Appreciate Freedom!

One of the reason's fat people keep giving away what they have like it's so much trash, is not taking time to appreciate the opportunities presented by self acceptance.

If I was a slim person, looking at myself as I am now, I might think, my ick needs to be their sick. I might be stuck fast into wanting me to be and feel a litany of 'unhealthy', of personality problems, mental health and social woes, to be downtrodden, know my place and play my role, this role, to feel the full extent of projected inferiority......

As I am, a fat person, looking at myself as that much imagined slim person. I see, a person.

A person.

What freedom!

That's it.

No alienating baggage, no side, no projected mal intent. Just a human being like myself who has their own internal life that I am only party to by that which I can see and sense.

Now, there's no telling about other assumptions, expectations, prejudices, I may conjure up, size though, is not in addition to any of that.

I'm looking at a slim right now. I see their size and in an instant their clothes, skin tone, hair, poise, posture, even sense a bit of their aura; this person seems quiet, not shy, but reserved. That might be wrong. Or it maybe the way they are when they're on their own.

Size is a pass over, not a cloud of contrived hysteria to overcome.

I don't have to fight myself to stop hating them, to try to stop hating them, to be upset because I thought I was nicer than this.....

None of that. 

Next time you pass a slim someone, take note. Enjoy that feeling of being unburdened by either malice nor resentment. Appreciate it.

If you can't, take note of it when you hear some slim person droning on about your weight, that includes professionals, in case that need be said.

The Obesity Paradox

Trigger Warning: For the prospect of sheer unmitigated boredom.

"Obesity almost doubles in 20 years to affect 13 million people". Oh no, way more than 13 million are affected by o-tedium, o-monotony and o-indifference.

Bullet points for a cut out and keep style effect.

Body Mass/Weight/Volume

• Body weight/mass/volume, is body weight/mass/volume, regardless of a person's weight/mass/volume. 

• Our bodies, like the bodies of other animals, regulate their own weight/mass/volume as a function of their inherent biology and physiology. 

• Any desire to alter the aforementioned outcome, in an upward or downward direction demands alteration of the functional settings of said biology/physiology. 

• Scientists can either get on with that, or continue to not get on with that, as is their wont-it's called academic freedom.

How to Adjust Body Mass/Weight/Volume Unsuccessfully 

• Assert that being arbitrarily fatter than slim is really a slim person with "an excess of body-fat mass". 

• Come up with a name for this assertion; "obesity". 

• Make out your 'obesity' is regulated in some way other than the regulation of fat and/or other mass you deem, not excessive. 

• Insist your "excess" must be starved off. 

• When it turns out the body is designed to jettison starvation, act as if this cannot possibly be.

• Continue to cry; "obesity, obesity, obesity" about the land, through your various complaint mouthpieces, as if all the above isn't obvious, if you don't mention it.

• Repeat to absurdity, trying out various poses for effect: rage- anguish-concern-worry-sympathy 😭etc., slyly following through with requests for unlimited power, influence and interference over people's lives, along with pots of cash in general and for the removal of healthy functioning body parts, and other "services".

Let's call this sort of cognitive fallacy, the "obesity paradox"- The more a method fails, the greater the insistence that repetition itself will turn failure into success.

In order to save your embarrassment, we will all pretend we think this is science.

The (never)end.

Out of the Park

When fat people, people who are fat, people look back at what they did to stay on the track dug for them, fighting their body, inhabiting the assigned role and to subsequently, to make ways out of said state, with varying degrees of success, I think we can safely say that we: Hit it out of the park.

We put in that work.

We did the experiment and tested it to destruction, [ours almost]!

We did the shifts, plus overtime and more, day after day. We worked hard. Not just the hard labour, but at the role, we submerged ourselves totally, we lost ourselves in it, method to the hilt.

Seeking to wander out of this mire has turned out to have been another odyssey in itself. As usual, swimming against every tide, like always because certain people think they own us, can mutilate and cut us at their will. They think they can make a mockery of us our true (hi)stories, mess up our bodies, minds and lives.

Yet, we've taken that on too.

And we have and are putting in that work there too.

Never forget, for one minute ever, what fat people, the people are capable of.

Live with this legacy in your mind at all times. Skip the bullshit, embody this energy, your energy, your will, this initiative, this refusal to be beat. It is yours. Own it. As much because no-one wants you to own or be strengthened by who you really are and what you've really done. 

It is that inspiring.

Those who wish to control you, to keep you corralled and trapped, so you'll beg them to cut mutilate, you and be grateful for it, certainly don't want that. They want you weak, scared, subservient, submissive, complaint, receptive to internalising their tortured language and pisspoor power plays.

It's up to each and every one of us to look at ourselves, what we actually stand for, what we've done and are still being asked to do and ask whether this is the best we as humans can do.

It most definitely is not.

Get On With It

Got to again pay tribute to Catherine Hughes' "I don't need more research to tell me how dangerous it is. I need to know how to cure it." Not the actual title, but the key and salient point. The one the focus should be on. If it was, they'd be none of the culture of pathologising of the human body its, our, existence. It is at the heart of why, what's dubbed "the obesity debate" isn't a debate at all.

When I saw it, I thought it would be presque le deluge. No chance.

More of a cry in the wilderness.

The face presented by the usual, manufactured consent is probesity versus antibesity. Always missing is this central cause of medical science, seeking cure. All this, and fat people's default- let's get on with it mindframe.

This being a rare example of such unambiguous staging.

Those who've convinced themselves we are "irresponsible" forget you cannot intentionally self-starve without conscious action. It's not a pill you pop into your mouth or an injection that briefly screws up your features whilst delivering a dose of doing the job for you.

Your action and your action alone, is in place of pill or jab. Fighting your body's own self-regulation.

Those of us that started young, were formed not only taking this responsibility, but also expecting to succeed. Not to continually fail whilst claiming to be "in recovery" and other such twaddle is nowhere.

Our "journey" had a distinct beginning, middle and conclusion. We continued in expectation of this.

---------------------------------------------

Without a pulsating central drive of medical-"We must solve this." You are left with the irrational, non-functioning awkwardness of-"This is a killer, save your life with a proven failure."

A well-recognised endgame in quack-busting circles.

"The highwayman demands 'your money OR your life,' but quacks demand 'your money AND your life!'" ...The harm done by quackery may be categorized as economic, direct, indirect, psychological and societal.

Indeed.

....impact upon individuals and families can be catastrophic if they fall into the trap of heroically "leaving no stone unturned" in their quest for a remedy in hopeless cases. Some quacks are quite willing to bleed them dry financially.

And bleed them.

Dubious therapies can cause death, serious injury, unnecessary suffering, and disfigurement.

Health bullshit is usually a time-sink, in that its failure doesn't lead to it being called off in favour of seeking functioning alternatives. Despite being in use to see off a real or purported, imminent threat to life, "..abnormal or excessive fat accumulation that presents a risk to health.

Despite breathtaking adherence to the fake 'obesity' construct, this absolute non-sequitur continues to advance. Pointing to this merely leads to the same response as pages and pages worth of the commentary under the above piece,

Obesity is caused by eating too much an exercising too little. There is no search for answers here...I mean no offence, but statistically if one eats large amounts of high-fat food, one is more likely to gain than lose weight....So what you are really looking for is not the causes of obesity (eating too much, not exercising enough or in some rare cases an underlying medical disorder).What you are really after is a way you can eat what you like, do as little as you like and not become dangerously fat slim [sic]. The failure must succeed. [Etc.,]

The old scientific axiom-if reality doesn't match the hypothesis change the hypothesis is replaced by the opposite. If reality doesn't match the hypothesis, change i.e. deny reality.

You can tell there's no debate as this doesn't stand up to even primitive, let alone basic critical scrutiny. It's insistently repeated nonetheless. A sign that people are not operating with a full deck, a state activated on hearing the term 'obesity', a constant refrain.

We don't need to be told that our obesity can lead to myriad further health problems; we need to know about the causes, not the consequences. With that aim in mind, I gave permission for my daughter's blood to be sent to the research team at Addenbrooke's hospital in Cambridge, where the genetic causes of obesity are being examined.  

Ah, all sorties just end up as themes bandied around to salvage eat less move more.

You'll recognise that 8 year later genes is the meme.

Wasted Potential

I was writing a post to clarify and reiterate my response to encountering fat person's thin privilege, but I've decided against it. Everyone must know their limitations and this seems to be mine. It is inevitable that things move on, and if that means without me even as a marginalised figure so be it. I've done all I can with regard to trying to find a way to remain in touching distance with the online fatsphere phenomena.

Now that's done.

I want it to be stated for the record that when I went back on twitter recently, I said, we need to work together. Turns out I was wrong and not for the first time. Apparently we don't need to work together.

