Wednesday, 18 October 2017

"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." 

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

Tuesday, 17 October 2017

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?

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? " 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.

Friday, 13 October 2017

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.

Friday, 29 September 2017

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.

Wednesday, 27 September 2017

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. 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. 

Thursday, 21 September 2017

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.

Monday, 4 September 2017

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.”
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.

Friday, 1 September 2017

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.

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!]

Friday, 4 August 2017

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.

Thursday, 13 July 2017

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.

Monday, 10 July 2017


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. 

Wednesday, 5 July 2017

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; 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.

Monday, 3 July 2017

Life Needs Life

Chanowk Yisrael grows produce in his urban landscape.
Yisrael.... tells me that for some of the folks (even into their 30s), this was the first time they’d experienced the joy of pulling a piece of fruit off the vine and biting into it right then and there. It’s a life-changing experience, he says, that he provides for people year-round in his backyard garden.  
Pick it, smell it, taste it. Even imagining that is more enticing than any healthist bulletin of eat this or pay the wages of disease and death. Whatever you opinion neither food industrialists, many of whom would put unrefined canine poop in your food if they could get away with it, nor fanatical fantasists poisoning our understanding of food, should be allowed to dictate your experience of food and eating.

People eat according to the best and most suitable choices for them available in their environment, whatever any projection insists. Folks do not exist in a vacuum.  Not according to the dictates of the price of everything and the value of nothing and/or the pleasure watching prudes.

Both are lacking sense and sensuality.

Friday, 30 June 2017

Training Not Treatment [i.e. Drugs]

One of the totally out of the blue things I've learnt from the Internet is that endocrinologists are viewed as somewhat of a joke amongst their peers in the white coat peerage.

Harsh. There are so many more promising candidates. At least endocrinologists (purport to?) study tangible anatomy. The glands.

Yeah, you're feeling me.

I won't bother again explain how these apparent jokers could have gained the best kind of revenge, it's sort of obvious. This report, "Complex obesity causes require a new approach to research" is not going to help with that though. Subtitle, "Endocrine Society outlines mechanisms underlying obesity epidemic".

I swear I must live in hope 'cos I was genuinely looking forward to a good summation. Instead;
A growing body of research indicates that obesity is a disorder of the energy homoeostasis system, according to a new Endocrine Society scientific statement.
To be fair, chuckles, it's like, "Shyness is a disorder of relating socially". Blame the writer, after all the source material is not available and she doesn't appear to know what's going on.
...statement suggested that obesity is caused by two distinct processes: energy homoeostasis and energy imbalance -- specifically, energy intake greater than expenditure.
That'd be the greedy 'n' lazy reference. Well hidden MFs.
Energy homeostasis refers to the establishment of a new and higher body weight "set point" matching energy intake and expenditure, referred to as an "upward setting."
Well re-set it downward then genie-asses. No probs, no disorder, alter the function of the equipment, you know the stuff you're studying-your field.
This mechanism subsequently leads to sustained body weight over time, as well as regaining of weight after diet or lifestyle changes in many cases.
No, homoeostasis enables our bodies to restore ourselves. What you have there is the ideal tool for "weight maintenance". What you need to change the settled points, [geddit?] set points it restores. Look for the best way, not the drug way.
"Because of the body's energy balance adjustments, most individuals who successfully lose weight struggle to maintain weight loss over time,"  
Oh shut up. It's the wrong approach, self induced starvation violates the function of biology.
"To effectively treat obesity, we need to better understand the mechanisms that cause this phenomenon, and to devise interventions that specifically address them. Our therapeutic focus has traditionally been on achieving weight reduction. Most patients can do this; what they have the most trouble with is keeping the weight off."
The same mechanisms that 'cause' slim as you indicated already.
"Healthcare providers and patients need to view this tendency as the body's expected response to weight loss, rather than as a sign of a failed treatment regimen or noncompliance with treatment," he added.
We need to and are viewing it as your failure. Send your thoughts to any societies involving themselves in 'obesity', preferably copies of troll messages, they divise this kind of woo for. 

