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.

Wednesday, 24 May 2017

Dieting Has Proven You Can't Learn Anorexia Nervosa

"Long-term weight loss maintenance in obesity: Possible insights from anorexia nervosa?" was written by a group of "eating disorder researchers" led by Loren Gianini. It caused a kerfuffle some weeks ago. I've not had the privilege of reading it, they're shy. I'm going with the seemingly self explanatory title.

Its assertion, phrased as a 'question', rests on the ever present notion that anorexia nervosa is an acquired skillset which can be learnt. Weight loss dieting rests on that basis also, making it easy to cast the failure of weight loss dieting as a failing of the person.

This is also the logic of "pro-ana"-the desire to pursue anorexia nervosa as an acceptable lifestyle. The idea was always of a pathology to counter a pretend pathology [body mass].

Weight loss dieting is and has always been proto- or early stage anorexia.

It's well known. When so much as a squeak of concern is expressed about anorexia, the swift response is often, "We have an obesity crisis!!" In other words, anorexia is allowed as "treatment" for 'obesity', those (slim/thin people) succumbing to anorexia and wasted by AN are deemed "collateral damage".

It's tea and sympathy for them and likely a big bit of cake-to build their weight back up-plus some family or other counselling.

Apart from the illusory divide, the central offence of these researchers is the feigned innocence-presenting an inherent part of the 'obesity' playbook as a new possibility. This is typical of anything within touching distance of 'obesity' right now, things that have been around for ages are dubbed new developments just discovered by research, to save face.

You could be amused at this from those getting off on lecturing others on the value and necessity of facing uncomfortable reality head-on. It's positively monstrous of them to deny themselves the privilege.

Why oh they punish themselves?

Anyhoo, the connection between proto-anorexia as; prevention, treatment, cure of 'obesity' plus "maintenance" of nobesity and anorexia nervosa is where this begins to get [slightly] interesting, throwing up the so often self-defeating nature of "noble lying".

Anorexia nervosa [AN] is not a skillset. This is something we all nominally agree on, but we actually do not. Insiders bray, anorexia is not a choice. At the same time, they and their supporters think it is. 
Let’s spend taxpayer money to help fat people learn the magic sauce that people with anorexia have mastered.
Anorexics have not mastered anything, [perhaps you could say their body has]. AN is a susceptibility or tendency if you prefer, meeting the trigger of early stage anorexia. People don't practise and become perfect, something in the has to succumb to this pressure.

Something controlling/affecting hunger and eating's neural pathways implodes or fails.

You can be a lazy bum if you are susceptible enough. The ability to start and stay on the proto-anorexic/anorexic route is likely to be part of that tendency.

This postulate is fundamentally erroneous. It misjudges what's happening with anorexics, assuming fat people need to copy them better, when the whole of dieting 'n' exercise already tries to do that. It cannot create a tendency toward anorexia. We can't copy succumbing to anorexic stimulus. 
...further research be conducted to inform interventions to facilitate these behaviors in the higher weight group and interrupt the behaviors in the lower weight group.
You can do all the behavioural research you like-I actually assumed at first that they were doing biochemical research and were seeking to chemically trigger anorexia in some aspect.

This experiment has already been done and dusted, the urge to keep repeating it unceasingly is neurosis that should be dealt with the same as any other.'Obesity' promoters like to behave as if the past hasn't happened. Using our bodies in the way they are designed is the right way to achieve whatever metabolic outcomes are required.

As for the fat phobia of 'eating disorders', that's a no-brainer, they've always been that way, even the term "eating disorders" is a product of calories in/out modality and experience. If you are going to fit your experience into their notions you've already accepted that basis.

False disconnection of proto-anorexia or dieting from anorexia nervosa causes unnecessary confusion and suffering, making it harder to understand what AN is. Saying that anorexia nervosa is the exposure of an innate tendency shouldn't affect funding. People can't help being anorexic, but they can help dieting in the main.

This divide is the voice of people under the influence of anorexia nervosa.

