Your Weight Takes Nothing From You, part II

The neurotic weight as identity premise is what the ob construct and its crusade rests on, if you copy it, you will end up doing the same thing-pathologising weight.

For some reason, people find this difficult to accept. They mis-attribute what is the product of being silenced, for absence of sufficient identifying with your weight. Fact is, IDying with your weight to the extent that is normal for many slimz is abnormal-they'd do well to reconsider. 

A few tweeters spotted the substitution of "thinness" for 'obesity' and complained about it, one in particular, @medicalinguist, nailed the point pretty well...

"Your thinness has taken so much from you" suggests that thin people are "defective" by default.

...for totally the wrong reasons😆. This is suggestive of how slim people know ob is trash and why, they're just going long with what's wrong.

An astute and sympathetic responder @nomilubin, explains the feelings behind this well,

As a thin person, I find it extremely painful to hear these realities. I don't want them to be true to the point where I can imagine denying them or diminishing them.

This is so on point, and generous, as I know many slim people can and will be-when fat people give them something to go on. It what's driving the professionals too who are abusing their professional sphere to enact this denying and diminishing.

It leads to a key question at the heart of this-what do lay people do when professionals who control and police everyone's understanding and perception of reality-go rogue?

The professionals engaged in this weight jazz, are as we speak trying to trade on an impression of the public as savages full of prejudices that need to be lanced by their enlightened selves, trying to absolve themselves of responsibility. This impression is possibly left by everything from civil rights struggles to scientific advances that challenge people's beliefs.

For some reason I cannot fathom fat activists keep getting on board with this line, positioning the white coats (doctors, when its actually all of them plus sundry sub-clinical types, along with the original quacktastic alt-med contingent) as merely influenced by contact with these lowly issue.

Hell no, it is them driving this, their stamp is all over it. Who decided BMI 30 meant anything? Your fat phobic mother? Who decided people would be deemed "the obese", until people was hyphenated to "obese-people", on-line mras? Which cretins are trying to get other bullshitters to say "with obesity" because it sounds virtue signally?

Why deny this?

The reason I make this point is what's happening doesn't make sense unless it is made clear that ob is a top-down effort and which particular group it is coming from. It's not the law or politics, its medics, researchers, scientists who are messing up.

That needs to be pointed out. 

No one has to confront anyone, but if you cannot tell the truth about who's poisoning the well, how can you stop it? If indeed people do want to put a stop to this mess. Another oddity is this over stating and understating at the same time.

On the one hand, we're oppressed-we aren't, what is really going on is more like "Learned helplessness",

American psychologist Martin Seligman initiated research on learned helplessness in 1967 at the University of Pennsylvania as an extension of his interest in depression. In Part 1 of this study, three groups of dogs were placed in harnesses. Group 1 dogs were simply put in a harnesses for a period of time and were later released. Groups 2 and 3 consisted of "yoked pairs". Dogs in Group 2 were given electric shocks at random times, which the dog could end by pressing a lever. Each dog in Group 3 was paired with a Group 2 dog; whenever a Group 2 dog got a shock, its paired dog in Group 3 got a shock of the same intensity and duration, but its lever did not stop the shock. To a dog in Group 3, it seemed that the shock ended at random, because it was his paired dog in Group 2 that was causing it to stop. Thus, for Group 3 dogs, the shock was "inescapable". 

We are like the group 3 dogs who act like we can't escape, when there isn't anything holding us other than this learned behaviour.

At the same time we suffer bias. Bias? That's when you favour red over yellow, not when you wish to starve people and mutilate their organs, that's malicious assault, that's iatrogenic. Since when do doctors make their 'bias' the subject of a phoney baloney 'science' and insist on "treating" a non-existent disease, i.e. assaulting and damaging health?

How to do self acceptance has already been discovered. Two examples, learning to embrace and acknowledge your own body and pointing out that-diets don't work.

None of these required any input from slim people, professionals, counsellors, dietitians or anyone else. They weren't about moaning about who is or isn't nice, they were about our feelings and our needs based on our histories.

The first is about restoring or even introducing a normal reaction to your body and your size, the latter was reality-testing.

Fat people need to learn that we have to dismantle the rubbish we've been taught, not so much internalisation as a single voice and mode of expression we were all taught. We have to unearth our own voice and that will not come from constructing a social justice frame that isn't really there.

Slim people will turn up for us, when we turn up for ourselves.

What's stopping us from pointing out that the professionals have failed? That we turned up for do it yourself, i.e. "personal responsibility"? What's stopping us from stating facts, barracking, bullying, insults, yes, I get that, but that's always been there. It didn't stop us from starting. It's we who keep stopping ourselves when we get any momentum.

People were told, if you jump on this "body positive" bandwagon, you will not be served by it. We were brushed off, because anything slim people do is where it's at. That warning turned out to be correct.

Finding our buried voices is what fat acceptance or w/e you wish to call it should be about. This is what "speak the truth to power" means. Our continued silence aides those who are doing us dirty. Only enter the ob fictionalisations, to lead trace a path from there to the truth, this is not a debate, this is (largely) fiction versus truth.

The Emperor's New Clothes

Before I get to part two of "Your weight takes nothing from you", I want to concentrate on re-visiting the fable of "The Emperor's New Clothes". It is a good way to grasp the weight mess regards who believes or doesn't believe what, why or whom.

I repeat what I said, there is nothing to believe. The truth is in plain sight. Millions of people have been told they must become slim, not "lose weight" actually become a slim person. Whatever else is going on is swimming around that. The upshot is the means given to people by the science/research/medical/HC establishment doesn't work, as well as being inherently pathological.

The primary activity of said establishment is to appear to rage against this failure, which is their own- as if it is the failure of their targets. In order it seems to get them to continue to keep repeating this failure, as if it reality isn't happening. 

This cannot continue. So the issue here is that this alternative to, the truth we can all see is being held in place by reputation of the establishment, aided and abetted by the refusal/inability of anyone/ group to consistently point to the truth and to reject focusing on the fiction being upheld.

How to focus on the facts has already been demonstrated by fat people/activists when they insisted on repeating the fact that "Diets don't work." This prompted attacks from all sides, mainly ad hominem, not to mention doubts within, but fat people kept at it, regardless.

The upshot of this is everyone has been forced to recognise this, whether they like it or not. Even if it means them starting a sentence with such as, "Of course dieting doesn't work....." before they tack back to acting like/insisting it does.

DDW for short, isn't enough to derail the crusade, but it has been forced to yield to that reality to some degree. If fat people did nothing but this, in response to any talk about weight, it would increase the pressure on those seeking to continue the lie.

The truth fight of crusaders is with human biology as it is, rather than as they wish it to be. Fat people are most caught in that crossfire, used to make it look less irrational. 

This is the basics of how to fight this crusade, or at least its lies. I'm not saying its all of it, but any less than this is something folks will have to explain. I don't give a damn how you feel about your size, pretty much every fat person should be able by now to point to and stick to the facts, pretty much at all times.

It doesn't matter whether you are desperate to exit fatness or to not. If you wish to be slim, you need the white coats to stop this fuckery, if you wish fatness to be a neutral descriptor/positive state, you need the same.

The crusade is shafting both those who wish to be slim and those who are indifferent or not interested. As well as blocking progress in other areas of metabolic function.

The story of "the Emperor's New Clothes" is about an exceptionally vain(glorious) fashionisto emperor, who becomes a career opportunity for a couple of ambitious grifters.

The two weavers promise him a set of clothes so fine and wonderful that only the great and good in society will be able to see it.

In a sense the highlighted is the white coated ones 'invisible', i.e. non-existing, alternative to truth. Fat people are told that we cannot see this alternative they call 'science', because we are unworthy, not because it isn't real. Effectively silencing and sidelining fat people from the common discoure. Whatever we say is wrong, so we can be utterly disregarded. That could be seen as upsetting, but we don't fit into the discourse others are having anyway.

They [the clothes] will be quite invisible to anyone who is stupid, incompetent or unworthy of their position in society.

The whole point of reaching a place of self-recognition/acceptance w/e is that we have either seen through this, or at least recognise the received 'wisdom' doesn't add up.

Such a set of clothes would be perfect for a great Emperor. They would suit his sense of self-importance, and their magical properties of invisibility, to the unworthy, would enable him to find out which of his ministers were unfit for their jobs. This is evident when the emperor says, "...and I could tell the wise men from the fools."