Nor have cal res wallahs had any "therapeutic focus"-it's not required anyway. Turning everyone around people into bullies and haters in order to make not starving less painful to currently ripping through the stomachs of hundreds of thousands is hardly therapeutic.

Nor is that necessary as weight does not require "treatment", i.e. another set of their toxic poison and useless drugs with alarming side effects.

See next post for suggestions

Monday, 26 June 2017


If there's one term that sums up the experience of being fat its sobriety. Fatness is sober.

There's no running away, no escape, no holiday from you. No heightened perception, no visual/auditory hallucination, no euphoria, no preternatural calm, no disruption of co-ordination, no nightmares, no bad trips, no supernatural energy, gurning, palsy, maniacal tics, no desire to fight, no dutch courage, no plummeting lows, no tremulous shakes, no paranoia, no river of sweats...........

...........Just being whatever and whomever you are.

Being fat isn't like drug addiction, it is not like alcoholism, it is not like anorexia either, it's where the body takes you, when its made its calculations. 

Food is not a drug. Food is a source of energy the body that it needs to maintain its existence.  Drugs are not. Starvation is not. Vomiting is not. Only alcohol is. It's the closest one can come to any notion of "food addiction" only because it is also an intoxicant.

Food could only said to be "a drug of choice" in the way that a duvet could become a pony of choice if a person choose to form theirs into a pony like shape and imagined riding it to glory in the Grand National.

In your imagination only. With one like that it's probably best you stay away from actual drugs.  

Those past the arbitrarily declared weight line have been denied a voice by a continuous effort of much trusted researchers and professionals to force them to act out the narrative construct they've conjured up.

This and the denial of actions and rejection of results-on the grounds that the latter did not match their holy hypothesis-has left a void within most fat/ter people where the unfettered sense memories of their experience should be.

That void is currently drawing a multi-pronged effort to fill it by getting people who aren't to see themselves as addicts/ alcoholics/anorexics.

Try to remember, professionals medicalisation along with hysterical pathologisation does not equal our lives. 

To define anything, one must describe it according to its own characteristics and features. As this is not being done with weight-it might accidentally reveal something of use and we can't have that-it is described purely as other things, things it is not.

Weight is the representation of humans as mass. It is not something happening to an ethereal non-material idea of self, such basis is a religious hangover.

Seeking euphoria or having a system that succumbs to proto-anorexia does not define the life or experience of merely fat/ter people. And just as those not taking themselves for small shit, have been free [more or less] to construct their own narratives; drug addict-started for fun/to manage bad feelings/get through bad times, until their system succumbed and boom, they needed drugs to function. Alcoholic-one sip and it was where have you been all my life?/all my friends drank like me until they stopped and I didn't-couldn't etc., etc.,

Have the grace to allow others to relay their own stories, such as they are, disregarding any attempt to switch one set of imposed falsehood for another.

Wednesday, 21 June 2017

Children Seen as the Weakest Link

So the burgeoning 'obesity' industry continues to target the softer route of using children to advance its increasingly profit-dredging soulless cult,
These types of interventions were often delivered by multidisciplinary teams, including pediatricians, exercise physiologists or physical therapists, dietitians or diet assistants, psychologists or social workers, or other behavioral specialists.
I'll bet, a veritable bonanza for middle/upper class professionals. Well, we owe them a living don't we? And so do children, donating their minds and bodies for the effort.

Ob industrialists are wont to tell us of the purported percentage increase in this or that version of their stupid term 'obesity' so they shouldn't be shy about the percentage increase in the diversion of funds into this money-for-nothing slush pile. I'll bet its epitastic.

In order to collar more unwilling vics, the industry wishes to "screen" children from ages 6 years upwards to see how many it can requisition for what it dubs, "Comprehensive, intensive, behavioural interventions".