Tuesday, 23 May 2017


Swallowing an inflatable device to take up room in your stomach so you can starve more easily, really? And the outcome of that would be different from just starving on your own, how?
At the end of the 16 weeks, the patients were encouraged to eat a Mediterranean diet to try to maintain their weight loss.
Maintain starvation, with what technique, procedure, process, stimulus? What modus, what pathway, what model? A placebo is defined by no active effect. This is all no active effect, just the acting out of how someone thinks metabolic function ought to work, but does not. And because they can't let go, we aren't allowed to.

No one really talks about how devastating it can be to regain weight loss so achingly slowly and punitively. It is literally Sisyphean;
In Greek legend Sisyphus was punished in Hades for his misdeeds in life by being condemned eternally to roll a heavy stone up a hill. As he neared the top, the stone rolled down again, so that his labour was everlasting and futile.
People know this though don't they? That's the whole point of it these days....punishment for sin.

Monday, 22 May 2017

Dead Dogma?

Well, well, well. Could we be witnessing the spread of terminal boredom with the useless, deranged and costly 'obesity' cult? Its stupidity, its sinister, psychopathic nature, dehumanises and objectifies. It has degraded us all in some way or other. 

And the interminable nonversations about food. How many times, the person who's lost 5 stone 'cos they've gone on a diet/changed their so called lifestyle, clouds in the heavens, WTHGAD? Or is it just part of the 'obesity' industry's attempt to transfer healthcare funds to its own accounts, blocked its own rank hate campaign?

[I always wondered how they'd get around that].

Matt Ridley who describes himself as; "Author, rational optimist, Times columnist, Wall Street Journal contributor, Tory peer, Northumbrian. Keen on science, scepticism, genes, ideas having sex."


"Obesity dogma has done us a fat lot of good"
Some put on weight more easily than others and there is no point in being proscriptive until scientists are certain why
That last bit nearly sums things up. Scientists need to find out how to use the anatomy that's already regulating the body's cells and learn how to alter that slightly in the main. We are not talking about disease or pathology, we are talking about reinforcement of regulation.

We've been here many times before and Ridley has noticed the 'obesity' consistently fails on its own terms-blaming it on its quarry, so that it can keep failing and blaming it on its quarry.....

You'd think that would have been super obvious. But when we expect to produce truth-they volunteer- producing distortions and blatant fibs, with the collusion of willing pitchforking weight vigilantes, it's surprising what liberties can be taken.
At the weekend Tam Fry of the National Obesity Forum claimed implausibly that obesity now costs the state £24 billion a year. The Institute of Economic Affairs puts the cost at less than £2.5 billion, and argues that “while claims of a crippling cost are a good way to get media attention . . . they irresponsibly incite resentment of a vulnerable group”.
"Implausibly" understatement of the year.

The Institute of Economic Affairs is a free market think tank.  Even the political corner that generated established and promoted a lot of this rubbish is offering sceptical analysis off it and using language like "vulnerable group". 

How long will people tolerate these pompous bores and their joy stealing, freedom negating activities.

And note how they know full well that it is the 'obesity' industry generating this ugliness, aiming it directly the type of people who post violent pornographic images of women being tortured, in order to try and drive women off social media. 

But some fat activists are still tippy-toeing around this, parroting nonsense about how "obesity is complex", [unless complex now means a stupid time sucking waste] aping 'obesity' wranglers divide and conquer blaming of the [slim] public. Like they whispered in their ear and told them we the [fat] public are to blame.

I detest people who parrot ob trope, tripe, however, there's no question that they get permission, encouragement and support in the form of such as the so called study of no such thing as people who actually exist of last week. Followed by the offer of some more crazy shit they can stick into you.

This stuff is created for everybody, but especially trolls, haters and bitter psychologically damaged whack jobs prepared to do their dirty work of bullying people into feeling as bad as possible. And they duly oblige, behaving as if they've had a work promotion.

I remember years ago suggesting all the ugliness posted on spaces occupied by fat people on social media should be directly e-mailed to "obesity researchers" producing this ugly hateful crap, just to give them some accountability for their actions. 

I've never sent a death threat to anyone in my life but I'd be happy to send them the death threats fat people on-line get from these cretins, preferably linking to the trash references scattered amid their poisoned outpourings. Asking stuff like; "Is this incentivising enough do you think?"
Advising, hectoring and bribing people to eat less and exercise more appears to be ineffective. We have just about tested that idea to destruction. It isn’t working, and it probably will only work if it becomes fully totalitarian, with police raids on home kitchens to seek out and destroy secret stashes of biscuits.
And this might be a problem for 'obesity' wallahs, they effectively require the pursuit of inefficient calorie intake and upping energy expenditure to become the defining principle of society as well as fat people's lives. Without bothering with any open discussion of whether that should be a thing. So do they take for granted the sport of loathing fatz is an inexhaustible well.

