit before being referred. 

This transparent attempt at buck passing shows the architects of this know they are in the wrong, they don't want to own it. Instead they try to stick it on the usual targets, the public.

Smoking is a habit. It is not addictive, it's is not even particularly faddictive-folks still woefully underestimate the power of the human mind in real life.

Smoking has never been more self-selecting than it is today, so if anyone wants to truly make further inroads into the numbers remaining, they need to come up with techniques that actually work for those who smoke and resist urges to indulge in power games expressions punitive fee fees or crackpot vigilante justice.

To use that brilliant-as-it-is-skewif expression, check the optics: anti-smoking professionals targeting people for; reaching for a cigarette-reaching for a cigarette-reaching for a cigarette, by reaching for self righteous shock tactics-reaching for self righteous shock tactics-reaching for self righteous shock tactics.

If phoned in anti-ism equalled expertise in the formation and cessation of habits, that wouldn't have happened now would it?

If health professionals and bureaucrats wish to truly engage in public health, they need to engage with healthy behaviours to bring about that end. They can do their; "Bad for you, bad for you act, in an emergency, in the initial stages of any real or perceived health crisis- if they've not thought of anything better. After the initial loosely aligned are shaken off though, they'd better put some effort into how to actually alter what compelling about what they're complaining about.

With real demonstrations of efficacy, that can be repeated, not assertion or pseudo-science statistically massaged 'studies', or other so called "evidence-based" hocus-poci. No stupid chewing gum or horrible-as-they-are ineffectual drugs "support" either. If you are criticising using material things, why is that all you've got? If you think the answer to problems is things, what are you looking down your nose at?

Why aren't you more concerned about how to alter the behaviour and performance of your mind/body, using your mind/body? That is a real anti-thesis of habitual consumption of material objects.

If that sounds like a tall order, that's the sort of feeling you invoke in your targets.

In the past Public health was honourable and progressive. It improved society and was led by knowledge such as an understanding of the true value of hygiene and of the nature and transmission of disease.

Public health must again be about raising the health of the populace, not a pretext to assaulting mental health, inducing self hatred, creating social/moral hierarchies, or a cover for weird politics/ morality social engineering and the vaunting of one's own personal hatreds. 

Incidentally, no cure-all but smokers or trying to be ex-smokers should consider making a practise of yogic style or other breathing exercises. Even that famous warm up stretch where you take deep breaths as you raise your arms from your sides into the air- really open your chest [it's famous but I can't find a link.] And when you lower your arms whilst exhaling, really empty your lungs-without strain- and pause before taking another breath.

This won't suit everyone but it's worth a try. If your body knows its going to get some invigorating breaths, that might weaken that aspect of the attraction of fags, just don't bring that to smoking!

I can hardly finish without mentioning;

The CCGs also require obese patients to reduce their weight by 10% over nine months or reduce their BMI (body mass index) to less than 30, whichever is greater, before being referred for non-urgent surgery.

Again, whomever wrote; "reduce their weight" knows the only means made available for that-CRIWL is harmful and doesn't work. Euphemise away, you are not even fooling yourselves. Effectively this is seeking to force people to starve off weight against their will. It's seeking to mandate the ceaseless repetition of self harm and self abuse.  

Let's refresh on medical ethics;

• Respect for autonomy – the patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment. (Voluntas aegroti suprema lex.)
• Beneficence – a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient. (Salus aegroti suprema lex.)
• Non-maleficence – to not be the cause of harm. Also, "Utility" - to promote more good than harm
• Justice – concerns the distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision of who gets what treatment (fairness and equality). (Iustitia.)

That's a fail on all four and more.

Fat people have taken the initiative, we have done the dieting, that's how we know the results are not satisfactory to anyone.

Patronising nonsense about how people need 'support' to impersonate anorexia, be damned, this is a medical dispute.

There's an obvious vacancy here for science that seeks only to properly understand and manipulate metabolic function. That doesn't concentrate on pointless categorising of people by weight as if being above or below their arbitrary lines makes your bodily functions unrelated to each other.

Look at what that has produced. 

If medical professionals et al want to continue their blocking of real science that actually works, and promotion of pseudo-science that doesn't, they need to explain their motivation for this. They need to become accountable for the outcome.

Either way, doctors don't own fat or any other people. They can't tell us black is white and white is black or try to press us to support their science fiction.

I repeat, fat people have always wanted to slim, we have been prevented by the lack of proper method. Medics et al can only continue to bypass that for so long.

"Obesity scientists" as others choose the area of knowledge they wish to pursue, which is their right. That doesn't co-incide with the needs of those they treat as their personal quarry. No-one signed up to be their puppets, we signed on for altering weight/metabolic function in good faith. That has not been provided and is not on offer so that is that.

Neither they nor medics nor society is owed anything by fat people. We've done what we can with what we've been given.

Nor for the record, is mutilation of the stomach any more a viable option than smoking yourself slim.

'Intuitive' Shopping

"Why Britain is ditching the weekly shop".

The interesting thing about this for me is the signs of shopping more towards one's own internal dictates. Perhaps the days of dietary dictators are over [for the real people at least].

Longer opening hours and more convenience stores have combined with a drive among shoppers to waste less and stop themselves “over-buying” to a new trend called “as and when shopping”.  

Middle and uppper class people wing meal planning the same as everyone else, you'd think their much touted nutritonal education/expertise would save them from such shopping faux pas. 

“Just a few years ago, an average Waitrose would open with around 200 big trolleys and 150 shallow ‘daily shopper’ trolleys lined up outside. These days the tables have turned, with 250 shallow ‘daily shoppers’ and just 70 big trolleys needed.”

Um hum.

A fourth meal each day – especially healthy snacks or indulgent treats – is evidently also becoming more common. “This is not about gluttony, rather it is about adapting our eating schedules to our busy lives,” the researchers said.

Ha, ha, never about gluttony, if you are talking specifically about fat people, is it? Imagine the luxury of just adapting to the actual demands on you, rather than being a servant of hostile outer imposed dictates that don't even work in part, due to that kind of contrivance and inflexibility...

When it comes to diet, a commonsense approach now rules; strict eating plans or cutting entire food groups have fallen out of favour and carbs – from bulgar wheat to versatile quinoa – are back on the menu.

Dieting/healthist eating is the opposite of commonsense.

Crisis of Meaning

Addiction is the development of a physical dependence on various kinds of drugs, more typically opiate drugs. It happens in essence because establishing an outer supply of opiates tends to interfere with the level of production of opiate-like or opioid substances in our bodies.

The requisite sign of addiction is withdrawal-which is just the body in a state of opioid/pleasure chemical deficit before it is able to adjust the level of production back toward a normal range. When that occurs, the acute stage of withdrawal completes itself. 

Withdrawal is not a syndrome, it is the direct symptom of a body's physical dependence on an outer supply of opioids. "Post withdrawal" is injury from damage inflicted before and during addiction, that ends when those injuries heal sufficiently.

A syndrome by the way is a collection of related symptoms that have no recognised or definite source or cause. "Cravings" are the body craving restortion of normal levels of (pleasure) chemical function. 

Addiction is a bit like a process of going from a wholly inner supply, to less of that topped up by an outer supply. When you stop "topping" you enter withdrawal, 'recovery' is when the body goes back toward prior production levels. 