The emperor's fiction doesn't match the reality we can all see, only the worthy, everyone who is not fat, can see. 

When the Emperor finally walks out among his subjects in his non-existent finery, the crowds watch eagerly. They all want to see which of their friends or neighbours are so stupid that they cannot see the clothes. What actually happens, of course, is that none of them see any clothes. Still, no one says anything. Some are too embarrassed to tell the truth. They think that they must be too stupid to see the clothes. Perhaps others believe that to say anything derogatory would be to draw attention to the truth of the Emperor's own stupidity. Perhaps others simply do not wish to be the first to speak out with a contrary voice. 

This is about where we are with this weight foolishness. I don't want to wear it out, but we saw this the other week with a certain columnist, who knew the NHS was promoting crash dieting, but somehow could quite bring herself to believe this could be so, "Is an NHS-backed diet going to succeed when most others don’t?" The first line is,

Is a crash diet no longer considered a crash diet because it has been validated by medicine?

She knows the answer just as well as anyone else, a diet is a diet no matter who's backing it. But its hard to say in the face of the notion that it is unwise not to uphold white coat pretense.

If fat people are not the people to point to reality, then who? Complaining that others aren't is one thing, but not whilst you aren't yourself doing it. You don't even have to confront the white coated ones if you don't want. You simply have to call nakedness, nakedness, without equivocation or pretence.

Whether you argue with others or not, stick to reality. No matter how many times you get side-tracked, once you recognise you are drifting back to the fiction, stop yourself, then reset and repeat. Eventually, you will learn to stick with realism regardless of the pressure. Just like DDW.

Stick to your guns, until others realise at the very least that you will not be persuaded or coaxed back to supporting their fiction. Yes, it may not stop them as we see above, but what it will do is change you. And that has already proven to matter more than what others are or aren't doing.

If you screen out any bluff and bluster, you are likely to stop participating in someone else's folie de grandeur, at least make them do all that themselves. Let them sweat to maintain😅😏.

So, how does the fable end?

Only one small child, who is far too innocent of all this pretension and social convention, shouts out, "But he hasn't got anything on!" At first, the little boy's father tries to correct the boy, but gradually the news breaks out and everyone finally realises that they are not alone in their inability to see the clothes. Slowly, but surely, everybody finds that there is strength in numbers and they begin to admit there is nothing to see. Realizing how foolish they and the emperor have been, they begin to laugh. The Emperor cringes, but continues with the procession, because to turn back now would be to admit his own gullibility. Better to carry on thinking that he is the only one who has the wisdom to see the clothes than to admit ignorance. His courtiers, likewise, feel they have to continue to live the lie, so they dutifully follow their leader.

Don't let sympathy for the white-coated ones inhibit you. I have the utmost respect for many who wear the coat, so I say from a place of high regard, that this is proof that they're riding for a fall. That's a better description of real "tough love". 

Even if people continue to barrack you for dealing in realness, the truth will prevail. Will that be enough to stop the crusade?

We shall see.

Your Weight Takes Nothing From You

There I was struggling to get across exactly why the 'obesity' construct is a fail tern, that's damaged people and needs to be left to those who want it, when here comes this, "What Your Thinness Has Taken From You".

I haven't read it, my point is about the title. It's the exact same premise 'obesity' rests on. Which is, your size/mass/weight is somehow violating you.

This of course makes absolutely no sense, even as a metaphor.

Size, whether weight or mass measures the whole of you.

Weight is not the same as mass. Mass is a measure of how much stuff is in an object. Weight is a force acting on that stuff. Weight is the result of gravity. The Earth's gravity attracts objects towards the centre of the Earth and you feel forces like this as weight.

Size cannot at the same time be a separate abstract entity that's somehow attacking and degrading the quality of you. Exactly as in, "What your thinness takes from you." In case it need be said, neither thinness, slimness, inbetweenieness, nor fatness, takes absolutely duck fall from your essence. End of story.

This sort of mal-ideation tells us mostly about the teller, not the told upon. The former is feeling what they don't like about the subject and attributing it to their weight. If the oddness of this conclusion stands out better when used on the acceptably-weighted, then all this will not be in vain.

The difference between this instance and ob is the latter starts from a mind that can't cope with the reality of, a bigger person, it breaks down at slim and comes to a halt. Preferring to see big(ger) than they as, 'excess' thrown onto slim and somehow corrupting them-because everything is all about them, all the time. Or they die.

Just kidding, but that seems to be how they feel emotionally speaking. The appearance of bigger makes them feel sidelined, erased, so they erase in return.

These fee fees are then parlayed into becoming "disease", to make this seem like the issue is the other person, not they, oh no. This "science", is supposed to spare the blushes and make everyone feel better about it.

The fundamental question at the heart of this, is not so much of the, "Why does everybody hate fatz so much💔😭" kind, it's, what do you do when the well builders are poisoning the well? Who can stop those who usually correct themselves?

The last time I'm aware of a similar sort of thing being tried was when certain pathological homophobes tried to run the study of HIV/IDS into irrelevance so that gay men could just die. They were clocked and sent packing by gay people and allies-which included medical and HCPs by the way, in part because gay people were actually dying. That's the sort of thing that will rile even the most docile.

In the case of fatz, we are lucky, there is no actual disease to kill us. Problem is iatrogenesis, this fiction is being used to actually assault people and their bodies in various ways. Let's not forget, gastric mutilation takes bodies from being able to be fully nourished from food, to not being able to be.

Nor is it clear that their is informed consent or even consent at all, seeing as 'obesity' is a manufactured contrivance, unless they are aware of this, what is a person consenting to but fiction?

Utilitarian Hate: People Don't Really Really Hate Fat People

Our pre-FA default used to be to not take fat phobia and hatred seriously, now activists are deciding again that the opposite of this is to take it too seriously. The point is not our attitude to fatphobia, it's our attitude to our own experiences and defining those as they are, which will have to be outside the ob cult's framework.

Fat phobia is not at root a heartfelt reaction, it is strategy.

Strategy, A plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim. In addition, A strategy is a framework for making decisions about how you will play the game of business. 

For business read play the game of repressing other people's (and your own weight).

In a 2013 journal article, bioethicist Daniel Callahan argued for more stigma against fat people. “People don’t realize that they are obese or if they do realize it, it’s not enough to stir them to do anything about it,” he tells me. Shame helped him kick his cigarette habit, he argues, so it should work for obesity too.

Strategy. The most important thing about this essay-if you can find some way of accessing it, do-is it explains very well how the whole white coat brigade's weight strategy works. Hate-away-other people's-weight.

Other physicians sincerely believe that shaming fat people is the best way to motivate them to lose weight.

Strategy. There's nothing remotely sincere about it.

“It’s the last area of medicine where we prescribe tough love,” says Mayo Clinic researcher Sean Phelan. 

Strategy. Love of any kind is not a "prescription".

If you know you are not anorexic, yet are being pushed down that route. If you know you are not sick, but are being pushed to pretend you are, why would the fact of white coat professionals using the whipping up of prejudice as a tool and strategy for "weight management" be so beyond either your own or other people's perception?

Why does the need to take all this in an overly literal way keep coming back like a bad smell? What is it supposed to achieve?

Hatred of fat people is mostly falsified performance. Fat phobia is a trained response. That doesn't make it not disturbing, after all, we know that though acting is false, it can still affect us.

Going back to bioethicist Daniel Callahan, hatred of fatness is deemed ethical behaviour. A phobic level response is deemed the correct one. Anything less is deemed backsliding or even corrupt, i.e. "promoting obesity". I made this point more recently when this desire to take this behaviour as if it was somehow a natural response,

"I posted a link on Twitter to a 1969 interview with Jim Morrison, in which he said, “Fat is beautiful.” Minutes after posting the link, a friend responded angrily that being fat is unhealthy because it causes high blood pressure and other health problems. This response, I told the audience, is an example of what I call “Fat Derangement Syndrome,” where even people who consider themselves to be open-minded, critical thinkers become outraged if fat is spoken about in any positive way. "
"Fat Derangement Syndrome" is 'obesity'. It's the applied vigilante style, permanent chorus of disapproval, which is supposed to trigger feelings of unwellbeing in fat people. This can be pointed to as the expression of the pathology of 'obesity'/caused by 'obesity'.