Well okay, thank you all for telling me, we don't!

I came to the online fatsphere, sorry, can't do the 'o' because what usually seemed to happen in social matters, by the time I'd become aware, developed a cogent response, someone had said exactly what I wanted to say. I got so used to this happening, I began to take it for granted, to the point where I just didn't bother to pursue it, someone would come along and make the case.

Weight, fatness was the first time that didn't happen. I waited, on my usual assumption, for someone to say something about the 'obesity' mess and no-one, to my hearing, did. Not only that, the usual failsafe of any wrong direction in society- this gets bad enough, people will see the error and change course.

I realised, not so much that this wasn't going to happen in this case, more that we'd already gone waaay past this point, nothing was going to stop this. If I had something to say, some insight to bring, I had a duty to add my voice.

The people pushing the 'obesity' crusade weren't going to stop themselves. And fat people were "silent". Our conscious awareness was not in operation. This is almost without precedent in my experience. Not that people being silenced, but people being unable to speak in this peculiar way.

Cut a long story short I found blogs and a forum or two that were addressing the subject. I was looking for like minds. Can't say I found them, but I felt we all could agree on certain things, namely this crusade to attack people on the grounds of weight could not be allowed to just carry on.

What I didn't expect, was that no-one seemed to be ready to leave that 'obesity' box and start a discourse  that would both liberate our buried consciousness at the same time as dismantling 'obesity' establishing a proper scientific footing for the study of metabolic function and outcomes such as body mass.

Instead, people who's (initial) realisation took them out of the box, returned to it as if that wasn't in the opposite direction. When I asked why. All I got was: "We must, we must!"

Damn.

I felt resolving this situation was eminently doable, though expected it to take longer than planned, as things tend to. I was a bit fists of fury in my urgency, certain conjunctions of advantage presented themselves and I wanted to use them to the fullest before that window of opportunity closed. I see now that put a lot of people off.

Ho, hum.

I figured we'd set up our own mind freeing discourse, start making moves, by the time other's had figured us out, we might well have derailed the cult of 'obesity'. No chance😆. It wasn't up to me to say what's what. So there that went and here we are.

'Obesity' peddlers were shaken, now they're back with their same old shit because they can see the obvious. It doesn't feel accidental.What I see is opportunity wasted really. It didn't have to be like this. But isn't that life? No it isn't actually. It's a fiasco. I might be embarrassed, if I hadn't already spent so much time being embarrassed under false pretences of shame and frankly facing the ludicrous 'obesity' fandango. What a shitshow that is.

Its stupidity can truly freeze the senses.

Cliched though it may seem, the definitive spark for my involvement was for the children, who I was determined would not endure the years of barren confusion and emptiness so many of us endured over this wretched matter. For no reason but the dumb caprices of others. I wanted to be part of stopping this for them.

Sorry children, you're just going to have to find your way through it as those who have gone before you.

So that is it. I and my privilege are cut loose to wield my mighty powers on the universe.

I've got a few things in mind. As long as I have something to contribute and can be arsed to get it together, I will. It might take some time to see what gives, after not trying to take certain views into account.

I'll be glad to get my brain back, or what's left of it.

Vibes Cartel

"Fategories – Understanding “Smallfat Fragility” & the Fat Spectrum"

Over time, as fat activism has become increasingly intersectional and as communities aim to center the most marginalized in their ranks, people have developed labels that describe where they fall on the fat spectrum. 

Crusaders got there first: overweight, obese, morbidly obese, super morbid obese.

“White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium.” 

Like;

“I know this is a sensitive topic,” you say to me as I sit on your examination table. Don’t go there, please don’t go there, can we just get through one appointment without this conversation? We had this conversation last time and it was so awful it had me in frustrated tears for hours after my appointment. ...But you go there anyway. “We need to talk about your weight.” 

Despite being able to think about it from a conscious mind, years of experience, knowing this talk is out of the arse, expecting it, preparing for it, rehearsing it, the minimal stress of this idiotic jabber provokes,

This is a topic that can drive me to tears. It’s because I get so angry and frustrated that all I can do is cry. The anger chokes me, burns in my chest, and wells up in my eyes. 

Why still in this same unchanged state? Such invariably low tolerance, such "fragility" as you say? Just because slimz act like its valid, doesn't mean we have to, we choose to, by acting as if we have to. The person dealing this is unmoved, the torn up insides are in the target. How can you still feel this way about something you should recognise as outside yourself, coming from someone else's ignorant take?

Defecting/leaving. This is really common in groups I’m in. When this conversation gets to be too much for the smaller people in the group, they leave… and often form their own group for themselves without realizing how delightful the irony is when they have been complaining about there being too much division in the group based on size and privilege. 

Aware of this or not, they're running from the previous pattern of dealer indifference with torn up target. When someone tries to put you in a framing that threatens your mental and/or physical health you E-X-I-T.

Rather than do this, fat people would rather seek to stay in this same state by seeking to drain anyone they can latch onto, of all available energy, rather than recognise their exhaustion with this shit as reason to walk away.

From an unpublished blog post called [I am] "Not Body Positive";

Body positivity is what newer fat activists threw away fat acceptance for. It had the glamour of slim women. Or should I say the absence of taint of 'fat'? That's more accurate. 

I expected fatz to be ready walk out of slim people's imagination from the beginning. 'Obesity' and compulsory CRIWL was slim people's, we'd submitted totally as it was presented by medics and scientists as "diagnosis", we'd rinsed that out and now we were done and could leave to discover our own consciousness that had been submerged to oblivion, under this rule.

That turned out to be as much of a non-starter as it is today. To do anything but stay living inside slim people's imagination is unthinkable, for the same reasons those subsequent activists wanted to be "body positive" to avoid "fat". Whether people want it by being in proximity or internally via hoping to lose weight, fat people are chasing slim people's vibe.

The bopoistas learnt the logical conclusion of that premise the hard way, as they would not allow us in FA to tell them, beforehand, they didn't care for us at all, then. Later, a couple admitted that they heard about bopo through the media and were moved to get involved in that, not fat acceptance which they couldn't relate to at the time. 

I didn't notice any greater difference between fatter or less fat in this. The default maintained in all fat people, to some degree or other, is humanness resides outside themselves, in the "system", in slims, not in each and every human being regardless of size.

Stepping out of slim people's mindset is seen as somehow stepping out of reality, merely because slim people bother to speak what they feel, even though it is horseshit.

Once slimz are out of the picture, we easily dispense with the burden, distortion, energy-suck of privileging them and just act like human beings, according to our own internal reading. We get it then.

So it is in us to do this, but we consistently refuse, hence I told people to sit with whatever discomfort is preventing them from accessing this necessary breakthrough. This stasis of, ability but refusal to exercise it is what exhausts and drives people numerous good people away. It is an

Knowing fat people have proven time and again that they can act in accord with their own knowledge before, during and after bopo/fat acceptance just beats up anyone who tries to act in solidarity with them, whatever their size. That Jameela Jamil better be as shallow as this, for her own sake. 

Nothing can shake this refusal to drop out of upholding this status quo, whilst greater trivialities are highlighted as substitute activity. "Oppression" is offered as reason. Only when slim people are around though.

Fat people are not "oppressed" we've stayed if not preserved the same sunken state we were in before we realised what was up. 

As for internecine struggles, the difference in reaction to that doctor versus the smug superiority towards other fat people, suggests no comparison. Fat people are the amongst the biggest fat phobes, the only way we truly press each other is subservience to what has brought us to this low point. Even some haters have listened better and even more respectfully, with their fat phobia than many fat activists.

I've even heard fat activists report to me my own insights heard from the mouths of trolls, as having come from trolls.

Now  crawling along this blog like bots, mangling and misusing my work unethically to support positions I do not support, uncredited of course, praising others for lifting my own efforts, usually on the usual basis of a race based sense of entitlement.

Fitting centuries and on-going murder, plunder under the justification/enabler of white supremacy into not fat/slim but fat and fatter? Doesn't exactly show sound judgement and a deep and instinctive sense of proportion does it?

Hardly inspiring of confidence that anything said about the more opaque mission of reading and perception of emotion can be trusted without reservation.

Fatphobia is a systemic issue, meaning it is not about how one feels or an internal experience but a system that is in place to grant some people privilege while oppressing others. 

Stop supporting what is openly wishing to tear you up and find the hell out.

When you are as unmoved by the performance of "weight" talk as those dealing, you'll know better.

Sinking

Just a quick note for slimz and those who love them😆. You are sinking......

Up until recently, slimz routinely maintained that attitude to nourishment that probably comes in the womb. You know young children just eat, in accord with their own needs, tastes and preferences? They'll leave anything. Doesn't matter what their society or culture prizes, they'll bypass it or barely trouble it, if they don't need to. 