Some make a distinction between physical dependence and addiction, I don't per se.

Though there might have been a meaningful distinction once. There's a case for physical dependence from necessary use and addiction from non-necessary use of drugs. Because the former is likely to have its own challenges that aren't always the same as those who don't need to take medication for an original or underlying physical ailment.

The point of explaining this yet again is a feature of the current US opioid crisis is that people apparently didn't know opioids are inherently addicitve due to the nature of human biochemistry;

From 1996 to 2001, American drug giant Purdue Pharma held more than 40 national “pain management symposia” at picturesque locations, hosting thousands of American doctors, nurses and pharmacists. The healthcare professionals had been specially invited, whisked to the conferences to be drilled on promotional material about the firm’s new star drug, OxyContin, and recruited as advocates, the US government later documented.

Don't doubt similar game isn't being played out with the 'obesity' cult, for "pain management" read "weight management." This quack cult is hell bent on creating a drug and surgery crises in the plural, in fat people, if we are dumb enough to allow them to have their way, again.

A bulletin from the American Public Health Association in 2009, reviewing the rise of prescription opioids, is titled “The promotion and marketing of OxyContin: commercial triumph, public health tragedy”. The document also asserted that Purdue had played down the risks of addiction.

"Played down the risks of addiction", um-hum, like playing down the risks of "stomach reduction surgery" and various prescription drug-abuse. That sort of thing can only make an impact if people no longer get what's being talked about, in this case, addiction.  

Short Definition of Addiction:
Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in an individual pathologically pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors.

That's from the American Society of Addictive Medicine, playing the current trick of describing things in ways that obscures what is really being talked about. Does this definition help you to understand non-addictive opioid is chemically implausible? Do you understand it? Does it even make sense?

If I wanted to know why exactly people got stuck on OxyContin and the like, how would "primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry" help? Its agenda is concerned with selling addiction as a disease, rather than education. Note the same employ of phoney 'disease' in the area of weight.

This opioid crisis/crises has many factors, but ultimately a basic grasp of what addiction really is, without the more recent insistence on collapsing neural compulsions/ neuroses and any old undesired or troublesome habit into "addiction" would have enabled people to get a clearer view of dubious promise such as non-addictive opioids. 

 Democracy Now on Oxycontin with Christopher Glazek

Even the deepest desire for denial can fail under the surer gaze of knowing better.

6 Things The Human Body Doesn't Need

Something from the BBC's "Terrific Science" website "Five things our bodies may no longer need";

The human body is the result of millions of years of evolution. However, it isn't perfect - there are some parts that we've been left with but may not actually need any more. 

That's; wisdom teeth, ear muscles, goosebumps, appendix, tailbone. Five in all. There's a sixth one they've omitted, the human stomach. I say human because no one's trying to remove the stomachs of other animals. I say human as in a human being with a body mass inex of 30+.

...in 1956 ten Swedish women, each at least a hundred and twenty-five pounds overweight, agreed to a trial of an intestinal bypass.  ...then the bypasses were reversed. Now that the patients were at a healthier weight, it was thought, they could maintain that weight with a normal intestinal tract. However, after the reversal surgeries the women regained every pound, sometimes more.

In other words, calorie restriction, which this kind of surgery exists to assist the enforcement of-never mind the flummery about its effect on gherlin and leptin and hunger hormones. This operation says, calorie restriction cannot be usefully maintained with a normal intact body.

Nothing could illustrate the fundamental problem with calorie restriction, it is unsuited to the human body.

It requires the deliberate disabling of the body to implement it. To get a sense of how that fits in with 'health', it's like what smokers and alcoholics are accused of increasing the risk of damaging their organs particularly  the lungs and liver respectively-to the point where they can no longer function.

That is the whole point of bariatric surgery's removal of the stomach, and it directly and immediately does this. It doesn't give it the respect smokers and alcoholics do by giving their organs a chance to recover and restore.

This use of gastrectomy is closer the category of body integrity disorder than medicine which it isn't in any conceivable way. The excuses given that this helps metabolic problems -but the 'obesity' cult is in the way of that, in favouring of imposing cal res.

Body integrity disorder by the way is a dubious psychosis where a person feels the overwhelming conviction that one or more of their limbs is not a part of them or must be removed. Note that article's subtitle asks whether its a good idea or not. Our default is to defend the human body's integrity, unless a terminological construct has bypassed [geddit] your humanness. 

Surgery changes a person into a being with a different intestinal tract, a different hormonal response to food—it’s almost like becoming a member of a new species, one better adapted to our current world. 

Along with the obvious, see the puff about a different hormonal response to food, as if this person doesn't know you don't have to remove the stomach to achieve that.

Fat Feet

Or, ya feets too big.

Person A: "What do you want to study?"

Person B: "Fat feet".

Person A: "Don't you mean feet?"

Person B: "No, fat feet".

Person A: "Podiatry?"

Person B: "Fat feet".

Person A: "If fat feet is not simply feet that are bigger, how do you define fat feet?"

Person B: "When feet are above a certain size, it becomes a disease we call fat feetishness."

Person A: "But surely that just refers to feet that are fatter?"

Person B: "There are feet and then there are feet above a certain index of mass."

Person A: "Surely all feet produce their mass using the same anatomical processes? Pathologising feet on the basis of size would mean a person who has bigger feet no longer has feet, they have a disease instead?"

Person B: *Crickets*

Many years later......

Person B: "They're a person with fat feet."

Person A: *Yawn* "How does that differ from a person's feet?"

Person B: "The WHO, the AMA, the DSMV and other authoritative bodies all agree fat feet is a thing."

Person A: "Do you wish to study fat feet to find the most efficient means to stop feet getting above a certain size?"

Person B: "The priority is to overwhelm with evidence of how bad fat feet is."

Person A: "What will that do?"

Person B: "It's the only way"

Person A: "To achieve what?"

Person B: "It's obvious!"
 
Person A: "I still don't get why don't just study the anatomy and physiology of the human foot and work out the easiest way to nudge the physiological function of feet into stopping at an acceptable size. It's a question of mechanics of biology surely." 

Person B: "I don't think you understand how bad fat feet is. You seem to be enabling fat feet, because you are; addicted, disordered, not feeling your emotions, sexually abused..... You need treatment, therapy, education, pity, taxation, advice, sanction, support..."

Person A, (again): "I promise you fat feet are just feet that are bigger, they're feet just the same as any other, just the same size. Seriously, podiatry has not [yet] announced that it has broken away from any particular size of feet."

"Why didn't you.....?"

This Weinstein pile-up is turning out to be far more thought-provoking than I'd have imagined when the dirt first hit the fan. Then I was very much of the deja, non school of response. Someone your mind had snagged on and given the beady eye, only to move on because nothing appeared in public.

"After Weinstein, let's stop asking women to answer for their sex predator's crimes" by Laura Bates is very well expressed, but I suspect there's not much chance of that, sadly.

Why didn’t they respond differently has been a regular response to victims’ stories.

As if indeed, as she says, that would have changed anything. 

....all the usual questions have been directed at his victims. Commentators have questioned their stories, their motives, their timing, their responses, their actions, their inaction, their silence and even their clothing.