Don't all rush at once.

Basically it's,
...individual sessions (both family and group); provided information about healthy eating, safe exercising, and reading food labels; encouraged the use of stimulus control (eg, limiting access to tempting foods and limiting screen time), goal setting, self-monitoring, contingent rewards, and problem solving; and included supervised physical activity sessions.
"Reading food labels" demands a serious education. And stimulus control is not "limiting access" to anything, it's altering your ability to switch off or curtail your response to stimuli. That suggestion is about removing the stimulus, without addressing the potential for response. You'd rather get rid of say a phobia that just remove or avoid the trigger/stimulus.

This is all too familiar, like 'obesity' cults favourite attack the response to hunger, but not the hunger itself.

The reason they give for insisting on a minimum of at least 26 + billable hours is their "evidence" [lols] shows any less is even more useless than the minimal effects they have the effrontery to claim make this all worthwhile.

The proper response to this would be come up with stuff that actually works, but if they were interested in that, they wouldn't be in this.

That's not all though, the real jam in the doughnut is turning your kid on to drug abuse or "phramacotherapy" as they prefer. Clearly shy of their own actions. The prospect of targeting ethnic minority children is something folks need to pay attention too.

Pass that on to the unsuspecting.

I don't know about you but six years old was around the time I was beginning to become aware of eating and weight. The notion of me being put on drugs at that age is staggering to me. There are two aspects to falling prey to drug abuse, now or in the future. One is susceptibility the other is the worship of pills as something to take as some kind of holy sacrament regardless.

Drugs are introduced in any instance possible just for the sake of it.

Drugs impose strain on the liver. Their wild mis-use sets people's minds to that direction and is a long-term risk factor for organ damage. 'Obesity' wallahs are fond of invoking 'addiction', they seem desperate to make manifest their favoured legends about fat people-as they always do.

Weight is an issue of anatomical function, neural and endocrinal. The real answers lie in altering metabolic processes through pathways we can create/connect/exploit through conscious access. The focus is on physiology not 'behaviour', character or intangibles.

This is an idea that is still in advance of our current expectations.

So alternatives?

Well, teaching children to meditate is a good idea, for their general neural and physical health. Teach them to clear their minds of all thought, pick a spot on the wall/ceiling and focus on it. The key is to return attention to that spot when it drifts, without force or frustration. A couple of minutes a day to start off with is fine-if they are jittery.

Up to 20 minutes is fine. Meditation is not a treatment by the way, its a practice that tends to help support health, its a form of mental hygiene.

Gaining control of your mind is good for resisting definitions others may seek to impose for their own gain. It also can help with lifting and resisting excessive demands on your child's energy, something that can distort hunger, especially at times of hormonal flux.

Do not under any circumstances identify your child as 'obese' or 'with obese'. Your child is always a child. A little human person, never, ever, ever a disease or "person with their own body mass." If you feel up to it, make that clear to any professionals that you do not wish to support or be involved in such terms or pathologising your child in any way- whether you use their help or not. 

When it comes to hunger teach children to respect theirs by not forcing them to override or cheat theirs. Encourage them to try various things in a spirit of adventure, but don't bribe or make them eat things they really don't want to. If its about things like veg, make them tastier.

Keep a relaxed and positive attitude around eating and food. Explain that it supports the greatness that is them *grin*. You don't have to be a godbotherer to say some form of grace-expressing gratitude for your food before you eat it. And do not get them involved in this good/bad food or talk about food as 'junk' or 'shit'. Some food is fun, silly food for snacks other food is more nourishing sustaining food.

Still other food is about celebrating occasions or seasons. 

Explain to them in terms of useful, appropriate times to eat this or that kind of food. Tell them about where food comes from, about things growing from the earth, point to plants you see around, even weeds in the pavement/sidewalk, to help explain.

Talk about how food gets turned into the state you buy it in. 