Perhaps not?!

The other day, I saw an article on pregnancy, it totally grasped how so called advice has become a tightening noose around pregnant women's necks. With 'obesity' it has gone far further consent is not a thing. We are not expected to have any opinions feelings or views other than what we are told to by ignorant idiots who-to add insult to injury-have little imagination.
What should a government do when there’s great uncertainty about both causes and the right course of action? Experiment, of course. 
If he stopped there, he'd be bang on so I did that for him. A proper sustained science of metabolic function, concentrating on the anatomy concerned is what's missing from the picture. The 'obesity' construct needs to enter  the dustbin of history- NOW.

Government should gather together a specialist team contain only those that can think well and have zero committment to shoring up 'obesity' and its cult.  Give them a year or two to find out how metabolic function works.

I'm sure knowledge of that would "motivate" those straining every pore  to avoid finding out anything useful.

Thursday, 18 May 2017

The Real Issue

Following on from yesterday's non-debate pertaining to 'obesity' cult mythologising this is who the Independent decided to get to comment on a supposedly deeply significant highly important and definitive study consisting of 3.5 million GP records, no less.

A personal trainer cum fitness competitor, cum classic mod-elle cum fitness tutor. I think we can safely say the folks at the Indie are telling us the exact value they place on this supposed study. We hear you Indie *wink*.

So let us take a look at what this presumably scientifically minded mod-elle has to mutter on the matter.

"Yes, you can be 'fat but fit' - but don't expect to be healthy". Who expects fitness to mean health? No seriously, who does? A clue; those promoting the notion of a "healthy lifestyle".

So the whole fitness industry is worthless to anyone who is over BMI 30+? Okay, you said it. Healthy people are a "ticking timebomb" no-one is seeking to detonate. Why so desperate for us to explode? Why aren't you all running around trying to find means to manipulate our physiology into defusing the bomb that is us? 

I say this to you honestly I'm deeply disappointed. No I really mean it. By now, I genuinely thought slimz would be more into fake compassion but they can't even be arsed to do that. I'm getting quite annoyed just thinking about it.

How dare they not cry at the prospect of our passing! I keep saying this, I want, no I demand to see more tears, more hand-wringing, more mourning. Tell me what you'll miss about us, the contributions we've made, the way the world will be a poorer place with our demise etc.,

All this getting off on what you feel compels us to trying to starving ourselves again, a la TBL is disgusting.  I am not joking.

Geez, at least smack yourself in the head, pick at your face [trés dramatique for those who just have to go that extra mile]..... At least try poking your fingers in your eyes to bring on some actual fauxreal tears.

More effort at being upset all round.

When I think of the nonsense I've gone along with you lot, ....don't even get me started.

Ahem, back to Mz Thing tell us this explosion "preventable", how though? Fitness is a complete waste of time, so says she and 'obese' wallah puppet masters. The only thing left is innovation in reversing weight. Which you know is being blocked by the same people doing the shouting.

The flurry of these emphatic "It is not possible to be fat and healthy" headlines are on the basis that the pool of people above BMI 30 is more likely to contain people who develop, in this instance, 4 cardiovascular pathologies.

Starting from the basis of the 'obesity' construct, BMI 30+ = a slim person plus mass, this is meant to show the plus mass causes cardiovascular events, to acceptable mass.

But we don't all start from there. Some of us start from the universal human, indeed animal norm, that each being recognises itself as a whole entity. From that point, those who have cardiovascular fillips are more likely to be found amid BMI 30+ and perhaps under whatever "healthy people of a normal weight". That makes sense given that cardiovascular irregularities are more liable to interfere with your energy regulation and metabolic function.

The cardiovascular system plays an important role in helping to regulate energy.

Even if crossing a weight line upsets your cardiovascular system, the answer is still, benign weight reversal.