I've only once received an answer to the question of why there are "health costs of obesity"-which places all the focus on the target- but no 'health costs' of child sex abuse, rape etc., in the face of rape being used to prop up the "people choose to be fat" line. It was from an mra troll, he said;

"We can do something about obesity." 

[Indeed]

That's how the down-punchers feel. Those who are always expected to change to make things work or to keep things ticking over, will always be turned on and asked why they don't alter themselves sufficiently in any given situation.

Within that frame, people develop a feeling that the scapegoat can do something about being the target of unwanted attentions or assaults, along with the decent cohorts/compatriots of the alleged perpetrator can do something to interrupt their actions, but not the perpetrator him or herself.

Somehow they become the unstoppable, unchangeable force at the heart of everything to which all around must adapt to.

In the collective mind, the abusers become the power they presumably feel they are and are exercising through committing their various crimes.

The gainsayers are revealing they too feel powerless in response to hearing about these alleged crimes, they too are overwhelmed, unable to know how to react, reverting to some primitive basis of sub-rationale. A Randian style, everything that happens to you is somehow as much a product of your agency as the things you actually do.

Bates cleverly arranges the reports of the various women concerned into most castings of "Why didn't you......?" that are dredged up-pointing out these instructors can't even recognise their own instructions in action. Nor accept the shortcomings of their method. 

They are just placeholders for an intense desire for there to be some way of instantly transferring power from assailant to assailed, without having to upset the status quo. 

Proper Diagnosis is not Alt-Justice

"I'm an addict- and I know what Harvey Weinstein has isn't addiction". The title stopped me in my tracks. Having experienced internet know-it-alls yapping; "Anything can be an addiction", when not even food can be excluded;

Eating 30 doughnuts in a row every morning – that’s what someone could call an addiction.

It's hard to imagine what actions could possibly be more lacking in criteria for 'addiction' than that which is necessary for life.

The answer though not unfamiliar in tone, still surprised me, which is good;

By rushing straight off to rehab, Weinstein is begging for our compassion: “I know I hurt these women, but it’s an addiction! I need a second chance!” No mate, you messed up your second chance the second time you treated a young woman as your personal plaything

Umm, yes, buuut, him asking for a second chance can be dismissed outside of any considerations of whether he has a pattern of symptoms which meet diagnostic criteria, or not.

Diagnosis should neither be reward nor punishment. It's not validation or negation of suffering, identity, social value etc., Its considerations are purely presence or absence of any condition. Treatment too should not be about "compassion" or lack of it, but of efficacy-that is the ability of any remedy to effectively and efficiently bring resolution or cure of said pathology.

Crimes are tried by the legal system, not by medicine.

Health must not continue down the road of becoming an alternative system of justice. Health vigilantism is deliberate politic of science-blocking, regressiveness and should be perceived as such. It views science that solves problems as political, as progressive and antithetical to its own political take. Science =knowledge, kind of like Adam 'n' Eve and the tree of knowledge.

[I know]

Obviously, 'obesity' is a primary example of this.

Health is becoming a means of bypassing jurisprudence, handing out punishment. Led by the Liberal/Left, guardian hard selling the brutal punishment of gastric mutilation.

Ergo when an allegedly bad person wishes to be relieved of a health pathology, that turns into a moral problem, rather than no different than if the same person has to go to hospital with a sprained ankle [acquired by tripping over a gargantuan ego.]

12 step bunkery, as well as 'obesity' and its crusade is largely driven by a conservative polity. It's not even as if this has ever been hidden! It is about a particular take on human nature, rather than health or medicine. It makes the idea behind those political parties named such as "Christian Democrats" etc., make more sense [to me]. 

Yeah this alt kind of justice is supported by all comers and some of the few who oppose it or aspects of it are conservatives, but what is being supported above all is the politic of injecting a conservative/right-wing mentality into what could be deemed medical science. [You'll need a translate if you don't speak Portuguese.]  


Let's refresh on the saggy, baggy criteria that is now addiction;

Behavioral addiction is a form of addiction that involves a compulsion to engage in a rewarding non-drug-related behavior – sometimes called a natural reward– despite any negative consequences to the person's physical, mental, social or financial well-being.

Behavioural addiction, is not addiction it is referencing nervous or neurotic compulsion.

It’s a compulsion: he feels that if he doesn’t act on it, the sky will fall on his head or something.

That's compulsion and compulsion is not addiction, though addiction could be said to be a form of compulsion. And, "rewarding non-drug-related behaviour", well?

 Seeing as the above says, "type" of addiction, we'll continue on to "addiction";

Addiction is a brain disorder characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, despite adverse consequences.

Compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, does Weinstein's alleged activities match that, yes or no?

Furthermore;

Despite the involvement of a number of psychosocial factors, a biological process..... is the core pathology that drives the development and maintenance of an addiction.

Biological process? "....one which is induced by repeated exposure to an addictive stimulus". Shappi's objections are foundering on falsifiability. How can you exclude anything from that which was drawn not to exclude anything anyone wants to shove under 'addiction'?

It has never occurred that enforced 12 step quackery is also bad because its very inefficacy draws a heavier reliance on things like dispersing bad feeling, potentially, up to and including that which is something to feel guilty about. I was thinking in terms of relieving unnecessary suffering and inconvenience.

If we actually stopped using hate and other negative emotions for so called public health campaigns, and sought cured addiction proper along with nervous compulsion, then each person is free to feel feelings apt to their situation, whatever that is.

If 'compassion' is the treatment or a major part of the treatment for 'addiction'/sexual compulsion then if Weinstein meets the symptomatology, he should have every expectation of receiving the treatment available, regardless of his criminal status, just like any other condition or injury to his person. 

To emphasise the uselessness of faddiction to those currently looking to "food addict"- as some kind of promotion from "greedy" or whatever;

In responding to the ever-growing claims against him, the man who not so long ago was one of Tinseltown’s greatest titans has told reporters he is seeking help for sex addiction, which is an outrageous attempt to dodge the reality of his behaviour.

Underneath it all, perfectly thoughtful people consider "addict" to be dodging responsibility. Do you think that represents a life time of stepping up without hesitation and saying; "I am responsible for my weight"?

If you want to see this as a deal, it's a worse one. Not only can it not dispel the taint of your definition as inherently pathological ('obese'), it adds to that, dodging responsibility, something most have never done out of choice.

Try to see through your desperation for relief, only real answers to actual problems will do. Value yourself enough to remain clear-headed enough to demand them, that's the part of the validation you're missing, its within you, it's not the gift of your tormentors.

Social Justice Mutilation

From the horse's mouth in the form of a commercial published under "opinion","Obese people deserve surgical treatment, too" is written by a bariatric surgeon. He means folks have earned gastric strangulation/ amputation.

Well, with friends like these and all that.

His blunt sales pitch explains that insufficient suckers are putting money into his pocket for him to mess up and remove their healthy organs.

It is, as one surgeon puts it, “a mutilating operation” in which a person’s innards are rearranged with the aim of reducing eating.

Actually, rearranged and reduced through damage. People don't care too much about health do they? This fella's riding in on the current bariatric surgery is social justic wave, but is hardly persuasive;

Whenever possible, prevention is obviously better than cure. But this is no longer an option for people who have missed the boat of prevention and have gone on to develop severe, complex obesity with conditions such as diabetes.

