Thursday, 27 April 2017

Metabolic-Based Depression?

A sad story about a man's brother and electroconvulsive therapy reminded me of why I've always struggled to respond to queries framed as; "Would you be slim if you could?" The short answer is that weight can't be separated from the state of your metabolic function and your body's use of energy.

Consider Stephen Mayers-the writer's brother. The article tells the story of how he developed a deep and intractable form of depression ten years before the end of his life. In the end his cause of death was a heart attack. Certain things leapt out, 
A life that had been little more than an extended stupor, enlivened only by the gobbling of stodge...
Insatiable appetite for carbohydrates-ready energy.

The article itself is defending the revival of ECT-electroconvulsive therapy, where electrodes deliver electric shocks to the brain to induce seizures. This supposedly can relieve the deepest of depressions, presumably by destroying certain functions of the brain,
The addiction to discomfort eating, which brought only self-hatred, was ousted by a renewed passion for cycling.
Something was wrong with his body's use of energy and a signal of this prompted feelings of self loathing, well done 'obesity' crusade.
As the writer and professor of clinical psychology Andrew Solomon has sagely noted, the opposite of depression is not happiness, but vitality.
For "vitality" we can read, flow as well as presence of energy. Once ECT broke through depression, the brother felt a restored urge to really stimulate his flow of energy via activity.

It's possible that heart trouble was the cause of what was perceived solely as his state of mind. It could also have been something else that eventually caused his heart to succumb, perhaps something about the workings of his digestive system.

How ECT works is not fully understood. The damage from these induced seizures seem to have the effect of separating certain functions in the brain associated with depressions' circular thinking, this undermines depression.
Our results show that ECT has lasting effects on the functional architecture of the brain. A comparison of pre- and posttreatment functional connectivity data in a group of nine patients revealed a significant cluster of voxels in and around the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortical region (Brodmann areas 44, 45, and 46), where the average global functional connectivity was considerably decreased after ECT treatment (P < 0.05, family-wise error-corrected). This decrease in functional connectivity was accompanied by a significant improvement (P < 0.001) in depressive symptoms;
[My emphasis] It's possible that it affects functioning in the gut, sort of reversing the effect of gastric mutilation.

One thing that has revealed to more people is the intimate connection between that area, the brain and the heart/circulatory system.

Tuesday, 25 April 2017

Not Cool With Misogyny

Regarding this TITP post entitled "For the record". It uses an acronym, "TERF". That stands for "trans excluding [or exclusionary] radical feminist". This is one for the dustbin. There's no valid excuse for the existence of this stupid term. What's so specifically noteworthy about the exclusion of trans people by radical feminists, as opposed to any other trans excluders/exclusionary personages of any type? Why are they the only people who merit a specific term?

What's the acronym for those who kill trans people because they are trans? Or are they of less import to the well being of trans people than radical feminists excluding trans people from...........what? 

Rather like people use the racism of white people in fat acceptance to legitimise their desire to turn weight into a caste system for any fat person. These of course give a free pass to the open racism of the 'obesity' cultists and use their same terms.

I'm taking the liberty of reproducing the post in full to illustrate the point;
Other mods may disagree with me, but as far as I’m concerned, TERFtransphobes can FUCK RIGHT OFF.
My WIFE is trans, you bigoted shitheads.
(If you don’t know what this means or is about, feel free to ignore this post.)
Yes, I agree. TERFtranphobes can fuck right off. I know your schtick. I’ve spent time in your subreddits, trying to understand how you want to deny the right of the people close to me to exist the way they understand themselves. I’ve listened to you cherry-pick and armchair psychologize and twist and deform any research that’s vague enough towards your purposes. At the end of the day you assume *everything* you have to prove. Yours is not a scientific crusade, it’s a plain old regular ideological crusade. The sooner you realize this, the better. But until then, fuck right off.
aninkyaffair replied to your post “For the record”
Are all the mods on board with this message? Because I’m not comfortable following or supporting if any of the mod team are even a little bit TERF transphobic sympathetic.”
Even though FatBodyPolitics hasn’t been very active on here I know for sure that she is not cool with TERF transphobes in any way, shape or form.
So yes, everyone at TITP believes that TERFtransphobes can fuck right off.
I'ts fair to say nothing is lost except the misogyny.

Monday, 10 April 2017

Release the Hump

Discovered something the other day, especially for those given the useless orders to "lose weight" i.e. starve to deal with sleep apnoea/snoring.

I was doing a bit of [physical] stress release and later found to my surprise that I felt as if someone had opened my throat with a friendly crowbar. It actually stopped me from immediate sleep because I couldn't get over the feeling of having an open jaw and throat and the fresh feeling of air travelling freely as it should.

Can you guess what was the key point of release?

The hump.

Specifically, the dowager's hump.

That's the curve/bump many of us have at the base of our necks.

It seems allowing the release of tension in that area, along with gentle stretching - no force whatsoever and only go as far as that part will allow- opens  the throat and jaw.

The dowager's hump is said to be a product of holding your head too far forward. This leaves your head less than properly supported. This can increase the natural curve until it becomes more hump-like. Fatz can get padding over that area too, depending on tendency and size. Don't worry about that, you can improve your alignment just the same.

If you can manage to remember to keep your head over your chest lump, rather than hanging forward over it, that can make quite a difference to your overall energy. You'd be amazed at how draining that head-jutting forward pose can be.

Do not stress about it though. Just learn to gently correct yourself, whenever you remember to. You'll find over time the situation improves, don't try to be perfect or chastise yourself.

Recall the old imagining your spine is a rope continuing out of the top of your head, being pulled upward...

Sweet dreams, chilli beans!

Friday, 31 March 2017

Evil Under the Sun part II

I want to make clear, whatever the whys and wherefores of fat phobia, the evil I was seconding yesterday is not that. Nor is it the desire or even insistence on inducing weight loss-though the latter is somewhat of a liberty, most people have been willing enthusiasts for losing weight at some point.

It's not even the insistence that people must take in less energy-though again, that too is an invasive infraction on someone's autonomy. No, the evil is the desire to force people to exist in an acute state of hunger because it is uncomfortable, painful, punishing.

It is this malevolent indulgence that has to challenged and blocked. The drive toward this is as out of control neurotic as it is completely unnecessary. What I was pointing at is that even if you insist on reducing the amount of calories other people take in the most rational, efficient and humane way of going about this is to reduce hunger function.

Not to suppress it, why would you do that?

If you feel someone is taking too many breaths, i.e. hyperventilating, and demanded they reduced their intake of air, what would be your instinctive response- to suppress their breathing? To tell them to cover their mouth and nose with a cloth so they found it harder to breathe? Would you then and act all surprised when they instinctively removed the cloth when the urge to take a proper breath became irresistible, when they "came off" your plan for them so to speak?

Or would your impulse be to reduce breathing activity? And what path do you think that would take? Calming them down. There's a symbiotic interaction between the overall level of stimulus in the body and breathing rate, i.e. walk faster, breath faster [and harder].

Increased anxiety, breathing rate goes up.

In this situation you are likely to tell them "Caaaalm, dowwn", emphasising with your hands like playing an invisible sinking piano, whilst mouthing exaggeratedly slowed breaths, indicating they should follow suit.

Even if you don't care about anything but getting folks to lower their calorie intake, you still have no reason to starve people but your own desire. On the contrary, you should know that will lead only to the thwarting of what is supposed to be your wish for them to eat less. As people are unlikely to be able to tolerate this discomfort and urge to do something so in-built. 

This desire to starve people is itself an imbalance. If it ever started from an opinion-that people should lose weight because you say so-it has crept from that to an urge, a need even to make people hurt. To put them and keep them in a world of that pain because of how you feel inside. To meet your emotional need.

