Friday, 4 August 2017

Outlaw Bodies

A break in normal transmission for some click bait. "Sports Illustrated: Here's why fat size 20-somethings don't belong on the runway". I'm not going to waste much time on this nonsense so I'll let this airhead tell you in her own words;
I’VE got a message to people who agree with Sports Illustrated’s move to parade “curvier” women on the runway: It’s irresponsible.
Yahwn, whatever, that link is paywalled so here's a quote from the editor of SI, MJ Day speaking on teevee;
“We’ve made a very positive statement that beauty is not one size fits all and now we’re carrying through with that in our new line,” Ms Day said on air.  “It’s just further confirmation that this is what people want to see and this is what we should be doing. “This is what our responsibility should be, you know, as people in the media we shouldn’t create this little box in what’s acceptable and what’s considered beautiful. “As a woman, yes I hope this continues.”
Mz Concern-Troll's not having that oh no because social exclusion, that great health technique, must be the only aim,
.....putting very overweight people on the catwalk feels more like giving in...
Feels like giving in to what?
...the message seems to be, don’t bother to strive to lose weight and improve your health and wellbeing.
You really give an earthly fig about that don't you? Are you acquainted with the latest developments in 'obesity'? What are they pray tell? What exactly is this "help" you are so fond of talking about?  Could it be the same old useless failed shit of the last 40 years? I think it could which would be why you're calling it "help".

The coup de foudre/ placeholder for where an argument should be is also relayed by head doc of the Australian Medical Association, lols;
“There is a difference between being confident in who you are and promoting a healthy weight message,” he told Sydney’s Daily Telegraph. “It’s a difficult message but just like we don’t use cigarettes to promote products I don’t think we should have unhealthy weights promoting products.”
Um hum, "we" do not use cigarettes to promote products and "we" should not have unhealthy weights promoting products.

Remember when we still pretended all docs where intelligent? Here's Mz Thing's version;
Parading and glorifying size 20-somethings on any runway promotes an underlying and irresponsible message that doing nothing about your weight is OK.
You may recognise this from theocracies requiring women to wear sacks whenever they're allowed to leave their homes-if they're allowed to leave without permission-'cos the mere sight of women's bodies provokes/promotes bad things to occur.

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

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

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

Unsurprisingly, Mz Derivative thinks she can rescue this stale effect by shivving other women;
My argument here cuts both ways. If the fashion industry decides to stop using models who appear to have starved themselves to skin and bones — as they should — they shouldn’t then choose to promote an equally unhealthy body shape.
You want to extend your offences and that makes it right? What's the cognitive fallacy for this called?

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

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

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

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

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

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

This columnist drones on about how much she is suffering due to not be able to indulge her self denuding sub-pieties now people aren't buying them as concern,
I’m guilty of turning a blind eye when a friends says, “I’m so fat”. I just stand there denying that they are but maybe a bit of truth can lead some people on the right track of weight loss. Too many people are risking their lives with weight-related problems. But if you believe everyone deserves the best possible chance at a long and healthy life surely it’s not OK.
Oh yes, not being able to issue forth your ignorant no-account platitudes really is standing in the way of any fat person's life, you are that special. If your essence could be bottled, you'd be a medicinal panacea. There is no blind anything, there is nothing we don't already know of and it hasn't worked for the last 40 years.

"Risk" lies in allowing this to continue, 
Parading and glorifying size 20-somethings on any runway promotes an underlying and irresponsible message that doing nothing about your weight is OK.
What the 'obesity' crusade promotes is drug addiction and mutilation, plus more derangement of metabolic function. That is why people are extricating themselves from it.

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

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

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

No-one in their right mind wants that.

Thursday, 13 July 2017

Takes the Biscuit

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

First though the origins of this term are worth perusing - there's evidence of professionals seeking to dump this on their usual patsies, hoi polloi.
About a decade ago, a group of American psychiatrists studying obesity decided to look into whether some people's anecdotal claims of food addiction could be proven.
Anecdotal eh?
The idea of food addiction, far from being something new, was first proposed by T.G. Randolph in a 1956 paper, “The descriptive features of food addiction; addictive eating and drinking.”
That paper is not available to view. It seems to include alcohol which is no longer seen as a food [as well as a drug] but probably was then. I had no idea this came from a professional source. Friedman again,
Neuroscientists have found that food and recreational drugs have a common target in the “reward circuit” of the brain,
Wow. There's no comparison and I'm sure he knows this.
All rewards — sex, food, money and drugs — cause a release of dopamine
Meeting your body's energy needs-eating- is not so much a reward as rewarding. The release of chemicals like dopamine express the usefulness of energy to the body, along with any other life-enhancing or worthwhile activity.