This is such a clear reference to the whole 'obesity' sham that it is positively triumphalist. There's one "boat" to "prevent" weight, to prevent it, to reverse it and that's calorie restriction. You can't miss it, because everyone's being forced into it, including slimz, by the 'obesity' industry of which he's a part. 

As a reminder of what calorie restriction induced weight loss is all about. That's; anorexia, bulimia and exercise purging.

Anorexia nervosa is a serious mental health condition. It's an eating disorder where a person keeps their body weight as low as possible. People with anorexia usually do this by restricting the amount of food they eat, making themselves vomit, and exercising excessively.

What does seeking to impersonate this, using the same techniques say about your mental health? Luckily for, humankind, developing anorexia nervosa is largely, not a choice.

As for bulimia, if you can't stick your finger down your throat, help is now available,. If you want "support" for your anorexia, this guy can remove your stomach.

There could be a genuine question mark over why less of these operations are done in the UK, though it's likely to be the cost of them, and the costs of clearing up the damage they intend to do, remember smokers are vilified for increasing the possibility of damaging their organs, these people cut out healthy tissue.

France, Belgium and Sweden will have to pay out more when that particular dirt hits the fan. Ironically, they did more good, in not allowing industrial food to requisition their food environment, but equally, they're more active in mutilating their citizens.

The UK, couldn't be arsed to follow the logic of its own demands, and equally, seems to follow the same path with butchery.

Colluding with the Mindset of Paedophiles

I lot of things spring to mind from this, none of them have anything to do with diet taxes. The woman featured is called Trinity Wallace-Ellis;

Neglect and sexual abuse were common experiences at home and later in some foster homes, where she and her sisters were sent. “I learned early on that I was safer as the fat sister than one of the skinny ones,” she says. “They didn’t want the fat sister. It didn’t protect me in all instances but I think it protected me in a lot of instances.” 

I already made it clear that this sort of ideation was straight out of the mindset of paedophiles,

It's now emerged that new film Jeepers Creepers 3 originally featured a scene hinting at the sexual abuse between a 13-year-old runaway, played by 21-year-old actress Gabrielle Haugh, and her stepfather through an exchange which sees one character sympathise with her molester.
“Can you blame the step-dad, though?” one character can be heard saying. “I mean, look at her. The heart wants what it wants, am I right?” 

Why is it people can see there's something wrong with this in a film, but not being either put in the mind of someone who's experienced child sex abuse or treated as if it's their thinking?

Critics have pointed out the disturbing exchange having witnessed the scene in advanced screener copies, however, the scene has been subsequently removed from the public version.

Don't you think that if you call yourself a goddamned therapist that you ought to have the intelligence to help people identify the source of this this kind of thinking and process that? What is the big fixation with presenting this as their idea?

Here's a tip for the white coat professionals, counsellors and psychoanalysts;

Speaking about his abuse, actor Nathan Forrest Winters said of Salva: “He spent the better part of a year grooming me and my parents. Developing the trust. It was very calculated, and a long process, as it is with most paedophiles.”

Child rapists are invidious in their mental manipulations. Do not allow their victims to wander around spouting their polluted psyche, because all you care about is enforcing calorie restriction obsession.

Pre-existing conditions, Schme-existing conditions

America's current healthcare funding woes are a reminder of the way the current shift in health modes from-health problems are a largely random misfortune that happen at/to you toward health probs are your fault...which yes, both are rather silly but, ya know, culture.

Let's take sleep hygiene, yay! Now you must get the required amount of sleep, or else-you die [the epic coup de foudre of all health these days].

...his conviction that we are in the midst of a “catastrophic sleep-loss epidemic”

There's that word "epidemic" again. The 'obesity' model is spreading-pardon the pun. At least this incarnation of invasive duty-dicktat doesn't define a person as something other than that.

Second, they should start thinking about sleep as a kind of work, like going to the gym (with the key difference that it is both free and, if you’re me, enjoyable).  

Settle your excitement, I'll betcha can't wait.

Though there's some acknowledgement of the sheer real life inconvenience/implausibility of this.

....in the end, the individual can achieve only so much. Walker wants major institutions and law-makers to take up his ideas, too.

Admirable realism in comparison to the ob cult, albeit that's rather a low standard. It's aimed at people who do not have the extensive cult level conditioning of BMI 30+ and will only tolerate so much.

For example, if people must starve, they should probably be doing it in largely in bed with minimal demands on their energy. By the way, the assertion that folks can necessarily shed serious weight on 1,200 cals brings an amused smile to my face, before you get to long-term sustainability. Why do you think they are having their stomachs excised for?

This 1 in 4 Americans have an expensive pre-existing condition, insurance-wise, caught my eye, it sounds suspiciously low. Who really is undiagnosable with something now? Would you confidently bet anybody can get away with proclaiming themselves healthy, merely because they've got nothing wrong with them? Have you learnt nothing all these years? Lols.

And lifestyle is getting funnier by the day for other reasons too,

...the KFF has a list of conditions that insurers routinely used to deny coverage or inflate prices prior to the ACA, including: HIV, treatment for alcohol abuse, anorexia, bulimia, cancer, heart by-pass surgery, diabetes, Crohn’s disease, anxiety, depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, obesity, pending surgery, pregnancy or a man whose partner is expecting a baby, and sleep apnea.

So anorexia and bulimia, effectively CRIWL the only permitted "treatment" for "obesity", are pre-existing conditions, along with it courtesy of the AMA's LIE, not forgetting "diabetes" that's also "medicated" with anorexia/bulimia/orthorexia/mutilation.

Anxiety is the state which is demanded from anyone straying into BMI 30+ in order to "motivate" themselves-supposedly. And depression/low mood happens with chronic underfeeding and starvation. It's also what happens when anxiety exhausts the nervous system, along with the extent of force used by the nervous system in trying to fight off and restore the effects of sustained energy deficit.

Dieting for any length of time requires an obsessive-compulsive focus merely to implement it and probably the development of one if it is to become a life sentence, evidenced by how difficult it is to "give up" dieting.

This sort of thing blunts satire's edge. 

Guilt-Tripping Alcoholics

The tone of this, though, "Pills prescribed for alcoholism might not work, study finds", oh reahlly? How about finding out one way or t'other? Consider this;

There is no magic pill to cure alcoholism...

What the ever lovin' what now? Magic? Why would the mere cure/reversal of alcoholism be or involve "magic"? 12 step snozzzzeology no doubt. It's at times like this that I almost regret being atheist, so I cannot issue a timely "Why me Lord?"

Aspects of the 12 steps are real and potentially useful-up to a rather limited point. The support group structure can make a difference. This is a no-brainer, when you are out with sympa friends, you know that kind of bullet proof feeling you get? I also happen to think that the "powerlessness" aspects of the 12 steps tend to be misinterpreted by those in disagreement with it. That's more about a shift in energies and is actually worth noting.

The problem is when it doesn't know its place, wildly overrating itself-hardly in line with "recovery".

The ability of even what is useful about it to help maintain a fight against the injury of alcoholism is usually severely limited and it should know this, if its all about honest inventory and all that.