Like a hang 'em/flog 'em type who doesn't care what the consequences of inflicting punitive rough treatment  good, bad or indifferent. Rarely satisfied, they believe anyone convicted of a crime in jail should expect the possibility of being raped, beaten up and possibly shivved, on top of the loss of their liberty.

As far as they're concerned, the person made that choice when they decided to 'overeat', sorry, commit a crime.

Those who act under the influence of this anorexia or starvation-by-proxy compulsion exploit the power of assertion over others afforded them by the crusade and its calories in/out =weight premise.

This sense of rectitude-that it is good to starve those who deserve it-that means any weight loss must be induced via this means alone. Leading to self-starvers everywhere. It is a mess.

The need for a moral cleansing of the sin of "overeating" being fat represents this, regardless of what people do or don't eat. Only being slim stands of excision of sin, so as long as a person is fat, they are in an unclean state, a state of sin. 

Nazis, bigots, misanthropes, original sin-ists, eugenicists, psychopaths, everywhere love this, flocking to it like birds of a feather. They define humans as essentially hateful, savage and unclean who need brutal treatment, by the few strong and better to civilise and cleanse them of the sin of existing-once they exit the womb of course.

The 'obesity' crusade/crisis/panic has of course stoked, encouraged and liberated what would otherwise be checked by reaction to its awfulness.

Worship of hunger is for those who are [or have become] literally excited, turned on by the prospect of other people existing in pain and torment. 

How Much Does This Sound Like The Biggest Loser?

If you overlook size and focus on activity how much does this sound like a Biggest Loser candidate?
As a teenager, the 5-foot-2-inch gymnast and cheerleader weighed just 64 pounds. She'd exercise from 9 p.m. to 3 a.m., wake up at 4 a.m. to take 3-mile runs before school, skip breakfast and lunch, practice gymnastics or cheerleading after school, and lie to her parents to get out of eating dinner.
Sequestered on the “Biggest Loser” ranch with the other contestants, Mr. Cahill exercised seven hours a day, burning 8,000 to 9,000 calories according to a calorie tracker the show gave him. He took electrolyte tablets to help replace the salts he lost through sweating, consuming many fewer calories than before.
Jeannette Suros says,
I thought for years in order to be accepted and do well with gymnastics, I had to be skinny," Suros wrote.... "Then I got into all-star cheerleading as a flyer, and I thought, 'I have to be skinny so I don't lose my place,'" she continued. "[My eating disorder] convinced me that if I was skinny, I would be accepted and pretty, and I would be invisible to pain."
Strange how much her eating disorder sounds a lot like everyone going at fat people.[Until they tell us about our overly high expectations.]

What about when Danny Cahill got home?
He quit his job as a land surveyor to do it.
His routine went like this: Wake up at 5 a.m. and run on a treadmill for 45 minutes. Have breakfast — typically one egg and two egg whites, half a grapefruit and a piece of sprouted grain toast. Run on the treadmill for another 45 minutes. Rest for 40 minutes; bike ride nine miles to a gym. Work out for two and a half hours. Shower, ride home, eat lunch — typically a grilled skinless chicken breast, a cup of broccoli and 10 spears of asparagus. Rest for an hour. Drive to the gym for another round of exercise.
He quit his job to pursue a healthy lifestyle. That's the very definition of "behavioural addiction"/disorder/compulsion/neurosis. 

Thursday, 30 March 2017

Evil Under the Sun

Sometimes it takes a slim person to respond aptly to weight outrages. Emma Thompson on the brutally honest truth about how Hollywood stays thin,
"The anorexia - there are so many kids, girls and boys now, and actresses who are very, very thin, who are into their 30s, simply don't eat,” she said.
Thompson says she threatened to quit when one of her co-stars was asked to lose weight,
She was absolutely exquisite. I said to them, 'If you speak to her about this again, on any level, I will leave this picture. You are never to do that’. It's evil, what's happening, what's going on out there, and it's getting worse.”
Thank goodness someone has their brain switched on and sadly, for the suffering of people who's humanity hasn't been thrown out like some old trash. I've said myself, the fundamental problem with the crusade isn't fat phobia or even weight loss, it's the insistence on using starvation. And there is something of the occult about that particular insistence.

It is wholly unecessary. 

A lot of what fat people endure is either starvation, the threat of or aftermath of it, and what it provokes. Inflicting and maintaining artificial famine, plus the fightback takes it out of the body, not like smoking, but smoking does too. Repeated campaigns and merely the threat of them eventually exhausts the nervous system. I suspect the fightback is what really takes it out of you in the end.

This doesn't show up for obvious reasons. The fitness freaks pretending to gorge in order to find out what its like to be fat make the error are going the wrong way to support their self denuding falsie.

You can tell this-when people truly experience what other people are, they relay similar experience- a tad difficult for fat people given the internment of fat people's lived experience. Those who diet up the scale for a rest from their lifestyle straight jacket say exactly the same things as before. Same worthless buzzwords, airless verbiage, artless wittering. No development, no insight, no real change.

Talking about the pain of doing something few fat people have ever participated in-planned weight gain/ fatness.

Anyone who knows anything about therapy, knows what I'm talking about. Real insight, shakes you up in some real way. It gets under your guard.You become a changed person, even if only a little, you either know more or you perceive more, often both.

If those temporary gainers were going the right way and actually starved their bodies, we'd all be surprised at how much they'd start talking like fat people. It's one reason why enthusiasm for untrammelled fat phobia is waning. People are increasingly recognising that if they have to starve merely to remain slim or thin, then what would it take for a fat person to slim down.

One surprise of history is how many battles were decided more by cutting off the food supply rather than shots fired. People who had a larger than life will to fight surrendered rather than endure either it or most likely, the starvation of those they were fighting with or in the name of.

So bad is this use of starvation it's deemed a war crime.

It takes real loathing to starve a person. Real rage and compulsion to enthuse about it for this long. Starvation is not a lifestyle, its a deathstyle. A way and means of dying. Even among people who are lauded and rarefied hunger rises to form an aura that is noticeable, past a certain point.

What's occult and yes evil is starvation as the only means of inducing weight loss. It's clearly the wrong way, why would anyone who's not fat have to starve if 'overeating' =gain? This alludes to a similar state as those fat people who find after several rounds of dieting and rebound that their system will not succumb much to strenous restriction.

Despite not eating any outrageous amounts they manage to be fatter than anyone would expect for their intake. That's why the starvation of thin people was oh so predictable. People are getting into trouble with anorexia now before they're close to thin. I don't know exactly why, but our bodies seem more resistant to it than in the past. They are more resistant to death, due to genuine public health measures.

But the desire to starve fat people has become such a dominant overriding compulsion that people cannot stop acting on that impulse, on that feeling, on that emotion. So used are they to ordering others to change themselves root and branch, they don't imagine they need to take their own advice when it comes to their love of wanting others to starve.

Like an actual anorexic, they must get over this. It's a poisonous and corrupt urge.  See how children are used to promote this urge.

I've said for years that this desire for death says something profound about western model of society. Some might say its an outlet for eugenics, the notion of culling those considered unworthy of life, the so called 'useless eaters'. Ironic phrase that.

Thursday, 23 March 2017

Invisible Free Market

Plain packs for the chips features in essence what could be deemed the [conservative/right wing] libertarian stance on weight, one incidentally found all over fat activism;
Adults should have the right to be as fat as they please. It is nobody’s business how healthy you are. And it is no one’s fault but your own if your junk food habit gives you health problems.
For the sake of clarity this doesn't and never has represented the way I feel regardless of who utters whatever version of it. I do not accept self-appointed fanatics get to set the standard for what is healthy merely because they have big mouths and know how to use hate.