The basic difference between fat and slim is the latter retained more of this aura of freshness, confidence and eating (or response) clarity. Obviously, it was a case of it being less interrupted by the demands of anorexia-by-proxy et al. My firm feeling is this is more than just a feeling. I think it goes down to a biochemical level. Something comes with it, a kind of protection from the vagaries of having your dieting invasively managed by others, but also as much a potential threat to your nutrition as any dieting mayhem "Gym, eat, repeat: The shocking rise of muscle dysmorphia."

I suspect it is part of your metabolic function. I don't know if we can get it back. I used my slim friends as a marker, post orthorexically induced hyperhunger. That wouldn't be possible now. Whenever you talk to slim people about food you're deluged by the tedium of nutri-bollox, ugh.

What effect this will have on the bodies and minds of slim people, is anyone's guess. I've little doubt we'll find out and it may well identify another part of the puzzle of what the 'obesity' mess does to a person.

The Harassment of Fat People

For some reason, I've only just caught up with this,

How you can hear that fat people are subjected to constant abuse/harassment/job discrimination and extreme medical negligence... and argue that it doesn’t qualify as pernicious enough to be compared to other serious forms of discrimination, shows your inherent anti-fatness.

— Jameela Jamil 🌈 (@jameelajamil) April 18, 2019

The situation fat people find themselves in isn't good, but the issue is not comparison, its what is going on and who and what is behind it.

The main trouble starts with the insistence, from doctors, research and other health care professionals that everyone who is above a certain body mass index 25+ or 30+ dubbed 'obese' must engage in bringing about weight loss through a restricted intake of food, along with exercise to purge energy.

I know people want to make it more important than this. It probably should be. That it isn't is somewhat testament to how certain stratas of society indulge each other.

The body will not comply with this request to shed mass on the demand of calorie restriction, though people most certainly have complied with trying it, extensively over numerous decades. The body is designed to maintain an adequate energy supply. Attempting to short this, doesn't disturb it from its course which is to thwart anything that will upset maintaining the energy it needs. It's simply the wrong way to achieve this purported end.

For some reason, the white coated ones refuse point blank to accept this reality. Rather than follow the old dictum of; "If the hypothesis doesn't match reality, change the hypothesis", they've preferred to have a go at changing reality, rather than their obviously defunct hypothesis. 

So where does the energy of insisting people must do something, in a way that doesn't work, go to? In this case, seeking to press them into a cycle of compulsive repetition. The method used to press people into doing this to their unwilling bodies, is peer pressure. Using it to make being whilst fat, so unpleasant that people seek to flee it, regardless of the cost.

This is most of what people are framing as social injustice. It's ubiquity serves as evidence of "oppression". 

Most of this doesn't really make sense, reality will not yield to this. During the learning process, it maybe necessary to suspend what you know in order to grasp an idea. When you've grasped it, you can return to a normal state of engaging critically with the subject.

With 'obesity' the first part has happened, but not the second. This crusade's propaganda cannot stand up to minimal scrutiny and is not subject to it. Instead all the criticism is laid at the door of fat people who are expected to answer for other people's refusal to stop other people's exercise of power. People are usually uncritical of what is said to them under the aegis of 'obesity' and that needs to stop. Engage your normal standard of critical evaluation.

When you are told' obesity is epidemic, ask yourself, who or what has failed? Why do professionals keep promoting the same thing as if it works, whilst effectively complaining about its failure and pointing fingers elsewhere?

Recognise the failure of dieting to make people slim.You don't have to "believe" fat people, slim people are dieting, they're not getting lighter overall, either.  You all know the truth, stop colluding in the denial of it. That is cruel, people can't get closure on what was a substantive and sustained effort. Think of them for once.

This is most of the harassment of fat people. Though people can pick on differences between each other; weight, height, hairiness/hairlessness being some traits people pick on. Ultimately, the aggression and nastiness comes from the legitimisation of the white coated ones.

People aren't harassing us because they've been told we're lazy-they give that reason-they've been told to disturb us, to permanently knock us off our stride, so that we'll be desperate enough to keep trying to repeat failure. Which is presented as "getting healthy" and the like.

Weight is being used to introduce the notion of fault as a factor in health and treatment which it isn't, or wasn't. That's a particular mindset manifesting where it wasn't before. Much ill health can be laid at the door of the sufferer, it's not a thing unless it relates to information needed to treat the condition better.

Now the neocon overture is extending increasingly into health care. That's not for any good reason. 'Obesity' predates this, it was a soft spot waiting to be exploited.

People are harassing us because they are told by HCPs et al that it is a medical necessity.

It's a bit like being told by a charity which deals with homelessness that you shouldn't give money to homeless people. It would feel cruel, but you might stop if you assumed charities would never tell lies against those they're in existence to help.

It's that sort of allowance that's being made. People know this is horrible. They go out of their way not to be linked with fat people, in hopes of avoiding this particular response, to the extent that this often reminds you how badly the caring professions are behaving.

It's like there's no "debate". The notion that there is, keeps people from acknowledging that the failure of cal res is a scientific fact, not an opinion or belief. Miring them in a useless back and forth, where the arguer has conceded the argument as a basis for their position.

An agenda to equalise structural oppression expressing itself socially, with social peer pressure appears to have wrapped itself around fat acceptance. Who benefits from the notion that racism, sexism etc., are merely about social niceties, requiring only good behaviour? In other words what some call PC. You heard it in Bill Maher's screed, claiming people are being shamed out of racism.

Racism is presented as not about economics, but about bad manners. 

__________________________

P.S. Just a word about medical negligence, refusal to treat. That has also come largely from seeking to leverage whatever HCPs have to get fat people on restrictive diets, which continue to fail, ergo, the ante is upped, until they're refusing to treat people or "misdiagnosing". People say, they're not believed, but if you listen to what they're saying, the HCP is trying to get them to diet. Dangling the prospect of treatment as a reward.

The alternative is to find the correct way to alter weight, or to drop the whole forcing people to lose weight this way and accept fatness. They do not seem to wish to do either.

What You See is How it's Going

The dust appears to have pretty much settled on Bill Maher use of fat people to attack the #M4A/single payer campaign going on in the US. Rather than go to that again, for the moment, I'll start backwards in a sense, with James Corden's response. It was pretty much couched in the de rigueur fat person trying achingly to make themselves safe for slim people. We're frightened that people who get this hysterical over nothing will completely meltdown if we let on.

His monologue could be read doubly. I must admit I was more taken by being irked about by the more ingratiating than the not so. I'm going to ignore the former for what stood tallest in the other,

I’ve struggled my entire life trying to manage my weight and I suck at it. Right? I have had good days and bad months. I’ve basically been off and on diets since as long as I can remember, and, well, this is how it’s going. 

Everybody "sucks" at it that's why neither thin, slim, nor fat are getting any lighter (overall). Struggle is the name of the game when it comes to the response our bodies have to pathological instruction. We've already done and completed several rounds of 'obesity' crisis contrived out of this failure of the only means made available to us-weight loss dieting.

Weight has been in absolute mortal crisis for decades. Clearly it isn't worrying authority at all, or when I suggest cutting to the chase, well, I wouldn't even have to do that, would I? The only game in town for them has been and seemingly will always be;

What. we. have. already. done.

The "obesity epidemic" headlines, is the after picture, not the before. Like Corden, millions of the targets of this noise have dieting in an endless round robin of hell their whole lives. Slimming and related quackery is worth $168.95 bn. I know folk love insisting this is the motive for pressing fatz, but how much do you think a slimming pill that worked [without destroying/killing] would be worth, on its own or by comparison?

Clearly, saying dieting doesn't work, hasn't reached the definitive. Especially for fat activists who still appear to think the evidence of their own bodies clearly seen by all requires any "belief".

When a functioning method is applied to a system to change it and it works, it is unmistakable. Talking of real rather than fake disease, medicine is for disease not harassment and moralising. When the first effective treatments for AIDS were given to patients some almost at death's door, rose from their beds almost as if rising from slumber, it was described as a Lazarus effect, after the biblical chappie who had the Deus put back into said machina.

Witnessing a thing that has efficiently and effectively altered something as evident as people's body size can be like seeing part of a cliff face fall into the sea. You become aware something is missing, then remember, there used to be more of this, the picture changes almost as your eyes are adjusting. Not surprising that cargo cultism is central to our ideas about science when it finds effective pathways it totally re-writes the rules that draw up our mental landscape.

Most people seem to think weight loss is hard and that we are destined to be fat, replacing destined to be slim. But I just can tell, from my own experience of applying the diet-weight hypothesis that is merely acceptance of what you can see as all there is. People get upset with me because I don't, in this case there's no reason to.