The appearance of relying on it-and that's all it can be- is a cruel, mean-minded way of dealing with alcoholism and shows a blatant disregard for the lives of alcoholics.

It's just punishing them to the point of a death sentence, not for "lacking willpower" but for having bodies that are more susceptible toward alcohol dependency, for whatever reason(s) and I'm not talking emeaushuns. Example from BTL,

I lost a beloved friend to bad choices and alcohol. I eventually had to respect his choices and walk away. His death certificate says his organ failure, at age 44, was caused by chronic alcohol abuse.
Many times since then I've hated myself for not being able to save him. Could I have been there? Could I have changed anything?
So I thank you so much for your post here. For reminding me that the situation was indeed bad juju, and it's okay to just remember him as he was - before we went down the path of no return.

Um hum, her friend had a tendency toward alcohol dependence, that's not a choice. You could say exposure is a choice and yes, it is. I finally realised I just detest alcohol. Before that, convinced by the philosophy of conviviality surrounding it, I attempted on numerous occasions to try and acquire a habit du booze.

Couldn't manage it. If my body had a tendency to submit to alcoholism, then I could have been this woman's friend. It hasn't and that obviously has nothing to do with willpower or "choices". It wouldn't be impossible for me to develop a physical dependence, it would be highly unlikely though, with no effort on my part. I suffer nothing in not drinking alcohol.

Is this really to be classed as some kind of outstanding self-observation?

Are we really so pitifully needy for our own aggrandisement that we no longer have the capacity to refrain from any self flattery no matter how false? Honestly sometimes I despair, it's enough to drive one to drink.

There is no know cure known cure for alcoholism (in the Western model). If there had been, then this dear departed along with numerous others would have, all other things being equal continued to live out a longer lifespan. It is that simple. He did not die from "bad choices" or volition, he died because there was nothing to stop his alcoholism from proceeding to whatever course-including a spontaneous internal or otherwise lessening of the susceptibility he had.

That's what this nonsense cultism does, makes people cast around for interruptions, disrupters subverters of pathology. It is truly disgusting to treat this as just the way things are or even should be.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with seeking to cure/reverse alcoholism, indeed, it is eminently sensible and obvious. AA psychodrama is an interruption of reason, not reason itself. It goes from this in place of nothing, to nothing in the place of this.

I say no to the latter.

I'm not trying to end AA, except with things that work. What I'm attacking is this sensibility that there shouldn't be an efficient safe effective method of cure or a cure for alcoholism etc., because yes there most definitely should.

Nor should any nonsense pitting of it with "therapy" be indulged. There's nothing wrong with therapy, if a therapy could trigger physical healing, that would be the best solution of all. So unless you have that, I'd can the arrogance on that score because there is nothing morally superior about therapy if it cannot predictably demonstrably do the job needed.

Alcoholism and drug addiction for that matter, should be cured/reversed whilst the person is dependent/addicted. In other words, avoiding detoxing and withdrawal altogether or to whatever extent possible. That should be the aim and that aim is entirely legitimate, righteous, noble, clear-headed and morally good in every way, and not in any way magical or somehow untoward.

If the particular mentioned drugs don't work, the appropriate response to that is sadness, for all the alcoholics who have to continue to endure the sentence of a pointlessly arduous fight with the unresolved state they're left in by the indulgent idiocies of those who suffer naught for their lax sub-opinings. Plus hope that there will be proper means of relief in future.

I say good luck to anyone involved in trying to find effective and safe remedies for whatever alcohol dependence actually is, your cause is just, even more so in the face of such thoughtlessness, never doubt that for a second.  And the same to those having to fight an injury people feel shouldn't be healed.

When Men Diet

"The Silicon Valley execs who don't eat for days: 'It's not dieting, it's biohacking'", course it is, *wink*. Biohacking would be to find the right way to reverse weight, our bodies already know how to regulate their own mass. They're doing it NOW.

Back in the day men hardly made a fuss of dieting, maybe they starved themselves occasionally till they dropped whatever weight they could and carried on.

Now this is purported a new thing because certain people are doing it. Mmmokay. The entry of men into committed dieting duties has thrown women for a loop,

San Francisco-based eating disorder specialist Shrein Bahrami was concerned that extended fasting was another fad that could be used as a cover for not eating.

Ha, ha, ha, you don't say?

“The hyper focus on tracking vital signs and food has become normalized, so it’s difficult to know when it’s become obsessive,” she said,

Normalized eh? Of course, the influence of the 'obesity' cult. And "trracking vital signs" is right, you'd better do that and more. 

....but people with eating disorders typically feel a lot of shame and other negative emotions around food and body image, which doesn’t tally with the experience of people like Libin and Woo.

You want (mucho/macho?) shame? The subtitle; "it's not dieting, it's biohacking." Reahlly?

“There’s a mild euphoria. I’m in a much better mood, my focus is better, and there’s a constant supply of energy. I just feel a lot healthier. It’s helping me be a better CEO,” he said over a cup of black coffee – one of many that day – at All Turtles’ Soma office. “Getting into fasting is definitely one of the top two or three most important things I’ve done in my life.”

Lols. 

He’s lost almost 90lbs and describes getting into fasting as “transformative”. 

Gettin' in! Some of us are getting out and staying out!

Libin is one of a growing number of Silicon Valley types experimenting with extended periods of fasting, claiming benefits including weight loss, fewer mood swings and improved productivity.

Ode to the familiar.

However, Libin and others like him are pushing that idea further and with a focus on performance over weight loss.

Yeah, it's nothing to do with weight loss, it's the emeaushun no wait, it's all about the performance, so if these guys were gaining weight, they'd still be doing it, for the performance. Sweet honey on the rock....(in a few days obvs.)

They aren't pushing anything, that's what it takes. 

It all started with intermittent fasting or 5:2 etc., but that wasn't enough, as shown by the paltry few fatz who can get into the acceptable crew after having their stomach amputated to merely to aide being close to this extent of non-eating.

Yes, the world of ED's is butchin' it up.

If you do not alter function, as I managed to somewhat accidentally, you will have to starve around the function that is in place, how behind the curve this all is to women. Not very Silicon Valley seeming, or is it?

Are they just really a bunch of follow-fashions dressed up as the cutting edge? I wouldn't be too surprised.

As for the health benefits, those countries where people go to bed hungry are not well known for their longevity. Look at the poor people of Venezuela, do they sound like they're reaping benefits from their "emotional" disentanglement with the (apparently) unnecessary outer energy supply?

Even if we accept that circumstances make a difference, we must consider that for half a century now, fat people have been told to starve themselves not in the midst of peace and positivity but of self eviscerating self loathing which is still being enforced today, including by a sidle of both sides of their mouths-talking MF claiming to be "sympathetic" whilst telling you to part with your healthy organs.

Fasting is most conducive [not saying much] rooted in positive circumstances of privilege, prestige and peace, not internal war, pathology and a surround of palpable hatred. That is why fat phobia hurts starvation efforts, not because fat hating boo boos make fatz eat emeaushunally.

Well, denial that starvation is the only way to make CRIWL do what its supposed to do-make us slim- is still in effect. That's a hell of shame right there.

D-I-Y Stomach Shrinking

"Demoted or dismissed because of your weight?" Well don't worry, sympathy is at hand in the form of "stomach shrinking".