Unless there's a choice not to be fat there's hardly a choice to be fat either. Calorie restriction as the only means to induce weight loss isn't choice and its an option like smoke yourself thin.

Who got to decide what does and doesn't constitute choice? The same people who created the contrived way of referring to people above a certain size, slim people, not the people concerned. This statement doesn't bother to ask what choices they actually have or would wish to have.

The writer presumes to know oh so much better.

I realised the other day that no-one in the whole of my life has ever asked me if I wanted to [weight loss] diet.

I don't mean in that snidely way of imply a person needs to, in their opinion, 'lose weight'. I mean no-one has ever asked me how I would have liked to lose weight.

This is what those who consider themselves the vanguard of defending choice condescend to define as choice, for others, not themselves. 

I'm probably not the person to go to for what the various declensions of conservatism/right-winginess. I had the impression though, that the let the market decide people and, people know what's best for them, they don't need to be dictated to by governments et al, would have a better grasp of what they supposedly believe in.

But if we are dictated to by libertarians, I suppose we should what, feel privileged?

So much for the "invisible hand".

Monday, 13 March 2017

A New Old Life for Gabourey

The mutilation class action suit waiting to happen rolls on latest to step on board is Gabourey Sidibe. All wrapped up in using; self love, body positivity and aiming at straight at Black women as a target market for abuse of the surgical process.

After a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes she decided, no doubt on "medical advice", to go for peace of mind to save potential harm of diabetes playing on her mind. Similar factors went into Angelina Jolie's surgery.

The difference is the extent to which Gabby's story is utterly contrived by those who've striven to deny even the most minimal means of making positive adjustments to metabolic function. Jolie was seeking to head off an increased threat of a real pathology-cancer, though there are arguments about that. Whereas Gabby is doing it to alter function the wrong way, as that's the only way available. 

Everything that happened to Gabby was decided by ideology; being put on her first weight loss diet at the age of 6 by her parents, to the subsequent years of diet, regain, desperately trying to lose gains, until the (partial) nervous collapse of weight loss diet burnout.

With an often continual upward climb having to desperately embark on more wasted years often driving their weight ever upward, into the arms of mutilators.

The article says she'd been trying for 10 years to diet her weight down, as she's 33 that seems to mean she had a few years rest between burnout and that particular tranche of adult dieting career. That's how sane people can happily pay to have their healthy function butchered and feel better for it.

You can feel better for just about anything if what came before is made intolerable enough for you. Though how those falling for this hype will feel when they realise exactly what has been done to them is anyone's guess. My feeling has been the last to comprehend are likely to be the angriest, given what it takes [often unconsciously] to stay on board.

Gabby herself said this is a last resort, that it is any resort for is the decision of those who claim to care so much about health. 

From gun to tape this cult has complete control over you and your life-as a fat person- even to the way you perceive the reality of that. No-one should have this much control, it is as corrupting as it is evidence of corruption.

Getting you to act against your own interests as your default position is why it is a cult in all but name.

Unlike fat activists I say the ace held is not fat phobia, it's blocking the science.

Obfuscation, half-truths, misrepresentation, tendentious interpretation above all, a hegemony of collusion..... It perhaps this along with the extent of mercilessness that may be what ensures they do not get away with this-forever. Using alteration of hunger/appetite as a selling point is all very well, but that helps to point out that cal res is a dead duck,
“My surgeon said they’d cut my stomach in half. This would limit my hunger and capacity to eat. 
My surgeon said indeed! Same old ob wallahs speaking through fat people with their script. Prioritisation of cal res decided the removal of stomachs, this as a side effect reduced the body's ability to generate hunger and changed the way appetite functions. That wouldn't happen if hunger was all in the brain/mind-which is the basis of cal res-which was the excuse for cutting the stomach out in the first place.

They should have started from the point they're selling this mutilation on! The whole cal res experiment-including dieting- has been a waste of time. They would have started from here if they'd had any real interest in actual physiology or an ounce of compassion for real people.

Metabolic function is designed to be altered. It has to all the time just for your body to be able to maintain itself. Its just those in this business prefer to do that what they feel like. And as long as there is no alternative, they'll be able to continue to do just what they can get away with.
Here's the DM's health correspondent,
...they work by restricting amount of food the stomach can hold. With less space to hold food, the patient will consequently consume fewer calories. It involves removing 80 percent of the stomach.
Umm, not half,
"More importantly, the operation stablizes a number of gut hormones which are off-balance in obese people driving them to crave food when they don't need it. It also controls blood sugar levels....
If it's more important cutting out the stomach would be superfluous. As for hormones being "off balance" and the rest of that tendentious nonsense is the case, why is cutting out virtually the whole of a healthy functioning stomach required to 'normalise'? Don't slim people [Gabby's unlikely to become that] have whole functioning stomachs?

And why do many people regain lost weight as their bodies heal and regain function. 

So we can all agree, if you insist on reducing intake that dictates that you  reduce/alter hunger function.

We can also it seems agree cutting a stomach out to achieve this has been an irrelevant detour....

Tuesday, 7 March 2017

It's called H-U-N-G-E-R

"Sell high calorie foods in plain packaging to beat obesity, says brain prize winner", a brain prize winner, the Grete Lundbeck European Brain Research Prize to be precise, must know exactly what they're talking about.

We are to believe anyone who would even think of gainsaying anything Wolfram Schultz, to put a name to him, uttered on such matters would be some way out of their depth. An "anti-science" sort not worth listening to, isn't that so?  We are all cowered to be sure, 'til we get to the lols.

First, a bit of context,
“We should not advertise, propagate or encourage the unnecessary ingestion of calories,” [really?]
Then he utters the immortal line;
“There should be some way of regulating the desire to get more calories. 
What a fantastic idea, there should be. Wait a minute, there is. I've found it,


Hand me mucho dinero. Give me a frackin' prize.

I almost don't want to go on as that sums up the mess that is the ob cult and its weight is cals in minus cals used underpinnings. That mes amis is toute-les-choses [I'm feeling all Hercule P]. You need little more to grasp just how much this type of ideology has the minds of its subjects utterly pinioned to the point where reason is wasted on them.

They don't want to deal with hunger, their compulsion to impose it, starvation and anorexia on others is only exceeded by their desire to deny this. Trying to convince everyone hunger doesn't really exist. You don't eat because you are hungry, you're not hungry, you're emotional. 

This man is a scientist but that gives no immunity from this neurosis. He shared a prize for his research into reward systems-not a coinage I've ever had a whole lot of time for, could be worse though. Yet he doesn't actually get that hunger exists to regulate intake.

If he or anyone else feels there's any problem with hunger, then that should be the target of adjustment, not food. I am literally thankful every day that I'm no longer troubled by relentless; hyper functioning, overactive, hypersensitive and implacable hunger I was in the past. Seeking to control what people eat to in this way seeks to replace the adjustment of hunger. They believe they can be your hunger better than your actual function. The one designed for the purpose.

Which doesn't go away, all that happens is the setting up of a clash with these artificial outside bounds. 

Are other people really designed to be your hunger?

Yes, it's true that food manufacturers seek to influence your eating, even to the extent of controlling it, in the sense of wanting you to chose their products over others-whether that works for you or not. However, these people do not arm folk against that, they merely become a counter extreme that turns you into a battleground for their skirmishes with each other.

The problem with the crusade and ci/co is it begins and ends it seems with eating, which is too late in the process. It comes after hunger. Eating is the response to that, not some sinister pathology or original sin.

De-contextualising eating in this way simply becomes a source of further disorder and dietary mayhem. Which intriguingly relates to an area of interest for Schultz, understanding how memories are formed, according to this geeze and others, this could help with learning how to unravel [undesired] memories. Like not being able to remember hunger exists or what its for.