Think of how women saw their fertility before the pill. The pill, you don't even have to say which one you're talking about, that's impact. People who accept weight as dictated by professional 'obesity' peddlers are like pro-lifers. Don't have abortion or contraception, just let nature take its course. This is nonsense, it's not the way any human beings live and is hardly the anti-thesis to the pursuit and abuse of fat people. Humans use nature to shape things in a means conducive to our desires. As nature itself uses its own forces to achieve different things.

The picture we see is contrived by determined failure, which a choice one increasingly systematised and financialised to keep everyone locked into it. Sorry, I just cannot believe in accepting this, it is collusion unwitting or otherwise. We'll have to agree to misunderstand each other.

Those promoting this 'obesity' mess should bless themselves with the gift of shame, actually, they do. Hiding cringing behind euphemisms all the way.

And I will, I will keep trying. All the time. I am aware today that this is going to be a struggle that I will face for the rest of my life.

That's 12 step bilge that we're expected to pretend has something to do with being fat. Life-long recovery means you haven't and will never; recover. If recovery, in this context equals slim, then you'll never be slim😵.

There are perhaps more pointed signs,

But the truth is, you’re working against your own cause.

Ain't that the truth, never for, always against. That is their cause, by what other standard does Corden judge himself? By his continued fatness, well their continued failure is their intent similarly. 

And here’s a fun fact: If you shame the gene, it actually fixes itself. I’m kidding, that’s not how science works.

Oooh! That's some real anger isn't it?

Science, the thing that leads real but not faux health campaigns and actually works, quackery doesn't. 

Disease - Infection by a pathogen or the degeneration of an organ or system

Simple.

There is nothing to debate "What exactly is disease?" It's how words work. You use them for the meaning or definition you have attached them too. When you break this rule, words cease to work. You end up asking "What does x word mean?" The inability of medics to clearly define a term as central to their practise as disease is not simply a philosophical back and forth it is a genuine crisis.

One which should lead to an immediate reversal of the conditions that created it, which as far as I can tell is the application of said term to that which it does not define.

As for 'obesity'. The meaning of that term is in the mind of the beholden. It could pass for an opinion, but it is not a fact,

The Council on Scientific Affairs (CSA) previously addressed the issue. Based on its interpretations of definitions of disease in common use, the Council argued that it was premature to classify obesity as a disease, citing the lack of characteristic signs or symptoms due to obesity, as well as evidence of any true causal relationships between obesity and morbidity and/or mortality.

It is variously defined by its adherents as having a body mass index of 30+, weight increase, fat tissue, "excess" fat tissue with sometime addition of  such as "fat accumulation" and "that presents risk to health" et al. The real 'debate' around that remains, is this a thing? [Answer: Hardly!]

This balderhockey does not even sound like a disease, even if there was something to fit up. Promoters of this like to try to accumulate meaning into this void by seeking to pretend that there's some aching-agonistes around other actual diseases and/or they cite preceding faux diseases-the very ones that have led to disease's loss of meaning in the first place.

Psychological disease presumably-mental illness, is not disease, it's more metaphorical. I only got used to using the term on the Internet, when it became too hard to dodge. Cardiovascular disease, refers to the degeneration of an organ. Cancer is obviously a disease, but given my ignorance and that its coinage is in something of a flux,  I can say little more than it is a pathological process or processes that produce mutated cells, destroying tissues and organs, leading to their removal-like bariatric surgery does-except in the absence of any disease.

Risk factors like hypertension are not diseases, they are symptoms, one that's cause(s) are often obscure. "Frederick Akbar Mahomed". Nor is there anything "difficult" about the difference between high blood sugar a symptom and that which it is used to diagnose-diabetes, a disease. As for osteoporosis that presumably is the degeration of certain bone tissue.

Conclusions, cease and reverse the instrumentalisation of disease. Respect the importance of the term and do not give in to any entreaties to mis-use it. The term does not exist to 'recognise', validate or manipulate feelings.

Body mass is not disease, nor does it lend itself to disease as a metaphor. It cannot even be described as a symptom, unless possibly, if it is as a result of a specific pathology. Whether any amount of it can be dubbed 'healthy' or no, makes no odds to what is supposed to be the required response and that is to halt and/or reverse it.

This requires no pathologisation, medicalisation, assault or brutality. It requires a truthful understanding of metabolic function and gentle resetting of relevant functions.

Arguments come from the refusal to focus directly and solely on this rather than fiction. There can be no separation between a person and the size of that person. To pathologise weight is to pathologise the person. A person suffering from such a pronounced self-pathology would be diagnosable as suffering from a mental pathology.

This is cannot be diagnosis, this is iatrogenic or doctor induced injury.

People go to their doctor to relieve suffering, not to induce it.

The treatment for BED? Stop Calorie Restriction Dieting and Stop Pathologising Your Body/Self

American Addiction Centre's page called "Compulsive Overeating". The question with binge eating disorder has always been what is it?

...absolutely no control around food. Since many binge eaters restrict food intake...

If you are restricting your intake, then that's,  by these people's notion "control".

The snake swallows its tail after first slithering toward something getting hold of it in its teeth. The intensity of pursuit narrows its peripheral vision until it ends up biting its own tail. The cycle is complete and is able to perpetuate itself.

With anorexia-restriction, circuitry around the response to hunger seems to weaken and /or the circuitry around blocking is activated and becomes powerful. An ever decreasing vortex of response ensues.

With binge/purge-restricting certain foods, increases appetite for them til that becomes irresistible creating panic leading to a salvaging action of purging stomach contents (aspire assist) this reduces/threatens to reduce energy intake, which increases hunger function to compensate for lack or prospect of it. A cycle is established.

Then you have binge eating disorder, 

...defined as consuming large amounts of food within a two-hour period at least twice a week without purging, accompanied by a sense of being out of control.

That's not a cycle. Also, the equivalent of "purging" is the restriction beforehand. It's a reversal of binge/purge, instead its restrict/restore. One step forward, one step back.

That this is not really an eating disorder like anorexia or binge/purge is confirmed by this startling piece of information: "...an issue that’s remarkably responsive to treatment.." EDs aren't remarkably responsive to what passes for "treatment", because that doesn't consist of any technique that does the job of restoring response to hunger.

Responsivity to "change the way they think about and consume food" is a voluntary action. The whole point of a disorder is it has become involuntary, that's why people ask for, or end up in hospital needing help.

I've usually struggled to grasp what BED advocates were getting at, the coinage contains different cross currents of hunger and other metabolic dysfunction. The addiction folk don't get it, for them-eating=thinking. They want to fit it into their model. "...they think of food in addictive terms."  "They’re obsessed with food..." Obsessed with food is those using the diet-weight hypothesis;

...unusual relationship with food. ...they think about food...they gorge on food... ...change the way they think about and consume food. ...a great deal of food.. ...hidden foods and/or food wrappers. ...unaware of the smell or the taste of the foods... 

That's the first 6-7 paragraphs, excluding all references to eat, eating and binge. 

Food. Food, food, food, food, food, food, ........................foooooood. Food. Dammit. Foooooood. Once you step back from all this and you really begin to feel the senseless obsessiveness of it all.

From BED advocates descriptions, I'd realised it's probably an effect of chronic calorie restriction dieting. As I said, there is no yo-yo dieting, dieting is the yo-yo. If it takes at all, this heightened hunger is one reason why it doesn't.  

I had to reserve judgement in case I was missing something. They also vigorously denied this link.

Since many binge eaters restrict food intake during the day and binge at night, the goal is to get them to eat three meals a day and a snack.

Those who treat eating disorders use duress and pressure to get some restoration of a person's hunger response. Getting someone to eat three meals a day is hardly that. It's more like someone who hasn't been eating properly.

Despite "diet culture" etc., people still cannot grasp that calorie restriction dieting is inherently unbalanced. Including if not especially people who should know better by now. This may come as a surprise given the insistence that "weight loss" is an absolute no-no due to continued conflation of that with cal res dieting. 

Seems (dieting induced) weight loss is totally bad, but dieting itself can be good, so much so, that this gets in the way of perceiving the unbalancing effects of dieting. "Good dieting" is when your body overcomes the assault, not the the nature of the assault itself.

If you smoked furiously for a few years, stopped and your body did not succumb to any related probs later. That's not "good smoking" that's your body's operations standing up to that pressure. As they are designed to do but cannot in every instance.

I've put it out there that the "obesity diagnosis" is not compatible with mental health, it is an assault on it, not the "drug addiction movement" [no such thing]. Freudian slippage on "fat acceptance movement" there. Addicts do not reverse their dependence, they go through withdrawal, that doesn't demand much transferable skill.