That feeling that this is ethical is true internalisation. The feeling that it is somehow wrong not to harass fat people with (increasingly) health-trolling. It is interesting that mainstream activist types and cult promoters love to present the notion that this contrived barracking is deep feeling, 

There’s a grim caveman logic to our nastiness toward fat people. “We’re attuned to bodies that look different,” says Janet Tomiyama, a stigma researcher at UCLA. “In our evolutionary past, that might have meant disease risk and been seen as a threat to your tribe.” These biological breadcrumbs help explain why stigma begins so early. Kids as young as 3 describe their larger classmates with words like “mean,” “stupid” and “lazy.
........the most hard-wired problem of all: Our shitty attitudes toward fat people.

Do you see the same notion that constant pile-ons, health-trolling, hatred, and fat phobia are so natural even fighting with all our might does nothing? Not only that though remember, 'obesity' is fake, it has to be created. If people just let fat people be, we would not simply decide to make ourselves unhappy, tired and defeated for no reason.

It's also a psychological assault to manufacture an imagined pathological state called 'obesity'.

If this organised rancour, this weaponised "peer pressure" is so natural, why is it supported by an industry spitting out "studies" on how fat people are costly parasites draining everyone else dry? Why the creation and ceasless stoking of grievance?

There are plenty of gay fat people out there. How many of you have experienced those moments of extreme tension when there's a palpable threat to your life?

How many people have been beaten to death purely because they are fat? Now consider, what percentage of people wouldn't dream of harming a gay person for their mere existence? But can you find one person who doesn't agree fat people should be constantly harassed?

So why aren't fat bodies piling up in hospitals from life-threatening beatdowns?

The pain of being fat is more emotional attrition. It's the fear of being exposed, humiliated, piled-on, cornered, attacked verbally. The only likely exception to this is in healthcare settings, that's the only place where some fat people actually experience the sort of life threatening assault.

Recently I saw some of a programme which featured a young fat woman who was stuck, under pressure by the usual circling of the white coats. She was told she should be lined up for mutilation, that girl howled like a wolf. 

It's clear this is a topdown thing, no matter how much activists collude with their 'betters' to pretend otherwise. To gloam onto the notion that ordinary folks are just savages. That seems to be a class thing and its a little bit shocking how much bourgie fat activists want to go with this.

It's the other way around, people have been told they're supposed to behave towards fat people, by those who administer and influence power. They're doing what they're told. Look at Barbara Ellen the other week, not being able to unequivocally state the bountifully obvious fact of medics promoting starvation dieting.

People are scared not to fall in line. They're becoming like we . Suggesting the fear some of us felt and still feel is a product of being an unquestioning vessel for someone else's malevolent thoughts.

Now isn't that a doozy?

Something about being a container, someone else's tool and puppet shrinks your courage. 

The idea of the ob cult has always been, citizens can and should endeavour to control or influence people's weight from the outside in, through abuse and now trolling permanently unsettling them, making it unpleasant to merely exist. This will shove them into escaping to slimness as fast as they can, by any means you force them down, no matter how painful. Given that means is starvation,  the pain of being needs to outrank the pain of that. 

The complaining about "promoting obesity" happens whenever health trolling is felt to be lacking. Management has to be constant. It is after all supposed to be replacing the functioning of your own body.

It's in the nature of people that when they perform a response, feeling, emotion, notion repeatedly with enough vigour, it becomes more than mere performance. In other words, their attempt to re-size our weight from the outside has reshaped their minds and their emotional landscape. 

So no, people don't really, really hate fat people, they're performing their duty, like the good little boys and girls that they are. Just as we used to do with our quest to be slim.


You aren't arguing with their feelings, your arguing with their desire to do what they've been told is the right thing.

How To Deal With Gaslighting - Ariel Leve

Ariel Leve speaks here about the instinctive survival tactics she used to survive an abusive gaslighting mother. She speaks of a woman who had no boundaries and could not control her moods.  How many times have I said that crusaders are totally out of control?

Some of what she says hits home hard.

"Everything is upside down. Reality is being cancelled, nothing means anything." 

She defines gaslighting as when someone manipulates you into questioning your own sanity. I'd add health to that-defined though that is by Munchausens-by-Proxy. In case that doesn't make sense to anyone. 'Obesity' is a largely meaningless construct now being used to pretend disease that doesn't exist. That is the features of the above disorder and no one has to accept this, unless they wish to enter into this fiction.

It wasn't just that my reality was cancelled, but my perceptions of reality were overwritten. and one of the most incidious things about gaslighting is the denial of reality. Being denied what you have seen with your own eyes and you know to be true. Being denied an experience that you have had and you know is real. 

And, something I've often felt,

For me, the erasure of the abuse was worse than the abuse.

Remember you Are not the one(s) with the problem. 

It can make you crazy, but you are not crazy. 

Ariel Leve

The lessons are;

1. Remain Defiant

Don't give up or compromise your experiences and/or what you know to be true. Don't try to meet the gaslighter halfway. If the gap between reality and their stories is wide. Let it be, stop trying to close or reconcile it by bending the truth. Women especially are rooted to a performance of the latter to an absurd degree. You are not Gandhi, give it up.

2. Recognise there will never be accountability

The miscreants concerned will never accept accountability for what they have done and what they are doing to you. Cultists could very easily begin to make amends by telling the truth and sticking with it. They chose not to. 

3.  Let Go of the Wish for Them to be Different

Stop trying to make the wrongdoer be different. That's not your responsibility-it will drain you dry and leave you hollow. Instead, change your reaction to and estimation of them [even if only on this matter].

4.  Develop a Healthy Detachment

Distance yourself from cultists. Learn that there are two worlds - reality and the world of the abuser. You have to make a choice. Don't try to enter the abuser's world assuming they've made a space for you there because they're using terms like; "science, treatment, medicine or health". They haven't.

Why I Don't Have a "Relationship with Food"

The current reign of the diet deranged means a lot of their garbage jargon is being increasingly normalised, foisted on the unwary and the uninterested. One piece of empty phraseology that's achingly impressed with itself is "relationship with food", prefaced by such as "Your" or "What's your?" and the like.

To clear away any potential ambiguity.

I. Do. Not. Have. A. Relationship. With. Food: Full Stop.

Given the only people who appear to have less indifference to the word "NO", usually have to serve time if convicted. I'm going to condescend a few words to explain why folks need to miss me [and I've little doubt plenty others] with this one.

My idea of a relationship, and I'm sure most people's, is based on reciprocity. Meaning you can only have a real relationship with a living entity that has an inner life or consciousness. In other words a sentient being who can return or decline  (or indeed instigate) self-directed connection with your good self.

That doesn't have to be human, can be other animals of all types, as long as that creature is capable of responding to your attentions in some meaningful and measurable way.

Yes, a person might say; "Look how s/he goes" about a boat or car or whatever. But we all know that's just some anthropomorphising jazz. You cannot have a relationship with something that isn't alive or doesn't have some kind of neural structure.

If you do not have that, you are effectively engaging in what used to be termed, "mental masturbation". In other words, you are playing with yourself, your gratification depending on the imaginary device of projecting your own feelings onto an object.

s a device its fine, its when you start acting like you do not know this is not going on in your own mind. That said object is actually interacting with you in the real. The ventriloquist's dummy coming to life is always creepier than a talking doll.

This is perhaps another case of a verb "relate" turning into a noun "relationship" without recognising they aren't interchangeable. You can relate to someone without being in or having a relationship with said person.

You are never having a relationship with an object.

Yes, a person might say, "There s/he goes" about a car or a boat, but that's largely a self-amused reference to the amount of effort and or time the person has invested in said object. 

Cognitive snaggles of this kind torment stalkers and other miscreants d'amour. Feelings of sufficient ardour can leave the sense that this grand feeling must somehow be returned.The notable thing about sex pests is they are almost always acting  on this premise. Often refusing at first to believe the object of their affections could be oblivious to their affections.

The first step in their come down is usually acknowledging that their feelings are theirs and theirs alone. 

We've all fallen for this feeling in some way or t'other, we get over it, becoming aware that others think they're having a relationship with us-that they aren't having. We too realise we may well be in that position with others.

We have; ideas, experiences, myths, legends, tales, memories, associations even dreams about and around food, that's inevitable. Examining, altering, dropping them is a worthwhile notion. It doesn't require this infantilising nomenclature.

Women can have thoughts and ideas, we don't have to be treated, nor treat ourselves as infants to do an inventory of them.

Stop babytalking yourselves and other women and for goodness sake men, do not go down a rabbithole you have thus far escaped.