All for the desire to control what other people eat.

Thursday, 2 March 2017

Bob Attack

I see from Ragen that Bob Harper has had a heart attack *pause*. That's right, the main trainer on the Biggest Loser (US) has succumbed to heart trouble.

After spending years barking at fat people like a rabid dog, ordering them to starve and torture themselves with exercising till they/cry/ vomit/breakdown emotionally has up and fallen down into a dead faint needing medical intervention to save his life.

No motivation-inspiration for him, proper techniques based on biological reality that actually do what they are supposed to do. Imagine that. 

 Bob Trying to give some victims an "obesity-related" Bob Attack

Bob's situation also reinforces my oft made point that TBL shows just how healthy, healthy people are [regardless of their size]. That shitshow has never managed to give any of them a Bob Attack despite obviously trying. Summing up the extent of fakery involved in a crusade desperate for people to be unhealthy whether they are or not. Hereby being the first crusade to mandate psychosomatic illness in modern times, perhaps ever. 

Consider, how much of any of his 'work-outs' could Bob do right now? *Shudder* it beggars thought. And that my friends is what MORBIDITY actually is. Not a way to repurpose a personal yuck factor, an insult or an emotional terror tactic.

Bob representing typical fitness industry ignorance

No wonder he was driven to do so much keep fit! The poor sucker was trying to outrun his fate. Something he has in common with his victims who seek to outrun their assigned fate, it rarely works for either.

Perhaps that's why so many of these fitness types can summon up so much inexplicable "anger". It's their FEAR screaming. 

There's also displacement. Using fat people as vehicles for diet and exercise tropes doubles up as an exhortation of self-to keep going with your 'fitness' and keep these feelings at bay/keep hold of your life.

Kind of like the slimming business, where people go to keep up the restriction their bodies have succumbed to, seeking prolongation of the effect through making careers as nutritionists, personal trainers and the like.

How sneakily our inner needs manifest themselves!

I can't say if its statistically significant, but it does seem that if you throw a population at diet and exercise that an uncanny amount who are able to stick with it do seem to need some means of seeing off their fate.

It begs the question of just how much the body knows what is in store. Whether there was some 'injury' or malfunction all along waiting to implode.This is then read through the conscious insistence that all metabolic alteration must take the restriction exercise course.

If there was proper means of making adjustment, that worked with rather than against the body, that could have spared poor Bob. 

People like this would probably be better off with a more gentle way of handling their inheritance, keeping their body relaxed and their mind calm.

This is of course why so many people cannot sustain these quack fitness regimes [with the emphasis on regime]. Their bodies know what their more pliant (conscious) minds do not, that this sort of self-abuse could bring matters to a conclusion before they would like. 

According to reports, Bob did not bob, he dropped like a stone and had to be virtually snatched from the coffin by a friendly paramedic. He is at 51, literally, a coffin-dodger.

He like fat children and adults, has had the rug well and truly pulled from under him. His confidence is shaken and he'll feel vulnerable and scared. Every twinge will now bring doubt, is this the end? Welcome to our world Bob. To what it feels like to be terrorised by health.

My advice? Get over that. Overlook it and focus on the positive, take care of yourself, forgive your poor body which can only do its best.  Appreciate it and be kind to it and yourself as a person. That's what we're trying to do and what everyone like yourself is trying to put us off doing.

Imagine that.

Oh we have every idea. It'll be interesting to see whether and to what extent he shows any contrition for his past actions. However that pans out, I'll be expecting a work-out and special diet for invalids, special work-outs for recovering from actual rather than pretend illness and so forth.

Or perhaps he'll go away and hide like "obesity shut-ins" have to do due to the triumphant reign of the ideology he represents/ represented, I kind of doubt that, don't you?

Other lessons are available of course; the difference between health and fitness, Bob was fit, not necessarily healthy (not right now any how). Only slim people are allowed to acknowledge the possibility of genetic inheritance, that when health becomes 'behavioural' everybody has to explain themselves.

There are millions of Bobs and Robertas, heart attacks affect as many who have none of the personal markers associated with them as do, and so on and on....

Trying to tell anyone into fitness this sort of thing though is like trying to tell a romantic that there won't necessarily be a fair maiden/man riding to their rescue. Well remember next time they're hating on you, that they could well be fighting for their own life.

Dog eat dog.

Wednesday, 1 March 2017

Surprise, Surprise!!!

We all learn exactly the same frame for understanding weight based on weight=calories in, minus calories expended. The first thing most capable of objective observation learn is that there's something missing from that equation.

Looking at this exchange is indicative of the limitations of a starting point that doesn't lend itself to any other than its own ideology;
you said a word. Thermodynamics. It doesnt matter how few calories you eat if your body cant burn them. Even with exercise, if your thyroid and adrenal system isnt functioning properly, you wont lose weight. It's a FACT.
It's in response to a deleted comment, the response to it is one I've tidied up for your reading pleasure;
Your body burns calories merely by the exchange of oxygen through the processing of breathing, [precious flower]. The ONLY time a body isn't burning calories is when you're dead, [sweetness]. 
The most important point to make is these pieces of information do not contradict each other. I'm not sure about the specifics of how the adrenal system and thyroid function interact with the maintenance-or otherwise-of adipose tissue, so I can't really confirm or deny the comment on its face. What I can say though is that the function of the glands is key to understanding fat metabolism, of that there is little doubt.

I agree with the second comment which simply draws attention to what is missing from the much taught weight hypothesis. He goes on;
Do you realize that WHEN YOU SLEEP you, literally, burn calories. Normally, a person burns about 0.42 calories for every pound in one hour of sleep. For instance, a 150 lb. person burns about 63 calories in one hour. 
The first commenter's conclusion comes from her basis of understanding in the only one taught. She's assuming-as we all do to some extent- that fatness is all about energy or intake not being (fully) used up.

Yet as the second commenter says, the body is always using energy, so how can people store much of it beyond a certain point? His issue is the erasure of hunger. In supporting this hypothesis, it has to go from a response, to random conscious decision. From something that fits into the context of metabolic function, to something somehow outside and imposed upon it.

His criticism of her is criticism of the basis of his own rationale, rather like those who criticise HAES, just end up criticising the notion that a healthy diet/lifestyle increases, maintains or creates health.

His stance is rage and hate, but he has no real quarrel with what she's saying without having a quarrel with himself. Any lack of science literacy comes from those who provide what purports to be 'science' the same he's basing his comments on.

His quarrelsome stance uses her (fat) body as if it is making an argument against his. As with all fat haters and 'obesity' promoters, their real argument is with the true nature of biology. They just sort of anthropomorphise that into an argument with any random fat person.

Fat bodies stand in testiment to their falsity. If they can get rid of them, their delusion can triumph. If they cannot get get rid of fatness, they can get rid of fat people, from the public sphere.

This causes them to twist and turn. When the AMA made their loco-lying position, haters expected us to welcome it as some kind of status symbol. They raged against [giving us] excuses. Such velocity had their fury, that it took a while for them to catch on that few self respecting fatz had any interest in such lying nonsense.

When their brains finally adjusted, they immediately switched tack and said we were in denial. That's if they didn't just treat us as if we were the AMA.

Ditto when the phony addiction babble came up, they sneered that we felt we were better than (drug) addicts.

We are told we look for excuses, when we refuse what could be deemed excuses, we are criticised for that by the same people. They must know their fakery is becoming more and more obvious, they're just to far gone, leave them to it. 

The second commenter, like others presents this kind of thing as evidence of fat people's dishonesty-your fat body is using up so much energy, you must be taking in so much more. This is where 'obesity' mongers have always leveraged the shaming of fat people to suppress our potential input, to avoid any real progress. 