This sort of linking of fatness to various pathologies seeks to use your acceptance of terms supposedly embedded in our psyche. Usually to do with finessing professional failures as the way its supposed to be, up to an including letting people die -yes, what Michael Buerk said. 

Whether or not one can be fully cured of binge eating depends on one’s definition of “cured.” 

That'd be normal hunger function, which is of course not their aim because they're not charged with solving anything. What they've forgotten is the current targets of their theatre are. If something is "remarkably responsive to treatment.." treatment which consists of voluntary action of stopping cal res dieting and the pathologising of yourself and your body-should fully 'cure' it.

Treatment often begins with efforts to recognize distorted, all-or-nothing thinking .....

Like;

Normal people don’t consume 4,500 calories worth of food in one sitting, or order takeout for four when dining alone. 

Yeah they do, it's the function, not the person. See how journalist generalised from the specific, typical all or nothing thinking, like 'obesity', which because someone else feels some way about your size, the whole of you must be defined by that feeling.

Metabolism, Glands, Bones, Blood, Cells, Digestion, Nerves....

In its 'obesity' overview -"the term describes a person who is very overweight, with a lot of body fat", the NHS tells us;
"Risks of obesity" are,

Type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, some types of cancer , such as breast and bowel cancer and stroke....depression.

That should be post menopause breast cancer, but what's a small AM/PM detail?
"Other obesity-related problems" - "Obesity can cause a number of further problems, including difficulties with daily activities and serious health conditions."

breathlessness, increased sweating, snoring, difficulty doing physical activity, often feeling very tired, joint and back pain, low confidence and self-esteem, feeling isolated.....depression.

It continues, "Being obese can also increase your risk of developing many potential serious health conditions, including:

type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, atherosclerosis (where fatty deposits narrow your arteries), which can lead to coronary heart disease and stroke, asthma, metabolic syndrome, a combination of diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity, several types of cancer....bowel...breast...womb, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GORD), where stomach acid leaks out of the stomach into the gullet, gallstones, reduced fertility, osteoarthritis, a condition involving pain and stiffness in your joints, sleep apnoea, a condition that causes interrupted breathing during sleep, which can lead to daytime sleepiness with an increased risk of road traffic accidents, as well as a greater risk of diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease, liver and kidney disease, pregnancy complications, such as gestational diabetes

Got that? Metabolism, glands, blood, cellular reproduction, digestion, nervous system. Better watch out! Being human is a serious condition, it can cause all sorts of problems, difficulties and diseases.

Clapped

Time after time over the years I have wondered, whenever I hear, usually a white middle/upper class girl/woman say of anorexia, binge/purge etc., stuff (exactly) like;

...it became a coping mechanism.... a safety valve, a way to comfort and forget..

They call it an "illness", currently insist it is "a serious mental health condition" and so on. I just assumed it was a cultural mode of expression. I have never related, nor found it particularly convincing, but what was, was that these people really want to keep saying this. Okay. I am not every woman. The problem came when this particular stripe of womanhood decided that they could impose this as the universal human standard, regardless of whether it is alienatingly meaningless or not.

That's a problem.

To me, eating or hunger disorders, over and above spontaneous development, are some of the consequences of inducing weight loss via calorie restriction. This leads the body to react and adapt to this triggering if it's sufficiently persistent. It is this adaptation that takes the triggering from voluntary to involuntary status. Where it can't just be stopped, some or all of it has to be dismantled to break the dynamic or cycle.

I exclaimed loudly when I came across this;

Bruch has proposed that eating disorders (obesity and anorexia nervosa) are caused by an inability to differentiate between bodily sensations and emotional states. 

Floored.

Obese persons are viewed as having a faulty awareness of physiological hunger, so that emotional states are mislabelled as hunger; this leads to an excessive intake of food.

Wow.

Schachter's theory consists of two hypotheses. The 'external hypothesis' states: ....there is growing reason to suspect that the eating behaviour of the obese is relatively unrelated to any internal gut state, but is, in large part, under external control; that is, eating behaviour is initiated and terminated by stimuli external to the organism. 

His 'internal hypothesis' states: The relationships are quite the reverse for the normal subject; his eating behaviour seems directly linked to an internal state but relatively unaffected by the external circumstances surrounding the eating routine and ritual.

~"The Experimental Psychology of Obesity" Orland W. Wooley, Susan C. Wooley

There it is.

This is what people keep repeating, this is what 'binge eaters' want in on. All this self-declamatory insistence was the product of someone's hypothesising. I'm beginning to wonder if anything people say in this area is a more or less direct report and reading of their experience.

This never occurred, so heartfelt and emphatic are people. You must explain your experience this way, you're experience will be explained to you this way. Everywhere you go people up to the most virulent trolls, concerned and not voice this sentiment.

You cannot escape it, it is the lore, you must be; "eating your feelings" or "eating for comfort". Well here, it, is. Emotional eating, comfort eating. Here's the root.

Suffice to say, I'm no more impressed than before, but at least I have a better sense of the why.

'Obesity' Cult Fatigue?

Michael Buerk's agent provocatoosie act, "Leave couch potatoes alone!" rests on the same diet=weight hypothesis as everyone else, at one time or another. The gist is, fat people die early saving the NHS money, people, let them!

The freedom to make bad choices is what personal autonomy, indeed democracy is all about. Give them the facts to make informed decisions by all means, "nudge" all you like, but in the end - leave the couch potatoes alone. They're weak, not ill. 

If what he said was true, that's pretty much the same position as we have for alcoholics and drug addicts. If they cannot stop drugging or drinking, much easier than a dieting life sentence, their fate is left to how long their bodies can hold out.

This is how body mass has been explained to us all. The diet=weight hypothesis as it was called. The issue is with the lie. If he'd been taught the truth; that body mass is the product of healthy functioning and altering it requires us to find pathways to adjust said function. I daresay he'd have no objections to scientific pursuit of how to achieve this.

But he hasn't.

Now, he's being offered the 'debate' point, he's given his answer-based on what 'obesity' peddlers have told him-that fatz are just bon viveur type self indulgists or even sad sacks clinging to life through living to eat [not eating to live!!!]

This latest episode in the on-going 'obesity' psyche drama is part of white coated professionals campaign to more invasively medicalise body mass, seeking to draw people to their doctor with a view to getting a diet plan from a nutritionist, drugs, injections, and mutilation as a way of saving their obviously failed calorie restriction model. They've realised we're disillusioned with endless repeatition of this failure-even if they aren't, yet wish us to carry on regardless. The only way is to be part of pressing this failure more directly;

Whether the treatment involves diets, drugs, starvation, psychotherapy, self-help groups, exercise programmes, or hormones therapists have been unable to cause many persons to lose weight.

From 1975, but it could be 1875 or even the tenth century.

...the physician shut Sancho up in a room, where he lay on a bed with his feet and hands tied. He only left his captivity to take long walks....To prevent food intake, Hasday ordered that Sancho's mouth be sewn up, with only a small opening being left so that with the aid of a straw he could sip liquids (“Hebrew herbs”), which gave him continuous diarrhea.It appears that Sancho was only fed fluids throughout his stay at Cordova, receiving daily seven infusions combining salt water, orange-flower water, water boiled with vegetables, and fruit. These very probably contained theriac, a drug consisting of a variable number of ingredients, sometimes more than 70, including opium.

How much do you think they wish they could lock us up? To an extent, cutting out your healthy organs replaces the need.

What has happened in response to this jiggery-pokery is something I certainly didn't see coming. Buerk is not simply arguing against their admitted LIE of disease. He's showing distinct and palpable signs of fatigue. Parallel to the kind of fatigue I and other conscious fatz went through which brought us to a desire for acceptance.

In his own way, he's basically accepting fatness, as he's been told it is. The illusion of slim through dietary glory is shattered. Given he's been told, it is science that BMI 30+ is pathology and the only possible way to reverse this is starving and exercise purging, he's vocalised what is the underlying logic of not solving a deadly issue with something that works. Everyone's on board with this non-achieving canard.

Even when I ask the kindest, nicest, cleverest people, "Why don't we just get on and find something that actually works?" Most seem non-plussed, having real trouble grasping my point. As if I suggested pissing on the roses, "Why, what good does that do?"

What does pursuing a proper grasp of how the body actually works along with ways and means to target that which would positively alter its metabolic course? I can but imagine, literally.

His answer to - Let's all LIE;

Doctors are calling it a national emergency and many think that by declaring it a disease, it will reduce the stigma of fatness and encourage people to seek treatment. 

Is;

They're wrong on almost every count. 