Being Beasty

Forcing perceptions, experiences, actions, results and other reality into the cult commandments has this effect, "How to avoid losing your memory in the digital age",

With Google taking the place of memory, many worry that a vital faculty is eroding.

What is assumed to be created by cyberspace is merely a(nother) example of said problem. Instead of goo-goo, read being the ob construct script.

I call it being an obot. The non-existent "food addiction" is an example of people making their experience fit the script. Their truth feels like the impostor. All realness is for them located with the cultists giving them orders. At its most extreme it becomes a kind of senility, which is pertinent given cultists continue to claim their construct is related to dementia. 

Regardless of size, each person has to decide whether they wish to be an obot or to retain their own minds.

"Is the NHS-backed diet going to succeed when most others don't?" The reference is to re-emergence of starvation or VLCD, 800 calorie a day soups 'n' shakes diet. It's being sprung on diabetics, by people with proxy-anorexia, on account of potential desperation to temper their condition. Ob was supposed to fulfil this role, but is floundering, on account of its evident falseness.

Not that there isn't an intent to  use this to starve off weight too, the acceptability of stomach amputation to achieve starvation is probably what has enabled both to be brought back.

Research, Medical and healthcare professionals, along with the rest of the white coated professions have always been the instigators and/or supporters of the starving of fat people and anyone who wishes to lose weight. The famous 1959 Stunkard/Maclaren-Hume study will tell you that. Go back further, centuries into history and you'll find the same ideas about torturing fat bodies.

Over the centuries, suggested strategies for losing weight have included bitter tonics, bleeding, sea air, amphetamines, Turkish baths, tapeworms, purgatives, low-fat diets, high-fat diets, cinnamon, more sleep, less sleep, and the “vigorous massage of the body with pea-flour.” The Roman emperor Aurelian advised rubbing cloth over body fat to get rid of it....In 1954, a Swedish doctor decided to bypass segments of dogs’ intestinal tracts. He hoped to curtail the time and space that the body had to absorb calories. The animals subsequently lost weight, and a research doctor observed, “This questionable method of controlling obesity will have the necessary experimental foundation.”

Nor is there anything new about being supervised by medics whilst starving, the 1959 study was prompted by the failure of those under the supervision of the study's authors.

Barbara Ellen knows the truth-look at the title of her piece, but, she too is wrestling with the surround pressing minds to force what they know into the ob lie mincer. A VLCD is the exactly the same whoever is pushing it. The same doctors warned us off for years, when they'd led to one too many injuries and deaths.

The slimming industry has faded before. The roaring twenties created conditions for commercialised slimming, that died down and came back in the 1960s, when Jean Nidetch came up with weight watchers.

All the while doctors where not only the contrivers and peddlers of all major imprints of eat less/move more, they routinely funnelled their patients to the slimming industry, not seeing it as their business.

It came crashing to earth some time around the 1990s, as people noticed they weren't getting any slimmer despite the efforts they were putting forth. Medics again stepped in to salvage it - health became the overriding emphasis to get people to keep repeating diet failure. Avoidance of death rather than other motives became the excuse.

Currently, the slimming industry is moving away from obvious endorsement of starvation, following the lifestyle line-which wasn't theirs either. Even fat people who had wanted to be slim at any costs learnt it is possible to exhaust your desire for something, if the obstacle in its way is too insurmountable.

Public awareness is the real motor for pushing starvation back into the medical sphere, to try and use that to force people to repeat their failure,

the NHS inadvertently endorsed crash dieting, lending medical authority to something that for so many leads to unsupervised, self-sabotaging, soul-destroying yo-yoing? I’d love to learn in, say, five to 10 years’ time, that this plan to reduce the numbers of British diabetics has proved wildly successful. Sadly, the continuing dominance of the global diet industry suggests otherwise.

Its direct not inadvertent, nor does anyone need to sabotage even if they wanted to, dieting fails on its own, it's just the wrong tactic. Try to stay up late by will and the urge to sleep will creep through your body, until it overtakes your body. 

Though drugs and mutilation are being added to the weight loss mix, it's unlikely to reverse weight much if at all. Diabetes will probably continue to increase. Incidentally, fatty viscera is associated with weight rebound and triggering diabetes.

Though the evidence is not conclusive-to my knowledge-it is serious enough to warrant settling once and for all. I'm talking of a real standard of evidence, not "seemingly mainly prompted by the results of a rather small trial from a year ago." This is honestly something I've only seen in this area, it is flagrantly unprofessional.

There are at least two pathways, one, the exhaustion of the glucose receptors that tends to occur in the early stage of a CRIWL effort-sometimes referred to as the "water weight" phase and the inducement of metabolic conservation, similar to aspects of hibernation in other mammals.

This "metabolic depression", an excellent way of putting it by the way, is also implicated as a trigger of fatty build up in the viscera;

The NHS plans to help people shed the fat that builds up around internal organs..

Visceral fat is an inherent feature of a rare condition called lipodystrophy. People with it have that and other metabolic problems on an unparallelled level and extent to the average target of the crusade. 

He* was interested in insulin resistance, the cause of Type 2 diabetes, and had assumed it resulted from obesity. But people with lipodystrophy had the most severe insulin resistance he had ever seen, and they were far from obese.

[*Dr. Simeon Taylor, who was the chief of the diabetes branch at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases]

The pioneering treatment for this turned out to be a discovery of a metabolic feature, Leptin. Discovered under the banner of 'obesity' yes, but dealing with physiological function, as it is. Leptin is a chemical made by the human body. Fat people are said-in the main-to have an abundance of it.

If the most effective reverser of fatty viscera is activating and altering the settings of metabolic features, usually built into the body, then it is more evidence of the body itself as the primary manager of its own metabolic function, which includes weight. Ditto metabolic snafus.

It's a question of accessing those properly and for some reason, the white-coated ones have never really wanted this. 

If we the public had not become so pitifully craven in an increasingly feudalistic era, we might realise this is a rare instance of the professionals caught slipping in a way that can be clearly seen by all.

By rights, this should be the moment when they encounter the humbling they've been way too happy to enjoy at our expense. Time and again, their discoveries have challenged and broken some of our most sacred and preciously held beliefs about ourselves and the ways we live. Shaking collective and individual awareness to its core.

We've had to wear it whilst they've mocked us with lofty disdain.

Now its their turn. 

For some reason, they cannot get over the failure of starving people, allowing fanatical failed anorexic dietitians et al to have their way with the unwary, whilst the more rational stand in the background allowing and enabling them. It's time for the public, for the lay(wo)man to laugh and point.

To give the white coats a massive well deserved wedgie. Believe me when I say, they need it. Though they'll object, nothing proves this more than their deranged psychotic breakdown over people's size.

In the end it boils down to a test of character. The Emperors are buck naked, with their bits swinging before our eyes.  How many of us have the self possession to be that little boy who points this out, refusing to permit ridicule, theirs or their tools to stop us?

On this one, balls in your court Barbara and you are on your own together with the rest of us who cannot pretend we don't know better. Sadly for now, this seems to be too little comfort.

Prove me wrong.

Viner Doll Emission

What in the SEO is this?

Elaine Gormley was desperate when she turned to slimming pills. She had been obese since childhood, but lost a significant amount of weight by going to Slimming W💀rld classes in her early 20s. One in three slimmers have purchased pills online, according to the joint #FakeMeds survey by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and Slimming W💀rld.......Golder and Gormley eventually lost their weight healthily, thanks to Slimming W💀rld.

Sense a running theme here? It's supposed to be hidden by asking a question with an obvious answer; Why is the market for slimming pills booming?

“Everything I read and saw on TV said obesity was linked to every cancer you could imagine. It frightened me into thinking, ‘You’ve got to do something, you’ve only got yourself here for the kids now,” she says.

The 'obesity' blockade on relevance if not science, supports the weight must be lowered solely through calorie restriction and/or exercise purging, often for life rule.

Given the endless moaning about increase in societal body mass, its obvious that this is irrelevant relic of history. Science has produced a stream of "miracle drugs" [i.e. drugs that actually work], so there's a sense that an effective intervention should have arrived long ago. People taught slimming drugs are the "holy grail", will be on the look out for them.

Virtually any slimming drug ever promoted by health care has been harmful, ineffective, often both.

It is still entirely rational to sense changing your weight is inherently a trivial non-issue that should be something your body does whilst you get on with your life, not something you have to permanently sink significant parts of your conscious bandwidth too, something that configuration of your brain was never designed for.