It ends up with fat people being unable to discover/reveal surprising or unexpected information about human function, but that is exactly what we have done. This refusal to allow us to offer out discoveries to others, not only reduces progress for all, it turns the surprise of being human into a symbol of slim people's status.

I say this to the white coats and freelance internet trolls: We won't be silenced anymore.

Tuesday, 28 February 2017

No Extension

I had one of my periodic inclinations to write a post about the politics of 'obesity' recently. What derailed the post intended was coming up hard against another clear explanation of what the 'obesity' construct is really means in this preposterous effort by a person paid to teach youth *shudder*.

Incidentally, it throws a tipping point in society's upward curve in body mass the influence of American Negritude on Caucasoidal integrity....file that under btchplz. Nothing to do with the science-blocking refusal to do real research rather than a panto version of it then....

From the nag's mouth;
It was obvious that the young women in my classes were concerned about being accepted for who they are -- excess weight and all.
They saw those extra pounds as an important extension of them as human beings, not as a problem to be solved.
Emphasis mine.

"Saw those extra pounds" as if its some kind of outré phenomena to recognise your whole body as wholly your own. How is it possible to be this idiotic, without shame?

"An important extension of them as human beings," That is exactly where what the term 'obesity' defines starts from.

Here, human being =slim.

It is solipsistic in the extreme expressing as it does the mind of someone else coming up against the difference that is you, unable to expand their frame of reference to accomodate such minimal divergence from themselves.

Seeking instead to subordinate it to their own idea of themselves.

A balloon could theoretically have more or less air in it. That doesn't compute, instead a smaller balloon is contained, in a larger balloon. As if the very idea of a bigger person engulfs the (smaller) observer. Like really? You want people to see this struggle?

Have you so little sense of ambition? Lols.

This smaller balloon in a bigger one is the basis of the 'obesity' construct ideation, its notions of 'obesity' causing this or that issue and "obesity-related".

The bigger balloon you are supposed to be encased in is attacking the smaller balloon within, the real you, the slim person screaming to get out of a fat body

This is why I put 'obesity/obese' in quotes, to remind people always that has nothing to do with the way any sane person sees themselves or can see themselves-from the inside out.  Why would I see myself as a locked within a bigger structure when its all me?

'Obesity' is embarrassing for these reasons, not because, wobbly bottoms. Any humour in that pales into insignificance when one asks oneself, "How did wanting to be slim come to this madness?"

Feeling like you've allowed this to be foisted onto you is part of fat people's so called "low esteem." Fat people don't have low self esteem, they have this shit to deal with and they are responding appropriately to that.

Having too look through the 'obesity' cult lens instead of your own. Having to keep going round in the same quack circles, rather than try to understand the genuine complexity and beauty of the way the body regulates its own cells-because people aren't done with pretending this is "science". That's fat shaming. Knowing your place and being kept in it.

Anyone who's been seriously troubled by advance stages of bullying know exactly how it feels to have to act as if bullies lies are real. When everyone turns against you and your friends can't stand by you because they'll be swept away by hate....

Don't make the error of assuming this has anything to do with whether you wish to be slimmer or not. You are not required to compartmentalise your body into mythical parts. Your body is whole no matter whether you want its physical dimensions to be lesser or the same (or greater).

It's as if the impact of the 'excess weight' coinage causes this mind to split another person's body from itself. That's a real dumb-dumb right there. And you're stuck in that.

Monday, 27 February 2017

A More Apt Response

Woman "...chops off her own finger with bolt cutters." I beg to differ DM. She cut off the top two joints of her pinkie. Still the fuss about her act of self-mutilation is more than I've seen for the whole of the current drive to remove healthy functioning stomachs merely to facilitate starvation over more extended periods. 

DM calls Ms Pinkie Cutter's act "bizarre". They quote others as saying its 'crazy', 'disgusting, 'stupid'. In the comments she's described as an attention-seeking, substance user, a candidate for sectioning, a disappointment to her mother(aw), [the ubiquitous] narcissist, victim of a childhood head trauma with 'questionable' parents, and a 'sick puppy.

Ms Torz Reynolds-her actual name-indicated that she went with an aesthetic feeling and pronounced herself pleased with the result.

"Healing so well and totally love it!"

Sounds familiar, except the first part would be more a cause for sorrow. Healing tends to signal tapering off of precious weight loss.

Even Ms Pinkie Shears draws the line at seeing healing as a disappointment.

Tuesday, 21 February 2017

The Social Model of Dis-Abling

When I first heard about the social model of disability, I was agahst about emphatic nature of those asserting it. The social model of disability is that disabled people are disabled only by society's lack of acknowledgement of their needs, rather than their actual impairments*.

The medical model of disability views disability purely in diagnostic terms, seeing that as the primary cause of the person's difficulties. The social model clearly had a profoundly liberating effect on many disabled people, freeing them from having a burden unforeseen by people like me. The medical model, probably unwittingly dumped the burden of society's neglect of their needs on individual people.

It took the social model for me to realise this.

Subsequently activists and others have found its limitations for themsevles, this doesn't invalidate the positive.

When I came to the fatsphere especially, I said that it was not fat acceptance that was radical or extreme, it was the 'obesity' cult that was outré. What everyone fears about extremists, that they'll set the defining standard, is exactly what 'obesity' cultists and food faddists have managed to do.

The 'obesity' industry's increasing promotion of gastrectomy has presented another surprise.

Gastrectomy disables healthy function to bring about its effects, not as collateral damage for something theraputic.

By this it establishes a notion of disability as healthier state than able-bodied.

As this conclusion is the product of social disapproval, it validates a premise in the social model of disability. That real disability isn't your function, it's in other people's attitude to it.  

* Impairment is a term used by Karen Hitchcock to refer to weight " drug can fix the functional impairment of being obese". Though she vociferously refutes the favoured lie that 'obesity' is disease. 

Friday, 10 February 2017

Fat isn't a Time Thing, its a Function Thing

I couldn't for the life of me tell you why I became fat-accepting that question only makes sense within the construct of 'obesity', which I've no time for. People are obsessed with their Holmesian search for the original culprit, it's more projected fiction because I couldn't tell you any why for sure. Nor do I know why that's supposed to matter.

Like 'obesity' construct in general, its largely irrelevant.

I can't even tell you for sure when I became fat. Others assert they cannot grasp why fat people don't notice pound upon pound building like brick upon brick of a wall. I started to think of dieting at 7. I was not what you'd call fat, but I certainly felt like I wasn't thin either. That feeling was relative to my experience of my size up to then.

Was it then? No.

When I was 11, I imposed a rigid diet plan proper-as opposed to "watching what I ate". Was it then? In the sense that I felt in the intervening years I'd reached a point where I had to go total wl diet. So I became fat at 11? So when was the actual moment? Was I fat at 10? Nope.

Somewhere between then and 11, I felt I became fat enough. I crossed a line, when was the moment though, when was the day? Why had I not noticed?

I had, but I was concerned about stunting my growth-seriously. So I concentrated on avoidance. For all I know, that saved me from even greater metabolic mayhem.

I'm not simply extrapolating from my own experience, I doubt becoming fat is a gradual day by day process for many-though those who fatten in adulthood may have a different experience. Either way, its more about the nature of your function. Its the moment when the arrangement of that, the posture of your function gets to a certain configuration.

What is day by day is the time for it to play out, from that moment. At times that process is elongated or condensed, often varying within the same person.