He's read the(ir) science on fat genes and read its conclusion, which is physiological differences make nowhere near as much difference as people yearn for. For the record, I'm not a supporter of fat genes. So that's that. He's not making that up, he's reading "obesity science" put out there by those calling him out on their own conclusions.

He's said, nah. Stick with, fatz eat too much and need to do less of that and move more. "Complex factors" just aren't doing it for the likes of Michael Buerk. Well, if you insist on turning biology into a vox populi.

As for me, I'm on the horns of a dilemma. I don't like being pressed into yet another role that isn't me. The role of drunkard without booze, druggist sans drugs. My autonomy is lost to being defined in terms of pathology, without the ability to speak on my own behalf and refute such charges.

The 'obesity' cult exists to shut down and replace my internal subjectivity through a dubious grouping of weight classes. I signed on to be slim, and move on. I did not get what I expected, proper means of achieving that end from professionals who claimed to have such, so no autonomy there either.

I would like that autonomy to be available for anyone who needs or wants to have genuine choice. I doubt people like Buerk will succeed in derailing this wretched farce with their opinings. And note, how the public is following professionals' blather, not the other way around.

But if this reaction could go so far as turning 'obesity' sanctioned interference into a bit of a non-starter, could that clear the way for metabolic function to be placed properly under real scientific inquiry?

It's a long shot, but frankly, if people like Buerk could halt 'obesity' cultists in their tracks leading to them being thrown out of the NHS and government influence, that would be an immense service to those of us watching this repellent charade continue purely on the rank driving it. Sucking up funds like a true dipso.

As long as that cleared the way for starting with the way the body actually works.

Politics

Well well well, there's me doodling on twitter and look what I found-from a side route. "Anorectic drugs: use in general practice" From, wait for it, 1976, nevermind 'obesity' this and that from the 1990's. The so called "obesity' spike" as it was called was predicted from the mid-70's, as I've repeatedly stated before it was said to have occurred, in about 1979.

And hasn't the slimming industry done a sterling "preventative" job of preventativating 'obesity'? Let's hava blast in the past;

The treatment of obesity is one of the major measures available today in the field of preventive medicine. In particular, the coronary epidemic of Western civilisation would be halted, and most cases of maturity-onset diabetes prevented, if obesity were to be treated effectively.

Yes, yes unicorns will fart rainbows, cancer and all other health problems will be solved if we can just "treat" a body mass of 30+, and not the kind of treat you like. At the same time, there's a certain sobriety to D. Craddock's abstract.

Anorectic drugs act mainly on the satiety centre in the hypothalamus to produce anorexia.

Satiety centre? That sort of talk has come back as new hasn't it? This time its just the brain. To produce anorexia eh? Possibly referring to the absence of hunger, which is the literal meaning of anorexia. The direction being the relationship between hunger and intake.

No 'lifestyle' bollox, no emo-fee fee shit, do you know what some twerp said the other week? Fatz eat to "numb our feelings", as an Irvine Welsh character might say, gittayfuq. Notice how our friend talks about the way the body actually functions, in '76, are you telling me "science" has forgotten about the endocrine system's interaction with the human nervous system? Or vice versa.

Not only that though;

Most of the drugs are related directly or indirectly to amphetamine and in addition act by increasing general physical activity.  

The urge to be active can also be increased through neural manipulation, like not being pressed into the total conviction that you're the literal representation of physical ineptitude. Not that I'm a fan of drugs, certainly not speed-this makes you wonder how many fat people have been subjected to diet drugs and what if any effect this may have had. The principle is that we need to learn how to use our system(s) better.

Certainly though, attacking and demoralising people isn't the way to increase the urge to move.

There is a direct relationship between the way we use our minds, imagination and our neural structures, we can use that as a launch pad to learn to alter our function using our own mind. But not with this crude circle of exortation.

This is somewhat of a testament to the way this quack crusade has gotten beyond any real urge to merely slenderise and is about something else entirely. It's become an outlet for the exercise of power. In other words, it is highly politicised and that's what its about. Politics.

Finesse Fail

Clarifying something I touched on in "Do Nothing Culture", breaking the phenomena into 3 sections makes it easier to reference, recognise and discuss.

1. Represents the Solution. 
2. Represents the Focal Point. 
3. Represents the Result.

Number 1. The Solution, refers to the method being applied to resolve; Number 2. The Focal Point. Number 3. the Result is the outcome of applying number 1 to number 2.

The "Do Nothing" I was referencing is when the proposed "solution" is more important than the actual result of applying it to no.2 the focal point. The result, in the case of failure, partial or total, has to be finessed. That is, made to look as if it hasn't failed.

Usually by diverting attention back to the focal point, redefining it in terms of the result. For example, insisting that it is disease ["call for obesity to be reclassified as disease", "The AMA declared alcoholism was an illness in 1956", "Disease Model of addiction"] or a very serious complex disease "obesity: a chronic relapsing disease* process". Either or alongside this, there tends to be the conveyance of a message that, the this is how things are supposed to be or there's no alternative to no.1. 

The sticking point with the solution is often cultural in nature, whether it's the kind of healing disciplines available, or some idea in the society at large of what the focal point signifies, or how to treat it. For example, no.1 can be more of a punishment, or test or rite of passage that must be negotiated, regardless of practicalities.

The FF tactic tends to be going strongest in fields that do not study an objectively material subject. For example, mental health, psychiatry, psychology study the mind, which is a construct, not say, a distinct organ or system.

The imperative behind FF is usually to shore up number 1 as a viable solution, to keep it in play.

Finesse fail differs from the scientific method, as that tends to centre around through investigation of the focal point, number 2, without fear or favour. This means solutions tend to arise out of observations gleaned from this. When the solution is applied, the results feedback into correcting, altering, jettisoning, the solution. Progress is through this self-correction.

Funnily enough, fat people have also been conditioned into such kind of rigour, in the sense that we held ourselves and are held to that account for the outcome of applying the solution to the focal point. The failure of dieting was regarded as our failure to spare dieting and keep it in play.

Finesse Fail leads to an open-ended cycle of repetition of the said 'solution', this repetition becomes a way of life or "lifestyle", an identity even, where those repeating can claim to be "in recovery" until they age out of it usually in middle age. "Most people with addiction simply grow out of it",

The idea that addiction is typically a chronic, progressive disease* that requires treatment is false, the evidence shows. Yet the ‘ageing out’ experience of the majority is ignored by treatment providers and journalists.

Time can deliver some finesse of its own.

*💩

Fear and Loathing

Fat generates fear and loathing, and it's not about looks or the supposed Darwinian reverence for beauty, heath et al. "Obese mannequins are selling women a dangerous lie". It's a (true) burden we must all endure, trying to work out what the hell ob cultists are going on about at any one time. We are told we must "treat" ourselves with exercise.

Your GP can advise you about losing weight safely by eating a healthy, balanced diet and regular physical activity.

Presumably one might wear stuff created for such exertions promoted as the primary weapons of war. You have to remember the 'obesity' construct and its cult, including its continued promotion of CRIWL-calorie restriction induced weight loss, requires the suspension of critical (and moral) faculties. This leads people to display something akin to trance logic,

An altered mental state in which a person’s normal capacity for critical analysis is suspended, and an increased level of logical inconsistencies is tolerated...the alternate thinking process that enables ideas that would be paradoxical to the conscious self to peacefully coexist within the mind

See what I mean?

I fear that the war on obesity is lost, or has even, as is fashionable, ceased to exist, for fear of upsetting people into an early grave.

We're talking about weight change, war is not required, all that is, is to find out how to reset the body's destination with regard to its (homeostatic) restoration of its own mass. Put simply, a way to use the body to alter weight, that works. Is that Tanya's complaint? Quackery continuing in place of science, about what a disgrace that is? 

Nike Inc, the multinational company named after the Greek goddess of victory, has introduced plus-sized mannequins to its flagship store in London to “celebrate the diversity and inclusivity of sport”. They wear the famous Nike tick, which says: welcome to the mainstream.

Okay, she's talking about the un or dis-easing of fat people to the point where it surpasses the dis-easing of (repeating) the same pathological and doomed experiment of weight loss dieting. This un-easing consists mostly of; medicalisation, pathologisation, bullying, insulting, punishing, condemning, silencing and hiding the existence of people above a certain size. Tanya feels this mannequin represents a violation of those well-known medical tools. Why isn't she prepared to state this clearly?

I would never want a woman to hate herself for what she finds in the looking-glass.  

She can't bear to think of herself as the type of person who would seek to make women unhappy on account of their looks. 

Advertising has always bullied women, but this is something more insidious. I have watched the spindly, starved creature – the child ballet dancer – who was, for many years, the accepted ideal, walking down the Paris runways in so much make-up you could miss the signs of malnutrition. It was an ideal designed to induce enough self-hatred that women would shop to be rid of it.