Check out people like Ellen Satter, food justice folks who work with children and urban (and rural) gardening. Most of the good ones don't harp on 'obesity' its irrelevant to people who care about real things. Put food into context, its ultimately just food, fuel, it's not physiology. It's certainly nothing to fear. Altering the body shouldn't depend on it.

If a child genuinely seems to have excessive hunger-check by observing them and gently questioning how their hunger feels before, during and after eating. How do they feel about being and not being hungry?

Explain that some people's hunger function is more excitable than others, and that you will work together to help their body bring it down to a proper rhythm. 

Don't label them 'eating disordered' or pathologise them or anything like that. Talk about their fears and reassure them that you support them in finding ways to check it. Dispel anxiety, don't create it.

Teach them to calm themselves before, during and after they eat-on top of in general, even if its just something like counting down from 10-1.

Deal with other anxieties or worries they may have about themselves and life in general help them achieve a better state overall.

In case it needs saying, don't allow your child to be turned into a little pill popper on the orders of those who are clearly no longer in charge of themselves on this issue. Be prepared to be the voice of reason, defending your child against fanaticism.

I genuinely cannot see how they will get away with this sort of quackery without being sued at some point, but that's a risk factor they need to consider. 

Remember, all any of us signed on for was to become slim nothing more and, many fat adults are ex-childhood 'obesity' cases. It didn't work then and it won't now. 

Tuesday, 13 June 2017

"Weight as Disease" = Munchausen's-by-Proxy

"Accepting the concept that obesity is a chronic disease process is important for several reasons,"
Oh what a tangled web is being woven.

There's far more to being asked to swallow a false "concept" than meets the eye [is that noshing on ya fees?] You are being asked to pretend you are a disease/sick when you aren't either. How could you even be the former, you might ask? May I remind you of "food/eating addiction".

A refresher- the American Medical Association's attempted declaration;
That our AMA: (1) recognize obesity and overweight as a chronic medical condition (de facto disease state) and urgent public health problem
It should be said that even if the latter point were true, it would make no odds. A disease is a disease whether it's a purported "public health crisis" or whether it's affected 5 people in the history of record.

Terms, medical ones certainly do not exist for their potential to warp minds and manipulate emo's. Pretending to be sick/unwell/unhealthy when you aren't any of those things is not only a lie, it's a diagnosable condition. It's called Munchausen's Syndrome, more recently named factitious as in presenting fiction as fact.
Factitious disorders are conditions in which a person deliberately and consciously acts as if he or she has a physical or mental illness when he or she is not really sick.
This is of course what the AMA is in effect demanding of every person above a BMI of 30 actually 25 as it includes the term "overweight". They never thought of this, there's little to no sense of consequence when entering this particular playpen.

The interesting rub here is that it is in a sense 'obesity' crusaders, the AMA included, who have the Munchausen's, what they're seeking to do is to force people under their influence and charge to act this out. That puts them under the influence of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy.
Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSBP) is a mental health problem in which a caregiver makes up or causes an illness or injury in a person under his or her care, such as a child, an elderly adult, or a person who has a disability. Because vulnerable people are the victims, MSBP is a form of child abuse or elder abuse.  
Holy Farka Touré. How much does that not sound like this imposition? That's it in a nutshell! Mental health problem eh? Ha, ha, they said it!

Difference is instead of developing MS personal inclination or neurosis, you're having it forced on you, which is even more peculiar. MSBP has always been a tad controversial. The typical scenario-though this makes me think that's a stereotype-is a mother pretending their child is sick by manipulating them physically or injuring them to produce what could be deemed symptoms.

In that case it seems to be the extension of the womb, lack of separation between mother and child, whose being deemed an object that belongs to her, even still a part of her. In the case of 'obese' because that's wholly a creation of slimz, it's as if we are in their heads as a product of their imagination.