Stomach shrinking? (I hear you cry) How interesting, the stomach is a essentially a bag made up of [amongst other things], a couple of tiers of muscle. And what tissue is more [[[[contractible]]]] and elastic than muscle?!!!

the human stomach walls consist of an outer mucosa, and inner submucosa, muscularis externa, and serosa. The gastric mucosa....consists of the epithelium and the lamina propria (composed of loose connective tissue), with a thin layer of smooth muscle called the muscularis mucosae separating it from the submucosa beneath. The submucosa lies under the mucosa and consists of fibrous connective tissue, separating the mucosa from the next layer. Meissner's plexus is in this layer. The muscularis externa lies beneath the submucosa, and is unique from other organs of the gastrointestinal tract, consisting of three layers: ...[it] also possesses a serosa, consisting of layers of connective tissue continuous with the peritoneum.

Wow.

So how does one bring this shrinkage about? I'll bet it's willpower right? Course it is. And, after all the years fatz have spent trying to stay starved whilst forcing themselves to run about, just applying a little of that power of attention to the stomach would be easy-peasy.

We are indubtably suited to exercising extensive willpower. 

Just gently [we don't want to scare it] will the stomach to get smaller and smaller. Imagine it, like a bag, getting smaller and smaller bit by bit, if not day by day, then week by week, right? Let's take it easy!

Fantastic. And after all, we are in complete charge of our bodies right? We created them the size they are. So, no doubt we have full control of our stomachs.

We have the [will]power!!!

So ladies gents, before you engage in any mutilating gastrectomy-having your healthy functioning stomach amputated merely because it is functioning.

Surgical removal of the stomach is called a gastrectomy ....Sleeve gastrectomy is a surgical weight-loss procedure in which the stomach is reduced to about 15% of its original size, by surgical removal of a large portion of the stomach along the greater curvature.

Try instead using your mind [willpower] to shirk this eminently shrinkable organ. If the experimenters won't do the relevant experiments, do them yourselves. You owe it to your society to save your healthcare systems from "bankruptcy".

Spread the word!!!

[Seriously, relax your body shrink your own stomach. How hard can it be? Clinical trials will tell us.. D'OH!]

Outlaw Bodies

A break in normal transmission for some click bait. "Sports Illustrated: Here's why fat size 20-somethings don't belong on the runway". I'm not going to waste much time on this nonsense so I'll let this airhead tell you in her own words;

I’VE got a message to people who agree with Sports Illustrated’s move to parade “curvier” women on the runway: It’s irresponsible.

Yahwn, whatever, that link is paywalled so here's a quote from the editor of SI, MJ Day speaking on teevee;

“We’ve made a very positive statement that beauty is not one size fits all and now we’re carrying through with that in our new line,” Ms Day said on air.  “It’s just further confirmation that this is what people want to see and this is what we should be doing. “This is what our responsibility should be, you know, as people in the media we shouldn’t create this little box in what’s acceptable and what’s considered beautiful. “As a woman, yes I hope this continues.”

Mz Concern-Troll's not having that oh no because social exclusion, that great health technique, must be the only aim,

.....putting very overweight people on the catwalk feels more like giving in...

Feels like giving in to what?

...the message seems to be, don’t bother to strive to lose weight and improve your health and wellbeing.

You really give an earthly fig about that don't you? Are you acquainted with the latest developments in 'obesity'? What are they pray tell? What exactly is this "help" you are so fond of talking about?  Could it be the same old useless failed shit of the last 40 years? I think it could which would be why you're calling it "help".

The coup de foudre/ placeholder for where an argument should be is also relayed by head doc of the Australian Medical Association, lols;

“There is a difference between being confident in who you are and promoting a healthy weight message,” he told Sydney’s Daily Telegraph. “It’s a difficult message but just like we don’t use cigarettes to promote products I don’t think we should have unhealthy weights promoting products.”

Um hum, "we" do not use cigarettes to promote products and "we" should not have unhealthy weights promoting products.

Remember when we still pretended all docs where intelligent? Here's Mz Thing's version;

Parading and glorifying size 20-somethings on any runway promotes an underlying and irresponsible message that doing nothing about your weight is OK.

You may recognise this from theocracies requiring women to wear sacks whenever they're allowed to leave their homes-if they're allowed to leave without permission-'cos the mere sight of women's bodies provokes/promotes bad things to occur.

This version gained traction when slim women wanting to slim down to size thin, couldn't because dieting=starvation=hell, turned on the bodies they'd aspired to become-how often does previous admiration flip to rage?

They pointed to thin women/ their bodies as provoking their self imposed starvation and weight envy. It was jealousy. If they couldn't be thin why should thin women be allowed to just blithely go about their business, oblivious to the pain their bodies caused? Why shouldn't they feel some (of that) angst? No reminder of what they'd wanted so bad to be but couldn't manage.

That this line has retain the remotest kudos is tribute to the extent to which some can be taken seriously whilst issuing forth utter bunk.   

Unsurprisingly, Mz Derivative thinks she can rescue this stale effect by shivving other women;

My argument here cuts both ways. If the fashion industry decides to stop using models who appear to have starved themselves to skin and bones — as they should — they shouldn’t then choose to promote an equally unhealthy body shape.

You want to extend your offences and that makes it right? What's the cognitive fallacy for this called?

If a woman is actually starving herself, i.e. she is anorexic etc., she should have access to techniques that enable her to restore herself to proper balance, not to be treated like a miscreant, what's the point in that?

No-one, model or otherwise should have to starve themselves thinner. If there was proper means of altering weight/metabolism, this wouldn't be an issue, but there isn't, ergo if the fashion industry insist on thinness, they should accept they cannot have any more thinness than is comfortable and natural for any particular girl [some of them are] or woman.

Over and above that, I have zero time for banning thin or any other size people from appearing in the media. The only way we can have nice things is if the care of a person's body lies mainly within themselves and proper viable, genuinely effective methods of management and care.

You cannot act like the patriarchy that says women are assaulted because the very sight of them provokes other people to act in certain untoward ways. I get that some people have or have had anorexia and they can find the sight of thin bodies triggering, but reversal of such feelings shouldn't be much more than as feeling them.

And anyway, as people like the AMA guy are busily promoting proto- anorexia, we need more representation of anorexics talking in forensic detail if necessary-about how to attain this great achievement of modern times so those of us who are falling down can have access to this "help". You can't have it bothwise 'obesity' cultists!

The problem is not representation of thin or other bodies, it's that our regulation of various aspects of metabolic function is being left in the hands of fanatics who think everything is controlled through manipulating diet. They too wish to impose their medievalist fauxmorality on everybody else.

This columnist drones on about how much she is suffering due to not be able to indulge her self denuding sub-pieties now people aren't buying them as concern,

I’m guilty of turning a blind eye when a friends says, “I’m so fat”. I just stand there denying that they are but maybe a bit of truth can lead some people on the right track of weight loss. Too many people are risking their lives with weight-related problems. But if you believe everyone deserves the best possible chance at a long and healthy life surely it’s not OK.

Oh yes, not being able to issue forth your ignorant no-account platitudes really is standing in the way of any fat person's life, you are that special. If your essence could be bottled, you'd be a medicinal panacea. There is no blind anything, there is nothing we don't already know of and it hasn't worked for the last 40 years.