Every time life throws a curveball, you're supposed to expect to fall off, imagine if contraception "worked" that way. 

Rather than face facts the guardian appears to be continuing to double down on its attempts to salvage itself at least in part by using the forces of 'obesity' promotion + commercial slimming. Writer Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett just sounds like another transmission outlet for her mistress's voice.

When it comes to losing weight, most of us know the only real way to do it is a sustained period of healthy eating and exercise, requiring hard work and patience.

A real Viner doll in fact. The latest in a lengthening line, including token males Denis Campbell and George Monbiot.

When guardianwoman especially tries to release their inner conservative on other women in this way, it's like women who'd tell their daughters to stay in abusive relationships due to the "sanctity of marriage", not convincing. To be that, you have to apply that same level of empty conservatism to yourself, and they most definitely don't.

When Rosie Boycott-seen over here as a pioneering second waver-claimed 'obesity' was a side effect of feminism,

A food expert and adviser to Sadiq Khan has claimed the current obesity crisis was fuelled by feminism as more women swapped the kitchen for the workplace.

Feminists were'n't falling over themselves to say; "If we're pushed to cook everything from scratch around work and/or other duties; hard work and patience shall overcome",

The rightwing media made its mind up about working mothers long ago. Don’t expect a groundbreaking Harvard study to change it 

I won't expect the reality of the failure of calorie restriction dieting to do any such either. Complaining about the extent of BMI 30 + is complaining about the failure of slimming industry and its non-existent 'product' of telling people to starve and purge off weight.

Look at the tone of RLC's previous article, we can see how easily her same dosage of tendentious condescension can be applied, "How to refocus the spotlight on female writers"? "hard work and patience." ~ Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett.

How helpful.  

Women too often have their lives rather than their books reviewed.

Oh I'm feeling that, are you? When slimy arseholes just keep making shit about you or your life or your supposed personal failings when its really about thoroughly contrived systemic failures,

...following a breakup and an operation, the 29-year-old from Belleek in County Fermanagh had gained all 10 stone 6lb of it back.“I lost my focus. I felt I was unloved,” she says.

Articles about giving working mothers, mothers or women a break from pointless exacting standards, play up such a glaring exemption. Having a part-time extra job acting out function your body could easily do itself,is no way to live. 

It's hard to take being expected to feel unworthy of benefiting from accurate and relevant science from those with such lofty expectations of life. I don't share those, I just want people to be able to alter their own bodies themselves, without trauma or pathology.

Why are we able to pull the desire to be an anorexic athlete out of our arses, but women can't just bow down to lesser demands made on them? If this isn't a thing, others seem such non-issues.

We cannot be on the same page if there is this chasm of expectation.

Feminism is assumed to be for the bourgie/haute-bourgeoisie + upper class women isn't it? At times like this, they can't even be bothered to hide it.

Feminists? Selfists, more like. Not even choosy-choice can make them pretend we should be allowed to choose whether to inflict this on ourselves. Feminism is an exemption for them from patriarchal dictates, the rest of us can just have good old misogyny. 

In case the likes of Katharine Viner don't want to get it, way more than the hard work and patience required for any reasonable aim has been expended, nothing we have done or will do, no sacrifice we have made or can make, no costs we have paid or will pay, not even our own lives will ever be proof enough for anyone, including the sorority.

The 'obesity' crusade has weakened women, and it's weakened and exposed feminism.

I don't care what the media is getting for this shit, keep supporting it and we'll continue who applies that term to no-one but their own supposedly elevated class or anyone they slum-to-anoint. 

Nutrional Ire

Here's something to bear in mind when it comes to food, the inherent aggression waiting to come out of something we need to live. "Waitrose Food editor proposes articles on 'killing vegans one by one' after journalist pitches plant-based recipe ideas".

Ms Nelson....had suggested a regular series on vegan cooking, featuring recipes, commentary and news. In an emailed respond to her pitch last week, the magazine editor wrote: “Hi Selene. Thanks for this. How about a series on killing vegans, one by one. Ways to trap them? How to interrogate them properly? Expose their hypocrisy? Force-feed them meat? Make them eat steak and drink red wine?“

The man was clearly joking, but his remarks still disturbed,

”I've never seen anything like it,” she told BuzzFeed News: “I've written about many divisive topics, like capital punishment and murder cases and domestic violence, and I’ve never had a response like that to any of my articles or pitches.

Her shock is similar to that of many fat peoples', activist or not. The conclusion tends to be, this is straight hatred of fat people-because they expect and assume fat people are that hateable/hate-worthy.

What's demonstrated here is what it looks like when the person has no such sense that they are any such thing, recognising it as a problem outside herself. It affects the way she responds, indeed questions the source. Food touches on people's survival instincts, any sense of perceived threat to the supply of that can set of a visceral instinctive reaction, that may surprise even the respondent.

Fat people are routinely cornered into playing out calorie restriction-by everyone. The logic of enforced cal res though, as I've repeatedly stated is a threat to the overall supply of sufficient food, our brains worked that out pretty much as a matter of course. It's the source of the desire to isolate fat people in self-starvation, not blame, that's in service to the desire to remove the threat of cal res.

For fat people, this was the root of our first feelings of guilt-that by our 'sin' we would threaten the health or life of those less prone or able to store energy. We didn't wish to, that's why we accepted our isolation.

In those people and others, the feeling was of the logic of cal res putting their needs second, as prioritisation of cal res-in the food supply-must do, logically. This happened outside all our mind's [conscious] awareness, but not the body's, strange though that may seem to hear.

And no, this isn't about "greed" it's down to the insistence on altering the food supply, rather than physiological function. This is wholly irrational. 

It's yet another set-to contained in this mass delusion. This prioritisation equation-cal res before the storing less- hasn't manifested thus far because those less prone to storing energy have the upper hand. The food supply is still directed by their needs, which are really the same as all our needs, if it wasn't for this neurosis.

Storing less before cal res, makes sense in terms of democracy, but not in terms of most effective enforcement of cal res. Meaning, 'obesity' peddlers routine runs wholly against democracy and in accord with dictatorship, as anyone paying attention to the rights of the targets of this will have noted-it's just not using the usual political language, instead it uses medical and pseudo-medical(ised) jargon.

Democracy is not supposed to lead to this sort of dictatorship through the food supply. One can partly come about though, either as a result of a political decisions + internal/external blockade trifecta-like Venezuela or some other combination of policies, things such as "welfare reform" along with the kind of interference demanded by crusading declarations of war.

You can see how quickly threats to the food supply leads to declarations of death to those perceived as posing the threat. That should be borne in mind before personalising rage coming at you.

A(nother) Short Take on Addiction

Some other post has made me think of another way of describing (opiate) drug addiction. Imagine a self-charging phone. This phone helps power itself with what I call pleasure chemicals, basically a group term for chemicals that we perceive as giving us feelings of pleasure and enhanced well being, they include chemicals labelled "reward", reinforcers, motivators and natural painkillers amongst others. They enable us to function properly.

Imagine charging the phone with one of these chemicals, in order to "touch the sky" get some kind of extra performance from the phone. The phone responds to this outer charging by reducing the level of its own charging, in order to stop it from exploding.

When the extra charge wears off, the phone's inner charging is restored to normal. 

If you repeat the extra charging hard enough and often enough, the ability of the phone to restore its charge to normal becomes compromised, a part or two gets damaged from having to take this emergency measure to often. It wasn't designed to be a regular function.

At some point full restoration is not happening, the phone is permanently undercharged, making you reliant on charging it up. At this point, drug users say; "I don't take drugs to get high, just to get by." To function. 

That's basically drug dependence-on an outer supply.

There cannot be any such thing as "food addiction". Food is a necessity and outer supplied. We are all "addicts", you cannot not be addicted to or physiologically dependent on food, full stop. People need to use such terms properly, or they quickly cease to define anything specific, this opens them up to be applied to anything the powerful and cynical feel like and used to label us sick when we aren't. For the purposes of removing our freedoms and civil rights as is increasingly happening to people on the grounds of weight.

It's about time people who like to abuse terms because, "I feel like this is what I'm suffering" are told to knock it off as they don't bother to consider the consequences of their solipsism. There has already been way too much suffering brought about by quackery and false use of defined medical terms should come under that title.

If you wish to reduce weight through reducing intake and wish to try to make that happen by cutting out certain foods, i.e. sugary and/or fatty [depending on which cycle of the macro nutrient whirl is currently fashionable]. Your continued hunger function is not "addiction" or "craving" its still just hunger.