Thursday, 2 February 2017

Conscious Engagement is The Act

"...I have an eating disorder. Time to remove the stigma", the writer a self described middle aged person with anorexia and bulimia relays such a typical line in what anorexia/bulimia is that it could have been put together by committee. It's the same mindset that created and imposed the construct of 'obesity [slim-person-plus] on fat people;
1. Hype into assertion of disease/illness "Anorexia and bulimia are mental illnesses". Check AMA and check ABCD 
2. Concentration on how terrible this all is
"suffered from an eating problem," ".... I am hurting myself" Check sick fat and check poison fat, its bad
3. No interest in cure, only treatment 
"I’ve come to believe that eating disorders can never truly be cured" "The knowledge that disorders can flare up repeatedly throughout life,"
Check treatment no cure
This could be narrowed to a two-step; 1. Hype Phony disease/illness, 2. No resolution/cure.
The AMA traded in this act presuming it a universal- slim people set it and fat people have observed that. As usual its taken for granted fat people wish to emulate whatever slim people think or do. Slimming feels like aspiring to them and in their mind that becomes a global, want to be all like a slim person('s idea of themselves).

If you step back, its about; disease / [mental]illness validating the person's feelings. They're saying; "I suffer, recognise, acknowledge this" by deeming it disease/illness. Buuuut, don't take it away, completely.

I don't wish to be mean and imply, they want to suffer, they wish to be a martyr and complain about it. It's more invidious than that.

Eating disorders-and we all know that means anorexia nervosa and bulimia. Usually start with an intention-to reverse or preserve current size. They have a method which is to reduce your response to hunger signalling [eating is the response to hunger signalling] and possibly to increase output via voluntary movement. And/or to purge by vomiting etc., food from the body, before it can be properly digested.

Both [seek to] induce weight loss using the restriction of calories. That's a heck of a lot of conscious engagement. Intent, planning, action-repeatedly. It is this exposure that triggers this to become compulsive rather than merely voluntary-in those with such tendencies.

We all become a bit 'anorexic' if we diet hard enough-the fatsphere's "no diet talk" rule was an example of seeking to sidestep this funk. The difference between us and true anorexics was susceptible physiology-we didn't have it. Our bodies fought cal res and won, time and again.

This conscious engagement seems to be the root of the strange affection people with anorexia/bulimia have for their condition. They love and admire it and feel badly towards it at the same time. Rather like someone who rarely stops complaining about an abusive partner but won't leave them.

Such conscious engagement gives these conditions an oddly personal quality so many vocal anorexics/bulimics relay. It has been allowed to set the framing of what you're supposed to feel and say when you have an eating disorder. To the extent that people with other hunger/eating disorders attempt to mimic it.

In the case of hyper-functioning hunger [HFH] though, this conscious engagement is simply not there. HFH is physiological in operation. However you class it, it doesn't use the conscious mind. Heightened hunger is like heightened blood pressure in that way. That's not to say the brain or even the mind isn't involved, it is but as a part of the whole not a leading role.

Hence it has no narrative of the kind typical of anorexics, bulimics or even drug addicts and alcoholics. It's not impossible by any means, but it would be of a different type and quality, due to its differing nature.

The double whammy is fat people's inner stream of consciousness has also been heavily repressed, so there's also a missing narrative of engaging with experience over time. Almost like a kind of amnesia, except the memories weren't allowed to form in the first place.

In the best of cirumstance either would require a lot of focus and effort to overcome. But in the current climate it's virtually impossible. The collective (un)conscious aims to repress any thought, so it can impose its fictions in place of truth.

Hyperhunger doesn't require any intent; planning, or carrying out of action. It's a physical adjustment. And at the risk of re-enforcing stereotypes, that happens to be true for being fat too.

Now this is just stating facts to me though I'm sure this has another tinge. It'll seem [be made to seem] what people with anorexia/bulimia are trying to do. Claim a kind of innocence. Far from it. A fat person cannot be innocent anyway, such is the nature of the way we see weight.

I have to say this because its true and because it explains why I find anorexics and bulimics so utterly alien in their mannerisms. And have no interest in copying my idea of what they are doing.

Its of no use to me or fat people. I've mentioned that never at any point did I ever feel or think that hyperhunger [or anorexia/bulimia] was remotely unresolvable, even when I couldn't articulate my situation properly due to its non-appearance in ill-fitting barely relatable coinages like; binge eating disorder, compulsive eating disorder, food/eating addiction etc.,

I was also completely resolution-orientated, had zero time for 'illness' nor did I feel like I was "suffering from it" though I acknowledged that it caused me a lot of distress, frustration and at times outright despair. What I wanted most of all was to be heard, to be understood-that would have provided immense relief- the one thing that was and still is denied.

I didn't need nor want sympathy, I needed to find means to restore normal hunger function, the end. I really wish this could be enough to get across just how totally uninterested I am in the usual anorexia/bulimia pathos. Not zero, minus.

I don't see the use of it, I don't care for it, it has nothing to do with me,  it bores me, m'kay?

Now I do not claim to speak for fat people, I can say with confidence virtually all fat people felt/feel the same way about mere fatness. They're not interested in this faux disease/no resolution act, they wanted/want results.

May I remind people that the whole point of the fat phobic hatefest is [supposed] to 'motivate' people to escape fatness, as fast as humanly possible.

This moaning about it, but dragging it out is the momentum of conscious engagement and having no real need to move on. Whereas the shame fat people feel is not about what they're accused of doing, but that they aren't consciously directing matters, when they feel they should be. I'd say that's something for anorexic/bulimics to think about, in the sense that they assume if people saw them as less in control, they'd see them more favourably. When its precisely that much denied lack of control that is the basis of the contempt we are held in.

Except, the rules don't apply the same to slim and fat so pish.....

Friday, 27 January 2017

Eat Drugs

Following on from yesterday's video illustration of how drug mis-use/ abuse and the mindless pursuit of cal res go together like piss and vinegar, here's a neat little satire on the- everything's chemical, drugs are just chemicals, so everybody take drugs for any and everything, 'cos you're all addicts anyway-malarkey we're increasingly subject to. Especially now with the typically derivative 'obesity' cult and its laughable fronting of "obesity medicine" with its pharmacotherapy- i.e. drug abuse by prescription. I cannot stop laughing at pharmacotherapy it's so stupid, yet cheeky and trying to hard all at once. If you want to swap an imaginery 'addiction to food' for a real abuse of drugs, say so.

The School of Life-How to be a Far Better Drug Taker

Note some relevant themes;

1. The bankrupting of terms: Definitions so loose and general that barely anything can be excluded. Meaning they implode as cogent definers (e.g. disease, [mental] illness, disability, treatment, [-]therapy, addiction etc.,)

From the video; Drug, "A thing that alters your mood, acting via either the body or the senses to make an impact upon the mind."

2. Pharmacophilia: You need more drugs in your life, no reason, you just need 'em.
b) Pharmacospecificity: Drugs work only for the purposes you intended-they don't affect other tissues, and/or they don't clash with each other or increase the toxic load.
c) Pharmacofreshness: Drugs are strangely antiseptic-clean.
d) Pharmacospirituality: Drugs enable you to do things you're capable of doing anyway-like alter your mood, thoughts, feelings, beliefs etc.,-but with the addition of the idea that you need drugs to do those things.
e) Pharmacoevolution: Drugs enable you to evolve to a higher quality of personage. Things like food are so plebian.

3. Bourgification of drug abuse: A po-faced, faux spiritual/intellectual rather than a pleasure-seeking rationale for drug taking means you aren't a junkie, you're somehow better.

4. The need for people to take far more drugs in our lives, those who want to live for drugs might feel judged otherwise, profit and such...

5. How impressed these junkies and junk-promoting hypocrites are with themselves

The best part of the vid was the definition of the task of a drug, to;
Alter moods in any positive direction compatible with fulfilling one's highest ambitions
Succinct yet flaccid, it could be 'obesity' pharmacotherapy's calling card. That's why a drug for epilepsy you don't have, is on offer because some people who take it for their epileptic seizures lose a few an incidental side effect. 