"Risk" lies in allowing this to continue, 

Parading and glorifying size 20-somethings on any runway promotes an underlying and irresponsible message that doing nothing about your weight is OK.

What the 'obesity' crusade promotes is drug addiction and mutilation, plus more derangement of metabolic function. That is why people are extricating themselves from it.

The more people call the last 40 years of effort "doing nothing," the more they draw attention to just how keen they are to keep people where they are now. 

The real impulse is making people feel like they are not in charge of themselves and that they should bow down to the whims of whomever is wielding the 'obesity' stick. That would be the height of "irresponsible" if you claim to believe people will die 8 years before others if they do not do what "help" has failed to do.

If you've read thus far, think of how far removed you've come from being cowed by these sentiments. There's further to go, but recognise you will have to keep pushing with positive action or else you will be dealt whatever people like this want.

No-one in their right mind wants that.

Takes the Biscuit

In "What cookies and meth have in common", Richard A Friedman, "professor of clinical psychiatry and the director of the psychopharmacology clinic at the Weill Cornell Medical College" is trying to flog "food addiction".

First though the origins of this term are worth perusing - there's evidence of professionals seeking to dump this on their usual patsies, hoi polloi.

About a decade ago, a group of American psychiatrists studying obesity decided to look into whether some people's anecdotal claims of food addiction could be proven.

Anecdotal eh?

The idea of food addiction, far from being something new, was first proposed by T.G. Randolph in a 1956 paper, “The descriptive features of food addiction; addictive eating and drinking.”

That paper is not available to view. It seems to include alcohol which is no longer seen as a food [as well as a drug] but probably was then. I had no idea this came from a professional source. Friedman again,

Neuroscientists have found that food and recreational drugs have a common target in the “reward circuit” of the brain,

Wow. There's no comparison and I'm sure he knows this.

All rewards — sex, food, money and drugs — cause a release of dopamine

Meeting your body's energy needs-eating- is not so much a reward as rewarding. The release of chemicals like dopamine express the usefulness of energy to the body, along with any other life-enhancing or worthwhile activity.

Drug abuse on the other hand beats the ever loving crap out of neural (and other) structures like reward circuitry in the course of bringing about its effects.

...the gentle impact of natural opioids, produced by our own bodies, resembles a summer breeze compared to the hurricane of physiological disruption caused by drugs designed to mimic their function.

It's like the difference between exhaling and vomiting your guts up, eyes teary and with bust blood vessels, nerves shredding vibrating with the effort.

The drug’s ability to release high levels of dopamine rapidly in reward areas of the brain produces the "rush" (euphoria) or "flash" that many people experience.

Evidence of low D2 receptors in the case of drug users or addicts is largely down to damage done during the process of drug taking. These drugs are classed as "neurotoxins";

Dr. Volkow discovered that people addicted to cocaine, heroin, alcohol and methamphetamines experience a significant reduction in their D2 receptor levels that persists long after drug use has stopped.

Versus the origins of lower D2 levels identified in people who are merely fat/ter,

In a 2010 study, Diana Martinez and colleagues at Columbia scanned the brains of a group of healthy controls and found that lower social status and a lower degree of perceived social support...were correlated with fewer dopamine receptors, called D2s, in the brain’s reward circuit.

A significant reduction versus fewer. This study's findings are consistent with others showing this tendency can cluster among families regardless of their respective sizes. I also have to go back to that low D2 and the functionality of such as the reward circuitry, "Dopamine is involved in.... (pleasure from natural behaviors such as eating)".

If your life is less rewarding than it might be is a lessening of these receptors sign of a circuitry that's not being overly used? Use it or lose it as they say.

S-s-p-l-i-ttt

That was quick. The minute you appear to be personifying the ob puppet-you are a subject for 'compassion'. Go off script by finding common ground with someone who's also had cause to question and think about that script versus your experience and boom. 

Back to the beginning. Before weight was about dressing your body to control the actions of others. Which sounds suspiciously like the way you dress is the key to seeing off assault. I'm not blaming those stuck in this, little of our discourse comes from within us and we need to be more aware of that.

Those implanting hackneyed tropes as some kind of psychological self assertion have absolutely no respect for the humiliation invoked by finding out what you are saying with your heart isn't really yours. No one gives a damn about what that might be.

More and more people are going through pyschoanalysis of various kinds and are being taught whatever memes are set out for fat people-which I'm sure I need not tell you is being presented increasingly as a mental health signifier and issue.We are then expected to pick up on this and spread it to others.

No-one feels sorry for fat people-not that its desired or needed. If they did, they'd find the failure of dieting/weight management/lifestyle-whatever euphemism to be intolerable and demand proper means of altering weight were found pronto.

Instead, they collude with people happy to shaft them any time in order to keep people stuck in a trap they can usually only escape by damaging themselves, sometimes irreparably. The only time people respond to fat people approvingly or with confirmation is when they spit up what they want us to.

...the definition of obesity has been further complicated and addled by long-standing stigmatisation and prejudice within our society, fuelled by abuse of a plethora of pejorative terms for people living with obesity. The cause of such societal rancour is likely due to a number of factors. ....lack of a clear understanding of obesity within our society and its causes is surely an important contributor

In other words its the public's fault! They're inherently stupid and bigoted that's why there's fat hate. It's nothing to do with our constant propaganda about how worthless fat people are. And inspite of even the most trolly troll constantly talking about how scientific this is, linking to much garbage 'research' to support the non-arguments contained therein. Keep thinking you're going to get away with this when the sh1t really hits the fan.

I expected the professionals to weasel out of their central role in all this nastiness, but even I did not expect such shameless displays of evasion, blaming others for their own hate campaign. 'Obesity' is their coinage, so how can anyone "addle" what was introduced, defined and controled by the authors of that narrative?

I'm seeing more people are waking up to just how incompatible the 'obesity' discourse is with anything but itself, that was the whole point of it. If it wished to include or to help it wouldn't exist. Remember, we all wanted to be slim, we used what was given to us, it didn't work. Not our fault.

There's a real split here and it isn't between lay and professional, fat v slim, those who want to be slim versus those who don't care, it's between those who wish to deal with the reality of human function and those who wish to avoid this and continue imposing their interpretation of what they want that to be. 

Hunger for a Change

Extracts from Roxane Gay's book Hunger featured in the guardian the other day. I admit I wasn't looking forward, I'm not her type of reader. "My body is a cage of my own making" turned out to be a different kettle of fish all together.

Beautifully written-so say those who know about these things. I'm kidding, even I could tell! At first I was wound up by that title-I doubt its anything of the sort, her own making that is. After some time I remembered the book is called Hunger. I began to sense a certain aggression-"I'm saying, I did it to myself, now you can stfu and listen for once."

Someone used to crowd control. 

I even began to wonder whether I've been at fault for not being more prepared to accommodate what's required. For me though, it wouldn't be true. I know weight isn't conscious choice. I know a body demanding more energy than is about function not emotion.

Is weight an unconscious choice choice though? I've always tried to leave that open, but the more people claim it is, the less convincing that feels, esp. given their explanations. Why is the big question, why go to all that trouble?