Certainly that has also been found in the past, so called 'underweight' people have been found to contain more people with vascular irregularities-I cite that because it went against the desire to assert dementia as a fat thing [which is still done regardless]. This of course does not mean all people in the thin group are going to develop dementia, simply the greater presence among them raises overall risk.

I'm not sure whether metabolic manipulation could interrupt this, I don't see why it isn't possible. The best way to gain a deeper understanding of the situation brings us straight back to finding a benign means of reversing weight. The only means we have now-starvation- is pathological and pathology inducing, that includes cardiovascular as well as metabolic problems. As well as not being fit for the purpose (supposedly) intended.

Producing these kind of studies is supposed to divert attention from this;
The real issue is whether you can be ‘fat and healthy’ and the simple answer is no
The REAL ISSUE is why isn't all this conviction isn't leading anywhere but; this is really baaad and there's too much of it, so people must do what's brought us to this point. Then we'll again complain that there's too much of it and 'prove' how bad it is in order to get people to do the same thing as ever, which means even more of this and then we'll complain about how baaad it is and insist on get the picture.

Wednesday, 17 May 2017

'Obesity' is a Myth

"Healthy obesity is a myth suggests study". The 'obesity' is a myth so the opening statement is dead on impact. The intention behind forcing weight into "overweight"/ 'obese' is part of an overall drive into pathologising human function and outcomes in this case and size. In contrast to putting a false halo over a lesser size.

"Healthy" is not an emphatic tense. Outside of actual disease or sickness it doesn't fit an either/or categorisation. If one is well, health is by degree. The point about increased risk, real or imagined, is that is not a polar situation. Remember risk is not prognosis, whether heightened or otherwise and "obesity risk" bears hypothetical association as part of its equation.

It is also said to be the case that those who manage to reduce their weight using starvation still remain at heightened risk, raising again questions of direction of causality-to pander to this bankrupt framing.

As for the subsection "metabolically un/healthy". There is some kind of cross over between metabolic activity deemed 'unhealthy' for the purposes of fat/ter people and energy conservation. Fitness is not health, you can be healthy-free from disease- and unfit, you can be unhealthy-i.e. terminally ill-and be fit, as a woman who ran numerous marathons for charity whilst being terminally ill. Her weight would have been deemed "healthy".

Even if it is true that merely being fat/ter raises worsens outcomes in the long run, that just increases the urgency of being able to manipulate metabolic function in the right way. Something the 'obesity' exists to block.

Instead we have;
The priority of health professionals should be to promote and facilitate weight loss among obese persons, regardless of the presence or absence of metabolic abnormalities.”
"Promote" starvation, which just so happens to be metabolically deranging in every way stated under "metabolic ill health" as well as not fit for the purpose of [non-pathological] weight alteration and regulation. It can't be a co-incidence that these folks long for people to think of themselves as unhealthy and insist we do what has failed and actually makes us less healthy, metabolically and otherwise. 

Friday, 5 May 2017

No More NHS Donations to the Slimming Industry

Following on from a post the other day, "News Just In: Diet's Don't Work, Again", we have, a "study" funded by WW. Rest assured they did not interfere, it's pure coincidence that this 'study' concluded we must increase the transfer of NHS funds to them.

How so?
...the move could prevent tens of thousands of cases of obesity-related diseases over the next 25 years.
So that's "obesity-related" a bullshit obfuscation and 25 yrs, m'kay.
The study found that those given a year-long pass to weight-loss classes lost more weight and were better able to keep it off than those on three-month programmes or those going it alone with self-help guides. 
Ummm, an *eyeroll* statement if ever there was one. The next thing is to examine the brazenness of this fronting, for comparison with prior outstanding achievements in that area.

Number one cute move [they think] dieting clubs are called "weight loss classes" btchplz. Typical over the last 4 decades of failure is slimz undying assumption that they know how to school us in what is mainly involuntary regulation.

1,267 people were split into three groups-one group was given a self help guide. Notice all fat people have ever wanted, to do it ourselves, is increasingly discouraged due to the previous presumption. They can do it to us better than we can do it to ourselves.