Drug abuse on the other hand beats the ever loving crap out of neural (and other) structures like reward circuitry in the course of bringing about its effects.
...the gentle impact of natural opioids, produced by our own bodies, resembles a summer breeze compared to the hurricane of physiological disruption caused by drugs designed to mimic their function.
It's like the difference between exhaling and vomiting your guts up, eyes teary and with bust blood vessels, nerves shredding vibrating with the effort.
The drug’s ability to release high levels of dopamine rapidly in reward areas of the brain produces the "rush" (euphoria) or "flash" that many people experience.
Evidence of low D2 receptors in the case of drug users or addicts is largely down to damage done during the process of drug taking. These drugs are classed as "neurotoxins";
Dr. Volkow discovered that people addicted to cocaine, heroin, alcohol and methamphetamines experience a significant reduction in their D2 receptor levels that persists long after drug use has stopped.
Versus the origins of lower D2 levels identified in people who are merely fat/ter,
In a 2010 study, Diana Martinez and colleagues at Columbia scanned the brains of a group of healthy controls and found that lower social status and a lower degree of perceived social support...were correlated with fewer dopamine receptors, called D2s, in the brain’s reward circuit.
A significant reduction versus fewer. This study's findings are consistent with others showing this tendency can cluster among families regardless of their respective sizes. I also have to go back to that low D2 and the functionality of such as the reward circuitry, "Dopamine is involved in.... (pleasure from natural behaviors such as eating)".

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

Monday, 10 July 2017


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

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

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

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

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

Instead, they collude with people happy to shaft them any time in order to keep people stuck in a trap they can usually only escape by damaging themselves, sometimes irreparably. The only time people respond to fat people approvingly or with confirmation is when they spit up what they want us to.
...the definition of obesity has been further complicated and addled by long-standing stigmatisation and prejudice within our society, fuelled by abuse of a plethora of pejorative terms for people living with obesity. The cause of such societal rancour is likely due to a number of factors. ....lack of a clear understanding of obesity within our society and its causes is surely an important contributor
In other words its the public's fault! They're inherently stupid and bigoted that's why there's fat hate. It's nothing to do with our constant propaganda about how worthless fat people are. And inspite of even the most trolly troll constantly talking about how scientific this is, linking to much garbage 'research' to support the non-arguments contained therein. Keep thinking you're going to get away with this when the sh1t really hits the fan.

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

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

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

Wednesday, 5 July 2017

Hunger for a Change

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

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

Someone used to crowd control. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

And the parts I enjoyed most, about playing your duty,
I am, perhaps, self-obsessed beyond measure. No matter where I am, I wonder about where I stand and how I look. I think, I am the fattest person in this apartment building. I am the fattest person in this class. I am the fattest person at this university. I am the fattest person in this theatre. I am the fattest person on this aeroplane. I am the fattest person in this airport. I am the fattest person in this city. I am the fattest person at this conference. I am the fattest person in this restaurant. I am the fattest person in this shopping mall. I am the fattest person on this panel. I am the fattest person in this casino.
The self absorption of neurosis, in this case imposed neurosis of the 'obese' characterisation, so true. It's this kind of crap that drove me to step out of dutiful portrayal of the 'obese' role, remembering you are doing baad.  I know the comment is more about Roxane's awareness of her size, but its what you're supposed to say to yourself, remember you are fat.

It's motivational.

Being multiply-raped at the age of 12 is so unthinkable that it was just as much so after I read it as before. Nothing can make that fit in my head, my imagination runs out. Yet I recognised parts; one but those boys could hear me scream.....the surprising strength in their limbs. I remember that they laughed a lot. I remember that they had nothing but disdain for me.
At that moment I thought, how little has changed, I couldn't help myself. So much of being abused in general is like what people want the experience of fat to be. Not for their own personal satisfaction you understand, for the good of health. Of society.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first rule of medicine is to stabilise. We are still waiting for the industry/field to manage that rather conservative target after all these decades due to it not being found in how much sugar is in digestive buscuits. All that despite their sniffiness at our lack of anorexia talent. Not to mention the increasing ability of others to stop all sorts of cells from proliferating.
I wish I had known I could talk to my parents and get help, and turn to something other than food.
I must say I laughed out loud at the mention of "help" out there that would have stopped Roxane's body in its tracks. If proper investigation had lent itself to inducing a neural realignment, that would have taken something out of the trauma, make her more able to discuss it.

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

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

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

That's supposed to motivate research. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presumably that's the underlying source of rage.

Monday, 3 July 2017

Life Needs Life

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

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

Both are lacking sense and sensuality.

Friday, 30 June 2017

Training Not Treatment [i.e. Drugs]

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

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

Yeah, you're feeling me.

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

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

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

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

See next post for suggestions

Monday, 26 June 2017


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, 21 June 2017

Children Seen as the Weakest Link

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

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

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

Don't all rush at once.

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

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

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

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

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

Pass that on to the unsuspecting.

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

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

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

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

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

So alternatives?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still other food is about celebrating occasions or seasons. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, 13 June 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subtle difference.

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

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

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

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

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

That's using proxies for you.

Thursday, 8 June 2017

Appropriating Addiction

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

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

Anyway, back to more trivial matters.

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

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

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

But no, we aren't allowed to. We must not see this failure, we must only see ourselves or our bodies as having failed this godlike principle. This refusal leads puzzled indoctrinates to ask themselves; "Why can't I starve?"
About a decade ago, a group of American psychiatrists studying obesity decided to look into whether some people's anecdotal claims of food addiction could be proven.
Answer; "[It's as if] we are physically dependent on food!!!" Round and round in the same circle. You simply cannot get away from a reality that stark and unyielding. Some of us aren't used to being told no, even by nature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.