I must admit, on first hearing, I dismissed it on sight as a form of abuse given a fancy name. I can't remember when I caught on, though I can say the crusade brought it to mind. The enigma has always been motive. The motive for MS has been to draw the kind of sympathy and attention we associate with being unwell, but what's gained by using a proxy as a vehicle for fake illness?
Factitious disease is defined as the intentional production (or feigning) of disease in oneself to relieve emotional distress by assuming the role of a sick person.
Which is exactly the payoff that's being sold to BMI 25+. 
"First, it removes the feeling that patients alone are responsible for their excess weight.
That's what they've got from years of the fatsphere, desperation to evade responsibility, despite spending a lifetime going out of our way to accept it fully in the most painful and ego-immolating ways.

They cannot see further than what they want. See all the insistence that doctors are not at the head of promoting this mess along with "obesity researchers". They are just affected by society's bias, rather than their professional standing helped legitimise and increase the state of rage that is the norm. Without the medical profession 'obesity' would be the joke it is.

I can say this confidently having predicted they'd weasel out of their responsibility for this ordure. Once the stank gas is loose, they claim only to have smelt it not to have dealt it.  

So in addition to being asked to adopt anorexia, exercise bulimia, body integrity identity disorder we are being asked to pretend to be sick, 'cos people will sympathise with us.

Trashing the worthless 'obesity' construct and getting back to concentrating on a proper science of metabolic function would do that far more completely. 

Not that I believe people will sympathise with fat people. You cannot feel for an object. Anyway, fat people don't need sympathy, they need people to stop being raving arseholes.

Subtle difference.

Now you may doubt this sort of diagnosis. I think that's a fair and valid instinct. Amateur diagnosis is almost invariably a bad idea. In this though, you have to recognise an unprecedented uniqueness.

You've got a group of people who have little real interest in their already contrived subject, who have other agendas, who refuse to ground it in the science of physiology and are openly disinterested in resolution. Instead they impose their peculiarly alien subjectivity on those who have no real desire for it.

Ergo, that's all that's on show, virtually all the time. 

The constant airing of their psychological hang ups without proper science and progress to distract from that ensures glimpses are hardly fleeting.

The refusal not simply to do the science, but also to completely impose whatever's knocking around in their heads on others, also means those 'others' have the right to say, this is what you are telling me about yourself. This is why you are wrong, this is why people change course when something doesn't work. Not doing so ends up with this sort of thing. The thing that might moderate that being absent, personal cost.

That's using proxies for you.

Thursday, 8 June 2017

Appropriating Addiction

I'm having a bit of a Diane Abbott interlude right now. The crude ambushing of an intelligent, highly accomplished Black woman, to put her in the place assigned for her by the British establishment and its hmv media has been as brutal as it is bracing. It's easy to forget yourself, getting caught up in making yourself a safe space for others, only to find that you suddenly cannot defend yourself against them, as effectively as you know you can.

Whether you are targeted and surrounded or no, it's not enough to be on your game. You've got to be on top of it at all times, one chink in the armour and you are a piñata.

Anyway, back to more trivial matters.

"A food addiction has defined my entire life. And it is slowly killing me"
Here’s a list of things I’ve done to try and fix my obsession with eating: four psychiatrists, nine psychologists, two hypnotherapists, three meditation workshops, one hospital stay, 10 dieticians, 18 personal trainers. I’ve moved house 28 times, countries twice, states six times, I changed schools four times. I’ve been on Weight Watchers so many times I’ve lost count, Jenny Craig three times, Dr Cohen’s diet twice, Atkins three times, Mayo Clinic diet once, vegan diet five times. 
This list displays a refreshingly direct grasp of efficacy for this area. You have a problem-real or perceived. You apply a solution to said issue, if said issue remains, you judge the [prospective] solution to have failed, end of story. You then move on.