Certain people would rather sell you the notion that you need drugs to replace conscious intent. "You have a phony disease-by-committee, you need to take some/ it doesn't make you a bad person/This stigma against drug taking is problematic"

If this pusher act visits you, I'd consider the same mindset's use of drugs and addiction as to put people off eating food.

Stigma is not the issue. The reason people don't want to be drug abusers is their sense of autonomy. The same that resists oppression, abuse and seeks liberation and freedom. Drug dependence bolts you to something other than your aims and ambitions. It derails those in pursuit of something that's merely a perpetuation of itself, rather than in service to you. If you spent years in self- contempt because training like an athlete whilst half starved didn't pound your body into submission.

Drugs to sleep, drugs to wake up, drugs to be more alert, drugs to be more intelligent, drugs to be happy, drugs to be calm, drugs to keep believing this calorie restriction sortie will be the one are hardly going to trigger an inner geyser of self-adoration.

Rather than recognising that your body with its trillions of cells is basically an ecosystem replete with underused technology. That not simply how we use our brains is primitive, but the extent to which we suppress our own intellectual, mental and physical abilities.

It leaves us scared of machines created solely from our own minds who so often seem as alive as we are. We are surrounded by simple things we can programme, manipulate and alter with ease whilst we are told, its not remotely conceivable let alone possible that we could create a chain of effects, using our conscious minds and imagination to alter our own physical function.

Thursday, 26 January 2017

When Food Becomes a Drug, Drugs Become Food

Here's some apt musing from College Humor. I can't recall coming across this phenomena so succinctly put. It reads as a comment on the public health brigade-and the class milieu's they're rooted in's increasing hatred of food and love affair with drugs. Unless its nature's junk; low cal veg and such. I like greens, but they're low in what the body needs most to survive, energy.

It's perfectly okay to turn this on its head and make believe the opposite, as long as you don't expect that to re-design human anatomy and physiological function or to impose it on the unwilling. Alas, 'obesity' constructivists feel exactly that, even if they have to "cut a bitch", lols, to prove it.

College Humor: Your Healthy Friend Who Does Drugs 

It's as if vanquishing the meaning of something as central as what feeds us, leads that meaning to migrate to something else-it can't just disappear. Reminiscent of what's dubbed 'addiction transfer', unsurprisingly yet another product of wrong thinking. That term by the way refers to when a substance is being used for a certain purpose or purposes. On ceasing to imbibe the substance, the purpose remains and some other substance or thing else takes over. The person's 'solution' migrates.

What's really on point is the way the 'healthy' junkie feels drugs are clean and food is dirty, even alcohol which is a food as well as an intoxicant. Ironically, this is treated solely as a drug, which enables her to ingest it liberally, despite it also being a food. It also notes the way 'eating health' leads people to feel healthy. Something fat haters never get about fat people who follow healthist eating diktats/life models. That feeling has led so many fat people to resist weight patholgization-as it conflicts with the health they've been eating (and creating/storing through activity). Fat phobes struggle to grasp that attacking haes, is attacking this feeling in anyone who feels it along with its whole psychological basis.

There's the development of a cognitive black hole where drugs are not only clean but somehow a substitute for dirty old food, when food is being cleaned out of ones life. Food gives energy, certain drugs have a stimulant effect, so drug abuse lends itself to dodging hunger, hence 'obesity' wallahs are peddling "pharmacotherapy"[one shizzes you not], that's drug abuse to "treat" your dimwitted battle with hunger.

Despite spending decades trying to persuade us cake is dirt, there's no shame whatever in trying to push drugs onto fat people, who would normally avoid pushers like the plague (that weight will never be). Somehow taking them to help sustain a fantasy weight loss diet success means they won't attack; your liver, kidneys, eyes, ears, brain etc., Despite them being straight out toxins, if they support the idea of your diet, they're cleansed-Oh Hallelujah!

Any damage they do can be blamed on 'obesity', so w/e's and kar-ching.

This associative impressionistic sensibility was handsomely revealed by the 'clean eating' *shudder* trend. I told people the 'dirt' comes from being associated with FAT/ness, not from anything in these foods. Or else the drugs being peddled to fatz would be deemed unspeakably filthy. Synthetic approximations of all sorts promises another Oxycontin nightmare.

I can't even swear that the real motor for trying to get fat people hooked on drugs is so drug fanciers can finally break the silence on their peculiar attitudes to drug mis-use. Fat people's problem isn't too much gravy, its too little "pharmacotherapy"-every junkie is really into that. Therapy through pharmaceuticals from the disease that is the intolerable feeling of existence.

Which is of course what 'obesity' sets out to achieve, making fatness such an unbearable experience that you'll willingly give up your body parts on promise of escape.

Oh the irony, old time junksters labelled withdrawal "getting clean" now fat has out dirtied junk and slim has cleaned trash up. That could have been the final word on how 'obesity' hysteria has far outstripped even the utility touted by its devotees promoters.

More than anything, the establishment's favoured degeneracy must become everyone's, how can an illusion of faux superiority be maintained if those deemed en bas aren't doing more drugs than you?

Wednesday, 11 January 2017


A feature of the tendentious body-wrecking crusade that is 'obesity' is its virulent infection of false equivalence, i.e. when smoking is treated as if it is like weight.

Now if it need be said for the easily offended, I do not feel superior to smokers, I don't hate them, look down upon them-unless they come with their specific or general tired fat phobic shizz, m'kay?

I reject this because it is false. As we have all witnessed regardless of stance, the 'obesity' field *lols* lies with a feeling of impunity that would shame all but the most dishonest.  So I'm sure that all conquering fact will hardly suffice.

What this has played up about smoking is the difficulty of apt comparison with it.

Smoking is errr..... somewhat of an eccentric activity. Even those committed to it, I'm sure would admit, considering sucking smoke through a lit tuber into your lungs [or throat for you pussycat puffers] and exhaling it with varying degrees of artistry-would be dismissed as fanciful, if it hadn't already been invented.

I don't know why this hasn't occurred before, but a better comparison is probably with a taking-drugs-for-phony-disease habit. I'll be blunt because I can't be bothered to tippy-toe today [yes, I do try, usually].

Percentagewise, few people are truly mentally ill, which I'd define as having a malfunctioning nervous [or other] system leading to symptoms of psychosis, or neurosis at the point where it enters that realm.

Like virtually every diagnosis that isn't rigidly objective, mental illness has been expanded to the point where it diagnoses those who are either experiencing an apt response to emotional/mental/physical trauma or temporary complaint/condition that's mostly a product of their own self- mismanagement.

Given human ego, the latter is intolerable to many if not most people, especially if they think rather highly of themselves. Though there's much pompous moaning about treating mental like physical illness, virtually no-one has a problem with the idea that in their lifetime, they might injure themselves physically in a way that is mainly their fault.

I for example most definitely made myself way more depressed than I'd have needed to be for longer than I'd probably ever experienced through my long term commitment to a fight with my hunger function, plus the attendant playing 'obese'. 

One way people have sought to deal with this very interesting psychological conundrum i.e. vanity is to erm, insist their neurosis/mental illness is a disease, because mental illness/crisis can make you feel become quite dysfunctional.

You see where I'm going. This is felt by those keen on this to express and validate their suffering as well as express their frustration with not being able to throw off their particular issue/s.

The fly in the ointment is, insisting mental troubles are 'disease' is inherently a downer. In the worst kind of way, it boxes you in. It's a trap of despair. The urge then becomes to find a way to lift that gloom, by taking pills.

