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.