In the case of calorie restriction, this basic rule is comprehensively rejected. The issue is weight-light or heavyweight- you apply the purported solution to it-calorie restriction dieting. Either you remain the same, or its temporary effects rescind themselves ending with you being back where you started. Ergo-this 'solution' has failed.

That's it, move on to a more righteous path. 

But no, we aren't allowed to. We must not see this failure, we must only see ourselves or our bodies as having failed this godlike principle. This refusal leads puzzled indoctrinates to ask themselves; "Why can't I starve?"
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.
Answer; "[It's as if] we are physically dependent on food!!!" Round and round in the same circle. You simply cannot get away from a reality that stark and unyielding. Some of us aren't used to being told no, even by nature.

The attempt to distance the professionals is palpable here but distinctly implausible. Since when do these give a damn about what fat people enough to attempt to illuminate their experience? Unless it can be twisted to fit their agenda- see this is in the number of their pointless and ill conceived rat studies.

Even if you employ metaphors, the comparisons you make must be apt enough to be worthwhile. There's no use in saying I think the term 'football' is "too narrow". It should be broadened to include round fruits like watermelons, later on, if not melons, why not oranges and apples etc., "You hurt me if you don't allow apples in, I like apples. It feels like a football to me, who are you to say otherwise? etc.,"

Subsequently football becomes things that aren't footballs. Rather like disease no longer has an agreed definition due to its promiscuous emotive misapplication.

Real addiction happens because exposure to an outer supply of chemical agents disrupts our body's inner production of chemicals with a similar structure. That inner supply is made totally within us and is sufficient for us, all things being equal.

Even if you ignore the debate ending fact that we have an innate physical dependence on food, addiction doesn't work as a replacement/ metaphor for dependence because our bodies do not make the energy we need to survive, internally.

On that basis, the notion of food as an addiction appears to fundamentally violate the laws of physics, lmfao.

Hunger is the thing ob wallahs are desperate to phase out, denial of fact doesn't end it. The basis of their empire of falsehood is eating is purely a conscious act, like taking drugs or alcohol. No matter how much they seek to reformulate that using different terms.

Making people feel like addicts not only demoralises, depresses and disempowers them-the opposite of what is claimed-it makes it easier to sell them drug abuse. Food is the gateway, we've got better drugs for you.

Like your average neighbourhood junk peddler-but without the honour of not pretending its concern for your health.

Ironically, a more apt example of the unbalancing of internal function, by the introduction of an outer dissembler appeared in that proto-anorexia/anorexia editorial of the other week,
In their article, Gianini et al (2017) report that both individuals with anorexia nervosa and individuals on the NWCR:....Are physiologically primed for weight regain. Both groups have lower resting energy expenditure... than non-weight reduced BMI-matched controls.
Lower expenditure is the product of disrupting your energy metabolism through the bolt-on of extra energy wastage. It's like you've sprung a leak and your body is finding ways to slow down the rate of [energy] loss.

Compulsion on the other hand refers to neural posture that has been assumed by the conjunction of nerves used to carry out various actions and behaviours, to the extent that the action/behaviour is not as voluntary as before. It has become compulsive or a compulsion. That posture requires dismantling.

Again, eating starts from being naturally compulsive. We all in the main, eat the same way, we respond to our body's calls for energy. Hunger is the body's demand for energy, eating is the response to that demand for energy. Notion of 'addiction' to responding to your body's energy demands is redundant. Needing to respond to you vital needs is a given.

The best way to reduce intake of course, is to reduce hunger, thereby reducing the need to respond to it.

