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.