Re-framing is not magic.

If you choose to starve weight off, you will continue to experience that. Whatever food you cut out, as long as it provides you with sufficient energy. Often repeated dieting increases hunger for these foods precisely because they are targeted for exclusion and even because they are more efficient means of taking in energy.

Repeated denial of energy and/or the repeated threat of denial of energy, makes your energy supply insecure. This can make your body favour the most efficient and effective means of taking in energy, sugar and fat for example.

What you are supposed to do instead is to reduce your hunger function, which will make you eat less. Awful abomination though it is, the experiment of weight diet gastrectomy demonstrates this. Not only does it show that, it shows that appetite, which is really what this is about, is also part of hunger function. Reduce it and you're likely to reduce your hunger for all foods including sweet/fatty ones. 

It often leads to astonishing changes in the way things taste, making cravings for a rich slice of chocolate cake or a bag of White Castle hamburgers simply vanish...they were not particularly hungry afterward...their taste for food often changed.... “Are you sure they didn’t operate on my brain? Food does not call out to me anymore.”Another, who used to seek fatty and sugary foods, said, “I crave salads now.”

That person who was asking if something had been done to their brain was so used to being told-as we all are- that eating is just a decision rooted in the mind. He couldn't relate the assault on his body with a change in what was supposed to be all in his head.

In reality hunger is an all body process that is collated in the brain and then responded to. Removing a major digestive organ curtails the body's ability to produce hunger at an efficient and normal level.

Hunger (and appetite) function can be adjusted without tearing people up. But for some reason, healthcare professionals, researchers and scientists prefer to cut-em-up-rough. Or to seek drugs. Well, as long as people allow them to get away with this, they'll continue.

Research Is Direct Link to Getting Money for Nothing

"Research finds link between time online and obesity in children". How about research finding a link between how the body self-regulates our body mass and our conscious awareness? They both major in using the same system, the nervous system. That way we could pass on to our children could skills that could be used for all sorts of alterations to their own function.

Meaning they can spend time on-line according to their own interests and benefit rather than being subject to a shower of random dictates that do not add up to a coherent picture.

Do the people producing this "research" know finding out that doing A, B, C, D, X makes you, such and such % more likely to become fatsuity means precisely duck fall? That along with, doing A, B, C, D, Z, increases the risk of fatsuity or, people with fatsuits are more likely to not be able to um.........I forget?

In short, you are producing absolute garbage unless you are producing information about real psychological, biological functioning and pathways that actually lead to something tangible.

We know fatsuit research is a money pit right now, and that you get paid for producing any old irrelevant and useless shit. That doesn't mean you should though. You could, excuse personal ethical oversight, and dare one say it, exercise self control.

Jus' saying.

The Pseudo- in front of Science

The click point says 'totally unacceptable" Record number of 10 and 11 year olds severely obese'. That is the opposite of the truth. These results are totally acceptable to those claiming otherwise. If indeed it was the the case that the ends were unacceptable, they'd abandon the failed means for those which succeed. Not on paper they control, but it actual real life.

That isn't happening because the pseudo- is more important than the science.

Not that I take the phony stats of 'obesity' at face value, I'm doing so here to make the obvious point.

If you do not come up with a method to achieve an end that is effective at achieving that end, you will not achieve said end. Simple. Nobody can be so spoiled as to think stamping their feet will change that, surely? If people cannot achieve anorexia, they cannot, no matter how much you seek to press it on them, so come up with something that works for them or put up with the results.

Failure is the feedback by which you change what you are doing in order to succeed, if you wish to achieve success. If you are welded to failure for whatever reason, then you shall continue to fail. If failure doesn't make you change, it will repeat until it changes you. That's called science. Science is not inspiration, it is not statistically insignificant randomness, it is not declaration from an uberclass, it is what demonstrably and predictably repeats.

Stopping, stabilising or reversing weight using calorie restriction or starvation has failed. People cannot use failure to achieve success.

It's not personal. It's not a challenge to a person's heightened opinion of themselves, it is just real. Nobody, not an Emperor nor King can bully reality to what they want it to be, without viable means to do so. 

Learn that lesson or don't and take the consequences. 

Embodiment not weight as identity

N.B. It's rather strange that this is breaking about now, "Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship". I wrote this piece yesterday before I heard anything.

A reminder to those going around claiming their "fat identity" is insufficiently possessed or recognised by others, i.e. lacking this fat identity is a main source of woe. 'Obesity' is all about creating and imposing a "fat identity" from the outside, in order to direct behaviour. 

This is that identity sold;

Obesity, we are told, is a personal failing that strains our health care system, shrinks our GDP and saps our military strength.

And this is that learnt;

the fear of becoming fat, or staying that way, drives Americans to spend more on dieting every year than we spend on video games or movies.

This too;

Forty-five percent of adults say they’re preoccupied with their weight some or all of the time

This especially;

......so many of my sources.......double- and triple-checked that I would not reveal their names

And this

One remembered kids singing “Baby Beluga” as she boarded the school bus

Unsurprisingly;

“I have this sense I’m fat and I shouldn’t be,” he says. “It feels like the worst kind of weakness.”

Arguably most of all this;

I waited to do things because I thought fat people couldn’t do them.”

This too sticks in the mind;

I avoided so many activities where I thought my weight would discredit me.”

The nature of the way-the "weight" is separated from-the "me" takes a lot of untangling.

Before anyone says anything on this, it's entirely possible to even hate your size if so inclined, without that having any real affect on your sense of self. Think, people who say-they, hate their hair-either how it looks or when it won't behave or style in the way they intended. Consider how little this defines their sense of self.

Weight as identity is the way your weight can take lumps out of your psyche. This includes slim people.

Weight as identity is not the answer, it's the problem. WAID started with slimness being seen as somehow, inherent to being human, rather than a size human beings come in.  

This affected the way anything outside this range was defined, driving a desire to confect an ID for higher weight to try and give meaning to the creation of humanness based exclusively in slimness.

That kind of slimness is the origins of weight identity. Fat people's indifference to perceiving weight as a subject for identity, plus learning an outer defined view of themselves- meant the grab to define this fat adjunct had nothing to contest it. Fatness belongs exclusively to slimness, becoming just more space to project whatever they disliked about themselves.  

People seem to see climbing into this "space" as the only thing to do, because there is no real fully formed normalcy of embodiment and because they seem to feel whatever slim people do must contribute to the sense that they humans living their best life.

'Obesity' cultists have little problem with it in essence with weight as ID, it makes their "war" feel to them "provoked", defending a rational non(proactively)-aggressive idea of themselves. They pick out and twist what is said under the banner of fat ID to re purpose their favoured themes. Fat people stigmatise themselves, rather than learn the same "grammar" of body size as everyone else.

An aspect of this fat ID has even turned up as a "cause" of staying fat; "You really identify as a big bear of a man and that's stopping your 'weight loss'" etc., Becoming something to pin the failure of calorie restriction induced weight loss.

What people lack is not ID, it's more a history of metaphysical embodiment. A sense that this body and the experience and history of it is inside out, not the other way around. That doesn't require you to bother with someone else's imposition of weight ID.

What's notable about the above examples, is the lack of anything present inside to counteract them. I don't mean argue, I mean the feeling that outer falsehood is hitting a real sense of (inner) perception. If someone claims you have stolen something, when you haven't, you don't feel pushed over by the accusation, you know what you have and haven't done. And you know that comes from inside you and doesn't require validation to even think or be aware of this. Regardless of external doubt.

Fat people learnt the same way one way of seeing as everyone else, except, it was them being seen by others and they learnt this, rather than seeing themselves from the inside out. 

We learnt the outside in one at the expense of awareness of our inside out one.

The rareness of this makes it harder to spot and counteract.

My term in place of embodiment was sentience, the awareness of your own unique existence. Constructing that-I don't know that it's ever been there, in this area-requires not simply a mental grasp that you know your life experience is yours, but an embodied feeling and sensibility.

There's no obvious route map, but the sense of your life being yours needs to get (a whole lot) stronger, more present and unspoken, the sense that others can wrongly contradict this needs to weaken to the dust that it really is. 

Starvation: "Not Too Arduous", says Jesting Boffin

With narrow ideology holding all in its rictus grip, the only direction is round and round the same circle. The slimming industry has been routinely propped up, supported and rescued by medics and scientists etc., connected with the 'obesity' industry. Over the decades, doctors have routinely sent their patients to slimming companies, "They're the experts".