As for Melanie Tait, what are we to make of her utterances?
Astonishingly, the jury is still out on food addiction.
She expected this all to be a typical mindless phone-in that makes no sense but that we all submit to unquestioningly as if lies are the same as truth when it comes to certain quarters.  What does she even think 'food addiction' means?
...“substance-use disorders”. Twelve-step programs say an addiction is a physical compulsion, coupled with a mental obsession. Whatever addiction is, an addiction to food has defined my entire life.
How can a "whatever" define anything, let alone your life?
Food is killing me, slowly, clogging my arteries and raising my blood sugar. Increasing my risk of Alzheimer’s, cancer and diabetes. Still, I can’t stop.
Um, you can feel 'obesity' agit-prop in your body can you? Food does not "clog arteries" that's biological myth, but this isn't really about Tait's experience. It's more about selling this to the impressionable.
They [her parents] don’t believe I have a food addiction. They think I’m weak. That I can’t control myself. That I’m lazy. 
This is an ignorant person's idea of what they think a drug addict would talk about their experience. She even tries the old part of the addict narrative of stealing to feed their habit. In this case, Mel says she stole food from her parents so many times, why?
Most of the time I think they’re right; they know me better than anyone else. Why can’t I just stop eating?
All through this, she keeps clunkingly inserting aspects of the 'binge eating disorder' playbook, hilariously emphasising the ludicrous insistence on 'secret eating' and shame being the biggest telltale. Virtually every fat person feels ashamed to eat at some phase or other. Which calls to mind the desire in this to separate the failure of dieting in fat people from the failure of dieting in everyone else.

 To remind folk, I had a chronic disorder of hyperactive, hyper functioning hunger. When I first heard eating on your own was such a big deal I was genuinely stunned.

I had actually forgotten about eating alone, that's how much of an impression it made on me. If I was forced to name as many as 20 major bad things about hyper hunger function. I'd struggle with more than five obvious major ones, despite that, eating on my own wouldn't make the list.

And that ill conceived checklist consists mainly of, eating more than expected/wanted. So if you want to eat lettuce and you past the chippy and get a bag of chips, because you are hungry, that's supposedly a symptom of 'binge eating'.

But that's a 'symptom' of weight loss dieting. The reason you fail is not because you are 'out of control' its because your body is cleverer than dieting. You don't control your eating, that's a subjective interpretation of how you feel when your intake matches your outcome.

This is the norm, that's why people are so obsessed with telling fat people we're fat........ and greedy and lazy. We have to learn the harmony we feel is shameful and not acceptable. Yet this is the major symptom of 'binge eating'

The experience of genuinely hyper functioning hunger and nervous system was a real problem, not the imagined one fat hating puppet masters so desperately and strenuously want, sorry about that fat phobe Gippettos. There's something vain about this particular fixation.

This interaction is inherently abusive, with professionals seeking to gain such complete control of people that its easily to the extent of those relationship where one partner micromanages the other. What bugs these controllers is the notion that their handlee is doing anything independent.

The notion that you are eating away from their gaze is too suggestive of an inner life and will outside their control.

Fundamentally, the problem with all this the wish to impose their feelings on everyone else. The wish to pretend this is objective and universal. That this hasn't carried the day thus far is what's causing Ms. Tait's/her puppeteers "astonishment".

Binge eating disorder is a lot like 'obesity'. A construct that exists to be fashioned by the dominant fantasies of an already decided narrative. It appears to boil down to two things. Either the hunger generating aspect of weight loss dieting/calorie restriction-exercise bulimia disruption and blow back. It's still not routinely acknowledged that dieting deranges your metabolism and makes you feel like shit, not any "weight battle" with your greedy/lazy character.

When you keep dieting, and trying to diet, as fat people are more likely to, this can become a chronic disruption of its own. One that doesn't abate even between diets.  

There's not enough genuine detail to say whether she's referring to that or actual hyperactive hunger function. It shouldn't be but sadly lies are not conducive to sorting through sometimes elusive symptoms.

Mel has got some issues though. She makes a lot of her seemingly unwilling solitariness and mentions a sort of arrested emotional development. Together with the fact that she does feel her hunger is ferocious suggests she could have a problem with the centre of her brain-where the hypothalamus et al reside. Sounds to me like they could be the same source.

Maybe this is her brain/nervous systems way of pointing to this.