And where does this wellspring of what-ob-means come from? Is it genetically influenced?

It's a case of only when proper means of reversing body mass is available, will it be easier to perceive just how mechanical this all is.

In some sense, the reaction of the readers was most peculiar. Never have so many 'nice' middle class people been so relieved and joyous about such monstrous violation. As long as you're working within the current favoured ob trope for those who think they're nice-Nice Guys [I'm using that pansexually]-"Food addiction", that is.

Though more rigorously moderated-to minimise the, "I was raped and still managed to maintain a hell-thay wait" type comments, the extent of collapse of the usual impenetrable gabble, you know it, I'm not even going to mention it, was quite alarming. As if the biggest problem people have with fat metaphysics is the lack of (perceived) brokenness on offer- that complaint undermined only by self-pitying whines about "self-pity".

Like, this is how to be a woman/ finally-a fat woman.

Slimness signifies woman in some way, the absence of it seems to equate to the absence of womanhood, with the knowledge that it is there. Which lends a sense of impertinence. The criticisms of fat activists are tendentious and strained.

Fat women it seems are perceived as impinging on the space usually assigned to masculinity- without the qualifications for it. Therefore we come across something like aggressive, but low (very) low status males. Notable are the reaction of women, who were just as relieved/happy that finally fatz had joined them and they could get behind a fatty-joy of joys.

Nothing new, but I'm still surprised it makes this much difference especially to the sort of women informed by feminism. 

Though it is 2017 and not 18 or even 1717, it seems women cannot advocate through argument, or rely on reason they must emote, from a place of being breached. The more 'unsympathetic' the greater the impact needed to crack through the hard carapace of favoured delusion.

----------------------------

Four aspects spoke to me. How these types require you to talk about being, i.e. "I chose fat, using food" to do x. How people treat you as a fat person. The impotence imposed on any fat person who's ever tried to be slim/lose weight-the latter goal replaced the former when it became clear that this route had turned that into a pipe dream.

And the parts I enjoyed most, about playing your duty,

I am, perhaps, self-obsessed beyond measure. No matter where I am, I wonder about where I stand and how I look. I think, I am the fattest person in this apartment building. I am the fattest person in this class. I am the fattest person at this university. I am the fattest person in this theatre. I am the fattest person on this aeroplane. I am the fattest person in this airport. I am the fattest person in this city. I am the fattest person at this conference. I am the fattest person in this restaurant. I am the fattest person in this shopping mall. I am the fattest person on this panel. I am the fattest person in this casino.

The self absorption of neurosis, in this case imposed neurosis of the 'obese' characterisation, so true. It's this kind of crap that drove me to step out of dutiful portrayal of the 'obese' role, remembering you are doing baad.  I know the comment is more about Roxane's awareness of her size, but its what you're supposed to say to yourself, remember you are fat.

It's motivational.

Being multiply-raped at the age of 12 is so unthinkable that it was just as much so after I read it as before. Nothing can make that fit in my head, my imagination runs out. Yet I recognised parts;

...no one but those boys could hear me scream.....the surprising strength in their limbs. I remember that they laughed a lot. I remember that they had nothing but disdain for me.

At that moment I thought, how little has changed, I couldn't help myself. So much of being abused in general is like what people want the experience of fat to be. Not for their own personal satisfaction you understand, for the good of health. Of society.

If folks want a mythos about why people "choose" to be fat, why not that when you have a trauma or shock, your nervous system assumes the construction of that trauma, the head becomes dissonant. Being an ob thing is a good alignment.

Is that true? Not the point, its better than the ones made up by others.

As it is those assaults-and this is why the Internet feels strangely old-fashioned a lot of the time-seemed to reshape RG's nervous system, straining it. Around that goes gain, over time, especially if that doesn't retreat sufficiently. It depends on tendency as always.

Eating is taking in energy. It is the response to hunger and hunger increases when the systems that regulate and colate it are disturbed, and/or the body needs more energy. Few can sit and just eat and eat without hunger or energy misalignment. 

She also seems to be a metabolic outlier. At the end of an interview she said that she'd grow 12 or so inches at around age 16, which seems extraordinary to me. Though not all tall people are fat obviously, it shows real potential toward growth.

Her top weight was 577lbs and if you still have to ask why she had to hit that, the answer is of course, no reason whatever....except, if you can stop a person's body from hitting 577, then you can stop them from hitting 200 or less.

The first rule of medicine is to stabilise. We are still waiting for the industry/field to manage that rather conservative target after all these decades due to it not being found in how much sugar is in digestive buscuits. All that despite their sniffiness at our lack of anorexia talent. Not to mention the increasing ability of others to stop all sorts of cells from proliferating.

I wish I had known I could talk to my parents and get help, and turn to something other than food.

I must say I laughed out loud at the mention of "help" out there that would have stopped Roxane's body in its tracks. If proper investigation had lent itself to inducing a neural realignment, that would have taken something out of the trauma, make her more able to discuss it.

Why would a girl want to tell the parents she has so much compassion for what had happened to their young daughter? Children often feel for their parents. For the responsibilities they have, their emotional/mental states, and what it would mean to them if they knew. Why should a child so utterly betrayed have go through another unthinkable thing? Another loss?

Many people cope by not telling those they love. They're hanging on to the view of themselves before.

She has so many symptoms of the kind of souped up traumatised system and if mercifully that could be made to return to a rest state, the relief she'd have gotten and would still get would probably be appreciable.

That's supposed to motivate research. 

The fact that she loses a bit of weight every time she goes on a dietary regime is a possible sign that her body might respond rather readily to this in a way that would aid the reversal she desires.

We are told constantly we are sick, yet people are expressing surprise that Roxane is in pain, really? So they do know they're lying. Certainly 'obesity' wallahs know some are in pain, they just don't give a damn, they want to tell you you deserve it and there all, "We don't know nuttin' about nuttin'."

I have been wracking my brains for years as to why they've developed this hang 'em and flog 'em mentality when it comes to fat people. I don't claim to be perfect, but over and above umm ethics, the idea of other people's suffering doesn't interest. I don't get what makes this so compelling.

I doubt we'll find out any time soon, they don't want to be that in touch with their fee fees.

Getting people like Roxane's systems to return to a more normalised state would would be grand, but that would also interrupt the ob narrative of distress and sickness. So, many of those involved are just going to keep fucking around with nonsense like "food/eating addiction", whilst pretending to be doing science.

A reminder of what certain establishment scientists and medics wanted to do to gay men and AIDS, under the cover of science. One shudders to think what would have happened there if they'd got their way. 

The thing that's saved fat people is that being fat is not disease or inherently a pathology in and of itself, though if it was, the sort of body count of the various opiate crises ironically would have jerked people out of this ugly stupor.

That doesn't mean there isn't a job to be done. I've made it plain that scientists/researchers owe people a debt of honour in this affair. And, that would open up a portal to greater achievement in various fields of physical and mental health.

Slander and lies have been told to hurt people who simply haven't deserved it. Whatever anyone thinks or says, the phony baloney attempts to cast weight as addiction/eating disorder/mental health problem won't work. The buck for this culture of false disease must stop somewhere and it has to be here.

This is going to have to be solved properly, nothing less will do.

Presumably that's the underlying source of rage.