The other two groups were split between those who had instruction in the rocket science of eating less and doing more for 3 months and 12 months respectively. The latter won the war on fat.
The results show that, on average, those offered self-help guides lost 3.26kg after a year, while those offered weight loss classes for three months or 12 months lost 4.75kg and 6.76kg respectively. 
That's self-help=7lbs 2oz, 3mths=10 lbs 7oz and 12 mths= 14lbs 14 oz.

All regained at the two year point but the 12 month group won by being 4.29kgs/9lbs 7oz less than their starting weight. You do the numbers. It shouldn't need to be said this is clearly not the right way to reverse weight.

Slim people have no idea what they're doing. They can't even do what would come before this to help their poor selves. They are just performing their delusion with us aiding and abetting as if they are so mentally damaged that we cannot possibly shatter their delusions.

This sort of nonsense 'research' is the kind of toilet paper science (barely fit to wipe ya arse with) that's produced purportedly to show the effectiveness of what is mainly quack ridden areas like mood difficulties and other neuroses. Things that shhh, *whisper it* you can directly access/ alter with your own mind.

It isn't easy, sometimes it is or feels impossible, but that is why a lot of flummery can be made to look like it has reliably tangible effects i.e. refeeding, talking therapies, substance rehab and such.

Researchers, medics et al insist this is an apt model for manipulating metabolic function. You can grasp the central problem MASS and what produces it is real. It isn't thoughts, moods, habits or the product of certain experience.

You cannot tell slim people this, and sadly, fat people are still too utterly mired in supine conditioning to unholy deference to medics and health professionals especially, to get out from under supporting their vainglorious delusions. 

So in short no, do not donate any more healthcare resources to slimming club quackery, it's needed for stuff that actually does work.

Wednesday, 3 May 2017

News Just In: Diet's Don't Work, Again

Intermittent fasting, i.e starvation, isn't any better way of starving yourself than doing it everyday. Who could have predicted thus?

There are no 'types' of diet, only different ways to achieve the same end, weight loss by calorie restriction.

Weight loss diets, no matter the presentation or PR, all work through the same principle, that of starving your body of the energy it needs, full stop. They all fail the same way too. Defeated by your body's design.

When that fails, so does your life.

None of this has been worth re-defining your humanity, reality, fact, science, or physiological function for. The failure is inherent in the design of calorie restriction dieting, not in the person trying to restrict calories or their psychology, character or physiology.

Energy intake evens out regardless of how you try to soften the blow, concludes this small study of 100. The body needs what it needs. We already know all this and have known for decades, centuries even. It can join a pile that's probably higher than Everest, not including the millions of people with their scores of efforts to get and stay in this lane.

Try telling this to cal res fundamentalists though.

They still want to save self imposed starvation by pointing the finger at people.  They cannot save it. Not by threats, not by hate, not by penalty, not by mutilation.

Don't be terrorised by reports of illness, sickness and death, it's likely to put you in the kind of chronic low level but persistent stress that requires constant infusions of ready energy to sustain it. That would be "self inflicted."

Don't perceive or identify yourself as in anyway inherently pathological. Do not be sad or oppressed. Be empowered, you said no. You saw through what everybody else asserted at you volubly. You defended yourself against influential people. You stood up for yourself, no one can take that from you.

Keep flexing those muscles and strengthen them.

Don't identify as 'obese', you should be able to realise by now that it has nothing to do with you. Tend to yourself as you are, identify and deal with your actual problems. Like the ones from your actual life and past-let's face it, none of us want to. But that is the only way we will feel better about ourselves, whatever course we wish to take.

If you have too much hunger, then recognise that. Stop allowing other people's fixation on food to become yours. Take note of the pattern and extent of your hunger. Notice whether its responsive or unresponsive, that is, as you respond to it, does it lessen or not?

It should be your focus to reduce the level of activity back to normal. Just because white coats aren't interested, doesn't mean you have to go along with their disinterest.

Your diet can be more or less useful to meeting your needs, but that isn't the same as having hunger functioning that works properly, and makes sense to you.

As you cannot do that specifically, you'll have to do it globally, that is you'll have to alter the way you feel about everything. If your hunger is responsive, satiety levels palpable and real, then let yourself alone and stop trying to starve yourself.

Feel less stressed, take the things and people that don't matter less [and less] seriously. Build your courage by practising small acts of it everyday and always remember this is your life and your body.

Not someone else's argument.

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.