Always bullied, really? Not, welcomed them to the "mainstream"? You know I've never found this sort of rhetoric remotely plausible, not even when I first heard it as a child. Then I assumed I'd catch on eventually. Not so. 

My view is simpler, advertisers strive to shift the product of those who pay them. Haute Couture is well known to be a province of middle and upper class folk. Fashion uses thin models to sell their clothes as female curves were felt to distract from the rags they display. In terms of its mores, its an outgrowth of middle and upper class sentiments and ideals, of what they aspire to be.

Middle and upper class [slim] women complain about this by shooting the messenger, thin women and their bodies, but what they're really complaining about is not winning at thinning. They don't want to dismantle this system of "unattainable bodies", they want to win at being the it-girl. They're uneased about that so they re-route their complaint. Rather than examine their own feelings.

If this is about poor old innocent women being made unhappy bad men in advertising, why does the notion of having something that works for all women not really interest these complainers? Winning wouldn't be exclusive then would it? You can see this in the elitism of Tanya types in her desperately trying to have her celery and munch it too, trying to be underhand in exhorting everyone to keep fat women in their place, hidden.  

This sort of argument as it is presented is dead on its auto-dialled arse. Fat phobia is ruthlessly exposing it and others,

Recovery depends not on...... personal responsibility and seeing the truth.

Personal responsibility and seeing the truth eh? What's personally responsible about insisting your mind is in the control of advertisers? That they dictate your view of yourself? If you are so personally responsible, why don't you own your mind? Either you like the perfume etc., advertised, or you don't. If you do buy it-through personally responsibly earning sufficient funds- if you dont, leave it be. 

Why are you so oppressed by images folks trying to sell you stuff use? I'm waiting for you to tell me again in a way that doesn't require you to do/be the opposite of what you insist fat women are/are failing to be. Have at it TanTan.

the truth is not so pretty; it is unease that sells clothes and bags and perfume and cosmetics as redemption

What uneases you, eases us? Presumably that is the distance between refinement and erm, being as common as fat. How does feminism make sense if women differ so fundamentally?

The fat-acceptance movement, which says that any weight is healthy if it is yours, is no friend to women, even if it does seem to have found a friend in Nike.

FAM says pretty much what Tanya said in her 2008 piece, "In defence of our fatties, let them eat cake".

For many months now, it has been clear that I'm at war with society. Or rather, that society is at war with me. Call me paranoid if you must but everywhere I look, I am denounced, oppressed and scolded. According to the advertising industry, I am unattractive; men don't want me. Or if they do, they certainly won't tell their friends about it. Clothing shops don't cater for me. In fact, they detest me. In Bond Street, I am literally waved away from the racks of precious clothes.

Well.....

...the Kim Kardashian body – was even weirder, and worse. It’s both fat and thin – a pornographic body designed by gamers – and, if you are mad enough to want it, is only really achievable by surgery and sleeping in the gym.

Those hating fat women's bodies invariably like to go in hard on other women's bodies-they're demonstrating their fairness. Word to them, spreading your mysognist gaze to other bodies, isn't saving you. I mean, "pornographic body"? Your guess is as good as mine.

She obviously does want FAT women to hate themselves for what they see in the looking glass. That doesn't sound good at all. It would be bad enough if you said you wanted women to hate themselves on account of their looks. Picking out specific women somehow sounds like trying to creep through a squeaking door. The feminist notion of "sisterhood" ergo, all women and feminism itself is on the ropes.

But to have control over your body you must first know it; to be oblivious is not to be happy, unless you are a child.

Oblivious to what hun? It's called FAT acceptance, is thin now spelled f-a-t?

To know your body is not by any means to hate it, Tanya knows this, but how to advocate for women to be pressed into doing something by making them feel like shit about themselves until they keep doing it: for some, whilst complaining any such discomfiture oppresses women, without seeming to be a sell-out biche?

Dear o' lorrr, it's a conundrum I don't envy. 

Suffice it to say again, this could all be avoided by finding the proper way to alter bodyweight rather than trying to uphold discomfort to drive people into repeating failure and deepening despair. But people like Tanya don't seem to want that either.

"Obese is a Slur"

Well, I can co-sign this "Obese is a Slur". There was a time when I wanted to avoid it. The last thing fatz need is the non-term 'obesity' being weaponised as an insult. That was an error of judgement on my part. I hoped peddlers of this crap would take it back, as they were the ones who released it deliberately to brand people, straight-jacketing them into a fictionalised identity.

Would you know, they don't give a damn. In their arrogance, they're just going to keep branding people the with 'obese'. In that case one has to proceed on those terms and make the best of things.

Yes, haters will probably latch on to it as a term of abuse, and yes, these 'ob' shitheads will come with another weasel word if they have to, sad, but okay, if in the meantime this particular foul coinage is dragged through the dirt, so be it. Let these quacks put in something of a shift for once.

Allowing 'obese' to be the slur that it represents will hopefully convince more people to distance themselves from it. It may even spark in them the urge to defend themselves from the cult as a whole, in ways that still don't make sense to many. And maybe, just maybe that will make it easier for people to distance themselves from the whole 'obesity' canard all together. Even going so far as to recognise that it has nothing to do with anyone but those bandying it around.

'Obesity', not simply the term, but everything that goes with it, is like going out of your house to realise it is surrounded by water, as in the midst of a flood. You have to wade through the water, so to speak to get in and out of your home. Your body and mind adapts to these conditions-this changes you-that's internalisation [the changes below your conscious awareness]. But one thing you know above all else is that this water, though surrounding you, though everyone's talking about it, pointing to it, using it as the basis for discussion-did not come from you/your body.

It's all outside you, it does not represent you.

You can tell this about 'obesity' by the fact that it does not describe your life. It doesn't respond to or even name your needs. It does not react to your feelings no matter how vivid, rational and evident they are. It only reacts to the feelings of those who expect us to submit slavishly and serve it.

It is a cult, because a cult, unlike even religion seeks to replace your own thoughts, with the ones it wants you to have. The 'obesity' cult, has always erased your real experience, along with any sense that weight is an aspect of your experience which has made an impression on your intellect and psyche.

Instead crusaders expect to dictate what those are and you should memorise them, speak them out as if they have something to do with you. Speaking the untruth to empower them. They literally use you to always be talking to themselves.

That's the real slur.

Repeat Fail, Complain About Fail, Repeat Fail, Repeat Complaint About Repeated Fail......part 2

Hunger = signal, eating = response acts as a dynamic to regulate your body's intake. Dieting, by seeking to block the latter, stops this from being any use, passing the calculus from your body to your conscious mind, which was not designed for this. 

The reason for having diet plans in the first place, was to prompt you on how much to eat, as you have lost your guide. It also seeks to guess the proportion of nutrients your body needs, also something your body does automatically, by design.

During all this, your body continues to make its calculations, that's inbuilt, which get thrown off more and more by this pointless ill-judged obstacle in its way.

Diet peddlers don't mention dieting alone creates the need for calorie counting. Followed by; weighing and measuring your food, portion suggestions 'control', labelling on food, cal counts in menus, even drugs and the removal of the stomach etc., all seek to repair the same initial fault, none of them do more than create the need for yet another intervention.

One of the reasons for this seems to lie in our desired goals: people who want to lose weight tend to underestimate their food consumption, while those who want to gain weight, are more likely to overestimate it....

In other words, dieting dismantles the ability it requires to implement it. Literally, destroying itself. Genius.

...people with small appetites perceive even a small amount of food as a lot

 That's how it feels when your hunger matches your intake, regardless of how much or little you eat, you feel satisfied.

Ultimately, perception is the deciding factor: someone with a naturally small appetite and someone with a large appetite will perceive the same portion of food completely differently

The deciding factor is the settings your body is operating to, not what you put in your body. Perception tells you how you are using or mis-using your body. A tall person perceives the highest shelf in the store differently than a short person, because they are different to them. What makes them taller or shorter is SETTINGS.

In most cases, a person who can 'eat anything she wants without gaining weight', simply cannot and/or does not want to eat more than she does, and she doesn't have the feeling she is denying herself anything.

Though I have never liked the term, anyone can eat anything they want and not put on weight, as long as their body is holding its own. It is the requirement to lose weight by mis-using your body that causes the problems or 'perception' difficulties. The consequence of the failure is not the cause of the failure.

According to her perception, she always eats as much as she wants, while her overweight acquaintances complain of constant self-denial.

That is because she IS eating what she wants, by responding to her signals properly. Her "acquaintances" aren't permitted such privilege, therefore they are not using their bodies in the same way [and therefore cannot be judged as if they are].