Though much touted as 'treatment' for mental illness, their primary power is in the belief that the person is treating-therefore not diseased [temporarily], not trapped in a snare of their own making. That is the kind of self-mishandling that make us fall into a pit of neuroses, along with susceptibility of course.

It could be argued that this cognitive dance is similar to the imaginative hook of smoking as described most famously by the late Allen Carr. I hope I'm not misrepresenting his central theorem that smokers dependence on snouts is a product of them having imagined/convinced themselves that they are hooked on smoking.

Effectively, they're smoking to relieve the anxiety caused by the belief that they need to smoke.

It's easy to snicker, but actually, I'd lay good money that every single human being on earth lives exactly that same trap in some way or context, probably loads of them. Affairs of the heart for example, are a minefield for this sort of cycle of tendentiousness. 

So when 'obesity' hucksters and medics pretend weight is disease, they are setting up that very trap. Whatever drugs they have on offer-e.g. Topiramate, an anti-seizure medication are there to lift the gloom caused by the disease pretence. In case anyone's thinking, how is 'obese' supposed give you seizures-not even 'obesity' quacks are pretending that one [give 'em a chance!!]. 

No, you're supposed to take anti-seizure medication because it has been noted that some people taking it for their actual seizures happen to lose a few pounds-and I mean a few-as a side effect. So brilliantly health-sensitive 'obesity' hustlers think that's reason enough for people who have no seizures to take it.

In conjunction with a "healthy lifestyle".

There's another similarity in that drugs such as these also give organs like your liver and kidneys extra work, rather like smoking.

And smokers can afford a certain superiority over the 'health' establishment because they are only accused of taxing their lungs-not removing them. Unlike the "life saving" 'obesity' crowd who like to remove healthy functioning organs.

Not only that, many of us have made the argument that health cannot be the simplistic, add a brick of pure healthy action take it away for a unhealthy action. It's more of a balance of competing and at times incompatible factors.

But no-one would go as far as bariatric surgeons stating that directly removing health increases it. A brand new health protocol.

In fact, those self-harmers who cut themselves can feel a certain validation, given those involved in health and medicine-45 agencies no less-think mutilation-not merely cutting yourself is a route to health.

Thursday, 5 January 2017

Organ Strippers Dissatisfied, Run for the Hills

Happy 2017!!!

Hey, better late than nevvah.

Snatching a look back on 2016 there are a lot of articles I've not published responses to, so forgive me if things feel a tad recherche for a bit.

For instance, "Americans Blame Obesity on Willpower, Despite Evidence It's Genetic" features a survey measuring whether the propaganda delivered by 'obesity' crusaders' is serving the end of the crap-drug pushing, mutilating interests of the 'obesity' cult.

Here's a case where funding, the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, tells you more or less everything about its purpose. 

To recap, the 'obesity' crusade is a cultic quack effort brought to us by a mixture of researchers, public health doctors and medical professionals. Such decided to use the (non-fat) public as enforcers of un or dis-ease in fat people, as if fat people weren't sufficiently uneasy about not fitting in sizewise.

The views of this misdirection amounted to a collective consciousness, underwritten by the brazen abuse of the profound trust in science and the medical profession. Everything about 'obesity' from the term itself to the so called beliefs and notions expressed by anyone and everyone about it comes directly from the crusade in its honour. It's hardly a colloquial term.

Take the obsessional blame framing [somebody please do]. Culpability is central to morality. When you commit an act or acts you either know to be wrong or find out is/are wrong, as a moral being, you then seek to make amends for your transgression.

That formed a consensus as much in fat people as anyone else.

Essentially, this survey is measuring the strike rate of 'obesity' crusaders own agitation and propaganda. What slimz especially choose to ignore is we are all its tools whether we are its [nominal] targets or not. It mis-uses us all.

I shouldn't need to tell anyone with more than a functioning brain cell that this is particular initiative is profoundly disturbed. I can't decide whether this is up there with female genital mutilation. My mind has passed over the thought of the proverbial gun to the head; excision of clitoris or stomach?

Would you have your vulva sewn into a tiny hole, or the nub remnant of your stomach connected to lower down your intestine? Both could lead to your death. Both attack health for other people's fee fees rooted in their hateful ideologies.

Before anyone tells me how nice these people are, nice equals having nothing to do with this. Nice at least starts to wake up when its indulgence hits the organs people need to function properly.  Think paedophiles and the removal of their genitals.

Does that sound better than this, worse, the same, what?

This cutty outfit informs us of the public doing what they're been given permission to do, undermining fat people's social standing and mental/physical health, in order to "motivate" us to futile attempts at inducing our bodies to let go of weight via calorie restriction.

Since enough of us have been literally dis-illusioned, they wish public and medical professionals-to switch from free-form calorie restriction to calorie restriction implemented by surgery and/or backed up by drug delusion.

To switch from pretending fatness =bad person, to fatness =disease. From un/dis-ease to disease. According to these, both public and medics appear to be balking at that particular lie.

Just because the public and medics are perfectly prepared to regurgitate lie after lie, doesn't mean any old lie will do. Over the last few years, agit-prop insisting weight is a serious threat to health has intensified. According to this, weight is now tied with cancer, amusingly demoting a real disease- cancer-to a "health threat" and promoting a product of metabolic function into pretend disease.

I say demote/promote, because the Internet classes have taught me virtually anything can be viewed solely in terms of status/non-status.

All this suggests the public and medics are on board with the crusade as a moral one, not as a money making scheme for organ stripping and crappy-drug peddling. Oh the nuance.

'Obesity' has always been a collaborative affair. People know its all bullshit, they collude with it because it satisfies some aspect of their tedious on-going psychedramas. What does pretending weight is disease do for that? Cutty-druggists are offering the pretence that weight is a disease can be "treated", but that game of fake disease and taking drugs isn't illness/treatment. It's fake disease is depressing and crappy-drugs lift the gloom. They act as placebos to lift the demoralizing notion of fake disease.

The best way to avoid that is to not demoralize yourself by pretending states are disease when they aren't.

What's more, unlike neuroses/mood disoders, weight is a product of normal function. You cannot treat the product of normal physiological function/ reaction.You don't need to, you need to find out how to take hold of the reins so to speak.

Think of one "obesity treatment" that doesn't attack healthy function. The 'obesity' cult targeted people's self esteem and mental health. Cal res attacks hunger/appetite function. Drugs attack healthy organs and surgery removes them.

If weight is so bad why can't they attack the badness trumpeted so relentlessly? 'Obesity' wallahs are like guerrillas claiming they're fighting the bad guys all via friendly-fire. When are you going to hit your enemy? The purported unhealth rather than health?

Probably never within this construct, because its "enemy" is human function. Instead of directing that medically qualified people prefer to wreck it so it cannot perform properly.

Branding the body "disease" is supposed to enable everyone to get on board with this insanity.


Malevolent and stupid. The one leading to the other. A reminder of why the most truly intelligent tend to have a supple and unyielding compassion.

Self-help is one of the few things that have come out of this. All around us we see the desire of people to change their health, putting paid to the lies told by those wishing to take over our lives in the name of 'health'.

Individuals should be able to "summon enough willpower", or link conscious intent to shift their own bodily function. We should have the right techniques. That's all we wanted, not endless assaults on our health.

All I learned in 20 years of dieting was seeking to induce weight loss by cal res is a fool's errand. That's it.

I never had a problem with self-help and not bothering the doctor with stuff they don't need to be involved in. On the contrary, nothing could persuade me to be willingly at the sole mercy of those promoting this degeneracy.

The alternative that's missing from all this is to find a way or ways to adjust the destination of homoeostasis. The focus should not be on an arbitrary weight line but on physiology, like real science.

Something that needs to be said every time anyone mentions weight.