Doctors have been behind virtually every kind of diet there is. Name any form of dieting; low-fat, low carb, whole grain, high protein, partial or actual fasting, there's a doctor selling it. With the recent announcement of a slimming industry mainstay, weight watchers, moving away from at least, associating loudly with starvation induced weight loss.

Weight Watchers will now be known as “WW.” The 55-year-old company* just announced that it is rebranding to focus more on overall health. Its new tagline: “Wellness that works.” 

It's about time for the usual suspects to stage an intervention to stop the starvation punishment from becoming recherche. "NHS should prescribe crash diet replacing meals with shakes and nutrition bars to tackle obesity, scientists say", by "prescription", they mean, tell you-you are doing all the work. They are doing nothing.

Partnership with commercial weight loss firms should be extended nationwide to allow GPs to prescribe, scientists add

They don't routinely "prescribe" (very low calorie) VLCD liquid diets due to past experience "Liquid Protein Mayhem", From July 14 1978, an abstract;

...Singh et al (p 115) and Brown et al (p 120) report a total of three deaths of female patients who had adhered faithfully to a liquid protein diet (providing about 300 kcal/day in the form of protein hydrolysate) for five to six months. The immediate cause of death in every case was refractory ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation. A fourth patient experienced repeated episodes of ventricular tachycardia, but, after a stormy course, her condition was controlled with phenytoin sodium. The patient subsequently recovered. The ECGs of all four patients showed gross abnormalities of repolarization characterized by prominent U waves and QT_c prolongation. All of the patients were relatively young women aged 27 to 35 years, and, except for their obesity, all had been in good health before undergoing supplemented fasting. 

Do note "had been in good health". That's being written out of reality so harms done by "starvation induced weight loss" can be filed under "obesity-related"-strictly speaking that isn't wrong, it is related to a construct and its morbid crusade.  It shows even this dubious area has degenerated under the duress of trying to enforce starvation as some kind of end in itself.

Dieting used to be all about the low cal. Folks tended to lose larger amounts of weight than in more recent years-if you insist on starving off weight, the closer to starvation dying and death, the better the thinning.

It [VCLD] is not an easy diet to follow. Apart from feeling hungry and low on energy, other side effects can include: dry mouth constipation or diarrhoea, headache, dizziness, cramps, hair thinning

Too much association with destruction and death was doing for the slimming industry, as well as evident failure of the starvation strategy, until doctors stepped in with "health". A healthy diet produced health, window-dressing dieting away from its morbidity [a proper use of that term]. This lending of medical/science legitimacy saved the on its arse grift from a descent into oblivion.

It meant people stopped losing the amounts of weight as before.

Eating shakes, soups and meal replacement bars for three meals a day helped obese patients lose nearly four times as much weight as those told to eat healthily and cut calories, a study has found. Oxford University researchers have reported “total meal replacement” diets, which restrict participants to just 810 calories per day for eight weeks, safely enabled more patients to lose more weight – and keep it off for a year with diet support.

These are the wrong wrong academics/researchers/scientists, obviously. We need ones who are actually interested in finding out how we can use our body's own abilities to regulate its own mass. So we are no longer at the mercy of this increasingly institutionalised iatrogenesis.

I hope this helps to illustrate why until this area is done and dusted, this cycle will continue, with or without self-acceptance. That is a start, a means to an end, not an end in itself. It's an attempt to begin to reverse damage done by this crusade, but it is not enough. Society needs closure and that will only come with finding out how to use our bodies abilities properly. There is nothing wrong with that and there never has been.

The survey results fly in the face of long standing criticism of “crash dieting”, amid fears it can lead to a yo-yo effect where people lose weight but immediately put it back on.

Seeing as professionals are happy to mutilate people into perma-starvation, the acceptance of that's rehabilitating starvation without mutilation.

.....the Oxford University report’s authors argue there is ample evidence such regimes can help combat a growing obesity crisis which is costing the health service billions of pounds to treat complications such as type 2 diabetes

The current message is still out there though. "Fitness guru Joe Wicks cautions against 'beach body' crash diets"

Social media health pro Joe Wicks has urged people to stay healthy and avoid “beach body” crash diets in the lead-up to the summer holidays.

It'll be interesting to see how people like Wicks incorporate this into their spiel. Probably the usual, one law for the subjects another for the objects. 

Professor Paul Aveyard, a co-author of the paper, said: “This study shows that GP referral to a total diet replacement programme in the community is an effective intervention which GPs can confidently recommend, knowing that it leads to sustainable weight loss and lowers the risk of heart disease and diabetes.”

What "intervention"? This is an imposition,  a sentence, a punishment. The targets have to endure this, the people starving them get paid.

After 12 months, the participants had lost an average 10.7kg. That compared to an average weight loss of 3.5kg for those who received their GP’s standard weight loss programme, including advice and support from a nurse and written information.

In other words, be confident docs, you now have the go-ahead, sorry. That's what 'studies' are used for nowadays.

Independent experts said it was striking virtually all participants stayed on the programme for the entire 12 months, and suggested sticking with meal replacement is not too arduous.

Independent of what? When there's only one ideology, there's only one way of thinking, unless we're talking about such as; "Marco Rubio condemns 'weirdo Salt Bae' after Venezuela president Nicolas Maduro dines at his restaurant"

Incident sparks outrage among Venezuelans, millions of whom struggle to eat three meals a day.“He is actually the overweight dictator of a nation where 30% of the people eat only once a day & infants are suffering from malnutrition.” Footage showed Mr Maduro dining on expensive steak at the Istanbul restaurant during a stop-off returning from a visit to China, drawing furore back home where millions struggle to get enough to eat and red meat is a rare luxury. Almost two-thirds of Venezuelans surveyed in a university study published in February said they had lost on average 11kg in body weight last year. 

Not too arduous**, leading to sustained weight loss and lowers the risk of heart disease, say scientists. How much has Venezuela's diabetes risk fallen by?

*  predates the "obesity crisis" yet somehow managed not to prevent it.
** I'd pay money to see & hear them tell Maduro's critics this.

Surrender Manqué

"Tom Watson: how I lost seven stone and reversed my type 2 diabetes" This man is deputy leader of her Majesty's Opposition. 

....it has taken more than 25 years to gain control over his diet and exercise.

Taken on face value, a person has taken over a quarter of a century to "control" their diet and exercise. That's subject to conformation, by explaining the nature of the day by day, week by week, month by month, year by year, decade by decade effort to arrive at this conclusion.

Or perhaps it is not a day by day, week by week, month by month, year by year, decade by decade effort, maybe its just time and then suddenly, the moment.

Either way, the big question is why not just find a way of shortening such effort to say, 25 months, weeks, days, hours, or even minutes? What about this process takes so long and cannot be shrunk into a more scientific size?

Question: Why is it okay for this "control" to be randomly acquired over a long stretch, but not for it to be brought about in good time through concerted action?

In case anyone needs reminding, science is appropriately and contextually time-limited. If you cannot achieve an effect in a timely manner, then you cannot test it, it cannot be said to fail. Exceptions are things like observing an effect like an eclipse or w/e is different, that is a natural phenomena.

When it comes to bringing about an effect, it cannot go on indefinitely. Your computer won't load, the person at the computer repair shop says it takes up to 25 years to tell either way, that's clearly tripe.

You don't want me to go through what this is all about again do you? Nyaaaaah, okay. Once more from the top.

You have committed a crime-taken more than your (fair) share.

You must payback your debt to society-in the form of starvation and enforced labour.

This however is outside jurisprudence, it's sort of 'moral' socially enforced. So, there is a purpose, you are doing this to slim. That was only sufficient for a while, so professionals came back with, it's for your health.

It is "unhealthy" to be BMI 25+, ergo you must starve and sweat. Even if this was genuine and not contrived, it is of course an argument for science. But science won't deliver punishment, equally, punishment doesn't deliver slimness.

Answer: Everything is about shoring up the notion of your criminality/pathologisation-the 'obesity' construct, pressing you to bread 'n' water + the treadmill and trying to force that into the appearance of a perfectly rational way to regulate body mass and/or health.

That's why over 25 years of mysterious process cannot be edited. You need to get smacked up by being set up for failure.

If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime. 

Currently, this pathologisation-punishment-metabolic derangement has moved from calories/ low-fat to sugar as arch villain. This enables the tired diet success stories we hear every day of our existence in the never-getting-slimmer-society, to be freshened up into-it succeeded this time because the problem is sugar.