Often, it is the occasions when she completely pigged out that lodge in her memory, while the fact that he forgot to eat breakfast, or that she didn't eat a thing during the eight hours between breakfast and dinner, are simply forgotten.

Again that is just normal eating regardless of size or intake. We remember feasts, special outings, parties and catching up, sometimes we deliberately "save" up a bit of hunger to experience the velocity that comes with that. I can no longer say for sure whether I am greedy or not. I feel like I am, because like "her" I meet my needs. When I didn't, I didn't feel like I ate what I did, personally. Though that continued even after the initial lowering of my intake. I too don't eat during the day, and think little of it. This is largely down to stopping dieting, though it does not necessarily happen automatically.

An overweight person, by contrast, will be more likely to underestimate portion size and to forget about the between-meal snacks they had.

That is the price they they are paying for 'advice' to be permanently on a dieting life sentence, not to mention the nastiness aimed at them and their bodies. 

The only useful way to get a realistic idea of your eating habits is to weight absolutely every mouthful with a set of kitchen scales and write it down.

Or you could just reduce hunger function. Tell us again why professionals don't wish to find out how to do this? As certain fat phobes say; "Wouldn't it be easier than writing books about why people must keep repeating the same failure?"

Pro-Choice

The Alabama state-legislature recently decided to prohibit abortion after the detection of a 'heartbeat', said to be around 6 weeks duration, even though, according to professionals, this happens before the heart is even formed as a viable organ.This to all intents, bans abortion it is unusual for a woman to know she is pregnant at such an early stage.

Though its rather a crunching gear shift, at this time especially perhaps, it's hard to overlook the difference in the way fat people claim to see the difference between manipulating human reproductive and metabolic systems.

The inherited activist position is weight loss is some kind of affront. It's deemed  inherently fat phobic to wish to be able to alter one's weight at will, in a downward or reverse direction. It's based on the totally false basis led by the slimming industry, that calorie restriction induced weight loss is the only possible form if weight loss, ergo is weight loss.

It's clear that weight loss is an end, not the means to that end. Cal res dieting is and should be separated from weight loss itself. Preventing and aborting pregnancy has already identified efficacious means, so the quarrel is around blocking (or not), access to those. In the case of weight, the blocking of weight loss, has occurred before a viable method of resetting has been identified-in a (modern) Western-model context.

We are being denied the ability to stop, reverse or even decelerate increase by a tyranny of pseudoscience along incumbent 'pro-life" style fanatics. Who also purport to be "pro-health" but are equally obviously nothing of the kind. On the contrary, they thought nothing of the abuse they inflicted and encouraged others to inflict on fat people, until we consistently spoke out against this.

Folks recognise a form of control of women is exercised through denial or threat of denial of access to controlling their bodies as they see fit, similarly, the control of fat people and others is exercised through the absence of any viable efficacious and benign means of altering metabolic function and body mass.

I believe it is that absence more than anything which truly leads to the anything goes to try and make the failure succeed desperation we see. The lie that dieting is weight loss also assists people's preparedness to abuse themselves by keeping our expectations of weight loss is, set by dieting, rather than by our body's benign and easeful fluctuation.

All the unpleasantness associated with weight loss, is about attempting to induce it through cal res. Rather like a "backstreet" unsafe abortion by the improperly trained has a deservedly notorious reputation. Desire for weight loss is part of the same desire for bodily autonomy ["Body Politics-The Republican Party's global war on abortion"] that marks the desire for access to reproductive management. And led pioneering feminists to try bringing about abortions amongst themselves, successfully.

Perhaps that could be revisited to help keep some of these entitled pricks a bit more on their toes. 

When it comes to weight, fat activists are in the equivalent of "pro-life" position, along with fat phobes, insisting weight loss and the desire for proper means to it, is inherently wrong, responsible for discrimination against fat people. This is not convincing, anomalous as it is with their attitudes to reproductive control.

Looking at Sonalee Rashatwar for example, self-described as representing "radical fat liberation", insists her exclusion from potentially manipulating her reproductive system-using the morning after pill is "structural medical fat phobia". At the same time,

Your dream to lose weight comes from a deeply internalized desire to assimilate into colonized ideals of white supremacist beauty and health that morph arbitrarily over time due to capitalism and fat phobia.

Not at all ironically, this presumes that because the western model has made such a balls up of weight, than everyone else must have too. This is not correct. A lot of so called actual western medicine had a lot of input from an erm, global support system.

Africans, Asians and Muslims (crossover I know) haven't got anything on hand, and neither has the West. Co-incidence? You decide.

That statement also tries to pretend/erase the desire of all comers to be able to alter their weight. Just because desire for anorexia has not reached such giddy heights elsewhere-in the main-does not mean people have not sought to alter their weight or be slim.

People certainly like this "Capitalism hates fat" but it ignores the currency a "slim pill" would bring. The main reason it hasn't is failure is more important than that currency. Failure is being monetised to keep it going. To stop all but the most greedy or bigoted from reconciling with the truth.

It also incidentally, ignores the way, calorie limits caricature a (mocking) idea of communism and the way 'obesity' discourse is a flat out anti-capitalist screed. Like it or not, the notion of weight as an accumulation of energy,-currency even (one activists support)-does match excessive self-enriching feudalist storing of economic energy.

The only place many Right wingers can connect with an honesty about Capitalism is through 'obesity' wittering. On twitter, someone mentioned they'd been told fat people are to blame for climate change. I'll bet that was a R-W person. They find it truly liberating to break their silence in this way.

Fat phobia is an issue, but only with the absence of power in our own hands, enables that to amount to anything much. With the ability to alter weight, how would that happen? The ability to alter your own body in this way would tear up the crusade from top to bottom.

This bizarre non-argument of; "Fat is very bad, means you must diet even though it has failed", is a way of blocking just getting on with that." Yet look at the extent of support for Jack the Rippering people's guts.

And the most prominent fat activists it seems tend to go along with this blocking. Pretty much everything fat activists say leads to the same place as the 'obesity' crusade. You must be branded 'obese' or "with" say fat phobes. If you are not fat, you are "eliminated" say fat activists. You must keep repeating the failure of dieting, say fat phobes. Weight loss is verboten, say fat activists.

Fat phobes say, "Dieting and weight loss are one and the same", ditto, fat activists. It would be easier to come up with something fat activists say that doesn't lead to exactly what fat phobes are imposing on fat people. Activist want "fat justice" which consists of people stopping the unpleasantness that is largely either the substitute of proper methodology, or has grown out of it.

This ignores those who are being neglected because this area has been stymied by 'obesity' /weight loss quackery.

SR says, "It's okay to be disabled by your fat..(sometimes)". Certainly fat phobes agree with that. They can't wait to disable your gastric system. The reason people are getting to 700lbs plus in the main is lack of any options. If you can stop someone at 600 rising from getting to 700, then you can stop them at 5, 4, 3 and so on.

Obviously, access, to facilities, is important the higher up the weight spectrum you are, but for me, access to altering the course of that size is at the top of that list. Anyone who wants to be 700 can be so just as well if they can easily avoid what they currently have little real chance of given the forces acting on and in them.

It also means they can unchose it if they so decide.  None of the business of fat phobes nor fat activists. Just like contraception, except drugs aren't necessary.

Tweaking metabolic function is far more "natural" than making yourself temporarily infertile. It's far more instinctive as our metabolism is constantly fluctuating according to its own function and purpose. It is constantly self-adjusting to your requirements.

Not to mention, dieting and the threat of it has already manipulated/altered the course of many fat people's weight and health. Even if a person is naturally fat, i.e. their body just goes there, it still wouldn't necessarily have gotten exactly there without the help of cal res dieting and homeostatically induced restoration.

Dieting distorts appetite and hunger function. It alters energy expenditure and though it may well have had some downward pressure on some people-demographics beg the question of whom-it has been well-known to push people's weight upward.

No one can really say whether their body was destined to be where it is. Weight is not even less of a polarity than sex, how can one bypass the latter but promote the former?

As Rashatwar has so astutely read, dieting is not really consensual. It was previously enforced by lack of alternative and lies. Increasing the coercion is more and more open, though hidden behind copious nonsense-jargon like "weight-management", "intensive behaviour therapy", "nutritional-counselling", "food/sugar addiction", "binge-eating disorder", "obesity-treatment" and other weaselease too ashamed of itself to openly state exactly what it is.

Repeat what has led us here. Repeat dieting by any other name.

So I will also say it again, being denied the means to reset weight must cease. We should be able to apply our conscious attention to bring it about, in some way gentle way which uses the bodies own abilities, the question is how? No-one should be forced to "lose weight" regardless equally, no one should be forced to be fat/ter than they want to be either.

In the same way that no woman should be forced to be or not to be pregnant.