I consider myself diabetic and a reformed sugar addict because I know that if I take sugar in again, the condition will come back.

You consider yourself to be something biologically insupportable. And in case you're wondering "reversing diabetes" means lessening the symptoms, not what is being implied.

And if you think after over 25 years of ______ this man had paid his debt to society, you'd of course be wrong.

It wasn’t a huge shock – there had been warning signs, such as his increasing weight and high blood pressure – for some time, but it was still a blow. The overwhelming emotion was shame,” he says. “I felt frightened and ashamed that I had come to this point, and guilty. I’ve only admitted it publicly now.......it was a combination of lack of knowledge and fear; for a year or two I was in denial.  ...he started exercising, which wasn’t easy because he was so heavy. “The first time I went up the steps, I felt I would probably need oxygen at the end of it. ......“The office would always laugh at me because I would cling to the wall when I got to the top.   ........he would attempt press-ups. “It was incredibly humiliating to start with. I looked pathetic.

Even that's not enough, he still has to serve his life sentence,

He now does two cardio workouts a week, such as running on the treadmill or doing 5km outdoors, or a boxing session; does weight-training a couple of times a week; and walks a lot. “I hate going to bed at night not having done 10,000 steps.”

...with poss an amputation down the line [I'll leave you to speculate on which kind], if it all falls down.

On top of that, he has to embarrass himself by publicly revealing just what a craven whipped pup he is. He is a forelock tugger, a knee-bender a lickspittle. And he wants to spread this good news to others.

Righty-o.

Though this is supposed to represent the left of UK politics. Someone who has so little respect for his own humanity.

One thing amputating the stomach has confirmed is that both hunger and appetite for certain foods can be altering via metabolic function- without buggering up, therefore altering the digestion.

It often leads to astonishing changes in the way things taste, making cravings for a rich slice of chocolate cake or a bag of White Castle hamburgers simply vanish. In contrast, patients who had bypass and sleeve operations reported that they were not particularly hungry afterward, and that their incessant urges to eat vanished. Even more surprising, their taste for food often changed. Dr. Lee Kaplan, an obesity researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital, recalled a patient who asked him: “Are you sure they didn’t operate on my brain? Food does not call out to me anymore.” Another, who used to seek fatty and sugary foods, said, “I crave salads now.”

Ignore Kolata's 'hive-body' stance. It has been known for ages that your hunger levels and appetite-including your tastes and the balance of them, are defined by the external pressures and internal needs acting on and within you. By doing such as adjusting the activity in your nervous system, in the right way, you can reduce hunger and alter your appetite.

That's the way round it ought to be. It should not require suffering. Physical conditioning is one thing, but it should not be the way weight or health are regulated.

All this rigmarole is a product of punishment and mutilation is a product of trying to make punishment do what is demanded. How will everybody, health care professionals especially, be made to get over urges that defy all reason, yet find so little opposition?

The Frame

Early on in my fatsphere adventure I asked, "What are the sides?"

By that I meant, if fat people are on one side and others on the other, what do those sides represent in terms of ideas?

To make it even easier, what sides were during our dieting decades? We wanted to be slim and others claimed that too. Usually that means we agree.

It's another odd feature of this weight fandango, agreement doesn't mean agreement, and disagreement doesn't mean disagreement. [Debate also doesn't mean debate, but that's another story].

John Hickner MD MSc, October last year.
Is obesity a disease?

It depends on whom you ask. But if you ask me, obesity should not be labeled a disease.
I understand the rationale for calling obesity a disease—it helps legitimize the time we spend treating obesity and aids in getting paid for that time.

By "treating" he means telling people to diet/drug up/get mutilated. Either way, he agrees with fat activists, don't define weight as disease. "So what can we do?" he asks;

We need to recognize our limited, but important, role and remain nonjudgmental with our overweight and obese patients when they are unsuccessful at losing weight. It is easy to play the blame game, even in subtle ways. Recognizing that obesity is more of a social issue than a personal behavioral issue is a great place to start. Asking patients what they want to do and helping them set goals and find the resources to reach their goals can be helpful. Celebrating even small decreases in weight or increases in physical activity is always good medicine. Remember that a 5% to 10% weight loss has medically beneficial effects, especially for patients with diabetes.

Dude, that's what y'all want to get paid for!! And both 'overweight" and 'obese' are judgements.

In addition to recommendations (and referrals) to help patients reduce calories and increase exercise, we have other weight-loss tools to draw upon. Gastric bypass surgery is certainly effective—especially for obese patients with diabetes. And while medication is no replacement for proper diet and exercise, it is another option to consider. 

Ditto. D'oh!

..whether you consider obesity a disease, or not, we now have even more ways with which to combat it.

No you don't. You have the same old shit as ever, based on the same failed premise.

Whether we agree or not, things stay the same as long as 'obesity' is the frame. 

Do Nothing Culture

This is how its supposed to go, "'It looks like you're a lazy idiot': hoarders welcome medical classification".

A problem is identified-real or imagined.

A hoarding disorder is where someone acquires an excessive number of items and stores them in a chaotic manner, usually resulting in unmanageable amounts of clutter. The items can be of little or no monetary value.

It is named-"hoarding". It is medicalised-"hoarding disorder". It is categorized-mental illness.

It is sold to you as a means to get more positive attention from those around you.

The World Health Organisation this week classified hoarding as a medical disorder, in a move described by hoarders and psychiatrists as “extremely significant”.

Everyone's happy.

The subject is happy and grateful to be pathologised, medicalised, to have whatever distress they may or may have recognised and to transform it into playing the role of 'sick' person. It becomes more billable.  

No mention is made of swift means of arriving at a generalised resolution or means of cure. Another on the pile of "Do Nothing", by appearing to do something. No one cares, ultimately, none of these require proper resolution or cure as an absolute.

So hoarding disorder, drug addiction, anorexia etc., could all use proper efficient, effective, humane remedies, but they can appear to be solved without them, at least in some cases. Or to put it another way, partial resolutions will do.

Not only that, al these are actual mental imbalances, or mentally unbalancing, usually both. So, often times, this do nothing on the part of the person concerned is a symptom of what has a hold of them. E.g, the primary reason people who have anorexia nervosa wish to sever links with the cal res of wld, is the anorexia has gotten a hold of them.

Indeed, the desire to make this separation is a symptom that anorexia has advanced from proto- to actual anorexia. This feature of having certain elements of your nervous circuitry under the control of rogue elements is probably the cause of do nothing and is ergo a symptom. If it has got ahold of you, it doesn't want anything done about it.

The above model, if I can call it that, is model people again shuffling to put body mass into, well, 'obesity'. Which is far enough in the latter case, because it doesn't exist in anywhere but the heads of those who think it's a useful term.

'Obesity' is the name for centring wholly on weight on slimness and erasing the existence of bodies that are larger-without reference to slimness. The people this is projected in front of are pathologised. The enforced proto-anorexia is currently being systematised, in order to force what used to be left to the individual and the public.

You can see, it doesn't even fit the model on the terms dictated by the minds who are under the influence of this as any other neurotic. In this case, it's not the projected-in-front-of who are unbalanced, its those doing the projecting.

The former are the proxies for the latter's disordered mindset. In the usual model, the person concerned has got a real imbalance and is distressed-if they are, probably by the lack of any clear solution-the professional reaction is about coasting.

Fat people are being taught to 'identify' as sick, because weight in itself, doesn't make them so. That is never discussed. There is no discussion with this kind of imbalance as anyone who's had any kind of neurosis can attest. You can't argue with it, you always believe it in the end.

Thusly the same with those who have fatsuit Munchhausen's-by-proxy.

......also known as Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP), is a condition where a caregiver develops a long-term mental disorder of a type involving a breakdown in the relation between thought, emotion, and behavior, leading to faulty perception, inappropriate actions and feelings, withdrawal from reality and personal relationships into fantasy and delusion, and a sense of mental fragmentation. ....derived from the term Munchausen syndrome, a psychiatric factitious disorder wherein those affected feign disease, illness, or psychological trauma to draw attention, sympathy, or reassurance to themselves........in MSbP, the deception involves not themselves, but rather someone under the person's care.

How much of this is responsible for the lack of desire to find proper means of weight reversal is open to question. If a person was able to slim efficiently and effectively-which is what we signed up for-that would remove any need for the attentions of this mindwarp.......